Mental Disorders in the Workplace - Essay Example

Topic: Mental Disorder and Performance at Work Number Department Contrary to common thought, there can be no productivity at the workplace in the absence of mental soundness that can take place, no matter how manual an undertaking may seem. However, the flipside of the trend in corporate, public and private sectors has been the perennial failure to engage the prospects of mental health in organisational stability and future. While many are inordinately occupied with market trends, the 2007 ABS National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing report depict a situation that may compel leaders in these sectors to relook at their approach towards mental health, in their quest to attain performance target. This is because, it is clear that the thoughtless attitude that leaders of organisations adopt towards mental health has continuously compounded the effects of mental disorders, with stigma, dismissal from work, aloofness and ignorance being some of the commonest manifestations of this same attitude. Contrariwise, the need to tamper the quest for performance target with human dignity, corporate social responsibility and fairness compels a relook into organisational culture, as it relates to employees who may suffer from mental disorders, as shall be seen forthwith. Introduction According to the report that the 2007 ABS National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing released, there is a great extent to which several common mental disorders impact a person's performance at work. It follows logically that any mental disorder affects the brain and its function, with the brain being the central nervous system [CNS]. This means that it is important for the rest of the body to function well, if the CNS or a compartment of the CNS is not properly functioning. The same is also underscored by the fact that work, however manual it may seem, is seriously a mental affair. As a product of the Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], the 2007 ABS National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing report summarised and pointed out that the three chief mental disorder groups are: affective disorders [such as depression]; anxiety disorder [such as social phobia] and substance ab/use disorders [such as the harmful use of alcohol, marijuana and other forms of stimulants]. This report also divulged on the level of mental impairment, the accompanying physical conditions, the health services that are to be used to treat mental health complications, accompanying demographic and socio-economic characteristics and relating demographic conditions. These categories of mental illnesses and the prevailing conditions of mental health illnesses provide an insight into the manner in which common mental disorders impact a person's performance at work. Substance abuse, affective and anxiety mental disorders are known to have the potency to undermine interpersonal relationships, yet interpersonal relationships are vital for the realisation of an organisation's performance target. Particularly, complications emanating from the use of marijuana as a form of substance abuse may manifest through withdrawal symptoms, violent or aggressive behaviour, or behavioural excesses. These manifestations frustrate interpersonal communication and thereby undermining intra-organisational relations. Anxiety mental disorders such as extreme shyness and affective disorders such as depression equally frustrate interpersonal communication at work, by hampering the flow of ideas, the channeling of operational command and personal confidence which is important. The place of interpersonal relations and intra-organisational communication is important in the attainment of both long-term and short-term performance target since supervision, the induction of new employees and aspects of talent management such as training and workshop programmes are heavily reliant upon interpersonal relations within an organisation. Conversely, in the event that some of mental disorders persisting at the workplace, the organisation concerned is likely to spend and divert its synergy to solving interpersonal conflicts and cases, dealing with emergencies, healthcare complications and bills that may be incurred therefrom, as well as handling legal implications that may emanate from substance ab/use disorders (Goldman, Buck and Thompson, 2012, p. 265). Another way in which the 2007 ABS National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing may be vindicated [following the standpoint that common mental disorders impact work performance] as being worthy of credence is the need for sick leaves that such disorders readily bring. This sick leave is usually secured to help the patient secure appointment with specialised medical attention, receive treatment and time to recuperate. These days are usually marked as sick/absent days in work register. According to Kawakami and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, in the period between 2002 and 2005, the disorder lost productivity was approximated to have been 28-30 lost days per annum. Interestingly, this is only as far as depression as a form of affective mental disorder is concerned. The situation is not any better when substance use disorders are brought into consideration. There was also a significant decrease in on-the-job work performance for cases of alcohol dependence/ abuse. Particularly, on-the-job work performance resulting from alcohol dependence/ abuse accounted for 25-30 lost days, annually (De Lorenzo-Romanella, 2011, 77, p. 84). Gold and Shuman (2009, p. 66) point out that it is obvious that the aforementioned lost days directly affect the output of the concerned employee. This is because work performance is a culmination of the effort and skills applied over time. The decrease in on-the-job work performance in terms of time translates into unmet performance target individually and in the long run widens the performance gap for the organisation. Another way in which mental disorder [be it affective, anxiety or substance use disorders] denudates work performance is by lowering the affected worker's concentration span and degree of keenness. In this case, even a seemingly normal or common case such as psychological stress [the adverse reaction that an individual may have because of excessive pressure and demands that may be placed on him] may prove equally destructive to professional output. Even the very symptoms of stress which are increased anxiety and irritability, reduced attention span and a shortened memory, impaired concentration and reduced sleep and verbal and even physical aggression are attributes that are mutually exclusive to steady or impressive organisational performance. Equally, symptoms that are indicative of depression [such as panic attacks, agitation, sleep disturbance, attenuated concentration spans and ability, excessive appetite or loss of appetite and physical symptoms such as palpitations, stomach disorders and headaches are factors that cannot support productivity at the workplace. In like manner, the conditions that characterise depression are inimical to productivity at the workplace, since some of these conditions include depressive mood and despondency, numbness and emptiness, lack or loss of motivation in life, difficulty in concentrating, social withdrawal, sleep disturbance, lack of appetite, an overwhelming guilt conscience, self-neglect, increased use of alcohol and other drugs, thoughts of self-harm and suicide and anxiety. Any employee grappling with these symptoms can neither meet performance target, nor remain supportive to efforts by the supervisor or the human resources management (Goldstein, 2003, p. 11 & Alonso, Chatterji & He, 2013, p. 78). The above is also true because mental health problems and disorders gnaw away at the patient's coping skills; given that coping is mainly a mental engagement. For this, mental health has been defined as the emotional and spiritual resilience which enables people the enjoy life, survive pain, disappointment, challenges and disappointment. The culmination of this is the employee working with wrong or inchoate guidelines and thereby wasting organisation's time, synergy and widening the performance gap. In another wavelength, that the 2007 ABS National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing must be taken into consideration by employers is a matter that is underscored by the great detail it pays to the age bracket which is mostly affected by diverse common mental disorders. Particularly, the report divulges that out of the 16 million Australians who are aged between 16 and 85 years, nearly half (7.3 million or 45%) had had a lifetime mental disorder, meaning that they had experienced mental disorder at a given point in life. In the same vein, the report continued that one out five (3.2 million or 20%) Australians had incurred a 12-month mental illness. The same report continues that there are an estimated 4.1 million people who have also experienced a lifetime mental disorder, but did no exhibit the symptoms attributed to mental disorders, 12 months before the interview (ABS, 2007, p. 1 & Kawakami and National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, 2012, p. 140). The gravity of the immediately foregoing is that employers are more likely to suffer performance gaps in the near future. This is because, the age that the ABS National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing report shows to be most vulnerable age to diverse mental disorders is the chief source of skilled and manual labour. This means that in the long run, organisations are going to have to contend with lapses in productivity as some employees are likely to take sick-offs to access specialised medical care and to recuperate. Alternatively, the high number of sick-offs that are to be incurred by the organisation is likely to emanate from the need to accompany and help employees' children access treatment. That this factor cannot also be sidestepped, is a matter that is underlined by the report also indicating those below the age of 18 accounting for about 35% of the affected population (ABS, 2007 and Lloyd, 2010, p. 55). Another factor that subjects common mental disorder patients to low job performance is social stigma. As an extreme disapproval of a person because of his status which distinguishes him from other members of the society, stigma may be leveled against mental disorder patients in different ways. The withdrawal of teamwork, communication and the removal of acts of goodwill by fellow employees and employers are likely to both accost employees with mental disorders and to denudate their output. The ultimate manifestation of this workplace stigma is the termination of the employment contract on this basis, albeit other grounds are imported into the letter of dismissal, to validate the termination of the contract. Normally, this move is executed in piecemeal. As the employee perceives the goings on in the HR department or the organisation in entirety, he becomes too complacent or tense to be productive (Munir, et al, 2007, p. 34)). In many occasions, anxiety disorders [such as social phobia and shyness] are known to deny the mental disorder patient the chance and opportunity to grow in the organisation. This normally happens insidiously as the patient slowly becomes accustomed to low self-esteem. Low self-esteem in turn dissuades the ailing employee from engaging in team work, departmental meetings, workshop programmes and training drives, and recreational activities such as parties, travels that have been organised by his very company (OECD, 2012, p. 40). It is also true that there are degrees of mental disorders or complications that may extensively injure a person's ability to sustainably cope with mental or psychological challenges that characterises work or workplace activities. Some of these mental complications and disorders include bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. For instance, the extremely shifting nature of moods from a high period to an alternating low period and a stable period in between them are totally not concomitant with organisational productivity. The symptoms that accompany bipolar disorders are also likely to undercut work performance. Some of these symptoms include periods of depression, elated mood with no logical cause, lack of energy, attainment of boundless energy and restlessness, little sleep or sleep deprivation, rapid speech and disorganised thoughts, lack of inhibitions in decision making and restlessness in decision-making, and extreme cases of hallucinations and delusions. In like manner, the symptoms [such as paranoia, strongly held foreign beliefs, hearing voices, seeing, tasting, hearing and feeling things that are inexistent, confused, or muddled speech or thinking and loss of feelings] which accompany schizophrenia are totally not compatible with optimum productivity (Matthews, et al, 2003, p. 84). The Reason behind Most Employees with a Common Mental Illness Preferring To Conceal It from Their Workplace There are several reasons which compel most employees not to reveal the state of their [mental] illness from their workplace. One of these reasons is stigma. Since stigma has the potency to make mentally ill employees lose company, guidance and services necessary for the attainment of performance target and talent management, and even loss of job, it is most likely that employees will conceal their health status to save face. The need to conceal their state of mental health will also be compounded by the need to escape ridicule, being thought lowly of, being the object of sympathy and being the very object of suspicion in the event that any anomaly occurs at the organisation. According to Cairney and Streiner (2010, p. 22), another reason why mentally ill employees may choose to conceal the state of their mental health is the absence of proper legislation. At the moment, Australia's labour laws still do not define or qualify the extent to which a mental illness may be declared too unfit to work, or fit to continue working. Similarly, the law does not qualify the dues that are to be extended to the mentally ill who is to be relieved of his duties because of his mental status. Even the mentally ill employee who may be retained by the employer is barely protected legally, since the law does not specifically stipulate the remunerations that may be extended to him because of his newly acquired mental status. The broadness with which the law qualifies labour relations between an employer and a mentally ill employee leaves the former with a wider threshold to not only act whimsically, but to also victimise the former. Because of this, it becomes difficult for the mentally ill employee to open up about the status of his mental health since his fate is left in the hands of the employer. There are experts such as Williams and Wilkins (2009, p. 75) who point out that the main reason behind employees' choice to remain silent about the state of their mental health is ignorance. Even the very CEO of WISE Employment admits that at times, dealing with cases of mental illness have remained hard to deal with simply because employees are not informed about their illness. To this effect, they may not even be aware of the fact that they are ill, to report. In some instances, depressions and stress are treated as normal phases in life and are thus ignored. Williams and Wilkins (2009, 75) continue that this ignorance is largely attributed to inadequate public awareness on mental illnesses. Because of this, even members of the employee's family leave the employee to fate because of misinformation. Williams and Wilkins (2009, p. 75) cite an instance to underscore the extent of this ignorance. He contends that to many, mental illness or disorder is considered as plaguing the patient, when he begins exhibit behavioural tendencies that are not consistent with his traditional behavioural predisposition. Williams and Wilkins (2009, p. 76) divulge that at this point, saving the person's mental health may be very difficult since the patient may have entered an advanced stage in mental illness. There are others such as Shane and Iverson (2012, p. 32) who in turn point at the very nature of mental illness, as the very reason behind employees' failure to report their health status at the workplace. Shane and Iverson (2012, p. 32) point out that the fact that mental illness progresses gradually is a factor that may escape the patient's attention and detection. Similarly, mental illnesses have the potency to alter an individual's mental cognitive abilities and judgement so that he is not able to know how much the disease has eaten into him [if at all he comes to know] and what to do about it. In a different wavelength, Barney, Griffiths, Christensen and Jorm (2009, p. 9, 8) plausibly argue that common mental illness or disorders are also able to report because of the very symptoms that accompany them. Barney, Griffiths, Christensen and Jorm (2009, p. 9, 8) point out that it is not rare to confuse the symptoms of depression or stress for general malaise or phases of mourning. Likewise, the symptoms of bi-polar disorder are likely to be confused with demon possession. This may also compound the stigma that is due to common mental disorders. Because of this, many milder mental disorders go unreported until it is late. Because of the correlation between the symptoms of mental disorders and other forms of illnesses, even employers to whom the report is being made may doubt the validity of the claim. Organisational culture also plays a pivotal role in encouraging or discouraging the reporting of mental disorders by employees. Organisations that have poor HR practices and easily discard the disabled are likely to have very reserved personnel. Likewise, organisations which are not accommodative to diversity and democratic ideals [such as free flow of information and fairness] are highly unlikely to attract openness about mental disorders. Conversely, organisations that are accommodative, democratic and more transparent are likely to elicit openness about mental disorders. Reference List ABS 2007, National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing, Retrieved From: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4326.02007? Alonso, J Chatterji, S & He, Y 2013, The Burdens of Mental Disorder: Global Perspectives from WHO, WHO Publications. Barney, L J Griffiths, K M Christensen, H and Jorm, A F 2009, "Exploring the nature of stigmatising beliefs about depression and help-seeking: Implications for reducing stigma," BMC Public Health, 9 (61):1-11: Cairney, J & Streiner, D L 2010, Mental Disorder in Canada: An Epidemiological Perspective, Oxford University Press, Oxford. De Lorenzo-Romanella, M S 2011, "Managing Hidden Illnesses that Impact on Performance and Absenteeism," The Business Review Cambridge, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 77-84. Gold, L H & Shuman, D W 2009, Evaluating Mental Health Disability in the Workplace, Longman, Canberra. Goldman, H H Buck, A & Thompson, K 2012, “Transforming Mental Health Services.” Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 260-77. Goldstein, A M 2003, Handbook of Psychology and Forensic Psychology, HUP, Harvard. Kawakami, T M & National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health 2012, "Impact of mental disorders on work performance in a community sample of workers: World Mental Health Survey, 2002-2005." US National Library of Medicine, vol. 198, no. 1, pp. 140-5. Lloyd, C. 2010. "Vocational Rehabilitation and Mental Health." Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 122-27. Matthews, G et al 2003, "Personality Traits and Performance at the Workplace," Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 78-89. Munir, F et al 2007, "Work factors related to psychological and health-related distress among employees with chronic illnesses," Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, vol. 17 no. 2, pp. 259-77. OECD, 2012, Mental Health and Work: The Myths and Realities about Work, OECD Publications. Shane, S & Iverson, G 2012, Neuropsychological Assessment of Work-Related Injuries, OUP, Oxford. Williams, L & Wilkins, L 2009, Professional Guide to Diseases, Cengage Learning, London. Read More