问答题 Annual check-ups and company "wellness programmes" have become a familiar part of the corporate landscape. (46) Companies are now also starting to touch on a potentially troubling area: their employees mental health. Companies as diverse as BT, Rolls Royce and Grant Thornton have introduced mental health programmes ranging from training managers to spot problems to rehabilitating those suffering breakdowns.
The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health estimates that a sixth of the British workforce suffers from depression or stress. That mental ill health costs British employers almost $ 26 billion a year and American research suggests that "presenteeism" costs twice as much as absenteeism. Recently Grant Thornton sends its managers on a two day program put on by Positive Health Strategies, a London company. (47) Its program screens people for psychological well being, and offers advice on " optimizing performance" and " staying. positive under pressure". Focusing on the upper ranks makes sense for companies. The stars not only represent huge profits. They are also most likely to live under stress while maintaining a stiff upper lip. But focusing on stars also makes sense for the mental wellness movement itself: the best way to insert yourself into a company's DNA is to seduce its leadership.
(48) What should one make of the corporate world's new found interest in promoting mental health? For sure, depression and anxiety can take a serious toll on productivity, and companies bear their share of the blame for promoting stress in the first place. And catching psychological problems early can prevent them from escalating. This all sounds promising. But there are nevertheless several troubling aspects.
The first worry is that promoting psychological wellness crosses an important line between the public and the private, raising awkward questions. Should companies pry into people's emotional lives? Can they be trusted with the information they gather? And should psychologically frail workers put their faith in people who work primarily for their employers rather than in their personal doctors? Workers rightly worry that companies will use psychological information in their annual appraisals. (49) And that bosses will see the trend as an excuse for extending their power over staff—using the veiled threat of somehow being classified as mentally impaired to make them obey, and conform.
A second worry is about the scientific foundations of the mental wellness movement. A phrase like "mental fitness" is bound to attract chalants and salesmen. Warren Bennis of the University of Southern California has noted that the new "science" of neuroleadership is "filled with banalities". Other people are less complimentary. The biggest problem with the movement lies in the assumption that promoting psychological wellness is as good as encouraging the physical sort. (50) Few would doubt that good physical health makes for good productivity; but it is not self-evident that a positive mental attitude is good for a worker or his output: history shows that misfits have contributed far more to creativity than perky optimists. Besides, curmudgeonliness is arguably a rational way to cope with an imperfect world, rather than a sign of mental maladjustment. Companies that chase the elusive "positive attitudes" may end up damaging themselves as well as sticking their noses where they have no business.