Thoughts on Standards of Mental Health in the Workplace

There is no universal quantitative scale, and there is only one core judgment principle - your energy budget at work is in dynamic balance, and there is no irreversible self-depletion.

Many people have asked me before, if being unhappy at work every day means you are mentally unhealthy? Is there something wrong with you if you don’t get along with your colleagues? Every time, I first show them the case of Xiao Zhou from the Operation Department last year: a girl from 1998 who got S for department performance for two consecutive quarters. She was always the one with the most active team building atmosphere in the group. Even her boss praised her for being "emotionally stable and able to withstand pressure" until she suddenly submitted When she applied for sick leave, the diagnosis stated that she had moderate anxiety accompanied by depression. She told me that for more than three months in a row, she had to sit in the underground garage for 20 minutes every day after get off work and cry enough before going home. She couldn't even smile when eating with her parents. She could only maintain her ability on the surface. You see, what the public thinks of as "emotional stability and performance meeting standards" have nothing to do with health.

Regarding this standard, there is actually no unified statement in the academic community. You may have heard a lot about the views of the school of positive psychology, which say that a healthy workplace psychology must meet three conditions: having a sense of control over the work, being able to get value feedback from the work, and having a positive connection with colleagues in the workplace—to put it bluntly, it means being able to handle tasks, growing, and having good relationships with colleagues. However, in the past two years, there has been considerable opposition in the field of clinical psychology, saying that this set of standards is essentially a "health shackles" imposed by capital on workers: Do I just join the company to earn five insurances and one housing fund, and do not want to climb the ladder or be friends with my colleagues, so I deserve to be classified as "mentally unhealthy"?

In my own practice, I never use these written standards to check people. To judge whether an employee is in good condition or not, I just look at a few very personal details: For example, do you have no desire to watch the variety show you originally loved to follow recently? When your favorite hot pot restaurant invites you, your first reaction would be, "I'm so tired to go out," instead of being happy? When you see the unread messages in the work group, does your heart skip a beat for no reason? These small "loss of interest" and "stress reactions" are more accurate than any professional scale. After all, everyone's tolerance level is very different. Some people don't feel bored when dealing with 10 clients, while others feel hollowed out after a 20-minute meeting. How can there be a unified standard?

Don't believe in the nonsense that "just adjusting your mentality can solve all problems." I have seen too many cases where methods that work for others are useless to you. There used to be a boy in the technical department who suffered from insomnia for half a year. He came to me for three psychological counseling sessions and taught him a bunch of methods of mindful breathing and establishing a sense of boundaries, but it still didn't work. Later, he simply resigned and rode 318 for more than a month. He came back and found a state-owned enterprise that worked 9 to 5 without working overtime. Now he can go hiking with friends twice a week. His circle of friends is full of scenery photos, and he is in great shape. There is also a girl who works in customer success. She used to get nervous whenever she received a call from a customer. Later, she simply classified all the customers she contacted according to their personality. Before talking about work, she would talk about their friends’ circle of friends and chat with customers as if they were netizens. Not only is she no longer anxious now, but she has also become the department’s renewal rate champion. You see, some people solve problems by adjusting their status, and some solve problems by changing the environment. There is no right or wrong, just whatever suits you.

I have fallen into the trap of "pursuing a perfect workplace mentality" before. The company had major layoffs the year before last, and I had to negotiate with three employees every day for two weeks to terminate the contract. During that time, my palms became sweaty when I heard the WeChat phone ring. I didn't want to talk to my husband when I got home. I also felt that I was so useless that I couldn't even control my emotions. Later, I found someone I knew. While chatting with the counselor, someone said something to wake me up: "You are already doing a job that consumes a lot of emotions. It is normal to have fluctuations. As long as you can still sleep well, are willing to go to work normally after waking up, and can find one or two small things that make you happy after get off work, then it will be fine. Don't hold yourself to the standards of a saint." ”

To be honest, there are too many "workplace health standards" messed up on the Internet. Sometimes they say you need to be emotionally stable, and sometimes they say you need to refuse internal friction. There is really no need to apply them to yourself. Some people are born to be workaholics and feel happy even if they work overtime until twelve o'clock. Some people just want to get off work on time and pick up their children from school. Work is just a tool for making a living, and there is no hierarchy. As long as you look back at your recent work and it doesn't mess up your original life or turn you into someone you hate, then you've met the standard.