Solution2Change · Well-being
What makes work sustainable —
or not
Six organisational factors determine whether your teams thrive or quietly struggle. Most organisations already know where the pressure is. What is harder is naming it clearly — and knowing where to act first.
risk factors — EU-OSHA 2025
made worse by work — EU-OSHA 2025
psychological safety — Google 2014
psychological safety — McKinsey
The framework
Psychosocial risks are not about individual fragility
They are about organisational conditions. When the conditions are right, performance and well-being reinforce each other. When they are not, even the most resilient professionals start showing the signs — and in high-performance cultures, those signs are often the last thing to be said out loud.
What are psychosocial risks?
Work-related factors — such as workload, autonomy, communication, or role clarity — that can negatively affect employees' mental, emotional, and physical health, potentially leading to stress, burnout, or broader health deterioration.
Why six factors?
EU-OSHA research and the EU Framework Agreements (2004, 2007) identify six distinct organisational domains where risks accumulate. Each factor operates independently — and in combination. Addressing one without understanding the others produces limited results.
Who acts on them?
Prevention is a shared responsibility between HR, leadership, and managers. The most powerful intervention point is the immediate team level — where signals appear first and where daily conditions are shaped, day by day.
The six organisational risk factors
What works well — and what to watch for
For each factor: what healthy conditions look like in practice, and what early signals suggest attention is needed. The goal is not a checklist — it is a structured way of seeing.
Digital Risk
Connectivity, information volume, and the pressure of always being reachable
- People can genuinely disconnect — and the organisation's behaviour, not just its policy, makes that possible
- New tools are introduced with adequate transition time — the adaptation cost is acknowledged, not silently absorbed
- AI and data governance are clear enough that people act with confidence rather than caution
- Information flow is manageable — platforms and notifications support the work rather than fragment attention
- Messaging activity outside working hours has become normal — and nobody decided that, it simply happened
- When a new platform launches, who gets adequate support — and who is expected to figure it out quietly?
- Is the pressure to stay connected modelled by leadership before it reaches the rest of the team?
- Uncertainty around AI rules generates a background anxiety that rarely surfaces in official channels
Work Organisation
How priorities are set, roles are distributed, and decisions get made
- People know what is expected of them — and equally, what is not their responsibility
- Workload distribution is visible and perceived as fair, which matters as much as whether it actually is
- Changes are prepared, not announced — people have time to adjust before the pressure lands
- Decision-making scope is clear enough that people can act without constant upward validation
- People are regularly receiving different instructions from different levels — and resolving the contradiction themselves, in silence
- When someone is overextended, is it structural — or because they are the most available and least likely to push back?
- How long does a priority remain a priority before something else becomes urgent?
- Role ambiguity in matrix or hybrid structures — one of the most consistently underreported sources of stress
Work Relations
The quality of daily interactions — with peers, managers, and across the organisation
- Tensions surface early and are addressed — they do not silently reshape team dynamics over months
- Recognition is specific and regular, not reserved for annual reviews or exceptional performance
- People feel genuinely heard — which is different from feeling agreed with
- Management communication is consistent, direct, and arrives before people have to ask
- Two colleagues stop engaging with each other. Others notice. Nobody names it.
- In high-context professional cultures, the absence of visible conflict is not the same as the presence of trust
- Feedback becomes either absent or brutal — both signal the same breakdown of relational safety
- What is said in meetings and what is discussed informally afterwards — is there a reliable gap?
Work Content
What the work actually asks of people — in volume, meaning, and emotional demand
- Workload is demanding but paced — people end the week tired, not depleted
- The work carries enough meaning that effort and purpose remain connected
- Autonomy exists in how tasks are done, not just in how they are described on paper
- Task clarity is sufficient that people can focus — without needing to interpret their brief before starting
- Sustained overload turns competent professionals into people who are simply trying to survive the week
- Boreout is quieter than burnout — and often goes unnamed for much longer. Are there people who have been competent and disengaged for years?
- Emotional labour accumulates invisibly: always being composed, always available, always absorbing others' pressure
- When did a previously engaged person last take initiative — and what happened when they did?
Working Conditions
The contractual, temporal and financial framework that surrounds the work relationship
- Working hours are real — not officially respected while informally stretched by cultural expectations
- Career development pathways are visible and feel accessible to people at different levels and backgrounds
- People perceive the conditions as broadly fair — not just legally compliant
- Uncertainty about the future of a role is addressed proactively, not left to generate quiet anxiety
- Is chronic overtime unremarked — not because people are comfortable with it, but because naming it feels professionally risky?
- Perceived unfairness in conditions — especially across roles, seniority or teams — generates friction that eventually affects retention
- In regional or multinational organisations, comparison with other markets is constant. Perceived inequity travels fast.
- Where do conversations about mobility or exit tend to start — and how early does the organisation hear about them?
Working Environment
Physical and digital workspace — the foundation that shapes everything else without being noticed
- People can concentrate without fighting their physical or digital environment
- Hybrid team members have equivalent access to information, tools, and visibility — not a structural disadvantage
- Rest and recovery are genuinely available during the working day, not just in policy documents
- Safety and ergonomic concerns are taken seriously — issues raised are followed up and resolved
- When people stop raising environmental issues — is it because conditions have improved, or because they have stopped expecting a response?
- In hybrid teams, who gets the informal information first — and what does that mean for those who do not?
- Has anyone assessed whether home office conditions are actually workable — or has that been treated as a personal matter since 2020?
- Slow or unreliable IT tools: a daily friction that erodes patience before the real work even begins
The condition that makes everything else work
Psychological Safety
A team where people can say "I don't know", "I disagree", or "I'm struggling" without fearing the consequences — that is a team that learns faster, performs better, and loses fewer people. Not comfort. Not the absence of challenge. The presence of trust.
Between 2012 and 2014, Google studied over 180 internal teams to understand what made them effective. They analysed 250 attributes — personality, seniority, skill levels, leadership style. The finding was unexpected: the single strongest predictor of team performance was not who was on the team. It was whether people felt safe to take interpersonal risks.
Project Aristotle confirmed what Amy Edmondson had first identified in 1999: psychological safety is a precursor to adaptive, innovative performance — at the individual, team, and organisational level. In today's rapidly changing environment, that finding has only become more relevant.
"Psychological safety is the absence of interpersonal fear. When psychological safety is present, people are able to speak up, ask for help, and propose new ideas."— Amy Edmondson, Harvard Business School
Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams (1999)
Psychological safety is
- A team climate where people take interpersonal risks without fear of humiliation
- Built through small, repeated daily behaviours — not declarations
- Directly linked to how a leader responds when someone admits a mistake
- Measurable, improvable, and connected to concrete business outcomes
- The foundation on which innovation, retention, and honest dialogue rest
Psychological safety is not
- Avoiding difficult feedback or difficult conversations
- Pretending conflict does not exist
- Making everyone feel comfortable all the time
- A workshop, a values statement, or a culture programme
- Incompatible with high standards — it is what enables them
Why it is harder to build in high power distance cultures — and why that matters
Research consistently shows that workplaces in high power distance cultures exhibit lower levels of psychological safety. Hierarchical structures tend to inhibit open communication and upward dissent — not because people are disengaged, but because the perceived cost of speaking up is higher.
In environments where raising a concern can feel like a professional risk, people learn to stay quiet — about errors, about early burnout signals, about ideas that challenge the current direction. The organisation loses exactly the information it most needs. Teams where people feel safe to disagree, to admit mistakes, and to speak before they are certain adapt faster and retain talent more effectively. In competitive talent markets, that is a strategic outcome.
How it is built — six concrete behaviours
Psychological safety is not built in workshops. It is built in the small moments that follow — in how a leader responds the next morning.
Respond to mistakes differently
When someone admits an error in a meeting, what happens next? If the default is analysis and correction, that signal travels through the whole team. If the default is blame, so does that.
Ask before you answer
Leaders who ask genuine questions — and visibly change their view based on the answers — signal that input matters. Leaders who consult in order to confirm signal the opposite.
Name the difficulty first
When a situation is genuinely hard, saying so — "I don't have a good answer yet" — gives others permission to do the same. Certainty performed is a barrier to honest exchange.
Make silence visible
In high power distance cultures, quiet does not mean agreement. The leader who notices who has not spoken, and creates a specific opening for them, changes what the team actually knows.
Be consistent across levels
Research shows a consistent gap between how safe senior leaders feel and how safe individual contributors do. Closing it is a daily choice — not a structural programme.
Model vulnerability first
Sharing your own uncertainties, limits, and mistakes — briefly and authentically — is the most direct way to show others it is safe to do the same. It does not require weakness. It requires honesty.
"When was the last time someone told you something you didn't want to hear — and you were glad they did?"
If that is rare, it is not because nothing is wrong. It is because the conditions for saying so don't yet exist.Sources & references
- Edmondson, A.C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
- Google, Project Aristotle (2012–2014). What makes a team effective at Google. re:Work, Google.
- McKinsey & Company. Psychological safety and the critical role of leadership development.
- Boston Consulting Group (2023). Psychological safety and employee retention.
- EU-OSHA, OSH Pulse 2025. Psychosocial risks and mental health at work.
- EU Framework Agreement on Work-related Stress (2004). European Social Partners.
- EU Framework Agreement on Harassment and Violence at Work (2007). European Social Partners.
- HRM Asia (2024). Cultivating psychological safety at work: Why Asia struggles to do it right.
- Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences. SAGE Publications.
- Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior (2023). Psychological safety research update.
Where would you start?
Most organisations have a sense of which factors need attention. What is harder is creating the space to look at them honestly — without triggering defensiveness or raising alarm. A structured conversation, a team workshop, or a half-day diagnostic can help identify where the real pressure points are and what is worth addressing first.
Talk to Xavier → Explore training programmes