Tackling Depression at Work as a Productivity Strategy (Judy Martin)

We keep talking about it... but words are not deeds.

Tackling Depression at Work as a Productivity Strategy

Depression tops the list of health-related productivity costs in the workplace. That was the finding in a medical study shortly after the economy tanked in the 2008 recession, and it’s no different now.

The annual cost of depression is estimated at $44 billion in lost productivity to American companies according to the National Institute of Mental Health.

 

The accelerated pace of work due to expanding technology can feed stress and anxiety in the workplace, but depression is a different animal. It’s a clinical diagnosis “with specific criteria, which severely impact a person’s ability to function.” It can thwart an employees’ ability to concentrate, be effective and stay healthy enough to hold down a job.

Move up http://i.forbesimg.com t Move down

 

“Some companies will only tune into the effects of these strains when they experience negative outcomes like losing a customer or losing key talent,” says Clare Miller, Director of the Partnership for Workplace Mental Health, a program of the American Psychiatric Foundation.

Companies that measure engagement and morale, Miller says, will be more likely to  identify  this “pain” earlier,  and take steps to intervene. “My sense is that companies are intuitively concerned about this “new normal” and the long-term impact of unsustainable pace.”

 

In a joint project, The Partnership for Workplace Mental Health and Employers Health, an Ohio-based employer coalition, are designing a new workplace human resources toolkit. It will help employees identify warning signs of depression, and help decrease the stigma associated with depression.

Rethinking Work: The Impact of Occupational Mental Health on Productivity

  

Mental performance will drive corporate success in the information economy. Innovation, a mental function, is key to competitiveness.

Meanwhile, depression and stress disorders at work are driving disability rates – they are more than 30 per cent of all disability recorded at three of Canada’s best known corporations.

For instance, a company employing 1,000 people will have cases of depression but only 25 will be diagnosed and only six receive proper treatment.

Establish organizational and employee health as “twin priorities” among managers in business.

Survey employees to identify stress which threatens individual health.

Interrupt the treadmill effect plaguing employees with too many priorities and too much to do at once.

Combat distrust, disrespect, autocratic management styles and too-repetitive tasks – all contribute to stress-related health problems.

Of course, conventional wisdom tells us this is all nonsense. Depression and anxiety are excuses, not sicknesses - people just need to get over themselves. In fact, working through anxiety and depression makes you strong on the other end.

When it comes to micromanagement, hey; tough managers are effective managers; employees need close oversight, otherwise they'd be the bosses, wouldn't they? Life is tough; if you can't rise to the challenge then you're probably in the wrong environment. I went through the same thing - look how I turned out. Some folk are just in denial about the way the world really is.

And yet, study after study indicates we are facing a rise in work-related mental health concerns. You might even call it a global business mental health crisis. Countries around the world are trying to find reactive ways to tackle this elephant in the room; Canada has just released it's own plan for a national mental healthcare strategy. The question largely being ignored is this; iis there a correlation between the rise in workplace mental illness and the increasing amounts of cognitive work people are being given to do under increasingly tight deadlines? Is it the people or the nature of work that's the problem?

I once had a baffling conversation with a woman in business who's partner, also in business, was facing heart health concerns. This fellow works ridiculous hours and has an enormous set of expectations put on him. He also tends to drink excessively, but that's as much part of his work culture as anything else. This woman, wickedly smart, incredibly strategic and prone to making informed decisions told me she'd done her homework and found there was no significant correlation between stress and heart health.  She was worried about her partner's well-being, yet determined the stress of his (and her) lifestyle was not a factor.  I had looked at the exact same data she had and come to a completely different conclusion; she was going to take her counsel over mine, though, because she had a track record of success to fall back on.  When you're used to being right, you're not likely to consider the advice of someone with less related experience - if anything, you'll seek the advice of consultants (but might not necessarily follow it). 

 

 

Since then, I have done even more research (largely listed in the E-Library column to the left of this blog), stretching beyond mental illness and including cognitive processes, how and why the body reacts to physical stimuli and even mental health in other animals.  I wonder what my friend would have said if I had told her that zebras don't get ulcers?  It's kind of a human thing.


This is the piece that gets left out of the conversation - life, in general, is meant to be stressful, but only in short bursts.  Predators spend most of their time resting, conserving energy for the physical toll hunting takes on them.  The same holds true with prey; stress is a short-term burst of hormones like cortisol and adrenaline that allows them to survive an encounter or not, after which they can either go back to relaxing or are dead.

The human world of work is increasingly moving away from that model.  In the Industrial Age, workers would clock in, do their shifts, take their breaks and then go home.  There was a clear divide between work and home life; work itself was more about one-off activities rather than complex, long-term commitments.  Writing a note or building a widget is one thing; seeking out new business opportunities, creating long-term strategies and maintaining networks is another beast completely.  Add to this gridlock, picking up the kids, making it to the grocery store, etc, etc; we have developed a work/life system of non-stop stress.  It's clearly not a sustainable model.

So, why are some people - say, 1% of the population - so willing to clinging to it?  To me, it seems to go back to biology.  In a survival-of-the-fittest model, we assume the environment isn't the problem; if you're tough, you'll manage and if not, you don't.  Until a tipping point gets reached where a sufficient proportion of the population falls below the cut, we can still keep telling ourselves that it's a success thing, not a culture thing.  Those at the top are comfortable in the model; like a lion resting after a full meal, they see no need to expend the necessary energy to change a system that is working for them just fine.  Sadly, it takes until the social unrest at the bottom is so severe that the people at the top will face enough disruption (cortisol) to look at alternatives, while still trying to preserve their relative positions.  Don Tapscott calls this the burning platform - personally, I like the metaphor of the boiling frog.

 

The fact is, the platform is burning and unrest is bubbling to the surface.  Worse, if you're in business, you're bottom line is being impacted.  There's only one way to get ahead of this problem; by rethinking work, revising the way we understand mental health and beginning to consciously consider the collective impact of our actions.

If you don't like it, too bad - you're just gonna have to get used to it.

Creative Destruction: Motivating Employers

You can lead a horse to water - but you can't make it drink.  So, lead two horses to water.

Most employers don't understand work.  They don't understand employees, either.  Like domineering parents or dictatorial heads of state, they don't feel the need to - he who has the gold, after all, makes the rules.  Those who want access to the fruits that gold can supply simply have to fall in line.

Ironically, the history of work suggests it's actually the reverse that happens.  It's not the people with power who have innovated, created and marketed new opportunties that have made and remade the rules, redefining and adding to what defines status.  It's the people in the middle.  As they rise up the pyramid, the water hole shrinks; divisions over resources lead to social friction and conflict.  This ends up burning off the dead brush of the old models, creating space for new, innovative growth. 

Call it Creative Destruction.

The new water hole looks a bit like this - an aggregate of  complex, counter-intuitive understandings of the nature of work, motivation and creativity and turning them into easy-to-understand slide-presentations and video clips.

How do you get today's leaders to take a drink?  By advertizing the crap out of it via social media.  The early adapters will climb on board, setting positive exmples their teams can tweet/Facebook/Pinterest to the high heavens about, building demand for effective leadership elsewhere.  Those who don't will find it a lot harder to compete.

Creative destruction is just as integral to the evolution of social systems as it is for the continued growth in the ecosystem. 

It's those who adapt that will lead the way.

Trainingpedia: The Future of Life-Long Learning

Skills are important to national economic growth — and Canada does not fare well in international skills comparisons. A comprehensive skills strategy to raise Canadian students' and workers’ literacy and numeracy would help.

C.D. Howe Institute

The nature of labour demand is changing.  As traditional manufacturing jobs gravitate towards emerging economic powers like China, India and Brazil, countries like Canada are being forced to diversify their options. 

Despite this global trend, the Harper government thinks it has found the golden goose in the natural resources sector; they seem determined to put all of our economic eggs in that one basket, particularly Alberta’s Tar Sands.  There are multiple reasons why this is a short-sighted approach.

While there will always be a need for natural resources, there are huge risks and lost opportunities in focusing solely on the resource export market.  Plus, as the Knowledge Economy starts to kick in to high gear, there will be an increased demand for highly trained labour that has the capacity to innovate.  Raw materials, yes, but it’s product, process and new markets that industry is focusing on now.

Labour Pains

Despite the strong evidence that Canada needs more training (and not just up-front training, but life-long learning), we are actually facing a national training deficit.  We are also failing to harness the full potential of new Canadians, immigrants bringing a wealth of knowledge and experience (but not Canadian experience) to our country.  Ontario is starting to tackle this problem head-on, but is there a broader opportunity here to reduce Canada’s training poverty and employ some of the new raw talent coming to our country to do so?

A Little Knowledge is a Dangerous Thing

Human capital formation, through education, training and skills development, is recognized as a primary determinant of worker productivity and earnings as well as firm productivity – and, therefore, broader economic growth.

 Here’s the reality – Canada’s economic performance has fallen behind many of our major competitors.  Between 2000 and 2005, for example, the rate of Canada’s productivity growth was only 25% that of our major trading partner, the US.  One of the major reasons for this is a lack of investment in skills upgrades and training on the part of Canadian firms.

Statistics Canada tells us that “investment in human capital, that is, in education and skills training, is three times as important to economic growth as investment in physical capital, such as machinery and equipment.  This implies that investments in raising the average level of skill could yield large economic returns.”

So – if we’re falling behind and there’s a correlation between this trend and training levels, why aren’t we training more?

It all comes down to the way we look at work and how we understand motivation.  Unfortunately, our views on labour have not kept pace with the changes in technology and the solidification of the global economy; until recently, they haven’t needed to.  Businesses are still largely understood through the industrial, vertically integrated top-down model; employers give money and resource access to employees, who are then responsible for turning a profit for their employers.  Training is an initial investment in labour – not a continuing one.  Once training is given, it’s up to the employees to deliver; they are incented to do so through the carrot and stick approach.

What we aren’t noticing is that the carrot-and-stick approach informs the actions of employers, too.  Training, benefits programs, etc. are seen through the lens of direct cost/benefit analysis rather than the aggregate impact on business.    As there hasn’t been much research clearly demonstrating value for money, training programs haven’t been seen as a particularly useful investment.

This is particularly true for small business owners.  For them, the negatives associated with training seem to outweigh the positives:

-          Training employees can make them more attractive to better-resourced competitors; you could very well be serving as a grooming school for other businesses.

-          Training costs money; it also takes your staff away from productive time which is, of course, where your profit comes from.

-          Employees are employees, not partners; if they are bringing in new methodologies and ideas and push for their implementation, it’s more hassle than the training is worth.

It’s a bit of a tragedy of the commons; a bigger investment would have a greater pay-off, if everyone did it.  Insufficient positive motivation makes it harder to get excited.  The stress of managing a business and the urge to be firmly in the driver’s street of one’s own enterprise leads to a focus on keeping staff in line rather than supporting them.  Salaries are seen as expenses rather than investments; lower pay equals higher profits.  The sad thing is, the reality is the exact opposite of this – employers who pay less see higher turnover and face higher costs of credit. 

If It Ain’t Broke…     

You can’t find the best solution if you haven’t identified the correct problem.  In the case of labour, the problem we have identified is motivation – managers are constantly struggling to find new ways to get employees to do their work better, more efficiently, more creatively.  Some training gets thrown at them, but to a large degree we rely on the traditional tools of the trade:

-          bonuses, promotions, project control

-          disciplinary measures, demotions, firing

In short, we employ carrots and sticks to get workers to do what we want them to.  This more-or-less worked in the past for repetitive tasks, manual labour, etc.  For the kinds of labour we rely on in the Knowledge Economy, though, the traditional approaches can actually be detrimental.   We’re solving the wrong problem.

When we make work about something gained or something lost, we disengage people from the process of work itself.  It becomes about the reward, not the procedure; according to Occam’s Razor, people will find the easiest and quickest way to achieve their goal.  The fastest, most aggressive solutions aren’t necessarily the wisest.  The ends don’t always justify the means.  Plus, when people don’t enjoy their jobs, you don’t get their best work.  They’re also more likely to face health problems. 

This is exactly the wrong approach for nurturing the creative, out-of-the-box solutions that will define success in the Knowledge Economy.

Life is a Journey, Not a Destination

Creativity, be it in problem-solving or innovation, is not a fixed process.  While structure certainly helps channel the cognitive process, too much overt control and exerted pressure stifles it.  This point cannot be overstated; all the traditional tools in an employer’s box to make a sale, close a deal or complete a project are counterproductive to the process of innovation.  The goal of the employer in the Knowledge Economy isn’t to tighten an employee’s focus on a destination, but make sure they take in the sights along the way. 

Ontario’s Premier, Dalton McGuinty, has suggested “it doesn’t matter where you come from, but what you find along the way.”  He was referring to the diversity of Ontario’s population, but the same holds equally true for ideas.

This, then, is where we come back to training.  We need to re-brand training not as a product or a piece of paper to hang on a wall, but as a process – an ongoing process that the best employers will nurture and the best tools will facilitate.

Given the challenges employers face in justifying the skills upgrades mentioned above, how are we to convince them that such training is a worthwhile expense?  Once again, we’re identifying the wrong problem; the solution isn’t to carrot-and-stick employers into paying for training, but to build value into the process of creating and harnessing training opportunities.  The way to do this is to make training free and collaborative.

Taking Training Online

No, I’m not talking about throwing limitless sums at publicly funded post-secondary education, nor publicly-funded upgrade courses.  There’s no need for this – all the resources one could possible want, ranging from sales techniques to the latest innovations in clean energy technology to best practices in office configuration are all available online already – the trick is to coordinate these resources into an easily-accessible, open-source platform that everyone can invest in and receive benefit from.

What I envision is a new hybrid online framework that combines the best elements of existing resources like Wikipedia and Charity Village with the simple, aesthetic veneer of an Apple product.

This system (we’ll call it Trainingpedia for now, but feel free to suggest cooler names in the comments section below) would exist like a three-dimensional map online; a legend would give a user access to sub-strata more relevant to their niche area (a field of study, communications best practices, even tips on managing the work/life balance).  A search engine would help bring users directly to the topics they wanted, but with side-bar links on related material.  The whole site would be designed, like a map, to encourage exploration and, like Wikipedia, for contribution.  It could even be multi-lingual, as Wikipedia is and include a translation function.

Picture the resource power of every single employer and employee with access to a computer wired into one system.  As has been proven the case through the Wikipedia example, a broadly crowd-sourced engine like this would produce accurate, beta-tested and rapidly-updated best practices, new insights and opinions; all the benefits of paid training without the hassle of paying for it.  Think what this could do for market research.

Yes, there’s a risk that a Trainingpedia site could become an aggregate for complaints; that’s not necessarily a bad thing.  Complaints would become one section of a larger digital geography; if there was more content that was positive and engaging, it would get the focus.

For employers to truly gain the individual benefits of such a system, they would have to build in “research time” into the schedules of their employees.   Considering how many people spend part of their work day trolling the internet anyway, doing so in an encouraged fashion wouldn’t impede productivity, but increase innovation potential.

Would a Trainingpedia site take business (and profit) away from training service providers? 

This is why ardent pro-Capitalists should love the Trainingpedia model – it has creative destruction written all over it.  As generalized training services, best practices, peer-support groups, etc. get formed online, companies that get paid for training services or products will have to think outside the box, finding targeted, boutique and specialized services to sell.  Having access to Trainingpedia will make this a much easier job for them; they can even advertise themselves there by posting videos like Hill & Knowlton’s Billy Wants a Dog or contribute to various entries, like LinkedIn group discussions.  Yes, their for-sale product will eventually end up in the free system, but that’s fine; these firms will be in a continuous process of exploring new training, educating and employee-support options to offer.  Remember, it’s product, process and new markets that business is going to be looking for.

Innovative firms can even advertise competitions for new ideas and processes, imitating the success of GoldCorp.

Moving Forward Together

The traditional model of society (competing for the best grade, the highest salary, the corner office) may have gotten us this far, but to succeed in the Knowledge Economy, we need something a bit more.  Motivation must now come from within – not without.  It’s through feeling inspired by what others are doing or pieces we pick up along the way that we will come to challenge ourselves to do better.

 Success in the Knowledge Economy, then, is like building a taller pyramid; the more effort we put in collaboratively at the base, the higher we’ll all be able to reach.

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.