Every Job Requires Heavy Lifting: Sometimes It’s Physical, Sometimes It’s Psychological

Imagine you’re applying for a job in a warehouse.

The posting explains that you’ll need to regularly lift up to 50 pounds and spend long periods on your feet. During the interview you’re asked whether you’re physically capable of meeting those requirements. On your first day, you’re shown proper lifting techniques, provided with equipment designed to reduce the risk of injury and trained on safe work procedures.

None of that feels unusual. In fact, we’d probably question an employer who didn’t tell applicants about the physical demands of the job before hiring them.

Now imagine applying for a different position.

Nobody tells you that you’ll regularly de-escalate conflict between coworkers. Or deliver difficult news to clients. Or make decisions where mistakes carry significant consequences. Or absorb the emotions of people who are frustrated, grieving or angry. Or work on tight deadlines. Or switch constantly between competing priorities while trying to stay focused.

You don’t discover those expectations until after you’ve accepted the job.

When you think about it that way, it seems strange that we routinely identify and communicate the physical demands of a role while overlooking its psychological demands.

Yet that’s exactly what many organizations do.

This is the fifth instalment in my How to Eat an Elephant series, where I’m breaking down the National Standard for Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace’s 13 psychosocial factors into bite-sized pieces, one at a time, so we can better understand what actually shapes psychological health and safety at work. The Standard describes psychological demands as the emotional, cognitive and mental requirements that are inherent to a particular job.

Psychological demands aren’t "bad", and every job has them. In fact, many people are drawn to careers because they find those very demands meaningful and rewarding. So, the issue isn’t that jobs have psychological demands. The issue is when we fail to recognize them, communicate them or prepare people for them.

It’s also important to remember that being a good fit for a job is about much more than just technical skills. True fit includes whether there is alignment between an individual’s emotional and interpersonal competencies and the psychological demands of the role itself. In other words, it’s not just can you do the work, but how does the work interact with how you naturally think, feel, respond and relate to others under pressure.

Several years ago, I was working with a client when one of their supervisors shared a story that has stayed with me ever since.

An employee had come to them looking genuinely distressed and admitted they weren’t sure they could continue in their role. Rather than jumping to conclusions, the supervisor did exactly what we hope leaders will do. They sat down with the employee, asked questions and tried to understand what was really going on.

Eventually, the employee shared that the most difficult part of their job was the public speaking.

The supervisor was puzzled.

"What do you mean public speaking?" they asked. "That’s not part of your job."

The employee explained that they were referring to the Monday morning team huddles. Every week, the supervisor gathered the team of about a dozen people and went around the room asking everyone to provide a quick update on what they were working on, identify priorities for the week and mention if they needed support with anything. It was informal, conversational and only lasted a few minutes. The supervisor had never considered that this might be viewed as public speaking.

This very shy, quiet employee, however, absolutely did.

They explained that they spent much of every weekend thinking about that Monday morning meeting. They would rehearse what they were going to say over and over again, becoming increasingly anxious as Monday approached. This wasn’t someone who lacked commitment or wasn’t capable of doing the job. Quite the opposite. They were excellent at what they did, highly respected and known for being reliable and conscientious. They genuinely wanted to stay with the organization. They were simply a quiet, reserved person who found speaking in front of a group, even one made up of familiar colleagues, incredibly stressful.

Once the issue was identified, the solution was surprisingly simple. The employee started writing a few bullet points before each meeting and handing them to the supervisor, who would naturally incorporate those updates into the discussion rather than the employee sharing the points. The pressure of having to speak in front of the group disappeared, and with it, so did the employee’s anxiety about Monday mornings. In the weeks that followed, a couple other team members also started sharing their updates this way as well, indicating to the supervisor that they felt their communication was more thorough when written rather than delivered verbally.

That experience is a powerful reminder that psychological demands are deeply individual. The supervisor wasn’t being insensitive. They genuinely hadn’t considered that something they viewed as an ordinary part of the workday could be so mentally taxing for someone else. Had the employee not felt comfortable enough to speak up, the organization could have lost a dedicated, high-performing team member over something that was relatively easy to address.

This is exactly why identifying psychological demands can be so challenging. What feels demanding to one person may not even register for another.

Some people thrive on public speaking while others lose sleep over introducing themselves in a meeting. Employee A finds working on a tight deadline helps them to get “in the zone” and put out their best, most creative work while Employee B feels flustered, overwhelmed and unable to concentrate knowing the clock is tick-tick-ticking. Some people love fast-paced environments while others find constant interruptions mentally exhausting. One employee may find managing conflict to be thought-provoking and satisfying while another finds it emotionally draining.

None of these reactions are right or wrong. They’re simply reminders that we all experience work differently.

That’s why organizations shouldn’t try to decide what should be stressful. Instead, they should identify all of the inherent psychological demands of a role and communicate them honestly so applicants can make informed decisions about whether the position is a good fit.

Another important thing to remember is that this shouldn’t be a one-time exercise. Regular check-ins between employees and supervisors, formal performance appraisals and exit interviews are all valuable opportunities to ask people directly what aspects of the job feel psychologically demanding to them. These conversations often surface realities that were not initially obvious when the role was designed. Over time, that feedback can be used to update and refine the job description so it more accurately reflects the lived experience of the work.

Imagine if every job posting included a section titled Psychological Demands of This Role.

It might include things like:

Interpersonal and emotional demands

• Managing competing or shifting priorities

• Making high-stakes decisions with real consequences

• Working with incomplete information or uncertainty

• Maintaining accuracy and attention to detail over time

• Learning and applying complex procedures under pressure

• Dealing with ambiguity or changing expectations

Cognitive load and decision-making pressures

• Managing competing or shifting priorities

• Making high-stakes decisions with real consequences

• Working with incomplete information or uncertainty

• Maintaining accuracy and attention to detail over time

• Learning and applying complex procedures under pressure

• Dealing with ambiguity or changing expectations

Communication and social performance demands

• Public speaking or presenting

• Adapting communication style for different audiences

• Engaging in persuasion or negotiation

• Balancing multiple communication channels

• Regular interaction with the public in unpredictable or high-pressure contexts

• Being observed, evaluated or scrutinized while working

Time pressure and workload intensity

• Working under tight or inflexible deadlines

• Managing unpredictable workload fluctuations

• Switching rapidly between tasks

• Coping with frequent interruptions

• Sustaining focus in fast-paced or high-volume environments

• Balancing productivity expectations with service or safety demands

Emotional labour and exposure to distressing content

• Providing ongoing emotional support as part of the role

• Exposure to traumatic stories or events

• Maintaining composure in distressing situations

• Working in roles requiring emotional containment or detachment

• Supporting others in crisis while managing your own emotional response

Environmental and attentional demands

• Sustaining attention over long periods

• Monitoring systems or environments for extended durations

• Working in high-sensory or high-distraction environments

• Maintaining focus in isolation or with limited support

• Coping with constant interruptions or sensory input

Accountability, ethics and organizational pressure

• Working in high-accountability roles with visible outcomes

• Navigating ethical dilemmas or value conflicts

• Enforcing unpopular decisions or policies

• Managing competing stakeholder expectations

• Supporting change that may be resisted or

• Handling confidential or sensitive information under pressure

Would laying all this out up front discourage some folks from applying?

Maybe.

But isn’t that exactly the point?

We already do this with physical demands because we understand that people deserve to know what a job requires before accepting it, and because we’re looking to hire a long-term employee who’s going to be able to do the job well. We don’t hide the fact that a role requires lifting heavy boxes or climbing ladders because we’re worried fewer people will apply. We recognize those as essential parts of the job and put the information out there so there are no surprises.

Psychological demands deserve the same level of transparency, and being upfront about the psychological demands of a role benefits everyone involved.

For job candidates, it provides the information they need to make an informed decision about whether the position aligns with their strengths, preferences and capacity. While no one can predict exactly how they’ll respond to every aspect of a job, having a realistic picture of its inherent demands helps reduce the chances of unpleasant surprises after they start.

For the successful candidate who becomes an employee, it creates confidence and clarity from day one. They know what the role requires, what challenges they can reasonably expect to encounter and where they may need to develop new skills or lean on available supports. That’s a much stronger foundation than discovering key aspects of the job months after accepting the position.

It’s also beneficial for supervisors, managers and leaders. Having a clear understanding of the psychological demands of each role helps them train and lead more effectively, onboard new employees more intentionally and recognize when someone may be struggling with an inherent demand of the job rather than simply underperforming. It also creates a common language for coaching, development and ongoing check-ins, making conversations about support much more productive.

Colleagues benefit too. When people are hired into roles that are a better overall fit, teams experience fewer disruptions, less frustration and greater confidence that everyone can contribute effectively. Conversely, when someone is struggling because the psychological demands of the role weren’t understood or communicated, it’s often their teammates who step in to absorb extra work, provide additional support or compensate in ways that can eventually affect their own workload and well-being.

And of course, it’s good for the organization. Clearly identifying the essential psychological demands of a role leads to better hiring decisions, stronger onboarding and more effective performance conversations. It also aligns beautifully with Clear Leadership and Expectations, the third psychosocial factor in this series (read about that one HERE). After all, you can’t expect people to meet expectations they were never told existed. Communicating psychological demands isn’t about discouraging applicants. It’s about setting everyone up for success from the very beginning.

Of course, identifying psychological demands is only the first step. Once we know what those demands are, we need to prepare people for them. If a role requires frequent conflict resolution, teach those skills. If employees will encounter traumatic situations, prepare them before the first one happens. If emotional labour is part of the job, acknowledge it, normalize conversations about it and ensure supports are available when employees need them. We spend a great deal of time teaching people how to protect their backs from injury. We should spend just as much time helping them protect their minds.

The reality is that every job comes with psychological demands. Some require difficult conversations. Others demand emotional resilience, sustained concentration, quick decision-making or the ability to navigate conflict. Those demands aren't a flaw in the job; they're simply part of the work.

The problem isn't that these demands exist. The problem is when employees discover them by accident.

Psychological health and safety starts long before someone experiences burnout or begins questioning whether they can continue in their role. It starts before the interview. Before the offer letter. Before the first day on the job.

It starts with an honest conversation.

When organizations take the time to identify the psychological demands of a role, communicate them clearly and prepare employees to navigate them successfully, everyone benefits. Candidates make more informed decisions. New employees know what to expect. Leaders are better equipped to support their teams. Colleagues experience greater stability, and organizations build stronger, healthier workplaces.

Here’s the challenge I'll leave you with this week:

Pull out one of your organization's job descriptions and read it with fresh eyes. The physical demands are probably there. The education requirements are probably there. The technical skills and experience are probably there.

Now ask yourself:

If someone accepted this job tomorrow, what psychological demands would they discover that aren't written down anywhere?

The answer might tell you exactly where your psychological health and safety journey should begin!

Next week, we'll explore Growth and Development, the sixth psychosocial factor in the National Standard. We'll look at why learning isn't just about helping people advance their careers. It's about helping them carve out their future with the organization to stay engaged, adaptable and confident in a world of work that never stops changing. Don’t miss it!

---

Elizabeth Eldridge is a Psychological Health & Safety Consultant based in southern New Brunswick, Canada. In addition to keynote speaking, event emceeing, consulting services and corporate training on mental health in the workplace, she supports organizations across the country on the adoption of Canada’s best practice guidelines on psychological health and safety management. She is also the Founder & President of Arpeggio Health Services which provides standardized education programs like Mental Health First Aid, The Working Mind, QPR Suicide Prevention and more.

#csastandard #nationalstandard #employeewellbeing #psychologicaldemands #organizationalculture #communication #engagement #employeeengagement #psychsafety #healthyleadership #leadership #leadershiptips #workplaceculture #greatplacetowork #bestpractices #occupationalsafety #organizationalperformance #performancemanagement #employerofchoice #psychologicalhealth #psychologicalsafety