Last weekend I caught up with a fellow Faculty member as we launched the latest class of the Amalgam Leadership Programme. She’s an expert in governance, advising governments across Africa on how they might evolve their services to citizens. But at one point our discussion touched upon her own team, and the interesting question of how much support to give employee well-being. And by support, we of course meant time and money.
Reading around the subject it is clear that managing remuneration and benefits (which increasingly include aspects like well-being) can be a frustrating business. Over time, most concessions become rights and very quickly employees begin to regard them as their due. So the cost of benefits goes up and their ability to influence performance goes down.
The origin of this employee entitlement lies in having an incomplete psychological contract between the organisation and the employee. This should record an explicit understanding of what is expected from the employee and what can be expected in return. Part of the problem is that management teams drip-feed changes to employee benefits over time, but fail to update the shared understanding of the value to employees. Philosophers ask if a tree, falling in a forest with no one around actually makes a sound. That’s a good analogy for Employee Value Propositions that aren’t updated or regularly communicated.
Recently a valued client expressed frustration that a very generous and forward-thinking initiative to enable employees to invest in land ownership had received no uptake. Reflecting on his plight, I felt it may be that a scheme designed by well-intentioned seniors had no relevance for their Millennial and Gen Z staffers. So, what would have been manna from heaven ten years ago is simply bouncing off the umbrella of a younger set of aspirations.
Regular readers will have heard me talk about the importance of more emotional intelligence in leadership, but I’m not suggesting a benefits bonanza. Using your empathy to see things from other people’s perspectives should not mean making endless sympathetic concessions. Take well-being, for example.
A modern, responsible employer should consider the wellness support they wish to give to staff and then set clear boundaries. Help for people who are stressed and tired out by the pressure of work is reasonable. So is support for people who are struggling to meet their performance indicators, or who have conflicts with their colleagues. Professional intervention on deeper psychological issues like depression and addiction could be the subject of part funding. But when it comes to issues created outside the workplace - in family life - the available support demands a sharper definition.
Chris Harrison leads The Brand Inside
www.thebrandinsideafrica.com