A fruit basket at the office. A mindfulness workshop. A yoga session during the afternoon. A walking challenge with the team. An inspiring session on resilience.
At first glance, it looks like an organization that invests in well-being at work. And in and of themselves, there is nothing wrong with any of these initiatives.
But what if employees are experiencing a consistently high workload? What if managers fail to pick up on signs of burnout? What if people feel they can’t set their own boundaries? Or what if the corporate culture and way of working remain unchanged?
That creates the risk of what we tokenistic wellness or symbolic well-being include: well-being initiatives that are visibly present but do little to change the conditions under which people work every day.
And that's exactly where the problem lies.
What is tokenistic wellness?
Tokenistic wellness refers to wellness policies that are primarily visible or symbolic, without adequately addressing the structural causes of stress, absenteeism, or ill-being within an organization.
The organization demonstrates that well-being is important, but employees see little fundamental change in their day-to-day work.
That is why we also talk about symbolic well-being Or, to put it more bluntly, well-being as a PR tool.
Based on our experience with peer supervision and coaching, we’ve observed that organizations sometimes place a strong emphasis on visible well-being initiatives, while issues such as work pressure, leadership, flexibility, and organizational culture remain much more difficult to discuss.
According to HR Square, progress on workplace well-being in Belgian organizations is also stagnating, and employees view their work-life balance more negatively than they did two years ago.
That makes one important question more relevant than ever:
Are we truly investing in well-being, or mainly in initiatives that merely appear to be about well-being?
Wanneer wordt een goedbedoeld welzijnsinitiatief symbolisch?
A fruit basket, a yoga session, or a stress management workshop isn't automatically just tokenistic wellness. The difference lies in the context.
Imagine an employee who walks past the fruit basket after a busy day at work, while his inbox is overflowing, deadlines are piling up, and there are consistently too few colleagues available.
The apple isn't the problem. The problem is the expectation that the apple would be a solution to the workload.
Symbolic well-being arises when isolated initiatives take the place of structural change.
Common examples of symbolic well-being include:
Free fruit and healthy snacks.
A fruit basket can be a thoughtful gesture and help create a pleasant work environment. But healthy snacks do not reduce chronic work pressure, change an unhealthy work culture, or solve problems related to leadership or staffing.
It becomes problematic when a visible well-being initiative is expected to be the solution to a much more complex organizational problem.
A one-time yoga, mindfulness, or Pilates class.
A relaxing session can provide employees with temporary relief. But if the causes of long-term stress remain unchanged afterward, the effect is limited. After all, once the session is over, employees return to the same schedule, the same expectations, and the same working conditions.
So, what people feel during a session must also be translated into what they experience afterward in the workplace.
Focusing solely on individual stress resilience
Workshops on stress management, mindset, or resilience can be valuable. But the message becomes problematic when it mainly sounds like:
“You need to learn to cope better with stress.”
While the more relevant organizational question might be:
“Why do so many people here experience so much stress?”
Well-being then inadvertently becomes an individual responsibility, even though the causes may lie in workload, leadership, processes, or organizational culture.
Step challenges and fitness competitions.
Walking and fitness challenges can bring people together and boost motivation, but they often appeal mainly to employees who are already active.
For others, however, they may actually create social pressure or fail to meet their needs.
A well-being policy that aims to reach everyone must therefore take a broader view than just one type of activity or one conception of what well-being means.
Wellness apps, massages, and individual self-care initiatives.
Wellness apps, chair massages, self-care tips, mindset coaching, or one-off workshops can also be enjoyable and helpful.
But the same rule applies here as well:
Self-care can support structural welfare policies, but it cannot replace them.
Why is symbolic well-being problematic?
Tokenistic wellness is more than just a missed opportunity. It can also undermine the credibility of wellness policies.
After all, employees see what an organization communicates, hear what managers say, and experience firsthand what really goes on there every day.
When a significant gap emerges between the two, well-being is quickly perceived as merely for show: good for one’s image, but limited in its impact.
Symbolic well-being involves various risks:
- It addresses symptoms rather than causes. For example, a workshop on stress does nothing to change structurally unrealistic deadlines.
- Engagement may remain low. It is primarily employees who are already feeling relatively well who participate, while those who are struggling tend to drop out.
- It can fuel frustration or cynicism. When employees feel that their genuine concerns are not being heard, a new wellness initiative can even backfire.
- Finally, the impact of wellness initiatives is often not adequately measured or monitored.
The crucial question, therefore, is not:
“What other wellness activities can we organize?”
But:
“What changes do we need to make so that people can work here effectively and sustainably?”
Van tokenistic wellness naar duurzaam welzijnsbeleid.
A sustainable welfare policy It doesn't just change how employees try to cope with difficult circumstances. It also takes a critical look at those circumstances themselves.
This means focusing on a manageable workload, sufficient resources, a healthy work-life balance, flexibility, leadership, participation, and psychological safety.
A strong well-being policy can be identified by seven characteristics:
- It addresses structural causes.
- It shares the responsibility for well-being.
- It listens to employees.
- It creates psychological safety.
- It is inclusive and fair.
- It is concrete, measurable, and consistent.
- Het zit in de kern van de organisatie.
Sources:
- HR Square (2025). “Fruitmanden mogen, maar zijn niet het antwoord”
“Fruitmanden mogen, maar zijn niet het antwoord” – HR Square - Harvard Business Review Publishing (2025). “Why Workplace Wellbeing Matters. The science behind employee happiness and organisational performance”