Service overview
and philosophy

Workright is Opposite's psychosocial risk management service. It is built on the premise that psychosocial risk lives in the design of work, not in the resilience of individuals, and that the only effective and legislatively compliant response is to identify and change the conditions of work that generate harm.

Core principles

Every practitioner delivering Workright should be able to articulate these four principles clearly, because they inform every methodological and judgement call made during delivery.

What Workright is not

Being clear about the service boundaries is as important as being clear about its scope. Workright is not a mental health service, an EAP, a therapeutic intervention, or a counselling program. It is a systematic work design and risk management process. When individual psychological harm is identified during delivery, practitioners should acknowledge it, note it in the action plan as evidence of the need for controls, and ensure the client is aware of their duty of care obligations, but should not attempt to address it therapeutically.

Workright is also not a legal service. Practitioners can advise on what the regulations require and help clients build compliant processes, but should not provide legal advice, respond to formal enforcement notices, or represent clients in regulatory proceedings. Where a matter escalates to that level, the client needs an OHS lawyer. Opposite's regulatory experience informs preparedness support, not legal representation.

Scope of this playbook

This playbook covers the delivery of all five phases of the Workright service across all three tiers (Essential, Standard, and Comprehensive). Where delivery differs by tier, this is noted explicitly. Template documents referenced in this playbook are held separately in the Workright artefact library and are not reproduced here. See the artefact register for the current list of available templates and their locations.

Regulatory
landscape

Workright operates across three legislative frameworks. Each has distinct requirements, though all share the same underlying structure: identify, assess, control, and review. Practitioners must be fluent in all three, because many clients will operate across more than one jurisdiction.

Victoria — OHS (Psychological Health) Regulations 2025

South Australia — WHS (Psychosocial Risks) Amendment Regulations 2023

Commonwealth — WHS Amendment (Managing Psychosocial Risks) Regulations 2022

Jurisdiction comparison — key differences

The living
action plan

The living action plan is both the primary compliance artefact of the Workright engagement and the operational tool the client uses to maintain their psychosocial risk management system after the engagement ends. It is built progressively across all five phases. It is never written retrospectively.

Progressive structure

Compliance function of the action plan

The completed action plan would satisfy examination by a WorkSafe Victoria inspector, a SafeWork SA officer, or a Comcare inspector. Specifically, it provides documentary evidence of the following obligations across all three jurisdictions:

Phase 01 is deliberately bounded. The risk is scope creep — it is tempting to begin informal hazard identification during scoping conversations. Resist this. Premature identification without a structured process produces incomplete, unrepresentative findings that can bias the Phase 02 survey and qualitative work. Document what you hear but do not treat it as Phase 02 data.

Step-by-step delivery

1. 1
   Kick-off meeting with client sponsor

   Establish the scope of the engagement, the client's primary concerns, and the key contacts for each subsequent phase. Confirm the engagement purpose in writing. Identify the relevant jurisdictions. Brief the client sponsor on the five-phase process and what their organisation will need to contribute at each stage. Confirm whether HSRs exist and how they will be engaged.
2. 2
   Duty holder mapping

   Identify all workers within scope: employees, contractors, labour hire, volunteers (where applicable), and any other persons at the workplace. Map the organisational structure and identify distinct work groups that may have different psychosocial risk profiles. This mapping directly determines the survey segmentation strategy developed at step 5.
3. 3
   Existing systems review

   Request and review: current OHS/WHS policies and procedures; existing risk registers (including any psychosocial elements); incident and injury data (minimum three years where available); workers compensation claims data; HR metrics (turnover, absenteeism, grievance and complaint records); EAP usage data (de-identified); any prior psychosocial assessments or survey results; and existing HSR structures and consultation mechanisms. Identify gaps and conflicts between documented systems and what is described in the kick-off meeting.
4. 4
   OHS maturity assessment

   Assess the client's current OHS/WHS system maturity against three levels: Foundational (little or no formal system), Developing (system exists but not mature), or Established (mature WHSMS). Use the maturity assessment template from the artefact library. This assessment directly determines the design of Phase 05. Document the outcome and implications in the action plan v0.1. Where maturity is Foundational, flag this early with the senior Opposite lead — the engagement scope and resourcing in Phase 05 will need to reflect the additional work required to build governance infrastructure.
5. 5
   Survey segmentation strategy

   Based on the duty holder map and existing systems review, design the segmentation approach for the Phase 02 survey. Consider: work type or job family; site or location; tenure (less than 1 year, 1 to 3 years, more than 3 years); leadership level (individual contributor vs people leader); shift pattern or working arrangement (in-office, hybrid, remote, field-based, shift work). The goal is to enable group-level analysis that will be meaningful for Phase 03 risk assessment. Avoid over-segmenting — groups below 10 respondents make meaningful analysis difficult and create re-identification risk. Document the segmentation plan in the action plan v0.1.
6. 6
   Consultation plan

   Design how workers and HSRs will be engaged throughout the engagement. This is not just a schedule — it is the mechanism that satisfies consultation obligations across all three jurisdictions. The plan should specify: who will be consulted at each phase; what method will be used (survey, focus group, interview, walkabout, HSR briefing); how workers with vulnerabilities will be identified and accommodated; and how consultation outcomes will be documented. Confirm the plan with the client sponsor and any existing HSRs before beginning Phase 02.

• Kick-off meeting held and scope confirmed in writing
• All duty holders identified and mapped across work types and sites
• Existing OHS/WHS policies, risk registers, and incident data reviewed
• HR metrics reviewed (turnover, absenteeism, grievances, EAP usage)
• OHS maturity assessment completed and outcome recorded
• Phase 05 design implications documented based on maturity outcome
• HSR structures identified and engagement approach confirmed
• Survey segmentation strategy designed and documented
• Consultation plan completed and agreed with client
• Action plan v0.1 opened with all required entries completed
• Scoping report drafted and reviewed with client sponsor

Step-by-step delivery

1. 1
   Survey preparation and launch

   Configure the Workright hazard survey using the segmentation strategy from Phase 01. Prepare a client communication explaining the survey purpose, confirming anonymity arrangements, and encouraging participation. The communication should come from a senior leader, not from Opposite — this signals organisational commitment and increases participation rates. Launch the survey with a two-week response window minimum. Monitor participation rates by segment and send a reminder at the midpoint if any segment is below 60%.
2. 2
   Survey analysis and initial findings

   Process survey results on close. Calculate hazard scores for each dimension (frequency, duration, impact) and the composite risk score. Run interaction effect analysis — identify pairs and clusters of hazards that co-occur at elevated levels in the same cohorts. Produce group-level breakdowns by the agreed segmentation variables. Flag any individual responses that indicate acute psychological distress and ensure the client has appropriate support channels in place. Note: individual response data must never be shared with the client. Only aggregate group-level data is reportable.
3. 3
   Qualitative design using survey outputs

   Use the survey findings to design the qualitative engagement. For each high-scoring hazard or hazard cluster, prepare two to three probing questions that explore the organisational and work design causes behind the score. Do not ask workers to rate hazards again — the survey has done that. Ask them to help you understand why those hazards exist, how they experience them in practice, and what conditions would need to change for the work to be safer. This focus on causes rather than symptoms is what makes the qualitative data actionable.
4. 4
   Focus groups

   Conduct focus groups segmented by work type or role, not by leadership level. Groups should be 6 to 10 participants. Do not mix individual contributors with people leaders — it suppresses honest disclosure. Use a skilled facilitator who can hold a psychologically safe environment. Record sessions (with consent) for analysis accuracy. At minimum one HSR should be invited to participate in or observe each round of focus groups. Document who participated, when, and the key themes emerging.
5. 5
   Individual interviews (Standard and Comprehensive tiers)

   Conduct individual interviews for: high-risk cohorts identified in the survey (elevated scores relative to other groups); workers in roles with inherent vulnerability (isolated workers, workers regularly exposed to aggression or vicarious trauma, workers with accessibility needs); and anyone who requests an individual conversation rather than a group session. Interviews should be semi-structured, 45 to 60 minutes, and conducted with full confidentiality assured. Individual interview data is incorporated into the thematic synthesis but the individual is never identified in reports.
6. 6
   Workplace observation (Comprehensive tier, or where warranted)

   For organisations where physical work environment, isolated work, shift work, or operational complexity is a significant factor, structured workplace observation adds a dimension that both survey and interview cannot capture. Use the observation guide from the artefact library. Focus on: physical environment and ergonomic conditions; how work is actually organised versus how it is documented; informal social and team dynamics; evidence of workload pressure, interruptions, or unclear role boundaries in practice. Observation findings are qualitative field notes, not measurements.
7. 7
   HSR engagement and briefing

   Hold a dedicated briefing for all HSRs at the conclusion of Phase 02 qualitative work. Present a summary of findings and invite their feedback and additions. HSRs often hold institutional knowledge about hazards that have been present for a long time but are no longer being formally reported. Their input at this stage frequently adds important context to the survey and focus group data. Document all HSR engagement in the consultation record.
8. 8
   Qualitative synthesis and consolidated hazard inventory

   Synthesise survey findings and qualitative data into a consolidated hazard inventory. For each hazard: confirm its presence based on survey data; describe its character and organisational causes based on qualitative data; note whether it is concentrated in specific cohorts; and flag any interaction effects identified in the survey. This inventory is the primary input to Phase 03 risk assessment.

• Survey configured using Phase 01 segmentation strategy
• Client communication drafted, approved by sponsor, distributed to all workers
• Survey response rate monitored; reminder sent if any segment below 60%
• Survey closed and results processed — hazard scores, interaction effects, group breakdowns
• Initial findings summary prepared before qualitative work begins
• Qualitative questions designed using survey findings as the agenda
• Focus groups conducted — mixed work types, leaders separated, HSR participation
• Individual interviews conducted for high-risk and vulnerable cohorts (Standard and Comprehensive)
• Workplace observation conducted where warranted (Comprehensive)
• HSR briefing held and input documented
• Qualitative synthesis completed — themes and organisational causes identified
• Consolidated hazard inventory produced — survey plus qualitative, merged
• Consultation record completed — all sessions documented with participant counts and key themes
• Action plan v0.2 updated with hazard inventory and consultation records
• Survey findings report drafted for client

Risk assessment methodology

The Workright risk assessment uses the survey dimensions as its primary data source. Each hazard is assessed on three dimensions drawn directly from the survey: frequency of exposure, duration of exposure, and impact on psychological health and safety. A composite risk score is calculated for each hazard and used to produce the risk ranking.

Interaction effects identified in the survey are treated as risk multipliers — where two or more hazards co-occur at elevated levels in the same cohort, the composite risk for those hazards is adjusted upward to reflect the amplification effect. This is the element most commonly absent from competitor risk assessments, and it is where Opposite's organisational psychology expertise is most directly applied.

Hierarchy of controls — application to psychosocial risks

Step-by-step delivery

1. 1
   Score and rank hazards

   Using the survey data and qualitative synthesis, calculate a composite risk score for each hazard. Apply the interaction effect adjustment for hazard clusters. Rank hazards by composite risk score. Identify the top-risk cohorts, roles, and work groups. Use the risk scoring template from the artefact library to ensure consistency and documentation of the methodology.
2. 2
   Assess existing control adequacy

   For each hazard, assess whether any existing controls are in place and, if so, whether they are adequate (fully controlling risk), partial (reducing but not adequately controlling risk), or absent. Document this in the risk register. This is a significant compliance step — it demonstrates that the assessment took account of existing measures, not just raw hazard presence.
3. 3
   Assign hierarchy level and control direction

   For each hazard, assign the appropriate hierarchy level (1 to 4) and a control direction — a brief statement of what type of change is required, without specifying the designed control. Examples of control directions: "work redesign — workload distribution and task allocation," "management systems — how performance expectations are communicated and reviewed," "environment — physical workspace and isolated work supports." This is the specification the Phase 04 co-design process works from.
4. 4
   Assign accountability and timelines

   For each hazard, assign an accountable owner (a specific role, not a team) and a target timeline for control implementation. Quick wins — hazards where control direction is clear and implementation is straightforward — should have timelines within 30 to 60 days of Phase 04 commencement. Systemic hazards requiring significant work redesign may have timelines of 3 to 6 months. Timelines must be realistic and agreed with the client before being entered in the action plan.
5. 5
   Validation with workers and HSRs

   Present the draft risk assessment findings and priorities to a representative worker group and the relevant HSRs. This is not a sign-off exercise — it is a genuine consultation step. Workers may identify hazards the survey and qualitative methods did not capture, or may disagree with the priority ranking based on their experience of the work. Any material changes to the risk register following this consultation must be documented. This step satisfies the consultation obligation prior to control implementation across all three jurisdictions.
6. 6
   Brief leadership on findings and priorities

   Present the risk assessment to the client sponsor and relevant leadership. Ensure leadership understands: what the priority hazards are; what hierarchy level of response is required; what accountability they hold; and what the co-design process in Phase 04 will involve. Leadership engagement at this stage is essential because many of the control directions will require leadership behaviour change, not just policy revision.

• Hazard scores calculated from survey data — frequency, duration, impact, composite
• Interaction effect adjustments applied to co-occurring hazard clusters
• Hazards ranked by composite risk score
• High-risk cohorts, roles, and work groups identified
• Existing control adequacy assessed for each hazard
• Hierarchy level assigned to each hazard
• Control direction specified for each hazard (not control design)
• Accountable owner and target timeline agreed for each hazard
• Risk assessment methodology documented
• Worker and HSR validation session conducted and documented
• Leadership briefing on findings and Phase 04 process completed
• Action plan v1.0 completed — risk register with hierarchy levels, directions, owners, timelines. Control design column blank.
• Risk assessment report drafted for client

Step-by-step delivery

1. 1
   Co-design workshop design

   Group the risk register items into co-design clusters — typically by control direction type (work redesign, management systems, environment, reporting mechanisms). Design one co-design session per cluster, each involving the workers and people leaders who own that part of the work system. Sessions should be 2 to 3 hours. Participants should include both workers affected by the hazard and the leader or manager accountable for the control. HSR participation is strongly recommended.
2. 2
   Co-design workshops

   Open each session by presenting the relevant hazard and control direction from the risk register. Explain why this hazard requires a control at this level of the hierarchy. Then facilitate the design process: what does this look like in practice in our work? What would need to change? What would a good outcome feel like? What could get in the way? Use design thinking methods — diverge before you converge. Produce a documented design output from each session: what was decided, what the control will look like, who will implement it, and what the success indicators are.
3. 3
   Leader guidance sessions

   The most common reason psychosocial controls fail after implementation is that the managers responsible for them lack the capability, confidence, or insight to sustain changed behaviour. Leader guidance sessions are targeted practical sessions — not generic management training — that equip the specific people accountable for specific controls with what they need to implement and maintain them. Sessions should address: what the control requires of them in practice; how to introduce changes to their teams; how to monitor whether the control is working; and who to escalate to if problems arise. These sessions are tied directly to the control implementation plan, not a standalone development program.
4. 4
   Implementation support

   Support the client through the implementation of co-designed controls. This is not Opposite implementing controls on behalf of the client — the accountability stays with the client. Opposite's role is to review implementation progress, identify where controls are not being implemented as designed, surface barriers early, and help the client problem-solve. Schedule a mid-implementation check-in for each control cluster, typically 3 to 4 weeks after the co-design session.
5. 5
   Artefact design (optional)

   Where the co-design process produces controls that require physical or digital artefacts to be effective — manager guides, hazard reporting tools, role clarity frameworks, visual job aids, onboarding materials — Opposite can design these as an optional add-on. The design brief for each artefact must come from the co-design workshop output, not from Opposite's assumptions about what is needed. Use the artefact design process from the artefact library. Note: bespoke artefact design is time-intensive and should be scoped and priced separately. Ensure the client understands this is an optional addition before proceeding.
6. 6
   Training and information resources (supplementary)

   Training and information are deployed last, as supplementary controls to the structural and systems changes already in place. In Victoria, training must not be the predominant measure. In practice this means: structural controls are designed and implementation has begun before training is delivered. Training and information should support workers in using the new controls, understanding their rights and the reporting mechanisms, and knowing what support is available. Do not deploy training to address hazards for which no structural control has been designed — this is non-compliant in Victoria and is inadequate practice in all jurisdictions.

• Co-design sessions planned — clustered by control direction, participants confirmed
• All co-design sessions facilitated — design outputs documented for each
• Co-design consultation records completed — who, when, what was designed
• Control implementation plan completed — each control with owner, timeline, success indicators
• Leader guidance sessions conducted for each accountable leader
• Mid-implementation check-ins completed for each control cluster
• Structural and systems controls in place before training is deployed
• Training and information deployed as supplementary — not predominant (VIC critical)
• Artefact design brief confirmed if optional add-on was engaged (scope and price documented)
• Action plan v2.0 completed — control design column filled for all hazards
• Action plan reviewed against WorkSafe VIC prevention plan template for high-scrutiny hazards
• Implementation progress reported to client sponsor

Three delivery paths — determined in Phase 01

Step-by-step delivery

1. 1
   Review framework design

   Design the review framework appropriate to the organisation's maturity path. The framework must specify: review triggers (mandatory and recommended); review frequency (minimum annual, with trigger-based reviews in between); who is accountable for initiating and conducting reviews; what the review process involves; and how review outcomes are documented in the action plan. Use the review framework template from the artefact library as the starting point, then customise to the organisation's governance context.
2. 2
   Governance integration

   Connect the review framework to the organisation's existing governance structures: OHS committee meeting cycles, board or executive risk reporting, HR reporting cadences, or management review processes. For Foundational path clients, this may involve establishing these structures before integration is possible. For Established path clients, it is a documentation and process adjustment exercise. The goal is that psychosocial risk review becomes a standing agenda item, not a special project triggered only by incidents.
3. 3
   Metrics and monitoring

   Establish a set of leading and lagging indicators for ongoing monitoring between formal review cycles. Lagging indicators: psychological injury claims, incident reports, near-miss reports, absenteeism data, EAP usage, grievance rates. Leading indicators: survey scores (from re-run), manager capability assessment outcomes, control implementation progress, consultation mechanism usage rates. The distinction between leading and lagging is important to communicate to the client — lagging indicators measure what has already happened; leading indicators signal emerging risk before harm occurs.
4. 4
   Capability program delivery

   Design and deliver a capability program for the internal staff responsible for maintaining the psychosocial risk management system after the engagement ends. At minimum this should cover: HR and OHS leads on how to maintain and update the risk register and action plan; people leaders on their ongoing obligations under the control implementation plan; and all staff on the reporting mechanisms and their right to raise psychosocial hazard concerns. Capability sessions should be practical and role-specific, not generic awareness training. Use the capability program design guide from the artefact library.
5. 5
   Re-survey protocol

   Design the annual re-survey protocol, specifying: when the Workright survey will be re-run (recommended 12 months from Phase 02 survey close); who will manage the re-run; how the re-run findings will be compared to the baseline; and what the process is for updating the risk register and action plan based on re-run findings. The re-survey is the primary mechanism for demonstrating ongoing systematic effort to a regulator and for ensuring the action plan remains a current, accurate document.
6. 6
   Regulatory preparedness support (Tier 3)

   For Tier 3 clients, provide regulatory preparedness support as part of the ongoing advisory retainer. This means: ensuring the action plan and supporting documentation are inspection-ready at all times; preparing the client for what an inspector from WorkSafe Victoria, SafeWork SA, or Comcare is likely to examine; advising on how to articulate what was done and why it was reasonably practicable; and being available for a supporting role during any inspector visit. Opposite staff with direct regulatory experience should be the primary contact for this element. Note the boundary: Opposite provides operational preparedness support informed by regulatory experience. Legal advice on enforcement, improvement notices, or formal proceedings must be directed to an OHS lawyer.
7. 7
   Action plan finalisation and handover

   Finalise the action plan as the organisation's own living document. Conduct a formal handover session with the client's accountable lead (typically the HR director, OHS manager, or equivalent). Walk through the complete action plan, ensure they can navigate and update it, and confirm they understand the review triggers and governance integration. The handover session is documented in the action plan as the final entry of the engagement. From this point, the action plan belongs to the client.

• Maturity path confirmed (Foundational / Developing / Established) from Phase 01

Service tier
reference

All three tiers complete all five phases. Tier differentiation is in depth, not coverage. Use this reference to set expectations with clients, scope engagements accurately, and understand what is and is not included by default in each tier.

Artefact
register

This register lists all artefacts and templates referenced in this playbook. Templates are held in the Workright artefact library and are not reproduced here. Where a template is listed as "to be developed," it does not yet exist and must be created before the relevant phase can be delivered.