“I told you what’s going on” — mental health and privacy at work

Before taking a day off, Olek tells Anna why he will be absent tomorrow.

— I’ve been having a rough time mentally and I need a day to deal with it.
— You don’t have to tell me the details of your health.

Olek wants to talk about mental health normally. Anna wants to protect just as strongly the employee’s right not to bring private health information into work.

What really happened

Olek openly says that he is taking time off because his mental health has been worse, because being able to name it normally reduces shame for him. Anna does not want to stop him from saying that. Her concern is different: if the company starts treating “healthy openness” as disclosing medical reasons, employees may begin to feel that they should tell the employer more private information than they want to. One person experiences safety as the right to speak; the other is protecting the right not to speak.

What the research says

Research does not support a simple conclusion that disclosing mental health difficulties at work is either good or bad. A 2023 review found that disclosure decisions are shaped by factors including fear of stigma, the quality of organizational support, professional identity, timing and the person to whom someone discloses (McGrath et al., 2023). A newer review of 71 studies describes both potential benefits—such as access to workplace adjustments and better relationships—and possible costs, including regret after disclosure and poorer treatment (Richard et al., 2026). A 2025 review also highlights selective disclosure and the importance of context (Gnainsky et al., 2025). The most evidence-consistent principle is therefore employee choice rather than a single norm of openness.

How to handle it

An organization can say clearly: you may say that your absence relates to mental health, but you do not have to disclose a diagnosis or details. If a formal workplace adjustment requires specific information, the scope should be minimal and clearly justified. A manager should neither pressure someone to disclose nor shame a person who chooses to name what is happening. The general rule: normalising mental health means protecting both the right to openness and the right to privacy.

How Empatyzer and Em can help

Empatyzer can help Olek and Anna establish a healthy norm without trying to diagnose mental health. The system should not judge whether someone “has a problem” or require private disclosures. Em can help Anna respond neutrally and supportively: “Thanks for letting me know. You don’t need to share details; let’s just agree on what we need to organize.” It can also help Olek decide how much he wants to say while separating his own openness from an expectation that others should be equally open. At team level, the goal is a culture in which speaking and keeping things private are both acceptable. Micro-lessons remind leaders that normalisation does not mean compulsory disclosure; it means that neither safe option carries a social penalty.