See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235286553

How can the public sector resolve complex issues?: Strategies for
steering, administering and coping

Article  in  Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration · April 2010

DOI: 10.1108/17574321011028954

CITATIONS READS
37 1,472

1 author:

Brian Head
The University of Queensland
198 PUBLICATIONS   4,575 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Research relevance and impact View project

Water, sanitation and hygiene in remote Indigenous Australian communities: A scan of priorities View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Brian Head on 11 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1757-4323.htm

APJBA
2,1 How can the public sector resolve
complex issues?
Strategies for steering, administering
8 and coping
Brian W. Head
Institute for Social Science Research, University of Queensland,
St Lucia, Australia

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to ask how the public sector manages complex issues, and
suggests that new strategic thinking is needed about ways forward.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper outlines recent conceptual and empirical research
demonstrating the challenges for government posed by complex problems, and the difficulties of
addressing them successfully.
Findings – The paper suggests that most governmental systems are preoccupied with a host of
issues which impede the consideration of long-term goals and methods.
Research limitations/implications – More research is needed on the capacities of governments to
identify and respond to complex problems while maintaining performance in other areas.
Practical implications – Implications arise for leadership, building policy capacity, building
coordination capacity, and better use of partnering to improve implementation capacity.
Originality/value – The paper encourages new thinking about the capacities required for strategic
direction setting and coordination to tackle complex problems.
Keywords Public sector organizations, Public administration, Governance, Public policy
Paper type Viewpoint

Introduction
Political and administrative leaders in the public sector are subjected to great
pressures. The scale and diversity of challenges, and the rate of change, are portrayed
in the popular media as overwhelming. In recent years, we have seen major issues
erupting that undermine “business-as-usual” approaches to law and security, social
wellbeing, economic stability, and environmental health. At the same time, the tools
and techniques of governance have been shifting in many countries, making greater
use of market-based tools and collaborative networks with non-government actors,
while largely also retaining the apparatus of administrative and regulatory controls.
Leaders are constantly required to reinvent their policy approaches and their relations
with stakeholders, within and beyond the public sector.
Pressures on modern public sector managers derive from several sources. These
include structural issues (e.g. restructuring of agencies, coordinating across agencies),
Asia-Pacific Journal of Business steering issues (e.g. navigating with unreliable instruments or with poor governance
Administration processes), relationship issues (e.g. having to work effectively with diverse stakeholders),
Vol. 2 No. 1, 2010
pp. 8-16 knowledge issues (e.g. poor data on performance, loss of corporate memory through
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited personnel changes), program resource issues (e.g. lack of funding and skilled inputs), and
1757-4323
DOI 10.1108/17574321011028954 time pressures (e.g. attending to daily crises without the opportunity for long-term
strategic analysis). Under these conditions, agencies may tend to be risk-averse, rather Public sector
than being open to innovation and competent to undertake productive adaptation. complex issues
In short, the world of public management is often characterized by complexity,
uncertainty, information overload, multiple and conflicting goals, and diverse
expectations by political superiors, the media and external stakeholders. Managing
complex issues within government has become all the more difficult because
governments have had to respond to citizen expectations that the public sector must 9
accept broad responsibilities for social, economic, environmental, and security
outcomes. In undertaking these complex responsibilities, the difficulties of modern
governance are brought into relief.

How to tackle complex issues?

My argument is that in tackling complex problems too little time and attention is
usually directed to the development of “steering” strategies. This term is here intended
to designate modern governmental strategies for:
.
analyzing thoroughly the actual nature of complex problems and major challenges;
.
setting collective goals; and
.
determining, with the help of experts and diverse stakeholders, the policy
governance arrangements that are most appropriate for addressing these
complex issues on a long-term basis.

In practice, the vast bulk of public sector effort and attention is usually devoted instead to
the “classical” bureaucratic task of administering prescribed programs (with their focus
on the management of implementation schedules and reporting requirements). Efficient
implementation is of course the essence of good service delivery and regulatory
effectiveness (Pollitt, 1990). However, unless governments also undertake the hard work of
carefully developing steering strategies (as defined above), the administrative efforts of
public sector agencies might not be pointing in the right direction.
Decision-makers often find that particular problems have no “cure.” Such problems
are resistant to the “solutions” typically available through standard services or
regulatory schemes. Such problems are ongoing and endemic rather than capable of
being “resolved.” Policies in these areas are likely to be hotly debated, and sometimes
the attempts to fix the problem are seen as making things worse. Moreover, many such
problems are inter-related and inter-dependent, so that apparent progress on one aspect
can be undermined by other related activities. Problem areas are usually harnessed to
specific services or intervention programs, which in turn may need careful
coordination to minimise the chance of some elements undermining others. Under
these conditions the extent of “success” can be difficult to ascertain, and the relative
effectiveness of various tools and approaches can be difficult to disentangle.

From simple to complex and wicked

Some issues can be “fixed” with current knowledge and the current tool-kit of
interventions. Provision of services or resources for specific groups in specific locations
might make the difference between a disastrous and a satisfactory outcome. Improving
a water and sanitation system, or building a transport link, can make a huge difference
for a specific population. However, other issues seem endemic and intractable even
APJBA where more resources are deployed. In the face of complex problems that seem
2,1 intractable, decision makers face crucial choices. Some leaders may decide to engage in
avoidance tactics, by denying the nature and extent of a problem or by blaming others.
This is especially common in political discourse, but also can be found within public
agencies.
A second option is to put aside any bold aspirations for significant improvement, in
10 the name of realism. Slowing the rate of deterioration in environmental indicators, or
perhaps maintaining the status quo on health indicators, might come to be seen as
realistic and even praiseworthy objectives – and perhaps all that could be achieved
under the circumstances. Such approaches may be termed “coping” strategies. They
are likely to be widespread where several major problems co-exist, or where
problem-solving resources and capacities are low, or where layers of organisational
and program change are piled together simultaneously (Wallace, 2008). “Coping” is a
necessary and valuable approach under conditions of adversity and complexity.
A third approach – reliance on technical experts to undertake rational problem-
solving – has been widely utilised in many areas of infrastructure and physical planning
as well as some aspects of economic and social policy. However, its suitability for
addressing complex problems has been strongly questioned. The concept of “wicked”
problems emerged from the critique of rational-technical or “engineering” approaches to
complex issues of social planning and policy (Head and Alford, 2008; APSC, 2007; Head,
2008c). Some critics of complex policy programs claimed in the 1970s that the required
levels of goal-clarity, communication and cross-agency coordination were impossible to
meet (Pressman and Wildavsky, 1973). The message here was that decision makers
should be less ambitious, and should tackle tangible and manageable elements of
problems rather than a comprehensive or “blueprint” approach. A second group of critics
argued that rational-technical approaches overlooked the lived experience and
perspectives of the citizens/stakeholders who are supposed to be helped or who are
otherwise affected by these interventions. According to this critique, the growth of expert
scientific knowledge cannot “fix” difficult policy problems that are really based on
competing value perspectives (Schon and Rein, 1994).
However, the most challenging critique of rational planning emerged in Rittel and
Webber’s (1973) famous paper, “Dilemmas in a general theory of planning”. According
to Rittel and Webber, the days of solving major urban and social problems through an
“engineering” approach have ended. Modern society is too pluralistic to tolerate
solutions designed and imposed by experts. Social groups have important differences
in attitudes and values that undermine the possibility of clear and agreed solutions.
According to Rittel and Webber, the finite problems tackled by science and engineering
can be described as relatively “tame” or “benign” in the sense that the elements of a
mathematics problem are clearly definable and solutions are verifiable. By contrast,
modern social problems are generally “ill-defined,” and rely on political judgements
rather than scientific certitudes. In this sense, most major public policy problems are
“wicked” (Rittel and Webber, 1973, p. 160), i.e. they are inherently resistant to a clear
and agreed solution. The key features of “wicked” problems include the following:
. problems are inherently difficult to clearly define;
.
they contain many interdependencies and multi-causality;
.
the problems are socially complex with many stakeholders;
 .
entrenched value differences are significantly involved in many problem areas; Public sector
.
the problems may be unstable and keep evolving; complex issues
. the knowledge base for defining the nature of problems and the scope of possible
solutions is patchy and disputed; and
.
therefore, “rational comprehensive planning” will fail (adapted from Rittel and
Webber, 1973, pp. 161-6; APSC, 2007). 11
Overcoming impediments to problem solving
Under conditions of complexity, uncertainty and disagreement, policymaking is fraught
with difficulty. How should decision makers and administrators act appropriately under
conditions where there are no clear and inherently correct solutions; where the risks are
hard to define and measure; where the possible trade-offs are fluid and unreliable; where
complex inter-dependencies of processes and structures require close analysis; where
stakeholders may have different perspectives and aspirations; and where relevant
responsibilities for action may be vague or may stretch across many organisations?
Modern public sector managers must deal with a fast-changing world in which
there are few certainties and many challenges. Some policy issues are genuinely
complex and thus require innovative policy responses. They cannot be resolved by
filling the gaps in expert knowledge. The “classical” model of bureaucracy, seen as the
efficient and impartial machinery of law, administration and standard service delivery,
no longer seems sufficient for the “good governance” of complex and contested issues.
New and broader approaches are being explored, drawing variously on market
mechanisms, networks, and stakeholder collaboration. The classical hierarchical model
of bureaucracy has had to be combined with other more dynamic forms of governance
to facilitate effective policy adaptation to meet these urgent new challenges.
Much of the more recent literature on wicked problems (Allen and Gould, 1986;
Pacanowsky, 1995; Freeman, 2000; Roberts, 2000; Kreuter et al., 2004; Conklin, 2006;
APSC, 2007; Camillus, 2008; Head and Alford, 2008; Head, 2008c) has advocated
broadening the base for discussion through dialogue and collaboration. This is an
important part of the approach suggested here, namely a “steering” strategy that is based
not only on expert analysis but also stakeholder inclusion. Various forms of cooperative,
coordinated and collaborative responses may be beneficial, because the sharing of
knowledge and the development of shared goals are usually crucial ingredients in finding
acceptable “solution pathways.” A shared approach is more likely to produce lasting and
effective actions (Head, 2008a). However, this requires hard work to mobilise and may take
much longer than the patience of political leaders will tolerate. Finally, a shared approach
is also important for embedding the changes in outlook and behaviour that are necessary
for successfully addressing the problem. Rather than relying solely on legal prescription to
define and enforce acceptable conduct, it is both economical and effective to encourage
voluntary compliance with new goals, e.g. tackling the health problems linked to obesity
may depend on attitudinal and behavioural changes by parents and children (rather than
coercive regulation governing the sale of food).

Capabilities for “success”

The persistence of difficult problems can be linked to various discourses about
causality and responsibility. The political discourse of avoidance and denial is often
APJBA linked to claims about unchanging “human nature,” hence the apparent impossibility
2,1 of eradicating certain types of conflict or anti-social behaviour. Alternatively, the
discourse of blame is linked to insisting that others should take responsibility for
current disasters. However, in a more constructive political context it should be
possible to join up the analysis of problems (trends, causes, consequences) with a
collective acceptance of the need to address the problem (improved policies and
12 programs). Good processes and good governance are required to move from a
willingness (in principle) to take action, toward a resource-based practical capacity to
mobilise effective action. Although acceptable results might occasionally be generated
by ad hoc or by clumsy processes, robust processes for policy governance will improve
the prospect of success.
Policy “success,” of course, can be judged in different ways. Three viewpoints are
especially important in the assessment of policy success or failure and in considering
next steps in addressing problems:
(1) benefits for government as judged by political leaders (impacts of governmental
actions on their own popularity, reputation, credibility);
(2) satisfaction of directly affected citizens in relation to specific programs (service
benefits for clients, and more broadly for citizens in general); and
(3) formal evaluation of programs by experts (measuring stated aims of programs
against actual outcomes).
Public servants must pay attention to all three viewpoints in forming their views about
the adequacy of current policy approaches and settings. It is argued here that in most
public sector agencies, the capacity to undertake robust and objective analysis is
compromised by insufficient funding for evidence-based strategic reviews, and by a
lack of political support for robust and evidence-informed debate about the nature of
wicked problems. The probable outcome is that the crises and issues that attract media
publicity will continue to drive the attention of decision makers.
In addressing complex issues, it is crucial to understand that apparent failures
(poor outcomes) can arise from different sources or factors, not all of which are
amenable to control by governments. Public officials directly control only some of the
factors relevant to effective implementation of public policy, e.g. staffing levels in a
program, or the legislative framework for regulating corporate behaviour. Clearly,
there are many economic and social trends that are not controlled by specific
governments (e.g. global financial trends, or natural disasters), yet governments are
still expected by citizens and the media to mitigate their effects. My claim here is that
the public sector requires several core capabilities in order to tackle problems which
require more than standard administrative responses. A strategic focus is the essential
foundation for the “steering” function, noted earlier.
Steering in this sense requires several elements: the capacity to undertake long-term
analysis and risk-based planning, the capacity to adapt as uncertainties emerge and
trends change, the authority to set directions and collective goals, the capacity to
harness partners where necessary, clarity about key roles and responsibilities, and
effective mechanisms for pooling expertise and viewpoints across organisations and
stakeholders. Steering strategies require a thorough understanding of the problem
(or series of linked problems). Strategic understanding is more robust when developed
in concert with key stakeholders and a range of experts. It is central for the design of
effective programs/frameworks, choice of policy instruments, and the effective Public sector
deployment of resources and personnel by organisations taking either separate or
joined-up action.
complex issues

Policy choice – waiting for evidence?

The rational notion of evidence-driven policy-making implies that decision makers can
or should wait for reliable evidence before acting. Yet, the real world of policy making 13
is rather different (Nutley et al., 2007). Politicians are often keen to pursue solutions
even when the evidence is uncertain or when the citizens disagree on key issues (Head,
2008b). Sometimes they are driven by ideology or partisan preferences. They will not
sit still until all uncertainty subsides. Politicians often like to be seen as “decisive,” by
taking action to address issues in a tangible and conspicuous way. This means that
they might focus on specific pieces of the puzzle rather than comprehensive or holistic
approaches to issues. This strand of political thinking may be one sensible way of
“coping” with complex or wicked problems – try to deal with manageable elements
today, while recognising that there could be other aspects to tackle in future years.
Generalising broadly, there are three main types of approaches available for
decision makers in considering solution pathways for major problems. These can be
briefly termed “sticks,” “carrots” and persuasion (Bemelmans-Videc et al., 1998). Choice
of instruments – or more commonly a mix of instruments (Salamon, 2002) – is closely
linked to steering strategies and to the evidence base for specific approaches:
.
Legitimate coercion: laws, regulations and their effective enforcement are the
bedrock of the modern state and the mode of governance identified as hierarchy
and legitimate authority.
.
Incentives and enticements: a range of rewards and price signals can impact on
options or choices available to individuals and organisations, and their
calculation of net benefits; this is the mode of governance identified with market
mechanisms. In recent years, this approach has driven efforts to “outsource”
many areas of service delivery. In terms of wicked problems, it is notable that
clients with complex needs are increasingly “managed at a distance,” by
engaging third parties under service contracts to manage programs.
. A third approach relies on a mix of evidence and appeals to reasoning,
community values, principles, and ethics; this approach is identified with
education, persuasion, and reduction of conflict through discussion.

Potentially, this third approach can be developed to take account of the collaborative
network approaches of recent years which attempt to build understanding and
ownership of problems (Koppenjan and Klijn, 2004; Goldsmith and Eggers, 2004;
Lovan et al., 2004; Bryson et al., 2006; Head, 2008a). It has also been linked to the wider
use of voluntary codes defining standards for corporate behaviour.
Failures and unintended outcomes are likely to be endemic in many complex areas
of policy and program delivery, for several reasons: the “problems” may be poorly
identified and scoped; the problems themselves may be constantly changing; proposed
solutions may be addressing the symptoms instead of underlying causes; stakeholders
may disagree so strongly that many solution-options are unworkable; and the
knowledge base required for effective implementation may be weak, fragmented or
contested. Long-lasting solutions may depend on achieving major shifts in attitudes
APJBA and behaviours. However, the necessary incentives, points of leverage and ongoing
2,1 reinforcement mechanisms are often absent or too weak to ensure that such shifts can
be achieved. It is true that politicians and public servants might differ in their
disposition to adopt certain responses. But the consequences of ignoring or avoiding
complex issues are perilous.

14 Concluding comments
Increasing the capacity of the modern public sector to develop successful steering
strategies for responding to complexity and uncertainty is the key challenge of modern
governance. Where action is required under conditions of uncertainty, “adaptive”
management approaches are increasingly recommended by policy analysts (Bentley
and Wilsdon, 2003; Chapman, 2004). “Adaptive” approaches require persistent focus
not only on the ongoing adjustments to specific programs as conditions change; but
they also require a willingness to rethink the overall strategic directions of government
(e.g. high-level objectives and key initiatives). This is very difficult. The contemporary
performance and reporting systems require stability in indicators, in order to track
progress against measurable actions. Accountability works most easily in a predictable
environment. However, adaptive management envisages uneven progress, while
continually “learning by doing” with rapid adjustments.
This approach to handling complex issues cannot be achieved without
strengthening coordination. This is a major element of the steering role for central
agencies of government, which have primary responsibility for developing coherent
and innovative strategies. This usually entails “joined-up” or whole-of-government
approaches for strategy development and service delivery (Bardach, 1998; Bogdanor,
2005; Parker and Gallagher, 2007). Of course, this is not just a matter for public sector
agencies. Collaboration with many other key organisations is essential to engage the
knowledge and experience of those outside the public sector. Participation of citizens,
non-governmental organizations and business stakeholders is vital to ensure a wide
range of contributions to problem framing and problem solving (Mandell, 2001; Innes
and Booher, 2003; Keast et al., 2004; Bingham et al., 2005). In more intensive forms this
engagement may strive for conflict mitigation and consensus-formation. Agency
leaders are increasingly adopting more participatory approaches wherever
administrative and technical and administrative solutions are not sufficient.
Collaborative and “partnership” approaches are increasingly explored, where
practicable, but there is also a growing awareness of the high offsetting costs of
intensive and continuous collaboration. I have suggested that collaboration is not the
standard solution for resolving complexity and uncertainty.
More weight should be placed on re-examining the underlying assumptions that have
shaped how problems are identified and prioritized. Social research has demonstrated
repeatedly that the way in which problems are “framed” tends to generate specific choices
of instruments and preferred solutions (Schon and Rein, 1994). We therefore need to
develop a greater capacity to go beyond conventional thinking, to develop collective goals,
to ensure resources are available, and to set performance targets for those organizations or
partnerships tasked with implementation. An enhanced capacity to develop new “steering
strategies” must be based on rigorous analysis, multiple perspectives, and enhanced
coordination. Implementation of these approaches will require political support as well as
administrative innovation.
References Public sector
Allen, G.M. and Gould, E.M. (1986), “Complexity, wickedness and public forests”, Journal of complex issues
Forestry, Vol. 84 No. 4, pp. 20-4.
APSC (2007), “Tackling wicked problems: a public policy perspective”, Australian Public Service
Commission, Canberra, available at: www.apsc.gov.au/publications07/wickedproblems.
pdf (accessed 30 June 2009).
Bardach, E. (1998), Getting Agencies to Work Together: The Practice and Theory of Managerial 15
Craftsmanship, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.
Bemelmans-Videc, M.L., Rist, R. and Vedung, E. (Eds) (1998), Carrots, Sticks and Sermons: Policy
Instruments and Their Evaluation, Transaction Books, New Brunswick, NJ.
Bentley, T. and Wilsdon, J. (Eds) (2003), The Adaptive State, Demos, London.
Bingham, L.B., Nabatchi, T. and O’Leary, R. (2005), “The new governance: practices and
processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government”, Public
Administration Review, Vol. 65 No. 5, pp. 547-58.
Bogdanor, V. (Ed.) (2005), Joined-up Government, Oxford University Press and the British
Academy, Oxford.
Bryson, J.M., Crosby, B.C. and Stone, M.M. (2006), “The design and implementation of
cross-sector collaborations: propositions from the literature”, Public Administration
Review, Vol. 66, S1, pp. 44-55.
Camillus, J.C. (2008), “Strategy as a wicked problem”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 86 No. 5,
pp. 99-106.
Chapman, J. (2004), System Failure: Why Governments Must Learn to Think Differently, 2nd ed.,
Demos, London.
Conklin, J. (2006), “Wicked problems and social complexity”, in Conklin, J. (Ed.), Dialogue
Mapping: Building Understanding of Wicked Problems, Wiley, Chichester.
Freeman, D.M. (2000), “Wicked water problems: sociology and local water organizations in
addressing water resources policy”, Journal of the American Water Resources Association,
Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 483-91.
Goldsmith, S. and Eggers, W.D. (2004), Governing by Network: The New Shape of the Public
Sector, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.
Head, B.W. (2008a), “Assessing network-based collaborations: effectiveness for whom?”, Public
Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 733-49.
Head, B.W. (2008b), “Three lenses of evidence-based policy”, Australian Journal of Public
Administration, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Head, B.W. (2008c), “Wicked problems in public policy”, Public Policy, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 101-18.
Head, B.W. and Alford, J. (2008), “Wicked problems: the implications for public management”,
paper presentation to International Research Society for Public Management Conference,
Brisbane, 26 March.
Innes, J.E. and Booher, D.E. (2003), “Collaborative policy making: governance through dialogue”,
in Hajer, M. and Wagenaar, H. (Eds), Deliberative Policy Analysis, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp. 33-59.
Keast, R., Mandell, M., Brown, K. and Woolcock, G. (2004), “Network structures: working
differently and changing expectations”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 64 No. 3,
pp. 363-71.
Koppenjan, J. and Klijn, E.H. (2004), Managing Uncertainties in Networks, Routledge, London.
APJBA Kreuter, M., De Rosa, C., Howze, E. and Baldwin, G. (2004), “Understanding wicked problems:
a key to advancing environmental health promotion”, Health Education & Behavior, Vol. 31
2,1 No. 4, pp. 441-54.
Lovan, W.R., Murray, M. and Shaffer, R. (Eds) (2004), Participatory Governance: Planning,
Conflict Mediation and Public Decision-Making in Civil Society, Ashgate, Aldershot.
Mandell, M.P. (Ed.) (2001), Getting Results through Collaboration: Networks and Network
16 Structures for Public Policy and Management, Quorum Books, Westport.
Nutley, S., Walter, I. and Davies, H. (2007), Using Evidence: How Research Can Inform Public
Services, Policy Press, Bristol.
Pacanowsky, M. (1995), “Team tools for wicked problems”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 23
No. 3, pp. 36-51.
Parker, S. and Gallagher, N. (Eds) (2007), The Collaborative State: How Working Together Can
Transform Public Services, Demos, London.
Pollitt, C. (1990), Managerialism and the Public Services: The Anglo-American Experience,
Blackwell, Oxford.
Pressman, J.L. and Wildavsky, A. (1973), Implementation: How Great Expectations in
Washington are Dashed in Oakland, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Rittel, H.W.J. and Webber, M.M. (1973), “Dilemmas in a general theory of planning”, Policy
Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 155-69.
Roberts, N.C. (2000), “Wicked problems and network approaches to resolution”, International
Public Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Salamon, L.M. (Ed.) (2002), The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance, Oxford
University Press, New York, NY.
Schon, D.A. and Rein, M. (1994), Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy
Controversies, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Wallace, M. (2008), “The dynamics of coping: maintaining normal public service while
orchestrating complex change”, paper presented at Conference of the International
Research Society for Public Management, Brisbane, 26 March, available at: www.irspm
2008.bus.qut.edu.au/papers/documents/pdf/Wallace%20-%20The%20Dynamics%20of%
20Coping%20-%20IRSPM%20-%202008.pdf (accessed 30 June 2009).

Corresponding author
Brian W. Head can be contacted at: brian.head@uq.edu.au

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats