Many organisations measure employee sentiment through engagement surveys. While valuable, these measures do not tell boards whether their organisation has the systematic capability to identify and manage psychosocial risks. Maturity measurement fills this gap.
The limits of engagement surveys
Employee engagement surveys capture point-in-time sentiment. They can reveal how workers feel about their workplace, but they do not assess whether the organisation has adequate systems, processes, and governance structures to manage psychosocial hazards.
A team might report high engagement while still being exposed to uncontrolled psychosocial risks. Conversely, low engagement scores do not necessarily indicate systemic safety failures.
What maturity measurement provides
Maturity measurement assesses organisational capability, not individual experience. It examines:
- Systems and processes: Whether appropriate hazard identification, risk assessment, and control processes exist and are implemented
- Governance structures: Whether clear accountabilities, escalation pathways, and oversight mechanisms are in place
- Resource adequacy: Whether the organisation has allocated appropriate resources to psychosocial risk management
- Continuous improvement: Whether the organisation reviews and improves its approach based on evidence and feedback
The governance distinction
Boards need to know whether their organisation can systematically manage psychosocial risk, not just whether employees are currently satisfied. Maturity measurement provides this governance-relevant visibility.
From sentiment to capability
The shift from sentiment measurement to capability assessment represents a fundamental change in how organisations approach psychosocial safety. Rather than asking "how do people feel?" the focus becomes "can we systematically manage these risks?"
This distinction matters because:
- Regulatory compliance requires demonstrable systems, not just positive survey results
- Capability-based approaches address root causes rather than symptoms
- Maturity frameworks enable meaningful comparison and prioritisation
- Evidence of systematic management supports due diligence claims
Integrating different measures
Maturity measurement does not replace engagement surveys or other workforce metrics. Instead, it provides a complementary lens that helps organisations understand whether their systems are adequate, regardless of current sentiment levels.
An integrated measurement approach might include:
- Maturity assessments to evaluate systematic capability
- Engagement surveys to track worker experience
- Leading indicators to identify emerging risks
- Incident data to understand outcomes
Conclusion
Maturity measurement provides the governance visibility that engagement surveys cannot. For boards seeking to demonstrate due diligence and make evidence-based decisions about psychosocial risk, understanding organisational capability is essential.