Work Health & Safety (Psychosocial Hazards) Regulations 2025

The Weight

Heywood & Partners Architecture — Melbourne

An interactive scenario about the hazards nobody talks about.

15–20 min · 3 decisions · 5 activities

Your role

You are Jordan, six months into your first team lead role at Heywood & Partners — a mid-sized architecture firm in Melbourne. Eight people report to you. You got promoted because you’re good at architecture. Nobody taught you how to lead.

Over the next three weeks, you’ll notice things. Small things. The question is what you do about them.

How this works

You’ll face 3 critical decisions and 5 hands-on activities. Every choice is tracked across three metrics:

Team WellbeingHow safe and supported your team feels.
ComplianceWhether your actions meet WHS legal obligations.
Your HealthYour own psychological wellbeing as a leader.

All three start at 50%. Your decisions move them up or down — watch the tracker in the top-right corner as you play.

The story branches based on your choices. What you see next depends on what you decide. There are no perfect answers — only trade-offs.

Jordan, looking concerned
Monday, 8:45 AM

The standup is half-empty again. Priya hasn’t dialled in — she’s been working from home for three weeks now. Nobody’s asked why.

Sam is already at his desk. His coat is still damp. He was here before seven — for the fourth day running.

Your inbox has a 1:00 AM email from David Kessler, senior partner: “Southbank deadline moved to the 15th. This is not optional. I need the revised schedule by end of day.”

The 15th is two weeks earlier than planned. Your team is already at capacity.

Jordan
Decision 1 of 3 — The Workload

Kessler wants the Southbank project two weeks early. Your team is at capacity. Priya is absent. Sam is already overworking. What do you do?

David Kessler, stern
✓ Good outcome
Jordan

“David, I’ve looked at the revised timeline. We can hit the 15th if we defer the rooftop terrace drawings to Phase 2. Otherwise we need two more weeks or a contract drafter from the pool.”

Kessler A long pause. “Fine. Defer the terrace. But if the client asks, you’re explaining it.”

It’s not comfortable. Kessler’s email that evening is curt. But the team doesn’t know about the midnight deadline that almost was. Sam leaves at 5:30 for the first time this week.

Under the WHS Code of Practice, unreasonable workload is a recognised psychosocial hazard.

Jordan
⚠ Mixed outcome
Jordan

“Team, Southbank’s been brought forward. I need everyone to clear their weekends for the next two sprints.”

Silence. Then Mika: “I have my daughter this weekend.” Sam doesn’t say anything. He just nods. Priya’s camera stays off during the call.

Jordan
✗ Poor outcome
Narrator

You absorb it. You work until midnight for four nights straight. By Thursday you’re making mistakes. You snap at a junior. You skip lunch. The team notices — and some start staying later too.

Absorbing unreasonable workload doesn’t eliminate the hazard — it transfers it to you and models overwork as expected behaviour.

Priya looking tired and worried
Wednesday, 12:30 PM

Priya messages you on Signal. Not Teams. Not email. Signal.

You meet her at a cafe on Flinders Lane. She looks tired. She orders but doesn’t drink.

Priya “Last month, David tore my facade concept apart. In front of everyone. He said it was ‘undergraduate-level work.’ I’ve been doing this for eleven years. I have a Master’s from RMIT.”

“That’s why I’ve been working from home. I can’t sit across from him and pretend that was normal.”

Priya
Decision 2 of 3 — The Disclosure

Priya has just told you a senior partner publicly humiliated her. Under the WHS Code of Practice, this may constitute workplace bullying.

How do you respond?

Priya
✓ Good outcome
Jordan

“What he did is not acceptable. That’s not feedback — that’s humiliation. I’m sorry nobody said anything. I should have.”

Priya Her eyes are wet, but she nods. “I didn’t think anyone would believe me.”

Priya
⚠ Mixed outcome
Jordan

“I hear you, Priya. Let me look into the proper process.”

Priya “HR reports to the partners, Jordan. David is the firm.”

Deferring action without validation can feel like another form of inaction.

Priya
✗ Poor outcome
Jordan

“David’s tough on everyone. It’s not personal.”

Priya She stares at you. Then picks up her bag. “Right. Thanks for the coffee, Jordan.”

The following Monday, HR emails you: Priya has submitted a formal complaint.

Priya, contemplative
Perspective Shift — Priya’s View

The scene shifts. You’re looking at yourself through Priya’s eyes.

Activity 2 — Active Listening

The Conversation Continues

Reply on Signal — each message builds or breaks trust.

Empathy Level

P
Priya Sharma
Signal · encrypted

Activity 3 — Signal vs. Noise

What Gets Your Attention?

Six interruptions just landed. Classify each one.

Sam, visibly exhausted
Two weeks later — Friday, 4:15 PM

The Southbank drawings shipped. Kessler sent: “Good.”

But Sam hasn’t taken lunch in nine days. He’s making errors. Yesterday a client called about a structural miscalculation in the Level 3 beams.

You walk past his desk. Three empty coffee cups. His eyes are red. He’s staring at his screensaver.

Sam looking exhausted
Decision 3 of 3 — The Intervention

Sam is showing clear signs of burnout. Errors are escalating. What do you do?

Sam
✓ Good outcome
Jordan

“Sam, can we grab a coffee? Not about the project.”

Sam “I didn’t skip the peer review because I was lazy. I skipped it because I couldn’t look at another drawing.”

You move two of his tasks to Mika. He’s taking Monday off.

Sam
⚠ Mixed outcome
Narrator

You document everything and send it to HR and the WHS officer. Kessler is furious. But the assessment happens. Sam breaks down in the interview: “I thought I was the only one struggling.”

Formal reporting is the right compliance response. But it works best alongside direct support.

Sam
✗ Poor outcome
Narrator

You wait. On Tuesday, Sam doesn’t come in. His sister says he’s “not doing well.” He files a WorkCover claim citing sustained unreasonable workload and lack of management support. SafeWork contacts the firm. You have no documentation.

Activity 1 — Hazard Recognition

Spot the Hazard

Five team observations. For each one, identify the psychosocial hazard — or confirm there isn’t one.

Observation 1 of 5

Activity 4 — Risk Assessment

Place the Hazards

Drag each scenario onto the risk matrix. Consider both how likely it is and how severe the impact.

Low Severity
Medium Severity
High Severity
High Likelihood
Medium Likelihood
Low Likelihood

Activity 5 — Email Triage

Inbox Triage

5 emails just landed. Classify each one. You have 90 seconds.

1:30
Email 1 of 5

The Butterfly Effect

Your Decisions, Their Consequences

Watch how your three choices rippled through the team.

Your Results

Team Wellbeing

0%

Compliance

0%

Your Health

0%

Your Decisions

Key Takeaways

1Psychosocial hazards are as real as physical hazards — the WHS Act treats them the same.
2Early intervention prevents escalation. A conversation costs less than a WorkCover claim.
3Your response to a disclosure defines the culture. Silence is a choice.

Key Regulations

WHS Act 2011 s.19 — Primary duty of care
Reg 55A–55D — Psychosocial hazards
Code of Practice — Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work

Ready to train your team?

WHS Regulations 2011 (Reg 55A–55D) · WHS Act 2011 (s.19) · Code of Practice 2022/2024

blend.training