Researchers are questioning how helpful mental health apps are for workers

Discussion around mental health challenges  in the workplace, including both poor mental health and chronic mental illness, has never been more important. In a survey conducted by the American Psychological Association, over 90% of people said that it was important for them to work for an organization that values their psychological well-being. It’s such an impactful issue that the U.S. Surgeon General labeled it as a priority. 

Thankfully, in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, companies are taking more action to prioritize employees’ mental health, and there’s an increasing awareness that work can impact employees’ mental health in profound ways. 

Unfortunately, my team’s research suggests that some of the programs companies use to improve employees’ mental health are not entirely supported by research, which means that well-intentioned organizations may be investing in programs that don’t create the intended benefits.

The importance of workplace mental health

As an academic, I ??research organizational behavior and human resource management, with an emphasis on mental illness, mental health, and interpersonal connections at work. In this work I have seen that there are many reasons for companies to care about employees’ mental health. Some of the reasons are moral: If employees are going to devote a third of their waking hours to a company, the company might reasonably be expected to do what it can to promote employees’ well-being. If nothing else, companies shouldn’t make employees’ mental health worse. Moreover, companies have the potential to contribute positively to society, as work can be a powerful tool to improve mental health. Good work can provide dignity, financial stability, and social connection, and companies in any industry can benefit society by providing opportunities for meaningful work that improves mental health.

If that’s not convincing, there’s a business case as well. Companies in which there are numerous psychological hazards—meaning workplace attributes that cause stress, strain, or interpersonal problems—typically have a harder time attracting top talent. This is especially true for organizations that are trying to recruit employees from Generation Z, who prioritize their mental health and expect the same from their employers. Companies with psychological hazards are also less likely to retain employees which can lead to costly turnover. When employees leave for jobs that are more conducive to good mental health, companies with toxic workplace cultures must spend money to recruit, hire, and train new employees to take their place.

Research on worker mental health

My colleagues and I recently reviewed over 550 academic studies on mental health, mental illness, and work. We believe our research reveals profound implications for how companies might best support their employees’ mental health. Perhaps most importantly, our review suggests that what employers are currently doing is not as effective as one might hope.

First and foremost, we found an overwhelming body of evidence to suggest that work can profoundly impact employees’ mental health. Some features of work that can degrade mental health are straightforward: for example, it’s likely no surprise that employees who experience harassment at work are more likely to have poor mental health. However, other features of work that can harm employees’ mental health may be less obvious. For instance, jobs that have high role ambiguity, in which employees are unsure about what tasks they’re accountable for, are also associated with poor mental health. This is important because many companies do not see job clarity as a “mental health issue.” Rather, job design and role clarification are often considered mundane HR functions. Yet, our review suggests job design has an undisputable impact on employees’ mental health.

In reviewing existing research, we grouped workplace influences on mental health into two categories: features of a given job and the organizational context of a given job. In addition to role ambiguity, common features of a job that impacts mental health include role overload, where employees are regularly responsible for more tasks than they can reasonably accomplish; low job autonomy, in which workers don’t have authority to decide how they do their work; and work-life conflict, in which employees’ work regularly conflicts with their non-work responsibilities.

The elements of a job’s organizational context that impact mental health are not particularly surprising. We found ample research to suggest that employees who face bullying or harassment, and those who have abusive supervisors, are more likely to have mental health challenges. Conversely, having social support from managers and colleagues is associated with better mental health.

Second, we found that too much attention is spent on reactive, individual-level interventions instead of proactive, structural changes. However, in keeping with the findings of other recent studies, we found inconclusive evidence to support the impact of individual-level interventions, such as access to well-being smartphone apps or mindfulness training.

This does not mean that such benefits are not effective—some evidence suggests they are. It just means that more information is required about when, and for whom, these benefits improve mental health. Additionally, consistent with other reviews, we found inconclusive evidence for the efficacy of Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs), which are offered by many companies, have been widely researched, but have questionable large-scale impact.

What can be done to improve worker mental health

There are significant practical implications for these findings. To be clear, this research does not imply that organizations should abandon individual-level interventions or EAPs; there is ample reason to think they are beneficial for some employees under some circumstances. This research does, however, indicate that organizations already have many tools at their disposal that may improve mental health, they just don’t recognize them as such. Thankfully, research suggests that human resource (HR) departments can help. Many of these tools fall in the domain of companies’ HR departments, who are often responsible for designing jobs, writing job descriptions, and crafting flexible work policies. This means that devoting resources to improve seemingly mundane HR functions, such as updating and improving job descriptions, may be a worthwhile investment in employees’ mental health.

There’s also opportunity for both HR and managers to help improve employees’ mental health through improvements to organizational context. Many of these opportunities can be found in the hiring process. Given the disproportionate impact harassment and bullying has on worker mental health, hiring managers should assess candidates respect for others during the application process. As tempting as it may be to hire a stellar technical performer for a vacant position, if there’s evidence that the candidate may be a bully, then organizations shouldn’t hire them. Practically speaking, this means HR and hiring managers should include interview questions to evaluate whether someone is likely to be respectful and supportive, and these considerations should weigh heavily in hiring decisions.

Given the association between abusive leadership and poor mental health, HR and management should also consider interpersonal factors in promotion decisions. This may mean that the best technical performer is not the one that should be promoted if there’s a chance they will engage in abusive supervision. Unfortunately, without a path to promotion, some top performing technical employees may leave the organization, but replacing one employee is likely easier than addressing poor mental health—and associated reductions in productivity—of an entire department.

Managers also have the power to create an environment that supports workers, both directly by supporting employees and by enabling employees to support one another. This does not mean that managers need to personally provide mental health support services to an employee who may be struggling. Instead, we find that being generally supportive is associated with better mental health. In addition, managers should allow opportunities for employees to connect and support one another, which may require a shift in norms. For instance, when a manager sees employees taking a few minutes to chat in the break room, do they see a lapse in productivity? Or do they see maintenance of social ties that can support employees’ long-term mental health? Of course there’s a balance—all members of a team need to get their jobs done—but social connections should be supported whenever possible.

This finding is consistent with many employees’ preferences as well. Indeed, a recent study by Mind Share Partners reports that employees view a healthy work culture as more beneficial to their mental health than self-care benefits. This further suggests that companies should not overspend on mental health perks at the expense of investing in systematic changes.

How to better understand the worker mental health crisis

Finally, a major finding of our review was that researchers often don’t make a good distinction between the terms “mental health” and “mental illness.” This is problematic for two reasons. First, it may inadvertently promote negative stereotypes about people with diagnosed mental illness. To clarify, poor mental health affects most people. The Mind Share Partners’s survey found that nearly 60% of employees experienced at least one symptom of poor mental health, with burnout being the most common. There’s strong evidence to suggest that employees do not perform as well when they are suffering from poor mental health, which makes improving mental health a business decision worthy of significant attention.

In contrast, mental illness refers to chronic conditions that can impact the way people think, feel, and act. Our review underscores that people with chronic mental illness excel at work, but this fact is obscured if they are oversimplified as being “unwell.” Of course, challenges can impact work during periods of severe mental illness symptoms, but there is evidence that mental illness-related disruptions are no more impactful than disruptions for other medical conditions. Moreover, there are countless examples of high-performing people with chronic mental illness that are at the top of their fields, further underscoring the potential of those with mental illness to perform well.

The other problem with conflating mental health and mental illness is that it obscures the need for researchers to specifically focus on the work experiences of people with mental illness, and see whether there are factors of work that support their ability to thrive compared to employees without mental illness. At least one in five adults in the United States experience mental illness, and companies are unlikely to know exactly who these people are because employees often hide their diagnoses to avoid discrimination. Given the prevalence of these diagnoses and the potential contributions of those with mental illness, it is in a company’s best interest to learn how to help those people thrive in their work. If researchers don’t identify who has mental illness in their studies of mental health interventions then companies don’t have any reliable data about how to best support a fifth of their workforce.

Our review is just the beginning of understanding how companies can best support employees’ mental health, including those with and without chronic mental illness. Going forward, researchers need to shift their focus and rigorously evaluate the efficacy of proactive, systematic mental health interventions, and also attend to the unique work experiences of employees with chronic mental illness. Companies should also broaden their view of what constitutes an investment in their employees’ mental health. If researchers and companies work together and investigate novel approaches, we have an opportunity to not only prevent harm to employees’ mental health, but to actually make a positive impact.