In this study we identify the differences in goal realisation when applying two conflicting paradigms regarding rule perception and management. We gathered more than 30 scenarios where goal conflicts were apparent in a military operational unit. We found that operators repetitively utilized certain routines in executing their tasks in an effort to realize several conflicting goals. These routines were not originally intended nor designed into the rules and not explicitly included in documentation. They were not necessarily at odds with the literal wording and/or the intent of rules and regulations, although we did find examples of this. Our data showed that local ingenuity was created innovatively within the frame of existing rules or kept invisible to those outside the unit. The routines were introduced and passed on informally, and we found no evidence of testing for the introduction of new risks, no migration into the knowledge base of the organisation, and no dissemination as new best practices. An explanation for this phenomenon was found in the fact that the military organisation was applying a top-down, classical, rational approach to rules. In contrast, the routines were generated by adopting a constructivist view of rules as dynamic, local, situated constructions with operators as experts. The results of this study suggest that organisations are more effective in solving goal conflicts and creating transparency on local ingenuity if they adopt a constructivist paradigm instead of, or together with, a classical paradigm. @en

Restorative justice is an approach that aims to replace hurt by healing in the understanding that the perpetrators of pain are also victims of the incident themselves. In 2016, Mersey Care, an NHS community and mental health trust in the Liverpool region, implemented restorative justice (or what it termed a 'Just and Learning Culture') to fundamentally change its responses to incidents, patient harm, and complaints against staff. Although qualitative benefits from this implementation seemed obvious, it was also thought relevant to identify the economic effects of restorative justice. Through interviews with Mersey Care staff and collecting data pertaining to costs, suspensions, and absenteeism, an economic model of restorative justice was created. We found that the introduction of restorative justice has coincided with many qualitative improvements for staff, such as a reduction in suspensions and dismissals, increase in the reporting of adverse events, increase in the number of staff that feel encouraged to seek support and a slowing down of the upward trend in absence due to illness. It also improved staff retention. The economic benefits of restorative justice appear significant. After corrections for inflation, acquisitions and anomalies, we found that the salary costs averaged over two fiscal years were reduced by £ 4 million per year, coinciding with the introduction of a just and learning culture in 2016. In addition, Mersey Care reaped around £ 1 million in saved legal and termination expenses. We conservatively attribute half of these savings to the introduction of a just and learning culture itself, and the other half to non-related factors. Using this assumption, we estimate the total economic benefit of restorative justice in the case of Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust to be about £ 2.5 million or approximately 1% of the total costs and 2% of the labour costs.@en

Restorative justice is an approach that aims to replace hurt by healing in the understanding that the perpetrators of pain are also victims of the incident themselves. In 2016, Mersey Care, an NHS community and mental health trust in the Liverpool region, implemented restorative justice (or what it termed a 'Just and Learning Culture') to fundamentally change its responses to incidents, patient harm, and complaints against staff. Although qualitative benefits from this implementation seemed obvious, it was also thought relevant to identify the economic effects of restorative justice. Through interviews with Mersey Care staff and collecting data pertaining to costs, suspensions, and absenteeism, an economic model of restorative justice was created. We found that the introduction of restorative justice has coincided with many qualitative improvements for staff, such as a reduction in suspensions and dismissals, increase in the reporting of adverse events, increase in the number of staff that feel encouraged to seek support and a slowing down of the upward trend in absence due to illness. It also improved staff retention. The economic benefits of restorative justice appear significant. After corrections for inflation, acquisitions and anomalies, we found that the salary costs averaged over two fiscal years were reduced by £ 4 million per year, coinciding with the introduction of a just and learning culture in 2016. In addition, Mersey Care reaped around £ 1 million in saved legal and termination expenses. We conservatively attribute half of these savings to the introduction of a just and learning culture itself, and the other half to non-related factors. Using this assumption, we estimate the total economic benefit of restorative justice in the case of Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust to be about £ 2.5 million or approximately 1% of the total costs and 2% of the labour costs.@en