Anonymous page analytics

With your permission we measure public page views, referral domains, campaign labels, browser time zones, page journeys and outbound domains. No names, emails, IP addresses or private learning content. Retained 90 days. You can opt out at any time from the footer.

Psychological Safetyat Work

Our approach

Executive accountability for psychosocial risk

Turn policy into owned controls: named accountability, integration with enterprise risk, resourcing that matches the work and feedback that reaches decision-makers.

Start a conversationBack to our approach

Why it matters

Executive accountability for psychosocial risk

Most organisations have a policy. Fewer have a named person who answers for whether the conditions of work are actually safe. Without ownership, psychosocial risk becomes everyone’s concern and nobody’s decision.

Executives control the levers that create or reduce hazard: headcount, targets, deadlines, restructures, systems and who is promoted. Those choices are made in budget rounds and change programmes, usually without anyone asking what they do to workload or role clarity.

Prevention at strategic level means asking the question before the decision, not after the complaint. It also means making sure what staff and managers raise travels upward and comes back with a visible response.

Scope

What executives are accountable for

01
Assigned owners
Each significant hazard or control has a named owner with authority to act, a delegate and a date for review.
02
Enterprise risk integration
Psychosocial risk appears in the risk register with causes, controls, residual rating and links to related risks such as safety, retention and delivery.
03
Resources and workload
Headcount, budget and timelines are tested against the work expected, and unrealistic plans are challenged before approval.
04
Change control
Restructures, system changes and major projects pass through a short check of their effect on workload, roles and support.
05
Strategic prevention
Priority goes to controls that remove or reduce hazard at source, with training and awareness as supporting measures.
06
Escalation and feedback
Clear routes for issues to rise from managers and workers, with timeframes and a closing-the-loop expectation.

Outcomes

What changes in practice

  • An accountability map naming owners for each major hazard and control.
  • Psychosocial risk entries in the enterprise risk register, with control owners.
  • A change-control check that is used, not just documented.
  • A resourcing review linking workload to planning assumptions.
  • Escalation pathways with response expectations that managers can rely on.
  • A review calendar that executives and the board both recognise.

Process

How we work with an executive team

  1. Map current ownership

    Establish who currently decides what, and where responsibility is assumed rather than assigned.

  2. Connect to risk

    Align hazards and controls with the existing risk framework instead of building a parallel one.

  3. Test the levers

    Look at two or three live decisions on resources or change and apply the check to them.

  4. Set the cycle

    Agree quarterly operating reviews and a more strategic annual review, adjusted to your own governance.

Checklist

Executive self-check

  • Can every major psychosocial hazard be traced to a named owner?
  • Is it in the risk register, and does the rating reflect what managers tell us?
  • When did we last cancel or delay something because of workload?
  • What happens after a manager escalates, and how long does it take?
  • Which controls remove hazard at source, and which depend on individual resilience?
  • When is the next strategic review, and who prepares it?

FAQs

Frequently asked questions

Should one executive own all of this?

One lead owner is useful for coordination, but accountability for specific controls usually sits with whoever controls the relevant resource, such as operations for rosters or technology for systems.

How is this different from a wellbeing programme?

Wellbeing programmes support individuals. Executive accountability is about the conditions of work, such as demands, control, support and change, which are shaped by management decisions.

Do we need a separate risk register?

Generally no. Integrating into the existing enterprise register keeps the topic visible alongside other material risks and uses familiar escalation routes.

Make ownership visible

We can map accountability with your leadership team and connect it to the work you already do.

Start a conversation

Next steps

Related next steps

Pages that connect to this one.