Here is the link to the original article, published by ZigzagHR.
Summary
Well-being is high on the HR agenda, but often remains difficult to defend at the boardroom table because its impact is rarely demonstrable. During the second #ZigZagHR masterclass on well-being, Clovis Six (BloomUp) showed how HR can break through this impasse: by approaching well-being as a strategic system with clear goals, KPIs, and impact measurements. By focusing on outcomes rather than adoption, working with both leading and lagging indicators, and structurally linking well-being to absenteeism and retention, well-being becomes manageable and business-relevant. The result: less absenteeism, stronger retention, and an HR narrative that also holds up in the boardroom.
How HR can translate well-being into lower absenteeism, stronger retention, and a credible business story
Why well-being is so difficult to justify
Organizations today do a lot to promote well-being. Workshops, e-learning courses, EAPs, confidential advisors, prevention campaigns... The range of options is wide and well-intentioned. And yet, the prevailing view remains that well-being is more of an expense than a strategic investment. According to Clovis Six, this has little to do with the importance of well-being itself, but everything to do with how we approach and measure it.
In many organizations, we see the same bottlenecks recurring: data is scattered across absenteeism figures, surveys, prevention, feedback, and external partners; measurements are taken ad hoc and often only once a year; the focus is on adoption, not on effect, and prevention remains a blind spot: action is often only taken after absenteeism has occurred. This makes it difficult for HR professionals to demonstrate the value of their work. And what you cannot demonstrate is difficult to defend, let alone strengthen or embed structurally.
From adoption to outcome
A key message from the masterclass is "Stop judging well-being based on usage alone." Low adoption does not automatically mean that an initiative has failed. And high adoption is not necessarily positive. Certainly when it comes to mental well-being, the usage figures alone say little. The relevant question is not "how many employees are using this?", but rather "What change are we achieving for people, teams, and the organization?"
According to Clovis Six, this shift from activity to outcome is crucial for linking well-being to issues that keep management awake at night, such as productivity and cost control.
From case to insight: what CM did differently
During the masterclass, this approach was illustrated using a practical case study from CM. The starting point was familiar to many organizations: high long-term absenteeism, significant change and work pressure, suspected burnout partly linked to personal circumstances, and a broad but fragmented range of wellness services. The breakthrough came by systematically linking well-being to clear goals, KPIs, and impact measurements.
Over time, this approach enabled CM to demonstrate, among other things, that:
- that employees effectively escaped burnout risk zones
- that absenteeism was avoided
- that employees who wanted to leave ended up staying
- and that the financial return far exceeded the investment
Managing well-being requires a different methodology
In concrete terms, the proposed approach boils down to these key elements:
Set clear goals (and not too many)
A crucial first step toward making an impact is focus. Instead of trying to tackle everything at once, it is better to limit yourself to two or three well-being goals per year. These could include stabilizing or reducing long-term absenteeism, increasing retention or eNPS, or reducing stress or burnout risk.
It is important to make these goals measurable. Also ask the explicit question: what will happen if we do nothing? The cost of doing nothing makes well-being very concrete.
Combine leading and lagging indicators
Not all indicators are equal. Absenteeism and turnover are important figures, but they are slow to respond; they are lagging indicators. Therefore, combine them with faster signals (leading indicators) such as stress scores, risk profiles, and help-seeking behavior. By pushing the right buttons, you can make adjustments more quickly and demonstrate that your well-being policy is working.
Focus on early detection and targeted referral
Many organizations only intervene when employees have already dropped out. By then, the damage is extensive and the recovery process is long. Systemic, accessible detection through short periodic surveys makes it possible to pick up signals much earlier. It is crucial, however, that detection is always linked to clear referral routes and follow-up steps. Good cooperation is needed between HR, managers, prevention, and external partners. Not everything has to be done internally, but everything must come together in one logical system.
Think preventively – resilience – curatively
Another important element is that support works on three levels. Not all welfare measures are of the same nature. A strong welfare policy combines the following perspectives:
- prevention (organization, leadership, culture)
- resilience (skills, coping, coaching)
- curative (therapy, reintegration, crisis care)
Measure effect per intervention
Not all data is equally strong in proving impact. The strongest impact measurements do not come from general surveys. These provide direction but rarely provide evidence. Absenteeism figures are necessary but (too) slow. The strongest results are obtained from feedback during support processes; pre- and post-measurements and linking support to absenteeism and retention data. By bundling this data into quarterly insights, well-being can be discussed in terms of figures rather than assumptions.
Support your arguments more intelligently instead of defending them more vigorously
Perhaps the most important takeaway from the masterclass: as soon as well-being becomes measurable, the conversation with management changes and you have a business case. Often, it only takes one fewer employee taking sick leave or leaving the company to recoup the entire well-being budget. Especially in large organizations, that return quickly adds up. HR does not need to defend well-being more vigorously, but rather substantiate it more intelligently.
Would you like a more measurable methodology for your organization? We would be happy to work with you to develop an approach that goes beyond isolated initiatives and makes a real impact. Schedule a meeting using the button below.
.png)
.svg)