Is employee assistance an endangered service?
Worker wellbeing outsourced to specialist providers is often undervalued, writes James Adonis.
‘‘If you ask 10 people on the street, ‘What is EAP?’ they will have no idea.’’
I assume, since you’re reading this article, you already have a fair idea of what EAP is and what it’s used for, but how true do you think that opening statement is among the general public?
When employee assistance programmes (EAPs) were introduced decades ago, they were primarily used to help people with alcoholism. They were also mostly staffed by internal personnel, much like a peer-support system.
These days it’s different. EAPs are often utilised for any problem, even when it isn’t work related, in the hope employees’ wellbeing will be preserved. But is the
OPINION:
counselling service a widely underappreciated programme and consequently endangered?
A key benefit of an outsourced EAP is that it makes it easier for small businesses to provide staff with critical psychological support; a less expensive alternative to an otherwise pricey in-house version.
However, even with outsourcing, the cost remains ever present, especially when EAPs are made available to family members, which is increasingly common as organisations recognise that work and life influence each other.
In research to be published soon in the Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, dozens of managers responsible for EAPs were interviewed. In addition to the quote that began this article, a participant reflected on the vulnerability of EAPs by saying: ‘‘I’m one leader change away from being eliminated.’’
His point was that the commitment to maintaining a strong EAP is contingent on leaders believing there’s value in it. A big part of that, of course, has to do with money.
As another respondent who managed such a programme said: ‘‘There’s constant pressure on cost … If there’s an era of cost-cutting, EAP is an easy thing to trim.’’
The arguments for and against EAP go beyond the bottom line to also include factors such as administrative burdens, the existence (or not) of positive feedback, and noticeable changes in people’s attitude and performance. Whatever the decision, the employer’s human resources department is generally left powerless.
Take this as an example of HR’s frustration: ‘‘When there’s a change in the guard, sometimes there’s nothing you can do, absolutely nothing – no data, no anecdote, no relationships, connection, champions or anything like that. Sometimes they do what they want to do.’’
Another consideration is usage rates. It’s quite common for EAPs to be accessed by only a tiny minority of employees. Using numbers-based data, then, can be perilous because it may portray an unfavourable picture.
The leaders’ perception, in other words, could be that EAP is unpopular and therefore deserving of abolishment.
Illustrating that point is an internal co-ordinator of the service who explained in the study that ‘‘you’re not going to see any utilisation that’s going to justify your existence … And here’s the fundamental question: Even if you do a 9 per cent utilisation, isn’t it fair to ask what you are doing for the other 91 per cent?’’
Curiously, there seemed to be consensus that an organisational crisis is one thing that immediately makes decisionmakers see massive merit in their EAP service. Confronted by a shocking event of some sort, they suddenly realise how fortunate they are to have the ‘‘timely and proactive intervention’’ at hand.
This was most directly put by a participant who said: ‘‘In order to make the programme successful, sustainable, unfortunately you need a tragic or a big event.’’
It’s just a shame it needs to get to that. –Sydney Morning Herald
James Adonis is the author of The Motivation Hoax: A smart person’s guide to inspirational nonsense.
❚