GEISHA KOWLESSAR ALONZO
Psychological safety, workplace culture and employee well-being came under the spotlight at the American Chamber of Commerce of T&T (Amcham TT) HSSE Conference 2026, as experts warned that some of the most significant risks facing today’s workforce are no longer physical, but psychological.
Speaking during a panel titled, Is Psychological Safety... Just a New Buzz Word or a Hidden Mental Health Exposure? How Do We Measure It? panellists argued that organisations must move beyond traditional notions of workplace safety and create environments where employees feel safe to speak up, raise concerns and contribute without fear of retaliation.
The discussion brought together Professor Gerard Hutchinson, professor of Clinical Medical Sciences at The University of the West Indies, high court judge Frank Seepersad, and Dr Nicole King-Daniel, director of Human Resources at Proman Limited, who explored the growing impact of workplace mental health on productivity, employee engagement, safety and organisational performance.
While each panellist approached the issue from a different perspective, all agreed that fostering psychological safety requires strong leadership, mutual trust and a workplace culture that balances accountability with respect and dignity.
According to Hutchinson, workplace mental health encompasses the psychological, emotional and social well-being of employees and is profoundly influenced by the environments in which people work.
He said work and mental health have a “bi-directional relationship,” meaning workplace conditions affect employees’ mental health while workers’ mental health influences workplace culture and performance.
“The working environment contributes to mental health, and your mental health contributes to the working environment,” he said.
Drawing on the World Health Organisation’s definition of mental health, Hutchinson explained that mentally healthy individuals are able to manage stress, reach their potential, work effectively and contribute positively to their communities.
Those principles, he said, also shape workplace mental health, which is built on three critical areas: psychological safety, psychosocial risk management and access to support systems.
When those elements are absent, warning signs begin to emerge, including absenteeism, presenteeism, burnout, depression, employee turnover and workplace conflict.
“Most of the referrals I see in the context of workplace stress relates to interpersonal conflict,” Hutchinson said, noting that disputes between employees, supervisors and management remain among the most common sources of workplace distress.
Hutchinson said organisations must establish systems that allow employees to comfortably raise concerns while enabling employers to identify problems before they escalate.
Central to that process is trust
Workers must trust managers and workplace systems to act fairly, while employers must trust employees when concerns are raised.
He noted that many employees also bring personal pressures into the workplace, including financial challenges, family obligations and social stressors, all of which can affect their mental health and performance.
A healthy workplace can help employees manage those pressures, while an unhealthy environment can make them worse.
As a result, Hutchinson said employers must actively assess psychosocial risks, ensure job expectations align with employee capabilities and provide the support systems necessary to help workers thrive.
A broader definition of workplace safety
Seepersad challenged traditional notions of workplace safety, arguing that modern organisations must recognise psychological harm as a legitimate workplace risk noting, “For generations, workplace safety was understood by reference to visible dangers.”
Those dangers included unguarded machinery, exposed electrical wiring, unsafe scaffolding and hazardous substances.
While those concerns remain relevant, Seepersad said today’s workplaces face a new category of hazards adding, “Some of the most consequential hazards of the modern workplace leave no debris on a factory floor.”
He pointed to excessive workloads, workplace bullying, humiliation and cultures where employees conclude that remaining silent is safer than speaking up.
As a result, a workplace could satisfy traditional safety standards while remaining psychologically unsafe.
According to Seepersad, T&T’s Occupational Safety and Health Act already contains principles capable of addressing those concerns.
Section 6 (1) establishes employers’ responsibility to ensure workers’ safety, health and welfare, while Section 13 (A) introduces the concept of risk assessment.
“The conceptual foundation for the prevention of psychological harm is already present within the statutory framework,” he said.
The challenge now is determining how psychological risks should be properly identified, measured and managed.
An important distinction raised by Seepersad was the difference between psychological safety and psychological comfort.
He warned against creating a culture where every disagreement, criticism or unfavourable decision is viewed as harmful saying, “Criticism is not necessarily bullying, disagreement is not necessarily harassment, and an adverse managerial decision is not, without more, an assault upon well-being.”
Workplaces, he noted, require professional standards, accountability and occasionally difficult conversations.
The objective is not to eliminate pressure but to ensure authority is exercised responsibly and respectfully.
“Rights flourish when responsibility is embraced,” Seepersad said, adding that employers must answer for the environments they create while employees remain accountable for their own conduct, treatment and performance.
He further argued that organisations should monitor indicators such as absenteeism, staff turnover, recurring grievances and excessive work hours, which may reveal cultural issues hidden beneath broader performance metrics.
Drawing a parallel with physical safety, Seepersad noted that employers do not wait for machinery to injure workers before installing safety guards.
Likewise, organisations should not wait until psychological harm occurs before taking preventative action.
“If we accept the principle of prevention when protecting the body, why should the conversation about foreseeable workplace risk end merely because the potential injury may be to the mind?” he asked.
Why Employees Are Afraid to Speak Up
For King-Daniel, one of the most pressing concerns is the growing disconnect many employees feel from their workplaces.
Drawing on more than 25 years of human resources experience, she said it is increasingly common to hear employees describe work as nothing more than a transaction.
“I show up, I get a job done and I get paid,” she said.
While acknowledging this reality of the workplace, King-Daniel warned that organisations lose tremendous value when employees do not feel safe enough to share ideas, challenge assumptions or identify problems saying, “Psychological safety is not a soft skill. It is a leadership responsibility.”
According to King-Daniel, several barriers discourage employees from speaking openly in T&T.
Among them are fears of offending senior leadership, concerns that ideas would never reach decision-makers, worries that others may claim credit for their contributions, and anxiety about victimisation or lost career opportunities.
“People just show up and loyalty is around showing up and getting the job done, and not rocking the boat,” she said.
Yet she argued that respect for hierarchy and authority could coexist with a workplace culture that welcomes constructive feedback and honest dialogue.
King-Daniel said leaders often assume they have created safe environments simply by inviting comments during meetings.
In reality, she argued, psychological safety requires a far more intentional approach.
“A safe space does not mean in a meeting saying, ‘So what are your thoughts? You didn’t say anything,’” she said.
Instead, leaders must actively encourage participation, particularly from quieter employees whose perspectives may otherwise be overlooked as King-Daniel noted, “The person who has the quietest voice does not mean that they don’t have insightful information or contribution to make.”
How managers react when employees speak up is equally important.
Employees quickly determine whether their views are truly welcome based on how leaders respond to criticism, questions or uncomfortable truths.
“When people challenge us or raise concerns, thank them for raising it,” King-Daniel advised.
She also encouraged leaders to demonstrate vulnerability by acknowledging mistakes and showing employees that leadership does not require perfection adding, “When we show up as humans to our teams and to our people, we build courage.”
King-Daniel cautioned that trust cannot be built through policies alone.
Many organisations have whistleblower policies, human resource guidelines and occupational health and safety procedures. However, those measures lose credibility if leadership fails to act on employee feedback.
Employees, she said, want evidence that concerns raised are heard, considered and addressed.
She encouraged organisations to supplement engagement surveys with pulse surveys, team check-ins and direct conversations with employees.
Leaders should spend more time understanding workplace realities firsthand and asking difficult questions.
Importantly, she warned organisations not to misinterpret silence as a positive sign saying, “Silence does not mean that there is trust. In fact, it means the opposite.”
High survey participation rates and favourable metrics do not necessarily mean employees feel comfortable expressing themselves.
Building trust, she said, requires continuous effort and ongoing engagement.
