You may have to be mad to work here

The workplace is for robust, healthy people, yes? Ill people, especially mentally ill people, should be cared for elsewhere, somewhere out of sight. They should certainly not be recruited and if they slip through the nets craftily set up by the HR department, or if they become ill during employment, they should be discreetly managed out. This is essentially the approach taken by most UK employers. Many would say, in a tough world, it makes good business sense.

But consider this: “On average, employers should expect to find that at any one time nearly 1 in 6 of their workforce is affected by a mental health condition, such as depression or anxiety. The proportion rises to over 1 in 5 if alcohol and drug dependence are also included.” (Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health: Policy Paper 8 - Mental Health at Work (2007), emphasis added.)

So, to put it crudely, the lunatics are already out of the asylum and are looping the loop in the workplace. Some of them are in charge. Others are amongst the most talented and productive employees in the organisation. Some, admittedly, are not. But employers who take the typical “They shall not pass” approach are surely deluding themselves.

Rock and a hard place

Undoubtedly there are legal risks for employers arising from mental illness in the workplace. Personal injury claims arising where stressful working conditions foreseeably cause psychiatric injury routinely yield compensation payments in six figures or more. Many jobs, particularly those carrying high pay and/or status, are inherently stressful. Employers who seek to reduce their personal injury risks by removing vulnerable people from those jobs risk getting smacked on the other side of the face by the disability discrimination legislation, under which compensation payments can reach similar levels. It’s a classic bind.

Employers who merely seek to deal with mental health issues as and when they reach crisis point in individual cases risk far more than just legal claims. The greatest mental health costs to UK employers estimated by the Sainsbury Centre are not from compensation, or even absenteeism (although the latter is estimated at £8.4 billion per annum): they are reduced productivity from those present at work, at £15.1 billion.

My observations as an employment lawyer suggest that many high status jobs attract, and even demand, people who are on or over the verge of mental illness. In an article for the Times Higher Education Supplement, Simon Blackburn, Professor of Philosophy at Cambridge University advises (admittedly with some mild exaggeration for effect) that “stark staring lunacy, really superlative absence of marbles” is one of the keys to success in academia. One of the real problems that universities face as a result is in managing conflict between highly productive, intelligent and articulate individuals who would be regarded as unhinged in a “normal” working environment. One case that I dealt with involved deadly serious death threats between academic colleagues. Another led to the legal costs for one individual academic running close to £1 million.

The vulnerable lawyer

Many in high octane workplaces such as the professional services, medical and creative sectors face similar problems. In law firms, the most talented and productive partners are very often those who are, behind the façade, most vulnerable to mental illness. Their relationships with colleagues and their management of junior staff are often very poor. They thrive on the kicks of client satisfaction, fee generation, publicity and power, all of which fuel an insatiable ego. They are tolerated until they go too far and are axed, often with devastating consequences for the individual and sometimes the firm.

Satisfying work is widely regarded as being good, and perhaps necessary, for mental health. My suggestion to employers is that if their organisation is to thrive they should avoid deluding themselves that their staff are all normal and free from mental illness, or that those who are will stay that way.

Merely putting a confidential counselling service in place is not enough. Employers should actively consider where the particular pressure points are for individuals in their organisations, such as intensity and variety of work, peer pressure, team dynamics, involvement in decision making, and competing pressures from home. Management structures, training and guidance should take such issues into account. Checks should be put in place to rein in superstars in danger of believing their own PR (even at the cost of reduced income in the short term), and to nurture the self-esteem of those at the other end of the spectrum. But at the same time, individuality and talent should not be stifled. It’s a tough act.