Earlier this week, I was a panellist at an occupational health and safety symposium organised by the Victorian Branch of the Australian Institute of Health and Safety. We were asked to be challenging and provocative in our perspectives on the evolution of OHS and OHS law in Victoria since the start of the century.
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.
The Construction Industry Culture Taskforce (CICT) has released a significant report about the pilot projects for its Culture Standard for the Construction Industry. It claims some significant changes in productivity, diversity and occupational health and safety (OHS).
According to a media release by the Australian Constructors Association (ACA) accompanying the report:
Companies are being urged to increase their attention on the human impacts of incidents. This is a much-needed and delayed focus that existed decades ago but went out of fashion. Companies can achieve these changes after a lot of hard work and expense, but very little attention has been given to the institutions and government policies that perpetuate the “individual pathology” of workplace incidents. Some recent sociological research helps us see the immorality behind the status quo.
Business newspapers and websites often report on executives revealing their own burnout and how they have changed their lives as a result. The changes they make indicate their decisions that led to their mental health crises and epiphanies. But executives lead by example, so how many of the employees are emulating the executives’ mistakes? Shouldn’t the executives redesign their companies’ systems of work to prevent anyone else from suffering from burnout?
I have liked James Lovelock ever since I heard about his Gaia Hypothesis in the brilliant English political drama, Edge of Darkness. I am not happy with all of his intellectual positions. I baulk at nuclear power from the unique Australian position of being nuclear-free but still exporting uranium. But as I finish reading the latest biography of him, I am starting to realise what I have learned.
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….”
