We know what employers/leaders do or do not do about psychosocial hazards at work and the psychological impacts. But there is still insufficient discussion on why those leaders make those choices. Recently, Dr Caroline Howe came close to answering the “why” in a blog article for her Psychosocial Safety and Leadership Institute.
The challenge in addressing psychosocial hazards at work comes not from the dangers posed but from the executives’ willingness to change. Recently, David Burroughs reflected on his years of advising executives on this hazard. Burroughs’ experience of corporate responses to workplace bullying is indicative of the challenge of organisational change.
Two major Australian media outlets are continuing to focus on the issue of working from home (WFH), criticising the concept and some local political moves. WFH offers some significant mental health benefits that are being largely ignored. The front page of The Australian newspaper for September 1, 2025, provides the latest example.
Discussion about workplace psychosocial hazards seems to be everywhere. This is a good thing, as everyone needs a better understanding of the risks workers face and what prevention mechanisms are expected from employers and business owners. But that discussion needs to be measured and accurate. A recent article written about this issue for accountants is slightly inaccurate about occupational health and safety (OHS).
Lisa Leong has followed up her This Working Life podcast with a more detailed look at the practicalities of addressing work-related psychosocial hazards with Dr Laura Kirby. It is worth listening to, but there is a term repeated in the podcast that needs examining – “leader”.
Australia’s Economic Roundtable recycled the same institutions and failed metrics that have long masked our productivity crisis. As Amy Remeikis notes, those who shaped past policy failures now feign surprise at the fallout. Meanwhile, important drivers of productivity, such as safe and quality work, remain ignored. OHS is treated as a compliance chore, rather than a strategic asset. If the Albanese government truly wants productivity reform, it must stop listening only to the “profit class” and start measuring what matters: worker health, dignity, and contribution.
Improvements in safety and health at work are almost always begun after fatalities, catastrophes and scandals. This says much about the prominence of occupational health and safety (OHS) in Australian society. The latest industrial scandal is in the childcare industry. Non-compliance with safety requirements was exposed in March 2025, but now allegations of sexual abuse of babies, toddlers and children have been levelled against several workers. The industry and the governments that oversee it are struggling to identify solutions. OHS can provide a legal and managerial framework, as determined in a safety review published only last week.
