Change is now a named psychosocial hazard - here's how HR can manage both risks at the same time
A wave of redundancies, mergers and system overhauls is colliding with new psychosocial safety law, leaving HR professionals responsible for change and compliance at the same time.
Almost every organisation in Australia is in the middle of changing something significant this year, whether that is a restructure, a merger, a cost cutting drive or a return to office mandate. At the same time, psychosocial safety has shifted from a wellbeing talking point to a legal obligation with a regulator watching. For HR professionals, those two forces are now arriving at once.
Karlie Cremin, director and founder of Dynamic Leadership Programs Australia (DLPA) will be speaking at a Zoom webinar on the topic above and more, hosted by sponsor DLPA on July 15 at 11am AEST. To find out details and to register, click here.
Change itself is now named as a hazard under psychosocial safety codes, and Cremin said the businesses she works with are feeling the squeeze from both directions.
"Nearly every business I talk to is changing something big right now, mostly because the ones who aren't are in fact going out of business," she said.
It is not that HR teams underestimate the toll change takes on staff, Cremin said. The harder issue is knowing what to do about it while a restructure is already under way and resources are thin.
"The problem is the gap between knowing it's a risk and knowing what to actually do about it while the business is mid-restructure and everyone's already stretched," she said.
Where the risk actually sits
Cremin's advice starts with a shift in focus. Rather than treating psychosocial risk as an add-on to a change process, HR teams should look at the change process itself as the source of risk.
"Start by treating the change process itself as where the risk lives, not as something you bolt a wellbeing initiative onto afterwards," Cremin said.
She pointed to a handful of recurring pressure points: the period of uncertainty before anything is confirmed, consultation that happens for the sake of appearances rather than genuine input, and workload that quietly piles up on whoever remains after a restructure. Cremin said once HR teams can identify where risk spikes during a change process, they can build controls in at those points rather than responding after an injury or incident has already occurred.
Evidence over sentiment
Identifying risk is only part of the job, according to Cremin. She said organisations also need to be able to show, at the time, what action was taken and why, rather than piecing it together after the fact if a regulator or an employee raises a concern.
"You want to be able to show what you did and why, as you go, not reconstruct it later when someone asks," she said.
For Cremin, that marks a shift away from treating care for staff as a general sentiment and toward something HR professionals can actually document and point to.
One job, not two
Cremin also believes how change management and psychosocial compliance relate to each other needs reframing. Rather than two competing priorities, she argued they are effectively the same task looked at from different angles.
"A restructure run well, with real consultation, honest communication, workload managed, decisions documented, is also a restructure that meets your psychosocial obligations," Cremin said. "Run it badly and you've got a change failure and a compliance breach, which tends to be the same event viewed from two angles."
The webinar will take place virtually on on August 11 at 11am AEST. To find out more and to register, click here.
