How to design, implement and evaluate organizational interventions for maximum impact: the Sigtuna Principles.

Research on organizational interventions needs to meet the objectives of both researchers and participating organizations. This duality means that real-world impact has to be considered throughout the research process, simultaneously addressing both scientific rigour and practical relevance. This discussion paper aims to offer a set of principles, grounded in knowledge from various disciplines that can guide researchers in designing, implementing, and evaluating organizational interventions. Inspired by Mode 2 knowledge production, the principles were developed through a transdisciplinary, participatory and iterative process where practitioners and academics were invited to develop, refine and validate the principles. The process resulted in 10 principles: 1) Ensure active engagement and participation among key stakeholders; 2) Understand the situation (starting points and objectives); 3) Align the intervention with existing organizational objectives; 4) Explicate the program logic; 5) Prioritize intervention activities based on effort-gain balance; 6) Work with existing practices, processes, and mindsets; 7) Iteratively observe, reflect, and adapt; 8) Develop organizational learning capabilities; 9) Evaluate the interaction between intervention, process, and context; and 10) Transfer knowledge beyond the specific organization. The principles suggest how the design, implementation, and evaluation of organizational interventions can be researched in a way that maximizes both practical and scientific impact.

Cost-Effectiveness of a Problem-Solving Intervention Aimed to Prevent Sickness Absence among Employees with Common Mental Disorders or Occupational Stress.

The cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness of a work-directed intervention implemented by the occupational health service (OHS) for employees with common mental disorders (CMD) or stress related problems at work were investigated. The economic evaluation was conducted in a two-armed clustered RCT. Employees received either a problem-solving based intervention (PSI; n = 41) or care as usual (CAU; n = 59). Both were work-directed interventions. Data regarding sickness absence and production loss at work was gathered during a one-year follow-up. Bootstrap techniques were used to conduct a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) and a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) from both an employer and societal perspective. Intervention costs were lower for PSI than CAU. Costs for long-term sickness absence were higher for CAU, whereas costs for short-term sickness absence and production loss at work were higher for PSI. Mainly due to these costs, PSI was not cost-effective from the employer's perspective. However, PSI was cost-beneficial from a societal perspective. CEA showed that a one-day reduction of long-term sickness absence costed on average €101 for PSI, a cost that primarily was borne by the employer. PSI reduced the socio-economic burden compared to CAU and could be recommended to policy makers. However, reduced long-term sickness absence, i.e., increased work attendance, was accompanied by employees perceiving higher levels of production loss at work and thus increased the cost for employers. This partly explains why an effective intervention was not cost-effective from the employer's perspective. Hence, additional adjustments and/or support at the workplace might be needed for reducing the loss of production at work.

Preventing sickness absence among employees with common mental disorders or stress-related symptoms at work: a cluster randomised controlled trial of a problem-solving-based intervention conducted by the Occupational Health Services.

OBJECTIVES: Common mental disorders (CMDs) are among the main causes of sickness absence and can lead to suffering and high costs for individuals, employers and the society. The occupational health service (OHS) can offer work-directed interventions to support employers and employees. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect on sickness absence and health of a work-directed intervention given by the OHS to employees with CMDs or stress-related symptoms. METHODS: Randomisation was conducted at the OHS consultant level and each consultant was allocated into either giving a brief problem-solving intervention (PSI) or care as usual (CAU). The study group consisted of 100 employees with stress symptoms or CMDs. PSI was highly structured and used a participatory approach, involving both the employee and the employee's manager. CAU was also work-directed but not based on the same theoretical concepts as PSI. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, at 6 and at 12 months. Primary outcome was registered sickness absence during the 1-year follow-up period. Among the secondary outcomes were self-registered sickness absence, return to work (RTW) and mental health. RESULTS: A statistical interaction for group × time was found on the primary outcome (p=0.033) and PSI had almost 15 days less sickness absence during follow-up compared with CAU. Concerning the secondary outcomes, PSI showed an earlier partial RTW and the mental health improved in both groups without significant group differences. CONCLUSION: PSI was effective in reducing sickness absence which was the primary outcome in this study.

A Piece of the Boardroom Pie-An Interview Study Exploring What Drives Swedish Corporate Boards' Engagement in Occupational Health and Safety.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate why boards of directors engage in occupational health and safety (OHS) and what influences their level of engagement. METHODS: Thirty-four board members and chief executive officers at large companies from the manufacturing, construction, trade, and health/social care sectors were interviewed. An inductive thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Five drivers organized along a continuum explain why boards engage: legal compliance, untoward events, external expectations/regulations, business drivers, and moral values. Certain factors influence the level of engagement: board's OHS competence, owner's agenda, and competing needs. CONCLUSIONS: Boards continuously prioritize among multiple foci. If a board's total engagement is likened to a pie, the size of the OHS slice will depend on the drivers, as well as on the influencing factors. We suggest that even boards with many drivers can down-prioritize OHS under certain conditions.

Evaluation of iLead, a generic implementation leadership intervention: mixed-method preintervention-postintervention design.

OBJECTIVES: The present study aimed to evaluate the iLead intervention and to investigate whether or not transfer of training can be supported by contextualising the intervention (recruiting all managers from one branch of the organisation while focusing on one implementation case, as well as training senior management). DESIGN: A pre-evaluation-postevaluation design was applied using mixed methods with process and effect surveys and interviews to measure the effects on three levels. SETTING: Healthcare managers from Stockholm's regional healthcare organisation were invited to the training. PARTICIPANTS: 52 managers participated in the iLead intervention. Group 1 consisted of 21 managers from different organisations and with different implementation cases. Group 2, representing the contextualised group, consisted of 31 managers from the same organisation, working on the same implementation case, where senior management also received training. INTERVENTION: iLead is an intervention where healthcare managers are trained in implementation leadership based on the full-range leadership model. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Reactions, knowledge and implementation leadership are measured. RESULTS: Quantitative and qualitative analyses indicate that iLead was perceived to be of high quality and capable of increasing participants' knowledge. Mixed effects were found regarding changes in behaviours. The contextualisation did not have a boosting effect on behaviour change. Hence, group 2 did not increase its active implementation leadership in comparison with group 1. CONCLUSIONS: iLead introduces a new approach to how implementation leadership can be trained when knowledge of effective leadership for implementations is combined with findings on the importance of environmental factors for the transfer of training. Even though managers reported general positive effects, transfer was not facilitated through the contextualisation of the intervention. There is a need to further develop approaches to help participants subsequently apply the learnt skills in their work environment.

Implementation of the Swedish Guideline for Prevention of Mental ill-health at the Workplace: study protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial, using multifaceted implementation strategies in schools.

BACKGROUND: Given today's high prevalence of common mental disorders and related sick leave among teachers, an urgent need exists for a more systematic approach to the management of social and organizational risk factors within schools. In 2015, we launched the first Swedish occupational health guideline to support a structured prevention of these risks at the workplace. The existence of guidelines does however not guarantee their usage, as studies show that guidelines are often underused. Knowledge is therefore needed on effective implementation strategies that can facilitate the translation of guidelines into practice. The primary aim of the randomized waiting list-controlled trial described in this study protocol is to compare the effectiveness of a multifaceted implementation strategy versus a single implementation strategy for implementing the Guideline for the prevention of mental ill-health at the workplace within schools. The effectiveness will be compared regarding the extent to which the recommendations are implemented (implementation effectiveness) and with regard to social and organisational risk factors for mental ill-health, absenteeism and presenteeism (intervention effectiveness). METHODS: The trial is conducted among primary schools of two municipalities in Sweden. The single implementation strategy is an educational strategy (an educational meeting). The multifaceted strategy consists of the educational meeting, an implementation team and a series of workshops. The outcome measure of implementation effectiveness is guideline adherence. The primary outcome of intervention effectiveness is exhaustion. Secondary outcomes include demands at work, work organization and job contents, interpersonal relations and leadership, presenteeism, work performance, recovery, work-life balance, work-engagement, self-reported stress, self-perceived health, sickness absence and psychosocial safety climate. Process outcomes as well as barriers and facilitators influencing the implementation process are assessed. Data will be collected at baseline, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months by mixed methods (i.e. survey, focus-group interviews, observation). DISCUSSION: The study described in this protocol will provide valuable knowledge on the effectiveness of implementation strategies for implementing a guideline for the prevention of common mental disorders within schools. We hypothesize that successful implementation will result in reductions in school personnel's perceived social and organizational risk factors, mental ill-health and sick-leave. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03322839 (trial registration: 09/19/2017).

A randomised study of leadership interventions for healthcare managers.

Purpose The purpose of this paper was to assess two different leader development interventions by comparing their effects on leadership behaviour and evaluating their combined impact after two years, from the viewpoints of both the participating managers and external raters. Design/methodology/approach The study was a longitudinal randomised controlled trial with a cross-over design. Health care managers ( n = 177) were first randomised to either of two 10-month interventions and a year later were switched to the other intervention. Leadership behaviour was rated at pre-test and 12 and 24 months by participating managers and their superiors, colleagues and subordinates using a 360-degree instrument. Analysis of variance and multilevel regression analysis was performed. Findings No difference in effect on leadership behaviour was found between the two interventions. The evaluation of the combined effect of the interventions on leadership behaviour showed inconsistent (i.e. both increased and decreased) ratings by the various rater sources. Practical implications This study provides some evidence that participation in leadership development programmes can improve managers' leadership behaviours, but the results also highlight the interpretive challenges connected with using a 360-degree instrument to evaluate such development. Originality/value The longitudinal randomised controlled design and the large sample comprising both managers and external raters make this study unusually rigorous in the field of leadership development evaluations.

iLead-a transformational leadership intervention to train healthcare managers' implementation leadership.

BACKGROUND: Leadership is a key feature in implementation efforts, which is highlighted in most implementation frameworks. However, in studying leadership and implementation, only few studies rely on established leadership theory, which makes it difficult to draw conclusions regarding what kinds of leadership managers should perform and under what circumstances. In industrial and organizational psychology, transformational leadership and contingent reward have been identified as effective leadership styles for facilitating change processes, and these styles map well onto the behaviors identified in implementation research. However, it has been questioned whether these general leadership styles are sufficient to foster specific results; it has therefore been suggested that the leadership should be specific to the domain of interest, e.g., implementation. To this end, an intervention specifically involving leadership, which we call implementation leadership, is developed and tested in this project. The aim of the intervention is to increase healthcare managers' generic implementation leadership skills, which they can use for any implementation efforts in the future. METHODS/DESIGN: The intervention is conducted in healthcare in Stockholm County, Sweden, where first- and second-line managers were invited to participate. Two intervention groups are included, including 52 managers. Intervention group 1 consists of individual managers, and group 2 of managers from one division. A control group of 39 managers is additionally included. The intervention consists of five half-day workshops aiming at increasing the managers' implementation leadership, which is the primary outcome of this intervention. The intervention will be evaluated through a mixed-methods approach. A pre- and post-design applying questionnaires at three time points (pre-, directly after the intervention, and 6 months post-intervention) will be used, in addition to process evaluation questionnaires related to each workshop. In addition, interviews will be conducted over time to evaluate the intervention. DISCUSSION: The proposed intervention represents a novel contribution to the implementation literature, being the first to focus on strengthening healthcare managers' generic skills in implementation leadership.

Healthcare managers' leadership profiles in relation to perceptions of work stressors and stress.

Purpose The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between leadership profiles and differences in managers' own levels of work stress symptoms and perceptions of work stressors causing stress. Design/methodology/approach Cross-sectional data were used. Healthcare managers ( n = 188) rated three dimensions of their leadership behavior and levels of work stressors and stress. Hierarchical cluster analysis was performed to identify leadership profiles based on leadership behaviors. Differences in stress-related outcomes between profiles were assessed using one-way analysis of variance. Findings Four distinct clusters of leadership profiles were found. They discriminated in perception of work stressors and stress: the profile distinguished by the lowest mean in all behavior dimensions, exhibited a pattern with significantly more negative ratings compared to the other profiles. Practical implications This paper proposes that leadership profile is an individual factor involved in the stress process, including work stressors and stress, which may inform targeted health promoting interventions for healthcare managers. Originality/value This is the first study to investigate the relationship between leadership profiles and work stressors and stress in healthcare managers.

The mediating role of demand and control in the relationship between leadership behaviour and employee distress: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between leadership and employee distress is well established, however, the processes involved in this relationship remain largely unclear. For a stretched nursing workforce, understanding in what ways leadership may influence employee distress is particularly important. OBJECTIVES: To examine possible mediating effects of the work environment factors demand and control in the relationship between leadership behaviour in change, production, and employee orientation and employee distress. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study design. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a large county council in Sweden providing both institutional and non-institutional care. PARTICIPANTS: A random sample of 1249 employees (primarily nurses, but also a wide range of other healthcare professionals and administrative staff), who had a healthcare manager that was about to enter a leadership development programme (n=171), responded to a web-based questionnaire. The response rate was 62%. METHODS: The employees rated their healthcare managers' behaviour in change, production, and employee orientation, as well as their own perceptions of level of demand, control (subdivided into decision authority and skill discretion), and five distress outcomes. Multilevel analysis was performed. RESULTS: The mediators demand, decision authority, and skill discretion were significant predictors of all five distress outcomes for all three leadership orientations. In eight of 15 regressions, the mediators fully explained the relationships between leadership orientations and outcomes. Four of five relationships with distress outcomes were fully mediated for change-oriented leadership, whereas two of five outcomes were fully mediated for production- and employee-oriented leadership. In all three leadership orientations, the relationship between the mediator skill discretion and the distress measure disengagement were particularly strong, with B-coefficients (-.44, p<.001) twice as high as for any of the other relationships. CONCLUSIONS: It seems that the way that employees perceive healthcare managers' change-oriented behaviour, and how that aspect is related to employee distress, is primarily explained by perception of demand and control. Furthermore, regardless of leadership behaviour orientation, how employees perceive their opportunity to use specific job skills plays an important role in the interplay between perception of healthcare managers' behaviour and disengagement.

Leader personality and 360-degree assessments of leader behavior.

To investigate the relationship between personality and multi-source feedback, we assessed 190 health care managers by applying the Understanding Personal Potential personality test, which provides comprehensive measurement of the Big Five dimensions and eight narrower personality traits. Managers' leadership behaviors were assessed by colleagues, supervisors, a random sample of each manager's subordinates as well as the managers themselves using a 360-degree change, production, employee (CPE) instrument. Hierarchical multivariate regression analysis showed that the Big Five variables were significantly related to the Managers' leadership behavior in all CPE dimensions. Also, addition of narrow personality variables to the Big Five increased explained variance in leadership behavior. This study is the first of its kind to include the full range of viewpoints in a 360-degree instrument, along with a large number of subordinate assessments. We found that both the strength of the relationship between personality and behavior and the configuration of different predictors varied depending on who did the rating and what leadership orientation was investigated, and this observation merits further investigation.