How to run performance management without creating a psychosocial hazard

Content warning: this post refers to a workplace death by suicide.

Performance management becomes a psychosocial hazard when it’s vague, drawn out or unsupported, or when leaders run it without knowing how to spot someone who isn’t coping. The answer isn’t to avoid it. Raise issues early and specifically, offer real support, set a clear end point, train the leaders running it, and record each step. That keeps the process fair for the worker and defensible for the business.

Why this matters now

In December 2025, a court convicted the Department of Defence under federal WHS laws and fined it $188,000 after the death of a Royal Australian Air Force technician in 2020. Comcare reported that Defence had placed him on four separate work plans, a performance management tool, over six months.

Comcare’s investigation found his supervisors never referred him for support, placed him on leave, or took other steps to relieve the pressure, even though Defence knew he was not coping. Defence admitted it failed to train the supervisors using the process. It was the first conviction of a Commonwealth employer for failing to manage psychosocial risks, and the lesson applies to any business that manages performance.

This isn’t an argument against managing performance. Letting poor performance slide is unfair on the rest of the team and bad for the person too. But the national model Code of Practice on psychosocial hazards lists poor organisational justice, a sense that decisions or treatment are unfair, as a hazard in its own right. Inconsistent, unclear or drawn-out performance processes can feed exactly that.

Six practices that keep it fair and safe

1. Raise it early and plainly. A formal process should never be the first time someone hears there’s a problem.
2. Be specific about the gap. Spell out what you expect, what’s happening, and what good looks like. Vague expectations create anxiety, and nobody can meet them.
3. Offer real support. Training, resources, a clear point of contact. Ask what’s getting in the way, including things outside work.
4. Watch for signs someone isn’t coping. Changes in mood, absence, withdrawal, distress. Know in advance what the leader should do: refer to an EAP, involve HR, adjust the timeline, or pause the process.
5. Keep timeframes reasonable. Stacking plan after plan with no end in sight is a warning sign, not a strategy.
6. Train the people running it. A policy on the intranet isn’t a control if nobody has shown the supervisor how to apply it.

What the record should show

For each conversation in the process, capture:

• The date, who was present, and whether the person asked for a support person.
• The performance gap in specific terms, and what good looks like.
• The support you offered, and whether the person took it up.
• How the person responded, in their words where possible.
• Any signs of distress you noticed, and what you did about it.
• Agreed actions, who owns them, and the date of the next check-in.

We’ve written before about why a policy on paper isn’t the same as a control in practice. Performance management is where that gap shows up most. If a complaint, claim or review ever follows, your ability to show the process was reasonable depends on having a record of it.

Where Note It fits

Note It gives leaders a structured way to run performance conversations, prompts them to record support offered and next steps, and tracks actions to completion. HR and senior leaders can see where processes are running long or stalling, so they can step in early.

If performance management is a pressure point for your leaders, book a 20-minute demo.

Content note: if this post has raised concerns for you, Lifeline is available 24/7 on 13 11 14.

This is general information, not legal advice. Check your obligations under the work health and safety laws in your jurisdiction.