The hidden psychosocial risk that's burning out your managers
Why organisations need to recognise vicarious stress as an emerging workplace hazard and what leaders can do to prevent burnout among managers, HR, peer supporters and wellbeing professionals.
"As workplace violence and critical incidents become more common, we must broaden our definition of who is affected. Those who support others; our managers, HR professionals, peer supporters and wellbeing teams; also need protection. Recognising vicarious stress as a psychosocial risk is critical to building healthier, safer workplaces."
Edith Borg, Psychologist and EAPAA Executive Committee Member
When a critical incident strikes a workplace, a sudden accident, an act of violence, or the unexpected loss of a colleague, the immediate focus is rightly on those directly affected. Support is mobilised quickly, and organisations act with care and urgency. Yet beyond those at the centre of the event, another group often carries a quieter, less visible burden. Across a wide range of work environments, employees can experience what is known as vicarious stress, a psychological response that arises from exposure to other people’s trauma. It does not require someone to be physically present at the centre of an incident. It can develop simply from listening to distressing accounts, supporting affected colleagues, or responding repeatedly to crises. Those most exposed are often those expected to help, managers navigating difficult wellbeing conversations, HR teams managing complex and sensitive situations, peer supporters responding to distress, and wellbeing and safety professionals coordinating responses.
The hidden burden behind critical incident response
Managers, HR professionals, peer supporters, safety leaders and colleagues who step in to help can find themselves absorbing the emotional weight of what has occurred, often without recognition or structured support. In today’s workplaces, where incidents of workplace violence and complex employee challenges are becoming more common, more individuals are being drawn into these support roles, whether formally or informally. At the same time, organisations are grappling with rising levels of burnout, particularly among managers and those in support roles. This points to a deeper issue about how work is designed and the expectations placed on those responsible for supporting others. Traditionally, vicarious stress has been treated as an individual wellbeing issue, something to be addressed through self-care or accessed support services. However, there is growing recognition that this framing is incomplete. Repeated exposure to others’ trauma is not simply a personal challenge; it reflects the nature of certain roles and the way work is designed and managed. In this context, vicarious stress can be more accurately understood as an emerging psychosocial risk.
Rising concerns around workplace violence are reshaping the demands placed on employees across many sectors. As incidents of aggression, threats and critical events become more visible, more individuals are finding they are pulled into these support roles. Yet many of these employees have never been equipped to manage the emotional impact of repeatedly hearing distressing stories, responding to crises or supporting affected co-workers. This raises an important question: is the act of supporting others becoming a risk in itself?
When supporting others becomes a psychosocial risk
"Vicarious stress is no longer a peripheral wellbeing issue, it’s a foreseeable and preventable psychosocial risk. Organisations that fail to recognise the emotional load carried by those supporting others are exposing their workforce to avoidable harm and long-term burnout."
Edith Borg, Psychologist and EAPAA Executive Committee Member
In practice, organisations often expect managers to lead difficult wellbeing conversations, HR teams to navigate highly complex and sensitive situations, and peer supporters to respond to distress without fully recognising that these responsibilities carry their own psychological load. Without adequate training, supervision and support, these roles can expose individuals to ongoing emotional strain, highlighting an emerging and often overlooked psychosocial risk within modern workplaces.
Many of these individuals have never been trained to manage the cumulative emotional impact of this exposure. Yet they are expected to listen, absorb and respond, often repeatedly and under pressure. Over time, these demands can erode resilience, especially when layered onto existing workloads and organisational expectations. What begins as a commitment to support others can gradually contribute to fatigue, emotional strain and, ultimately, burnout.
The evidence linking vicarious stress and burnout
A growing body of research highlights the direct link between vicarious stress and burnout. A analysis of 41 studies involving more than 8,000 workers found a strong correlation between secondary traumatic stress and burnout, indicating that individuals exposed to others’ trauma are highly likely to experience emotional exhaustion and reduced capacity over time. Further research has shown that repeated exposure to distressing situations not only increases levels of vicarious trauma but also directly contributes to burnout, particularly when combined with high workloads and limited support. Together, this evidence reinforces that vicarious stress is not just an individual wellbeing issue, but a significant occupational risk factor that can progressively erode resilience and drive burnout if left unaddressed. Jeslak, R., Shoji, K., Douglas, A., et al. (2014)
How vicarious stress shows up in the workplace
The signs of vicarious stress are often subtle and easily dismissed. Individuals may experience anxiety, irritability or a sense of overwhelm, alongside difficulty concentrating, intrusive thoughts or a shift toward more negative thinking. Physical symptoms such as fatigue, poor sleep, headaches or muscle tension may emerge, accompanied by behavioural changes like withdrawal from colleagues or reduced effectiveness at work. Because these individuals were not directly involved in the incident, they often minimise their own response, telling themselves they should be fine, even as the strain accumulates. Signs of vicarious stress often led to burnout and post-traumatic stress if left unmanaged.
Psychosocial risks relate to aspects of work that have the potential to cause psychological harm, including job demands, role expectations and exposure to distressing situations. When employees are regularly required to engage with trauma, respond to crises or support distressed colleagues without adequate preparation or support, this creates a workplace risk that organisations have a responsibility to identify and manage. Reframing vicarious stress in this way shifts the focus from individual resilience to organisational accountability.
From awareness to organisational accountability
This shift prompts important questions for leaders.
Which roles are regularly exposed to others’ trauma or distress, either formally or informally? How are these employees identified, prepared and supported over time?
Are managers and support roles receiving adequate supervision, psychological first aid and opportunities for reflective practice. Not just after critical incidents, but on an ongoing basis?
Do our critical incident response frameworks explicitly include support for those experiencing secondary exposure, as well as those directly impacted?
How are we assessing the cumulative impact of repeated exposure to distress across different roles and teams?
What training do we provide to equip employees to manage difficult conversations, emotional boundaries and psychological strain?
Are workloads and expectations realistic for roles that carry significant emotional labour, or are we unintentionally increasing risk?
Do we have systems in place to proactively identify early signs of vicarious stress or burnout in managers and support roles?
How accessible, visible and trusted are our support services, such as EAP, for those in high-exposure roles?
Are we treating exposure to others’ trauma as a recognised psychosocial hazard within our risk management framework?
What accountability exists at a leadership level to ensure these risks are actively monitored and managed?
What organisations need to do differently
These additions help shift the conversation from awareness to practical organisational accountability and risk management. Answering these questions may involve better role design, including clear expectations and training in how to manage emotional boundaries. It requires creating space for structured support, such reflective supervision for those in high-exposure role, assessing work demands and role design. It also means broadening critical incident responses to ensure support is available not only in the immediate aftermath, but for those who continue to carry the emotional load in the weeks and months that follow. Building leadership capability is another critical component. Managers need the skills and confidence to recognise early signs of strain in themselves and others, and to seek support without stigma. Organisations that normalise help-seeking and openly acknowledge the emotional demands of support roles are better positioned to protect both wellbeing and performance.
The role of EAPs and quality assurance
Employee Assistance Programs remain a key part of this support landscape. They provide confidential counselling, short-term psychological support and critical incident response services that are accessible when employees need them most. However, the effectiveness of these programs depends on the quality and consistency of their delivery. This is where the role of EAPAA, the Employee Assistance Professionals Association Australasia, becomes particularly important. EAPAA provides assurance that member organisations adhere to evidence-based, clinically sound practices, with appropriate governance, ethical standards and professional oversight. In the context of emerging psychosocial risks such as vicarious stress, this assurance is critical in ensuring that support services are not only available, but effective and safe.
"As psychosocial risks such as vicarious stress become more visible, the role of the EAP sector must also evolve. Through organisations like EAPAA, we have an opportunity to strengthen standards, build capability, and ensure that support services are not only available, but clinically robust, ethically governed, and aligned to the realities of modern workplaces. This is about lifting the quality and consistency of care across the entire system."
- Mary Talbot, President, EAPAA
Expanding how we define workplace impact
Ultimately, the way organisations respond to critical incidents is evolving. There is growing recognition that the impact of workplace trauma extends beyond those directly affected, reaching those who support, respond and care for others. These individuals play a vital role in recovery, yet they are often the least visible in organisational responses. Recognising vicarious stress is an important first step. Viewing it as an emerging psychosocial risk represents a more meaningful shift, one that places responsibility on organisations to proactively identify, manage and mitigate the impact. In doing so, workplaces can better support not only those at the centre of incidents, but also those who carry the hidden toll in the background, ensuring that care extends to everyone affected.