|
© Copyright 2002
Rogers Media. The following article first appeared in the February 2002 edition
of BENEFITS CANADA magazine.
The wellness myth
Senior management support isn't what's ailing
health promotion today. We need commitment from human resources professionals,
who are ignoring the wealth of data backing wellness initiatives
By Ed Buffett
For some time, senior level management support has been cited as the major
obstacle to successfully implementing workplace wellness initiatives. But recent
research debunks this myth. One of the main reasons why wellness is actually
struggling to gain a foothold in Canada is that it is not widely embraced by the
human resources (HR) community.
Buffett Taylor & Associates of Whitby, Ont., recently surveyed 141
organizations and close to 400 employees in the Ontario regions of Peel, Halton
and Dufferin to determine how well accepted health promotion programs are at the
organizational and employee level. The results show that, for the most part,
leaders in the HR community are either not getting the message about the
benefits of wellness or they simply choose to disregard it.
Another recent study shows that less than one-third (29%) of Canadian HR
managers regard wellness as an important priority. Slightly more (35%) say it
has some importance. While 16% believe wellness is a very important priority, an
equal amount (17%) identify it as unimportant.
Apparently, too many heads are buried in the sand. We are not learning the
valuable lessons of our competitors in the U.S., Australia and Europe, where
workplace wellness programs are more widely entrenched. Even more worrisome,
Canadian HR professionals appear to be paying little or no heed to the numerous
scientific studies that validate the role of health promotion in an
organization's overall success (see "Compelling support for wellness,").
In the Buffett Taylor National Wellness Survey Report 2000, 17% of
employers surveyed offer a comprehensive employee health promotion program and
64% offer at least one health promotion initiative. This pales in comparison
with the U.S., where the most recent data shows that a staggering 78% of
worksites have comprehensive health programs and 90% sponsor at least one health
promotion activity. It is no coincidence that U.S. workers are significantly
more productive than their Canadian counterparts.
A comprehensive health promotion program embodies: strong senior level
support; the creation of a wellness team representing all stakeholder groups;
use of organizational health data to drive promotion efforts; an operating plan;
appropriate interventions; a supportive working environment; the collection of
baseline data; and the ongoing evaluation of outcomes.
In the Halton, Peel, Dufferin survey, 30% of employers, representing both
public and private organizations, indicate that they offer comprehensive
wellness programs, but less than one-third evaluate their results. Based on the
criteria of a comprehensive wellness program, less than 15% of these
organizations could be deemed to actually have a program.
It is also interesting to note that the 10 most common wellness initiatives,
in order of preference, are: staff appreciation events (70%); first aid and CPR
courses (58%); subsidies for external programs (40%); flexible work programs
(38%); flexible employee benefits (35%); time-off in lieu of overtime pay (35%);
an employee assistance program (33%); flu shots (30%); time management training
(27%); and work station/equipment assessment (27%).
In contrast, the list of the most prevalent wellness programs offered by U.S.
employers includes: stress management; ergonomics and injury prevention;
self-care and disease management; smoking cessation; nutrition; exercise and
fitness; weight control; work-life balance; and screening programs including
blood pressure, sugar and cholesterol, body mass index and fitness assessments.
While we are dabbling on the fringes of wellness, employers south of the border
are targeting their health promotional programs in an aggressive and
sophisticated fashion.
The survey conducted in the regions of Halton, Peel and Dufferin is also
revealing in that a lack of budget resources (20%), staffing (19%) and concerns
over implementation costs (14%) are the primary reasons organizations cited for
not offering wellness programs. Ironically, employers that offer programs do so
to improve employee health and productivity (21%) and morale (19%) as well as to
lower long-term healthcare costs (15%). Still, even of those progressive
organizations only 5% regard a comprehensive wellness program as an effective
strategy to control absenteeism.
LACK OF UNDERSTANDING
Canadian HR
professionals have not done their homework, and for the most part are
ill-equipped to deal with worksite health promotion. The ignorance of both
existing and emerging scientific data is evident in employers' responses to the
Ontario survey.
When asked how long it would take before wellness programs generated results,
more than half (55%) say results should be evident in less than a year. This is
at odds with research that clearly demonstrates behavioural change only begins
to manifest itself after a period of one year, and economic benefits are
realized within two to five years.
The study also questioned employees about wellness. While 82% feel that their
employer cares about them, only 43% say their organization effectively markets
and promotes wellness initiatives. Asked whether their employer solicits their
opinion on work scheduling, 43% say 'no' and 28% say their organization does not
enable them to balance personal needs and goals with job requirements. A
staggering 68% indicate that their job makes them feel high levels of stress and
anxiety.
There is also a disconnect in health promotion programs offered by employers
and employee needs. This is particularly true when one considers how most
employers appear to disregard stress in the workplace and offer few, if any,
screening programs in this area.
The relationship between wellness and absenteeism, productivity, turnover,
morale and benefits costs is not well understood by HR and corporate finance.
Too many HR professionals are unfamiliar with the data validating the economic
and organizational benefits of these programs. Until the HR community, with the
support of finance, acknowledges employee health as a strategic imperative,
wellness will continue to fight an uphill battle in Canada. BC
|
COMPELLING SUPPORT
FOR WELLNESS
There is no shortage of res earch backing the benefits
of wellness in the workplace. Here is a look at some recent studies that should
make human resources professionals reconsider their commitment to health
promotion.
> Dr. Martin Shain,
a researcher with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, has
conducted numerous studies on stress management in the workplace. Shain
concludes that unhealthy workplaces create adverse health outcomes, including
more than double the rate of heart and cardiovascular problems as well as
significantly higher rates of anxiety, depression, demoralization, alcohol and
prescription and over-the-counter drug use. Workplaces with a high stress level
also make workers much more susceptible to a wide range of infectious diseases.
> The University of
Michigan's Health Management Research Center has studied wellness programs at
1,400 businesses employing more than two million employees over the past 15
years. It has determined that health promotion programs result in reduced rates
of absenteeism, fewer instances of short- and long-term disability and lower
employee benefits costs, as well as improved morale and increased productivity.
> Carleton
University professor, Linda Duxbury, recently conducted the largest-ever
Canadian study on work-life balance. Her research shows that over the last
decade, work-life balance has become an important workplace health issue. During
this period, job satisfaction declined, job stress increased and employees
exhibited less of a commitment to their organizations. Over 50% of the 30,000
individuals surveyed indicate that they are, or have experienced, role overload
while trying to balance work and personal commitments. More individuals are
spending a greater number of hours at work each week and taking work home.
According to Duxbury, employee mental health has worsened
as a result of work-life conflict, while the costs associated with creating a
supportive work environment are surprisingly low. On the other hand, she says,
the costs of not responding are high. Turnover, alone, can make the case for
change, says Duxbury. The cost of losing an employee and retraining a successor
is estimated to be up to five times the annual salary for professionals and 20%
of the annual salary and benefits for lower-level employees.
An employer's failure to recognize the importance of this
issue and make constructive changes will result in increased levels of turnover,
higher incidents of depression, burnout and stress, argues Duxbury. In addition,
there is a 20% increase in the likelihood that an employee will miss work due to
work-life conflicts. Prescription drug costs will rise as productivity
decreases. |
Ed Buffett is
the chairman and chief executive officer with Buffett Taylor & Associates
Ltd. in Whitby, Ont. edbuffett@buffetttaylor.com.
|
News
News
