Summary
In short
- Only run it if you will act. A survey followed by no change teaches people that reporting problems is pointless and degrades every subsequent round.
- ISO 45003 frames these as psychosocial hazards, which makes results a risk finding rather than a satisfaction score.
- Use a validated instrument where possible. Questions written in-house tend to measure sentiment about the organisation rather than the conditions creating risk.
- Report by team and by theme, at a granularity that protects anonymity but is specific enough to act on. Site-wide averages conceal the units where conditions are worst.
- Low participation is itself a finding, and in the areas with the worst conditions it is usually lowest.
- Feed results back before acting, and say what will not be addressed and why. Silence on an item is read as refusal.
What it is
What it is
What is a wellbeing survey?
A structured survey assessing psychosocial conditions at work, covering demands, control, support, relationships, role clarity, change management and related factors, used to identify where conditions are creating risk.
How does it differ from an engagement survey?
Engagement surveys measure how people feel about the organisation. A psychosocial survey assesses working conditions that create risk to health, which is a hazard question with a duty attached. The distinction matters because the second produces findings that require action rather than sentiment that can be noted.
When to use it
When to use it, and when not to
This surveys conditions. The actions and the individual support sit elsewhere.
Use it for
- Assessing psychosocial working conditions across a site or organisation
- Establishing a baseline before an intervention and measuring after
- Identifying teams or units where conditions are concentrated
- Supporting psychosocial risk assessment with population data
- Tracking change over time where the instrument stays constant
Not for
- Individual mental health support and referral, which is confidential and separate
- The psychosocial risk assessment, which this informs
- Engagement and satisfaction surveys, which measure a different thing
- Exit interviews and turnover analysis, which are separate signals
- Performance and capability processes
Standards
What it is built against
Psychosocial risk sits within occupational health and safety obligations, increasingly explicitly.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| ISO 45003 | Guidance on managing psychosocial risk, including hazard categories and control approaches | Results by theme |
| ISO 45001 cl.6.1.2 | Hazard identification including work organisation, social factors and leadership | Header |
| ISO 45001 cl.5.4 | Consultation and participation of workers, which a survey supports rather than replaces | Participation |
| ISO 45001 cl.8.1.2 | Hierarchy of controls, applied to psychosocial hazards as to physical ones | Follow through |
| Australian WHS Regulations | Psychosocial risk duties enforceable across jurisdictions, with control measures required | Follow through |
| HSE Management Standards | Demands, control, support, relationships, role and change as the assessment framework (GB) | Results by theme |
| ISO 45001 cl.9.1 | Monitoring and measurement of OH&S performance, including psychosocial indicators | Key findings |
| Privacy law | Survey data as personal data where identification is possible, restricting reporting granularity | Participation |
What it does not cover
- Individual support and referral, which is confidential and separate.
- The psychosocial risk assessment, which this informs.
- Engagement and satisfaction surveys, measuring a different construct.
- Exit interviews and turnover analysis, separate signals worth reading alongside.
- Performance and capability processes.
Filling it in
Filling it in well
Use a validated instrument, report at a level people recognise, and close the loop before acting.
Established frameworks assess the conditions known to create risk: demands, control, support, relationships, role clarity and change. Questions written in-house tend to drift toward how people feel about the organisation, which produces sentiment rather than a hazard finding and is much harder to act on.
Site-wide averages conceal the two teams where conditions are severe. Team-level reporting is actionable and risks identifying individuals in small groups. Setting a minimum group size, and combining small teams upward rather than suppressing them entirely, keeps both properties.
A twenty percent response rate in one department is data. In practice participation is usually lowest where conditions are worst, because people either lack time or do not believe the exercise is safe. Reporting participation alongside results prevents a favourable score from a small self-selected sample being read as good news.
Tell people what the results said and what will happen, including which items will not be addressed and why. An item raised and never mentioned again is read as refusal. Naming a constraint honestly costs less credibility than silence, and it is the difference between a survey people answer next time and one they do not.
Audit findings
Common audit findings
Survey findings concentrate on whether anything followed.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Survey run with no capacity or intention to act on the results. | ISO 45003 | It degrades future rounds and documents knowledge of problems left unaddressed. |
| In-house questions measuring sentiment rather than conditions. | HSE Management Standards | Use a validated instrument assessing the conditions that create risk. |
| Results reported only as a site-wide average. | ISO 45001 cl.9.1 | Averages conceal the units where conditions are concentrated. |
| Participation rate not reported alongside results. | ISO 45001 cl.5.4 | Low participation is a finding and usually clusters where conditions are worst. |
| No feedback to participants before action. | ISO 45001 cl.7.4 | Silence on a raised item is read as refusal. |
| Actions limited to individual resilience and support offerings. | ISO 45001 cl.8.1.2 | The hierarchy applies; support does not control a hazard that is in the work design. |
| Instrument changed between rounds, preventing comparison. | ISO 45001 cl.9.1 | Keep it constant or accept that trend data restarts. |
| Small team results reported in a way that identifies individuals. | Privacy law | Set a minimum group size and combine upward. |
| Findings not carried into the psychosocial risk assessment. | ISO 45003 | Survey results are population evidence for the assessment. |
| Managers of low-scoring teams given results without support. | ISO 45001 cl.5.1 | Results frequently reflect conditions above the team; treat as organisational. |
Worked case
Case in point: the second round nobody answered
An organisation ran a wellbeing survey with a response rate above seventy percent. The clearest finding was workload in two departments, described consistently and in detail in free-text responses.
Results were presented to leadership. Workload was acknowledged as a known consequence of a vacancy freeze, and no action was taken because none was available. Nothing further was communicated to staff.
The following year's survey achieved a response rate under thirty percent, and the free-text sections were largely empty. Several respondents used them to say that the previous survey had changed nothing.
Definitions
Definitions and key terms
- Psychosocial hazard
- An aspect of work design, organisation or management with potential to cause psychological or physical harm.
- Validated instrument
- A survey tool tested for reliability and validity, assessing conditions rather than sentiment.
- Management Standards
- The HSE framework covering demands, control, support, relationships, role and change.
- Minimum group size
- The threshold below which results are not reported separately, protecting anonymity.
- Participation rate
- Proportion responding, which is itself a finding and usually lowest where conditions are worst.
- Free-text response
- Open comments, which carry the specificity that scale scores lack and require careful handling.
- Closing the loop
- Reporting back what the results said and what will and will not be done, before action.
- Baseline
- The first measurement against which later rounds are compared, requiring the instrument to stay constant.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
Should we run a survey if we cannot act on the results?+
Generally no. A survey followed by no visible change demonstrates to people that describing problems achieves nothing, which reduces both honesty and participation in every subsequent round. It also documents that the organisation knew about conditions it did not address. Waiting until there is capacity to act is a more defensible position than gathering evidence and shelving it.
What should the survey measure?+
Conditions rather than sentiment. Established frameworks cover demands, control, support, relationships, role clarity and change management, which are the aspects of work design known to create psychosocial risk. Questions written in-house tend to drift toward how people feel about the organisation, which is harder to act on and does not constitute a hazard finding.
How granular should reporting be?+
Team level where group sizes permit, with a minimum threshold protecting anonymity and small teams combined upward rather than suppressed. Site-wide averages are safe and useless: they conceal the two units where conditions are severe, which are precisely the units the exercise exists to find.
What does low participation tell us?+
That something is wrong in the low-participating areas, usually. People do not respond because they lack time, because they do not believe it is confidential, or because they do not expect anything to change. Participation is typically lowest where conditions are worst, so a favourable score from a small sample should be read with that in mind.
What if we cannot fix what people raise?+
Say so. Report what the results said, explain which items will not be addressed and why, and describe what will be. An item raised and never mentioned again is read as refusal, and the reputational cost of that silence is considerably higher than the cost of naming a genuine constraint honestly.
The agents
What the agents do with it
The survey measures conditions. What fails is a result nobody acted on and a second round nobody answered.
Runs a validated instrument with consistent wording between rounds, reports by theme and team above a minimum group size, and tracks participation.
Carries findings into the psychosocial risk assessment and tracks whether actions were taken before the next round runs.
Manages reporting granularity against privacy constraints, so team-level detail does not identify individuals.
Supports managers receiving low-scoring results, where the conditions frequently originate above the team rather than within it.
This template lives in KnowHealth — employee wellbeing. Exposure monitoring, health surveillance, case management and return to work.
Meet KnowHealth→Sources
Sources
- ISO 45003:2021, occupational health and safety management, psychological health and safety at work
- HSE Management Standards for work-related stress (GB)
- ISO 45001:2018 clauses 6.1.2, 5.4 and 8.1.2
- Safe Work Australia model Code of Practice, managing psychosocial hazards at work
- ISO 45001:2018 clause 9.1, monitoring, measurement, analysis and performance evaluation