It should help you understand what conditions of work are creating potential harm, who is exposed, how that exposure occurs, what is already controlling it and where change is needed.
NewEra combines workforce experience with evidence from the work to build a clearer picture of psychosocial risk.
Start with the work.
Not the questionnaire.
Surveys can be useful.
But selecting a questionnaire isn't the first step in understanding psychosocial risk.
First understand the organisation.
What work is being done?
Who does it?
Where?
Under what conditions?
What demands exist?
How is work organised?
Where are the important differences between roles, teams, locations and shifts?
What has changed?
What information already exists?
Only then can we decide what additional evidence is needed.
The method should follow the risk.
A survey is not a risk assessment.
A survey can tell you how a group of people responded to a set of questions at a particular point in time.
That can be valuable evidence.
But psychosocial risk assessment requires more.
A high score doesn't automatically tell you:
What is creating the condition.
How people are exposed.
When exposure occurs.
Why one group experiences it differently from another.
What controls already exist.
Whether those controls work.
What should change.
A low score doesn't automatically prove the risk is adequately controlled either.
The score is a signal. The assessment has to understand what sits behind it.
Follow the pathway.
NewEra structures psychosocial risk assessment around a simple logic.
WORK
What work is being done and under what conditions?
HAZARD
What aspects of the work have the potential to cause harm?
EXPOSURE
Who encounters those conditions, how and when?
RISK
What is the potential for harm given the nature of that exposure?
EXISTING CONTROLS
What currently removes or reduces exposure?
CONTROL EFFECTIVENESS
How well are those controls working?
PRIORITY
Where is further action needed?
RESPONSE
What should change in the work?
The assessment should preserve that line of sight from evidence to decision.
Understand the context first.
Every organisation is different.
Before collecting more data, we look at the context.
That may include:
Organisation structure.
Roles and workgroups.
Locations.
Shift arrangements.
Work patterns.
Operational demands.
Customer or public interaction.
Remote or isolated work.
Known high-risk activities.
Organisational change.
Contractor arrangements.
Previous assessments.
Existing controls.
Recent events.
Available workforce and operational data.
The objective is to understand enough of the organisation to design an assessment that reflects the work people actually do.
Identify psychosocial hazards.
Depending on the work and jurisdiction, relevant hazards may include conditions associated with:
High or low job demands.
Low job control.
Poor support.
Lack of role clarity.
Poor organisational change management.
Inadequate recognition and reward.
Poor organisational justice.
Traumatic events or material.
Remote or isolated work.
Poor physical environment.
Violence and aggression.
Bullying.
Harassment, including sexual harassment.
Conflict or poor workplace relationships.
Other work-related conditions capable of creating psychological or physical harm.
A hazard list provides a starting structure.
The assessment still needs to understand how those hazards exist in this organisation.
Identify who is exposed.
A company-wide result can hide meaningful differences.
Exposure may vary by:
Role.
Workgroup.
Location.
Shift.
Roster.