A comparative case study of self-leadership training between Australia and Bhutan to address emerging needs of well-being culture in the post-pandemic era

Loading...

Media is loading
 

Start Date

4-12-2024 1:25 PM

Presentation Type

Presentation

Keywords

Leadership, self-leadership, self-care, Bhutan, Australia, well-being, COVID-19

Abstract

Introduction:

The COVID-19 pandemic has compounded the pressure to improve productivity, leading to flatter and more flexible management structures giving employees more autonomy, responsibility and accountability to improve performance. Employees are now required to self-lead, set direction, innovate, keep up their performance and take care of themselves with minimal supervision from the management. This flexible work environment forces employees to extend their working hours, stretch goals and take on additional workload. Study findings report an increasing trend in work-related stress, anxiety, burn-out and exhaustion. In addition, deterioration in the social fabric is observed with more and more employees choosing to work remotely, which may accelerate the rate of decline in psychosocial well-being.

This pattern of change makes self-leadership training even more relevant. It helps develop individuals with skills to self-lead along the matured leadership stage, promote interdependence, improve performance and work proactively. Thus, promoting psychosocial well-being and enhancing productivity with minimal supervision.

Self-leadership training is prevalent in Australia and Bhutan, both of which are united in their spirit of promoting well-being cultures. It, therefore, offers an opportune moment to review the experiences of the two countries to make self-leadership training more relevant to the changing needs. Accordingly, the following research question is identified:

What lessons can Australia and Bhutan learn from each other’s experiences to enhance the relevance of self-leadership training to the post-pandemic culture of well-being?

Methodology:

It will be based on a qualitative approach using a comparative case study method. It will first begin through a case-based investigation of the experiences of Australia and Bhutan, conducted independently using thematic analysis. Findings from the two will be juxtaposed to draw similarities and differences. To support this study, the following data collection methods will be used:

  1. Two sources of data were identified to study Australia’s experiences. Firstly, published articles were identified following PRISMA Guidelines using Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar. Secondly, data was also collected through observation of self-leadership training conducted in Western Australia and analysis of the training content.

  1. Sources of data on Bhutan’s experiences were based primarily on interviews of facilitators, coordinators and training participants of the only national institute that pioneers in delivering training on self-leadership. The interviews were conducted with the approval of the ECU Ethics Committee. Since there was no specific literature published in Bhutan on self-leadership, grey literature published on websites and podcasts will be used to complement the primary data.

Result:

Findings from the comparative study will identify the relevancy of the training in the post-COVID-19 era and identify areas for development based on the experiences of the two countries that diverge in many aspects yet converge on the aspirations of promoting well-being culture. The initial findings show that Australia has been leaning towards an individualistic approach and Bhutan towards a more collectivist approach, and therefore, huge variations exist in the way self-leadership training has been designed and offered. This variation offers an opportunity to review the content taking into account the diverse needs of people of multi-cultural, multi-generational and multi-national societies.

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 
Dec 4th, 1:25 PM

A comparative case study of self-leadership training between Australia and Bhutan to address emerging needs of well-being culture in the post-pandemic era

Introduction:

The COVID-19 pandemic has compounded the pressure to improve productivity, leading to flatter and more flexible management structures giving employees more autonomy, responsibility and accountability to improve performance. Employees are now required to self-lead, set direction, innovate, keep up their performance and take care of themselves with minimal supervision from the management. This flexible work environment forces employees to extend their working hours, stretch goals and take on additional workload. Study findings report an increasing trend in work-related stress, anxiety, burn-out and exhaustion. In addition, deterioration in the social fabric is observed with more and more employees choosing to work remotely, which may accelerate the rate of decline in psychosocial well-being.

This pattern of change makes self-leadership training even more relevant. It helps develop individuals with skills to self-lead along the matured leadership stage, promote interdependence, improve performance and work proactively. Thus, promoting psychosocial well-being and enhancing productivity with minimal supervision.

Self-leadership training is prevalent in Australia and Bhutan, both of which are united in their spirit of promoting well-being cultures. It, therefore, offers an opportune moment to review the experiences of the two countries to make self-leadership training more relevant to the changing needs. Accordingly, the following research question is identified:

What lessons can Australia and Bhutan learn from each other’s experiences to enhance the relevance of self-leadership training to the post-pandemic culture of well-being?

Methodology:

It will be based on a qualitative approach using a comparative case study method. It will first begin through a case-based investigation of the experiences of Australia and Bhutan, conducted independently using thematic analysis. Findings from the two will be juxtaposed to draw similarities and differences. To support this study, the following data collection methods will be used:

  1. Two sources of data were identified to study Australia’s experiences. Firstly, published articles were identified following PRISMA Guidelines using Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar. Secondly, data was also collected through observation of self-leadership training conducted in Western Australia and analysis of the training content.

  1. Sources of data on Bhutan’s experiences were based primarily on interviews of facilitators, coordinators and training participants of the only national institute that pioneers in delivering training on self-leadership. The interviews were conducted with the approval of the ECU Ethics Committee. Since there was no specific literature published in Bhutan on self-leadership, grey literature published on websites and podcasts will be used to complement the primary data.

Result:

Findings from the comparative study will identify the relevancy of the training in the post-COVID-19 era and identify areas for development based on the experiences of the two countries that diverge in many aspects yet converge on the aspirations of promoting well-being culture. The initial findings show that Australia has been leaning towards an individualistic approach and Bhutan towards a more collectivist approach, and therefore, huge variations exist in the way self-leadership training has been designed and offered. This variation offers an opportunity to review the content taking into account the diverse needs of people of multi-cultural, multi-generational and multi-national societies.