Key points
- Though intuitively compelling, resilience and wellness programs have proven disappointing.
- Poor compliance appears to be problematic.
- Shifting from wellness to empowerment programs may improve compliance.
- Integrating two powerful public health strategies may improve compliance and overall effectiveness.
No matter what the occupation, talent is at the center of it. Anything that threatens the well-being of the worker threatens the viability of the mission and thus the viability of the organization itself. Conversely, anything that promotes the well-being of the worker enhances the viability of the mission and thus the viability of the organization itself. Health resides at the center of personal and organizational viability; thus, the desire to promote health using workplace-based platforms should be no surprise. The workplace is where most people spend a significant proportion of their waking adult life. The implementation of resilience and wellness programs at the workplace would seem to be a compelling approach to fostering health.
Effectiveness of Resilience and Wellness Programs
Within the field of occupational health promotion, resilience programs and workplace-based wellness programs have grown meteorically in popularity within the last 15 years. That said, the overall effectiveness of resilience programs has been disappointing (Eidelson et al., 2011; Fikretoglu et al., 2019), while the effectiveness of occupational wellness programs appears to be modest at best (Virtanen et al., 2025)
While the reasons for the disappointing outcomes associated with resilience and wellness programs are varied and multifactorial, the primary reason appears to be the inability to sustain compliance. Putative reasons for poor compliance include: programs being constructed on a fundamentally flawed negative reinforcement paradigm that requires delayed gratification; failure to elevate resilience and wellness to a cultural expectation; failure to mobilize systemic support for success. Most fundamentally, however, Virginia Satir may have most concisely explained the psychological resistance to self-improvement: People prefer the certainty of misery to the misery of uncertainty (fear of the unknown).
Empower, Don’t Compensate
Resilience programs, and to some degree wellness programs, are often perceived as compensatory, which implies weakness, injury, or disease. They often involve ambiguous “psychological” methods. At the very least, they promote change and therefore uncertainty. The notion of making strong people stronger through a predictable empowerment approach may resonate more constructively
There are two evidence-based approaches to empowerment worthy of mention in the present context: 1) Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM), and 2) Bandura’s self-efficacy
The Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM; Witte, 1992) is a powerful heuristic which was originally used to explain how people respond to fear-based messaging, especially public health messaging. But it provides us with important insight into why resilience and wellness programs succeed or fail. The model explains that there are three essential steps required for people to take action toward self-improvement and empowerment: 1) severity (there is a problem or at least sufficient rationale for change), 2) susceptibility (the problem or rationale is personally relevant), and 3) control (there is a high likelihood of successful change engendered by a sense of personal control).
Simple motivation, however, may not be enough to increase and sustain compliance with behavior change programs. The missing element may be self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy may be thought of as the belief in one’s own ability to exercise reasonable control over one’s life. Bandura believed self‑efficacy is the central mechanism of human resilience, well-being, and successful adaptation. He noted people who believe they have the power to exercise some measure of control over their lives are healthier, more effective, and more successful.
So, the question is: How can self-efficacy be increased? Fortunately, Bandura has provided a simple yet effective teaching framework that can serve as the superstructure for resilience and wellness programs:
- Observation sets the foundation for success. Provide relevant role models who can demonstrate the resilience and wellness behaviors required for successful outcomes. Ideally, they manifest the desired changes themselves as well.
- Success begets success. Provide opportunities to experience success applying the principles and actions required for resilience and wellness. Start small using successive approximation.
- Provide catalysts for success. Provide the opportunity for coaching, mentoring, and peer support.
- Provide instruction in and reinforcement for self-control and managing stress. Stress management aspects of resilience and wellness programs appear to be the most successful.
The core assertion of this missive is that in order for resilience and wellness programs to meet their full potential, they must incorporate evidence-based strategies for behavior change: 1) EPPM and 2) self-efficacy
References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman
Eidelson, R., Pilisuk, M., & Soldz, S. (2011). The dark side of comprehensive soldier fitness. American Psychologist, 66(7), 643–644
Fikretoglu, D., Liu, A., Nazarov, A., & Blackler, K. (2019). A group randomized control trial to test the efficacy of the Road to Mental Readiness (R2MR) program among Canadian military recruits. BMC psychiatry, 19(1), 326
Virtanen, M., Lallukka, T., Elovainio, M., Steptoe, A., & Kivimäki, M. (2025). Effectiveness of workplace interventions for health promotion. The Lancet Public Health, 10(6), e512-e530
Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The Extended Parallel Process Model. Communication Monographs, 59(4), 329–349
