Psychosocial risks (PSRs) are being measured more often today, but are far less often prevented at the source.
In many organizations, the reflex is now well established.
The climate is deteriorating.
Tensions rise.
Turnover becomes a concern.
Teams talk more about fatigue or overload.
So, a survey is sent out.
A few weeks later, the results come in, along with the charts. Generally, a certain sense of relief sets in; the organization finally feels that it understands what is happening.
The danger is that organizations sometimes confuse consultation with prevention. Gathering perceptions does not mean understanding what, in the work itself, gives rise to PSRs.
In occupational health and safety (OHS), a much more uncomfortable question needs to be asked:
Does the survey actually make it possible to identify PSRs, or does it mainly measure consequences that are already established enough to become visible?
In prevention, there is a major difference between:
- Observing effects such as an increase in distress in certain teams;
and - Understanding the source of what produces them in the work.
This distinction completely changes an organization’s actual ability to prevent PSRs.
What a survey can do and its limits
Let’s be clear: a survey can be useful. It can:
- Open discussions;
- Make certain perceptions visible;
- Document certain concerns;
- Inform organizational reflection.
Many tools that have not been scientifically validated have significant methodological limitations when it comes to properly identifying PSRs and their psychosocial risk factors (PSRFs).
In many cases:
- The dimensions assessed are not based on recognized OHS frameworks or on models validated for PSR prevention;
- The PSRFs influencing PSRs remain poorly documented;
- The tools do not always allow for a sufficiently reliable interpretation of the realities observed;
- The results may be influenced by the context, emotions at the time, or certain recent events.
As with any measure based on human perceptions, some biases remain possible. Questionnaires based on validated models nevertheless seek to better control these effects in order to obtain data that are more stable, reliable, and representative of workplace realities.
When an organization wants to measure air quality, noise levels, or exposure to a contaminant, it does not rely on general impressions or improvised tools. It uses recognized methods, reliable tools, and interpretable data.
Since PSRs can also directly affect OHS, identifying them must meet the same level of methodological rigor.
When measuring does not mean preventing
The problem is not asking questions. The problem is believing that a general perception survey can, on its own, identify PSRs within an OHS prevention approach.
PSRs generally do not begin when they show up in a survey; they often take shape gradually:
- Under certain repeated constraints;
- In ways of working that become established;
- In silent build-ups;
- In overload that has become normal;
- In a lack of support that persists;
- In tensions that eventually become tolerated in day-to-day work.
These realities cannot be understood from a point-in-time snapshot.
Why this distinction is becoming essential
Even today, many workplaces reduce PSRs to a survey exercise. As if taking a snapshot of the discomfort was enough, on its own, to understand its causes in the work.
In OHS, simply identifying a risk has never been enough to address it.
With Law 27, organizations are expected to integrate PSRs into a genuine prevention process: identify, analyze, correct, control, and monitor the work-related factors that influence psychological health. These factors include work organization, management practices, employment conditions, as well as social relations at work.
It is not only about gathering perceptions, but about developing an organizational capacity to prevent harm to health, safety, and physical and psychological integrity. This is a genuine paradigm shift in OHS when it comes to PSRs because the gap between these two realities is much greater than it may appear.
Organizations must be able, in particular, to:
- Identify the factors influencing PSRs;
- Analyze their organizational realities;
- Prioritize actions;
- Implement appropriate prevention and control measures;
- Monitor how risks evolve over time;
- Evaluate and adjust their actions as workplace realities evolve.
This shift transforms the very understanding of PSR prevention in OHS:
- From an approach focused mainly on visible consequences;
To - An approach focused on understanding PSRFs, prevention at the source, and the continuous adjustment of working conditions.
What organizations now need to develop
Many organizations already have surveys, indicators, and internal data.
Organizations now need tools capable of producing reliable, comparable, and interpretable data over time in order to support a more accurate understanding of workplace realities.
Beyond the visible results, the challenge is also to better identify the factors influencing PSRs in order to guide prevention actions in a coherent, structured, and sustainable way.
Two Approaches That Do Not Pursue the Same Objective
Survey
Validated Questionnaire
A survey can help inform organizational reflection and form part of a broader prevention process. However, on its own, it does not adequately identify PSRs within a structured OHS prevention approach.
Where the approach really changes how PSRs are understood
Some approaches specifically seek to move beyond the logic of a point-in-time survey by relying on scientifically validated questionnaires integrated into a structured PSR prevention process.
These approaches make it possible to:
- Identify the factors that truly influence PSRs;
- Monitor how workplace realities evolve over time;
- Take a more strategic view of organizational trends;
- Provide more consistent direction for prevention actions.
This methodology therefore makes it possible to obtain reliable, comparable, and interpretable data over time in order to support more consistent, strategic, and sustainable management of PSRs.
In OHS, the quality of data collection directly influences the quality of the decisions that follow.
The challenge is to stop waiting for the consequences to become observable before taking action on the workplace realities that produce them.
Prevention is most meaningful when it makes it possible to intervene early, collectively, and concretely in order to act sustainably on the factors influencing PSRs.
An important question for organizations
Does your organization rely on a perception survey or on a structured process using scientifically validated questionnaires to identify, analyze, and prevent PSRs?
Content written by Daisy Gauthier, expert and workplace partner in OHS and PSR prevention.
