Australia’s workplace laws have become so focused on risk and liability that we often miss the opportunity to meet people where they are. Given that one in five adults will have a clinically significant mental health episode in their adult life, it’s statistically factual that most employers are in fact already employing people with mental health challenges. In fact, those people turn up to work, get the job done and may even be the backbone of the organisation.
The question is: why do employers think they are not employing people with mental health challenges? Let me pose this as a comparison — nearly one in 10 working adults lives with diabetes. They disclose because typically there is no stigma and limited workplace downside for those who manage the condition. Wearable blood glucose monitors are now very commonplace in the workplace, and it isn’t unusual for an employer to educate the workforce on a chronic disease like diabetes and ask ‘how can we help?’.
Why mental health is still treated differently
Yet much more prevalent conditions like depression and anxiety are treated like a mythical menace that ‘shall not be named’, when in fact most adults living with mental health presentations have similar cutting-edge treatment options to a chronic condition like diabetes.
The assumption about volatility and risk associated with mental health remains more myth than fact and employers seem to believe that ‘not knowing’ is a better risk mitigation strategy than supporting disclosure and engaging the challenge. This assumption is flawed. It increases the risk of workplace injury and triggers staff turnover in work environments that fail to meet a basic standard of human decency.
Related Article Block Placeholder
Article ID: 305124
We know from the disability arena that employees with disabilities or chronic injuries who disclose and are supported are as productive as other workers but less likely to leave. These employees, by virtue of knowing their condition, are less likely to take ad hoc sick leave and are far less likely to have a workplace injury. The consistency of attendance ensures more reliable customer engagement and Australians really like an organisation that employs and supports people who represent the best of us.
Smarter business news. Straight to your inbox.
For startup founders, small businesses and leaders. Build sharper instincts and better strategy by learning from Australia’s smartest business minds. Sign up for free.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Given the war on talent, having loyal staff who know their own capacity makes it easier and cheaper to adjust the ‘job person fit’ and attract sought-after staff.
Specific examples of neurodiverse staff typically have strong and passionate interests that can enhance a workplace and company culture. The prevalence of neurodiversity is often an asset when aligned with task demands and company goals and to be candid, neurodiversity isn’t new. Like mental health presentation, it’s often masked, seldom disclosed but prevalent in Australian business and something employers have profited from since Adam was a boy. The issue remains — why are we avoiding the conversation instead of embracing the opportunity?
What disclosure and support can look like in practice
I was lucky enough to work for many years with a colleague who disclosed very openly their lifetime challenge of schizophrenia. They disclosed that every morning they woke up to voices that were ‘not their own’. Sometimes those voices went quiet after five minutes and sometimes they took an hour, but the strategy to get the voices out of his head was to get up, have a shower, get dressed and get to work. My colleague was a great advocate for those also navigating mental health challenges and championed their journey into employment.
Related Article Block Placeholder
Article ID: 331371
Upon reviewing leave entitlements as part of my role, I was not surprised to discover that the colleague had drawn down very little sick leave and had preplanned and prebooked their annual leave each year, reliably for several years. On every measure, they were a highly valued team member. Over several years they were hospitalised once for a period of two weeks where we presume the condition was slightly stronger than the mitigation strategies (I had employees take off more time for a common cold) but their return to work was assured because the greatest treatment option available to that colleague was the joy and routine of a job they loved.
The broader issue is simple. Why would an employer allow a label to define an individual rather than assess their talent and skills? Myths like the limits older workers ‘might have’, or the ‘risk’ of employing an ex-offender, are simply not supported by data.
In reality, humans who have navigated adversity often have a level of resilience, perspective and discipline that can make them ideal employee when the workplace needs clearer heads to prevail.
