MENTAL HEALTH, STRESS AND EMPLOYER ACCOUNTABILITY

Written by Limya Kamaldien

We often talk about mental health as though it is something that exists separately from the workplace. But employees do not leave their personal lives at the door when they arrive at an establishment.

An employee can walk into work carrying grief, financial pressure, family responsibilities, relationship difficulties or the emotional impact of major changes in their life. They may still put on their uniform, greet clients, complete appointments and perform their duties. From the outside, they may appear to be coping.

But sometimes, they are not.

For employers in the hairdressing, cosmetology, skincare and beauty industry, this creates an important question: where does employer accountability begin when an employee's mental or emotional wellbeing starts affecting the workplace?

The answer is not simply to excuse poor performance or unacceptable conduct. It is also not to assume that an employee who is struggling has suddenly become an unreliable employee.

Employer accountability requires a more balanced approach.

When an employee is trying to be the responsible one

There is an expectation in many workplaces that adults should be able to separate their personal lives from their working lives.

An employee may believe that what happens in their personal life is their responsibility and should not affect their employment. They may therefore continue working through bereavement, family pressures, financial difficulties or other significant life events without saying anything.

They may even believe that asking for help makes them less responsible.

The problem is that sustained pressure does not always remain outside the workplace.

An employee who is under considerable emotional strain may begin struggling with concentration, communication, decision-making or their ability to absorb information. They may become unusually emotional, withdrawn, tired or overwhelmed.

This does not automatically mean that the employee has a mental illness or that they are incapable of working.

Mental health exists on a much broader spectrum than diagnosis.

Research into trauma also demonstrates that significant traumatic experiences can affect how people respond to their environment. The National Library of Medicine's trauma-informed care material notes that responses to trauma vary considerably between individuals and that the effects can be subtle, short-lived or more disruptive. Research from the University of Rochester has also identified changes in brain networks involved in learning, survival, emotion and threat processing among people exposed to trauma. The Anxiety & Depression Association of America notes further that these changes are not a sign of weakness; they reflect how the brain and body adapt, sometimes for a long time afterwards, to protect against a threat that has already passed.

The important point for an employer is not to diagnose the employee.

It is to recognise that a change in behaviour or performance may have circumstances behind it that are not immediately visible.

Change can add another layer of pressure

Workplaces change.

Establishments may restructure, introduce new systems, change responsibilities, adjust reporting structures or require employees to learn new ways of working. These changes may be necessary and reasonable from an operational perspective.

However, organisational change is also experienced by individuals.

Prosci's ADKAR Model describes individual change through five outcomes: Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability and Reinforcement. The model emphasises that organisational change ultimately requires individuals to change as well.

This is particularly relevant when an employee is already experiencing significant pressure outside of work.

An employee may understand that a change is necessary but still struggle to process it. They may know what they are expected to do but need time before they can perform at their previous level. Prosci distinguishes between having knowledge of what to do and having the ability to demonstrate the required change in performance.

This is where good management matters.

Communication should not simply be about telling employees that something is changing. Employees need to understand what the change means, what is expected of them and what support is available while they adjust.

That does not remove the employee's responsibility to adapt.

It recognises that successful change involves people, not just processes.

Employer accountability does not mean removing accountability

There is a danger of misunderstanding what supporting an employee actually means.

Supporting an employee does not mean that an establishment must ignore poor performance, unacceptable conduct or the impact of an employee's behaviour on clients and colleagues.

An employer still has a responsibility to protect the operation of the establishment and to manage performance appropriately.

At the same time, the Occupational Health and Safety Act places a general duty on employers to provide and maintain, as far as reasonably practicable, a working environment that is safe and without risks to employees' health.

This duty is real, but it is also specific.

The Occupational Health and Safety Act creates a general responsibility to manage the workplace environment, including psychosocial risks such as excessive workload, harassment or unmanaged pressure. It does not, on its own, create a duty to provide counselling, paid leave or individual accommodation for every employee experiencing personal stress.

That distinction matters. An establishment can meet its OHSA obligations by managing the working environment responsibly, while still exercising judgement about what, if anything, it owes a specific employee going through a difficult period.

Where an employee's difficulties begin to affect their ability to perform the role over time, the relevant framework shifts. This is no longer only a question of environment. It becomes a question of incapacity, and that is governed by its own procedure.

Mental and emotional wellbeing should therefore not be treated as completely irrelevant to workplace management.

Sometimes the appropriate response is to have a conversation before moving immediately to a punitive response.

What has changed?

Is the employee aware that their performance has changed?

Are there circumstances affecting their ability to cope?

Is professional assistance appropriate?

Are there reasonable options available to provide the employee with some time or space to address the problem?

These questions do not determine the outcome.

They help management make a more informed decision about what should happen next.

Sometimes the lifeline is knowing where to get help

Not every establishment has the resources to provide an employee wellness programme or access to an in-house counsellor.

That does not mean that employers have no options.

Employers can familiarise themselves with reputable support organisations and make employees aware of available services when appropriate.

LifeLine, for example, provides counselling for people experiencing personal crises and offers telephone counselling, WhatsApp call support and appointment-based face-to-face counselling. Its current service information states that telephone counselling is available from 10:00 to 22:00, 365 days a year.

This does not mean that an employer becomes a counsellor.

It means that an employer can recognise when an employee may need professional support and know where that employee can be directed for assistance.

Sometimes the most valuable intervention is not having all the answers.

It is knowing where to find them.

Support and performance management can exist together

One of the most important principles for an establishment is that compassion and accountability are not opposites.

An employee may be given an opportunity to step away, seek assistance and recover. When that employee returns, however, there still needs to be a conversation about the employment relationship.

What are the expectations?

What does the employee need to be able to perform effectively?

Are there performance concerns that need to be addressed?

Is further support appropriate?

Does the employee still want to continue in the role?

Does the establishment still have confidence in the relationship?

These questions are not necessarily signs that the employer has stopped caring.

They are part of responsible management.

The practical lesson for an establishment is simple: supporting an employee should not mean abandoning the needs of the establishment.

The employee matters.

The clients matter.

The colleagues matter.

And the sustainability of the establishment matters.

A responsible approach has to consider all of these interests.

The return to work is part of the process

Giving an employee time away from the workplace can provide an opportunity to address what is happening, but the return is equally important.

The employee may need to rebuild confidence, routines and performance.

The employer may need to clarify expectations and determine whether the employee is able to meet the requirements of the role.

This is where the concept of reinforcement in the ADKAR Model is useful.

Prosci describes reinforcement as the mechanisms used to sustain change and prevent a return to previous patterns.

In the context of an employee returning after a difficult period, this does not mean treating the person as fragile.

It means recognising that returning to work is not necessarily the end of the process.

A reasonable performance discussion can provide clarity for both parties.

The employee knows what is expected.

The employer knows what can reasonably be relied upon.

Both parties have an opportunity to decide whether they remain committed to the employment relationship.

Sometimes the right outcome is still an exit

When an exit is being considered because an employee's difficulties have affected their ability to do the job, this is not simply a conversation between two adults about whether the relationship still works.

Where the reason is incapacity, South African labour law requires a fair process before that conclusion is reached. The Code of Good Practice: Dismissal, published under the Labour Relations Act and in force since September 2025, expects an employer to investigate the cause of the poor performance, consider reasonable alternatives, and give the employee a genuine opportunity to respond before termination is treated as the outcome.

This does not remove the compassion from the process. It structures it.

An establishment that skips these steps does not only risk an unfair outcome for the employee. It risks its own exposure to an unfair dismissal claim, however sympathetic its intentions were.

Not every difficult period ends with the employment relationship continuing.

An employee may decide that they need to leave. An employer may determine that the employment relationship can no longer continue. There may also be circumstances where both parties reach the conclusion that parting ways is the most appropriate outcome.

That does not mean that the support offered beforehand was wasted.

An exit can still be approached as more than an administrative event. What a departing employee shares about their experience where they felt supported, and where they did not can help an establishment understand what happened and improve the workplace for those who remain.

Most importantly, an employee should not have to leave an establishment feeling that their period of difficulty has erased everything they contributed before it.

Likewise, an employer should not be expected to compromise the interests of the establishment simply because an employee is experiencing personal difficulties.

Both parties have a legitimate interest in a respectful outcome.

A healthier establishment understands the person behind the employee

Mental health is not always visible.

An employee may be performing well while privately struggling. Another employee may show visible changes in behaviour before anyone understands what is causing them.

This is why mental health, stress and employer accountability cannot be reduced to a question of whether someone has a diagnosis.

Sometimes a person is simply carrying too much.

The responsibility of an employer is not to become a doctor or counsellor. It is to recognise when something may be wrong, respond with appropriate emotional intelligence, understand the available support options and continue managing the employment relationship responsibly.

The responsibility of the employee is equally important.

Employees must communicate where they can, seek appropriate assistance when needed and understand that support does not remove the responsibility to perform their duties or participate honestly in the employment relationship.

The relationship works in both directions.

The employee brings their skills, experience and time to the establishment. The establishment provides the opportunity to use those skills in return for remuneration. When both parties understand that there is an investment on both sides, mental health can be approached with greater maturity.

Good employees are worth investing in.

Good establishments are worth protecting.

And sometimes, protecting both requires knowing when to provide a lifeline, when to set a boundary and when to have an honest conversation about whether the relationship can continue.

That is not weakness.

That is responsible employer accountability.