When Poor Leadership Becomes a Psychosocial Hazard

A recent Queensland Industrial Relations Commission decision, Lawrie v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2026] QIRC 148, should be on every senior leader and P&C professional’s radar. It confirms something many of us have long argued: leadership behaviour itself can be a psychosocial hazard.

Ms Lawrie was a long-serving senior manager at Queensland Health, in the role since 2008, with no prior disciplinary history. Following concerns about how she managed her team, she was suspended on pay, with the suspension extended multiple times on the basis of workplace health and safety risk to colleagues.

The cumulative psychosocial hazard

The Commission found a pattern of conduct that, taken together, fell short of expected standards: failing to genuinely consult staff or explain decisions, rejecting professional development requests without sound justification, applying decisions inconsistently across staff with caring responsibilities or part-time arrangements, and failing to properly accommodate a pregnant employee’s flexibility request. None of this involved overt misconduct – it was the cumulative effect on staff wellbeing that mattered. The QIRC upheld the disciplinary action, confirming that senior leaders are held to elevated standards, and that a clean record or long tenure doesn’t lower the bar.

This is a wake-up call. Psychosocial risk isn’t just about bullying or overt harm – it’s built into everyday management practices: how decisions are communicated, whether people feel heard, and whether flexibility is genuinely considered.

Key takeaways for senior leaders and P&C teams

• Everyday management behaviour – not just extreme misconduct – can constitute a psychosocial hazard under WHS law.

• Genuine consultation matters: explaining the “why” behind decisions is now a legal expectation, not just good practice.

• Rejecting development or flexibility requests without documented, evidence-based reasoning carries real risk.

• Seniority raises the bar: tenure and a clean record won’t protect leaders from accountability for team wellbeing.

• Relying on HR advice doesn’t remove a manager’s personal responsibility for safe, fair decision-making.

• Reactive compliance training isn’t enough – leaders need practical skills in consultation, communication and inclusive decision-making, built before problems arise.

Cases like this show that leadership capability is now a frontline safety issue. Great leadership training isn’t a nice-to-have; it’s preventative risk management.

Want to build this capability in your leaders before it becomes a compliance problem? Email me to learn about my leadership training sessions.