When managerial fragility becomes an organizational risk.
Introduction: An HR situation that has become familiar
In many organizations, warning signs no longer come solely from teams. They increasingly emerge from local management. A manager who defers decisions, who takes a back seat in meetings, who no longer makes clear decisions, or who retreats into operational tasks is not necessarily "at fault." However, these situations raise questions for HR and QVCT departments: is this a sign of individual weakness, a lack of skills, or a broader symptom of organizational imbalance?
This question is far from marginal. It refers to the real place of management in the organization of work, to the ability of structures to absorb pressure, and to the way in which psychosocial risks rarely arise suddenly, but rather through accumulation, in a diffuse, collective, and gradual manner.
Summary:
What are the first signs that a manager is struggling?
They are rarely dramatic. More often than not, they involve avoiding minor decisions, postponing trade-offs, or strained team relationships without open conflict.
Why does a manager's difficulty affect the entire organization?
Because the manager is a central point of regulation for the work. When they drop the ball, it is the collective benchmarks that become fragile.
Are these situations an individual or organizational problem?
Research by Anact and INRS shows that managerial difficulties are overwhelmingly linked to the organization of work: workload, room for maneuver, role contradictions.
What are the risks of not taking action?
Progressive disorganization, deterioration of the social climate, increased exposure to psychosocial risks, with human, legal, and economic impacts in the medium term.
Why a manager's difficulties always go beyond the individual
The manager as the focal point of operational tensions
In France, 47% of managers report working under significant time pressure, compared to around one-third of all employees (DARES, Working Conditions 2019). This figure serves as a reminder that management roles are structurally positioned at the intersection of operational requirements, management expectations, and team needs.
Added to this pressure is a high degree of unpredictability: 72% of managers say they often have to interrupt their work to deal with unexpected tasks, compared with 65% of employees overall (DARES, Panorama des conditions de travail). Managers thus play a "buffer" role, absorbing organizational uncertainties to maintain continuity of work. When this buffer cracks, tensions become visible.
What a struggling manager reveals about the true state of the organization
At the European level, 38% of employees are exposed to high work intensity, characterized by tight deadlines and fast pace (Eurofound, EWCTS 2021). This intensity is not an individual phenomenon: it results from organizational choices that directly affect management's ability to regulate.
TheAnact andINRS guidelines remind us that psychosocial risks linked to work organization (intensity, lack of flexibility, or even conflicts of values) are major factors affecting health. In this context, a manager in difficulty should not be seen as an anomaly, but as an early indicator of collective imbalance.
The subtle signs to look for in a manager who is struggling
Many managers remain silent about their discomfort because expressing vulnerability means running the risk of having their legitimacy questioned. Nevertheless, there are certain signs that can help identify when difficulties exist.
Behavioral signals in daily management
Management difficulties rarely result in a sudden collapse. Instead, they take the form of micro-adjustments: postponed decisions, avoided trade-offs, or constantly revised priorities.
Some workers operate in contexts with little autonomy. In these constrained environments, managers have few levers at their disposal to make decisions. Decision avoidance then becomes a protective mechanism rather than a lack of competence.
Relational signals within the team
Relationship tensions are a frequent source of background noise. In France, nearly a quarter of civil servants report experiencing tensions with their superiors, a proportion slightly higher than that observed in the private sector (DARES, 2019). These tensions can coexist with an overall climate that is perceived as "acceptable," without open conflict.
When the manager picks up the phone, these latent tensions tend to intensify: impoverished exchanges, persistent unspoken issues, or a vague feeling of disorganization.
Organizational signals visible to HR and management
From an HR perspective, the signs often appear indirectly: increased absenteeism, widespread turnover, or a rise in requests at the end of the chain. Anact's methodological guides emphasize that these indicators are an integral part of psychosocial risk alerts, without however placing sole responsibility on the manager. On the contrary, they encourage us to examine the underlying organizational causes.
The collective impacts of an unsupported manager in difficulty
Gradual disorganization of the team
Being exposed to high work intensity has a negative impact on health and work-life balance. In this context, the absence of clear managerial guidance quickly leads to vague decision-making and a loss of collective reference points.
Effects on performance and work quality
In France, nearly one-third of employees work under pressure, and 9% say they often have to do things they disapprove of, revealing conflicts of values (DARES, 2019). These situations are frequently linked to impossible managerial decisions, caught between conflicting demands.
When managers are no longer able to manage these tensions, performance quietly deteriorates: commitment declines, cooperation weakens, and operational decisions become less sound.
Indirect and delayed psychosocial risks
The INRS points out that prolonged exposure to psychosocial risks leads to an increase in anxiety disorders, depression, musculoskeletal disorders, and cardiovascular disease, with significant costs for the company in terms of absenteeism and disorganization. These effects are even more pronounced when managerial difficulties are not addressed and gradually spread throughout teams.
Why these situations are often poorly detected by the organization
The taboo of managerial fragility
Guidelines for preventing psychosocial risks emphasize that managers are still widely perceived as mere conduits for prevention, rarely as exposed populations. This perception fuels a taboo: acknowledging a managerial difficulty is often equated with admitting incompetence, when in fact it is most often an organizational signal.
The limitations of traditional HR indicators
Prevention measures recommend not limiting oneself to late indicators (accidents or absenteeism) but incorporating qualitative indicators on work organization and management. Without these intermediate sensors, managerial difficulties are identified too late.
The risk of an exclusively individual interpretation of the problem
Anact points out that responses focused solely on "individual correction," isolated training or coaching, remain insufficient if organizational causes, such as workload, room for maneuver, or role contradictions, are not addressed. This individualized approach prevents sustainable prevention.
How management can objectively assess the situation without stigmatizing anyone
Shifting from individual support to collective prevention
The INRS and Anact tools recommend combining quantitative and qualitative indicators: social data, observations of actual work, and group interviews. This combination makes it possible to objectively assess risky situations without singling out individuals.
Key role of HR and QVCT in early detection
The Ministry of Labor emphasizes the training of internal stakeholders and the integration of psychosocial risks into corporate strategy. HR and QVCT managers are explicitly expected to structure these approaches, particularly through dedicated prevention measures.
Useful qualitative indicators to inform decisions
Anact recommends monitoring the quality of working relationships, recognition, and room for maneuver as key indicators for prevention. These elements make it possible to detect managerial weaknesses well before they result in visible crises.
Preventing managerial difficulties in the long term: structural levers
Clarifying expectations and managerial leeway is a recognized primary lever for prevention. The categories of " autonomy " and "leeway" are identified by Anact as major determinants of psychosocial risks.
The tools available to managers must also be designed with a collective approach in mind. Anact recommends viewing management as a job in its own right, requiring opportunities for peer discussion and regulatory mechanisms, rather than individualized responses. Manager training also aims to support them in their role.
Finally, public authorities are now encouraging structured approaches to preventing psychosocial risks, supported by dedicated subsidies and contracts. These guidelines call for managerial difficulties to be treated as a governance and primary prevention issue, rather than simply as individual failings.
Many organizations now structure these issues through dedicated mechanisms, in order to transform managerial difficulties into levers for understanding and sustainable improvement of work.
Finally, when we talk about mental health in the workplace, one group tends to be overlooked: managers. However, when a manager is not doing well or is suffering, the entire company can be affected. There are ways to prevent risks and protect their health at work.
