Reclaiming wellbeing – from ‘nice to haves’ and magic wands to essential tools for surviving and thriving

In recent years, the concept of wellbeing has become ubiquitous and yet undervalued. For professionals and leaders in socially conscious organisations, the stakes are especially high. As financial pressures mount and crises become more frequent, funders and decision makers are increasingly cutting wellbeing related programmes, viewing them as expendable luxuries rather than essential investments. This trend is potentially damaging to organisations and communities, especially at a time when living and working conditions, and over-exposure to distressing information, are adversely affecting so many of us.

The false economy of cutting wellbeing

When budgets tighten, wellbeing initiatives are often the first to go. The rationale is straightforward enough - in times of crisis, only the “essentials” survive. But what if we’ve misunderstood what is truly essential? Workforce wellbeing is not a peripheral concern – done well, it is foundational and preventative. Contributing to positive wellbeing is the bedrock upon which sustainable, effective, and compassionate organisations are built.

Neglecting or cutting corners with wellbeing is a false economy. The costs of burnout, absenteeism, turnover, and diminished performance far outweigh the investment required to support staff meaningfully. In sectors where professionals routinely support people through distressing or traumatic experiences (often while being underpaid and overworked), the risks of neglect are even greater. In this case, wellbeing isn’t a “nice to have” – it’s a matter of survival. I’ve seen too many examples of organisations in crisis because of a lack of effective support for their teams. This often comes as a shock when fed back by disillusioned staff at exit interviews, because the people at the top are working hard to protect and support their workforce, but they may have failed to join the dots between working conditions, structural issues in the organisation, meaningful opportunities for people to be heard, and workplace wellbeing.

Beyond sticking plasters: the limits of superficial solutions

Too often, wellbeing programmes are reduced to a handful of token gestures: morning meditation sessions, discounted gym memberships, or access to mindfulness apps. While these can be helpful, they are not solutions to complex, systemic issues. Our wellbeing cannot be separated from our living and working conditions, and the impact of events in the wider world. What each of us needs to thrive will be different, and meaningful support requires careful thought, genuine investment, and a willingness to address root causes. It’s understandable that capacity for all of this may be limited in times of crisis, but it may be a case of allocating time and resources now to prevent disaster further down the line.

A “sticking plaster” approach risks trivialising wellbeing, offering temporary relief without addressing underlying problems. It’s not enough to encourage self-care in isolation; we must also create environments where people are safe, valued, and empowered. There is a shift in many sectors and communities from a focus on self-care to self and collective care. This, too, needs to be backed up with investment and resources.

Reclaiming the language of wellbeing

Part of the challenge lies in the language we use. “Wellbeing” has become associated with the sprawling, unregulated “wellness” industry—heavily filtered influencer videos, expensive retreats, and miracle solutions promised by social media ads. For many, the term now evokes images of hyper-individualist self-improvement, rather than a more nuanced, systemic approach.

Perhaps it’s time to reclaim the concept of wellbeing, or even to find new language that better reflects its true meaning. Wellbeing should not be about chasing perfection or subscribing to the latest trend. It should be about placing humans in all their complex, imperfect glory at the centre of our organisations, communities, and societies. It should evoke a vision of shared effort, learning, and mutual support - tools that are essential for surviving and thriving, not “fluffy” extras.

Wellbeing as a community effort

A meaningful approach to wellbeing recognises that no single solution fits all. There is room in the world for whatever form of support works for each of us - no one approach is inherently better than another. But when late-stage capitalism co-opts the concept of health and wellbeing, we are bombarded with an overwhelming array of simple, siloed solutions to complex, structural problems. This might lead some of us to feel dismissive of the whole field, undermining genuine efforts to support people.

Instead, we need to foster a culture of shared responsibility for wellbeing, which means investing in environments where people can learn from one another, share tools and strategies, and build resilience together. This might involve a slow burn and a non-linear process, which is perhaps a less exciting prospect for those who want to see the results of their investment as soon and as clearly as possible. But the likelihood of this leading to real, sustainable change seems to me to be worth it.

The risks of deprioritising wellbeing

When those holding the purse strings deprioritise wellbeing, the consequences can be far-reaching. Staff morale declines, turnover increases, and the quality of support offered to those in need suffers. In the long term, organisations risk losing their most dedicated and compassionate people—those who are drawn to socially conscious work precisely because they care deeply.

Moreover, the ripple effects extend beyond the workforce. When professionals are supported to thrive, they are better equipped to help others do the same. In sectors where the work is emotionally demanding, this is essential.

Investing in meaningful wellbeing

Meaningful investment in wellbeing starts with listening. Leaders actively listening to their teams to understand their needs, challenges, and aspirations. A commitment to addressing structural issues such as workload, pay, job security, and organisational culture, rather than relying solely on individual interventions.

It also means recognising the diversity of needs within any workforce. Some may benefit from flexible working arrangements, others from peer support networks, and others from opportunities for professional development. The key is to offer a range of options, grounded in empathy and respect. The best approaches to this I’ve seen and experienced involved trusting individuals to know what will work best for them and to find ways to accommodate them where possible (or support them to work out what will help if they’re not sure).

A call to action

For decision makers with responsibility for workplace and community wellbeing, there is a strong, evidence based case to be made: effective wellbeing support is not a luxury, a magic wand, or a a sticking plaster. It is a set of essential tools for surviving and thriving, both individually and collectively. By reclaiming the concept from the clutches of the wellness industry and investing in meaningful, systemic support, we can build organisations that are resilient, compassionate, and successful.

The benefits of doing so are clear, and so are the risks of failing to act. In times of crisis and scarcity, it is more important than ever to prioritise the wellbeing of those who do the vital work of supporting others.

Third sector burnout: How can we build sustainable services and treat helping professionals as people first?

I’ve recently been spending a lot of time in charity sector spaces where professionals are at their edges, resources are strained, and there are increasing divides between leadership and frontline staff who are being asked to stretch caseloads and boundaries to breaking point. Words and phrases like ‘burnout’, ‘dehumanising’ and ‘taken for granted’ abound in discussions with tired and disappointed helping professionals. The picture might look bleak for some right now, but there are still choices to be made and opportunities to take space to re-imagine how we can work together in a challenging socioeconomic climate to bring about more sustainable, meaningful change for service users and the workforce alike.

Charities and not-for-profits being asked to do more with less isn’t a new phenomenon, but challenges seem to have intensified in recent years, and a crucial aspect of how this plays out is the way that those in the driving seat choose to allocate resources and how they see and communicate with their staff. The typical vicious cycle at the intersection of workplace wellbeing and funding/resource issues is an effect of trying to deliver the same level of service or respond to increasing need with fewer resources… Staff are expected to take on more direct work with service users, whether this means building up overtime (which should be taken back as Time Off in Lieu, if only they could find a time to take it back) or attempting to squeeze more work into their regular hours. And most often, they will do their best to make this happen, because they have undertaken this emotionally costly, challenging and often poorly paid work due to dedication to a cause and a desire to help. But this is an unsustainable way to work for most people, and the vicious cycle kicks in when staff burn out and need to take time off work to recover. Understaffing as a result of this puts additional strain on the service and the workforce left to cover the gaps, and there’s a risk of developing a revolving door of new, passionate and energetic workers coming on board, rolling up their sleeves, working hard beyond their hours and burning out, only to be replaced with the next person willing to take on the challenge.

Dedicated service managers might experience a similar phenomenon, as the need for additional support of their teams increases, and the gaps in service provisions have to be covered. This tends to have a demonstrably negative impact on vulnerable service users, who need consistency and time to build trusting relationships with the professionals supporting them. That seems to offer good enough leverage to encourage decision makers to address the issue, since providing services that have a positive impact on their beneficiaries’ lives is the purpose of most third sector organisations. And this purpose is compromised when the wellbeing and humanity of the workforce is discounted, given the impact on service delivery. It feels uncomfortably utilitarian to point out that workplaces should value and support their staff on the basis that people are their most valuable resource. While that may be true, there’s also a question of values at play here – if organisations aim to provide person-centred support and trauma-informed practice, and to value people seen as experts by experience, what might prevent them from responding well when their staff express feelings of not being heard, valued or supported?

An astute colleague and mentor recently summed the situation up as a reliance on the third sector mentality of saying yes where everyone else has said no. Charitable organisations tend to exist to plug the gaps left by systems and governments that are failing to adequately support their people, hence the culture of needing to find a way to make things work, since our ‘no’ might leave a vulnerable person out of options. Senior leaders may also face the additional pressure of competing for the funding that keeps service users supported and staff in a job, since decreasing resources and increasing need means an environment where organisations race to provide services for less than their partners/competitors. This is another ‘yes’ that means stretching boundaries and working harder to meet increasingly complex needs. Decision makers may be working hard to absorb as much of the impact as possible, and at times, this might lead to feelings of defensiveness and frustration when frontline staff and middle managers express dissatisfaction about the challenges they are facing. A context where both resources and capacities are strained can become a tinderbox for conflict, empathy fatigue, burnout and staffing issues, not to mention reputational damage and further unintended impact on service users.

This may be a representation of an organisation or sector in crisis, rather than the day-to-day reality of many not-for-profits. But there’s a sense of these issues becoming increasingly likely as so many face difficult decisions about how to stay afloat in stormy waters. So, what can be done to address this? I’d love to offer the mythical magic bullet response here, but of course, complex issues faced by diverse groups require nuanced and situation specific responses. However, here are some questions that might go some way to starting to get unstuck and look towards longer term change:

1.        What partnership opportunities might exist or be developed to promote a more collaborative approach to providing services, sharing resources and addressing the wider issues?

2.        How honest are we being with funders about what can realistically be delivered within the available budget on offer? What opportunities do we have to work with them towards addressing discrepancies between needs and resources?

3.        When staff concerns and work related wellbeing issues arise, are we genuinely responding and collaborating in a way that is consistent with our values and approach? What might be getting in the way of this, and what resources or support might we seek to facilitate brave and compassionate spaces to address these issues?

4.        When might we need to say no or adjust what can be delivered when resources are limited?

5.        What campaigning and communications might need to be put in place to push for increased funding, policy change etc.?

6.        Have we considered workplace wellbeing in the context of working conditions and increased living costs, as well as offering EAP programmes? Can staff delivering highly skilled work in challenging conditions afford to live on the salaries on offer?

7.        How are we involving service users and staff in change processes and decision making? How can we do this in a way that genuinely values their work and does not contribute to burnout?

8.        What assumptions might we be making that could be holding us back? What opportunities are there to challenge and move past these assumptions?

Ultimately, there are issues that need to be tackled in the context of sector-wide collaboration and transparent communication with those who hold the purse strings about what’s needed and what’s possible in the current climate, rather than overstretched leaders in survival mode participating in a race to the bottom. And then, there are the human relationships at the heart of the matter. Community and helping relationships are the fundamental point of most organisations working in this field, so it feels especially important to find the capacity and the will to engage with the most sticky challenges in a compassionate, trauma-informed way that positions everyone as skilled fellow humans on a shared mission. This is easier said than done when people are at their edges, which leads back to the problem of overworking and preventing burnout. It may feel like there’s no time and space to slow down and engage with this right now, but it’s worth framing this work as just as important as the day-to-day running of services. With healthier boundaries, recovery time and opportunities to re-regulate in place, it’s far easier for dedicated professionals to roll up their sleeves and collectively do what they do best, which is getting stuck into complex challenges and finding ways through difficult and distressing territory towards recovery and change.