Psychosocial hazards are hazards created by work design, workplace relationships and organisational
systems that may create risk of psychological harm. Examples include excessive workload, low role clarity, unmanaged conflict and poorly managed change. Controls that work reduce exposure through work design, supervision and governance.
Why examples matter (and why they’re not enough)
Examples help organisations name the hazard. But naming is not controlling. The goal is to translate an
example into exposure points, then into controls with owners and review dates.
15 psychosocial hazards examples (and controls that work)
Rather than a long list with no action, read this as a menu. Pick the hazards that match your hotspot team, then choose two controls that reduce exposure.
- Excessive workload – staffing, prioritisation rules, caps on sustained overtime
- Unrealistic deadlines – sequencing, decision rights, realistic planning
- Low role clarity – role expectations, decision rights, escalation paths
- Conflicting priorities – governance, one source of truth, priority discipline
- Low support – leader check-in rhythm, coaching, supervision expectations
- Unmanaged conflict – early intervention pathway, facilitated reset (where appropriate)
- Exposure to aggression – staffing levels, protocols, consequence framework
- Bullying behaviours – clear standards, early action, defensible pathways where warranted
- Poor change management – pacing, consultation, training before change
- Isolation (remote/solo work) – check-in cadence, escalation options, support access
- High emotional demands – supervision, debrief cadence, workload relief after peaks
- Job insecurity – clear comms, consultation discipline, humane change practices
- Lack of control/autonomy – redesign decision rights, reduce micromanagement
- Inconsistent management – manager capability uplift, accountability measures
- Poor reward/recognition systems – fix incentives that reward unsafe work norms
Controls checklist: what good looks like
Use this as a self-check. If you can’t answer these, your controls are likely weak:
Do we have a prioritisation method that reduces workload, not just redistributes it? Do leaders have clear
decision rights and escalation points? Do supervisors have a predictable rhythm for workload and risk check-ins? Do we intervene early on conflict, with timeframes and follow-up? Do we review whether controls worked, or do we only implement and move on?
Five practical fixes that reduce exposure
You see it when everyone is busy but nobody can explain the priorities. When work is reallocated without
removing anything from the workload. When conflict is handled indirectly, not early and directly. When
change is rolled out without training, then blame is shifted to capability.
And you see it when teams rely on heroes and overtime to get through peaks – and peaks never end. These are work system signals, not personality problems.
What to do next (make it operational)
Pick the top three hazards affecting one hotspot team. Convert each hazard into exposure points (when,
where, who). Implement two controls per hazard with named owners. Set review dates at 30 and 60 days. Expand from hotspot to whole organisation.
FAQs
Is ‘stress’ a psychosocial hazard?
Stress is often an outcome. The hazard is what’s creating exposure (workload, conflict, poor support, change, aggression).
Are bullying and psychosocial hazards the same?
Bullying can create psychosocial risk and may also be misconduct. Triage matters.
Do we need a register?
A register can help track hazards, controls, owners and review dates – but only if it’s actively used and
reviewed.
What is one low-cost control most workplaces miss?
A consistent supervision rhythm that covers workload, expectations, risks and support needs – not just task updates.