The evolution of remote and distributed work – psychosocial safety considerations

The expectations around psychological health and safety in the workplace are undergoing a seismic shift, and over the past 12 months have rapidly become a critical area of focus for organisations. No longer just a moral or cultural consideration, the management of psychosocial risks is now a compliance imperative.

Several factors are driving this change. National Workplace Health and Safety legislation has become more explicit in defining employer responsibilities regarding psychosocial risk management. At the same time, societal awareness and expectations around workplace mental health have risen significantly, fuelled by growing public discourse, media attention, and an evolving understanding of psychological wellbeing at work.

From a compliance standpoint, this shift is underpinned by data. While physical risks in Australian workplaces are being better managed, psychological injury claims are on the rise. Data from WorkCover claims, insurance providers, and psychosocial surveillance reports from SafeWork Australia highlight a troubling trend: despite the investment in workplace mental health initiatives over the last decade, many employees report psychological harm. This suggests that existing strategies may be insufficient, misdirected, or not fully integrated into core business operations.

As organisations navigate the evolving landscape of remote and distributed work, factoring psychosocial risks into decision-making is no longer optional, it’s essential. With heightened expectations on employers to proactively identify, assess, and mitigate these risks, the challenge is clear: workplaces must go beyond surface-level well-being initiatives and embed robust psychosocial compliance frameworks into the fabric of their operations and decision making.

So what is a psychosocial hazard?  A psychosocial hazard is a hazard that arises from, or relates to the design or management of work, a work environment, plant at a workplace or workplace interactions and behaviours which may cause psychological harm, whether or not the hazard may also cause physical harm (Code of Practice 2022, p.5).

Common psychosocial hazards outlined in the Queensland Code of Practice are:

• High and/or low job demands
• Low job control
• Low role clarity
• Poor support
• Poor organisational change management
• Low reward and recognition
• Poor organisational justice
• Poor workplace relations
• Remote or isolated work
• Poor environmental conditions
• Traumatic events
• Violence and aggression
• Bullying
• Harassment (including sexual)

These hazards need to be considered and documented as part of any work model, strategic or operational plan.

While psychosocial risks cannot be entirely eliminated, they must be actively identified, assessed, and mitigated. A key challenge for leaders is the strong emphasis on worker consultation, which adds complexity, as a “one size fits all” approach does not align with regulatory expectations. Senior decision-makers must balance operational and business priorities with equity – particularly in large organisations – while also addressing engagement, retention, physical safety, and psychosocial safety. Successfully integrating these factors requires an adaptable approach that meets both compliance obligations and the evolving needs of the workforce.

Models of work can either safeguard mental health or, conversely, contribute to psychosocial risk. When thoughtfully designed and implemented, they can serve as protective factors, enhancing well-being and providing a protective factor for staff mental health. For example, we know that for many workers the ability to work in hybrid environments helps to reduce stress in their daily lives, allowing them to better manage family and health demands, and feel trusted by their leaders.

Given the expectations of many staffing groups post COVID, companies who rigidly make decisions about work models are likely to hit significant road bumps.

Effective hazard identification and management becomes increasingly critical when workers are in high-risk roles or are particularly vulnerable to psychosocial harm. For example:

• Are your workers exposed to any kind of customer aggression or violence?
• Are they exposed to potentially traumatic or objectional material in their daily work?

These factors can significantly impact psychological well-being if not proactively managed.

Additionally, research indicates that younger workers are especially susceptible to isolation under certain work conditions and tend to experience higher prevalence of mental health challenges.

Understanding these risks and tailoring mitigation strategies accordingly is essential to creating a safe, supportive, and resilient workplace.

Top tips for Directors and senior leaders when considering work model design include:

• Have a lens on psychosocial compliance when designing work models.
• Integrate psychosocial risk management aligned with the Code into your decision making and require reporting to the Board and executive regarding this.
• Ensure there is clarity regarding any high-risk areas or potentially vulnerable workers who need greater psychosocial consideration.
• The answer is unlikely to be moving everyone back into the office so they can be adequately supervised. Unfortunately, in a post COVID environment this can create other psychosocial hazards such as perceptions of poor leadership support, and poor organisational justice.
• If you have or are going to implement worker surveillance, be aware his has now been added to the list of Comcare’s psychosocial hazards.

The whole point of the changed legislation is to improve workplace mental health outcomes. While compliance is important, it is best to come at these problems from the lens of fostering mentally healthy workplaces.

If you would like to know more or have any questions about psychological health and safety, please contact us at hello@mapien.com.au and a Mapien Workplace Strategist will be in touch within 24 hours.