An HR director reviews his monthly reports. The metrics are looking good: absenteeism is stable, turnover is under control, and working hours are within acceptable limits. At first glance, the situation seems to be under control.
Yet, on the ground, a different reality is emerging. Teams are becoming strained, managers are burning out, and some employees are gradually withdrawing without this showing up in the data.
This disconnect is nothing out of the ordinary. It highlights a structural limitation of HR management: the ability to measure what is visible… without always grasping what is actually being experienced.
It is precisely in this gap that a large part of today’s psychosocial risks lie. Not in the indicators themselves, but in what they leave out.
Given that employers are required to protect the physical and mental health of their employees, this disconnect is not merely a management issue: it directly affects the organization’s ability to prevent risks proactively.
Summary
How can you measure the workload in a company?
Workload cannot be assessed based solely on quantitative indicators. Hours worked, absenteeism rates, or volume of activity are not sufficient to capture the full picture. A meaningful assessment requires cross-referencing this data with more qualitative factors: actual working conditions, organizational constraints, employee perceptions, as well as existing mechanisms (internal surveys, feedback from the field).
What are the signs of work overload?
Traditional indicators (absenteeism, overtime, turnover) provide useful benchmarks, but they often come too late. The most predictive factors lie upstream: work intensity, frequent interruptions, time pressure, emotional demands, and the quality of the interpersonal environment.
How can you detect an invisible overload?
Work overload does not always manifest itself in obvious ways. It often manifests through subtle signs: gradual withdrawal, irritability, a loss of initiative, or an increase in informal requests. These factors are already present in many organizations, but are rarely captured in HR tools.
What is the difference between actual load and perceived load?
Actual workload refers to the work actually performed. Perceived workload depends on individual perception, which is influenced by autonomy, available resources, constraints, and the organizational context. It is in the gap between these two dimensions that risky situations arise.
A False Sense of Control: When HR Metrics Give a False Sense of Security
The most commonly used metrics (absenteeism, hours worked, turnover, etc.)
Traditional HR metrics are indispensable tools. They enable us to track trends, compare groups, and objectively assess certain developments.
But their impact remains limited. They are most often called upon once problems have already arisen.
Absenteeism, for example, does not measure work overload. It is one of its possible consequences. The same applies to employee turnover and extended absences.
As the INRS points out, psychosocial risks manifest themselves precisely through these visible signs: absenteeism, accidents, demotivation, decreased creativity, and a deterioration in workplace morale and productivity (INRS - 2021 - Consequences of Psychosocial Risks for Businesses).
Indicators thus provide a better picture of the effects than of the underlying mechanisms. For an HR director, this means not confusing the management of results with the management of working conditions.
Why they’re easy to follow… but not enough
Their main strength (their accessibility) is also their limitation. Because they are readily available, quantifiable, and comparable, they naturally steer management toward what is measurable.
However, workload is not limited to the number of hours worked. It involves more complex factors: intensity, interruptions, emotional demands, the quality of interactions, and the degree of autonomy.
These dimensions are recognized as central to the analysis of psychosocial risks (INRS - 2025 - Psychosocial Risks at Work and Their Effects on Health).
Many organizations already have tools in place to capture this information (employee engagement surveys, QVCT surveys, managerial feedback). The problem is not that these tools are lacking, but rather that they are difficult to fully integrate into day-to-day management.
The main bias: measuring what is visible, not what is experienced
The tipping point is here.
HR systems measure what is observable: working hours, attendance, and staff turnover. But workload is largely shaped by less tangible factors: perceived pressure, constant trade-offs, or internal tensions.
This disconnect creates an illusion of control. The indicators remain stable—and sometimes reassuring—while the reality grows increasingly fragile.
Actual workload versus measured workload: a structural discrepancy
Prescribed load, actual load, perceived load: 3 levels that should not be confused
To understand this discrepancy, it is helpful to distinguish between three levels.
The prescribed workload corresponds to what is expected. The actual workload refers to what is actually accomplished. The perceived workload reflects how this activity is experienced.
It is in the gap between these levels that tensions arise.
Surveys on working conditions illustrate this point: 46% of employees report that they always or often have to rush, while 65% say they frequently have to interrupt one task to handle a more urgent one (Dares / Santé publique France - 2018 - Working Conditions).
These data point to an intensification of work that goes far beyond what traditional indicators capture.
Why does the overload only occur at the moment of failure?
Work overload only becomes apparent at a late stage. Before that, it is absorbed.
Employees adapt, adjust their level of commitment, and compensate for constraints. These mechanisms help maintain a semblance of balance… up to a point.
Epidemiological data show that working more than 48 hours per week is associated with a significant increase in the risk of stroke, while high psychological demands double the risk of burnout (INRS - 2025 - Epidemiological Summary).
When a breakup occurs, it reveals a long-standing imbalance.
Underload (borout): The Risk That HR Can’t See
In contrast, underloading is even harder to detect.
It does not trigger an immediate warning. It sets in gradually, through a loss of meaning, a vague sense of disengagement, and a decline in activity.
The available data suggest that these situations are reflected indirectly in indicators such as a lack of autonomy or a failure to develop skills.
Yet they are rarely identified as a risk in their own right.
The blind spots of current HR systems
Overworked managers: a breakdown in communication
Managers play a key role in understanding what work is really like. They are often the first to observe team dynamics.
In reality, their ability to play this role is limited by their own exposure.
Managers thus find themselves in an ambivalent position: they are both the conduit for and the bearers of these constraints.
Corporate Culture: The Normalization of Workload Overload
In some organizations, work overload tends to become the norm.
High commitment is valued, overwork becomes accepted, and priorities remain in flux. Gradually, overwork becomes part of the norm.
This normalization makes it harder to identify abuses. While it does not affect all organizations in the same way, it is widespread enough to call into question management practices at the organizational level.
Raising awareness or training teams and managers on the prevention of psychosocial risks is a useful way to reevaluate how work is organized.
Lack of safe spaces for employees to express themselves
The ability to pick up on subtle cues depends in part on the opportunities available for self-expression.
When such channels exist—whether through management, HR, or employee representative bodies—they help bring to light issues that do not naturally show up in the metrics.
When these measures are lacking or underutilized, workplace tensions remain unaddressed. As such, structured preventive measures (particularly those implemented under the DUERP or through social dialogue with the CSE) represent existing tools that are still not being fully utilized.
However, psychosocial stressors are closely linked to work organization.
Without a structured framework for expressing them, they elude analysis.
The subtle signals your indicators don't pick up
Gradual withdrawal and loss of initiative
The decline is not immediately reflected in the indicators.
It sets in gradually, often imperceptibly at first: less engagement, fewer initiatives, or even minimal involvement.
In a context where a significant proportion of workers face high-pressure, fast-paced work environments, these trends tend to spread.
Minor tensions and irritability within teams
Interpersonal tensions are often the first visible signs.
These symptoms reflect a saturation of coping mechanisms: cognitive overload, difficulty making decisions, or deteriorating workplace relationships.
These minor tensions, which are sometimes viewed as insignificant, are in fact useful indicators of how a group functions.
Increase in informal requests for assistance
Informal requests (made to managers, HR, or colleagues) tend to arise before critical situations arise.
They reflect a difficulty in coping with constraints.
These signals already exist within organizations, but are rarely incorporated into management systems.
Why this disconnect creates a major HR risk
Late detection of psychosocial risks
Recent data confirm a significant trend: 1,805 work-related mental health conditions were recognized in 2024, a 9% increase from the previous year, 73% of which were cases of depression (Health Insurance - 2024 - Work-Related Mental Health Conditions).
These situations are usually identified too late, after their effects have already taken hold. For an HR director, this raises the question of whether it is better to anticipate problems rather than fix them.
A sudden surge in critical situations
The lack of early detection leads to sudden breakdowns: prolonged absences from work, open conflicts, or collective crises.
These events often seem unexpected, even though there were early warning signs.
Loss of control for HR and managers
The consequences are also organizational and economic.
Daily benefits for work-related accidents and occupational diseases will reach 4.9 billion euros in 2024, becoming the sector’s largest expense (Health Insurance - 2024 - The Essentials: Occupational Health and Safety).
These figures reflect a growing difficulty in anticipating and managing situations, and underscore the need for more structured workload management.
How to Better Manage the HR Workload
Include qualitative indicators (not just quantitative ones)
Managing the workload requires broadening the scope of analysis.
The dimensions identified by the INRS (workload, emotional demands, autonomy, social relationships, value conflicts, and job insecurity) provide a framework for analysis (INRS - 2025).
They serve to supplement existing metrics rather than replace them. For an HR director, this means shifting from a management approach based solely on results to one that takes into account the conditions under which those results are achieved.
Increase the number of on-the-ground points of contact (managers, psychologists, social workers)
Understanding the reality of work depends on comparing different perspectives.
Managers, HR professionals, and coaching specialists—as well as employee representatives—each contribute to enriching the analysis.
This diversity provides a better understanding of situations at the organizational level.
Designing a system for the continuous detection of weak signals
Management cannot be limited to one-off checkpoints.
It requires a structured and ongoing process: observe, report, analyze, and adjust.
Depending on the organization’s level of maturity, this structuring can follow an implicit progression: from traditional HR metrics to qualitative data, and then to a more systemic understanding of situations.
The psychosocial risk assessment first helps identify the presence and impact of psychosocial risks within an organization.
Toward a more reliable approach: moving from measurement to understanding
Cross-referencing HR data with employee feedback
Quantitative indicators remain essential, but they are not enough.
Putting these findings into context with qualitative feedback (interviews, feedback mechanisms, field observations) helps deepen our understanding of the situations.
Develop a systemic understanding of situations
Workload is influenced by a range of factors, including organization, management, culture, and external constraints.
The EWCS survey highlights that job quality depends on several interrelated factors, including work intensity, autonomy, the social environment, and skills (Eurofound – 2024).
A systemic approach allows us to connect these elements and avoid a fragmented analysis.
Be proactive rather than reactive
The main challenge lies in this shift.
Shift from a reactive approach, based on lagging indicators, to a proactive approach that pays close attention to early warning signs and on-the-ground dynamics.
Conclusion
The point is not to question HR metrics, but to recognize their limitations.
An organization can appear to be performing well while simultaneously accumulating hidden imbalances: overwork, underutilization, tension, and disengagement.
It is in this gap between what is measured and what is experienced that the main risks lie today. For an HR director, this gap is directly linked to the organization’s ability to sustainably manage its working conditions.
Many organizations are gradually restructuring their approach by incorporating these dimensions, cross-referencing existing data, and developing tools to better understand the reality of the workplace, beyond mere indicators.
