When Everyone’s a Leader and No One’s Accountable

Business management advisers keep calling everyone a “leader”, but the term has become so vague it obscures who actually holds the power — and therefore the accountability — to prevent work-related harm. Psychosocial hazards aren’t fixed by slogans or culture talk; they’re shaped by decisions about workload, staffing, supervision and resources.

This article is based on my presentation to the Central Safety Group members on May 12, 2026, about leadership and occupational health and safety (OHS).

Subscribe to SafetyAtWorkBlog to continue reading.
Subscribe Help
Already a member? Log in here

The Legacy of Denial That Still Haunts Psychosocial Hazard Management

In the mid‑1970s, I arrived at Dandenong High School still clinging to the small importance I’d felt as a primary‑school Prefect. That confidence evaporated the day a student yelled “bums to the wall” as Science Teacher and Year 7 Coordinator Tim Richardson walked past. I didn’t yet know what a paedophile was, but Richardson would not be prosecuted for sexual offences until 2018, dying in jail a year later.

This experience reflects a broader cultural pattern of denial that still shapes how organisations respond to psychosocial hazards today. Australian companies, executives and employers are grappling with “new” duties to prevent psychological harm, yet Richardson’s story shows just how long our institutions have excused what should never have been excused.

Subscribe to SafetyAtWorkBlog to continue reading.
Subscribe Help
Already a member? Log in here

Why Great Idiots Still Shape Workplace Harm

As I walk to local cafes for weekend breakfasts or to the gym (yes, I do exercise), I listen to interesting podcasts that may be relevant to occupational health and safety (OHS). (I know, I should turn off, but I can’t) A recent podcast was American Friction, which discussed President Trump (you may have heard of him). Three-quarters through, Mike Duncan discussed the “Great Idiot in History Theory”, which seems to me to offer a useful perspective on corporate executives and their approach to the work health and safety of their employees.

Subscribe to SafetyAtWorkBlog to continue reading.
Subscribe Help
Already a member? Log in here

“Words and gestures … can only be genuine when they are backed by doing”

As I write this, hundreds of workers’ memorial services are taking place around the world. I usually attend the Melbourne, Victoria, event and wish I could have been there today because one speaker, Lana Cormie, transcended the usual politics and platitudes to outline a broader strategy for occupational health and safety (OHS) reform.

Subscribe to SafetyAtWorkBlog to continue reading.
Subscribe Help
Already a member? Log in here

Solving Psychosocial Harm at Work: The Upcoming Global IAWBH Conference in Canberra

Workplace bullying, harassment and other psychosocial risks are no longer fringe issues – they are central to how we think about safety, fairness and dignity at work. One forum that has been shaping this conversation for more than two decades is the International Association on Workplace Bullying and Harassment (IAWBH) and its much‑anticipated biannual conference. This year’s event brings researchers, regulators and practitioners together in Canberra to tackle some of the most difficult problems in working life, with a strong emphasis on practical solutions, especially pertaining to sexual harassment and gender-based violence.

Professor Carlo Caponecchia, who is presenting at the conference, made some time for a couple of questions.

Continue reading “Solving Psychosocial Harm at Work: The Upcoming Global IAWBH Conference in Canberra”

Why Blood Tests Won’t Fix Burnout in Roles Designed to Harm

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.

Subscribe to SafetyAtWorkBlog to continue reading.
Subscribe Help
Already a member? Log in here

A Workplace Death. An Upheld Conviction. And a Standard Every C-Suite Officer Should Understand.

A post written by Wade Needham (April 15, 2026), and reproduced with permission.

Two judgments totaling 75,000 words were handed down across 2024 and 2026. Not everyone will read them. Everyone should understand what they establish.

Years ago, during commissioning work at Port Hedland for the Roy Hill project, someone asked me how I knew the night shift crew were following the isolation procedure for livening the sub stations. I could name the critical risk. I could point to the training records, the procedure, the sign-off sheet, the safety advisor on shift. And when they asked how I knew it was being followed at 2am when nobody was watching, I paused. Long pause. Then I said something like “Well, the reports don’t show any issues.”

I have never forgotten that pause. Because I knew, in that moment, that I was describing paperwork. Not reality.

That is the most dangerous sentence in safety governance. The reports don’t show any issues. It is the sentence that sat underneath everything that went wrong at the Port of Auckland. I wanted to distil down elements of the judgement I found insightful.

But first, a too-long, don’t-want-to-read summary for those short on time.

Continue reading “A Workplace Death. An Upheld Conviction. And a Standard Every C-Suite Officer Should Understand.”
Concatenate Web Development
© Designed and developed by Concatenate Aust Pty Ltd