Government Leaders’ Perceptions on Mental Health Supports in the Workplace: A Qualitative Descriptive Study
Loading...
Authors
Pangelinan, Carissa
Issue Date
2025-09
Type
Dissertation
Language
en
Keywords
mental health supports , Employee well-being , leaders , Workforce Development Needs & Industry Alignment
Alternative Title
Abstract
This qualitative descriptive study explored organizational leaders’ perspectives on workplace mental health supports within executive branch agencies of the Government of Guam. Grounded in Eisenberger et al.’s perceived organizational support (POS) theory, the purpose of this study was to examine how agency directors make decisions about supporting employee mental health. Using a field-tested protocol, 10 semistructured interviews and one focus group with five participants were conducted, with leaders possessing a minimum of three years’ experience. Data were analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s six-phase inductive thematic analysis to address three research questions related to leaders’ perceptions, identification strategies, and restructuring approaches for mental health supports. Findings revealed that accessibility, such as open-door policies and personal check-ins, served as a key marker of psychological safety and leadership engagement. Directors described informal and formal accommodations, including mental health leave and flexible scheduling, which signaled evolving cultural recognition of mental health needs. While most participants demonstrated strong relational awareness, they also acknowledged systemic constraints, especially those tied to staffing shortages that limited the feasibility of flexible arrangements. Implications suggest that directors’ attentiveness and personal investment are reshaping organizational norms around mental health, with POS theory providing a meaningful lens for interpreting this shift. However, disparities in mental health literacy and inconsistent support structures highlight the need for more standardized approaches. Future research should incorporate employee voices to evaluate whether leadership efforts are genuinely perceived and effective, and to identify misalignments between intention and impact.