Improving Leadership Awareness and Capabilities for Managing Psychosocial Wellbeing in the Public Sector

Psychosocial wellbeing in the workplace is increasingly recognised as a global priority, reflecting the significant human and economic impacts of poor mental health. In Australia, nearly half the population will experience a mental health condition at some point in their lives, with related productivity losses estimated at between $12 and $39 billion each year. 

Australian employers, including those in the public sector, are responsible for fostering safe and inclusive workplaces, supportive of all forms of diversity. Recent legislative reforms, such as the NSW Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and the Model WHS Regulations, require employers to address both physical and psychosocial risks, including those linked to workplace stressors and hazards. 

While these reforms are positive, they present complex challenges for leaders, who may lack the training, resources, or time to effectively address them. Managing psychosocial wellbeing is nuanced, influenced by subjective experiences and diverse individual needs. Despite this, workplaces are legally obligated to provide safe, inclusive environments that support all employees’ wellbeing and recovery. 

To help governments navigate this complexity and understand their obligations, ANZSOG, the NSW Premier’s Department, and the University of Technology Sydney have launched a new research project:  Improved Leadership Awareness and Capabilities for Managing Psychosocial Wellbeing in Public Sector Workplaces. Led by Professors Carol Mills, Toby Newton-John, and Natalia Nikolova, the project will explore how public sector leaders can better understand and respond to psychosocial risks, fostering healthier, more supportive work cultures. 

This research will be valuable to public sector leaders, executives, and managers responsible for creating psychologically safe and inclusive workplaces, as well as HR professionals and WHS officers tasked with implementing wellbeing strategies and ensuring compliance with legislation. It will also support policymakers and regulators in shaping effective frameworks, provide evidence for academics studying workplace culture and leadership, and offer insights for unions and employee advocates working to improve public sector conditions. 

Four main stages of design and analysis:

1. A review of current literature on psychosocial wellbeing, workplace hazards, and emerging trends, alongside an assessment of existing leadership training, tools, and resources. Analysis of de-identified workforce data to understand the prevalence and drivers of psychosocial risk. Together, this provided an evidence basis for a new instrument to survey psychosocial safety and leadership in the public sector.

2. Fieldwork with NSW public sector agencies informing three case studies showcasing effective leadership practices.  Data collection through anonymous online survey for staff and managers, followed by focus group and interview guides. Analysis focused on developing personas and participating site profiles. These profiles aim to provide an accessible means for supporting staff and leadership to identify with good practice.

3. Analysis focused on developing personas and participating site profiles. These profiles aim to provide an accessible means for supporting staff and leadership to identify with good practice.

KRQ 1: What are the key stressors, profiles, and prevalence rates of public sector psychosocial risk?

Existing data and case study feedback indicate that a significant proportion of NSW public sector employees are being impacted by workplace stressors. The type of stressors, and their impacts, varied depending on job type, the conditions within specific workplaces, and the needs of individual employees. However, stressors related to high workloads, underdeveloped workplace culture, and inconsistent leadership practices were the most commonly reported to significantly impact PSW. These key stressors were often reported to compound the impacts of other stressors and reduce the capacity and motivation of employees to use protective PSW practices (such as taking leave or breaks) or access available PSW supports.

Leaders also reported additional stressors related to their leadership roles including (though not limited to) stressors related to their PSW responsibilities and navigating sensitive workplace boundaries, as well as broader tensions in feeling “sandwiched” between Ministerial and upper management demands and the needs of their employees.

The research found that workplace stressors negatively impacted employee job performance and attendance. While leave was seen as key to recovering from psychosocial injury, a significant proportion of respondents reported not taking leave when they needed to due to workload, impacts on colleagues, and/or discomfort asking their supervisor.

KRQ 2: What are public sector leaders, managers and employees’ perceptions of current leadership awareness, capabilities and practices regarding psychosocial issues in the workplace?

Leaders and non-supervisors provided mixed feedback about leaders perceived PSW understanding, capabilities and practices, with significant variations both within and between workplaces. In general, leaders rated themselves as substantially more capable than they were rated by employees: although the self-ratings of leaders could not be directly linked to those provided by their supervisees, this suggests a general disconnect and need for more 360 feedback.

While some employees reported positive leader experiences regarding managing PSW, common criticisms included:

• Leaders’ communication and approaches that were seen as “performative”, “tokenistic” and/or overly “compliance-driven”
• Leaders lacking the people management skills or “emotional intelligence” needed to manage PSW
• High-level organisational objectives being prioritised without due regard to workplace conditions, employee workloads and PSW in general
• Inconsistencies and degrees of “disconnect” between different leaders’ approaches to PSW in the workplace.

KRQ 3: What evidence-based leadership initiatives and management capability uplift activities will best support psychosocial wellbeing in public sector workplaces?

The research identified that there is no ‘silver-bullet’ nor top-down solution to public sector-wide leadership uplift regarding managing PSW. Echoing the literature, respondents called for changes needed across organisational levels and the wider public sector to facilitate leader action and support better PSW within workplaces. That said, the research also found that most options for improvement (detailed below) would be best enacted locally, using collaborative processes, and tailored to the specific stressors, type of work, and the culture of each workplace.