Why mental health still remains in shadows

Mental Health Day, the emails circulate. At the face of it, the discussion seems dynamic and enlightened. However, there is more just below this surface of discourse that is even less comfortable. The systems that are intended to embrace the psychological wellbeing of the employees are not well understood, suffer from poor implementation or are underutilized. The gap between awareness and action is not small. It is enormous.

The numbers also tell the same story. Among the approximately 1.1 million registered companies in India only 0.1 percent of companies have Employee Assistance programmes or EAPs. Simultaneously, research has also shown that approximately 42.5 percent of employees working in the private sector experience symptoms linked to anxiety and depression. That is, millions of working Indians are suffering from psychological issue that rarely receives professional support.

This situation must be viewed in a bigger structural sense. In India, professional mental health services are still considered a luxury to most employees and outpatient counselling services are not part of standard health insurance packages. Also, there is a shortage of trained mental health professionals in the country. Collectively, these elements render the ability to achieve access to prompt psychological care a challenge among the working professionals.

Thus, the need is immense, but the response of the organizations is small in terms of scale and organizing. Most companies are of the opinion that they have dealt with the issue by merely paying attention to it. A webinar is organized. A stress management talk is presented by a consultant or expert. In most of the cases, there is a tie-up with an external EAP service. These actions only give the illusion of improvement, but they rarely change how employees experience mental health support inside an organization.

The more serious issue is the way mental health is still perceived at Indian workplaces. The psychological struggles are hard to accept as a normal experience of a person to many employees and managers. Physical disease is readily accepted. During a fever, a wound, a permanent illness, sympathy and support are immediately offered. Mental distress works in a different manner. The effects of stress, burnout, anxiety, and emotional exhaustion tend to be invisible even when they impact on performance, relations, and wellbeing. Even in most companies, the confession of the psychological strain is accompanied by the unspoken fear. The fear of being perceived as incompetent to handle pressure.

It is the stigma that influences the behaviour of employees and managers in multiple ways. In any company that provides EAP services, workers tend to be averse to take advantage of it. An appointment for a counselling session is confidential, but employees are concerned about the information being leaked by some means via the informal channels or the managerial channels. Thus, it is safer to be silent or not to use the services than exposed.

These misconceptions are deeper. There is lack of clear understanding among employees about the counselling support as opposed to psychiatric treatment. Psychiatric care is commonly linked to severe mental disorders rather than an emotional support system. Due to this, employees delay seeking help for emotional issue. When organisations realize that their productivity is low, withdrawal from work, lethargy or rising absenteeism, the situation has already escalated.

Mental health services in most companies are seen as emergency services and not preventive services. EAPs are offered as the means of crisis, addiction issues, major depression, or individual breakdown. Employees do not view them as being helpful in the normal struggle of life such as work overload, career confusion, supervisor conflict, and emotional stress of juggling between professional and personal demands. Employees do not use these support systems at the initial stages of distress, anxiety or depression.

The other obstacle is at the leadership level. One of the questions that the senior executives ask prior to investing in the mental health initiatives is—what is the return on the investment? The answer cannot be simply found in terms of finances. The positive outcomes of counselling and psychological support usually face indirect benefits in the form of morale boosting higher engagement, better relations, and supportive culture. These outcomes matter, yet they may not simply reflect in financial measurement. Mental health programmes must be seen as long-term commitment of an organization. When leaders use short-term measures, their true worth is compromised.

The vicious cycle is, firms implement small mental health programmes. Employees are reluctant to make use of them. Utilization remains low. The low usage is viewed by leaders as an indicator that the service is not necessary to the employees. Investment remains limited. The underlying distress of workforce is being muffled under the carpet.

The point is standalone mental health support or services are ineffective. They need more cultural changes in organizations. It should be clear to the employees what mental health support means. There is nothing wrong about seeking help or using counselling support. It does not apply to extreme issues only. It’s merely a space to discuss stress, personal issues or workplace disputes before they grow into larger issues.

Leadership behaviour is critical. When the top management acknowledge the psychological pressure of work and personal life they face, it makes discussions more organic. These open discussions about seeking mental health support, lowers psychological barriers for junior employees. They start realizing that counselling support could help them in building emotional resilience. They gradually become open to using such services. Having only formal discussions about mental health support, employees do not develop much faith in them. Therefore, companies should re-examine the manner in which they position support systems.

Another critical aspect is the confidentiality. There should be a visible effort within the company, and not just some rhetoric. The psychological support services can only be used effectively when the employees are fully convinced that their discussions would be confidential; the disclosure of mental health issue would not impact their promotions or performance appraisal. Trust cannot be assumed. It must be constructed intentionally within the system.

Among Indian corporates, there is no lack of discourses on mental health issues or support. Awareness exists in language, but not yet in everyday practice. This gap has grave implications to a country whose economic development is becoming more and more reliant on knowledge workers, innovation, as well as human capital. Employees cannot continue to be creative, make effective decisions and work together when they are suffering from chronic psychological issues. Stresses which are not addressed over time are detrimental to individual wellbeing as well as the performance of an organization.

The true challenge of corporate India is to acknowledge the fact that mental health is not a piece of wellness window dressing. It is a core requirement, which determines the manner in which individuals think, work and interact with each other within organizations. Until workplaces move beyond superficial awareness and begin treating psychological wellbeing as an essential part of organizational culture, the conversation around mental health will remain visible in conferences and presentations while the real struggles of employees continue silently in the background.

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are solely of the author and does not necessarily subscribe to it. will not be responsible for any damage caused to any person or organisation directly or indirectly.