iscover
As wellbeing policies continue to be implemented in the workplace, some have argued that it’s gone that bridge too far, masking the core issues with artificial perks that fail to offer true fulfilment to employees.
The COVID-19 pandemic was the catalyst for a wide range of new workplace policies, yet perhaps none more long-lasting and substantial than the adjustments made to wellbeing initiatives throughout Australian organisations.
Now, health, mental health, and wellbeing are foundations in the workplace that cannot afford to be corrupted, which has resulted in heavy investment into various policies and strategies that attempt to mitigate risks that could affect those foundations.
HR Leader recently spoke to EST10 founder Roxanne Calder about her opinion on inflated wellbeing policies, which she claims can often be “superficial” as they often fail to meet the demands of what the real issues are.
“We got through the pandemic, [which] really highlighted how important it was for everyone to be healthy and how vital that was for not just ourselves, but our family, our friends and colleagues. The focus then became on businesses to make it even more at their forefront,” Calder said.
“And quite rightly as well, except the pendulum sort of has swung too far the other way. When you combine that with the skills shortage that we’re all going through, [then] suddenly wellness and wellbeing, perks, benefits, they’re all thrown in the mix to vie for everyone’s attention, to get the best talent. So, you’re negotiating on things that sometimes are just not maybe what they should be.”
As expectations around wellbeing policies continue to rise among talent, organisations are having to constantly adapt their employee value proposition (EVP) to include new strategies, benefits, and perks that can draw the attention of top talent.
Calder argues that expectations have gone to a level that no longer addresses the core issues that are involved with wellbeing. Instead, these unrealistic perks and benefits are putting added pressure on organisational leaders, arguably having the opposite effect of what a wellbeing policy is presumed to achieve.
“I call it the check. The check has got to be picked up somewhere. And inevitably, what I’m seeing when I meet with execs, with C suite, with managers, with leaders is they’re the ones that are picking up that check from the past four years and, in fact, the stats back it up,” Calder said.
“It’s something like a 50 per cent level of stress, [which] is higher than employees, because they’re the ones that are responsible, they’re the ones that are accountable, they’re the ones who report back to the shareholders – it’s still about the bottom line. That’s what I’m certainly starting to see. And I think that savvy HR professionals in businesses [who are] looking around, they’re seeing it as well.”
For wellbeing, Calder stressed the differences that each individual has in relation to how much support someone needs and the amount of time each individual needs dedicated towards it.
“First of all, wellbeing is an individual piece, and everyone’s level of what they need is different. You might have ample time but still not have a strong wellbeing, and other people might need that amount of time. Everyone needs something different. And that’s why I think I’m a little bit cynical about these perks and benefits that have been thrown [in]. I call them superficial, because I don’t think they were necessarily well thought out to actually handle the issues at hand,” she said.
“I think also we need to sort of say that it sits with the individual. So, we put a lot of pressure on companies and managers, execs, and leaders to say, ‘fix me this whole piece … and everything else that comes with it.’
“So, that whole piece around wellbeing is about making sure that you also take responsibility for that. It doesn’t just sit with the business that you work with or the execs.”
Calder admits her stances may be somewhat controversial. But at the same time, these wellbeing policies that she deems superficial have only exacerbated dependence on businesses and, as she claims, taken that agency off the individual and placed that added pressure on organisational leaders.
“Like I said, strong word, but I use that word superficial because it’s superficial if it doesn’t meet the demands of the real issues,” Calder said.
“It might be a bit controversial, so may as well make it a little bit controversial. But things like the yoga mats or bringing your dog to work or all those sorts of things, they’re great, but they’re not going to make you feel better mentally. It’s much deeper than that.”
“The programmes that we choose to use don’t do everything, but [we should] choose the ones that will really fix or go a long way to try and fix the issue. But it must match what your business is about as well and the values [that] you stand for, because then it will resonate and be more likely to be a part of it.”
The transcript of this podcast episode was slightly edited for publishing purposes. To listen to the full conversation with Roxanne Calder, click below:
Kace O'Neill
Kace O'Neill is a Graduate Journalist for HR Leader. Kace studied Media Communications and Maori studies at the University of Otago, he has a passion for sports and storytelling.
