Search results

This study aims to explore the experiences of peers working in a range of roles within a single NHS mental health service. This study also aims to provide evidence of the impact of existing support, organisational structure and culture around peer working and provide recommendations for a Good Practice Guide for Peer Working. Peer roles require lived experience of mental health conditions and/or services. While the impact on them of using their own lived experience is not fully understood, anecdotal evidence suggests that peer workers may experience a greater emotional impact than other mental health workers. Burnout and retention are particular concerns.

This was a two-stage study using focus groups and reflexive thematic analysis in Stage 1. The key themes formed the basis of the Stage 2 workshop, which provided recommendations for a Good Practice Guide. The study team consisted of peer researchers with lived experience, supported by a Lived Experience Advisory Panel.

There is a perceived lack of support and an increased peer burden for peer workers. Recommendations included relevant ongoing training and development; support and supervision; and organisational cultural change.

Working within a peer-led co-production framework, this study contributes to the development of the evidence base for peer emotional labour. Based on the findings, a Good Practice Guide for Peer Working is being developed to promote good practice for the development of future peer worker roles.

Directors’ human capital has long been recognised as vital to ensuring effective corporate governance. While previous studies have sought to link director human capital with specific firm-level outcomes, there are persistent challenges facing researchers who seek to understand better what kind of human capital makes a difference to effective board role execution. This study aims to understand whether the way directors fulfil their roles and contribute to boardroom dynamics is shaped by any human capital they gain via senior executive experience.

We draw insights from 30 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with Indian directors to capture their perceptions and experiences of how a specific kind of human capital, namely the C-suite experience, affects directors' boardroom dynamics and board role execution.

We highlight how directors with executive experience appear to have a more salient set of human capital to draw on. Specifically, they report navigating governance processes differently, displaying a more contextualised understanding of boardroom dynamics and having a broader understanding of the firm’s problems. Doing so enables them to foster constructive board-management relationships and improve their service role execution.

Our qualitative data are drawn from a purposively sampled group in a specific governance system (India). While this does not threaten the key theoretical insights, it does raise questions about their generalisability to other governance contexts.

Directors with executive experience build trust through their orientation towards and understanding of management without diminishing their capacity to scrutinise management decisions. The human capital of these directors appears to engender a more effective and contextualised boardroom dynamic that facilitates the execution of socialised accountability through balancing the control and service roles.

Our findings highlight the potential importance of a shared understanding of the communication and collaboration processes of corporate governance (i.e. a common transactional memory framework) between directors and management. Directors who share this understanding with management are more likely to effectively engage in the service role while not compromising the control role. This shared understanding appears to allow these directors and executives to encode, store and retrieve relevant information they need more effectively, engendering the trust between them that seems to foster socialised accountability.

Universities in the United Kingdom, like their counterparts globally, are confronting difficulties associated with the well-being of students. The origins of these challenges are complex, exacerbated by various global events. In response, universities are trying to address these growing concerns and the escalating need for student support. Faculty members are often recruited to assist students in navigating academic and personal challenges. The aim of this study was to investigate how the process of student mentoring, by faculty members, could be made more operationally robust to better support student demand, thus yielding greater value for both students and staff.

A qualitative approach was adopted with 19 academic faculty working as mentors within a UK business school who participated in 90-minute semi-structured interviews. Interviews were analysed using an operational (transformation) management framework, with findings categorised under three key headings – inputs, transformations and outputs – to discover how the operational process of mentoring students could be enhanced.

Participants discussed the inputs required to deliver mentoring, the process of transformation and their desired outputs. Findings suggest coordinated and relevant inputs that is, information, environments and technology, coupled with good mentor selection and recruitment improves operational robustness, adding greater value to the student experience by creating more purposeful outputs, thereby benefiting themselves and their students.

The application of an operational (transformation) process framework to analyse faculty mentoring of students is unique, thereby offering new insights into the construction and management of these types of academic support initiatives.