The emotional damage from an unhealthy management culture is nothing new. Twenty years ago, in Modern Madness, I described how careers and companies can create emotional conflicts for people who are not otherwise disturbed. But today, I think we may need to look at unhealthy management and workplace practices as a violation of human rights. Read on, and at the end of this post I'll give some questions for help assessing the health of your own workplace.

There's no question, management practices can damage the mental health of a company's employees.

 When unhealthy management and leadership harms employees, it also harms their work performance. Most everyone is familiar with the damaging effects of abusive, hostile, arrogant and narcissistic bosses; of manipulative or deceitful leadership behavior -- often directed by senior management towards each other; workaholic demands that result in burnout and diminished productivity; intimidation and threats, subtle and overt; public denigration and humiliation; destructive political maneuvering and closet discrimination.

The list goes on. Typical consequences for individuals include depression, rage, severe stress or anxiety, withdrawal, paranoia and, increasingly, lawsuits.

As a consultant to business leadership and a psychotherapist for 30 years, I've helped people at both ends of the spectrum -- from the mailroom to the corporate suite -- deal with the consequences. Moreover, I've seen an increase of such practices and their consequences since the economic meltdown began in September 2008.

Unhealthy leadership and the culture it spawns typically disseminates downward. It drains away high-performing, energized, engaged employees, including the innovative teamwork companies need to stay nimble and competitive -- especially today. Moreover, an unhealthy management culture fuels emotional conflicts among employees who weren't overtly troubled prior to working in that environment. Or, it exacerbates prior emotional conflicts that were previously dormant or well-managed. That's what I documented in Modern Madness.

But defining unhealthy management as a human rights violation would underscore the principle that men and women should have the right to both a physically and psychologically healthy workplace. It will spur more companies to recognize the link between successful business and a healthy workplace culture.

Some might argue that such practices are less severe than, say, exploitative child labor or unsanitary, environmentally toxic working environments. Or, that you can leave a job if you don't like how you're being treated (Yeah, right -- try that in this economy). But similar arguments were also put forth about racial and gender discrimination by companies, and we've since expanded our view of workplace human rights to include protection from those.

I think the primary obstacle to thinking of unhealthy management as a human rights violation is something different. It's rooted in a socially conditioned perspective about the link between work and mental health. That is, companies that do acknowledge a link at all between emotional disturbance and the workplace tend to think of troubles that people bring with them to the office. For example, depression, alcohol and drug problems, severe anxiety, uncontrollable anger, and acute family crises. Of course, many people experience conflicts like these for reasons largely unrelated to the workplace, and they do impact job performance and workplace relationships.

But these are in the category of how the person impacts the workplace. I find that the more pervasive and insidious conflicts today are those resulting from how the workplace impacts the person.

Why Companies Should Pay Attention

Data about the latter has been growing. Over 10 years ago the World Health Organization elevated the status of "workplace stress" (a broad term including the impact of unhealthy management) to that of a "worldwide epidemic." Today, the impact of an unhealthy workplace environment on the employee is estimated to cost American companies $300 billion a year in poor performance, absenteeism and health costs.

Similarly, a report by the International Labor Organization back in 2000 found that work-related emotional conflicts were already costing the U.S. about 200 million lost workdays each year. Such conflicts are also one of the most common health problems in EU countries. A European survey found that 28% of workers reported emotional conflicts caused by work. Similar data have been reported by Canadian businesses. And in Japan, a survey found the percentage shot up from 53% in 1982 to 63% in 1997. All of these numbers are likely to have grown in the years since they surveys were conducted.

They may be just the tip of the iceberg. Workers often cite the physical symptoms, such as headaches, chronic pain or digestive disorders as their reason for taking leave, when untreated mental health problems are the underlying cause. In fact, research shows that emotional conflict can weaken the immune system and make people more vulnerable to a host of illnesses.

So companies have a clear stake in defining emotionally harmful management practices as a human rights issue. By not taking steps to create more positive, healthier environments they undermine the performance and commitment of workers through the lost workdays, diminished productivity and less innovation. That generates higher costs to the organization, not to mention hurt the company's reputation -- including its ability to attract and retain high-quality talent and, eventually, it's success in the global marketplace.

Some companies have been addressing these problems. But mostly, it's after they arise, and as an "add-on," not as a necessity or practice reflecting the human rights of employees. Examples include wellness programs, employee assistance programs, and classes for dieting and stress-management. These are helpful. But they fall short of what companies could do at the front end: reducing the emotionally harmful organizational cultures and management practices that hurt employees and the business in the first place.

Some movement in this direction has recently begun, but it's mainly pushed by the threat of new laws. Eleven states have introduced legislation prohibiting workplace abuse by management. Model legislation, developed by Suffolk University Law School professor David Yamada, defines the scope and features of the more visible end of the spectrum - abusive, bullying, demeaning behavior.