By Sahithya Natarajan (21-22)

Costs of ill mental-health in the workplace

Mental health is an extremely important concern for society and within the workforce owing to that fact that individuals spend majority of their lives at work. The impact of well-being in the workplace can be high; with an esti­­­mated 822,000 workers suffering with work-related stress anxiety or depression in the UK (Health and Safety Executive, 2021).

An important indicator of poor well-being is burnout syndrome which can not only have detrimental health impacts on individual employees but also have negative consequences for organisations in the form of absenteeism, presentism and turnovers (Ochoa, 2018).  Thus, occupational burnout, especially since the COVID-19 Pandemic which has bought on more uncertainty and demands.

What is burnout and how did it evolve?

Burnout is a syndrome consisting of three components: emotional exhaustion, cynicism and reduced personal and professional efficacy. The process of burnout is gradual and occurs in a sequence; first individuals feel exhaustion because of their emotional resources depleting, this then leads to a cynical attitude towards work and eventual burnout as a consequence of a lack of personal accomplishment. An important theoretical model that provides explanations for occupational burnout is the Job Demands-Resources Model (JD-R; Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). It posits that job resources such as autonomy and social support are likely to motivate employees, leading to work engagement. Alternatively, demands at work such as role conflict are likely to cause strain to employees, which when accumulated, lead to burnout.

What really is perfectionism and why does it matter?

On the surface or in lay-terms most people view perfectionism and a single trait but in actuality it is understood as a multidimensional construct with two underlying dimensions. The first is perfectionistic strivings which captures aspects related to personal standards of performance; the second is perfectionistic concerns which relates to concerns over making mistakes, doubts about actions and fear of negative evaluation from others. Perfectionistic concerns is the type to look out for as a strong risk factor for burnout, arguably due to the harsh self-evaluative process central to it.

Despite this however, organisations continue to encourage perfectionism in the workplace, holding expectations for their employees to go above and beyond their assigned work duties believing this will lead to increased performance and output. On the contrary, this is not the case as empirical findings show that high levels of perfectionistic concerns among employees in fact positively relates to job inefficiency and reduced goal accomplishment over time (Childs & Stoeber, 2012).

New research

While a lot of the previous research on employee well-being has focused on personal resources that can help buffer effects of demands on burnout, less has looked into the aspects of an individual that may place them in a vulnerable position to getting burnout, i.e. personal demands. The current study aimed to understand the role that perfectionism plays as well as coping in predicting burnout within the JD-R framework. It collected data from employees across a range of industry sectors measuring 4 key aspects: job demands, perfectionistic concerns, maladaptive coping and burnout. The main findings are listed below:

1. Job demands and perfectionistic concerns positively predict burnout – this means that when job demands are high, employees are more likely to experience burnout. In addition, employees who are high in perfectionistic concerns are also more likely to experience burnout.
2. Perfectionistic concerns positively predict maladaptive coping – this suggest that employees high in perfectionistic concerns are more likely to resort to maladaptive coping strategies, such as rumination, self-blame and catastrophising, in the face of stress.
3. Maladaptive concerns partially mediates the perfectionistic concerns and burnout relationship – this means that maladaptive coping acts a mechanism through which perfectionistic concerns leads to burnout, though does not entirely explain the process as there may be other contributing factors too.

What can organisations do to deal with this?

Firstly, organisations need to pause and question whether they promote a culture that invertedly perpetuates maladaptive perfectionism. Performance-driven work climates have been shown to be positively related to burnout (Fastje et al., 2022). As employees high in perfectionistic concerns are already over-concerned with performance-related behaviours, organisations should be careful not to encourage trends such as extended work hours, or competitiveness by placing large emphasises on performance outcomes. This will only exacerbate the risk of burnout amongst perfectionistic employees.

Secondly, they should strive towards promoting healthier work practices such as implementing microbreaks into the workday that are aimed at perfectionistic thought-stopping. These can be relaxation methods such as stretching or walking, be cognitive in nature such as reading or social such as chatting with colleagues about nonwork topics. Such activities will be helpful in providing an opportunity for perfectionistic employees to manage rumination about their work standards.

Thirdly, raise awareness amongst managers of the common characteristics of perfectionism so that they address goals or unrealistic standards with their highly perfectionistic employees. They can also help by providing reassurance that there is room for mistakes – this will help prevent an endorsement of unhelpful perfectionistic expectations.

Lastly, implement Cogntive-Behaviour Therapy or mindfulness-based interventions that focus on building adaptive coping skills and challenging the self-blame beliefs of employees high in perfectionistic concerns. Such interventions have been found to help tackle the detrimental aspects of maladaptive perfectionism (James & Rimes, 2017). Importantly these interventions can also be short-term and cost-effective, therefore making them ideal to deliver in the workplace.

Looking ahead

Whilst it can be useful to foster a culture where it is encouraged to work hard and have high performance standards in order to achieve the best that one can, it is clear that an excess of these standards can be detrimental. With the cost of poor well-being being high for not only individuals but also for organisations, it is important to understand the impact of perfectionism and subsequent coping, can have on getting burnout. It is the collective responsibility of everyone in the workforce to ensure that all working employees are able to work whilst ultimately being happy and healthy. An important question that society, and in particular organisations, should then ask is whether perfectionism should truly continue to be glorified as it has been thus far after understanding that there is a dark side to it.

References

Bakker, A., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal Of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273-285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056

Childs, J. H., & Stoeber, J. (2012). Do you want me to be perfect? Two longitudinal studies on socially prescribed perfectionism, stress and burnout in the workplace. Work & Stress, 26(4), 347-364. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2012.737547

Fastje, F., Mesmer-Magnus, J., Guidice, R., & Andrews, M. (2022). Employee burnout: the dark side of performance-driven work climates. Journal Of Organizational Effectiveness: People And Performance. https://doi.org/10.1108/joepp-10-2021-0274

Health and Safety Executive. (2021). Work-related stress, anxiety or depression statistics in Great Britain, 2021. Hse.gov.uk. Retrieved 15 April 2022, from https://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causdis/stress.pdf.

James, K., & Rimes, K. (2017). Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy versus pure cognitive behavioural self-help for perfectionism: a pilot randomised study. Mindfulness, 9(3), 801-814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-017-0817-8

Ochoa, P. (2018). Impact of Burnout on Organizational Outcomes, the Influence of Legal Demands: The Case of Ecuadorian Physicians. Frontiers In Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00662

What helps Non-binary and Genderqueer people to belong at work

By Megan Trotter (21-22)

Organisations need to prepare for the next generation of NBGQ people to enter the workforce

The number of people identifying as non-binary and genderqueer (NBGQ) is rapidly increasing^1,2,3. Whilst this might seem like a new trend, non-western cultures historically recognised, socially accepted and occasionally even worshipped NBGQ people⁴. However, these cultures declined due to colonialism and westernisation⁵, leading to a society in which people might have identified as NBGQ but concealed their identity for fear of being diagnosed with a gender identity disorder⁶.

Despite increasing recognition of NBGQ identities⁷, this population is at a higher risk of experiencing mental health issues due to living within a binary-centred society⁸. This issue could be addressed through social support, which helps to reduce NBGQ peoples’ levels of anxiety and depression⁹. However, Transgender and NBGQ employees are almost three times more likely to experience workplace discrimination and harassment than cisgendered co-workers¹⁰. It is imperative for organisations to address this problem, not only for NBGQ people but also to avoid issues with employer branding, recruitment, job performance, retention, and litigation¹¹. A reasonable avenue for mitigating these organisational risks is to foster a sense of inclusion amongst NBGQ people at work, as inclusion reduces turnover intentions and increases organisational identification, attachment and job satisfaction^12,13.

How do organisations achieve inclusion?

The answer may be through increasing a sense of belonging. This is because inclusion occurs when employees perceive themselves as “an esteemed member of the workgroup through experiencing treatment that satisfies his or her needs for belongingness and uniqueness”¹⁴. Generally, people feel a sense of belonging when they have stable, positive relationships with others who appear to care about them and with whom they experience minimal conflict¹⁵. However, little is known about what NBGQ people need to experience a sense of belonging^16,6. This topic was of particular interest to me, as I had recently began identifying as non-binary.

As limited research exists on this topic, I was inspired to conduct a qualitative study to answer the question, “What helps NBGQ people to feel a sense of belonging at work?”. I conducted five semi-structured interviews with NBGQ participants who were out and visible in their workplace and who had positive experiences to share. The data from these interviews were analysed using Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)¹⁷, which allows a researcher to interpret the meaning their participants make about their experiences.

What helps NBGQ people to belong at work?

Three overarching experiences appeared to generate a sense of belonging for participants:

1. Feeling allowed to express their authentic selves,
2. Feeling that colleagues cared about them enough to support them in being their authentic selves,
3. Feeling that the organisational culture was inclusive of all people resulting from proactive, bottom-up approaches.

In comparison to other research, what was primarily different about these findings is that each of these were perceived by participants to happen in unison and all reinforced one another, leading to a virtuous cycle of belonging (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Themes represented as a virtuous cycle of NBGQ belonging

Fitting in doesn’t create belonging, Authenticity does.

While some research suggests that it is only when we fit in that we belong¹⁸, the findings from this study highlight that NBGQ people can feel a sense of belonging even when they are the only gender-diverse people in an organisation. What appears to contribute to a sense of belonging for NBGQ people is the feeling of being allowed to express their gender identity. Authenticity is said to occur when a person has an awareness and acceptance of their internal experience, and rather than suppress their identity to appease others, they act in ways that are congruent with it to attain openness in relationships¹⁹. Additionally, when congruence exists between the environment and the self, people can express themselves authentically²⁰.

This study’s findings suggest that organisations can support NBGQ people to feel a sense of belonging by:

1. ensuring gender-neutral bathrooms and options in policy, reward-systems, and social activities that allowed them to express their identity,
2. offering professional support for questioning NBGQ individuals through therapy or career coaching to increase self-acceptance and openness about their gender identity in the workplace,
3. ensuring colleagues are mindful of creating a psychologically safe workplace by not invalidating or minimising NBGQ employees’ needs or experiences.

These initiatives will likely reduce instances of NBGQ misgendering and increase environmental signals that reinforce that it was safe for them to come out as and continue to be their authentic selves at work.

Colleagues reinforce a sense of belonging through affirmation, support and self-education.

Colleagues who showed care and concern for the participant’s well-being helped them to feel as though they belonged, which supports The Belongingness Hypothesis¹⁵ and Flourishing theories²². This aligns with other research, which found that social support is linked with trans people’s perceptions of belonging and inclusion at work^23,24. Other studies have also identified that people who demonstrate non-judgemental warmth, openness, rapport, respect, and trust towards trans people are also perceived as supportive¹⁶.

This study’s findings suggest that colleagues of NBGQ people can help them to feel a sense of belonging by:

• making a concerted effort to refer to them in gender-neutral terms, including using the correct pronouns and names to affirm their gender identity,
• supporting them in their gender expression by listening non-judgementally and encouraging others to refer to them in gender-neutral terms, and
• learning about gender identity and the unique needs and experiences of NBGQ people

Why do these behaviours increase belonging? These forms of social support increase NBGQ people’s self-acceptance and confidence to disclose their identity, thus leading to increased levels of authenticity and belonging. Additionally, when NBGQ people perceive their colleagues as supportive towards others (not just towards them), they feel safer being authentic with them.

Proactively building inclusive cultures increases safety to belong as one’s authentic self

Finally, the findings highlight that organisations can increase the likelihood of NBGQ authenticity and social support for them by proactively building inclusive cultures. There are various ways to create inclusive cultures; however, this study highlighted the importance of hiring diverse people who demonstrate respect, fairness and inclusion of people different to them. HR or People teams can attract diverse candidates by promoting internal inclusivity initiatives and reducing gender-related bias in promotions to build an LGBTQ-friendly employer brand. Lastly, organisations can increase the likelihood of co-worker and manager social support by providing training and resources that build empathy for and awareness of how to support NBGQ individuals with their unique challenges.

References

1. Higher Education Statistics Agency. (2022). Table: HE student enrolments by personal characteristics: Academic years 2016/17 to 2020/21. In HESA. Who’s studying in HE?. Retrieved from https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/students/whos-in-he
2. Government Equalities Office. (2018). National LGBT Survey: Summary report (p. 28)
3. Wilson, B. D. M., & Meyer, I. H. (2022). Nonbinary LGBTQ Adults in the United States. Williams Institute. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Nonbinary-LGBTQ-Adults-Jun-2021.pdf
4. Herdt, G. (Ed.). (1996). Third Sex Third Gender – Beyond Sexual Dimorphism in Culture & History: Beyond Sexual Dimorphism in Culture and History (Reprint edition). Zone Books.
5. Nanda, S. (1999). The Hijras of India: Neither man nor woman. Canada: Wadsworth.
6. Richards, C., Bouman, W. P., Seal, L., Barker, M. J., Nieder, T. O., & T’Sjoen, G. (2016). Non-binary or genderqueer genders. International Review of Psychiatry, 28(1), 95–102.
7. American Psychological Association (APA). (2015). Guidelines for psychological practice with transgender and gender nonconforming people. American Psychologist, 70(9), 832–864. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039906
8. Matsuno, E., & Budge, S. L. (2017). Non-binary/genderqueer identities: A critical review of the literature. Current Sexual Health Reports, 9(3), 116–120.
9. Budge, S. L., Rossman, H. K., & Howard, K. A. S. (2014). Coping and Psychological Distress Among Genderqueer Individuals: The Moderating Effect of Social Support. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 8(1), 95–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2014.853641
10. Waite, S. (2021). Should I Stay or Should I Go? Employment Discrimination and Workplace Harassment against Transgender and Other Minority Employees in Canada’s Federal Public Service. Journal of Homosexuality, 68(11), 1833–1859.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2020.1712140
11. Beauregard, T. A., Arevshatian, L., Booth, J. E., & Whittle, S. (2018). Listen carefully: Transgender voices in the workplace. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(5), 857–884. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1234503
12. Avery, D. R. (2011). Support for diversity in organizations: A theoretical exploration of its origins and offshoots. Organizational Psychology Review, 1(3), 239–256.
13. McKay, P. F., & Avery, D. R. (2015). Diversity climate in organizations: Current wisdom and domains of uncertainty. In Research in personnel and human resources management. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
14. Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and Diversity in Work Groups: A Review and Model for Future Research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1262–1289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310385943
15. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497.
16. McCann, E., Donohue, G., & Brown, M. (2021). Experiences and Perceptions of Trans and Gender Non-Binary People Regarding Their Psychosocial Support Needs: A Systematic Review of the Qualitative Research Evidence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(7), 3403.
17. Smith, J. A. (1996). Beyond the divide between cognition and discourse: Using interpretative phenomenological analysis in health psychology. Psychology and Health, 11(2), 261–271.
18. Slepian, M. L., & Jacoby-Senghor, D. S. (2021). Identity Threats in Everyday Life: Distinguishing Belonging From Inclusion. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(3), 392–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619895008
19. Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a Conceptualization of Optimal Self-Esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1401_01
20. van den Bosch, R., & Taris, T. W. (2014). Authenticity at Work: Development and Validation of an Individual Authenticity Measure at Work. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9413-3
21. Schmader, T., & Sedikides, C. (2018). State Authenticity as Fit to Environment: The Implications of Social Identity for Fit, Authenticity, and Self-Segregation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(3), 228–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317734080
22. Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A new understanding of happiness and well-being – and how to achieve them. Nicholas Brealey.
23. Liu, Y., Wang, R., Chang, R., Wang, H., Xu, L., Xu, C., Yu, X., Liu, S., Chen, H., Chen, Y., Jin, L., Wang, Y., & Cai, Y. (2022). Perceived Burdensomeness, Thwarted Belongingness, and Social Exclusion in Transgender Women: Psychometric Properties of the Interpersonal Needs Questionnaire. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 787809. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.787809
24. Perales, F., Ablaza, C., & Elkin, N. (2022). Exposure to Inclusive Language and Well-Being at Work Among Transgender Employees in Australia, 2020. American Journal of Public Health, 112(3), 482–490. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306602