In this article 5 sections
A team moves to hybrid work. Commuting becomes easier, but messages continue late into the evening, meetings fill the day and focused work happens after dinner. Employees have more choice about where they work, yet less clarity about when they can stop.
This illustrative situation shows why flexible work and healthy work are not automatically the same. Malaysia’s Department of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH/JKKP) addresses that distinction in its 2026 occupational safety and health guide for flexible work arrangements, known as Aturan Kerja Fleksibel (AKF).
What the 2026 guide adds to the conversation
The guide covers risk assessment for flexible work, including psychosocial hazards. Its employee-wellbeing section specifically addresses stress, mental fatigue, burnout and work–life balance. It connects risk assessment to section 18B of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994. This is official guidance explaining the application of underlying duties, rather than a new law requiring every employer to buy an Employee Assistance Programme (EAP).
For HR, the practical question is broader than whether someone owns a suitable chair. How will the work be organised, how will problems be raised, and who will act when the arrangement creates avoidable pressure?
Review how work actually gets done
Begin with an ordinary week. Ask employees and supervisors to describe competing deadlines, meeting load, interruptions and handovers. Keep the discussion about working conditions; a manager does not need an employee’s diagnosis to discover that two departments routinely assign conflicting priorities.
- Demand: What must be completed, and what can be postponed when capacity is limited?
- Clarity: Who decides which task takes priority when requests conflict?
- Availability: Which hours require collaboration, and what counts as an urgent exception?
- Support: Where can someone raise an obstacle without feeling that flexibility will be withdrawn as punishment?
These are original discussion prompts, not an official DOSH questionnaire or a substitute for a competent risk assessment. They help turn vague comments such as “hybrid work is stressful” into issues that can be examined.
Turn boundaries into team agreements
A policy saying “maintain work–life balance” leaves employees guessing. A more useful agreement identifies normal response expectations, arrangements for different working schedules, and an escalation route for genuinely urgent matters. Managers should explain what can wait until the next agreed working period.
For example, a project team could reserve a shared collaboration window and protect other periods for concentrated work. A late message can state that a response is expected the following working day. Where after-hours coverage is necessary, organise it explicitly rather than relying on whoever feels least able to say no.
Discuss these arrangements with the people doing the work. Avoid treating a home visit, constant webcam use or intrusive monitoring as the default way to understand employee wellbeing. Seek information proportionate to the work-related risk.
Use EAP alongside changes to working conditions
EAP can provide a separate route to professional support for an employee struggling with distress or a difficult personal situation, according to the programme’s actual scope. It does not take over management’s responsibility to resolve unreasonable workloads, unclear roles or poor coordination.
In the opening example, offering counselling may be helpful, but the organisation still needs to examine why focused work is pushed into the evening. A useful response could combine fewer unnecessary meetings, clearer priorities and accessible individual support. Describe the confidentiality arrangements accurately and avoid promising services that the provider has not agreed to deliver.
Give each improvement an owner and a review point
Choose a small number of specific actions and record who will implement each one. Agree a review date suited to the work cycle. Check whether employees can use the new arrangements in practice, rather than counting policy announcements.
Useful review questions include whether conflicting deadlines are resolved earlier, whether routine requests still spill beyond agreed hours, and whether remote staff can obtain help promptly. Do not use EAP attendance or counselling content as an individual performance measure.
Where broader psychosocial concerns emerge, connect the review with the organisation’s formal risk-management process. Our PRisMA and EAP guide explains the wider context. To discuss support alongside workplace improvements, explore MY Psychology’s EAP services.
References and further reading
- DOSH: Panduan Keselamatan dan Kesihatan Pekerjaan bagi Aturan Kerja Fleksibel (AKF) 2026
- KESUMA/TalentCorp: launch of the Flexible Work Arrangement Guidelines, 5 December 2024
Sources checked on 25 October 2026. This article provides general workplace education, not organisation-specific legal advice, clinical assessment or certification of compliance. Scenarios are illustrative; adapt the recommendations to actual arrangements and applicable law.
