Addressing the adaptive challenges of psychosocial safety is all about changing “hearts and minds” in pursuit of shifting enterprise-wide behavioural norms.

Many organisations stall in their psychosocial risk management efforts  – overwhelmed by complexity and hindered by unclear ownership. As a result, many risk overlooking the need to build integrated systems and drive sustained behaviour change, rather than defaulting to tick-a-box compliance.

There are both technical and adaptive challenges that need to be addressed to successfully establish a culture of proactive and embedded psychosocial risk management – and HR plays an important role in helping senior leaders understand the difference.

Technical versus adaptive psychosocial safety

A great way to distinguish between a technical challenge and an adaptive challenge is through the work of adaptive leadership theorists Ronald Heifetz and Marty Linsky.

They highlight that:

• Technical challenges/problems can be solved with existing know-how and procedures. These are well-defined problems and solutions that exist within current expertise. 
• Adaptive challenges/problems require a shift in people’s values, beliefs and behaviours. These are problems with no clearly defined solution that require a much different approach.

As responsibility for psychosocial safety is increasingly devolved to people leaders, it’s often the adaptive challenges – not the technical ones – that may be stalling progress.

Let’s explore some of the common technical and adaptive challenges in relation to psychosocial safety:

A technical challenge might look like:

• Problem: The existing work health and safety management system (WHSMS) documentation is purely focused on physical health and safety.
• Solution: Update all documentation with relevant content around psychosocial risk, drawing on technical regulator guidance and codes of practice.
• Expertise needed: Review and understanding of guidance material; knowledge of current organisational context and WHSMS; and authority to make necessary changes in consultation and collaboration with key stakeholders.
• Outcome: Documentation reflects both physical and psychosocial health and safety requirements.

It’s technical because the problem is clearly defined, and an expert or technical fix can resolve it. However, adaptive challenges might look like this:

Problems: 

• A senior leader who dismisses coping concerns as a resilience issue.
• A team member who interprets constructive performance feedback as ‘unsafe’ 
• A culture that rewards overwork while promoting wellbeing in name only.

These challenges aren’t solved by a new policy. They require people to reflect on their beliefs, examine their behaviours and genuinely adapt.

How can HR move the needle on addressing adaptive challenges?

With adaptive work – often synonymous with cultural change – frequently under-resourced or misunderstood, the focus must now shift to solutions. This is where executive leadership becomes critical.

Adaptive change can’t be performative – that just won’t work. It needs to flow from the top. If the executive team isn’t modelling the values, behaviours and cultural norms they want others to adopt, the system will not shift – no matter how robust the WHS management system is.

Executives must go first. HR practitioners are in a unique position to support executive leaders to understand and navigate adaptive barriers. Here are three of the most common.

1. Misunderstanding the role of leadership

In today’s workplaces – where mental health is more openly discussed – leaders can feel ill-equipped, fearing they’ll say the wrong thing, overstep boundaries, or mishandle sensitive situations.

If supporting psychological wellbeing is perceived as requiring leaders to act as counsellors or to tolerate poor performance, resistance is likely to flourish.

Leaders who address performance and are subject to push back also need to be supported. As I’ve previously written for HRM, the over correction in the space of psychosocial safety and psychological safety in workplaces, and the misuse of the word ‘unsafe’, is doing little to encourage positive attitudes in this space for leaders who may feel ‘it’s not their role’.

Most leaders want to get this right, but they lack clarity on the parameters.

2. Ingrained change resistance 

Jonah Berger, Professor of Marketing at Wharton University of Pennsylvania and world-renowned expert on influence, says in his book The Catalyst – How to Change Anyone’s Mind that when pushed, people tend to push back. 

The more we try to demand, pressure, push someone to do something, the more likely resistance will thrive. This is why commanding people to change their behaviour seldom works.

It’s more effective to spread positive influence through strategies such as:

• Senior Leadership role modelling
• Effective change management 
• Guiding coalitions with strong social influence

Executive leaders often view psychosocial safety as a ‘people issue’ to be delegated to HR or line managers. But unless it’s owned at the executive level – as a strategic, cultural and operational priority – it risks being treated superficially, with change efforts likely to face resistance.

Resistance is rarely overt at the executive level. But it can show up in more subtle ways – for example, a reluctance to explore personal blind spots, protectiveness of status quo, or prioritising operational pressures over long-term systemic change. 

Dismantling resistance at this level is an essential first step in adaptive change.

“Adaptive change can’t be performative – that just won’t work. It needs to flow from the top.”

3. Discomfort with ambiguity 

One of the most persistent challenges in managing psychosocial risk is its inherent ambiguity. Psychosocial risks are shaped by a dynamic interplay of systemic, cultural and interpersonal factors – many of which defy clear-cut solutions. This is especially true when individual vulnerabilities intersect with broader work conditions.

 While frameworks like ISO 45003 and Safe Work Australia’s model code offer useful guidance, they don’t always provide definitive answers – particularly when it comes to nuanced leadership decisions. 

Faced with this complexity, many leaders struggle to discern what “good” looks like in practice. This can leave them feeling exposed, unsure whether their actions are supporting wellbeing or inadvertently crossing a line.

This ambiguity raises critical questions for leaders on the ground: 

Where are the guardrails? Without clear parameters, leaders are often left guessing what’s reasonable or lawful when responding to psychosocial hazards – especially in grey areas involving mental health or interpersonal conflict.

How can they uphold performance expectations? Many leaders worry that addressing underperformance might be perceived as contributing to psychosocial harm, leading to inaction or avoidance.

When does strong leadership become unreasonable management? The line between setting high standards and increasing psychosocial risk can be unclear, particularly in high-pressure or emotionally charged environments. 

Without greater clarity and support, these uncertainties can lead to either inaction or overreach, where attempts to manage behaviour are mishandled. Both scenarios increase legal and cultural risk. 

That’s why building psychological safety must go hand-in-hand with leadership capability development and clear organisational frameworks.

Technical fixes are necessary, but not sufficient

While the adaptive challenges of psychosocial risk are often the most complex to navigate, that doesn’t diminish the importance of getting the technical foundations right. This includes:

• Clearly defining roles and responsibilities for psychosocial risk management – particularly given that ownership has been a persistent challenge and the work itself is inherently multi-disciplinary.
• Creating a suite of templates and tools that form part of the work health and safety management system (WHSMS).
• Updating existing WHSMS documentation to ensure psychosocial safety is as prominent and understood as physical safety. In some cases this requires a change to risk assessment templates and/or redefining processes.
• Training key people in the technical duties required.
• Reading regulatory and other guidance material to enhance understanding of duties and suitable controls.
• Consulting with HSRs and work groups as required under existing WHS legislation.

However, these activities won’t embed psychosocial safety and lead to sustainable shifts unless they’re accompanied by:

1. Modeling from the C-Suite down

Executives need to walk the talk and actively engage in everyday practices that promote and embed psychosocial safety and new behaviours and actions.

This could include: open dialogue about job demands or exploring the redesign of specific roles and actively speaking out against things such as bullying and harassment.

2. Mindset shifts

Using coaching and other targeted interventions to dismantle resistance by unpacking values and beliefs around mental health, psychological safety and related constructs that may be impeding individual or team progress or willingness to change.

3. Behaviour change

Redefining what safe and effective leadership looks like in today’s workplace – challenging outdated norms where needed, and equipping leaders to navigate complexity and nuance in an increasingly polarised environment through training, coaching and practical tools.

Leading a culture of adaptation

If your executive team isn’t prepared to lead the adaptive challenge, your psychosocial safety strategy will fail to gain traction. It’s time to stop expecting frontline managers to shoulder the full weight of this work and start enabling senior leaders to model the change they seek.

Culture doesn’t shift through policy alone. It shifts through the repeated, visible actions of leaders – especially those at the top.

Embedding psychosocial safety requires leaders to actively engage in the discomfort, demonstrate curiosity and learning, support their people leaders, and commit to fixing the work – not just addressing the individual.

HR’s role is to make this possible: providing the scaffolding, the coaching and the consistent reminder that while technical solutions matter, only adaptive leadership creates lasting cultural change.

Because culture isn’t transformed by a new risk register. It’s shaped in the boardroom, around the executive table and in one-on-one conversations – where leaders choose to show up differently. That’s the true catalyst for change.

Gain the skills to navigate the complex landscape of psychosocial wellbeing in the workplace and better understand the Psychosocial Code of Practice with AHRI’s short course.