Admitting Depression, A Sure Way to Kill Your Career?

In New Zealand we believe that the best person for the job will be appointed to a role without being discriminated against based upon the protected grounds of the human rights act. But is it really the case?
Sadly it appears not always, is the answer. As someone who has suffered depression while studying at university I have seen this type of discrimination occur, both to me personally, and to others.

The experts often say the first step to getting better is admitting you have a problem, but in my experience this has been really hard.
At first I didn't want to admit there was anything wrong with me, it was just a phase/part of life and the depression will go away. Then I went through a period of denying it was happening, because I'm a red blooded male and it only happens to girls.
Then after suicide attempt number two and a trip to the hospital I admitted I had a problem after one of the doctor's said to me "if you had a broken leg you'd let us treat it wouldn't you? So why not let us treat your depression and make it better?" As someone that's usually quite logical, this made me stop and actually think about it, rather than my default setting of denial and belief that I was always right. I had this light bulb moment if you will, where I realised I couldn't find an error in his argument, and I had to admit he was right. Admitting I'm wrong is a hard thing for me, just ask my wife!
After that I realised I had to admit I wasn't well, and I had a problem I needed to sort out.
The first scariest step was saying out loud to my friends that I had depression. Most of them were great about it, and didn't really treat me any differently, some told me to toughen up, it's not a real illness, others dropped me completely. And all of that was okay for me. One even came to me latter and admitted to me that my being open about my depression made them go get help with their own depression.
I was lucky I had an awesome group of close friends and some flatmates who really cared about me and wanted to help me out. I didn't have to have a big sit down with my boss and tell her what was going on. I just said I was going through depression, and I might be a bit off for a few weeks, but don't treat me any different, I need normal to take my mind off everything else. Which I'm forever thankful she did. Work gave me something to live for and focus on. I couldn't let them down I kept telling myself. And for me that worked.  I was letting my university work suffer by not going to all my classes, and not handing in some assignments, but work and the thought of letting others down kept me going. It was also a place where I had to put on a happy face, I was dealing with the public, and I couldn't let my issues get in the way of helping them. This helped me remember what happy felt like too. Something that sounds odd to others,  but for depressed people makes sense. You forget what happiness feels like and how it makes you feel. Sure I still had and have crappy days, but so does everyone else, I just had to focus harder to feel happy.
It also helped at this workplace that I worked with a really good friend who I think may have talked to my boss from time to time for me, just to let her know what was going on in my life. Others who I worked with generally didn't say anything about it, some knew, others didn't. Some asked about the cuts on my arm the time I forgot to cover them up, and I'm sure they didn't buy my story of a cat scratching it. After all what cat only attacks one arm, and leaves 5mm wide cuts! But like most workplaces, they dropped it and didn't delve to deeply into my personal life. Maybe if I had told them all it would have started a conversation about depression, and shown them that people with mental health issues are by in large pretty normal. But at the time I wasn't mentally strong enough to have that conversation with people. Now, even though it scares the crap out of me I am.
I'd be more than happy to do an online AMA (ask me anything) for HR professionals in NZ, and prove to them that depression is not all big and scary, but even if I did I'm not sure it would change much. Depression is almost the last taboo where discrimination still happens in the workplace, and is allowed to happen.

When I first graduated one of the first jobs I applied for and interviewed for was with a national organisation that helps people suffering mental health issues find jobs. I thought I'd have a unique ability in this role having experienced depression,  and having an HR degree, in helping them get their clients in long term roles, and know what the clients were talking about when they were discussing their illness and what sort of work they want. Sadly even here depression was discriminated against, not in the way you think though. I didn't fit their mold off how people with mental health issues should act. I didn't feel sorry for myself, and I didn't think people with mental health issues should be treated any differently to any other person. They told me after the interview I wasn't going to get the job, which was fine, but it was because I didn't think people with mental health issues should be treated any different to those without, and that it was wrong of me to think this way. Not because I didn't have the skills needed, but because I didn't think the 'right way' about depression. I left feeling puzzled, as the John Kirwin depression advertising told me that it was okay to have depression, and it shouldn't make a difference to how I should be treated. Clearly it isn't the case.

I soon found that being honest about having had depression in the past on job applications was a sure way not to get an interview. Even with companies that were supposedly EEO employers.
Once I got a job,  I found that others I worked with held discriminatory views about those with depression, some complaining about others who had the odd day off, or took longer to do tasks because they were experiencing mental health issues. A common statement was, "that people with depression shouldn't be in important roles like that", often about people with depression in financial roles.
We wouldn't accept those sort of statements about women who suffer painful menstrual issues, or people with other health issues that can affect their ability to work sometimes, so why do we think it's okay for depression?
And maybe it's partly my fault for not saying anything, but as a reasonably new graduate, I didn't want to put my career advancement at risk.  I still don't, hence my blogging anonymously (although I'm not hiding who I am, and people who have met me could figure out who I am). Although if I knew it wouldn't affect my career I would say something.

Anyone is at risk of getting depression,  it's like cancer, it doesn't discriminate.
So why is it okay as employers, or hiring managers to discriminate against those who are honest about having had depression, and have it under control, who know their signs when it's coming back, and what to do to control it and get back to 'normal'. But we happily employ people who at some stage may develop depression, and who may not know how to deal with it. What makes more business sense? For me it seems to be more logical to employ those who know how to deal with their mental health issues, rather than those who don't.

Clearly their are some risks with depression, but if my hero Winston Churchill can deal with depression and still lead Britain to winning WW2 then I don't think any business in NZ has an excuse for discriminating against those with depression.

Certainly not as is the case with the article linked to, the medical profession. Sure being a doctor can be stressful, but what sort of message does it send to anyone who is experiencing mental health issues if the medical profession doesn't even want to deal with employees who are going through it. Not a very good look at all.
I'd hope that MOBIE would contact this articles author and ask for details of each and every employer he sought work at, and take legal action against them for breaching the human rights act.
Maybe such a public enforcement action would end mental health discrimination in NZ and get us all talking more honestly about how we are feeling. And what we in HR can do to really embrace employee diversity and total health and safety.

Diversity? Or just another thing to shout about?

The other day this blog post from a NZ bank Ceo caught my eye, The Rainbow Connection, about their push to become Rainbow Tick certified. The Rainbow tick is an idea to boost inclusiveness in the workplace and assess your organisation's policies and procedures against a set of criteria for gender and sexuality inclusiveness. A worthy goal no doubt.

But do we need yet another layer of policy written, and another standard to assess our HR policies against? Or is it just a case of tokenism driven by marketing think rather than any real need?

Personally I think sadly it's the latter rather than the former. I base this upon the fact that ASB felt the need to make a blog post on their new staff inclusiveness policy in public. To me this shows they are seeking some sort of recognition for their decision. I assume they hope this recognition will come in the form of new business, and being talked about. I guess that I'm writing about it confirms the latter point. We also know that the so called queer market is a highly lucrative one. With in general this market demographic having a high level of disposable income. So for a bank this could be a lucrative market.
I also noted that ASB have created a new group called diversity, for connecting with the LGBTI community.  Again I think this reinforces the marketing aspect of the decision to become part of the Rainbow tick program.

I say sadly because all workplaces should accept their staff for who they are. Their sexuality and gender have nothing to do with it. We all know the research tells us diversity is better for a companies bottom line.  But should it become our focus above hiring the best person for the job?
If they do a great job does it really matter what a staff memeber does or identifies with as long as it's legal?
I don't think matters at all. It could be yet another sign of our increasing push for influence of our employees lives outside the workplace. As an employer or hiring manager all you should care about is that they are the best person for the job, and that you have a safe workplace for all your staff.
Now I guess you could argue that having the Rainbow tick adds to the workplace safety as Barbara Chapman ASB's Ceo does.
But then where do you draw the line for workplace safety? And do you risk pigeonholing your staff into different boxes based upon a set of criteria that has nothing to do with their work ability.  Do you also risk marginalising others staff who feel they are no longer important, or that their peculiarities don't matter.
As a left hander I feel marginalised on a daily basis. I mean have you tried writing with a nice pen when your hand brushes over your freshly written masterpiece, smudging it so it looks like a piece of interpretive art. Or even some smartphones having the microphone on the bottom right corner,  which is right where you want to put your little finger if you're a lefty.
Frustration doesn't begin to describe these. And arguably they have more relevance to my work than my sexuality.

I'm not trying to trivialise sexuality and gender identity at all. I know it's a sensitive topic to discuss, and many people have strong feelings about it.
A lot of people struggle with their own sexuality and sexual identity as it is.

To make it a big deal in the workplace could be a good thing, or a bad thing for someone who is struggling with their own thoughts around this. As an HR practitioner I'd hate to have it on my conscience if implementing something like the Rainbow tick program made someone who was struggling with their feelings feel more uncomfortable,  or more pressure to label themselves one way or another.

In my mind all good organisations should aim to employ the best talent they can, and promote their best talent as fast as possible. Without worrying about what quota they are filling, or box they are ticking.  If you pick the best, you are highly likely to promote diversity more so than under a targeted system. Diversity of sexuality or gender identity happens right across the population,  so without worrying about it,  you'll do it anyway.

Worrying about it, and assessing your HR policies against ever increasing numbers of diversity criteria is just going to make you go grey quicker, and remove your eyes from your focus on staff performance. Then you'll be in real trouble.