In the movie “Working Girl”, Melanie Griffith’s character reveals how she connected merger opportunities when flipping through a magazine. Today’s Australian Financial Review (AFR) presented a similar set of thoughts on psychosocial hazards and Artificial Intelligence (AI). This connection had the added heft of quotes from prominent Australian lawyer, Michael Tooma.
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).
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”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.
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.]
LinkedIn is an enormously inhumane software, but it does have some positive uses. One of them is being invited to meet people who might find you interesting or admire your work. Earlier this year, I jumped at the chance to have coffee with Dr Kat Page, who lived only a few suburbs away, as an exercise in mutual admiration. Last week, Page released her book called “Good Work: Transform Your Work from the Inside Out“. Finally, a book by an organisational psychologist on redesigning work, aimed at preventing harm.
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”
