The virtuous circle of well-being & performance.
20 September 2012
Read by 1940 persons
In times of crisis, when business development becomes difficult for companies, managers turn to cost-cutting measures. The temptation is sometimes strong to use human resources as the first variable to adjust. However, one of the greatest levers for gain lies in improving performance through employee well-being, not in reducing staff.
Investing in well-being at work is profitable
While there is not yet accounting evidence that employee well-being is a performance factor, we know from statistical studies that companies that actively promote the well-being of their employees (particularly in terms of autonomy and recognition) achieve profits up to two and a half times higher than those that do nothing. In addition, this good social climate would be contagious to customers, whose satisfaction level would be higher than elsewhere.
On the other hand, the cost of workplace malaise, and particularly stress, is beginning to be assessed at the macroeconomic level: 3% to 5% of GDP and 50% to 60% of absenteeism, to mention only these two figures.
The challenge is therefore to increase profitability, on the one hand, through greater employee motivation, more creativity and productivity, a stronger sense of belonging, a stronger sense of customer service, and, on the other hand, to reduce costs related to absenteeism, poor quality, excessive turnover...
Well-being and performance
Numerous recent studies on workplace stress, and more broadly on psychosocial risks, agree on the importance of the individual component (corresponding to the degree of stress of the individual) and working conditions, in particular autonomy, support from the collective and the organization (corresponding to the company's ability to not generate a stressful work environment).
As for the individual component, the feeling of well-being is largely linked to the satisfaction of fundamental psychological needs related to work: autonomy, skills, links with people important to oneself.
While it seems increasingly obvious that employee well-being can have a positive effect on their performance, we may wonder whether there is a feedback effect of individual and overall performance on employee well-being. In other words, can individual and collective performance at work satisfy the fundamental psychological needs of autonomy, skills and interpersonal relationships?
Performance and quality of work
To answer this question, it is necessary to look at the notion of performance and its measurement. We can define individual performance at work as "a set of behaviors and skills/capacities valued by the company and expected of employees, and which positively influence the achievement of objectives".
The perception of individual performance therefore depends on the evaluation of employees' contribution to its objectives. Two major questions arise: how is performance evaluated? Are the objectives defined, communicated and known to the employees? This implies, and here we join a theme dear to Yves Clot and Philippe Davezies, establishing a debate on the quality of work at all levels within the company.
Indeed, the major source of stress at work is "prevented quality". Real work is always more complex and longer than prescribed work, which is theoretical and macroscopic. On the other hand, putting an employee under pressure does not lead him to do the same work faster.
Concretely, the commitment to dialogue in the company consists, for each function, in answering the question: what is good work? From experience, the answer unfortunately does not often refer to qualitative notions, but rather quantitative ones. Moreover, in most cases, the notion of quality of work is not discussed between employees and their manager.
Quality of work and organization
How to proceed? One solution is to create a multidisciplinary project team integrating all stakeholders, and if necessary an external consultant, to carry out an audit of psychosocial risks. Based on the results of this study, the company designs, in coherence with the identified notions of quality of work, a system of recognition and valorization of work, notably through autonomy and participation in decisions. Finally, it is necessary to add the corresponding management methods: training managers in this type of management and in the prevention of psychosocial risks, and implementing an employee and manager evaluation system focused on autonomy, recognition and explaining what good work is.
There is a prerequisite for launching such a project: not to fall into judgment and stigmatization, to de-dramatize and to show common sense. The whole complexity is to bring employers and employees into the virtuous circle "well-being/performance" to rediscover the taste for work, the desire to move forward together thanks to a motivating atmosphere for everyone.
Thierry Gautret de La Moricière.
Etre-bien-au-travail.fr
Published on September 17, 2012.
Posted online on September 20, 2012.
Investing in well-being at work is profitable
While there is not yet accounting evidence that employee well-being is a performance factor, we know from statistical studies that companies that actively promote the well-being of their employees (particularly in terms of autonomy and recognition) achieve profits up to two and a half times higher than those that do nothing. In addition, this good social climate would be contagious to customers, whose satisfaction level would be higher than elsewhere.
On the other hand, the cost of workplace malaise, and particularly stress, is beginning to be assessed at the macroeconomic level: 3% to 5% of GDP and 50% to 60% of absenteeism, to mention only these two figures.
The challenge is therefore to increase profitability, on the one hand, through greater employee motivation, more creativity and productivity, a stronger sense of belonging, a stronger sense of customer service, and, on the other hand, to reduce costs related to absenteeism, poor quality, excessive turnover...
Well-being and performance
Numerous recent studies on workplace stress, and more broadly on psychosocial risks, agree on the importance of the individual component (corresponding to the degree of stress of the individual) and working conditions, in particular autonomy, support from the collective and the organization (corresponding to the company's ability to not generate a stressful work environment).
As for the individual component, the feeling of well-being is largely linked to the satisfaction of fundamental psychological needs related to work: autonomy, skills, links with people important to oneself.
While it seems increasingly obvious that employee well-being can have a positive effect on their performance, we may wonder whether there is a feedback effect of individual and overall performance on employee well-being. In other words, can individual and collective performance at work satisfy the fundamental psychological needs of autonomy, skills and interpersonal relationships?
Performance and quality of work
To answer this question, it is necessary to look at the notion of performance and its measurement. We can define individual performance at work as "a set of behaviors and skills/capacities valued by the company and expected of employees, and which positively influence the achievement of objectives".
The perception of individual performance therefore depends on the evaluation of employees' contribution to its objectives. Two major questions arise: how is performance evaluated? Are the objectives defined, communicated and known to the employees? This implies, and here we join a theme dear to Yves Clot and Philippe Davezies, establishing a debate on the quality of work at all levels within the company.
Indeed, the major source of stress at work is "prevented quality". Real work is always more complex and longer than prescribed work, which is theoretical and macroscopic. On the other hand, putting an employee under pressure does not lead him to do the same work faster.
Concretely, the commitment to dialogue in the company consists, for each function, in answering the question: what is good work? From experience, the answer unfortunately does not often refer to qualitative notions, but rather quantitative ones. Moreover, in most cases, the notion of quality of work is not discussed between employees and their manager.
Quality of work and organization
How to proceed? One solution is to create a multidisciplinary project team integrating all stakeholders, and if necessary an external consultant, to carry out an audit of psychosocial risks. Based on the results of this study, the company designs, in coherence with the identified notions of quality of work, a system of recognition and valorization of work, notably through autonomy and participation in decisions. Finally, it is necessary to add the corresponding management methods: training managers in this type of management and in the prevention of psychosocial risks, and implementing an employee and manager evaluation system focused on autonomy, recognition and explaining what good work is.
There is a prerequisite for launching such a project: not to fall into judgment and stigmatization, to de-dramatize and to show common sense. The whole complexity is to bring employers and employees into the virtuous circle "well-being/performance" to rediscover the taste for work, the desire to move forward together thanks to a motivating atmosphere for everyone.
Thierry Gautret de La Moricière.
Etre-bien-au-travail.fr
Published on September 17, 2012.
Posted online on September 20, 2012.
