Why training to manage stress risks is so important
Naturally, like other consultants, I can provide you with a menu of training and consultancy services. Just get in touch if you want that kind of information. But mainly this page is about the WHY of stress risk managment training.
Training and development is critically important because it makes a difference. A BIG difference. Actually, a whole series of differences, and not just to staff wellbeing. I serve on a board, and I can assure you that boards are more interested in managing risks than wellbeing. In reality, they're inextricably linked of course, but if the business case for training is compelling, it tends to be much easier to sell!
Prevention and reduction of stress, and the minimizing of stress and mental health risks, doesn't happen by accident. It requires the right skills and behaviours (competencies) and the right set tools. Often, managers in particular haven't received any training at all in this area of risk management, which can have serious and costly consequences. Let's have a look a two scenarios with very different risk-related outcomes...
What happens when things goes wrong with stress at work? Scenario 1
Stress problems affecting a team aren't identified and addressed. Stress becomes a chronic problem. High-value, talented and experienced people start to leave (because they can!). Others start to struggle and perform poorly, and some become unwell and take time off sick. To begin with, that's periods of short-term absence, but stress-related absence tends to drift. Absence becomes long-term and the likelihood of return and rehabilitation then drops off a cliff. The affected employee becomes effectively disabled due to long-term absence and mental health problems. And, as is often the case, the employee never returns.
I'm sure you can imagine the costs of this. Indeed, you might well be able to work them out! Sometimes this scenario becomes endemic across parts of an organization, or even the whole organization. So let's look at some questions about business risks in this scenario:
What goes right when managers are trained and have the right tools? Scenario 2
Using a tools and an approach taught during training, the manager, proactively, works with their team to build a picture or profile of stressful situations or issues affecting the team. The manager and team agree which of those issues are most important. They discuss and agree what to do. Some situations can be prevented, at least partially. Some can't - they 'go with the territory'. But that's OK, because the manager and team can still plan around what to do when these situations occur so that people can cope better, stay calm and get the support they need. Naturally, there's still some stress, but things are much better managed than they could have been. Team members feel supported and are supporting each other. They're more resilient and are coping.
One team member still starts to struggle, but the manager has picked up on this and has a sensitive conversation with the employee. That conversation reveals that, although the individual isn't coping well with the workload, the most important reasons for their stress are not work-related. They're to do with a partner who has become severely unwell and is needing a lot of care at home. Understanding this, the manager is accommodating, making some temporary adjustments at work and signposting appropriate support. The individual does take some time off to sort things out at home, but returns after a couple of weeks, glad to get back to work. They still struggle for a while but feel supported, and before too long things get back to normal at work. The manager checks in regularly, just to check how things are going. In the background, the employee has some counselling, which they find very helpful. They also join a carers support group. At home, things are still challenging, but the employee feels more in control and able to cope.
Training makes the difference
The differences between the two scenarios are stark. Sadly, the first happens all too often. The risks - to the health of employees, to the business in terms of costs and continuity, and legally - are all obvious. The costs of the first scenario are not only high, they tend to escalate. They can spiral out of control.
In the second scenario, not everything is perfect. It never is. (You can't eliminate stress, and don't believe anyone who tells you otherwise.) But risks are minimized as far as is practicable. Stress, at least to an extent, is prevented. Issues are identified. They're out in the open. They're manageable. Yes, there is always the chance that people can struggle, but with responsive and supportive management, they get the support they need, when they need it. Yes, there are still some costs as care and support costs money. Training too costs money. But I hope you can see the obvious return-on-investment. It's potentially massive.
Managers are not perfect but they can improve
Leaders and Managers are people. They're not perfect. Some are better than others. Training can't completely eradicate poor leadership or management of people. But the thing is, it improves management on the whole and that makes scenario 2 more likely than scenario 1, more of the time. Managers are more aware and they know now what to do, when, to manage and minimize risks.
I have devoted my career to addressing these problems. All employees benefit from training, but I'm sure you can see why training for managers is the most important of all.
I use a best practice framework called APMR to provide a structure for management training and development. You can find out about that here. Managers are taught how to use tools to manage stress and mental health risks and you can find out about those here.
Please contact me directly if you're looking for stress management training for your organization or if you have organizational clients who would benefit from training. I'll be happy to discuss your / their training needs. Together, we'll make a difference.
Training and development is critically important because it makes a difference. A BIG difference. Actually, a whole series of differences, and not just to staff wellbeing. I serve on a board, and I can assure you that boards are more interested in managing risks than wellbeing. In reality, they're inextricably linked of course, but if the business case for training is compelling, it tends to be much easier to sell!
Prevention and reduction of stress, and the minimizing of stress and mental health risks, doesn't happen by accident. It requires the right skills and behaviours (competencies) and the right set tools. Often, managers in particular haven't received any training at all in this area of risk management, which can have serious and costly consequences. Let's have a look a two scenarios with very different risk-related outcomes...
What happens when things goes wrong with stress at work? Scenario 1
Stress problems affecting a team aren't identified and addressed. Stress becomes a chronic problem. High-value, talented and experienced people start to leave (because they can!). Others start to struggle and perform poorly, and some become unwell and take time off sick. To begin with, that's periods of short-term absence, but stress-related absence tends to drift. Absence becomes long-term and the likelihood of return and rehabilitation then drops off a cliff. The affected employee becomes effectively disabled due to long-term absence and mental health problems. And, as is often the case, the employee never returns.
I'm sure you can imagine the costs of this. Indeed, you might well be able to work them out! Sometimes this scenario becomes endemic across parts of an organization, or even the whole organization. So let's look at some questions about business risks in this scenario:
- How much does it cost when talented, experienced and / or technically skilled employees leave?
- What's the cost of poor performance due to people struggling due to stress at work (presenteeism)? (BTW, evidence suggests this is likely to be many times the cost of absence.)
- How much short-term, stress-related absence is there? How much is that costing?
- What's the cost when mental health absence becomes long-term, including the impact on the team?
- What's the cost of recruiting, including the upskilling of new staff?
What goes right when managers are trained and have the right tools? Scenario 2
Using a tools and an approach taught during training, the manager, proactively, works with their team to build a picture or profile of stressful situations or issues affecting the team. The manager and team agree which of those issues are most important. They discuss and agree what to do. Some situations can be prevented, at least partially. Some can't - they 'go with the territory'. But that's OK, because the manager and team can still plan around what to do when these situations occur so that people can cope better, stay calm and get the support they need. Naturally, there's still some stress, but things are much better managed than they could have been. Team members feel supported and are supporting each other. They're more resilient and are coping.
One team member still starts to struggle, but the manager has picked up on this and has a sensitive conversation with the employee. That conversation reveals that, although the individual isn't coping well with the workload, the most important reasons for their stress are not work-related. They're to do with a partner who has become severely unwell and is needing a lot of care at home. Understanding this, the manager is accommodating, making some temporary adjustments at work and signposting appropriate support. The individual does take some time off to sort things out at home, but returns after a couple of weeks, glad to get back to work. They still struggle for a while but feel supported, and before too long things get back to normal at work. The manager checks in regularly, just to check how things are going. In the background, the employee has some counselling, which they find very helpful. They also join a carers support group. At home, things are still challenging, but the employee feels more in control and able to cope.
Training makes the difference
The differences between the two scenarios are stark. Sadly, the first happens all too often. The risks - to the health of employees, to the business in terms of costs and continuity, and legally - are all obvious. The costs of the first scenario are not only high, they tend to escalate. They can spiral out of control.
In the second scenario, not everything is perfect. It never is. (You can't eliminate stress, and don't believe anyone who tells you otherwise.) But risks are minimized as far as is practicable. Stress, at least to an extent, is prevented. Issues are identified. They're out in the open. They're manageable. Yes, there is always the chance that people can struggle, but with responsive and supportive management, they get the support they need, when they need it. Yes, there are still some costs as care and support costs money. Training too costs money. But I hope you can see the obvious return-on-investment. It's potentially massive.
Managers are not perfect but they can improve
Leaders and Managers are people. They're not perfect. Some are better than others. Training can't completely eradicate poor leadership or management of people. But the thing is, it improves management on the whole and that makes scenario 2 more likely than scenario 1, more of the time. Managers are more aware and they know now what to do, when, to manage and minimize risks.
I have devoted my career to addressing these problems. All employees benefit from training, but I'm sure you can see why training for managers is the most important of all.
I use a best practice framework called APMR to provide a structure for management training and development. You can find out about that here. Managers are taught how to use tools to manage stress and mental health risks and you can find out about those here.
Please contact me directly if you're looking for stress management training for your organization or if you have organizational clients who would benefit from training. I'll be happy to discuss your / their training needs. Together, we'll make a difference.