Understanding organizational blind spots before they become risks
An HR manager receives a short email from a manager: "The team is tired, there's a bit of grumbling, but nothing serious. " At the same time, the figures look "good": absenteeism is stable, turnover is low, there are no formal warnings, and no signals from the employee representative committee. However, as the weeks go by, irritation sets in: meetings become more tense, cooperation slows down, quality declines, some people avoid talking to each other, and others overplay their good humor. And when, finally, a "trigger" event occurs (the departure of a key employee, a customer incident, managerial tension), everyone feels like "it all exploded at once"... when, in fact, it had often been brewing for a long time.
This disconnect is one of the most common pitfalls in workplace mental health: real, everyday tensions that are not visible enough to trigger the usual HR procedures (reports, investigations, mediation, formal warnings). The question is therefore not just "how to manage a conflict," but how to interpret and manage what builds up before the conflict: these micro-tensions which, if left unchecked, end up damaging quality of life at work, performance, and sometimes health.
Finally, one point is crucial: risk prevention (including psychosocial risks) is not limited to "reacting when things go wrong." It is part of a process of assessment, traceability, and action plans (DUERP and associated prevention measures), just like other occupational risks.
Summary: team tensions, social climate, and weak signals (HR/QVCT)
Why aren't team tensions reported to HR?
Because they often remain "under the radar": no complaints, no specific incidents, no legal proceedings. In France, between 2020 and 2022, 68% of private establishments with more than 10 employees experienced at least one conflict (collective or individual), but only 11% recorded a strike or work stoppage: conflict exists, but it does not always take visible forms. (DARES, Dares Focus No. 50, October 22, 2025).
Tension, disagreement, conflict: what are the differences in the workplace?
A disagreement can be a one-off occurrence and useful. Tension often corresponds to repeated friction, relational discomfort, or organizational uncertainty that sets in. Conflict, on the other hand, is a more explicit opposition (individual or collective). Many tensions never become "conflict" in the formal sense... but they wear down groups.
What subtle signs should you look for when the social climate deteriorates?
The most useful signals are rarely "statements." They are micro-changes in collective functioning: cooperation becoming more rigid, less productive meetings, avoidance, informal escalations, delayed decisions, or even a deterioration in the quality of relationships.
Why do tensions become an issue in terms of psychosocial risks and quality of life at work?
Because they are not solely a matter of personality. They often reflect factors related to work organization (unstable priorities, unclear roles, conflicting demands, lack of support) and are recognized as psychosocial risks at the European level. (EU-OSHA, resources on “Psychosocial risks and mental health”).
What can an HR manager do without "psychologizing" the problem?
Establish a structured approach: shared benchmarks, clarification of roles, tools for managers, regulatory frameworks focused on work (rather than individuals), and integration of interpersonal relationships into QVCT management, without resorting to individual analysis.
Team tensions: why they remain invisible
Why everyday tensions do not trigger any formal signals
First, we must acknowledge that in most organizations, a large part of the tensions do not "come to light." They exist, they weigh heavily, but they do not take the form expected by reporting systems (signaling, alerts, strikes, work stoppages, or even legal proceedings).
In other words: conflict is common, but visible conflict (the kind that "rises to the surface" in institutional signals) is in the minority.
Why? Because everyday tensions often manifest themselves in the form of diffuse friction: repeated misunderstandings, irritations, minor disagreements, decisions that are "half-heartedly" contested, or even relational fatigue... all of which are elements that do not have a clear status in HR channels. Many professionals say to themselves: "It's not serious enough," "It will pass," "It's not a real conflict." As a result, we wait for an "objective" eventto occur, andwe allow a relational dynamic to develop that gradually becomes costly.
Low-intensity conflict: frequent, persistent, costly
“Low intensity” is misleading. It gives the illusion that the issue is marginal, when in fact it can be time-consuming and structural.
Also for 2020-2022, DARES shows that individual conflicts are particularly frequent in large organizations: 81% of establishments with 500 or more employees report at least one individual conflict, compared with 65% of establishments with 11 to 49 employees (DARES, Dares Focus No. 50, 2025).
This data is important: it reminds us that size, complexity, interfaces, and hierarchical layers automatically increase the potential for friction, without this necessarily meaning "dysfunction," but with an increased need for regulation.
In economic terms, another statistic helps to quantify the cost of "everyday" tension, provided it is framed methodologically: according tothe Observatory of the Cost of Workplace Conflicts (OpinionWay, November 2021), employees faced with frequent conflicts spend an average of three hours per week managing these situations, equivalent to one month of work per year, at an estimated salary cost of more than €152 billion across France. This is an order of magnitude, useful for illustrating the possible scale of the phenomenon, but should not be read as an "accounting figure" accurate to the nearest cent.
The underlying message is clear: even without an "explosion," repeated tension consumes time, energy, and coordination.
Why we don't talk about "tension": vocabulary that masks reality
A common difficulty for HR is vocabulary. Teams experience relational or organizational discomfort, but this is not expressed as such. Managers talk about "bad atmosphere," "loss of motivation," "communication difficulties," or "resistance to change." Senior management sometimes refers to "declining efficiency," "alignment issues," and "drift."
However, DARES points out that within establishments reporting collective disputes, the most frequently identified reasons typically relate to issues such as salaries/bonuses/working hours, but the climate of labor relations (tensions, discipline, bullying) also appears among the reasons cited (DARES, Dares Focus No. 50, 2025).
This illustrates a discrepancy: what emerges in management language is often a "visible object" (negotiation, demand), while the experience of the teams is primarily a relational climate.
From disagreement to withdrawal: how tension builds without open conflict
The most worrying shift is often the one that makes no noise: instead of open confrontation, there is a gradual increase in weariness, avoidance, and then withdrawal. In this scenario, relationships do not "explode": they cool down. Cooperation becomes transactional, then minimal.
European resources on psychosocial risks point out that these dynamics are rarely "purely relational": they are often fueled by concrete factors related to work organization and management (clarification of roles, support, communication, or demands) (EU-OSHA, topic "Psychosocial risks and mental health at work").
The point here is not to impose a psychological interpretation, but to maintain a sense of direction: when tension arises, it is often useful to look at the organization of work as well as interactions.
What blind spots prevent HR from detecting a deteriorating social climate?
Traditional HR indicators: useful, but often too late
HR often acts on late signals: absenteeism, turnover, accidents, complaints, mediations, CSE alerts, or even litigation. The problem is not their usefulness, because they are necessary, but their timing: they are often indicators of consequences, not indicators of construction.
Another factor reinforces this "blind" effect: the gap between actual conflict and institutionalized conflict. Between 2020 and 2022, while 68% of establishments experienced at least one conflict, many tensions never entered into a formalized space for discussion. At the same time, in 2023, 16.2% of companies with 10 or more employees in the non-agricultural private sector will engage in collective bargaining: this serves as a reminder that institutional forums do not reflect all of the tensions that arise on a daily basis (DARES, Dares Résultats No. 21, May 7, 2025).
In practice, this raises a management issue: anything that is not discussed in regular forums (management, social dialogue, QVCT, or DUERP/action plan) tends to remain "off the radar."
The trap of "everything is fine": when statistics don't show the drift
The most common bias is simple: "if the numbers are good, then everything is fine." However, the absence of statistical signals can mainly mean: no appropriate measures, no channel for expression, or a culture of silence.
For example, DARES shows that 57% of establishments report at least one individual conflict but no collective conflicts between 2020 and 2022: conflict can therefore remain diffuse and poorly consolidated in dashboards. (DARES, Dares Focus No. 50, 2025).
If we only capture the collective, we miss the individual. If we only capture the formal, we miss the informal. And if we do not have sufficiently "authoritative"spaces for discussion, we easily confuse silence with the absence of problems.
Local management: shock absorber... or unintended screen
Local management is often the first line of defense. Out of loyalty, a desire for efficiency, or fear of fueling an "alert," some managers filter and "manage." This filtering can be protective... or it can become a screen.
The high level of individual conflict in large organizations (81% of companies with 500+ employees) highlights the importance of managerial proximity (DARES, Dares Focus No. 50, 2025).
In this context, the challenge for HR/QVCT is not to "demand feedback," but to avoid managerial isolation: managers may find themselves absorbing tensions that are actually organizational trade-offs (priorities, roles, resources, interfaces).
The culture of the unspoken: when silence becomes an organizational norm
Some cultures "produce" silence: a culture of consensus, urgency, composure ("we're professionals"), or fear of being perceived as fragile. In these contexts, talking about tensions is seen as a failure or a complaint.
An interesting indicator in the DARES report: establishments with employee representative bodies report at least one form of conflict more often (79%) than those without (68%) (DARES, Dares Focus No. 50, 2025).
This does not mean that establishments "without IRPs" are better off. Rather, it suggests that the existence of structured spaces makes tensions more visible, and sometimes more "nameable." In other words, the absence of structured discussion may reduce visibility, but not reality.
Why “invisible” tensions cost more than open conflicts
Hidden costs: cooperation, commitment, quality of work, and relational fatigue
The main cost of invisible tensions is not the "incident" itself, but rather the erosion it causes: decreased cooperation, minor delays, circumvented decisions, errors, and even relational exhaustion. This results in a loss of collective performance, which is often not attributed to its relational origin.
Legal risk: prevention of psychosocial risks, duty of care, DUERP (single document on occupational risks) and traceability
Another angle is prevention in the legal sense: Employers must take the necessary measures to ensure the safety and protect the physical and mental health of workers (Labor Code, Article L.4121-1).
This involves prevention measures, information/training, risk assessment, and registration in the DUERP (single document on occupational risks).
In practice, this means that an organization cannot simply wait to act "when things explode." Failure to identify risks does not automatically constitute "negligence." However, a credible prevention approach requires the ability to identify, document, and address risk factors, even when they initially manifest themselves as vague tensions.
What team tensions reveal about how the organization really works
Poorly defined trade-offs: conflicting objectives, unclear roles, unstable priorities
Much tension does not stem from a "relationship problem," but rather from a problem of arbitration: conflicting objectives, paradoxical injunctions, changing priorities, delayed decisions, or even vague rules. This places teams under cognitive and moral overload: everyone tries to "do well" but according to incompatible criteria.
The psychosocial risks documented at European level refer precisely to these contextual factors: demands, organization, support, communication, and clarity of roles (EU-OSHA, resources on psychosocial risks and mental health). This allows for a more mature interpretation: tension is often an indicator of work governance, not just "communication."
Prescribed organization vs. actual work: the invisible source of collective friction
In many teams, tensions arise when the actual work contradicts the prescribed organization: procedures say one thing, but reality dictates another. To "keep going," teams develop invisible adjustments. As long as these adjustments work, everything seems normal. When they become overwhelming, tensions turn relational: reproaches, resentment, or suspicion.
Here, the HR/QWL challenge is not to stop at the surface level (“they don’t get along”), but to ask: what is it about the work situation that causes repeated friction? This shift in focus prevents organizational issues from becoming “people” issues.
How to spot weak signals without overanalyzing: a pragmatic HR/QVCT method
Micro-indicators of daily life: meetings, cooperation, informal escalations, avoidance
Spotting does not mean "monitoring." It means looking at what the team does not have time (or implicit permission) to say, and above all observing how the group functions, not "evaluating individuals."
Some useful indicators: more defensive meetings, interruptions, irony, circumvented decisions, "micro-alliances," messages that are widely copied, contractualized cooperation, avoidance of certain interfaces, or an increase in informal escalations. The aim is to identify operational trends, not to pass judgment on individuals.
RPS approaches remind us that prevention is based on concrete elements of organization and working relationships, not on individual psychology.
Regulatory spaces: preventing without triggering anxiety-inducing "alerts"
Many organizations are reluctant to create spaces for discussion, for fear of "uncovering things" or medicalizing the situation. However, a well-defined regulatory space is neither a court of law nor a therapy group. It is a primary prevention tool: it deals with rules of cooperation, irritants, arbitration, and interfaces.
To avoid ambiguity, we can clarify what "regulation" means in an HR/QWL context: a short, periodic, work-focused period (what is causing problems, what needs to be clarified, what needs to be decided, or what needs to be escalated), with a secure framework (respect, no blame, and relative confidentiality depending on the system). The goal is to restore clarity before tension sets in.
What role for HR and management: moving from reaction to "continuous" QVCT management
Continuous reading: integrating relationships into QVCT management (without supervision)
Continuous reading means integrating the relational dimension into QVCT management: not as an "emotional barometer," but as a component of actual work. This can be achieved through regulatory rituals, feedback sessions, spaces for discussion about work, and clarification of escalation channels (what remains at the team level? What is the manager's responsibility? What should be handled by HR/management?).
In the background, there is a contextual issue: in 2023, tensions in the labor market stabilized at a very high level, the highest since 2011 (DARES, Dares Results No. 16, April 24, 2025).
In an environment where loyalty and attractiveness are sensitive issues, allowing invisible tensions to develop often weakens the collective... at a time when stability is most needed.
Clear framework: who does what, when to escalate, how to avoid over-intervention
The role of HR is not to intervene in every irritant. It is to establish a framework: who does what? When? With what benchmarks? This protects both teams (no abandonment) and managers (no loneliness), without creating dependency.
The legal framework emphasizes the importance of structured prevention: mental health protection, risk assessment, and a formalized approach (DUERP).
However, in practice, effective prevention relies above all on clear governance: visibility, legitimate spaces, and proportionate regulatory methods, aligned with social dialogue and corporate culture.
Prevention rather than cure: organizational maturity in the face of team tensions
What "mature" organizations do: appoint, regulate, align HR/management/senior management
So-called "mature" organizations are not those where there are no tensions. They are those where tensions can be identified, addressed, and regulated before they become crises. They ensure consistency between senior management, managers, and HR: same vocabulary, same benchmarks, and same channels.
In this regard, the contrast between actual conflict and institutional conflict is a useful reminder: the majority of tensions will never lead to strikes or collective disputes (DARES, Dares Focus No. 50, 2025).
Therefore, a "mature" organization does not simply wait for formal signals.
Why preventing stress is a strategic investment (psychosocial risks/quality of life at work)
When invisible tensions are reduced to their real impact (lost time, impaired cooperation, quality, or even relational fatigue), it becomes easier to manage them as a strategic issue.
The OpinionWay Observatory (2021) reminds us that chronic conflict can represent a considerable cost in terms of time and coordination: three hours per week, one month per year, an estimated €152 billion on a French scale (awareness benchmark). And DARES points out that conflict is common even when it is not institutionally visible.
At this stage, many organizations are now structuring these issues through integrated systems: clarification of trade-offs, work-focused regulatory spaces, managerial tools, coordination with social dialogue, and inclusion in a process of preventing psychosocial risks/quality of life at work (assessment, monitoring, action plans). The challenge is not to "track down" tensions, but to build a collective capacity to read, name, and regulate them... before they become risks.
