Asia Pacific Journal of Management

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 11–23 | Cite as

The protection of interests: Organizational change in the Australian services canteens organization

  • Graham K. Kenny
  • Phillip Morgan
  • Bob Hinings


Outlined in this paper is a series of events pertaining to changes to the Australian Services Canteens Organization (ASCO). The behaviors of the officers of the armed forces and of the rank and file, who were employed at ASCO, in reaction to these changes are the central focus. These two groups are contrasted in the actions they followed to protect their interests in the light of anticipated change. The theoretical analysis explores the values, interests, issue clarity, legitimate action and power of the groups.


Theoretical Analysis Organizational Change Armed Force Central Focus Anticipate Change 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alford, F.,Health Care Politics Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, P.A., “Decision making by objection and the Cuban missile crisis”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1983, Vol. 28: pp. 201–222.Google Scholar
  3. Astley, W.G., Axelsson, R., Butler, R.J., Hickson, D.J. and Wilson, D.C., “Complexity and cleavage: Dual explanations of strategic decision-making”, Journal of Management Studies, 1982, Vol. 19: pp. 357–375.Google Scholar
  4. Barrett, A.L. and Cammann, C., “Transitioning to change: Lessons from NSC”, in J.R. Kimberley and R.E. Quinn, (eds.) Managing Organizational Transitions. Homewood: Irwin, 1984.Google Scholar
  5. Clegg, S., Power, Rule and Domination. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975.Google Scholar
  6. ——, and Dunkerley, D., Organization, Class and Control. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, M.D., March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P., “A garbage can model of organizational choice”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1972, Vol. 17: pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
  8. Crozier, M. and Thoenig, J., “The regulation of complex organized systems”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1976, Vol. 21: pp. 547–570.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, K., Human Behavior at Work: Organizational Behavior, New York: McGraw Hill, 1981.Google Scholar
  10. Edwards, R.C., Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Workplace in America. New York: Basic Books, 1978.Google Scholar
  11. Friedman, A., Industry and Labor: Class Struggle at Work and Monopoly Capitalism. London: Macmillan, 1977.Google Scholar
  12. Goldman, P. and Van Houten, D.R., “Bureaucracy and domination: Managerial strategy in turn-of-the-century American industry”, in P. Goldman and D.R. Van Houten (eds.) International Yearbook of Organizational Studies. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979.Google Scholar
  13. Gordon, J.R., A Diagnostic Approach to Organizational Behavior. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1983.Google Scholar
  14. Izraeli, D.N., “The middle manager and the tactics of power expansion: A case study”, Sloan Management Review, 1975, Vol. 16: pp. 57–70.Google Scholar
  15. Kanter, R.M., “Managing transitions in organizational culture: The case of participative management at Honeywell”, in J.R. Kimberley and R.E. Quinn (eds.) Managing Organizational Transitions. Homewood: Irwin, 1984.Google Scholar
  16. Kelley, G., “Seducing the elites: The politics of decision-making and innovation in organizational networks”. Academy of Management Review, 1976, Vol. 1: pp. 66–74.Google Scholar
  17. Kimberley, J.R. and Quinn, R.E., Managing Organizational Transitions, Homewood: Irwin, 1984.Google Scholar
  18. Lindblom, C.E., “The science of ‘muddling through’”, Public Administration Review, 1959, Vol. 19: pp. 79–88.Google Scholar
  19. Middlemist, R.D. and Hitt, M.A., Organizational Behavior: Applied Concepts. Chicago: SRA, 1981.Google Scholar
  20. Perucci, R. and Pilisuk, M. “Leaders and ruling elites: The interorganizational bases of community power”, American Sociological Review, 1970, Vol. 35: pp. 1040–1057.Google Scholar
  21. Pettigrew, A.M., The Politics of Organizational Decision-Making. London: Tavistock, 1973.Google Scholar
  22. Saunders, P., “They make the rules: Political routines and the generation of political bias”, Policy and Politics, 1975, Vol. 4: pp. 31–58.Google Scholar
  23. ——, Urban Politics. London: Hutchinson, 1979.Google Scholar
  24. Stern R.M., “The development of an interorganizational control network: The case of intercollegiate athletics”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1979, Vol. 24: pp. 242–266.Google Scholar
  25. Walsh, K., Hinings, B., Greenwood, R. and Ranson, S., “Power and advantage in organizations”, Organization Studies, 1981, Vol. 2: pp. 131–152.Google Scholar
  26. Wilson, D.C., “Electricity and resistance: A study of innovation and politics”, Organization Studies, 1982, Vol. 3: pp. 119–140.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© School of Management, National University of Singapore 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Graham K. Kenny
  • Phillip Morgan
  • Bob Hinings

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations