“Employee wellbeing needs to be managed the same way companies manage all other important business objectives.”
Context
Employers have invested heavily in workplace wellbeing initiatives, but many employees continue to experience stress, exhaustion and dissatisfaction arising from the way their jobs are managed.
Leadership writer Mark C. Crowley argues that the problem lies partly in how organisations approach employee wellbeing. Rather than treating it as a fundamental management responsibility, businesses frequently leave HR teams to oversee programmes without giving them sufficient influence over the working conditions affecting employees.
Writing in Fast Company in an article examining why employees have lost trust in HR, Crowley highlighted the competing demands placed on the profession. HR departments are expected to support employees while also implementing decisions made by senior management, including redundancies and restructuring.
He argues that employee wellbeing requires the same attention and accountability as other areas of business performance. “Consequently, employee wellbeing needs to be managed the same way companies manage all other important business objectives,” he wrote.
Meaning
Crowley’s argument challenges the distinction many organisations make between commercial priorities and the wellbeing of their workforce.
Businesses routinely establish objectives, allocate budgets, assign responsibility and monitor progress in areas such as sales, profitability and customer satisfaction. Yet employee wellbeing can remain a comparatively loosely defined ambition, supported by initiatives that do not necessarily address the causes of workplace stress.
The distinction matters because wellbeing is influenced by decisions about workload, staffing, management behaviour, job security and organisational culture. These are not matters that HR can resolve independently through support services or awareness campaigns.
Treating wellbeing as a business objective would mean giving it clear ownership at senior level and considering its consequences when making operational decisions.
It would also require employers to look beyond whether employees use wellbeing programmes and examine whether the organisation itself is creating conditions in which people can work sustainably.
Implications
The challenge for HR professionals is to move employee wellbeing beyond the provision of benefits and into the decisions that shape everyday working life. It means identifying where organisational practices contribute to excessive workloads, poor management, burnout or avoidable employee turnover, and ensuring that senior leaders are accountable for addressing them.
Measures such as sickness absence, retention, employee feedback and workload assessments can help employers understand where problems are developing. But measurement alone is insufficient if the people responsible for business decisions are not expected to act on the results.
There’s also a question of authority. HR teams may be asked to improve wellbeing while having limited influence over staffing levels, performance targets or management practices. Without the involvement of operational leaders, even well-designed wellbeing strategies can struggle to produce lasting improvements.
Crowley’s observation ultimately places responsibility for employee wellbeing across the organisation rather than within a single department. If employers regard it as an important business objective, they must be prepared to manage it with the same consistency, resources and scrutiny they apply to other priorities.
William Furney is a Managing Editor at Black and White Trading Ltd based in Kingston upon Hull, UK. His writing focuses on contemporary employment issues including pension schemes, employee health, financial struggles affecting workers and broader workplace trends.
- William Furney
- William Furney
- William Furney
- William Furney
