National Standard on Psychological Health and Safety in the
Workplace: roadmap, landmarks and commentary
Martin Shain S.J.D.
This roadmap focuses upon, and simplifies some of the key provisions of Z1003/BNQ9700 while
paying attention to “the spirit of the act”. It is written from the perspective of one of the people
who framed and developed the Standard. Other commentators might focus on other aspects.
First and foremost it is important to appreciate what kind of standard this is. Essentially, it is a
standard of care, meaning that it defines a basic norm of conduct at work which, if achieved,
should result in the avoidance of psychological harm or injury to others. The Standard is all
about how we behave toward one another at work, and about trying to shift the culture of
organizations in the direction of carefulness through a system of management.
The new norm is stated in the vision of the Standard as follows:
“The vision for a psychologically healthy and safe workplace is one that actively works to
prevent harm to worker psychological health, including in negligent, reckless, or intentional
ways, and promotes psychological well-being. This voluntary Standard has been developed to
help organizations strive towards this vision as part of an ongoing process of continual
improvement.
Psychological health and safety is embedded in the way people interact with one another on a
daily basis and is part of the way working conditions and management practices are structured
and the way decisions are made and communicated. While there are many factors external to the
workplace that can impact psychological health and safety, this Standard addresses those
psychological health and safety aspects within the control, responsibility, or influence of the
workplace that can have an impact within, or on the workplace.”
This vision reflects the problem to which the Standard is primarily addressed: the unacceptable
prevalence of foreseeable and therefore avoidable harm to mental health in the workplace,
resulting in whole or in part from the acts or omissions of supervisors, managers and fellow
workers.
A recent Ipsos Reid survey of the employed population of Canada (October 2012) substantiates
this problem. In that study,7% of the workforce reported harassment at work. That is 1.225
million people out of our workforce of 17.5 million. We do not know what proportion of those
reports reflect the kind of negligent, reckless and intentional conduct that is addressed by the
Standard, but the very perception of harassment is indicative of situations that require closer
examination, and in many cases, remediation.
1
Twelve Landmarks
Reduced to its most basic requirements, the Standard involves 12 steps, the first two of which are
of cardinal importance to the success of implementation.
1. Commit to the vision of the Standard at the highest level of governance and
management.
It is essential for the directing minds of an organization to understand the kind of journey that is
being contemplated and to ensure consensus for the undertaking if it is to go ahead.
One way of doing this is to have someone whose perspective is valued and credible read the
Standard thoroughly and report on what its implementation involves. This should lead to a
discussion of the vision, intent and requirements of the Psychological Health and Safety
Management System which are at the heart of the Standard.
Some of the aspects of the Standard that need to be appreciated and kept front of mind during
this phase of contemplation are as follows:

It is important not to be distracted into thinking that the Standard is about “being nice” to
employees or that it is primarily about preventing mental illness. Rather, it is about
preventing foreseeable mental injury and about establishing a basic cultural norm of “do
no harm” with regard to mental health. It is in this basic and limited way that the
Standard is one of “carefulness”.

In this sense, the Standard is not far ahead of what the law already requires. Often, the
liability that employers face in courts and tribunals is generically based on reasonably
foreseeable, significant injury to mental health arising in whole or in part from the acts
or omissions of workplace actors and resulting in an employee’s temporary or long term
inability to function as normal at work and/or at home. Injury of this kind may or may
not result in a diagnosable mental illness. But in any event, a diagnosis of mental illness
as defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric
Association is not in many cases a prerequisite for a finding of mental injury in courts
and tribunals. The Standard is designed to help employers avoid stepping into what is
rapidly becoming a mental injury minefield.

The Standard puts “safety first”. This means that its primary purpose is to ensure that the
workplace is free of conduct that could lead to negligent, reckless or intentional harm to
the mental health of workers. The achievement of this purpose creates a “floor” upon
which mental health promotion initiatives such as Stress Management Programs can then
be built. However, in the absence of this floor, such programs may be not only ineffective
but also counterproductive. When workers believe that such programs are substitutes for
2
amending conditions of work that give rise to unnecessary stress it can engender
resentment and anger – the exact opposites of what may have been intended.

There is one sense in which the Standard does concern itself with preventing mental
illness that originates outside the workplace since it brings with it a responsibility not to
make pre-existing conditions worse and to accommodate up to a reasonable degree those
who, for reasons of mental disability, need adjustments in their work arrangements.
If the discussion of the Standard and what it entails results in a decision to move ahead, it is now
time to draft for further discussion a master policy on Psychological Health and Safety based on
available models referred to in the Standard. This will probably be modified as more is
understood about the nature and extent of the challenge of creating and maintaining a
psychologically healthy and safe workplace.
2. Share the vision
The participation of all relevant stakeholders in the process of implementation is a cardinal
principle of the Standard.
Authentic participation is considered in its own right to be instrumental in the promotion of
mental health, so even as the organization works toward psychological safety it can do so in a
way that fosters mental health among workers.
Clearly, if unions are present it is imperative to involve them at an early stage.
3. Examine existing in house data to determine the apparent extent of mental disability and
injury using the Audit methodology found in the Standard or an equivalent.
This will involve finding data from various sources including EAP provider reports; STD, LTD
breakdowns from providers and/or HR; health care premium costs paid to providers if external,
or allocated if internal; therapeutic drug costs (particularly those apparently related to depression,
anxiety and pain management); RTW and other disability management costs (internal and
external); WCB/WSIB; Replacement worker costs; Turnover rates (complemented by insights
gleaned from exit interviews), records of deployment of HR to deal with conflicts, records of
disputes (grievances, hearings, complaints, other actions). Note that while the results of this audit
will demonstrate the prevalence of mental disability it will not be able to discern its causes
except in suggestive ways. For example, odd distributions and patterns of disability may suggest
that some parts of the organization are “producing” more costs than others but without closer
investigation this cannot be confirmed using only this methodology.
3
4. Plan to assess risks arising from how work is managed and organized through some form of
survey.
This assessment should not be done, however, if steps 1 and 2 have not been successfully
completed. Unless the great majority of employees trust in the process of the Psychological
Health and Safety Management System, attempts to assess psychological risks will very likely be
perceived as “yet another survey” whose results will probably never be released or never be
acted upon. The “rush to survey”, even when well intentioned, can lead to backlash and
resentment – a result that is exactly the opposite of what is intended.
Some excellent resources are referred to in the Standard. Assessment does not have to be an
onerous task since some surveys are very brief. Sometimes, too, existing data (e.g. from
engagement surveys) can be reanalysed to focus on the key drivers of psychological health and
safety identified in the Standard, namely, demand, control, effort, reward, support and fairness.
These are all described in the Standard’s annexes.
5. Implement whatever survey methodology is decided upon, ensuring participation of all
relevant parties in the decision.
6. Identify areas of high, medium and low risk within the organization based on steps 3-5.
7. Conduct some form of Root Cause Analysis: again, this does not have to be onerous or
complicated. In fact, the key factor here is making sure that everyone who has a view on root
causes should have a chance to offer their opinion.
8. Establish SMART goals (goals that are Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time
Limited) based on Root Cause Analysis. Whatever is decided, implications for the following
should be considered and reflected in the ensuing plan: recruitment and hiring practices, training
content, promotion and performance evaluation policies and procedures.
9. Assign adequate financial and staff resources, confirm division of labour and chain of
accountability to allow for successful execution of SMART goals. It is essential that
accountability be to the highest level of management and, where one exists, to the Board.
10. Execute the plan over a predetermined period of time.
11. Evaluate the outcome by re-examining data and repeating surveys to check progress against
baseline and SMART goals.
12. Revise policies and procedures where indicated.
4
Some broader considerations: the Standard, the Promises of Employment and Mental Health
From the perspective of one who has long called for its development, the Standard is like a flag, the
raising of which in any particular workplace heralds its governors’ long term commitment to placing the
highest value upon civility, respectfulness and fairness in the employment relationship.
Seen through the lens of the Standard, civility, respectfulness and fairness are the foundations of
harmonious labour relations; consequently they offer strong protection against mental injury.
This commitment at the highest level of organizations is not to be undertaken lightly because it conveys a
promise to promote civility, respectfulness and fairness to the status of criteria for the legitimacy of
decisions that are made by those who govern, manage and supervise. Like all promises, this one carries
with it intentions of the heart as well as of the mind. So, to knowingly break such a promise is to invite
resentment, anger and mistrust while keeping it invites loyalty, engagement and creativity.
The Standard, as a matter of both heart and mind, will take time to become firmly embedded in the
cultures of individual workplaces. Historically, the workplace has been thought of and experienced by
many, if not most, as an environment in which relationships are really no more than a sequence of
commercial transactions characterized by exchanges of wages and benefits for labour. Seen though the
perspective of the Standard, however, the relationship of employment emerges richer and fuller, requiring
of us all that we give and receive the basic gift of carefulness as articulated and expressed in civility,
respectfulness and fairness.
The intent of the Standard, understood in this way, is to increase the likelihood that the workplace will be
an engine for the production of social capital not social exhaust; that it will be an environment in which
the basic promise of carefulness raises the odds that mental health will be protected, not harmed; that
“everyone goes home safe” means mentally as well as physically.
Carefulness in this context is not a warm and fuzzy concept. It is not a clarion call for everyone to hold
hands and like one another. Rather it is a very basic call to avoid reasonably foreseeable harm to our
“neighbours at work” (which means everyone we come into regular contact with in the workplace). Such
harm can be prevented if we achieve floor levels of awareness of how we influence one another’s mental
wellbeing at work and try to achieve a basic recognition and understanding of one another’s interests,
needs and rights. Stated in this way, the goal of the new voluntary Standard is no more than the highest
legal standard of the land as articulated in the jurisprudence of British Columbia. However, whereas the
emphasis of the law is on what we should not do, the emphasis of the Standard is on what we should do.
In this sense, the Standard builds upon solid legal foundations and articulates what the law often alludes
to or implies as conduct that has a good chance of avoiding mental injury.
5