The article examines the potential damage to healthy workplaces using applied experiences and beliefs concerning mental health practices. It revealed a potential risk of ignoring leaders while pursuing psychological health (Day et al., 2019). There is a well-known concept of servant leadership that experts advertise as the best way of motivating employees. However, the article shows the shortcomings in such reasoning as often, there are no provisions for improving the leader’s mental health, with the sole focus on the workers.
Mental health advocates tend to overlook the environment when making suggestions on improving the workers’ well-being. The general belief is that decent work includes a healthy and safe environment. However, the belief is quite generalizing, failing to look at the different physical environments encompassing the vast array of occupations (Dan et al., 2019). Therefore, it is damaging to overlook the impact of the environment when solving mental health problems.
The analysis debunked a lot of myths often associated with work behavior, particularly on the problems of engagement and toxic behavior. One of the most revealing was the research on the direct correlation between engagement and work-life conflict (Day et al., 2019). Too much engagement – beyond the healthy levels – can prompt conflict (Day et al., 2019). It also challenged the belief that a workplace is often toxic and that removal from that environment is beneficial. For example, the article mentioned the common experience where a worker feels overwhelmed and they are advised to take a break as a treatment (Day et al., 2019). In some situations, the workplace environment is what the patient needs for optimal mental health, especially when it is their place of support. Thus, it indicates the multifaceted and complex nature of solving employee mental health issues.
The article is critical in that it moves beyond the surface issues, especially the benefits of mental health issues, and investigates the other side of the coin. For example, the article showed the origins of mental health in the workplace, going into detail, and revealing the movement’s progress. The works of Sauter and Murphy were the main turning point in highlighting job stress (Day et al., 2019). It then moved to the research by Kelloway and Day on creating a physical and psychosocial model (Day et al., 2019). Therefore, the successive explanation of these concepts increased the understanding. There is also critical thinking in introducing the potential disadvantages of healthy workplaces. It begins by discussing the benefits and ways of implementing a healthy workplace, such as creating an inclusive and fair environment. Then, it explains the often unnoticed trouble stemming from the same.
The article lacked authenticity because of the lack of citations. Citations are valuable in establishing the credibility and authority of the information in the article. There are many examples of claims in the paper that would be more believable if there were citations. For example, the paper claims that a study of 20,000 employees revealed that respect is the top factor at work (Day et al., 2019). While there is mention of the author, Christine Porath, there is no mention of the year or a subsequent reference in the bibliography (Day et al., 2019). The same is noticeable in statements concerning percentages, such as that 20% of people call for action on engagement data (Day et al., 2019). Hence, the authors should review the paper and add references to increase its authority.
Reference
Day, A., Penney, S. A., & Hartling, N. (2019). The psychology, potential perils, and practice of leading healthy workplaces. Organizational Dynamics, 48(3), 75-84.