Well-being in organisations has had a surge in recent years. Bolstered by employee protection legislation, primarily in the US and Europe, employers are competing to be the 'employer of choice' who cares for the well-being of their employees. But are they doing the right things? And how does this play out in the Middle East where the laws aren't there to mandate employee protection.

When we consider employee well-being support, broadly speaking interventions call fall into three categories:

• Primary Interventions tackle well-being issues at the source. It might be employing more people to ease workload, redesigning jobs and implementing company wide policies that support flexible working.
  

• Secondary Interventions involves supporting employees to better cope with the demands of their job. For example, stress management or mindfulness training.
  

• Tertiary Interventions are the damage control interventions once someone has been negatively affected. It could involve providing a counselor or therapist for the employee or giving them a sabbatical.
  

Many well-being initiatives that get shamed on social media will usually fall into the category of secondary intervention or, most often, aren't actually classified as a well-being intervention at all. Letting people leave early on a Friday, doing a company away day and providing a pizza party are all lovely things to do but they are not really supporting employee well-being.

Primary interventions have the biggest impact on employee well-being, and yet they are also costly to implement and they can take time to see results. Some organisations may be restricted in what they can do at the primary level, for example, when budget cuts make increasing head count impossible. In this situation organisations often turn to secondary interventions instead. Secondary interventions are a valuable art of an organisations efforts and can provide real support to employees who are struggling with stress, burnout and poor work-life balance. The problem comes when there is no acknowledgement of the more fundamental issues at play. If organisations can't act now, they need to at least discuss the challenges with employees, provide a forum for sharing frustration and commit to doing something now or down the line. Instead, organisations tend to engage in a collective 'brushing of issues under the carpet' and pretending it's all in the hands of the employee.

I am a huge believer in the power of positive thinking, gratitude and mindfulness. We can do so much to shift our negativity bias and find our inner resources to handle bad situations. (we LOVE this stuff - talk to us about it! But organisations shouldn't rely on this to support employee well-being. There is only so much these techniques can help when you are chronically under pressure and overworked. Issues must be addressed at source. Organisations should have well-being interventions that include primary, secondary and tertiary. Making steps to address the primary issues will also ensure that the secondary interventions are well-received by employees who won't just see them as a means to placate them. Primary interventions don't have to require massive investment. Engaging in a job design review, sharing workload more equally and improving processes can all improve the employee experience without huge expense.

Addressing mental health at work is a bigger challenge. This is an area that is more taboo to discuss and age, gender and cultural differences means that we all have very different expectations when it comes to open discussion about mental health. Some employees may be willing to discuss these issues with their manager and for others it might not be something they feel comfortable discussing with close family members. With an ongoing impact from the pandemic, the situation globally for mental health doesn't look good. A recent global survey identified 27% of people in the "distressed or struggling" category. *

Managers can feel uncomfortable and unqualified for mental health conversations and shy away from having them. Many may feel that it is an overstep on their part to get involved in what is seen as the personal issues of the employee. I would argue that we cannot separate the person from the work. We are one person and what impacts us, impacts our work. Beyond the 'productivity' argument I would say there is just a human argument for managers to look out for their employees. In the Middle East where many of us are away from close family and our home community, the manager or work colleagues are often the people with some of the biggest access and insights into how people are doing.

If you are struggling to know where to start, start with listening and start with empathy. Support them with flexibility, care and compassion. Without the drive of legislation requiring these things it can be harder to get organisations to commit, while many multinational organisations follow the laws of their head office country, many do not. I would encourage local companies to set the standard for well-being and mental health provision. It's good for business, but more importantly, it's good for the people in your business.

* Medscape article