Mental health at work: the corporate taboo

For many companies, mental health still sits in a blind spot: acknowledged in principle, yet too rarely addressed in day-to-day working life. That is the concern raised by Clubhouse France, a public-interest association created seven years ago to reduce isolation, support the social and professional integration of people living with psychological difficulties, and challenge the stigma that still surrounds them through its mutual-support “Clubhouse” model. Earlier this year, the organisation conducted its barometer on mental health and employment, and the newly released findings point to a persistent lack of corporate engagement with these issues.

What makes this especially striking is that the workplace is not a neutral backdrop. It shapes attention, confidence, social belonging and, often, a person’s sense of stability. Clubhouse France’s study was designed precisely to bring these lived realities into clearer view: how psychological difficulties are perceived at work, how far employers take them seriously, and how support might be improved. In that sense, the barometer does more than record opinions. It helps expose a still-sensitive subject that many employees feel they cannot speak about openly, even though its effects are felt across working life.

This matters not only for individual wellbeing, but also for the quality of collective functioning. When psychological strain is ignored, the consequences may appear indirectly: reduced concentration, emotional exhaustion, social withdrawal, increased conflict, absenteeism or a gradual loss of confidence. None of these signs is specific to one diagnosis, and they should not be interpreted simplistically. Yet together they suggest that mental health at work is not a marginal concern. It is closely tied to how people regulate stress, sustain attention and remain engaged over time.

In short: why is mental health still a workplace taboo?

Mental health at work remains taboo because many employees fear judgement, career consequences or being seen as less reliable. Companies can change that by creating safer management practices, clearer support systems and healthier work rhythms.

• Silence often comes from fear, not lack of need.
• Managers need training, not only good intentions.
• Workload, autonomy and recovery shape mental wellbeing.
• A healthy culture makes asking for support normal.

For a short personal reset, try the free Mental Reset Session. For healthier work design, read Smart Working and Meditation.

The Aim of the Study

Ils permettront également de voir comment on pourrait mieux accompagner les personnes sujettes à ces troubles au travail.

Beyond the immediate figures, the purpose of such a survey is also methodological: to move discussion away from vague assumptions and towards observed perceptions. In many organisations, mental health is spoken about in general terms, often through broad commitments to wellbeing, while concrete experiences remain poorly documented. A barometer of this kind helps bridge that gap by showing how employees and managers actually interpret workplace reality.

It also gives visibility to a dimension of working life that is often hidden by professional norms. Many employees learn to mask distress, maintain performance at all costs, or delay asking for help until difficulties become harder to manage. By collecting testimony before crisis becomes the only visible stage, the study may help companies understand that prevention is not merely a moral gesture. It is also a practical way of preserving functioning, trust and continuity at work.

What the survey reveals about mental health at work

A broad sample designed to capture real workplace experience

For this barometer, Clubhouse France surveyed adults aged 18 and over who were in work, as well as people looking for work, on temporary sick leave or living with invalidity. In total, 672 people took part. Responses were collected online, by email, through associations and via social networks, using a simple questionnaire designed to respect both identity and confidentiality. It took around twenty minutes to complete, which helped gather personal impressions and lived experience without making the process too burdensome.

The profile of respondents also helps to clarify the scope of the findings: 81% were in employment and 60% were managers or executives within companies. This does not make the survey exhaustive, but it does give weight to what follows, because it reflects perceptions drawn directly from professional life. In other words, the barometer is not only measuring abstract opinion; it is capturing how mental health difficulties are actually perceived, discussed and managed in the workplace.

The inclusion of people beyond the strictly employed population is also significant. Those who are seeking work, on sick leave or living with invalidity often have a particularly sharp view of how employment systems respond to vulnerability. Their perspective may reveal what happens not only inside companies, but also at the edges of professional life, where exclusion, interruption and return-to-work processes become especially sensitive. That broader lens makes the findings more socially meaningful.

Confidentiality is another important point. When people are asked about psychological difficulties, the quality of the data depends heavily on whether they feel safe enough to answer honestly. A questionnaire that protects identity does not eliminate all bias, but it may reduce the pressure to present oneself as coping better than one really is. In workplace mental health, this matters greatly, because social desirability and fear of judgement can distort what people are willing to disclose.

• 672 respondents in total
• 81% in employment
• 60% managers or executives

Companies are expected to act, yet many employees still stay silent

The results point to a clear gap between what employees expect and what they feel companies actually do. The barometer shows that many organisations still seem insufficiently involved in recognising psychological difficulties among staff. Forty per cent of respondents believe their company does not care about employees’ mental health, while six in ten say their employer does not properly take this issue into account. Yet 80% think it should. That expectation is not symbolic: according to the survey, when a company does engage with mental health, the effects are often perceived as positive for both the individual and the wider team. People may feel better supported, better understood and less isolated, and the working environment itself can improve.

In practice, this positive effect is reported in seven cases out of ten.

At the same time, fear remains a major barrier. Although respondents believe companies should pay closer attention to employees’ mental health, 70% say they would be afraid to speak to their employer if they faced a mental health problem. This hesitation may reflect a lack of trust, a fear of stigma, or both. Even so, 90% believe that people living with these difficulties fully belong in the world of work and can thrive there if they receive proper attention. The survey also underlines how limited support still is in practice: only one employee in three feels that a mental health situation has actually been taken on by the company.

Management should, in principle, play a central role here, yet 60% of managers who had faced a staff member’s psychological difficulty said they themselves had not been supported. Where support did exist, it was generally based on individual follow-up. This matters all the more because stress at work has risen sharply, from 38% to 61% over a decade according to the Cegos Barometer 2015, and because mental health difficulties, whether severe or not, may affect nearly one person in four.

The contradiction is revealing. Employees largely accept the principle that mental health belongs within workplace discussion, yet many still feel unable to speak when the issue becomes personal. This suggests that the taboo is not simply a matter of ignorance. It is also a matter of anticipated consequences: fear of being seen as less reliable, less resilient, less promotable or somehow harder to manage. In professional environments where competence is closely tied to self-control, disclosure can feel risky even when official messages appear supportive.

From a psychological point of view, silence often functions as a form of self-protection. People may try to preserve their professional identity by concealing distress, especially when symptoms are still intermittent or difficult to name. Problems with sleep, concentration, motivation or emotional regulation may first be interpreted as personal weakness rather than signs that support is needed. This can delay help-seeking and make difficulties more entrenched. A workplace culture that normalises early conversation may therefore help reduce the cognitive and emotional burden of concealment.

The survey’s findings also imply that support has relational effects beyond the individual case. When colleagues see that a company responds with seriousness rather than suspicion, trust may increase across the team. Conversely, when a mental health difficulty is mishandled or ignored, employees may infer that vulnerability is unsafe to reveal. In that sense, each response by an employer sends a broader signal about what kinds of human experience are considered legitimate within the organisation.

• 70% would be afraid to speak to their employer
• Only 1 in 3 feel a case is actually handled by the company
• Nearly 1 person in 4 may be affected by mental health difficulties

Changing management culture around mental health at work

Why managers can no longer treat mental health as a side issue

For Clubhouse France, the first real shift has to happen at management level. If companies want to support employees living with psychological difficulties more effectively, mental health cannot remain a marginal topic dealt with only when a crisis becomes visible. Today’s working environment changes constantly, placing pressure on attention, emotional regulation and day-to-day stability. In that context, employers are likely, sooner or later, to face situations linked to the mental health of their staff. The question is therefore not whether these issues will arise, but whether the organisation is prepared to respond in a clear, humane and practical way.

That is why businesses need a concrete action plan rather than vague good intentions. They should work to make psychological difficulties less taboo within the workplace and begin addressing them openly and responsibly. This does not mean turning managers into clinicians. It means giving them the framework, language and reflexes needed to recognise difficulties, respond appropriately and guide employees towards suitable support. In practice, a healthier workplace climate is often associated with earlier conversations, better understanding and a stronger sense that people do not have to hide what they are going through.

Managers occupy a particularly sensitive position because they are often the first to notice changes in behaviour, performance or social engagement. They may observe that someone who was previously steady becomes unusually withdrawn, irritable, forgetful or overwhelmed. Yet noticing is not the same as knowing what to do. Without training or institutional backing, managers may hesitate, minimise the issue, or respond only through performance language. That can leave both the employee and the manager in a difficult position.

A more mature management culture would distinguish between support and intrusion. It is neither necessary nor appropriate for line managers to seek detailed personal disclosures. What matters is their ability to create conditions in which concerns can be raised safely, adjustments can be discussed pragmatically, and specialist help can be signposted where needed. This kind of response may support both dignity and effectiveness. It acknowledges that mental health affects work, while respecting the limits of managerial responsibility.

There is also a preventive dimension. Work organisation itself can contribute to psychological strain when expectations are unclear, workloads remain chronically excessive, or employees have little autonomy over how tasks are carried out. In such contexts, mental fatigue is not simply an individual fragility; it may reflect a mismatch between human cognitive limits and organisational demands. Better management therefore involves not only reacting to distress, but also examining the conditions that may be amplifying it.

• clear internal procedures
• manager awareness and guidance
• a less stigmatising workplace culture

A shared responsibility that goes beyond line management

As Céline Aimetti, General Delegate of Clubhouse France, points out, managers are not the only people concerned. A meaningful response to mental health at work depends on several stakeholders acting together: health professionals, employers, employees, civil society and public support systems all have a role to play. The aim is to co-construct solutions, drawing on tools such as the barometer to understand lived experience more accurately and to identify what may genuinely help in professional settings. This broader approach matters because mental health at work is not only an individual issue; it is also shaped by organisational culture, social perception and the support structures available around the employee.

Clubhouse France plans to take this further with a dedicated corporate mental health promotion program, due to be launched next year. The association also intends to repeat its barometer every two years in order to track how the situation evolves over time. That follow-up matters: without regular observation, companies may underestimate the scale of the issue or fail to notice whether their efforts are making any real difference. Measuring change does not solve everything on its own, but it can help turn a long-standing taboo into a subject that is finally acknowledged, monitored and acted upon.

This shared-responsibility model is important because workplace mental health rarely depends on a single intervention. An employee may need managerial flexibility, occupational health input, peer understanding, access to care outside work and a wider social environment that does not equate psychological difficulty with incompetence. If one part of that chain fails, support can become fragmented. Co-ordination therefore matters as much as goodwill.

It is also worth noting that public discussion of mental health has advanced faster than many organisational practices. Awareness campaigns have made the subject more visible, but visibility alone does not automatically produce better support. Companies may adopt the language of wellbeing while still lacking procedures, training or realistic pathways for accommodation. Repeating the barometer every two years may therefore be especially useful, because it allows observers to distinguish between symbolic recognition and measurable progress.

Over time, this kind of monitoring may help identify whether attitudes are changing at the level that matters most: everyday experience. Are employees less afraid to speak? Are managers better supported? Are companies more capable of responding before difficulties escalate? These are not abstract questions. They concern the practical conditions under which people can remain present, competent and psychologically safe within working life.

• health professionals
• employers and employees
• civil society and public services

What Companies Can Do Beyond Awareness Campaigns

Awareness is useful, but it is not enough if the work culture stays unchanged. Mental health support becomes credible when employees see practical changes in workload, management style, boundaries and access to help.

The most convincing signal is consistency. If leaders speak about wellbeing while rewarding permanent urgency, employees quickly understand that the message is symbolic. If managers protect priorities, clarify expectations and make room for recovery, the message becomes believable. Mental health at work is not only a private resilience issue; it is also a design issue.

Teams also need language that is simple enough to use before a crisis. A manager can ask about workload, clarity, deadlines and support without asking for private medical details. An employee can say that the current rhythm is not sustainable without having to justify every symptom. The goal is to create earlier conversations, when small adjustments still matter.

Confidentiality is another key point. People will not speak if they fear gossip, stigma or career damage. Clear routes to human resources, occupational health, employee assistance programs or external professionals help transform vague encouragement into usable support.

That does not mean managers should become clinicians. Their role is to listen, reduce avoidable pressure, document work constraints and guide people toward appropriate resources. This boundary protects everyone: the employee receives support without being exposed, and the manager stays within a clear professional role.

At team level, useful indicators are often ordinary: repeated overtime, rising conflict, unclear ownership, constant interruptions and people skipping breaks. These signs deserve attention before absence, burnout or resignation make the problem visible too late for simple preventive action inside the company culture itself.

• Train managers to recognize distress without becoming therapists.
• Clarify confidential support routes.
• Reduce chronic overload where possible.
• Protect breaks, recovery and realistic priorities.
• Make mental health part of ordinary management conversation.

The Mental Waves Workplace Mental Health Framework

The Mental Waves frame is to combine personal regulation with organizational responsibility. A worker can learn calming tools, but the company must also reduce avoidable pressure and stigma.

• Name: make mental health discussable without drama.
• Support: provide clear routes to professional help.
• Regulate: encourage breaks, breath and recovery during the workday.
• Redesign: address workload and culture rather than blaming individuals.

If stress is already high, continue with How to Free Yourself from Stress. For emotional literacy, read Making Peace with Emotions.

Editorial note from Mental Waves

This article is educational and workplace-focused. Serious distress, depression, anxiety, burnout or suicidal thoughts require appropriate professional and emergency support.

Conclusion

What emerges here is not simply a lack of workplace policy, but a deeper contradiction: mental health is widely recognised as part of working life, yet still treated as something difficult to name. The survey suggests that employees do not reject the workplace as a place of inclusion; on the contrary, most believe people living with psychological difficulties fully belong there. What remains fragile is the climate of trust. When fear of judgement outweighs the sense of support, silence becomes a form of self-protection.

That is why the issue cannot rest on individual goodwill alone. A more attentive managerial culture, clearer forms of support and cooperation between employers, health professionals, employees and public systems may all help turn recognition into practical care. The point is not to medicalise every difficulty, but to accept that mental health shapes attention, regulation, relationships and the quality of work itself. What is still treated as a taboo is, in reality, already part of the everyday life of organisations.

Seen in this light, the Clubhouse France barometer does something valuable: it makes a diffuse problem more legible. It shows that the challenge is not whether mental health exists in the workplace, but whether companies are willing to recognise its ordinary presence without waiting for breakdown, absence or crisis. That shift in perspective may seem modest, yet it is often the beginning of more credible action.

For employers, the implication is clear. Mental health should not be approached as a fashionable add-on to corporate culture, nor as a purely private matter that lies outside organisational responsibility. It is part of how people think, focus, relate, recover and perform. A workplace that takes this seriously may not eliminate distress, but it can reduce unnecessary isolation, support earlier intervention and create conditions in which people are more likely to remain both well and fully engaged.