After a few years in the health industry, whenever I see a statement like this one:
Organisations wishing to proactively reduce burnout can do so by encouraging their employees to access regular exercise programs.
My brain translates the suggestion into real-world application, which in the US seems to go like this:
Organisations wishing to proactively increase wellness metrics and reduce their expenditures can do so by instituting highly invasive biometric screening programs and jacking up premiums, while offering no actual time or fiscal incentive to join a gym or exercise independently.
Quick apology if that sounds terribly cynical, but it seems like the go-to path by businesses. I say this as a person who feels grateful to have a job where I can go home and work out for 20 minutes 3 times during the work week. Also, I know that eating "better" takes time and effort both in the sourcing and production of materials, which may or may not be less expensive to the individual in the short/long term.
Unfortunately, I have to agree with this. I've seen it happen. What could very well be a win/win/win situation for companies (less turnover, lower rates), employees (better health, less burnout), and insurers (lower health risk and fewer payouts) ends up being something that removes a lot of (all of?) the benefit for employees, and just benefits the company and insurers.
It's normally changed into a lose/lose/lose situation, but companies and insurers won't realize their lose at the short term, so they pretend they won.
They change an action with the goal of reducing stress into something that creates more stress. And even spend some money doing it (it's just cheaper than the real thing, but still costs). Nobody gains.
That's so true. Believable explanations like "shareholder value", "revenue growth" etc. trumps everything else. As if the one and only valuable asset in life is making money.
Ah, a valid point, which I could've worked in but frankly I didn't see a lot of that happening in the implementations that I've witnessed.
You did make me realize though that I feel a bit like a sucker for paying higher premiums and spending my own money on supplements and workout stuff simply because I won't let my employer hire somebody to review my biological information on a sheet of paper devoid of individual context.
I mean, I'd love to be on equal footing with an employer. "Sure, you can look at my health records and tell me areas to improve, no problem. You're going to have to let me review internal financial metrics for places where you can cut back on some things and pay me more though." Fair is fair haha.
Too true. Another pitfall is the formation of cliques around exercise types, levels, and schedules. That can even be a form of discrimination, when the boss's exercise habits (inevitably) become part of the political game and those who don't use the same locker room get shut out.
Organisations wishing to proactively reduce burnout can do so by encouraging their employees to access regular exercise programs.
My brain translates the suggestion into real-world application, which in the US seems to go like this:
Organisations wishing to proactively increase wellness metrics and reduce their expenditures can do so by instituting highly invasive biometric screening programs and jacking up premiums, while offering no actual time or fiscal incentive to join a gym or exercise independently.
Quick apology if that sounds terribly cynical, but it seems like the go-to path by businesses. I say this as a person who feels grateful to have a job where I can go home and work out for 20 minutes 3 times during the work week. Also, I know that eating "better" takes time and effort both in the sourcing and production of materials, which may or may not be less expensive to the individual in the short/long term.