Individually-led interventions make no significant difference to employees

Far too often, I find myself questioning the ethical implications of my work as a coach in organisations, especially when the topic is wellbeing. The tension between individual choices and chronic systemic issues that are often at the heart of a person’s wellbeing at work pose several difficult questions – not least, whether I’m part of the problem by condoning a system trying to shift the accountability to individuals when the root causes sit firmly within the wider context.

Research has shown repeatedly that individual interventions, which address the symptoms but not the causes of distress among employees, are not likely to have any significant results. A recent study from Oxford University looked at the data from over 46 336 employees across 233 organisations, who participated in individual‐level wellbeing interventions, including resilience training, mindfulness and the use of wellbeing apps. The study found that those who participated in these wellbeing activities were no better off than those who didn’t. In some cases, it had the opposite effect to the one intended; for example, workplace resilience and mindfulness training had a slightly negative impact on employees’ self-rated mental health.

This is because individual-level interventions do not tackle the causes of distress in the workplace, such as a culture of working long hours, back-to-back calls with no breaks, or feeling overwhelmed due to unrealistic workloads and deadlines. In some cases, processes driven by targets, excessive bureaucracy, and toxic management practices can be simultaneously a symptom and a cause of wellbeing issues.

Individual-level interventions, such as coaching, if not part of a wider organisational wellbeing strategy that engages in scrutinizing and changing harmful workplace practices, can shift the accountability (and blame) onto individuals. Recognising what is within and outside the control of individuals is crucial to avoid their further harm.

If used effectively and as part of wider initiatives throughout the organisation, coaching can influence the system and raise awareness among individuals, teams and communities. It can be used as a tool, enabling organisations to develop and implement potential solutions and/or mitigating strategies across teams or the whole organisation. For example, group and team coaching can be used to bring together leaders and managers across functions and hierarchical boundaries to discuss unhelpful work practices and changes that can positively affect the wellbeing of staff members. This includes autonomy, flexibility, psychological safety, and supportive management – and coaching can help develop these.

The post Wellbeing in organisations: a systemic perspective is needed appeared first on Quantum Leap.

Trying to improve the wellbeing of people in your organisation? Make sure you include management leadership style and workload in your wellbeing strategy.

A senior leader in a global organisation recently told me during a coaching conversation that her pace of work is so frantic that she is barely keeping her head above water, let alone making time for reflection and self-care. On top of a heavy workload, she deals with a high level of uncertainty and unpredictability, due to internal and external changes, compounded by a volatile political and economic environment. This scenario will be familiar to many leaders and managers across all sectors, and indeed, to employees at all levels. Such an intense pace of work negatively affects individuals, teams and organisations.

A high workload and poor management style are the main factors influencing employees’ wellbeing. The link between management/leadership style and the wellbeing of employees is clear. For example, a recent study found that transformational leadership has the highest overall impact on employees’ positive mental health, whereas destructive leadership has the opposite effect, significantly influencing negative mental health. Transformational leaders seek to inspire and engage with their team, whereas the destructive leadership style is associated with behaviours displayed by toxic leadership. This can be characterised by bullying, coercion and manipulation.

It is important to recognise the role environmental factors can play in shaping leaders’ behaviours and approaches. Undue pressure may push leaders into survival mode, reducing their ability to lead with intention and self-regulation. In fact, evidence shows that leaders who receive support for stress and wellbeing are more likely to relieve employees’ stress and positively influence wellbeing. On the other hand, if they feel unable to cope, they can become ‘absent’, by effectively checking out of their leadership duties and activities. Absentee leadership is one of the most common types of destructive leadership styles, leaving teams with insufficient support, direction, engagement and lack of psychological safety. In my coaching practice, this seems to be a common phenomenon over the past year, as organisations navigate a turbulent and uncertain environment. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be a silver lining attached to this scenario. Leaders end up feeling exhausted and teams feel neglected and stressed.

Despite the evidence, not all organisations factor leadership style (and other systemic issues, such as heavy workloads) into their wellbeing strategies. According to CIPD data, organisations tend to prioritise mental health and stress management. Undoubtedly, these are important issues but, in some instances, it can be a case of ‘shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted’.

A strategic approach would allow organisations to address some of the fundamental factors influencing employees’ wellbeing whilst widening the scope of leadership and management development. It would also consider the employee lifecycle, providing a more personalised offer in recognition of the fact that stress and workload concerns impact people differently. Working parents, carers, people living with long-term conditions, women and men in various life stages will have specific wellbeing needs which, if met, will allow them to flourish in the workplace. Organisations will benefit from having better leaders, better managers, and better teams.

The post Leadership, management and wellbeing appeared first on Quantum Leap.