"Mental health at work" has become something of a buzz phrase in recent years, particularly in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic.
"Mental health" is the reason people "need to get back to the office" - because the extroverts are suffering, since they're no longer able to dominate meetings, talk people into agreeing to take on more work than they're actually comfortable with, or enthusiastically create a situation where, if getting drunk with people you already spend too much time with, or leaping on a zip wire, aren't really your thing, you're "unadventurous", "anti-social", and "not really a team player."
The UK government insist work is good for our "mental health", even as successful GPs decide they literally can't carry on anymore, and choose a permanent solution to the problem of burnout. While the low wages, in comparison to the cost of living, and long hours of many jobs are actually causing or exacerbating individuals' mental health.
And then, of course, there's the gap in how people are treated when they experience mental health challenges whilst in employment.
That gap is very real, it's clearly marked out on professional networking sites like LinkedIn, and in casual conversations.
Here's what the gap looks like:
Board Level Executives, Non-Exec Directors, etc
Actually dealing with the most stress. Not only do they have to steer the ship, but they're dealing with both direct contact from the CEO, which can be very changeable, quite demanding, and often more reactive than strategic, as well as the attitudes of middle management and external stakeholders to their decisions.
The future of the organisation, including potentially hundreds or thousands of peoples' jobs, is tied to the decisions they make, and the actions they take.
"Mental health" is the reason people "need to get back to the office" - because the extroverts are suffering, since they're no longer able to dominate meetings, talk people into agreeing to take on more work than they're actually comfortable with, or enthusiastically create a situation where, if getting drunk with people you already spend too much time with, or leaping on a zip wire, aren't really your thing, you're "unadventurous", "anti-social", and "not really a team player."
The UK government insist work is good for our "mental health", even as successful GPs decide they literally can't carry on anymore, and choose a permanent solution to the problem of burnout. While the low wages, in comparison to the cost of living, and long hours of many jobs are actually causing or exacerbating individuals' mental health.
And then, of course, there's the gap in how people are treated when they experience mental health challenges whilst in employment.
That gap is very real, it's clearly marked out on professional networking sites like LinkedIn, and in casual conversations.
Here's what the gap looks like:
Board Level Executives, Non-Exec Directors, etc
Actually dealing with the most stress. Not only do they have to steer the ship, but they're dealing with both direct contact from the CEO, which can be very changeable, quite demanding, and often more reactive than strategic, as well as the attitudes of middle management and external stakeholders to their decisions.
The future of the organisation, including potentially hundreds or thousands of peoples' jobs, is tied to the decisions they make, and the actions they take.
Often having to navigate and build tricky alliances, remain aware of socio-economic challenges, and are operating with full and frank consciousness of exactly where the business is at, for better or worse.
Are routinely dismissed as "lazy and overprivileged" by management, with an attitude that "they don't actually do anything, other than take their huge salaries and swan off to cushy events every five minutes!"
Their mental health is seen as less of a priority than the mental health of staff, and certainly less important than the health of the business as an holistic entity.
Management:
Usually only "very, very busy, very stressed, lot going on!" because they're disorganised. Often only disorganised because they believe it's important to look as though they're constantly on the point of breakdown.
When they actually genuinely experience breakdown or burnout, their workload is seamlessly delegated among their junior reports, a sympathetic, light-touch check-in process is put in place, so they "don't feel excluded", they're linked in with various wellbeing provisions, they're signposted to private support their salaries enable them to afford, and everyone is reminded that it's "really important we all pull together, so X doesn't have to worry about work while they focus on getting better."
When they actually genuinely experience breakdown or burnout, their workload is seamlessly delegated among their junior reports, a sympathetic, light-touch check-in process is put in place, so they "don't feel excluded", they're linked in with various wellbeing provisions, they're signposted to private support their salaries enable them to afford, and everyone is reminded that it's "really important we all pull together, so X doesn't have to worry about work while they focus on getting better."
Frontline Staff
Are viewed as a 'liability' if they ever dare mention their 'mental health' - don't they know that's why the company spends a fortune on subscriptions to a mindfulness app?! They need to make time, outside of work ideally, to log in, and get themselves sorted!
Requests for short-notice time off are routinely denied, with the admonishment that "We're very good here about not contacting people outside of work, so, if you haven't been prioritising your wellbeing, that's an issue you need to take responsibility for."
Are the people who make it "such a positive, compassionate experience" when managers are off with mental health challenges, and are the reason that managers can sing the praises of companies for how they 'handled things'; however close to burnout a frontline employee is, they have no choice but to find the reserves to deal with more work when a senior colleague "needs some time out of the business."
In contrast, if they themselves are ever unable to "just keep pushing through"... their appointments will be cancelled, their emails will stack up, unanswered, and their projects will fall apart, because no one else grasps just how much hands-on support was needed.
Their 'check-in' calls are mandatory, and very focused on 'when are you intending to come back?', with frequent reminders of 'how much everyone else is having to deal with to support you.'
And they know they'll be coming back to projects in crisis, resentful colleagues, and 5,751 'urgent' emails that no one's so much as glanced at while they've been away. And their notebook will have disappeared from their desk, their log-in codes won't work, and all their pens will have been nicked. Often, their entire desk has been moved somewhere else, because "we felt that people needed a change, to blow away the cobwebs!"
Burnout is a management perk - the rest of you are just lazy, and need to prioritise wellness activities when you're not at work!
Managers on LinkedIn and in real life demand to know why they "are supposed to just do everything for everyone else!" (that's what the additional pay is for...), rage about how "people need to leave their personal problems at home when they come into work!" and are very loud in their views that female managers have it the Hardest of Everyone, and no one else should ever dare express that they're struggling, especially if the manager in question is "dealing with the struggles of managing work as a single mother", or "having to cope with the demands of this job and the menopause!"
Misogynists then respond that "women made a choice!", and that "in my day, we didn't need time off, or our hands held, for going through perfectly normal bodily changes! People are just snowflakes who want constant handouts, these days!"
Meanwhile, the single Dads, trans people dealing with dysphoria (and often varying levels of transphobia as well), and those for whom hormonal fluctuations are part and parcel of lifelong disabilities, who are in low paid, low-respect, frontline positions, just accept that no one will believe them, or care, if they try and discuss their struggles, and so just keep going.
Management-level folk take to LinkedIn to talk about "how immediately better" they felt walking out of a "stressful" job, where their "mental health was not prioritised, at all!" with nothing else lined up.
Those in frontline roles fantasise about a lottery win, which is the only way they could afford to 'just walk out.'
Those trying to rebuild their life from a position of chronic mental ill-health, who were previously not management level, sit quietly while Department for Work and Pensions staff berate them for "basically talking yourself out of a job!" because they forgot whatever lie they'd been told to use to cover their reason for their 'employment gap'...all whilst trying to survive on less than £100 a week, with an expectation that they'll commute up to 75miles, each way, for a job that doesn't pay expenses, and only offers the minimum wage.
If they express that they actually feel more stable only having to manage their health and their personal life, they're reminded that "work is good for your mental health!", and threatened with losing the tiny amount of money they already have.
Asylum seekers, still processing the trauma of whatever forced them from their homeland, are thrown in hotels that don't want them, in communities that really don't want them, told they're not allowed to even try and work, given a literal pittance to live on, and then have to deal with abuse, including physical violence, from people who resent them for "getting houses, and a load of money every month, while they don't have to work for it!"
People who happen to be white and male increasingly face attitudes that they're scum for simply existing, that they've "taken too much from too many people", even if, as individuals, they have less than nothing, and have worked themselves ragged to get even that. They're upbraided for their "privilege" while they wonder how they're going to pay the bills, or put food on the table, since men, especially if they're very clearly straight, don't make a lot of money from sex work, cam work, or OnlyFans. (Some do. Most don't. In general, the men who do well on sites like OnlyFans were already famous for something.) No one wants to buy men's feet pics.
They have to make sure that, every time they try and ask for help, they make it crystal clear they appreciate how much harder everyone else has it, they understand how privileged they are, and they know the world is literally designed for their comfort - even when they're broken, and the systems that are supposed to support people are leaving them to bleed to death from the cuts they picked up from the sharp edges.
Single mothers have to take the flak of the resentment and very real pain of these men - because their proper targets are too far away, too distant, so "lazy mares who just use men to get a kid, then make him pay through the nose for the rest of his life, while the government gives them handouts forever!" become a convenient stand-in.
Racial and ethnic minority individuals take the flak of the resentment of white people of all genders - again, because the proper targets are too distant, and the easier shot is the accusation of "coming over here and stealing our jobs! Getting given a house and hundreds of quid a week straight off the boat!"
Certain groups in society have been told, in subtle and not so subtle ways, that it's "problematic" for them to ask for support for their mental health, and a "sign of their systemic privilege" when they take responsibility for their own wellbeing.
In Mental Health Awareness Week, we need to be aware that the ability to step back from the demands of work, trusting they will be handled properly in our absence, is not a "management perk", "proof of male privilege!", or "selfish laziness."
In Mental Health Awareness Week, we need to be aware of how much harm we do when we take the cheap, easy shots at the people who should never have been presented as "the enemy", and leave the actual enemy - oppressive systems, unbearable costs of living, lack of accessible support, out of touch governments - unscathed.
In Mental Health Awareness Week, we need to recognise that being white, male, cisgender, and heterosexual isn't the magical, failproof armour people have begun to insist it is. We need to recognise the insensitivity of talking about how "women deal with the burden of care, and emotional and unpaid labour!" in front of men who are single fathers, kinship carers, and unemployed.
In Mental Health Awareness Week, we need to understand that trans people who are following medical transition pathways go through menopause and puberty simultaneously - and often whilst being expected to do more and better work than everyone else, and still being accused of being 'liabilities', 'entitled', and 'harmful to the company's reputation.'
In Mental Health Awareness Week, we need to appreciate that disabled people are facing intense mental health impacts from the ways in which their bodies no longer function the way they would like them to, and from the increasingly hostile dialogue around how 'expensive' they are to 'support' from government and the media.
In Mental Health Awareness Week, we need to realise, once and for all, that socio-economic privilege, racial privilege, the privilege of good physical health, perceived gender privilege, are simply aspects of life that people had very little or no say in having, and are certainly no shield against the 'slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.'
At the same time, however, those with money need to be aware that, while it doesn't necessarily make them happier, it does allow them to be unhappy in comfort, and without the additional stress of trying to make ends meet. It enables them to leave toxic jobs, to take mental health breaks, to radically alter their lives to better suit their personal wellbeing. And they need to appreciate that not everyone has money. That "just get a job!" isn't the answer they think it is - in the UK, many of the least well-off are working.
So, what can professionals do?
We get it; it can feel that, as a professional, especially as a manager, you're always having to "do something", often at considerable expense, to "solve everyone else's problems."
But supporting your workforce, if you're a senior exec, or showing up for your team, if you're a mid-level manager, doesn't have to be expensive, complicated, or "a complete minefield, because people are literally triggered by everything, these days!"
1. Ask people how they are when you actually have time to hear the real answer - and make your energy back up your words. Listen to what someone tells you. Ask them if there is anything you can do, but don't leap in with 'solutions' when the person may not have actually given you a problem.
"I'm sorry to hear that you're feeling that way - do you feel it's more work, home, or a mix of the two? I can't really help on the home front, but is there anything you'd like me to take a look at with you with regards to your work? Are there any changes we could make to the office, or to your working arrangements, that might help?" - that takes less than two minutes to ask. Five minutes to wait for an answer. Another five, perhaps, for the answer to be expressed. Two minutes to respond. Fourteen minutes. The duration of a coffee break, or a 'quick walk to blow the cobwebs away!'
And the answer might be something you'd never even considered, that is effortless to address - maybe the biggest source of stress at work for that person is that they walk to work, so can't "go and sit in their car" when they're on break, and so end up working through lunch, because they "just have to sit at my desk, and people assume I'm available" - a quick print and laminate job, and the whole team can have signs they can display to indicate that they are actually on a break, and should not be disturbed. Have IT establish a system-wide autoresponse on emails between, say, 12.30pm-1.30pm, so people can relax and know they don't have to respond to emails. Have IT automatically block out everyone's online diaries across this same time, in a way that prevents meetings from being scheduled in the first place.
In customer-facing offices, put a notice on your front door identifying a specific lunch hour, and LOCK the office door at this point. Turn the answerphones on, for everyone.
In retail or hospitality, actually schedule breaks for your shifts - eg, half the shift are on lunch between 11am-11.30am, the other half between 11.30am-12pm (as 'actual lunch time' tends to be busier in these jobs. Discuss with the early and late shifts when would work best for them to have a proper break, and schedule accordingly.) If at all possible, provide a comfortable space away from the main work area for breaks to be taken. Schedule two further 15minute breaks at either end of the shift, to accommodate the fact that these jobs often don't allow for a full hour's lunch break to be taken at once.
2. Could this meeting actually be an email? If you don't have a formal agenda, or the agenda points could be covered in about 20minutes, it can probably be an email. Flag it as "urgent, response required" - and use the discipline processes you should have in place for people who don't respond, having first ensured everyone actually knows how to filter emails for particular flags.
Meetings should NOT be being scheduled:
. Within the first 30mins of the workday starting
. Over a lunchbreak
. Within the last hour of the workday
If you "wouldn't have time to have the meetings we need to have!" within those parameters - you're having too many meetings. Set an email check in protocol for workloads, and otherwise trust people to do what you've asked them to do.
If you work in an agile way, and someone who needs to be at the meeting starts their day later than everyone else, and therefore a meeting which isn't within the first 30minutes of most peoples' day is within the first 30minutes of their day, either find a different time, or, if that genuinely isn't possible, ask them the day before if they are comfortable with attending a meeting at that time. (Eg, if they start at 9am, while other people start at 8.30am, ask if they're okay for a 9am meeting the day before that meeting.)
STOP scheduling back to back meetings! Meetings often overrun by at least 10minutes. People need at least five minutes to breathe, review papers, get a drink, stretch, answer calls of nature - this overscheduling tends to be an issue with virtual meetings: remember, if you were meeting physically, you wouldn't be able to have someone come straight from a meeting which finished at 11am into a meeting which started at 11am - don't do if just because "they only have to click a link!" Give a 15minute space between all meetings - physical and virtual.
3. Be realistic with workloads.
An example I tend to give is that, outside of work, I have to deal with the impacts of disability, and the demands of being an unpaid carer. Those are two 'slots' of personal capacity, which relates to energy and focus.
In general, I have up to 7 'slots' available in a day over and above the two 'life stressors' slots, which are already filled.
That means I can typically handle 7 additional tasks in a day - which, in an average 8hr working day, spreads the work fairly evenly, allows for longer and shorter tasks, and breaks.
No one in your team should have more than 7 tasks.
If you have 5 team members, that means your team as a whole can only take on 35 tasks, giving each person 7 tasks. The 36th task goes on a waiting list. The only person who can see the waiting list is the manager of that team, and they do not talk about what's on the waiting list until current tasks are approaching close-out.
For a manager, their 'task list' may look like:
1. Line management responsibilities
2. Mandatory reporting requirements
3. Strategic support
4. Availability for unscheduled interventions/support
5. Networking commitments
Requests for short-notice time off are routinely denied, with the admonishment that "We're very good here about not contacting people outside of work, so, if you haven't been prioritising your wellbeing, that's an issue you need to take responsibility for."
Are the people who make it "such a positive, compassionate experience" when managers are off with mental health challenges, and are the reason that managers can sing the praises of companies for how they 'handled things'; however close to burnout a frontline employee is, they have no choice but to find the reserves to deal with more work when a senior colleague "needs some time out of the business."
In contrast, if they themselves are ever unable to "just keep pushing through"... their appointments will be cancelled, their emails will stack up, unanswered, and their projects will fall apart, because no one else grasps just how much hands-on support was needed.
Their 'check-in' calls are mandatory, and very focused on 'when are you intending to come back?', with frequent reminders of 'how much everyone else is having to deal with to support you.'
And they know they'll be coming back to projects in crisis, resentful colleagues, and 5,751 'urgent' emails that no one's so much as glanced at while they've been away. And their notebook will have disappeared from their desk, their log-in codes won't work, and all their pens will have been nicked. Often, their entire desk has been moved somewhere else, because "we felt that people needed a change, to blow away the cobwebs!"
Burnout is a management perk - the rest of you are just lazy, and need to prioritise wellness activities when you're not at work!
Managers on LinkedIn and in real life demand to know why they "are supposed to just do everything for everyone else!" (that's what the additional pay is for...), rage about how "people need to leave their personal problems at home when they come into work!" and are very loud in their views that female managers have it the Hardest of Everyone, and no one else should ever dare express that they're struggling, especially if the manager in question is "dealing with the struggles of managing work as a single mother", or "having to cope with the demands of this job and the menopause!"
Misogynists then respond that "women made a choice!", and that "in my day, we didn't need time off, or our hands held, for going through perfectly normal bodily changes! People are just snowflakes who want constant handouts, these days!"
Meanwhile, the single Dads, trans people dealing with dysphoria (and often varying levels of transphobia as well), and those for whom hormonal fluctuations are part and parcel of lifelong disabilities, who are in low paid, low-respect, frontline positions, just accept that no one will believe them, or care, if they try and discuss their struggles, and so just keep going.
Management-level folk take to LinkedIn to talk about "how immediately better" they felt walking out of a "stressful" job, where their "mental health was not prioritised, at all!" with nothing else lined up.
Those in frontline roles fantasise about a lottery win, which is the only way they could afford to 'just walk out.'
Those trying to rebuild their life from a position of chronic mental ill-health, who were previously not management level, sit quietly while Department for Work and Pensions staff berate them for "basically talking yourself out of a job!" because they forgot whatever lie they'd been told to use to cover their reason for their 'employment gap'...all whilst trying to survive on less than £100 a week, with an expectation that they'll commute up to 75miles, each way, for a job that doesn't pay expenses, and only offers the minimum wage.
If they express that they actually feel more stable only having to manage their health and their personal life, they're reminded that "work is good for your mental health!", and threatened with losing the tiny amount of money they already have.
Asylum seekers, still processing the trauma of whatever forced them from their homeland, are thrown in hotels that don't want them, in communities that really don't want them, told they're not allowed to even try and work, given a literal pittance to live on, and then have to deal with abuse, including physical violence, from people who resent them for "getting houses, and a load of money every month, while they don't have to work for it!"
People who happen to be white and male increasingly face attitudes that they're scum for simply existing, that they've "taken too much from too many people", even if, as individuals, they have less than nothing, and have worked themselves ragged to get even that. They're upbraided for their "privilege" while they wonder how they're going to pay the bills, or put food on the table, since men, especially if they're very clearly straight, don't make a lot of money from sex work, cam work, or OnlyFans. (Some do. Most don't. In general, the men who do well on sites like OnlyFans were already famous for something.) No one wants to buy men's feet pics.
They have to make sure that, every time they try and ask for help, they make it crystal clear they appreciate how much harder everyone else has it, they understand how privileged they are, and they know the world is literally designed for their comfort - even when they're broken, and the systems that are supposed to support people are leaving them to bleed to death from the cuts they picked up from the sharp edges.
Single mothers have to take the flak of the resentment and very real pain of these men - because their proper targets are too far away, too distant, so "lazy mares who just use men to get a kid, then make him pay through the nose for the rest of his life, while the government gives them handouts forever!" become a convenient stand-in.
Racial and ethnic minority individuals take the flak of the resentment of white people of all genders - again, because the proper targets are too distant, and the easier shot is the accusation of "coming over here and stealing our jobs! Getting given a house and hundreds of quid a week straight off the boat!"
Certain groups in society have been told, in subtle and not so subtle ways, that it's "problematic" for them to ask for support for their mental health, and a "sign of their systemic privilege" when they take responsibility for their own wellbeing.
In Mental Health Awareness Week, we need to be aware that the ability to step back from the demands of work, trusting they will be handled properly in our absence, is not a "management perk", "proof of male privilege!", or "selfish laziness."
In Mental Health Awareness Week, we need to be aware of how much harm we do when we take the cheap, easy shots at the people who should never have been presented as "the enemy", and leave the actual enemy - oppressive systems, unbearable costs of living, lack of accessible support, out of touch governments - unscathed.
In Mental Health Awareness Week, we need to recognise that being white, male, cisgender, and heterosexual isn't the magical, failproof armour people have begun to insist it is. We need to recognise the insensitivity of talking about how "women deal with the burden of care, and emotional and unpaid labour!" in front of men who are single fathers, kinship carers, and unemployed.
In Mental Health Awareness Week, we need to understand that trans people who are following medical transition pathways go through menopause and puberty simultaneously - and often whilst being expected to do more and better work than everyone else, and still being accused of being 'liabilities', 'entitled', and 'harmful to the company's reputation.'
In Mental Health Awareness Week, we need to appreciate that disabled people are facing intense mental health impacts from the ways in which their bodies no longer function the way they would like them to, and from the increasingly hostile dialogue around how 'expensive' they are to 'support' from government and the media.
In Mental Health Awareness Week, we need to realise, once and for all, that socio-economic privilege, racial privilege, the privilege of good physical health, perceived gender privilege, are simply aspects of life that people had very little or no say in having, and are certainly no shield against the 'slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.'
At the same time, however, those with money need to be aware that, while it doesn't necessarily make them happier, it does allow them to be unhappy in comfort, and without the additional stress of trying to make ends meet. It enables them to leave toxic jobs, to take mental health breaks, to radically alter their lives to better suit their personal wellbeing. And they need to appreciate that not everyone has money. That "just get a job!" isn't the answer they think it is - in the UK, many of the least well-off are working.
So, what can professionals do?
We get it; it can feel that, as a professional, especially as a manager, you're always having to "do something", often at considerable expense, to "solve everyone else's problems."
But supporting your workforce, if you're a senior exec, or showing up for your team, if you're a mid-level manager, doesn't have to be expensive, complicated, or "a complete minefield, because people are literally triggered by everything, these days!"
1. Ask people how they are when you actually have time to hear the real answer - and make your energy back up your words. Listen to what someone tells you. Ask them if there is anything you can do, but don't leap in with 'solutions' when the person may not have actually given you a problem.
"I'm sorry to hear that you're feeling that way - do you feel it's more work, home, or a mix of the two? I can't really help on the home front, but is there anything you'd like me to take a look at with you with regards to your work? Are there any changes we could make to the office, or to your working arrangements, that might help?" - that takes less than two minutes to ask. Five minutes to wait for an answer. Another five, perhaps, for the answer to be expressed. Two minutes to respond. Fourteen minutes. The duration of a coffee break, or a 'quick walk to blow the cobwebs away!'
And the answer might be something you'd never even considered, that is effortless to address - maybe the biggest source of stress at work for that person is that they walk to work, so can't "go and sit in their car" when they're on break, and so end up working through lunch, because they "just have to sit at my desk, and people assume I'm available" - a quick print and laminate job, and the whole team can have signs they can display to indicate that they are actually on a break, and should not be disturbed. Have IT establish a system-wide autoresponse on emails between, say, 12.30pm-1.30pm, so people can relax and know they don't have to respond to emails. Have IT automatically block out everyone's online diaries across this same time, in a way that prevents meetings from being scheduled in the first place.
In customer-facing offices, put a notice on your front door identifying a specific lunch hour, and LOCK the office door at this point. Turn the answerphones on, for everyone.
In retail or hospitality, actually schedule breaks for your shifts - eg, half the shift are on lunch between 11am-11.30am, the other half between 11.30am-12pm (as 'actual lunch time' tends to be busier in these jobs. Discuss with the early and late shifts when would work best for them to have a proper break, and schedule accordingly.) If at all possible, provide a comfortable space away from the main work area for breaks to be taken. Schedule two further 15minute breaks at either end of the shift, to accommodate the fact that these jobs often don't allow for a full hour's lunch break to be taken at once.
2. Could this meeting actually be an email? If you don't have a formal agenda, or the agenda points could be covered in about 20minutes, it can probably be an email. Flag it as "urgent, response required" - and use the discipline processes you should have in place for people who don't respond, having first ensured everyone actually knows how to filter emails for particular flags.
Meetings should NOT be being scheduled:
. Within the first 30mins of the workday starting
. Over a lunchbreak
. Within the last hour of the workday
If you "wouldn't have time to have the meetings we need to have!" within those parameters - you're having too many meetings. Set an email check in protocol for workloads, and otherwise trust people to do what you've asked them to do.
If you work in an agile way, and someone who needs to be at the meeting starts their day later than everyone else, and therefore a meeting which isn't within the first 30minutes of most peoples' day is within the first 30minutes of their day, either find a different time, or, if that genuinely isn't possible, ask them the day before if they are comfortable with attending a meeting at that time. (Eg, if they start at 9am, while other people start at 8.30am, ask if they're okay for a 9am meeting the day before that meeting.)
STOP scheduling back to back meetings! Meetings often overrun by at least 10minutes. People need at least five minutes to breathe, review papers, get a drink, stretch, answer calls of nature - this overscheduling tends to be an issue with virtual meetings: remember, if you were meeting physically, you wouldn't be able to have someone come straight from a meeting which finished at 11am into a meeting which started at 11am - don't do if just because "they only have to click a link!" Give a 15minute space between all meetings - physical and virtual.
3. Be realistic with workloads.
An example I tend to give is that, outside of work, I have to deal with the impacts of disability, and the demands of being an unpaid carer. Those are two 'slots' of personal capacity, which relates to energy and focus.
In general, I have up to 7 'slots' available in a day over and above the two 'life stressors' slots, which are already filled.
That means I can typically handle 7 additional tasks in a day - which, in an average 8hr working day, spreads the work fairly evenly, allows for longer and shorter tasks, and breaks.
No one in your team should have more than 7 tasks.
If you have 5 team members, that means your team as a whole can only take on 35 tasks, giving each person 7 tasks. The 36th task goes on a waiting list. The only person who can see the waiting list is the manager of that team, and they do not talk about what's on the waiting list until current tasks are approaching close-out.
For a manager, their 'task list' may look like:
1. Line management responsibilities
2. Mandatory reporting requirements
3. Strategic support
4. Availability for unscheduled interventions/support
5. Networking commitments
meaning they only actually have TWO 'slots' of the visible work of the team. That's perfectly fine - but have everyone's capacity visible to the whole team. It stops the pernicious impacts of a sense that "other people aren't doing as much", and it allows colleagues to spot tasks they may be better suited to handle, or on which they can offer highly relevant support.
In a hospitality/retail setting, the '7 slots' might look more like:
1. Responsiveness to customer requests/demands
2. Display facing
3. Health and safety related monitoring
4. Available for deliveries
5. Cleaning
6. Direct service
7. Guiding new/less confident colleagues
A nurse's 7 slots might look like:
1. Emergency response availability
2. Discussions with family members of patients
3. Non-emergency, non-interventive patient support
4. Liaison with consultants
5. Admin
6. Mandatory reporting commitments
7. Direct patient care
Seven slots, as you can see, works quite well across the breadth of jobs and working patterns that exist, and so is a solid and reliable metric to focus on.
By setting 'slot limits', you are more easily able to prove the need for additional staff, or to justify a refusal to accept a greater workload.
In a hospitality/retail setting, the '7 slots' might look more like:
1. Responsiveness to customer requests/demands
2. Display facing
3. Health and safety related monitoring
4. Available for deliveries
5. Cleaning
6. Direct service
7. Guiding new/less confident colleagues
A nurse's 7 slots might look like:
1. Emergency response availability
2. Discussions with family members of patients
3. Non-emergency, non-interventive patient support
4. Liaison with consultants
5. Admin
6. Mandatory reporting commitments
7. Direct patient care
Seven slots, as you can see, works quite well across the breadth of jobs and working patterns that exist, and so is a solid and reliable metric to focus on.
By setting 'slot limits', you are more easily able to prove the need for additional staff, or to justify a refusal to accept a greater workload.
4. Be aware of the demands your team are facing outside of work. This should be covered in regular line management, and is NOT an opportunity for managers to unload on their junior reports about their stresses and challenges - unless your experience can actually help. (eg, a team member reveals they are a kinship carer, you are in the same position, and attend a support group you've found really helpful).
You don't necessarily have to "do anything" about these demands - you probably won't be able to - but it serves as a useful guide, particularly when you're managing people who feel they "have to" volunteer for everything, "have to" be the first to say they can take on more work - if those people also have extensive commitments outside of work that they didn't necessarily choose, and can't drop, then you need to focus on bringing in other people, with fewer external demands, to handle crisis workload increases. (It is very unlikely you will have a single team member who has no external demands. Everyone is dealing with more than those around them are aware of.)
5. Not everyone considers 'food and social time' a 'reward'.
If you're taking time out to have pizza as a team, schedule it at the start or the end of the day, and give people the opportunity to have their pizza 'to go', and finish early - this not only ensures introverts aren't dumped with high social demands they can't escape, it also gives people who may not want to eat the food the team decided on by majority an opportunity to quietly and gracefully avoid that.
NEVER compel people to be around food.
People have allergies.
People have eating disorders.
People have hygiene concerns about eating around a large number of others.
People have body image issues which can be triggered by eating in front of other people.
People have digestive issues, which they don't want to exacerbate at work.
Some people just don't actually enjoy food - it's something they have to deal with, a chore to be got out of the way.
If you are going out for a team meal, allow people to refuse without judgement, and allow them to bring their partners, children, family members (on the understanding they will pay for them.) If the meal is for the team, then a manager should cover the cost for all team members - you can set a limit, eg "up to £25 per person will be covered by the company, anything over that you will need to pay for", or "water will be available for the table, all other drinks are to be paid for by individuals."
A better option, however, would simply be to give your team members vouchers for the place you would have chosen to take the team out to - this allows people to go with their friends and family, in their own time. It means people can sell the voucher on if the cash is more necessary or relevant for them. And it still says "I want you to have a good time outside of work."
You don't necessarily have to "do anything" about these demands - you probably won't be able to - but it serves as a useful guide, particularly when you're managing people who feel they "have to" volunteer for everything, "have to" be the first to say they can take on more work - if those people also have extensive commitments outside of work that they didn't necessarily choose, and can't drop, then you need to focus on bringing in other people, with fewer external demands, to handle crisis workload increases. (It is very unlikely you will have a single team member who has no external demands. Everyone is dealing with more than those around them are aware of.)
5. Not everyone considers 'food and social time' a 'reward'.
If you're taking time out to have pizza as a team, schedule it at the start or the end of the day, and give people the opportunity to have their pizza 'to go', and finish early - this not only ensures introverts aren't dumped with high social demands they can't escape, it also gives people who may not want to eat the food the team decided on by majority an opportunity to quietly and gracefully avoid that.
NEVER compel people to be around food.
People have allergies.
People have eating disorders.
People have hygiene concerns about eating around a large number of others.
People have body image issues which can be triggered by eating in front of other people.
People have digestive issues, which they don't want to exacerbate at work.
Some people just don't actually enjoy food - it's something they have to deal with, a chore to be got out of the way.
If you are going out for a team meal, allow people to refuse without judgement, and allow them to bring their partners, children, family members (on the understanding they will pay for them.) If the meal is for the team, then a manager should cover the cost for all team members - you can set a limit, eg "up to £25 per person will be covered by the company, anything over that you will need to pay for", or "water will be available for the table, all other drinks are to be paid for by individuals."
A better option, however, would simply be to give your team members vouchers for the place you would have chosen to take the team out to - this allows people to go with their friends and family, in their own time. It means people can sell the voucher on if the cash is more necessary or relevant for them. And it still says "I want you to have a good time outside of work."
Would your organisation benefit from tailored support to ensure you're a Wellbeing Focused Workplace? Drop us an email - theproductivepessimist@yahoo.com.
We can offer remote and in-person support across Norfolk, Waveney, and the UK.
Comments
Post a Comment