Lewis Health Management Consulting

We often are consumed with the “what” will fix burnout or improve workplace mental health. Should we be more concerned with the “how”?

International reviews of research studies show varied results for workplace programs targeting both individual factors and workplace factors (see these two reviews by Fleming and Rugulies et al). The former review implies buying an “off the shelf” app or program is a poor investment and could be harmful. In the latter review they indicate there is good support for programs to improve job control to improve employee mental health but that evidence for other types of programs is equivocal or low. So why is it so difficult to find a clear path forward?

There is no workplace mental health program guaranteed to improve your workplace’s mental health – instead, the “how” might be more important than the “what”. Our workplaces are so complex and different. One can’t superimpose what worked in one workplace onto another. What grew organically in one context cannot be transplanted into a different ecosystem. Most leaders know they can’t take someone else’s strategy from another organization and just expect it to work – no, they need to do the work to know their product, their capability to produce, and communicate value to their customers.

Similarly, if you are looking to improve workplace mental health, here are some really general steps drawn from the National Standard of Canada for Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace:

1. Commit as senior leadership to improving workplace mental health. Why do you want better workplace mental health? What would good workplace mental health would look like for you personally or the organization?
2. Engage people from all levels of the organization – senior leaders, middle managers, supervisors, and front line workers – and work through the process. This increases ownership, improves the quality of data collected, and improves the quality of the “what” and “how” of a workplace mental health program.
3. Together, determine the outcomes desired, prioritize issues to be tackled, and then consider the means to get there – what will be done by whom in what manner to get these outcomes? Write that down and as you implement your program and monitor program fidelity – what worked & when for whom?

If it was so easy, everyone would be doing it. Like any big problem, it is important to remember:

• Commitment is key. Deloitte found businesses that stuck with a strategy did better than those without and those with 3 or more years commitment fared better than those with less time in a program.
• Start by cataloguing strengths and what you have already and perhaps you can use existing momentum to make improvements in one area.
• Build strengths and mature into health and safety: some organizations have a great culture where change and new ways of working and relating are easy to implement. Others struggle with communication, change, and working together. A lot of well-meaning programs with solid content fail because organizations can’t use that content in their context and the program gets labeled as “we tried that and it didn’t work either” and the let down is palpable for leaders and workers alike. This scientific review finds successful programs build on strengths and suggests the organization’s ability to successfully do the “what” because of the “how” is really important.

To sum it up, the 3 C’s that Maslach and Leiter refer to in their book are key: workplace mental health can improve by collaboration by leaders and workers, customization to do what the organization needs, as they are committed to work together for the long term.

Need a navigator? Want to discuss what this could mean for you? Not sure if your organization could do this? Please reach out.