This is the English translation of the article published on “Il Sole 24 Ore” (November 6th 2025)
The topic of well-being in companies is everywhere: conferences, digital platforms, employee services. But what are we really talking about? Work–life balance? Psychophysical well-being? Stress reduction? Development of individual skills? Solutions that make life easier? There’s a bit of everything, but one thing is clear: when companies talk about well-being, they mean individual well-being. In fact, psychological support services are multiplying. Organizations, once places where the person was “just a number,” now invest in their well-being. We’ve come a long way.
However. Does all this focus on well-being not imply that there is actually too much discomfort in organizations? Let’s get to the point. Are organizations primarily interested in addressing individual discomfort by offering services to employees, or are they also willing to understand whether individuals’ discomfort is actually an organizational symptom? Because in this second case, they would have to take charge of themselves, questioning the causes instead of acting only on the effects. So, the causes. We have selected three.
First. Decisions in companies are still made by the highest-ranking role. This has a lot to do with discomfort. Why? Because those at the top, who must decide, know little about the problems and opportunities that emerge in everyday contact with customers and users: therefore they become anxious and try to control everything, resulting in an endless multiplication of meetings. On the other hand, those at the bottom experience those problems and opportunities every day but—even when they often know the solution—they cannot decide. And this generates frustration, anger, and reduces people to mere executors, fueling excuses and de-responsibilization. Question: do we help individuals feel better within this organizational setup, or do we evolve the setup itself?
Second. The individual is still considered the minimum unit of the organization. In other words, we still act as if performance were produced by individuals. Of course, what the individual does matters. But in contemporary companies, purely individual performance no longer exists: to produce adequate products and services—and gain speed and flexibility—collaboration is essential. And how can team spirit grow if everyone’s attention is directed upward, toward the boss, who is seen as the most important internal customer and who is accustomed to managing people individually rather than fostering collaboration?
Third. If performance, more than from individual activities, depends on how individuals work together, then today the minimum unit of the organization is the team. Shouldn’t we help the people who work together to face and solve as many of the situations they encounter every day as possible? For this to happen, however, the organization must provide a psychologically safe context—not one that nurtures comfort, but one that cultivates a healthy tension, encouraging people to confront each other, have productive conflicts, take initiative, learn from mistakes, and find new ways of doing things. To enjoy working together. In short, to use their own resources to contribute to the common goal. Is this what we actually see in our workplaces?
So let’s return to the point: what kind of well-being do companies truly want to cultivate? Certainly, there is a strong interdependence between individuals and their environment, but investing in individual well-being or in organizational well-being are two different choices—choices that should be made with clarity and awareness. Investment in individual well-being is a benefit for the individual, not a transformation project for the organizational context. Investing in organizational well-being, instead, aims to transform workplaces and culture starting from teams and, through the evolution of how people work together, to improve performance. Organizations exist to provide products and services to society. This is the deeper meaning of the word performance. Is it coherent to invest in people’s well-being if it is not tightly linked to the well-being of performance? One might answer, well, let’s invest in both. Certainly—if resources allow. Otherwise, a choice must be made. Investing in well-being as an individual benefit does not transform the system. Investing in organizational well-being as a strategic choice builds the future.
by Marina Capizzi, author of Hierarchy To die or to Thrive?