Over the past decade, royal commissions have been increasingly employed to address some of Australia's most pernicious and persistent problems. However, their recommendations often languish unimplemented. Research on why so many proposals fail to make it into policy and practice is divided. To explore the fraught road from recommendation to reform, this article analyses the early implementation of the recommendations of the 2016 Royal Commission into Family Violence (Victoria, Australia) from a relational vantage. To do so, this article brings attention to the under‐explored insights of advocates and frontline service providers and their relationship to post‐royal commission reform processes. Their relational accounts of corroborations, contradictions, and contestations move the contemporary predominate question of if implementation happens to more nuanced questions about when it occurs, what is implemented, who does it, and how it happens. The difficulties participants faced in the early implementation phase of the reforms demonstrate implementation alone is not a panacea for the problems royal commissions face post‐inquiry.Points for practitionersImproving the implementation of royal commissions’ recommendations requires centring the perspectives of those with specialised knowledge and who deliver related services.Recommendations to address challenging social problems need to be designed to evolve, often rapidly, to the constantly changing contexts that they are enmeshed within.An implementation for implementation's sake approach risks obfuscating the contestations of what royal commissions find and cementing potentially problematic initiatives.
{"title":"‘We assumed it would all be fairly straight forward’: Exploring early implementation of the recommendations of the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence","authors":"Rebecca Buys, Kate Fitz‐Gibbon","doi":"10.1111/1467-8500.12638","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12638","url":null,"abstract":"<jats:label />Over the past decade, royal commissions have been increasingly employed to address some of Australia's most pernicious and persistent problems. However, their recommendations often languish unimplemented. Research on why so many proposals fail to make it into policy and practice is divided. To explore the fraught road from recommendation to reform, this article analyses the early implementation of the recommendations of the 2016 Royal Commission into Family Violence (Victoria, Australia) from a relational vantage. To do so, this article brings attention to the under‐explored insights of advocates and frontline service providers and their relationship to post‐royal commission reform processes. Their relational accounts of corroborations, contradictions, and contestations move the contemporary predominate question of <jats:italic>if</jats:italic> implementation happens to more nuanced questions about <jats:italic>when</jats:italic> it occurs, <jats:italic>what</jats:italic> is implemented, <jats:italic>who</jats:italic> does it, and <jats:italic>how</jats:italic> it happens. The difficulties participants faced in the early implementation phase of the reforms demonstrate implementation alone is not a panacea for the problems royal commissions face post‐inquiry.Points for practitioners<jats:list list-type=\"bullet\"> <jats:list-item>Improving the implementation of royal commissions’ recommendations requires centring the perspectives of those with specialised knowledge and who deliver related services.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>Recommendations to address challenging social problems need to be designed to evolve, often rapidly, to the constantly changing contexts that they are enmeshed within.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>An implementation for implementation's sake approach risks obfuscating the contestations of what royal commissions find and cementing potentially problematic initiatives.</jats:list-item> </jats:list>","PeriodicalId":47373,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2024-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140637111","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Sue Williamson, Uma Jogulu, Judy Lundy, Helen Taylor
This Practice and Policy article examines return‐to‐office mandates, the latest human resource controversy. These mandates are an organisational directive for employees who have been working from home to return to working in their employer's premise. Drawing on the literature and our research on working from home and hybrid working, we consider whether mandates may prevent proximity bias. We conclude that mandates requiring employees to return to the office or caps which limit working from home are not only unnecessary, but may have negative consequences. In particular, mandates may cause employee resentment, while caps limit flexibility and autonomy. We therefore do not advocate the use of these mechanisms, and recommend that managers and teams negotiate the appropriate balance of home and office working arrangements.Points for practitionersMechanisms which force employees into the office can be seen as an easy and effective way to mitigate proximity bias. However, they can lead to employee resentment.Similarly, capping the number of days employees can work from home can also result in negative consequences, including reduced flexibility and employee autonomy.Enabling managers and teams to collaboratively determine their own in office/working from home arrangements will maintain flexibility and prevent employee resentment.Preventing proximity bias can be achieved through increasing awareness about this emerging form of bias; harnessing communication technologies to moderate visibility regardless of where work is performed; and ensuring performance management systems are based on quantifiable and objective metrics.
{"title":"Will return‐to‐office mandates prevent proximity bias for employees working from home?","authors":"Sue Williamson, Uma Jogulu, Judy Lundy, Helen Taylor","doi":"10.1111/1467-8500.12634","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12634","url":null,"abstract":"<jats:label />This Practice and Policy article examines return‐to‐office mandates, the latest human resource controversy. These mandates are an organisational directive for employees who have been working from home to return to working in their employer's premise. Drawing on the literature and our research on working from home and hybrid working, we consider whether mandates may prevent proximity bias. We conclude that mandates requiring employees to return to the office or caps which limit working from home are not only unnecessary, but may have negative consequences. In particular, mandates may cause employee resentment, while caps limit flexibility and autonomy. We therefore do not advocate the use of these mechanisms, and recommend that managers and teams negotiate the appropriate balance of home and office working arrangements.Points for practitioners<jats:list list-type=\"bullet\"> <jats:list-item>Mechanisms which force employees into the office can be seen as an easy and effective way to mitigate proximity bias. However, they can lead to employee resentment.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>Similarly, capping the number of days employees can work from home can also result in negative consequences, including reduced flexibility and employee autonomy.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>Enabling managers and teams to collaboratively determine their own in office/working from home arrangements will maintain flexibility and prevent employee resentment.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>Preventing proximity bias can be achieved through increasing awareness about this emerging form of bias; harnessing communication technologies to moderate visibility regardless of where work is performed; and ensuring performance management systems are based on quantifiable and objective metrics.</jats:list-item> </jats:list>","PeriodicalId":47373,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140609866","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}