Employers need to go beyond 'surface level perks', improving current offerings, company values and culture, says HR expert at McLean & Company
Recent research released by HR research and advisory firm McLean & Company found current wellbeing initiatives in the workplace fail to deliver exceptional results because they’re implemented as stand-alone perks rather than a cohesive, strategic program.
And despite significant investment, many initiatives remain underutilized, misaligned with actual employee needs, or contradicted by workplace culture. As Kelly Berte told BPM, the core of the issue stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what wellbeing means in the first place.
"Effective wellbeing programs go beyond surface-level perks and start to address the full spectrum of challenges that impact employees every day. Measuring success solely through ROI fails to capture the true value of these programs,” said Berte, practice lead of HR research & advisory services at McLean & Company.
“A holistic approach, one that considers long-term benefits, employee trust, and cultural alignment, is essential for driving meaningful impact."
Berte was quick to highlight that wellbeing programs continue to be thought of as resources and benefits that employees use or events that employees attend rather than what could bring value to the workplace.
Additionally, employers are making assumptions about what employee needs are because they're trying to create a package “that's potentially benchmarked against something else,” explained Berte.
Instead of taking a holistic approach, many employers are benchmarking their wellbeing programs against what competitors are doing or offering.
The result ends up being a patchwork of initiatives that may look good on paper but ultimately fail to resonate with employees. Berte believes that for well-being programs to be effective, they need to be tailored to the workforce.
“When well-being initiatives work, it’s because they’re aligned to not only something that is a need that I have [as an employee], but I also understand the value that I’m going to get out of it,” she said, underscoring employers need to move away from simply introducing new benefits.
Instead, they need to focus on sustaining what’s already working because employers can only make informed decisions about what to invest in when they’re actively measuring outcomes.
She pointed to McLean & Company’s research which identifies six pillars of wellbeing that employers should invest in: physical, mental, financial, interpersonal (or social), purpose, and belonging. No single area is more important than another because they’re all interrelated, Berte said.
“If any one of those areas of the wheel are not doing as well as the other, the wheel doesn’t spin,” she said, adding that a strong well-being program acknowledges these interconnections rather than treating each pillar in isolation.
Even with the right initiatives in place, workplace culture can undermine well-being efforts as she asserted leadership in the workplace plays a critical role.
“You can’t necessarily offer those things to meet those needs if you have a culture or leadership that contradicts what you’re trying to do,” she added, emphasizing that if leadership pressures employees to prioritize work over wellbeing or make it difficult to participate in wellbeing activities, the best programs will fall flat.
Moreover, recognition programs can inadvertently undermine employee wellbeing if they emphasize output over sustainability, said Berte, pointing to an Employee of the Year award as an example.
While such awards recognize significant contributions, they can also send the message that working excessive hours is the only path to recognition. And if an organization prioritizes speed and output above all else, employees may feel pressured to cut corners, potentially jeopardizing their wellbeing and even workplace safety.
“Create a philosophy. What does wellbeing mean for us, for the workplace and how do we define it? That becomes your guidepost for how you engage with leadership, how you engage with employees and how you prioritize and talk about it in the different areas of your organization,” said Berte.
Once that foundation is in place, she believes the next step is equipping leaders with the tools to model and support wellbeing. Many leaders in the workplace already hesitate to discuss wellbeing because they worry about saying the wrong thing or overstepping their role.
“We have to do a better job organizationally at equipping leaders,” she asserted. “What are the talking points? What are the training pieces? How can you train your leaders to create safe spaces or demonstrate vulnerability?” said Berte.
Ultimately, employees want wellbeing programs that aren’t contradicted by the day-to-day realities of their workplace. Employees are looking for their employer to pay attention to when that’s happening and fix it, affirmed Berte.
According to McLean & Company research, organizations with strong wellbeing programs are 1.4 times more likely to achieve high overall performance and nearly twice as likely to experience high workforce productivity.
Meanwhile, stats from the World Health Organization highlight burnout-related turnover and lost productivity cost businesses an estimated $322 billion globally each year, with mental health conditions attributing to $1 trillion in lost productivity.
When it comes to measuring strong ROI, Berte advised to look at the effectiveness of programs already in place and adapt accordingly, emphasizing the importance to use multiple methods because it can create some limitations of generalizability of the results.
She noted surveys, focus groups, and town halls should all be considered to ensure workplaces capture a complete picture of wellbeing.
“Continue to allocate budget. Don’t guess, measure and target,” said Berte. “Look at your system to make sure those aren’t contradicted in your systems and behaviours.”
