Role ambiguity, restructures, AI and high-pressure cultures can all create psychosocial risks, but the right response isn’t always obvious. Workplace wellbeing expert Tanya Heaney-Voogt explains how HR can respond with practical, risk-based strategies that support both employees and organisational performance.

The questions I hear most often about psychosocial safety don’t have black-and-white answers. That’s because psychosocial risks are shaped by context – the nature of the work, the people involved and the way work is designed and managed. 

What works in one organisation, team or situation may not be appropriate in another, which is why effective psychosocial risk management relies on thoughtful assessment rather than a checklist approach.

At the same time, uncertainty shouldn’t become an excuse for inaction. Organisations don’t need to eliminate every source of stress or predict every future challenge. Instead, they need to identify reasonably foreseeable risks, consult with workers and implement practical controls that reduce the likelihood and severity of harm.

Here are my answers to some of the questions I hear from HR teams about navigating psychosocial safety in today’s world of work.

1. Role ambiguity is a well-documented psychosocial hazard, yet many leaders unknowingly create it. How would you help a senior leader recognise and take accountability for the downstream psychological impact of unclear direction?

Role clarity is blurring as many workplaces attempt to bridge the resources-versus-demands gap and role scope flexes. A lack of role clarity fosters anxiety and creates inefficiencies potentially resulting in both a psychological and business impact. 

This can be improved by helping leaders understand what role ambiguity is, how to improve role clarity (through regular 1:1s and psychological safety so people can comfortably seek clarity when needed) and the use of tools such as the RACI for project teams or complex tasks and prioritisation tools. 

Lack of clarity on priorities exacerbates issues such as high job demands. Essentially, start with education and then provide tools and templates to help them make change where needed.

2. What is the most effective way to support a high‑potential early‑career employee who is going through personal difficulties and showing signs of reduced performance?

Firstly, with compassion. If you want to keep staff engaged and feeling valued and supported, then having empathy for the significant life challenges we all experience from time to time goes a long way. 

It’s important to recognise that in this circumstance their capacity may be reduced – i.e they may be unable to absorb as much challenge as they were previously capable of because of the drain on their personal resources as they manage their personal situation.  

Secondly, with support. Have the conversation about what that person needs. Ensure all adequate supports are provided to them, enhance their personal resources and skillset through access to therapeutic interventions (EAP), or training that may introduce new coping tools into their toolkit. Consider a mentor – someone who has experienced difficulties and overcome them, who can bring good strategies and lived experience to the table. 

Thirdly, with curiosity. Sense check performance and role expectations – are they reasonable, or is there an opportunity to do some job crafting here? More than one thing can be true – they may be working in a reduced capacity due to personal circumstances, and job demands may also be a contributing factor.

3. Is it possible to build a framework for a psychosocial action plan that meets all state requirements when your company has multi-state sites?

This would be a mapping exercise to ensure all requirements are being picked up and reported on. While language may differ for some psychosocial hazards, the intent and response will be the same.  

Regulators across all jurisdictions will want to see material progress and genuine actions to identify and address risks, plus systems in place to ensure risk reviews and follow-ups.  

It will be your responsibility to ensure the highest level of requirement is being met – so perhaps map to the highest level, and that’s your umbrella across all states. Some mandatory reporting obligations may change depending on the state, so be sure to include those.

This would be a wise conversation to have with a couple of regulators across the jurisdictions you occupy to ensure you cover off all requirements. 

“Changes such as mergers and restructures will create widespread discomfort and more demands on usual support structures. Planning for this early on will be essential.”

4. We know peak workloads are inevitable in successful businesses. At what point does a high-pressure, high-achievement culture cross the line into a regulated psychosocial hazard, and what is the trigger for this becoming a critical Board-level liability?

There are some nuances to this, particularly in terms of people’s coping thresholds and job resources. However, from a regulatory perspective, if you know you have a high-pressure, high-achievement culture, then you already know that job demands present a psychosocial hazard in your work environment. It’s like knowing you have a staircase in the workspace: it’s there. What are you doing to make it safe? What protective measures do you have in place? What consultation are you having with staff about this hazard and whether it is creating any impact? 

Part of your risk assessment should include (via consultation) assessment of how frequently the workload is excessive: when it happens, how long is it excessive for, and how severe the impact is. Then, what ideas do your people have for managing this reality?

Your risk rating after appropriate assessment would likely determine whether it is a Board-level liability. Remember, psychosocial hazards rarely exist in isolation, therefore other hazards need to be factored into the equation when determining risk ratings.

5. What’s one thing organisations consistently underestimate when trying to implement psychosocial safety in practice?

In my opinion, this is a change piece that requires people to adapt to new ways of thinking, being and doing – not merely a technical requirement to be pushed out.

There are also a lot of myths and misunderstandings about things such as stress and often conflation of the term ‘unsafe’, which often leaves leaders feeling very insecure in their role and can cause internal resistance. Education is essential to create common language and understanding. 

Read Tanya Heaney-Voogt’s article on how to differentiate between stress, stretch and psychosocial risk.

6. How do you maintain psychosocial safety standards during significant organisational change – such as a merger, restructure, or rapid growth – when usual support structures are disrupted?

Any good change management approach involves a detailed assessment of impacted parties.
This assessment will help prioritise support efforts and activities if these are constrained during such disruptions. 

The degree of support provided should directly correlate to the degree of impact. If this thinking and review is done as part of a change planning phase, this can highlight gaps in support early on and enable other supports/guidance to be sourced or procured.

Additionally, being aware of known high-risk areas prior to the change will help keep focus on these as additional psychosocial hazards come into play and compound (such as job insecurity, poorly managed change, lack of leadership support etc). These activities are well thought out and actioned communication and consultation strategies.

Changes such as mergers and restructures will create widespread discomfort and more demands on usual support structures. Planning for this early on will be essential.  

7. As AI increasingly automates tasks and reshapes job roles, how do you anticipate managing the psychosocial risks that come with it – such as job insecurity, loss of purpose, and the pressure to continuously reskill?

These challenges are emergent and complex and reflect the dynamic world of work. From a risk perspective, this highlights the need to continue to identify, assess and mitigate psychosocial risks. Things change and psychosocial risk management is fluid not static. Each organisation will need to assess things in their own context using the skills and knowledge currently being developed in psychological health and safety. 

From a people perspective, supporting people to build adaptive capacity is a useful activity leaving us all better placed to respond to emerging changes, whatever these may be. However, this does not remove the organisational requirement to identify, assess and control risks that may arise in the future associated with new technologies or other changes.

Tanya Heaney-Voogt is a speaker, consultant, trainer and author who partners with CEOs, senior leaders, and People, Culture and Safety teams to create meaningful change that drives both wellbeing and performance.

🧰 HR’s career resource toolkit

• Learning: Gain the knowledge and skills needed to navigate the complex landscape of psychosocial wellbeing in the workplace with AHRI’s Psychosocial Code of Practice course.
• Article: 7 HR practices that enhance psychosocial health in the workplace.
• Article: Expert tips for conducting a psychosocial risk assessment.