You can’t wellbeing-program your way out of bad work design

You can’t wellbeing-program your way out of bad work design

If you want to understand the employee experience of a frontline worker, don’t start with your Employee Value Proposition. Start with the roster.

Then look at the shift length. The breaks. The equipment or assets. The workload. The systems people have to navigate. The amount of control they have when something goes wrong. And, perhaps most importantly, what happens when they tell someone the job isn’t working as designed.

This is one of the clearest findings emerging from qualitative analysis we have conducted across Australian operational workforces in transport, logistics and infrastructure*.

When employees were asked what they liked about working for their organisation, they talked about things that should make any Chief People Officer pay attention: their colleagues, the work itself, serving customers, autonomy, variety, pride and the satisfaction of doing something tangible.

When they were asked what needed to change, the conversation became much more operational: rosters, workload, breaks, staffing, equipment, pay fairness, systems, communication, supervisor behaviour and decisions being made too far away from the work.

That matters because it challenges a fairly comfortable assumption about the employee experience: that it is primarily something the People function creates “around” the work.

For frontline workforces, much of the employee experience “is the work”.

The operating model is an employee experience system

Consider how organisations typically divide responsibility.

Operations owns productivity, scheduling, staffing, and service delivery; safety owns risk; and human resources owns engagement, culture, and wellbeing.

Employees, however, experience none of those boundaries.

An unrealistic schedule can simultaneously affect fatigue, safety, customer interactions, work-life balance and perceptions of whether management understands the job.

An unreliable system isn’t just an IT problem if it adds repetitive administrative work to an already stretched employee’s day.

A supervisor who consistently finds practical ways to help people manage competing demands isn’t simply demonstrating “good leadership”. They are changing the employee’s experience of the job.

This interconnectedness is also reflected in Australia’s psychosocial safety framework. Safe Work Australia identifies job demands, low job control, poor support, inadequate recognition and reward, poor organisational justice, poor organisational change management and violence or aggression among common psychosocial hazards. It also stresses that hazards can interact and combine, creating greater risk than each might create in isolation.

In other words, a difficult roster, an unsupportive supervisor and low control should not automatically be treated as three separate employee issues.

For the person doing the job, they may be one experience.

Engagement doesn’t cancel out poor work design

Another important pattern emerged in the employee comments.

People can genuinely like their work while wanting substantial parts of the working experience to change.

Employees described pride in what they do. They valued their colleagues. Many clearly enjoyed the job itself and the contribution they made to customers.

Yet positive attachment to work could sit alongside frustration about workload, scheduling, systems, fatigue or management decisions.

This should make us cautious about treating engagement alone, as one number to track, as a general health check for the organisation.

Job Demands–Resources theory provides a useful way of understanding why. Decades of organisational research distinguish between job demands, that is, the aspects of work requiring sustained effort and “job resources”, which help people achieve their goals, cope with demands, learn and stay motivated. Engagement and strain are therefore not simply opposite ends of a single continuum. A role can contain valuable resources such as meaning, camaraderie or autonomy while also exposing people to excessive or poorly managed demands.

That distinction matters enormously in blue-collar and operational environments. A strong team can be a genuine source of engagement. It can also become the reason people keep carrying an unsustainable system.

Look upstream before adding another wellbeing initiative

None of this means wellbeing programs are irrelevant. It means we need to be much clearer about what problem they are designed to solve.

If excessive fatigue is being created by working hours, shift patterns, inadequate recovery time or insufficient breaks, the primary intervention cannot be teaching employees to be more resilient.

If duplicated processes or poorly integrated systems are generating workload, mindfulness is not process redesign.

If people lack control over decisions that materially affect how they perform their job, an employee recognition program will not restore that control.

Safe Work Australia’s approach is explicitly preventative: psychosocial risks should be addressed through the design of work and systems of work, rather than relying solely on downstream responses after harm has occurred. Its fatigue guidance similarly points organisations toward work hours, shift design, sufficient breaks, staffing, equipment, and how tasks are organised.

That gives leaders a different question to ask

Not: “What wellbeing initiative should we introduce?”

But: “What is it about the way this work is designed that is creating an unnecessary demand in the first place?”

Five places I would start

For HR Directors and Chief People Officers responsible for operational workforces, I would start with five practical moves, and pleasingly, many have already made the switch.

• Map the employee experience at job level

Walk through an actual shift from beginning to end. Where does unnecessary friction occur? Where do people wait, rush, double-handle information, lose breaks, work around systems or depend on informal fixes to get the job done?

• Measure demands and resources together

It’s useful to ask whether employees are engaged, but also to understand workload, control, supervisor support, role clarity, recovery, equipment, relationships, and the resources people can draw on when demands increase.

• Treat roster and operating decisions as people decisions

If a scheduling decision changes fatigue, recovery, or employees’ capacity to work safely, it has an employee experience consequence whether HR made the decision or not.

• Put frontline expertise into work design

The people performing the work often know precisely where the formal process and operational reality diverge. Consultation should occur while the work can still be redesigned, not after a decision has already been implemented.

• Make employee experience a shared operating metric

People teams cannot fix badly designed work on their own. Operations, Safety and People need a common view of how work design affects performance, engagement and psychosocial risk.

The uncomfortable question

Employee engagement programs give leaders a structured, cost-efficient way to understand patterns across a workforce, identify differences between teams, and track whether the employee experience is improving over time. But they are most useful when we resist the temptation to treat the survey result as the outcome.

Engagement is not simply enthusiasm for the organisation. It is also whether people have the resources, support and control they need to do demanding work well. And psychosocial safety is not just a policy or a compliance exercise. It is shaped by how work is designed, managed, and experienced every day.

So the answer is to make your engagement programs more useful. Use the data to identify where the experience is breaking down. Then go and understand the work well enough to explain why.

The most valuable employee research does more than tell you how people feel; it helps you identify what needs to change.

*Method: Thematic analysis of 4,222 open-text survey responses collected across Australian transport, logistics and infrastructure organisations during the last twelve months. Coded data were weighted equally across all employer data so no single employer drives the results.

About Insync

Insync is a survey research and advisory firm specialising in employee experience, organisational culture and engagement. We help organisations understand what their people are experiencing at work, why it matters, and where leaders can make practical changes that improve both employee outcomes and organisational performance.

Our work combines employee research with organisational psychology and advisory expertise, with a particular interest in how work design, leadership, culture and psychosocial risk shape the experience of frontline and operational workforces.

Key expert