Speaking only for myself, I'm so tired of mental health initiatives that emphasize the "business case" for improving mental health in the workplace (or any other environment).
In the typical formulation of this, reasons are given why the "problem" of mental health needs to be addressed. Poor mental health, we're told, can cause decreased productivity, increased conflict/negativity/risk of error,....or whatever (implicitly insert every ill of society here) 🙄.
Certainly, there's some genuine good in these initiatives. Of course, increased mental wellness is a critically important goal. I personally would love it if our profession did a better job of supporting and prioritizing our collective and individual health. As someone with significant vulnerabilities, these initiatives would benefit me greatly by allowing a quality of life this profession has not afforded me before. I need and want them to happen. So if we want to encourage wellness-promoting initiatives, that's great. I'll cheer them on.
But in doing so, let's watch our language and check our stereotypes at the door. I don't care how great the initiatives are. I don't care how much people see "incremental change" as the only realistic goal and are therefore willing to advocate for them in whatever language gets corporate entities to pay attention: it's not okay to pursue these initiatives in a way that devalues a diverse group of people.
I've made the point so many times in different contexts, but I'm going to keep repeating it until it is understood: mental health is an incredibly broad ideal. Mental illness can manifest itself in a gazillion different ways, some of which bear no resemblance to each other. My mental illness can result in one behaviour, while my colleague's illness can result in an exactly opposite behaviour. Even with the same mental health condition, sometimes the actual manifestations in external behaviour can be as different as night and day. One person might consistently throw herself into her work, becoming a compulsive reliable over-achiever (resulting in awards for giving 110%), while another could withdraw and feel paralyzed by a fear of failure (resulting in a drop in productivity).
Consequently, ANY generalization you want to make about the impact of having unaddressed mental illness in the workplace is going to cause me to raise my eyebrows, roll my eyes, and tune you out 🙄. I'm going to be especially irritated if this is done in a way to cast the mentally ill as inherently problematic. So just don't do it, please.
Also, when mental illness is characterized as inherently problematic, let's not be surprised when the "high-achieving" people who suffer from it (but are capable of concealing their suffering) don't feel comfortable seeking help and/or speaking out. When we overemphasize the "negative" ways in which mental illness can manifest itself, we make it less safe for those who are high-achievers to reveal themselves as suffering. We also leave their suffering unaddressed since the unique ways in which they are suffering may or may not be captured by the "business case" aimed at rooting out "problematic" manifestations of illness. By targeting only the suffering that affects productivity, we fail to address the situation of those whose suffering may not affect the bottom line (and may in fact enhance it).
At the very same time as we say we are trying to "stop the stigma" we therefore reinforce it by overemphasizing the "problems" caused by mental illness in the workplace while de-emphasizing or failing to acknowledge altogether the benefits to a workplace of including those with mental illness (given the many strengths those who have experienced mental illness have demonstrated and the contributions they are capable of making).
And if those who can conceal their illness do so because of stigmatizing stereotypes, the supposed data we have on the risks of mental illness in the workplace will be unreliable. Mental illness in the workplace will become visible only when it can't be hidden: when it has in fact had a negative impact. Our negative stereotypes will therefore be self-reinforcing, resulting in incomplete data about the impact of mental illness in the workplace.
Further, when eradication of a problem is the goal, it puts inclusion at risk. I can't be the only one who fears that bottom-line-focused employers who are being told they need to improve mental health because mental illness in the workplace is just so incredibly problematic in umpteen different ways may also see a "business case" in seeking to avoid hiring people with past or present mental illness, or vulnerability to developing one so as to cut the "problem" off at the source. It also can't be surprising then when regulatory bodies point to the stereotype-infused data about the negative impacts of mental illness in the workplace to justify measures that further dehumanize the mentally ill by forcing them to disclose their mental health histories (as if such histories render them inherently problematic for the profession) and then demand them to jump through extra hoops (surrendering privacy about deeply personal matters in the process) to prove their worth even if they have never done anything wrong and have achieved everything required of them to make it to that point in their careers. This further dehumanizes and stigmatizes the mentally ill and makes those who can hide/deny that they suffer from illness more inclined to do so rather than seek the help they need.
So yes let's address the benefits of promoting mental health in the workplace. But let's NEVER do it on the basis of stereotypes and questionable data. Let's critically examine every assumption we make before we make any case for any initiatives. Let's acknowledge the lengthy and ongoing history in our society of dehumanizing and discriminating against the mentally ill, depriving them of their autonomy, and devaluing their strengths, thereby forcing many to hide their suffering. Let's adopt a stance of radical humility to reflect that history. Let's stop making assumptions ("evidence-based" or not, since the "evidence" is going to be incomplete/inadequate since many hide their illness and don't seek help) and start actually listening to what people tell us about their experiences, strengths, vulnerabilities and contributions. In other words, let's embark on a process of discovery, rather than assume we know the terrain in advance.
Instead of pointing to why mental illness needs to be reduced/eradicated, let's change the script. Let's discuss why people with all manner of states of mental health on a broad spectrum deserve to be treated holistically as individuals with diverse strengths, needs and vulnerabilities. Instead of talking only about the "problem" of mental illness, let's emphasize the benefits of including those who have so much to offer who might otherwise be excluded.
I referenced at the outset that this was a lazy post. I'm not citing evidence for my claims. My mental health condition was hidden (including from myself) for a long time. When it became evident that I needed to address it, I felt incredible fear about the implications of doing so (the stereotypes and discrimination to which I would be subjected) that nearly held me back from seeking a diagnosis and professional support. I'm therefore keenly aware of how many people suffer in silence and never get to be included in the "data" about mental illness in a professional environment. The data is flawed, and I'm not that interested in hearing about it until those who resort to it adopt a sufficiently humble and critical stance in relation to it.
None of the above was intended to detract from the fact that mental illness can indeed cause real and heartbreaking problems for many people, especially in a society that does not provide adequate support and validation for those who have different needs and strengths due to mental illness. Those whose function declines as a result of mental illness deserve to be treated compassionately and we should do all we can to support them. But we should never see ourselves as doing so to rid ourselves of a "problem." We should do so because we care about supporting those human beings in our midst, and acknowledge that despite their suffering they have real value. In doing so we should also be prepared to acknowledge that perhaps, more often than we think, the suffering individuals aren't the "problems" at all. Rather the problem is a system designed not to support and include them.
Note added afterwards: I’m not saying that no “business case” can or should ever be made, but that it should never be done by drawing on discriminatory stereotypes. We can identify a fair and proper “business case” only upon ensuring we aren’t relying on stereotypes. Any "business case" should include a recognition of the rights and strengths of the mentally ill, not just a one-sided focus on the ways in which poor mental health can sometimes undermine workplace objectives. It should also never take precedence over a proper rights-based discussion that doesn't leave it up to individual workplaces to decide whether they will properly accommodate their employees' mental health. Deciding whether to be inclusive and provide a safe working environment shouldn't be framed as a choice left up to individual workplaces.
As always, please note that I am a lawyer, not a mental health professional of any kind. I have no expertise in trauma or mental health. Also, please note that any opinions and views expressed in this blog are solely my own and are not intended to represent the views or opinions of my employer in any way. For more information about the purpose of this blog, please see here and for a bit more information about my personal perspective on this issue, please see "my story" here
I am very grateful to have received a "Clawbie" Award for this blog (which reflects the importance of this topic): https://www.clawbies.ca/2019-clawbies-canadian-law-blog-awards/
For some of my external writing on this topic, see:
- https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/opinion/a-more-inclusive-discussion-on-the-impact-of-trauma-on-lawyers-mental-health-is-needed/276166
- https://www.cbabc.org/BarTalk/Articles/2020/February/Features/Speaking-Up-About-Trauma-and-Mental-Health
- https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/opinion/changing-the-conversation/326240
No comments:
Post a Comment