An employee dying by suicide can send a shock wave through the organization. Managers are often left floundering—not knowing how to respond or whether talking about the death would only make the situation worse. However, failing to respond appropriately may convey a lack of accountability and send a signal that the organization does not care about the well-being of its employees (Irish Hospice Foundation, 2012; Kinder & Cooper, 2009). With little systematic evidence to guide managers following workplace tragedy, Jacqueline Shaw and E. Kevin Kelloway aimed to identify the best practices for providing effective responses to employee suicide.
In an experimental study published in the Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, Shaw and Kelloway (2024) recruited 357 employees from a survey panel to read a hypothetical message from their managers discussing an employee’s death by suicide. The researchers wanted to see whether the characteristics of the message influenced participants’ perceptions that this company was good to work for (known as an employers’ “brand image”) and perceptions that the organization was supportive of their employees. The authors created 12 versions of the message based on 3 characteristics.
Some of the messages identified workplace factors (e.g., workload, financial strain, harassment) as influences that led to the suicide. Other messages implicated factors outside of the workplace (e.g., chronic pain, family problems).
In addition, some messages gave a “good” response, while others gave a “neutral” or “bad” response. A “good” response was characterized by compassion, open communication, explicit investigation into the cause, attentive modification of prevention efforts, and exemplary and specific support. A “neutral” response was characterized by low compassion, low company effort in the response, reluctant or silencing communication, and minimal support. A “bad” response was characterized by a lack of compassion, dismissive communication, minimal and unfocused prevention efforts, and no firm commitment to provide support.
Finally, some messages described the death of a male employee, whereas others described the death of a female employee.
Shaw and Kelloway found that participants reported lower ratings of brand image and organizational support when the death was described as being related to workplace factors. Participants reported the highest ratings of brand image and organizational support when the company gave a “good” response, followed by a “neutral” response, and reported the lowest ratings for a “bad” response. An interaction occurred between the quality of the response and whether the death was workplace related. Even a “good” response from the company did not make up for a work-related suicide. Neither the gender of the employee nor the gender of the participant made any difference to employee reactions.
Overall, the results suggest the advisability of making proactive efforts to reduce work-related suicide risk factors and to provide empathetic, honest, and comprehensive responses to an employee suicide, as employers’ words carry value in the minds of others.