By Anwar Al-Balushi | KADI HSE Consutancy
A task can be covered by a procedure, assigned to a trained person and supported by the right protective equipment, yet still be difficult to perform safely. The missing question may be whether that person has enough time, attention and support to carry it out properly. The International Labour Organization’s report, published on 22 April 2026, examines how the design and management of work affect workers’ health and safety. It includes workload, working time, role clarity and self-rule among the factors shaping the psychosocial working environment. [1] For safety leaders, this is a reason to examine how everyday demands influence the conditions in which people make decisions.
Recognising the hazard in everyday work
Psychosocial hazards can arise from how work is organised and experienced. They may include excessive demands, conflicting instructions, limited control or inadequate support. Workload is one part of this wider picture; it should not become a catch-all explanation for every mistake. Consider an expressive industrial scenario. At the beginning of a shift, a supervisor reviews several permits to work while answering radio calls and resolving a contractor query. Each request appears reasonable on its own. Together, they compete for the attention needed to check an isolation or recognise an interaction between jobs. The example is assumed, but it raises a practical question for workplaces in Oman: have we assessed the combined demand on the person approving the work, or only the hazards of each individual activity?
How workload can affect safe performance
The UK Health and Safety Executive explains that excessive workload can slow task performance and contribute to slips, lapses and mistakes. It also notes that too little workload can reduce alertness. [2] The aim is to match demands to human capabilities across normal operations and estimated peaks. A full schedule alone does not establish that work is unsafe. Complexity, disconnections, competence and available support also matter. An experienced employee may manage a difficult task effectively until another responsibility is added at the wrong moment. Counting completed jobs tells us little about the effort required to complete them safely.
Check the pressure points in the shift
I would start with the moments when demand focuses on shifting handovers, immediate maintenance activities, start-up preparations and unexpected equipment problems. Ask workers to explain what they must monitor, what interrupts them and which decisions cannot wait. Look for conditions that deserve closer assessment: repeated extensions to working hours, postponed breaks, several urgent tasks assigned to one person, or safety checks repeatedly interrupted. These observations are prompts for investigation. They do not establish a diagnosis or prove the cause of an incident. A useful assessment follows the work as it happens. Compare the planned task with the actual sequence, including calls, travel, waiting, documentation and coordination. In a team, check that instructions and priorities are understood consistently. Invite workers and contractors to identify demands that a planning meeting may overlook.
Change the conditions that create overload
Training in stress management and access to confidential support can help employees. The World Health Organization also recommends organisational interventions that directly address working conditions and sources of psychosocial risk. [3] Support for individuals should sit alongside changes to the work. For the permit-review example, options to assess could include spreading requests across suitable time windows, protecting critical reviews from routine interruptions, or providing competent cover during anticipated peaks. Any change must preserve required coordination, authorisation and verification. Moving a wait in line elsewhere without assessing the effect simply transfers the problem. Managers should also make priorities explicit. When two urgent requests conflict, employees need to know who can decide what waits. Adding staff may help where capacity is inadequate, but unclear responsibilities and inefficient task allocation still require attention.
Five questions for the next safety discussion
- Which tasks require sustained attention, and what interrupts them?
- Where do urgent activities compete for the same person or team?
- Can employees raise a capacity concern and obtain a practical response?
- What changes during a shutdown, an absence or an operational upset?
- Who owns the agreed improvement, and when will its effect be reviewed?
Make workload part of safety management
Operations, occupational health, HSE and human resources each have a contribution to make. Include workload in relevant risk assessments and reviews of organisational change. After an incident, examine the demands and resources present at the time alongside competence, equipment and procedural factors. Choose one task where demand repeatedly exceeds capacity. Agree an improvement with the people doing the work, assign an owner and review whether the change helps them complete the task safely. Employee feedback and observations of the task will often reveal more than the number of people who attended an awareness session. The question I would leave with every manager is simple: when we ask someone to work safely, have we given them the conditions to do so?
References
1. International Labour Organization. The psychosocial working environment: Global developments and pathways for action. 22 April 2026. Read source
2. UK Health and Safety Executive. Human factors — Workload. Read source
3. World Health Organization. Mental health at work. Read source