The Problem with Misappropriating ‘Unsafe’
In the modern work environment, the term “unsafe” is increasingly being used in situations that are, in reality, more uncomfortable than hazardous. While genuine psychological health and physical safety concerns must always be prioritised, appropriation of the word “unsafe” inaccurately can have unintended consequences, complicating conflict resolution, workplace dynamics, and HR management.
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently raised concerns about the overuse of the term “unsafe” in two high-profile cases. In the case involving Heidi Black and Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, the Commission found that the term “unsafe” was misapplied to describe an environment that was more accurately “awkward and uncomfortable.”
Similarly, in the case of Roy Sabag and D&T Hydraulics, claims of creating a “serious and imminent risk to health and safety” were deemed unjustified as the behaviours in question, though unprofessional, did not rise to the level of threats or danger.
Conflict specialist Zandy Fell, director of The Zalt Group, has highlighted this trend, describing how phrases like “I don’t feel safe” are often used to avoid discomfort or accountability rather than addressing genuine threats. This misuse can stifle open communication and hinder the development of resilient, growth-oriented workplace cultures.
Additionally, both FWC decisions emphasised the importance of providing employees with procedural fairness. The failure to offer proper feedback, counselling, and support to employees contributed significantly to the findings of unfair dismissal.
Objectively differentiating between genuine safety hazards and discomfort is not just a semantic exercise; it’s critical to maintaining fairness, trust, and productivity.
The Distinction Between ‘Unsafe’ and ‘Uncomfortable’
To manage workplace concerns proactively and effectively, it is imperative to distinguish between the terms “unsafe” and “uncomfortable.”
- Defining Unsafe
Unsafe workplaces involve clear risks to psychological or physical health, such as bullying, harassment, or other misconduct that breaches workplace policies or safety standards. These scenarios constitute genuine psychosocial hazards as defined by Safe Work Australia. - Understanding Uncomfortable
Uncomfortable situations, such as receiving constructive criticism, engaging in challenging conversations, or navigating differing opinions, are natural components of professional growth. While these experiences may provoke unease, they are not inherently unsafe.
The FWC cases underscore this distinction. In both, the environments were described as uncomfortable but not dangerous. Mislabelling such situations as unsafe can escalate conflicts unnecessarily, detracting from a collaborative culture.
Visualising this distinction as a continuum can help business owners and managers better evaluate workplace situations:
- Unsafe: Verbal abuse by a manager that significantly impacts an employee’s mental health.
- Uncomfortable: Firm but respectful performance feedback that encourages development.
By recognising this continuum, organisations can respond appropriately to concerns, fostering both psychological safety and professional accountability.
HR Challenges and Risks
The misappropriation of “unsafe” presents unique challenges for business owners and managers, adding complexity to their role in managing psychosocial safety and workplace compliance.
- Increased Workplace Conflict
Labelling discomfort as unsafe can escalate tensions and derail constructive conversations. This mischaracterisation often leaves underlying issues unresolved, further straining workplace relationships. - Impact on Culture
Over-sensitivity to discomfort can inhibit innovation and collaboration. When teams avoid necessary but uncomfortable discussions for fear of being labelled unsafe, it leads to stagnation and unresolved tensions. - Legal and Procedural Risks
As highlighted in both FWC cases, employers must exercise caution to ensure fairness and procedural compliance when addressing complaints. Failure to do so, such as not offering support or counselling to employees, can result in unfair dismissal findings. - Missed Opportunities for Growth
Labelling challenging interactions as unsafe can prevent employees from developing the resilience and interpersonal skills necessary for long-term success. Leaders must create environments that normalise discomfort as a part of professional growth.
Lessons for Employers
The FWC decisions provide critical lessons for employers, particularly small business owners seeking to navigate these complex issues:
- Procedural Fairness Matters
In both cases, the FWC criticised employers for failing to follow proper processes. Procedural fairness includes providing employees with feedback, coaching, and opportunities for improvement before escalating to disciplinary actions. - Clear Communication Is Key
Employers should ensure that concerns are clearly communicated and documented. Constructive feedback, delivered respectfully, can help address behavioural issues without escalating conflicts. - Avoid Overreacting
Not all challenging behaviours warrant termination. As the FWC noted in the Sabag case, heated arguments or refusal to follow instructions should often be managed through disciplinary action rather than immediate dismissal. - Address Emotional Triggers
Employers should be mindful of the context in which workplace disputes occur. In the Sabag case, the use of the term “war room” was perceived as insensitive given the employee’s personal connection to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Small adjustments in language can make a significant difference in mitigating tensions.
Solutions and Best Practices
To address these challenges, business owners and organisational leaders must adopt proactive strategies that foster a psychologically safe yet dynamic workplace.
- Encourage Open Dialogue
- Normalise discomfort as a necessary part of growth and by having regular feedback sessions with employees.
- Train leaders to address challenging situations respectfully and set the tone for constructive conversations.
- Develop Clear Policies and Procedures
- Create frameworks to evaluate whether a concern relates to safety or comfort.
- Ensure processes are transparent and inclusive, giving employees confidence in reporting concerns.
- Provide Training and Support
- Educate employees on psychosocial safety and the importance of constructive feedback.
- Offer coaching and resources to help managers address challenging situations effectively.
- Adopt Fair Processes
- Follow proper steps, including counselling and warnings, before resorting to termination.
- Maintain thorough documentation of all actions and decisions to ensure compliance with legal standards.
- Foster Resilience
- Help employees build coping mechanisms to handle difficult situations.
- Create a culture where discomfort is seen as a learning opportunity rather than a barrier to growth.
By integrating these practices, organisations can cultivate a culture where employees feel empowered to navigate discomfort while maintaining trust and fairness.
Conclusion
The blurring of “unsafe” and “uncomfortable” poses significant challenges for business owners and managers. While ensuring safety must always be a priority, recognising the importance of discomfort in fostering growth and resolving conflict is equally critical. By implementing clear policies, promoting open dialogue, and adopting fair processes, organisations can strike the right balance between psychological safety and professional accountability.
Let’s work together to create a safe, dynamic environment where your team can thrive. Get in touch with Strategic HR for practical guidance tailored to your business or team needs.
For more on this topic, see our other article: Why Uncomfortable Conversations Must Be Part of Your Workplace DNA – And How to Make It Happen
