Psychosocial hazards in organizations – some ideas for systemic change

In the management of health and safety, statistics sometimes seem to become an end in themselves. For instance, I have been frustrated when discussions in OHS-meetings about sick-leave statistics stranded with the conclusion: “It will probably settle next month”. No further questions were asked, leaving me wondering: Why are we here, then? I think we can do better. In this piece, I will specifically focus on dealing with psychosocial hazards in organizations.

Psychosocial hazards in the workplace arise from systemic and individual factors. These are not hazards to just delegate to external health practitioners. Strategic design of work environments—including teamwork, coaching, and systemic reforms can support meaningful, autonomous work that aligns individual well-being with organizational goals. Addressing psychosocial risks is both a legal and ethical obligation, and a way to sustainable productivity and workforce satisfaction.

?

Psychosocial hazards in organizations

Psychosocial hazards arise from both the nature of the work itself (content) and the organizational environment (context). Content-related risks include workload, pace, and predictability of tasks, while context-related risks have to do with factors such as organizational culture, interpersonal relationships, and work–life balance. Important stressors include job strain, lack of supervisor and co-worker support, effort-reward imbalance, job insecurity, and workplace bullying. The effects of these hazards are far-reaching. They extend beyond mental health outcomes, and include physical issues like musculoskeletal injuries and cardiovascular problems.?

Rigid hierarchical frameworks with inflexible rules and procedures often exacerbate psychosocial risks by creating unclear role expectations, unequal workloads, and a lack of autonomy (Bosetzky & Heinrich, 1994). When secondary tasks like administrative burdens overshadow meaningful work, employees may feel disconnected from their core responsibilities. Addressing these challenges requires systemic changes, including:

• Clearer role definitions and responsibilities.
• Fairer workload distribution.
• A focus on meaningful, autonomous work.

?

Teamwork as a solution—and a risk

Systemic changes, such as improved role clarity, often intersect with teamwork structures, which can either mitigate or exacerbate psychosocial risks. Teamwork is a frequently proposed solution to psychosocial risks. It has benefits like improved flexibility, decision-making, and morale. The effectiveness of teamwork depends on how it is structured and managed. Self-managed teams in environments that require adaptive decision-making can improve job satisfaction and mental health by providing autonomy, interdependence, and meaningful tasks (Parker & Williams, 2002). Conversely, tightly controlled teams, such as those in Lean Production models, can intensify workload without corresponding benefits, leading to increased stress and reduced autonomy. Organizations must ensure readiness for teamwork by fostering a culture that supports autonomy and aligning team design with task requirements.

?

Coaching and supervision - support or systemic reinforcement??

Coaching and supervision are often employed to address stress and enhance employee resilience. However, focusing solely on individual adaptation can inadvertently reinforce systemic inequalities (Kühl, 2008; Maasen et al., 2011). To be effective coaching programs should balance individual support with systemic interventions, such as improving communication channels and redesigning workloads. Supervision should avoid framing systemic challenges as individual shortcomings, instead addressing the organizational issues involved.

?

Improving teamwork to reduce psychosocial risks

Research shows that it is important to align team structures with organizational goals and readiness. Teams with greater autonomy, skill variety, and interdependence report improved mental health and productivity (Parker & Williams, 2002). Standardized surveys can help identify and address workplace risks, but what happens next is the most important: Eliminating or minimizing hazards through good work design, engineering controls, and clear anti-harassment policies. For instance, structured outreach and cognitive-behavioral interventions have been shown to reduce absenteeism among depressed workers (Nieuwenhuijsen et al., 2020).

?

Designing for well-being

Organizations play a central role in either exacerbating or mitigating psychosocial risks. Employees should get some control over work hours and tasks while accommodating individual preferences. Wellness initiatives should not be used as substitutes for systemic hazard control (Safe Work Australia, 2019). Finally, the impact of interventions on employee well-being and organizational performance should be assessed regularly.

To translate this understanding into actionable strategies, here’s how OHS meetings can address these challenges more effectively. Instead of having the agenda item “sick-leave statistics”, we can opt for "Analysis of sick-leave patterns," "Review of psychosocial hazards," and "Proposed interventions". Control charts can be used to counter the assumption that patterns are always random. Statistics can be supplemented with qualitative data, such as employee feedback or incident reports, to provide a fuller picture. Are workload imbalances, lack of supervisor support, or workplace bullying part of it? A safe space is needed to get people to talk about these issues. By supporting open discussions about teamwork, role clarity, and workload distribution, organizations can create environments where employees thrive.

?

References:

- Bosetzky, H., Heinrich, P. (1994), Mensch und Organisation – Aspekte bürokratischer Sozialisation – Eine praxisorientierte Einführung in die Soziologie und die Sozialpsychologie der Verwaltung, 5. überarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage, Deutscher Gemeindeverlag, Verlag W. Kohlhammer.

- Kühl, S. (2008), Coaching und Supervision – Zur personenorientierte Beratung in Organisationen, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

- Maasen, S.,?Elberfeld, J,?Eitler, P.,?T?ndler, M. (eds., 2011),?Das?beratene?Selbst?-?Zur?Genealogie der?Therapeutisierung?in den langen?Siebzigern, Bielefeld: transcript Verlag.

- Nieuwenhuijsen, K., Verbeek, J.H., Neumeyer-Gromen, A.; Verhoeven, A.C., Bültmann, U., Faber, B. (2020), "Interventions to Improve Return to Work in Depressed People", in: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

- Parker, S. K., & Williams, H. M. (2002), Effective Teamworking: Reducing the Psychosocial Risks, Health & Safety Executive.

- Safe Work Australia (2019), Work-related psychological health and safety A systematic approach to meeting your duties - National guidance material.