Throughout the lockdown period there has been a growth in awareness of mental health issues in the UK. Those with pre-existing conditions have deteriorated without the support they need, and many, who have never struggled before have suddenly been struck with overwhelming and alarming emotions.
I’ve spent most of my career working in organisations that support people for whom poor mental health has been a component in that persons wider challenges. These are often difficult working environments, where my teams have displayed their own heroic levels of mental fortitude.
One of the things that has struck me in the last few months is the amount of content now coming into the workplace, identifying personal resilience as a key leadership skill. This content, mostly distributed in internet memes outlines the power of resilience as a leadership trait and therefore the perceived lack of it as a negative trait.
The overwhelming intention of the birth of the focus on resilience in the workplace is undoubtedly positive, however, whilst the root causes of mental health challenges remain taboo to discuss in many organisations, comparing comparative resilience and passing judgement could add to the inequity so many people face in the workplace. The inextricable links between poor mental health, poverty, trauma, race, sexuality and gender in all its iterations results in “lack of perceived resilience” adding to the reasons to exclude key groups from leadership positions and promotions.
Resilience is relative and cannot be judged externally either at an interpersonal or organisational level. Outward displays of resilience, or lack of it, is dependent on a vast array of factors. Everyone is carrying different volumes of challenge. Historic trauma, lack of sleep, ill health, loneliness, divorce, caring responsibilities, financial worries, death - the number of factors are infinite.
My fear about many mainstream workplace mental health models is they are often predicated on managers or employees leading the first line of support. A few hours, or a days training cannot provide the kind of understanding and skill to manage the complex factors that are at play when mental health is deteriorating.
Well meaning, ill informed judgement, poor support or advice at this level can result in people’s conditions deteriorating to an irretrievable level. Whether it’s someone we perceive to be prone, in our view, to unnecessary crying, or is often irritable – all of these outward displays have a root in something else. We need to understand that, that “something else” is not a character flaw, or evidence of a lack of leadership skill.
Drug and alcohol services give us an insight into these issues at the extreme end of the spectrum. So many of the people I’ve worked with in a professional context over the years have come into services I led because of their attachment to a particular coping mechanism they are using to manage difficult emotions. Whether that’s alcohol, drugs, sex, food or even because of the consequences of uncontrollable anger. Many of them have been judged harshly by society because of these outward displays of perceived lack of resilience. Spending time with people in extreme pain who are at the mercy of a habit that no longer serves its core purpose to them is incredibly humbling.
In taking time to listen to their stories I am in awe of their situational resilience. A virtual walk in their shoes, I see them as the true giants of resilience, painfully judged for all the things that are not known to the outside world. Extreme trauma, abuse and neglect are invariably at their root cause.
Mental Health England states that 1 in 4 people in the UK experience a mental health issue every year and 1 in 6 people in the workforce have a mental health condition. With many more people in the post Covid period struggling, there is a risk that a growth of comparing resilience levels, unless the concept is truly understood, will drive new inequities.
Understanding people and supporting individuals relative to their context, is a nuanced process. Many workplaces are not currently equipped or informed to take this approach. Ignoring or judging emotions society has deemed as “negative” such as anger, frustration, anxiety or sadness, as displays of low resilience, reinforces stigma.
We need to be much more open to discussing these emotions neutrally with people in the workplace as they are all normal responses to personal context and experience. Reinforcing stoicism as the preferred model of leadership is also dangerous. Many people are suppressing and subverting toxic emotion to maintain the outward appearance of resilience. For men in particular, for whom displays of emotion are seen as particularly culturally abhorrent in many organisations, this celebration of subverting emotion is the fuel of the growing rates of male suicide. Good mental health is an ability to recognise emotion and process it in a supportive and non judgemental environment. Difficult emotion is a just a sign that something is wrong and that should not be ignored.
Whole organisation models, which integrate coaching and mentoring from a people centred perspective for all levels of management and leadership are key. Approaches which limit blame and judgement and provides early supportive conversations about difficult emotions, ensure people experience true equity of support which leads to equality for all of our mental health.
The ongoing Covid crisis places the need for organisational support for mental health issues at the heart of people strategy. Let’s make sure we move beyond the memes and understand the true nuances of our perceptions of resilience.