In the third of a series of articles for Stress Awareness Month, Philip Crosbie from law firm Eversheds Sutherland considers whether employers should be taking a gendered approach to managing stress and mental health?
Taking a gendered approach to the management of any health and safety risk is relatively rare. Is the case made out that such an approach would work for stress and mental health?
We can draw parallels from a risk that is arguably much more objective and measurable; manual handling. In the Health and Safety Executive guidance INDG 143 ‘Manual handling at work’ the HSE illustrates lifting and lowering risks through the use of different weight limits for men and women. The gendered approach here, at face value, is that men are stronger than women and therefore can be expected to handle greater weights before being exposed to a potential injury. This is an example of a gendered approach in theory.
We question how many times this approach has been adopted in practice? How many readers work within organisations that assess manual handling tasks based on the gender of those individuals performing them? Is there any evidence of women being prohibited from lifting items that men are otherwise permitted to?
Could such a gendered approach work when deciding upon an organisation’s approach to managing stress and mental health? It has been suggested that the broad characteristics sometimes attributed to different genders necessitate different approaches. Whilst these are entirely generalisations, women are said to be more willing to be open and discuss issues with their mental health, whereas men are often seen as more reluctant, particularly in perceived ‘macho’ cultures where individuals feel as if they will be treated differently as a result.
In order to properly consider the question posed, we have to take heed of the warning contained within the HSE’s manual handling guidance: “The guidelines are derived from lifting capacity data which show differences between men and women in the population (rather than individuals).” The data can only ever provide an average and, as with any risk assessment exercise, the focus needs to be on individuals, as diverse as they might be.
The duty on employers under Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 includes ensuring, so far as is reasonably practicable, the welfare of all employees, not simply broad groups that identify to a particular gender. Just as some women will be stronger than men, some men will be more likely to come forward with mental health concerns than women.
We therefore propose that taking a gendered approach is not the best way forward; taking a diverse approach would be much more appropriate. Taking a diverse approach requires employers to consider the range of characteristics across the workforce, rather than assigning particular gender categories. It may be considered impractical to tailor the approach to each individual employee, but some effort should be made to address particular characteristics across the workforce.
Examples for reflection could include:
If you have any questions about the topics discussed in this article or would like more information, please contact Philip Crosbie.
In this episode of the Safety & Health Podcast, we hear from Peter Kelly, Senior Psychologist for the Health and Safety Executive about work-related stress…
I think that alongside a diverse characteristics approach, a gendered approach is incredibly important. Organisational approaches to mental health and wellbeing must have equity at their core – and must recognise that psychosocial risks can impact different groups (as well as individuals) in different ways. Different groups will likely experience society and work life differently to others and this should absolutely be considered in strategy and approach to mental health and wellbeing in the workplace. For example, transgender or non-binary workers are more likely to experience discrimination, bullying or harassment in the workplace, which in turn can lead to poorer… Read more »