Many people in Australia are asking why any woman would consider a career in the military, given the considerable risk of sexual harassment, abuse and assaults. Occupational health and safety (OHS) and risk management disciplines often draw on many of the risk assessment processes and principles from the defence forces; however, there appear to be significant and intransigent risks in that sector.
Note: This article mentions suicide
It is clear from the emails I have received, as well as many of the comments on LinkedIn and other social media platforms, that the modern role of Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) remains a contentious issue, as discussed below. One of the many issues, young workers’ perceptions of EAP, was addressed by Alena Titterton of Johnson Winter Slattery, who provides an important and different perspective on who uses EAPs:
In an era where employee mental health is increasingly recognised as critical, organisational psychologist Adam Grant offered useful insights into creating healthier, more productive workplaces at the Psych Health and Safety conference (PHSCon) in Sydney.
Grant argued that investing in employee well-being is not just a compassionate gesture but a strategic imperative. Companies must move beyond superficial benefits and focus on fundamental work design that empowers employees and supports their psychological health.
Two prominent experts on psychosocial hazards at work, featuring at the Psych Health and Safety Conference later this week in Sydney, Mary Ann Baynton and I. David Daniels, responded to my question to them (and other speakers) listed in the title above.
Mary Ann Baynton’s response first:
“The two most persistent barriers to employers preventing psychosocial hazards are a misunderstanding of what is required and the belief that it would cost too much in terms of time and effort….”
Over the next week or so, SafetyAtWorkBlog will be focusing on the issue of psychosocial hazards and psychological risks at work, as we cover the Psych Health and Safety Conference in Sydney. These risks and hazards are the most pressing topic in occupational health and safety (OHS) at the moment, with an increased demand for solutions from workers and the community, as well as heightened expectations for regulatory compliance. I apologise for this intense focus, but I welcome your comments and participation.
I will start by posing this question:
“The Australian approaches to psychosocial hazards and psychological safety in Human Resources and Work Health and Safety have been siloed in the past. Are the approaches getting closer? Is there more cooperation between the two or are the two disciplines’ aims still too different?”
A typical excuse, or a sentence, people use after they’ve caused harm, injury or created an offence, is that “I didn’t mean to do any harm or think anybody would be harmed”. Potential harm may not have been considered, and the consequence of the act or a word was not anticipated. But it’s also possible that it’s a lie, and that they did intend harm, and they’re just looking for a way to excuse themselves from the responsibility and the consequence of that harm. And that’s a problem with including intent in a definition of work-related harm.
Andrew Hopkins’ new safety and management book has landed. It is perhaps his most powerful critique of modern safety-related corporate management as he identifies “big picture” socioeconomic and political factors that directly affect executive decisions. By examining the 737 MAX aeroplane crisis of over 340 customer deaths that Boeing could have prevented, Hopkins discusses the hazardous managerial ideologies that have been idolised and are likely to be present in most companies created in the last 40 years.
The book has aviation in the title, but this is far more than a book about aeroplanes.
