Organizational health is not measured only through the absenteeism rate or an annual engagement survey. It reveals itself above all in the everyday experience of work: what people have to accomplish, the latitude they have, the support they receive, the recognition of their efforts and the sense of being treated fairly.
These dimensions are not incidental. They are among the work-related psychosocial risks: factors tied to work organization, management practices, employment conditions and social relationships, which can influence people’s physical and psychological health. In Quebec, workplaces are required to identify and address them as part of their prevention efforts.
The issue, then, is not only whether employees “are doing well.” It is understanding whether the way work is organized allows them to work well, sustainably.
Assess Before You Act
An organization often wants to move quickly to action: offer a training session, set up a recognition program, organize a wellness activity or ask managers to be more present.
These initiatives can be useful. But they risk missing their target if they are not based on an accurate reading of the situation.
For example, a team may express a need for recognition. Yet the main cause of its fatigue may be chronic overload, unclear roles or priorities that change constantly. In this context, thanking employees more is positive, but insufficient. Recognition does not replace a realistic workload.
Assessment serves precisely to distinguish symptoms from causes. It also helps avoid a common mistake: considering each factor in isolation. The CNESST points out that psychosocial risks can combine and must be analyzed together. A heavy workload becomes especially concerning when it is compounded by low autonomy, little support or a sense of unfairness.
The Five Dimensions to Examine
1. Workload
Workload is not only the volume of tasks. It also includes deadlines, complexity, interruptions, emotional demands, the pressure to respond quickly, the number of simultaneous priorities and the resources actually available.
A workload becomes problematic when expectations regularly exceed the time, skills, staffing or means available to the team.
Questions to ask
- Do employees generally have the time they need to do quality work?
- Which tasks or demands create the most pressure?
- Are priorities clear and stable?
- How often do people have to work longer to meet expectations?
- Are emergencies truly exceptional, or are they part of the usual way of operating?
- Are certain teams, functions or times of year particularly exposed?
- Which tasks could be simplified, automated, deferred or stopped?
Signals to watch for
- Frequent or invisible overtime.
- Delays, errors, rework or a drop in quality.
- Meetings that add to the load without replacing anything else.
- The feeling that “everything is a priority.”
- Persistent fatigue, irritability or loss of motivation.
- Managers who constantly make up the gap with their own hours.
- Difficulty taking vacation, breaks or leave without falling behind.
What to measure
The organization can combine quantitative and qualitative data:
- Work volume, deadlines, overtime and staffing levels.
- Absenteeism, turnover, accidents, errors or complaints.
- Anonymous surveys with statements such as: “I generally have the time I need to complete my work.”
- Interviews or focus groups to understand the real sources of overload.
- Process mapping: where are the bottlenecks, duplications, unnecessary approvals or constant interruptions?
The goal is not to ask people to “manage their time better.” It is to check whether the work system is sustainable.
2. Decision-Making Autonomy
Autonomy refers to the real room to manoeuvre a person has to organize their work, choose certain methods, influence the decisions that concern them and use their skills.
The INSPQ associates decision-making autonomy with the ability to choose how to do one’s work and to take part in the related decisions. A low or moderate level of decision authority can constitute a psychosocial risk.
A caution: giving autonomy does not mean leaving employees to fend for themselves. Healthy autonomy rests on clear expectations, adequate resources, known limits and access to support when needed.
Questions to ask
- Can people choose how to carry out part of their work?
- Do they have influence over how their tasks and priorities are organized?
- Are they consulted before decisions that directly change their work?
- Can they draw on their skills and professional judgment?
- Are procedures necessary and enabling, or do they become excessively constraining?
- Do managers genuinely delegate responsibilities, or only tasks?
- Are employees allowed to flag that a request is unrealistic or inconsistent?
Signals to watch for
- Micromanagement or a proliferation of approvals.
- Decisions made without consulting those who do the work.
- Employees who constantly wait for sign-off before acting.
- Rigid procedures that prevent adapting to real situations.
- A sense of powerlessness in the face of imposed change.
- Loss of initiative, low innovation or psychological withdrawal.
What to measure
- The perceived influence over methods, schedules, priorities and decisions.
- The number of approval layers and the time required to make a decision.
- The degree of clarity around roles, responsibilities and decision limits.
- The quality of consultation during major changes.
- The gap between the autonomy officially announced and the one experienced on the ground.
A good survey item is: “I have enough latitude to organize my work and make the decisions that fall within my role.”
3. Recognition at Work
Recognition is not limited to a bonus or a “thank you” tossed out at the end of a meeting. It concerns the value placed on efforts, skills, results, contribution and the person themselves.
The INSPQ distinguishes several forms of recognition: financial, social through esteem and respect, and organizational, for example job security or advancement opportunities.
An organization can have a warm culture while offering little real recognition if efforts are not reflected in how the workload is distributed, in promotion decisions, in salaries, in access to development or in the recognition of expertise.
Questions to ask
- Do employees receive regular, specific and useful feedback?
- Are efforts made under difficult conditions recognized?
- Are individual and collective successes acknowledged fairly?
- Do people feel their expertise is respected?
- Are the criteria for advancement, compensation or access to development opportunities clear?
- Is only visible output recognized, or also collaboration, preparatory work, support to colleagues and quality efforts?
- Do managers know their employees’ preferences when it comes to recognition?
Signals to watch for
- Comments such as “we only get thanked when there’s a problem.”
- Highly engaged employees who feel invisible.
- Inconsistency between stated values and rewarded behaviours.
- Promotions or interesting mandates seen as reserved for a few people.
- Symbolic rewards while significant structural irritants remain.
- Disengagement among experienced or high-performing employees.
What to measure
- The frequency, quality and perceived fairness of feedback.
- The understanding of criteria for recognition, development and advancement.
- The perception that efforts and skills are valued at their true worth.
- The gaps between teams or between managers.
- The sources of recognition already appreciated by employees.
A useful item: “In my work, my efforts and my contribution are recognized fairly.”
Recognition is more credible when it is specific. Saying “good job” is positive. Saying “your preparation helped avoid a significant delay for the client, and your intervention helped the team move forward” shows that the manager truly understands the contribution.
4. Social Support
Social support corresponds to concrete help, active listening, collaboration and the sense of being able to count on one’s professional surroundings. It comes both from colleagues and from the immediate supervisor.
The INSPQ explicitly differentiates support from colleagues, help, collaboration and team cohesion, from support from the immediate supervisor. Both forms matter, because a supportive team cannot entirely make up for a manager who is absent, inconsistent or unable to clarify priorities.
Questions to ask
- Can employees quickly get help when they run into a difficulty?
- Do colleagues share information, knowledge and responsibilities?
- Are managers available, approachable and consistent?
- Do people feel comfortable raising an overload, an error or a delicate issue?
- Are conflicts addressed quickly and respectfully?
- Do new employees receive sufficient support?
- Do teams work in silos or collaboratively?
Signals to watch for
- Isolation, cliques, silos or weak mutual support.
- Managers too busy to support their teams.
- Fear of asking questions or admitting a difficulty.
- Repeated tensions between departments.
- Unresolved conflicts that become normalized.
- Important information held by only a few people.
- New employees who learn “on the job” without real support.
What to measure
- The perception of being able to count on colleagues and the manager.
- The manager’s actual availability, not just their intention to be present.
- The mechanisms for mutual support, knowledge transfer and problem-solving.
- The frequency of conflicts, how they are handled and the trust in existing mechanisms.
- The level of psychological safety: can one voice a concern, a disagreement or an error without excessive fear?
Possible survey items:
- “I can count on my colleagues’ help when I need it.”
- “My manager helps me overcome difficulties related to my work.”
- “In my team, it is possible to express disagreement or a concern respectfully.”
5. Organizational Justice
Organizational justice concerns the perception of fairness in decisions, processes and interactions. It does not mean everyone gets exactly the same thing. It means decisions are made according to understandable criteria, applied consistently, explained with respect and open to discussion.
When justice is lacking, employees may find it hard to accept a decision, a reorganization, a budget cut, a schedule change or a promotion, not solely because of its content, but because of how it was made or communicated.
The CNESST includes organizational justice among the factors that can contribute, alone or in combination with others, to the deterioration of physical and psychological health at work.
Questions to ask
- Are the rules, policies and decision criteria known and applied consistently?
- Are responsibilities, schedules, bonuses, workloads and development opportunities distributed in a way perceived as fair?
- Are important decisions explained clearly?
- Can the people concerned voice their point of view before a decision that affects their work?
- Do managers apply the rules uniformly?
- Are the organization’s mistakes acknowledged and corrected?
- Are employees treated with dignity, even when a decision is unfavourable to them?
Signals to watch for
- A sense of favouritism or inconsistent treatment.
- A lack of transparency about promotions, salaries, schedules or reorganizations.
- Decisions announced without explanation or the chance to ask questions.
- Rules applied strictly to some and loosely to others.
- Cynicism, rumours and eroding trust in leadership.
- Repeated complaints related to fairness, respect or lack of transparency.
What to measure
- The clarity of the criteria used for important decisions.
- The consistency of policy application across teams and managers.
- The quality of communication during changes.
- The degree of participation or consultation of the people concerned.
- The perception of respect in interactions with leadership and managers.
A simple but revealing item: “The decisions that affect my work are made and explained fairly.”
A Simple Five-Step Process
There is no need to launch a large organizational survey right away to get started. A credible process can progress in five steps.
- Clarify the objective. Determine what you are trying to understand: a rise in absenteeism, departures, tensions in a team, a reorganization, an overload or a compliance risk.
- Gather existing data. Analyze absences, turnover, overtime, voluntary departures, complaints, incidents, exit interviews and results from previous surveys. Numbers do not provide all the answers, but they help target the questions.
- Consult the people concerned. Combine a short anonymous questionnaire with interviews or focus groups. Employees must be able to describe what genuinely helps or hinders their work, without fearing consequences.
- Cross-reference the information. Compare perceptions with operational data. A team that says it is overloaded while logging little overtime is not necessarily contradicting itself: it may be experiencing cognitive or emotional overload, or overload linked to interruptions, surprises and ambiguous priorities.
- Prioritize, act and follow up. Choose few, but concrete, actions, assigned to owners and tied to deadlines. Communicate what you heard, what will be done, what will not be done for now and why. Then measure how the situation evolves.
The INSPQ, among others, offers an interview grid designed to support a summary assessment of the presence of psychosocial risks and to guide priority actions. This grid covers, among other things, workload, recognition, social support, autonomy, information and communication.
Avoiding Common Pitfalls
A few mistakes often limit the quality of an assessment.
- Measuring without explaining the intent. Employees will answer more honestly if they understand the purpose of the process, the confidentiality rules and what will be done with the results.
- Using a survey without giving feedback. Asking teams for their views and then communicating nothing feeds cynicism and can erode trust.
- Settling for a global average. Risks are often concentrated in one department, one team, one function or one specific period.
- Confusing individual support with organizational prevention. An EAP, a talk or a stress-management training session can help, but on their own they do not correct excessive workload, low autonomy or perceived unfairness.
- Trying to fix everything at once. It is better to keep two or three priorities that have a concrete effect on daily work than to launch an overly broad plan that never gets done.
- Asking managers to solve systemic problems on their own. A manager cannot durably resolve an overload caused by unrealistic objectives, understaffing or contradictory decisions from senior leadership.
From Diagnosis to Action
An assessment is useful when it leads to decisions that are observable in the real work.
If workload is the main problem, action can target prioritization, staffing, process simplification, reducing meetings or clarifying expectations.
If autonomy is low, the organization can review decision levels, reduce unnecessary approvals and consult more with the people who know the work.
If recognition is insufficient, it can train managers in more specific feedback, clarify advancement criteria and recognize contributions that usually go unnoticed.
If social support is weakened, it can strengthen onboarding, collaboration mechanisms, manager availability and the respectful handling of conflicts.
If organizational justice is at issue, it must improve the transparency of criteria, the consistency of practices and the quality of the explanations given during difficult decisions.
The most useful question to ask may be this one: what needs to change in how work is organized so that people can succeed without burning out?
This is where organizational health becomes a genuine lever for prevention, engagement and sustainable performance.