Why resilience training in a corporate context can even harm employees if it is not designed to be positive and sustainable. A blog article including the 10-point checklist for well-designed resilience training.
Wenn Du lieber Deutsch liest, findest Du die deutsche Version dieses Artikels hier.
To help employees cope with stress, companies offer resilience training based on the ability to constructively handle crises.
If these trainings merely present resilience as easily learnable, it can create pressure because individual personality and history are disregarded.
Effective training requires a health-promoting work environment, adaptation to the individual, and an evaluation of its effectiveness.
What distinguishes resilient people? Is resilience learnable? How are resiliency, mental health and professional performance related? Which factors in companies influence performance and health? What are the risks of resilience training? And how can they be avoided?
“Showing resilience”, “not letting yourself be beaten down” and “being resistant to stress” are all colloquially used expressions for resilience. Resilience is therefore the human ability to deal constructively with crisis situations and high stress levels. Resilience is also often discussed in the corporate context. Resilience training in companies is intended to support employees in staying healthy, even during periods of stress. How helpful are these measures? And can such training actually harm mental health?
Originally, the term resilience comes from the field of mechanics and refers to an object retaining its shape even under stress. In psychology, the term has been applied to the robustness of mental health, which can also be described as resilience.
Studies on the topic of resilience have long been concerned with the question of why some people are able to emerge stronger after experiencing severe crises, such as violence or torture, whilst others never recover and struggle with severe psychological consequences throughout their lives. Characteristics and conditions that protect the mental health of people under adverse circumstances (salutogenesis) are summarized under the term resilience.
Resilience training at the workplace is designed to equip employees with the skills that have helped people in environments where violence or torture has occurred. Shouldn’t companies instead try to create different environments and change their work structures?
It is important to stress that the majority of people have the ability to be resilient. Many do not develop stress disorder or other mental illness after traumatic experiences.
Resilience research has identified several conditions that favor resilience (e.g. Connor & Davidson, 2003).
Individual resources for resilience are therefore primarily character traits. They are formed by genetic conditions, experiences of early childhood and life events. Resilience is neither a sequence of actions that can be copied from others nor knowledge that can be internalized by memorization.
What is important are lasting learning experiences. Thus multi-methodical and long-term training concepts – like structures for learning a new instrument.
In addition, it is important to emphasize that both stress and resilience are very individual and changeable (see stress model of Lazarus). What is meant by this? Each challenge does not represent an equal psychological load for all individuals. Those who are very resilient at work may well be more vulnerable in private relationships. And for those with an existing mental illness, preventive training in resilience, in isolation, is not sufficient.
Good resilience training, therefore, is not standardized (no template) but rather adaptive. It offers space to understand one’s own “sore spots” and to develop tools that fit one’s own psychological foundation.
Good resilience training, therefore, is not standardized (no template) but rather adaptive.
In the context of the discussion about resilience training, it is important to emphasize that the performance, productivity and satisfaction of employees is not determined solely and significantly by their resilience characteristics. In particular, workload and workplace resources have a significant influence on people’s ability to work. Important factors are, amongst others:
In order to understand the possible risks, the following points should be emphasized once again in summary:
Resilience can only be learned to a limited extent and is closely related to individual life history and current living conditions
Performance and mental health in companies is also significantly influenced by the organizational culture. Therefore, not only should employees train their resilience, but companies should also prioritise the provision of health-promoting work structures
Company resilience training often aims to ensure that employees develop a “thicker skin”. Symbolically, this is tantamount to the company saying: “This way, the pain that our organizational structures cause is more bearable”.
If you are interested in an exchange, consultation or training offers, please feel free to contact me at any time without obligation. In order not to miss further articles of this kind, you are welcome to follow my blog or network with me through Linkedin.
Before such training, companies should do their homework in Corporate Health Management (GER: BGM “Betriebliches Gesundheitsmanagement”) and create health-promoting work structures.
Resilience training should point out the created BGM structures and benefits. Participants are often not aware of them.
A training course should also provide information, at least in passing, about other factors influencing mental health in the workplace (e.g. work processes, leadership). A contact point should be given for any discussion needs in this regard.
If resilience training is offered to employees, it should also be prioritised for managers. Managers demonstrate significant role-modelling for employees and are often themselves under a lot of pressure. They should also support stress reduction measures for their employees.
A good training should include sufficient space for exploring individual stressors and not simply generalize advice.
The right expertise of the trainers is of course indispensable. Have they themselves already successfully accompanied other people out of (stress) crises?
Good training is a learning experience instead of a frontal/instructive course. So-called “blended learning” formats, buddy programs, mentoring etc. are suitable.
High quality resilience training should also include a short digression. What is the difference between a stressful experience and a mental illness? For whom is it likely that resilience training does not help? And what can these people do (see 9)?
The success of good training should be measured with a scientifically based evaluation of success.
