Mintz On Air: Practical Policies — Empathy Meets Employment: Practical Strategies for Managing Employee Stress

In the latest episode of the Mintz On Air: Practical Policies podcast, Jen Rubin is joined by fellow Mintz employment attorneys Natalie Groot and Nikki Rivers for a frank conversation on strategies for empathetic managing of stressed-out employees. This episode is part of a series of conversations designed to help employers navigate workplace changes and understand general legal considerations.

Together, Jen, Natalie, and Nikki explore:

1. The rise of the “escalation first” workplace
2. Remembering that personality conflicts are not unlawful
3. Ways to support employees without creating legal risk for the company
4. Knowing when to loop in HR and other resources

Listen for insights on how managers and HR professionals can stay human while still holding employees accountable.

Mintz On Air: Practical Policies — Empathy Meets Employment: Practical Strategies for Managing Employee Stress Transcript

Jen Rubin (JR): Welcome to the Mintz On Air: Practical Policies podcast. Today’s topic: Empathy Meets Employment: Practical Strategies for Managing Employee Stress. I’m Jen Rubin, a Member of the Mintz Employment Group with the San Diego–based Bicoastal Employment Practice representing management, executives, and corporate boards. Thanks for joining Mintz On Air. If you have not tuned in to our previous podcasts and would like to access our content, please visit us at the Insights Center at Mintz.com, or find us on Spotify. 

I’m really looking forward to today’s conversation with my employment partners Natalie Groot, based in Boston, and Nikki Rivers, based in San Diego. Like me, Natalie and Nikki are employment lawyers with a focus on helping employers operate compliant, productive, and hopefully welcoming workplaces. As employment lawyers we focus, as we must, on the myriad legal rules that guide such operations.

What I hope our listeners take away from today’s podcast are some strategies for engaging and active, empathetic behavior in the workplace, and some tips for managing stressed-out employees — how far you can go, what you should avoid, and how to operate with extreme empathy in the workplace as an employer.

Thanks for joining me and welcome, Natalie and Nikki.

Natalie Groot (NG): Thanks for having us, Jen. 

Nikki Rivers (NR): Delighted to be here, Jen. 

The Rise of the “Escalation First” Workplace

JR: I don’t know about the two of you, but the 24/7 loop of not just bad news, but frightening news — war, worldwide strife, the extraordinary and sometimes frightening political divisiveness here at home, the specter of AI taking over the world — is like a doom loop of a world spinning out of control. You can’t help but feel its impact on every aspect of your life, which of course includes the workplace. As employment lawyers, we are keenly interested in helping our clients effectively manage the workplace, which necessarily includes employees in crisis. Dealing with stress and anxiety in the workplace is not only relevant, but necessary for HR professionals and others charged with workplace compliance issues. 

But before we start, I want to remind our listeners, our colleague Yeilee Woo from our New York office and I recently did a podcast on the legal issues associated with requests for accommodation arising from stress in the workplace under the ADA. While that podcast is relevant to this conversation, today’s focus is on larger issues relating to anxiety and stress in the workplace, and some best practices for managing the conflicts that arise from those issues — as always, with the legal bent. 

Natalie, I’d like to start with you and ask, what kind of issues are you seeing that some of our listeners might also be experiencing in the workplace?

NG: It’s a great question, Jen. The threshold for filing formal complaints has dropped significantly — I’ve seen that employees are increasingly skipping the step of trying to resolve issues on their own and going straight to a formal complaint process. The old “work it out amongst yourselves” approach is giving way to a more procedural, escalation-first mindset, even when the underlying issue doesn’t rise to the level of a legal complaint. I find myself repeating that personality conflicts are not unlawful. It’s something we are telling our clients because there has been confusion about what are real legal claims and what are people just not liking their job, or not liking their manager, or not getting along in the workplace, or feeling stressed or anxious about things that are being asked of them, even if they’re routine assignments or expectations.

This trend may be a symptom of people losing the habit, or the comfort, of direct interpersonal communication — particularly in a world where remote and hybrid work has reduced the face-to-face interaction that had people working to resolve issues more naturally. The workplace is becoming a catchall for complaints not just about the traditionally significant issues employers have always managed, but also ordinary and everyday personality conflicts.

Much of this may be driven by a heightened sense of a lack of control, fueled by the constant cycle of distressing global news, political divisiveness, uncertainty about the future — it all bleeds into the workplace. 

JR: Natalie, you used the term “escalation-first mindset.” That speaks to me because I’m seeing that too in our practice. 

Legal Obligations and Practical Judgment

JR: Nikki, does the law impose an obligation on the employer to investigate all of these complaints, even if they include personality conflicts? What is the employer obligated to do under these circumstances? 

NR: It’s a tough question. Natalie, I love your “personality conflicts are not unlawful,” because that is so true. To answer your question, Jen, 100%, yes, employers have an obligation to investigate formal complaints. And from a practical and defensive perspective, you want to investigate complaints. The nuance here, though, is what Natalie touched on: there has been an uptick in employees raising concerns using buzzwords like “harassment” and “retaliation.” But when you peel back that onion, the allegations don’t align with the legal definitions of those terms. Instead, the allegations sometimes reflect an interaction that the complainant just didn’t like and wants to report. 

The good thing here is that employers have worked hard to create processes for people to bring complaints forward, and employees now are using those processes. The tough part, and where we find ourselves in 2026, is we’re not just getting workplace complaints, capital C. These complaints, these concerns, are starting to look more like workplace therapy sessions. But even then, it doesn’t mean you don’t investigate. All employers have workplace policies, and all of those policies, or at least every policy I’ve seen, reflects the position that the employer holds the employee to a higher standard than what the law requires. So whether something is capital H harassment is not the standard for policies, it’s whether the conduct violates the policies. It may not be necessary to escalate every complaint to counsel for a full-blown investigation. Sometimes a lighter touch is required. 

JR: There’s so much conflict outside the workplace. There’s also conflict inside the workplace. And now there’s a blurring of the lines. Maybe some of that is because we’re telling people, as a general proposition, to bring their authentic selves to the workplace. In fact, bringing that self to the workplace may include bringing more conflict to the workplace.

Managing with Empathy While Managing Performance

JR: Natalie, what are managers supposed to do here? They’re not trained therapists, as Nikki points out, though we all understand some managers are better than others in dealing with interpersonal conflict. What are some best practices for managing conflicts in the workplace that actually don’t create more anxiety and stress? 

NG: We need to start by reframing expectations. It’s not the employer’s job or a manager’s job to eliminate stress and anxiety. Stress and anxiety are part of most workplaces. I won’t say everyone feels that at their job, but it is a part of working hard, having expectations set for you, and needing to meet those expectations. Not to be negative, but the employment relationship is, at its core, an adversarial one. A manager’s fundamental role is to direct the employee on what to do, when to do it, where to do it, and how to do it. That said, effective management absolutely does require empathy. When we talk to our clients about how to train their managers, and when we do presentations for managers, we talk a lot about what it means to show empathy at work for the folks who report to you. Compassion and understanding, backed by strong listening skills, are essential. The key is that even after a genuine, empathetic listening session, the manager must bring the conversation back to the workplace. The employee deserves to be heard, but also needs to understand what is expected of them — and both can be true. Someone can be stressed or anxious. Someone can be raising workplace complaints. They also need to do their job and meet the requirements and expectations that have been set for them. It can be hard for managers to show that empathy and also to be clear about expectations.

Practically, managers should focus on creating space for supportive discussions without losing sight of performance expectations. A practical tip is, use empathetic language. “I understand you’re feeling this way, I appreciate that point of view.” But avoid making promises that a manager can’t keep in order to reassure someone. A manager saying, “It won’t be like that going forward,” when it’s a standard trial and tribulation of the workplace, it will be like that. To tell someone that it won’t not only doesn’t solve their stress and anxiety, it creates a lack of trust. The manager needs to be clear about what are the parts of the workplace that the manager can fix and address, and what are the parts of the job that are essential functions of the role, even if they do cause stress or anxiety. 

JR: That’s such a difficult balance to achieve, right? Here you have a situation where you need people to perform to certain standards that are hopefully articulated well to the employee. At the same time, you want to be understanding of the world we live in and some of the things that are being brought into the workplace. 

Supporting Employees Without Creating Risk

JR: That’s a good segue for you, Nikki, because don’t these workplace therapy sessions create some risk for an employer? You sit someone down, you listen to them. You want to be actively empathetic. All of a sudden, you’re learning information during that session that you wish you didn’t know. Can you talk about those risks?

NR: Any time you ask any open-ended question, you could be opening the proverbial can of worms. We all know this from personal experience, and the same is true in the workplace. If you’re going to engage in empathetic listening, whether it’s part of this therapy session that we’re talking about or whether it’s part of an investigation — lowercase I or capital case I — inherently comes with a risk that the employer may learn something that creates a legal obligation on behalf of the company. Like a medical condition. You ask the “why,” and the employee discloses: “I’m stressed because I have this medical condition.” OK. That happens. Maybe it’s not something that opens the door to a legal obligation, but something you would have rather not known — a family condition or financial condition or any other part of being a human being in today’s world. The reality is that oversharing of information happens in the workplace in a variety of circumstances, regardless of whether you can control it. For example, on a Monday, I always ask, “How was your weekend?” as I’m getting coffee in the kitchen. That same question could extract the same information as me asking “why” as part of one of these therapy sessions. My point is, you can’t shy away from the empathetic listening, because at the end of the day, you can’t avoid the answer. The question then becomes, what do you, as the employer, do when this type of overshare happens?

JR: That’s what we want to know. 

NR: That is the question. Let me give you some tips. First off, can you control where the conversation is happening? If you do have some control over where the conversation is happening and you’re not sure what might come of it, try to start in a more private setting, whether it’s in an office or, if you have the luxury, somewhere outside the office entirely. I recognize, though, we’re talking about grabbing coffee in the kitchen — if the conversation starts to feel like you’re going to get that therapy session, think about pausing and asking to shift the conversation to another location. That’s not rude or impolite — it’s actually showing empathy and compassion right there.

I want to pause here and talk about in-person versus remote versus phone. These are hard conversations to have with people. I strongly advise against having these conversations on the phone or via Slack or email. You’re never going to get to the meaningful issues that may be at play. If you can, face-to-face is always best, whether that’s in-person or at least a video conference — so you can see not only how someone is reacting, but also their nonverbal cues, which are so important to empathetic listening. 

Next, what do you do if an overshare occurs? Know when to stop. That’s a hard thing in the workplace. It may not necessarily align with how you interact in a personal setting. But in most instances, my advice is that it’s best not to probe deeper. That doesn’t mean ignoring the information entirely, it just means you don’t need to do too much follow-up. If someone says, “I’m having a family situation,” acknowledge it and move on, and do so empathetically. You don’t need to be a robot. You can say, “I’m sorry to hear about that.” Or “I understand why you’re feeling a certain way, and I appreciate where you’re coming from or what you’re feeling.”

And a final point: Be mindful of the consequences of your words. Unfortunately, managers are in a tough position where they’re humans, but still managers. You don’t want to make promises you can’t keep. You don’t want to prejudge a situation. You don’t want to pre-dismiss something. Your job is simply to be there to listen.

JR: I want to throw this out here because this is something I try to do in my interactions in the workplace. You take a few moments to really see somebody and understand what makes them tick, and then you redirect. You find out somebody’s struggling or upset or stressed, and then you take the conversation in a different direction. You might say, “How do you like to spend your free time?” Then if somebody says they love to hike, you could say, “Have you thought about when you’re feeling this way, maybe taking a pause and spending time in nature?” Fill in the blanks with the gazillion things people like to do for stress relief. Get people to focus on the idea that while coming to work can be stressful, the world is stressful, think about the things that bring you joy. Can you schedule that into your day? 

Knowing When to Loop in HR or Other Resources

JR: The other point I want to make: I want to pick up on your “we are not robots” comment, Nikki, which is so true. When you get to know somebody, in order to see somebody and see who they are, the best way to do that is through face-to-face interactions where you can ask follow-up questions and really learn what people are about. 

I’m sure managers out there listening to this are horrified right now, thinking, “No, I don’t want to learn all this information.” And we just got through talking about how to avoid learning things you don’t want to know. But let me shift it for a moment to this question, Natalie: What are some practical tips for managers in terms of figuring out the core cause of performance issues without learning things you don’t want to know? 

NG: I think the number one rule is for managers not to be tempted to diagnose the problem. Managers, as we noted, are not therapists. They’re also usually not medical professionals. And speculating about a root cause, especially a medical or mental health one, can create significant legal exposure. Managers should stay away from those types of medical- or mental health–focused discussions around diagnoses. Instead they should identify and discuss the specific performance issue. “I need you to do X. I have found that when I ask you to do X, you cannot deliver in the way that I’m expecting. What’s going on? What resources do you need that might address this gap in your performance? What support do you need to be able to meet the level of performance I’m expecting of you?” It keeps the conversation focused, respectful, and within the manager’s appropriate role, which is essentially, “What do you need to succeed in this role?” If the employee voluntarily shares deeply personal information, including anything that might touch on a physical or mental health concern, the manager should be prepared to connect the employee with available resources rather than probe further. If a manager says to an employee, “What do you need to be successful in this role?” and the employee says, “I suffer from debilitating mental health issues and it has impacted my ability to perform in this role,” the manager’s next response should not be, “Tell me more about that mental health issue.” It should be, “Understood. Thank you for sharing that with me. Let me tell you about the resources that we have internally and who I can connect you with to make sure you have the support you need.” There are a number of resources and options that managers should be aware of and conversant about. Employee assistance programs, or EAP services, are often underutilized and overlooked, but can be incredibly impactful for employees who need extra support.

Certainly, managers should have information about medical or personal leave policies, and if they don’t have that information or can’t speak about it themselves, they should know who at the company should speak with the employee about it. Also consider more informal accommodations, like a temporary reassignment of a workload, a personal day off, encouraging the use of PTO, or shift changes if necessary. Managers should connect with Benefits or Human Resources, who will be better equipped to manage anything related to an employee’s physical or mental health issues. 

The manager then needs to continue to assess the employee’s performance. An employee can need additional support to do the functions of their job, but ultimately they still need to do the functions of their job, with or without support or accommodations. So managers should continue to stay focused on the performance piece and let Benefits or HR manage anything related to physical or mental health. But managers are often the first point of contact. They are the ones saying, “How was your weekend?” Or “I’ve noticed that you’re struggling in this area. What support can I offer you?” And if that one-on-one discussion brings up a request for an accommodation or a need for a leave, appropriate resources should be engaged. 

Staying Human While Staying Grounded

JR: I’m going to pivot and ask Nikki a really unfair question: How do you have a conversation with an employee where you’re trying to be reassuring, to build the sense of trust from human-to-human contact, while staying tethered in reality? 

NR: It’s a tough one, but I don’t think it’s an unfair one, because this is the question everyone’s grappling with. Unfortunately, there are a lot of nuances at play that are shaped by who’s saying it, when it’s happening, where it’s happening, what they’re saying. So I can’t give you a one-size-fits-all answer. There is no secret sauce here, but there is a recipe to follow. Here are a few practical tips for those struggling with wearing their human hat, their manager hat, or their HR hat together. 

The first is: get used to active listening. It is not always a natural way of interacting in the workplace, but it’s something that should be honed, especially for managers and those in HR roles. But also recognize that not every conversation needs to implicate these therapy sessions we’re discussing. Start to understand when it may be appropriate to activate that active listening. 

Next is a point you raised, Jen, and that Natalie just talked about: there needs to be a separation between “directions to complete work” from “support for how an employee is feeling or reacting in a situation.”  Along those same lines, dealing with these situations requires a recognition that sometimes employees just need space to express emotions. We’ve worked hard as employers to create these processes, to allow complaints to be raised, to allow people really and truly to be heard, and we need to expect employees to use these processes, even in ways we may not anticipate.

Third, you may not have all of the answers. Employees, including yourself, are all humans, but sometimes because we’re humans we find ourselves in tough situations that can spill over into work. Managers in HR need to understand what they can and can’t control — and relatedly, what the employee can and should control.

I want to note here — and I think we’re all saying the same thing — I’m not advocating for turning the workplace into some type of extreme gentle employer landscape. This is still a workplace, and the nature of the employment relationship is inherently adverse because work needs to be done. There will be times, even in this new world of therapy sessions, where it is necessary to give performance feedback or to manage performance. I want to emphasize that empathy does not equate to ignoring the situation or over-softening a situation. It only means understanding that we’re all human, but we still hold each other accountable.

Wrap-up and Takeaway

JR: I think that’s a great way to wrap up. I’m going to add a closing comment, which is to take that beat to look away from the computer, from the phone, and just look at another person and have a conversation. That alone can build trust between humans, and in my view trust is the foundation of a humane and productive workplace. People need to feel that they’re heard, that they are cared for at some level. You can do all those things and at the same time ask the person to perform. I don’t think these things are mutually exclusive. I do agree that it is very hard to accomplish, particularly in this world of conflict that we are living in 24/7, in every aspect of our lives. In any event, that’s hopefully a practical takeaway. 

Natalie and Nikki, thank you so much for joining me. I think these are really important subjects, and I’m hoping that our listeners take them to heart in their day-to-day workplaces. And as always, the Mintz Employment Group is here to support when questions come up in difficult situations. We are happy to help. 

You can learn more about our Employment Group and our thought leadership at the Insights Center at Mintz.com. Or you can follow our Mintz On Air: Practical Policies podcast on Spotify. Thanks, Nikki and Natalie. I’m Jen Rubin, thanks again for joining us.

Subscribe To Viewpoints