The Australian Human Resource Institute (AHRI) has produced a useful analysis on hybrid and flexible work practices. However, as with most of the media coverage and commentary on workplace flexibility and working from home, the discussion of the psychological health benefits and risks is rudimentary and seems to ignore renewed employer duties under the occupational health and safety (OHS) laws.
Workplace psychological health has been dominated by wellness advocates for several decades. Occupational health and safety (OHS) is seen by many as an interloper with “new” regulations that impose rules, expectations, notifications, and records on a corporate wellness sector that has been hugely influential on employers’ perspectives of mental health at work. This interjection by OHS “upstarts” does not stand up to examination. Social determinants of health have included work factors for many years. Richard G Wilkinson wrote about the psychosocial causes of illness in 1997, providing a helpful perspective applicable today.
Australia’s occupational health and safety (OHS) has improved over the decades. Yet, preventable injuries and fatalities persist—over 180 quad bike deaths since 2011, for example, with rollovers leading the charge. We have regulations, campaigns, and a national body in Safe Work Australia, but something’s still missing. Why aren’t workplace redesign efforts—like fitting rollbars on quads or rethinking production systems—more widespread? The answer might lie in a hidden barrier: the WHS profession’s shaky grasp of financial literacy, compounded by the stranglehold of financial underwriting models and capital market expectations. Maybe it’s time we admit that the safety game isn’t just about risk assessments—it’s about money, and we’re not playing it well enough.
This newspaper article on the current status of Working from Home (paywalled) was satisfying on at least two levels: it was a sensible report on most of the benefits of this type of work arrangement and showed the limitations of newspaper publishing.
I am a big fan of diagnosis as a tool for obtaining evidence from which decisions about occupational health and safety (OHS) can be made. However, increased attention on the inclusion of mental health management in OHS exposes us to the same minefield that is currently surrounding the (over?) diagnosis of autism, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and neurodivergence. Recently, the New Statesmen provided a useful analysis of the issue in a review of several new books.
Jennifer Moss is a prominent analyst on work-related burnout and mental health. She is one of the few receiving global attention for pointing out that the prevention and control of the burgeoning mental health crisis are best addressed by reassessing and redesigning how organisations are run and workers are managed. Her latest book, due out in a few weeks, will supercharge the debate on managing psychosocial risks and psychological hazards at work.
Continue reading “Burnout prevention to receive considerable media attention”The Australia Institute is a progressive (Left-leaning) research institute that recently commemorated its 30th anniversary with a book called “What’s the Big Idea?” Contributors are compatible with the Institute’s ideologies, but some chapters overlap with occupational health and safety (OHS).
