INTHEBLACK July 2025 - Magazine - Page 51
“If [leaders] are aware there are stressors in the organisation —
and they need to take reasonable steps to assess whether they
are present — and they don’t then do something to either
eliminate the stressor at its source or put in place mechanisms
to mitigate or control the hazard, they can be legally at risk.”
DR KATHRYN PAGE, SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY
ONCE UPON A TIME, THE POPULAR
conception of workplace safety centred solely
on physical hazards such as slips, trips and falls.
However, following amendments to Australian
federal workplace safety legislation introduced
in 2022, the definition of workplace safety has
broadened. It now encompasses “psychosocial
hazards”, which refer to anything in the
workplace that could cause psychological harm.
“A psychosocial hazard is essentially any
aspect of work design, systems and the
environment — or the interaction of those
things — that can cause harm,” says
Dr Kathryn Page, organisational psychologist
and adjunct professor at Swinburne University.
These hazards include high workloads,
inadequate recognition and low control, and
can contribute to high levels of stress and job
strain among employees, potentially impacting
their health. [See breakout.]
“Prolonged exposure to job strain can increase
the risk of mental health conditions like
depression, not just exacerbate them,” Page says.
Under work health and safety legislation,
employers must minimise psychosocial risks
in the workplace.
“If [leaders] are aware there are stressors
in the organisation — and they need to take
reasonable steps to assess whether they are
present — and they don’t then do something to
either eliminate the stressor at its source or put
in place mechanisms to mitigate or control the
hazard, they can be legally at risk,” Page says.
“You can have WorkSafe inspectors enter
the workplace to issue notices around the
psychosocial work environment in the same way
they do with physical hazards. It’s an incredible
change and improvement.”
IDENTIFY PSYCHOSOCIAL HAZARDS
John Tregambe, director of Melbourne firm
Your Safety Partners, says some employers may
find the new legislative requirements pertaining
to psychosocial hazards overwhelming.
However, resources such as Safe Work
Australia’s Managing psychosocial hazards
at work: Code of Practice and ISO 45003,
a global standard providing guidance on
managing psychological health at work, can
help employers understand their obligations.
Data collection is another valuable tool.
“Anonymous surveys, if they’re done
properly, can indicate where the hazards are,”
Tregambe says.
Sample questions might include “How well
does your boss allocate responsibilities?” or
“Do you feel overwhelmed?”
Other valuable quantitative data may come
in the form of check-ins, exit interviews and
incident reports, which can be used to identify
areas of concern. Organisations can also
conduct interviews or listening sessions
to gather qualitative data to learn more about
these hotspots.
Page says any questioning should focus on
the design of work rather than how people are
feeling, which can imply the problem lies with
an individual’s lack of resilience or suitability
for the role, rather than organisational issues.
“A critical component of psychosocial safety
is not just talking about individual coping
mechanisms, although that’s important,
but also ensuring that we always go back
to asking questions about the way work
is designed, as well as workload, workflows
and relationships.”
It helps to involve staff in the process.
“It can’t just be managers or HR getting
together to think about what the hazards might
be — you have to consult with the people
who are doing the job,” Page says.
“Quite often, that involves co-designing
solutions with people as well, because we know
there is often a huge divide in what
management thinks is the experience and
what the experience is on the frontline.”
In this sensitive environment, trust is critical.
“If you don’t have trust in the system and
people don’t feel safe to tell you what’s not
working, you will never be able to fix it,” she
says. “People won’t necessarily feel comfortable
to report hazards as they’re being experienced
without fear of repercussions.”
She notes that it is not just about responding
to risk but investing in prevention and proactively
looking for opportunities for improvement.
intheblack.cpaaustralia.com.au 51
