'If the workload is heavy, the work culture is toxic, the organization is understaffed, what can a training program on mindfulness do for employees?'
Too often, wellbeing initiatives focus on individualized strategies and changing the worker – instead of focusing on organizational practices that could have a greater impact.
That’s according to researcher William Fleming, who recently conducted a study looking at the effectiveness of mental well‐being interventions such as mindfulness, resilience and stress management, and well‐being apps.
“I find little evidence in support of any benefits from these interventions, with even some small indication of harm,” says the Unilever Research Fellow at the Wellbeing Research Centre at University of Oxford, in his study published in the Industrial Relations Journal.
Most companies these days are offering something in the name of wellbeing, he says, in talking to Canadian HR Reporter.
“I think there's rising cynicism about these kinds of initiatives… Too often, when people think about trying to improve your wellbeing, they immediately go to these individualized strategies. And I think that's a problem that needs to be addressed — there are other options to just offering job benefits and wellbeing apps and training courses and things.”
Lack of benefits from wellness benefits
In his research, Fleming used data involving 46,336 workers at 233 organisations in the U.K. to compare participants and nonparticipants with 11 common individual-level well-being interventions (volunteering, mindfulness classes, resilience/stress management classes, wellbeing apps, massage or relaxation classes, workload or time management training, in-person or online coaching, financial wellbeing programs and events promoting healthy sleep).
People were asked about what programs were offered by their employer, whether they participated, along with various outcomes such as job satisfaction.
“Basically, the results indicated there's no difference,” says Fleming, though he adds there was some benefit around volunteering, possibly because that’s more about trying to stimulate a sense of purpose and meaningfulness and there’s the potential for social impact.
In addition, at face value, there was some suggestion that those who participate in resilience training program see a negative effect, he says, but that could be because people who are more worried and stressed are slightly more likely to participate in those programs.
Overall, the results were the same across different demographics and different types of employers, including those that take a more integrated wellbeing approach and those that take a “band-aid” approach, says Fleming.
“I was quite surprised that there weren’t differences across organizations. If anything, that does seem to compound the key finding that there's no real benefit here [to these initiatives].”
Individual-level interventions for wellbeing
While expressing some reservation about how the study was done — such as collecting the data at one time instead of several times — Duygu Biricik Gulseren, assistant professor at the School of Human Resource Management at York University in Toronto, said it confirms other research about the drawbacks of these types of wellbeing initiatives.
The main challenge is that individual-level interventions aim to fix the worker rather than the system, she says.
“This is problematic for a number of reasons. First, individual-level interventions overlook systemic issues. Instead, they assume that well-being problems are employees’ personal problems. But if the workload is heavy, the work culture is toxic, the organization is understaffed, what can a training program on mindfulness do for the employees?”
In addition, these initiatives may be perceived as accusing the worker for not being well enough, says Gulseren.
For instance, resilience training might signal that the problem is not the presence of high levels of stressors, but the psychological weakness of the employee.
Second, individual interventions are demanding, she says. “They demand the time, attention and behavioural effort of employees for a change. Again, an employee who has hundreds of emails to reply to may not have such resources for the necessary change.”
Third, health, well-being and happiness have an individual component, says Gulseren.
“Some people experience a higher average wellbeing than others. This could be due to their nature or personal circumstances. Thus, while some employees may need and benefit from such programs, others may not benefit from them.”
However, making changes at the systemic, organizational level can affect all employees, she says, so organizational interventions are often perceived as more relevant by employees.
Changing the working conditions, not just the worker
Considering the downsides of wellbeing interventions, future research should evaluate if individual‐level interventions are effective alongside organisational change, or whether improvements in working conditions are a superior alternative, says Fleming.
“It's not enough to just offer individualized strategies, which only try and change the worker and their psychological resources and how they're feeling, which really just try and treat wellbeing in isolation from work — I think you've got to take seriously some of these organizational practices and the core working foundation.”
Instead, employers should consider changes to scheduling, management practices, staff resources, performance review or job design, he says.
“The mindset of the braver HR teams would say… ‘Oh, we're not offering stress training courses, but instead, we’re focusing on more important work characteristics and work practices, and that’s how we'll improve wellbeing.’”
It should be about getting to the root causes of stress and issues of wellbeing, says Fleming, such as assessing psychosocial risks, and occupational health and safety.
“There's guidance as well on more organizational change and base organizational policies that can help drive wellbeing… [and] guidance on individualized strategies. So it's partly about making sure that people engage with what's out there, and those resources that are available.”
Organizational factors and employee wellness
In looking at organizations with happy and engaged employees, there are factors that go beyond wellness initiatives, such as a healthy organizational culture, living up to organizational values, “walking the talk,” psychological safety, and effective leadership, says Gulseren.
“If employers are willing to make a positive change in employee health and wellbeing, investing in these factors would be more effective. For example, they can offer health-promoting leadership training to employees.”
Gulseren cites the RIGHT leadership model, proposed by herself and colleagues back in 2021, as an example of how changing organizational factors can make a difference in contrast to individual interventions.
“We found that when leaders verbally recognize their employees, involve them with important decisions, reiterate the importance of health and safety, offer growth and development opportunities, and foster teamwork among members, employees reported feeling psychologically safe, and having positive well-being.”
Taking the harder approach to wellbeing
Focusing more on organizational change doesn’t mean employers won’t help employees with issues outside of work, such as conflicts between work and family, says Fleming, as these can also be addressed through offerings such as flexibility and schedule control.
“It’s about recognizing what the responsibility of the employer is, and what can be done.”
Of course, employers want to do anything or take any kind of action that is going to improve engagement and improve employee wellbeing, he says.
“It's just about recognizing that one approach might be harder but is going to produce benefits while your other approach is easier and is probably not going to produce benefits.”
