In last month’s column I shared that the study of how people change for the better represents a lifelong theme for me. From a childhood being raised by an experimental psychologist, and a clinical therapist, to the arc of my academic and professional career spanning evolutionary human biology, behavior, and public health, the topic has animated my pursuits. You might say it’s a Purpose.
In this month’s column let’s go from theory to practice. And as a warm-up, here’s a workforce wellbeing pop quiz. Which of the following statements are true?
So, which sounds right to you. All three? Thinking two truths and a lie? None of the above?
It turns out the evidence for the first is mixed at best, there is compelling evidence against the second, and a lot of confusion about the third. While incentives can help get people to show up, their actual impact on sustaining engagement and lifestyle behavior change is a bit more nuanced. The field of Behavioral Economics is full of examples of ways our behavior can appear irrational, from a classical economic viewpoint. Repetitive low-challenge task? Incent. Something challenging, meaningful, and intrinsically rewarding once mastered? Think twice before layering in an incentive. The problem, behaviorally, with many wellness program designs is that the reward becomes the goal. It becomes an optimization game for users (how little can I click and still get the payout).
I flew to Minneapolis this past week to participate in important meetings and see people I care about. The fact that Delta awarded me SkyMiles was a happy byproduct, but it wasn’t the goal. Can you say that about your wellbeing program incentives design, when viewed by your participants?
What about offering an incentive for biometric outcomes? Does it produce better outcomes? A large-scale research study paper I had the opportunity to co-author concluded that the answer is a resounding “no.” Programs that incented biometric outcomes were no more effective than those simply incenting participation. And, anecdotally, we saw that the outcome-based incentive actually depressed engagement by those at elevated risk in biometrics measures.
And as for “more is better” when it comes to clicks, it’s possible that vendors have played a role in promoting an over-focus on clicks and taps as a core gauge of delivered value. I once heard a client boast about a 76% portal registration rate. That’s not a bad thing, but does it really mean anything?
My suggestions below are rooted in the idea that engagement on the app or portal is nice, however engagement in health, work, and life are essential. In other words, clicks on the portal or taps on the app are likely reported because they are easy to measure. Let’s go deeper into what really matters in producing positive change.
Here are three things to reflect on as you examine your current wellbeing strategy, program design, and measurement approach.
If your current approach falls short in one or more of these areas, consider a redesign, realignment, or even a reboot. Set your sights on the kind of engagement that really matters.
Kumanu Senior Advisor
Eric Zimmerman, MPH, MBA, is a strategic leader in corporate wellbeing with deep expertise in behavioral science, employee engagement, and digital health. As senior advisor at Kumanu, he focuses on designing purpose-driven solutions that align personal and organizational values to foster stronger connections and better outcomes.
Full Bio