Link between wellbeing and productivity is made ‘clear’

Comments by Mel Stride, the UK secretary of state for work and pensions, claiming Britain’s attitude to mental health had “gone too far” by medicalising the “normal anxieties of life” recently stoked a fierce debate. Some welcomed his no-nonsense approach; others criticised it as punitive.

But the conversation highlighted the interplay between work and mental health. This is not only an issue for government ministers, doctors and those struggling with anxiety and depression, but also one for employers.

According to an analysis of the UK labour force survey by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, about half the number of people with depression and anxiety said it limited the amount of work they could do — and the impact was higher, in absolute numbers, than that of physical back and neck problems.

Organisations have long sought to understand how best to capitalise on their staff’s wellbeing. In the 19th century, paternalistic factory owners such as Titus Salt — who built the model village Saltaire in West Yorkshire with homes, a park and school — were motivated by a mix of Christian care for their workers and a desire to boost productivity. Later, the link between emotions and performance was further explored in the human relations movement of the 1930s and 1940s, and happiness economics of the 2000s.

More recently, the Covid pandemic has prompted a renewed emphasis on staff wellbeing. At a time when workers were under pressure, juggling the demands of caring responsibilities, home-schooling and isolating during successive lockdowns, many employers sought to help. Initiatives included offering wellness apps, appointing chief medical officers, and providing budgets for exercise equipment.

Tobba Vigfusdottir, chief executive and founder of Kara Connect, a digital wellbeing platform, says that employers are increasingly offering services once provided by “conventional support structures”, such as “church and neighbourhood communities”. In return, employers, like Salt before them, expect a return on their efforts.

The good news, says William Fleming, research fellow at Oxford university’s Wellbeing Research Centre, is that there is a “clear link between subjective wellbeing and productivity”.

He points to two recent studies that show happier workers make more sales, and wellbeing at work can boost financial performance. They support the business case for tending to staff happiness, he argues. “This is without considering absence rates because of mental health and costs of employee turnover.”

Jan-Emmanuel De Neve, professor of economics and director of the Wellbeing Research Centre, adds that the rise of artificial intelligence places a greater emphasis on staff wellbeing. “The future of work is mostly about social and emotional intelligence,” he believes.

In a study of call centre workers, he that found happiness boosted sales by 12 per cent but made little difference to basic and routine tasks which, in theory, could be undertaken by machines, like simple order-taking. A good mood boosted more complex negotiations involving problem-solving and persuasion, such as renewing a contract.

De Neve says this suggests the “role of wellbeing” becomes more important to productivity as AI handles routine tasks, leaving workers to engage with more sophisticated ones.

Less clear, however, is the effectiveness of company programmes in boosting wellbeing. Fleming studied those targeting stress, boosting resilience, and teaching mindfulness — as well as apps. He found that participants “have the same levels of mental wellbeing as those who do not” take part.

It’s naive for employers to think a workplace gym, smoking, healthy eating programme is going to address work stress

The same goes for efforts to encourage healthy lifestyles. Fleming points out that “typically, already healthy active workers are the ones who engage with these initiatives. Health lifestyles are linked with social class [and] family. It’s naive for employers to think a workplace gym, smoking [cessation], or healthy-eating programme is going to address work stress [as well as] longer-term health problems.”

Hannah Ford, employment partner at law firm Stevens & Bolton, says such efforts can breed cynicism among employees, particularly if tokenistic. She cites free wellbeing apps when staff are “frequently forced to work in excess of their contracted hours”; or offering virtual mindfulness classes when also “monitoring their computer mouse movements to ensure they are not inactive during the day”.

Nonetheless, Fleming says that due to deteriorating mental healthcare provision in the UK, there is a place for employers to offer mental health support through counselling or therapy.

“It’s better than no care, but it also raises questions of whether this is really the optimal approach in [the] wider policy context, especially considering who does and doesn’t get access to something like this,” he says.

Vigfusdottir points out that, traditionally, companies have offered assistance programmes that are “essentially ignored by the vast majority of employees — with a typical engagement rate of 1.8 per cent”.

By attempting to fix the worker rather than the workplace, programmes ignore the real cause of employee misery — jobs, poor line management, and heavy workloads.

The best strategies, says Fleming, are those that improve work by enhancing autonomy — control of when, where and how to do the job — and give employees a voice through feedback, performance reviews, and effective manager training. By identifying problems, stressors and blockers, employees and managers can develop solutions together.

Ultimately, says Fleming: “Helping people do the job they are paid to will improve how people feel at work.”