Should Employers Be Responsible for Employee Well-being?

Ever since employee well-being became a common component of organizational people strategy (circa 1995), the question has been raised: should employers be responsible for the well-being of their employees?

It’s a fair question, and one that we believe every well-being professional and benefits leader must have an answer to. If no answer can be given, why put in the effort in the first place?

Undergirding the formally structured well-being program, biometric screenings, and incentive payouts is a fundamental understanding that healthier employees create healthier organizations. However, there have been many organizations throughout history where employees were not particularly healthy, yet the organization had pronounced success.

Sports franchises are a great example. Marcus Freeman is the head football coach for Notre Dame. In a recent interview, he described his work-life balance this way:

Marcus Freeman gets compensated very well. Notre Dame has one of the most successful and recognizable brands in college sports. However, most employees would not describe this work-life balance as healthy.

There must be some understanding of a responsibility for employee well-being within an organization to truly make it a priority; a positive financial outcome is simply not enough.

However, now we are sailing into difficult waters. What can an organization say is their responsibility?

Is an employer responsible for an employee’s heart disease that was 25 years in the making? Are they responsible for mending broken relationships in an employee’s life? Are they responsible for the spending habits of their staff?

When it comes down to it, we need to see well-being in three distinct levels of responsibility.

Employers are directly responsible for workplace well-being.

What happens within the workplace and their direct effects are the responsibility of the employer. This includes everything from the way work is assigned to the way employees treat each other.

Workplace well-being has often been confused with well-being in general. At Propel, we define it as the well-being of an employee within the habits, interactions, and stressors of the workplace.

Employers must be responsible for this form of well-being because they have the power to enact change. A psychologically safe workplace, managers who treat their employees with respect, and work patterns that enable employees to put forward their best products can be developed by each and every employer.

Employers can influence holistic well-being.

An employee’s physical, mental, financial, and social well-being can be influenced by their employer, but are not direct responsibilities. Holistic well-being, as we see it at Propel, constitutes anything that comes into the workplace but is not caused by the workplace. An employer cannot assume responsibility for these factors as they do not have complete control over them.

This should in no way deter well-being professionals and benefits leaders from influencing them, however. Employees spend the bulk of their time awake at or around the workplace. Employers have immense resources that can ignite change and positively affect those who work within their four walls (or on their servers, as it may be). There is no greater influencer than an employer.

A holistic well-being strategy does indeed help an employer, both from a cost standpoint and a personnel standpoint. It is worth pursuing and has incredible impact. Just take this piece of feedback we received recently.

Organizations should use their influence to improve the holistic well-being of their employees. Many of the topics we discuss in this newsletter pertain to using this influence to the greatest extent. We believe that employers ought to and do use their influence for good in the lives of their employees.

Employers can enable personal achievement and fulfillment.

For most people, work is a means to a greater end. That end might be achievement in the world of work as well as resources to use towards achieving another goal. Employers have the ability to facilitate this achievement through compensation, professional development, and creating confidence in their employees.

This facilitation enables employees to pursue the long-term goals in their lives and achieve true fulfillment. Employers cannot guarantee this fulfillment, but they can support and facilitate the process through the resources they provide.

So, should employers be responsible for employee well-being? The answer really depends. However, the question we ought to be asking is: should employers be concerned about employee well-being?

The answer to that question, is a resounding yes.

Implications for the well-being administrator:

• Employers have the ability to directly control, influence, and facilitate well-being within their organizations.

• Understanding the various levels of responsibility allows all well-being programming and actions taken to be oriented towards the proper goals.

• Employers have an immense opportunity to positively affect their employees, and it is that opportunity that we believe well-being leaders should be the most excited about.

If you like this content, share it with other well-being administrators.

We’re committed to discussing challenges common to well-being leaders and presenting practical solutions that increase the wisdom of all well-being professionals.