Building the Fence at the Top of the Cliff: Exploring a Psychosocial Risk Prevention Paradox in New Zealand Legal Practice

Abstract

Workplace wellbeing underpins sustainable organisational performance, productivity and individual health. Prevention hierarchies prioritise structural controls that address psychosocial hazards at source, yet organisational practice remains dominated by individual-directed and reactive responses. We term this inconsistency between evidence and practice the prevention paradox.This research explores the prevention paradox to understand why lawyers are not implementing effective primary prevention measures. The research uses an explanatory sequential mixed methods design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018) across three studies. Study 1 :No identified instrument currently classifies organisational controls by prevention level while also assessing the governance infrastructure, culture and climate required for implementation. This study examines the content an organisational instrument must include to make the prevention paradox measurable. It develops the Hierarchical Psychosocial Risk Management (HPSRM) framework, which specifies three organisational capabilities that must be represented: implemented controls ordered by prevention level, governance capability, and organisational culture and climate. Within the control component, primary structural controls are distinguished from primary procedural controls. The resulting content was translated into the Psychosocial Risk Management Index (PSR-MI), a proposed instrument comprising Prevention Control, Governance Capability, and Organisational Culture and Climate indices. The study establishes the content requirements and classification structure required for instrument development. Study 2 uses a quantitative survey to identify existing PSR management practices across approximately 25- 30 diverse legal organisations and identify the use of primary (organisational-level), secondary (individual-coping), and tertiary (treatment/rehabilitation) prevention measures. The study aims to generate a PSR Management Index to illuminate whether a prevention imbalance exists, and whether reactive interventions are preferred over proactive organisational-level prevention. Data will also include whether best practice frameworks including ISO 45003 (2021) and WorkSafe (2025) Guidelines are utilised by participating organisations. Study 3 uses the same organisational sample as Study 2 and then purposively selects a smaller group of 15-20 participating organisations. Senior decision-makers from each selected organisation are recruited to ensure alignment between research questions and participants’ expertise. Study 3 uses qualitative interviews to allow for in-depth explanations of enablers and/or constraints for the implementation of proactive preventive practices. Study 3 identifies mechanisms by which organisations weigh competing demands and make decisions on preventive PSR practices