Don't ask "what's enough", but "what's next" with psychosocial safety

Source - HR Daily (28.07.2025) - subscription service

Many employers are confused about whether they're doing "enough" to meet their psychosocial safety obligations, but according to a workplace culture specialist it's better to focus on what could be done next.

Recent roundtable discussions, with HR leaders in organisations with a variety of risk profiles, indicate that most are "grappling with the same types of issues", says Bendelta leadership and change practitioner Kirsty Harvison.

These conversations mostly involved Victorian employers, ahead of that State's regulations being introduced later this year, but their concerns reflect many of those that HR Daily anecdotally hears expressed in organisations that have had to comply for some time.

According to Harvison, there's widespread understanding among employers that the way work is designed and managed needs to shift, but also widespread uncertainty about exactly what that means.

A question that comes up is, "How do we know when we've done enough?", she tells HR Daily.

"Well, actually, you're not going to know," she says. "So you need to be looking at, 'What have we done?", then consider what further improvements are possible.

It's about creating a safe place of work for everyone, but she says, "I always put that regulatory lens on to say, 'Well, if a regulator was coming, what can we show them that we've actually done?'".

If the answer is that roles and risk have been mapped, and that forums where people can raise issues have been held, with a view to better work culture and work design, "that's a really good start".

Middle managers key

A "really big issue" that came up across the board was the role of middle managers, and in particular the protective role they can play, Harvison says.

"When we're talking about hazards arising in the workplace, it's often those frontline middle managers that actually know and see them first. They're often in the best place to engage with employees, [and] actually understand what's going on.

"But equally, they're not entirely sure whether it's their job," or what they're empowered to do, she says.

Many middle managers will require some upskilling and role clarity, Harvison says, so they understand that "part of their role is actually managing psychosocial hazards".

But there's an onus on employers to give managers "a bit more spaciousness and time to actually understand the individuals [on their teams] and to also then be able to have the conversations".

A key responsibility is the "really basic things like just checking in and seeing how [team members] are going", but even this can be "really challenging" in high-pressure environments or high-achievement cultures where there's a big focus on getting results, Harvison says.

Rather adding another brick to a line manager's "already very heavy load", a helpful question for leaders might be, "What are the 1% shifts we can make?", Harvison says.

"For example, if we're having a team meeting, can we have a conversation around an experience of wellbeing? Can we actually ask people for their views? Can we invite engagement in a different way?

"That's a starting point," she says. "But I do think there's an expectation, too, of leaders actually knowing their people individually and understanding what is going on for them in the workplace."

Importantly, she adds, "to prioritise the time, they have to get a really strong signal from senior leadership that this is what matters".

In a further article, Harvison sets out how employers can put a framework in place so that managers prioritise psychosocial safety. Premium members can click through to read it, or upgrade your basic subscription here for access.