More evidence in this HBR article of why most corporate well-being programs fail. The continued focus on individual-level interventions versus systemic fixes. To address this the article argues that organisations need to focus on interventions at the systemic level, such as workload management, autonomy and flexibility. I wonder how many organisation have reached that conclusion yet? An interesting read: https://lnkd.in/eza8VzXS #wellbeing #corporatewellbeing #EmployeeWellbeing #WorkplaceWellness #HealthyWorkplace #WellnessAtWork #PsychologicalSafety
Christian Harris
1mo
Analogous with accidents. We blame the person but instead we need focus on the engineering controls more.
I think it is futile to expect organizational intervention. Any programs that requires organizational intrrvention is likely to fail, as this touches on the very core of a culture that is shaped largely by senior management team. It is unlikely this people is willing to make changes to something that may be delivering profitabiliity. Hence actions such as trainings which is sanctioned by senior management will fail, as it does nothing. The one who gains are those individuals and organizations who provide the training.
But James it is so easy to look at broken people and say they must have been flawed. Why should the company ever question that it caused the failure when only some people break? Unfortunately, the above attitude is still rife, despite all the stress management and other guidance pumped out for more than 20 years. An uncomfortably large proportion of senior managers are actually sociopaths, so when you consider the oversized impact of such mindsets on the company cultures, it is hardly surprising that so many companies still only blame the victims instead of looking for corporate inadequacy. This seems to actually get worse in larger companies, where the 'brought in personal package' is apparently also more common. Apparently a part of the cure is simple streamlined management with transparency and accountability ... Oh, are these not looking like the principles of good governance and the HSE stress management standards? Odd how they should be so closely aligned. I found this paper that seems to be quite interesting on the point (if now a little old). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242338489_Organisational_sociopaths_Rarely_challenged_often_promoted_Why
Rohit Talwar
1mo
Addressing mental health without digital solutions requires a strategic approach. Companies should start by assessing employee needs (few months), then develop on-site solutions like manager training and counseling (maybe a year). Embedding these initiatives into the culture takes longer—often few years or more—and requires ongoing evaluation to ensure commitment to employee well-being. But employees may perceive late efforts as insincere. Only way out is shared / collaborated approach .. To implement effectively, organizations must encourage open communication and involve employees in developing initiatives. Quick pilot programs can demonstrate commitment and gather feedback, while leadership support reinforces their importance. By prioritizing transparency and responsiveness, companies can build trust and show genuine dedication to employee mental health.
Toomas Roolaid
1mo
Coming from a Estonia, where psychological distress and untreated & unidagnosed depression, anxiety, burnout are a major factors in destroying actual business performance, I am still baffled by this "compartmentalisation" of aspects of human psyche, that happens even in small organisations. Example - actual mid-level managers and team managers are made responsible for performance results both by team and by each team member. But for motivation and for psychological safety and health we'll make responsible a separate person, hired to work with HR and with absolutely no skin in the game nor with direct contact with employees. Also, let's build a wall between measures for psychological wellbeing and management system for pushing for, rewarding and punishing performance issues. I would love to believe it is just "carewashing", but in many small companies I see in my mind's eye surprised "pikachu" faces, when no wellbeing programme will alleviate damage done by authoritarian management.
Graham Bayliss
1mo
A really interesting read. I wonder how sitting together for lunch (phones away) can positively impact, compared to apps etc which are an isolating tool. Sustainability, is such a huge topic, but in this context, retaining talent, attracting talent, improving the story of your organisation and continuing to be successful must be influenced by how organisations improve work and look after their people.
Dom Cooper
1mo
Organizational interventions are just as problematic https://www.shponline.co.uk/wellbeing/wellbeing-much-ado-about-nothing/
Dhawal Patel
1mo
💯 This statement echoes with the gaps that one would see across every industry - "...significant changes like reimagining workflow or operations..." These are your high leverage points that could bring about profound and sustainable change.
Safety & Health Activist | Innovator | Investigator
1moBack to the basics of good, proper, meaningful, secure work that is safe, healthy, honest & well paid; the harm work does to people will reduce significantly. The evidence is overwhelming and repeated; forcing palliative & tertiary interventions onto working people to connive & pretend care is not helping. It’s not just about cash💰money ~ there are a cohort of working people fabulously well rewarded; consider the honesty & integrity of some of that work to get the big-bucks = there’s the destroyer..!