More than an intervention: the far-reaching impacts of a participatory work redesign project in aged care Open Access

Research has demonstrated the consequences of highly demanding work on employee mental health (Bonde, 2008; Harvey et al., 2017). As a result, psychosocial hazards (the aspects of work that may cause psychological stress or injury; Safe Work Australia, 2024) have become a key focus in international WH&S practice, policy and regulation (European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2025; International Organization for Standardization, 2021; Safe Work Australia, 2022). In Australia, where our study took place, mental health-related compensation claims have risen, leading to extensive time off work and costs (Safe Work Australia, 2024). Given these risks, organizations are legally required to manage psychosocial hazards and are increasingly seeking effective strategies to reduce them.

In 2021, Safe Work Australia opened a grant opportunity for research on interventions that eliminate psychosocial hazards at their root cause, to support an evidence base of literature on the effective management of psychosocial hazards. In response, our team of organizational psychology researchers, with expertise in work design, proposed a trial evaluating participatory work redesign measures in a large Australian residential aged care organization (pseudonymously named CarePlus hereon). A connection was first initiated with CarePlus’ organizational development (OD) officer who organized a meeting with CarePlus’ C-suite and general managers to pitch the collaboration and official support was secured. CarePlus’s interest in partnering in this project reflected Safe Work Australia’s concern regarding psychosocial hazards but was also motivated by aged care sector concerns such as population growth, staff shortages and evolving WH&S laws propelled by a recent Royal Commission into aged care that had pointed toward exacerbated job demands within the sector. Through the collaboration, CarePlus anticipated to enhance working conditions for frontline staff, improve well-being and engagement, ensure compliance with regulatory requirements and build their capacity for managing psychosocial hazards. Upon successful award of the grant opportunity, the research team commenced the project with Safe Work Australia and CarePlus as key overarching stakeholders.

As mentioned, our proposed approach to addressing psychosocial hazards at their root cause was to design, implement and test a participatory work redesign intervention. Work design refers to “the content and organization of one’s work tasks, activities, relationships, and responsibilities” (Parker, 2014, p. 662). One type of poor work design occurs when workers experience intolerable levels of work demands. Work redesign interventions aim to change the nature and organization of work tasks, activities and responsibilities (Knight and Parker, 2021), for example, by altering a team task flow to reduce redundancies and chances for conflict. Participatory work redesign interventions involve employees in the redesign process, recognizing workers as experts in their work and providing meaningful opportunities to diagnose issues and identify solutions in their work, and have a say in the redesign actions (Daniels et al., 2017; Parker, 2025). As these types of interventions address the design of work and are guided by workers at all stages to tailor solutions to the unique work context, they have the potential to address high job demands at their root cause.

The work redesign intervention was conducted in two of CarePlus’s fourteen residential aged care facilities (one large, one small) where their managers volunteered to participate. The intervention featured participatory workshops that generated work redesign action plans for each facility. Prior to the workshops, we conducted several preparatory activities to ensure adequate infrastructure, resources and processes for the intervention including: forming a steering committee of CarePlus stakeholders comprising relevant CarePlus C-suite members (Chief Executive Officer, Chief Officer – Residential, Chief People Culture and Brand) and general managers (People, Learning and Organizational Development, Residential Operations, WH&S), the OD officer who served as a liaison officer with CarePlus and facility managers in participating facilities (two intervention facilities and two similarly sized comparison facilities) to guide and provide authority to implement work redesign action plans and collect data; obtaining organizational data (e.g. engagement surveys, annual reports); conducting surveys and interviews to capture baseline job demands; a systematic review of the literature on job demands in aged care and existing interventions to address them (Kho et al., 2025) to deepen our sector wide knowledge; holding meetings with facility managers to understand their motivation for volunteering, their perceptions of job demands and how to best engage workers in the project; and socializing frontline workers at project facilities to the upcoming work redesign intervention. These frontline workers were also considered important stakeholders in the process as a smaller team of workers across a variety of roles were then invited to actively participate in the work redesign workshops. Their contribution was critical for a better understanding of the workplace factors contributing to increased demands, for generating work redesign action plans and/or providing data to evaluate the efficacy of the work redesign intervention.

As seen in Figure 1, the work redesign intervention consisted in: (1) work redesign workshops conducted with a cross-section of workers from intervention facilities, (2) the development of tailored work redesign action plans and (3) the implementation of action plans including an iterative process of further adjustments to initial actions based on emerging findings. Six three-hour workshops were conducted with a cross-section of workers (n_{large facility} = 9; n_{small facility} = 8) at each site. The research team facilitated the workshops based on existing principles of good work design (see SMART work design in Parker and Knight, 2024). We engaged a senior executive to attend the first workshop to endorse the project and express the leadership team’s commitment to the project, and the respective facility managers in the last workshop to support the finalization of work redesign action plans. The first two workshops introduced the project, work design and investigated root causes of job demands. The following workshops focused on generating and refining work redesign solutions. The final two workshops involved developed specific work redesign action plans according to organizational constraints. We consistently utilized participatory activities throughout workshops which assisted each site in formulating their unique work redesign action plans.

In their work redesign action plans, the large facility targeted onboarding and the reintroduction of task lists to reduce job demands. Redesigning the onboarding process aimed to minimize the need for existing staff to correct new colleagues’ work. We improved the onboarding process in the large facility through extending the onboarding timeline, introducing facility manager check-ins and email introductions, and enhancing the quality and number of buddy shifts. Reintroducing and refining daily task lists sought to reduce cognitive demands and streamline coordination for teamwork-based tasks (e.g. hoisting a resident). For their tailored work redesign action plans, the small facility focused on handover meetings and information resources for agency workers. Handover meetings were also renewed through altering shift timings and introducing a meeting protocol to promote attendance, efficiency and atmosphere, thereby reducing interpersonal conflict and the need to correct communication or work errors. Improving information resources for agency workers (who fill in casually to meet required staffing levels) allowed them to work more independently, easing the burden on existing staff.

Although the work redesign workshops and action plans were essential intervention ingredients, our project also achieved impact through additional actions conducted to support intervention success and contribute to effective and long-term change. Throughout the project, we competed with the same job demands we aimed to reduce. For example, job demands were exacerbated by several instances of leadership turnover. The CarePlus CEO exited the company toward the end of the project, the small facility manager changed early in the project and again at the end of the project, and the large facility manager exited at the end of the project. Further, events occurred that threatened our assessment of intervention effects, including a change in national funding that facilitated a staffing influx across facilities, CarePlus’ own internal interventions, outbreaks of COVID-19 and difficulties in recruitment for data collection. To counter such events, we maintained presence at facilities and supported the revision of work redesign action plans as needed during the implementation process. For example, we consistently engaged new management to accomplish action plans that required manager support and approval to enact. Research members were also present at the small facility’s renewed handover meetings and provided coaching to registered nurses who led meetings. We visited sites to conduct interviews with staff members and hand out physical surveys for completion. Finally, a critical element of optimizing the projects’ success was maintaining engagement with the executive leadership team through regular project updates and consistently reiterating the projects alignment with organizational goals.

Our project’s impact extended to CarePlus and its frontline workers, the aged care industry, the research team and wider academic sector, and Safe Work Australia. These impacts emerged through an adaptive, multi-method approach that continuously shaped intervention actions to meet diverse stakeholders’ evolving needs.

Our academic paper detailed the intervention’s effects on frontline workers’ perceived job demands, resources and well-being and explored patterns in absenteeism and turnover (Chong et al., 2025). However, the intervention generated wider impact related to participatory engagement, knowledge building in work design and strengthened feedback channels with leadership, many of which emerged well before post-intervention data collection. Through the participatory work redesign workshops, frontline workers from various roles were trained to analyze work design issues and propose solutions. Early on, participants reported benefits from engaging in these discussions, consistent with the advantages of participatory processes (Nielsen and Christensen, 2021). In workshop feedback a participant noted “The fact that the workshops are happening indicate there is an area needing improvement. The willingness to spend time to make wise decisions about implementing changes.” Many also highlighted how being part of these workshops improved communication across different roles and facility wings, as they provided a setting for an array of workers to discuss mutual challenges. For example, in one facility, workshop discussions revealed that some facility wings still used daily task lists effectively, while others perceived they had to be discontinued and expressed interest in bringing them back. This led to one of the work redesign solutions being the reintroduction of a newly improved daily task list for all wings. This collective insight not only improved communication but also strengthened the legitimacy of worker-initiated solutions as the facility manager had the opportunity to listen and understand experienced work challenges and to actively collaborate with frontline workers to devise a solution. Therefore, impact was generated for workers via participatory engagement to enhance feedback relationships and control over their work design.

At the midpoint, 73% of workshop participants had high expectations that the intervention would improve their working conditions, rising to 100% by the end of the workshops. Additionally, all participants agreed or strongly agreed that they felt more knowledgeable about work design and found the SMART work design framework useful. Participants also appreciated having a structured way to provide feedback to leadership, reinforced by comments such as “being able to have input in the change”, “open discussions”, and “management has actually put some ideas into practice” referring to the enacted action plans in relation to onboarding, task lists, handover meetings and agency information resources. The involvement of facility managers and organizational leaders throughout the project further supported this engagement.

Although the number of employees directly involved in the workshops were small, participants acted as representatives to spread the project learnings and opportunities across the workforce. Through tasks and homework set in-between workshops, we encouraged participants to engage their colleagues, disseminating workshop learnings, gathering relevant information and involving them in the feedback processes for work redesign solution generation, evaluation, and implementation. Although it is practically impossible to quantify how many frontline employees have been reached in this manner, during workshops participants referenced ideas and information provided by their colleagues, indicating that such involvement did happen to some extent and that the participatory approach extended past the workshop participants. Such impacts on the frontline workers were also evidenced in follow up interviews conducted with facility management who observed:“But the feedback from the staff is great, you know because we give the staff the voice at all the workshops … and the staff really felt heard and they felt I think a bit empowered to be able to speak up and speak freely.” Another facility manager reiterated this sentiment “In general, I would have feedback from the staff. But this one puts more emphasis on our process because we were able to take action on their feedback”. Such comments highlight that generating impact for frontline workers through participatory processes requires not only hearing their voices but also implementing tangible changes based on their contributions.

In addition to the significant quantitative reductions in job demands and absenteeism rates (Chong et al., 2025), our project generated wider impacts for CarePlus. These include improvements to work processes and practices, the provision of new tailored work tools, capability development for work redesign and addressing psychosocial risks at their source, and financial savings and an engaged work culture attributable to intervention effects.

As the aged care industry was known to be experiencing elevated demands, the central aim of the project was to identify and find solutions to job demands experienced by frontline workers. Several root causes of high job demands were due to issues in existing work processes and practices such as the onboarding process and handover meetings. Improvements were recognized by new and existing staff, with an existing worker saying “We also get emails about [new staff members] which is actually very nice. When new people are starting. And don’t just all of a sudden have someone arrive and we go ‘who are you?’” A new staff member also reported “Then we get buddy shifts. And if we still need more, they provide two buddy shifts. If we still need more buddy shifts, they will provide more.” Another new worker said following the implemented changes “It doesn’t seem like that’s my new workplace. It feels like I’m working here for a long time.” Unfortunately, turnover data analyzed in the quasi-experimental trial (Chong et al., 2025) did not indicate a clear link between the redesign solutions implemented and turnover decisions. However, anecdotally, the facility manager described that following the introduction of check-ins with new staff, they had spoken to a worker who was prepared to quit after their first week. This gave the facility manager the timely opportunity to discuss their concerns and provide them with further support as they decided to continue working at CarePlus. We are confident that these actions rejuvenated the onboarding process to be smoother and more effective, reducing the demands experienced across workers. This impact is critical given the high turnover in the industry (Sutton et al., 2022).

Within actions to renew handover meetings, adjusting rostering to allow staff overlap between shifts had the most impact as it ensured incoming workers could attend handovers while outgoing staff maintained resident care “We were able to increase the 15-min so that staff can actually have proper handover. It was a very big improvement … At the moment, everyone is attending (Facility Manager)”. Observation data revealed that efforts to implement a structured handover protocol to reduce conflicts and improve efficiency were less consistent. Some registered nurses reported success, while others were unaware of the change. Despite the research team’s efforts to communicate and coach staff on handover delivery, the protocol’s long-term use remains unclear. Nevertheless, feedback received toward the end of the project indicated fewer conflictual or tangential meetings. The elevated staff attendance has potentially improved meeting culture despite inconsistent implementation of the introduced handover protocol. This was considered a key impact given the importance of handover meetings in distributing the most current resident care information to safeguard their health and safety.

To support the redesign of work processes and practices we also developed, refined and introduced several work tools, including a daily task list, an agency worker information sheet, and a tailored work redesign toolkit. While all tools had been introduced by project completion, the consistency of their use varied. For example, feedback on the reintroduction of refined task lists was largely positive, with a worker stating “It has been very helpful to have task lists back” and that the tasks lists reduced job demands for registered nurses, one describing “then it’s less work for me as well, because I’m not chasing them [up to complete tasks].” However, observations indicated that not all staff were aware of their reintroduction, and facility management confirmed ongoing efforts to fully implement them. Similarly, although the facility manager reported that the agency worker information sheets received positive feedback (e.g. “in general, the forms are pretty good for the agency. We asked the agency staff and they said it’s really helpful”), more consistent implementation was required. Registered nurses who are responsible for distributing agency information sheets could occasionally forget to do so on busy shifts. Discussions toward the end of the project explored alternative ways for agency workers to access information sheets independently. These challenges reflect how implementation of new work tools require time to communicate and become part of habitual practice, with support from management being critical. To support CarePlus’ continued implementation of work redesign actions and longer-term capability to conduct work redesign, a work redesign toolkit was developed in collaboration with CarePlus’s General Manager for WH&S. This toolkit was designed to aid facility managers in engaging workers to understand and identify psychosocial hazards and risks, develop solutions, and guide the change management process when actions are implemented. It included information resources, practical conversation starters, instruction lists, worksheets and reflection activities that support the sustainable development and implementation of work redesign action plans.

We paired improvements in work processes and practices and the introduction of new work tools, with a concerted effort to develop the capability for work redesign at all levels of CarePlus’ leadership. Not only did this help us to maintain stakeholder support for the project but it provided CarePlus leaders with resources and skills to independently conduct work redesign, adding to their repertoire of HRM strategies to address psychosocial hazards which was critical given the need to demonstrate compliance with WH&S regulations. We achieved this by involving facility management and operational managers into the work redesign project, by conducting several additional workshops across the business and by regular briefings with the executive management. For example, we delivered three work design workshops on SMART work design for CarePlus WH&S representatives (attendance ∼ n = 10–35/workshop). A similar workshop focusing on the role of leaders in designing SMART work for their staff members was delivered twice during the annual Leadership Team Meeting (attendance ∼ n = 40). We also conducted five briefing sessions, some targeting a smaller team of executives and others offered to CarePlus’ Culture Committee (executive directors and other members), where we additionally shared insights from initial data collection to inform wider approaches and initiatives within the business. These capacity building efforts were instrumental in obtaining project support and embedding a work design lens across the organization, equipping leaders with new HRM strategies to solve workforce challenges. Although hard to quantify the success of these efforts, CarePlus’ internal Organizational Development officer noted that a change was visible “I think the changes that I’ve seen is the fact that you were able to do a project with us [that] demonstrates a different way of thinking about problems. And it’s not just about the individual and their knowledge and skills, but it’s things like culture and the systems and our processes and how they all contribute to people’s experience … I’ve definitely seen that shift to its more systems thinking and even in other projects outside of this”. We do hope that our collaborative and educational engagement with leaders across CarePlus has not only extended their repertoire of HRM practices but produced an organizational shift in addressing the root causes of issues that will generate further downstream impacts.

As alluded to, throughout our engagement we aimed to provide additional value to CarePlus by supporting their existing organizational initiatives which extended our opportunity to demonstrate the importance of participatory HRM processes. This included sharing insights from the work redesign workshops to the Clinical Care and Services team who were conducting a technological update of the organization’s patient management system. Our data driven insights helped to ensure that revisions to the organization’s patient management system were used to address existing informational needs and improve the workflow for frontline staff as this update would implicate the handover meeting process. Although the rollout of this technological update was outside of the scope of the project, follow-up anecdotal feedback suggested that our insights helped facilities to better communicate frontline workers’ needs to the Clinical and Care Services Team and helped to tailor final updates for the patient management system. Specifically, the update was meant to ensure that patient management information used during handovers was as up to date as possible. However, it unintentionally led to printing large volumes of information at every shift change, making the pages difficult to review for important updates to communicate. Providing this feedback allowed the Clinical Care and Services team to develop a more consolidated version of patient management information that could be effectively utilized during handover meetings. These additional but timely actions facilitated by our participatory approach helped CarePlus to avoid a potential issue before the update was implemented across the entire organization and deepened our collaboration with CarePlus whilst also diversifying our avenues of impact.

A final important impact for our partner organization was the positive cost-benefit of project activities, given the financial costs linked with high demands due to their association with absenteeism, turnover and mental health claims (Safe Work Australia, 2024). A conservative estimation indicates a net cost benefit of approximately 81.4 AUD per employee after accounting for intervention implementation costs, with potential savings ranging between 52.2 and 110.5 AUD per employee (Karin, 2024). Beyond the cost-effectiveness of the intervention, facilities we directly worked with also saw a shift toward a more positive work culture. The facility manager of the large site noted “Implementing this project and giving [staff members] the information that they need and the tools with which to do a good job … the culture is so much better.” This manager further noted that the facility recorded an 11% increase in their engagement survey scores which they associated with the completion of the project. For us, this represented further confirmation that not only had our intervention created cost-effective impact, but that the participatory nature of the project empowered and engaged workers, hopefully consolidating worker consultation as an essential HRM practice at CarePlus.

We also make a brief concluding note of the project’s impact on other aged care organizations. Just months after its completion and initial research dissemination, another large aged-care organization reached out to obtain advice for their new operating model. We held two exploratory meetings to provide evidence-based guidance, and the organization subsequently funded six people, including managers and chief executives, to complete a Curtin University short course on SMART work design. Upskilling senior executives in work design in an exemplar of how our project’s findings can be more effectively translated into strategic decision making and organizational change, maximizing its long-term benefits for other organizations. We hope that continued dissemination of the project findings in-and-out of academic settings will create further opportunities for similar capability-building initiatives in the aged care sector and beyond.

Alongside outcomes for CarePlus and the aged care sector, we facilitated several further pathways of impact for ourselves and the wider academic community that are worthy of notice given the growing appetite for applied research in industry and the need for researchers to demonstrate real-world impact by addressing contemporary priorities (i.e. management of psychosocial hazards).

This project provided valuable development opportunities for early career researchers and scientist-practitioners. Four postdoctoral researchers and two professional staff gained hands-on experience and developed their skills in key aspects of applied research, including stakeholder engagement, grant writing, project management and research dissemination under the supervision of two senior researchers. Two post-docs have secured lecturer roles at leading Australian universities and have credited this project as enhancing their employability. The project also strengthened the research group’s capability to deliver similar initiatives; one postdoctoral researcher now leads a larger-scale work redesign project in the Healthcare and Social Assistance industry in Australia, and a senior and post-doctoral researcher have shared learnings with multi-university research teams to inform approaches to similar projects to increase their potential for impact. By strengthening the capacity of early career researchers and research teams to conduct applied research, we empower our profession to leverage their expertise in addressing global challenges more effectively. Moreover, insights from this project informed two grant proposals for similar interventions in the healthcare sector. While these attempts were unsuccessful, efforts continue with an expanded network of collaborators. As a testament to the value that this project had for our local academic community, the project was recognized with a school and faculty level “Industry Project of the Year” award.

We have made efforts to generate further pathways of impact in the wider academic community, by inspiring new and experienced researchers alike to undertake more applied research in collaboration with real organizations to tackle real and pressing problems through academic publications and conferences. Again, the active promotion of this research within the academic community is intended to inspire researchers to demonstrate the broader value and impact of our research and potential of HRM. Collectively, we have delivered three research seminars at Australian universities and integrated findings within a workshop delivered to a professional body representing Australian psychologists, all of which were well received. We have also completed three domestic and four international conference presentations. Our work is featured in two published academic papers (Kho et al., 2025; Chong et al., 2025) and another academic paper in preparation. Altogether, since the project’s conclusion, our experience has strengthened individual academics, our industry credibility, and we are confident that it will continue to attract interest from industry partners, generate opportunities and funding for joint collaborations that exemplify HRM interventions consolidating the importance of applied research in producing solutions that have real-world benefit. Most importantly, having delivered this ambitious and complex project and having faced many challenges, our sense of achievement has reinforced our identities as applied researchers and motivated us to continue to pursue similar practical, relevant and impactful research in the future.

Our close collaboration with Safe Work Australia led to a broad range of deliverables beyond typical researcher-driven projects. While regular reporting and compliance monitoring sometimes proved challenging due to their focus on compliance with proposed scope (and things change), as well as use of different terminology across disciplines, it ensured an impressive list of diverse outcomes and deliverables. This included monthly milestone reports, a detailed technical report (Andrei et al., 2024), a cost-effectiveness analysis report (Karin et al., 2024); five case studies, and a practical toolkit – all alongside three academic papers (Kho et al., 2025; Chong et al., 2025) which were submitted before project completion (one in extended abstract form). The public project reach is evident: as of March 6th 2025, the Safe Work Australia project webpage had gathered 2,750 views and the technical report had been downloaded 1,495 times. While not all the outputs delivered to the regulator have yet been made public, our Safe Work Australia collaborators have confirmed that they have been shared with their policy teams and have been a reference point for their work. In addition, our research team is currently exploring alternative ways of making these deliverables available through our own dissemination channels.

Beyond any list of outcomes and deliverables for the regulator, our entire collaboration with Safe Work Australia has been an exercise of capacity building, both for the research team and for the Safe Work Australia representatives who have been involved in the implementation of the project at various phases and in various capacities. At times, we had long discussions around terminology, reconciling different perspectives on work design, discrepancies between the way research classifies types of interventions and the way the regulator classifies types of control measures, as well as all the intervening factors that were outside of our control but had an impact on our ability to implement the project as originally designed. While these discussions generated some frustrations, it helped that they remained constructive, and that we always found a listening partner in our Safe Work Australia collaborators. It also became clear that these discussions were initiated from a place of trying to ensure that the terminology used by our research team aligns with the language and taxonomies used by the regulator, which was seen as a critical factor in our collaborators’ ability to market the project internally and facilitate the maximum levels of impact on strategies and policies moving forward. The research team also sought to amplify these processes toward the end of the project and in the period immediately after by conducting tailored presentations of the project and findings to several internal Safe Work Australia stakeholders, such as the Safe Work Australia Strategic Issues Group – Work Health and Safety and the Analyst Network.

We firmly believe that our close collaboration with Safe Work Australia across all stages of the project and our tailored approach to communicating and disseminating the findings internally have provided valuable insights and data to inform policies, regulations and best practices moving forward. This collaboration not only enhanced Safe Work Australia’s ability to provide evidence-based guidance on how psychosocial hazards can be addressed at their root cause via work redesign interventions but also strengthens the agency’s credibility and leadership in this field by showcasing its role in fostering innovation and supporting impactful research on psychosocial risk management. Indeed, in a statement provided by Safe Work Australia it was noted that “The learnings will inform Safe Work Australia’s ongoing national policy work to build the capability of employers to manage the risks from psychosocial hazards. This is an area where building an Australian evidence base is critically important. Making sure caring jobs are well designed assists to keep workers safe and healthy at work and helps to support a care and support economy that delivers quality care to an ageing population”.

We summarized the foundations, actions and impacts of the project in Figure 2. Upon reflection, we acknowledge that our ability to demonstrate broader project impact was somewhat serendipitous. Data reported in (Chong et al., 2025) were intentionally collected for intervention evaluation, whereas data presented here were collected to inform and improve project activities, stakeholder engagement and reporting obligations. This data nevertheless assert the project’s significance for multiple stakeholders and has deepened our understanding of how research impact can be identified and communicated. We recommend integrating intentional, impact-focused data collection into complex HRM interventions to better demonstrate the value of applied research in addressing pressing organizational challenges and in our own academic network.

Another key lesson in generating impact was the role of consistent stakeholder engagement despite uncontrollable events. Macro-level disruptions, often seen as setbacks when isolating intervention effects, did affect research activities. However, we found that reframing these challenges as opportunities for deeper collaboration strengthened our partnership. By maintaining a strong presence at facilities, we built genuine relationships with stakeholders and gained valuable insights into organizational issues and the complexities of aged care work. It further facilitated an understanding of the organization’s current appetite to adopt a more holistic, system-level approach to HRM strategies to address psychosocial hazards, which subsequently informed the educational pieces that were dispersed across the organization and generated further impact.

We note that implementing changes that target systems, processes and procedures – all critical for achieving lasting change – proved challenging as an external research team. While our outsider status was advantageous early in the project, allowing us to build trust through expertise and neutrality, it became a barrier when driving decisions that required organizational buy-in for systemic change. We lacked the authority to enforce process changes, making timely implementation difficult despite stakeholder engagement. This highlights the complexities of applied research in organizational settings, where balancing influence and implementation remain a persistent challenge.

This challenge pronounces the importance of sustaining leader engagement throughout the project and at all levels of leadership. Leadership support is a key factor in intervention success, yet frequent personnel changes required the research team to continuously onboard new managers and secure their buy-in to maintain progress. Their involvement was essential as they had the authority to implement work redesign actions (e.g. altering shift timings) that the research team could not enforce. Strong engagement also amplified impact, with the large facility manager who was highly engaged, leveraging workshop discussions to drive additional workplace improvements. To maximize the impact of HRM interventions, practitioners should seek all opportunities to build strong relationships with both existing and incoming stakeholders.

This paper has highlighted the broader impacts that are often overlooked in traditional intervention evaluations, and the opportunity to communicate the reality of our project’s outcomes has left us with great satisfaction. Specifically, we emphasized the importance of building and sustaining partnerships in achieving a broader research impact. Having the opportunity to communicate the full breadth of our project’s outcomes and to illustrate how its impact extends beyond the intervention and project itself has left us with great satisfaction. By sharing these insights, we hope to enhance HRM researchers' and practitioners' understanding of the potential range of impacts, how to demonstrate them to stakeholders and how to replicate or improve impacts in future HRM interventions. We, ourselves, are looking forward to generating many more.