When a leadership team first says the words “psychosocial risk assessment”, I can often hear a second sentence forming behind it. Someone is wondering whether this means interviewing staff about depression. Someone else is wondering whether names will appear in a report.
That hesitation is understandable. Mental health language at work still arrives with a clinical shadow. An assessment sounds like a test of individuals. In an office in Kuala Lumpur or Penang, a manager may worry that asking about psychosocial risk will make people feel examined.
WHAT THE WORD ACTUALLY POINTS TO
In occupational safety and health, psychosocial risk is not a polite synonym for personal fragility. Malaysia’s Department of Occupational Safety and Health, in its 2024 Guidelines on Psychosocial Risk Assessment and Management at the Workplace (PRisMA), describes psychosocial risk as arising from the way work is designed, organised and managed, and from the social context in which work occurs. The same guideline draws on ISO 45003:2021 when it speaks of work-related hazards of a psychosocial nature, and of the harm they may cause.
In plainer language: the question is how the job, the team and the organisation are arranged. It is about workload and pace, role clarity, control over one’s tasks, support from colleagues and leaders, the way change is handled, and whether someone can raise a concern early without paying a social price.
The Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 asks employers to assess safety and health risks that may affect people at the workplace, and to put controls in place where those risks require them. The PRisMA guideline is offered as a guide for that work in the psychosocial domain. Appointing a Psychosocial Trained Person is framed as something employers should do. I mention this carefully, as a professional reading of the published guideline, and not as legal advice. Requirements vary by industry and circumstance, and they remain the employer’s responsibility.
WHAT WE ARE NOT DOING
The assessment we conduct at New Mind is an organisational assessment and a Training Needs Analysis. It is not a clinical or psychiatric diagnostic assessment. It does not screen, diagnose or label individual employees.
That distinction matters more than many slide decks admit. If people believe the survey will identify who is unwell, they write more cautiously. If they understand that the questions are about shared working conditions, they are more willing to describe what the week actually feels like.
Responses are anonymous and treated as confidential. Findings are reported at organisational and group level. The conversation is framed around systems and working conditions. We do not turn the report into a search for weaker individuals.
AN ORGANISATIONAL PICTURE
In practice, the process usually takes about four to five weeks from survey launch to a facilitated management session.
We first confirm the scope: which parts of the organisation are included, who should be invited, and how the timeline will run. Employees then complete a confidential organisational questionnaire. After the responses are reviewed and written up, we sit with management for a four-hour working session. In that room we interpret the report, map likely root causes, and separate the issues that training can address from those that ask for work to be redesigned.
The domains we look at will be familiar to anyone who has stayed late too many evenings or sat through a meeting where nobody knew who owned the decision. We look at work demands and whether the pace leaves room for recovery. We look at role and job design: clarity, autonomy, and whether people have the resources to do what they have been asked to do. We look at support and relationships, including the everyday backing that makes demanding work more sustainable. We look at communication, and at whether concerns can surface early.
Other organisational factors may also be reviewed, such as change management, recognition, and fairness. The report is written so that leaders can see the picture without needing a background in statistics. Areas working well, areas to watch, and areas that need attention are set out in plain language.
I lead this work as an Industrial & Organizational Psychologist (PSIMA Reg. No. 91090) and a DOSH Psychosocial Trained Person (PTP-167/25), drawing on 15 years of work with Malaysian organisations. My wider practice is neuroscience-informed; I am a Neurofeedback SBCIA Master Trainer and hold HRV Biofeedback (BCIA). In an assessment, that background mostly keeps one fact in view: how people cope at work depends heavily on the conditions around them. Our team includes three DOSH Psychosocial Trained Persons in total. Depending on the agreed scope, colleagues from clinical psychology, occupational therapy and counselling may be involved later; they are assigned according to need, and not every professional attends every booking.
FROM PICTURE TO DECISION
A psychosocial risk assessment is most useful when it helps management decide what kind of response the findings actually call for.
If people lack the skill to hold a difficult conversation, corporate wellbeing training can help. If the workload is structurally unsustainable, no amount of resilience language will repair it. The assessment is built to make that distinction visible, so that the next budget is not spent on the wrong kind of kindness.
I will write tomorrow about why the report should lead to a tailored organisational intervention rather than a generic workshop catalogue. Today I only want Malaysian management to hear this clearly: psychosocial risk assessment is a way of looking at work, with care for confidentiality and without turning employees into cases.
If your team has been circling this subject and pausing at the word “assessment”, that pause can be respected. The work can still begin with a precise question about working conditions, asked in a way that people can answer honestly.
Warmly,
Dr Hiro Koo
Industrial & Organizational Psychologist · Neurofeedback SBCIA Master Trainer · HRV Biofeedback (BCIA) · New Mind
If you would like to look at this more slowly, you are welcome to write to me on WhatsApp at +60 16-715 4419, or to read how we approach psychosocial risk assessment in Malaysia.
---
领导团队第一次说出“心理社会风险评估”时，我常常能感觉到后半句还卡在喉咙里。有人在想，这是不是意味着要逐一询问谁有抑郁。也有人在想，报告里会不会出现名字。
这种犹豫可以理解。职场里的心理健康用语，总还带着一层临床的影子。Assessment 听起来像是在测验个人。在吉隆坡或槟城的办公室里，主管也许会担心：一问心理社会风险，同事就会觉得自己被检查了。
WHAT THE WORD ACTUALLY POINTS TO
在职业安全与卫生的语境里，心理社会风险并不是“个人比较脆弱”的委婉说法。马来西亚职业安全与卫生局（DOSH）在 2024 年的《Guidelines on Psychosocial Risk Assessment and Management at the Workplace》（PRisMA）中写道：心理社会风险，来自工作被设计、组织与管理的方式，也来自工作发生时的社会情境。同一份指南在谈到心理社会性质的工作危害及其可能造成的伤害时，也引用了 ISO 45003:2021。
说得更日常一点：问题在于工作、团队和组织是如何被安排的。它关乎工作量与节奏、职责是否清楚、人对自己的任务有多少掌控、同事与主管的支持、变革如何被处理，以及一个人是否能及早提出担心，而不必付出社交上的代价。
1994 年的《职业安全与卫生法令》要求雇主评估可能影响工作场所中人们的安全与健康风险，并在风险需要被控制时采取相应措施。PRisMA 指南，是在心理社会这个领域里为这项工作提供的指引。指南也提到，雇主应当委任 Psychosocial Trained Person。我在这里小心说明：这是对已公开指南的专业阅读，不是法律意见。不同行业与情境的要求会有差别，责任仍在雇主本身。
WHAT WE ARE NOT DOING
New Mind 进行的评估，是组织层面的评估，也是培训需求分析（Training Needs Analysis）。它不是临床或精神科的诊断评估，不会筛查、诊断或替个别员工贴上标签。
这个分别，比许多投影片愿意承认的更重要。如果人们相信问卷会找出谁状态不好，他们写起来会更谨慎。如果他们明白问题问的是共同的工作条件，他们才比较愿意描述这一周真正的样子。
回答是匿名的，也会被当作机密来处理。发现会在组织与组别层面呈现。对话围绕系统与工作条件展开。我们不会把报告变成一场寻找“比较弱的人”的行动。
AN ORGANISATIONAL PICTURE
实务上，从问卷发出到一场有引导的管理层会议，整个过程大约需要四到五周。
我们会先确认范围：组织的哪些部分会被纳入、该邀请谁、时间如何安排。员工随后完成一份保密的组织问卷。答复被审阅并写成报告后，我们会和管理层坐下来，进行四小时的工作会议。在那间房里，我们一起解读报告，梳理可能的根因，并分开两件事：哪些问题可以通过培训处理，哪些问题其实要求工作被重新设计。
我们看的领域，对那些经常加班到很晚、或坐过一场谁都不知道该谁做决定的会议的人来说，并不会陌生。我们看工作要求，以及这样的节奏有没有留下恢复的空间。我们看职责与工作设计：是否清楚、有没有自主，以及人们是否拥有完成被要求之事的资源。我们看支持与关系，包括那些让高要求的工作比较撑得住的日常后盾。我们也看沟通，以及担心能否及早被说出来。
其他组织因素也可能被检视，例如变革管理、肯定，以及公平。报告会用平实的语言写成，让领导者不必具备统计背景也能看见全貌：运作良好的地方、需要观察的地方，以及需要被认真对待的地方。
我以工商与组织心理学家（PSIMA Reg. No. 91090），以及 DOSH Psychosocial Trained Person（PTP-167/25）的身份带领这项工作，背后是 15 年与马来西亚机构共事的经验。我的整体实务以神经科学为依据（neuroscience-informed）；我是 Neurofeedback SBCIA Master Trainer，也具备 HRV Biofeedback (BCIA)。在评估里，这个背景主要提醒我一件事：一个人在工作中撑不撑得住，很大程度取决于他身边的条件。我们团队一共有三位 DOSH Psychosocial Trained Person。视约定范围而定，临床心理、职能治疗与辅导的同事之后也可能参与；专业人员会按需要被指派，并不是每一次预约都全员出席。
FROM PICTURE TO DECISION
心理社会风险评估最有用的时候，是它能帮助管理层判断：这些发现真正呼唤的是哪一种回应。
如果人们缺少进行困难对话的技能，企业健康培训可以帮忙。如果工作量在结构上已经难以持续，再多关于韧性的语言也无法把它修好。评估被设计来让这个分别被看见，这样下一笔预算，才不会花在一种用错地方的善意上。
明天我会写，为什么报告之后需要量身的组织介入，而不是一份通用的工作坊目录。今天我只希望马来西亚的管理层清楚听见：心理社会风险评估，是一种看待工作的方式。它小心保护机密，也不会把员工变成个案。
如果你们的团队一直在这个主题周围打转，又在“评估”这个词前面停住，那份停顿可以被尊重。工作仍然可以从一个精确的问题开始：问工作条件，并且用一种让人能够诚实回答的方式去问。
Warmly,
Dr Hiro Koo
Industrial & Organizational Psychologist · Neurofeedback SBCIA Master Trainer · HRV Biofeedback (BCIA) · New Mind
若想把这件事看得更慢一点，欢迎通过 WhatsApp +60 16-715 4419 写信给我，或阅读我们如何进行马来西亚的心理社会风险评估。
No comments:
Post a Comment