Where is the danger in that? The way we think about workplace hazards hinders the application of health and safety legislation

Current thinking about workplace stress, mental health and the law hampers New Zealand’s ability to prevent work-related mental health harm.

The inclusion of mental health in New Zealand’s Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA) aims to protect workers from the risk of harm resulting from exposure to mental health hazards at work.

These arise according to the way the work is done, how it is managed and managed, and the conditions in which the work is done. They can cause psychological, social or physical harm. Common examples include long work hours, role ambiguity, emotional demands, job insecurity and bullying.

Our research examined how the company’s top decision makers understand their legal responsibilities as they relate to mental health.

Under the HSWA, these officers – including company directors and chief executives – must work diligently to ensure that their company complies with the law.

But most of the 24 survey participants, who were executives of large companies, expressed uncertainty and ambiguity about the meaning of “mental health” within the HSWA.

Work accidents

Exposure to mental and health risks is commonly reported by New Zealand workers.

Those working in occupations such as policing, nursing and teaching, for example, report high emotional needs.

Māori and Pacific workers, retail workers, and workers in their 30s report higher than average levels of job insecurity.

The harm caused by exposure to these hazards is often psychological. But it has also been strongly linked to cardiovascular disease and musculoskeletal disorders.

Lack of knowledge

Management decisions related to how work is designed, organized and managed influence the way people experience work and the psychological risks they may face.

Psychological risk often results from operational and operational decisions related to factors such as empowerment, staffing, productivity and market needs.

In many organizations, these decisions are made in the boardroom – away from where the core business work is done.

Many of the research participants felt uncertainty about the meaning of mental health within the HSWA was due to a lack of experience in the health and safety profession in New Zealand, a lack of clear guidance on control, and complexity of psychological harm.

As one participant said:

There are no boundaries, no playbook, no formula for them to follow, it’s hard and complicated and different for each person, and there’s no one you can point to and go, “They absolutely nailed it”.

But our analysis also found that uncertainty and ambiguity arose in other areas.

These included the belief that the risk of exposure is often based on the personal characteristics and behavior of workers rather than their work. There was also a focus on repairing harm rather than preventing it and mixing psychological harm with other harm.

Unfortunately, these beliefs also limit the use of HSWA.

Instead of dealing with work-related risk, senior managers were distracted by workers’ health and focused on operational strategies for control rather than prevention. They adopted a risk management approach that emphasized “risks to the organization” rather than “risks to workers”.

Harassment at work

These boundaries became clear when participants described their attention to organizational responses to bullying and harassment.

Many of the causes of bullying and harassment lie in the way work is organised, managed and managed.

However, when detailing their due diligence process, participants described ensuring that such risks are managed by repeating conflict reporting and resolution systems, support for victims, and organizational policy and emphasizes “zero tolerance” for workplace misconduct.

While these responses may be part of a broader approach to dealing with bullying and harassment (although in reality these may be unfair, ineffective or even counterproductive), on their own they may not be sufficient when considering the problem under occupational health and safety legislation.

The risk-based, preventive nature of HSWA requires that risk be prevented by understanding, anticipating and intervening in the factors that contribute to the work environment.

Research has consistently shown that bullying can occur in organizations where there are unreasonable workloads, high job demands and job insecurity, as well as laissez-faire or “hands off” management, or management strategies that require employees to do more with less.

Consideration of these risks may be important in the current climate of job insecurity and job cuts across the public sector which may create additional demands on the remaining workforce.

The link between hazards and risk

Risk assessment must focus on what can be known, and what should be known about the relationship between these psychological risks and potential harm. Risk management must aim to eliminate or reduce risks as much as possible.

Importantly, working at risk does not require proof of risk. Responding to an accident once it has occurred is contrary to the overall purpose of the HSWA.

But dealing with the deep details of the organization is very difficult and unpleasant for those in charge.

Preventing bullying and harassment requires consideration of how decisions about the design, organization and management of work may contribute to the risk of injury.

Therefore, the ban can question the decisions and practices of the company’s directors, managers and directors of the companies – it is not usual to take into account the work of health and safety.

As a result, bullying and harassment are often framed as interpersonal problems between employees and their superiors. This is no less challenging than raising questions about decisions related to the management and control of the company.

The focus of prevention is then placed on correcting and improving behavior rather than controlling or changing the working conditions that cause bullying and harassment.