What works, for whom, in which context?

This chapter aims to use realistic evaluation (RE) principles to analyze organizational stress interventions. Although there is a clear call for more attention to be paid to the intervention process and its context, not much guidance is offered on what methods may be appropriate and how they can be used to answer this call. Instead of only focusing on the effects of an intervention program, RE is an approach proposed by Pawson and Tilley (1997) which attempts to identify mechanisms and contextual characteristics in relation to outcomes. In this chapter, I first explore the reasons why, so far, stress interventions have produced inconsistent results. As Pawson and Tilley (1994) underline, there are several well-recognized failures of experimental evaluation of social programs, and the field of stress intervention is no exception. Nevertheless, there are some indications that organizational-level interventions can produce positive effects (Semmer, 2011). However, it remains unclear how they might be produced, by which mechanisms, in which context, and for the benefit of whom. This black box problem (where all the emphasis is placed on describing outcomes) presents a real barrier to progress in the prevention of psychosocial risks and occupational stress. In this chapter, I explore how the principles of RE can be used to evaluate organizational stress interventions. Before applying these principles to analyze a case of implementation failure in a UK private company, I discuss the paradigmatic wars characterizing this field and their implications on the production of knowledge on effective organizational interventions for stress and well-being.