Your Safety Record is not the Whole Story
Nearly five years after the global disruption of COVID‑19, one truth has become unmistakably clear across all industries: Health must be prioritised; safety will follow.
While traditional Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) systems have long focused on physical hazards and compliance-based checklists and inspection registers, organisations are now recognising that an employee’s mental, emotional, and physical wellbeing profoundly influences workplace performance and safety outcomes.
Yet for many employees, that wellbeing is already quietly depleted long before it becomes visible.
A Workforce Running on Empty
It is entirely possible for employees to physically arrive at work, yet not be mentally present at work.
Many individuals move through their daily work routines on autopilot, which is a clear indication of fatigue, cognitive overload, or chronic stress. These factors impact concentration, decision‑making, and situational awareness long before any incident occurs.
The pandemic highlighted previously under‑acknowledged vulnerabilities and shifted the focus toward behavioural safety, psychological wellbeing, and holistic employee health. The modern workforce faces increasing pressure from personal, societal, and organisational demands, making mental health and fatigue far more prevalent than commonly acknowledged. Yet the systems designed to keep people safe have not always kept pace with the people themselves.
Risks Beyond the Metrics
Traditional OHS metrics capture what is visible: slips, trips, falls, near misses, and statutory compliance. However, some of the most significant risks are not visible at all!
Chronic fatigue, persistent stress or anxiety, burnout, musculoskeletal strain and lifestyle‑related health issues linked to coping behaviours such as smoking or stress eating are all factors which degrade productivity, impair judgement, reduce teamwork, and weaken discipline. Yet they rarely appear on dashboards or safety updates.
A sign reading “142 DAYS – NO INCIDENTS” may simply be masking the truth: “142 DAYS – NO INCIDENTS REPORTED”, and sadly it does not mean 142 DAYS WITHOUT RISK.
The greater concern is often not the people who were absent, but the condition of those who were not.
The Cost of Merely Showing Up
Hidden challenges fall under the concept of presenteeism i.e. the reduced productivity that occurs when employees are physically present at work but unable to perform optimally due to health‑related conditions, whether physical, mental, or emotional.
Unlike absenteeism, presenteeism is difficult to measure because the employee is still performing tasks. However, research shows that its financial impact is often much greater than absenteeism because the ultimate impact on the employee is far worse, it is often shared by many employees, and the resultant productivity losses are sustained over longer periods.
Employees experiencing presenteeism are not disengaged or unwilling. On the contrary, they are often committed individuals who strive to meet expectations despite their diminished capacity. Yet the result is lower performance, increased likelihood of serious injuries, and in some cases, simply prolonged recovery times due to failure to rest.
Presenteeism is widespread but frequently overlooked because managers typically focus on attendance rather than capacity. An employee who is physically present is assumed to be fully functional, even when this is not the case.
Culture as the Root Cause and the Remedy
Workplace culture remains the primary driver for both presenteeism and absenteeism. Presenteeism causes many employees to continue working while unwell due to concerns about job security, fear of being perceived as unreliable, and pressure to meet unrealistic deadlines. Absenteeism, on the other hand, is equally driven by culture. Employees remain off sick for days, “milking” the system and sometimes exploit their injuries on duty as the culture in the workplace ignores or dispels mental or emotional issues.
While organisations are increasingly implementing wellness programmes, flexible work arrangements, and additional leave options, these measures cannot compensate for a culture that discourages rest or recovery and refuses to acknowledge underlying individual comorbidities.
Evidence consistently demonstrates that leadership behaviour is the most influential factor. Employees take cues from their managers, and leaders must therefore not only encourage appropriate time off but also model this behaviour themselves.
A healthy culture is established when recovery is normalised, wellbeing is prioritised, and performance expectations align with human capability.
