Employee mental health services have become a thriving billion-dollar industry, offering a plethora of digital wellness solutions, mindfulness seminars, and resilience workshops to new hires. However, a recent study conducted by British researcher William J. Fleming, a fellow at Oxford University’s Wellbeing Research Center, challenges the effectiveness of these well-intentioned programs. Analyzing survey responses from 46,336 workers at companies offering such services, the study found that participants in these programs experienced no better outcomes than their non-participating colleagues. While these findings may seem controversial, they underscore the need for a reevaluation of workplace mental health strategies.
In an era where companies proudly showcase their commitment to employee well-being through an array of wellness programs, Fleming’s study sends shockwaves through the prevailing corporate narrative. The study’s most notable exception was the positive impact observed among workers engaged in charity or volunteer work. Surprisingly, popular offerings such as mindfulness apps, coaching, relaxation classes, time management courses, and financial health sessions showed no discernible positive effects. In fact, resilience and stress management training even appeared to have a negative impact.
Fleming suggests that employers seeking to enhance workers’ mental health might be better served by focusing on core organizational practices, such as schedules, pay, and performance reviews. He emphasizes that while there’s nothing inherently wrong with employees seeking access to mindfulness apps or well-being programs, true well-being improvement requires a deeper examination of working practices.
The study, based on survey responses from the Britain’s Healthiest Workplace survey, considered outcomes from 90 different interventions across 233 organizations. While financial and insurance service workers, younger workers, and women were slightly overrepresented in the study, the findings challenge the widespread adoption of well-being programs across various job sectors.
One notable aspect of the study is its consideration of workers’ well-being at a single point in time, rather than tracking participants before and after treatment. Despite concerns about potential selection bias, where workers with lower well-being may be more inclined to enroll in these programs, the study found no clear benefits even when focusing on workers with high pre-existing levels of work stress.
The research’s implications question the prevailing practices that have become standard across industries. Tony D. LaMontagne, a professor of work, health, and well-being at Deakin University in Melbourne, suggests that employers may want to be seen as taking action but might be hesitant to critically examine and change the fundamental way work is organized.
The corporate wellness services industry has witnessed significant growth, with thousands of vendors vying for a share of the multibillion-dollar revenue. Companies invest in these interventions with the hope of improving worker health and productivity, ultimately leading to cost savings. While some research supports these expectations, Fleming’s study challenges the efficacy of interventions that have become commonplace.
Adam Chekroud, co-founder of Spring Health, a mental health services platform, critiques Fleming’s study, suggesting that it examined less credible interventions and measured well-being many months later. Chekroud asserts that there is recent and credible data supporting the positive impact of mental health programs on metrics such as depression improvement, reduced absenteeism, and increased productivity.
The study’s lackluster findings may be attributed to variations in program offerings. Larissa Bartlett, a researcher at the University of Tasmania, notes that “light-touch” interventions like apps are generally less effective than one-on-one or group trainings. She argues that Fleming’s study misses crucial details and nuances, offering a broad overview that fails to capture individual changes over time.
In conclusion, while the study challenges the prevailing wisdom around employee mental health programs, it may be essential to recognize the diversity in program types and individual responses. Longitudinal data tracking participants over time could provide a more nuanced understanding of the impact of these interventions. Fleming’s research prompts a critical reevaluation of workplace well-being initiatives, emphasizing the need for a more holistic approach that addresses core organizational practices for sustained improvements in employee mental health.
