A recurring question in HR departments
In many organizations, the situation has become familiar. A support system is in place: a psychological helpline, an external unit, and continuous support. The framework has been formalized, partners have been chosen, and communication has been disseminated. However, as the months go by, usage indicators remain low. Requests for support are rare, sometimes non-existent.
On the management and HR side, questions are gradually arising. Should this be seen as a sign of a calmer social climate, or, on the contrary, as a sign that the system is failing to fulfill its function?
The question is legitimate, but it calls for careful interpretation. The low use of listening mechanisms does not mean that there are no difficulties or that employees are not interested in their mental health. More often than not, it reflects deeper organizational, cultural, and psychological mechanisms. Understanding these mechanisms is now key to managing psychosocial risks and improving quality of life and working conditions. In other words, what is at stake is not so much the existence of support mechanisms as their actual ability to be perceived as useful, safe, and legitimate.
FAQ – Essential guidelines for HR decision-makers
Why do employees make little use of employee feedback mechanisms in the workplace?
Because the formal existence of a mechanism is not enough to create the conditions of trust necessary for its use.
Is a low utilization rate a sign of a satisfactory social climate?
No. National data show a continuous increase in work-related mental health issues, regardless of the rate of use of support mechanisms.
Do employees lack information about existing measures?
Often, yes. But the issue goes beyond simple information: it concerns the clarity, credibility, and integration of the measure within the organization.
A decisive role. Approaches involving local management encourage earlier reporting.
How can the actual effectiveness of a listening system be assessed?
By cross-referencing usage indicators with qualitative elements and an overall assessment of HR governance.
A frequent discrepancy between the existence of listening devices and their actual use
Mechanisms formally in place but rarely used
In recent years, French companies have invested heavily in psychological support. According to Malakoff Humanis'2023 Health and Quality of Life at Work Barometer, 70% of companies with more than 250 employees now have a psychological support system in place.
However, this widespread availability has not been matched by equivalent uptake among employees. The same survey indicates that less than 10% of them say they know exactly how to access it. The system exists, but it often remains abstract, distant, or poorly identified.
This initial observation introduces a key point: the presence of a device does not guarantee its effective use.
A cross-cutting phenomenon, regardless of context
This discrepancy is not limited to any one sector or type of organization. It affects both public and private environments, large structures and smaller organizations alike. It raises a key question: how does an institutional mechanism become, or fail to become, a legitimate recourse for work collectives?
Why the usage rate is not an indicator of disinterest
Assuming that low take-up is due to a lack of need is an oversimplification. On the contrary, DARES data show an increase in professional constraints.
Nearly 45% of employees report having to rush through their work "often or always," and 38% believe that their work is harmful to their health (2019 Working Conditions Survey and TraCov2).
The need to be listened to is therefore very real. What is lacking is not so much the need itself as the framework that allows it to be expressed without fear. This distinction is essential for the rest of the analysis.
What really slows down usage among employees (beyond preconceived notions)
Fear of indirect consequences
The first obstacle is rarely stated explicitly. It concerns the fear of what speaking up might lead to beyond the conversation itself. In demanding work environments, discussing one's difficulties can be perceived as an admission of weakness, or even as a risk to one's career path.
According to DARES, 32% of employees say they have to hide their emotions, and 27% feel that their work conflicts with their personal values. In this context, silence becomes a protective strategy rather than a sign of indifference. This mechanism of self-censorship partly explains why existing mechanisms are not used.
Persistent doubts about confidentiality
Confidentiality is a theoretical cornerstone of listening mechanisms. But it is not always taken for granted. Malakoff Humanis's 2023 QVCT Barometer indicates that one in two employees does not believe the mechanism is completely confidential. This doubt, even if vague, is enough to discourage any initiative. Without perceived trust, the tool remains symbolic.
Uncertainty about the legitimacy of the appeal
Many employees are unsure about what actually justifies the use of a listening device. Is it reserved for crisis situations? For proven suffering? For serious conflicts? In the absence of a clear framework, self-censorship prevails, reinforcing the gap between need and use.
The gap between institutional discourse and real-life experience
The Technologia 2023 Barometer highlights a marked discrepancy: 79% of employees believe that their company talks about well-being at work, but only 34% consider that this talk is translated into concrete action. This inconsistency permanently undermines the credibility of the measures taken and fuels a feeling of disconnect between communication and reality.
These obstacles are rarely visible in traditional HR indicators. They are more a matter of employee perception, their actual experience, and how the system is implemented on a daily basis. We have compiled the main factors influencing adoption (and non-use) observed in the field, along with concrete suggestions for action without exposing employees. 👉 Access the full analysis of the drivers of adoption of listening systems
When the listening mechanism is poorly integrated into HR governance
A tool perceived as peripheral
When an employee feedback system operates in isolation, without any link to HR processes, it is quickly perceived as incidental. According to ANACT (QVCT Report 2023), 63% of HR professionals believe that these systems are insufficiently linked to overall governance. This perception severely limits their scope.
The absence of visible returns
When employees see no tangible effect from their alerts or requests, an implicit message takes hold: speaking up leads to no change. This perception gradually fuels withdrawal and disengagement, even among those who initially considered speaking up.
The structuring role of local management
ANACT's work shows that organizations that integrate local management into their QVCT approach see twice as many early reports of psychosocial risks. In practice, managers remain a key source of legitimacy, with the power to authorize or deny freedom of speech.
What organizational silence means
The absence of visible change is rarely interpreted as a structural constraint. It is more often perceived as a lack of listening or consideration, with lasting effects on trust and commitment.
The risks of a listening device that is rarely used or poorly understood
A misleading sense of control
A system that is rarely used can give the illusion that the situation is under control. However, data from the DREES (The State of Health of the Population in France, 2024) show that long-term sick leave increased by 30% between 2017 and 2022, and that mental health issues now account for more than 20% of these cases. Low usage is therefore not a reliable indicator of effective prevention.
Late detection of risky situations
According to the French occupational health insurance scheme, the number of work-related mental health conditions recognized increased 2.3-fold between 2011 and 2022, with more than 10,000 cases recognized in 2022. These figures reflect difficulties that are often identified too late, when there is already little room for maneuver.
A gradual erosion of confidence
When mechanisms exist without producing visible effects, institutional trust weakens. This phenomenon is all the more worrying given that 60% of recognized cases concern women, revealing differentiated exposure dynamics and equity issues that should not be underestimated.
A listening system that is rarely used is never neutral. It can mask unspoken difficulties, delay the detection of risky situations, and undermine trust over time. 👉 Better assess the real effectiveness of your listening mechanisms
How to redesign listening devices so that they are actually used
Clarify their role in prevention
A listening mechanism cannot be reduced to a formal obligation or an external service. It must be clearly part of an overall prevention strategy that is understandable to all stakeholders.
Making usage clear
It is not just a question of communicating more, but of making the framework understandable: when, why, and how to use the system. This clarity is essential for adoption.
Aligning managerial discourse and practices
The credibility of listening depends on consistency between institutional messages, daily practices, and decisions made. Without this alignment, the system quickly loses its legitimacy.
Organize safe group returns
Without exposing individuals, it is possible to highlight the lessons learned and the actions taken. This feedback is an essential lever for building trust and collective recognition.
What decision-makers need to observe to assess actual effectiveness
The trap of isolated usage rates
Low usage may reflect effective prevention... or widespread self-censorship. Taken in isolation, this indicator is insufficient and may lead to misinterpretation.
The importance of qualitative signals
The social climate, managerial discourse, and informal feedback are essential complements to numerical data. They help to contextualize the use, or non-use, of the measures.
Cross-referencing data
Listening cannot be evaluated independently of other HR and QWL indicators. It is their combined perspective that truly illuminates the situation.
Knowing how to re-examine the framework
Low sustained engagement should lead to questioning the system itself, its integration, and its uses, rather than increasing communication efforts.
Towards a credible, continuous, and reassuring culture of listening
From tool to organizational capability
Listening is not limited to a phone number or a platform. It refers to a collective ability to hear, analyze, and act over time.
Managerial exemplarity as a foundation
The credibility of a system largely depends on the visible commitment of senior management and managers, which determines the level of trust placed in it by teams.
Listening as a lever for sustainable prevention
Many organizations today structure these issues through dedicated systems that are integrated into a comprehensive approach to psychosocial risk prevention and quality of life and working conditions. In this context, the challenge is no longer simply to "have" a system, but to ensure that it can truly play its role in serving work groups.
To go further: Listening mechanisms are not driven solely by their existence or usage rate. Their effectiveness depends on organizational, managerial, and cultural levers that can be analyzed and developed.
👉 Discover ways to increase the use of listening devices in the workplace
