I get this question regularly from managers and employers. Because: shouldn't employees themselves take responsibility for "staying vital" in order to continue to perform well at work?
It's a legitimate question. You cannot force your colleagues to live healthy lives, enforce that they take enough rest or keep an eye on whether they go to bed on time at night. Indeed, you cannot interfere with their private lives. They were ultimately hired for a job and they should be able to handle it.
Also, not everyone is open to vitality initiatives, so just think of a vitality plan that really catches on. In addition, investments in vitality are often harder to justify than cost reductions, for example.
Perhaps the World Health Organization (WHO) can now provide relief. It has revised its catalog of recognized diseases after nearly 20 years**.** Burnout is finally there now. officially recognized in. This is good news, because with a clear definition, more research can take place, we can get a better understanding of the actual risks and consequences, and the scope can be better identified.
Unfortunately, there is also bad news. Burnout is being explicitly not labeled as disease, but as 'occupational phenomenon'. Calling it a 'work phenomenon' does not take into account the personal circumstances of the employee. This places the responsibility unilaterally on the employer.
That's how some workers see it. More and more burned-out workers are finding their way to the courts, rightly or wrongly, to get their complain about the workload and conditions that cost them their heads. Not exactly the labor market communication, or extra costs, you're waiting for as an employer.
In addition to the costs for employees who actually end up sitting at home with burnout, virtually all organizations face costs for reduced productivity due to mental illness.
The Sainsburry Centre of Mental Health from the UK has investigated that the average cost due to decreased productivity, burnout and employee turnover is about 1,000 pounds per employee per year! 60 percent of this is due to decreased productivity. Costs that often occur entirely before the employee comes on the radar due to sick leave.
So as an employer, it is essential that you (co)work on the vitality of your employees. Not as tick in the box, with a fruit basket or a one-size fits all program as I did a few months ago wrote. You want to advocate for specific programs that encourage employees to take responsibility for their own health. Train your employees to recognize mental illness and burnout symptoms. Offer coaching to employees you suspect may have symptoms.
So, in short, as far as I'm concerned, you can go pretty far when it comes to the vitality of your staff. It is also in your own interest. Make vitality an explicit part of the corporate strategy and the image of the company and ensure that the management is visibly involved and participates.
It pays off. Vital employees are more creative, more engaged with the company, go to work with more pleasure, are more resistant to work pressure and are more loyal to their employer.
If that is not a priority on the MT agenda, what is?
