Unhealthy Management – A Human Rights Violation?

Nearly three years ago the U.N. Commission on Human Rights issued a little-noticed but groundbreaking resolution. It authorized the Secretary-General to appoint a Special Representative to investigate human rights abuses by transnational corporations and other business enterprises. The mission was charged with setting standards for corporate responsibility and accountability in such areas as discrimination, pesticide poisoning, child labor, drinking water contamination, sexual abuse, and the displacement of indigenous peoples.

This mission has focused corporations on the impact they have on people’s lives and well-being within the global arena, regarding human rights. But another category of potential human rights violations by corporations exists which gets scant attention. In fact, most companies probably don’t even think of it as a human rights issue. It consists of corporate management practices and behavior that damage the mental health – and therefore the work performance -- of a company’s own employees.

Today, within our ever-shrinking world of heightened exposure of worldwide human rights violations by governments, instant communication, and a growing sense of global citizenship, it’s time to broaden our conception of human rights violations beyond the inclusion of harmful corporate practices described by the U.N. mission. Psychologically damaging management practices towards a company’s own employees should be defined as violations of human rights, as well.

How Bad Management and Leadership Harms People

Over the last thirty years I’ve worked with the consequences of emotionally unhealthy management and leadership upon people who suffer from them, from the mailroom to the corporate suite. They span a wide range: Abusive, hostile, arrogant bosses. Manipulative, deceitful leadership, including actions by members of senior management teams towards each other. Extreme, workaholic demands resulting in severe burnout and diminished productivity for the organization. Demeaning language, intimidation and threats, both subtle and overt. Public denigration and humiliation. Manipulation, political maneuvering and discrimination.

Sometimes an unhealthy senior leadership culture disseminates downward through attitudes and behavior of executives and mangers. The result is an absence of high-performing, energized, engaged employees or the innovative teamwork companies need to stay nimble and competitive.

In short, unhealthy management practices fuel emotional conflicts among employees who weren’t overtly troubled prior to working in that environment. In other cases they exacerbate prior emotional conflicts that were either dormant or well-managed by employees prior to experiencing unhealthy or abusive management.

Typical consequences for individuals include depression, rage, severe stress or anxiety, withdrawal, paranoia and, increasingly, lawsuits. These are common knowledge on the “ground level.” Is there anyone out there who doesn’t know someone – or who hasn’t directly experienced – some version of the above as the price of trying to cope with an unhealthy work culture?

Viewing such conditions from the framework of human rights leads to the argument that men and women should have the right to work within both a physically and psychologically healthy workplace. One that conveys respect, dignity, fairness and clear opportunity for reward for productive work, not just in lip service through “mission” or “value” statements but in actual conduct.

Some might object to defining abusive management towards employees as a human rights violation on the basis that such practices are less severe than, say, exploitative child labor or unsanitary, environmentally toxic working environments. Or, that you can almost always leave a job if you don’t like how you’re being treated. But similar arguments used to be put forth about racial and gender discrimination by companies, and we’ve expanded our view of workplace human rights to include protection from them.

The main barrier to recognizing that emotionally harmful management is a form of human rights abuse is more subtle: When companies acknowledge a link between emotional disturbance and the workplace, they look at emotional troubles that some people bring with them to the office. For example, depression, alcohol and drug problems, severe anxiety, uncontrollable anger, and acute family crises. These are real, often debilitating conflicts that people may experience for reasons largely unrelated to the work environment. They can and do affect a person’s job performance or relations with co-workers. But these problems concern how the person impacts the workplace.

The more pervasive and insidious conflicts for both employees and the long-term success of companies are those on the flip side: how the workplace affects the person.

Why Companies Should Pay Attention

The role of corporate management in creating emotional conflicts for employees is not so visible – except, of course, to people on the receiving end. Yet evidence exists that a company’s management, including it’s organizational culture and the conduct of its leaders – how companies treat their people in “real time” – has direct impact on the mental health and work-related behavior of all levels of workers.

Data about the damage caused by emotionally unhealthy work environments has been growing. Nearly 10 years ago, the World Health Organization elevated the status of “workplace stress” (a broad term that mostly reflects the impact of mentally unhealthy management) to that of a "worldwide epidemic." Today, the impact of an unhealthy workplace environment on the employee is estimated to cost American companies $300 billion a year in poor performance, absenteeism and health costs.

Similarly, a report by the International Labor Organization in 2000 found that work-related emotional conflicts cost the U.S. about 200 million lost workdays each year. And a recent study by a British charity, Mind, concluded that nearly 13 million working days in Great Britain are lost each year as a result of work-related emotional conflicts, and that businesses are failing to meet the mental needs of their employees. Such conflicts are one of the most common health problems in EU countries, as well. A European survey on working conditions found that 28% of workers reported emotional conflicts caused by work. Similar data have been reported by Canadian businesses. And in Japan, a survey found the percentage shot up from 53% in 1982 to 63% in 1997.

These surveys may be just the tip of the iceberg. Deb Matteucci, director of the Montana Mental Health Association, points out that "Workers often cite the physical symptoms, such as headaches, chronic pain or digestive disorders as their reason for taking leave, but often untreated mental health problems ... are the underlying cause." It’s well established, today, that emotional conflict can weaken the immune system and make people more vulnerable to a host of illnesses.

Companies have a clear stake in treating emotionally harmful management practices as a human rights issue and taking steps to create more positive, healthier environments. Without doing so, they undermine the performance and commitment of workers. The lost workdays, diminished productivity and less innovation generate higher costs to the organization. Such practices also hurt a company’s reputation, including its ability to attract and retain high-quality talent and, eventually, it’s success in the global marketplace

How Companies Deal With The Problem

Many companies are addressing problems after they arise, from whatever source. They’ve had to, because of legislation. The U.S, Canada, the U.K. and other countries have created legislation that recognizes, protect and treat overtly disturbed employees. For example, the U.S. has the Americans With Disabilities Act, and joint efforts in Canada between government, private business and civic groups have a similar focus. Currently, voluntary corporate initiatives include health information dissemination, wellness programs, Employee Assistance Programs, and classes for dieting and stress-management.

These are helpful. But companies have been slow to face up to what they can do at the front end: dealing with emotionally harmful organizational cultures and management practices that hurt both the employees and the business. They’re starting to be pushed into doing so, however. Again, from outside initiatives. For example, 11 states have introduced legislation prohibiting workplace abuse by management. This model legislation was developed by Suffolk University Law School professor David Yamada. It defines the scope and features of the more visible end of the spectrum – abusive, bullying, demeaning behavior.

That’s a start, but companies would be wise to become more proactive. Those of us who have worked with leaders in this arena know that some respond only after getting a wake-up call. They realize that their companies are losing their competitive edge or market share and that part of the reason is that they’re increasingly perceived as undesirable place to work.

More encouragingly, others want to deal with this problem at the front end. They’re intent on building positive, healthy management cultures because they realize doing so will help them stay competitive and retain their best employees. They know that is what grows their people’s capacities for innovation, cutting-edge thinking, and the psychological and cultural competencies needed in this global economy.

What Do Workers Say?

Such leaders are in synch with what today’s career workers look for in companies. Surveys and research show that men and women across generations – from 20-somethings to baby boomers – will commit themselves to organizations that practice positive, healthy management: Collaboration, teamwork, a clear reward and recognition system, and transparency at all levels. They want companies led by open-mined but confident people who embrace the often-unsettling tension that accompanies new terrain and new challenges, and use that tension to energize and lead. Those are the most effective and successful leaders, as Robert Rosen has documented in his recent book, Just Enough Anxiety, based on studies of 250 CEOs and other senior executives.

Similarly, a 2005 Survey of 8000 workers, across all age groups and occupations, by Concours Group, found that the most productive, energized workers gravitate towards companies that provide opportunities for ongoing learning, growth and creative challenge. And they want their work to have a positive impact on something more meaningful than just the narrower rewards of money, position, or power. They also want the service or product they work on to have a positive impact on people’s lives.

A range of other data confirms similar themes. A 2007 survey by MonsterTRAK found that 80% of those surveyed said they want to work in a job that has a positive impact on the environment. And 92% said they would choose working for a “green” company. Other research shows employees working at companies with clear corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs are most satisfied. They stay at their jobs longer and are more content with senior management then their peers at companies with lackluster CSR programs, according to a survey conducted by Kenexa Research Institute.

And among those entering the corporate pipeline, a 2007 Hill & Knowlton survey found that three-quarters of top MBA students say corporate reputation will play a critical role in deciding where to work. They cited quality of management among the key drivers of corporate reputation, and 40% rated social responsibility as an "extremely" or "very" important measure of reputation.

All of the above are the kinds of features found in the best management cultures. People seek out and stay within organizations that provide them. They leave those that don’t. Notice that you won’t find many of the latter on Fortune magazine’s annual list of “Best Companies To Work For.”

It’s clear that successful companies in the years ahead will not be those who abuse the human rights of their employees while parading around as good corporate citizens, but those who actually practice respect, fair treatment, openness, and collaboration, along with vehicles for continuous learning and growth of skills, knowledge and talent.

Defining those management practices that create abusive and emotionally unhealthy work environments as human rights violations would raise the bar and help corporations recognize their vested interest in eliminating such practices. It would encourage them to create the kind of organization that people gravitate towards.

Smart, effective leaders know that a high functioning work force, positive, healthy management and high quality of goods or services go hand-in-hand. They recognize that positive management behavior includes ethical conduct, socially responsible and environmentally sustainable practices, as well. All are intertwined with successful business outcomes. The result is good practice, and good for business.

Moreover, the actions and conduct of companies are increasingly transparent anyway. They’re held accountable by stockholders, consumers, governments, and they’re being impacted by lawsuits when violations occur. We live and work in a world in which information can be instantly Googled, You-Tubed and video-phoned around the globe. People can learn about any kind of abuse almost as soon as it occurs. As corporate practices towards employees are increasingly exposed, leaders would do well to realize that the slogan from a previous era is now literally true: “The whole world is watching.”

March 15, 2008