Mental Wellness at Work Isn’t Just an Employee Problem. Sometimes It’s a Management Problem

After more than 22 years working for New York City government, I've come to believe that one of the most overlooked contributors to employee stress isn't necessarily the difficulty of the work.

It's how the work is managed.

Government agencies routinely encourage employees to use wellness programs, employee assistance services, mental-health resources, and work-life balance initiatives.

Those programs have value.

But I think we're sometimes avoiding a more uncomfortable conversation.

What if some of the stress employees experience is created—or unnecessarily amplified—by how we manage them?

I'm not a mental-health practitioner. My doctorate is in public health, and my professional experience is primarily in government administration, technology procurement, budgeting, and management.

But that combination of academic training and more than two decades in public service has shaped how I view workplace wellness.

I believe managers have an obligation to examine the working conditions they control before concluding that employees simply need to become more resilient.

I've Been an Employee Much Longer Than I've Been a Director

I began my New York City government career in 2004, when I was 23, and before that, I worked in state government at 19 while in college at SUNY Albany, the NYS capital city.

Over the years, I've worked in different agencies, managed budgets, evaluated contracts, developed procurement strategies, and eventually assumed responsibility for IT Procurement and Budget at the Department of Correction.

I've also spent plenty of time as an employee with relatively little authority over my assignments, workload, or working conditions.

That perspective matters.

I remember what it was like to be younger and more concerned about how supervisors interpreted my behavior.

Was I spending too much time away from my desk?

Would someone think I wasn't working hard enough?

Was I supposed to look busy even when I had completed my assignments?

Today, as a director, I occasionally walk past an employee's workstation and notice a crossword puzzle, a YouTube video, or something else unrelated to work.

Sometimes the employee immediately changes the screen.

I understand the reaction.

But my first thought isn't necessarily that someone is stealing time from the City.

My first question is whether the employee is meeting expectations.

Is the work getting done?

Are deadlines being met?

Are assignments accurate?

Is the employee responsive?

Are coworkers being forced to compensate for unfinished work?

If the answers are satisfactory, I'm not particularly interested in whether someone took a few minutes to take a mental break.

There's an obvious difference between occasionally stepping away mentally and consistently failing to perform one's responsibilities.

A good manager should be able to distinguish between the two.

I don't believe productivity should be measured by how convincingly an employee can appear busy.

My Own Workday Rarely Fits Into Neat Categories

I'm 45 years old, married, and have two young children.

I also have a demanding government position, real-estate investments, professional obligations, and the ordinary responsibilities of maintaining a household.

During a typical workday, my personal life doesn't disappear.

Sometimes I need to pay a utility bill.

Sometimes I need to order something for one of my children.

Sometimes there's a school-related issue, a property-management matter, or a household expense that needs attention.

These things don't always take an hour.

Sometimes they take three minutes.

And then I return to reviewing a contract, evaluating a procurement, analyzing a budget, or responding to an operational issue.

I don't confuse those personal activities with government work.

But I also don't believe that briefly attending to an unavoidable personal matter means an employee is incapable of fulfilling professional responsibilities.

In my experience, most employees are trying to manage several competing obligations.

A manager who recognizes that reality can maintain high expectations without unnecessarily stressing the workplace.

Managing Hundreds of Procurements Has Changed How I Think About Workload

My division at the Department of Correction manages about 200 to 300 procurements annually, along with technology contracts, budget planning, vendor coordination, and related administrative responsibilities.

The work involves an operating technology budget of roughly $23 million and a multiyear capital program involving substantially larger commitments.

These aren't simply transactions.

A delayed procurement can affect a technology deployment.

An expiring maintenance agreement can create operational risk.

A licensing problem can interfere with access to a critical system.

An incomplete contract can delay services another division needs.

And because the Department of Correction operates continuously, some of those consequences extend well beyond an ordinary administrative inconvenience.

Over time, staffing within my operation has declined substantially from earlier levels.

Yet the work's complexity hasn't declined proportionately.

That creates a management challenge.

I could simply tell everyone to work harder.

I could send more emails.

I could schedule additional status meetings.

I could insist that every assignment is urgent.

But none of those approaches creates additional staff capacity.

When staffing decreases, but workload remains constant, the answer isn't always to demand more from the remaining employees.

Sometimes the answer is prioritization.

Sometimes it's automation.

Sometimes it's eliminating unnecessary work.

And sometimes it's acknowledging that an organization needs additional resources.

One of the Best Ways to Reduce Stress Is to Stop Doing Work That Doesn't Need to Exist

I have never been particularly interested in maintaining an administrative process simply because it's been around for years.

Earlier in my career, I questioned a system that charged government employees back for personal use of City-issued cell phones.

The process required administrative effort to review charges, calculate amounts, notify employees, collect payments, and reconcile the results.

When unlimited calling plans became available for about $32 per month, continuing the chargeback process made less economic sense.

We eliminated it, saving about $2,000 per month in administrative costs compared with the charges recovered.

That wasn't a mental-wellness initiative.

It was a financial and operational improvement.

But think about the employees who no longer had to perform those repetitive tasks.

They could redirect their time to work that actually created value.

I've taken a similar approach to redundant budget tracking, questioning why multiple employees or units should maintain overlapping information when better systems can provide shared visibility.

This is where I believe operational efficiency and employee wellness intersect.

Every unnecessary report, duplicative approval, redundant spreadsheet, or recurring meeting takes time away from someone.

And that time comes from somewhere.

If we want employees to feel less overwhelmed, we should start by asking why we require them to do work that doesn't produce a meaningful benefit.

Everything Cannot Be an Emergency

One reality of working in government is that almost every request arrives with some degree of urgency.

A contract is expiring.

A vendor needs an answer.

An executive wants an update.

A procurement requires clarification.

A budget deadline is approaching.

A project manager needs equipment.

An invoice needs to be resolved.

All of those things may be important.

But they aren't necessarily equally important.

One of the most valuable things a manager can do is set priorities rather than simply passing pressure down the organizational chart.

If five assignments arrive simultaneously, I should be able to help determine which one takes precedence.

Which has the greatest operational impact?

Which has the earliest legitimate deadline?

Which presents the greatest financial or contractual risk?

Which can wait?

Which can be delegated?

And which doesn't need to be done at all?

Employees shouldn't have to guess which of ten supposedly urgent assignments will draw criticism if they aren't completed first.

That's a management failure, not an employee wellness problem.

Hybrid Work Should Have Taught Us to Measure Results

My own work arrangement includes two remote days per week.

I value that flexibility, particularly given my family responsibilities and the demands of commuting.

But my support for hybrid work isn't based solely on personal convenience.

I believe it has forced government managers to reconsider how they measure performance.

When someone works in an office, it's easy to confuse physical presence with productivity.

You see the person sitting at a desk.

You see them attending meetings.

You see them typing.

That creates the appearance of work.

But it doesn't necessarily tell you whether the work is useful, accurate, or timely.

Remote work removes some of that visibility.

And that's not inherently a bad thing.

It encourages managers to evaluate deliverables.

Did the employee complete the procurement package?

Was the contract reviewed?

Was the budget analysis accurate?

Were the necessary stakeholders contacted?

Did the employee respond within reasonable expectations?

I don't believe remote work eliminates the need for accountability.

Employees still need to be available during their assigned hours and perform their duties.

But accountability should focus on measurable performance, not unnecessary surveillance.

If an employee performs well remotely, I don't see why a supervisor not physically watching them should be considered a problem.

Technology Should Give Employees Time Back, Not Just Generate More Work

As someone responsible for technology procurement, I'm particularly interested in how artificial intelligence and automation can improve government operations.

I see opportunities to streamline repetitive procurement documentation, compare vendor proposals, analyze contract terms, identify budget trends, and reduce administrative processing.

These tools can potentially save substantial staff time.

But I've also become concerned about a different possibility.

What happens if every hour saved through automation simply results in additional assignments?

Suppose an employee previously spent four hours preparing a report.

A new system reduces that task to 30 minutes.

That's an opportunity to improve efficiency.

But if management immediately adds five more reports simply because technology makes them possible, have we improved the employee's working conditions?

Or have we simply increased the workload?

Government should measure productivity gains, but we should also recognize the value of reducing unnecessary workload.

Not every efficiency improvement needs to translate into another task.

Sometimes the benefit is allowing employees to focus more carefully on higher-priority responsibilities.

Sometimes it's reducing overtime.

Sometimes it's improving accuracy.

Sometimes it simply creates enough breathing room for employees to handle an unexpected problem without everything else falling apart.

Managers Need to Recognize the Signals They Send

I work a lot.

I frequently think about contracts, budgets, and operational issues outside normal business hours.

I also tend to respond quickly when something needs attention.

But I've become increasingly conscious that my own habits shouldn't automatically become expectations for everyone who reports to me.

If I send an email at night, that doesn't necessarily mean I expect an immediate response.

If I choose to work through lunch, that doesn't mean someone else should feel obligated to do the same.

If I decide to address something over the weekend, that doesn't automatically make it a weekend assignment for my staff.

Managers communicate expectations through their behavior, even when they don't state them explicitly.

An employee may reasonably interpret a late-night email from a supervisor differently from an email sent by a coworker.

That's why I believe managers should make expectations clear.

What truly requires immediate attention?

What can wait until the next business day?

When is an employee expected to be reachable?

When should a problem be escalated?

And when is someone genuinely off duty?

Clear boundaries don't make an organization less responsive.

They make responsiveness more predictable.

Mental Wellness Doesn't Mean Eliminating Accountability

I also think we need to be careful not to confuse employee wellness with an absence of performance standards.

I expect employees to fulfill their responsibilities.

I expect reasonable responsiveness.

I expect accuracy, professionalism, and accountability.

Government employees have obligations to the public, and those obligations shouldn't be minimized.

But I don't believe effective supervision requires treating every employee as though they're trying to avoid work.

When someone isn't performing, address the performance issue.

When someone needs training, provide it.

When someone is overwhelmed by conflicting priorities, clarify them.

When the workload exceeds available capacity, recognize the resource problem.

And when someone needs professional mental-health support, direct them toward appropriate resources rather than attempting to act as their therapist.

The objective isn't to create a workplace without expectations.

It's to create one where expectations are reasonable, understandable, and consistently applied.

Having Children Has Changed How I Think About Time

Becoming a father has reinforced something I probably understood intellectually long before I had children.

Time is finite.

My children are four and five years old.

They won't remain that age for long.

School activities, appointments, family responsibilities, and ordinary moments matter.

I also have a long-term goal of retiring from City service at 57 and potentially pursuing opportunities in higher education.

That goal has made me more conscious of the relationship between work, financial independence, and the time we have available outside our careers.

I take my responsibilities seriously.

I care about the quality of my work.

I want to leave the organizations I've worked for better than I found them.

But I don't believe being a dedicated public servant requires allowing work to consume every available hour.

And I don't think managers should expect that sacrifice from the people who report to them.

An employee who can meet professional obligations while remaining present for family responsibilities may be more sustainable, more engaged, and more effective over the long term.

The Best Wellness Initiative Might Be a Better Manager

My Doctor of Public Health education reinforced the importance of examining the conditions that influence people's health rather than focusing exclusively on individual behavior.

I think that perspective applies to the workplace.

If employees are consistently overwhelmed, we should examine workload.

If they fear making mistakes, we should examine supervisory practices.

If they don't understand priorities, we should examine communication.

If they're constantly interrupted, we should examine workflow.

If they feel obligated to work at all hours, we should examine organizational expectations.

And if talented employees are leaving, we should ask whether management is contributing to the problem.

None of this eliminates the importance of individual mental-health care, personal responsibility, or professional support.

But it recognizes that the workplace itself can contribute to stress.

After more than 22 years in New York City government, I don't believe a successful manager is measured by how busy everyone appears.

It's whether the organization delivers results, uses resources responsibly, develops its employees, and remains capable of performing its mission.

Sometimes that requires pushing people to meet a difficult deadline.

Sometimes it requires holding someone accountable.

But sometimes it requires eliminating a pointless assignment, postponing a meeting, automating a repetitive task, or allowing someone five minutes to reset before returning to work.

I want employees to be productive.

I also want them to have lives outside government.

Those goals aren't mutually exclusive.

Before we ask employees to become more resilient, perhaps government managers should ask whether we've made their jobs unnecessarily difficult.

Sometimes the most effective mental-wellness initiative isn't another seminar, wellness email, or employee assistance brochure.

Sometimes it's simply better management.