As regulation expands, psychosocial risk is becoming a more prominent feature of workplace investigations. Here’s an example of how HR can manage this process.
Drawing on a fictional scenario, workplace investigator Jason Clark MAHRI offers a step-by-step view of how psychosocial risks emerge, how investigations unfold and where HR’s judgement matters most.
Context
Hallberry Health Services, a mid-sized regional healthcare provider with a mixed clinical and corporate workforce, is six months into a high-pressure digital transformation: the Hallberry Renewal Project. The board is closely watching over the project, which is operating under intense time constraints.
Within its project management team, a range of psychosocial risks are beginning to surface.
Stage one: trigger event
Two team members – Freya, a project coordinator (two years in the role), and Jack, a business analyst (newly hired) – separately lodge concerns with HR about the project management team’s culture under project director Ella.
Their allegations include:
- Ella has a haphazard management style, moves the goal posts on KPIs and fails
to respond to employees’ concerns. - Unmanageable and fluctuating workloads.
- Conflicting instructions from multiple senior stakeholders, leaving employees unsure what to prioritise.
The CEO privately tells HR the transformation project “can’t afford delays”, pressing for a fast resolution. Jack and Freya’s contributions to the project are essential, and the tension caused by these issues threatens to stall progress.
You’ve been called in to investigate this matter. Where would you start?
Response:
Jason: At this early stage, I would take a step back. The allegations are fairly vague, and because psychosocial risk is such a broad term, it’s easy to reach for an ‘investigation solution’ before you’re clear on what process you actually need to follow – and what might be the best fit.
I would start with a preliminary assessment, interviewing Freya and Jack separately to gather more detail. The point is to understand what they’re experiencing, what they can point to specifically and whether, if substantiated, the behaviour amounts to a breach of policy or code of conduct. Otherwise, what you’re looking at is a work design and governance problem that needs a different intervention.
It’s also worth acknowledging that Freya and Jack will not always see what Ella is dealing with or what pressure is coming from above. You need to slow down long enough to understand the context before committing people to an adversarial and less strategic process that may not match the circumstances.
Stage two: preliminary assessment
HR conducts separate interviews with Jack and Freya, and finds Freya is visibly distressed and she expresses concerns about her excessive work load. Jack fears being seen as “not coping” in his probation period and requests confidentiality.
Both report a lack of role clarity and control throughout the project, which they say is impacting their wellbeing.
They provide evidence of Ella dismissing concerns about their workloads, and missing or cancelling scheduled check-ins.
HR also notes that several other employees in the team have abruptly taken personal leave recently.
HR recommends some interim controls, including temporary workload distribution, referring affected employees to the company’s employee assistance program and pausing tight project deadlines.
However, the CEO argues that pausing deadlines will jeopardise the project and wants HR to “keep things calm until we see if there’s anything serious here”.
What would you do next?
Response:
Jason: It’s important to remember that employers have an obligation to minimise psychosocial risks so far as reasonably practical. The outcome of the preliminary assessment indicates there is more going on than general dissatisfaction. Visible distress, evidence that concerns have been dismissed and a broader pattern of unplanned leave all indicate psychosocial risk is already present, warranting a formal investigation.
The focus now should be deciding how to manage that risk while next steps are determined, which includes pressing ahead with the interim controls.
In responding to the CEO, I would emphasise that this is an issue of risk management. There may be pressure to keep pushing the project forward, but if the risk is left unaddressed it is likely to impact the project anyway, whether through further burnout, absenteeism or people escalating concerns externally.
AHRI’s Investigating Workplace Misconduct course outlines the skills to assess complaints, gather corroborative information and make decisions based on investigation outcomes.
Stage three: evidence and fact-finding
Business leaders agree to implement the interim controls and launch a formal investigation.
During the fact-finding and review process, investigators gather further evidence of systemic and interpersonal risks, including:
- Project communications with unclear task assignments and priorities.
- Multiple stakeholders providing contradictory feedback.
- Documentation showing repeated escalations about unreasonable workloads.
- Exit interview comments mentioning burnout and “fear of calling out issues”.
The evidence indicates a strong pattern of cumulative psychological harm. What would you do next?
“The fact that some witnesses see the work environment as normal doesn’t mean there’s no issue. In fact, it often points to risk becoming embedded and normalised.” – Jason Clark, MAHRI
Response:
Jason: Now a pattern of psychosocial risk has been established, HR’s job is to build recommendations around each issue to reduce or mitigate risk.
For example, unclear task allocation and shifting priorities need to be addressed directly with those responsible for assigning work. If multiple stakeholders are providing competing instructions, there needs to be clarity about who has decision-making authority and
who is responsible for feedback on deliverables.
The same applies to the fear of speaking up. Even if some of the concerns are not specific enough to support formal findings, the fact that people are reluctant to escalate issues tells you something important about the culture.
Those themes should be captured in the reporting and used to inform recommendations around how concerns about workload, fatigue and behaviour are raised and addressed in practice.
The aim here is not to resolve everything through the investigation itself, but to use what has been uncovered to reduce the risk going forward.
Stage four: interviews
The investigators conduct formal interviews with:
- The affected parties (Jack and Freya)
- Witnesses (four project team members)
- The respondent (Ella)
A number of challenges arise during the interview process. Freya becomes visibly distressed mid-interview and needs to reschedule. Jack is reluctant to speak due to his probation fears.
Meanwhile, witness accounts vary. Some downplay issues as “normal for this kind of service”, while others suggest Freya is challenging to work with and “can’t hack it”.
What would you do next?
Response:
Jason: This mix of responses is not unusual. When people are burnt out or fearful, they often struggle to articulate their experiences coherently.
The fact that some witnesses see the work environment as normal doesn’t mean there’s no issue. In fact, it often points to risk becoming embedded and normalised.
In Jack’s case, it may be appropriate to consider whether he can participate anonymously, but that needs to be handled carefully. If his concerns relate to one-on-one interactions with Ella, it will be difficult to protect his identity once those issues are put to her, and that needs to be explained to him transparently.
Confidentiality should be managed to an extent that is practical, but he needs to understand what that means for how his concerns can be progressed.
HR should also remember that evidence doesn’t need to meet a formal threshold to be meaningful. Even where accounts don’t lead to concrete findings, emerging themes about management, complaint handling and individual experiences should still inform psychosocial safety efforts going forward.
Stage five: outcome and recommendations
Investigators recommend targeted interventions to address the hazards identified.
The board questions how the project got “this far off the rails” without earlier escalation. The COO pushes for softer framing, concerned about reputational impacts on the business.
What would you do next?
Response:
Jason: HR should make it clear to the COO that situations like this are usually an early warning sign of issues in the broader environment.
The instinct to soften the messaging is understandable, but softer messages only distract from what the organisation has been put on notice about.
The reputational risks are far higher if someone goes outside the organisation and pursues a stop bullying application or raises concerns with a safety regulator, triggering an external investigation.
The more constructive way to frame it is that the organisation is responding to employee concerns, taking them seriously and addressing the risks in a way that supports their safety and project delivery.
Stage six: aftercare and long-term monitoring
Six months on, the project is running fairly smoothly. Deadlines are more realistic and roles are clearer. Ella remains in a modified leadership role and, after coaching, is distributing workloads more effectively.
However, the recovery is uneven. A new reporting requirement triggers a scramble to re-prioritise tasks, and old patterns briefly resurface: late-night emails, terse meeting exchanges and a noticeable dip in team energy.
What should aftercare look like in this situation?
Response:
Jason: Many organisations underestimate the work involved in aftercare. An investigation may identify risks, but it doesn’t resolve them, and it certainly doesn’t guarantee old patterns won’t re-emerge. That’s why ongoing attention and workforce consultation to identify risks and controls matters.
Regular check-ins allow issues to be picked up before they escalate, and create space for people to raise concerns while trust may still be fragile.
It may also be useful to run a targeted employee survey soon after the investigation to get baseline data on whether the environment has improved.
Crucially, psychosocial risk management doesn’t end with recommendations. It requires ongoing transparency, communication and follow-through.
The real test of whether the process has worked is not whether the investigation is neatly tied up, but whether the organisation has built the capacity to notice risk earlier and respond before it causes harm again.
This article first appeared in the Feb-March 2026 edition of HRM Magazine. All information, content and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. The contents of this article do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such.
AHRI’s Investigating Workplace Misconduct course outlines the skills to assess complaints, gather corroborative information and make decisions based on investigation outcomes.
