It’s no secret that we avoid talking about hard things, especially at work. I file mental health in the “Things we don’t talk about unless we have to” column, with other fundamental topics like difference and bias, anger and fear, the agency and flexibility to manage our own work lives, and privilege and power. These topics have such an impact on how we show up in the world, how we lead and how we function. But people feel like it’s scary and negative and threatening and so we don’t talk about it. It’s complicated and it can open up all kinds of threads that are uncomfortable. The triggers go deep.

Even more so, laying these things bare might threaten power structures that keep things the way they are. Mental health intersects with financial insecurity and lack of a fair wage, a lack of a social safety net, racism, bias, class privilege, our own self image, and the legacy of our past and our childhoods. It causes people to worried about perception of competence or weakness. And so it’s easy for companies to offer therapy benefits but less easy for them to change cultures of compulsive busyness, toxic management, or stressful short-termism. People from all kind of organizations tell me constantly: It’s really hard to speak up and ask for what you need when what you’re asking for might open a window of disruption.

I spent a really fascinating two days at the Thinkers50 gala in London. The discussions ranged from AI, learning how to think big and fail well, and how to move the needle on diversity and inclusion. It was a truth universally acknowledged that being a leader today is hard and stressful and overwhelming. Uncertainty was the buzzword of the day; uncertainty is one of the biggest drivers of anxiety. But the words mental health were barely mentioned. Words that hint at mental health were mentioned a lot: uncertainty, stress, overwhelm. All are really important and a huge factor in how leaders and employees are feeling at work. Ruchika Tulshyan, Modupe Akinola and the FT’s Rukasana Bhaijee led a powerful discussion on how to embed DEIB into organizations (a row, not a column, notes Akinola) and they started off by noting the discomfort many of these discussions cause in a mostly white room. To change work we need to change systems, and this is hard.

This is why to me the most thought-provoking session was from Megan Reitz, professor at Oxford and Hult Business School and Professor Jim Detert from the Darden School at the University Of Virginia. Jim noted that he was going to be provocative and introspective, given the phase of his career.  He was, because he talked about power, democracy, and capitalism. He talked about how difficult conversations can be threats to power.

Detert said that so much of what we speak up about — and what we learn is safe to  speak up about — are only those things that don't affect or touch on what he calls the rules of organizations. So for example, if the deep rules of the organization are that we should make as much money as possible and we should win against the competition, especially in the short term, then your voice is safe if it is about those objectives. And so of course, things that might be perceived as bumping up against the objectives, like taking time off or speaking up about poor treatment are are not safe. 

Jim Detert cited a study that argues an underemphasized view of power is the ability to confine the scope of decision making. Power isn't just the ability to decide, but it's the ability to decide where resources go, and what is up for discussion and what isn’t. 

American workers are speaking up whether employers want to hear them or not. (Check out my recent conversation with Nihar Chhaya, MBA, MCC on how to speak up and be heard). Detert notes that in the US now we see people actually doing more standing up for better wages or pushing back against the soul crushing nature of much work. But all too often, for example, people want to work from home, and they get threats or tracking software.

Much social change is driven by mass movements and social activism. Mass labor change is tough in the US without unions. The recent UAW victory is a beacon. But we often label activists who make us uncomfortable— Detert notes that all you have to do to shut down any serious questioning of the nature of the economic system itself today is call a speaker a socialist. When speaking up threatens power’s self interest, it’s convenient to label activists, ignore them, or pay lip service and check boxes to appease.

But most leaders have good intent and they want better labor relations, even if they work within organizational structures with no interest in system level change. Here are three powerful takeaways Detert and Reitz offered for leaders who want to use their power to support change at work. 

1. Leaders should listen to, and not be threatened by activists. Instead of firing workers who want to unionize, companies could consider why employees want to unionize. A Walgreens spokesman told the press that a recent planned walkout of pharmacists and employees at CVS and Walgreeens “had little impact and that only three pharmacies were closed temporarily over the past three days.” The instinct is to minimize the situation. CVS CEO Karen Lynch said that $1 billion is being added to pay pharmacists and pharmacy techs. That’s not a lot of money for them. The research I’ve seen around these walkouts says it’s less about pay and more about the untenable stress of the retail pharmacy system that is driving poor working conditions.

2. Increase financial independence so workers are less reliant on employer benefits. How would we fortify a safety net so people who speak up and are punished at work are able to leave- and all of us feel more secure minus our employers. This one rang so true to me, because I’ve recently had to independently buy health insurance for our family and it’s a scary and expensive experience. When we are tethered to our jobs, because of financial insecurity or lack of benefits, asking for what we need is risky. When most workers do not earn enough money to save or build outside resources, speaking up is too dangerous.

3. Embrace the power of pausing and listening. Megan Reitz’s research cites the power of the pause. She shared a sentiment I hear a lot, which is “being at work is like drinking from a fire hydrant.” Reitz said “I'm working with some organizations right now I would describe as pathologically busy.” What does this have to do with power?  Letting go of being pathologically busy would threaten the strongly held myth that working “hard” and never stopping is the key to success- (it’s never privilege ;))* When we buy into this myth we perpetuate a status quo that most of our employers like. If we stop and pause for a moment, the myth risks revealing itself. And so, a moment of pause is activism, says Megan Reitz. Pausing and then perhaps doing less is a rejection of the status quo, and it’s pro mental health!

I’m going to add one more piece of advice, knowing that language matters so much. When advocating for change in an organization, trying speaking in language power understands. One Mind at Work’s Christina McCarthy notes that sometimes people feel these conversations are implicit criticisms of leadership, which can lead to alienating the people who can create change. For example, she recommends framing mental health into language that resonates with the people in the conversation. “Speak to leaders in the language that they're familiar with such as data. Then mental health can be an issue that we address together and design solutions, and really make that impact together.”

Some food for your thoughts!

Morra

* In another session, anthropologist Rahaf Harfoush cited the “work devotion schema” which portrays constant work as a noble and meaningful pursuit. It’s a tenet that has been shown to dampen down use of parental leave, and also propels the myth that hard work is the only way we get ahead. And yet, I definitely feel work devotion myself. It’s societal!