Sent in by a subscriber

An organisation launches a psychosocial safety campaign. Workers complete another survey, supervisors attend another briefing, and everyone receives a reminder to look after their mental health. Meanwhile, staffing remains inadequate, deadlines remain unrealistic, and the person who raises concerns is described as having a poor attitude.

This hypothetical workplace has acquired a new safety programme. Its workers have acquired another task.

The growing attention to psychosocial hazards creates an opportunity to improve working life. It also raises an uncomfortable question: can the way an organisation implements safety itself contribute to psychological harm?

Yes, it can. A process does not become harmless because someone has labelled it “safety”. Its effects depend on what it asks of people, how much control they have, how they are treated and what happens when they challenge it.

Safe Work Australia identifies excessive job demands, low job control, poor support and poor organisational justice among workplace psychosocial hazards. Safety activities deserve scrutiny against those same hazards. An inspection, investigation or reporting requirement can be useful while still being implemented in a way that creates additional risk.

Consider a worker expected to complete overlapping checklists, attend compulsory briefings and enter the same information into several systems, while meeting an unchanged production target. Each requirement may appear reasonable to the department that introduced it. Together, they may leave the worker without enough time to complete the job properly.

If management responds to the resulting shortcuts by adding another form, the burden grows. The worker carries the conflict between production expectations and administrative demands, then faces criticism whichever obligation slips.

Documentation has an essential place in safety. Permits, isolation checks and clear records can help prevent catastrophic harm. The question is whether each requirement serves a practical purpose and whether workers have the time, resources and support to fulfil it. Removing duplication requires judgement, consultation and protection of necessary controls.

The same scrutiny belongs in incident investigations. Imagine reporting a near miss, then being repeatedly questioned as though the outcome proves incompetence. Your explanation is interrupted, colleagues hear details that should have remained private, and weeks pass without anyone explaining what happens next.

That is an illustrative scenario, not evidence that every investigation causes harm. It does show how a process intended to improve safety could introduce fear, uncertainty and humiliation. The immediate incident may be over while distress associated with its handling continues.

Safe Work Australia’s guidance on poor organisational justice identifies unfair or inconsistently applied procedures, mishandled personal information and blame for matters outside a worker’s control as potential problems. Those concerns apply to safety management as much as any other management activity.

An investigation can be rigorous and respectful. Explain its purpose, provide appropriate support, protect confidentiality, keep people informed and give them a fair opportunity to respond. Where accountability is necessary, establish the facts and consider the circumstances. A “no blame” slogan offers little protection if the actual process is threatening or unfair. Equally, invoking “the system” should not excuse bullying or prevent examination of harmful management decisions.

Safety language also deserves attention. What does “zero harm” mean to the person who has just been injured? Does it communicate a commitment to prevention, or do management’s reactions make that person feel they have spoiled the organisation’s record?

The answer depends on how the aspiration is used. A slogan alone does not establish psychological harm. But when injury-free targets affect rewards, reputation or a manager’s standing, organisations should examine whether workers feel pressure to remain silent. A fall in reports cannot, by itself, demonstrate a fall in harm.

SafetyRisk.net has previously explored these concerns in Could Zero Harm be Unlawful?. The useful question for a workplace is specific: what happens to someone who reports an injury, admits uncertainty or challenges a safety decision?

This matters because psychosocial risk management and psychological safety are related, but different. Psychosocial risk management addresses working conditions that can harm health. Psychological safety commonly concerns whether people feel able to take interpersonal risks, such as asking questions or admitting mistakes. Readers can explore that distinction through SafetyRisk.net’s discussion of psychological health and safety.

A team may speak openly and still suffer excessive workloads. Another may have manageable workloads but punish disagreement. Organisations need to examine both the conditions of work and the relationships through which work is managed.

That includes how they collect information about wellbeing. A survey needs a credible explanation of who can see responses and what action will follow. In a small team, workers may reasonably question whether supposedly anonymous comments could identify them. Compulsory personal disclosures or intrusive monitoring deserve particular scrutiny. Asking for trust creates a responsibility to behave trustworthily.

There is also a danger in treating distress mainly as a shortage of individual resilience. Counselling, peer support and mental health education can be valuable. Their value does not remove the need to address unreasonable workloads, humiliating supervision or unresolved conflict. A worker should not have to become better at tolerating conditions the organisation could improve.

An additional ethical danger arises when the language of hazard management is applied to the person. Describing someone as “a psychosocial hazard” can reduce a human being to a problem to be controlled. Their circumstances, relationships, dignity and capacity to contribute disappear behind a risk label. Once that label takes hold, surveillance, exclusion or removal may begin to look like care.

Consider a worker who reports anxiety after months of unreasonable demands. If management identifies the distressed worker as the hazard, its attention may shift towards monitoring their reactions or moving them elsewhere, while leaving the workload untouched. The person experiencing harm becomes the focus of correction. A similar reversal occurs when someone who challenges a safety practice is labelled a threat to the safety culture.

There is a crucial ethical distinction between identifying harmful conduct and defining a person by it. Bullying, threats and violence require action, and protecting those exposed may require restricting someone’s duties or removing them from a situation. Fair accountability should describe the conduct, consider the evidence and context, and protect those affected while respecting everyone’s dignity. Recognising personhood does not excuse misconduct.

A diagnosis, disability, expression of distress or willingness to disagree should never substitute for evidence about a specific risk. Ethical safety practice involves people in decisions that affect them, protects private information and gives them a fair opportunity to be heard. Its language should help us understand what is happening and what needs to change, without turning the person into an object of elimination.

None of this means every unwelcome instruction is a psychosocial hazard or every uncomfortable conversation is harmful. Stopping dangerous work, enforcing an isolation requirement or addressing misconduct may be necessary. Risk assessment must consider the nature of the exposure, its severity, frequency and duration, and how hazards interact. Respectful management still involves difficult decisions.

For safety teams, a useful starting point is to invite workers to examine safety itself. Which requirements help them manage real risks? Which create conflicting demands? What happens when a procedure cannot be followed in practice? Can they question a safety officer without being labelled difficult? What support do they receive after reporting an incident?

Then act on what emerges. Remove unnecessary duplication, provide time for essential checks and redesign procedures with the people who use them. Review investigation practices and reporting incentives. Give concerns an escalation route that does not depend entirely on the person whose conduct is being questioned. Explain what changed and why.

Evaluate those changes through workers’ experience as well as administrative records. Survey completion, training attendance and closed corrective actions tell us that activities occurred. They do not establish whether people have more manageable work, fairer treatment or greater confidence to speak.

Safety practitioners also need adequate resources and support. Giving an already overstretched adviser responsibility for every psychological problem, without authority to influence staffing or management behaviour, creates another impossible job. Senior leaders remain responsible for the decisions that shape working conditions.

Before launching the next psychosocial campaign, an organisation could ask its workers one revealing question: “What do we do in the name of safety that makes your working life harder, more frightening or less fair?”

The answer may challenge some cherished practices. How the organisation receives it will say more about its commitment to care than the campaign itself.