They also believe that the counselling will be accessible and confidential. HR appreciate that they need to have an EAP because not only have employees come to expect it, but because it does help those in crisis and does prove to be a useful referral point for them when an employee is visibly distressed or has severe personal issues. However many HR leaders will express various levels of discontent with EAPs today, not viewing them as the true organisational partners in effectively managing wellbeing in the organisation.

​

While some of the discontent has been due to changing EAP marketplace conditions due to mergers and acquisitions over the last decade, the main problem is that EAPs have not changed in 25 years and the traditional model is outdated. They are still providing services in the same way since they were developed in the 80s and 90s. In essence, they have become unengaging, too reactive and crisis focused. While they might have started using some modern terminology and branding, they are fundamentally at their core, a traditional reactive, counselling service. The loss for the industry is that there have been significant advances in mental health and wellbeing research and practice, and huge strides made in positive psychology and new technologies, yet traditional EAPs have not truly evolved in  a meaningful way.

​

One of the concerns with the traditional EAP model is that it tends to deal with psychological distress after the fact, rather than looking at the life and work issues that contribute to the psychological wellbeing issues in the first place. Compounded onto this is the fact that the traditional model doesn’t reach all the people in need and for those that it does, it’s not early enough to prevent personal distress escalating into a psychological disorder. Because the model focuses on ‘people with problems’, take up rates are, low – between of 4 and 6 % and so the program has a relatively low impact across the employee population and on therefore on overall level of wellbeing in the organisation. The miniscule amount of data provided to the organisation also impacts HRs ability to use it in a meaningful and reliable way and definitely adds little strategic value.

​

It is also evident that EAPs have become all about touting operational efficiencies, large call centres managing volumes of calls, and having ever growing counselling networks. It’s become more about how many psychologists in your network as opposed to having the best most experienced people available to manage the issue. Psychologists in private practice do not necessarily have EAP context needed to run an effective workplace program, yet they make up a large percentage of those providing EAP services. 

​

Much of the feedback that we from HR is that while professional counselling is a critical component of an EAP, it’s the collaboration with the organisation and an ability to partner that provides significant value. For HR, it’s not only about how the program is communicated, implemented and promoted in an ongoing way that determines its success, it’s also about their ability to call and speak with experienced consultants about challenging behaviours in the workplace – and that is currently a big gap in EAPs.

​

Yes, this is a harsh critique of EAPs today. So what's the answer? Our view is that it's time for a contemporary and significantly better EAP – ‘EAP 2.0’. This program incorporates core elements of a traditional EAP but also leverages advances in psychology, program design and technology to better engage the workforce, proactively support wellbeing, and identify and manage psychological / psychosocial risk.

​

What makes EAP 2.0 different?

​

• EAP 2.0 is preventive as well as remedial. It doesn’t simply focus on psychological problems and mental ill-health; it addresses the ‘causes of wellbeing’, the factors that promote wellbeing and those that damage it, sometimes to the point of distress or dysfunction. It focuses on causes, not just symptoms.

• EAP 2.0 is proactive as well as responsive; it doesn’t assume that those who need professional help will use their initiative and seek help. (Research we’ve conducted showed that that is not a safe assumption to make.) And for employees who are inclined to seek help, by the time they do their psychological condition has often worsened to the point where they need significant help, with a less certain outcome.

• EAP 2.0 has a strong proactive component working along with a responsive component. It is engaging, relevant and useful for all employees, not only those who see themselves as having a ‘problem’.

• To effectively support wellbeing, EAP 2.0 addresses the different types of wellbeing needs. The factors impacting on psychological wellbeing vary across employees, so an inclusive program that resonates with all (or at least most) employees would address this. EAP 2.0 is engaging because it’s relevant.​

 

The traditional EAP, when done well, can be a useful service that deals with employee issues as they occur. However, more effective support of psychological wellbeing in a proactive and preventive way that better manages risk needs a new approach to EAPs.

​

These advances need to be fully integrated into the essence of what the program is and does, and how the program functions for employees, not other, disconnected, one-off initiatives.

​

Ultimately, to be considered a valuable partner on the psychological wellbeing journey and not be just the tick the box program . . . the EAP has to change.

​

_________________________