World’s Maddest Job Reality

16 07 2012

Channel 4 are running  the Channel 4 Goes Mad season next week, which is intended to highlight the reality and stigma of mental illness. One of the programmes is World’s Maddest Job Interview where 8 job candidates try to disprove stereotypes held about those who have or have had a mental illness.

The Guardian writes about it in their article, The Channel 4 Goes Mad season challenges mental health stigma.

This post is written purely on assumptions made about the tv show based on what The Guardian say, and on my professional understanding of the reality of seeking work with an history of mental illness.

Now while the concept is intriguing and I have yet to see the programme so I can only talk of how I feel about what the media has raised so far, I have some concerns about this form of entertainment. Promoting the understanding that you cannot detect a history of mental illness from looks or behaviour alone is important in many respects, but in my opinion this programme has the power to trivialise both surviving mental illness, and the reality of living with a stigmatised condition.

The first point of trivialising surviving mental illness is a difficult one to articulate. Why do I believe it trivialises survival? Well because the programme is a game trying to work out if you tell certain things about people just by looking at them or talking to them. It highlights stereotypes and prejudices and is unlikely to take into account the hard work and likely years of recovery for the candidates who experienced mental illness, to get where they are now. It turns the perceived aesthetic visibility and stereotyped expectation of behaviour due to mental illness into a gameshow.

I think by now most people realise that mental illness is an invisible group of conditions, that it does not discriminate who experiences it, and that it is one of the most stigmatised group of conditions on the planet. I’m not sure, given the media released premise of the programme, how it will address these issues. From what it appears at this stage, the message is, ‘you can’t tell just by looking at someone whether or not they’ve experienced mental illness’ followed by ‘you can’t tell by talking to someone whether or not they’ve experienced mental illness’. Wow! Tell us something we didn’t already know. How the programme advances from this obvious fact is what will make or break it. Given Channel 4’s history of taking controversial topics and sensationalising them, I won’t expect too much.

The latter point of trivialising the reality of living with the baggage of stigmatised condition is an easier point to discuss. If the statistic, 1 in 4 of the population will experience mental illness in their lifetime is true (and there are suggestions it is not), then it is highly likely that interviewers will regularly and unknowingly quiz job candidates who are or have been, but do not appear to be, mentally ill. This tv show will present an unrealistic job situation, and while comments from some of the interviewers have highlighted if they were aware of a candidates past mental illness they would be reluctant to consider them for a job, it can be taken from the promotion of the show that interviewers and psychiatrists had difficulty identifying those with a history of mental illness based on looks or behaviour alone. But this simplistic ‘reality tv’ situation would only arise where a mental illness was not disclosed at interview, and most employers in an attempt to protect themselves from future tribunals, take every opportunity available to allow the candidates to declare if they have a disability or require additional support or adjustment.

In a realistic job situation an employer would be asking about gaps in the candidates CV, which highlight periods of unemployment. In people with a history of mental illness, these can be a give away to an employer. In research I undertook among employers 10 years ago, CV gaps were considered a warning flag even before inviting the candidate for interview. The obvious answer is for people with a history of mental illness to lie by filling gaps on their CV but that also comes with its own set of problems. At interview and beyond, it perpetuates the lie. And lying to get a job is a valid excuse for instant dismissal if found out. It will be interesting to see how the programme deals with this.

Of course, the programme includes some rather unique job candidates. According to the Guardian,one of the participants apparently continued to attend his day job while spending time under section in a psychiatric unit, leaving every morning in his work suit and returning in the evening at the end of his work day.  This presents a highly unique situation and instead of highlighting the destructive nature of mental illness, at a time when disabled people are already being demonised, it could trivialise the illness and its effects on life, especially among people who have been so seriously ill they have been sectioned. Suggesting they can get up and leave for work every morning while being held in a psychiatric unit involuntarily is in general highly unrealistic. Most people with severe and enduring mental illness have to take time away from work when they have an episode of illness. With a tabloid culture ready to attack the vulnerable, highlighting this man’s unique history on television could do more damage than good for people in acute phases of illness.

Non-disclosure of a pre-existing condition is also a potentially valid reason for instant dismissal. This presents a controversial situation. Should an employer become aware of a pre-existing disability while the employee is in work, they could consider this dishonesty a reason for dismissal. Obviously it’s not quite that straightforward, and there could be issues of discrimination if there were no problems with the worker or their work, but an employer has the right to expect their staff to be honest and non-disclosure could be considered dishonesty. This is a situation that has arisen time and time again, especially among people who have a history of mental illness and there is little defence for them.

Should a person with a pre-existing mental illness, recognised as a disability under the Equality Act 2010 not disclose it to their employer, and if their employer is not reasonably expected to be aware of such an illness (as is often the case with pre-existing invisible conditions) then they will not have the protections afforded them by legislation. Employers have a duty to make reasonable adjustments to the workplace or working conditions of a disabled employee should they require it. This doesn’t have to be expensive and for something like mental illness, as flexible working hours or offering a quiet space could be all that is required. If someone hasn’t disclosed their pre-existing disability to their employer then they have no statutory right to request adjustments. This is an issue that crops up time and time again when people expect an employer to provide an adjustment to their workplace without having previously discussed the reasons adjustment is necessary. The situation is less problematic should a person fall ill while already in work but as that was not the point of the programme, it is not discussed here.

The situations discussed above present the reality of the process of applying for jobs with any preexisting health problem, but the stigma associated with mental illness can make the process much harder and often less rewarding. I haven’t bothered to discuss the fear, insecurity and anxiety associated with applying for jobs when you have a history of mental illness, this is a hurdle that needs to be tackled long before the interview stage. A tv show that doesn’t highlight the reality could do the process an injustice. The producers are already celebrating their decision to make the programme tabloid like in an attempt to reach out to that demographic. I fear this could do more damage than good, trivialising reality in the name of entertainment.




4 responses

16 07 2012

Hi Grumpy,
Admittedly he was not wearing a suit to work, as he was a welding technician, but my stepson was under section for paranoid schizophrenia and was permitted to cycle out to work in an engineering firm every day from his hospital. I think he already had the job when he was sectioned, and was allowed to continue with it; after a few months, though, he said it was too much for him to cope with, and gave up the job.

16 07 2012

I’ve only ever known of people who were already out of section but still voluntarily resident in a psychiatric unit being able to attend work and they were few and far between. That said of those I’ve known held under section, none were allowed out unsupervised while the section was in place.

19 07 2012

I know the man who was featured in the programme who went to work in a suit etc. He is one of the bravest, dedicated and passionate people I have met and deserves a chance to show his story. Channel 4 are doing a good thing making this programme. Please do not make assumptions when you have yet to even see it.

21 07 2012

No assumptions were made about your friend at all, merely the highly publicised themes of the programme of which I have extensive knowledge. Perhaps you should re-read the post to see what it actually said. Your friend is a rarity and good for him if he managed to keep attending his job while under section. Most people who are sectioned are generally considered too ill to work, they are considered too ill to be at home, which is why they are in hospital under a compulsory order.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: