Corporate well-being is different ...
Forbes recently published an article on corporate well-being. It aligned to some of my experience - does it resonate with you as well? The attributes leading to corporate burnout: "The World Health Organization does not list "hard work" among its primary psychosocial risks. It lists low job control, excessive workload, and job insecurity — features not of the activity, but of the management structure wrapped around it." It wasn't my longest (20+ hour) days that resulted in my burnout - it was the shapeshifting trying to meet expectations that were moving goal posts, exasperation due to behaviors from leadership like my boss not engaging with me for over 2 years, and the feeling of being used for others gain and nothing I could do about it - no one to turn to. We can work hard on something we enjoy - get into the 'flow' and lose track of time but when it's in a toxic environment, it is more challenging to get into the flow - even for work we enjoy. "In a UK poll by MHR, 79% of employees said they did not believe their employer's wellbeing claims. The program exists. Almost nobody uses it. But it documents that the firm tried — and that documentation has legal value." The usage of these programs can be as low as 2% according to the article. This does not surprise me. My work had a program called the "Green Light to Talk". I didn't ever use it. The people involved were peer level or lower, had not necessarily faced much adversity and would report (to what extent is a key question) to the people leader partner. Could they be trusted? And could they actually change things for the better when the more senior leadership witness behavior and stayed silent? "Wellness programs reframe a structural problem — chronic understaffing, impossible targets, algorithmic management — as an individual failure of self-regulation. If you are stressed, the implicit message runs, it is not because the workload is toxic. It is because you have not breathed deeply enough. "In the corporate world, the scarcity is often artificial. "Staff can feel the company is purposefully not investing in their wellbeing, despite having the means to do so," Tulaz observes. "This adds a layer of hurt that differs from the frustration in under-resourced sectors. ... "Corporate efforts feel hollow," Tulaz argues. "They're asking staff to be resilient to conditions the organization is actively choosing to maintain.""" This is the painful part. If the firms truly wanted to help the staff they could. There are good intentions with certain elements but it is less of a priority than their take home pay. In one firm the number of partners taking home over £1m increased 800% over a 10 year span -- while the wellbeing programs allotment or staff pay only marginally increased.