Any risk assessment including a stress risk assessment is of itself not much use; it is what you do after having identified the risk that’s important. With stress the issues are not straightforward  where one simple control measure can deal with the problem. People are stressed out for a variety of reasons, which are often nothing to do with the workplace,  over which the employer has little control.  Dealing with stress is down the organisation’s culture and also individuals. The organisation has to decide how to deal with “strong managers” who might be perceived by others as bullies  and factors like how to adapt to the current pandemic. The risk assessment bit is easy; it, get’s harder after that.

Lisa, there is also the problem as to whether the line manager (alone) is best placed to do the assessment. he or she might be exacerbating the risks and either doesn't recognise this, or unlikely to confirm it on paper.

Then, as previously mentioned there is the issue of culture. As example, if people are working too many hours, this might be because the culture influences working longer rather than smarter.

This may depend on how performance is measured. As example a worker may produce widgets in a system where there is inevitably downtime for reasons good or bad. One good reason would be that you ask them to do some training. One bad reason is that you don't give them the tools to work as efficiently as they could.

So, if they say work 40 hours per week, you can measure the widgets in different ways. One way would be to measure how many hours they are widgeting, so that if you give them a target of 80% if person A widget fosr 28 hours (70%) they might be seen as underperforming but in contrast if person B widgets for 36 hours (90%) they are seen as gold star performers EXCEPT that if they produce 50% sub-standard widgets they might not be doing what you really want AND they might not being completing that training that you wanted to do (as production is king).

There is the additional problem that they might be recording their hours differently. Person A may be diligently working their 40 hours, but only widgeting 28 hours due to organisational deficiencies (which you NEED to know about!). Person B may have sidestepped those deficiencies by working 50 hours but only booking 40 - this means that even if their output is all good widgets, they are NOT telling you about the problems you have presented them with. This means that you are less likely to recognise and address those problems. If you don't do so, then you are likely to be stressing the workers.

In contrast you could measure how many good widgets they produce. If 80% on the previous measure equates to 1000 good widgets, then the underperformer is perhaps producing 850 and the star 1050 AND doing that training.

If you give them the right tools AND the right raw materials (which might be partly processed widgets) then if your target is good widgets the person can do them when they wish. If they are in control of the pace of working, they are likely to be less stressed.