Should employers be required to report on the well-being of their employees?

Michael is a lifelong introvert who also works as an I/O Psychologist. He recently re-located from Dublin, Ireland to the Bay Area and is building a professional practice specializing in leadership development, and also personal and organizational well-being.

There is a serious current debate and also public inquiries in the UK and in France over the means and benefits of measuring national general well-being. The traditional measure of national economic performance, GNP or GDP, is a rough and ready measure universally accepted as the basis of within-country and between-country comparisons and has worked well-enough for over 80 years. Its limitations are well-known. It was once famously said that GDP measures everything except that which makes life worthwhile. Even though the US is three times richer than it was in the fifties, it is well known that Americans experience five time the level of depression nationally. We spend ever more on health and yet are not healthier than thirty years ago (www.stateoftheusa.org).

The economic benefits of promoting high well-being among employees are also well-known and well-proven (ranging from reduced health-care costs and absenteeism to improved talent retention and innovation). So why don’t smart employers start measuring the overall well-being of their employees? The way doctors like to measure our temperatures (using a crude, simple but effective tool). We have the tools, and the frameworks to measure and monitor well-being (a combination of engagement and psychological health) at the individual, team and organizational level, so why dont we? 

Leadership development and career planning was once considered radical and innovative, and early adopters benefited sooner. The benefits of measuring, promoting and monitoring overall well-being of organizations and their members is just as important as focusing on leadership. The decision to take well-being seriously is a leadership issue. Early adopters will benefit sooner. To say this this is not the right time is like those who said the Internet will never catch on. Let’s wait and see who moves first. Ultimately employers might be required to report annually on the General Well-Being of their employees. A general well being measure is good for the employees, good for the organization and good for the country.

Let's Ponder: Two Perspectives on Leadership

Leadership is not simply about personal attributes but also about the capacity to navigate the "space" between ourselves and others. This capacity also comes from self-understanding, attributes and personal development. But it is not solely dependent on personal attributes and skills. As I will review in detail, there are two perspectives of leadership in the literature (Uhl Bien, 2006). One perspective views leadership as individual and dependent on traits and characteristics of certain individuals (Uhl Bien, 2006, Yukl, 2006). The other perspective views leadership as a socially created process that can be embodied by an individual at any time (Uhl Bien, 2006). 

The Entity Perspective

The first perspective is coined by Uhl Bien (2006) as the entity perspective. Most of the current literature on leadership looks at leadership from this point of view  (Yukl, 2006). This perspective takes a functional and constructivist view and focuses on leadership as an individual’s regulation, control, personal development and skill development (Carroll & Levy, 2010; Karp & Helgo, 2009, Uhl Bien, 2006). Additionally, most discourse on leadership identity views leadership as a fixed goal. Rather than a fluid process. And sees leadership as the ability for a person to influence people in a group toward a certain activity.

The Relational Leadership Perspective

The second perspective is the relational leadership perspective (RTL) (Uhl Bien, 2006). RTL’s framework looks at leadership as a social process that constructs social order and behaviors. Relational leadership “asks how the processes of leadership and management in organizations emerge—e.g., how realities of leadership are interpreted within the network of relations; how organizations are designed, directed, controlled and developed on the bases of collectively generated knowledge about organizational realities; and how decisions and actions are embedded in collective sense-making and attribution processes from which structures of social interdependence emerge and in turn reframe the collectively generated organizational realities” (p. 652).

Leaders successfully contribute to the social order and are expected and perceived as contributing by others (Uhl Bien, 2006). From this perspective, any relational process that adds to the development of new goals, social order, attitudes and goals is considered to be a relational leadership model. Relational leadership principles are as follows:

1. Leadership is not bound to the hierarchy in an organization
2. Relational leadership involves social dynamics that develop action and social order
3. Relational leadership addresses collectively the process of social systems change in which leadership roles and relationships are constructed.

Comparing The Perspectives

The entity perspective addresses the qualities of individuals within a relationship while the relational perspective sees leadership as a social construction process. While both perspectives look at leadership as a social process their definition of process differs (Uhl Bien, 2006). The relational orientation focuses on organizations and individuals as continually being constructed through process but does not see individuals as the makers of process. On the other hand, the entity orientation focuses on individual’s perceptions and thoughts in relational exchanges (Hosking, 2000). This latter view sees individual action as the driver of organizational life (Hosking, et. Al, 1995).  Both perspectives have something to add to the literature of leadership. I tend to agree with Uhl Bien’s (2006) viewpoint, that its not about which lens is correct but rather about understanding each perspective and the usefulness of each lens in different contexts.

Carroll, B., & Levy, L. (2010). Leadership Development as Identity Construction. Management Communication Quarterly, 24(2), 211. SAGE Publications.

Hosking, D. M. (2000). Ecology in mind, mindful practices. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(2), 147−158.

Hosking, D. M., Dachler, H. P.,& Gergen, K. J. (Eds.). (1995). Management and organization: Relational alternatives to individualism. Brookfield, USA: Avebury.

Karp, T., & Helgø, T. I. T. (2009). Leadership as identity construction: the act of leading people in organisations: A perspective from the complexity sciences. Journal of Management Development, 28(10), 880–896.

Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654–676.

Yukl, G. (2006), Leadership in Organizations, 6th ed., Pearson Education, Mahwah, NJ.
________________________________________________

Alyea Sandovar is Blog Editor for BaODn. She has a M.A. in Clinical Psychology with a specialty in Early Development. She is currently finishing her Master's in Human Organizational Systems at Fielding Graduate University and beginning work on her PhD in Human Organizational Systems.