Psychosocial Hazards Part II: What Leaders Can Do Now

In Part I of this 2-part series, I presented a primer on psychosocial hazards (PSHs) for readers who might be unfamiliar with or are simply interested in learning more about this topic. As a quick refresher, PSHs are “these aspects of work organisation, design and management that have the potential to cause harm to individual health and safety…as well as other adverse organisational outcomes such as sickness absence, reduced productivity or human error.”i In Part II, I’ll pick up where I left off and provide more information about what are and are not considered to be PSHs. Next, I’ll talk about the substantial costs associated with uncontrolled exposure to PSHs at both the organizational and individual levels. I’ll touch briefly on the concept of psychological safety and the need for a culture characterized as high in psychological safety as a foundational pillar for organizations interested in incorporating PSHs under Occupational Health and Safety (OHS). Finally, I’ll offer some best practices that organizations and leaders can adopt now to begin mitigating the detrimental effects of PSHs in the workplace.

There are many sources that provide long lists of examples of PSHs in the workplace.ii In the table below, I’ll present examples of PSHs across three generally recognized categories: 1) how the work is organized, 2) social factors at work, and 3) work environment and hazardous tasks. 

Psychosocial Graph


After reviewing these lists, you might be asking yourself if there are any workplace factors that are NOT considered to be PSHs. Certainly, from an organizational and eventually a regulatory standpoint, there is work to be done in setting parameters for reliably discriminating between PSHs that do and do not require investigation and intervention. Without fail, work will continue to include events that do not require action such as minor disagreements, discourteousness, and short-term stressors such as increased production demands. However, there are dimensions of PSHs that organizations should consider in determining whether to act. For example, if staffing levels fluctuate around holidays or the beginning of hunting season because of unexpected callouts, but staffing shortages are infrequent and short-lived, then organizations may determine that no improvements are warranted. However, if staffing levels are chronically low and co-occur with related factors such as extended periods of mandatory overtime, then possibly the duration of exposure to the PSH (i.e., insufficient staffing levels) is one dimension that tips the scales in favor of intervention. Another dimension for consideration is the severity of the PSH to which employees are exposed. For example, a disagreement between a supervisor and their manager may not necessarily warrant action. However, if one or both parties initiated bullying and threats of violence, then the PSH would have the potential for serious psychological harm and should be targeted as a priority. 

 

My intention is not to offer a guide for determining whether PSHs do or do not have the potential to cause serious physical and/or psychological harm, but to highlight the issue and offer some initial thoughts about ways to differentiate one from the other. It may (or may not) be that some factors that do require intervention only differ from those that don’t in terms of duration of exposure and severity. Everything unpleasant and frustrating in the workplace can’t be a PSH that management should address. Just because there aren’t clear guidelines at present doesn’t mean organizations should sidestep the issue, because clarity will only come from beginning the discussion and making adjustments over time. 

The Toll of PSHs

In a recent poll ADI conducted, only 39% of participants were familiar with the term psychosocial hazards, and only 12% of respondents reported they currently use the term in their organizations. These numbers are small when contrasted with the economic and personal cost of exposure to PSHs in the workplace (vs. PSHs encountered at home). With regard to the organizational costs of allowing ongoing exposure to PSHs (i.e., if organizations did nothing), impacts include absenteeism, presenteeism (showing up to work but demonstrating suboptimal performance due to physical or psychological illness), low motivation, turnover, illness and injury, poor organizational culture, disability claims, and decreased customer satisfaction, to name a few.ii Research conducted around 2018iii estimated that unmitigated exposure to certain PSHs cost the U.S. Healthcare system almost $200 billion, and was the fifth leading cause of death in the United States. Anecdotally, many of our clients contact us requesting assistance with improving organizational (or safety) culture and/or addressing high rates of turnover. Outside of contributing factors such as noncompetitive pay, these organizational challenges are undoubtedly, at least in part, the result of uncontrolled exposure to one or more PSHs that comprise a “toxic” work environment. While our survey regarding familiarity with the term PSH was far from exhaustive, the findings were consistent with other informationiiv indicating that currently the topic of PSHs does not show up prominently on organizations’ radar in the U.S. 

Psychological Safety as the Foundation

As part of the consulting work ADI does in safety, we work often with our clients to build or improve reporting and feedback systems that can be used to escalate barriers to desired safety behaviors. A barrier refers to any workplace factor that prevents or discourages safe behavior at any level, including features of the workplace that fall under the PSH umbrella. The thing is, employees (at any level) rarely formally report barriers that are listed in the PSH table above using available organizational reporting systems. In my experience, people are much more likely to escalate barriers like unsafe physical conditions (e.g., an exposed wire) rather than those of a psychosocial nature (e.g., excessive production pressure, lack of positive or negative accountability). And if they do report, the PSHs are often ignored, dismissed, or don’t fit neatly into the reporting structure offered by the reporting system (e.g., attempting to report insufficient leader use of positive reinforcement using near miss or work order systems). If an organization makes the shift to including PSHs under OSH, it will need a way to measure and track the occurrence (and resolution) of PSHs, like reporting systems for near misses do. For measurement and tracking to be possible, an organization needs both the availability of reporting systems that are designed to capture factors like PSHs, and more importantly, a culture where people at all levels are willing to report PSHs and feel safe doing so. The latter is characterized as psychological safety.

Psychological safety is defined in the following way:

A belief that neither the formal nor informal consequences of interpersonal risks, like asking for help or admitting failure, will be punitive…Psychological safety exists when people feel their workplace is an environment where they can speak up, offer ideas, and ask questions without fear of being punished or embarrassed.v (p.15)

I suggest that the cornerstone for successfully incorporating PSHs under OSH is developing and maintaining an organizational culture characterized as high in psychological safety. There is the potential for increased personal risk (e.g., being labeled as a complainer or being perceived as weak and incompetent) when reporting PSHs (e.g., machine pacing is too fast, insufficient communication and support during a change initiative), relative to that associated with reporting unsafe conditions (e.g., slick floor). To stimulate and maintain the behavior of reporting (PSHs or anything), organizations need to respond in a way that increases the likelihood that people will continue to report in the future, AKA they need to use positive reinforcement for honest reporting. Positive reinforcement may take the form of following up quickly with a person or group, gathering more information from and listening to those impacted, including stakeholders in developing a solution, and implementing control strategies in a timely manner. If you want people to continue to report something, they need to have a good experience (i.e., feel psychologically safe, see improvements implemented) when they report. Organizations and leaders need to respond well, even if they don’t like what’s being reported. That said, it’s beyond the scope of this blog to go into further detail about psychological safety and what organizations can do to drive fear out of their culture. Without necessarily using the term psychological safety, helping organizations use more positive and effective leadership approaches, which decrease fear and mitigate exposure to PSHs, has been fundamental to the work ADI has done since its inception (see also Amy Edmondson’s The Fearless OrganizationIV). In the final section, I’ll will offer further suggestions for what organizations and leaders can do now to begin addressing PSHs in the workplace.

What To Do Now

The overarching goal for organizations is not just to create workplaces where PSHs that cause serious harm are absent, but to create environments where systems, processes, and practices that actively promote and enhance employee well-being are present. There are no silver-bullet solutions to the challenge of PSHs, but there are some initial steps organizations and leaders can begin taking now (beyond creating a culture of psychological safety) to realize improvements in this area. 

Provide Direction. Organizations can begin by incorporating language related to PSHs and employee well-being into organizational values and ongoing messaging. Formally including these focus areas will prompt action on management’s part, such as resource allocation, and increase accountability needed to support the change. Once organizational values are stated, organizations are tasked with clarifying (referred to as pinpointing) behaviors and practices that are consistent with or in service of their values. For example, best practices for management related to PSHs may include establishing new, or modifying existing, systems and processes needed to accommodate reporting and tracking functionalities. Management may also develop and provide resources such as training and implementation support at all levels to raise awareness around PSHs and prepare people to report. 

Be a Coach. In terms of more effective coaching and mentoring, critical behaviors for management may include activities involved in developing a relationship with their people, such as asking for input, listening, and following through on commitments. Effective leaders also set their people up for success by providing necessary resources, including training, clear expectations, tools and equipment, staffing, and reasonable timelines. Management can also incorporate more effective science-based leadership practices into their approach, including providing both positive and constructive feedback to direct reports on a consistent basis. 

Increase Predictability. One of the most common complaints we hear from clients is poor top-down communication. Frontline supervisors and frontline employees often report they don’t hear about near misses or safety incidents, and that information related to change initiatives is absent or insufficient. A commonly reported PSH is lack of control or input into the work. When leaders develop a process for regularly providing information about safety, production, or other areas of interest, employees feel included and informed. Where possible, when leaders solicit input on problems and solutions before implementing organizational changes, employees report feeling they have a say and that management listens to them. Beyond improving communication, leaders can also provide necessary training and coaching to support the behavior changes that accompany systems and process changes.

These improvements represent a starting point that allow organizations and leaders to begin addressing PSHs in the workplace now. Some of these approaches prepare organizations to react appropriately when PSHs are identified and reported. Other suggestions are proactive steps organizations can adopt to prevent the occurrence of PSHs through implementation of more effective leadership practices (e.g., more positive feedback and reinforcement; asking for input and increasing communication) that are inconsistent with PSHs (e.g., absence of positive feedback and reinforcement for desired behaviors; lack of control or input into the work). Integration of PSHs into the realm of OSH seems inevitable. While measuring, tracking, and addressing PSHs may seem like daunting tasks, organizations have been pursuing more effective, science-based leadership practices ever since there were organizations in need of leadership. The need isn’t new even though the framework may be. As mentioned in Part I of this series, I suggest that the framework for discussing PSHs and well-being is useful and offers an interesting perspective organizations might consider adopting sooner rather than later.


I. Jain, A., Hassard, J., Leka, S., DiTecco, C., & Iavicoli, S. (2017). The role of occupational health services in psychosocial risk management and the promotion of mental health and well-being at work. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(7), 3632.

II. Cobb, E.P. (2022). Managing psychosocial hazards and work-related stress in today’s work environment: International insights for U.S. Organizations. Taylor & Francis: New York and London; ISO 45003: 2021 Whitepaper. Psychosocial health and safety at work: Guidelines for management of psychosocial riskshttps://blackmoresuk.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/ISO-45003-Whitepaper.pdf.

III. Pfeffer, J. (2018). Dying for a paycheck: How modern management harms employee health and company performance – and what we can do about itNew York: HarperBusiness.

IV. Yamada, D.C. (2024). Expanding coverage of the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Act to protect workers from severe psychological harm. Suffolk University Law Review, 56, 393-410http://ssrn.com/abstract=4619333 

V. Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The fearless organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, New Jersey.

Posted by Bart Sevin, Ph.D.

Specializing in performance and systems analysis and the development of behavior-based implementation strategies, Bart Sevin helps clients create long-term organizational change.  As a highly trained and experienced Board Certified Behavior Analyst, Bart helps organizations examine systems, processes, and people strategies to ensure that their motivational initiatives are aligned to promote business success and drive their desired outcomes.