Taking Responsibility for Poor Wellbeing

Evidence suggests that our overall physical wellbeing is directly influenced by our careers, finances, social lives and community involvement. And like diet and exercise, we have some control over all these areas. Should employers share in this responsibility?

In “Wellbeing: The Five Essential Elements,” Tom Rath and Jim Harter provide an understanding of what makes a life worthwhile. According to the authors—both Gallup researchers on workplace leadership and management—wellbeing isn’t only about happiness.

Wellbeing is also not only about financial wealth, career success or physical health. In fact, focusing on any one of these in isolation may very well end in frustration and provide a sense of failure.

Instead the authors present a holistic view on how the interconnections among five areas that make up wellbeing can help shape the way people evaluate their lives. These five elements are career, social, financial, physical and community.

According to a recent Gallup Study by Harter and Sangeeta Agrawal, also a senior researcher at Gallup, there is also a huge price to pay for poor wellbeing.

The researchers measured overall wellbeing and monitored the change in disease burden for specific chronic conditions such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, depression, heart disease, diabetes, sleep disorder/insomnia, and anxiety.

They categorized individuals’ overall wellbeing as “thriving” (strong, consistent and progressing), “struggling” (moderate or inconsistent), or “suffering” (at high risk). One-third of struggling or suffering adults reported an increase in their disease burden. Comparatively, one in five thriving adults reported an increase in disease burden. The data suggests that adults with struggling or suffering wellbeing were 64% more likely than adults with thriving wellbeing to have one or more new disease conditions diagnosed in the past year.

The 64% figure is significant not only because of the physical cost but also the financial costs associated with these conditions. The researchers reported a distinct difference in the cost of disease burden when comparing these two groups. Thriving adults averaged an annual disease burden cost of $4,929 per person compared to $6,763 per person averaged by struggling and suffering adults. This represents a 37% cost difference, with struggling and suffering adults averaging $1,834 more in disease burden costs per person than those in the thriving group.

“A high percentage of healthcare costs are due to things we can all directly affect—our diet, exercise, weight, and other habits,” says Harter. “But many other aspects of our lives can influence our long-term physical health, including our careers, social lives, finances, and communities.”

Harter says employers are well-positioned to help people improve their short-term and long-term wellbeing in all dimensions. Employers have natural social networks, cultural expectations, and an infrastructure to provide wellbeing resources. He further suggests employers can take the lead in creating awareness and long-term change through education, measurement and positive defaults.

Employers can begin by building an engaging work environment, which includes fortifying the organization with great managers and offering employees support and structure to reach higher levels of wellbeing in all dimensions. Employee wellbeing may then be a logical extension to employee engagement.

“While organizations probably shouldn’t approach wellbeing from a paternalistic perspective,” says Harter, “they can offer opportunities that improve the odds that their employees will do what is best for themselves and make clear that thriving wellbeing is an expectation within the organization.”

Because employees and employers pay the financial consequences of poor wellbeing, it makes sense to invest time and money to provide resources that help employees improve all dimensions of their wellbeing.

Harter says he believes organizations can offer employees options to learn financial management skills through relevant programs and classes. And he thinks organizations can take an active role in connecting employees to community involvement opportunities that fit their strengths and interests.

“It’s important that organizations work on prevention and early intervention by understanding that the wellbeing elements are interdependent,” Harter says. “Prevention doesn’t just involve motivating people to take part in exercise programs and make healthy food choices. It involves thinking about how these good habits interact with all the other wellbeing elements. As with engagement, the most progressive organizations will realize that their job is to improve people’s lives as they improve their performance.”

The Value of 360-Degree Feedback

Like most employee evaluation programs, the 360-degree feedback process can be effective or ineffective depending on the guidelines, training and implementation accompanying it.

Feedback in this process is typically provided by subordinates, peers and supervisors. It also includes a self-assessment and may include feedback from customers, suppliers and other stakeholders.

Results can be effectively used by the person receiving the feedback to seek training and development for improvement if necessary.

However, there is some controversy regarding whether 360-degree feedback improves employee performance, and it has even been suggested that it may actually decrease shareholder value.

A 2001 Watson Wyatt study found that 360-degree feedback was one of the factors associated with a 10.6 percent decrease in market value of an organization. The study notes that while nothing is inherently wrong with these practices, many organizations implement them in misguided ways.

And a study on the patterns of 360-degree feedback rater accuracy shows that the length of time the rater has known the person being rated has the most significant effect on the accuracy of a 360-degree review. According to the study, the most accurate ratings come from knowing the person long enough to get past first impressions (one to three years), but not so long as to begin to generalize favorably (more than five years).

Organizations having success with 360-degree feedback processes report:

• Organizational climate fosters individual growth
• Criticisms are seen as opportunities for improvement
• Assurance that feedback will be kept confidential
• Development of feedback tool based on organizational goals and values
• Feedback tool includes area for comments
• Brief workers, evaluators and supervisors about purpose, uses of data and methods of survey prior to distribution of tool
• Train workers in appropriate methods to give and receive feedback
• Support feedback with back-up services or customized coaching

Organizations using 360-degree feedback without first providing the foundation for success can have negative consequences such as:

• Feedback too often tied to merit pay or promotions
• Comments are traced to individuals causing resentment between workers
• Feedback not linked to organizational goals or values
• Use of the feedback tool as a stand alone without follow-up
• Poor implementation of tool negatively affects motivation
• Excessive number of surveys mean raters provide few tangible results

When a 360-degree feedback process is not properly implemented it can seriously derail its effectiveness. Like any training or development program, this process requires guidelines and oversight to ensure it is implemented properly and fairly throughout the organization.

Since 360-degree feedback processes are typically anonymous, people receiving feedback have no recourse if they want to further understand the feedback. They have no one to ask for clarification of unclear comments or more information about particular ratings and their basis.

Too often the 360-degree feedback process is problem-focused rather than solution-focused. By focusing on the employee’s weaknesses there is less of an opportunity to build on the employee’s strengths. And great leaders are those who build upon employee strengths rather than on their weaknesses.

The best 360-degree feedback provides insight about the skills and behaviors desired to meet the mission, vision and goals of the organization. It enables each individual to understand how his or her effectiveness as an employee is viewed by others. The feedback is based on behaviors that other employees can see. And the process includes a follow-up plan or coaching in order to improve.

As with any performance feedback process, it can be a profoundly supportive, organization-affirming method for promoting employee growth and development. Or the process can reduce morale and motivation, and make things much worse for the individual and the entire organization.