Home > Your ideas > Submissions > Interaction Consulting Group

Interaction Consulting Group


Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission.

We would welcome the opportunity to discuss the submission if it would add value.

Lesley Richards

Managing Director

PDF icon Download (383.53 KB)
Automatic Transcription: 

Review of the Australian

Public Service: Submission

from Interaction Consulting


July 2018


82 064 623 543
Review of the Australian Public Service Submission from Interaction Consulting Group






Changing core services, decentralisation and regionalisation 3

Best practice L&D 3

Resilience and wellbeing 4

Graduate development 6

Maximising return on investment and value-add from external suppliers 6


Strategy and cultural shift to capability development 7

Leadership 7

L&D lifecycle and return on investment (ROI) 7

Graduate programs 8

Resilience and wellbeing 8

Procurement 8


Review of the Australian Public Service Submission from Interaction Consulting Group 1


Interaction Consulting Group (Interaction) is a management consulting firm

based in the ACT that has provided HR consulting, training, facilitation,
coaching and qualification services to the Australian and state/territory

governments for over 24-years. Having worked in and with the majority of APS

agencies for many years, we have gained a unique perspective and an

intimate understanding of the issues and trends affecting staff at all levels, their

teams and leadership. We provide our observations and recommendations in

this submission to help inform the review and contribute to the capability

development of APS staff, so they are well-placed to meet future challenges.
Our submission is focused on our core area of expertise: development of

capability in the APS.
Not only do our consultants comprehend the public sector because they have worked in government

at executive and senior executive levels, we have undertaken the following to inform our response:
analysed current research and similar reviews of governments in Canada and the United Kingdom;
spoken with several high-level APS staff to obtain their perceptions; and collaborated internally to

develop a diverse understanding of the issues facing the future of the APS.
We welcome the independent review of the APS’s capability, culture and operating model and the

opportunity to provide input. Much has changed since Coombs’ report was released in

1976 - economically, socially, technologically and globally. Australia’s population has nearly

doubled, citizen’s expectations of what government should do have dramatically increased and the

scope and remit of the public service has expanded significantly. This review provides an important

opportunity to confirm the future role and direction of the APS. This will not only provide clarity,
purpose and confidence to the APS, but also to those external organisations, like Interaction, that

support the provision of public services.
This submission includes our proposed concept as to the future capability development needs of the

APS. It also articulates our observations of the challenges that the APS will face in general, and L&D

teams specifically, as a new style of Government is implemented in the future. Lastly, we provide our

recommendations to address the issues identified in our observations.

We have identified recommendations relating to the following key areas:
• strategy and cultural shift to capability development
• leadership
• learning and development (L&D) lifecycle and return on investment (ROI)
• graduate programs
• resilience and wellbeing
• procurement.
Review of the Australian Public Service Submission from Interaction Consulting Group 2


It is our proposal that Learning and Development (L&D), as a professional function, has been

struggling to deliver productive outcomes that maximise the utilisation of current resources for a

synergistic benefit. The current government has enacted expansive and far-reaching alterations to

the APS employment landscape, affecting recruitment, retention, workforce planning, mixed

employment conditions, all of which require large scale redesign of L&D services.
The APS L&D functions are entering a phase of reinvention. The shift is primarily manifesting in

practices such as:
• an expansion of online activities, initially driven by the introduction of the Learnhub Learning
Management Solution that provides staff efficient access to online resources such as APS
Information e-modules, and commercial short course providers such as SkillSoft, Lynda.com and
Good Practice. This also includes the adoption of phone-based apps particularly for monitoring
and reminder purposes
• the wider adaption of Blended Learning approaches based on the 70:20:10 principle. Face to face
training sessions are becoming less frequent and shorter. Blended packages seek to provide staff
with more self-directed and on the job activity, such as academic reading, online courses and
information, coaching and mentoring, participatory learning meetings such as Communities of
Practice, Learning Circles and Action Learning
• a shift toward adapting agile and lean approaches to the design and delivery of L&D products.
This shift includes moving to prototyping new approaches, delivering micro-learning pieces, and
participant centred design
• micro-learning pieces are typically raw and realistic, highly informal in style, with minimal structure,
and tend to be produced in a fast, efficient manner. These pieces, be they live videos, short
games and/or online courses, have low production costs and provide a constant drip feed of
• L&D content is being available ‘on-demand’ for staff primarily through online mechanisms and the
L&D function is becoming invisible to the staff member. This function is acting more as a curator of
resources from which staff self-select as and when each individual requires
• the rising demand for training in skills that support activity-based work structures. Such new skills
include managing virtual and dispersed teams; managing people on and off project teams swiftly;
conducting and capturing frequent, micro ‘performance’ and progress conversations; and
re-designing work flows and delivery techniques
• ‘partnership’ is replacing traditional leadership approaches and we have seen an increase in skills
required to manage teams containing varied employment contracts and conditions.
The APS L&D field is also seeing investigations underway to push further into the use of information

technology in delivery of products. Some agencies are still quite limited in their use of ITC, while a

few with resources are developing artificial intelligence capability and adopting virtual reality

technology to professional situations.
Review of the Australian Public Service Submission from Interaction Consulting Group 3


The following key observations have been made through: our engagement with leaders across the

Australian Government; via our in-depth relationships and interactions with APS staff during

consulting and coaching engagements; our analysis of media reporting on the APS; and our analysis

of research of Government operations and L&D in other countries.

Changing core services, decentralisation and


We suggest that the future APS will follow the current trend to outsourcing/externalising the provision

of services to the Australian public. The perception of the APS will change as core functions, policy

areas and expertise are contracted and more service orientated, transactional activity is outsourced

and automated. If this occurs in the future, the role of many APS staff will change from being service

providers to performance managers of the service delivery under contract. Knowledge and

experience will need to be expanded as the working environment shifts. This will require staff to build

their commercial/business capability in the areas of purchasing outcomes, contract management,
analysing performance against standards, quality control and compliance. Specific subject matter

expertise will also be required to manage contracts relating to areas such as information technology,
human resource, engineering and other technical streams. Leaders will need business acumen and

commercial nous to manage decentralisation of external service provision and manage performance

of outsourced service delivery contracts. They will also require understanding of how their leadership

styles need to vary depending on circumstance and context and have the ability to adapt as

As the Government decentralises and regionalises, training and L&D needs to be delivered to

regional centres across dispersed and diverse workforces. Research indicates the “70:20:10”
approach and micro training is best practice, not simply training via online systems. The APS will

need to build capability across a dynamic and agile workforce using flexible and tailored models of

Although the traditional role of the APS has been to provide frank and fearless advice to government,
this has shifted with the increase in ministerial advisers and the use of external consultants. This

contestable policy environment has seen the dilution of policy capability within the APS. Although

policy advice will remain a core to the APS role, the ability to undertake analysis, build a case, cost

and present a robust policy proposal based on solid evidence needs to be increased. In addition,
the traditional ideal of a stable job-for-life is no longer the norm, with less mobility within the APS and

contract staff covering the resource shortfall. This has significant impact on attracting and retaining

people with the right skills and capabilities, staff morale and on corporate memory, stewardship, and

risk appetite.

Best practice L&D

A recurring theme presented to us by executives in the Australian Public Service, via numerous

coaching sessions we provide, is that they do not have the time, nor the effective skills, required to

build capability within their teams. Executives are concerned that they are often undertaking

transactional activity not necessarily aligned with the strategic vision. The culture they describe is
Review of the Australian Public Service Submission from Interaction Consulting Group 4

one of being reactionary and risk adverse and needing to “do more with less”. They describe a 24/7

media cycle and current political environment which has influenced a reactionary, risk-adverse

environment with little time for strategy, planning and innovation.
Our understanding is that APS leaders find it challenging to conduct face to face interventions and

guide on-the-job coaching to build staff capability. This aspect of learning and development has

been termed micro-training and the theory is that it is the most effective way to develop skills and

knowledge in contemporary workforces (Anon, 2018). Micro-training involves provision of ‘on the

spot’ lessons learned, time for reflective discussion, and specific, personal, job skill guidance as well

as use of technology to ensure interaction, engagement and currency.
There is a thirst for capability development evident within the APS, particularly among APS level staff.
It is our observation that formal training, supported by on-the-job experiences, collaboration and

feedback, developed in a partnership with the client, achieves enduring outcomes. Although we

build a blend of different learning approaches into our training and development programs, it is our

experience that staff are often not given the opportunity to practice and embed their learning when

back in the workplace.
We see the Government and media ‘24/7 cycle’ and the drive for policy and program outcomes

pushing the APS which reduces prioritisation of L&D and often leads to cuts when seeking efficiency

gains. This is leading to managers not being trained in how to develop people using best practice
(70:20:10) with very few “coaching on the job” and implementing micro-learning.
The approach to delivering an L&D strategy is often focussed on providing bulk, generic
“compliance” training, delivered didactically that informs on “issues” as opposed to building skill. As

such, core skills are delivered out of context with limited understanding of application which reduces

impact, knowledge and skill development.
In addition, with the release of Learnhub, some agencies are shifting from face to face delivery to

online e-modules to conduct this information dump. These approaches save costs but do not

enhance the learning and development experience or outcome.
To summarise, what we have observed as the manifestation of the approaches described above is

that, although the APSC is espousing “70:20:10”, it is not being practised and embedded well and

the model receives a negative reputation due to poor implementation. For instance, Communities of

Practice become a lecture or a presentation on an individual project rather than an engaged,
collaborative environment. In addition, eLearning, which does not follow best practice principles

especially when it is complex training, does not provide quality outcomes. A risk adverse approach

to L&D, by both participants and L&D units, is starting to develop (goal is high participant rate with

no complaints and a positive evaluation at the expense of effectiveness and impact). This leads to

training facilitators designing passive sessions which allow participants to be disengaged and staff

are learning that linear, lecturing, passive style approaches are how L&D is delivered.

Resilience and wellbeing

Australia’s population has nearly doubled, citizen’s expectations have dramatically increased and

the scope and remit of the public service has expanded significantly since the mid-1970s, however,
APS staffing levels have remained almost the same. The APS has operated in an environment of

small and reducing resources since the efficiency dividend was introduced nearly 30-years ago. This

has resulted in a smaller, efficient government, but placed an enormous strain on staff who are

committed to providing expert advice to government and high-quality services to the Australian

In its annual survey on national stress and wellbeing in Australia, the Australian Psychological

Society showed that results are declining since the survey began in 2011, (Psychology.org.au, 2018)
with respondents reporting lower levels of wellbeing (and workplace wellbeing) and higher levels of

stress, depression and anxiety. Only this week, former Prime Minister and current Chair of Beyond
Review of the Australian Public Service Submission from Interaction Consulting Group 5

Blue, Julia Gillard (The Mandarin, 2018) called for Australian employers to increase their focus on

employee wellbeing. She is quoted “If we could create mentally healthy workplaces free of such

stigma, “the benefits would be enormous”, “Work can be incredibly good — or incredibly bad — for

our mental health.” “Three years ago, Beyondblue surveyed more than a thousand employees from

all kinds of workplaces, sectors and industries across Australia,” she said. “We found 71% of CEOs

and senior leaders believed they were committed to promoting the mental health of their staff. But

only 37% of their staff agreed.” In addition, Comcare publicly states the importance of creating

mentally healthy workplaces (Comcare.gov.au, 2018). “Creating mentally healthy workplaces

delivers improved productivity and workforce participation. The benefits go beyond simply reducing

the costs associated with negative outcomes (for example, absenteeism, mental health disorders,
and psychological injury compensation claims). Organisational practices that improve employee

psychological health and wellbeing (and reduce the incidence and duration of mental health

symptoms) also result in improved performance for people with or without a mental health condition.”
Comcare recommends that this is achieved through the following mechanisms:
• raising mental health awareness
• assessing risks
• managing risks
• supporting ability to work
• providing rehabilitation.
In reality, Comcare reports that psychological injury accounts for 11% of claims and over 30% of the

cost of claims; results in a slow and delayed return to work, with 55% of psychological injury claims

reaching between four and 13 weeks lost time; and is therefore a major source of lost time and

compensation under the Comcare scheme. According to the Medicare 24/7 Health Advice Line
(Hica.com.au, 2018):
• more than 20 million sick days each year are taken by Australian workers suffering from
stress-related illnesses, costing the Australian economy $14.8 billion annually.
• severe stress in the workplace is hindering 85 per cent of working Australians and 15 per cent of
affected employees are taking at least one sick day a month.
• presenteeism is also coming at a cost of more than $25 billion annually.
As the APS is asked to deliver more for less there will undoubtedly be an increased impact on the

resilience and wellbeing of staff. It is imperative that these two important mental health issues are

addressed through appropriate and applicable training of leaders, managers and all staff.
The following anecdotal observations have been made through our privileged position working

closely with thousands of APS staff, across all levels, for over 24 years, across thousands of

interventions. In particular, staff perceptions regarding the objectivity, independence and expertise

of our company consultants often permits them to feel comfortable expressing their vulnerability

regarding wellbeing. Our observations are:
• APS staff are consistently being asked to deliver more with less. For over 25 years, Commonwealth
entities have been subject to an annual efficiency dividend that reduces entity budgets each year
in anticipation of efficiencies being found (Finance.gov.au, 2018). This places additional stress on
employees, beyond the achievement of core outcomes
• the regular expansion and contraction of the APS puts pressure on leaders and staff to adjust their
styles and to manage broader and more complex remits.
• these coupled with the heightened and constant media cycle has resulted in high levels of stress,
impacting on the resilience and wellbeing of staff
• there is a stigma associated with asking for wellbeing support. Vulnerability in the workplace is
perceived to be highly discouraged
Review of the Australian Public Service Submission from Interaction Consulting Group 6

• staff are being led by people who have limited experience and capability in managing complex
wellbeing issues and who may also be struggling with their own wellbeing issues. Leaders need to
be resilient and well, in order to help others
• there is a lack of focus on building the wellbeing of teams and individuals in the workplace
• where wellbeing and resilience interventions do exist, they are generally one-off and highly limited,
short interventions.

Graduate development

We have also been made aware of issues the APS is having retaining graduates who are “stolen” by

industry one to two years after completing APS programs. We frequently hear anecdotal reports from

our clients that young graduates use the graduate program as a “gap year” style experience. Given

the current APS staffing level cap seeking to reduce employee numbers, Departments are increasing

their dependency on Graduate Programs as a key recruitment mechanism. The high time effort and

cost expense of running these programs may not be offset by the retention level of enough

high-potential people. Furthermore, staff are learning iteratively on the job, with little support,
gleaning what they can in the rush to deliver outcomes. The unintended consequences include

areas of departments with a high part-time workforce being starved of resources that are highly

trained and experienced. The loss of graduates leads to the depth of knowledge and policy

capability being eroded as well as the reduction of new and diverse ideas and techniques.

Maximising return on investment and value-add from

external suppliers

It is evident to us that the lifecycle of learning and development could be improved. For instance,
L&D teams struggle to recognise and measure return on investment as they are expected to drive

outcomes yet, in reality, only drive the process and have no control over the resultant behaviour or

appetite for change and improvement. This view that L&D teams are responsible for return on

investment leads to leaders, and staff being trained, who do not accept accountability for their own

learning or the culture around maximising benefits. Research indicates that leadership, mentoring

and supervision are critical to successful delivery of learning outcomes. Furthermore, when the staff

and leaders are responsible for the L&D outcomes, not simply L&D teams, the “doorway effect”
(being unable to recall information once a training experience has completed) will be limited. This

improves the return on investment.
We have experienced a few agencies which undertake a learning needs analysis against the

demands of their strategic plans; have a holistic view of the learning needs requirements and/or the

development pathway for their staff; and/or have a people strategy with defined outcomes. Specialist

L&D providers are generally only engaged to deliver a strategy roadmap or facilitate an L&D

program. Rarely are L&D staff invited to have a role in problem solving for the front-line area and

subsequently external service providers engaged throughout the entire L&D program. Additionally,
Human Resource Teams, and L&D in particular, are rarely skilled in evaluation methodologies,
including undertaking performance indicator calculation and monitoring.
Not understanding the full L&D lifecycle limits the ability to maximise return on investment. When the

70-20-10 model is not incorporated it is proven that L&D outcomes are not as successful (Institute,
2018). In addition, return on investment links to recruitment. Recruitment processes take an

inordinate amount of time and often prevent organisations from being able to respond quickly to L&D

needs. We are seeing an increasing trend in requests for proposals for what could be classified as

commoditised training, coaching and facilitation. This is overly arduous and resource intensive on

small business and on the Commonwealth.
Review of the Australian Public Service Submission from Interaction Consulting Group 7

Our recommendations for future APS L&D

It is our recommendation that building capability for future needs, requires the following.

Strategy and cultural shift to capability development

L&D programs need to be purposefully and specifically linked to future strategy and the

requirements for capability growth. Leaders and participants need to ensure a micro-training culture

is implemented as part of a holistic development approach. There needs to be a systematic and

cultural change which rewards, and provides opportunity for, managers to undertake 70-20-10 L&D.
Providers should be engaged throughout the entire L&D lifecycle such that:
• removes the existing view that the success of a L&D program is the responsibility of the Corporate
L&D team and the provider. Instead, treating the L&D team, provider, procurement and recruitment
as enablers
• critically, making the staff and leaders responsible for the L&D outcomes
• ensuring agencies put in place an L&D strategy, linked to the business strategy and all training
programs are in the context of those two elements
• ensuring all L&D is student focused and tailored to deliver the required outcome and return on
• all agencies undertake a regular (at least annual) learning needs analysis.


It is recommended that the Government define, document and communicate the ideal lifecycle for a

learning and development intervention strategy. The entire continuum of the learning and

development process must be defined and articulated.
Leadership is required as the APS transforms at the pace of cultural change in the community. To

prepare for what leaders need, pathways to leadership need to be identified and leadership skills

need to be developed through L&D programs early and incrementally. Leaders need to understand

that their styles need to vary, and their knowledge base and experience broaden. This includes, but

is not limited to, areas such as contract management, leadership, corporate nous and strategic


L&D lifecycle and return on investment (ROI)
We recommend a study into ROI and evaluation of L&D programs which develops an approved and

consistently applied whole of Government ROI model. Agencies need to work with a range of

stakeholders to develop, design and implement the model which must require proof of return on

investment and be consistently applied across agencies. ROI on investment needs to be articulated

from the outset of an L&D program. This includes defining what success looks like; what

measurements will be used; what the monitoring approach will be; and evaluation pre and

post-delivery including recurring themes reports. The lifecycle of an L&D intervention should have a

holistic view. This includes front ending programs and projects to think specifically about the

capability building requirements and defining the learning needs and associated development

programs in the project initiation stages.
Review of the Australian Public Service Submission from Interaction Consulting Group 8

In addition, each agency should be assessed against a 70-20-10 maturity model (see example at

Appendix A: Interaction Consulting Group 70:20:10 maturity model ©) to determine how their L&D

program is addressing best practice. If technology is used then outcomes need to be carefully

articulated, measured and managed.
An understanding of the lifecycle of L&D is required. As such, we recommend that a model of the

L&D lifecycle be utilised to inform the people and L&D strategies which incorporates the

procurement process; recruitment; L&D strategy; planning and implementation; delivery; maturity

assessment; evaluation and return on investment analysis. The model should identify the key drivers

in the L&D process and thus provide the ability to measure and maximise the return on investment.

Graduate programs

Retention of graduates requires a growth mindset focused on the individual pathways to career

development and incentives and/or contractual commitments to ensure retention.

Resilience and wellbeing

The APS needs support to cope with the expansion and contraction that it experiences which puts

pressure on leaders to adjust their styles and to manage broader and more complex remits.
Succinctly, leaders need to be resilient and well in order to help others.
There is a rapidly growing body of evidence for mindfulness based interventions in supporting

individuals to manage wellbeing. The evidence is clear that these types of therapeutic programs do

have a beneficial impact on psychological wellbeing (Carmody, 2014; Newsome, Waldo & Gruszka,
2012; Turnbull, Lwin & McNab, 2012). Particularly in regard to promoting self-care (Raab, 2014) and

managing depressive rumination and emotional regulation (Maxwell & Duff, 2016). Overall

mindfulness-based and mindfulness-informed therapies play an important role in promoting

psychological wellbeing, reducing stress, increasing performance, managing depressive and

suicidal symptoms and reducing anxiety. In fact, mindfulness-based cognitive therapy could be

more effective than psychoeducation and as effective in antidepressant treatment in major

depression (Maxwell & Duff, 2016).
It is our recommendation that:
• the APS seeks to become the leader in workplace wellness
• the APS prepares a wellness strategy that requires all agencies to implement longitudinal wellness
interventions focused on building resilience and maintaining wellbeing
• that the interventions are grounded in mindfulness-based approaches.


L&D areas must engage with providers in the initial stages of procurement, so they can add value by

understanding context, the links to strategy and the program, and the risks of not obtaining the

required outcomes.
Removal of the inefficient and costly process of agencies obtaining piecemeal, distinct delivery of

training (for example, regularly requesting a request for quote for the same training program at less

than $10,000 every few months) and instead look at longer term contracts and master agreements

whereby the product and price is set and utilise the panel arrangements more efficiently.
Review of the Australian Public Service Submission from Interaction Consulting Group

Appendix A: Interaction Consulting Group 70:20:10 maturity model ©

Review of the Australian Public Service Submission from Interaction Consulting Group 10


Pre-workshop Complete all program None unless initiated by the Administration. Design and development of programme
activities/reading to elements. participant. materials.
engage participant in the Responsible for application Distribution of pre-workshop activities

Level 1: Workshop topic. of learning in the Delivery of workshop.
Workshop that focuses on workplace.
with 70:20:10 content and skill

elements development.
Tools to support
application in the

Generally several phases. Complete all program Engage with and support Administration. Design and development of programme
Upfront reflection and elements. participant to develop capabilities Engagement of supervisor/ materials.
learning activities to Engage with and apply learning in the coaches. Briefing participants and supervisors about

Level 2: engage participant and supervisor/coach to workplace. the program and their roles.
supervisor/coach in the support application of Implementation of each program phase.
Integrated/blended learning process. learning in the workplace.
program Workshop builds on
learning by focusing on
deeper level of learning
and skill development.

One or more Self-direct and actively Engage with and support Administration. Design and development of programme
complementary learning participate in activities participant to drive their learning Engagement of supervisor/ materials including guides and tools.
activities that together Build relationships to journey and apply learning in the coaches. Brief and support participants and

Level 3: Learning support learning and support learning (including workplace. Set-up of structured learning supervisors/coaches.
capability development. with supervisor/coach). activities/events. Facilitation of some program elements

journey May not be a facilitated Drive workplace Build learning and coaching Encourage establishment of ongoing
component. application of learning culture. self-managed learning activities
(look for, create and (eg CoPs).
implement opportunities).

Supervisor/staff member Drive and manage their Co-develop structured approach Establishment of learning Development of guides and tools for
develop and implement own learning in the to learning with staff member. and coaching culture. supervisors and staff.
Level 4: Learning structured approach to workplace Facilitate learning and provide Provide development Design, develop and facilitate activities to

work learning in the workplace. Co-develop structured workplace coaching. opportunities for build supervisor/coach capabilities.
approach to learning with supervisor/coaches.
Review of the Australian Public Service Submission from Interaction Consulting Group 11

Appendix B: reference list
• Anon, (2018). [online] Available at:
_and_Technologies_after_e-Learning [Accessed 31 Jul. 2018].
• Carmody, J. (2014), “Eastern and Western approaches to mindfulness”. A. le. C.T. Ngnoumen &
E.J. Langer. (Eds.) (2014). The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Mindfulness (pp. 48-57).
Massachusetts: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Comcare.gov.au. (2018). Creating mentally healthy workplaces. [online] Available at:
https://www.comcare.gov.au/promoting/Creating_mentally_healthy_workplaces [Accessed 31 Jul.
• Finance.gov.au. (2018). efficiency dividend | Department of Finance. [online] Available at:
https://www.finance.gov.au/resource-management/pgpa-glossary/efficiency-dividend/ [Accessed 31
Jul. 2018].
• Hica.com.au. (2018). The cost of workplace stress | Health Insurance Consultants Australia.
[online] Available at: http://www.hica.com.au/health-insurance-news/the-cost-of-workplace-stress
[Accessed 31 Jul. 2018].
• Institute, 7. (2018). New roles for L&D: the reality of 70:20:10 - 70:20:10 Institute. [online] 70:20:10
Institute. Available at: https://702010institute.com/new-roles-ld-reality-70201 [Accessed 31 Jul.
• The Mandarin. (2018). Gillard: mental illness need not be career ending | The Mandarin. [online]
Available at: https://www.themandarin.com.au/96394-gillard-mental-illness-need-not-be-career-
ending/ [Accessed 31 Jul. 2018].
• Maxwell, L., & Duff, E. (2016), “Mindfulness: An effective prescription for depression and anxiety.”
The Journal for Nurse Practitioners, Vol. 12 No.6, pp. 403-408.
• Newsome., S., Waldo., M., & Gruszka, C. (2012) “Mindfulness group work: Preventing stress and
increasing self-compassion among helping professionals in training.” The Journal for Specialists in
Group Work, Vo;. 37, No. 4, pp. 297-311.
• Psychology.org.au. (2018). Member login | APS. [online] Available at:
Login?returnurl=%2finpsych%2f2017%2fapril%2fsurvey [Accessed 31 Jul. 2018].
• Raab, K. (2014), ”Mindfulness, self-compassion and empathy among health care professionals; a
review of the literature.” Journal of Health Care Chaplaincy, Vol. 20, pp. 95-108.
• Turnbull, G., Lwin, R., & McNab, S. (2012), “Trauma inoculation: mindful preparation for the
unexpected (p. 274-294)”. R. Hughes. A. Kinder & G.L. Cooper (Eds.), International Handbook of
Workplace Trauma Support. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.