Skip to navigationSkip to contentSkip to footerHelp using this website - Accessibility statement
Advertisement

Opinion

Mental illness disclosure in businesses needs to be reviewed

Lyn Goodear
Updated

Subscribe to gift this article

Gift 5 articles to anyone you choose each month when you subscribe.

Subscribe now

Already a subscriber?

The incident involving a Lufthansa co-pilot who allegedly took control of his Germanwings plane and crashed it into a mountainside in the French Alps, killing all 150 passengers on board, has lent new urgency to old questions about mental illness and disclosure.

Disclosure is one of those words that signify honesty, transparency and openness. Members of boards disclose a personal interest prior to decision-making, and listed companies pre-emptively disclose matters that may affect the market. For most people, disclosure is a word that is free of negative connotations.

Unless, that is, you have something you do not wish to disclose. If you are a person suffering from a mental illness and you are looking for a job or are keen to keep your job, any mention of disclosure to an employer is likely to inspire dread.

Those with mental illnesses do not want to tell employers. 

You know that if you don't disclose and workplace problems arise related to your illness, you risk being accused of deceit or culpable secrecy. You know also that if you disclose in the recruitment phase, you are almost certain not to succeed in getting the job even if your credentials are the best on offer. You know you will be judged on your disclosed disability rather than your demonstrable capabilities.

A little over a year ago, the organisation I lead made a submission to the ASX Corporate Governance Council on potential revisions to the guidelines and recommendations the council routinely makes to member companies. The submission noted our research, which indicated the existence of a workplace perception, rightly or wrongly, that people with disability pose a potentially costly risk to organisations that employ them.

Advertisement

Without making a judgement on the merits or otherwise of that perception, we argued a case exists for appropriate management and oversight of the corporate risk, and that a "light-touch" reporting regime would amount to evidence that listed companies take the matter seriously.

In addition, we noted the diminishing representation of employed people with disability in successive Australian Public Service Commission State of the Service reports. We accepted the stated view that the numbers were not as bad as they looked because of an apparent high level of employee non-disclosure within the public service.

Risk

While we were not able to cite actual cases of non-disclosure in our ASX submission, we speculated prevailing organisational cultures would be likely to have a bearing on employee readiness to disclose a disability that is known to the person but would otherwise go unnoticed by their colleagues or by management. Primary among that type of disability are cases of people with a mental illness.

We concluded workplace cultures which make it difficult to disclose are cultures that contain within them a degree of governance dysfunction, and potentially expose the organisation to serious risk.

To illustrate, we referenced a fictional case. Carrie Mathison is the central protagonist in the US television series Homeland. Her case is a credible example of an employee with a serious bi-polar disability. While her condition needs to be personally managed by daily medication, it is also a condition that enables her as an employee to perform at a markedly higher level as an intelligence operative than her peers who do not suffer from the condition.

Advertisement

However, fear of losing her job prevents her disclosing her condition to her superiors who have come to rely on her outstanding performance level and uncanny judgement. Because her fear is fully justified, she sources her medication covertly to avoid alerting her employer to the condition. A number of things can go wrong in such a situation, and inevitably do. Circumstances separate her from the source of the medication for a period, and what was a potential workplace risk becomes real risk, and contributes to a national security crisis.

Light touch

Exposure to that type of risk, we proposed, would be forestalled were management to take responsibility for the creation of workplace cultures that encourage disclosure, and to report the fact within a "light-touch" context. Disclosure would not need to be made to co-workers or to the world at large but only to management which could ensure appropriate monitoring and so avert the need for cover-up activities to ensure knowledge about the condition was protected. That way, employee privacy would be maintained and employers would be in a better defensive position, in the event of an untoward incident, to show proper oversight was foreseen and exercised.

A Euronews report last week indicated the German Federal Aviation Office had "no information" about the co-pilot's history of depression before giving him a licence to fly commercial aircraft, while Lufthansa stated bafflingly it had met "its duty to provide information to the LBA", and insisted the pilot "had been certified 100 per cent fit to fly".

With an estimated one in five Australians likely to suffer a mental health issue at some time during their lives, I suggest it is timely the governance and reporting issues relating to mental illness in workplaces are revisited at appropriately senior levels in the private and public sectors.

Lyn Goodear is the chief executive of the Australian Human Resources Institute

Subscribe to gift this article

Gift 5 articles to anyone you choose each month when you subscribe.

Subscribe now

Already a subscriber?

Read More

Latest In Economy

Fetching latest articles

Most Viewed In Opinion