Workplace Mental Health B2B Services

Workplace mental health B2B services have never been an IQ tax that "bosses spend money to buy peace of mind". Well-implemented services can help companies reduce 20%-35% of hidden manpower losses (including resignation and recruitment costs, sick leave and missed work losses, extreme event public relations costs, etc.), and the retention rate of core employees can be increased by 12%-22%.； However, the current industry is a mixed bag, and 80% of purchasers have fallen into the pitfalls of "universal templates covering all scenarios" and "emphasizing single activities over long-term implementation". In the end, money was spent with no effect, which is why this service has been stigmatized as "useless".

Last month, I had dinner with an HRD who works in cross-border e-commerce in Hangzhou. She was still complaining about the big mistake she made last year: she found a psychological service agency that is very popular online, arranged two weekend mindfulness trainings for more than 300 people in the company, and sent out a bunch of evaluation questionnaires, which cost a small amount of 200,000. As a result, the turnover rate has not dropped at all after half a year. Several core members of the operations department even complained privately, "I was working overtime continuously, and I still had to take breaks to sit and meditate. If I didn't meet the standards, attendance points would be deducted. Isn't this an additional KPI?"

There are too many cases of this kind of trap. The essence is that many companies don't understand it at all before purchasing. Now the organizations that provide this service have two completely different approaches. The adaptation scenarios are very different. If you choose the wrong one, you will spend money in vain.

One type is the "clinical school". Most of them are institutions that originally provided offline psychological consultation and had psychiatrist resources. Their logic is to "take risks first, solve problems later": they will first conduct professional psychological assessments such as SCL-90 for employees, screen out employees with moderate to severe anxiety and depression tendencies, provide one-on-one confidential consultation, and even work with family members for intervention. A leading Internet company in Shenzhen used this kind of service last year to intervene in three employees with extreme tendencies in advance, avoiding possible subsequent public relations crises. The money saved alone is enough to buy ten years of services. But the shortcomings are also obvious: the whole process is too medical-oriented, and most employees who are just a little emotionally drained and have not reached the level of clinical diagnosis will naturally resist it and feel, "I'm not sick, why should I do this?" They may even worry about whether the evaluation results will be used by the company as a reference for layoffs. In the end, the active participation rate is often less than 30%, and the coverage is extremely narrow.

The other type is the "welfare camp", which is basically an extension of the company that originally provided flexible employee benefits. The logic is exactly the opposite: "lower the threshold first so that employees are willing to use it." There are free camping stress relief bureaus, flower art handicraft classes, anonymous complaints in the tree hole, and a 24-hour anonymous emotional talk hotline. Even the counselors will not come up and ask you "do you have any tendency to be depressed?" They will just accompany you to scold the boss and weird customers. The employee participation rate for this type of service can often reach over 70%, and young people are particularly receptive. But the problem is also quite realistic: most of them are "treating the symptoms but not the root cause." No matter how much fun you have while camping, you will still have to face endless OKRs and colleagues who blame you every day when you go back. You should be anxious or anxious. It is basically impossible to solve the fundamental problem with just a few activities.

There are also many opposing voices in the industry, saying that there is no need for companies to provide this service - "I pay people to work, and the psychological problems of employees are their own private affairs and have nothing to do with the company." Many small and medium-sized bosses hold this view, and to be honest, it is not wrong. If the company's own management system is rotten to the core: free 996 every day, PUA among management is common, and assessment standards are changed day by day, then no matter how many psychological services are provided, it will only stop the fire. In essence, it is to provide cover for the boss's PUA behavior, and employees will only become more resistant. After all, psychological services are the "lubricant" of the organization, not the "fire extinguisher." If the problems at the institutional level are not resolved, no service will be of use.

When I helped a friend's game company with about 100 people choose services, I did not choose the standardized package offered by a large organization, which costs hundreds of thousands. Instead, I discussed customized content with a small local organization: a voluntary "complaint tea party" was held once a month, with a professional consultant as the host. Everyone could anonymously criticize the product and the boss, and no records or accountability were kept for what they said.； In addition, three small training sessions were conducted for all department heads to teach them how to identify abnormal emotions of subordinates and not just focus on performance. At the end of last year, they calculated the results for me and found that the turnover rate of core R&D positions dropped by 18% from the previous year. The headhunting fees saved alone were three times higher than the money spent on psychological services.

Don't think this is an exception. Many small companies are now more practical than big companies. After all, they have fewer people and don't need to carry out standardized face-saving projects. Instead, they can get to the bottom of real problems.

To be honest, this track is still in its early stages, and there are no unified service standards. There are a lot of organizations that want to cut leeks. When purchasing, don’t just look at the fancy PPTs. Ask more about the actual use effects of companies in the same industry and size. The most important thing is to sign a separate confidentiality agreement with the organization to make it clear that all psychological data of employees cannot be leaked to the company. After all, no one wants to expose their emotional weakness in front of the boss who pays their salary. This is the prerequisite for all services to be implemented.