Employers must ensure a safe and healthy work environment, which includes mental and psychological safety. Photo: File
Let’s discuss mental health in the workplace, a topic that, unfortunately, receives less attention than profit or operating margins. Addressing it requires empathy, but in most cases, this value is overlooked by managers, fearing it might be perceived as a sign of weakness. As a result, employers can stigmatise employees who request psychological safety as overbearing or unreasonable.
Yet, the Basic Conditions of Employment and the Occupational Health and Safety Acts, reveal that safety encompasses a range of legal obligations for employers. These obligations require employers to ensure a safe and healthy work environment for their employees, which includes the provision of a secure workplace. This is not limited to physical harm but includes mental and psychological injury enforced by a workplace. Simply put, psychological safety boils down to a workplace that is free from harassment.
This means that workplace trauma is as significant and relevant in social dialogue as any other human phenomenon, including gender-based violence, bullying and other forms of harassment. The outcomes are the same: intimidation, silencing, reverse psychology (gaslighting), insecurity and, ultimately, fear of loss of control over one’s life and outcome.
While a woman who suffers at the hands of her intimate partner might be told, “Just leave them and start over,” the same advice cannot be shared with one who suffers abuse at work because the experience is proportionally tied to their livelihood and could give rise to peniaphobia — the fear of being poor, and thus, helpless. Employees who suffer the latter find themselves “trapped at work” because their only viable option for freedom is to secure another source of income, which is increasingly challenging, given our 32.9% unemployment rate.
It could be argued that our country is still healing from, and processing, the social expectations of “carrying on”, without acknowledging our collective historical trauma. This view and practice unfortunately persist in most management systems, which operate from the perspectives of the past, where authoritarian leadership demanded a command-and-control approach.
Therese Kinal defines this type of leadership as one that emphasises clear hierarchies, with managers making decisions and expecting subordinates to follow instructions without question. However, advancement in human relations and research, as well as the change in workplace dynamics post-pandemic, have undeniably contributed to the evolution of work. Society on a global scale witnessed a sudden collapse, and disruption of, traditional employment practices during the pandemic years when preservation of life was the most valued commodity.
The sudden change in workplace practice demanded immediate adaptation, and employees and employers alike evolved to isolated and socially distanced engagement to perform their duties. This distance offered some employees relief from in-person social practices, such as harassment, but the post-pandemic return to the office meant a return to exposure and harm.
Returning to the office necessitated a readjustment to traditional structures, which themselves had undergone changes. From this perspective, one study reveals that workload (78%) and working environment (89%) significantly impacted most employees. While the study cited is about the healthcare profession, it is likely that most workers are currently facing similar post-pandemic working conditions.
Another study indicates that job satisfaction levels, as assessed by living standard measures, revealed that employees with low living standards showed much lower job satisfaction (59%) compared to those with medium (79%) and high living standards (90%). These figures could speak to the scarcity of work in professional industries that require some level of higher education to execute, demonstrating the supposed availability of work (income) in the informal market as recently suggested by the outgoing CEO of Capitec Bank.
The interplay between managers adhering to outdated practices and employees embracing modern approaches reveals a scenario where “the cart is placed before the horse”. This suggests that although progress is being made, it may be obstructed by outdated practices. Meaning, while employees are expected to take orders from the top, they also need a management pool that is cognisant of current trends and which fosters a holistic and conducive work environment without feeling undermined by their juniors. This dilemma can be resolved by open and objective dialogue that caters to the needs of both parties equally.
When an employee feels isolated, trapped and unprotected in their work environment, it becomes challenging for them to manage life outside of work, as a significant portion of their time is devoted to the very thing that causes them distress. This means that the person must endure the abuse to continue living. How can we combat this phenomenon in a way that honours both parties? It starts with defining the cause.
Workplace trauma can be caused by varying factors including instability in the organisation, such as high turnover or restructuring; conflicts between employees and/or management and traumatic incidents, such as the death of a colleague and microaggressions which enable abuse.
The impact of trauma varies for each individual, as it is shaped by personal perspectives and internal experiences that are triggered by external events, rather than the events themselves. It needs to be destigmatised, and intervention prioritised, because it can affect the emotional and psychological well-being of employees.
This shows the need for intervention in cases of workplace trauma, which could include addressing issues and solving the root cause at the systematic level. Those affected should also consider individual therapy, as it would benefit them to debrief, process the experience and build resistance to it. However, if left untreated, the risk of relapse significantly increases if the underlying system remains unchanged.
What interventions could the workplace put in place?
Intervention should be aimed at assisting employees to process their experience, reduce negative impact on their mental health and improve their ability to function effectively and productively both at work and in their personal lives. The intervention could include group counselling by an independent third party; the facilitation of skill training workshops that would benefit the organisation at the employee and management levels; a consistent and fair disciplinary processes for perpetrators and awareness campaigns on mental health issues in the workplace.
Healing also begins when organisations are willing to create safe spaces for these interventions and appoint managers who can demonstrate fairness, sound leadership qualities and high emotional intelligence in managing themselves and others. This would correct behaviours that contribute to the prevalence of workplace trauma and cure internal measures that allow offenders to evade accountability, ultimately leading to the resolution of employee victimisation and mistreatment.
Due to our country’s historical context, the workplace is among the most heavily regulated sectors. But these regulations require enforcement by the industries and role players who deeply understand their purpose, thereby facilitating their role and responsibility to uphold them. It is only by considering the options mentioned that we will ensure a balance between protecting employees and safeguarding their rights while also maintaining the integrity of the employer’s business and operations.
Mase Leshilo is a communicator and social commentator and researcher and Dr Keitumetse “Tumi” Mashego is a clinical and sports psychologist, author of the memoir Trapped in Love, a life-coach and founder of RebaOne Wellness.