Take it from one who knows: Workaholics don't prosper - and employers expecting too much from their employees may end up paying the price.
There has been much discussion recently about the problems we are facing in Australia in retaining talented workers and the subsequent pressure placed on those remaining in the workplace. The incidence of stress claims is rising and this is having an impact on the economy and on enterprises in general.
Media reports claim that the hospital system cannot cope with the added burden of people, and rising costs are forcing wards and services to be cut.
Overwork is becoming commonplace and the number of people who work day in and day out – people who in many ways are closet workaholics – is increasing. As evidence, we now have ‘workaholics anonymous' and ‘workaholics victorious' and no doubt other support groups.
Added to this, we are told that one in five Australians are suffering from some sort of mental illness, while one in seven teenagers at high school suffer from depression. It's my guess that the real figure is probably higher – after all, both subjects are still generally taboo in our society.
Have we gone mad to place so much pressure on people today by discarding a value that has stood the test of time – the value of caring for people? The trend towards coercing people into working longer hours by means of veiled threats and intimidation is workplace management at its very worst. But believe me, it is more widespread than people want to acknowledge.
If you're inclined to burn the midnight oil, ask yourself this: why be the richest and unhappiest person in the cemetery? Take a walk around the local cemetery sometimes and read the inscriptions – it's an eye-opener.
WHAT'S GOING ON?
It seems to me that people are becoming crankier and less tolerant, and that the workplace is rapidly becoming a battleground where much emotion is wasted in argument, unpleasant meetings and petty grievances. It could be argued that ‘workaholism' is in part due to the ageing population, different generational expectations, the number of talented workers moving offshore and the move from permanent employment to contract working. This is simply untrue.
Then there is the myth about unemployment where the spin doctors have a field day arranging the numbers. Have you
ever taken the opportunity to go down to Centrelink and observe the human misery of disenfranchised, unhappy people looking for someone to give them a break? I have.
I believe that if you took out all the people on government programs and the like, you would find the true unemployment figure is closer to 12 percent. Many of these people are experienced workers who would give their eye teeth to work.
The lesson seems to be that some have work – slaving away 12 hours plus per day in order to keep the mortgage paid and provide for the annual holiday or whatever else pushes their buttons – and others don't. Why aren't companies ensuring that they are adequately resourced and taking the time to
FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
In my daily work as an HR/IR practitioner I have the privilege of meeting my clients at their offices or premises and am privy to the heartaches of people as they tell me their difficulties. Most of these focus around other work colleagues or overwork. Chronic overwork has a tremendous impact, not only on personal health and family life but also on company productivity.
I have to confess that I was a workaholic for many years before a heart scare woke me up in time and thankfully without doing any major damage to my health. For years I slaved as an employee and manager, working long hours. With three small children at that time I was too afraid to rock the boat. But eventually rock the boat I did, and decided I was no longer going to be a slave to threats, money or perceived power.
Looking back on it now, leaving my job as CEO and starting my own business was the best decision I have ever made – not an easy one, given I still had a mortgage (and now three teenagers). Interestingly enough, my wife recently commented that she never wanted me to return to the workforce as an employee as I was the happiest she had ever seen.
However, this is not just my story but one of many that is illustrated by the following situation in which I was involved. While the story is true, the names of the participants have been changed.
ONCE UPON A TIME…
Liam was general manager of an organisation that operated in New South Wales and Queensland. He had undergraduate and postgraduate credentials, was very experienced in his field and no stranger to hard work. Liam had been employed to help get the company back on track after the overseas parent company had ‘put the cleaners' through management and let the company drift for three months without leadership.
Soon after starting, Liam came under increased pressure. The emphasis was on sales and profit, ‘come hell or high water', with no regard to workers who were viewed as lazy. For the first six months Liam worked hard at raising the company standard. This often required him to travel away from home. He
WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?
Under the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995, employers have an obligation to ensure the health and safety of all workers by managing risks at the workplace. This includes physical, mental and emotional safety. In addition, employers are under a common law duty of care and will be found liable if they break the law and if a breach of their statutory and common law obligations is proven.
There are heavy penalties for individuals and organisations that disregard the law. Under the Trade Practices Act 1974 it is
unlawful to engage in deceptive or misleading conduct. When the job was offered to Liam, the company had an obligation to be open and honest about what the job entailed, to fully explain the challenges and real hours required to be worked; otherwise it could be open to penalties. All employers have an obligation to be totally open and realistic about the job on offer.
WHAT SHOULD THE COMPANY HAVE DONE?Management should have taken their duty of care under workplace health and safety seriously. In this instance, employee morale began to suffer because of mismanagement.
The company should have:- had in place a workplace stress policy
- had a policy on working hours and what constituted reasonable expectations for after hours work for all employees,including management
- taken Liam's reports and discussions seriously and investigated his concerns
- consulted their industrial or legal professionals
carried out its general duty of care by ensuring that there were adequate numbers of employees to cover the work expected. - When informed of the difficulties Liam was experiencing, the company should have given him adequate time to recover and should have considered rearranging his position. Through the financial and leadership results achieved to date, Liam had more than proved he could operate successfully.
WHAT SHOULD LIAM HAVE DONE?By documenting his difficulties and speaking with management, Liam followed the right processes. He kept file notes of these discussions.
Liam also acted wisely in taking industrial advice and counselling. We all have issues that sometimes can be resolved by speaking with someone else.
However, in my view Liam should have gone to his doctor and taken long-term leave under the Workplace Health and
Safety provisions.
THE WASH-UPOn Liam's behalf I met with the chairman of the board and stressed the seriousness of Liam's situation. The chairman understood this and acknowledged there had been some wrongdoing by the company.
As Liam had resigned voluntarily, the chairman proposed that a payment of $60,000 be offered as a payment ‘without prejudice' on signing a deed of release. This was ultimately Liam's choice, and he accepted the offer. He wanted to get on
with his life.
After a short time travelling overseas and visiting family, Liam returned to Australia and started his own consultancy. He is successful and happy and no longer the workaholic he had been.
It took the company many months to find a suitable replacement for Liam, and sales and profit took a dive – the very thing
the company didn't want. The parent company had to make a large capital injection of funds into the company during this
period of time.
What was the cost for something that could have been totally avoided? Damaged employee morale, reduced sales and profit, increased capital outlay from offshore, eight months of headhunting, a $60,000 payment to Liam and all the other
associated costs.
BURNOUT – THROW OUTBeware of the cost. If you invest your time upfront ensuring that you are adequately resourced, have policies and procedures in place to deal with stress and overwork, and care for your employees, you can have a workplace
that is well-oiled and making good money. Ignore the law and pay the price.
WHAT ABOUT YOU?As one who helps others and has been down the same road, I want to encourage you to make time for your family and friends, to smell the roses and enjoy life. If you are an employee, don't let intimidation, veiled threats, bullying or pushy
behaviour force you to work longer hours. There are laws that protect you.
If you are an employer, take time out yourself and treat your employees firmly but fairly. Be known as the kindest person in the cemetery, not the meanest or richest. And let's hope that's a long way off.
Further Information
Philip Lye is Director of Biz Momentum Pty Ltd. He works with small to medium businesses to help them cut through the maze of people matters. Clients get specific actionable strategies to protect their business interests. For more information on Philip, visit www.biz-momentum.com and subscribe to his free monthly e-zine. 
