Mental health at work: taking a strategic approach

Arguably the biggest challenge for any HR professional tasked with addressing mental wellbeing in their organisation is knowing where to start. I recently led a webinar for the Institute’s HR Network with the aim of equipping delegates to take a strategic approach to mental health at work. The webinar included content on being purposeful, interpreting evidence, and being sensitive to organisational needs. It concluded with a case study in a government organisation where their ways of working underwent root and branch reform to achieve both better wellbeing and staff engagement.

Participants were led through the good practice basics which can be seen as centring on the broad aims of ‘preventing’ (poor health as a result of work), ‘supporting’ (those known to be affected by mental health conditions) and ‘responding’ (to staff experiencing signs of poor mental health). These broadly correspond to the respective responsibilities of tackling workplace stress-related risks, making reasonable adjustments for staff who need them, and ensuring that staff are signposted quickly and effectively to suitable support if they are in distress at work. Many activities fall under more than one of these banners (such as return-to-work policies, counselling interventions, or trauma risk management) but it can be useful to categorise what you have in place right now: being strategic means identifying where strengthening is needed and building that into business planning.

The idea of an evidence-base was discussed in the context of navigating the array of products services and apps which are marketed on the basis of their wellbeing benefits. It’s important to maintain a healthy degree of scepticism: asking an OH provider what components of their offer are evidence-based (ie, what benefits have their have clients seen?) can open up a useful conversation and help you weigh up different options. Another consideration is professional credentials, for example checking that an EAP uses suitably accredited counsellors is important. CIPD recommend searching the SEQOHS register to ensure quality of OH services. It’s worth highlighting that an accredited health professional will be, by definition, administering evidence-based practice and undertaking regular CPD to update their knowledge. Another evidence-related consideration is organisational reputation: major charities that specialise in mental health, grief and suicide prevention bring huge expertise to bear and can offer workplace guidance at little or no cost.

IES has amassed its own evidence base in this area showing for example that mental health awareness training has immediate, (self-reported) impacts on line manager confidence to have open conversations with their staff about their wellbeing and offer support. Work that we conducted in the transport sector has demonstrated that online learning is just as effective as face-to-face training in this respect. Our research for Mind has helped build an evidence base for trauma awareness training for first-response workers and recently we’ve documented the benefits of coaching for wellbeing for NHS staff. We’ve also critically reviewed the evidence base for Mental Health First Aid, arguing that this presents risks as well as benefits. Also of relevance is our policy work for the Government Work and Health Unit indicating what kind of job centre support helps people back to work with mental health conditions. And it’s important to remember that physical activity and good nourishment also support mental health; we have reported for the rail industry on the factors that determine whether a healthy lifestyle can be achieved at work.

Aside from formal sources, good sources of evidence lie within your own organisation. Consulting staff can identify support gaps and increase the likelihood that they are on board with new initiatives. Given the prevalence of common mental health conditions (affecting just under one in five working age people), active involvement of employees can provide a means of reaching those with relevant lived experience. Staff surveys, spot polls, and exit interviews are potentially useful in identifying what is working well, what is not. If procuring new OH services, staff preferences can inform the selection process: this could facilitate a sense of ownership of workplace support and potentially encourage uptake.

Our work at IES for the Health Foundation suggests that it is worth paying particular attention to what your younger employers are telling you. With prolonged social isolation, health anxiety, and economic instability, the COVID-19 pandemic exposed young people to many known risk factors for mental illness. Over two-fifths of young people in our survey either had a pre-existing mental health condition or challenge when recruited to their job or started experiencing one after joining. Three in ten had either left a previous job or were planning on leaving their current job as a result of its impact on their mental health. Checking that job entrants know how to access workplace support should form a key component of induction; especially for those whose previous experience of support has been within an education setting.

Finally a case study of managing change within a central government department was presented, which recently featured in HR Magazine. In this case many core aspects of wellbeing support of were already in place but absence levels were higher and engagement was poor. The intervention drew on established evidence showing a link between job design and wellbeing and drew on internal (civil service) HR expertise on change management, sessions delivered by IES consultants as well as published academic research. The intervention was multifaceted and resource-intensive; the most salient activity being consultation with staff at all levels. After only 12 months, their staff survey showed significant improvements in staff satisfaction and a remarkable drop in absence (around 40 per cent) was observed.

Questions at the webinar centred on the quality of the evidence supporting mental health and wellbeing interventions. Although the formal evidence base is not without its flaws (e.g. it can be difficult to attribute reduced absence rates to specific wellbeing interventions with certainty) there is broad consensus around what good practice looks like, based on the cornerstones of ‘prevent’, ‘support’ and ‘respond’ and the general principle of going beyond what is legally required of a responsible employer. CIPD and Acas provide accessible summaries on this.

HR professionals should not be afraid to ask commercial health and wellbeing providers about the evidence base that supports their services, and query how they are responding to new challenges (such as the expectations of younger workers) and new ways of working. Ultimately adopting a critical (or even sceptical) approach will help you build your business case for new interventions and feel more confident that your approach is informed and strategic.

 Subscribe to IES blog posts

Any views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Institute as a whole.