Reactive vs proactive … if I were to ask this audience which is better, the response would be 100% = proactive. It’s SUCH an obvious answer that it seems like a rhetorical question.
But proactive approaches are vastly under-utilized, so … where’s the disconnect??
The disconnect is your communication with them.
You have to see and communicate (precisely) how the reactive, rear-view mirror approach to wellbeing programs makes sense. They need to see how to overcome the causes of their uncertainty.
Otherwise, the right answer (from their perspective) is the standard reactive approach. And for good reason, as I detail in this article.
Listen, if you really want to move the needle for wellbeing, you must identify
* risk tolerance in your relationships
* sources of their uncertainty
* and how to minimize that uncertainty.
Otherwise, your clients will do exactly what is in their best interest as they understand it — and the reason they will do that is because you didn’t adequately show them how to optimize their decision matrix.
I published this article in the J of C&B to describe:
1) HOW reactive approaches actually make sense for companies
2) to understand WHY they choose these strategies
3) how to overcome the barriers.
