The Wild West of Psychosocial Risk Management

I feel for a lot of Health, Safety and Wellbeing managers and workplace directors out there. Physical risk management itself took years and years to change the culture and understanding around. You couldn’t just ‘she’ll be right’ your way around it anymore. There were legal and personal consequences. Which were eventually enforced, heavily. Serious employee harm. Hefty fines. And consistently haemorrhaging resources and money from inadequate systems to manage and control, resulting in constant fire-fighting, never preventing.

But eventually most places got the hang of it. Understood the legislation required you needed formal qualifications, for a reason, in order to understand the breadth and depth of how to fix it. And sustain fixes, not just bandage over it as an interim measure because there was no QUALIFIED understanding, so cover it up or throw the first fix thought of at it and hope ‘she’ll be right’. It took decades to get over this kind of thinking. And training and hiring the right people. Qualified people. If not because we finally realised this was the only way for sustained improvements, then because it was legally imposed on us that legally we HAD to have FORMALLY QUALIFIED and knowledgeable people doing jobs that involved Health and Safety decision making and steering. No PCBU or Director in their right mind today would hire a H&S manager, or H&S consultant or software provider, that had no H&S qualifications but was adamant ‘knew H&S cause I’ve been doing it for 20 years’. Doing something badly or blindly for however many years doesn’t make you qualified. Neither does Googling 'How to manage H&S'. Directors know this. For physical harm.

Yet here we are again. With workplace Psychosocial Safety, Harm and wellbeing. Like when the changes in the H&S legislation that focused on physical harm were revised, every man and his dog became an (unqualified) ‘H&S Consultant’. And now every man and his dog is jumping, fast, on the ‘Psychosocial Safety' and especially the 'Wellbeing’ bandwagon. Most organisations assume that if there is an app provider, consultant in the space, or software provider, or trainer, they must surely be qualified to offer the area they are peddling? Unfortunately they would be wrong.

Workplace psychological risk management is part of the H&S legislation requirements. Uniquely this aspect requires not only in-depth H&S Risk management knowledge, requiring tertiary qualifications, but also psychological knowledge and legislative H&S requirements. Combined. The giveaway to this requirement is in the name. 'Psychosocial'. 'Risk Management'. Each is a whole field in its own right. This means, organisational psychological qualifications ARE NOT enough. This particular aspect requires organisational psychological AND H&S Risk management, specifically, again, for a reason, founded on the specific legal requirements of organisations as an entity, directors as decisions makers AND individual employees’ responsibilities also. Just knowing how people are ‘harmed’ mentally at work absolutely is not enough. Organisational Psychology only is not enough. In-depth risk management is needed to manage this harm. Googling 'risk matrix' absolutely is not risk management. Neither is a 2 day ISO 45003 training session.

When you get audited, the auditor is going to ask for EVIDENCE of the term used in legislation. 'Expertise'. No amount of 'i've been doing it for x amount of years' is going to satisfy this legal requirement for expertise, across 'Psychosocial' AND 'Risk Management' without being able to show in-depth (tertiary) qualifications on this specific clause requirement. On BOTH requirements. The legislation requires those working in Psychosocial implementation have BOTH H&S risk management AND Org. Psych. tertiary qualifications. For a reason.

Just as someone unqualified and untrained doing open heart surgery is going to find carrying out a successful operation a wicked problem to solve, someone trying to figure their way around Psych Risk is going to have a tough time with the wicked problems. Someone appropriately trained and qualified for heart surgery still knows it's complex, but they also know how to successfully manoeuvre through the step by step resolution, and the unforeseen that arise during, without trying to figure what they are or should be doing as they go. And killing the patient most likely. The same way organisations letting unqualified, untrained people 'have a go' at psychosocial risk implementation are risking liability and their employees health. You can think you've gained a wealth of knowledge by google, but a trained professional will know the difference between google answers and knowing the breadth and depth and differences in application based on context, and having to trouble shoot in the moment, without having to look it up. You would want your heart surgeon to be a licensed practitioner for the same breadth and depth of knowledge and application.

Like the parable of 6 blind men feeling their way around an elephant, each thinking their view is correct and having a vastly different 'feel' and so understanding for the whole, those with only organisational psychology or physical H&S risk management have an inadequate understanding of the whole to appropriately manage psychological risks, within the work dynamic. Which is why legislative requirements is for both, tertiary qualifications.

Psychological risks do not behave at all like physical risks so can not be managed with the same tools eg bow-tie, swim-lane. Managing risks is a specific field in itself and can not be done with just an understanding of psychological states eg trying to fix a toxic workplace with 'work design' because it's 'harm prevention' (it really is not). It's Harm Anticipation. Another reason highlighting the need for dual qualification, if Org. Psych was sufficient this would be obvious knowledge. Risk management is not about systems into place, which is what 'work design' and ISO is . It is about managing review of internal audits, knowing when controls are not working, knowing what frequency of of monitoring is needed for different context and issues. And a lot more. None of this is going to come from organisational psychology or google. When you don't know what you need to know, and the risk is high, that's when usually legislative requirements are set to what you need to have, by way of having qualifications. Like when Healthcare Acts dictate a person being employed as a medical doctor must have qualified by going to medical school. As a minimum starting point. Which when audited against, or when a workplace investigation is carried out, will be asked to show evidence of. And just 'i've been doing it for 10 years' and 'google said' will not meet requirements.

The organisational psychological knowledge covered in ‘industrial psychology’ alone does not address the principles of workplace risk management OR H&S legal requirements to near the level required for H&S practice. Here, constructs that are H&S lag indicators, are erroneously thought of as preventive eg ‘Work Design’. This is what a lot of psychology only providers will jump on for the workplace psychological harm prevention, thinking it covers you for legislative prevention. It does not. And it is definitely not a Lead Indicator. The only known Lead Indicator, and so Preventive Indicator, for Workplace Psychological Harm and Wellbeing, is the Culture. There is no stronger proof of this than the recent first WorkSafe prosecution for Psychosocial Harm Psychosocial Risks. Why the first WorkSafe Bullying prosecution cited ‘Toxic Culture’. Systems (Work Design, ISO 45003) Vs Culture explained. Work design is not even psychological. It is operational. Which , if done in ADDITION to numerous other requirements, can, result in psychological workplace stress management.

?

Likewise with ISO 45003. The language and requirements of ISO Standards is very specific. It is not a ‘Google search’ competency. Neither is being able to offer training in or in being able to implement to ISO 45003 a google competency. Just because you have found the Standard online does not mean you are competent to use it, and definitely not be able to provide training on it!. Yet there are a lot of providers out there offering ‘H&S psychological legislative implementation’, ‘ISO 45003 Academy’ or ‘working with ISO 45003’, or the like, who absolutely are not competent in providing any of these, in lacking the required formal qualifications and training, to do so.

And here’s the kicker, it is the PCBU and organisational Directors that will hold 100% of the liability for hiring or using these unqualified sources. Little known facts of the H&S legislation:

1)???Penalty Liability is not insurable, the individual within the organisation alone will be held responsible for fines and/or jail time

2)???The onus of responsibility is on the organisation and Directors, not on the (unqualified) provider

3)???Any relevant insurance (not individual) is void when using unqualified sources

Here's what the H&S Legislation literally says about using UNQUALIFIED app providers, consultants, trainers, implementers:

"Requirements for prescribed?qualifications?or experience

(1) A person must not carry out work if regulations require the work, or class of work, to be carried out—

(a) by a person who has prescribed?qualifications?or experience and the person does not have the prescribed?qualifications?or experience;

(2) A PCBU must not direct or allow a worker to carry out work if regulations require the work, or class of work, to be carried out—

(a) by a worker who has prescribed?qualifications?or experience and the worker does not have the prescribed?qualifications?or experience;

(3) A person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) commits an offence and is liable on conviction,—

(a) for an individual, to a fine not exceeding $20,000:

(b) for any other person, to a fine not exceeding $100,000."

Not using an appropriately qualified person or provider leaves the organisation open to liability as well as operational risk.

??

As Red Adair famously said:

"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur"

You wouldn’t hire an unqualified builder to build your house or an unqualified electrician to wire it up. The high potential for things to go wrong from inadequate and substandard work, due to lack of knowledge, is so high, you end up spending significantly more on the fixes, compared to hiring a qualified professional in the first place. Why would you rely on only other’s ability to provide services they have gained through half requirements, in just org.psych or physical risk H&S management, or Google searches to rest your entire workplace Health and Safety Psychological Health liability and risk, personal and organisational, on? Check your providers; app providers, software management programmes, trainers and consultants for FORMAL QUALIFICATIONS. Being able to Google your way to the ISO Standards or key psychological ‘fixes’ does not constitute competency. Formal Qualifications do.

And for the strongest evidence of what happens when you do not use the right qualifications, and therefore do not have an adequate understanding of not just psychological states but crucially, risk managing them, the first WorkSafe Psychosocial prosecution should reinforce the understanding as outline above of correct requirements Psychosocial Risks. Why the first WorkSafe Bullying prosecution cited ‘Toxic Culture’. Systems (Work Design, ISO 45003) Vs Culture explained.

To read more on the requirements for sustained psychosocial hazard management, culture and mental health read here

_____________________________________________________________________

The author is a Lead Auditor for Health & Safety, has been a BSI Executive ISO trainer across several varying Standards, an Executive Coach and is a current Board Director of NZOQ. Her PhD research focused on Psychosocial Risk, Wellbeing, Culture & Resilience, in Positive Psychology & Organisational Behaviour.

She is founder of EnableOrg? - Benchmark Psychosocial Health & Wellness. For workplace legal obligations in Psychological Harm Prevention & Wellbeing. EnableOrg?s’ Lead-indicator, integrated software helps you identify, correct, prevent and manage workplace psychosocial & wellbeing risks, for a sustainable, long term mental health, healthy culture and healthy engaged, employees.

Ranjeeta is a renowned Thought Leader and Expert in the field across Organisational Psychosocial Health, Wellbeing, Engagement, Resilience, Leadership and Culture. She is an International Speaker and has presented and spoken at varying conferences and summits.

EnableOrg.com