Aspects of Psychological and Psychiatric Validation of Employees
Introduction
The mental health of employees directly influences their professional efficiency and interactions within the workplace. However, approaches to monitoring mental health vary depending on the level of responsibility. While psychiatric validation is mandatory for certain professions, executives in large organizations and government structures are exempt from such evaluations.
This discrepancy raises significant ethical and legal questions. Should psychiatric validation be expanded to strategic positions to mitigate the risks of catastrophic decisions? Or would such measures introduce threats of discrimination and invasion of privacy?
Occupational Hierarchy and Levels of Psychiatric Oversight
Mental resilience and adequacy are critical in many fields. However, the degree of oversight should be proportional to the potential consequences of an individual's decisions. Categorizing positions by responsibility level helps minimize risks without imposing unnecessary pressure on employees.
2.1 Basic Level (Entry-Level Positions)
This category encompasses a broad range of professions, including office workers, service industry specialists, manufacturing workers, educators, researchers, and retail employees.
Psychological validation during hiring and adaptation processes is necessary to assess stress tolerance, conflict resolution skills, and teamwork capabilities.
Intrusion into private medical records at this level is unjustified unless the job entails risks to others.
2.2 Elevated Level (High-Responsibility Positions)
This category includes professions where mental instability can lead to accidents or systemic failures:
- Operators of complex machinery, workers in hazardous industries, transportation dispatchers, public transport drivers, park rangers, security personnel, and emergency responders.
- Individuals managing significant financial assets or infrastructure.
Regular psychiatric evaluations and, in some cases, testing for psychoactive substances are required if the job involves risks to human lives.
The objective is to prevent situations where an employee, under stress, personal difficulties, or the influence of illicit substances, endangers public safety.
2.3 Critical Level (Strategic Leadership and Government Administration)
This category includes individuals whose decisions impact the economy, security, geopolitics, and social institutions:
- High-ranking government officials, judges, corporate executives, strategic investors, and heads of law enforcement agencies.
Currently, there are no mandatory psychiatric assessments for such positions, allowing for decision-making influenced by emotional disorders, megalomania, persecution delusions, or paranoia.
Introducing periodic psychiatric evaluations and testing for psychoactive substances could help mitigate the risks of power abuse, impulsive decisions, and financial misconduct.
3. International Approaches to Psychiatric Validation of Employees
Approaches to psychiatric validation vary across countries due to cultural, legal, and economic factors. In some nations, mental health assessments are a standard requirement for a broad range of professions, while in others, they are applied selectively or only in crisis situations. Contemporary trends indicate a growing recognition of the importance of employees' mental stability across various industries.
3.1. Strict Psychiatric Validation in High-Responsibility Professions
Certain countries have implemented mandatory psychiatric evaluations and testing for psychoactive substances for professionals in critical sectors.
- Singapore: Rigorous medical and psychiatric examinations for aviation personnel and military members, along with mandatory psychological testing for civil servants.
- South Korea: Long-standing practice of assessing government officials and corporate employees for mental resilience and susceptibility to corruption.
- Israel: Mandatory psychological resilience testing before authorization for military and intelligence service roles.
3.2. Voluntary Psychiatric Assessment Programs
In countries with more liberal approaches, emphasis is placed on voluntary screenings.
- Germany: Psychological support for corporate and government employees, but no compulsory psychiatric evaluations.
- Sweden: Companies implement early detection programs for stress and emotional burnout on a voluntary basis.
- Canada: Corporate mental health programs allow employees to seek mental health evaluations at their own discretion.
3.3. Crisis Control and Selective Psychiatric Assessments
Some countries conduct psychiatric evaluations only after incidents or under public pressure.
- United States: Mental health checks may be conducted following internal investigations, but no preventive mechanisms exist.
- France: After major transportation or industrial accidents, temporary mandatory psychiatric assessments for employees in relevant sectors may be introduced.
- Thailand: Widespread traffic incidents caused by public transport drivers under the influence of stimulants have prompted attempts to introduce testing, though implementation remains inconsistent.
3.4. Integration of Digital Technologies for Psychiatric Evaluation
Modern technologies help reduce subjectivity in mental health assessments.
- Japan: AI-driven analytics in HR systems monitor behavioral changes in employees based on corporate platform data.
- China: Automated stress-resilience assessment systems in major state-owned enterprises, along with cognitive testing for access to key resources.
- Netherlands: Experimental programs utilizing VR simulations to evaluate responses to stressful situations.
4. Imbalance of Requirements: Absence of Psychiatric Evaluation for Executives
Executives of major corporations, government structures, and financial institutions make decisions that impact the economy, society, and security on national and international levels. However, unlike specialists working in operational or high-risk fields, they are not subject to psychiatric validation or testing for psychoactive substances.
4.1. Catastrophic Managerial Decisions and Personality Disorders
History provides numerous examples where emotional instability, impulsiveness, or personal ambitions of leaders resulted in massive losses and crises.
- Enron (2001) – Corporate fraud driven by greed, manipulation, and a complete disregard for reality by the leadership.
- Theranos (2015) – Irrational behavior of Elizabeth Holmes, stemming from a refusal to acknowledge the objective scientific limitations of the technology.
- WeWork (2019) – Chaotic management by Adam Neumann, characterized by reckless spending, delusions of grandeur, and a cult of personality.
In all these cases, the lack of oversight regarding the mental state of leaders led to financial and reputational catastrophes, harming investors, employees, and business partners.
4.2. Psychopathology Among Executives
Studies suggest that top managers and government leaders exhibit a higher-than-average prevalence of narcissistic personality disorder, sociopathic traits, and grandiosity.
- Narcissism enhances confidence and charisma but leads to risk ignorance, an inability to admit mistakes, and defensive reactions to criticism.
- Sociopathy fosters decisiveness and fearlessness but diminishes empathy, increasing the likelihood of destructive decision-making.
- Messiah Complex makes some leaders believe they are infallible, resulting in authoritarian management styles and the suppression of feedback.
Without systematic assessment of these factors, there is no mechanism to prevent crises stemming from personality disorders in those who wield significant power.
4.3. Corporate Crises and the Consequences of Leadership Instability
In the absence of psychiatric oversight, executives may abuse power, engage in risky financial ventures, and lead organizations to collapse.
- Uber (2017) – A crisis fueled by a toxic corporate culture established by Travis Kalanick, who encouraged aggressive behavior and ethical violations.
- FTX (2022) – The downfall of a major cryptocurrency exchange caused by reckless management and irresponsible financial practices.
- Boeing (2018-2020) – Cost-cutting decisions at the expense of safety led to multiple aviation disasters and multi-billion-dollar losses.
Without psychiatric evaluation, it is impossible to preemptively identify a leader’s predisposition to destructive behavior, posing risks to shareholders, employees, and society as a whole.
5. Prospects and Potential Models for Implementing Psychiatric Validation
Modern trends indicate that employees' mental health is becoming a crucial factor in corporate and governmental management. However, approaches to psychiatric validation require reform, as many critical positions remain outside the scope of oversight. Various models of psychiatric monitoring can be implemented to balance efficiency with ethical acceptability.
5.1. Two-Tier System of Psychiatric Validation
To minimize risks, a differentiated approach to psychiatric evaluation is proposed:
- Psychological validation – a standard procedure for all employees aimed at assessing stress resilience, emotional stability, and cognitive abilities.
- Psychiatric assessment and testing for psychoactive substances – a mandatory procedure for individuals making strategic decisions and those working in high-risk environments.
This approach would prevent excessive oversight of regular employees while focusing on key managerial positions and hazardous professions.
5.2. Corporate Mechanisms for Early Risk Detection
To prevent crises related to the mental instability of executives and employees, companies can implement early diagnostic programs:
- Anonymous screenings among top executives to identify signs of burnout, heightened impulsivity, and cognitive distortions.
- Mandatory consultations with psychiatrists for strategic managers, particularly in crisis management scenarios.
- Periodic psychiatric evaluations, similar to medical check-ups, for high-responsibility positions.
5.3. Use of Digital Technologies in Psychiatric Validation
Modern technology enables the implementation of non-intrusive assessment methods, reducing subjectivity and administrative costs.
- AI tools analyzing behavioral and speech patterns of executives to identify potential risks.
- Cognitive VR tests for assessing responses to stressful situations and decision-making under pressure.
- Integration of psychological validation into HR analytics, where data on work performance, behavior, and stress resilience enhance the efficiency evaluation system.
5.4. Legal and Ethical Aspects of Implementation
Any system of psychological and psychiatric evaluation must balance corporate interests with individual rights.
- Establishing international standards for psychiatric validation in strategically significant positions.
- Defining clear boundaries of responsibility to prevent misuse and discrimination.
- Developing ethical mechanisms for data storage to prevent the use of psychiatric conclusions in corporate conflicts and political manipulations.
Conclusion
The issue of psychiatric validation extends beyond private medical diagnostics and has become a key element of corporate and governmental stability. Recent crises caused by managerial errors, corruption, and irrational decisions highlight the need to reconsider current approaches to assessing the mental health of individuals in strategic decision-making roles.
The modern world demands a new philosophy of human resource management, combining efficiency with social responsibility. Psychiatric validation is not a form of total control but a tool for disaster prevention. A well-implemented mental health assessment system for employees and leaders can minimize global risks, enhance governance quality, and ensure long-term societal stability.