What are the standards for mental health in the workplace

At present, there is no unified quantitative standard in the domestic clinical psychology community and corporate EAP service field. The current general consensus is that the essence of workplace mental health is the coordination of internal and external states of individuals in the professional scene - externally, they can adapt to the basic rules of the workplace, complete their assigned work, and internally, they will not fall into internal friction and self-denial for a long time. Neither of the two is an absolute hard indicator.

Oh, by the way, there has been debate behind this consensus for several years. Practitioners who prefer corporate services often believe that "normal professional functioning" is the first criterion. As long as you can complete the performance and cooperate with colleagues without conflict, even being a little emotional occasionally is not unhealthy. However, most teachers who do clinical consulting do not agree with this statement and believe that individual subjective feelings are the core. After all, too many people who seem to have "perfect professional status" on the surface are already being eaten away by anxiety and depression in private. I came across a typical example when I was working on enterprise EAP matchmaking two years ago. A girl in the operation position of an Internet company in Hangzhou got S for department performance for three consecutive quarters. No one said she was reliable in cross-department docking, and her boss had already mentioned that she would be promoted to supervisor. However, she secretly came for consultation and said that she had to toss and turn in bed for more than two hours every day to fall asleep. She panicked when she heard the DingTalk notification sound. At that time, the person in charge of the company thought it was quite strange and said, "How could she have psychological problems if she performed so well?" Considering the two standards just mentioned, isn't this a typical disagreement?

In fact, you really need to make judgments for yourself in daily life. There is no need to worry about which standard to use. It is enough to combine the two perspectives and look at them together. To put it bluntly, it is like doing a "psychological blood pressure measurement" for your workplace status. High pressure is the external professional function, and low pressure is the internal self-feeling. Either one is too high or too low. For example, you don’t have to force yourself to be the atmosphere team in team building even though you are obviously afraid of social problems. As long as you can explain your work clearly to your colleagues, it will be fine. Occasionally, when you are tired of working overtime on a project, it is normal to curse the boss at the takeaway, as long as you don’t turn around and vent your anger on innocent interns or family members. Even if you encounter such bad things as being robbed of credit or being cheated on, it is okay. When you feel angry, you can think about either finding an opportunity to break it off or simply find a new job after three to five days. You won't be stuck in the mood of "Why am I unlucky" for half a month, and you won't stay up late and work overtime in order to retain a reputation as a "good employee" even if your body is obviously unable to bear it. You will suffer from irregular menstruation, hair loss and insomnia, and you will feel that you are not working hard enough.

If you really stick to the standard, you will fall behind. After all, the workplace is just a part of life. You don’t have to have a perfect persona at work, and you don’t have to lie flat and flat. If you can find a sense of balance that makes you comfortable, you have actually met the standard.