Organisational Change and Employee Wellbeing: Lessons from 12 Years of Evidence

The 2024 BMC Public Health study provides one of the most comprehensive longitudinal looks at how organisational change impacts psychosocial risks and employee mental health. Drawing on data from over 53,000 employees across 12 years, it reveals that change is not a neutral organisational phenomenon, it carries measurable human costs.

• Key Insight #1: Change is Ubiquitous, Risk is Real

  The study shows that the majority of employees experienced at least one significant organisational change, from downsizing to restructuring. For global organisations operating across multiple markets, this is a crucial point: even “routine” change is experienced by employees as disruptive and stressful. It’s not just localised HR noise; it’s a structural reality that impacts workforce wellbeing at scale.

• Key Insight #2: Psychosocial Risks Are Predictable, Measurable, and Mitigatable

  The association between change and increased psychosocial risk is statistically strong (e.g., working to the limits of capability PR 1.66). This tells leaders that stress, multitasking, and overload are not just incidental, they are predictable consequences of poorly managed change. Importantly, these risks can be measured and addressed systematically. Organisations that fail to track and mitigate them are leaving employee health, productivity, and retention to chance.

• Key Insight #3: Mental Health Effects Are Substantial and Consistent

  With a prevalence ratio of 1.82 for sleep disturbances, nervousness, tiredness, and depressive symptoms, the study highlights a consistent mental health burden linked to organisational change. For multinational companies, this suggests that mental health interventions should be embedded as a core component of any transformation programme, not as an afterthought or one-off wellbeing initiative.

  
  

• Key Insight #4: The Gap Doesn’t Widen, But Risk Remains

  Interestingly, the 12-year analysis found that while employees exposed to change consistently experienced poorer mental health, the gap between them and those not experiencing change did not increase. This suggests that without proactive intervention, negative impacts persist rather than intensify, but also that organisations have a stable baseline to work from when designing controls.

Practical Implications for Global Organisations:

1. Embed Psychosocial Risk Management in Change Programmes: Change cannot be viewed purely as a strategic or operational issue; it must be treated as a health and safety matter. Risk assessments should be standard, with clear metrics to track stress, workload, and employee wellbeing.

2. Use Data to Inform Interventions: The study demonstrates the value of quantitative tracking—metrics like prevalence ratios and incidence of mental health complaints can guide which interventions have the greatest impact.

3. Leadership Accountability: Leaders and managers are the primary vectors of change. Training them to recognise, mitigate, and monitor psychosocial risks is as important as the structural change itself.

4. Global Considerations: Multinational organisations must account for cultural, regulatory, and legal differences when designing psychosocial risk controls. What works in one country may not be transferable, but the principle of integrating occupational health measures remains universal.

   
   

Thought-Provoking Takeaway:

Organisational change is inevitable. But the human cost is not. By treating psychosocial risk management as integral to transformation, rather than ancillary, organisations can both protect employees and enhance long-term performance. For global businesses, this study is a clarion call: change done well is a competitive advantage; change done without care is a liability.