Why Assessment Needs Tailored Organisational Intervention

I have sat with leadership teams while a carefully prepared report is turned to the last page. The colours are clear. A few headings have been underlined. Someone says that the findings are not surprising, which is often another way of saying they are true.

Then the meeting ends, and the report finds a folder.

Six months later, the same organisation writes again. The complaints sound familiar: people are tired, conversations are careful, good staff are becoming quieter. The assessment did its job. The weeks after the assessment did not.

THE STEP THAT GETS SKIPPED

The step I watch for is a simple one, and it is the one most easily postponed. After the picture becomes visible, someone has to decide what will change in the work, and what kind of learning people actually need.

It is tempting to treat the report as the achievement. The survey has been completed. Participation was decent. Management has a document that looks responsible. In a busy quarter, that can feel like enough.

A report, though, only tells you where to look. It does not yet tell a supervisor how to renegotiate priorities on a Tuesday morning. It does not repair a role that has two owners and no authority. It does not give a team the words for asking for help before resentment sets in.

This is why, at New Mind, psychosocial risk assessment is designed as the opening stage of a longer piece of work: a tailored one-year training and intervention plan, shaped around the organisation’s own goals.

NOT EVERY FINDING IS A TRAINING NEED

The most useful hour in our facilitated management session is often the hour that separates capability gaps from system problems.

Some findings do point toward learning. Leaders may need more practice in holding difficult conversations. A team may need clearer ways to give feedback or to resolve friction before it hardens. Managers may want help recognising early signs of strain and responding in a grounded way. Mental health literacy and the ability to make a workplace feel safer to speak in can also be trained.

Other findings will not move if you only add a workshop. A workload that is structurally unsustainable remains unsustainable after a seminar on resilience. Unclear roles, overlapping accountabilities, or missing decision rights are design problems. A change process that leaves people without information or input will not be repaired by a talk on positivity. Recognition and fairness, when they have worn thin, ask for organisational attention.

I say this without drama. It is simply how work behaves. If people lack conflict-resolution skills, training can help. If the job itself cannot be done in the hours allotted to it, the job has to be looked at.

TAILORED, BECAUSE ORGANISATIONS ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE

A company managing rapid growth needs a different sequence from one that is restructuring. A workplace with high turnover is not facing the same questions as a workplace where people stay but feel worn down. Safety-critical work asks for a different kind of care than a fast-moving commercial team.

This is why I am cautious about ready-made catalogues. A generic corporate wellness menu can be attractive because it is quick to approve. It may not match what the data has just shown.

The plan we build after assessment includes a prioritised list of training needs, recommendations for system improvements, and a twelve-month roadmap with owners, milestones and review points. The sequence matters. Earlier, achievable changes can sit ahead of structural work that genuinely takes longer, so leadership leaves with a path that can be lived with rather than a wish list that nobody can carry.

Where a priority calls for specialist input beyond our own team, we work with collaborators so the organisation does not have to manage several disconnected vendors. Programme content is scoped with you and confirmed before delivery. Clinical psychologists, occupational therapists and LKM-registered counsellors may be involved when the agreed scope asks for them. They are not added as decoration.

I lead this work as an Industrial & Organizational Psychologist (PSIMA Reg. No. 91090) and a DOSH Psychosocial Trained Person (PTP-167/25), drawing on 15 years of work with Malaysian organisations. My wider practice is neuroscience-informed: I am a Neurofeedback SBCIA Master Trainer and hold HRV Biofeedback (BCIA), and that background shapes how we think about attention, stress and recovery across a working week. It informs the design of the plan; it does not replace a careful look at how the work itself is organised.

WHAT TRAINING CAN AND CANNOT HOLD

I will describe our two-day Workplace Mental Health & Brain Wellness workshop later in this series. It offers time to practise energy recovery, attention, communication and supportive working relationships. Those skills are real, and people often leave with a clearer personal plan.

Even then, I keep the same sentence nearby. Employee skills sit alongside suitable workload, clear expectations and organisational support. Training and coaching do not replace employer psychosocial-risk duties. They also do not promise that absenteeism will fall, that productivity will rise, or that recovery can be guaranteed. Those outcomes depend on more than a classroom.

An assessment without intervention can become a sophisticated way of naming a problem and then living with it. An intervention without assessment can become a well-meant activity that misses the point. The two belong together, and the joining has to be tailored.

If a report is sitting on your desk this month, you might not need another survey. You may only need a quieter meeting about which findings are teaching needs, which are design needs, and who will own the first twelve months of the response.

Warmly,
Dr Hiro Koo

Industrial & Organizational Psychologist · Neurofeedback SBCIA Master Trainer · HRV Biofeedback (BCIA) · New Mind

If you would like to talk through what a report is asking of your organisation, you are welcome to write to me on WhatsApp at +60 16-715 4419. You can also read about psychosocial risk assessment and the intervention plan that follows, and about our corporate wellbeing training in Malaysia.

---

我曾和管理层一起，把一份仔细准备过的报告翻到最后一页。颜色很清楚，有几个标题被划了线。有人说，这些发现并不令人意外——这句话常常是另一种说法：它们是真的。

然后会议结束，报告进了一个文件夹。

六个月后，同一家机构又写信来。抱怨听起来很熟悉：人们很累，对话很小心，好同事变得更安静。评估做了它该做的事。评估之后的那几周，却没有。

THE STEP THAT GETS SKIPPED

我特别留意的那一步其实很简单，却也最容易被往后放。当全貌已经看得见，必须有人决定：工作本身要改什么，人们真正需要的又是哪一种学习。

人们很容易把报告本身当成成果。问卷完成了，参与度也不差，管理层手里有一份看起来负责任的文件。在忙碌的季度里，这仿佛已经足够。

可是报告只告诉你该往哪里看。它还不能教一位主管，在星期二早上如何重新商量优先级。它修不好一个有两个主人、却没有权力的岗位。它也不能给团队一套话，好在怨气出现之前就开口求助。

正因如此，在 New Mind，心理社会风险评估被设计成一段更长工作的起点：一份围绕该组织自身目标而写的、为期一年的培训与介入计划。

NOT EVERY FINDING IS A TRAINING NEED

在我们引导的管理层会议里，最有用的一小时，常常是把能力缺口和系统问题分开的那一小时。

有些发现的确指向学习。领导者也许需要更多练习，去进行困难的对话。一个团队也许需要更清楚的方式给予回馈，或在摩擦变硬之前处理它。主管也许希望更能辨认紧绷的早期迹象，并以稳住的方式回应。心理健康素养，以及让职场变得更适合开口的能力，也可以被训练。

另一些发现，只加一场工作坊并不会移动。结构上已经难以持续的工作量，在一场关于韧性的讲座之后，仍然难以持续。职责不清、权责重叠，或缺少决策权，是设计问题。一个让人既没有资讯也没有参与的变革过程，不会因为一场关于正向思考的演讲而被修好。当肯定与公平已经变薄，需要的是组织层面的注意。

我这样说，并不是为了制造紧张。工作本来就是这样运作的。如果人们缺少处理冲突的技能，培训可以帮忙。如果一份工作在被给予的时间里根本做不完，要被拿起来看的是这份工作本身。

TAILORED, BECAUSE ORGANISATIONS ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE

一家正在快速成长的公司，需要的顺序，和一家正在重组的公司并不一样。高流失的职场，面对的问题，也不同于人们留下来、却觉得被磨得很薄的职场。安全要求很高的工作，和步调很快的商业团队，所需要的照顾也不相同。

所以我对现成的目录会比较谨慎。通用的企业健康菜单之所以吸引人，是因为它容易获批。它却不一定符合数据刚刚显出来的东西。

评估之后我们整理的计划，会包括一份有优先级的培训需求、关于系统改善的建议，以及一份为期十二个月、有负责人、节点和回顾点的路线。顺序很重要。可以较早做到的改变，可以放在那些确实需要更长时间的结构调整前面，好让管理层带走一条可以过下去的路，而不是一张谁也拿不动的愿望清单。

若某一项优先事项需要我们团队以外的专业投入，我们会与合作方一起工作，让机构不必同时管理好几家互不相干的供应商。课程内容会先和你一起界定，并在执行前确认。当约定范围需要时，临床心理学家、职能治疗师和 LKM 注册辅导员也可能参与。他们不是被拿来当装饰的。

我以工商与组织心理学家（PSIMA Reg. No. 91090），以及 DOSH Psychosocial Trained Person（PTP-167/25）的身份带领这项工作，背后是 15 年与马来西亚机构共事的经验。我的整体实务以神经科学为依据（neuroscience-informed）；我是 Neurofeedback SBCIA Master Trainer，并持有 HRV Biofeedback (BCIA)。这个背景影响我们如何思考一周工作里的注意力、压力与恢复。它帮助计划的设计，却不能取代认真检视工作本身是如何被安排的。

WHAT TRAINING CAN AND CANNOT HOLD

这一系列稍后，我会写到我们为期两天的 Workplace Mental Health & Brain Wellness 工作坊。它让人有时间练习能量恢复、注意力、沟通，以及彼此支持的工作关系。这些技能是具体的，人们也常常会带着一份更清楚的个人计划离开。

即使如此，我仍会把同一句话放在旁边。员工的技能，需要和合适的工作量、清晰的期望、组织的支持放在一起。培训与教练不能取代雇主在心理社会风险上的责任。它们也不能承诺缺勤会下降、生产力会上升，或恢复可以被保证。那些结果，取决于教室以外的许多条件。

只有评估、没有介入，可能变成一种很精致的命名问题、然后继续与它共处的方式。只有介入、没有评估，则可能变成一场用意很好、却没有对准要点的活动。这两件事属于彼此，而它们的衔接必须是量身的。

如果这个月有一份报告正放在你桌上，你也许并不需要再做一次问卷。你也许只需要一场更安静的会议，问清楚哪些发现是教学需求，哪些是设计需求，以及接下来的十二个月，谁来接住这个回应。

Warmly,
Dr Hiro Koo

Industrial & Organizational Psychologist · Neurofeedback SBCIA Master Trainer · HRV Biofeedback (BCIA) · New Mind

若想一起看看一份报告正在向你的机构提出什么要求，欢迎通过 WhatsApp +60 16-715 4419 写信给我。也可以阅读心理社会风险评估以及随后的介入计划，以及我们的马来西亚企业健康培训。

Psychosocial Risk Assessment in Malaysian Workplaces

When a leadership team first says the words “psychosocial risk assessment”, I can often hear a second sentence forming behind it. Someone is wondering whether this means interviewing staff about depression. Someone else is wondering whether names will appear in a report.

That hesitation is understandable. Mental health language at work still arrives with a clinical shadow. An assessment sounds like a test of individuals. In an office in Kuala Lumpur or Penang, a manager may worry that asking about psychosocial risk will make people feel examined.

WHAT THE WORD ACTUALLY POINTS TO

In occupational safety and health, psychosocial risk is not a polite synonym for personal fragility. Malaysia’s Department of Occupational Safety and Health, in its 2024 Guidelines on Psychosocial Risk Assessment and Management at the Workplace (PRisMA), describes psychosocial risk as arising from the way work is designed, organised and managed, and from the social context in which work occurs. The same guideline draws on ISO 45003:2021 when it speaks of work-related hazards of a psychosocial nature, and of the harm they may cause.

In plainer language: the question is how the job, the team and the organisation are arranged. It is about workload and pace, role clarity, control over one’s tasks, support from colleagues and leaders, the way change is handled, and whether someone can raise a concern early without paying a social price.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 asks employers to assess safety and health risks that may affect people at the workplace, and to put controls in place where those risks require them. The PRisMA guideline is offered as a guide for that work in the psychosocial domain. Appointing a Psychosocial Trained Person is framed as something employers should do. I mention this carefully, as a professional reading of the published guideline, and not as legal advice. Requirements vary by industry and circumstance, and they remain the employer’s responsibility.

WHAT WE ARE NOT DOING

The assessment we conduct at New Mind is an organisational assessment and a Training Needs Analysis. It is not a clinical or psychiatric diagnostic assessment. It does not screen, diagnose or label individual employees.

That distinction matters more than many slide decks admit. If people believe the survey will identify who is unwell, they write more cautiously. If they understand that the questions are about shared working conditions, they are more willing to describe what the week actually feels like.

Responses are anonymous and treated as confidential. Findings are reported at organisational and group level. The conversation is framed around systems and working conditions. We do not turn the report into a search for weaker individuals.

AN ORGANISATIONAL PICTURE

In practice, the process usually takes about four to five weeks from survey launch to a facilitated management session.

We first confirm the scope: which parts of the organisation are included, who should be invited, and how the timeline will run. Employees then complete a confidential organisational questionnaire. After the responses are reviewed and written up, we sit with management for a four-hour working session. In that room we interpret the report, map likely root causes, and separate the issues that training can address from those that ask for work to be redesigned.

The domains we look at will be familiar to anyone who has stayed late too many evenings or sat through a meeting where nobody knew who owned the decision. We look at work demands and whether the pace leaves room for recovery. We look at role and job design: clarity, autonomy, and whether people have the resources to do what they have been asked to do. We look at support and relationships, including the everyday backing that makes demanding work more sustainable. We look at communication, and at whether concerns can surface early.

Other organisational factors may also be reviewed, such as change management, recognition, and fairness. The report is written so that leaders can see the picture without needing a background in statistics. Areas working well, areas to watch, and areas that need attention are set out in plain language.

I lead this work as an Industrial & Organizational Psychologist (PSIMA Reg. No. 91090) and a DOSH Psychosocial Trained Person (PTP-167/25), drawing on 15 years of work with Malaysian organisations. My wider practice is neuroscience-informed; I am a Neurofeedback SBCIA Master Trainer and hold HRV Biofeedback (BCIA). In an assessment, that background mostly keeps one fact in view: how people cope at work depends heavily on the conditions around them. Our team includes three DOSH Psychosocial Trained Persons in total. Depending on the agreed scope, colleagues from clinical psychology, occupational therapy and counselling may be involved later; they are assigned according to need, and not every professional attends every booking.

FROM PICTURE TO DECISION

A psychosocial risk assessment is most useful when it helps management decide what kind of response the findings actually call for.

If people lack the skill to hold a difficult conversation, corporate wellbeing training can help. If the workload is structurally unsustainable, no amount of resilience language will repair it. The assessment is built to make that distinction visible, so that the next budget is not spent on the wrong kind of kindness.

I will write tomorrow about why the report should lead to a tailored organisational intervention rather than a generic workshop catalogue. Today I only want Malaysian management to hear this clearly: psychosocial risk assessment is a way of looking at work, with care for confidentiality and without turning employees into cases.

If your team has been circling this subject and pausing at the word “assessment”, that pause can be respected. The work can still begin with a precise question about working conditions, asked in a way that people can answer honestly.

Warmly,
Dr Hiro Koo

Industrial & Organizational Psychologist · Neurofeedback SBCIA Master Trainer · HRV Biofeedback (BCIA) · New Mind

If you would like to look at this more slowly, you are welcome to write to me on WhatsApp at +60 16-715 4419, or to read how we approach psychosocial risk assessment in Malaysia.

---

领导团队第一次说出“心理社会风险评估”时，我常常能感觉到后半句还卡在喉咙里。有人在想，这是不是意味着要逐一询问谁有抑郁。也有人在想，报告里会不会出现名字。

这种犹豫可以理解。职场里的心理健康用语，总还带着一层临床的影子。Assessment 听起来像是在测验个人。在吉隆坡或槟城的办公室里，主管也许会担心：一问心理社会风险，同事就会觉得自己被检查了。

WHAT THE WORD ACTUALLY POINTS TO

在职业安全与卫生的语境里，心理社会风险并不是“个人比较脆弱”的委婉说法。马来西亚职业安全与卫生局（DOSH）在 2024 年的《Guidelines on Psychosocial Risk Assessment and Management at the Workplace》（PRisMA）中写道：心理社会风险，来自工作被设计、组织与管理的方式，也来自工作发生时的社会情境。同一份指南在谈到心理社会性质的工作危害及其可能造成的伤害时，也引用了 ISO 45003:2021。

说得更日常一点：问题在于工作、团队和组织是如何被安排的。它关乎工作量与节奏、职责是否清楚、人对自己的任务有多少掌控、同事与主管的支持、变革如何被处理，以及一个人是否能及早提出担心，而不必付出社交上的代价。

1994 年的《职业安全与卫生法令》要求雇主评估可能影响工作场所中人们的安全与健康风险，并在风险需要被控制时采取相应措施。PRisMA 指南，是在心理社会这个领域里为这项工作提供的指引。指南也提到，雇主应当委任 Psychosocial Trained Person。我在这里小心说明：这是对已公开指南的专业阅读，不是法律意见。不同行业与情境的要求会有差别，责任仍在雇主本身。

WHAT WE ARE NOT DOING

New Mind 进行的评估，是组织层面的评估，也是培训需求分析（Training Needs Analysis）。它不是临床或精神科的诊断评估，不会筛查、诊断或替个别员工贴上标签。

这个分别，比许多投影片愿意承认的更重要。如果人们相信问卷会找出谁状态不好，他们写起来会更谨慎。如果他们明白问题问的是共同的工作条件，他们才比较愿意描述这一周真正的样子。

回答是匿名的，也会被当作机密来处理。发现会在组织与组别层面呈现。对话围绕系统与工作条件展开。我们不会把报告变成一场寻找“比较弱的人”的行动。

AN ORGANISATIONAL PICTURE

实务上，从问卷发出到一场有引导的管理层会议，整个过程大约需要四到五周。

我们会先确认范围：组织的哪些部分会被纳入、该邀请谁、时间如何安排。员工随后完成一份保密的组织问卷。答复被审阅并写成报告后，我们会和管理层坐下来，进行四小时的工作会议。在那间房里，我们一起解读报告，梳理可能的根因，并分开两件事：哪些问题可以通过培训处理，哪些问题其实要求工作被重新设计。

我们看的领域，对那些经常加班到很晚、或坐过一场谁都不知道该谁做决定的会议的人来说，并不会陌生。我们看工作要求，以及这样的节奏有没有留下恢复的空间。我们看职责与工作设计：是否清楚、有没有自主，以及人们是否拥有完成被要求之事的资源。我们看支持与关系，包括那些让高要求的工作比较撑得住的日常后盾。我们也看沟通，以及担心能否及早被说出来。

其他组织因素也可能被检视，例如变革管理、肯定，以及公平。报告会用平实的语言写成，让领导者不必具备统计背景也能看见全貌：运作良好的地方、需要观察的地方，以及需要被认真对待的地方。

我以工商与组织心理学家（PSIMA Reg. No. 91090），以及 DOSH Psychosocial Trained Person（PTP-167/25）的身份带领这项工作，背后是 15 年与马来西亚机构共事的经验。我的整体实务以神经科学为依据（neuroscience-informed）；我是 Neurofeedback SBCIA Master Trainer，也具备 HRV Biofeedback (BCIA)。在评估里，这个背景主要提醒我一件事：一个人在工作中撑不撑得住，很大程度取决于他身边的条件。我们团队一共有三位 DOSH Psychosocial Trained Person。视约定范围而定，临床心理、职能治疗与辅导的同事之后也可能参与；专业人员会按需要被指派，并不是每一次预约都全员出席。

FROM PICTURE TO DECISION

心理社会风险评估最有用的时候，是它能帮助管理层判断：这些发现真正呼唤的是哪一种回应。

如果人们缺少进行困难对话的技能，企业健康培训可以帮忙。如果工作量在结构上已经难以持续，再多关于韧性的语言也无法把它修好。评估被设计来让这个分别被看见，这样下一笔预算，才不会花在一种用错地方的善意上。

明天我会写，为什么报告之后需要量身的组织介入，而不是一份通用的工作坊目录。今天我只希望马来西亚的管理层清楚听见：心理社会风险评估，是一种看待工作的方式。它小心保护机密，也不会把员工变成个案。

如果你们的团队一直在这个主题周围打转，又在“评估”这个词前面停住，那份停顿可以被尊重。工作仍然可以从一个精确的问题开始：问工作条件，并且用一种让人能够诚实回答的方式去问。

Warmly,
Dr Hiro Koo

Industrial & Organizational Psychologist · Neurofeedback SBCIA Master Trainer · HRV Biofeedback (BCIA) · New Mind

若想把这件事看得更慢一点，欢迎通过 WhatsApp +60 16-715 4419 写信给我，或阅读我们如何进行马来西亚的心理社会风险评估。

Workplace Mental Health Is More Than a Wellness Talk

The talk ends just before lunch. There is a group photograph, a slide about self-care, and a gentle reminder to reach out if someone is struggling. By two o’clock, the same inbox has returned, with the same unanswered messages and the same meeting that could have been shorter.

I have watched this pattern for 15 years in Malaysian workplaces. The intention is rarely careless. A manager wants to show that mental health matters. A wellness committee wants something visible this quarter. A one-hour corporate wellness talk is easy to approve, easy to schedule, and easy to photograph.

A COMMON ASSUMPTION

What I hear, quite often, is that the talk itself is the programme. Once it has been delivered, workplace mental health can be marked as done for the year.

Awareness has a place. People do need language for stress, sleep, irritability, and the quiet withdrawal that can sit inside a high-performing team. A clear talk can reduce awkwardness. It can give a junior staff member permission to say that the pace has become hard to sustain.

The difficulty is what happens after the applause. Stress at work is shaped by how work is designed, how expectations are communicated, and whether asking for help is actually safe. Those conditions do not change because a speaker has been kind for sixty minutes.

If the workload is structurally heavy, a breathing exercise at the end of a talk may be remembered for a day. If nobody knows how to raise a concern about priorities, the same friction returns on Monday. If recovery is treated as a private weekend project, people learn to look composed during the session and exhausted in the corridor.

WHAT I WATCH FOR

When organisations ask New Mind for corporate mental health support, I listen for what they hope the session will repair.

Sometimes they hope it will motivate people to be more positive. Sometimes they hope it will reduce complaints. Sometimes they hope it will stand in for a conversation about role clarity or staffing that feels too awkward to begin.

I am an Industrial & Organizational Psychologist, a Neurofeedback SBCIA Master Trainer with the Spectrum Biofeedback Certification Institute of Asia, and I work with HRV Biofeedback (BCIA). My work sits with the person and with the working system around them. A talk that only addresses individual attitude leaves the system untouched. A talk that only names the system, without giving people any skill to practise, can leave a room feeling understood and still unequipped.

Useful workplace mental health work, as I have come to practise it, usually needs three kinds of attention.

The first is an honest look at psychosocial conditions: work demands, role design, support, and communication. In Malaysia, the Department of Occupational Safety and Health has set this out in its 2024 Guidelines on Psychosocial Risk Assessment and Management at the Workplace, known as PRisMA. The guideline describes psychosocial risk as arising from the way work is designed, organised and managed, and from the social context in which work occurs. That is a management question, not only a wellness question.

The second is skill. People benefit from time to notice stress earlier, to reset attention during a demanding day, to speak more clearly about workload, and to offer support without turning a colleague into a case to be solved. Skills of this kind are difficult to practise in a single lunch hour.

The third is organisational follow-through. Training and coaching sit alongside suitable workload, clear expectations and organisational support. They do not replace an employer’s psychosocial-risk responsibilities, and they do not promise a rise in productivity or a drop in absenteeism. They give people something usable while the organisation decides what may need to change in the work itself.

A LONGER CONVERSATION

This is why, when a company writes to us about a corporate wellness workshop in Malaysia, I rarely begin by asking what theme they would like on a slide.

I ask what they are seeing. Are people tired in a way that sleep no longer repairs? Are working relationships polite and thin? Has a team become very quiet? Are managers carrying concerns they do not know how to raise?

From there, we can discuss whether the organisation needs a psychosocial risk assessment and a tailored plan, or a longer workshop in which people can practise, or both. Our signature programme is a two-day, 14-hour Workplace Mental Health & Brain Wellness workshop, shaped around burnout prevention, recovery and supportive working relationships. It is not a stretched version of a motivational talk. It is time to work with energy, attention, conversation and the quality of everyday support.

A complimentary Mental & Brain Wellness Booth can accompany the full two-day booking, with voluntary appointments arranged outside the training hours. I will write more about that later in this series. For now, I only want to place it beside the talk, so the difference in pace is clear.

I still give talks, when a short opening is what a workplace needs. I do not dismiss them. I simply no longer confuse them with the slower work of helping a workplace become easier to remain well inside.

If your calendar already has a wellness talk this quarter, that may be a decent beginning. The more interesting question is what the weeks after the photograph will ask of management.

Warmly,
Dr Hiro Koo

Industrial & Organizational Psychologist · Neurofeedback SBCIA Master Trainer · HRV Biofeedback (BCIA) · New Mind

If this is close to what you are seeing at work, you are welcome to write to me on WhatsApp at +60 16-715 4419. You may also read about our two-day Workplace Mental Health & Brain Wellness workshop and our corporate wellbeing training in Malaysia.

一场讲座常常在午餐前结束。大家合一张影，投影片提到自我照顾，讲者温和地提醒：如果觉得撑不住，可以寻求协助。两点过后，收件箱又回来了，未回的讯息还在，那場本可以更短的会议也还在。

这十五年来，我在马来西亚的职场里看过太多次这样的场面。用意通常不差。主管希望让大家看见，心理健康是被重视的；福利委员会希望这个季度有一件看得见的事。一小时的企业健康讲座，容易获批，容易安排，也容易留下照片。

A COMMON ASSUMPTION

我常听到一种想法：讲座本身就是方案。讲完了，这一年的职场心理健康，也就可以勾选完成。

觉察当然有它的位置。人们需要语言，才能说出压力、睡眠、烦躁，以及高表现团队里那种安静的退缩。一场清楚的讲座，可以减少尴尬，也能让比较资浅的同事有勇气说：这样的节奏，已经不容易撑下去。

难处在掌声之后。工作中的压力，往往来自工作怎么被设计、期望怎么被传达，以及求助这件事是否真的安全。这些条件，不会因为讲者温和地讲了六十分钟，就跟着改变。

如果工作量本身过重，讲座结尾的呼吸练习也许只会被记住一天。如果没有人知道该如何提出优先级的困难，周一同样的摩擦还会回来。如果恢复只被当成周末的私人功课，人们学会在讲座里看起来镇定，在走廊里却很累。

WHAT I WATCH FOR

当机构来找 New Mind，希望得到企业心理健康方面的支持时，我会先听他们希望这场活动修补什么。

有时，他们希望大家变得更正面。有时，他们希望抱怨少一点。有时，他们希望这场讲座可以暂代一场关于职责清晰或人手安排的对话，因为那句话太难开口。

我是工商与组织心理学家（Industrial & Organizational Psychologist），也是 Spectrum Biofeedback Certification Institute of Asia 的 Neurofeedback SBCIA Master Trainer，并从事 HRV Biofeedback (BCIA) 相关工作。我的工作既对着人，也对着人周围的工作系统。如果一场讲座只谈个人心态，系统会原封不动。如果一场讲座只点出系统的问题，却不给人任何可以练习的方法，房间里的人也许感到被理解，却依然没有工具。

就我这些年的实务来看，有帮助的职场心理健康工作，通常需要三件事同时被看见。

第一，是诚实看待心理社会条件：工作要求、职责设计、支持，以及沟通。在马来西亚，职业安全与卫生局（DOSH）在 2024 年的《Guidelines on Psychosocial Risk Assessment and Management at the Workplace》（简称 PRisMA）里写得很清楚：心理社会风险，来自工作被设计、组织与管理的方式，也来自工作发生时的社会情境。这首先是管理问题，而不只是福利问题。

第二，是技能。人们需要时间，去更早察觉压力，在紧张的一天里重置注意力，把工作量说得更清楚，也学习在支持同事时，不要把对方变成一个等待被处理的个案。这些技能，很难在一个午餐时段里真正练过。

第三，是组织后续怎么跟进。培训与教练，需要和合适的工作量、清晰的期望、组织的支持放在一起看。它们不能取代雇主在心理社会风险上的责任，也不能承诺生产力会上升，或缺勤会下降。它们能给人一些用得上的方法，同时让组织决定，工作本身有哪些地方需要调整。

A LONGER CONVERSATION

所以，当一家公司写信来，询问马来西亚的企业健康工作坊时，我很少先问：你们希望投影片上出现哪个主题。

我会问他们看见了什么。人们是不是累到睡觉也补不回来？工作关系是不是礼貌却很薄？某个团队是不是变得特别安静？主管是不是手里握着一些不知道怎么开口的担心？

之后，我们才能一起看：这家机构需要的是心理社会风险评估和一份量身的计划，或是一场让人有时间练习的工作坊，或是两者都需要。我们的主要课程，是为期两天、共 14 小时的 Workplace Mental Health & Brain Wellness 工作坊，围绕倦怠预防、恢复，以及彼此支持的工作关系。它不是把激励讲座拉长而成的版本，而是一段可以认真处理能量、注意力、对话，以及日常支持品质的时间。

完整预订这两天课程时，可配套一个心理与脑健康摊位（Mental & Brain Wellness Booth），预约在培训时段之外、由同事自愿前往。关于摊位，我会在这一系列稍后写得更仔细。此刻我只想把它放在讲座旁边，让节奏上的差别先被看见。

如果一个职场现在需要的是短短的开场，我仍然会去做讲座。我并不轻视它。我只是不再把它，和让一个职场变得比较容易好好待下去的那件较慢的工作，混为一谈。

如果这个季度的行事历里已经有一场健康讲座，那也许是不错的起点。更值得问的是：合影之后的那几周，会向管理层面提出什么要求。

Warmly,
Dr Hiro Koo

Industrial & Organizational Psychologist · Neurofeedback SBCIA Master Trainer · HRV Biofeedback (BCIA) · New Mind

如果文中有些地方贴近你正在面对的职场，欢迎通过 WhatsApp +60 16-715 4419 和我继续聊。也可以先阅读我们的两日职场心理健康与脑健康工作坊，以及马来西亚企业健康培训说明。