One of the prevailing misunderstandings in health and safety circles is the distinction between mental wellness (the opposite of mental illness) and simply feeling good. Many workplace mental wellness programs focus on short-term mood enhancement rather than fostering genuine psychological resilience or improving mental health.
Key Differences Between Mental Wellness and Feeling Good
Depth vs. Surface-Level Impact
- Mental wellness is a sustained state of psychological resilience, cognitive flexibility, and emotional regulation.
- Feeling good is a temporary state, often influenced by external factors like workplace perks, mindfulness sessions, or social activities.
Cause vs. Effect
- Mental wellness is shaped by deep-rooted factors such as freedom from harassment, workload, autonomy, civility and respect.
- Feeling good can be artificially induced by yoga classes, wellness apps, free lunches, or motivational talks—none of which address underlying issues.
Real Change vs. Temporary Relief
- Genuine mental wellness programs enhance coping mechanisms, reduce chronic stress, and improve emotional intelligence.
- Many current initiatives create a placebo effect, offering momentary relief while employees remain vulnerable to stress and burnout.
The Flawed Measurement of Workplace Mental Wellness Programs
A major issue is how these programs are assessed. Often, staff surveys are used to evaluate success, but these surveys have low validity because they measure how employees feel immediately after a wellness session rather than whether the intervention has led to lasting improvements in psychological resilience, cognitive flexibility, or emotional regulation.
These surveys:
- Rely on self-assessment, where employees may mistake short-term relief for genuine mental wellness improvements.
- Ignore systemic issues such as workload, toxic management, and unequal rewards and recognition—factors that have a far greater impact on mental health.
- Are often designed to justify a program’s existence, rather than critically assess its effectiveness.
The Employer’s True Duty of Care vs. Overreach
Most health and safety legislation (including in New Zealand , Australia, and South Africa) frames the employer’s duty of care as:
- Preventing work-related harm (both physical and psychological).
- Managing workplace risks that could cause mental harm (e.g., bullying, excessive workload, toxic leadership).
- Providing a safe work environment that does not undermine mental well-being.
However, what we increasingly see in practice is:
- Employers expanding this duty into areas traditionally covered by state-funded social services.
- Blurring the lines between HR policies (e.g., flexible work arrangements, paid leave) and legal health & safety obligations.
- Encouraging a dependency culture, where employees expect employers to compensate for failings in healthcare, social services, and family support.
Where Employers Should Draw the Line
Workplace Risks vs. Personal Life Factors
- If workplace conditions (e.g., overwork, harassment, toxic management) cause mental harm, the employer must manage it.
- If mental harm stems from personal life factors (e.g., financial stress, relationship breakdowns, external trauma), employer intervention is voluntary and falls under HR policies, not health & safety.
Reasonable Support vs. Unreasonable Expectation
- Reasonable: Offering EAP programs, flexible hours, or wellness benefits as an additional support measure.
- Unreasonable: Expecting employers to act as social workers, therapists, or financial aid providers for non-work-related issues.
Health & Safety vs. HR Best Practices
- H&S law is about preventing harm caused by the workplace, not solving external personal problems.
- HR policies may include more generous benefits (e.g., extended sick leave, counseling subsidies), but these are business choices, not legal duties.
The Real Question: What Are Employers’ Duties of Care?
If a company genuinely wants to improve mental wellness, it needs to move beyond feel-good initiatives and address the true factors impacting employee well-being. In my book Safety 2.1 – The Safety Envelope, I identify 12 key factors grouped into three categories that influence workplace mental health.
Each of these factors is explored in more detail in the book, along with guidance on how employers can proactively address them.
The Danger of Expanding Employer Responsibility Too Far
- It dilutes the actual duty of care, making employers responsible for everything rather than focusing on work-related risks.
- It could easily lull employers into believing that, by offering these feel-good programs, they have met their duty to prevent mental harm, while substantial workplace risks to mental well-being remain unaddressed
- It disincentivizes governments from properly funding social services, as businesses are expected to fill the gaps.
- It creates unrealistic employee expectations, leading to frustration when employers can’t fix every aspect of their personal lives.
Final Thought: The Employer as a Safety Net, Not a Substitute
A responsible employer can provide support without becoming a surrogate welfare system. Employers who choose to offer additional benefits (e.g., extended paid leave) do so as part of good HR practice, but this should not be confused with legal obligations under health and safety law and should therefore not be administrated by the health and safety team.