Table 1
Characteristics of the employee interview sample per company.
| Case no. | Company | Interviewees | Gender | Range of Tenure | Work Time | Employment | Leadership responsibility |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ECO | 10 | 7 Female/3 Male | <5–15 years | 8 Part Time/2 Full Time | 10 Permanent Contract | 7 None/3 Middle Management |
| 2 | CUL | 9 | 5 Female/4 Male | <5–25 years | 2 Part Time/7 Full Time | 4 Permanent Contract/5 Temporary Contract | 7 None/2 Middle Management |
| 3 | FIN | 8 | 5 Female/3 Male | 5–>25 years | 3 Part Time/5 Full Time | 8 Permanent Contract | 7 None/1 Middle Management |
| 4 | SOC | 9 | 6 Female/3 Male | <5–15 years | 4 Part Time/5 Full Time | 8 Permanent Contract/1 Temporary Contract | 8 None/1 Middle Management |
| Total | 36 | 23 Female/13 Male | <5–>25 years | 17 Part Time/19 Full Time | 30 Permanent Contract/6 Temporary Contract | 29 None/7 Middle Management |
Table 2
Different levels with identified key themes and subthemes across interviews and companies.
| Key Themes | Subthemes |
|---|---|
| Organizational Level | |
| Structures and procedures | Hierarchies and bureaucracy Terms of employment and personnel policy Working time and workplace arrangements |
| Climate of performance | Organizational performance expectations Attitude of management towards employees Relationships between divisions |
| Climate of care | Offer of professional trainings Reactions to employees’ overload Passing on of economic pressure |
| Task Level | |
| Control at work | Autonomy Time constraints Dependencies |
| Role clarity | Content of tasks and responsibilities Expectations on quality of work |
| Team Level | |
| Proactive coordination | Forward-looking work planning Transparency of task distribution Possibility of mutual task compensation |
| Team structure and composition | Minimum team size Homogeneity vs. heterogeneity Team autonomy |
| Protective team climate | Leadership commitment Accepted role models and performance standards Mutual care taking |
| Employee Level | |
| Experience and development | Competencies off the job Competencies and attitudes on the job |
| Personal Characteristics | Core beliefs and attitudes Personality Traits |
| Awareness | Performance limits and needs Work as one life domain among others |
Table 3
Preconditions for limiting and focusing in the different companies on the different levels.
| Favourable Preconditions | Unfavourable Preconditions | |
|---|---|---|
| Organizational Level | ECO and SOC | CUL and FIN |
| Task Level | ECO and SOC | CUL and FIN |
| Team Level | ECO, SOC, and FIN | CUL |
| Employee Level | ECO, SOC, FIN, and CUL | |
[i] Note: ECO = institute for ecological research and consulting, SOC = institution for social-psychiatric services, CUL = cultural company, FIN = financial institution.
Table 4
Level of time and performance pressure and success of limiting and focusing for the different interview cases.
| Cases (interviews) | LAF successful | LAF not successful |
|---|---|---|
| TPP high | ECO1, ECO3, ECO4, ECO7, ECO8, ECO10 CUL1, CUL9 SOC2, SOC3, SOC7, SOC9 FIN8 | ECO2, ECO6 CUL2, CUL3, CUL4, CUL5, CUL6, CUL7, CUL8 – FIN1, FIN2, FIN3, FIN4, FIN5, FIN6, FIN7 |
| TPP low | ECO5, ECO9 SOC1, SOC4, SOC5, SOC6, SOC8 | – |
[i] Note: TPP = time and performance pressure, LAF = limiting and focusing, ECO = institute for ecological research and consulting, SOC = institution for social-psychiatric services, CUL = cultural company, FIN = financial institution.