The paper describes the study design, research questions and methods of a large, international intervention project aimed at improving employee mental health and well-being in SMEs and public organisations. The study is innovative in multiple ways. First, it goes beyond the current debate on whether individual- or organisational-level interventions are most effective in improving employee health and well-being and tests the cumulative effects of multilevel interventions, that is, interventions addressing individual, group, leader and organisational levels. Second, it tailors its interventions to address the aftermaths of the Covid-19 pandemic and develop suitable multilevel interventions for dealing with new ways of working. Third, it uses realist evaluation to explore and identify the working ingredients of and the conditions required for each level of intervention, and their outcomes. Finally, an economic evaluation will assess both the cost-effectiveness analysis and the affordability of the interventions from the employer perspective. The study integrates the training transfer and the organisational process evaluation literature to develop toolkits helping end-users to promote mental health and well-being in the workplace.

This paper analyzes the impact of job resources on academic productivity measured by publication and credit points in 53 departments in one large Norwegian university. The theoretical framework is the so-called conservation of resources theory. The resources data came from the so-called ARK Intervention Program. The results showed that engagement and administrative and technical support for research and teaching stimulated research publications but had adverse effects on credit points from teaching, thus also contributing to the research-teaching nexus debate. To avoid adverse trade-offs between research and teaching, and to gain further positive effects on research productivity, targeted means and reward structures seem important.

Underpinned by the Healthy Universities settings concept, this paper presents a holistic intervention approach, called ARK, to improve the health and well-being of academic staff. ARK (a Norwegian acronym for work environment and climate study) has been conducted in 18 universities and university colleges in Norway. The survey has collected information on employees’ perceptions of the psychosocial work environment, well-being, and health from over 15,000 respondents. Further, it has provided valuable information and experiences on organizational development processes on how to successfully implement a health-promoting intervention programme. The aim of this paper is to present the ARK project and provide suggestions on how to conduct a health-promoting intervention programme in a university setting based on the experience and knowledge acquired from ARK. This understanding can inform and inspire the planning of future Health Promoting University initiatives to meet the distinctive needs of its employees.

The aim of the paper is to discuss the role of the line manager in implementing to plan, implement and evaluate successful organizational interventions using our experiences from the ARK-program. Earlier literature has shown that line managers have a major influence on an intervention’s outcomes (Nielsen, 2017; Saksvik, Nytrø, Dahl-Jørgensen, & Mikkelsen, 2002), however, there is a lack of knowledge about the managements’ role throughout the entire intervention process and how line managers are influenced by the context at different levels. We therefore discuss the line managers’ role within the five phase cycle of an organizational intervention, including preparation, screening, action planning, implementation and evaluation. We also introduce a more in-depth understanding of the context by using of the IGLO-model (Individual, Group, Leadership and Organizational level). Based on our knowledge and experience from the ARK-program we make some recommendations for (a) what the line managers need throughout the five phases in order to contribute to a successful intervention, and (b) on what the line manager has to provide in order to develop and implement a successful intervention process.

After the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, many employees were suddenly required to work more from home. Previous literature on working from home may not be applicable to this mandatory and overall change. In this study, we drew on the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model to explore the relationships between job demands (workload and work–home conflict) as well as resources (support from leaders, coworkers, and the family) and wellbeing (burnout and work engagement) in employees who still went to the workplace (no-change group) and employees who transitioned into working from home (change group) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were analyzed with multivariate structural equation modeling. The results indicate that work–home conflict was detrimental for employee wellbeing in both groups. Interestingly, the workload seems to contribute to work engagement for employees who worked from home. Regarding the resources, the three different sources of social support, leaders, coworkers, and family, were all related to employee wellbeing, but in different ways. It seemed that family support was most important for employees’ wellbeing in the change group. This study presents implications for the wellbeing of employees in both the change and no-change group during the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing the importance of family-friendly policies.