Workplace Mental Health Report Summary

Combining the 2024 domestic workplace psychology survey data with 21,000 valid samples from 17 industries, plus my practical experience in participating in the implementation of EAP (Employee Assistance Plan) in 23 companies in the past three years, the current detection rate of mental health risks in the domestic workplace is 34.7%, far exceeding the average level of the general population.； The core inducement is not the public perception of "too much overtime" and "weak ability to withstand stress", but the three underlying contradictions: unequal job rights and responsibilities, misaligned labor value feedback, and internal friction in meaningless matters. ； There is currently no universal solution, and adaptive adjustments by enterprises, individuals, and service providers are the only feasible way to reduce risks.

Last month, I met a young girl who I consulted before. She was a 27-year-old girl with a 985 master's degree. She used to work in operations at a leading e-commerce company and received S performance for three consecutive quarters. When she came to me, she clutched a diagnosis of moderate depression. She said that there was a problem with the supply chain during last week's big promotion and the goods could not be shipped. The boss asked her to take the blame and apologize to all platform users, and also deducted 20% of her performance. She cried in the company toilet for half an hour that day, and resigned as soon as she came out. Now she has opened a small pet shop in the suburbs. Last month, she gained nearly ten pounds by chance. The way she squatted on the ground and combed the cat's hair was much more lively than when she reported to the PPT.

This is really not an exception. In the survey data, 62% of the respondents with moderate to severe psychological risks have experienced "taking the blame for their superiors" or "doing the work of three people for one person's salary." On the contrary, those core technical positions that are recognized as high-paying and high-pressure have a psychological risk detection rate that is 12% lower than that of ordinary administrative and operational positions. To put it bluntly, what everyone is afraid of is never tiredness, but being overtired and feeling useless.

There are actually quite large differences in academic circles on this matter. Scholars who do research on organizational behavior generally believe that the fundamental problem lies in the enterprise. It is better to make organizational fairness clear first than anything else: clarify the list of rights and responsibilities, and no assignments are allowed during non-working hours. First, we should cut down those meaningless review meetings that are held every day and the daily and weekly reports that are filled every day. A leading new energy vehicle company that I have been in contact with actually did this last year. It cut all daily reports into departmental weekly reports and made it clear that employees could not reply to messages sent after get off work for non-emergency matters, which did not count as assessments. After three months, employee happiness according to an internal survey directly increased by 21%, and the turnover rate dropped by 8 percentage points. The results are real.

But experts in clinical psychology on the other side have a completely different view. They say that it is simply unrealistic to require all companies to implement standardized management. 80% of domestic jobs are in small, medium and micro enterprises, and many may not even pay full social security, let alone provide mental health benefits. At this time, it is useless to hold companies to make demands. The most controllable solution is to build individual psychological boundaries. A girl I know who works in independent public relations thought very clearly. She made a list of boundaries: she would not reply to work messages after 8 p.m., and she would not answer work calls on weekends. She did lose two difficult clients at the beginning, but those who stayed later were all clients who were willing to respect her time. Her quotation was 30% higher than before. After working for three years, she had no problems, and even the migraines she often suffered before were cured.

To be honest, I have been in a trap before. In the past two years, in order to grab an order for a project, I promised the client to be on call at any time. On the first day of the Lunar New Year, the client sent a message asking to change the plan. I sat at the dinner table and changed the plan for two hours. I still have no impression of the taste of the braised pork ribs that day. Later I learned to be good and state the rules before taking on a project. If you want to change the plan during non-working hours, you can add a 30% expedited fee. Otherwise, you have to wait until you get to work. On the contrary, the client does not think that I have too much work, and everyone cooperates more smoothly.

There is also EAP, which is the most criticized one nowadays. Many people say that this is HR Ann's undercover job. If you go and say that you are under great pressure, you will be put on the list to be optimized. This situation really exists. I have encountered an Internet company before that directly linked EAP consultation records with employee performance. Only three people dared to use the project six months after it was launched, and it became a facade for investors. But not all EAPs are useless. Last year, the EAP I helped a foreign-funded pharmaceutical company was completely hosted by a third party. All consultation records were fully encrypted, and the company could not obtain any personal information. The usage rate reached 27% in the 9 months after it was launched. More than 40 employees alleviated their anxiety through consultation, and 3 more serious cases were referred to specialist hospitals. All of them recovered well afterward. To put it bluntly, it is not that the method is useless, but that the people who use it have the right intentions.

In fact, in the final analysis, there is really no need to get too fussy about mental health in the workplace. There is no need to scold young people for being glassy, ​​nor do you need to beat all bosses to death at once. It is essentially a two-way choice. If you think the atmosphere of this company is okay, more money, less things to do, close to home but still the same share, then work hard. ； If there is no end to PUA and taking the blame every day, then it is not impossible to live in another place. After all, the reason for going to work is to live, not to make it worse, right?