One thing that has become increasingly clear while taking part in the Vanguard phase of the Keep Britain Working Review is the sheer complexity of helping more people remain healthy and in work.
The factors involved extend far beyond the workplace. Health, employment, education, economic conditions, public policy, inequality and wider social pressures all influence whether people are able to enter work, remain well and sustain their participation over time.
No single organisation, profession or intervention can address all of these factors. Progress depends on different parts of the system understanding their role and working more effectively together.
Perhaps it is no surprise, then, that the workplace wellbeing market has evolved in much the same way. Rather than representing a single discipline, it now brings together expertise spanning occupational health, organisational development, leadership, HR, training, coaching, psychology, healthcare, employee benefits and specialist support.
That breadth should be a strength. It reflects a growing recognition that supporting people at work requires different forms of expertise. Yet as increasingly diverse services have come to sit under the umbrella of ‘workplace wellbeing’, it has become harder for employers to understand which type of support is best suited to the challenge they are trying to solve.
The conversation has moved on
Over the past decade, understanding of workplace wellbeing has developed considerably.
There is now much greater recognition that employee wellbeing is shaped not only by individual habits and behaviours, but also by the conditions in which people work. Job design, workload, autonomy, leadership, relationships, inclusion, psychological safety and organisational culture all matter.
It was important to challenge narrower interpretations of workplace wellbeing. However, the conversation can sometimes feel as though it has become stuck there.
We continue to hear that wellbeing is “not about fruit bowls and yoga”, as though this remains the central misconception employers need help overcoming. It is a familiar phrase, but it risks reducing a complex discussion to another false choice.
Most employers already understand that workplace wellbeing is not created through isolated activities alone. Equally, this does not mean that every individually focused intervention is superficial or without value. Exercise, nutrition, rest, financial education, coaching and opportunities for connection can all make a worthwhile contribution.
The question is not whether these activities are sufficient on their own. They are not. The more useful question is where they fit within a wider approach.
Different needs require different forms of support
The workplace wellbeing market can appear fragmented because it includes providers designed to address very different needs.
An organisation seeking to understand and manage psychosocial risks may need support with work design, organisational culture, policy or leadership practice.
A business concerned about the confidence and capability of its managers may benefit from leadership development, mental health training, coaching or practical support with workplace conversations.
Employees may need opportunities to develop the skills that help them manage pressure, communicate effectively, protect their energy and navigate change.
At other times, people require access to clinical care, counselling, occupational health advice, rehabilitation or specialist treatment.
These interventions are not interchangeable. Nor are they necessarily in competition.
An Employee Assistance Programme is not designed to reshape organisational culture. A leadership programme cannot replace clinical mental health support. A wellbeing workshop cannot resolve a structurally unmanageable workload. Organisational change alone does not remove the need to help individuals develop useful skills and access appropriate care.
Problems arise when an intervention is expected to achieve an outcome it was never designed to deliver, or when employers are encouraged to choose between approaches that address different parts of the same challenge.
Making sense of the supplier landscape
For employers, this can make deciding where to invest difficult.
The market contains a broad mix of wellbeing platforms, healthcare providers, consultants, trainers, coaches, therapists, occupational health services, leadership specialists and benefits providers. Many organisations work across more than one area, while others offer deep expertise in a particular discipline.
This is where greater clarity about what different providers do would be valuable.
Rather than presenting each service as the answer to workplace wellbeing, we could be clearer about the specific organisational challenges it is designed to address, the outcomes it can reasonably support, and where complementary expertise may be needed.
What collaboration can look like
For the past eight years, Work Well Being has partnered with a large health insurance provider to deliver proactive wellbeing workshops to its corporate clients.
The insurer’s core expertise lies in healthcare and supporting access to treatment. However, it also recognised that its clients wanted to help employees remain well, build knowledge and make earlier use of support.
Rather than attempting to deliver every element itself, it works with a range of specialist partners. Each organisation contributes a different form of expertise, creating a broader and more coherent offer for employers.
This is a relatively simple example, but it illustrates an important principle. Collaboration does not require every provider to offer the same services or adopt the same perspective. It requires greater clarity about the contribution each can make.
There will always be healthy debate within workplace wellbeing. Evidence should be scrutinised, claims should be questioned and practice should continue to evolve. But this does not need to become a contest over which discipline or intervention matters most.
Moving beyond either/or
The challenge is rarely a choice between supporting individuals or improving the organisation.
Most organisations will need both. They may need to redesign aspects of work while also helping managers lead more effectively. They may need preventative education alongside clinical support. They may need to address workload and culture while also giving people practical tools to navigate pressure.
A more integrated approach begins by defining the problem clearly.
What are employees experiencing? Which organisational factors are contributing? What support already exists? Where are the gaps? Which expertise is best placed to address each part of the issue?
Those questions may be less appealing than searching for a single, simple solution, but they are far more likely to lead to meaningful action.
Workplace wellbeing is a broad and still-developing field. Its future is unlikely to be strengthened by repeatedly dismissing particular interventions or competing to own the agenda.
It will be strengthened by helping employers understand the whole landscape, make better-informed choices and connect different forms of support around the needs of their people and organisation.
Because helping more people remain healthy and in work is influenced by factors that extend far beyond the reach of any single intervention, profession or provider. The challenge is complex, but recognising the unique contribution that each form of expertise can make – and bringing those together more effectively around the needs of organisations and their people – gives us the best chance of making meaningful progress.
About the author
Louise Padmore is the Founder of Work Well Being. After more than a decade in senior roles within fast-paced corporate environments, she founded the business in 2014 to help organisations create healthier, more sustainable ways of working. With a BSc in Management Science from Alliance Manchester Business School, Louise leads a multidisciplinary team supporting organisations across the UK and internationally to develop the human skills that strengthen wellbeing, leadership, team effectiveness and sustainable performance.
You may also like:
