Let’s talk wellness.
- You have read my rants against paternalistic corporations who implement ineffective and wasteful ‘wellness programs’ in an attempt to reduce employee-related health care costs.
- You have responded (both privately and in the comments section) by telling me that fat employees are the cause of skyrocketing health insurance premiums, have more ‘missed work’ days, and suffer a higher rate of anxiety & depression in the workforce.
Whatevs, dudes. I don’t mean to gloat, but it turns out you are wrong. Michigan State University just published a study that breaks it down into simple English: your employees aren’t as evil or as problematic as you’re being told by the insurance industry and your insurance broker.
Reprinted from MSU News:
EAST LANSING, Mich. — New research led by a Michigan State University scholar refutes commonly held stereotypes that overweight workers are lazier, more emotionally unstable and harder to get along with than their “normal weight” colleagues.
With the findings, employers are urged to guard against the use of weight-based stereotypes when it comes to hiring, promoting or firing.
Mark Roehling, associate professor of human resource management, and two colleagues studied the relationship between body weight and personality traits for nearly 3,500 adults. Contrary to widely held stereotypes, overweight and obese adults were not found to be significantly less conscientious, less agreeable, less extraverted or less emotionally stable.
The research, done in conjunction with Hope College near Grand Rapids, appears in the current edition of the journal Group & Organization Management.
“Previous research has demonstrated that many employers hold negative stereotypes about obese workers, and those beliefs contribute to discrimination against overweight workers at virtually every stage of the employment process, from hiring to promotion to firing,” Roehling said.
“This study goes a step further by examining whether there is empirical support for these commonly held negative stereotypes. Are they based on fact or fiction? Our results suggest that the answer is fiction.”
The findings are based on two separate but convergent national studies. Roehling, who’s also a lawyer, said the practical implication of the research is that employers should take steps to prevent managers from using weight as a predicator of personality traits when it comes to hiring, promoting or firing. He said such steps could include:
- Adopting a policy that explicitly prohibits the use of applicant or employee weight in employment decisions without a determination that weight is relevant to the job.
- Structuring the interview process to reduce the influence of subjective biases.
- Using validated measures of the specific personality traits that are relevant to the job if personality traits are to be considered in hiring decisions.
- Including weight-based stereotypes as a topic in diversity training for interviewers.
“Employers concerned about the fair and effective management of their work force,” Roehling said, “should be proactive in preventing negative stereotypes about overweight workers from influencing employment decisions.”
If we can’t blame our own chubby employees for lower productivity, rising health care costs, or plummeting employee engagement numbers, who can we blame?
- Our own companies & our executive leadership teams?
- Our HR Departments who propagate myths about the false connection between weight and employee engagement levels?
- The insurance companies who raise our premiums year after year without delivering improved services?
- Inefficient medical practitioners and their outmoded ways of delivering health care?
- The medical industry that is built on a free market system that is neither free nor fair?
Nah, let’s blame the fat employees.
Instead of spending your company’s money on capital infrastructure investments or demanding greater fiscal accountability from our insurance providers, let’s spend our limited resources on employee wellness programs that are untested, unproven, and have no documented ROI.
Hey, America may be in a recession, but that’s no reason to start thinking in a fiscally responsible manner. We’re laying off our American workforce at a record rate, but HR practitioners are awesome because we fight rising health care costs by implementing Weight Watchers sessions and Biggest Loser Competitions at work.
Blame the fatties, punk rockers. That’s a great way to demonstrate corporate leadership in America.
[H/T to Kate Harding @ Shapely Prose]
UPDATE: In honor of BlogHer and this discussion of health care and wellness, I’m linking to Elizabeth Edwards on The Colbert Report. I saw Mrs. Edwards speak, last year, at the BlogHer 07 convention in Chicago and was blown away by her pragmatism and her awesomeness.
I never liked wellness anyway
There is nothing to gloat about here if you are arguing against fat employees and their costs to organizations. The MSU study examines nothing related to the cost of employing overweight or obese people, only that their personalities aren’t as negative as people generally think and shouldn’t be a reason for discrimination.
There is a reason that the MSU study doesn’t mention that fat employees don’t cost anymore than normal weight employees: it isn’t true. Fat employees DO impact business and health care costs. No, not as much as health insurance carriers would like you to think but they have an impact. I don’t know how you can deny that there is a real connection to your weight and your health and even in a super efficient health system, those people will statistically cost more to care for. Nothing in this MSU study could be twisted to say otherwise.
There are better reasons for not doing wellness programs (real ROI is rarely obtained).
I am not saying that fat employees should be discriminated against or that wellness programs are the greatest but this study doesn’t disprove anything anybody has said regarding the costs of overweight people in the workplace.
I’ve always hated Weight Watchers.
Overweight employee checking in here. I don’t think from a productivity standpoint there is a difference at all.
What I am curious about is how it’s figured that it “costs more” to have an overweight employee. I don’t take any more or less sick time than anyone else. Yes, I have reflux, and it took a little testing to figure that out, but no more than thin co-workers have had for other things (the running addict with a bum knee comes to mind - he keeps having surgery and refuses to stop running.)
And for the record, Weight Watchers did not work for me, and I hated the meetings. And I hated getting the evil eye when I asked why we weren’t talking about exercise and why we were talking about Weight Watchers snack bars.
@michael Wellness is overrated.
@Lance What the article demonstrates is the fuzziness between employers and babysitters. I don’t want my employer making hiring decisions because I might cost a little more. Because, really, you know what costs more? Here’s a list:
- Preventative health care,
- better (& earlier) diagnosis of illnesses,
- and comprehensive insurance coverage for conditions that were once amorphous or treated differently (autism, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome).
I’m not saying fat people don’t have an impact on costs — but so do women (especially those who have kids), people who are genetically predisposed to illnesses like Parkinson’s, and old men who live longer but get prostate cancer.
Companies pay me for my services — & they shouldn’t micromanage the size of my ass. Take the employer out of the health care loop — & then the company isn’t penalized (financially) for hiring a fat person — and the MSU article states that no case can be made for discriminating against fat people because they don’t put an unnecessary emotional burden on the workforce.
@hrMinion Amen.
@KellyO One day, when we measure productivity based on our actual output instead of how many hours we work in the office, this conversation might be irrelevant. Until then, do what you can to sabotage Weight Watchers meetings at work. I like to take down the bulletins and fliers.
Laurie I love you.
Also, if we’re going to start discriminating hiring practices on fatness and other things, I’ll never get another job as long as I live.
I was lucky enough to find an employer who hired me while I was in the middle of chemotherapy treatments last year. It never occurred to me that it would be a problem until I was reading about medical discrimination. The fact that they sucked in every other aspect aside, I was lucky to find them
@heather I hope you love my friend, Kate, too. She’s the one who sent me the article!
I love EVERYONE!
ooooooh… does that fall under sexual harassment? Whoopsie-doodle.
Thank you for this finding, Laurie. I have yet to interview a company that really means wellness as well-being. Most of the time, the wellness is measured in a lack of cellulite. Nevermind a person’s mental, professional and physical wellness. The biggest loser tends to be the companies with a scale in the break room. Let me know if you know of any organizations that seek to improve the holistic wellness of employees.
@ Laurie - There is a difference between stating the costs of something and that it is an issue and saying that there is a reason to discriminate because of that issue. Health care costs are definitely an issue in American business and fat people are a part of that cost equation.
I don’t believe there is a basis to discriminate based on obesity but I guess some may disagree with me. I don’t really care about those people because they are wrong.
And we can talk about assigning benefits costs away from employers until we are blue in the face but that isn’t addressing the present reality which is employers are generally on the hook for at least part of the health insurance. So because of some retarded precedent set umpteen years ago, employers have been brought into the equation (sometimes unwillingly) and so yes, they want to try to control their costs as well.
More and more business owners are going counter to popular belief and backing things like individual determined or some sort of single payer system. The problem is, they can’t drop their current insurance and they can’t stop being a business either.
I think it is just as easy to throw the blame at the feet of nanny businesses as it is for businesses and insurance companies to throw it at the feet of fat people. I personally think they are both wrong and right.
I have personally advocated for an individually determinant health insurance system (similar to car insurance) but there are a lot of ideas that are out there that are better than our current.
@Lance
1. What defines obese? Do we use BMI? Because BMI is being totally eviscerated out there and — according to BMI — I’m on the cusp of being overweight at 5′ tall and 125 lbs. BMI stands for BULLSHIT METRICS SOMETHING WITH AN I.
2. I’m not sure I agree that obese people cost more to insure. Can you prove it? I mean, really, is it a fact? I’m not sure it is — but I know it’s conventional wisdom.
3. I like how you don’t care about people who disagree with you (& are wrong). THAT we can agree upon.
@Jeremy Check out HR Bloggers for a discussion on companies who are doing wellness RIGHT.
I’m not convinced that overweight/obese people have a greater cost impact than they otherwise would if they were a (so-called) “normal” weight. How in the heck do you get that conclusion from the data without making a whole lot of assumptions about what a fat person’s health and health care needs would be if they were of lesser weight? Isn’t that confusing correlation and causation?
The greatest health care costs incurred by our obese employees are for gastric bypass surgery - a surgery that many of them have been led to believe was necessary for them to be “healthier.” I haven’t seen the data to convince me that works, either. Typically, they have many more health problems after than they did before.
Hire smokers. Statistically, they die younger, so you pay for fewer years of health care overall.
THANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOU is all I have to say!
Wow. How did you know that this is one of my favorite topics? I started following this concept (employers regulating the health of their employees) several years ago when it became more and more common for employers to refuse to hire and/or fire smokers. That concept is still around today (and I’d LOVE to know if you know of companies that are). Since then, it’s also become trendy to charge smokers a higher premium on health insurance.
I first became interested in the topic because I really can see both sides of the argument. On one hand, it’s so paternalistic. Worse, it’s probably more akin to witch hunting. And that’s the biggest con for me–that smokers are the social outcasts du jour. But eventually, it’s pretty possible that there just won’t be any more smokers.
But will the price of health insuance have gone down by then? Ha. Please. That is not even close to supportable. So, if the targeted issue is health-care costs, them employers will have to turn to another group, which ever one has become the most unpopular kids at the lunch table.
Back in 2004 I gave a seminar on the legitimacy and legality of wellness programs, especially ones that focused on smokers. (This was before the final HIPPA regs were issued). I remember posing the question, “What group will be next? Will it be overweight employees? Employees who use alcohol?” The audience of 100+ HR professionals laughed at the idea.
Sure enough, obesity has become targeted more and more frequently. I’ve posted about this many times and won’t annoy everyone with links but it is a truly fascinating issue. I wonder what will be the parallel for the higher premiums imposed on smokers as overweight or obese employees become the focus of “wellness” programs. Maybe employers will start imposing a health-care surcharge–all overweight employees will pay more for insurance premiums. And they can be calculated based on pounds overweight. Really, doesn’t that seem ludicrous?
I vote that all employers start by targeting my favorite character, the Jerk at Work. Think about the potential and immediate results that would generate. Increased productivity, increased teamwork and knowledge sharing, decreased absenteeism, and decreased visits to mental-health provider. Can’t we just work on Jerks first?
Thanks for a great forum with great comments!!
@Molly -
Johns Manville does not hire smokers, not smoking is a condition of employment, and from my understanding, employees “caught” smoking outside of work have been disciplined to the point of termination.
It would seem that due to some nasty lung cancer and lung disease issues in the past associated with the company’s use of asbestos in fiberglass (they don’t do that anymore) hiring non-smokers is legal.
I’m not arguing against the business necessity - but I do wonder how they know what their employees do outside of work…
Jackbuilt
@molly soon we’ll just hire robots to work and solve the problem of employment litigation all together! (PS - U R awesome if you didn’t know it already.)
@jackbuilt There are tests you can administer for smoking, just like tests for drugs. Also, it wouldn’t be uncommon for companies to hire PI’s to monitor employee behaviors outside of work. It’s very common for work comp claims, and it’s cheaper to hire a PI and fire someone who violates policy than to continue paying the employee and his/her benefits.
Laurie -
I hadn’t really thought about that, I guess it just seemed like a lot of time and resources to spend on what an employee does outside of work…but you’re right and from this particular company’s perspective, not only is it less expensive than paying employees, but given their product, those activities of testing and PI work are far less expensive than a major lawsuit.
The impression I get is that the company doesn’t have to hire a PI or test to determine whether their employees smoke outside work. I understand that a number of those terminated for smoking outside of work were reported by their co-workers. Again, I don’t really have a lot to say on that, other than:
a) must make for an interesting work environment, and
b) would banning obesity in the workplace mean an end to office birthday cake? What if I wore a girdle?
Jackbuilt
Companies are confused and misled about wellness. They send out more mixed messages than a Britney Spears video.
It is hard to buy into the almost cult-like thrust for adherence to wellness on one hand - when most departments, companies, etc. simultaneously use food as a reward, partly because it is the cheapest thing to do. (My last company had, no kidding, a come-to-Jesus wellness meeting at 11 am and then had an ice cream and cake social right afterwards.)
It amuses (and irritates) me to no end that I could be addicted to alcohol or any number of narcotics - hard core stuff like heroin that would, y’know, really affect performance - and my company would allow me to take off 2 or 3 months AND pay for my rehabilitation. Now, I’ll be honest - I have an eating disorder. I admit it. And the best possible thing for me would be having a chance to go into an intense rehab scenario where I could learn to cook and break those bad habits. But most companies would never think to pay for that, although the long-term savings might be amazing.
It’s not just corporations, though. It’s a cultural thing. People talk about how poorly dressed fat people are, but yet you cannot go into most easily accessible stores and find larger sizes. When I do go to a store like Casual Male to try and find business casual clothing, there are very few items that are stylish and appropriate for the office. Most of the shirts are made with patterns that are lifted from doctor’s office wallpaper - ie, the loudest possible visuals known to man, guaranteed to (a) make a fat guy look much fatter than he is and (b) make sure everyone can see the fat guy from miles away.
PS on the smoking -
One of my previous employers tested for smoking with a mechanism that looked like an asthma inhaler.
Their policy wasn’t to fire smokers, but when they started doing the smokers’ tests, nonsmokers had more of their medical insurance paid for by the company than smokers did.