The most effective way to prevent psychological harm at work is to redesign work and its systems, especially the workload. What is often overlooked is the need to redesign the workload of and the expectations we have for senior executives. The Australian Financial Review published an article on this issue, drawing on the personal experience of marketing executive, Roni Millard.
I don’t believe that all occupational health and safety (OHS) principles, risk assessment tools, or values are relevant to the non-work culture, but there is sufficient overlap for OHS to offer a framework for hazard identification, incident investigation, and potential risk control options. The current political debate in Australia about “Australian values” and immigration offers an illustration of this overlap; an overlap and debate that is being echoed in the United Kingdom.
It still surprises me that treating work‑related mental harm as something prevented through job design, rather than as a personal failing, is seen as a revelation. Humans are infinitely variable, if not from genetics, then from our socialisation. Humans may still be considered as little more than interchangeable parts in a production process, but only if one denies their humanity.
[Editor’s Note: This article uses blunt language to describe a reality many workers experience but struggle to name. It does not encourage impulsive resignations or dismiss the importance of organisational duty under OHS law. Rather, it recognises that when employers refuse to address psychosocial hazards, workers may be forced to prioritise their own health. Leaving a job should never be the first control considered—but for some, it becomes the only effective one available.]
In just over a month, Treasurer Jim Chalmers will hand down the 2026 Federal Budget. While political attention will focus on cost‑of‑living pressures and international instability, the Budget also presents an opportunity to rethink how Australia could treat occupational health and safety (OHS) as an economic lever instead of just a business cost.
Many articles about work-related burnout miss the occupational health and safety (OHS) point. On March 21, 2026, The Age published an article (paywalled) ostensibly about the benefits of disconnecting from phones and social media to combat burnout, improve mental health, and foster more meaningful, in-person connections. But the case it uses to make its point is also a case about the prevention of psychological harm at work.
Continue reading “Unsafe Work is Almost Always Behind Burnout”For the last few years in Australia, occupational health and safety (OHS) laws have required that the prevention of psychosocial hazards be given the same prominence as the prevention of physical hazards. The most effective recommendation for change is the redesign of work, but very few employers seem to be applying this control. Many employers are still asking (their Human Resources officer) what this psychosocial stuff is all about.
Examining organisational culture at one Australian institution that failed to prevent and may have generated psychological harm in the 1970s provides some context for contemporary OHS struggles.
We like to pretend OHS begins with a regulation or a checklist, but the truth is far less glamorous: it starts with the basic childhood lesson of “don’t hurt people.” Everything else is just the paperwork society builds around that idea. Part of that “paperwork” is the process of socialisation.
There are several definitions of socialisation:
Occupational health and safety (OHS) is part of all three (the third is more debatable). Socialisation is often seen as a personal experience, but in most instances, socialisation is imposed on us.
