In Defense of Workplace Wellness Programs

Workplace wellness programs are taking much bashing after a UK study concluded that individualized wellness programs like mindfulness apps, resiliency training, and stress management interventions offer "little evidence in support of any benefits ...with even some small indication of harm." One Australian news article even sports the bold headline "Workplace Wellness Programs are a Waste of Time."

First off, it is great that a study with a large subject base has been made in this area. It is certainly worth exploring what works and what do not work, considering the large investment being poured into wellness programs by most companies.

And second, I am in full agreement with the results of this study. Workplace wellness interventions are useless --- but only when there is no effort to address systemic issues that create psychosocial risks and hazards at work. For certain, you cannot yoga your way out of a toxic workplace! In fact, the intense reaction to the study is really surprising to me, because from the very beginning whenever I or any of our team members at Childfam-Possibilities Psychosocial Services (CPPS) talk about workplace mental health, we emphasize that programs in isolation are not the way to go. The drive should be in creating a "wellness culture." And wellness culture building starts with (a) ensuring reasonable workloads, live-able wages, and job security, (b) mitigation of unnecessary stress and psychosocial risks, (c) training of managers about positive leadership, (d) ensuring safe work environments, and (e) protecting against discrimination, harassment, and abuse.

For me, Psychosocial Risk Management and Wellness Programs are not either-or propositions. They could work hand-in-hand. In fact, the study does not discount the possibility that wellness programs can help employees flourish and thrive assuming that the foundational securities are in place. The study merely said that these programs do not work because they do not address root causes of stress at work. Further, it admitted in its limitation section that it studied only "programs in isolation" and "participation is not considered within the wider structures that are important for evaluation."

Some more thoughts:

a. Most individualized interventions, such as EAP counseling, are targeted towards the 3-10% of individuals with clinical presentation. The UK study compared employees who underwent individual intervention with those who did not, and found no difference. But I think future studies should compare employees' well-being after intervention not against others but against their own personal baseline. A mentally healthy individual who did not undergo intervention when compared with an unwell individual who did might produce no significant difference.

But qualitatively, it is arguable that returning the functionality of an otherwise struggling employee is a worthy impact. Without the EAP, they may just worsen or become more unproductive --- and hence, costly --- at work. Keep in mind as well that it may take more intervention to heal those in the crisis spectrum of mental health than it is those in pre-crisis, hence the better measure of impact for severe cases should be further down in time.

b. Data on utilization and participation was not considered. Mindfulness apps are helpful, but I don't think it is everyone's cup of tea. Certainly in my observation of the typical Filipino workplace, the "personal approach" can never supplement an app. Apps are the by-product of scaling wellness. Maybe it is our collectivist culture but age and techno-savvy can easily impact use of wellness applications. Further, while mindfulness is evidence-based, it is not everyone's type of thing. The best wellness programs provides options and does not compel, and the reported "harm" of feeling pressured to be well is likely coming from a company's need to ensure everyone participates in their one-size-fits-all approach rather than working towards inclusivity of programming.

c. I strongly believe that resilience training still has a place at work. Mainly because the world is more difficult than it used to be. Removing psychosocial hazards at work doesn't remove the psychosocial hazards of post -COVID everyday life. Maybe privilege plays a role here. In the Philippine context where poverty remains a big risk factor, building on capability to cope with life amidst rising gas prices, climate change and its calamities, and political instability is a worthy investment to make. Your boss can be awesome, but the supertyphoon that is coming is still bound to increase your need for support. The UK study only studied the impact of resilience across the whole organization at one snapshot of time, but the best use of a resilience training is when adversity happens --- which is not at the same time for everyone.

d. And lastly, related to the previous section, wellness programs ideally should be designed with people's context in mind. Yes, they are individualized programs but they need to take a systemic view. What I have observed works well among Filipinos is contextualizing resilience amidst their family situations and amidst their faith beliefs. Programs on how to care for elderly parents while working, how to manage parenting guilt, and how to "surrender to a Higher Being" seems to be the most impactful. I suppose it's because, as the UK study mentioned, context is important. And so let us not throw individual programs away, but do design individual programs with context in mind.

I am sharing these thoughts primarily because I hope the study, while great and useful, do not create that knee-jerk reaction of throwing workplace wellness programs away. Specially for readers who do not critically read through limitations of a research, or even how "workplace wellness programs" are operationally defined in a journal article. Supporting wellness is more nuanced than a social media soundbite or a provoking headline. And the term workplace wellness programs is a larger umbrella than mindfulness apps, stress management interventions, and resiliency training. There is no need to create a conflict that does not exist; it's not occupational health specialist vs. psychologists, or risk managers vs. program designers.

What is certain is at any given point in time 1 in every 10 people suffer from a common mental health condition and burnout is at an all time high. In these times, throwing the baby with bathwater would be a greater tragedy.