Welfare has been one of the topics of the day that has covered a lot of ink in the national and international media, on an academic and organizational level, which, in the end, can be all or nothing. In one of my many researches on this topic, I came across a very interesting article by the University of Otago (New Zealand), which refers to a new pandemic, the “well-being pandemic”.
Written by Daniela Lima, Managing Partner at Swaifor
Referring to a pandemic seemed like an excellent analogy, we must understand that it is important to think about well-being in different contexts, especially organizational ones. However, a variety of concepts associated with well-being pervade an organizational context without a clear and precise definition of the concept. This emptiness encourages the underestimation of the subject and leads to a fundamentalist discourse that is very close to infection due to an excess of luxury.
This “excessive” welfare can have a twofold effect at the organizational level: (1) people feel obligated to “fight” for their welfare, whatever that may be, since they are “different things” versus “different people”. At the same time, (ii) it drives organizations to want the secret formula for developing their organizational well-being, in an effort to attract and retain their talent pool. The contrast between desire and desire highlights the subjectivity associated with well-being, establishing a complex relationship with individual characteristics of individuals and organizations (contextual variables). There are no universal measures, but there is evidence emerging from the academic context that allows us to characterize well-being in two main lines of research: (1) a hedonic approach that focuses on maximizing enthusiasm, experiencing positive effects and minimizing or not pain; and, (2) a eudemonic approach that refers to the development and self-realization of individuals—subjective well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2001).
There are two possible modes of well-being that should be understood as the spread of positive feelings and emotions, on the one hand, and on the other hand, as the perception of individuals regarding the possibilities of development, the acquisition of new skills and the achievement of their life goals. These two approaches incorporate the positive and cognitive aspects of human existence.
Whatever line organizations feel the need to take, we must reduce the noise and not confuse concepts such as happiness, quality of life, life satisfaction, human flourishing and interest (University of Otago, New Zealand).
Many of us probably don’t understand the concept of luxury in its entirety, which is normal as it evolves. Although it is not a new concept, as it dates back to ancient times, today it is emerging as a pulsating force in modern society as a result of our lifestyle. We suffer the consequences of our conscious and unconscious choices on a daily basis, from which phenomena such as stress, burnout, and mental illness arise. But it is important to make an effort to reduce the concept of welfare in an organizational context, to understand what are the characteristics of our organizations, managers and employees.
Well-being does not end with mental health programs, yoga classes, protocols with gyms and academies, or outdoor walks. Wellbeing is a pursuit, and it is our individual goal detailed with organizational purpose (full fit).
This article appeared in the March (No. 146) issue of Human Resources, on newsstands.
If you prefer to buy online, you have a file hard copy and the digital copy.
“Hardcore alcohol maven. Hipster-friendly analyst. Introvert. Devoted social media advocate.”
