Understanding the roles and experiences of workplace well-being champions: a qualitative study

Workplaces are key settings for promoting employee health and well-being, with many organizations having practice and social structures that can support broad-reaching interventions to improve the physical and mental health of workers (Pronk and Ochiai, 2020; Sorensen et al., 2011). Poor worker well-being is associated with adverse health and work-related outcomes such as increased stress, burnout, reduced productivity, absenteeism and higher staff turnover (Schulte and Vainio, 2010). Conversely, organizations that invest in supporting employees' mental, physical and emotional health through workplace well-being and wellness interventions often report improvements in worker performance (Bryson et al., 2014; Warr and Nielsen, 2018; Litchfield et al., 2016). However, a key challenge facing workplace well-being initiatives is sustaining long-term employee engagement. Further, these programs often primarily attract individuals who are already healthier, limiting their broader impact (Fleming, 2024). Participation rates among workers in workplace well-being programs also vary considerably, ranging between 10% and 64% and are shaped by multiple factors including job demands, work organization, managerial support and perceived or actual social support from colleagues (Robroek et al., 2009; Persson et al., 2013; Hall et al., 2017; Albertsen et al., 2004).

The use of champions as key individuals to effect change is widely regarded as best practice in comprehensive workplace well-being initiatives (Health Enhancement Research Organization (HERO), 2016; Pronk et al., 2021; Spoonheim and Pronk, 2016). Champions can be found across all levels of the organization and may take on this role either formally or informally. They may be personally invested in driving positive change within organizations, and described as passionate, persistent and well-respected individuals who foster peer support, amplify employee voices and help secure leadership buy-in for well-being initiatives (Spoonheim and Pronk, 2016; Wieneke et al., 2019; Wickramasinghe, 2020; Miech et al., 2018). Existing research has largely emphasized the role of champions in obtaining managerial support (Reed et al., 2024; Mitchell et al., 2021), with the assumption that organizational leadership have the authority to promote adoption even if they must address or overcome resistance from their employees (Shin et al., 2012; van Dijk and van Dick, 2009). In contrast, organizational change management research highlights champions' capacity to foster grassroots acceptance among peers. Embedded within the workforce, they can be better positioned to engage in exploratory dialogue, identify subtle sources of resistance and cultivate widespread buy-in among their colleagues (Ford et al., 2008; Dent and Goldberg, 1999; Li et al., 2023).

Although past research points to the diverse ways champions can enable change, they rarely distinguish between the experiences and influence pathways of formal and informal champions, particularly in the context of worker well-being. This is an important research gap because formal champions may draw on their positional authority and organizational credibility, whereas informal champions may need to rely on peer trust and relationships to overcome their lack of authority and exert meaningful impact (Luz et al., 2019; Sheffer-Hilel et al., 2023; Stewart and Valian, 2018). Moreover, within the context of promoting worker well-being, Edmunds and Clow highlighted the importance of interpersonal behaviors such as being non-judgmental (avoiding or refraining from making judgments), being enthusiastic and persistent, and these behaviors may be cultivated differently in formal and informal champions when modeling behaviors and fostering social support (Edmunds and Clow, 2016). Understanding how these two types of champions navigate their responsibilities can help organizations to design effective, sustainable well-being strategies that are suited to their organizational needs and processes.

This study addressed this gap by examining how formal and informal workplace well-being champions understand their roles, their sources of motivation and how they mobilized and engaged their peers. It also examined champions' successes and challenges in implementing well-being efforts across diverse organizational contexts. Using qualitative methods that emphasize an inductive approach where a participant's own experiences guide the interview, we explored the distinct and overlapping mechanisms through which champions promote well-being practices. By comparing formal and informal champions, the study provides insights that may support more inclusive and scalable strategies for embedding well-being practices across organizations of varying sizes, resources and within diverse organizational settings.

We collected data using a qualitative research design with semi-structured interviews to examine participants' experiences and perspectives as workplace well-being champions. A stakeholder advisory committee comprising six individuals with expertise in workplace safety and well-being helped shape the study objectives and interpreted the findings. The advisory committee consisted of health and safety professionals, workplace well-being consultants and academics. They met on three occasions prior to and during the study.

Participants were selected using convenience sampling. This approach was adopted because workplace well-being champions represent a relatively small and specialized group within organizations, making random sampling impractical. Recruitment efforts to gain a random sample of champions would not have been feasible given time and recruitment costs, and likely would have yielded limited or less rich information. Convenience sampling allowed the researchers to identify individuals who were readily accessible and actively engaged in well-being initiatives, ensuring that participants had direct experience relevant to the study objectives. Additionally, champions often operate informally or without standardized organizational designation, which limits the feasibility of systematic sampling. By leveraging existing networks and organizational contacts, convenience sampling facilitated the timely recruitment of participants who could provide rich, context-specific insights into the roles, motivations and challenges of both formal and informal champions in promoting workplace well-being. Eligibility criteria were people living in Canada, being employed for pay and self-identifying as currently championing workplace well-being initiatives, or acting as a champion in the past three years. Recruitment efforts were stopped after no new themes emerged from the data. Recruitment was undertaken through online advertisements on X (formerly Twitter) and LinkedIn, on a dedicated recruitment webpage, and referrals from stakeholder advisory committee members and e-mail distributions to their professional networks. Research Ethics approval was granted by the Health Sciences Research Ethics Board at the University of Toronto (Protocol # 38314). All participants provided informed consent before taking part in the study and were assured of confidentiality and their right to withdraw at any time. Data were de-identified and secure storage procedures were followed in accordance with institutional guidelines.

One-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted between April 2023 and September 2023. The first interview was jointly conducted by M.A.G. (researcher with previous experience conducting qualitative interviews) and A.B. (lead researcher). Subsequent interviews were conducted by A.B. Prior to their interviews, participants completed an online background questionnaire created and administrated via Qualtrics survey software (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) to gather contextual information, including their organization's sector or industry, organization size, job role and tenure, supervisory or managerial responsibilities, reporting structure, involvement in workplace well-being or other committees, and whether their organization collaborated with employee assistance programs or external consultants to support worker health and well-being.

Interviews followed a semi-structured interview guide with open-ended questions that were flexible to additional interview topics of interest to the participant. The interview guide was structured to capture multiple dimensions of champions' experiences, drawing on prior research and stakeholder input to ensure relevance and depth. This categorization was informed by change management literature and theories and practical insights from the advisory committee, ensuring alignment with both theoretical frameworks and real-world contexts. Interviews were conducted online via Zoom, lasting approximately 60 min. Field notes were recorded by the interviewer to document contextual observations. Participants were asked about the terminology they and their organization used to describe workplace well-being, what workplace well-being meant to them, and whether they or their colleagues viewed them as a workplace well-being champion. Additional topics included the activities they engaged in to promote workplace well-being, strategies they used to encourage colleague participation, challenges and resistance encountered including the role of power relations, organizational politics that may shape champion effectiveness, external and internal sources of support and advice for others in similar roles. Participants also had the opportunity to discuss any relevant topics that they were not asked about. Interviews were audio-recorded with participant consent and transcribed verbatim through a professional transcription service. A $20 CAD gift card honorarium was provided to each participant in recognition of their time and contribution.

Thematic analysis was used to organize the interview data, and to identify and interpret themes following the framework outlined by Braun and Clarke (Braun and and Clarke, 2006). The analysis process began with four researchers (L.R., B.Y., K.N., A.B.) independently reading the first three interview transcripts multiple times to familiarize themselves with the data and generate initial insights by noting down initial ideas, meanings and patterns. Through iterative discussions about our initial impressions of the data, we developed an initial coding framework that combined inductive insights with theory-informed concepts. Inductively, we generated preliminary codes from closely reading the transcripts. In parallel, we drew on relevant theoretical perspectives from Kotter's Leading Change Model and Sensemaking Theory (Chappell et al., 2016; Dervin, 1998) to guide our attention to potential patterns without constraining emergent data. Two researchers (K.N., A.B.) then collaboratively coded an additional three transcripts, refining the coding framework through discussion. The remaining transcripts were then divided between K.N. and A.B., with the lead researcher (A.B.) reviewing them for consistency and coherence. As themes emerged following the coding of all transcripts, we sought the Motivational Theory of Role Modeling and Self-Determination Theory (SDT) to explain the results (Morgenroth et al., 2015; Gagné and Deci, 2005; Ryan and Deci, 2020).

Once initial coding was completed, codes were grouped into overarching themes, identifying areas of intersection and overlap. Each theme was reviewed in relation to the entire dataset. This process involved revisiting individual transcripts and coded segments to confirm that the themes were not only well-supported by the data but also helped us deepen our understanding of the themes and their connections. Any inconsistencies or gaps were addressed through further analysis and discussion within the research team. The analysis followed a similar hybrid approach as the initial coding step, meaning codes emerged from both the data and cross-referenced with the researchers' understanding of the relevant literature. Initial broad themes were shared with all research team members for discussion, clarification and refinement. NVivo 10 software (QSR International Pty Ltd) was used for data storage and organization.

A total of 35 people contacted us to participate in the study. Of these, a total of 22 people were identified as eligible (identified themselves as being based in Canada and a workplace well-being champion in the past three years) and all 22 were interviewed. The majority were female (18; 82%) and were employed in large organizations with 500 or more employees (16; 72%). Most participants were employed in various government agencies (10; 45%), followed by healthcare organizations (3; 13%) and as external consultants (2; 9%). Participants were evenly split between those in formal roles – where promoting workplace well-being was a core aspect of their job – and those in informal roles, where such activities were voluntary and outside their primary responsibilities. On average, participants had 5.4 years of experience in their current positions, with 8 participants (36%) having a job tenure of 2 years or less. Formal champions typically held titles such as wellness or well-being lead, supervisor, coordinator, human resources officer, or employee engagement lead. Informal champions worked in a variety of roles including project manager, engagement lead, human resources officer and diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility lead. Further details of participant characteristics are provided in Table 1.

Four main themes were identified: (1) champion motivation, role and sustainability; (2) recognition, credibility and organizational support; (3) organizational structures and competing organizational priorities; and (4) promoting and maintaining engagement among colleagues.

• Theme 1: Champion Motivation, Role and Sustainability

Champions were often motivated by personal experiences and values, which deeply shaped their commitment to promoting workplace well-being. For many, this motivation stemmed from their own mental health journeys, a dedication to health and fitness, or a strong moral sense of social responsibility. One informal champion reflected that a workplace culture valuing well-being was an important factor in choosing their organization, stating, “It's something that I sought out when I was in the interview process … I think the organization is pretty aligned with my values, and I think that was something that we both saw as part of the interview process” [P3, informal].

A distinction emerged between formal and informal champions. Informal champions typically took on their role voluntarily, noting they were driven by personal passion and a perceived gap in existing support structures. They often initiated wellness activities on their own time and without institutional resources, integrating this work into their broader professional identities. One informal champion described how their lived experience helped catalyze change within their workplace: “I've done lots of things that have … helped move the needle in our organization … I give talks about my lived experience with mental health … and I think that has really helped move the needle actually on what people will talk about and what they want” [P6, informal]. In some cases, informal champions gained formal recognition from leadership. One participant recounted how their involvement in wellness efforts led to a new, dedicated position: “I was an active member pitching my ideas … and then they created the position … and that's how I ended up in this role” [P21, formal]. Their experience illustrated how informal efforts can catalyze organizational change when championed effectively and supported by leadership.

Formal champions, while equally committed, often described a different set of responsibilities. Their focus was typically on developing infrastructure for wellness programs, building capacity through peer training and maintaining momentum across teams. However, they also expressed concern about the sustainability of programs that relied heavily on their personal involvement. One formal champion noted, “It's dependent on me, personally. That's a problem” [P16, formal], reflecting the challenge of scaling well-being efforts when institutional support is inconsistent or lacking. To address these sustainability issues, both formal and informal champions relied on collaborative networks or committees that could share responsibility. One informal champion explained how colleagues covered for each other during conflicting commitments: “Each of us sort of has a niche … if I can't make it, someone else might take it on or already has material” [P14, informal]. This model allowed for flexibility and helped avoid burnout among individual champions.

Nonetheless, burnout remained a concern, particularly for informal champions volunteering their time without dedicated resources. Since informal roles relied entirely on the champion's passion, sustaining wellness programs could be difficult if they stepped away. This led to tensions with their organization, as they sought to have their roles formally recognized to enable them to dedicate more time and energy to this work. One participant emphasized the strain this placed on their work-life balance, stating, “Some of us are spending upwards of seven or eight hours over the course of a week doing this” [P14, informal]. Many such champions hoped for formal recognition of their contributions so they could devote more capacity to well-being initiatives without overextending themselves.

• Theme 2: Recognition, Credibility and Organizational Support

The degree to which champions felt recognized and valued by their organization varied widely. Some formal champions described how their official roles positioned them as accessible and credible sources for well-being information. “Other people describe me as a champion … it's part of the job, but also, if I weren't presenting as somebody who looks after their own well-being … I would be disingenuous” [P4, formal]. For these individuals, embodying wellness values enhanced their influence and legitimacy. However, others found that despite their formal designation, their work was not always viewed as “real work”. One formal champion recalled advocating for wellness activities to be included in their performance evaluation, only to be met with skepticism: “Some people would be like, oh, that's great that you do this stuff … others were like, that's not really work … that should be like on volunteer time or your lunch hour” [P16, formal].

Informal champions often reported being perceived as more trustworthy by peers precisely because they were not formally affiliated with human resources or organizational leadership. One participant commented, “Workers don't necessarily always trust their HR department … if your HR department is supposed to be taking care of your well-being and you don't trust them … that's a problem” [P12, informal]. Another explained, “I'm actually really clear that I'm not representing the employer … people were skeptical about a conversation being brokered at work by work people” [P15, informal]. These insights reveal how perceived independence and, in mental health contexts, trust can build credibility and encourage engagement.

• Theme 3: Organizational Structures and Competing Organizational Priorities

While formal champions often had greater access to leadership, this access came with bureaucratic constraints. One participant described the challenge of navigating multiple approval layers, stating, “They understand that a lot of this stuff needs to be formalized and supported, but it's just slow … I'm going to have like ten people approving my work” [P16, formal]. Informal champions, on the other hand, sometimes encountered sudden shifts in direction when leadership became involved late in the process, leading to confusion and disrupted planning.

Support from supervisors played a key role in enabling informal champions to balance wellness activities with other work responsibilities. One participant described how their manager helped them reconfigure their role to accommodate wellness work more feasibly: “She said, why don't you just do it here?” [P20, informal]. These accommodations, when present, were often the difference between sustained involvement and burnout.

Even when champions had supportive leaders or supervisors, these advantages were often overshadowed by broader organizational pressures. Heavy workloads, fatigue and a culture that prioritized productivity over wellness meant that staff participation in activities remained low. As one champion explained, “People are struggling … it's not a priority when they have work to do” [P6, informal]. For both formal and informal champions, balancing employees' interest in workplace well-being with competing organizational demands sometimes proved challenging.

• Theme 4: Promoting and Maintaining Engagement Among Colleagues

To address barriers to engagement, champions aimed to create programming that reflected the needs and preferences of their colleagues, but their approaches differed. Formal champions often relied on structured processes, such as needs assessment surveys and input from wellness committees, to guide program design. As one champion explained, “Trying to get people from all the different departments … it's hard, but you're trying to bring them to the table” [P17, formal]. These structured methods were intended to ensure that programming resonated across diverse teams.

Informal champions, in contrast, tended to adapt activities more fluidly in response to direct feedback and observed needs. This responsiveness sometimes led to noticeable increases in participation from colleagues who had previously disengaged, which they saw as evidence that aligning activities closely with day-to-day realities could help re-engage staff [P2, informal].

To address barriers to engagement, champions prioritized inclusive programming that reflected the needs and preferences of their colleagues. Formal champions often used needs assessment surveys and input from wellness committees to guide their offerings. As one explained, “Trying to get people from all the different departments … it's hard, but you're trying to bring them to the table” [P17, formal]. The aim was to create programming that resonated across diverse teams. Informal champions sometimes noticed an increase in participation from previously disengaged employees, which they saw as evidence of successful alignment between staff needs and program content [P2, informal].

Privacy and psychological safety were also central to sustaining participation. Champions, particularly informal ones, were deliberate in protecting participant anonymity, especially in discussions involving personal experiences. As one described, “We were very specific about language around anonymity … we didn't record the sessions … the invitation was carefully crafted” [P15, informal]. This focus on confidentiality was seen as essential for encouraging open dialogue and trust in well-being initiatives.

Role modeling and communication emerged as critical tools in sustaining employee participation in wellness programs. Champions emphasized the importance of being visible and consistent in promoting wellness. “The more they see me … they'll be more apt to go, ‘you know what, I'll go to that wellness event” [P17, formal]. By consistently sharing resources, engaging in conversations and sending regular updates, champions fostered a workplace culture that kept well-being top of mind. However, many champions focused primarily on supporting those already engaged, rather than trying to convert non-participants. Few had formal mechanisms to assess why certain staff did not engage. One participant reflected, “We haven't really explored in a formal way why people don't attend … it might be worthwhile including that” [P11, formal]. This gap suggests opportunities for organizations to better understand and address structural or cultural barriers to participation.

Finally, the shift to remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic further underscored the role of social connection in sustaining engagement. Champions found that activities offering face-to-face interaction had higher attendance, as they countered the social isolation that employees were experiencing. As one formal champion observed, “If you see someone that's leaving their desk to join some initiative, you're more likely to do it” [P7, formal], highlighting how seeing others participate can motivate colleagues to join in. The perceived effectiveness of in-person face-to-face interaction for social connecting compared to virtual wellness activities was also highlighted, “There is a certain energy of in-person that can't be recreated virtually, it doesn't matter what you do.” [P21, formal].

Although champions are frequently cited as potential drivers of workplace well-being, limited research has examined their experiences or the strategies they use to engage colleagues in well-being efforts. Gaining insight into how formal and informal champions navigate their roles is likely important to understanding their potential influence and in identifying the types of support champions need to enable their contributions to workplace well-being. This study explored and compared the perspectives of champions involved in promoting well-being within their organizations. Four key themes emerged, emphasising a distinction between formal and informal roles of champions: (1) champion motivation, role and sustainability; (2) recognition, credibility and organizational support; (3) organizational structures and competing organizational priorities; and (4) promoting and maintaining engagement among colleagues. These themes highlighted both the successes and ongoing challenges that champions experienced, as well as organizational policies and practices that could be enhanced to promote workplace well-being.

Our findings revealed clear differences in how champions assumed and sustained their roles, with implications for organizational support of well-being initiatives. Informal champions typically emerged organically through their intrinsic motivation and voluntary engagement, while formal champions operated within structured mandates, focusing on program infrastructure, peer training and maintaining momentum across wellness networks and teams. These patterns align closely with Self-Determination Theory, in which autonomy, competence and relatedness can lead to motivation: informal champions often relied on self-motivated, personally meaningful engagement, whereas formal champions described structural constraints that limited autonomy and challenged ongoing involvement (Gagné and Deci, 2005; Ryan and Deci, 2020). The Motivational Theory of Role Modelling and Sensemaking Theory were also reflected in champions' use of personal stories and narratives, visibility and informal discussions to help connect with their peers and promote well-being within their organizational contexts (Morgenroth et al., 2015; Dervin, 1998). At an organizational level, variability in structural supports mirrors insights from Kotter's Leading Change Model (Chappell et al., 2016; Kotter et al., 2021). Notably, the evolution of Kotter's framework, now emphasizing the need to enable action by removing barriers, reflects the types of challenges champions described (e.g. limited recognition, workload pressures and concerns about legitimacy), illustrating why this refinement was necessary (Kotter et al., 2021). While champions can spark early momentum, our findings suggest that without supportive systems (organizational and macro-policies) and mechanisms that embed well-being into everyday organizational practice, their efforts may stall. Together, these insights demonstrate how champions' motivational and relational strategies may function in practice. Initiatives that support autonomy, skill development and relational connection may enhance sustainability, but motivation alone may be insufficient. Organizational barriers such as competing demands, limited recognition and unsupportive cultures can further restrict champions' ability to lead change, underscoring the need for multi-level strategies that support champions in promoting worker well-being through organizational and structural supports. Evidence suggests that structural changes, such as increasing job autonomy and involving employees in scheduling, can improve well-being outcomes and amplify engagement (Fox et al., 2022). To mitigate risks of burnout and concentrated responsibility, organizations can distribute duties through wellness committees, embed champion roles into competency frameworks and allocate protected time for wellness activities. Policy measures that codify wellness responsibilities within governance structures and link managerial support to performance evaluations may institutionalize well-being as a strategic priority and promote equity across roles (Mitchell et al., 2021).

Both formal and informal champions navigate issues of legitimacy and perceived value, often with mixed experiences. Organizational endorsement can improve engagement and reach. Employers can strengthen credibility by integrating wellness responsibilities into job descriptions and performance evaluations, ensuring these activities are not dismissed as peripheral. Informal champions can bring unique value by fostering trust through their independence from management, while creating spaces for authentic contributions can enhance peer engagement. Supporting champions' participation in wellness activities further reinforces their role as credible advocates for workplace wellness activities.

Champions' capacity to promote well-being is shaped by organizational systems and competing priorities. Managerial support plays a pivotal role but is often inconsistent. Evidence suggests that linking wellness facilitation to leadership evaluations and providing tools for managers can strengthen their role in enabling champions (Robbins and Wansink, 2016; Mitchell et al., 2021). Actions such as adjusting job duties, offering flexibility and allocating dedicated time for wellness activities can reduce strain and prevent burnout. Without these supports, wellness responsibilities may risk becoming an added burden for employees balancing demanding workloads. Future research should identify which managerial practices such as formal recognition, leadership training and time allocation can enhance champion retention and program outcomes. Policymakers can use these insights to inform leadership development standards and embed evidence-based practices into organizational health policies.

Champions primarily engaged colleagues already interested in wellness activities, limiting overall reach. Change management literature highlights champions' potential to influence disengaged peers through trust-based relationships rather than formal authority (Battilana and Casciaro, 2012). Although our interview questions explored power dynamics and organizational hierarchies and how these can contribute to champions' effectiveness, these themes did not emerge strongly in participants' responses, limiting our ability to examine these pathways in depth. Nonetheless, these themes warrant additional attention. Few champions in our study actively sought to reach out to colleagues who were hesitant or not yet participating in well-being initiatives. In part, this may reflect the relatively recent introduction of the well-being initiatives of many champions we spoke to in this study. These findings underscore an important distinction between wellness promotion and other organizational change efforts: while employees can be required to adopt new processes or practices, participation in wellness activities remains voluntary and thereby limits potential overall reach. Although it is logical to build on existing interest when building wellness programs, over-reliance on already-engaged participants risks overstating program success. Future programs may prioritize strategies to engage a broader spectrum of employees and explore barriers to participation among less-inclined groups. Researchers can examine behavioral strategies that engage less-inclined employees, while policymakers may consider incorporating inclusive engagement requirements into workplace wellness standards.

Recent implementation science literature emphasizes that successful implementation depends on organizational readiness, shared commitment and adequate structural resources (Caci et al., 2025), conditions that varied between formal and informal champions in our study. Many of these determinants align with constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), including inner-setting factors such as organizational culture, leadership engagement, available resources and implementation climate, which also varied between formal and informal champions in our study. This aligns with recent reviews showing that champions are most effective when supported by leadership, clear communication pathways and protected time (Santos et al., 2022). Organizational change research further underscores the role of employee involvement and enabling leadership behaviors in sustaining change efforts (Bah et al., 2024), which mirrors our findings that distributed responsibility, managerial support and relational trust can enhance champions' work.

A key strength of this study lies in its use of in-depth, semi-structured interviews from formal and informal workplace well-being champions across Canada. Participants represented a wide range of roles, sectors and organizational contexts, providing diverse perspectives on champion experiences in the workplace. However, the study did not capture the views of other key stakeholders–such as a breadth of different organizations, the colleagues of champions, senior leaders, managers, or union representatives–who may hold different perspectives on supporting employee participation in well-being initiatives. Future research should include these perspectives, including how sector, organizational size and governance structures may influence the experiences of champions. Furthermore, while the goal of this research was not to advance a conceptual model or focus on ways in which existing theories should be modified, we have discussed how the study's themes link to existing theories and additional research. Future research is needed to not only further illuminate the themes but also to consider ways to enhance existing conceptual and theoretical models of motivation and behavior change. The use of convenience sampling may also have introduced selection bias, as participants were drawn from readily accessible networks and may disproportionately represent champions who are more visible, engaged, or supported within their organizations, potentially limiting the diversity of perspectives and reducing the generalizability of findings. Additionally, longitudinal qualitative research and evaluation studies are also needed to examine how champion roles evolve over time and to assess the development and long-term impact of wellness programs.

This study provides valuable insights into the roles and experiences of formal and informal champions and the strategies they use to implement workplace well-being initiatives. The findings showed that while both formal and informal champions were often motivated by intrinsic factors and served as influential role models, their capacity to promote well-being was frequently constrained by limited organizational recognition, competing demands on themselves and their colleagues, insufficient managerial support and a tendency to engage colleagues already interested in well-being. Future well-being programing and research should have a broader focus to include diverse stakeholder perspectives in designing, implementing and testing well-being programs, and to explore long-term impacts of champion-driven programs. Overall, adopting a multi-level, supportive approach is likely important to realizing the potential of well-being champions to foster healthier workplaces. To strengthen practice, the findings suggest organizations could integrate wellness tasks into job descriptions, implement formal support structures such as wellness committees and provide protected time for champions to carry out their roles. Training managers to actively support well-being initiatives and recognize champion contributions may reduce burnout and enhance program sustainability. These research insights may help inform practical strategies for improving workplace well-being.

We would like to thank our Stakeholder Advisory Committee who provided their insights and experiences on champions and workplace well-being. They are Victoria Grainger, Nathan Kolar, Graham Lowe, Linda Miller, Monica Szabo, Natalie Toman, Julian Aiken and Lindsay Coffin. We also thank Amna Qureshi for support during recruitment.