No abstract

This article presents a continuum of possible coproduction arrangements between scholars and practitioners and suggests that greater engagement is necessary to bridge the commonly cited problems that create the gap between research and practice. Reflections on an Australian case of a major public sector coproduction partnership, the highest degree of interaction on the continuum, are used to argue that successful engagement between practitioners and scholars is possible, while also recognizing the difficulties inherent in this process. The benefits and challenges of this partnership are presented, as well as critical factors that drive effective relationships. Lessons are drawn for the development of future coproduction partnerships, including the importance of recognizing that both scholars and practitioners are, in fact, researchers.

The capacity of an organization to innovate, change, and be effective depends on the skills and abilities of employees, highlighting the importance of developing individual capabilities. The 70:20:10 framework is used by practitioners to guide them when developing effective learning and development programs. Although the framework has been adopted globally in both private and public sectors, its effectiveness has not been assessed in relation to the transfer of learning. Using qualitative data from the Australian public sector, this study explores how the framework is being implemented and whether it facilitates the transfer of learning to build middle management capability. Results showed that despite middle managers' awareness of, and willingness to take part in, ongoing skill development, attempts to develop capability through learning transfer by implementing the 70:20:10 framework were not achieving the desired outcomes. The research suggests that learning transfer and managerial capability development was hindered through four misconceptions regarding the framework's implementation. These are: an overconfident assumption that unstructured experiential learning automatically results in capability development; a narrow interpretation of social learning; the expectation that managerial behavior would automatically change following formal training and development activities without the need to actively support the process; and a lack of recognition of the requirement of a planned and integrated relationship of all three aspects of the framework. We suggest future research seeks to explicate the role of social learning in supporting the efficacy of both formal and experiential learning.

Change efforts frequently fail to achieve their desired outcome with failure often attributed to employee resistance to change. Literature on resistance indicates it can emerge from ineffective change management. This article argues that change management could be improved through middle managers actively undertaking a change intermediary role, thereby enabling employees to make sense of, and reframe, the change. Qualitative data is used to explore the extent to which middle managers had the capacity and support necessary to effectively implement change. The article concludes by proposing that managers who are actively engaged change agents, who frame and make sense of the change with employees, can reduce resistance. However, for this to be realised, organisations need to actively support the systematic development of middle management change management capabilities.