Organizational factors such as safety culture which is lead by the management team which normally filters from the senior management attitude towards their people which have a direct influence on their perceptions within the workplace.

The management activities such as lack of safety leadership training is normally to the detriment of the company as not all people managers are natural team leaders and the softer skills of managing a team can be taught if the recipient is willing to learn.

The human interaction within the work environment such as safety communication and team management normally determine if the staff turn over is going to be low or high. I have a preference of working for organizations with low turnover as that is normally a good indicator on culture.

If roles for the same organization keeps on recurring it is normally and indication of a toxic culture resulting in many people leaving a good job because of poor people management practices all which impact on staff mental health.

The staff reaction to exposure to critical incidents depends on the work culture within the organization should the focus be on blame instead of learning, focus on what is going right so they know what to expect, know what to look for and how to respond.

From a psychosocial risk management perspective it makes sense.

Critical incidents are high severity, but (hopefully) much less frequent.

Organisational factors are less severe but may be frequent or constant. Psychosocial risk factors also interact more readily so one or two minor organisational issues may interact to be greater than the sum of each factor.

FENZ would also have supervision and debriefing in place for critical incidents, but not for ongoing problems with workplace culture, bullying or other organisational issues.

I may have gotten too interested in this last night due to my lack of sleep. I also used this article as a reading for my Master's, which was good, too.

A short summary of the full paper (I attached the full paper

Recent FENZ findings show that organisational stressors - like feeling unsupported, undervalued, or subject to punitive practices - can have a more profound impact on firefighters' mental health than exposure to traumatic incidents. While initially surprising, these results align with a growing body of research that underscores the critical role of workplace culture in shaping mental health outcomes.

Survey Insights:
A nationwide FENZ survey revealed that firefighters perceiving a lack of support were almost three times more likely to experience mental ill-health compared to those who felt valued. This finding challenges the common assumption that trauma exposure is the sole driver of mental health issues.

Whanaungatanga Programme:
Senior firefighter Josh Darby spearheaded this programme, engaging over 500 firefighters and commanders through workshops and surveys. The initiative identified workplace issues as key contributors to mental distress, emphasising that while traumatic incidents are inevitable, organisational factors are both modifiable and significant.

Intervention Outcomes:
One notable intervention was the removal of an absence indicator tool (based on the Bradford Factor), which many viewed as a punitive measure rather than a support mechanism. This change, among others, is shifting workplace culture toward greater trust and support.

Research Corroboration:
Studies from Australia, the UK, and Canada support FENZ’s findings. Evidence shows that chronic organisational stress - from poor leadership to bureaucratic pressures - can exacerbate mental health issues as much as, or even more than, critical incident exposure. These consistent patterns across emergency services suggest that the FENZ results, while initially unexpected, are in fact well grounded in broader research.

So, how surprising is it? While one might assume that the trauma inherent to firefighting is the predominant factor impacting mental health, the evidence indicates that everyday organisational stressors play an equally critical role. This highlights the importance of focusing on improving workplace environments to better support first responders - a conclusion that, in light of international research, is less surprising and more a necessary call to action.