I Asked for Boundaries - The Code Calls That Courage

I was not trying to be brave.

I was burned out.

I asked for role clarity.

I asked for a realistic workload.

I asked for reasonable boundaries.

I asked for a safe and sustainable work environment.

That was all.

Under the Staff Code of Conduct, Courage is defined as “acting ethically and professionally in spite of known fears, risks and uncertainty.”  

What the Code does not say — but lived experience reveals — is that sometimes the act requiring courage is not whistleblowing or dramatic disclosure.

Sometimes it is simply saying:

“This workload is not safe.”

“This role is unclear.”

“This behaviour is harming me.”

I knew the culture. I feared retaliation, not because I was doing anything wrong — but because I had seen what happened to those who challenged dysfunction.

When a local Associate Director acted incompetently and without consultation, I was thrust into escalating instability. Decisions were made that affected my work, my reputation, and my wellbeing — without transparency or procedural fairness.

I did what any reasonable employee is told to do:

I followed the proper channels.

⸻

Acting Despite Fear

The Courage section requires staff to act ethically and professionally despite fear and uncertainty.  

I did not disengage.

I did not behave unprofessionally.

I did not bypass process.

I documented concerns.

I sought clarification.

That is what facing challenges and difficult issues looks like in practice.  

⸻

Raising Concerns Responsibly

Courage includes “having the strength to raise potential unethical behaviours” and to report concerns appropriately.  

Excessive workload.

Role ambiguity.

Instability created without consultation.

These are not personal weaknesses. They are recognised psychosocial hazards.

Asking for a realistic workload is not defiance.

Requesting boundaries is not misconduct.

Seeking clarity is not insubordination.

It is professional responsibility.

⸻

The Obligation on Leadership

The Code makes clear that Courage also requires those in authority to:

• be open to receiving information

• take reasonable steps to respond appropriately

• make well-considered and justifiable decisions

• ensure fairness and dignity, especially where adverse effects may result  

These are obligations.

Instead of openness, there was defensiveness. Instead of proportionate response, there was obstruction. Instead of safeguarding health, there was escalation of harm.

When raising workload and safety concerns results in reputational framing or increased instability, the Courage obligations have not been met.

⸻

WHS Context: Realistic Workload Is a Safety Issue

Under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW), employers have a primary duty to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers — including psychological health.

Psychosocial hazards include:

• excessive or unrealistic workload

• role ambiguity

• lack of consultation

• poor organisational justice

• misuse of positional power

A realistic workload is not a luxury. It is a safety control.

When an employee identifies workload as unsustainable, the appropriate response is risk assessment and mitigation — not silence, obstruction, or adverse treatment.

Fear of retaliation following safety concerns is itself a red flag in any WHS-compliant system.

⸻

What More Could I Have Done?

The Code required me to:

• act ethically

• raise concerns appropriately

• face challenges professionally

• attempt resolution 

I did.

The Code required leadership to:

• respond openly

• exercise positional power properly

• treat staff with dignity

• make justifiable decisions where impacts were foreseeable  

That did not occur.

The question “What more could I have done?” is often what conscientious workers ask when systems fail them.

But the Code does not require silence in the face of harm.

WHS law does not require workers to absorb unsafe workload or psychological risk to protect hierarchy.

At some point, responsibility shifts:

Not to the exhausted employee asking for realistic workload and boundaries — but to those entrusted with authority.

⸻

Courage, Properly Understood

My courage was not dramatic.

It was:

• asking for a realistic workload despite fear

• requesting boundaries in a toxic culture

• following process while under strain

• remaining professional while instability escalated

That conduct aligns with the Courage section of the Staff Code of Conduct.  

The response I received did not. 

And that is where the real divergence lies.

Video

NOTE: Incivility can be covert, not only overt. 

Why being respectful to your coworkers is good for business by Christine Porath