Maria Karanika-Murray, Dimitra Gkiontsi and Thom Baguley
Although visible leader support is an essential ingredient for successful organizational health interventions, knowledge on how leaders at different hierarchical levels engage…
Abstract
Purpose
Although visible leader support is an essential ingredient for successful organizational health interventions, knowledge on how leaders at different hierarchical levels engage with interventions is underdeveloped. The purpose of this paper is to explore leader engagement by drawing from the experiences of the intervention team.
Design/methodology/approach
Data from semi-structured interviews with the team responsible for implementing an organizational health intervention in two large UK organizations were used to examine how leaders at strategic (senior management) and operational (line managers) positions engaged with the intervention.
Findings
Thematic analysis uncovered 6 themes and 16 sub-themes covering the leaders’ initial reactions to the intervention, barriers to leader engagement, ways in which the intervention team dealt with these barriers, factors facilitating and factors accelerating leader engagement, and differences in engagement between leadership levels.
Research limitations/implications
This study can inform research into the conditions for optimizing leader engagement in organizational health interventions and beyond. Insights also emerged on the roles of leaders at different hierarchical levels and the value of perspective taking for intervention implementation.
Practical implications
Recommendations for bolstering the engagement of leaders in interventions are offered, that apply to all leaders or separately to leaders at strategic or operational levels.
Originality/value
The experiences of the intervention team who sought to engage leaders at different organizational levels to support the intervention are invaluable. Understanding how leader engagement can be maximized can better equip intervention teams for delivering successful interventions.
Details
Keywords
Jennifer K. Parkin, Simon A. Austin, James A. Pinder, Thom S. Baguley and Simon N. Allenby
The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the effectiveness of two different academic office environments in supporting collaboration and privacy.
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the effectiveness of two different academic office environments in supporting collaboration and privacy.
Design/methodology/approach
The approach takes the form of case studies involving post‐occupancy questionnaire surveys of academic occupants.
Findings
The combi‐office design was found to be associated with higher levels of occupant satisfaction than the open‐plan office design, with respect to support for collaboration and privacy.
Research limitations/implications
The findings highlight the importance of understanding user requirements and the role of office space as a cognitive resource.
Practical implications
Designers should consider the default location of occupants when designing academic and other creative workspaces.
Social implications
Academic creativity and innovation are seen to be important for society. However, there needs to be a better understanding of how to support this through workspace design.
Originality/value
This study contributes to the small but growing body of research on academic office design and creative workspaces in general.