top of page
Search

Organisational Change and Psychosocial Hazards: Why “Just Use the EAP” Is No Longer Good Enough

  • Jan 2
  • 4 min read
Psychosocial Hazards

Organisational change is one of the most well-known psychosocial risk factors in our work environments.


Restructures. Redundancies. Mergers. New systems. Leadership churn. Cost-cutting. “Transformation”.


None of this is new — and yet many organisations still behave as though the human impact of change is unavoidable collateral damage, best managed by reminding employees that the Employee Assistance Programme (EAP) exists.


This approach is no longer naive. It is inadequate, outdated, and increasingly indefensible under Australian WHS law.


The EAP Myth: Support ≠ Risk Control


Let’s be clear from the outset:

An EAP is not a psychosocial hazard control.


An EAP:

  • Provides short-term, individual support

  • Responds after distress has occurred

  • Does not change work design, workload or leadership behaviour


Yet during organisational change, EAP is often presented as the primary safeguard for employee wellbeing.

“We know this will be hard, but support is available.”

That statement alone should raise concern.

Because what it really means is:

“We expect harm — and we’re prepared to deal with it once it happens.”

From a WHS perspective, that is not prevention. That is harm management.


Psychosocial Hazards During Change Are Predictable — Not Accidental


Safe Work Australia is explicit: psychosocial hazards must be identified, assessed and controlled like any other hazard.


During organisational change, common psychosocial hazards include:

Psychosocial Hazard

Common During Change Because…

Job insecurity

Roles may be removed or altered

Role ambiguity

Position descriptions lag behind decisions

High job demands

“Business as usual” expectations continue

Low job control

Decisions are made without consultation

Poor organisational support

Leaders are stretched or absent

Poor communication

Information is delayed or unclear

(Source: Safe Work Australia – Managing Psychosocial Hazards)


None of these are personal weaknesses. They are system-level exposures.

And none of them are controlled by an EAP.


Why Organisations Default to EAP (Even When It Doesn’t Work)


So why does EAP remain the go-to response?


Because it is:

  • Easy to implement

  • Externally outsourced

  • Relatively inexpensive

  • Familiar to executives and HR

  • Perceived as legally “safe”


It also avoids harder questions, such as:

  • Did we consult early enough?

  • Did we overload people during transition?

  • Did leaders stay visible and accountable?

  • Did we design this change around humans or spreadsheets?


EAP allows organisations to appear compassionate without being structurally accountable.


That’s uncomfortable — but it’s true.


The Dangerous Shift of Responsibility


Over-reliance on EAP subtly shifts responsibility away from the organisation and onto the individual.


The underlying message becomes:

“If you’re struggling, you should reach out.”

Instead of:

“We need to ask why so many people are struggling.”

This framing turns systemic harm into a personal resilience issue.


And that is directly at odds with psychosocial risk management principles, which focus on:

  • Work design

  • Leadership behaviour

  • Organisational systems

  • Predictable exposure risks


Telling people to “be resilient” while maintaining harmful conditions is not supportive. It is abdication of duty.


EAP Usage Spikes Are Not a Success Story


One of the most concerning trends I see is organisations reporting increased EAP usage during change as a positive outcome.


It isn’t.


High EAP utilisation is a lag indicator — a sign that distress has already occurred.


It tells us:

  • The change process exceeded coping capacity

  • Psychological safety was compromised

  • Early controls were ineffective or absent


If psychosocial risks were genuinely managed upstream, EAP usage would remain stable, not surge.


Support demand is data.Ignoring what it tells you is a choice.


What Effective Psychosocial Risk Management During Change Actually Looks Like


Organisations that do this well take a very different approach.


They:

  • Identify psychosocial hazards before change is announced

  • Consult meaningfully, not performatively

  • Adjust workloads during transition periods

  • Train leaders to have honest, human conversations

  • Communicate early — even when answers aren’t final

  • Monitor psychosocial risks continuously, not once


Only after these controls are in place does EAP play its appropriate role:

👉 Supporting individuals who still need help — not compensating for preventable harm.


A WHS Reality Check for Leaders and Officers


Under WHS legislation, officers have a due diligence obligation to ensure psychosocial risks are managed.


That means they must:

  • Understand the risks

  • Ensure appropriate resources and processes are in place

  • Verify those processes are working


An EAP alone does not meet that threshold.


If an organisation cannot demonstrate:

  • How psychosocial hazards from change were identified

  • What controls were implemented

  • How effectiveness was monitored


Then “we reminded them about EAP” will not be enough — legally or ethically.


The Bottom Line


EAP is not the problem. Over-reliance on EAP is.


Using EAP as the primary response to organisational change is a sign of:

  • Poor work design

  • Weak leadership capability

  • Immature psychosocial risk management


Change does not have to harm people.But unmanaged change almost always does.


And no counselling service can undo damage that was designed into the system.


My professional view:

Until organisations stop treating EAP as a protective shield and start treating psychosocial hazards as design failures, we will continue to see burnout, disengagement and psychological harm dressed up as “part of change”.


Further reading:



 
 
 

Comments

Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet
Add a rating
bottom of page