Applying traditional approaches to mental health in the workplace:  Have we been barking up the wrong tree?

Interpersonal Conflict vs Interpersonalised Conflict

In their analysis, they further concluded that there are several things about interpersonal conflict that make it particularly noteworthy. Firstly, claimants who reported the presence of conflict were more likely to have their claim accepted by their insurer. Secondly, there was a specific type of conflict which they found to be particularly concerning. They termed this kind of conflict ‘interpersonalised’ conflict. The main difference between this and other types of conflict situations was the perceived presence of a value judgement on the claimant, by the other involved party/parties, which was construed by the claimant as being particularly adverse and unfair. It was the personalisation of that value judgement that frequently led to emotional distress.

Further, interpersonalised conflict frequently served as a trigger to claim submission. Meaning that conflict tended to precipitate claim submission behaviour.

Conflict Blindness

The research concluded that when interpersonal conflict was present in a claim for compensation, employers denied the presence of conflict, even when it had been established by an independent psychologist in review. This ‘conflict blindness’ then became a contributing factor to the claim, as it impacted the way the claimants perceived they were believed and treated by their employer.

From all this, it becomes apparent that dealing with interpersonal conflict before it escalates and especially before it becomes personalised, should be of high priority to health and safety and HR leaders wanting to make a difference to their psychological injury claim rates. But where to begin? There are multiple points of potential intervention to disrupt the process and prevent adverse outcomes.

Are we asking the right questions? 

Some questions that leaders may find useful to begin exploring the As-Is state of their organisations when it comes to conflict include: 

1/ Is healthy conflict normalised in our organisation? 

In some cultural groups, healthy conflict and disagreement/argument is not only entirely normalised, but encouraged, as the purpose of argument is to advance the matter under discussion, rather than about proving the one or the other right/wrong. That is, where the notion is: may the best idea win. Conflict is not in and of itself always adverse. In fact, healthy conflict can frequently help ideas arise and progress our collective understanding of nuance. Arguing different points of view leads to clarification of problems and can help people come together in the finding of solutions.  

2/ Do we know our organisation’s baseline level of conflict? 

Every organisation has a baseline that sets the tone for how individuals interact, compete for resources, and manage conflict.  Establishing a base-line level of conflict is helpful in making inter departmental comparisons and finding hotspots. In addition, the difference in perception of conflict between supervisors and non-supervisors vs senior leaders can also point to the presence or absence of the conflict blindness discussed above. It can be helpful to undertake an assessment that includes the review of policies and practices followed by tailored and fit for purpose interventions that include capability lifting where appropriate. 

3/ Does our leadership model healthy conflict? 

According to a recent report from The Workforce Institute, based on a survey of 3,400 employees and managers in 10 countries, managers have as much of an impact on employee mental health as their spouse and even more of an impact than their doctor or therapist. When leaders model the handling of conflict effectively, they set the tone for the parameters of behaviours that are acceptable. This can contribute to a culture of healthy conflict, or conversely, one that lends itself to power play, personalisation and division. 

4/ Do we have an integrated approach to the management of conflict? 

Interpersonal conflict is complicated and cannot be left to a single function to manage effectively. Similarly, no set of policies, processes or procedures alone stand to resolve the issue, as these lend themselves to weaponisation and selective use, which can further marginalise those individuals who are impacted.  

The Takeaway

In summary, workplace psychological injury claims continue to escalate. It is an oversimplification to be reliant on job-stress-strain models alone to hold the answers to such a multifactorial phenomenon. Psychological injury claims pose an increasing financial challenge to the sustainability of workers compensation schemes and come at a great personal cost to people, families and communities. Hazards in the interpersonal domain are significantly overrepresented in the workers compensation data when compared against other contributing factors.

It is unrealistic however, to expect that employers can make this shift alone. Employers can normalise healthy conflict and role model what it looks like to progress an argument or disagreement in a healthy way. In truly embracing diversity and inclusion in the workplace, there is a call to action for the whole workforce to include diversity of thought and opinion, without resorting to personalisation, division or conversely, weaponised offence. This may serve to protect those finding themselves in conflict from internalising, which is the point at which harm is more likely to occur.