Line managers’ hiring intentions regarding people with mental health problems: a cross-sectional study on workplace stigma

Abstract

ObjectivesStigma may negatively affect line managers’ intention to hire people with mental health problems (MHP). This study aims to evaluate line managers’ knowledge and attitudes concerning job applicants with MHP, and to assess which factors are associated with the intention (not) to hire an applicant with MHP.MethodsA sample of Dutch line managers (N=670) filled out a questionnaire on their knowledge, attitudes and experiences concerning applicants/employees with MHP. Descriptive analyses and multiple regression analyses were used.ResultsThe majority (64%) was reluctant to hire a job applicant with MHP, despite the fact that only 7% had negative and 52% had positive personal experiences with such employees. Thirty per cent were reluctant to hire an applicant if they knew the applicant had past MHP. Associated with higher reluctance to hire an applicant with MHP were the concerns that it will lead to long-term sickness absence (β (95% CI)=0.39 (0.23 to 0.55)), that the employee cannot handle the work (β (95% CI)=0.16 (0.00 to 0.33)) that one cannot count on the employee (β (95% CI)=0.41 (0.23 to 0.58)) and higher manager education level (β (95% CI)=0.25 (0.05 to 0.44)). Conversely, associated with positive hiring intentions was being in favour of diversity and/or inclusive enterprise (β(95% CI)=−0.64 (−0.87 to −0.41)).ConclusionsAs the majority of managers were reluctant to hire applicants with MHP, and even 30% were reluctant to hire applicants who had past MHP, these findings have major implications for social inclusion in the Netherlands, where about 75% of employees would disclose MHP at work.

Expectations of Mental Illness Disclosure Outcomes in the Work Context: A Cross-Sectional Study Among Dutch Workers

“…Apparently, workers with mental illness have a negative reputation. This was also found in a representative study of 670 Dutch line managers, where 40% indicated they were concerned that hiring a worker with mental illness would negatively affect the workplace atmosphere [7]. Finally, future research should also make clear if the findings are generalizable to other countries, or rather specific to the Dutch context and culture.…”

“…Also other studies that were not particularly related to the workplace showed that disclosure can lead to acceptance and support [5], and, after completing the Coming Out Proud program, decreased self-stigma and diminished depression [6]. Nevertheless, disclosure can also be a barrier as it can lead to adverse employment outcomes due to stigma and discrimination, such as problems obtaining a job [1,[7][8][9][10], job loss [8,11], limited advancement opportunities [8,12], and harassment at work [13,14]. Also outside the workplace mental illness disclosure can lead to increased self-stigma, shame, harm and discrimination [5].…”

In What Ways Does Health Related Stigma Affect Sustainable Employment and Well-Being at Work? A Systematic Review

“…Rigorous systematic reviews in this area are lacking [8]. One of the suggested factors is that employers and other stakeholders in the work environment often hold negative attitudes towards people with disabilities, which decreases the chances of these people to be hired or supported at work [12][13][14][15][16]. Many people with health problems experience a disclosure dilemma [17][18][19][20].…”

Promoting Factors to Stay at Work Among Employees With Common Mental Health Problems: A Multiple-Stakeholder Concept Mapping Study

“…That autonomy might be more challenging to stimulate among employees with CMHP, may be because lack of control is a common manifestation of CMHP ( van der Klink and van Dijk, 2003 ). Due to stigma ( Brouwers et al, 2020 ) or lack of skills ( Janssens et al, 2021 ), supervisors and OHPs easily tend to take over control, while our study shows the importance of experiencing a sense of autonomy in the SAW process. We recommended OHPs and supervisors to stimulate the autonomy of employees and to address their capacities, by (1) encouraging active participation, (2) asking the right questions, (3) listening to their needs, and (4) supporting SAW as much as possible in order to prevent negative work outcomes.…”

“…As most individuals affected by CMHP are employed and actually working, this phase of staying at work needs more attention ( OECD, 2012 ; Danielsson et al, 2017 ). Interestingly, nearly 40% of a representative panel of Dutch employers does not know how to help employees with CMHP in the workplace ( Janssens et al, 2021 ). One explanation may be the course of CMHP, in which symptoms appear through implicit or ambiguous signals, usually developing stealthily and slowly.…”