Posted By Ron Hunter I'm feeling quite brave today, so I'll share a few thoughts with you. If you're stuck with "Policy", why not consider things from a Risk Assessment point of view and work backwards from there? You recognise the potential is there for that risk to be realised, so what can you do to reduce the risk? Your Policy then should embrace your aims and goals to eliminate or reduce that risk from initial proactive measures to any reactive measures. To my mind there is sometimes too much emphasis placed on reactive measures - contrary to the principles of Risk Assessment. It strikes me that some instances of workplace stress may well be down to the wrong people being selected (whether initial recruitment or internal transfer or promotion) in the first place. There are many tools which can be used at recruitment and selection to gauge the ability of people to work "under pressure" (and there are those that thrive on it). Thereafter it is about a close scrutiny of the job and doing what is reasonably practicable to reduce that risk - solutions can be found by better use of IT and other technology investment, systems of flexible hours etc. Something else you can ponder is what you do when someone does go off sick, or on maternity leave, or holiday (and you do make sure that your people take all their holiday entitlement and maintain a healthy work/life balance, don't you?) etc. - does that create a potential domino effect, or would you bring in agency staff to get you over these humps?

Posted By TT The HSE have an example stress policy available for free on their website in case you haven't seen it yet. Also, the point about reactive measures is well made. The policy does need to be about how the company is going to prevent stress, not merely react to it although this should never be overlooked. No job should be inherently 'stressful'. The obligation lies on the company to examine their operations, identify areas where the pressure could be considered as excessive and then take steps to control it. It sounds like you already know where some of the pressures are coming from but the employees may be able to give you several more matters that, if put right, would make their job a little less pressured. It all adds up. Easier said than done though and often beyond the remit of the health & safety officer by themselves. In fact, this is normally an HR led policy but I can see that might pose you a few issues!

Posted By Kieran J Duignan Tanya Broadly I v. much support the 'pro-active', risk-based approach to managing safety and health hazards at work. Yet, I also agree with two of the leading researchers in occupational psychology, Rob Briner and Peter Warr, who very very emphatically challege the usefulness of the concept of 'stress', as it now means so many things. The HSE Management Standards illustrate this confusion - which accounts for the reason why they were not given ACoP status. In practice, you can make a lot of progress through real ergonomic, i.e. user-centred, design of work and hazard management. Beyond that, you may well be better off getting someone who's both a chartered occupational psychologist and a charteres safety and health practitioner (and ideally a qualified counsellor as well), to assist with the design of a 'hardiness' model for managing risks of employee overload, both physical and psychological.