Genuine and meaningful consultation is at the core of effective psychosocial risk management.
There has been a lot of workplace discussion surrounding the term psychosocial risk management since the announcement of Safe Work Australia’s updated WHS Regulation and model Code of Practice for managing psychosocial hazards at work, as well as the development of state based Regulations and Codes in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia.
These regulatory changes have certainly raised the profile of the term “psychosocial risk management”. However, it is a practice that has been documented, and guidance published, since the early 2000’s.
The Health and Safety Executive was one of the first health and safety Regulators to provide British workplaces with practical guidance on how to conduct a psychosocial risk assessment; through the development of a validated survey tool and focus group guide.
Whilst Australian Regulators have provided guidance as early as 2005 (e.g. Comcare’s Working Well Guide), it’s taken Australian employers some time to become aware of their obligations and to prioritise psychological health and safety.
“The change is the Australian legislative framework is intended to provide practical guidance for workplaces where workers may be exposed to psychological and social hazards such as inappropriate behaviours, violence and aggression, fatigue, burnout, stress and trauma, all of which can be harmful to health”, Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety, Western Australia, 2021.
According to Deloitte’s Regulatory Impact Statement for the Victoria Regulations Amendment, some of the reasons for employers not engaging in psychosocial risk management include:
- “A lack of understanding of employers’ obligations to control psychosocial hazards, and of the nature of those hazards
- A lack of knowledge of how to best control the risks arising from psychosocial hazards
- A lack of prioritization of mental health
- A perception that the costs of compliance exceed the benefits”.
To overcome these barriers and support Australian industry to reduce the burden and costs associated with poor workplace mental health, changes in the WHS legislation were put forward to provide a clear and consistent framework for employers on how to identify and control psychosocial risks.
However, the expertise required to effectively identify and manage psychosocial risk has yet to mature in many industries and not all organisations have the capability in house.
As a result, YES Psychology & Consulting have been approached by employers seeking to engage specialist support and guidance in the practical application of this framework.
Firstly, employers are seeking to ensure compliance and secondly, to build capability to ensure the sustainability of systems and processes implemented.
If your workplace is yet to have engaged in the psychosocial risk assessment process, it is helpful to know that the risk management approach for identifying, assessing and controlling psychosocial hazards is the same as physical hazards in the workplace (i.e. chemicals, plant, etc).
However, experience shows the psychosocial risk assessment process relies heavily on genuine and meaningful consultation with workers to 1) assist in identifying the type of psychosocial hazards present, 2) assess the level of exposure and risk potential, 3) determine the type of control measures that will eliminate or manage the risk, and 4) ensure control measures are successfully managing the risks identified.
Click to expand – more about identification, assessment, control and monitoring
Identification of psychosocial hazards
During step one of the risk assessment process, employers should identify sources of potential harm by consulting workers using multiple methods (e.g. conducting surveys, focus groups, interviews, observing the work environment, and seeking meaning to data such as workers compensation claims, absence and turnover). The collection of various means of data assists employers in seeking an understanding of the nature, extent and causes of harm. Further, it provides a benchmark at a point in time and supports the ongoing monitoring of the effectiveness of control measures implemented.
Assessment of psychosocial risk
Step two enables an assessment of the type of harm (i.e. psychological or physical injury) that may arise and the likelihood of this occurring. The analysis of organisational and work team information gleaned in step one will support this assessment and the determination of the level of risk.
When assessing the level of risk, it is important for employers to consider the nature of the hazard, the frequency and/or duration of exposure to the hazard, the type of harm the hazard has caused (and has the potential to cause into future), and the likelihood the harm will arise. It is also essential to consider how the identified psychosocial hazards may interact to increase or decrease the risk.
Determination of control measures
Once the risk of harm arising from psychosocial hazards has been assessed, a risk management plan will need to be developed. This plan needs to consider how the employer will 1) control the identified hazards and risks, 2) minimise the impact of stress on workers by responding to warning signs and intervening early, and 3) implement safe and effective rehabilitation and return to work assistance should a worker sustain harm as a result of exposure to psychosocial hazards.
The control measures determined in this step must align with the causes of the hazards identified to ensure effective outcomes. Essentially, the solution must be evidence based and address the cause/s of the problem.
Ongoing monitoring and review
Lastly, step four is where employers need to continue to monitor and review the implementation and effectiveness of control measures by measuring against the benchmark data gleaned in step one. During this step, employers will need to continue to monitor risk levels, determine whether control measures are working, and identify whether any additional risks or concerns have arisen. Agreed targets and performance indicators may also be set as measure of progress.
When considering what is reasonably practicable, the model Code of Practice for managing psychosocial hazards at work, relevant state based Codes of Practice, or the International Standard for psychological health (ISO 45003) may be used as a benchmark or minimum standard. ISO 45003 is not mandatory for employers to follow but does provide clear guidance on the processes required to systematically manage psychosocial risk in line with a safety management approach to risk.
Employers should recognise there is no requirement to become accredited, and as a result, may choose to align with the Standard as a measure of compliance and a benchmark for better practice. However, the benefit to becoming accredited is the independence of external audits, which can provide assurance to employers that the system for managing psychosocial risk is operating as intended and effectively managing the risk, or provide guidance on areas for continued improvement.
Consultation at each stage
Every step in the risk assessment process is necessary and a requirement to meet the legislative obligations. However, without genuine and meaningful consultation with workers, the process is unlikely to bring about sustainable change to the organisation’s psychosocial risk profile.
The surest way to winning the engagement and support of workers is to involve them.
As stated by the ISO 45003, “Involvement in decision-making processes can increase a worker’s motivation and commitment to contribute to psychologically healthy and safe workplaces. Being encouraged and supported to participate, rather than feeling forced to take part, is more likely to be effective and sustainable”. Consultation of this nature will ultimately lead to better decision making, sustainable solutions to the problems identified, and help to build a positive safety culture where concerns can be raised and addressed early.
To encourage participation and consultation, workers need to understand the purpose of the process and strategies to address any concerns or worries should be engaged. At times, past initiatives may not have been successful, or it may be difficult for workers to discuss psychosocial hazards where the psychological safety has not been established.
Psychological safety is critical and allows for workers to confidently speak up about the issues affecting them and design solutions that address the core of the issue. For this reason, it is important to ensure that communication is clear and transparent, processes are outlined ahead of consultation taking place, confidentiality and anonymity is discussed up front, and the consultation processes allow for participation, engagement and active and meaningful involvement.
At times, an independent person facilitating a psychosocial risk assessment can support the process of building psychological safety as the independent allows for greater anonymity and confidentiality when raising genuine concerns.
Should you wish to seek support for context driven solutions as well as buy in to the identification and management of psychosocial risk, contact us for further information.
About the Author: Teegan Modderman is a registered Psychologist, Lead Auditor, and Investigator with over 16 years experience in conducting psychosocial risk assessments in various industries. In her previous role as Director of Psychological Health for Workplace Health and Safety Queensland, Teegan was instrumental in establishing the business case for the recent legislative and regulatory reforms related to psychosocial hazards and the development of industry guidance and tools such as the Mentally healthy workplaces toolkit, handbooks for work-related violence and fatigue, and the People at Work digital platform.