ORGANIZATIONAL WELLBEING: CURRENT PRACTICES, RESEARCH, AND RECOMMENDATIONS - UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY | WERKLUND SCHOOL OF EDUCATION - Prism
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY | WERKLUND SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
ORGANIZATIONAL WELLBEING:
CURRENT PRACTICES, RESEARCH, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Cameron Smith, University of Calgary
Michael Holden, University of CalgaryTABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION TO THE REPORT………………………………………………………………………………………3
2 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT………………………………………………………………………………..………………5
3 OUTLINE OF THE REPORT…………………………………………………………………………………….……………6
4 CURRENT PRACTICES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY………….…………………………………………6
4.1 EMPLOYEE AND FAMILY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (EFAP)………….…………………………….…8
4.1.1 LIFEWORKS……………………………………………………………………………………………..……….8
4.1.2 HOMEWOOD HEALTH……………………………………………………………………………………...8
4.2 HUMAN RESOURCES………….……………………………………………………….………………………….…9
4.2.1 ATTENDANCE SUPPORT PROGRAM (ASP)………….……………………………………….…9
4.2.2 UNIVERSITY CHILD CARE CENTRE (UCCC)………….…………………………………………10
4.2.3 FLEX-TIME POLICY………….……………………………………………………………………………10
5 RECOMMENDATIONS…………………………………………………….…………………………………………….…11
6 LITERATURE REVIEW………….…………………………………………………………………………………..………18
6.1 BENEFITS OF WELL-BEING…………………………….……………………….…………………………….…21
6.2 EFFECTS OF LOW WELL-BEING………….…………………………….………………………………………23
6.3 PRACTICES THAT SUPPORT WELL-BEING………….…………………………………………………..…25
6.4 WELL-BEING PROGRAM TYPES………….………………………………………………………………….…30
6.5 CONSIDERATIONS FOR PROGRAM PLANNING…………………………………………………………34
6 FINAL WORDS………….……………………………………………………………………………………………..………39
7 REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………40
September 2016 Organizational Wellbeing 2INTRODUCTION TO THE REPORT
Organizational well-being has been widely examined in Canadian and international
literature. According to the World Health Organization (2006), “health is a state of complete
physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” (p. 1).
Well-being is therefore central to overall individual health. What, then, is organizational well-being
(OWB)? De Jong and colleagues (2016) characterize OWB as encompassing employee psychology,
physiology, job-related experiences, and situational satisfaction. OWB also includes employees’
happiness, their sense of professional purpose, and their levels of personal growth (Zheng, Kashi,
Fan, Molineaux, & Shan, 2016). Indeed, as Warr (2008) notes, “happiness and unhappiness are
major drivers of organizational life, central to the establishment and achievement of goals” (p. 57).
Taken together, OWB represents an employee’s health as well as their overall satisfaction with
their work and its integration with their life. While employees will perceive this work-life
integration differently, employees that perceive a balance between their work and personal lives
will achieve higher levels of well-being (Odle-Dusseau, Britt, & Bobko, 2012).
Why, then, does OWB matter to organizations? Weak employee well-being can have
significant costs for employers. Paulin and Griffin (2016) note that employee well-being is “a
significant indicator of mental health, absenteeism, and even turnover” (p. 133). In Canada, roughly
one third of the annual $51 billion cost of mental illness is as a result of lost productivity (Lowe,
2014). Similarly, in the United States, personal and family health concerns result in an average
$1,685 lost productivity cost per employee every year (Rajaratnam, Sears, Shi, Coverley, & Pope,
2014). Replacing employees who leave organizations as a result of OWB is equally expensive,
costing up to 150 percent of an employee’s salary (Canadian Centre for Management Development,
September 2016 Organizational Wellbeing 32002). OWB concerns are also not limited to a small portion of the workforce: some ten percent of
Canada’s working population is affected by depression (Canadian Centre for Management
Development, 2002), and in Australia, 20% of the population faces a mental disorder each year
(Zheng et al., 2016). These concerns are particularly relevant in university workforces, as “work-
related stress has risen internationally because of increased work pressures and reduced
government funding” (Pignata, Boyd, Gillespie, Provis, & Winefield, 2014, p. 2). Employees who
struggle with well-being issues exhibit diminished work quality and performance, and negatively
affect workplace morale (Attridge, 2009a). As a result, there are strong incentives for employers to
address OWB.
Fortunately, organizations are well positioned to improve employee well-being. Rajaratnam
and colleagues (2014) note that programs designed to target well-being can positively affect
employee health and productivity, increasing the organization’s efficiency and reducing the cost of
employee health care. McCoy, Newell, and Gardener (2013) similarly contend that institutional
support increases faculty’s well-being and retention levels. Anshel, Brinthaupt, and Kang (2010) are
particularly supportive of OWB programs that include physical activity. They note,
The results of most studies examining the influence of exercise on a person’s mental status
have been unequivocal; exercise tends to benefit, or improve, affect, mood state, and
desirable emotions, while reducing anxiety, depression, and other forms of undesirable
mental states. (p. 113)
Organizations should therefore seriously examine which practices will best support OWB for
their employees. As Zheng and colleagues (2016) observe, organizations should “focus on providing
effective [programs] and an organizational climate that would help individual employees to harness
September 2016 Organizational Wellbeing 4or develop effective work-life coping strategies” (p. 519). Such programs should be part of a
comprehensive approach to wellness and OWB, an approach that most Canadian organizations fail
to implement (Lowe, 2014). While an organization’s wellness plan may involve a variety of
programs (Sonja, Urska, & Zizek, 2015), a plan which meets the varying needs of the organization
can significantly improve measures of OWB (Hubbard & Atkins, 1995). For example, the Canadian
Centre for Management Development (2002) cites the case of an organization that was able to alter
many of its OWB metrics: “absenteeism was reduced by a third, employee grievances dropped by
90 percent, and time lost to injuries dropped by 80 percent” (p. 15). For this company and others,
addressing OWB results in significant improvements for both the organization and its employees.
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
This report was commissioned by the Werklund School of Education at the University of
Calgary in order to investigate organizational well-being and work-life effectiveness. Given the
importance of OWB, Werklund stakeholders sought a review of relevant research, as well as a
review of the well-being practices currently in place for Werklund employees. This report therefore
describes the range of practices which are deemed most effective in supporting OWB and work-life
effectiveness, as well as those practices used by both the School of Education and the University of
Calgary. The report is intended to provide key stakeholders in Werklund with insights into OWB
research so that they might use this information to better inform the decisions they make when
reviewing OWB practices. The Werklund School of Education includes over 150 faculty members as
well as more than 60 support staff (University of Calgary, 2016a; 2016e). While OWB literature
provides a number of recommendations to support wellness decision-making, these employees
face unique needs, challenges, and organizational contexts (Sithole & Khorombi, 2009). Thus, it is
September 2016 Organizational Wellbeing 5our hope that this report serves chiefly as a starting point for investigating OWB at the University of
Calgary, and that the OWB practices used by the School of Education will draw both on the research
presented in this report and the contextual needs of Werklund’s faculty, staff, and students.
OUTLINE OF THE REPORT
The remainder of this report is divided into three main sections. We begin by describing the
well-being practices currently in effect within Werklund and the broader university community.
Next, we identify a series of recommendations based on Canadian and international well-being
research. These recommendations may serve as a useful starting point for stakeholders involved in
the development and implementation of well-being practices for the Werklund community. Finally,
we conclude with a review of the literature which informed the recommendations that are central
to this report. This review will be of particular interest to those stakeholders involved in detailed
aspects of OWB policymaking for the Werklund community.
September 2016 Organizational Wellbeing 6CURRENT PRACTICES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALGARY
The staff wellness program at the University of Calgary aims to “to promote, support and
sustain the health and wellness of Faculty and Staff” (University of Calgary, 2016d). The resources
in place are intended to support employees in maintaining their health, avoiding injury and illness,
as well as assist employees who are at risk for, and who are recovering from, personal or work-
related injury or illness. The program takes a holistic approach to well-being, addressing the
multiple facets of health. Currently, the Staff Wellness website is divided into four main sections
related to their wellness offerings. The individual elements will be addressed in greater detail in the
following section:
o Wellness – this section includes links to health promotion programs and initiatives such
as the Employee and Family Assistance Program, health checks, Lunch and Learn series
presentations, wellness topic bulletins, and additional resources (e.g. active living, faith
and spirituality, nutrition, mental health, sexual health). These topics relate to both
personal and occupational health.
o Occupational Health – this Division offers services and preventative programs for staff
and faculty, particularly those who work in potentially harmful environments. The
annual flu clinic, audiometric testing, respiratory programs, the pilot immunization
program for employees exposed to pathogens, and ergonomics training and information
are explained in various subpages.
o Sick Leave – divided into three pages, this section provides information to Faculty,
Support Staff, and Management and Professional Staff (MaPS) about their respective
September 2016 Organizational Wellbeing 7processes in the event of illness or injury. Each page contains instructions and forms
related to obtaining documentation, qualifying for benefits, and supporting a return to
work plan.
o Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) – this page contains information on insurance
benefits and coverage in the event of a claim. It outlines who and what is and is not
covered, the services offered by WCB, and the steps required following an incident.
As is detailed in the subsequent literature review, these supports are among the most
common OWB practices in Canadian organizations (Lowe, 2014).
Employee and Family Assistance Program (EFAP)
LifeWorks. The University’s EFAP, a variation on Employee Assistance Programs (or EAPs), is
intended to assist employees in managing their personal and professional life. Until August 2016,
University employees and their families were offered services via the LifeWorks program. LifeWorks
offered in-person and telephonic counselling on various issues, as well as providing information
booklets, kits, and web-based resources. Monthly flyers were also sent to all employees via email;
each highlighting sessions and programs that focused on a particular wellness topic. In-person
appointments with LifeWorks were arranged at off-site locations. Participating employees were
matched with a counselor located close to either the University or the employee’s home, based on
the employees’ preference. In addition to meetings with personal counsellors, employees could
also request meetings with registered nurses, dieticians, and financial planners, and draw on other
support services, including legal advice.
Homewood Health. Effective August 15, 2016, the University changed their provider from
LifeWorks to Homewood Health. The new EFAP continues to provide confidential, 24/7 access to a
September 2016 Organizational Wellbeing 8multitude of services, each of which are available to University employees and their families at no
cost. Homewood Health provides counselling and life coaching services, ranging from family care to
financial and legal advice. Homewood’s website features assessment and online learning tools, as
well as various articles related to health and wellness at home and in the workplace. Given the
recent shift in providers, information sessions are scheduled across the University campuses in
order to update employees on the resources now available through Homewood. These information
sessions are necessary for employee uptake (Sithole & Khorombi, 2009), and may indirectly
promote employees’ commitment to the university (Pignata et al., 2014).
While we were unable to determine why the university selected a new EAP provider, both
of these programs include an array of services supportive of OWB. While the majority of Canadian
employees do not use or do not have access to EAPs (Attridge, 2009a), well-structured EAPs are
particularly effective at addressing employee wellness concerns. As Sithhole and Khorombi (2009)
note, university stakeholders should evaluate the effectiveness of its EAP offerings, particularly in
this early phase of program adoption.
Human Resources
Numerous initiatives undertaken by Human Resources (HR) also relate to employee well-
being. Three practices in particular are relevant to this report: the Attendance Support Program
(ASP), the University Child Care Centre (UCCC), and the Flex-Time Policy. Subpages on Respect in
the Workplace and Workplace Diversity and Employment Equity are also noteworthy.
Attendance support program (ASP). Aimed at AUPE, MaPS, and exempt-by-position
staff, this program intends to support the regular attendance of all employees, providing
managers with the tools and knowledge required to address issues in a timely and constructive
September 2016 Organizational Wellbeing 9manner. The program is guided by the University’s vision for a “safe, respectful, and healthy
workplace” (University of Calgary, 2016c). The site outlines the duties and responsibilities for
each staff member in regards to their attendance, and the reporting of issues which impact
regular attendance. The “Five Levels of Attendance” establish guidelines and suggestions for
monitoring absenteeism and creating a plan to move employees into the ‘acceptable standard’
for attendance. While this policy provides both case-by-case flexibility and training for
management staff (Canadian Centre for Management Development, 2002; Johns, 2008), it is
unclear whether this policy successfully reduces absenteeism and presenteeism in its daily
application.
University Child Care Centre (UCCC). The University offers three options for child-care
for its staff, faculty, and students. Each of UCCC’s two on-site locations, Main and West
Campus, provide licensed and accredited, full-time care for 198 children ranging in age from 3
months to 5 years old. The website notes,“our Main campus location has student Wait List
priority and our West campus location has staff/ faculty Wait List priority” (University of
Calgary, 2016b). The waitlist for these centres is listed as 400 children; a non-refundable Wait
List fee is levied at $50 for students, and $100 for staff and faculty.
The University has also partnered with a childcare organization, Kids & Company, in order to
provide additional options. This company offers several centres throughout the city, and includes
customized care options, and a guaranteed placement within six months of registration (University
of Calgary, 2016b).
Flex-Time Policy. The University of Calgary and the Werklund School of Education offer
flex-time to some employees, allowing employees to negotiate alternative work hours with
September 2016 Organizational Wellbeing 10their managers as appropriate. As we note in the literature review, this policy supports work-
family balance (Odle-Dusseau et al., 2012; Poelmans, Odle-Dusseau, & Beham, 2008),
encourages coping strategies (Zheng et al., 2016), and may reduce employee absenteeism
(Johns, 2008). Curiously, however, the flex-time policy is written almost exclusively from the
perspective of operational viability, and does not refer to employee well-being. To that end, is
in unclear if the potential benefits of flex-time are operationalized to support OWB,
particularly when a significant number of university employees are not eligible for flex-time
consideration.
RECOMMENDATIONS
This report stems from interest within the Werklund School of Education for developing a
coordinated approach to OWB. The following recommendations, informed by OWB research, are
designed to support decision-makers as they consider what this approach will include.
Recommendations 1-8 relate to overall OWB approaches. Recommendations 9-14 focus specifically
on management-employee relations. Recommendations 15-18 identify employee engagement
strategies related to OWB. Finally, recommendations 19-22 describe other specific OWB policies
that Werklund stakeholders should consider.
1. Create an integrated well-being approach, not a series of unrelated programs
While different groups and individuals have particular well-being needs, well-being supports
should extend beyond ad-hoc or one-off efforts to a more focused, integrated approach to OWB
(Lowe, 2014; Silcox, 2016). Integrating Werklund’s OWB practices will require a more strategic
approach, but the resulting outcomes will better serve the university and its employees (Silcox,
2016).
September 2016 Organizational Wellbeing 112. Provide programs based on actual employee needs
This report identifies the university’s existing practices as well as those practices which are
supported by OWB research. This report does not include data related to specific employee needs.
Because of the different groups within Werklund (faculty, support staff, management staff, student
staff, etc.), and because of the different needs these groups present (Fuller, Hester, Barnett, Frey, &
Relyea, 2006), stakeholders should first identify what employees’ needs are. This will provide
greater clarity when selecting which programs to implement.
3. Evaluate the programs that are already in place
Just as this study does not include data from Werklund employees, this study’s review of
current practices only identifies what those practices are, not whether they are actively used by the
Werklund community or if they are effective in achieving typical outcomes. To that end,
stakeholders should seek data related to the cost, benefits, uptake, outcomes, and limitations of
the programs identified in this report.
4. Involve employee groups in the decision-making process
Faculty and staff need to be consulted and involved in each stage of the OWB planning
process. This includes identifying needs, program development, implementation and evaluation.
Processes that involve employees are more likely to be adopted by the work force (Noblet &
LaMontagne, 2008), and employees will experience less anxiety if they are able to contribute to this
process (Bryson, Barth, & Dale-Olsen, 2013).
5. Work to build perceived organizational support
Employees need to know that the organization cares about them as individuals and will
support their needs (Chen, Eisenberger, Johnson, Sucharski, & Aselage, 2009). Employees need to
September 2016 Organizational Wellbeing 12be able to trust that well-being programs are for their benefit, and not just the university’s. In
particular, stakeholders should demonstrate that teams can work together to achieve common
goals that the university supports (Stasishyn & Ivanov, 2013). This involves creating a work climate
where employees are invited to share, rather than sacrifice, to support team goals (Platania, Santisi,
Mangano, & Ramanci, 2015).
6. Integrate programs into the culture of the organization
Following from the first recommendation, the OWB program must also be integrated with
the organization itself: superimposed programs that do not include a change in the organization’s
climate will not be effective (Poelmans et al., 2008). As a specific example, stakeholders may work
to integrate Warr’s (2008) 12 characteristics of employee happiness into the organization’s culture.
Similarly, stakeholders should encourage social support between members of the same employee
group to combat burnout and exhaustion (Gilbert, Laschinger, & Leiter, 2010).
7. Cater programs to employees who need more well-being support than others
Employees who participate in OWB programs are often those who need these programs the
least (Lechner & de Vries, 1997). To combat this tendency, stakeholders should design programs
that will be of particular benefit to specific employee groups. For example, designing off-work well-
being activities may help employees who are self-critical to detach from work when they are not in
the office (De Carlo et al., 2014).
8. Work to increase awareness of existing programs
Extending from recommendation three, stakeholders should ensure that the programs
currently in place are widely promoted to employees who may be interested in them. The existence
of a fitness program, for example, does little good if employees must go looking for it (Pignata et
September 2016 Organizational Wellbeing 13al., 2014).
9. Provide empowering (rather than disempowering) work conditions
Workers who are empowered are more likely to enact organizational citizenship behaviours
directed at their organizations (Bakker & Bal, 2010). To empower workers, managers can provide
support, offer frequent performance feedback, provide professional development opportunities,
and offer supervisory coaching. Informal power provided through social communities can also
contribute to positive citizenship behaviours (Bakker & Bal, 2010).
10. Draw on Human Resources staff to provide supervisor/manager training
Ongoing leadership training opportunities supports managers’ ability to engage their teams
effectively (Shuck & Reio, 2014). Managers and data from the needs assessment identified in
recommendation two may be able to highlight which training programs would be most helpful.
11. Take seriously any cases of interpersonal mistreatment, incivility, or conflict
Workplace conflict, incivility, and mistreatment all adversely affect employee well-being,
particularly when these issues involve a supervisor (Enehaug, Helmerson, & Mamelund, 2016;
Hindayah binti Abas & Otto, 2016; Paulin & Griffin, 2016). As workplace incivility affects up to 85%
of employees (Paulin & Griffin, 2016), stakeholders would do well to attend to any such issues
identified during the needs assessment process.
12. Encourage organizational citizenship
Extending from recommendation nine, managers should encourage organizational
citizenship by providing “on the spot rewards, [as well as] recognition through words of praise in
both formal and informal settings” (Kumar, Jauhari, & Singh, 2016, p. 604). These practices are
September 2016 Organizational Wellbeing 14useful for motivating employees to indulge in organizational citizenship behaviours (OCBs) that
contribute to enhanced well-being (Kumar et al., 2016)
13. Avoid internal competitions in teams or units
While teams with competitive norms are less likely to be negatively affected by perceived
incivility, internal competition can lead to employees undermining one another’s work and
withholding help from other workers (Paulin & Griffin, 2016). As a result, competitive norms should
be focused on achieving team goals, not on out-performing other members within the unit.
14. Provide deliberate coaching opportunities
Coaching supports are more effective at increasing employee performance than group
training sessions (Passmore & Anagnos, 2008). As with recommendation 13, any existing employee
ranking systems should be replaced with coaching and constructive feedback (Lawton, Taye, &
Ivanov, 2014).
15. Structure work so that employees can see the impact they are having
Showing employees that they are making a difference can motivate them to continue
investing in their work, and may help them to view their work more positively (Michaelson, Pratt,
Grant, & Dunn, 2014). Understandably, support staff will require a different impact-visibility
structure than their faculty colleagues.
16. Discourage workaholism and over-commitment
Employee engagement is not the same thing as workaholism, which leads to burnout and
hinders well-being. Employees should enjoy doing things outside of work and not feel guilty when
not at work (Schaufeli, Taris, & Van Rhenen, 2008). To that end, stakeholders should encourage
September 2016 Organizational Wellbeing 15employees to be involved in social or family activities that are not connected to the workplace.
17. Provide a variety of job resources
Job resources that promote employee engagement include career growth opportunities,
supportive colleague relationships, feedback, and development training (Bakker, Demerouti, &
Xanthopoulou, 2012). While employee engagement is a separate field from OWB, engagement
contributes to positive affect and better employee health. Engagement resources are therefore
supportive of OWB (Bakker et al., 2012)
18. Provide a formal personal development and growth process
As Attridge (2009b) notes, “employees who have a personal development plan and who
receive annual formal performance appraisals have significantly higher engagement levels than
those who [do] not” (p. 387). This process should be provided in addition to, not instead of, the
coaching opportunities mentioned in recommendation 14.
19. Consider current use of family-friendly policies (such as flex-time,
telecommuting, supported leave, and childcare)
These types of policies, which exist at the university already, can enhance well-being for
employees with those needs (Frone, 2003). As mentioned earlier in this report, however, not all
employees are currently eligible under these policies. The needs assessment outlined in
recommendation two may provide data related to employee need in these areas. Importantly, such
work-family policies will only have a positive effect on well-being if employees believe that the
organization actively supports their use for work-life integration (Poelmans et al., 2008).
20. Explicitly encourage employees to take time off for illness or personal crises
Presenteeism, when an employee is at work but is ineffective, is worse than absenteeism,
September 2016 Organizational Wellbeing 16when an employee takes time off from work. While attendance should be encouraged, attendance
at the expense of employee health or well-being is detrimental to the individual and the
organization (Johns, 2008). Appropriate support for taking time off is therefore essential.
21. Discourage the use of extended hours to increase productivity
Extended hours directly increase employee levels of stress and depression, and negatively
affect well-being (Odle-Dusseau et al., 2012). Faculty in particular should be encouraged not to do
work after school hours or allow their work to interfere with their personal or family lives (Leung,
Siu, & Spector, 2000). If necessary, supervisors may provide balance feedback to employees who
struggle to separate their work and home lives.
22. Provide stress management programs
Facing stressful situations on a daily basis can hinder well-being (Sonja et al., 2015). A
variety of stress management programs are supported by OWB literature, including relaxation
techniques and yoga. Which strategies are most effective will depend on the needs assessment
data arising from recommendation two.
These recommendations serve as a starting point for enhancing OWB in the Werklund
community. Undoubtedly, more recommendations will emerge after a needs assessment has been
conducted to determine which existing programs are working well, which need to be modified or
removed, and what new programs need to be included in the School’s integrated approach to
OWB. Involving community stakeholders – that is, faculty and staff – should also reveal
recommendations that are catered to the needs of each stakeholder group.
September 2016 Organizational Wellbeing 17LITERATURE REVIEW
As we have mentioned, the preceding recommendations are based on our review of
Canadian and international OWB literature. This review, presented in the following sections,
highlights the different aspects of well-being, the benefits of well-being for workers and their
organizations, the effects of low OWB, and the practices and policies that organizations ought to
consider when examining well-being in their communities. This information may be of particular
relevance to stakeholders who become deeply involved in the OWB planning process.
Different Aspects of Well-Being
A variety of factors contribute to employee well-being that must be considered when
developing proactive or responsive policies. As McCoy et al. (2013) note, “well-being can be seen as
a more holistic construct encompassing work variables (i.e., job satisfaction) and life variables (i.e.,
emotional and physical health)” (p. 311). In this section, we consider how these related yet distinct
terms contribute to the overall concept of employee well-being.
Employers may be most interested in those aspects of well-being which are influenced by
working conditions. Increasingly, well-being at work requires more than a high salary (Poelmans et
al., 2008): OWB also depends on an organization’s climate and how that climate is perceived by
employees (Platania et al., 2015; Shuck & Reio, 2014). Shuck and Reio (2014) describe this as
“psychological workplace climate” (p. 45), where employees interpret the workplace based on
social, physical, and environmental cues that affect them on a daily basis. The Canadian Centre for
Management Development (2002) contends that six such factors contribute to a positive workplace
climate, including open communication, collegiality, a clear team purpose, employee discretion,
and opportunities for risk-taking (p. 9). Warr (2008) adds that employee happiness at work is also
September 2016 Organizational Wellbeing 18affected by role clarity, variety, opportunities to use and acquire skills, positive interactions,
supportive management, and workplace equity (p. 63). Sonja and colleagues (2015) further contend
that positive organizational climates also incorporate stress management strategies, as “employees
cannot be healthy and feel well in their work settings if they face stressful situations on a daily
basis” (p. 24). Since the way employees experience their work environment can be used as a
predictor of workplace performance (Thogersen-Ntoumani, Loughren, Taylor, Duda, & Fox, 2014),
employers can use workplace productivity as one measure of OWB (Schulte et al., 2015).
Well-being can also be assessed using subjective measures of less quantifiable concepts
(Schulte et al., 2015). One such concept is employee engagement. While a distinct field of research
from OWB, employee engagement is related to well-being in that it measures employees’ positive
feelings and behaviours in the workplace (Platania et al., 2015). As Hubbard and Atkins (1995) note,
the relationship between faculty’s affective states and their overall well-being is well-established
(p. 120). Indeed, it is unsurprising that employees who are engaged in their work perceive a “fit”
between themselves and their workplace (Michaelson et al., 2014, p. 79) that is reminiscent of
Warr’s (2008) concept of employee happiness. While engaged employees direct cognitive and
emotional energy to their work (Shuck & Reio, 2014), this engagement does not extend to
workaholism or burnout, where employees engage in work activities at the expense of other
aspects of their lives (De Carlo et al., 2014). Further, while work engagement serves as a protection
against burnout (De Carlo et al., 2014), employee engagement is not constant. As Bakker and
colleagues (2012) suggest, individual engagement can fluctuate even during the course of a day.
Thus, while employees’ subjective well-being is a strong predictor for professional performance
(Man & Ticu, 2015), employers should also consider other data sources for measuring long-term
September 2016 Organizational Wellbeing 19OWB (Schulte et al., 2015).
One such measure of OWB is the frequency of organizational citizenship behaviours (OCBs).
Gilbert and colleagues (2010) describe OCB as individual actions that are optional and not directly
rewarded in the workplace. These include voluntarily helping colleagues, proactively preventing
problems, exceeding policy expectations, maintaining a positive attitude during challenging
situations, and “participating in the political process of the organization” (Gilbert et al., p. 341).
These behaviours may be directed at specific individuals (OCBI), or for the benefit of the
organization (OCBO). As Kumar and colleagues (2016) describe, “OCBI leads to relatedness need
satisfaction, which is an essential nutriment for individual well-being. On the other hand, OCBO
leads to better overall psychological health” (p. 602). In other words, the rate at which employees
perform citizenship acts for either their colleagues or the organization can be used as a measure of
well-being in the workplace.
Importantly, OWB also incorporates factors outside of the workplace itself. As De Carlo and
colleagues (2014) note, work affects and is affected by aspects of employees’ personal lives. This is
also the case for faculty development, which Hubbard and Atkins (1995) describe as having both
professional and personal aspects (p. 120). For example, Odle-Dusseau and colleagues (2012) argue
that OWB also depends on the perceived compatibility between the amount of time employees
spend at work and with their families. If an employee is satisfied with the amount of time they
spend at work but unsatisfied with the amount of time for personal pursuits, their well-being may
be affected (Odle-Dusseau et al., 2012). Zheng and colleagues (2016) therefore connect OWB with
individual coping strategies. They suggest that “if exercised effectively, [coping strategies] can
determine the degree of positive physiological (health) and psychological (well-being) outcomes”
September 2016 Organizational Wellbeing 20(Zheng et al., 2016, p. 504). Similarly, Warr (2008) contends that OWB supports function like
vitamins. According to Warr (2008), OWB supports are a necessary aspect of overall health, with
support benefits varying from worker to worker based on the availability of those supports.
Further, Warr (2008) argues, OWB supports do not raise well-being indefinitely, and some supports
may be detrimental when applied in excess (e.g., job control escalating to a lack of direction).
Organizations must therefore consider how best to support these different aspects of well-being to
meet their employees’ changing needs.
Benefits of Well-Being
Before exploring organizational practices that employers might use to support well-being,
we should first examine the benefits well-being offers for employees and their employers. Similarly,
in the following section, we will also consider the effects of low well-being. This discussion will
provide a context for the practices employers may consider to address various aspects of OWB.
Employee well-being offers a number of benefits to organizations. Attridge (2009a), for
example, notes that organizations with effective OWB programs improve rates of absenteeism,
productivity, and turnover, and reduce the cost of medical compensation for employees. Sonja and
colleagues (2015) also suggest that “an organization with a reputation for well-being among its
employees is also more likely to attract the best from the talent pool of potential employees” (p.
23). That is, in addition to benefitting current staff, high OWB may contribute to public perception
of the organization itself. Similarly, employees who perceive a higher level of organizational support
are more likely to commit to their organization and have a more positive outlook on their work
(Chen et al., 2009). Engaged employees are also likely to help their teams perform better, seek out
challenges, take on a positive attitude to change, and to try to shape their job design through
September 2016 Organizational Wellbeing 21negotiation and discussion (Bakker et al., 2012). As described in the previous section, each of these
behaviours contributes to the organization’s overall climate.
How, then, does well-being benefit individual employees? With respect to physical health,
employees who are physically active can reduce their risk for a range of diseases, including
coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes, obesity, and some cancers (Thogersen-Ntoumani et al.,
2014). Physical activity “can also contribute to the prevention of some mental illnesses such as
depression[,] anxiety, dementia, [and] Alzheimer’s disease” (Thogersen-Ntoumani et al., p. 89).
More broadly, Zheng and colleagues (2016) note that work-life balance is particularly effective at
reducing both mental illness and job-related stress.
OWB also affords emotional benefits. McCoy and colleagues (2013) note that when faculty
have positive relationships with administration and other colleagues, they are less likely to leave
the institution. Similarly, faculty are more likely to stay with an institution if they feel supported and
respected in the workplace. More engaged employees are also more likely to exhibit friendly and
helpful behaviours with their peers (Shuck & Reio, 2014). Interestingly, in one study of OWB, Anshel
and colleagues (2010) found that 25% of employees involved in a well-being program reported
“that the program helped them remember values that they had forgotten or neglected, such as the
value of high quality job performance or the values of friendship and family” (p. 121). Well-being
can also contribute to employees’ resourcefulness. Bakker and Bal (2010) found that teachers who
were engaged in their work reported access to more support resources in subsequent weeks. They
further suggest that when teachers are able to access the resources they need, they will have
increased confidence in their ability to accomplish work goals (Bakker & Bal, 2010). Kumar and
colleagues (2016) therefore suggest that managers would do well to create an environment where
September 2016 Organizational Wellbeing 22employees are recognized and motivated for their contributions. Such organizational climates serve
to benefit both the organization and its employees.
Effects of Low Well-Being
Just as high OWB contributes to successful organizational climates, low well-being affects
both the health and overall productivity of an organization’s work force (Haymes, 2013). Attridge
(2009a) observes, for example, that human resource executives now consider mental health issues
“the number one driver of indirect business costs” (p. 382). In another study, Attridge (2010) notes
that the vast majority of costs associated with employee mental health and substance abuse are as
a result of lost productivity, and not as a result of more explicit costs such as healthcare and
disability claims. The organizational effects of low well-being extend well beyond financial strain.
Low OWB also increases employee absence rates, particularly when organizations have poor social
integration (Johns, 2008). There is a significant relationship between an uncivil work environment
and low OWB, to the extent that Paulin and Griffin (2016) contend that workplace incivility is an
organizational problem, not just an individual concern. When low well-being occurs as a result of
mistreatment by supervisors, turnover rates increase and organizational commitment is reduced
(Hindayah binti Abas & Otto, 2016). Finally, as McCoy and colleagues (2013) note, “not only are
dissatisfied faculty members likely to leave an institution, they may also negatively impact the
morale and retention of others” (pp. 309-310). Each of these factors limits an organization’s ability
to meet its goals.
Low levels of well-being are similarly detrimental to individual employees. The Canadian
Centre for Management Development (2002) observes that some 32% of executives do not seek
promotions because of well-being concerns. Similarly, they found that “half of all Canadian Public
September 2016 Organizational Wellbeing 23Servants feel that their work often or always suffers because they are asked to do more with fewer
resources, while 29% feel that their work often or always suffers because of unreasonable
deadlines” (p. 6). These high demands increase employees’ risk of job strain and burnout,
particularly when workers have little control over the demands they face in the workplace (Lowe,
2014). Recalling the importance of job security and reduced levels of stress and conflict, Zheng et
al. (2016) caution that poor measures in these areas contribute to significant mental health
concerns in the workforce. When these concerns are not addressed, employees face “an increased
risk of illness, personal problems, incidents and work or school, and even family breakdown”
(Attridge, 2009a, p. 382). Enehaug and colleagues (2016) similarly observe that employees working
in poor organizational climates are more likely to suffer from mental health issues and decreased
work ability.
Employees with low OWB also struggle with a variety of personal concerns. For example, De
Carlo and colleagues (2014) note that employees with low OWB frequently experience negative
emotions at work, and experience positive emotions less often. Further, employees who are
mistreated in the workplace have significantly reduced cognitive and emotional abilities as they try
to make sense of their experiences (Hindayah binti Abas & Otto, 2016). Employees with extended
work hours or whose organizations over-emphasize productivity similarly perceive a lower level
quality of life as well as elevated levels of stress and depression (Odle-Dusseau et al., 2012). Such
negative workplace experiences lead to what Shuck and Reio (2014) describe as “feelings of
loneliness, ostracism, and burnout” (p. 47). In the end, emotionally exhausted employees are more
likely to conserve their emotional and professional resources at the expense of commitment to
their organization (Gilbert et al., 2010).
September 2016 Organizational Wellbeing 24Practices that Support Well-Being
In the preceding sections, we have explored both the benefits of well-being and the effects
of low well-being on employees and their organizations. Given these concerns, the following
section examines those practices organizations use which support well-being. Stakeholders may use
this information to reflect on their own practices, as well as potential gaps in their strategies for
addressing OWB.
Lowe (2014) identifies three categories of practices that organizations may undertake to
support well-being. These include taking an integrated approach to well-being, focusing on worker
health and development, and creating a positive organizational culture. Fuller and colleagues
(2006) contend that across these approaches, employers must engage in direct, employee-focused
efforts if they want to effect change in employee well-being, loyalty, and commitment. Shuck and
Reio (2014) similarly call for employers to implement system-level changes in their human resource
approaches. They suggest that employers might begin by considering “how people are valued as
human beings within the organization and how employees [are] rewarded for their work” (p. 54).
As Michaelson and colleagues (2014) argue, by actively engaging in ways to improve employees’
real working conditions, organizations are better positioned to implement meaningful change. This
may involve reviewing existing human resource policies, recognition practices, and workloads, as
well as enhancing managers’ leadership skills (Pignata et al., 2014). This integrated approach can
then be articulated through a specific vision for well-being that connects to shared values within
the organization (Michaelson et al., 2014).
Consistently, OWB researchers contend that integrated approaches to well-being require
employee involvement. Stasishyn and Ivanov (2013) suggest that employees who are involved in
September 2016 Organizational Wellbeing 25organizational change are more likely to want the organization to succeed. Similarly, Noblet and
LaMontagne (2008) observe that employees who are part of the decision-making process are much
more committed to the organization’s decisions. Pignata et al. (2014) refers to this as “procedural
justice” (p. 4), a process that includes employees’ voices in developing practices that are fair and
openly communicated. One method of engaging employees in the OWB process is the creation of
worksite wellness committees: groups of employees who assess the needs of the organization and
have the ability to facilitate changes that contribute to higher OWB (Lowe, 2014). When properly
structured, these groups are able to represent both employee and organizational interests, and
develop practices that the wider organization can accept and implement.
Attridge (2009b) notes that there are a variety of health-related practices that organizations
can adopt as part of their overall approach to OWB. For example, employers may review job design
practices to shape jobs to employees’ specific strengths and talents. Attridge (2009b) further
suggests that if an employee’s role is overly demanding or offers little personalization or autonomy,
then that worker will be less productive. Similarly, Attridge (2009b) recommends employers
provide ergonomic equipment, allow for flexibility in scheduling, and work with employees to
change “problematic or disliked” aspects of their jobs (p. 393). Child care centres are also a cost
effective way of addressing employee well-being: by including child care efforts in their approach to
employee health, organizations can alleviate stress, reduce absenteeism, and boost overall
productivity (Lowe, 2014). In a similar vein, Johns (2008) contends that employee well-being and
productivity are both better served by policies that encourage employees to take time off when
they are ill or have family emergencies. Johns notes, “researchers are unanimous in reporting that
health problems lead to considerably more productivity loss via presenteeism than absenteeism”
September 2016 Organizational Wellbeing 26(p. 13). In other words, since employees who come to work when they are ill are unproductive and
recover more slowly, managers should encourage employees to take time off for recovery, to the
benefit of the individual and the organization. This also reduces the risk of spreading illness to other
employees (Johns, 2008).
A significant number of health and well-being practices relate to employee development.
Bakker and colleagues (2012) note that providing resources for training, feedback, and career
growth can promote employee engagement and help employees to make changes that will support
their development. In particular, Bakker et al. (2012) encourage employers to provide targeted
feedback and encourage self-direction in their work environment. This reflects Bozeman and
Gaughan’s (2011) finding that workers “want some degree of work autonomy” as well as
“recognition from their supervisors and colleagues” (p. 156). Employee development can also
directly relate to health and well-being. Pignata and colleagues (2014), for example, suggest that
staff members can lead stress reduction initiatives that focus on valuing employees and their
contributions. Such staff-led initiatives may raise employee morale and help the organization to
analyze its unique OWB risks (Pignata et al., 2014).
Organizational coaching and mentoring can also contribute to healthy employee
development. As Passmore and Anagnos (2008) describe, “a wide array of benefits have been
identified [from mentoring programs] such as improved leadership skills, socialization into
organizational roles, lower employee turnover, and improved job performance” (p. 506). As a
result, Passmore and Anagnos (2008) suggest that organizations can improve employee
development and well-being by including mentorship in their approach to OWB. Providing ongoing
feedback structures can also support employee development. In one study of anonymous peer
September 2016 Organizational Wellbeing 27feedback, Passmore and Anagnos (2008) found that “over half of managers reported a sustained
change in behaviour (52 percent) whilst the remaining managers (48 percent) reported medium
sustained change” (p. 508). Lawton and colleagues (2014) similarly support coaching and regular
feedback practices, as they allow managers to guide employees when the feedback is still current
(which, they argue, yearly review processes fail to do). By linking coaching, mentorship, and
feedback to the overall organizational culture, organizations connect this practice to their
integrated OWB plan and provide a climate where employees are more likely to accept this
professional guidance (Passmore and Anagnos, 2008).
An organization’s approach to OWB cannot be fully integrated without a transformation in
the organization’s climate. Creating a positive organizational culture depends on how employees
perceive the employer’s motivations. Fortunately, as Bozeman and Gaughan (2011) note,
“perceptions are very much within the purview of administrators. Providing a work environment
conducive to mutual respect gives positive outcomes in virtually any organization and
administrators contribute greatly to setting a cordial and respectful work environment” (p. 179).
That is, by respecting employees and engaging them in the change management process,
organizations can begin the process of building a more positive organizational culture. Fuller and
colleagues (2006) suggest that this also requires communicating employee accomplishments to
internal and external stakeholders. In addition to increasing the organization’s visibility, Fuller et al.
(2006) suggest that this positive communication can enhance perceptions that the organization
values its employees and their contributions. As Pignata and colleagues (2014) explain, increasing
employees’ perceived organizational support reduces strain, promotes job satisfaction, and
promotes commitment to the organization.
September 2016 Organizational Wellbeing 28You can also read
