What meets the threshold of a crisis?  And are there times you need to play small?  The definition I use for a crisis is any negative event that can jeopardize your institution’s image, reputation or financial stability.  Anything that doesn’t meet this threshold is a problem, not a crisis.  Treating a problem as if it were a crisis increases the likelihood that it will rise to the threshold of a crisis situation, so tread lightly.

Problems are best fixed after examining the policies, procedures and players involved in the situation.  Addressing problems is often best done behind the scenes and out of the public eye, but communicate the policy and procedure adjustments and fixes widely.  Not making your campus constituents aware of changes leaves room for repeated problems.

The best responses to crises are often from institutions that have written and tested crisis plans.  There are two reasons for the successful responses: 1) the campus community is aware of the preferred procedures during a crisis and individuals’ roles in the response; and 2) the crisis communications leader has built credibility as a resource and strategist in advance of the situation.  It is a lonely crisis leader who doesn’t have a team behind them when they need a team the most.  Multiple and counterproductive responses to crises occur when an institution’s decision-makers feels there isn’t leadership in place and attempt to fill the perceived void.  Often these rogue responses are performed with the best of intentions, but good intentions do little to win points in the court of public opinion or the court of law.  Don’t allow yourself to teeter alone on that dangerous and narrow ledge; build your crisis plan and credibility in advance.

During the crisis-filled years I spent at an institution, my mentor reminded me constantly that “hope is not a strategy.”  I’ve embraced this notion and taken it a step further.  When asking crisis clients for updates I stop them each time they begin a sentence by saying, “I think that…”  You are getting paid to develop strategies, use available data and develop actionable communications plans.  Start your descriptions by saying, “I know that…”  Using language that includes even a hint of apprehension allows your senior leadership, president or board to second-guess the strategies before them.  If you know your course of action is the right course, don’t play small.  You and your institution deserve your best when the stakes are the highest.

There is no one answer obviously. Scholars, researchers, philosophers, and policy-makers have all approached this from different angles, providing a myriad of definitions and insights into well-being. However, the precise definition seems to be as elusive as harnessing the sustained feeling of happiness itself. The notion of well-being is undeniably a multidimensional construct. Yet, its importance to many facets of life is indisputable. In the world of business, well-being has garnered special attention, as employers and other key stakeholders strive to improve productivity, cut costs, and drive employee participation and results. Despite recent economic turmoil in fact, one element of business that has not suffered is wellness programs (Faircloth, Inc 2009). Consider the following facts:

• 89 percent of employees expect their workplace culture to promote healthy lifestyle concepts (Faircloth, Inc 2009)
• 91 percent of employers believe they can reduce their health care costs by promoting healthier living among employees (Mello, NEJM 2008)
• Health plans and employers now provide access and incentives for employees to maintain a healthy lifestyle and promote well-being.  This amazingly has now extended to penalties for not adhering to these same requirements (Mello, NEJM 2008)
• From 2004 to 2006, there was almost a three-fold increase in employers with more than 500 or more employees offering workers incentives to complete a health-risk appraisal, demonstrate good health behavior, or participate in a risk-reduction program (Mello, NEJM 2008)
• The use of premium differentials as incentives increased among large employers (Mello, NEJM 2008)
• Total annual health care costs reached $2.4 trillion in 2008 and are projected to reach $3.1 trillion in 2012 (Rosen)
• In 2008, 77 percent of employers offered health and wellness programs, and more than half of those currently without programs plan to add them, many within the next six to 12 months (Rosen)
• Research shows that 50 percent of a person’s health status is a result of behavior, and 75 percent of health care costs can be prevented, delayed, or curtailed through lifestyle modifications (Rosen)
• Nearly two out of three individuals are interested in participating in wellness programs, and 20 percent even are willing to pay extra for a wellness program (Rosen)
• 46 percent of those who have participated in a wellness program felt that it positively impacted their behavior choices (Rosen)

Aligning existing and new programs that contribute to the well-being of a company’s employees or beneficiaries can create a greater impact on its business objectives– well-being therefore is imperative. Well-being efforts and how they relate to improving a company’s image, reputation, and return on investment are becoming paramount in this discussion.

Obstacles to implementing effective wellness programs and addressing well-being of employees or beneficiaries are multifold. Most importantly, there is no standard definition of well-being and the system surrounding this issue remains clouded and fragmented. In the United States, notions of well-being center on the absence of disease, prevention, and access to treatment. On the other hand, in Europe, well-being includes happiness, work-life balance, and value in life. How to balance these characteristics, and more, is the trick. Additionally, companies are implementing programs as short-term remedies rather than focusing on long-term goals and objectives. By fomenting an interchange of information and cohesion of program infrastructure and corporate culture with health, work, and life improvement, companies may improve their approach and their desired results.

Different organizations have been attempting to relate well-being to everyday society, such as Gallup Research and the Princeton Center for Health and Well-Being. However, both of these, and others, seem to focus on health as the primary constituent/outcome of well-being, perhaps missing the overarching implications and importance of other factors.  It is our goal at Widmeyer Communications to shed light on both sides, to delve into the conundrum of why happiness is so difficult to quantify, and to help formulate solutions to solve the disconnect between employers and employees, providers and beneficiaries and between the European and U.S. approaches.

We hope you will join us in this journey and respond with questions, comments and insights.  In future posts, we will focus on the role of technology, current wellness program reach, future plans and endeavors employers could adopt, social media presence and other communications tools, and finally best strategies for managing this burgeoning area.

Contact:

212-260-3401

henry.engleka@widmeyer.com