The High Cost of "Fake Caring": Why Carewashing Undermines Organizational Success

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD
May 7
6 min read

Listen to this article:

Abstract: This article examines the phenomenon of "carewashing" - where organizations espouse employee care as part of their brand identity while failing to implement substantive caring practices. It explores how the disconnect between leadership rhetoric and action creates organizational distrust, employee disengagement, and deteriorating workplace cultures, ultimately undermining both individual well-being and business outcomes. Drawing on research across multiple industries, the article demonstrates how superficial caring gestures without systemic support damage psychological safety, retention, and innovation. It concludes by offering evidence-based strategies for building authentic caring cultures that align policies with values, engage employees in decision-making, and evaluate leadership based on holistic employee thriving rather than short-term productivity metrics - emphasizing that genuine care is both an ethical imperative and strategic business advantage.

Leadership that talks the talk of caring for employees but fails to walk the walk can create distrust and disengagement, with detrimental consequences for organizational culture and performance.

Today we will explore the phenomenon of "carewashing" - organizations or managers that promote caring values as part of their brand or leadership approach but do not meaningfully live up to those values in practice.

Defining Carewashing

Before delving into its impacts, it is important to clearly define what is meant by "carewashing". At its core, carewashing refers to the use of caring rhetoric by organizations or leaders to promote an image of valued and supported employees, without those caring words translating into meaningful caring actions or policies (1). Some key characteristics of carewashing include:

Espousing values of caring for employees' well-being, growth and work-life balance without substantively acting on those values. Lip service is paid to caring but little is done institutionally to back this up.
Using caring branding and marketing externally without ensuring corresponding internal cultures of care. The focus is on promoting a caring image rather than cultivating caring employee experiences.
Offering superficial "perks" or benefits without addressing systemic workplace issues that undermine well-being. Token gestures replace holistic cultures of support.
Prioritizing metrics like productivity and profit over authentic concern for employee needs and circumstances. Caring rhetoric papers over a lack of flexibility or empathy when workload demands clash with employees' lives.
Top-down communication of caring values without meaningfully listening to employee voices and needs. A disconnect exists between leadership assumptions about caring and employee realities.

Essentially, carewashing involves the selective and insubstantial use of care-focused language by organizations to boost their reputations, without commensurate care being embedded throughout organizational systems, structures, policies and daily interactions.

The Research on Carewashing's Impacts

A substantial body of research illustrates the negative impacts of carewashing on employees and organizational performance. Some key findings:

Carewashing fosters distrust of leadership intentions as employees see caring values as empty marketing rather than a genuine commitment (2). This undermines workplace relationships and psychological safety.
The disconnect between espoused caring and actual experiences of employees breeds disengagement from their work and organization (3). Performance and discretionary effort declines as meaning and purpose fade.
Feeling like tokens or props undermines employee well-being and mental health, creating more stress, anxiety, and burnout over time (4). This takes both individual and organizational tolls.
When people feel exploited or neglected, their organizational commitment and retention weakens (5). Carewashing contributes to replacing intrinsically motivated and experienced talent with a revolving door of newcomers.
Authentic caring fosters innovation by eliciting employees' full creativity and initiative, whereas carewashing squelches these valuable workplace behaviors and stifles growth (6).

Carewashing creates an experience for employees of "fake caring" which alienates them and damages critical individual and organizational outcomes linked to productivity, performance, and sustainability over the long run. Authentic caring is both ethically right and economically strategic for businesses.

Examples from Various Industries

A few examples from different industries help illustrate how carewashing manifests and its consequences.

Tech Industry: Many fast-growing tech companies promoted extreme workloads as a "culture of commitment" yet offered minimal formal benefits or protections for employees contending with burnout (7). The resulting high turnover damaged knowledge retention and productivity gains.

Hospitality Industry: Hotels trumpet caring for staff wellness but lack family-friendly policies, create unpredictable schedules opposite employees' stated availability Preferences, and understaff shifts - all undermining work-life fulfillment (8). Disengaged and overstressed employees deliver subpar customer service.

Retail Industry: While retailers highlight frontline staff as "family", many schedule people across multiple locations with little advance notice and insufficient hours to live on, ignoring life demands (9). Low job satisfaction and high absenteeism persist industry-wide as a result.

Non-Profit Sector: Non-profits commonly exalt their missions yet underpay staff and expect constant availability without overtime, imposing unsustainable workloads that deplete compassion and compromising care for clients over the long haul (10). "Compassion fatigue" sets in.

These cross-sector examples illustrate how carewashing strategies consistently backfire by alienating the very human resources expected to advance organizations’ strategic objectives. Authentic caring is key to sustainability in any industry.

Building Authentic Caring Cultures

Fortunately, various studies and real-world examples also illustrate approaches that build truly caring organizational cultures where employees feel genuinely valued and empowered. Some strategies include:

Embed caring into policies like flexible work, paid leave, mental health days, affordable benefits, and living wages (11). Back up rhetoric with institutional support.
Engage employees in shaping family-friendly policies, scheduling preferences, and wellness programs aligned with their needs (12). Listen to understand diverse realities.
Trust employees with autonomy over their work in a supportive environment that respects work-life fit over presenteeism (13). Foster psychological safety.
Normalize care for individual well-being and circumstances company-wide through leader modeling, training, and rewards emphasizing fulfillment (14).
Evaluate leaders based in part on employee thriving not just short-term outputs, to incentivize sustainable care (15).

When caring becomes systemic rather than superficial, research shows improved recruitment, retention, performance, innovation and loyalty (16). Authentically valuing people strengthens organizational resilience and future viability.

Conclusion

Carewashing is an ineffective leadership strategy that damages both individuals and businesses over time. At its core, genuine caring requires meaningful action, not just talk, to value employees as whole human beings with lives beyond work. Leaders seeking sustainable success would be wise to replace superficial gestures with deep commitments to caring for the well-being, engagement and opportunities for growth of each person who contributes their skills and efforts to the organization's objectives. Through caring policies, empowering employee input and distributed leadership demonstrating care in action daily, authentic and resilient cultures can be nurtured where people choose to commit their best work. Overall, carewashing must be replaced with the substantive effort required to build truly caring organizations where employees feel supported to bring their whole selves, uniquely contribute value, and fulfill their personal and professional potential.

References

(1) Harter, J. K., & Adkins, A. (2015). What great managers do to engage employees. Harvard Business Review, 93(4), 131-135.

(2) Morrow, P. C. (2011). Managing organizational commitment: Insights from longitudinal research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(1), 18-35.

(3) Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600-619.

(4) Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 397-422.

(5) Solinger, O. N., Van Olffen, W., & Roe, R. A. (2008). Beyond the three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 70-83.

(6) Amabile, T. M., & Pratt, M. G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 157-183.

(7) Groysberg, B., & Bell, D. (2019, November-December). Remote work is surging, but won't fully replace in-person experiences. Harvard Business Review.

(8) Enz, C. A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2003). Revisiting the best of the best: Innovations in hotel practice. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 44(5-6), 115-123.

(9) Gosselin, E., Lerner, J., & Satterthwaite, S. (2013). Paid sick days and psychosocial stress: Results from a nationally representative survey of working Americans. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(4), 386–395.

(10) Kim, S. E., & Lee, J. W. (2007). Is mission attachment an effective management tool for employee retention? An empirical analysis of a nonprofit human services agency. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 27(3), 227-248.

(11) Kelly, E. L., Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). New approaches to equal opportunity: Policies and practices. Contexts, 5(4), 28-33.

(12) Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Yragui, N. L., Bodner, T. E., & Hanson, G. C. (2009). Development and validation of a multdimensional scale of family supportive supervisor behaviors (FSSB). Journal of Management, 35(4), 837-856.

(13) Raghuram, S., Hill, N. S., Gibbs, J. L., & Maruping, L. M. (2019). Virtual work: Bridging research clusters. Academy of Management Annals, 13(1), 308-341.

(14) Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179-201.

(15) Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Agrawal, S., Plowman, S. K., & Blue, A. (2016). The relationship between engagement at work and organizational outcomes: 2016 Q12 Meta‐Analysis: Ninth Edition. Gallagher, FJQ.

(16) Oswald, A. J., Proto, E., & Sgroi, D. (2015). Happiness and productivity. Journal of Labor Economics, 33(4), 789-822.

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.

Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2026). The High Cost of "Fake Caring": Why Carewashing Undermines Organizational Success. Human Capital Leadership Review, 20(4). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.20.4.5