All posts by Mark McGraw

No Break for the Burned Out

With the long Memorial Day weekend less than 24 hours away, where will you be staying as the unofficial start of summer gets underway?

For at least one-third of your employees, the answer is likely “at home.”

That’s according to a recent CareerBuilder survey of 3,215 employed U.S. adults, 33 percent of whom said they haven’t taken or don’t plan to take a vacation this year.

Not surprisingly, many workers say they could use a break, with 61 percent reporting that they are burned out in their current job, and 31 percent describing their work-related stress levels as “high” or “extremely high.”

The better news is that some of these overextended employees will still be able to find some time to get away this year. Sort of.

Among the remaining respondents who will be taking vacation sometime this year, three in 10 say they will still stay connected with work while on holiday. More specifically, 31 percent said they check work email while away, and 18 percent indicated that they would “check in” with work at least once during that time.

Workers feeling stressed out is far from a new phenomenon. And we’ve seen at least a handful of studies in recent years that have suggested many employees are leaving vacation days on the table each year, for a variety of reasons. The CareerBuilder survey, for instance, finds 36 percent of respondents saying they’ve come back from vacation with so much work to do that they wished they never left at all. Another 18 percent say taking vacation actually leaves them feeling more anguish over work.

The number of workers afraid of taking time off to recharge their batteries should be troubling.

Leaders within the organization—incidentally, the CareerBuilder poll sees senior management and vice presidents reporting the lowest stress levels of all workers—can set the tone for their teams, according to Rosemary Haefner, chief human resources officer at CareerBuilder.

“If you’re a boss, it’s important that you role model how to take a vacation,” said Haefner, in a statement.

“If you’re prone to answering every email and phone call that comes through on your own vacation time, consider the example you’re setting for your team members. You need to set up an automated response email, and only respond to absolutely urgent emails while you’re away,” she continues.

“Direct all calls to an assistant or colleague at the office. Show your employees that vacation time matters to you and to your company and its culture.”

Wearables and Wellness Programs

If you’ve been wondering how to seamlessly integrate wearable devices into your wellness programs, the Health Enhancement Research Organization has some success stories to share.

In a new report, HERO includes findings from three case studies of organizations that, combined, employ more than 60,000 people, “and whose incorporation of wearables into their wellness program reflects a comprehensive, results-oriented approach,” according to a statement from the Waconia, Minn.-based organization.

Each of the employers that participated—BP, Emory University and Ochsner Health System—took a different path to achieve positive results, but also showed some “clear commonalities” in the way they implemented wearables as part of their wellness plans, such as sound communication strategies, encouraging long-term use of wearables and making them financially feasible for employees, for example.

The report identified a handful of promising practices for organizations that have added wearables to their wellness initiatives, or are planning to do so, including giving or subsidizing devices for employees rather than requiring them to buy their own; involving spouses and domestic partners to increase participation and create a support system outside the workplace; and using a pilot program before expanding the use of wearables to include the entire workforce.

Emory relied on the latter approach when it rolled out its wearables program in 2014, with a pilot program at five sites. According to HERO, Emory made modifications and offered wearables to all Emory University and Emory Healthcare employees the following year, based on the results of the initial pilot program.

When Emory expanded the program, 6,300 Emory employees participated in the university’s Move More Challenge, with 82 percent of them remaining active for its eight-week duration. In a post-program survey, 67 percent of participants said it was the first time they used a wearable device, with 82 percent reporting that they used one every day of the challenge.

Such results only hint at the potential in using wearables as a component of comprehensive workplace wellness programs, says Jessica Grossmeier, vice president of research at HERO, stressing the need to “continue our focus on research that uncovers what works and what doesn’t.

“Early research supports that a device, on its own, will not change health behaviors over the long-term,” continues Grossmeier. “That’s why we’re focused on identifying those leading-edge strategies that employers can use to ensure an effective, safe and engaging approach for employers and individual participants.”

 

Inquiries, Apologies and HR Lessons

Last month, we reported on an investigation into Barclays CEO James Staley’s handling of a whistleblower’s complaint at the British banking and financial services giant.

How did Staley find himself on British authorities’ radar? By enlisting Barclays’ internal security team in an effort to unmask an anonymous employee who had sent letters to Barclays officials alleging that an executive hired by Staley had “acted erratically” in a previous job.

Naturally, the bank’s leadership caught wind of Staley’s ill-conceived plan and the regulators’ inquiry that ensued. They were not pleased.

Barclays Chairman John McFarlane, for example, reportedly made his disappointment with Staley quite clear in a one-on-one meeting with the embattled chief executive. Meanwhile, the Barclays board determined that sanctions for Staley’s actions would include a “very significant compensation adjustment,” according to a statement from the bank.

Having already felt the wrath of the chairman and the board, Staley faced some pretty frustrated shareholders earlier this week.

As the New York Times reports, Staley took part in the bank’s annual meeting in London on Wednesday, where one shareholder called for him to step down from the stage upon which he and McFarlane stood to address those in attendance. Another asked that Staley step down from his role as CEO.

For his part, Staley offered an apology to investors, just weeks after going to the Barclays board with hat in hand.

“I feel it is important that I acknowledge to you—our shareholders—that I made a mistake in becoming involved in an issue which I should have left to the business to deal with,” the Times reports Staley telling investors. “I have apologized to the board, and I would today like to apologize to you as well, for that error.”

Staley is far from being out of the woods, of course. British regulators are still looking into his missteps. And that “very significant compensation adjustment” is still to come, with the board planning to make that tweak to his bonus after the investigation is complete.

Nevertheless, Staley was re-elected to the Barclays board at the recent shareholders’ meeting. And he seems to still have the support of his chairman. The Times quotes McFarlane as saying that Staley simply “thought he had a green light” to send the company’s internal security team in to identify the author of the aforementioned letters.

“He went through the green light and it was actually red,” said McFarlane, who has dismissed calls for Staley’s resignation. “The action for going through a red light is usually you do not lose your license.”

McFarlane and Staley have maintained that Staley believed he had the clearance to seek out the anonymous employee’s identity, with McFarlane saying that Staley “only wanted to contact the individual to get him or her to stop writing letters, because he believed they were malicious,” according to the Times.

Maybe so. But even Staley acknowledges that his response to those letters was out of bounds; a response that CEOs—and HR leaders—at other organizations would be wise to hold up as an example of how not to handle a whistleblower complaint.

Hurting for Talent in HR?

In the never-ending quest to boost HR’s profile in the C-suite, CHROs must first surround themselves with top-notch talent in their own departments, according to new research from Korn Ferry.

The problem, the same survey finds, is that serious talent gaps exist within the HR suite.

The Los Angeles-based advisory firm recently polled 189 chief human resource officers, finding that “as the HR function becomes more strategic and high-profile, HR professionals need to step up their game when it comes to business insights and achieving results,” according to a Korn Ferry statement.

More specifically, CHROs were asked to name the skills they find are most lacking as they search for human resources talent.

A mere 4 percent reported having no difficulty finding the necessary skills to round out their HR teams. Otherwise, respondents said:

  • Business acumen (41 percent)
  • Ability to turn strategy into action (28 percent)
  • Intellectual horsepower (10 percent)
  • Analytical skills (7 percent)
  • Diversified experience (6 percent)
  • Relational skills (3 percent)
  • Technical skills (1 percent)

Of course, the role of the HR function, and the CHRO, is much more complex than it was even five short years ago, says Joseph McCabe, vice chairman of Korn Ferry’s Global Human Resources Center of Expertise.

“Disruptors such as digitization and globalization are creating an environment of constant organizational change,” says McCabe. “HR leaders must understand the business challenges that occur as a result of these disruptions, including the impact on the business strategy, and be able to quickly adapt and act.”

The Korn Ferry poll allowed respondents the chance to do a bit of self-examination as well, asking CHROs what competencies were most important to helping them handle the ever-changing environment in which they operate.

By far, the most common response was “tolerance for ambiguity,” cited by 52 percent of the CHROs surveyed. Twenty percent pointed to the confidence to make bold, yet informed decisions as most critical, followed by the ability to sustain analytical thinking and motivate others (11 percent) and the ability to listen to and accommodate others’ methods (6 percent).

The study finds that a failure to cultivate both “hard” and “soft” skills could be costly for a CHRO; a reality that respondents seem to recognize. Indeed, when asked to name the top reason that a CHRO would get fired from an organization, the largest percentage (37) said “personality issues/inability to work well with or lead others,” with 34 percent reporting that an “inability to direct connect HR efforts to tangible business outcomes” would be the most likely cause for being let go.

“Today’s CHROs are judged both on what they do and how they get things done,” says McCabe. “While it’s critical that HR must act quickly to adapt to changing business strategy, it’s also important to align their team and other key leaders to foster engagement and a shared vision.”

Breaking Into the Boy’s Club

Whether it’s a result of not seeking out women workers or not being able to attract them, or a combination of factors, some fields remain heavily male-dominated.

Many of these same industries—construction, automotive and trucking, to name just three—are facing a worker shortage fueled in no small part by scores of retiring baby boomers.

It seems that at least some of these traditionally male-centric sectors are focusing more closely on female talent in an effort to fill the vacuum.

Earlier this month, for example, the Iron Workers Union and the Ironworker Management Progressive Action Cooperative Trust began offering a new paid maternity leave benefit to members.

According to a statement from the organization, it is “the first to introduce a generous paid maternity leave benefit in the building trades,” where adequate paid maternity leave is “virtually unheard of.”

The new policy includes six months of pre-delivery maximum benefit and six to eight weeks of post-delivery benefit, according to the union. In addition, members are eligible for up to six weeks of paid leave after the birth of the child and two additional weeks for Cesarean deliveries, regardless of what was covered pre-delivery.

The Washington Post recently detailed the new Iron Workers Union policy, noting that all baby boomers will be over the age of 65 by the year 2029, which means one-fifth of the U.S. population will have reached retirement age.

Iron Workers President Eric Dean feels that offering benefits such as paid maternity leave finds the organization well-positioned for the ongoing boomer exodus.

“The whole world is suffering the baby boomer retirement tsunami,” Dean told the Post. “All the construction trades are in competition for capable people. Wouldn’t it be a distinct advantage for us to be the first?”

These trades have other issues to contend with, of course.

The same article points out that “millennials, the workers who would replace [boomers], aren’t as interested in pursuing careers in the trades.” Enrollment in vocational education has dropped over the last three decades as well, according to the Post, adding that the current opioid epidemic “has zapped some of the male workforce, because men are more likely than women to both use and overdose on illicit drugs.”

Other fields with predominantly male workforces—such as the trucking and automotive technician sectors—see such factors draining their applicant pools as well.

“There’s a shortage of high-end, heavily trained individuals who can do diagnostic work,” Tony Molla, vice president of the Automotive Service Association, told the Post. “We’re graduating about 30,000 new technicians a year, mostly men, but that’s not enough to keep up with attrition.”

In response, automakers have been funneling more corporate sponsorships to groups that work to recruit female trainees, such as the Automotive Women’s Alliance Foundation and the Car Care Council Women’s Board, according to the paper. Meanwhile, some trucking companies have begun to hire “female driver liaisons” in addition to creating support groups geared toward female truckers, the Post reports.

Naturally, there’s no promise that these efforts will pay off in the form of more female workers in male-dominated industries. And there’s still the long-standing, problematic perception that women “aren’t cut out” for some work; a stigma that can be extremely difficult to shake for those who do pursue careers in certain fields. But there seems to be an acknowledgement in some corners that change is needed if these industries wish to survive, as Dean told the Post.

“We have to innovate,” he said, “if we want different results.”

Studying Sleep at Goodyear

According to Dr. Brent Pawlecki, the goal of his Thursday morning presentation here at Human Resource Executive‘s Health & Benefits Leadership Conference (held April 19 – 21 at the Aria Resort & Casino in Las Vegas) was to “make the case for why sleep is important” to employees’ health.

Making that case was also part of his plan when he took over as chief health officer at Akron, Ohio-based Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. six years ago.

At the time, the company has begun investing more in the health of its 69,000 employees around the world. Pawlecki was brought in to “build a culture of health” at the organization. When he took the job in 2011, he was charged with helping Goodyear to better define its overall healthy strategy.

“We said, we’re a global company, with well over 20,000 U.S.-based employees,” says Pawlecki. “We need to build a strong foundation of healthy employees here in the U.S.”

Part of that building process was addressing the impact of sleep, or the lack thereof, on Goodyear employees. Why study sleep?

“I was at a conference where I attended a presentation on how sleep affects workers,” says Pawlecki. “And I thought that, if we can get our employees thinking and talking about sleep issues—which could be caused by or contributing to underlying health issues— then maybe we can get them to focus on those larger issues.”

Enter Big Health, the San Francisco-based provider of the Sleepio sleep health app.

Sharing the stage with Pawlecki was Jenna Carl, medical director at Big Health. She talked about the “hidden nature” of behavioral health problems, and how tackling sleep issues might “offer a gateway to solving mental health problems” and subsequently creating healthier and happier workers.

Those suffering from insomnia, for instance, often find themselves more easily irritated and more sensitive to stress, she says.

“Insomnia also affects the frontal cortex—the CEO of the brain—which is responsible for decision making,” continues Carl. “And, behaviorally, those with sleep problems fall into a vicious cycle. They start worrying about not sleeping, and/or might start using more caffeine or alcohol, which actually have a negative impact on the ability to sleep.”

Naturally, employees trying to work their way through such problems are going to be less than their best while on the job. Pawlecki and Goodyear were acutely aware of this reality when bringing in Big Health to help conduct a sleep awareness campaign, “designed to engage good and poor sleepers,” says Carl.

The campaign began with encouraging employees to take a sleep test, the results of which led to creating personalized plans for employees who took part.

In getting employees to participate, “it’s important to know your employee population in order to know how to reach them,” says Carl.

Goodyear, for example, has 24,000 U.S. employees spread across plants and retail locations. Roughly 60 percent of these associates have no company email address, says Pawlecki.

As such, the initial sleep awareness campaign included home mailers and in-person communications in the form of posters and animated videos geared toward these workers, as well as providing intranet articles and sending emails detailing the campaign to those with Goodyear email accounts.

Overall, the campaign netted 2,798 employees who completed the sleep test, the majority of whom suffered from poor sleep, says Carl, adding that about one third of these workers could meet the clinical criteria for insomnia, while around half were experiencing less-than-optimal sleep. Plant workers, she says, struggled the most.

These plant employees also reported that poor sleep impacted their productivity close to 28 percent of the time, with retail workers saying that sleep affects their productivity 23 percent of the time. Office workers said that inadequate rest took a toll on their work 21 percent of the time.

“This is a pretty significant impact,” says Carl, adding that Goodyear employees who used the Sleepio app and underwent cognitive therapy reported getting an additional five hours of sleep per week after using the application. Those same workers also saw their stress reduced by 54 percent, and experienced a 35 percent drop in anxiety.

“These are obviously big improvements,” says Carl, noting that these workers also reported productivity improvements in addition to improving their overall mental health.

“And that’s just from getting better sleep.”

More Woes for Whistleblowers

Even a CEO’s authority has its limits.

James Staley, the U.S. chief executive of British banking heavyweight Barclays was recently reminded of this fact, and offered other executives a case study in how not to handle a whistleblower complaint in the process.

As the New York Times reported this week, Staley finds himself being investigated by British authorities after he called on Barclays’ internal security team to try to uncover the identity of a whistleblower in an “‘honestly held’ but ‘mistaken’ belief that he had clearance to do so.” According to the Times, the Barclays security team even received assistance with the search from a United States law enforcement agency.

Staley’s effort did not sit well with the bank’s leadership, including Chairman John McFarlane, who the paper reports had “personally chastised” Staley, and had expressed his disappointment in the CEO’s actions directly to him.

The roots of McFarlane’s frustration trace back to last summer, when Stanley brought on Tim Main—a friend and former colleague of Staley’s at JPMorgan Chase—to chair Barclays’ global financial institutions group.

“Mr. Main, who was known for his team-building skills at JPMorgan, seemed like a great hire” for Staley, the Times wrote.

In order to join Staley at Barclays, Main left New York-based investment banking advisory firm Evercore Partners, where he had been “a star,” according to Roger Altman, the firm’s founder and chairman.

Just a month after Main’s hiring, however, Barclays officials received letters sent by an anonymous whistleblower who claimed that Main had “acted erratically” while at JPMorgan; a claim later supported by two JPMorgan employees who reported to Main during his time there.

Barclays did not disclose the details of the letter, but Staley reportedly took offense to the whistleblower’s allegations leveled against Main, which “related to personal issues from many years ago,” Staley wrote in an email to employees. “The intent of the correspondents in airing all of this,” he told workers, “was, in my view, to maliciously smear this person.”

In response to these claims, Staley twice asked Barclays’ internal security team to find the letter’s author. The inquiry didn’t reveal the whistleblower’s identity, and the bank ultimately disregarded his or her assertions.

While both Main and Staley have declined to comment on the situation, Staley did release a statement saying he has apologized to the Barclays board and “will accept whatever sanction it deems appropriate,” which will include a “very significant compensation adjustment,” according to the bank.

An independent law firm was commissioned to investigate Staley’s attempts to unmask Main’s anonymous former colleague, and determined that Staley “erred in seeking out the … whistleblower, but that his belief that he had clearance to do so was an honest mistake,” according to the Times.

That could very well be. But the Barclays brouhaha serves as just the latest example of the hostile treatment that whistleblowers continue to face.

Jeffrey Pfeffer, a professor of organizational behavior at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business, told the Times as much.

“Whistleblowers are typically treated horribly, even in the government, let alone in the private sector,” said Pfeffer. “People don’t like to have problems pointed out.”

Limiting Subpoena Power

As you might have heard, the Supreme Court issued a ruling this week in the case of McLane Co. Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Monday’s ruling addressed the standard of review for a district court in determining whether to enforce or quash an EEOC-issued subpoena, with the Court reversing the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and holding that federal appellate courts must review a district court’s decision whether to enforce an EEOC subpoena for abuse of discretion, and not de novo.

The case centered on a former McLane Co. employee’s claim that the Temple, Texas-based supply chain services provider discriminated against her on the basis of her gender.

In 2007, Damiana Ochoa took three months of maternity leave from her job at McLane, which requires new employees and workers returning from medical leave to undergo a physical evaluation if their job is physically demanding—which Ochoa’s was, according to court documents. Ochoa attempted the evaluation on three separate occasions, and failed to pass each time. She was subsequently fired, which led to her filing a charge of gender discrimination with the EEOC.

As part of its investigation, the EEOC issued subpoenas to McLane, requesting the names, Social Security numbers and contact information for other employees that had been required to take the same evaluation. The EEOC filed actions to enforce the subpoenas after McLane refused to comply with that request.

Finding that the aforementioned information was not relevant to the charges, a federal district court refused to enforce the subpoenas. The Ninth Circuit reversed that decision, determining that the district court had erred in characterizing the information as irrelevant.

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn that Ninth Circuit ruling offers “a good reminder that there are limits to the EEOC’s subpoena power,” says Melissa Raphan, a Minneapolis-based partner at Dorsey & Whitney.

“The practical effect of this decision for employers is twofold,” says Raphan, who is also chair of the firm’s labor and employment group. “First, it is a good reminder that the EEOC does not enjoy unfettered discretion to obtain information about other current and former employees. Second, the battleground to push back on the EEOC’s subpoena is in the district court.”

The EEOC’s subpoena power “does not allow the agency to bypass the burden of showing that the material is relevant, and, even if relevant, the employer can still show that the request is unduly burdensome.”

Ultimately, the decision’s impact on employers figures to be “somewhat limited in scope,” says John Alan Doran, a Scottsdale, Ariz.-based partner at Sherman & Howard.

Noting that only the Ninth Circuit took the position that it could review these trial court decisions “from scratch,” Doran adds that “every other jurisdiction has held that a trial court’s decision to quash or modify the scope of an EEOC opinion is subject to searching review by the appellate courts.”

As such, the decision directly affects only those employers doing business within the Ninth Circuit, continues Doran.

That said, “there is useful language for all courts to consider with respect to the scope of the EEOC’s subpoena power that employers will likely use in future run-ins with the EEOC throughout the country.”

The case is “largely about whose ox is getting gored, so it is hard to describe the decision as pro- or anti-employer,” says Doran. “In cases where an employer fails to convince a trial court to modify or quash an EEOC subpoena, this decision makes it that much harder to reverse the trial court’s decision on appeal. But where an employer successfully convinces a trial court to modify or quash a subpoena, its likelihood of success on appeal of that issue is considerably better.”

Of RIFs and FMLA Requests

Every HR professional knows that FMLA requests can get tricky, and that non-compliance can get costly. A recent court ruling shows there might be a price to pay even when an employee doesn’t explicitly make an FMLA request.

According to Crain v. Schlumberger Technology, Gregory Crain worked for 10 years as a regional sales manager for Schlumberger Technology Corp. and its predecessor company.

Terminated from his position as part of a reduction in force, Crain subsequently filed an FMLA interference claim, contending that the company violated his leave rights by letting him go just days after informing the organization that he needed to undergo surgery that would force him to take time off from work.

In October 2016, a jury agreed with Crain, awarding him $77,007; the amount of his severance. More recently, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana affirmed that ruling, awarding Crain the original verdict award along with an additional, equal amount in liquidated damages. In other words, Schlumberger must now pay double the damages.

Why? The timing of Crain’s termination was certainly a factor, according to Tina Syring, a Minneapolis-based partner at Barnes & Thornburg and a member of the firm’s labor and employment law department.

As Syring points out, Crain’s name was included in the list of employees to be included in the RIF; a list that surfaced two days after his surgery.

“Prior to the formal notification, however, the plaintiff’s name was never included in any company RIF documents, even though the employer’s witnesses claimed that the decision to include him in the RIF was made weeks before such notice.”

In the end, she says, “the jury found the employer’s witnesses less credible than the company’s lack of documentation surrounding the decision to include the plaintiff in the reduction in force.”

Syring describes this decision as a “great reminder” that documentation matters when mapping out a reduction in force.

“According to the court, given the weight of the evidence (or lack thereof) and the temporal proximity of the termination, it was not an unreasonable decision by the jury to find in favor of the plaintiff.  Thus, when addressing RIFs, employers should take the time to carefully document which employees are being considered for the RIF and update this documentation throughout the decision-making process.”

Adding another wrinkle to this case is the fact that Crain didn’t specifically mention FMLA when he told the company that he would undergo surgery and would subsequently require time away from work. He did, however, inquire as to short-term disability leave, which ultimately compels the company to weigh the possibility of FMLA leave.

“As the Crain court noted, an employee is not required to use any sort of ‘magic words’ to provide notice of the need for FMLA leave,” says Syring.

“In this situation, the plaintiff made an inquiry to human resources about short-term disability. The Crain court found that to be sufficient notice to the employer to at least make an inquiry as to whether FMLA leave notice and adherence obligations were triggered,” she says, adding that testimony had also been given to confirm that the plaintiff told his former supervisor and two HR representatives that he was going to have surgery.

“Because the company could not demonstrate that it even considered the possible application of FMLA leave prior to [Crain’s] termination, the court found that the employer’s actions were neither in good faith or reasonable.  As a result, liquidated damages were awarded against the company.”

 

 

Homing in on Behavioral Health

Just over two years ago, we posted a piece on this site highlighting findings from a Disability Management Employer Coalition study on behavioral health in the workplace.

The DMEC’s research painted what HRE described at the time as a “somewhat incongruous picture.” For example, more than 60 percent of the 314 employers polled said the stigma surrounding mental health issues at work had either stayed the same or gotten worse in the past two years. On the other hand, 37 percent of those same companies said that management had “become more open” about assessing behavioral health in that time. In 2012, 25 percent of respondents said the same, according to DMEC.

Here we are in 2017, and the findings of a new Willis Towers Watson survey suggest that the picture is starting to come into focus for employers, the overwhelming majority of which say they plan to keep upping their efforts to address mental health issues among the workforce.

The firm’s 2017 Behavioral Health Study, which polled 314 U.S. employers, finds 88 percent of respondents saying behavioral health is an important priority for their organizations over the next three years.

More specifically, 63 percent count locating more timely and effective treatment of behavioral health issues as an area of primary concern in that same span. Sixty-one percent said the same about integrating behavioral health case management with medical and disability case management. In addition, 56 percent said their organizations are concentrating on providing better support for complex behavioral health conditions, and 52 percent of employers are looking to expand access to care for mental health issues between now and the year 2020.

Beyond increasing and improving the level of care received by those with behavioral health issues, the survey also found that organizations intend to address the root causes of these issues. More than one third of respondents (36 percent) say they have already addressed and taken steps to reduce stress and improve resiliency, while 47 percent are planning or considering action designed to do so over the next three years. Twenty-eight percent currently provide educational programs that touch on the warning signs of behavioral health issues or distress, and 41 percent are planning or considering such programs.

These employers are also showing more interest in mobile apps to help employees manage behavioral health needs, according to Willis Towers Watson. The survey finds the percentage of companies including mobile applications in their service offerings on the way up. For instance, 11 percent of those surveyed already offer stress reduction or resiliency apps; a number that is expected to increase to 38 percent within three years, the study finds. And, while just 7 percent provide apps designed to help curb anxiety, 31 percent of respondents said they plan to offer such applications between now and 2020.

However they plan to reach workers with mental health needs, “employers are concerned about behavioral health issues because of the impact on costs, employee health and productivity, and workplace safety,” says Julie Stone, a national healthcare practice leader at Willis Towers Watson, in a statement.

“The seriousness of the issues—both for employers and employees—has led to a deeper understanding of the problem and greater resolve to take action.”

Employers are now more committed than ever, says Stone, to “improving access to treatment, providing employees with better coordination of care across various health programs and reducing the stigma that could be associated with behavioral health through educational programs.”