Critical Analysis of a Policy Document – The National Standard of Canada for Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace

The topic for the paper

            In this assignment, I have chosen the Canadian policy document, The National Standard of Canada for Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace (the Standard).

The Standard

            The National Standard of Canada for Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace (the Standard) is a 75-page Federal Government document that sets out voluntary guidelines, tools and resources intended to guide organizations in promoting mental health and preventing psychological harm at work. Developed for both employees and employers, the Standard markets itself as user-friendly and easily accessible to all Canadian employers and other interested parties. The Standard targets support for individuals experiencing mental health issues on the job, promotion of mental health, illness prevention, anti-stigma initiatives, and development of mentally healthy workplaces. It serves as a resource for employers to improve the mental health of their organizations, improve cost-effectiveness, and increase recruitment and retention. The Standard claims to be the first of its kind globally and accomplishes all the above while fostering, promoting, and advancing the national economy. It also contains the disclaimer that its use “rests on the user.”

Process

            The critical analysis of the Standard will be by way of a written essay. My writing style is in the first person and subjective as it expresses my interpretation and analysis of the work. I have chosen an interpretive research design that will give a brief history of the Standard followed by the relevancy of the assignment. The document will be identified along with why it is important to me as an adult educator.

            A summary of the Standard will be presented with a critical analysis of its contents. In closing, my take-aways from this analysis will be identified, including how my critical lens has changed through the studies in this course.

My social identity

            My analysis of this article will be influenced by and come from my social identity. I am a 64-year- old married father and grandfather, middle-class white male settler, retired with a pension, heterosexual, protestant, cisgender, and am military and law enforcement trained, university-educated, relatively healthy, non-disabled, with anxiety, depression, and PTSD. I can consider myself in a position of power with privilege while recognizing and appreciating Johnson (2018), who posits that privilege is always a problem for those who do not have it and those who do because privilege is always related to the privilege of others. My biases, white privilege and vulnerabilities will all be factors in writing this essay.

Relevance

            The EDAE 6363 course assignment module states that critical analysis is grounded in power relations constructed by race, class, gender, ability, and other social constructs. I work in a constructionist

framework with a problem solver perspective. The analysis is seen through my lens of inquiry and investigation, so conducting a policy analysis through a systematic process is specific for my situation and worldview.

            The Standard aims to promote psychological health and safety in Canadian workplaces. This

assignment is relevant to me for my grad paper which will explore the impact of pre-retirement and post-retirement on police officers’ wellbeing. The Standard has several sections such as managing change, prevention, education, and awareness relevant to psychological and physical health issues, which I want to explore further and analyze.

Brief History of the Standard

            Mental illness is the leading cause of disability in Canada. The prevalence of mental illness in Canada is on the rise, with more than 6.7 million people living with a mental health problem and close to 500,000 Canadians are unable to attend work each week due to mental health issues (Mental Health Commission of Canada [MHCC] 2013). Adults in the prime of their careers are at a high risk of developing mental illness and are often the most affected. Mental health problems cost Canadian employers $16.6 billion per year in lost productivity due to absenteeism and presenteeism and is an employer’s most pressing concern (Mercer, 2018). As a former small business owner, RCMP officer and City of Kelowna employee, I witnessed this cost firsthand as an individual who struggles with anxiety, depression, and PTSD.

            Recognizing the cost of mental illness on the economy, the Federal Government in 2007 created a senate committee that was tasked to study mental health, mental illness, and addiction. The committee was formed by the Mental Health Commission of Canada (MHCC). The commission received endorsement from all provinces and territories except for Quebec and was approved to receive funding by the subsequent federal governments until 2028. The commission’s aim was and continues to be to provide tools and information required to improve the quality of and access to mental health care for all working Canadians.

            In 2010, the MHCC asserted a legal duty in Canada for employers to provide and maintain a psychologically safe workplace. The MHCC developed a Workforce Advisory Committee with the focus on the promotion, prevention, diversity, access, and delivery of mental health services across Canada. Committee members were subject matter experts, economists, and community partners. They provided contextual knowledge, including social, educational, and cultural perspectives.

            In 2013, a commissioned report by the Federal government through the authority of the Standards Council of Canada led to the creation of the National Standard of Canada for Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace (Standard) guide. The Standard guide handbook is intended to show how organizations can start with the Standard and move through the stages of implementation to develop psychological healthy and safe workplaces. The guidebook provides tools, techniques, definitions, checklists, tips, references, and frequently asked questions to support users.

Who wrote and communicated the policy?

            The Mental health Commission of Canada (MHCC) championed the development of the Standard working with the addition of the Bureau de normalization du Quebec (BNQ) and Canadian Standards Association (CSA). The Standard will be a stand-alone National Standard of Canada. The MHCC, BNQ, and CSA will make the Standard available through their websites.

Who is paying for the development of the Standard?

            Funding is being provided by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Health Canada, Public health Agency of Canada, and a $150,000 grant from Bell Canada. As an example of public and private funding, I partially fund the Standard as a Canadian taxpayer.

Who is on the committees that are developing the Standard?

            There were a diverse group of health and safety professionals on the technical committee (35 volunteers) and project review committee (11 volunteers). Committee members included executives, labour leaders, government representatives, experts in law and policy, National Aboriginal Health Organization, Air Canada, Canadian Mental Health Association, Great-West Life Assurance Company, Northern Health, City of Mississauga, Bell Canada, and Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Benefits and Strengths

            Healthy workplaces incorporate health-promoting activities, employee assistance programs, flexible benefits and working conditions, fair employment treatment, employee career development, health and safety, and prevention of work stress (Kelloway & Day, 2005). The Standard supports and builds upon currently active activities and programs. It is unique and marketed by the Canadian Government as the first of its kind in the World to pave the way for significant change in how psychological health and safety is conceptualized and addressed in workplaces. Other countries are looking to Canada for results from research on the Standard, which has potential for positive global impact.

            Organizations and companies of all shapes and sizes share that employers need assistance in understanding and dealing with mental health problems in the workplace. The Standard provides a guiding framework for greater awareness and understanding.  Implementing the Standard could increase work productivity, reduce stress, reduce employee turnover, and decrease the prevalence of mental illness. The Standard provides the tools and information about how organizations can protect their employees and create workplace environments to prevent mental health issues. This would allow employees to feel safe, happy, and engaged by creating an overall positive work environment. The long-term effects would benefit the organization and employees.

            Employees will benefit from workplaces that promote and protect their psychological health and safety. For employers, benefits will be enhanced cost-effectiveness, improved risk management, increased organizational recruitment and retention and identified corporate responsibility.

Criticisms and barriers

            Although the Standard offers benefits and values that are far-reaching, it is not without flaws.

1) The Standard is poorly advertised, has limited publicity, and lacks promotion by the federal government. It is not well communicated across Canada. Larger organizations with human resource departments are more likely to learn about the Standard, although small businesses generally do not have that luxury. Organizations have no more than a mild curiosity rather than a focused commitment.

2) Leadership involvement is essential when implementing the Standard, and buy-in from

leadership is essential. For many organizations, implementation starts at the top and walking the walk.

Management and organizations do not see the value-added in the Standard to invest time and resources into implementation.

3) When hiring staff as part-time or on short-term contracts, the cost for training and

implementation is prohibitive. The Standard is designed for large organizations that

have the time and resources.

4) Small organizations face competing workplace priorities while balancing several priorities and

responsibilities. Time and resources are focused in so many different places. They do not have the luxury of a Human Resources Department or a Chief Diversity Officer. Some can view the Standard as a long, complicated, and tiresome political, academic document.

5) Organizations are spending enormous amounts of time keeping up with the myriad of other

workplace and safety standards such as harassment, disabilities, and human rights. This Standard is just

one more government bureaucratic standard that is “voluntary” and requires no commitment.

5) Employers must be committed because implementing the Standard is a lengthy process

that requires an organizational culture shift. Everyone from the top-down need to be committed due to

requiring a significant amount of time and resources. The challenge can be overwhelming for management

to raise awareness, change the culture and mindset, and do what it takes to make the Standard

successful.

6) Opinions from some employees and employers may be that psychological health and safety are

irrelevant in the workplace.

7) Organizational cultures and sizes determined how or if the Standard should be implemented.

8) Some employers may have concerns about the potential for abuse or employees “faking it” and taking

advantage of the program.

            While there are many positive suggestions in the Standard and the barriers to implementation can be overcome, in keeping with the theme of EDAE 6363, Diversity in Adult Education, the Standard falls short in addressing many areas of the vast and encompassing arena of diversity. Section 4.3.6 of the Standard, Diversity, states, “Organizations comprise diverse populations and groups. The organizations shall consider the unique needs of these diverse populations and solicit input when these needs are relevant to complying with the requirements of this Standard. The organization shall consider workplace factors that can impact the ability of these workers to stay at work or return to work. While psychological health and safety in the workplace is a shared responsibility among stakeholders, the organization should support individual workers to seek assistance internally or externally when needed. The organization shall take steps to link workers in need to internal resources and should also take steps to link workers to the community or other resources.”

            The Standard is positioned as written for all Canadian workers but fails to consider the diversity of those workers and the issues associated with a specific cultural, religious, or sexual history and background. For example, only one personal example of a Canadian worker was noted in Annex D.1, referring to small enterprise scenarios. The annex identifies “Joe,” who owns a small independent mechanical garage. There was no mention of Indigenous people’s.

            Health Equity issues can have a negative impact on mental health on individuals, groups and communities. Marginalized groups have reduced access to social determinants of health, essential to creating conditions that cultivate positive mental health. Intersectionality creates various unique situations that can affect individuals and communities. Intersecting identities lead to further exposure to additional levels of marginalization, which do not exist in isolation from each other. These issues were not mentioned in the Standard.

            The social constructions of race, class, gender, ability/disability, language, and religion did not emerge in the Standard policy either in explicit or implicit ways. The document was carefully worded and politically correct when discussing all issues. Inclusivity should have been an item for discussion. Implementation of the Standard is voluntary and up to individual organizations, labour groups, industry groups, government agencies, and other interested parties. The Standard is of particular interest to senior executives, unions/organized labour, human resources, occupational health and safety, risk management and employee assistance professionals. All at the top of the power pyramid.

            Employers are the key decision-makers with power within organizations, and their perspectives on the Standard will influence implementation and internal acceptance. The employer’s perspectives inform future mental health initiatives for the workplace, provide insight into the challenges and barriers and assist in the implementation of the Standard in workplaces.

            I can see the benefits as an educator in defining privileged positions because denying their existence is a serious barrier to change. Ironically, the changes sought by the Standard have a considerable obstacle to overcome – the Federal Government. The privilege and power ensconced in the government can go unnoticed or unrecognized for decades.  It is not an individual issue but a systemic issue. It was interesting to see how systems of power and privilege unfolded within the context of authoring the Standard.

Benefits vs costs of the Standard        

            The benefits of the Standard are the positive consequences, while the costs are the negative. Costs may be monetary or nonmonetary, direct, or indirect. Although organizations and businesses may have limited awareness of the Standard, they appear interested and eager to learn. Advantages include: 1) help reduce stress, decrease employee turnover, increase workplace productivity, encourage prevention and promotion of mental health in the workplace; 2) helps normalize the conversation behind mental health between employer and employee; and 3) identifies visibilities of and contributions of other health-promoting initiatives. Disadvantages include 1) potential barriers to implementation, including being a lengthy process, requires leadership buy-in and organizational culture shift; and 2) complexity of integrating the Standard into workplaces. Social change requires workplaces to create an open, supportive work environment where employees and employers feel comfortable and safe to discuss mental health (Kelloway & Day, 2005). Unfortunately, the Standard struggles with an incentive for social change.

What are my take-aways from this analysis?

            While completing the research for this essay, I used a form of critical praxis to draw upon and apply intersectional frameworks to examine intersecting power relations and social phenomena – for example, the design and implementation of the Standard and its possible diversity and inclusion initiatives.

            The Standard lacks local involvement and community participation resulting in a lacklustre campaign for social change. The Standard does not have a “champion” who stands behind the innovation and breaks through all opposition due to a biased positive attitude associated with the innovation. Although voluntary to participate, the Standard is an authority decision adopted among very few individuals with high positions of power within an organization.

            The Standard has the potential to help employee productivity, job satisfaction, and improve mental health. Unfortunately, since its release in 2013, the awareness of the Standard has been low, pointing to a need for more information dissemination and knowledge translation by the Federal Government. Many Canadian organizations and employers are still unaware of the Standard’s existence. Further work on marketing and promoting the Standard is required.

            Employers identified leadership as a critical ingredient for effective Standard implementation. The employees like me must take some initiative in seeking out help. Not all mental health issues can be observed by the supervisor or employer. When employee mental health is valued, workers may use work as a resource to buffer the effects of non-work stressors and develop self-efficacy, confidence, and hope, which all contribute to overall mental health and well-being. The resources are necessary because all the answers are not in the Standard, and some interventions require a higher service of care for an employee. A major fault of the Standard is that it is not user-friendly to the small business owner who does not have the advantage of a human resources department or personnel specifically assigned to meet the needs of the Standard.

Conclusion

            When I analyze the Standard, it will receive a B+ grade.  My criticism is that it is overly detailed and states it is a document that both employers and employees can aspire to while fully integrated. But at what cost? The Standard takes a holistic view of the workplace while providing organizations with most but not all tools. The link to resources and ways to intervene with the employee is a valuable feature. The most important takeaway from the Standard is small businesses may not see the need for the Standard or have the luxury to read, analyze, and implement it. But it is important to remember; a workplace culture can foster empathy resulting in buy-in as team members become more aware of psychological illness.

            Listening to stakeholders and workers with eyes, ears, and hearts while reflexively understanding the extent of power and privilege identified how a diverse set of minds can create a document such as the Standard. I wear many hats and look through many lenses in my life as a parent, husband, educator, and privileged white male. This course and assignment taught me to relinquish power. Life does not have to be a struggle. I do not have to be in control all the time.

            Although the Standard is not perfect, in my view, it is the start of great things to follow.

References

Johnson, A.G. (2018). Privilege, power, and difference (3 rd ed.). McGraw Hill.

Kelloway, E.K, &  Day, A.L. (2005). Building healthy workplaces: What we know so far. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Review, 37(4), 223. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232574599_Building_Healthy_Workplaces_What_We_Know_So_Far

Mental Health Commission of Canada (2013). Making the case for investing in mental health in Canada. Mental Health Commission of Canada. https://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/sites/default/files/2016-06/Investing_in_Mental_Health_FINAL_Version_ENG.pdf

Mental Health Commission of Canada (2021). The national standard of Canada for psychological healthand safety in the workplace. Health Canada. https://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/English/what-we-do/workplace/national-standard

Mercer Financial (2018, April 26). How much are you losing to absenteeism? https://www.mercer.ca/en/our-thinking/how-much-are-you-losing-to-absenteeism.html