Part 2 of a 4 Part Series –How Psychosocial Risks Are Created by Work Design, Not Weak Workers

Written By Niru Tyagi

When workers report stress or burnout, managers sometimes assume they lack resilience. This viewpoint frames mental health as a personal failing rather than a workplace issue. In reality, psychosocial risks are built into the way work is designed and managed. Decades of research show that psychological harm arises when job demands exceed workers’ resources and autonomy (Schaufeli & Taris, 2014). This article explores how work design creates psychosocial hazards, drawing on occupational stress models and recent Australian examples. It aims to help WHS practitioners and leaders focus on system design rather than blaming individuals.

Models of Job Stress: Demands and Resources

Several well‑established models explain how work causes psychological harm. The Job Demands–Resources model proposes that stress results when high demands (such as workload or time pressure) outweigh available resources (like autonomy, social support or recognition). The Job Demand–Control–Support model adds that control over tasks and supportive relationships are key buffers against stress. The Effort–Reward Imbalance model highlights that imbalance between effort and reward (pay, recognition, career opportunities) can lead to emotional strain and illness. These models emphasise that stress is not a sign of weakness; it is a predictable response to poor work design. Recent research on algorithmic management in gig and platform work illustrates how technology can intensify psychosocial risk. Studies find that digital scheduling systems increase workload, reduce autonomy and exclude workers from decision‑making[1]. Workers report constant time pressure and feelings of exploitation when algorithms push them to deliver more with less support[2]. Such mismatches between demands and resources lead to stress and burnout. Involving workers in the design of algorithms and providing transparency can reduce harm[3].

Categories of Psychosocial Hazards

Psychosocial hazards arise from specific aspects of work design, organisation and social context. Researchers and regulators have identified common categories:

• Job content– Monotonous or fragmented work, under‑utilisation of skills and constant exposure to challenging clients[4].

• Workload and pace– Excessive or insufficient workload, machine pacing and tight deadlines[5].

• Work schedule– Shift work, night work, unpredictable or inflexible hours[6].

• Control– Low participation in decision‑making, little control over work pace or rosters[7].

• Environment and equipment– Poor physical conditions, inadequate equipment or maintenance[8].

• Organisational culture and function– Poor communication, weak support and unclear objectives[9].

• Interpersonal relationships– Isolation, conflict, bullying, harassment and poor leadership[10].

• Role in organisation– Unclear responsibilities or conflicting expectations[11].

• Career development– Lack of career progression, insecure employment or poor pay[12].

• Home–work interface– Conflicting work and home demands and inadequate support outside work[13].

The international standard ISO 45003groups hazards into three areas: how work is organised, social factors at work, and the work environment and equipment[14][15]. This structure helps practitioners consider all potential hazards rather than focusing on individual behaviour. For example, under “how work is organised”, hazards include role ambiguity, low control, high demands, organisational change, remote or isolated work, workload, work hours and job insecurity[14]. Social factors include poor interpersonal relationships, abusive leadership, lack of respect, inadequate recognition and violence or bullying[15]. Environmental factors cover physical conditions and inadequate equipment[16].

Decision‑Making and Management Practices

Psychosocial harm is produced by organisational choices. Common practices that create hazards include:

• Excessive workload– Unrealistic deadlines or understaffing lead to chronic overwork. In Australia, high workloads are a leading cause of stress claims[5].

• Low autonomy– Strict procedures or algorithmic control prevent workers from deciding how to perform tasks[17].

• Poor role clarity– Unclear expectations and conflicting demands create anxiety and conflict[11].

• Bullying and harassment– Harmful behaviours by managers or colleagues undermine psychological safety. Reports of bullying remain prevalent in many Australian industries.

• Inadequate change management– Restructures or technological changes implemented without consultation increase uncertainty and stress.

• Remote or isolated work– Working alone or from home reduces social support and blurs work–life boundaries[18].

These hazards are not inevitable. They result from design decisions that can be changed. For example, unrealistic deadlines may reflect poor planning rather than business necessity. Lack of control may be due to outdated management styles. Organisations that view psychosocial risk as a design challenge can make targeted changes.

Australian Context: Regulation and Guidance

Australia has strengthened regulation on psychosocial risk. Most states and territories have adopted codes of practice that require organisations to identify psychosocial hazards, assess risks and implement controls. Queensland’s code emphasises applying the hierarchy of controls to psychosocial hazards, prioritising elimination or substitution (Workplace Health and Safety Queensland, 2022). New South Wales, Western Australia and South Australia have also updated regulations. The model WHS Code of Practice on managing psychosocial hazards provides examples of control measures such as workload adjustments, clear role descriptions, training for managers, anti-bullying policies and improved work environments.

Importantly, regulators expect consultation with workers. The People at Work survey is one tool endorsed by Safe Work Australia for assessing psychosocial hazards. WHS practitioners should also consider cultural diversity, remote work trends and gig-economy conditions that affect Australian workers. For example, migrant workers may face language barriers and precarious employment, increasing psychosocial risk. Rural and remote workers may experience isolation. Gig workers, such as ride‑share drivers, often face algorithmic management and unpredictable income.

Practical Implications

Organisations can reduce psychosocial risk by focusing on work design. Key actions include:

1. Map work systems; Analyse workflows, staffing levels, deadlines and reporting lines to identify where demands exceed resources; Include remote and casual workers in the analysis; Consult employees on what makes work difficult.

2. Redesign tasks and roles; Adjust workloads, redistribute tasks or hire additional staff to match capacity; Clarify role expectations and remove conflicting demands; Provide training to improve competence.

3. Increase autonomy and control; Allow workers to decide how they perform tasks where possible; Involve them in planning schedules and workload; Ensure algorithms or monitoring systems are transparent and fair.

4. Build supportive cultures; Train managers in respectful communication and early intervention; Promote teamwork and peer support; Establish clear policies against bullying and harassment; Recognise and reward positive contributions.

5. Plan and communicate change; Consult workers before implementing major changes; Provide rationale, timelines and support during restructures; Monitor stress levels after change and adjust if necessary.

6. Address remote and casual work issues; Provide adequate resources for remote workers, such as technology and social interaction opportunities; Ensure gig workers and contractors have access to support services and fair working conditions.

Psychosocial risk is not a reflection of weak individuals. It is the result of work design and organisational decisions. Occupational stress models show that when job demands exceed resources, workers become stressed and ill. Australian regulations now require organisations to identify and control psychosocial hazards, and to consult workers in the process. By mapping work systems, redesigning tasks, increasing autonomy, fostering supportive cultures, planning change and addressing remote work challenges, organisations can reduce psychosocial risk. Shifting focus from individual resilience to systemic design will help create healthier, more productive workplaces across Australia.

References

Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2014). A critical review of the Job Demands–Resources model.Work & Stress, 29(2), 129–138.

Workplace Health and Safety Queensland. (2022).Managing the risk of psychosocial hazards at work: Code of practice 2022.

International Organization for Standardization. (2021).ISO 45003:2021 Occupational health and safety management — Psychological health and safety at work[14].

Morawczynski, O., Väänänen, A., & Lippel, K. (2025). Algorithmic management and psychosocial risks: An editorial.Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 51(2), 89–94[1].

Safe Work Australia. (2023).Model Code of Practice: Managing psychosocial hazards at work.

[1][2][3][17] Algorithmic management and psychosocial risks at work: An emerging occupational safety and health challenge – PMC

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12766920

[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] An urgent call to address work-related psychosocial hazards and improve worker well-being – PMC

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11980372

[14][15][16][18]Psychosocial Hazards Based on ISO 45003 | NASP

https://www.naspweb.com/blog/psychosocial-hazards

About the Author

Niru Tyagi is a Psychosocial Risk and WHS Governance Strategist and founder of WHS Guard. She works at the intersection of governance, risk, and regulatory accountability helping boards and executive leaders build defensible psychosocial risk management systems aligned with ISO 45003 and Australia’s WHS legislative framework.

Specialising in complex and high-risk industries, Niru architects integrated governance systems that strengthen due diligence under the WHS Act (s 27) and the Corporations Act. Her work goes beyond policy. She designs measurable assurance structures, leading indicators, and board-level reporting frameworks that make psychosocial risk visible, auditable, and proactively managed.