Responding To Psychosocial Hazard Reports: A Manager’s Guide
Imagine this: you’re a manager in a supportive housing building, and one of your staff, Manpreet, comes to you looking concerned. She says, “I don’t feel safe working with Adam. I don’t want to work on the same shift as him.”
You are taken aback. You’ve known Adam for years and you’ve always had a good working relationship with him. It might be tempting to just separate their shifts and move on, but doing so too quickly doesn’t really solve the problem. It also doesn’t help build a workplace where everyone feels psychologically safe.
Let’s walk through a structured way to address the situation. You can navigate through the steps below by clicking the ‘+’ icon on each box below:
Before you respond, take a moment to check your own assumptions and biases. It is natural for managers to have closer relationships with some staff, especially those you have worked with for years or share similar experiences with. But that familiarity can sometimes shape how you see and respond to concerns without you even realizing it. Being aware of this helps you respond fairly and shows your team that speaking to you about safety is welcomed and safe.
Keep in mind: Your experience with one staff member like Adam, might not reflect someone else’s experience, like Manpreet’s.
Your first responsibility is to listen carefully without minimizing the concern or jumping to conclusions. Show you are actively listening by:
• Maintaining open body language and nodding in acknowledgment.
• Asking open-ended questions like: “Can you walk me through what happened?”
• Reflecting back what you hear without judgment: “It sounds like you felt unsafe when…”
• Validating feelings: “That must have been an uncomfortable situation to be in.”
Remember, empathetic listening is about understanding Manpreet’s experience, not about confirming your own perspective of Adam.
Avoid Common Pitfalls
Managers can unintentionally dismiss concerns by relying on their own experiences.
Avoid responses like:
• “That doesn’t sound serious.”
• “That’s just how Adam is.”
• “He’s always been fine with me.”
These kinds of response undermine psychological safety and discourage staff from speaking up in the future.
Acknowledge Power Dynamics and Validate the Reporting Employee
No matter how approachable you try to be, you hold positional authority. Recognize the courage it takes for staff to report concerns.
A supportive response could be: “Thank you for bringing this forward. I know it wasn’t easy, and I want to understand what’s happening.”
Throughout the conversation validate the concern, avoid rushing to solutions, and reassure staff that the issue will be taken seriously.
Even if Manpreet and Adam may just have different personalities or work styles, it’s still important to assess the seriousness of the concern. Psychosocial hazards are aspects of work that can cause psychological or emotional harm1. Common examples include conflict, bullying, harassment, discrimination, aggressive behaviour, excessive workload, unclear expectations, or repeated disrespect.
Once you understand what is happening, the next step is to assess the potential consequences and the likelihood that the issue could escalate. You can do this by asking questions such as:
• Has Manpreet already addressed the issue with Adam? How did he respond?
• Is the behavior threatening, aggressive, harassing, discriminatory, or repeated?
• Does she feel emotionally or physically unsafe?
• Could the issue escalate if not addressed?
• What are the potential consequences for safety, well-being, or team functioning?
Using the Risk Matrix
In a risk matrix, severity refers to the potential impact of the behaviour or situation:
• High severity: Potential for serious(e.g., bullying, threats, harassment, discrimination, or physical danger) psychological harm or extreme consequences such as permanent psychological injury. Immediate action is needed, including safety planning and formal procedures. Direct communication between staff is not advised.
• Medium severity: Could cause harm requiring professional support or psychological treatment. This may include persistent tension, repeated conflict, ongoing miscommunication, or repeated disrespect affecting well-being or team climate. Supported conversations, mediation, or coaching may help if both parties feel safe. Documentation and monitoring are essential to prevent escalation.
• Low severity: May cause short-term psychological distress or require minimal intervention. This may involve isolated incidents, misunderstandings, or unclear expectations. A supported conversation or expectations-setting may resolve the issue. Documentation is still required.
While severity determines your response, also consider the likelihood that the behaviour will escalate or reoccur. Even a lower-impact issue may need immediate attention if it’s likely to happen again.
Provide Mental Health Resources
Regardless of severity or likelihood of harm, remind the reporting employee, in this case, Manpreet of available support services, such as Employee Assistance Program (EAP), counselling, peer supports, or other mental health resources. Offering access to these resources reinforces psychological safety and care for staff well-being.
Download our Key Resources for Social Services Workers in BC.
After assessing the risk and reviewing policies, gather information to understand the full context while maintaining confidentiality. Protecting privacy is critical to ensure staff feel safe reporting concerns and that the process remains fair.
Information gathering may include:
• Speaking with Adam in a neutral, non-accusatory manner. For example:
– “How have interactions been with Manpreet?”
– “Is there anything you’ve experienced that feels challenging between you two?”
• Reviewing documentation for similar past concerns.
• Asking staff about team interactions in a neutral way without identifying the reporting employee. For example:
– “Have you noticed any challenges or tension between team members recently?”
– “Are there any interactions that felt uncomfortable or stressful?”
Your goal here is to understand, not to assign blame.
Tip: Take time to analyze the information before deciding on next steps. This ensures your response is evidence-based, fair, and respectful of privacy.
Document the Concern
Include:
• What was reported
• Questions asked
• Observations
• Actions taken
• Safety considerations or follow-up plans
Neutral, thorough documentation protects all parties and supports transparency.
Plan Appropriate Response
Collaborate with the involved employees, in this case, Adam and Manpreet, to put in place one or more of the following:
• Mediation or facilitated conversation (if safe)
• Coaching or clear expectations for conduct
• Temporary shift adjustments (if necessary)
• Formal investigation or corrective action if warranted
Note that this list is not exhaustive. Be sure to consider other actions that may be appropriate for the situation and always check your workplace procedures and policy requirements.
Safety planning isn’t about taking sides; it is about protecting well-being.
Support Relationship Repair
Not all conflicts require discipline. Facilitated conversations, expectations-setting, or communication support can help repair relationships. Mediation works best when both parties feel safe, the concern is behavioural rather than threatening, and the mediator is impartial.
Monitor and Follow Up
Psychosocial hazards rarely end after one conversation. Make sure to:
• Checking in with Manpreet
• Following up with Adam
• Monitoring the team atmosphere
• Adjusting supports as needed
This shows staff that concerns are taken seriously and reinforces psychological safety.
Fostering a Culture of Safety and Well-being
Responding thoughtfully to psychosocial hazard reports is one of the most important responsibilities you have as a manager. How you listen, validate, and follow up shapes whether staff feel safe speaking up in the future.
A careful, structured response strengthens team culture, prevents escalation, and builds psychological safety. Managers who act consistently, transparently, and empathetically create workplaces where all employees feel heard, protected, and valued.
Download our Responding to Psychosocial Hazards Quick Reference Guide for easy access.
References
- CSA Z1002-12: Occupational Health and Safety — Hazard Identification and Elimination and Risk Assessment and Control | Canadian Standards Association