The rapidly escalating COVID‐19 pandemic entails many unprecedented life circumstances, including in the way people work. The social distancing policy has forced companies to adopt work‐from‐home (WFH) arrangement to maintain business sustainability amidst both health and economic crises. While in many developed countries, WFH arrangement has been a common practice, this is not the case in some Asian countries, particularly in countries where high power distance emphasising heightened supervision and punishment among workers are still a preferred managerial style, such as Indonesia, China, India, and Thailand. While acknowledging that WFH is considered as beyond an option in this pandemic period, this commentary paper, built on existing literature presented in the narrative fashion, aims to critically identify key barriers of WFH implementation in some Asian countries, particularly in autocratic societies, using both theoretical and contextual approaches. The paper concludes by discussing recommendation for future studies and proposing strategic implications for companies and workers to effectively adopt WFH arrangement, especially in societies where WFH is still a new practice or is involuntarily held.

<p>The rapidly escalating COVID-19 pandemic entails many unprecedented life circumstances, including in the way people work. The social distancing policy has forced companies to adopt work-from-home (WFH) arrangement to maintain business sustainability amidst both health and economic crises. While in many developed countries, WFH arrangement has been a common practice, this is not the case in some Asian countries, particularly in countries where high power distance emphasizing heightened supervision and punishment among workers are still a preferred managerial style, such as Indonesia, China, India, and Thailand. For companies with such a power-reliance managerial style, WFH could be seen as a threat towards productivity as face-to-face supervision cannot be performed. On the other hand, not all workers have a positive attitude and a sense of readiness towards implementing WFH and having involuntary WFH arrangement adds as a potential stressor on top of those caused by management demands and lack of trust. While acknowledging that WFH is considered as beyond an option in this pandemic period, this commentary paper aims to critically identify key barriers of WFH implementation in some Asian countries, particularly in autocratic societies, using both theoretical and contextual approach. The paper concludes by discussing recommendation for future studies and proposing strategic implications for companies and workers to effectively adopt WFH arrangement, especially in societies where WFH is still a new practice or is involuntarily held. </p>

Purpose This paper aims to explore the factors that drive and inhibit national stakeholder organisations’ engagement with an established an umbrella place brand identity (PBI) in the context of country branding, during the PBI implementation stage. Design/methodology/approach This study adopted a case study approach to examine Australia’s current country brand identity initiative: Australia Unlimited, as an example of PBI. Data were collected through in-depth interviews with senior executives (n = 39) representing 30 Australian national organisation stakeholders across a range of sectors (i.e. government agencies, public and private organisations and industry associations). Findings The tension between the PBI and the brand identity of the stakeholders’ own organisation was an emergent finding at the heart of potential disengagement. Moreover, stakeholders’ perception of the leadership of the organisation managing the place brand plays a key role in influencing their engagement with PBI. Research limitations/implications The findings contribute to place marketing theory by identifying drivers and inhibitors of stakeholders’ engagement that originated from the PBI itself (PBI-centred factors) and from the stakeholder organisations (stakeholder-centred factors). Practical implications The findings provide a practical framework for place brand managing organisations to foster stakeholders’ engagement during the implementation stage of a PBI initiative. Originality/value Place branding research to date has focussed primarily on resident stakeholders’ engagement in the development of PBI initiatives. This paper contributes to knowledge by proposing a framework that encompasses the drivers and inhibitors of national stakeholder organisations’ engagement with PBI during its implementation phase.

No abstract

<p>The rapidly escalating COVID-19 pandemic entails many unprecedented life circumstances, including in the way people work. The social distancing policy has forced companies to adopt work-from-home (WFH) arrangement to maintain business sustainability amidst both health and economic crises. While in many developed countries, WFH arrangement has been a common practice, this is not the case in some Asian countries, particularly in countries where high power distance emphasizing heightened supervision and punishment among workers are still a preferred managerial style, such as Indonesia, China, India, and Thailand. For companies with such a power-reliance managerial style, WFH could be seen as a threat towards productivity as face-to-face supervision cannot be performed. On the other hand, not all workers have a positive attitude and a sense of readiness towards implementing WFH and having involuntary WFH arrangement adds as a potential stressor on top of those caused by management demands and lack of trust. While acknowledging that WFH is considered as beyond an option in this pandemic period, this commentary paper aims to critically identify key barriers of WFH implementation in some Asian countries, particularly in autocratic societies, using both theoretical and contextual approach. The paper concludes by discussing recommendation for future studies and proposing strategic implications for companies and workers to effectively adopt WFH arrangement, especially in societies where WFH is still a new practice or is involuntarily held. </p>