Corporate well-being: a game with 3 players (part I of III)

Numerous research studies show that there is a link between well-being and productivity. Beyond productivity, there are contingencies related to the environment that undermine this well-being at work such as telecommuting, digital transformations or the speed of change generated by the superhero that is the customer/consumer. This has been known for a long time and many organizations are setting up programs to support the well-being of their employees. The intention is often good and the means regularly colossal - two observations are however necessary:

1. The programs are very specific and cover some of the factors that impact well-being at work.

2. The users of these programs are the people who already believe in them - not necessarily those who would need them most.

Regarding the factors impacting well-being, the literature has shown that three actors are involved: the company - the leader - the employee.

The company takes care of putting in place policies and procedures that create a framework that facilitates well-being, such as sabbaticals, remote work or the measurement of "well-being" (satisfaction, absenteeism, etc.). It also takes care of the framework conditions, such as light, security or space.

The leader(ship) creates the direct environment in which the person evolves; he/she impacts the resources made available and the constraints experienced by the employee - similarly, his/her attitude and behaviors will influence the way the context, the environment is experienced.

The employee, who has a right to wellness, also has a duty to it (a topic for debate, but for another blog, please). There are 5 factors that are unique to him: physical activity, sleep, nutrition, financial concerns and childcare difficulties.

The factors inherent in each of the actors will be reviewed in detail in subsequent blogs.

At this point, I would like to return to the first observation: many programs exist that deal with one of these actors - too few (none that I know of) deal with two or even three of them. Without wishing to advance, and in a very rhetorical way, what to think of the congruence, and thus of the effectiveness, of a program covering, even very well, one of the three actors? and this, without having yet dealt with the second finding (the users) ...

Certainly, better than nothing!

4 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All