Measuring Workplace Well-being: More Than Just Perks and Pulse Checks

In the corporate world, "well-being" is the latest must-have accessory, surpassing standing desks and mindfulness apps. Companies champing at the bit to be seen as progressive roll out yoga classes and wellness rooms in the belief this will suffice to keep employees content, and, more importantly, productive. Beneath the glossy brochures, however, lurks a harder question: how do you actually measure well-being in a way that isn't just another HR box to tick?

Anyone who's run a team knows that the interplay between well-being and performance amounts to much more than some fuzzy feeling: when people feel good, they work better. Yet most organisations have absolutely no idea how to measure this reliably. The raft of surveys, pulse checks, and mental health questionnaires all promise insight, but do they actually deliver anything more than superficial data? In today's workplace, measurement approaches have to be more than just well-intentioned gestures if they are to make any meaningful difference to both employees and the bottom line.

Surveys: An Oversold Solution?

Ah, the trusty survey: a staple of management, wheeled out quarterly or annually to gauge the mood of your employees. But let's be honest—how often does filling out these forms feel like ticking yet another box? Traditional employee surveys—such as the Gallup Well-Being Index—are designed to assess aspects like purpose and social relationships. These do, at times, provide a broad view to managers, but they often fall prey to the serious flaw known as response bias. Employees know that management is scrutinising their responses, and they may shape their answers more by what they think they should say than by what they actually feel.

Another issue is survey fatigue. A person can only provide input so many times before their best thoughts are no longer forthcoming. Companies heavily invested in maintaining morale often inundate an organisation with too many surveys, somehow not realising that frequency of collection does not necessarily equate to usefulness. If the level of granularity is conducted on a quarterly basis in a survey, a change will not occur unless managers act on those results. More often than not, this mandate has feedback buried in a file. For all the chatter about the value of data, most surveys generate more noise than insight.

Pulse Surveys: Canaries in the Corporate Coal Mine

So, somebody bright said: "Why not make the surveys shorter and more frequent?" Along came pulse surveys to capture real-time sentiment in fast-moving environments at work. Theoretically, they are a great idea. Why wait until an annual survey to understand morale is tanking when you can spot it every Monday morning?

The trouble with pulse surveys is that they are all too often misused. Instead of acting like a canary in the coal mine—gracing managers with an early warning of a potentially explosive issue—they simply join the ranks of yet another exercise treadmill of data collection. Already swamped by reports and KPIs, it is almost never the case that managers have the time or bandwidth to sift through pulse survey results to make meaningful changes. Worse, the respondents can wear out from all the requests for feedback—they can become downright intrusive rather than helpful. There's only so many "How are you feeling today?" emails a company can send before the eye-rolling begins with each ping of the inbox.

Moreover, pulse checks tend to capture ephemeral moods rather than sustained trends. Your top performer may report that they feel "stressed" on Monday because they had a bad commute, not because they are about to burn out. So, such tests, which in theory sound pretty useful, actually too often capture emotional blips without offering deep insights into systemic issues.

The Myth of Corporate Well-Being

Let’s not kid ourselves—much of what passes for workplace well-being is corporate window dressing. Free fruit in the office kitchen is nice, but it doesn’t address the underlying stress caused by heavy workloads, long hours, and unrealistic expectations. The new fascination with “mindfulness” and “resilience training” smacks of companies shifting responsibility onto employees: “Here’s how to meditate; now go manage your stress.” What’s missing in these initiatives is structural change, the kind that actually improves work conditions.

This brings us to the problem with many corporate well-being programmes: they treat the symptoms, not the cause. It’s one thing to offer mental health resources like Employee Assistance Programmes (EAPs), but another to acknowledge that much of the stress employees feel is a direct result of management practices. Companies want to offer well-being perks but without tackling the more difficult conversation about work-life balance, job demands, or toxic work cultures.

Mental Health: More than a Buzzword

There is little doubt that poor mental health is getting airtime in the workplace. The General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) and its ilk, which businesses use to make sense of the psychological state of their employees, actually show a much deeper insight than, say, a survey would be able to provide. Yet how comfortable is this, in particular when the trust to do such a thing is implicitly expected, knowing full well that such disclosures may place one's career at risk?

Organisations like to say how much they value mental health, but often it just seems empty rhetoric without actual actions. And therein lies the paradox—most firms are quite happy measuring mental health but are less keen on restructuring workloads or rethinking aggressive performance targets that contribute to stress in the first place. It is approaches such as the GHQ that provide assistance, but these must be combined with genuine cultural changes: confidentiality, support, and—most crucially—actual reductions in workplace pressure. Without these, mental health initiatives can sometimes ring a little like lip service.

Well-being metrics and performance: a double-edged sword.

There is an increasing move to correlate well-being directly with performance measurement on the basis that happy employees are productive ones. This is true up to a point. Researchers demonstrate that well-being does enhance productivity, reduce absenteeism, and enable better retention. But here's the rub: businesses eager to quantify well-being often treat it as just another KPI. Well-being goes from an initiative genuinely aimed at improving employees' lives to a series of box-checking exercises aimed at proving to the C-suite that it's improving the bottom line.

It's an easy trap to fall into—measuring well-being like sales performance or net promoter scores. Well-being is a deeply personal, complex concept. To try to reduce it down into a set of numbers risks missing out on the nuances that make people happy and fulfilled at work. Worse still, workers might start to see their well-being being commoditised—valued to the extent that it improves productivity. And with that, one has to beg the question: do companies really care about well-being, or are they just looking for another lever to pull in order to wring more out of their workforce?

Moving from Metrics to Meaning

So what's the lesson here? Measuring well-being is only half the battle. The real challenge is doing something about it. Companies need not fall into the temptation of reducing well-being to a set of metrics and instead must invest in creating environments in which employees can flourish. That may mean rethinking workloads, introducing flexible working policies—or even encouraging a culture that values downtime. Now, surveys, pulse checks, and mental health tools can all be helpful—if, and only if, they are also accompanied by actual action.

Organisations should waste less time perfecting their well-being metrics and more time bringing about meaningful change. Ask your employees how they're doing, yes—but only if you are ready and able to act upon what you're being told.

References

Goldberg, D.P. (1972). The Detection of Psychiatric Illness by Questionnaire: A Technique for the Identification and Assessment of Non-Psychotic Psychiatric Illness. London: Oxford University Press.

Oswald, A.J., Proto, E. & Sgroi, D. (2015). Happiness and Productivity. Journal of Labor Economics, 33(4), pp.789-822.

Rath, T. & Harter, J. (2010). Wellbeing: The Five Essential Elements. New York: Gallup Press.

Microsoft (2021). Microsoft Viva Insights + Glint | Understand employee engagement. [Online Video] Available at: https://youtu.be/vLKDg-Rn5eI?si=VC7UmO0l-WBYo8EG [Accessed 10 September 2024].

Microsoft (2021). Microsoft Viva Insights + Glint | Understand employee engagement. [Online Video] Available at: https://youtu.be/vLKDg-Rn5eI?si=VC7UmO0l-WBYo8EG [Accessed 10 September 2024].

#WorkplaceWellbeing #EmployeeEngagement #MentalHealth #EmployeeWellbeing #CorporateWellness #WorkLifeBalance #HR #Leadership #Productivity #EmployeeExperience #WorkplaceCulture #EmployeeSatisfaction #WellbeingAtWork #OrganisationalHealth #EmployeeSupport #WorkplaceHappiness #MentalHealthMatters #EmployeeRetention #WorkplaceInnovation #WellbeingStrategy #HealthyWorkplace #OracleHCM #OracleCloudHCM #bayesbusinessschoolalumni #bayesalumni #bayesbusinessschool