Skip to main content

Participatory Intervention from an Organizational Perspective: Employees as Active Agents in Creating a Healthy Work Environment

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Salutogenic organizations and change

Abstract

While organizational level interventions are generally recommended and the interest in conducting such interventions is increasing, few descriptions of how researchers may develop and implement such interventions exist. In this book chapter we present the PIOP (Participatory Interventions from an Organizational Perspective) approach. It is an intervention framework that aims to improve employee well-being through changes in the way work is designed, organized and managed. Building on the job demands-resources model, and cognitive appraisal, conservation of resources, job crafting, and fit theories, an approach has been developed that focuses on building employees’ resources through participatory processes. In this chapter, we describe the five phases in the PIOP approach and describe how participation is ensured in each phase. The five phases comprise: Initiation, screening, action planning, implementation and evaluation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    A similar approach to questionnaire development has been presented in reports commissioned by the UK Health and Safety Executive (Cox et al. 2002; Cox and Rial-Gonzalez 2000).

  2. 2.

    Our reason for calculating odds ratios on departmental and not team data is because team size in our case was far too small to enable this type of analysis.

  3. 3.

    Kaizen boards are a tool used in LEAN management to track progress of problem solving and improvement efforts. Reported issues are written on labels and placed on the board in a circular track of fields labeled “plan” (how to solve the problem), “do” (implement the plan), “check” (if the plan have the intended effect), “act” (upon the result). This Kaizen method (plan, do, check, and act) is thus a means of visualizing and tracking problem solving efforts in the workplace.

References

  • Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, J. M., Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2010). Perceiving and responding to challenges in job crafting at different ranks: When proactivity requires adaptivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 158–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biron, C., Gatrell, C., & Cooper, C. L. (2010). Autopsy of a failure. Evaluating process and contextual issues in an organizational-level work stress intervention. International Journal of Stress Management, 17(2), 135–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, T., & Rial-Gonzalez, E. (2000). Risk management, psychosocial hazards and work stress. Copenhagen: World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, T., Randall, R., & Griffiths, A. (2002). Interventions to control stress at work in hospital staff. Sudbury: HSE Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 834–848.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl-Jørgensen, C., & Saksvik, P. Ø. (2005). The impact of two organizational interventions on the health of service sector workers. International Journal of Health Services, 35(3), 529–549.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, K., Harris, C., & Briner, R. (2004). Linking work conditions to unpleasant affect: Cognition, categorization and goals. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 343–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, K., Hartley, R., & Travers, C. J. (2006). Beliefs about stressors alter stressors’ impact: Evidence from two experience-sampling methods. Human Relations, 59(9), 1261–1285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, K., Karanika-Murray, M., Mellor, N., & van Veldhoven, M. (2012). Moving policy and practice forward: Beyond descriptions of job characteristics. In C. Biron, M. Karanika-Murray, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Improving organizational interventions on stress and well-being: Addressing process and context. London: Psychology Press, pp. 313–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewe, P. (1989). Examining the nature of work stress: Individual evaluations of stressful experiences and coping. Human Relations, 42, 993–1013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and proactive perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 3, 273–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, C., Daniels, K., & Briner, R. (2002). Using cognitive mapping for psychosocial risk assessment. Risk Management: An International Journal, 4, 7–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasson, H., Gilbert-Ouimet, M., Baril-Gingras, G., Brisson, C., Vézina, M., Bourbonnais, R., & Montreuil, S. (2012). Implementation of an organizational-level intervention on the psychosocial environment of work. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 54(1), 85–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hellgren, J., Sverke, M., & Isaksson, K. (1999). A two-dimensional approach to job insecurity. Consequences for employee attitudes and well-being. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 179–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Imai, M. (1986). Kaizen: The key to Japan’s competitive success. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, J. M., & Munz, D. C. (2006). Combining individual and organizational stress interventions. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 58(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kompier, M. (2004). Work organization interventions. Sozial- und Präventivmedizin, 49, 77–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kompier, M., Geurts, S., Grundemann, R., Vink, P., & Smulders, P. (1998). Cases in stress prevention: The success of a participative and stepwise approach. Stress Medicine, 14, 155–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kompier, M. A. J., & Kristensen, T. S. (2001). Organizational work stress interventions in a theoretical, methodological and practical context. In J. Dunham (Ed.), Stress in the workplace: Past, present and future (1st ed., pp. 164–190). London: Whurr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristensen, T. S., Borritz, M., Villadsen, E., & Christensen, K. B. (2005). The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory: A new tool for the assessment of burnout. Work and Stress, 19(3), 192–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristof-Brown, A. L., & Guay, R. P. (2011). Person-environment fit. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 3–50). Washington, DC: APA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landsbergis, P., & Vivona-Vaughan, E. (1995). Evaluation of an occupational stress intervention in a public agency. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 29–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1992). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, L. R., & Sauter, S. L. (2004). Work organization interventions: State of knowledge and future directions. Sozial Praventivmedizin, 49, 79–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, K., & Abildgaard, J. S. (2012). The validation of a job crafting measure for blue collar workers. Work and Stress, 26(4), 365–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, K., & Randall, R. (2012a). Opening the black box: A framework for evaluating organizational-level occupational health interventions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2012.690556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, K., & Randall, R. (2012b). The importance of employee participation and perception of changes in procedures in a teamworking intervention. Work and Stress, 29(91), 111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, K., Fredslund, H., Christensen, K. B., & Albertsen, K. (2006). Success or failure? Interpreting and understanding the impact of interventions in four similar worksites. Work and Stress, 20(3), 272–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, K., Randall, R., & Christensen, K. B. (2010a). Does training managers enhance the effects of implementing teamworking? A longitudinal, mixed methods field study. Human Relations, 63(11), 1719–1741.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, K., Randall, R., Holten, A. L., & González, E. R. (2010b). Conducting organizational-level occupational health interventions: What works? Work and Stress, 24(3), 234–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, K., Taris, T. W., & Cox, T. (2010c). The future of organizational interventions: Addressing the challenges of today’s organizations. Work and Stress, 24(3), 219–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randall, R., & Nielsen, K. (2012). Does the intervention fit? An explanatory model of intervention success or failure in complex organizational environments. In C. Biron, M. Karanika-Murray, & C. Cooper (Eds.), Improving organizational interventions for stress and well-being. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randall, R., Nielsen, K., & Tvedt, S. D. (2009). The development of scales to measure participants’ appraisals of organizational-level stress management interventions. Work and Stress, 23, 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tims, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Job crafting: Towards a new model of individual job redesign. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36, 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179–201.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karina Nielsen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nielsen, K., Stage, M., Abildgaard, J.S., Brauer, C.V. (2013). Participatory Intervention from an Organizational Perspective: Employees as Active Agents in Creating a Healthy Work Environment. In: Bauer, G., Jenny, G. (eds) Salutogenic organizations and change. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6470-5_18

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics