Occupational Mental Health - The Future of Success

 

 

 

Cognitive Labour - in the modern work world, physical strength, endurance and speed aren't as important as mental work - writing, innovating, processing, planning, etc.  How do you motivate this kind of work?  How do you enhance your staff's cognitive labour?  How do you best manage and allocate your cognitive labour resources to develop efficient, productive, innovative teams?

 

A little over two years ago, I did the rounds of every major Government Relations firm in Toronto and pitched them on the idea of starting a "mental health" practice.  The answer I received was universal - there's no money in mental health, we don't understand the concept, thanks but no thanks.

 

Now, smart entrepreneurs are turning the renewed focus on mental health in the workplace into business opportunities, as I predicted they would.  They are, however, still focusing on the catch-up angle - how to meet new standards and deal more effectively with the mentally ill in the workplace.

 

There is still a need to get proactive and address the repetitive stress factors that cause occupational mental illness, just as poor lighting causes headaches and poor keyboard/chair design result in carpal tunnel syndrome or back pain.

It's gonna happen.  Everyone, early adapters and laggards both, are going to have to adapt to this new world.  The ones who move first, though, will be the leaders in the Knowledge Economy.

Want to know how?  Drop me a line - let's talk.

But in the mean time, check this out, too:

EcoLog Legislation presents:

Building a Mentally Healthy Workplace

Mark your calendar to attend this important one day seminar.

AGENDA March 26, 2013

Building a Mentally Healthy Workplace
Time	Session	Speaker
7:30 am - 8:30 am	Registration and Breakfast
8:30 am - 9:30 am	Workplace Wellbeing: Accommodating Mental Illness • Defining employers' rights and obligations in accommodating mental illness • Solutions to help avoid potential legal liabilities	Stuart Ducoffe Co-founder, e2Rsolutions; Partner & Co-founder, Woolgar VanWiechen Ketcheson Ducoffe LLP Krista Hiddema Co-founder, e2Rsolutions; Partner, Woolgar VanWiechen Ketcheson Ducoffe LLP
9:30 am - 10:15 am	Employee Addiction and Abuse • Exploring the difference between employee addiction and abuse • How this difference affects disability and the employers' duty to accommodate	Samantha Wharton Director, Marketing and Business Development, Family Services Employee Assistance Program
10:15 am - 10:30 am	Break
10:30 am - 11:30 am	Techniques and Tips for Successful Workplace Interventions • Useful techniques for workplace interventions • Tips to help employers with their employees' recovery from addiction	Penny Lawson Clinical Manager, Family Program and Process Addictions Bellwood Health Services
11:30pm - 12:30 pm	The New CSA Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace standard and what it means to you.	To be confirmed
12:30pm - 1:30 pm	Lunch
1:30 pm – 2:30pm	The Legal Perspective • Discussing the legal implications of accommodating mental illness in the workplace • Legal and liability issues surrounding the New CSA Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace standard	Shane Todd Associate, Heenan Blaikie LLP
2:30pm - 3:30pm	Policy, Planning & Implementation • Reviewing policies under the New CSA Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace standard • Proper planning and implementation strategies for your organization	Paula Allen VP Health Solutions, Morneau

How Fit is Rob Ford?

“We must use every legal means to make life for these thugs miserable, to put them behind bars, or to run them out of town,” Ford said in a statement. “We will not rest until being a gang member is a miserable, undesirable life.”

Ostracize.  Contain.  Punish.  These are Rob Ford's solutions to gang-related crime.  The underlying principle is that some people are bad seeds and need to be removed from society to prevent harm to everyone else.  It's not an a-typical social conservative position to have.  It goes along with the idea that government is oppressive to the individual and that taxation disincents people from working and innovating; if they got to keep more of their money, they'd work harder to get even more money.  Greater prosperity will result in greater demand, more jobs, and more prosperity for everyone.

So - on the one hand, we need to remove bad apples so as not to spoil the bushel.  On the other, we shouldn't regulate behaviour, because that impedes good behaviour through resentment, etc.  Some people would say that taking away social services and regulation (minimum wage, education requirements, etc) but punishing people for crimes that are fostered by socio-economic conditions is ridiculous; you're punishing people, essentially, for their lot in life.  It's not fair.  It makes more sense to be proactive, to educate, accommodate, etc and avoid crime in the first place.  Reactive behaviour comes too late.

It all depends on what kind of society you're trying to build.  There actually is a case to be made for the Rob Ford model of society - it's called "survival of the fittest."  It's basic evolution - the strong will rise to the top no matter what and the weak or unruly will be eliminated (or locked away/run out of town).  By culling the weak/unprosperous, only the successful will be left.  It's not trickle-down economics; it's cut-the-bottom-off economics.

There's a problem, though - consciously or not, social conservatives are applying biological evolutionary rules to society.  Society is a different animal entirely, with different rules.  See, if society were designed for the "fittest" to survive, it would actually the ones who kill, steal and cheat that would get ahead.  They're the toughest; they're willing to do whatever it takes to win.  Think about it - do back-stabbing and dog-eat-dog competition result in the smartest, most social, most innovative people climbing corporate or social ladders?  From a different angle, does wealth make one immune to the impact of a riot, or an epidemic? 

Despite what laissez-faire free-marketers would have us believe, we actually have had a Rob Fordesque society in history - just look at medieval Europe, or before that, Rome for two examples.  People aggregated where there was opportunity, but when they're solely out for themselves, they aren't looking after the interests of their neighbour; waste goes into the street, work gets done to the lowest price and the least amount of work, etc.  Disease, fires, looting, etc were significant social problems.  The challenges of many people living in close quarters actually fostered the climate of centralized coordination and regulation that is government.  The "free market" model isn't what we're moving towards - it's what society is moving away from.

The only way for a truly free market society to thrive is if people live at a distance from each other - each to their own plots, free to make and enforce their own decisions without being impacted by the actions of their neighbours.  A feudal society, in short, with everyone lord of their own castle.  That's the position of the Ontario Landower Association folk.  There's a problem with that model, too - when people are left to their own devices, independently, they actually don't need to innovate as much or share their innovations; after all, new ideas aren't going to be picked up until someone proves them, and where's the profit in the proving process?  The reason that innovation has continued to pick up speed is due at least as much to social density as it is to any other factor.

Innovation is a social phenomena.  Literally; the part of our brain that motivates pro-social behaviour is the same one that allows for innovation and executive function (the ability to proactively plan).  The part of our brain that is the seat of emotions (biological drives that motivate us to react, like locking people up after a crime is already committed) stores memory, but doesn't foster connection-making or active solution-creating.

Social conservatives don't trust hope, because hope implies change.  They're thinking with their reactive brains, primarily; there's no way to quantify hope and really, there's no evidence in the world that can convince them you can reform a criminal through education and restorative justice.  By the same token, progressives get frustrated with the "with us or against us" mentality of the socons; why can't they see where progress can take us?

Evolution isn't a ladder - neither the reactive nor proactive brain are better than the other.  Both have their uses, context-determined.  It just so happens that in an increasingly dense social context, the ability to plan is a really useful tool to have.

Ford says the best social program is a job - but you can't get a job unless you can prove you're able to do the work.  How do you get the training, the experience, the dare I say it, social skills?  Through social programs.  The more educated a society is, the more equitable resource access is, the more prosperity there is for everyone and less violence.

It's not that Rob Ford's model is wrong; it's just that he hasn't followed it through to conclusion.

Trust, Leadership and the Future of the Global Village

Two articles caught my attention tonight.  This one, about trust, loyalty and leadership:

5 Leadership Behaviors Loyal Employees Trust

"Loyalty is built on relationships, shared understanding and trust. Engagement and commitment require loyalty, shared goals and fair treatment."

- and then this, about the perilous state of the global economy, in no small part due to prevalent attitudes:

In Economic Deluge, a World That Can't Bail Together

"Moreover, there seems to be little willingness - or perhaps lit-tle ability - for the major countries to act together again. Squabbles have grown, some countries are in fiscal distress, and others face daunting domestic problems."

I highly doubt deluge was chosen as a metaphor by accident.

When we're uncertain of the way forward, when it's hard to know how to trust, it's worth remembering the words of someone else lost at sea:

"If we can't live together, we're gonna die alone."

Where We Stand – and Where We’re Headed

Nearly a million young Canadians are out of work and more than half aren’t even looking for a job, according to the first study of its kind by Statistics Canada.

The phenomenon, dubbed “NEET,” which stands for Not in Employment Education or Training, is an area of growing concern to policy-makers around the globe.

The pace of technological change means most jobs require at least some training, which few employers are willing to provide.

Nearly a million young Canadians are out of work and more than half aren’t’ even looking for a job, according to the first study of its kind by Statistics Canada.

Long-term unemployment leads to problems with income, financial well-being and psychological problems.

In some countries, high levels of youth unemployment have led to riots and demands for social and political change.

What does it all mean?  How do these strands all connect?  Where are we going next?

That question, ironically, is where we should draw comfort.  Wherever we have come from, we’re all headed to the same place.  All that’s lacking is leadership to show us the way.

“I’m trying to free your mind, Neo.  But I can only show you the door.  You’re the one that has to walk through it.”

The Conscious Revolution: Peering Into the Looking Glass

Globally, the economy is in a precarious place.  The traditional models of wealth generation and circulation are proving unsustainable at all levels.  People on both ends of the increasingly polarized social spectrum need to take a hard look at what they value, what they feel they deserve and what their commitment to society should be on the macro and mirco levels.

There’s a mental health crisis that’s been recognized internationally, too – suicides, anxiety and depression, increased awareness of and empathy for those suffering from conditions ranging from bipolar disorder and schizophrenia to ADHD and post-partum depression.

Social media is connecting the world in hyper-kinetic ways.  As of right now, we really do have a networked intelligence – the question is, how consciously and effectively can we harness it?  How well are we leveraging our global information transfer network?

Everyone is talking about the challenges and need for significant change in our economic, political and social institutions.  The classes that have led the Capitalist system through boom and bust are trapped in models of yore, uncertain what to do next.

They are turning to social entrepreneurs (the creative types who see money as a base-line for sustainable living and are more interested in creating social meaning with their work) for solutions.

The models that are successfully empowering and promoting social entrepreneurs (Google, CSI) take an active approach to workplace wellness and cognitive workplace design – there’s a whole emerging field just starting to crackle that will combine psychology, kinesiology and interior design in developing the cognitive workplace, spaces designed to enhance creativity and productivity.  

Globally, the increasingly focused (and centrally coordinated) efforts to address mental illness are going to collide with the economic and social challenges in ways that might be surprising.  Poor work design and an education system that focuses on mass-produced rote-learning actually foster anxiety and depression, while not developing the practical skills needed for success in tomorrow’s economy.  At the same time, we are still feeling our way through alternative cognitive ability diagnoses and accommodations, with a long way to go before we get it right.  We can’t afford to be losing productivity and having so many people reliant on the healthcare system.

What we need to start doing is tap into these potentials effectively; we can no longer afford to have the future Steve Jobs’, Albert Einsteins and Winston Churchills succeed by luck of timing or geography – we need everyone to reach and harness their full cognitive potential.

Society is being forced to change the way we view work and education to support the latent talents that will fuel the Knowledge Economy.  The natural source of inspiration and ideation for this cognitive revolution will be the social entrepreneurs – people who on the whole are concerned about the environment and looking at sustainable practices that also create business opportunities:

-          Increased integration through social media

-      A shift towards shared, networked-learning that encourages students (and employees) to be active participants in planning and executing their education

-          Increased critical thinking in politics, vs model-based partisan loyalties

-          A growing reliance on social entrepreneurs and horizontally integrated idea-sharing as a vehicle for growth and policy directions

-          Mental health care begins to become more proactive, with appropriate accommodative measures built into work, education, etc.

-          The Cognitive Revolution, like the Industrial Revolution before it, will reshape our society around a more conscious Capitalism.

Welcome to the 21^st Century; welcome to the Conscious Society.

Mind Over Matter: Mental Fitness and the Workplace

“According to the 2011 report, ‘Building Mentally Healthy Workplaces: Perspectives of Canadian Workers and Front-Line Managers,’ workplaces are heavily impacted by mental health issues. We also know that mental illness affects all of us sooner or later and that one-in-five Ontarians will experience mental illness first-hand.”

- The Chatham Daily News

“…the effects of mental health and addiction on our health care system should not be underestimated, nor should the ripple effects felt in the justice, educational and social service sectors.”

- The Drummond Report

We get that bullying is harmful.  We get that a silo-mentality results in duplication, gaps and overlaps in service delivery.  We see that an aggressive focus on getting ahead at the expense of others leads to social fracturing.  We’re even seeing the impacts of aggressive, uncooperative approaches in our political system.

What we need to do now is connect the dots.  Who we are, as individuals, is a direct product of what happens in our heads.  What our brain does is heavily influenced by what’s going on in our environments.  This isn’t a philosophical statement; it’s fact.  Look at the research papers in the left column of this blog for the evidence.

The same thing applies at the social level; what we do as individuals impacts the well-being and functioning of our society.  Governments around the world are looking for ways to address the global mental health crisis at the same time as they’re looking to address our economic challenges.  They want ideas, they want innovation; they want to reduce service uptake, fraud, etc.  We all want better customer service, rewarding work, lives that have meaning.

All of it, all the positives and the negatives we feel, all the individual and broad social behaviours we engage in – they’re all neuro-chemical in origin.

The thing we stigmatize the most – our mental health, our biologically-situated minds – is the source of all our social solutions, as well as a great many of our social challenges.

You can’t land on the right answer if you haven’t identified the correct problem.

At the end of the day, it’s really a question of mind over matter.

Look at the Conference Board of Canada’s report, here.

Faith and Science, Church and State – and Politics

As public resentment against the failings of capitalism swells in a frustrated, embittered population, there is spillover resentment being aimed at other institutions associated with the Right – for example, the Church.  Of course, generalizations are human nature, so just as the Political Right is inextricably identified with the Church (the Christian institution in its multiple and diverse facets, again, generalized), the Church is viewed as inseparable from religion.

This is, of course, facetious.  Religions are systems of meaning, not structures or hierarchies.  Religious institutions no more encompass the entirety of a religion than grammar and syntax are the sum total of language, or for that matter, language the whole of communication.  Perhaps a better comparison would be cinema; a movie tries to get a message, a sentiment, a collective experience across through images, words, music, editing and all the tools of the trade.  This is what religion does; the institutions are simply the grammar.

While language is the single greatest tool humankind has developed – it allows us to communicate complex ideas, share information and collectively plan – it comes with its own inherent constraints.  A good example of this; we partly define a thing by expressing that which it is not.  When people see some things as beautiful, other things become ugly; when people see some things as good, other things become bad. 

The political spectrum is a perfect example of this; we define things as being “Right Wing” or “Left Wing”, though we fully recognize that a fiscal conservative isn’t necessarily a social conservative, or that a Liberal isn’t necessarily anti-capitalist.  People who self-identify as being at one end of the spectrum or the other will both claim exclusionary title to the basics of morality (things like compassion, integrity, resolve) even though that’s clearly not the case.  The oppositional definitions that we create for ourselves and our tendency to view others as being that which we are not greatly limits our capacity for dialogue.

Which is why, to be broadly successful, political parties invariably have to move towards the centre.

Religion, then, is not the antithesis of science; instead, they serve different, complimentary purposes.

The Complimentary Difference

The purpose of religion is to provide meaning: “Why am I here? What was I meant to be?"  These are esoteric questions that can’t be quantified or rationalized; therefore they are beyond the capacity of science to answer.  Religion is interpretation, not a statement of fact.

Fact is the domain of science.    The purpose of science is not to provide meaning, but to expand understanding – to know the mechanics of existence.  This is invaluable.  If we didn’t, for example, understand the properties of light, we wouldn’t have electricity, CDs, X-Rays, etc.  Knowing how the world functions allows us to interact with it more efficiently and to better harness the potential that lies in nature.

While science may provide us with the button, it can’t tell us whether it is right to push it.  The more we learn about the universe and ourselves through science, the more questions we have about our place, purpose, and responsibilities – again, questions that science has never claimed to have answers for. 

Science opens the door; it’s religion that takes us through.

Yes, as the global village goes through its current period of growth pains, polarization is natural; tension leads to agitation, which is narrow in scope and confrontational.  The solutions to our challenges, though, won’t lie in seeking to differentiate ourselves from each other by gravitating to the left or the right, but in the way the confluence of each propels us forward.

Science is not capable of giving our world meaning; despite what  some would claim, that doesn’t imply that meaning doesn’t exist.

When the doctrine of any religion was written, the writers didn’t have access to the vast amount of knowledge science has provided us with, nor do they now have all the facts we will ever know – our understanding of existence continues to expand and evolve.  This doesn’t repudiate the message or the values carried by religious beliefs – meaning and knowing aren’t the same thing.  Why not "render unto science the things which are science's?”

Religion and Science, much like the individual approach of the Right and the collective approach of the Left – the only way forward is together.

Capitalism on the Brink

“If we don't do that soon, when we are here in three to four years ... the game will be over for the type of capitalism that many of us have lived through and thought was the best type of capitalism.”

-          David Rubenstein

Where We Stand – at the Precipice

As the Global Economy teeters on the brink, government and business find themselves in a precarious position. 

For Government, the cost of social services continues to escalate.  In particular, greater understanding of human health, new therapies and technologies that allow more people longer, more productive lives have ballooned health care expenditures.  People demand access to these opportunities, but frankly, can’t afford what they cost individually or if they can, aren’t interested in footing someone else’s bill as well.  With rising social service costs, (including health care) and following a wave of economic stimulus distributed in response to the recent Global Recession, governments the world over and at all levels are looking at unsustainable levels of red ink.

Business, for its part, is watching the future unfold with an understandable level of apprehension.  Those that rely on government support or government contracts can’t know with certainty what will happen to the bread and butter of their business.  The Global Economy is acting like a force of gravity, shifting manual and scripted verbal work away from where they have been based towards those countries with the cheapest labour and lowest social responsibility requirements.  Yet, as the Knowledge Economy ramps up and networked technology expands, location matters less when it comes to cognitive skill.  Business doesn’t have to work where they live, but can still apply for government assistance.

At the same time, people are losing faith in the traditional economic model.  For the 99%, capitalism has become a dirty word.  For the people at the top of the spectrum, the anguish being felt by the majority is being seen from the 10,000 foot level.  They can’t relate – as such, they suspect the 99% are likely exaggerating their plight.  “Quit whining” is an increasingly popular refrain – one whose paternalistic, condescending tone does not sit well with everyone else.

Trapped in a cycle of debt and uncertainty, hiring in places like Canada is contracting. Even worse, training opportunities – the biggest driver in the Knowledge Economy – is shrinking.  Public service positions are contracting.  Existing EI programs that may have worked well in the past are ill-equipped to manage the increasing demands they are facing.  People at all levels believe that something’s gotta give.

Caught in the centre of this maelstrom of economic uncertainty is the much-maligned middle class.  As the employment opportunities (many of them public service positions) for which this class trained for prior to entering the workforce dwindle, middle-class folk must either up their training independently, up their salesmanship or become innovatively entrepreneurial (all of which take money and an assumption of risk to achieve).  The alternative is to see themselves sink into the swelling ranks of the lower class.  The stress this pressure places on families is only exacerbating the problem.  For those fighting for a shrinking pool of mid-range employment positions, striking down one’s opponents becomes almost essential in gaining advantage.  As the saying goes, I don’t need to outrun the bear, I just need to outrun you.

The stronger the pressure, the more reactive and adversarial we become.  The principle at play here is classic Darwinian evolution – selection of the fittest.  Fittest, remember, isn’t the person with the best skills or the greatest strength, but rather the person willing to do what it takes to be the last man standing and maintain the spoils that come from being the victor.  In the labour pool, that means the order of ability that leads to success goes something like this:

1)      Connectivity

o   “It’s all about who you know” – background checks are the norm, but require less effort when your considerations focus on known commodities.  Personal networks and the savvy to expand those networks are heavily influenced by socio-economic factors

2)      Ability to market oneself (or detract from competitors)

o   This includes “charm” and broader communicative abilities, but also delves heavily into the hard-wired preferences of the person hiring.  It is still the norm that more attractive and more demonstrably confident people get the best jobs, regardless of task performance ability.  This makes sense from a biological evolutionary perspective but not a social evolutionary one

3)      Skills and experience

o   Which are impacted heavily by genetic and social factors

4)      Capacity to develop new skills and willingness to try on new experiences

o   Also determined to a large extent by realities beyond the control of the individual

Notice the trend?  There is a heavy leaning on contextual (socio-economic) or biological factors on the part of employers – in other words, hiring is stigmatized.  This should come as no surprise; bad teeth can be more of an indicator of social position than genetic strength, but are a turn-off regardless.  Whatever we tell ourselves, we’re still human; our responses are still heavily influenced by pre-programmed, reactive thinking, as true for hiring as it is for mate-selection. 

As economic tensions and resulting stress levels increase, people naturally become more reactive and lean more heavily on response-oriented, limbic models of threat/benefit analysis.  Employers under duress will progressively fall back on what makes them comfortable, ie. that which is known or that which seems less risky (including innovative ideas), repeating the cycle.  It’s classic evolutionary drive.

In a capitalist system, then, the labour market is really governed by the rules of Dai Hin Min; the genetic, socio-economic, geographic and experiential cards you’re dealt determine whether you’re President or Asshole.  Movement in either direction is more about luck than it is about skill. 

There are plenty of folk out there who would say, there’s nothing wrong with that paradigm, though many are changing their tune.  If you can’t cut it, there’s no place for you – shape up or ship out.  Best social program is a job, etc.  Selection of the fittest exists for a reason – if you allow the unfit to succeed, you pollute the whole gene pool.  There are three major flaws in such thinking:

1.       Selection of the fittest is about beating the competition, not about improving one self.  When one’s focus is on beating the other guy, it’s not on working with them.  Collaboration is a key determinant of innovation, the biggest driver in the Knowledge Economy.

2.       The people that don’t or can’t shape up aren’t shipping out.  Instead, they’re feeding the lowest-tier of society, the ones that rely more on social assistance, health care, justice supports, etc, detracting from social cohesion when they don’t get it.

3.       Health care.  If we really embraced a selection-of-the-fittest model, health care would be gone in an instant; otherwise, we have sick parents, disabled children and mentally ill neighbours burdening the system.  Worse, people that genetics has determined aren’t supposed to reproduce get to do so any way.  Health care is essential to societal living, as its lack leads to epidemics that impact all classes equally.  The only way for a fully selectionist model to work is to break down society and remove the central coordination – kinda like what the Feds are doing now.

It’s a fact – lower-class citizens have more kids, less opportunity, less capacity to aggressively seize what opportunities do come their way.  The daily stresses that add up from this reality result in limbic-based, reactive responses rather than thoughtful planning.  This is why all the indicators of poverty ranging from hygiene to domestic abuse concerns to crime are emotional in nature.  This is the class that is swelling as hiring contracts and existing jobs are discontinued.  Where does that trend lead?  History provides us with plenty of examples.

Such is the conundrum of our times:

-          Government can’t afford to spend more; there simply is no more money

-          Those with above-comfortable wealth don’t feel motivated, or perhaps empowered, to give more back (despite the proven benefits to society and the economy from universal access to education, health care and accommodations)

-          We can’t afford to spend less, either – less jobs means less employment and less tax revenue. 

Less balance in society, which has always been facilitated by public funding for things like health care and education, means a greater class disparity and an increase in the lower-end, creating a structural, cyclical problem that, left unchecked, has historically led to revolution.

What do we do?  If you have a model that doesn’t serve the purpose for which it was designed – as people of all walks of life are saying is true of our social system – you change the model.

While leaders look at the facts and despair, that new model already exists and is beginning to gain traction.  What is required now is the courage and bold vision to embrace that model fully.

More on that later.