Scandinavian

Volume 1, Issue 1
Våren 2009

Journal
Utgitt av NOS. Norsk organisasjonspsykologisk selskap.

of organizational psychology
2

Kjære leser
Da var det endelig klart for et nytt nummer av
Scandinavian Journal of Organizational Psychology
(SJOP). Det er nå ca. 3 år siden sist nummer ble utgitt,
og siden den tid har mye skjedd med både tidsskriftet
og Norsk Organisasjonspsykologisk Selskap (NOS).
Lenge har det derfor vært et sterkt ønske om å få dette
tidsskriftet opp og gå igjen – det er jo tross alt det
eneste tidsskriftet i Skandinavia som er tilegnet feltet
organisasjonspsykologi.

Nye krefter
Tidsskriftet har nå fått 6 nye par ben å stå på, og
består av følgende personer: Vilde Bernstrøm, Anette
Kristin Bø Andreassen, Helene Tronstad Moe, Kim
Rand-Hendriksen, Rolf Marvin Bøe Lindgren og
Kjartan Thormodsæter. Sammen skal vi gjøre vårt
ytterste for å drive dette tidsskriftet videre, med det
mål å holde våre lesere oppdatert på hva som skjer
innenfor fagfeltet organisasjonspsykologi.

Hva er nytt?
Tidsskriftet har som mål å være et forum for
problemstillinger innen forskning og praksis, men for
å gjøre oss mer attraktive har vi gjort noen vesentlige
endringer:
1. Den største endringen er at tidsskriftet nå har et
fagfellepanel! Dette var et viktig løft, og vi er nå i
en prosess med å få tidsskriftet godkjent som nivå
1
2. En annen endring er at tidsskriftet nå utkommer
i elektronisk form. Det gjør tidsskriftet lettere
tilgjengelig, samt mye rimeligere å produsere. Det
er ikke dermed sagt at en papirutgave er utenkelig,
Scandinavian Journal Of
men ikke med det første. Nå ønsker vi først og
Organizational Psychology is a
fremst et stabilt tidsskrift
peer-reviewed Open Acces Journal.
3. Vi tar sikte på to utgivelser i året. En rett før
sommeren og en rett før jul
E-mail: sjop@sjop.no
4. Tidsskriftet opererer med en «lett» og en «tung»
del. I den lette omtales alt fra korte innlegg,
Publisher: Norsk
bokanmeldelser til aktuelle hendelser, mens i den
Organisasjonspsykologisk Selskap,
tunge delen finner du vitenskapelige artikler som
http.//www.psykol.org/
er fagfellevurdert
Vi ønsker at SJOP skal ha en bred profil og søker
artikler som tar opp aktuelle tema innenfor
alle psykologiske aspekter relatert til arbeid og
organisasjoner.

God lesing!

Mvh

Kjartan Thormodsæter, Redaktør.


On the Validity of M-SWOT for
Innovation Climate Development
Thomas Hoff1, Ellen Flakke2, Anne-Karin Larsen3,
Jon Anders Lone1, Cato A. Bjørkli1 and Roald A.
Bjørklund1
Abstract
The idea behind M-SWOT is to assess��������������������
the organiza-
tion by way of mapping the participants’ responses
to open and general questions onto specific, research
based models in a particular domain; in this case
innovation climate. The present article attempts to
conceptually validate SWOT by way of providing a
link to the Organizational Climate Measure (OCM),
and to demonstrate discriminatory validity of SWOT
towards other related, but unspecific models (the
Job Characteristics Model (JCM)), based on SWOT
interviews with 15 managers in two highly innova-
tive Norwegian companies. The hypotheses are that
there will be a positive correlation between the OCM
dimensions and the SWOT statements; that the four
quadrants of OCM will cover the SWOT statements
in a particular order, and that more SWOT statements
will be aligned with OCM than JCM. All hypotheses
were confirmed. The results indicate that an M-SWOT
approach to innovation climate development is viable
with respect to the type of content that the SWOT
interviews elicit.
Introduction
The Model Driven SWOT (M-SWOT) has been put
forth as a generic tool for organizational development
(Hoff, 2009). The idea behind M-SWOT is to assess
the organization by way of mapping the participants’
responses to open and general questions (the
SWOT framework; Chermack, 2007) onto specific,
research based models (the ‘M’ of M-SWOT) in a
particular domain, such as e.g. organizational change,
safety climate, psychosocial work environment, or
innovation climate. The specific procedure is to ask
respondents four open ended questions about their
conception of the topic at hand (e.g. team climate)
in their organization: ‘What are the strengths
[weaknesses] [opportunities] [threats] regarding
the innovation climate [safety culture] [work
environment] [diagnostic communication] [team
work] in your organization?’. Meaningful statements
1
Department of Psychology, University of Oslo
2
Department of Leadership and Strategy, University of
Southern Denmark
3
Mercuri Urval, Norway
3
are then extracted from the
transcriptions of the interviews
and classified according to
established, research based
models of the domain. This
provides a diagnostic tool
that informs the researcher or
consultant about the relation
between the actual descriptive
reflections of the employees
of the organization on the
one hand, and the normative Thomas Hoff
content of the research based
model on the other.
The classical approach of
researchers or consultants
would be to use a survey
intended to capture the
dimensions of a model. The
downside of this approach
is that the items of the
survey act as a cue to the
dimensions that it measures Anne-Karin Larsen
(i.e recognition as opposed to
recollection), and that it only
measures pre-specified categories that might or might
not be relevant to the context that is being studied.
The fundamental difference between M-SWOT and
the classical approach is that the former is based on
un-assisted reflection (no content related cues are
given to the subject – only broad, generic questions
that is designed to keep the conversation between
the interviewer and interviewee flowing), and that
it does not presuppose any dimensions up front. In
an organization development process, the M-SWOT
might give the client an opportunity to reflect on
why only a proportion of the statements in the
organization fit established models. For example,
why do the employees in a particular safety intensive
organization reflect a lot about e.g. trust, but fails
to talk about e.g. closed loop communication? And
furthermore, why do the employees talk about issues
that are outside of research based models? Are there
particular issues to the particular domain that are
important for the particular organization, but that are
outside the scope of the general model? What are the
implications of this for the organization at hand?
Whether the M-SWOT is really a ‘generic’ tool
for organizational development, is an empirical
question. For each domain, one needs to establish a
correspondence between the SWOT interviews and
4
the domain model at hand, i.e. whether the SWOT1
interviews are sensitive to established models within
the domain. For instance, if a company with high
safety records were interviewed by way of SWOT, and
very few of the statements derived from the interviews
were possible to map onto an established safety model
(such as e.g. Flin et al, 2000), then the M-SWOT
would probably not be an appropriate tool for safety
climate development (at least if it could be established
that the safety records were due to a good safety
climate, and not due to some other, random factor).
To establish a positive correspondence between the
SWOT interview and the domain model is necessary,
but not sufficient, to theoretically validate the use
of M-SWOT in a given domain. In addition, one
should be able to demonstrate discriminatory validity,
i.e. that other related but unspecific models are not
equally related to the SWOT analysis as the specific
model is. As an example, SWOT should be sensitive
towards a safety specific model when respondents are
asked about the safety climate of the organization in
a SWOT structured interview. If one maps these data
onto an unspecific model, such as e.g. service climate,
then this unspecific model should not be equally
related to the SWOT analysis as the specific model is.
The aim of the present study is to investigate
whether there could be established a positive link
between SWOT interviews and a specific, research
based model within the domain of innovation climate.
In addition, it aims to investigate the discriminatory
validity of SWOT interviews,by exploring the extent
to which a related, but unspecific model is equally
related as the specific model or not.
Innovation climate measure
Innovation is, according to West and Farr (1990)
‘the intentional introduction and application within
a role, group, or organization of ideas, processes,
products, or procedures new to the relevant unit
of adoption, designed to significantly benefit the
individual, the group, organization, or wider society’.
In this respect, innovation includes creativity, i.e. the
production of novel and useful ideas, but extends also
to the implementation of these creative ideas into the
organization.
In order to be innovative, i.e. to be able to
implement novel ideas in order to gain a competitive
advantage, the organization should be organized in a
1
In this paper ‘SWOT’ refer to the process of
asking respondent about Strenghts, Weaknesses,
Opportunities and Threats. M-SWOT refer to the
organization development tool that involves mapping
SWOT statements onto established research-based
models as a critical step.
way that facilitates innovative practices, rather than
inhibiting them. In particular, it has been argued that
the organizational climate is a key factor explaining
the innovation capacity of the firm (Amabile, Conti,
Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996; Kanter, 1983;
Patterson et al., 2005). Organizational climate was
defined by Forehand and von Haller Gilmer (1964)
as ‘”… the set of characteristics that describe an
organization and that (a) distinguish the organization
from other organizations, (b) are relatively enduring
over time, and (c) influence the behavior of people in
the organization.’. Innovation climate refers to those
aspects of the organizational climate that either a)
supports innovative practices (so called ‘stimulants’
or ‘supports’), or b) inhibits innovative practices (so
called ‘obstacles’ or ‘impediments’).
The organizational climate measure (OCM) is a
multidimensional measurement for organizational
climate (Patterson et al., 2005). It is organized along
two fundamental dimensions, flexibility versus control
and internal versus external orientation; and thus four
separate and, to some extent, competing models or
quadrants. The four models are derived from Quinn
& Rohrbaugh’s Competing Values Model, (1983).
The Internal Process Model reflects a Tayloristic
concern with formalization and internal control of
the system in order that resources are efficiently used
(Ibid). The Open Systems Model emphasizes the
interaction and adaptation of the organization in its
environment, with managers seeking resources and
innovating in response to environmental (or market)
demands (Shipper &White, 1983). The Rational
Goal Model reflects a rational economic model of
organizational functioning in which the emphasis is
upon productivity and goal achievement (Hall, 1980;
Clinebell, 1984). The Human Relations Model reflects
the tradition derived from the socio-technical (Emery
& Trist, 1965) and human relations schools (e.g.,
McGregor, 1960). This approach emphasizes the well-
being, growth and commitment of the community of
workers within an organization. For a full description
of OCM, see Patterson et al., (2005)
How does these categories relate to innovation
climate? Theoretically, one would expect the Open
Systems Model to be related to innovation climate,
as it emphasizes flexibility and change as means to
stay in touch with a changing external environment.
However, internal HR practises are also seen as crucial
for developing an innovative climate. For example
West, Hirst, Richter and Shipton (2004) lists the
following qualities as central for innovation: Team
task design (relates to autonomy in OCM); Learning
and development climate (relates to emphasise on
training in OCM); Encouragement of reflexivity in

teams (relates partly to autonomy, and partly to
participation in OCM), Communication (relates
to communication and integration in OCM), and
Leadership supportive for innovation (relates to
supervisory support in OCM).
The Rational Goal Model is to some extent related to
innovation, primarily goal setting on team level (West,
2002), effort (how hard people try to achieve goals),
efficiency (being reflexive on the difference between
what one is actually doing in relation to the goal of
the organization or work group), and performance
feedback (also related to the alignment of work and
goals). On the other hand, the dimensions quality (the
emphasis given to quality procedures) and pressure
to produce are impediments to innovation climate
practices.
The Internal Process Model consists of the
dimensions formalization (a concern with formal rules
and procedures) and tradition (the extent to which
established ways of doing things are valued), both
impediments to innovative practice.
Hence, the four competing models in OCM is
predicted to load on SWOT innovation data in the
following order 1) Open Systems model, 2) Human
Relations model, 3) Rational Goals model, and 4)
Internal Process model.
Related, unspecific model
A related classification system for human behaviour
in organizations is the Job Characteristic Model
(JCM) (Hackman and Oldham, 1977). However, the
classification system is not specific for innovation or
innovation climate. In JCM Skill variety involves the
degree to which a job requires a variety of different
activities in carrying out work, which involve the
use of a number of different skills and talents of the
person. Task identity involves the degree to which the
job requires completion of a “whole” and identifiable
piece of work; that is, doing a job from beginning to
end with a visible outcome. Task significance involves
the degree to which the job has a substantial impact
on the lives or work of other people, whether in the
immediate organization or in the external environment.
Autonomy involves the degree to which the job provides
substantial freedom, independence, and discretion to the
individual in scheduling the work and in determining
the procedures to be used in carrying it out. Feedback
involves the degree to which carrying out the work
activities required by the job results in the individual
obtaining direct and clear information about the
effectiveness of his or her performance.
The JCM is predicted to be related to
innovation, but not to the extent of OCM,
because it is not directly geared towards
5
innovation and innovation climate.
Hypotheses
There are two separate questions the current article
aims to pursue. The first (hypothesis 1 and 2) relates
to the degree M-SWOT is sensitive to the innovation
climate domain, which would imply a conceptual
validation of the M-SWOT in the domain of
innovation climate. The second question relates to the
degree M-SWOT is discriminant, i.e. that it captures
aspects that does not necessarily fit into any random
model.
As for the former question, we expect a positive
link between SWOT interviews and a specific, research
based model (OCM):
Hypotesis 1: There is a positive correlation
between the OCM dimensions and the SWOT
statements.
In addition, we would expect that the largest
number of those statements that fit within the OCM,
will be belong to the Open Systems quadrant of OCM
(the quadrant most related to innovation), that the
second largest number will be within the Human
Relations quadrant, that the third largest number will
be within the Rational goal quadrant, and that the
smallest number will be within the Internal Process
quadrant. This expectation is based on the respective
degree of stimulants versus impediments implied by
the model.
Hypotesis 2: We predict that the SWOT
innovation data will map onto the four
competing models in OCM (in terms of the
number of statements that fit each model) in
the following order, 1) Open Systems model,
2) Human Relations model, 3) Rational Goals
model, and 4) Internal Process model.
As for the latter question (the degree to which the
M-SWOT method is discriminant, i.e. that it captures
aspects related to the specific domain model, but
not any other random, vaguely related model), we
expect that even though JCM is probably related to
innovation climate, it is not directly targeted towards
innovation and innovation climate. Hence, we expect
more SWOT statements to fit OCM than JCM.
Hypotesis 3: More SWOT statements fit OCM
than JCM.
6

OCM quadrants
Not Human Internal Open Rational
included relations process systems goal Total
OCM Not included 91 - - - - 91
dimensions
Autonomy - 13 - - - 13
Integration - 55 - - - 55
Participation - 67 - - - 67
Supervisory - 18 - - - 18
support
Emphasis on - 40 - - - 40
training
Employee welfare - 22 - - - 22
Formalization - - 5 - - 5
Tradition - - 15 - - 15
Flexibility - - - 109 - 109
Outward focus - - - 94 - 94
Reflexivity - - - 22 - 22
Clarity of goals - - - - 27 27
Efficiency - - - - 29 29
Effort - - - - 9 9
Performance - - - - 12 12
feedback
Pressure to - - - - 27 27
produce
Quality - - - - 5 5
Total 91 215 20 225 109 660

Table 1 Distribution of SWOT statements in OCM quadrants and dimensions

Methods of their reputation for being highly innovative within

Organizations and Participants
Two private Norwegian organizations were invited
to participate in the present study. Organization A
encompasses 1200 employees in 22 countries, whereas
Organization B is a somewhat larger company with
7000 employees and comprises a network of 300
offices in 100 countries. Both organizations gave their
consents for participating and ensured free access to
informants. A sample representing each organization
was strategically selected by representatives from
the organizations’ HR departments. The structured
samples comprised informants who could contribute
with personal experience and reflections on present
and future organizational behaviour. All informants
received a written invitation by e-mail making
an inquiry about participation. The sample from
Organization A (n = 7) comprised leaders positioned
in top management, whereas the sample from
Organization B (n = 8) consisted of managers from
a specific mid-level section. All informants from
Organization A were men, whereas six men and two
women comprised the sample from Organization B.
Innovation capacity of company A and B
The two companies were asked to participate because
their field. Company A develops and produces
high tech equipment for the health sector, whereas
company B delivers services within classification and
consulting.
Objective data from the Norwegian part of the
Community Innovation Survey 2006 (a series of
surveys executed by national statistical offices
throughout the European Union as well as some non-
EU countries, see http://www.ssb.no/vis/innov_en/
about.html) verifies the assumption that these two
companies can be viewed as innovative.
Measures
Qualitative interviews of semi-structured character
involved open questions based on the SWOT-format
to obtain information concerning the informants’
reflection on innovation capability. The interview
guide comprised four main questions emphasizing the
SWOT components, primarily encouraging reflection
on the organization’s present strengths and weaknesses
related to innovation, and secondly encouraging
reflection on the organization’s opportunities and
threats concerning future change. Hence, there
were four main questions: ‘What are the strengths
[weaknesses] [opportunities] [threats] regarding the
innovation climate in your organization?’
Additional information was obtained by
 7

JCM S W O T Total Percent

Skill variety 28 3 6 0 37 6%
Task identity 28 8 4 1 41 6%
Task significance 90 17 11 149 23%
Autonomy 50 20 0 86 13%
Feedback 61 11 2 89 13%
Not accounted for 42 13 54 258 39%
Total 299 71 68 660 100%
Table 2: Distribution of SWOT-statements on JCM
encouraging the informants to respond to experience and understanding of the topic of interest,
supplementary questions, such as: “You have namely innovation climate. A statement can involve
mentioned some strengths, are there other strengths a part of a sentence, a whole sentence or several
related to…?”, “Did I get you right when you say sentences, according to this definition.
that…?”, “Could you illustrate this by giving an
example?”, and “Could you specify what you mean Categorization of statements
by…?”. All statements were categorized within one of the four
SWOT categories given the interview’s foundation on
Data Treatment and Analyses the SWOT-format. All statements coded as Strength or
Weakness included the informants’ internal reflections
Transcription on here-and-now conditions related to innovation
The tape-recorded files were transferred to a PC for in re respective organization. Contrastingly, all
transcription using Digital Voice Editor 2. The aim statements categorized as Opportunity or Threat
of transcribing is to get hold of the accurate sense of reflected the informants’ responses regarding the
the information provided, present the informant in future state of the respective organization in relation
a respectful way, and ensure readability. A dilemma to change, and responses directed towards the external
within the social sciences concerns how to make environment in which the respective organization
the interview conversation whole (Kvale, 1997) operates. The SWOT statements were then coded on
and emphasizes ‘the essence of context’ over ‘exact one of the dimensions in OCM and JCM. Statements
phases’ (Flick, 2002). As a result The transcriptions that did not fit into the two models’ dimensions were
were based on the informants’ phrases, and as far as categorized as ‘Not accounted for’.
possible made loyal to the informants (as implied by
Flick, (2002)). Where direct transcriptions did not
make sense editions were made to obtain coherent
language.

Content analysis and defining statements.

Content analysis was applied for reducing the
textual material by counting and classifying the
occurrence of specific statements (Weber, 1990).
A digital program for categorizing and coding
textual data, NVivo version 7, was used to enable
quantification of the qualitative data.
The statements were categorized according to
Holsti’s (1969) argument, namely that statements
should be defined after transcription – as familiarity
with the textual data reduces the chance of
encountering statements that do not match the
categories. A statement was defined as the smallest
meaningful unit that reflects the informant’s
Figure 1. Scatter plot of OCM and SWOT
8
Results
Fit between SWOT and OCM significant difference between Task identity and Task
Of the 660 SWOT statements, 569 (86%) were
aligned with an OCM dimension (M = 37.93, SD =
9.02). The relationship between the number of OCM
and SWOT statements were significantly correlated
(r=.95, p=.000). Figure 1 shows a scatter plot of
the relation between OCM and SWOT for the 15
respondents.
Order of OCM models
225 statements (39,5%) fit the Open Systems Model
(M = 14.93, SD =4.68), 215 statements (37,8%) fit the
Human Relations Model (M = 14.4, SD = 6.12), 109
statements (19,2%) fit the Rational Goal Model (M =
7.27, SD = 4.79), whereas 20 statements (3,5%) fit the
Internal Process Model (M = 1.33, SD = 2.19). Table
1 presents the distribution of SWOT statements in
OCM quadrants and dimensions.
A repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant
main effect of the four OCM models (F = 28,151;
df = 3, 42; p < .001). Effect size measured by Eta
squared was .668. Pairwise post hoc comparisons
indicated a significant difference between Human
Relations and Rational Goal (p = .001), between
Internal Process and Open Systems (p = .001), Internal
Process and Rational Goal (p = .002), and between
Open systems and Rational Goal (p = .001). There
were no difference between Open Systems and Human
Relations (p = .804).
JCM
Out of the total number of SWOT-statements there
were 402 statements which could be coded on the
five dimensions of JCM. Table 2 depicts that out of
the 402 SWOT-statements captured by JCM, there
were altogether 149 (23%) statements captured by
Task significance (M = 9.9, SD = 5.85), followed by
89 (13%) statements captured by Feedback (M = 5.9,
SD = 3.6), 86 (13%) statements were captured by
Autonomy (M = 5.7, SD = 2.8), 41 (6%) statements
were covered by Task identity (M = 2.7, SD = 2.0),
and the remaining 37 (6%) statements were captured
by Skill variety (M = 2.5, SD = 2.1).
Repeated measures ANOVA was conducted
and reveal significant main effect between the five
dimensions comprising JCM, (F = 12.308; df = 4,
56; p < 0.001). The effect size, calculated using eta
squared, was .468. Pairwise post hoc comparisons
indicate significant difference between Skill variety
and Task Significance (p = 0.001), Autonomy (p =
0.007), and Feedback (p = 0.001), respectively. No
significant difference was found between Skill variety
and Task identity (p = 0.724). The findings depict
significance (p = 0.001), Autonomy (p = 0.006),
and Feedback (p = 0.005), respectively. Significant
difference was indicated between Task significance
and Feedback (p = 0.009). No significant difference
was found between Task significance and Autonomy
(p = 0.051), and Autonomy and Feedback (p = 0.873),
respectively.
OCM vs. JCM
569 statements fit OCM (M = 37.93, SD =
9.02, Mdn = 38), whereas 402 statements fit JCM
(M = 26.80, SD = 9.67, Mdn = 23). A nonparametric
direct test of hypothesis 3 revealed 13 positive ranks
(more statements covered by OCM than JCM), 2
negative ranks (more statements covered by JCM than
OCM), and 0 ties. A paired samples t-test revealed t=
-5.24, df = 14, p < .000 (one-tailed), Cohen’s d = 1.18
(classified as high by Cohen, 1988).
Discussion
Hypotesis 1: There is a positive correlation
between the OCM dimensions and the SWOT
statements.
In this study, 86% of statements derived from
open ended SWOT interviews were aligned with a
particular dimension of the Organizational Climate
Measure. The correlation between the two was
statistically significant. This shows that if you perform
an M-SWOT within the domain of innovation
climate, you are likely to derive statements that the
literature deem important, rather than statements
that are irrelevant to the topic at hand. Furthermore,
one might derive statements that are not covered
by e.g. OCM, but that might be important in order
to understand the local situation of a particular
company. In sum, the results support hypothesis 1 of
this study.
Hypotesis 2: We predict that the SWOT
innovation data will map onto the four
competing models in OCM (in terms of the
number of statements that fit each model) in
the following order, 1) Open Systems model,
2) Human Relations model, 3) Rational Goals
model, and 4) Internal Process model.
The four models of OCM represent varying degrees
of importance for innovation climate. It was argued
that the Open Systems Model is the most relevant

model, with the Human Relations Model as the
second most relevant model. Some of the dimensions
of rational goals are important for innovation
climate, whereas the Internal Process Model is seen as
antagonistic of innovation climate. The mapping of
statements onto OCM dimensions in this study is in
line with this assumption: The Open Systems Model
is covered by 225 statements; the Human Relations
Model by 215 statements; the rational goal model
by 109 statements, and the internal process model
by 20 statements. All differences were statistically
significant, except the difference between the Open
Systems Model and the Human Relations Model. In
sum, the results support hypothesis 2 of this study.
Hypotesis 3: More SWOT statements fit OCM
than JCM.
In this study, an attempt was made to map
the SWOT statements onto a related model of
organizational behaviour, but unspecific towards
innovation climate. The reason for this was to
investigate whether the SWOT interviews are
discriminant to the topic at hand: If the SWOT
interviews related to innovation climate are sensitive
towards OCM, but also towards any other general
model, then one cannot trust the SWOT interviews to
really capture what it intends. The results of this study
shows a statistically significant difference between
OCM (559 statements) and the Job Characteristics
Model (402 statements). One might argue that a
surprisingly large number of SWOT statements were
aligned with JCM (402 out of 660 statements), given
that innovation climate was the topic of the interview.
However, one need to take into account that JCM
is deeply rooted in the Norwegian work life; to the
extent that the Norwegian Work Environment Act
has clear traces of the model. Therefore, it is not
necessarily surprising that any discussion of work
and organizational topic will have relevance to this
particular model. Furthermore, several aspects of the
model are clearly in line with theories of innovation
climate, such as task identity, task significance,
autonomy and feedback. In sum, the results support
hypothesis 3 of this study.
Limitations of the present study
The present study is not a validation study in the
predictive sense, because it does not attempt to
establish a relation between a high M-SWOT score
and objective measures of innovation. On the
contrary, it attempts to establish a conceptual relation
between an emprircally validated quantitative survey
instrument, and a qualitative, interview-based tool.
9
Validity here refers to the relation between one
type of measurement and another, and between the
measurements and the conception people at work
have about their own reality.
We have chosen an uncommon type of qualitative
data analysis: Instead of the traditional grounded
theory approach (classifying bottom-up), we
have chosen to use the OCM dimensions as the
classification system (top-down classification). The
strength of this approach is that it makes it easy to
directly assess the relation between the two tools. The
threat (or weakness) is that it might be tempting for
the person carrying out the analysis to establish a fit
between a statement and a dimension according to
the hypothesis of the study, where no such fit is really
present. In the current study, the persons carrying
out the analysis were not aware of the purpose of the
study.
A sufficient inter-rater reliability is also crucial.
We did not carry out such a measure in this study,
but other studies have shown a sufficient inter-
rater reliability for M-SWOT classifications (Hoff,
Straumsheim, Bjørkli and Bjørklund, 2009, This
issue).
The method is very vulnerable to the behaviour of
the interviewer: Any leading questions or other non-
verbal communication that skew the conversation will
compromise the data. The interviewers of the present
study have been specifically trained for M-SWOT
interviewing, with particular emphasis on avoiding to
lead the conversation in a specific direction.
Even if the above issues are dealt with, it is difficult
to completely rule out that there might be systematic
tendencies in the interview setting and data treatment
that might compromise the results.
This study has investigated the discriminatory
validity of the SWOT statements, but it has not
investigated the discriminatory validity of OCM.
There have been studies on the discriminatory validity
of the OCM survey (Patterson et al. 2005), but we do
not know at this point whether this is also the case
for this qualitative type of classification. It could be,
in principle, that the dimensions in OCM are so wide,
that any interview regarding any topic will fit into
the dimensions when qualitative data are scored top-
down.
The issue of generalization of the M-SWOT data
is an important one. Is it so that merely 15 subjects
can generalize to a unit or an entire organization? In
the qualitative methods tradition, the term semantic
saturation refers to the fact that at a certain point
there is no need to collect further data, because
nothing really new appears in the interviews.
However, the M-SWOT has a different type of
10
characteristic, and it is probable
that many more interviews are
needed than specified in the
qualitative methods tradition. This
is an empirical question that has
not currently been answered.
General discussion
The present study confirms that an
M-SWOT approach to innovation
climate development is viable
with respect to the type of content
that the SWOT interviews elicit.
This means that it is conceivable
to use M-SWOT as a tool for
organization development with
respect to innovation climate. The
strengths of the M-SWOT tool
compared to traditional qualitative
methods is that one keep central
features of quantitative methods;
namely the ability to compare
results between organizations or
divisions, and to compare one
or several units over time. It also
offers an opportunity to go beyond
the limitations of the classical
survey approach in important
aspects. The data are ‘unbiased’ in
the respect that they do not build
on pre specified categories that can
act as a cue for the respondents.
As such, the data are simply the
aggregated here-and-now focus
of the interviewees. In addition,
the data are firmly rooted in the
context of a particular organization
or division at a particular point
in time. Furthermore, the data are
flexible in the respect that they
can be analyzed according to any
type of model after the data has
been collected (as opposed to a
survey, where the researcher needs
to perform a new survey for every
model). The data can also be
analyzed according to other types
of taxonomies. For example, to
analyze the data in terms of the
SWOT framework could give the
client vital information about the
relative focus in the organization
on the dimensions here-and-now
versus future (SW vs. OT), positive
versus negative (S vs. W), and
internal versus external (internal
SW vs. external OT). Furthermore,
it might be useful for the client
to analyze the data according
to the organizational level the
data are geared towards, i.e.
Individual-, Team-, Management-
or Organization level (IGLO),
respectively. A combination
of SWOT and IGLO can give
further information. For example
the client might realize that the
management of the organization
only focus on individual threats in
their internal focus, not on threats
related to teams or management.
Based on this type of feedback, the
organization might change its paths
in ways that neither the consultant
might have anticipated beforehand.
The flexibility and the process
focus of the M-SWOT approach
places it firmly in a Lewinian
tradition, where emphasis is placed
on the contextualized information
related to a particular organization
at a particular point in time, in
relation to positivistic traditions
that specify the need of the client
up front.
Whether the M-SWOT tool
actually make the organization
more reflexive on topics that
researchers within organizational
theory deem important, is an
empirical question. Fortunately,
this is methodologically fairly
straight forward, because the
M-SWOT can be conducted for the
same organization or unit at several
points in time, for example before
and after a feedback session. A
control group with only M-SWOT
measurements but no feedback
session can act as a reference.
References
Amabile, T., Conti, R., Coon,
H., Lazenby, J. & Herron,
M. (1996). Assesing the work
environment for creativity
Academy of Management
Journal, 39, 1154-1184.
Clinebell, S. (1984). Organizational
effectiveness: an examination of
recent empirical studies and the
development of a contingency
view. In W. D. Terpening,
& K. R. Thompson (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 27th annual
conference of the Midwest
Academy of Management
(pp. 92–102), Department of
Management, University of
Notre Dame.
Chermack, T. J., & Kasshanna, B.
K. (2007). The use and misuse of
SWOT analysis and implications
for HRD professionals.
Human Resource Development
International, 10(4), 383–399.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power
Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
(second ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Emery, F. E.,& Trist, E. L.
(1965). The causal texture of
organizational environments.
Human Relations, 18, 21–32.
Flick, U. (2002). An Introduction
to Qualitative Research.
London: Sage Publications.
Hackman, R. J., & Oldham, G. R.
(1980). Work Design. Reading,
Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company.
Hall, R. H. (1980). Effectiveness
theory and organizational
effectiveness. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 16, 536–
545.
Hoff, T. (2009). Mapping the
Organizational Climate for
Innovation: Introducing
SWOT as a Process Based
Tool. In Østreng, W. (Ed.):
Confluence. Interdisciplinary
Communications 2007/2008,
Centre for Advanced Study –
Norwegian Academy of Science
and Letters, p.76-80
Hoff, T. Straumsheim, P., Bjørkli
C.A. and Bjørklund, R.A.
(2009/This issue). An External
Validation of Two Psychosocial
Work Environment Surveys – A
SWOT Approach. Scandinavian
 11
Journal of Organizational Psychology. In review
Holsti, O. R., (1969). Content Analysis for the Social
Sciences and Humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Kanter, R.M. (1983). The Change Masters.
Innovation & Entrepreneurship in the American
Corporation. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kvale, S. (1997). Interviev. København: Hans Reitzels
Forlag.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Patterson, M. G., West, M. A., Shackleton, V. J.,
Dawson, J. F., Lawthom, R., Maitlis, S.,
Robinson, D. L., & Wallace, A. M. (2005). Validating
the organizational climate measure: links to
managerial practices, productivity and innovation.
Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 26, 379-408.
Quinn, R.E. & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model
of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing
values approach to organizational analysis.
Management Science, 29, 363-377.
Shipper, F., & White, C. S. (1983). Linking
organizational effectiveness and environmental
change. Long Range Planning, 16(3), 99–106.
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basis Content Analysis. Newbury
Park: Sage Publication.
West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant
ponds: An integrative model of creativity and
innovation implementation in work groups. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 51, 355 –
387.
West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation at work.
Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological
and organizational strategies, 3–13.
West, M.A., Hirst, G., Richter, A. & Shipton, H.
(2004). Twelve steps to heaven: Successfully
manging change through developing innovative
teams. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 13(2), 269-299.
12
An External Validation of Two
Psychosocial Work Environment
Surveys – A SWOT Approach
Thomas Hoff* , Per Straumsheim1 , Cato A.
Bjørkli1 and Roald A. Bjørklund1
Abstract
The present article attempts to conceptually validate
two established surveys for measuring psychosocial
work environment; The General Nordic Question-
naire for Psychological and Social Factors at Work
(QPSNordic), and the Organizational Climate Mea-
sure (OCM). Five respondents in a financial institu-
tion were asked to reflect freely on the topic of the
psychosocial work environment of the company, only
guided by the SWOT format. The main hypothesis
was that even though QPSNordic is comprehensive
and developed specifically for measuring psychosocial
work environment, the thematically broader OCM
– with less items – would capture more of the state-
ments from the transcribed interviews. In addition, it
was assumed that the SWOT format would provide
statements not covered by any of the statements. Both
hypotheses were confirmed, and OCM proved to be
more sensitive to the statements than did the QPSNor-
dic. The SWOT format turned out to be even more
sensitive, but this might be due to the nature of the
SWOT questions, rather than the conceptualizations
of the respondents.
Introduction
The concept of psychosocial work environment
within work psychology research is primarily based
on stress and motivational theories of work. In
particular, the demand control model (Karasek &
Theorell, 1990) and the effort-reward imbalance
model (Siegrist, 1996), have been utilized, uncovering
strong empirical evidence for a relation between stress
and ill-health, especially for cardiovascular diseases
(Taris & Kompier, 2005; Tsutsumi & Kawakami,
2004). In addition, motivational theories such as e.g
The Job Characteristic Model (Hackman & Oldham,
1976), have spurred findings on the relation between
motivation and outcomes like increased productivity
and job-satisfaction (Landy & Becker, 1987).
An important question is whether the issue of
psychosocial work environment stop at the boarders
of these models, or whether in fact these are issues
that are entangled with broader organizational
1
Department of Psychology, University of Oslo
topics. This implies
the possibility that the
models concentrating
on psychosocial work
environment together with
broader models of work
environment explain more
variance than models
of psychosocial work
environment alone.
The concept of
psychosocial work
Thomas Hoff
environment, along
with other specific
climate measures,
such as safety climate
(e.g. Zohar & Luria,
2005), climate for
creativity (Amabile,
Conti, Coon, Lazenby,
& Herron, 1996),
and service climate
(Schneider, Bowen,
Erhart, & Holcombe,
2000) all run the risk
of casting their net too narrowly, neglecting more
general organizational characteristics that can impact
a broader range of organizational outcomes (Gillespie,
Denison, Haaland, Smerek, & Neale, 2008). Here, the
distinction between psychosocial and organisational
work environment illustrates this challenge as the
two often are insufficiently conceptually separated.
Psychosocial work environment primarily concerns
the social relationships, whereas organisational work
environment focus on the formal structures as premise
for social relations in work. In terms of measurement,
QPSNordic is oriented towards the psychosocial work
environment while general measures of organisational
work environment/climate arguably spans wider
beyond the perceptions of social relationships. This
means that data from psychosocial work environment
surveys may very well include references to broader
categories than those included in specific models such
as QPSNordic.
In this paper we aim to examine whether the risk
of casting the net too narrowly is relevant to the
assessment of psychosocial work environment. In
particular, we aim to study the relation between two
surveys; one commonly used to assess psychosocial
work environment and a broader organizational
survey, by means of directly comparing the two with
respect to open, qualitative reflection on behalf of
the employees of a company in the
finance sector. The data should

provide some insight to what extent the two surveys
cover the same phenomenon or whether there exist
some surplus value in adding a broader framework to
specific psychosocial work environment models. The
present study relates the concepts ‘psychosocial work
environment’ and ‘organizational work environment’
to the operational definitions given by the
questionnaires that have been developed to measure
these two concepts, respectively (Dallner et al, 2000;
Patterson et al, 2005).
The QPSNordic and the Organizational Climate
Measure
In this study, two surveys were selected that represent
a somewhat different approach to work environment
measurement. The General Nordic Questionnaire
for Psychological and Social Factors at Work
(QPSNordic) (Dallner et al., 2000), is a survey that
is generally based on the demand control model,
the effort-reward imbalance model and the job
characteristics model. In addition, the survey contains
some ‘extra-organizational’ topics, such as leadership,
organizational culture and climate, work groups
and teams. These topics are, however, not included
as a coherent model of organizational functioning.
QPSNordic consists of 123 items, distributed on 26
scales. For a full description of the scales, see Dallner
et al. (2000).
The other survey, the Organizational Climate
Measure (OCM) (Patterson et al., 2005) is not a
tool for measuring psychosocial work environment
as such, but rather a generic tool for measuring
organizational climate. OCM was developed on
the basis of the competing value model (Quinn &
Rohrbach, 1983). The underlying assumption of this
model is that when an organization is placing weight
(and attention) on one type of value and less attention
will be given to a different value. OCM is organized
along four dimensions (values): Human relations;
Autonomy, Support Superior, Welfare, Integration,
Training, Participation and Communication.
Internal process; Formalization and Tradition; Open
systems; Innovation/flexibility and Outward focus,
Reflexivity and Flexibility, and Rational goal; Clarity
of organizational goals, Feedback on performance,
Quality, Pressure to produce, Effort and Efficiency.
The survey consists of 82 items distributed on 17
scales. For a full description of the dimensions and
scales, see Patterson et al. (2005). Although shorter
than QPSNordic, OCM opts for measuring a broader
set of organizational climate issues.
13
SWOT interviews
Semi-structured interviews were carried out in order to
compare the employee’s view on the local psychosocial
work environment with the scales (or rather, the
topic covered by the scale, e.g. Control/Autonomy)
included in QPSNordic and OCM respectively. A
SWOT format (Dyson, 2004) was utilized in order
to prompt reflection on behalf of the subject. In a
SWOT interview, the interviewer encourages the
interviewee to reflect on the strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats of the psychosocial work
environment, respectively. SWOT as such does not
specify a particular type of answers, but rather forces
the subject to reflect along the three dimensions of
positive-negative, past-future and internal-external
(Hoff, 2009).
Hypotheses
We expect OCM to be more closely aligned to
the reflections of workers concerning their work
environment, even though QPS Nordic was developed
specifically for measuring psychosocial work
environment. This is line with Gilliespie (2008),
and builds on the notion that reflections regarding
psychosocial work conditions contains references
to broader categories than those included in specific
models, such as QPSNordic
Hypotesis 1: More SWOT statements will fit
OCM than QPSNordic.
In addition, our assumption is that this type
of interview will elicit local competence in the
organization and ideas not foreseen by the
researcher or by established models. Semi-structured
interviews, as opposed to surveys, are not constricted
to predefined models or assumptions about an
organization. Furthermore, the SWOT format has an
affinity for prompting reflections on the here and now
situation versus the future situation, and on the state
of internal affairs versus the external environment of
the organization.
Hypotesis 2: The SWOT interview will elicit a
meaningful residual not captured by either model.
Methods
Participants
The study was carried out within a financial
organization situated in Norway. A strategic sample
14
of 5 people participated in SWOT interviews.
Representatives of both top-management and staff
were included in the interviews.
Measure
Qualitative interviews of semi-structured character
involved open questions based on the SWOT-
format to obtain information concerning the
informants’ reflection on the local psychosocial
work environment. The interview guide comprised
four main questions emphasizing the SWOT
components, primarily encouraging reflection on
the organization’s present strengths and weaknesses
related to the psychosocial work environment, and
secondly encouraging reflection on the organization’s
opportunities and threats concerning the psychosocial
work environment. The questions were as follows:
Strength: “Could you please tell us about the strengths
Organization X has in relation to psychosocial
work environment?”, Weakness: “Could you please
tell us about the weaknesses Organization X has
in relation to psychosocial work environment?”,
Opportunity: “Could you please tell us about what
opportunities Organization X has in order to succeed
with the psychosocial work environment?”, and
Threat: “Could you please tell us about what might
hinder Organization X in order to succeed with the
psychosocial work environment in the future?”.
Additional information was obtained by
encouraging the informants to respond to
supplementary questions, such as: “You have
mentioned some strengths, are there other strengths
related to…?”, “Did I get you right when you
say that…?”, “Could you illustrate this by giving
an example?”, and “Could you specify what you
mean by…?”. Follow-up questions related to the
four main questions beyond this were asked only
when considered necessary, such as: “What factors
are involved when planning and implementing
interventions regarding the psychosocial work
environment in Organization X?”, “How does
Organization X communicate with and involve
employees during interventions regarding the
psychosocial work environment?”.
Procedure
A few days beforehand, the respondents were given
written information about the purpose and format
of the interview, emphasizing that it was their
experiences and opinions regarding the psychosocial
work environment that was of interest. They were
asked to permit a tape-recording of the interviews,
and were informed that the tapes would be erased
after the content had been transcribed and controlled.
Starting the interview, the respondents were
encouraged to verbalize and reflect upon the strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the
psychosocial work environment as they experienced
it. No formal or normative definition was emphasized
or requested from the interviewer. After completing
the interview, the respondents were also asked not
to discuss the interview with the other interviewees
beforehand, to ensure that it was their own and not
a joint understanding they brought to the interview.
The interviews were performed within three days in
September 2006.
Transcription and coding
The interviews were not transcribed word by word,
but were edited to resemble written language, in order
to capture content rather than exact phrasings (Flick,
2002). During transcription, names of interviewees,
their position, name of the organization, exact
location, etc. were deleted to ensure confidentiality.
A randomly chosen interview was subjected to a
qualitative inter-rater reliability test. No significant
discrepancies were detected.
Based on the transcriptions, so-called, ‘statements’
were derived. A statement is a part of a sentence, a
whole sentence, or several sentences expressed by the
interviewee, that constitute a coherent, meaningful
point of view that describe an aspect of the work
environment. The statements were then coded
into a SWOT format, i.e. strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, or threats, accordingly. The statements
were also coded according to the organizational level
the statement was targeted towards. The levels were
defined as individual level, team level, leadership level,
or organizational level, respectively.
Strengths and weaknesses were defined as
statements directed towards here-and-now conditions
in the organization, while opportunities and threats
were defined as statements directed towards the future
and external to the organization (e.g. competition,
infrastructure, technology, etc.).
Identical statements were not coded twice, unless
expressed by a different respondent, indicating an
understanding across respondents. Similar statements
were not coded twice unless they represented a further
elaboration on an issue, e.g. an example of an already
coded statement was not coded as a new statement.
The statements were then mapped onto the scales of
the QPSNordic, as well as in terms of the categories
of the Organizational Climate Measure. Here, each
statement was subjected to a content analysis in which
the meaningful view expressed in a statement was
associated with a corresponding category in the model

in question. For example, the statement “we have
very good training systems here”, would fit into the
training scale of OCM.
The inter-rater reliability of the coding process
was examined by having two additional independent
raters code the statements according to the established
definitions of coding.
Cohens kappa (κ) for inter-rater agreement was
calculated, in line with scientific recommendations
(Watkins & Pacheco, 2000). Results for independent
rater 1 were κ = .90 for SWOT statements, and κ =
.56 for organizational levels. For inter-rater 2, the
result was κ = .84 for SWOT statements, and κ =
.49 for statements of different organizational levels.
An objectivity measure (Kolbe & Burnett, 1991)
emphasizing rules and procedures, measure of pre-
testing, judge training, judge independence, and judge
coding autonomy was also calculated. The objectivity
index had a score of 4 out of 5 possible. When
examining all statements coded by the two inter-
raters, the proportion of category choice was similar
to the authors, except that one inter-rater coded more
statements in the organizational level category, and
less in leader and individual category, respectively.
Results
Of the total number of 394 statements, 354 SWOT
statements were identified on the basis of the
criteria defined above (Tab. 1). The 40 remaining
statements were for the most part background
information, related to general reflections unrelated
to the organization (18), related to the interviewee
themselves (8), related to assessment tools and ways
of work (6), historical development (6), differences
between departments/people (3) and physical work
environment (1). These 40 statements were omitted
from further analysis.
Coding by QPSNordic and OCM
The coding of SWOT statements onto QPSNordic and
OCM scales are displayed in table 2.
Statements coded by OCM and not by
QPSNordic
OCM tapped 114 statements not accounted for by
Strengths Weaknesses
Individual 25 34 13 9 81
Team/Dept 17 8 0 6 31
Leader 15 32 4 2 53
Organization 105 51 23 10 189
Sum 162 125 40 27 354
15
QPSNordic. This difference (OCM: m = 53.8, sd
= 20.59, QPSNordic: m = 36.8, sd = 12.15) was
significant on a paired samples t-test; df 4, t-value
3.45, p. < .05 (two tailed). A graphic illustration of
the distribution of SWOT statements over QPSNordic
and OCM is given in figure 1.Within the Human
Relationship scales of OCM, autonomy tapped 7
statements. These relate to the consequences of top
leadership deciding what is best way to work. An
example statement is: “the consequence of this may
be that competent employees don’t get the room for
decision they should have had”. Furthermore, 25
statements were coded as involvement in OCM. The
statements relate to the strengths and limitations of
the decision structure and process. An example of
a statement related to process is; “all employees are
invited to talk about what the overarching strategy
means to them and their individual work situation”.
Of the 20 statements coded as training in OCM, most
of them relate to the weight the organization place on
education and training, and the opportunities given
to the employees. E.g. “One of the strengths is that
the bank is willing to use resources on education and
development”.
With regard to the Internal Process dimension,
13 statements were coded as formalization. These are
about positive and negative outcomes on the tendency
the bank has to formalize and to have routines on
many processes. An example statement is; “Some will
say that this (evaluation process) is too voluminous,
too exhaustive and theoretical, is sums up in very
large documents”. Furthermore, 8 statements were
coded as tradition in OCM. Some relate to using the
same measuring devices over time, other relate to
older employees, having their whole work-experience
in the bank are in a defensive position toward new
ideas and new employees. E.g. “Most people here,
including AD have their whole work-experience in the
bank, they have nothing to compare with”.
The Open systems dimension category reflexivity
of OCM coded 8 statements. These were mostly
about the need to increase reflexivity to meet changed
demands from the environment. E.g. “Now things are
beginning to evolve much faster, so if we don’t follow,
we will have problems in a few years”.
One category within the Rational Goal
Opportunities Threats Sum
16

QPSNordic OCM
Job Demands Quantitaive 15 Human relat Autonomy 11
Decision 0 Integration 34
Learning 18 Involvement 29
Role expert Clarity 6 Support super 18
Conflict 5 Training 32
Job control Pref. challenge 3 Welfare 38
Decision 0 Internal proc. Formalization 8
Work pacing 0 Tradition 10
Predictability Next month 0 Open systems Innovat & flexibility 8
Next 2 years 9 Outward focus 1
Mastery of work 2 Reflexivity 9
Social interact Support superior 16 Rational goal Clarity of org goal 4
Support coworker 8 Efficiency 1
Friends & relatives 0 Effort 0
Leadership Empowering 13 Performance feedback 33
Fair 1 Pressure to produce 24
Org culture/climate Social climate 27 Quality 0
Innovative climate 7
Inequality 5
Human resource prim 34
Interaction work private life 5
Commitment to organization 7
Perception of work group 1
Work motivation Intrinsic 2
Extrinsic 0
SUM statements 184 269
Average no statements pr respondents 37 54
Table 2: Distribution of interview statements over QPSNordic and OCM categories

dimension of OCM, feedback on performance, tapped
23 statements. These relate to the processes of goal-
setting, measuring, and giving feedback, both on
work-environment, but especially every employee’s
performance. Both the positive and negative effects
of the measuring and feedback process are stated.
E.g. “The balanced Scorecard system is summed up
on every department, so this may be positive, “we
are going to make this guys””. Or more negative:
“Everybody is measured today. More measuring
doesn’t give very good team-work, everyone think
more of one self”.
Statements tapped by QPSNordic and not by
OCM
In total, 26 statements were tapped by QPSNordic
and not by OCM. These statements were distributed
over several categories of QPSNordic. None of the 7
statements of commitment could be coded in OCM,
such as “we have very loyal employees, and I really
mean, extremely loyal employees, especially our senior
employees”. 4 statements were tapped by role conflict
in QPSNordic, such as “our development plan doesn’t
pay attention to differences in (personality) types”.
3 statements were exclusively coded as inequality
in QPSNordic, e.g.: “So (difference in) pay does
something with satisfaction and well-being, I think
many don’t feel valued”. The rest of the unique coded
statements (12) were coded in several QPSNordic
categories.
Residual SWOT statements
SWOT tapped 58 statements not covered by OCM
or QPSNordic. This difference (SWOT: m = 36.8, sd
= 12.15, OCM: m = 53.8, sd = 20.59) was significant
on a paired samples t-test; df 4, t-value 3.26, p. <
.05 (two tailed). Of the 58 statements neither tapped
by QPSNordic nor by OCM, 57% were on the
future dimensions opportunities and threats, over
50% on organizational matters and almost 29% on
individuals. The most prominent theme was related
to increasing competition on competent employees,
which was coded as an opportunity for the individual,
but as at threat for the organization, for example
on opportunities: “This (external offers) creates
opportunities when people are wanted, they feel more
valued, it’s a possibility for employees for personal

development”. An aging workforce was identified as
an organizational threat: “..much of the organization’s
competence will disappear in 5 – 10 – 15 years”.
Another theme was the possibilities and threats posed
by new technology, giving employees opportunities
to work more flexible, and customers opportunities
to perform more services themselves, but potentially
also having negative consequences for the work
environment. This can be exemplified respectively by
a statement coded as opportunity: “The technological
development gives us possibility to develop more
flexible workplaces”. And a statement coded as threat:
“A high degree of employees working from home,
will imply a less time together, this is not positive for
the work environment”. A third theme was about
the positive organizational reputation in the local
environment making recruiting easy. E.g. “We are an
attractive employer, we are perceived as an established
trademark in the market”.
Statements coded to overlapping categories
Many statements (155) could be coded both in
QPSNordic and OCM categories. Some categories
are almost identical in QPSNordic and OCM, such
as support superior. The categories human resource
primacy (QPSNordic) and welfare (OCM) are almost
identical, and coded many of the same statements.
Also the demands categories of QPSNordic and
pressure to produce of OCM are similar and capture
almost the same statements. An example of this is;
“Things are supposed to happen very fast, they have a
considerable work-pressure”.
In some instances statements coded by a specific
scale of one of the surveys could be coded into
a somewhat different category in the other. For
example, many statements coded as support coworker
in QPSNordic were coded as integration of OCM,
Figure 1 SWOT/Organizational level statements tapped by QPSNordic and OCM
17
when trust/cooperation was the topic. An example
of this type of statement is “most employees have
an open mind towards their colleagues, are a bit
including”.
Discussion
The SWOT interviews produced a variety of
information regarding the psychosocial work
environment of the organization. The mapping
of SWOT statements onto established models of
organizational behaviour revealed that a more
general climate measure, OCM, tapped significantly
more statements than a measure designed to assess
psychosocial work climate; the QPSNordic. The
statements captured by OCM, but not by QPSNordic
were found in the autonomy, involvement, training,
formalization, tradition, reflexivity and feedback
on performance scales of OCM. In sum, the results
supports hypothesis 1.
Even though the OCM and QPSNordic are
comprehensive surveys, there were still a statistically
significant residual of 58 statements. These statements
relate to either the distinction between the here-
and-now situation and the future situation (for
example with respect to implications of implementing
technological changes), or the distinction between the
internal state of affairs and the external environment
of the company (such as for example increasing
competition for competent employees). In sum, the
results supports hypothesis 2.
In addition, and outside of the hypothesis of
this paper, there were 25 statements that fit onto
the QPSNordic but did not fit onto OCM. These
statements refer to commitment, role conflict and
inequality scales of the QPSNordic.
18
General discussion
At first glance it might seem incomprehensible that
when management and staff in a firm is asked to
reflect freely on aspects regarding the psychosocial
work environment as they perceive it, significantly
more statements fit onto a generic organizational
climate survey than onto a comprehensive survey
developed specifically for measuring psychosocial
work environment.
However, one might argue that OCM, although not
directly related to psychosocial work environment, in
fact capture central topics at the fringe of the concept.
For example, internal processes, innovation, and
goal-setting may have a substantial impact on how
employees perceive their work environment.
An additional explanation for the finding might
be related to the theoretical underpinnings of
OCM, namely the competing values model. Where
QPSNordic is a descriptive taxonomy (either the
phenomena appear, or it does not), OCM is a tension
model, i.e. it implies that certain factors might
be in direct opposition to one another. In verbal
communication, it might be more natural to reflect in
terms of tensions and paradoxes, rather than in terms
of strict classifications.
A third consideration might be that all models
within work- and organizational psychology need
to be reconsidered according to the technological
solutions as premises for work. The existing models
may have been developed in a work context with
other specific domain characteristics compared to
the present modern work environments with high
demand on potentials for change, dynamic forces and
flexibility. This could imply that the “old” models
include concepts and categories with less relevance
to present empirical findings. A model that includes
operationally defined concepts will only be valid for a
relatively short period of time limited by introduction
of new procedures in the work place. Consequently,
the meaning of the concepts organizational work
environment and organizational climate should
not be considered as static but should allow for
reconsideration according to changes in actual work
environment.
Limitations of the present study
When management and staff in a firm is asked
to reflect freely on aspects regarding the psychosocial
work environment as they perceive it, significantly
more statements fit onto a generic organizational
climate survey than onto a comprehensive survey
developed specifically for measuring psychosocial
work environment. This can mean one of two
things: Either there is something wrong with the
operationalization of the concept of psychosocial
work environment, or there is something about
the reflections of the employees that are amiss.
It is conceivable that the workers are ‘wrong’ in
their conceptualization of their psychosocial work
environment, and that in fact, the operationalization
present in QPSNordic is sufficient for carrying out
improvements in the work environment. Either way,
there is a misfit between QPSNordic and the reality
experienced by the interviewees, and as argued
by Stablein (2006), organizational data should be
characterized by a two-way correspondence between
the data and the organizational reality the data
represent. In this study, QPSNordic fall short to
demonstrate such correspondence.
The sample employed in this study consisted of
five persons. Although they had positions in the
organization that indicated that they should be
informed about the matter in question, a larger sample
could have provided more information. However,
the pattern in the present data sample is clear, and it
remains an empirical question to what extent a larger
sample would have changed this pattern.
Conclusion
OCM covered substantially more statements than
QPSNordic when management and staff were
asked open ended questions related to their local
psychosocial work environment. This might indicate
that OCM is more sensitive for covering broad aspects
of the work environment of a given organization.
Furthermore, the SWOT approach presented in this
article provided important statements not covered
by either surveys, particularly regarding statements
related to the future of the organization, as well as
aspects related to the outside environment of the firm.
In this sense, SWOT is more sensitive than either of
the two established surveys. However, this might be
due to the nature of SWOT, as the respondents are
asked about opportunities and threats.
References
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby,
J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work
environment for creativity. Academy of
Management Journal, 39, 1154-1184.
Dallner, M., Elo, A. L., Gamberale, V. H., Knardal,
S., Lindström, K., Skogstad, A., et al. (2000).
Validation of the General Nordic Questionnaire
(QPSNordic) for Psychological and Social Factors
at Work. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.
Dyson, R. G. (2004). Strategic development and
 19
SWOT analysis at the University of Warwick. (Eds.) The Sage Handbook of Organization Studies.
European Journal of Operational Research, 152(3), London: Sage
631-640. Taris, T., & Kompier, M. (2005). Psychosocial risk
Flick, U. (2002). An Introduction to Qualitative factors and work-related stress: State of the art
Research. London: Sage Publications Ltd. and issues for future research. In A. G. Antoniou
Gillespie, M. A., Denison, D. R., Haaland, S., Smerek, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Research companion to
R., & Neale, W. S. (2008). Linking organizational organizational health psychology (pp. 59-69).
culture and customer satisfaction: Results from two Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.
companies in different industries. European Journal Tsutsumi, A., & Kawakami, N. (2004). A review of
of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17, 112 - empirical studies on the model of effort-reward
132. imbalance at work: reducing occupational stress
Hackman, J., & Oldham, G. (1976). Motivation by implementing a new theory. Social Science and
through the design of work: Test of a theory. Medicine, 59, 2335-2359.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Zohar, D., & Luria, G. (2005). A multilevel model
16, 250-279. of safety climate: Cross-level relationships between
Hoff, T. (2009). Mapping the Organizational Climate organization and group-level climates. Journal of
for Innovation: Introducing SWOT as a Applied Psychology, 90, 616-628.
Process Based Tool. In Østreng, W. (Ed.): Confluence. Watkins, M., & Pacheco, M. (2000). Interobserver
Interdisciplinary Agreement in Behavioral Research: Importance and
Communications 2007/2008, Centre for Advanced Calculation. Journal of Behavioral Education, 10,
Study – Norwegian Academy of 205-212.
Science and Letters, p.76-80
Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work.
Stress, productivity and the reconstruction of
working life. USA: Basic Books.
Kolbe, R., & Burnett, M. (1991). Content-Analysis
Research: An Examination of Applications with
Directives for Improving Research Reliability and
Objectivity. Journal of Consumer Research, 18,
243-250.
Landy, F. J., & Becker, W. S. (1987). Motivation
theory reconsidered. In L. L. Cummings & B. M.
Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour
(Vol. 9, pp. 1-31). Greenwich: JAI press.
Patterson, M., West, M., Shackleton, V., Dawson, J.,
Lawtom, R., Maitlis, S., et al. (2005). Validating the
organizational climate measure: links to managerial
practices, productivity and innovation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 379-408.
Quinn, R., & Rohrbach, J. (1983). A spatial model of
effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values
approach to organizational analysis. Management
Science, 29, 363-377.
Schneider, B., Bowen, D., Erhart, M. E., & Holcombe,
K. M. (2000). The climate for service: Evolution of
a construct. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. Wilderom &
M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational
culture and climate (pp. 21 - 36). Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of
high-effort/low reward conditions. Journal of
Occupational Health and Psychology, 1, 27-41.
Stablein, (2006). Data in Organization Studies, In: S.
R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence and W. R. Nord
20
Leading change in a healthy way
Per Øystein Saksvik and Sturle Danielsen
Tvedt
Department of Psychology, NTNU,
Trondheim
Abstract
The objective of the article is to discuss how lower-
level leaders, i.e., middle managers, deal with the im-
plementation of organizational change and to identify
their behavior as in accordance with the claims of a
new Work Environment Act in Norway, which defines
an optimal and healthy organizational change process.
The article presents some of our own findings about
healthy leader behavior in an organizational change
context. In this article, we present and discuss change
in a Scandinavian and Norwegian context, the im-
pact of the change process, and the relation between
change and leadership theories and perspectives. We
found that the main concepts of the law; information,
participation, and competence development could be
operationalized and understood better in daily prac-
tice through the following categories: awareness of
local norms and diversity among employees in the
perception and reactions to change efforts, early role
clarification, manager availability, and using construc-
tive conflicts. The middle manger role was central in
this and in a parallel study good leaders were��������
charac-
terized by the embracing of change.
Introduction
There is an extensive line of work related to the
description and understanding of organizational
change. Some of this work comprises theoretically
oriented approaches while some is practice-based and
draws attention to lessons of good and bad practices
learned from this field. Nguyen and Kleiner (2003)
and Balogun and Hope Haley (2004) report a failure
rate of around 70 percent of all strategic change
programs initiated, and ‘change resistance’ owing
to poor change management or a lack of effective
leadership is often said to be the cause (Balogun &
Hope Haley, 2004; Gill, 2003; Kotter, 1996; Kubr,
1996). Empirical evidence points to the need for
certain process criteria to be fulfilled for success in
organizational change: (1) the ability to learn from
failure and to motivate participants; (2) multi-level
participation and negotiation, and differences in
organizational perception; (3) insight into tacit and
informal organizational behavior; (4) clarification
of roles and responsibilities,
especially the role of middle
management; and (5)
simultaneously competing
projects (Saksvik, Nytrø,
Dahl-Jørgensen, & Mikkelsen,
2002). These criteria have
been identified in many other
studies as well (see e.g., Fay
& Lührman, 2004). The key
role of middle management
stands out as one of the most Per Øystein Saksvik
interesting variables in these
studies and in one of our
projects we wanted to explore
how local or unit leaders can
contribute to better change
processes in organizations.
The context of change in
Norway
A central background
of our own research has
been the revised Working Sturle D. Tvedt
Environment Act of Norway that
was effectuated on January 1, 2006 (Arbeidstilsynet,
2007). This is, to our knowledge, the first time the
concept of organizational change processes has been
presented in any legislation. The act provided us
with a ready frame of reference to our understanding
of healthy change in our projects and further
to the sampling of leaders with a reputation for
implementing healthy change processes. The following
excerpt may serve as a useful context for our research:
§ 4-2. Requirements regarding arrangement,
participation and development. (3) During
reorganization processes that involve changes
of significance for the employees’ working
situation, the employer shall ensure the necessary
information, participation and competence
development to meet the requirements of this
Act regarding a fully satisfactory working
environment.
What is new here is the explicit mention of the
change process, not the concepts information,
participation, and competence. These latter concepts
have been present in Norwegian legislation in
the work environment since the then pioneering
‘psychosocial act’ of 1977 (Norge, 1996). The
problem, however, remains the same more than a
quarter of a century later, that these concepts lack the
concrete operationalization needed for practitioners in

the field. Such sentiments were exactly the reason why
the Norwegian Labour Inspection (NLI), prompted
by the new legislation, sought information from us
relevant to giving shop floor level advice about change
processes.
The proliferation of radical reorganizations in
the Norwegian public sector in recent years must be
regarded as an important context for this legislation,
and there is reason to suspect that public sector
middle managers are hit especially hard because
decisions of change are most likely to be made
outside the organization by politicians. Additionally,
public sector enterprises are often more bound than
commercial enterprises in the way they operate, giving
their middle managers less room for manoeuvre.
Scandinavian work life has been steeped in a
zeitgeist of participation and self-governing work
groups since the 1960s (see e.g., Emery & Thorsrud,
1976). This, together with a very deeply rooted
cultural current of short power distances (Hofstede,
2001), makes employees expect to influence what
happens and makes it very difficult for a middle
manager to sustain a distanced position, merely selling
the goals outlined by top management. Second, this
short power distance is probably also a prerequisite
for the remarkably high degree of agreement and
shared perspective between the middle managers
and their co-workers. Although we think that both
employees and leaders view the leadership of the
change process favorably; it has been demonstrated
elsewhere that disparity between employers and
employees in work environment risk estimates is
symptomatic of unhealthy organizations (Warren et
al., 1999).
Change can also be studied favorably from an
open systems theory perspective (Katz & Kahn,
1978), where decisions to change are usually seen
as leader responses on behalf of the organization
to perturbations in the environment. However, it
also follows from open system theory that different
departments in an organization form subsystems for
which the larger organization constitutes part of the
environment. Thus, for the units led by the middle
managers in the present study, the change decisions
themselves act as perturbations in the environment.
Earlier research on organizational change has also
pointed out differences in organizational perception of
the change (see e.g., Fay & Lührman, 2004; Saksvik
et al., 2002). This supports our own experiences
from the field of research that employees present
altogether different ‘changes’ both within and between
different departments. In line with open systems
theory, we further expect that there will be real
differences between the departments – or subsystems
21
– of an organization in the nature and extent of
change impact. It follows that the changes take on
a very local nature in reaching the actual level of
implementation when the change decision meets the
actual organization members who will carry out and
embody the change. As such, existing perspectives of
planned change leadership have limited relevance for
our middle managers.
Findings from our own research
A study was initiated in 2004 to find behavioral
criteria behind the broad concepts ‘information,’
‘participation,’ and ‘competence development’ that
we find in the new Work Environment Act of 2006
presented in the introduction (Saksvik et al., 2007).
In this study, five categories or criteria appeared as
underlying or conveying these concepts in the 90
organizations undergoing changes that were studied
(Saksvik et al., 2007). It was found that organizational
change processes were better managed by more
attention to awareness of local norms and diversity
among employees in the perception and reactions to
change efforts. The other three factors identified were
early role clarification, manager availability, and using
constructive conflicts to deal with change. Manager
availability was found to be the main content of
‘information’ in the Working Environment Act. The
point here is not the contents of information, but how
information is passed on, and also whether there is
a possibility that employees can communicate freely
based on that information. Early clarification of roles
was found to be a prerequisite for the development of
qualifications (‘competence development’), according
to the Act. It is only when roles and new purposes
are clarified that the employees are able to improve
their qualifications further, or maybe develop their
new roles in the new organization based on their
existing qualifications. Finally, it was found that
conflict management was a central feature in the
Working Environment Act that defines ‘participation.’
Change can increase the level of conflict, and capable
conflict management increases the probability of
active participation during a change process, which in
turn creates a ground for constructive dialog. This is
considered important if proper employee participation
is to be achieved.
Later quantitative studies have supported the
importance of these factors for process healthiness
through the statistical testing of the Healthy Change
Process Index (HCPI) (Tvedt and Saksvik, 2008a;
Tvedt, Saksvik, & Nytrø, 2008). In all of these factors
for a healthy change process, the importance of the
middle manager strikingly emerges. However, Factor
3), leader availability, appeared to contain so many
22
clues to the middle-manager role as to warrant further
exploration.
Thus, in a follow-up study (Tvedt & Saksvik,
2008b), we wanted to explore how middle managers
identified as successful in managing healthy change (as
defined in the Work Environment Act) were able to
cope with change and lead their co-workers through
turbulent changes without inducing health constraints
and deterioration in the work environment. The
research question was stated as: ‘How do middle
managers in the public sector who have a reputation
for leading healthy changes actually implement the
change processes?’
In this study, we set out to reveal the praxis of
middle managers in the public sector with a reputation
for managing healthy change. It was the stated
intention that this would provide some guidelines for
the role of middle managers at the level of concrete
behavior. This is much needed, since the new version
of the Norwegian Work Environment Act of 2006
continues the tradition of the previous version from
1977 in failing to specify concretely the key concepts
of information, participation, and competence
development. This has left practitioners in the field
with very imprecise guidelines.
The sample consisted of six public enterprises in
which a total of 59 interviews were undertaken.
For each enterprise, the six middle-managers was
interviewed separately, and four to seven employees
were interviewed in a combination of individual and
group interviews.
Leaders and employees were interviewed separately
and, where available, safety and union representatives
were included in the sample as employee
representatives, since they often possess special
knowledge of and perspectives on change processes.
The following criteria were used to select cases
of successful leaders in respect to their having
undertaken good change processes in their
organization: (1) recommendation from external
partners (from a central union representative and/or
the labour inspectorate and/or a representative from
the Employers’ Confederation), (2) ongoing change
process documented, (3) leader’s self-evaluation that
she/he had succeeded in the change process (confirmed
by a phone call), and (4) working conditions had not
developed negatively as a result of the change process
(confirmed by external partners). Only managers with
a reputation of conducting healthy change processes
were included and no comparison to other middle-
mangers were undertaken.
Three trained field research assistants and four
researchers conducted all the interviews, most often
in teams of two researchers/assistants. The interview
guides were semi-structured, with main questions
that were asked in every interview. The analysis
procedure for the present was undertaken in seven
distinct steps, alternating between individual and
collective analysis modes. Throughout this process,
much attention was given to comparing individual
contributions of researchers and field assistants as
well as constantly keeping an eye on the original texts,
following the principle of constant comparison (Glaser
and Strauss, 1967; Locke, 2001). The core finding
of this study was that our middle-managers wholly
commit to the change which was expressed in the two
main categories of embracing change and embracing
people. Involved in this main category of embracing
people were collective sensemaking, building local
knowledge, and enabling employees to cope with
change. Embracing change included the conceptual
categories of proactive navigation and prioritizing
time. It is our contention that the findings of this study
do indeed provide more tangible guidelines towards
the three concepts from the new Work Environment
Act. They are all readily identifiable in the conceptual
description of the categories we found in the study.
The core finding of the present study that our
middle managers were so proactive and highly
involved in the change corresponds to the general
opposite finding that leaders of unhealthy change
processes retreat from the process (Clair and Dufresne,
2004; Kets de Vries and Balasz, 1997). Hence, this
confirms our basic expectations of middle managers
directing healthy change processes, and supports
the validity of our strategic sample. Interestingly,
embracing change does not entail being a ‘mercenary
for the top management’ or subscribing to the political
decisions; if anything, these middle managers are ‘the
champions of their co-workers.’ Instead, embracing
the change consists of accepting the necessity for
facing the change and making sure the co-workers will
master it as a collective.
Discussion
Change and leadership
A core finding in our research is that employees
ought to have immediate access to somebody they
can talk to and discuss ‘how the changes will affect
me and my work tasks.’ This ‘somebody’ must be a
person with organizational insight and knowledge
regarding the change, and one who is able to influence
the process. Focusing as we do in our research on
the importance of the praxis of the middle manager,
we are moving our research more clearly into
the realm of organizational change management.

Again, relevant theories abound (see for example,
Burke, 2002; Kotter, 1996; Yukl, 1998), and at least
moderate relationships have been shown between
change-oriented leadership styles and negative health
in the form of musculoskeletal pain (Fjell, Österberg,
Alexanderson, Karlqvist, & Bildt, 2007). However,
classical management theories present a linear view
of changes that is not compatible with the messy
picture drawn up by leaders interviewed in our earlier
research on a healthy change process in a Norwegian
context (see Saksvik et al., 2007). This might of course
in part be due to particularities in the Norwegian
reality of work.
Earlier research has emphasized the potential health
benefit derived from communication and information,
planning, monitoring and evaluation, and the ability
to learn from previous experiences, as well as the
possibility of participation in organizational change
(Nytrø, Saksvik, Mikkelsen, Quinlan, & Bohle, 2000).
In all issues, a leader plays a key role. If managed well,
the change process itself may help form good working
conditions for day-to-day operations (Nelson, 2005).
According to Weymes (2003), a winning organization
knows that its success can be attributed to the power
of relationships. We believe that good relational
behaviour in different forms is indeed a key factor to
promoting good change processes. The way leaders
were building good relations in our study may not
appear as part of a calculated strategic plan; they
have a natural democratic relational attitude. It is
legitimate to ask whether these categories represent
personal traits or a praxis developed over time among
these leaders? Although the leaders’ behaviour relies
a lot on energy and a positive attitude towards
change, it seems to us that most characteristics of
good leadership are tied to the personality of these
leaders but can also be developed and learned. It is
the interaction between the employees and the leaders
that is important. This may partly rely on the way the
leader is as a person, but some of the strategies and
behaviour can undoubtedly be learned and represent
(partly) the core of good relational behaviour in
organizational change.
This may imply that more ‘traditional’
leadership theories such as transformational and
charismatic leadership theories, theories of the
learning organization, and ethical leadership, still
have a role in changing participants’ perceptions
of ‘good change leadership’ and should probably
not be disregarded as obsolete and ineffective. As
an example we can take a closer look at one theory
of transformational leadership that will illustrate
the individual perspective. A theoretical concept of
leadership closely connected with participative change
23
management is transformational leadership (Bass,
1985; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Burns, 1978). After
extensive research, Bass (1985, 1998) has identified
four basic leader activities or factors for effective
transformational leadership:
1. Idealized influence: The leader is functioning as a
positive role model.
2. Inspiring motivation: Importance is put on team
spirit, enthusiasm, and optimism.
3. Intellectual stimulation: The leader encourages
and gives challenges to work independently and to
find new creative ways to solve problems.
4. Individualized attention: The leader is attentive to
the individual’s needs.
All these four factors are related to the relational
attitude of the leaders, but in Bass’s (1985, 1998)
theory, the focus is more on the individual leader
behaviour or disposition, and the close relation the
leader has with each follower, than towards the group
(except 2). However, of course, the factors identified
by Bass may to some extent be the necessary personal
disposition of a leader to lead in a democratic way.
Although the above shows some merit to
traditional perspectives, there is a conspicuous
mirroring of a more messy account of change in
the rise of chaos theory perspectives on change
leadership (e.g., Burns, 2004). Complexity theory
has radicalized the perspective on strategic
management and organizational dynamics, at least
in the academic literature (Burns, 2004; Galbraith,
2004; Stacey, 2000). Here, the leadership role of
change becomes fundamentally different, but still
important (McDaniel, 1997). Change can occur at
different yet overlapping organizational levels and
the interconnections between them and the future
behaviour of a system are not predictable (Stacey,
1992, 2000; Wheatley, 1992). Thus, all change is by
nature complex and can be regarded as a non-linear
process that unfolds through the interplay of multiple
variables within an organization and the extended
environment.
The ability to manoeuvre in a chaotic situation
was a central category in our second project and
this makes it natural to look at chaos theory in
understanding leadership behaviour (Burns, 2004;
Stacey, 2000). Existing sets of beliefs on best leader
practice for a good change process (especially during
the implementation phase) might help us to contrast
traditional paradigms with more modern paradigms
essential for providing strategic leadership (McDaniel,
1997). This kind of strategic change leadership
thinking, and follower behaviour, belongs to a whole
new way of looking at strategic leadership and
organizational change through the ‘eyes’ of chaos
24
and complexity theory (Burns, 2004; Stacey, 2000).
Burns (2004) states that managers will, according to
chaos theory, behave in the following way: a manager
will lead the organization’s members on account that
the organization’s employees have adequate access
to useful information for the development of the
organization; the manager inspires organizational
members to share common values, but at the same
time inspires them to meet demands that alter those
values; a manager should support a culture that is not
afraid to experiment in order to learn from mistakes
and adjust the organization’s path; and a manager
should be aware of ideas that challenge the core
values inherent in the organization, and realize that
change is unpredictable and can be characterized as
irrational. One of the reasons why organizational
change projects often fail to reach their own objectives
may probably be due to the lack of this open-minded
attitude among middle managers. It is probably
more common for leaders to try to (re)gain control
and withdraw from the shop floor and, thus, act as
stoppers in the organization (Clair & Dufresne, 2004;
Kets de Vries & Balazc, 1997).
These ideas are not ground-breaking or radical,
but they do stress that the complexity of today’s
organizations should be taken seriously. A relation-
building message is the core of these ideas. The
leader is open to the insights of the followers in all
respects. No ideas are censured and mistakes and
even irrational behaviour are considered natural
because the established values of the organization
always have to be challenged during change. We
see this as a manifestation of the importance, when
implementing change, of using relation-oriented
behaviour, i.e., to do things that are primarily
related to strengthening relationships, helping
people, giving support, empowerment, and giving
attention to followers (Yukl, 1998) and to execute
change-oriented behaviours, i.e., to do things that
are related to visioning, strategy-drawing, inspiring
change, and developing coalitions for change support
(Ekvall & Arvonen, 1991; Yukl, 1998). A change-
centered leader encourages discussions about future
possibilities; promotes new ideas for change and
growth; and stimulates new projects, products, and
ways of doing things (Ekvall & Arvonen, 1991).
Compared with transformational leadership, the
behaviours concerning idealized influence and
individual consideration are less present in change-
centered leadership than behaviours concerning
intellectual stimulation and inspirational motivation
(Skogstad, 1997). This represents a genuine relational
or collective attitude, because it is not the single
individual that is in focus, but the collective of
cooperating colleagues and how they work together or
negotiate to find new solutions in times of change.
The problem with a chaos theory perspective
on leadership of organizational change is that it
presents practitioners only to a small extent with
readily available praxis-oriented advice. What is
more, the present leadership literature in general is
dominated by an effectiveness perspective, and it
cannot be taken for granted that effective change
leadership is also healthy change leadership (see
e.g., Arvonen, 1995; Nyberg, Bernin, & Theorell,
2005). Accordingly, in order for practitioners to
relate to the recent Norwegian legislation concerning
organizational change processes, there is a need for
more knowledge about healthy change management
on the level of concrete middle-manager praxis.
In our studies, we have found support for the
importance of the manager’s ‘face-to-face’ contact and
the importance of human-oriented communication
in change processes. Despite all the practical and
sophisticated technological facilities we have at hand,
including e-mail, intranet, fast growing Internet
communities (i.e., Facebook and Myspace), instant
messaging services (i.e., MSN, Skype, and AIM),
and mobile services like SMS, the results indicate
that, during a process of change implementation, an
attempt to be efficient by the leader in this manner is
not helpful and can be rather distressing if it replaces
the use of rich information media. By richness is
meant the ability to use all the communication
cues – both verbal and non-verbal – and allow for
a rapid response and adjustment of thought and
answers (Smeltzer, 1991). One illustrative example
comes from one our own projects, where the leader
appeared to have his nametag on the inside of the
door (because the door was always open). Face-to-face
communication is a rich medium and has a number
of aspects that are missing from electronic media,
including co-presence, perceptibility, concurrence,
and simultaneity (Friedman & Curral, 2003) and
these properties enable listeners and speakers to reach
towards the same understanding of the issues at stake
and to adjust their efforts to seek agreement. These
aspects promote dialog and a two-way communication
that enables us to test each other’s understanding and
interpretation of the other’s intentions. This further
facilitates a common understanding of the goal of
change. Research indicates that other media cannot
replace in-person communication when it comes to
dealing with the human side of change (Young &
Frost, 1998). A focus on the ability to communicate
emotional content is also considered of major
importance in an era focusing on change management
based on chaos theory. This includes the ability to

motivate colleagues and other people emotionally,
and not least the relationship between the purpose of
the communication and the choice of communication
tools. Given our perspective of leadership as
relational and participative, leader skills related to the
motivation of co-workers are becoming increasingly
important.
Our studies support a view of the change process
as broader and more complex than before. The
majority of the organizational change models offer
a normative or prescriptive approach that identifies
what managers and consultants should and shouldn’t
do and how they should implement a specific change
initiative. Doyle, Claydon, and Buchanan (2000)
report that managers and change leaders often found
change methodologies too ‘pre-packaged’ and not
able to address the contradictions, tensions, and
linkages in the change. Whelan-Berry, Gordon, and
Hinings (2003) extend this critique by requesting a
more comprehensive process model of change that
includes the relationships between change processes
at the organizational level and change processes at the
individual and group levels. They argue that major
organizational change cannot occur without specific
groups and individuals changing, that is, without
teams and individual workers adopting altered
work routines and different models, structures, or
standards to direct their action. Hence, appreciating
the group and the individual change processes that
occur as part of organizational change processes is
fundamental. Whelan-Berry et al. (2003) found few
models in the organizational change literature that
specifically described the change process at the group
or team level of analysis as well as a lack of models
that address how individual change occurs within
the organizational context. From a broad case study,
they proposed a detailed and a more complete change
process model that includes the interplay between the
individual, group, and organizational levels.
Pettigrew (1985) also demonstrates the
limitations of theories that view change either as a
single event or as a sequence of episodes that are
regarded in isolation from the context. Since the
1980s, there has been a theoretical and empirical
movement toward more fluid, dynamic, and process-
oriented explanations of change. Pettigrew (1985)
proposed a processual–contextual perspective
to organizational change, further developed by
Dawson (2003), which argues that change has to
be understood in terms of multi-level connections
between change substance, contexts, implementation
process, and organization politics over time.
The processual framework is concerned with
understanding the political activities of consultation,
25
negotiation, conflict, and resistance, which occur at
different levels outside and within the organization
during the process of organizational change (Dawson,
2003). This framework refers to the extent to which
the change is viewed as being crucial to the continued
existence of the organization. This perspective
contrasts sharply with the models presented as steps
and guides typical of the oversimplified, practitioner-
focused managerial literature of change (Buchanan,
2003).
An organization is a complex network of
individuals, groups, and systems that operate within
an organizational culture and structure. A change
model that appeals to many managers is that of
Kotter’s (1990) ‘eight steps to transforming your
organization.’ This model highlights eight lessons
based on an analysis of organizations going through
change and it addresses some of the issues associated
with making change happen and emphasizes the
particular need to communicate the vision. Despite
its appeal, it is criticized for being too linear and
for disregarding the change process as a continuous
cycle (Cameron & Green, 2004). As Dawson (2003,
p. 144) illustrates: ‘change does not occur in a neat
linear fashion, but is messy, murky and complicated. It
involves twists and loops, turns and returns, omissions
and revisions, the foreseen and the unforeseen, and
is marked by the achievement of planned targets,
failures, resistance, celebration, ambivalence, fatigue,
conflict and political manoeuvring.’ In such a
situation, leaders often carry a heavy burden.
One of the managerial challenges facing
organizations today, according to Jimmieson, Terry,
and Callan (2004), is the effective implementation
of organizational change programs that minimize
feelings of uncertainty and the negative consequences
that follow. Increased job insecurity is a consequence
of almost all types of organizational change, which
consequently will be subject to resistance. Worrall and
Cooper (1998), for instance, found that job insecurity
resulted in less commitment as well as lowered
degrees of motivation and morale. Similar results were
found by King (2000): job insecurity has a negative
effect on support for organizational goals, quality of
work, and turnover. A related concept is control at
work. Considered an important motivational force
and necessarily negatively related to increased job
insecurity, control at work is in a positive relationship
with job satisfaction, commitment, involvement, and
performance (Sparks, Faragher, & Cooper, 2001).
Cunningham et al. (2002) insist, as job insecurity is
negatively related to readiness for change, that there
must be an evident need for change and at the same
time employees must be given the feeling that they
26
are self-efficient – they must feel that they are able to
carry out the change and be given the possibility to
participate. An empowering work environment offers
people abilities, attitudes, and possibilities beneficial
for the handling of change, as this means an increased
level of self-efficacy.
Conclusion
Our own projects have shown that a good leader
may be essential in steering change processes in a
fruitful direction. The middle managers selected
for the second study had a reputation for handling
organizational change with success. With a new
paragraph in the Working Environment Act giving
directions for healthy organizational change, we were
able to analyze whether the behaviour of these leaders
fulfilled the claims of participation, information,
and competence development. We saw that the good
leaders of this sample behaved in a responsible way,
were present for the employees, and tolerated a lot
of uncertainty. We found that they involved their
followers in important decisions and were always
willing to communicate both established plans and
unforeseen consequences. For the leader to have
enough self-confidence to stand in the chaos and at the
same time show relational competence – in a word,
embracing the change – seems to be a key factor in
managing change.
References
Arbeidstilsynet [Norwegian Labour Inspection].
(2007). The working environment act. Oslo:
Gyldendal Akadmisk.
Arvonen, J. (1995). Leadership behaviour and co-
worker health. A study in process industry. Reports
from the Department of Psychology Stockholm
University, Stockholm.
Balogun, J., & Hope Haley, V. (2004). Exploring
strategic change. (2nd ed.). London: Prentice Hall.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance
beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership-
Industrial leadership: Industry, military, and
educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving
organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Buchanan, D. A. (2003). Getting the story straight:
Illusions and delusions in the organizational change
process. TAMARA: Journal of Critical Unitmodern
Organizational Science, 2, 7–21.
Burke, W. W. (2002). Organizational change. Theory
and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper
& Row.
Burns, J. S. (2004). Chaos theory and leadership
studies: Exploring uncharted seas. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9, 42–56.
Cameron, E., & Green, M. (2004). Making sense
of change management: A complete guide to the
models, tools and technologies of organizational
change. London: VA Kogan Page.
Clair, J. A., & Dufresne, R. L. (2004). Playing the
grim reaper: How employees experience carrying
out a downsizing. Human Relations, 57, 1597–
1625.
Cunningham, C. E., Woodward, C. A., Shannon, H.
S., Mcintosh, J., Lendrum, B. Rosenbloom, D. &
Brown, J. (2002). Readiness for organizational
change: A longitudinal study of workplace,
psychological and behavioural correlates. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75,
377-392.
Dawson, P. (2003). Reshaping change: A processual
perspective. London: Routledge.
Doyle, M., Claydon, T., & Buchanan, D. (2000).
Mixed results, lousy process: The management
experience of organizational change. British Journal
of Management, 11, 59–80.
Ekvall, G., & Arvonen, J. (1991). Change centred
leadership: An extension of the two dimensional
model. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 7,
17–26.
Emery, F., and Thorsrud, E. (1976). Democracy at
work: The report of the Norwegian industrial
democracy program. Martinus Nijhoff: Leiden.
Fay, D., & Lührman, H. (2004). Current themes in
organizational change. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 13, 113–119.
Fjell, Y., Österberg, M., Alexanderson, K., Karlqvist,
L., & Bildt, C. (2007). Appraised leadership styles,
psychosocial work factors, and musculoskeletal
pain among public employees. International
Archives of Occupational and Environmental
Health, 81, 19–30.
Friedman, R., & Curral, S. (2003). Conflict
escalation: Dispute exacerbating elements of e-mail
communication. Human Relations, 56, 1325–1348.
Galbraith, P. (2004). Organizational leadership
and chaos theory. Let’s be careful. Journal of
Educational Administration, 42, 9–28.
Gill, R. (2003). Change management – or change
leadership? Journal of Change Management, 3,
307–323.
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A. (1967), The discovery of

grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.
Aldine, New York.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences:
Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and
organizations across nations. (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jimmieson, N. L., Terry, D. J., & Callan, V. J. (2004).
A longitudinal study of employee adaptation to
organizational change: The role of change-related
information and change-related self-efficacy. Journal
of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 11–27.
Katz, D. and Kahn, R. L. (1978), The social psychology
of organizations (2nd ed.) Wiley, New
York, NY.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Balazs, K. (1997). The
downside of downsizing. Human Relations, 50,
11–50.
King, J. E. (2000). White collar reactions to job
insecurity and the role of the psychological
contract: Implications for human resource
management. Human Resource Management, 39,
79–91.
Kotter, J. (1990). A force for change: How leadership
differs from management. London: Sage.
Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Cambridge:
Harvard Business School Press.
Kubr, M. (1996). Management consulting: A guide to
the profession. (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Locke, K. (2001), Grounded theory in management
research. Sage, London.
McDaniel, R. R. (1997). Strategic leadership: A view
from quantum and chaos theories. Health Care
Management Review, 22(1), 21–37.
Nelson, G. S. (2005). Tipping points: Building
momentum for lasting change. Organization
Development Journal, 23, 71–78.
Nguyen, H., & Kleiner, B. H. (2003). The
effective management of mergers. Leadership &
Organizational Development Journal, 24, 447–454.
Norge (1996). Lov av 4. februar 1977 nr.
4 om arbeidervern og arbeidsmiljø m.v.
(arbeidsmljøloven): med endringer. [Law of
February 4th ­on workers’ protection and work
environment (the work environment act), with
subsequent ammendments.] Oslo: Grøndahl.
Nyberg, A., Bernin, P., & Theorell, T. (2005). The
impact of leadership on the health of subordinates.
SALTSA – Joint Program for Working Life
Research in Europe. Report no. 1:2005. Stockholm:
The National Institute for Working Life/
Arbetslivsinstitutet.
Nytrø, K., Saksvik, P. Ø., Mikkelsen, A., Quinlan,
M., & Bohle, P. (2000). An appraisal of key factors
27
in the implementation of occupational stress
interventions. Work & Stress, 13, 213–225.
Pettigrew, A. (1985). The awakening giant: Continuity and change in imperial chemical
industries. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Saksvik, P. Ø., Nytrø, K., Dahl-Jørgensen, C., &
Mikkelsen, A. (2002). A process evaluation of
individual and organizational occupational stress
and health interventions. Work & Stress, 16, 37–
57.
Saksvik, P. Ø., Tvedt, S. D., Nytrø, K., Buvik, M. P.,
Andersen, G. R., Andersen, T. K., et al. (2007).
Developing criteria for healthy organizational
change. Work & Stress, 21, 243–263.
Skogstad, A. (1997). Effect of leadership behaviour
on job satisfaction, health and efficiency. Norway:
Department of Psychosocial Science, University of
Bergen.
Smeltzer, L. R. (1991). An analysis of strategies for
announcing organization-wide change. Group &
Organization Studies, 16, 5–24.
Sparks, K., Faragher, B., & Cooper, C. L. (2001).
Well-being and occupational health in the 21st
century workplace. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 73, 389–509.
Stacey, R. D. (1992). Managing the unknowable:
Strategic boundaries between order and chaos in
organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Stacey, R. D. (2000). Strategic management &
organizational dynamics: The challenge of
complexity. Essex, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
Tvedt, S. D., & Saksvik, P. Ø. (2008a).
Organizational change and employee health. In
APA (American Psychological Association), Work,
Stress, and Health Conference. Washington DC, US,
6–8 March 2008.
Tvedt, S. D. og Saksvik, P. Ø. (2008b). Embracing
change. Paper presented at the OPEN workshop,
Innsbruck Austria October 23.
Tvedt, S. D., Saksvik, P. Ø., & Nytrø, K. (2008).
The function of process healthiness as moderator
for general effects of organizational change on
the psychosocial work environment. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Warren, N., Karasek, R., Punnett, L., & Houtman,
I. (1999). Worker-employer risk estimate disparity:
Identifying the unhealthy organization. In APA
(American Psychological Association), Work, Stress,
and Health Conference. Baltimore, ML, US, 11–13
March 1999.
Weymes, E. (2003). Relationships not leaderships
sustain successful organisations. Journal of Change
Management, 3, 319–331.
Wheatley, M. J. (1992). Leadership and the new
science: Learning about organizations from an
28
orderly universe. San Francisco, CA: Berett-Koehler
Publishers.
Whelan-Berry, K. S., Gordon, J. R., & Hinings, C.
R. (2003). Strengthening organizational change
processes: Recommendations and implications from
a multilevel analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 39, 186–207.
Worrall, L., & Cooper, C. L. (1998). Quality of
working life: 1998 survey of managers’ changing
experiences. London: Institute of Management.
Young, M., & Frost, J. E. (1998). Managing to
communicate, communicate to manage: How
leading companies communicate with employees.
Organizational Dynamics, 22, 31–43.
Yukl, G. A. (1998). Leadership in organizations. (4th
ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bokanmeldelse
Lev Livet Nå – ny bok om mindfulness
Forfatter: Rebekka Th. Egeland
Forlag: Pantagruel Forlag
År: 2009
Sider: 229 inkl. referanser
Kapitler: 9
Lest av Christer Mortensen, spesialist i arbeids- og
organisasjonspsykologi.
Lev livet nå, er en ny bok på norsk om mindfulness.
Forfatter av boken, psykologen Rebekka Egeland,
ønsker å gi leseren kunnskap om, og innsikt i
mindfulness som meditasjonsform. Målet er å skape
et ønske hos leseren om å la mindfulness bli en del
av ens daglige liv. Dette for å kunne redusere stress,
øke livskvaliteten og som forfatteren sier det; «gå
den veien du virkelig ønsker å gå i livet». Forfatteren
hevder at løsningen på samfunnets økende omfang
av stressrelaterte lidelser ligger i oss selv gjennom
å bruke de ressursene vi alle har i oss. Dette er et
grunnleggende positivt menneskesyn, noe jeg kjenner
igjen fra nevrolingvistisk programmering (NLP),
gestaltpsykologi og kognitiv atferdsterapi. Boken
fremstår i den positive psykologiens ånd, noe jeg
verdsetter som et godt supplement og motvekt til den
mer elendighetskåte delen av psykologien. Boken er
ment å være praktisk og retter seg mer mot folk flest.
Den er således ikke ment som en bok for fagutøvere,
men kan egne seg for den fagutøver som ønsker å
bruke boken som et lett tilgjengelig supplement til å
lære seg mer om mindfulness.
Begrepet mindfulness er ikke forsøkt oversatt, men
er gjennom hele boken pakket inn et par skjemmende
«hermetegn». Det burde finnes nordiske eller
germanskspråklige ekvivalenter, som kunne knytte
begrepet an til vår egen språkhistorie. Et alternativ
ville være å akseptere begrepet som det er, og bruke
det – uten hermetegn og på den måten stå for
begrepet, ikke bare bruke begrepet på «lissom».
Mindfulness beskrives i boken som en
oppmerksomhet omkring de pågående
bevissthetsprosesser, og samtidig noe mer enn kun
oppmerksomhet. Forfatteren ønsker å forklare hva
mindfulness er gjennom en referanse til hva det
ikke er. Mindfulness blir kontrastert til begrepet
mindlessness, som betegner en tilstand av å være
mentalt fraværende eller bevisstløs ens pågående
mentale handlinger. Det engelske begrepet «full» (fylt/
helt) satt opp mot begrepet «less» (mindre/tom /løs) er
et godt retorisk grep, og viser samtidig at mindfulness
på ingen måte er et nøytralt beskrivende begrep
av et mentalt fenomen eller tilstand. Begrepet gir
29
assosiasjoner til hva som er godt og ønskverdig, med
mindre en har hengt på seg slagordet til arkitekten
Ludwig Mies van der Rohe «less is more», hvilket
senere dukket opp i organisasjonsfaget knyttet til
områder som outsourcing, downsourcing og Lean
management.
Ett spørsmål jeg stilte meg i møte med boka er om
det ligger konvensjonell vitenskap bak påstandene
om at mindfullness basert stressreduksjon (MBSR)
kan vise til positive effekter. For de som er opptatt
av evidensbasert praksis, kan jeg nevne at det etter
hvert begynner å komme en god del forskning på
meditasjon og mindfulness. Flere studier viser at
MBSR har positive effekter på ulike aspekter ved den
mentale helsen, men få klarer å demonstrere større
effekt enn normale forventingseffekter. I 2004 ble det
gjennomført en metastudie (Grossman, Niemann,
Schmidt og Walach) som viste at mindfulness som
stressreduserende intervensjon hjelper enkelpersoner
til bedre å mestre en lang rekke mentale og somatiske
lidelser. Av totalt 64 utvalgte studier på mindfulness
som stressreduserende intervensjon og supplement
til behandling av både somatiske og psykiske plager,
var det kun 20 som holdt en vitenskapelig akseptabel
kvalitet. Både studier med og uten kontrollgruppe
viste seg å gi et positivt resultat, med en effektstørrelse
på ca. 0.5 (P<.0001).
Øvelsene i boka er i liten grad beskrevet som
prosedyrer, men gir heller forslag til ting du kan gjøre.
I enkelte passasjer skriver forfatteren på en deltakende
måte og er med deg gjennom øvelsen. Dette er en
sympatisk, deltakende og samtidig ikke dirigerende
tilnærming. Dette grepet passer nok best den som er
opptatt av fortelling fremfor struktur og presisjon.
Så til spørsmålet om mindfulness har kvaliteter
som gjør det interessant for utøvere innen
arbeids- og organisasjonspsykologien. For
kliniske arbeidspsykologer og andre som jobber
med fraværsforebygging, attføring og liknende,
vil mindfulness være en tilnærmingsmåte å ta
nærmere i betraktning. For de av oss som jobber
med organisasjoner, er det nok lederutvikling og
veiledning som først og fremst er relevant å knytte til
mindfulness. Men et her-og-nå fokus er ikke noe nytt i
denne sammenheng. Observasjon av gruppedynamiske
prosesser har siden midten av 40-tallet arbeidet med et
slikt fokus. Chris Argyris sitt fokus på individuell og
organisatorisk læring, inkluderer den pågående indre
dialog i dynamikken med den eksterne observerbare
atferden. En annen tilnærming, gestaltpsykologien
bygger også på en nærværende og aksepterende
tilnærming som grunnlag for utvikling, ofte illustrert
ved sitater av gestaltguruen Frederick Perls (det er når
du aksepterer deg som du er, du endres). Det virker
30
ikke på meg som om mindfulness tilfører noen nye
dimensjoner til det organisatoriske utviklingsarbeidet,
ei heller en bedre presisjon i dette.
Jeg skal ikke legge skjul på at jeg er en fordomsfull
mann. Når jeg er får en ny bok i hånden, liker jeg å
kikke bakerst først. Det er noen ganger en kan lukte
hva en har fremfor seg (bevisstheten min leder pussig
an til bildet av hunder som møtes). Som kjent hender
det at en faglitterær forfatter bakerst i boken oppgir
hvor en har blitt inspirert og funnet kilder til sitt
eget litterære verk. Bak i boken finner leseren både
anbefalinger av ressurspersoner og referanser til sider
på verdensveven. De nettadresser som blir oppgitt
av forfatteren henviser deg videre til buddhistiske og
zen inspirerte sider. Dette fyrer opp under alle mine
fordommer, og jeg må arbeide hardt mot impulsen om
å klassifisere mindfulness i kategorien tro og religion.
Jeg må nevne det, fordi det simpelthen ikke går an å
anmelde denne boken uten å samtidig nevne de klare
koplingene til religionsutøvelse (kristendommen er
også nevnt i boken og det tilbys en redning for den
leser som synes koplingen til østlig tro og filosofi blir
for sterk).
Buddhismen slik jeg kjenner den inneholder
ulike teknikker for å påvirke egne mentale
tilstander. Samtidig er det heldigvis ikke slik at
om du mediterer eller bruker meditative teknikker
hentet fra Buddhismen automatisk gjør deg til en
buddhist. Evnen til å være oppmerksomt tilstede er
en menneskelig kvalitet, som verdsettes i ulik grad
i ulike kulturer. I det hele tatt er vårt forhold til tid
interessant i et kulturelt perspektiv, og mindfulness
passer godt som et motkulturelt innslag i et samfunn
som er fremtids- og vekst orientert. Forfatteren
hevder at det er en trend i samfunnet at nåtiden blir
fullstendig glemt og ignorert til fordel for fortiden og
fremtiden. Hun har nok rett i at utsagn som burde,
skulle og bare dominerer manges tanker og skaper
en evaluerende avstand til de pågående opplevelsene.
Kåsører og motivasjonsguruer som for eksempel
Karsten Isacsen, har i en årrekke underholdt med
temaet «skulle-bare-livet», så dette er velkjente
betraktninger.
Når forfatteren hevder at vi lever i et
velferdssamfunn som gir oss alt vi trenger og at
de fleste av oss har god økonomi, velger høyere
utdannelse og ender opp med godt betalte jobber,
virker det som om bokens målgruppe er det
venstresiden i norsk politikk vil kalle de sutrende
velstående.
Alt dette ville vært helt unødvendig å nevne dersom
ikke forfatteren så tydelig og bevisst hadde kastet
seg inn i samfunnsdebatten. Både i innledningen og i
etterordet, fremfører forfatteren klare standpunkter
til de observasjoner hun har gjort seg av det samfunn
hun deltar i. I et politisk perspektiv kunne boken vært
interessant, men her mener jeg den blir forunderlig
platt. Den formelig oser av en individualisme som
forfatteren ønsker å kritisere. Gjennom å hevde
at enhver har ressursene i seg til å oppnå det en
ønsker, stiller forfatteren seg i en posisjon som åpner
for å være aksepterende til selve grunnlaget for
materialismen: Min rett til å eie noe på bekostning av
deg, fordi du har de samme muligheter som meg!
Forfatterens påstand om at meditasjonen vil
hjelpe til med å kvitte seg med uoppnåelige krav
og forventninger og at man ikke trenger materielle
verdier for å kunne identifisere seg, er både
fattigmannens trøst (jeg har ingen penger, men gleden
i livet kan ingen ta fra meg) og kapitalistens moralske
sutteklut (alle kan oppnå det samme som meg bare de
vil nok). Det er mulig forfatterens prosjekt er å gjøre
den enkelte sterk i seg selv, og derigjennom uavhengig
av andre. Men hypotetisk sett kan et innoverrettet
fokus og meditative handlinger like godt føre til økt
individualisering og mer ensomhet dersom prosjektet
med økt lykke ikke fører frem og virkemiddelet er
mer tid brukt på meditasjon og mindfulness. I en slik
situasjon er faren for virkelighetsflukt overhengende.
Det stadig økende omfang av mentale lidelser
i det norske samfunnet som forfatteren beskriver
innledningsvis, har vist seg å være høyt korrelert
med endring i samfunnsstrukturer, rollemønstre
og sosioøkonomisk status. Å ikke reflektere over
de relasjonelle og kontekstuelle faktorer som
påvirker oss, gjør boken til et tannløst innlegg i den
samfunnsutvikling som forfatteren pretenderer å være
en motvekt til. De sosialdemokratiske grunnverdier
som sosialt ansvar (omtanken for de som ikke har like
gode muligheter) og rettferd (samfunnets ressurser
skal komme flertallet til gode og ikke kun eies av et
mindretall) har trange levekår i dagens samfunn, og
får ingen drahjelp av forfatteren.
Forfatteren pynter seg i overkant med sitater fra
andre tenkere. Det går nesten ikke en eneste side uten
at et sitat dukker opp. For meg går dette underveis
fra å være små stoppesteder til ettertanke til å bli
forstyrrende og til slutt irriterende likt en festtaler
som har fått en ny sitatordbok i 50-årsgave. De
mange sitater gir et inntrykk av at forfatteren kjenner
teoretikerne gjennom sin egen lesning av originale
kilder. Hvis så var tilfelle er det besynderlig at hun gir
legevitenskapen og ikke Decartes kreditten for å ha
skapt skillet mellom sinn og kropp.
Det oppleves som et skikkelig paradoks at
forfatteren kritiserer den vrimmel av selvhjelpsbøker
som finnes, når boken så tydelig føyer seg inn i
nettopp den samme rekken. Jeg synes boken er
 31
velskrevet og lettlest, men den klarer ikke å skille seg
ut, verken faglig eller litterært.

Referanser:
P.Grossman, L.Niemann, S.Schmidt, H.Walach (2004)
Mindfulness-based stress reduction and health
benefitsA meta-analysis. Journal of Psychosomatic
Research, volum 57, bind 1, side 35-43
32
Vi spør bedriften!
1. Hvilke effekter 2. Hvilke tiltak
ser dere av anbefaler dere
finanskrisen? for å motvirke
effekten av
«Vi spør bedriften» er en spalte der vi tar
opp dagsaktuelle temaer innenfor feltet
organisasjonspsykologi. Hensikten er å få ta
del i hvordan bedrifter opplever og håndterer
samfunnsmessige og menneskelige utfordringer
i arbeidslivet. I dette nummeret har vi valgt å se
nærmere på finanskrisen. Bedriftene som har deltatt er
Psykologibistand, Hartmark Consulting og NAV.
Dette kommer til å være en fast spalte i
Scandinavian Journal of Organizational Psychology.
Har du forslag til tema eller bedrifter som kan spørres,
ta kontakt med redaksjonen på følgende e-post
adresse: sjop@psykol.org
Astrid Paulsrud,
NAV
finanskrisen? 3. Ser dere noen
muligheter
til å bruke
finanskrisen
1. Arbeidsledigheten har økt kraftig, og det har
ført til at flere har behov for våre tjenester. Vi
bistår arbeidsgivere i forbindelse med permitteringer
og oppsigelser.
For en arbeidstaker som mister jobben
eller permitteres, er NAV i første omgang
viktig for å opprettholde en inntekt. De fleste
har rett til dagpenger, og NAV har gjennom
lønnsgarantiordningen ansvar for å sikre at lønn og
feriepenger man har krav på, blir utbetalt dersom
bedriften går konkurs. NAV bistår også arbeidssøkere
med å finne ny jobb. Det viser seg at vi årlig har ca.
fire ganger så mange enkeltpersoner registrert som
arbeidsløse enn den gjennomsnittlige ledigheten, så de
fleste opplever en kort ledighetsperiode. På www.nav.
no finnes den største oversikten over ledige stillinger i
Norge.
Som ansatte i NAV merker vi krisen gjennom økt
pågang fra arbeidsgivere og arbeidstakere, som f.eks. i
januar i år da vi behandlet mer enn dobbelt så mange
dagpengesøknader som i desember året før.
2. For NAV er det viktig å ha et velfungerende
arbeidsmarked slik at de som står uten arbeid,
så raskt som mulig kan komme i jobb. Vi tilbyr også
en rekke tiltak for å kvalifisere de som trenger bistand
til å komme i arbeid. Tiltakene kan variere fra hjelp til
å skrive en god søknad til å lære nye ferdigheter som
etterspørres i dagens marked, eller det kan handle om
å bygge opp troen på egen verdi i arbeidsmarkedet
for de som har stått utenfor i lengre perioder. Vi øker
også innsatsen for å hjelpe personer som er rammet av
psykiske lidelser, ut i arbeidslivet.
3. Urolige tider kan tvinge fram omstilling som gir
de ansatte nye utfordringer og ny kompetanse.
I den grad produksjonspresset blir mindre, kan
tiden brukes til kompetanse-utvikling og etter- og
videreutdanning. Arbeidsgivere kan ha nytte av å
kontakte NAV for å finne ut hvilke støtteordninger
som kan være aktuelle for situasjonen i deres bedrift.
4. For å redusere utrygghet, er det viktig å gi god,
forutsigbar og korrekt informasjon, og heller
informere for mye enn for lite. Ved å invitere til å se
på muligheter for å øke kreativitet og mestringsevne
samt lytte til de ansattes innspill i forhold til utvikling
av virksomheten, involveres ansatte i egen situasjon og
framtid.
 33

1. Blant våre kunder ser vi gjennomgående

utfordringer knyttet til at man mister kunder
med påfølgende tap i omsetning og likviditet. Dette
påvirker helt klart den psykologiske kontrakten i
virksomhetene. Både lederne og øvrige medarbeidere
står ovenfor økte krav til kortsiktige resultater og Tove Helene Edvardsen og Harald Støre,
effektivitet. Det stilles høyere krav til medarbeiderne,
Hartmark Consulting
deres innsats og fleksibilitet. Samtidig ser vi at
det i tiltagende grad kuttes i lønn og goder som
kompetanseutviklingstiltak. For mange er også
permitterings- og nedbemanningsspøkelset en realitet.

2. Dette er det ikke noe enkelt svar på, men ett

nøkkelelement er at det er en god, åpen og
konsistent informasjonsflyt i virksomheten. Spesielt Rolv Mohn,
viktig er åpenhet rundt virksomhetens situasjon psykologbistand
og hvordan man ligger an. Det å ikke informere
er et viktig signal i seg selv og øker risikoen for
at det genereres rykter og spekulasjoner uten rot
i virkeligheten. Det er også viktig å ha fokus på å
involvere og forankre beslutninger om endringer
eller tiltak hos medarbeiderne og tillitsvalgte/ Ganske mange av kundene våre nedbemanner
fagorganisasjonene. og omstiller. Dette innebærer mer arbeid med

3. Så absolutt. Kriser er alltid en god mulighet

for utvikling! Den kan blant annet bidra til
å styrke det interne samholdet og teamfølelsen, noe
man ofte ser når virksomheten er utsatt for eksternt
press. Finanskrisen gjør også at man blir tvunget
til å gjøre ubehagelige men viktige valg i forhold
til bemanning. Det er da viktig å velge tiltak som
kan opprettholder/forsterke bedriftens omdømme.
Det er i tider som disse at organisasjoner viser sitt
sanne jeg. Utformingen av tiltak som krisepakker,
nedbemanning og liknende vil utløse reaksjoner hos
medarbeidere og andre interessenter. Måten disse
tiltakene gjennomføres på vil ikke bli glemt av dem i
eller rundt bedriften. Her kan HR gjøre en viktig jobb
i forhold til å støtte opp om gode og ryddige prosesser, produksjon som gjør organisasjonen sterkere og
og således også styrke sin interne posisjon.
ledertrening, og med trening av HR-personell, knyttet
til det å gjennomføre endringer på gode måter.
Utvikling av planer og kvalitetssikring av prosesser,
trening av ledere, vernepersonell og tillitsvalgte,
oppfølgning av overtallige.
Vi får også en del henvendelser fra ledere og eiere
som opplever betydelige stressutfordringer knyttet til
det å omstille seg personlig og forretningsmessig.
1. Høy grad av skikkelighet og profesjonalitet i
omstillingsarbeidet. God planlegging. Høy grad
av involvering og kvalifisering av ledernivåene.
2. Kriser kan også gi muligheter. På
organisasjonsnivå kan man sette i gang
nødvendige endringer i organisering, produkter og
med en riktigere og tydeligere forretningsmessig og

4. God ledelse er en forutsetning i urolige tider.

For det første er det viktig at medarbeiderne
blir sett og får oppmerksomhet slik at man opplever
samfunnsmessig funksjon.

3. Mange ledere får trening på endringsledelse.

seg ønsket og ikke blir usikker på hvor man står. Som
nevnt overfor er også tilstrekkelig grad av informasjon
helt kritisk, slik at man kan forebygge og dempe
utrygghet og uro blant de ansatte.
Det å lede i tøffe tider kan gi ledere en
anledning til å utvikle personlig integritet og autoritet.
4. God involvering. Tydelige prosesser knyttet
til omstillinger. Juridisk og psykologisk høyt
presisjonsnivå ved nedbemanninger. Trygge ledere.
34
Referat fra Testdagen 2009
Henning Døscher
For annen gang arrangerte Sertifiseringsrådet for
Testbrukere i Norge (STN), i samarbeid med Det
Norske Veritas (DNV), Testdagen. I fjor var temaet
for Testdagen ferdighets- og begavelsestester, mens
årets program fokuserte på personlighetstester.
Programmet omhandlet flere tankevekkende og
provoserende tema. Det var tydelig at arrangørene
hadde lagt seg i selen for å skape et allsidig program.
Vi kaster et lite blikk på noen av innleggene.
I innledningen påpekte Ole Iversen viktigheten
av DnV og STNs sertifiseringsordning i forhold til
å sikre forsvarlig kvalitet både på verktøyene som
benyttes i Norge og måten disse brukes i praksis.
Selve sertifiseringen av brukere er i ferd med å bli
omarbeidet for å gjøre eksamen mer rettferdig, mer
strømlinjeformet og mindre ressurskrevende. Sverre
L. Nilsen fra Psykologforeningen, prosjektleder i
Norge for arbeidet med en internasjonal standard for
bruk av psykometriske verktøy og tester (ECP2009),
redegjorde for arbeidet med standarden, som vil
foreligge i 2010.
«Testing inn i toppledelsen»
Etter en presentasjon av Manpowers
Rekrutteringsselskap (Manpower Professional
Executive AS) gjennomgikk Knut Hauge Manpowers
synspunkter på rekrutteringssituasjonen i den
nåværende situasjonen. Hauge påpekte at dagens
situasjon stiller nye krav til ledere, da trendene i
arbeidsmarkedet peker i retning av:
1. Økende kompetansekrav
2. Økende utdanningsnivå
3. Mer karrierebevisste ansatte
4. Kortere arbeidstid
5. Eldre arbeidsstyrke
6. Vansker med å finne kvalifisert arbeidskraft
7. Sterkere reallønnsvekst enn internasjonalt
8. Økende migrasjon
Det er ikke lenger snakk om at det er den mest
tilpasningsdyktige som blir leder, men hvorvidt
vi under slike krav til endring har ledere som er
tilpasningsdyktige nok!
Per Olav Hagås presenterte så sine tanker om
testing av ledere. Utgangspunktet må være at
toppledelsene forstår at HR har vært gjennom et
paradigmeskifte der personalledelse har utviklet
seg fra å være hyggelige og sosiale stillinger for
tidligere offiserer til å være en vitenskap. En annen
grunnforutsetningen må være at toppledelsene også
forstår at riktig bruk av dokumentert metodikk i en
rekrutterings- eller utviklingsprosess faktisk handler
om økonomi.
Under Testdagen i fjor, som handlet om evne og
ferdighetstester, påpekte Hunter Mabon fra Assessio
at det er dokumentert at den økonomiske effekten
av et standardavvik på verdien pr. år av en nyansatt
leder er mellom 20% og 200% av den lønnen
vedkommende får. Per Olav Hagås trakk frem denne
konklusjonen og minnet om konklusjonens gyldighet
og at en feilansettelse lett koster 2 millioner i tapt
inntekt de første 2 årene.
Haugås understreket viktigheten av å fjerne
mystikken rundt bruken av tester, skape økende
aksept for at psykometriske tester måler noe håndfast
og viktig, samt dokumentere verktøyenes evne til
forutsi riktig/viktig atferd (prediktiv validitet). Norge
har kommet langt i internasjonal målestokk med
hensyn til dokumentasjon av testleverandører, så
utgangspunktet for disse endringene er godt.
En oppgradering, systematisering og bevisstgjøring
av testbrukernes metodikk er også sentral, blant
annet fordi multibruk av systematiske verktøy øker
den prediktive validiteten konklusjonene.
«Etikk vs. effektivitet i forbindelse med testing
– Noen måter å tråkke i salaten på»
Andreas Løes Narum presenterte oss for en del
tanker omkring etikk i kontrast til effektivitet i
rekrutteringsarbeidet. Han pekte på en del eksempler
på åpenbar uetisk atferd, for eksempel sjarlataner og
kvakksalvere, testrapporter uten hold som får enorme
følger, samt maktmisbruk. Et vesentlig problem er at
ingen tør å si ifra.
Disse problemene har medført en stadig økende
kvalitetsbevissthet blant alle aktører, og det er satt i
gang mange tiltak for å styrke kvalitative element for å
unngå å ”trampe i salaten” – for eksempel har Norsk
Psykologforening og Internasjonal Test Commission
utarbeidet etiske retningslinjer for testbruk.
Den største innsatsen gjør den/de som er
operatører av rekrutteringsprosesser. Bevissthet
om sammenhengen mellom riktig valg av kandidat
basert på analyse av både funksjon, kandidat og
det kvalitative innholdet i rekrutteringsprosessen er
sentralt.
Narum understreket viktigheten av rolleavklaring
både i forhold til oppdragsgiver og kandidat.
Utfordringene i et intervju kan være store, og
intervjueren må være ekstremt bevisst sin rolle,
de åpenbare ”halo effektene” som kan påvirke
objektivitet og sin egen påvirkning på kandidaten/
situasjonen. Intervjuerens rolle skal alltid være å bidra
til et mest mulig objektivt uten at kandidaten føler seg

”trampet på”.
Ifølger Narum er bruk av enkle ferdighetstester
og evnetester tidlig i seleksjonsfasen bra for
oppdragsgiver fordi dette er praktisk gjennomførbart.
Med testbruk kan man sikrer en rettferdig prosess,
hvilket er bra for kandidaten. Alle får lik sjanse til å
gjøre det bra – uansett sosial status. Det er selvfølgelig
viktig at konsulenten behandler kandidatene
respektfullt og seriøst. I forhold til økonomisk
resultat er det viktigste at man bruker metoder med
høy validitet og at man har en ”seleksjonsrate”
som minst bør være omtrent syv til én (altså at man
har syv kandidater pr. stilling man ønsker). Narum
understreket viktigheten av å ikke benytte verktøy
med lav validitet, da slike verktøy ødelegger antagelig
langt mer enn de hjelper.
Hvite tester og brune mennesker – hvem blir
svarteper?
Dyveke Hamza holdt et meget tankevekkende innlegg
om vanskelighetene knyttet til vurdering av kandidater
med innvandrerbakgrunn med bruk av metodikk og
erfaring basert på etnisk norske kandidater.
I innvandrerbefolkningen er 75% av ikke-
vesteuropeisk bakgrunn.
1. Innvandrerbefolkningen utgjør 9,7 % av den
norske befolkningen
2. Mange innvandrergrupper har høyere utdanning
enn «den norske”
3. Mange innvandrere er i yrker de er overkvalifiserte
for
4. Mange innvandrere opplever seg diskriminert i
arbeidslivet
5. Utviklingen i arbeidsmarkedet viser et behov
for at de metoder og kriterier som anvendes
i rekruttering og medarbeider utvikling må
betraktes i et flerkulturelt perspektiv
Det store spørsmålet er jo hvorvidt norske
rekrutterere er i stand til å vurdere mennesker
med en annen kulturell bakgrunn objektivt, og om
bruk av ”objektive” metoder er i stand til, å skille
mellom egenskaper og atferd hos personer med
innvandrerbakgrunn. Rekrutteringsprosesser utføres
forskjellig i forskjellige kulturer, og forventninger til
kandidater og konsulenter er vidt forskjellige i ukile
kulturer.
Hamza fortalte at å benytte kandidatens morsmål
på verktøyet i en testsituasjon ikke nødvendigvis en
er tilstrekkelig tilpasning. For det første er språk en
kulturbærer med mange fasetter: For eksempel er
arabisk et språk som snakkes i 23 land (ulike kulturer)
på 3 kontinenter. Variasjonen i språket er stor fra
land til land, og variasjon i kulturelle implikasjoner
av begrep eller ord i en test kan føre til en stor
35
spredning i holdningene som bidrar til svaret. For
det andre, når en kandidat som snakker (nesten?)
flytende norsk bes om å benytte morsmålet når testen
fylles ut, vil langt de fleste kandidater ”glippe over”
i et ”hjemlig” tankesett (rolle oppfattelse), som ikke
nødvendigvis gir de samme testresultatene som de ville
gjort om kandidaten hadde svart på Norsk. Dette er
fordi språket, kulturbæreren også bringer med seg
”erindringen” om den opprinnelige kulturen. I tillegg
er selvrapportering, som en test jo er, en kulturelt
betinget atferd som ikke er naturlig i alle kulturer.
En testsamtale inneholder en del forventninger til
partene, basert på de respektives kultur. Hvordan
påvirkes samtalen av de kulturelle (spenningene)
forskjellene mellom intervjuer og intervjuet? Ofte blir
intervjueren den største feilkilden. Ledere og personell
som arbeider med rekruttering der kandidater fra
ulike kulturer er aktuelle til en stilling bør trenes i
kultursensitivitet (bla bevisstgjøring om egen kultur,
interkulturell kommunikasjon etc).
Dyveke Hamza konkluderte med at gitt riktig bruk
og tilpasning av verktøy og kultursensitiv kompetanse
kan man unngå at noen blir svarteper.
”Lederutvikling - dyrt, interessant og
moro, men er det målbart? - Hvordan
psykologiske tester kan bidra til økt effekt av
lederutviklingsprogrammer”
Yngvar Sjoner og Det norske Veritas har bygget opp
et lederutviklingsprogram for å styrke de primære
lederkravene som stilles. To fundamentale forhold
bak den spesielle lederutfordringen for selskapet er
høy grad av spesialtilpasning, og den sterke graden av
direkte relasjon med kunden.
De viktigste komponentene i Veritas’ lederutvikling
er å bearbeide ledernes motivasjon (det følelsesmessige
engasjement i jobben, organisasjonen og mål/
strategi), grunnleggende ledelsesferdigheter,
organisasjonsforståelse, de personlige ambisjonene og
villigheten til å ofre noe.  
Disse tre elementene bidrar sammen til god ledelse.
Samtidig fremmes synet at ledere må være ærlige,
fremsynte, kompetente og inspirerende. Lederne må
være autentiske og troverdige: ”If you don’t believe in
the messenger, you won’t believe the message.”
Ifølge Sjoner bruker DNV ulike tester
lederutviklingen, men disse brukes edrulig. Evnetester
har begrenset nytte når de ansatte allerede har etablert
høy faglig kompetanse. Enkle ferdighetstester kan
likevel være nyttige for å identifisere kompetansegap
som lederne må jobbe med å fylle. Personlighetstester
og preferansemålinger, både normative og ipsative,
er velegnede i en utviklingssammenheng for å øke
36
graden av selvbevissthet, samt gode coaching verktøy
for videre utvikling av både team og individ. Sjoner
uttrykte et savn etter valide tester som måler verdier,
moral, evne til å takle stress og motgang, motivasjon,
og ambisjonsnivå.
Yngvar Sjoner avrunnet med å oppsummere sitt
hovedbudskap med at ledelse i en kunnskapsbedrift
handler også om å skape resultater gjennom andre,
og i større grad sammen med andre. Lederrollen
krever ny kunnskap og andre ferdigheter, og
rikelig med selverkjennelse. Bruk av tester kan
være med på akselerere selverkjennelse og øker
presisjonsnivået på coaching og utviklingstiltakenes
tempo og treffsikkerhet. Effektmåling av
lederutviklingsprogrammer er krevende og
omfattende, men vi må ha ”fingeren på pulsen” hele
tiden for kontinuerlig å forbedre og effektivisere.
Vi gleder oss til Testdagen 2010!