Unknown User4
How much of the results regarding the high-risk group for job stress should I share with my manager?
2026.08.13 09:26
Burnout, Job Stress, and HR Results Sharing Guide
Results of the high-risk group for job stress,
How much should I tell the manager?
Determining how much of the results regarding the high-risk group for job stress should be disclosed to managers is a topic frequently debated by HR professionals. The key is not to identify specific individuals and identify “who is in the high-risk group,” but rather to improve team-level work factors and implement necessary support measures. A range that minimizes personal identification It is shared at.
Determining how much of the results regarding the high-risk group for job stress should be disclosed to managers is a topic frequently debated by HR professionals. The key is not to identify specific individuals and identify “who is in the high-risk group,” but rather to improve team-level work factors and implement necessary support measures. A range that minimizes personal identification It is shared at.
short answer
Share team-based work factors and improvement tasks rather than individual high-risk results.
The key is a workflow of: restriction of personal identification → sharing of trends at the team level → presentation of manager action items → non-sharing of individual consultation details → individual HR support → minimal follow-up records.
🕒 When will it be applied?
Criteria for sharing results for high-risk groups for job stress are necessary in the following situations.
Job stress results are data for organizational improvement. If used to evaluate individuals or classify employees as problem workers, it can lower employee trust and reduce participation rates in future surveys.
🧭 What an HR Manager Should Do
STEP 01
First, separate individual results and organizational results.
When conducting a job stress survey, individual, team, and organization-wide results may be available. In this case, HR must first distinguish which information is accessible to whom.
If the purpose of the investigation is organizational improvement, it should be communicated to managers as well by requesting "improvement of work factors" rather than "verification of individual results."
STEP 02
Distinguishes between information that can be shared with the administrator and information that cannot be shared.
Managers may need to know some information to operate the team. However, they do not need to know the personal health or psychological state of employees. Therefore, information that can be shared and information that is restricted must be clearly distinguished.
When communicating with the manager, it is better to focus on “what needs to be changed in team operations” rather than “who is struggling.”
STEP 03
Small teams first check for the possibility of individual identification.
Even if job stress results are provided as averages or ratios, individuals can be identified if the team size is small. For example, in a team of three, if "one person is in the high-risk group," it is easy to estimate who falls under this category.
In small organizations, it is safer to focus on areas for improvement, such as "need for clarification of workload and roles" or "lack of change management communication," rather than "high-risk group ratio."
STEP 04
Deliver actionable improvement tasks to managers.
When sharing results with a manager, simply stating "stress is high" makes it difficult to lead to actual improvement. You must also provide the manager with specific tasks for work improvement.
It is better to tell the manager, “Please review measures to reduce the team’s workload,” rather than “Have them receive individual counseling.”
STEP 05
Individual employee support is managed separately by HR.
Employees identified as high-risk may require support. However, one should be cautious about notifying a manager immediately. It may be safer to structure individual support so that HR, health managers, or EAP operators provide guidance separately.
Even if the employee agrees, there is generally no great need to share the details of the consultation or the diagnosis with the manager. If sharing is necessary, it is best to organize it around actionable tasks, such as "Workload adjustment needed," "Meeting attendance burden needed," or "Schedule adjustment needed."
STEP 06
We jointly operate administrator training.
When sharing job stress results with managers, training or guidelines should be provided alongside the results sheet. Otherwise, managers may make the mistake of tracking individuals or treating high-risk groups as problem employees.
Administrator training may include the following:
Managers should act as facilitators of the work environment, not counselors. Clearly defining this distinction is essential to maintaining employee trust.
STEP 07
The report data reflects de-identification and aggregation standards.
When sharing job stress results in executive reports or department head meetings, it is important to adhere to non-identifiable aggregation standards. If reporting data is excessively detailed, individuals may be identified.
The data provided to managers should show “which work factors need to be improved,” rather than “who is at risk.”
STEP 08
Establish post-management standards.
Follow-up measures are necessary after sharing the results of the high-risk group for job stress. If you simply share the results and stop there, employees may feel that "the investigation was conducted but nothing changes."
Follow-up management is not a procedure for monitoring individuals, but rather a process for verifying whether the investigation results led to actual improvements in the work environment.
📋 Management Sheet Example
The table below is an example of internal management that can be used when sharing the results of the high-risk job stress group with managers. The actual items should be adjusted to align with your company's privacy standards, survey methods, EAP operations, and occupational health management system.
✅ Checklist
The checklist below is for internal inspection purposes to ensure that no personal information or practical measures are omitted when sharing the results of the high-risk job stress group with managers.
especially Non-sharing of individual results, restriction on minority counting, sharing of work factors at the team level, administrator action criteria These are basic verification items. If even one of these items is not sorted out, it is recommended to address it first rather than considering the result sharing complete.
Among all items If 3 or more are insufficient It is recommended to review the purpose of the job stress survey, personal information protection standards, manager roles, and EAP linkage standards, rather than simply remaking the report materials.
⚠️ Common mistakes
The first mistake is handing over individual high-risk lists to managers. Job stress results should be used to improve the work environment, not to classify individuals as problem employees.
The second mistake is disclosing the results of small teams as is. Even if names are omitted, individuals can be identified if the team is small. In this case, it is better to consolidate at a higher organizational level or share only key operational factors instead of the number of high-risk groups.
The third mistake is instructing the manager to “have them receive counseling.” A manager is not someone who checks whether counseling is needed, but someone who adjusts workloads, roles, relationships, and support methods.
The fourth mistake is sharing EAP usage status with the manager as if it were a report. Since EAP counseling usage status and counseling content pose a risk of personal identification, it is recommended to manage this based on non-identifiable aggregation.
The fifth mistake is failing to take follow-up action after sharing results. If the workload, roles, meeting methods, and support systems do not change even after investigation results are released, members may lose trust in the investigation.
The sixth mistake is treating suggestions of suicide or self-harm merely as high-risk outcomes of general job stress. When an immediate safety risk is suspected, emergency response and coordination with specialized agencies take priority over sharing general reports or managerial improvement plans.
💬 When EAP support is needed
When managing the outcomes of high-risk job stress groups, it is necessary to distinguish between areas that can be handled by an EAP and those that the company must manage directly. It is recommended that HR establish standards for interpreting survey results, the scope of sharing, managerial actions, data privacy, and follow-up management, while the EAP operates as a supplementary channel to support employees' psychological well-being.
You may refer employees to EAP counseling if they report job stress, burnout, anxiety, lethargy, sleep problems, or relationship conflicts. However, you must not require them to verify with a manager whether they have received EAP counseling or to report the details of the counseling.
EAP guidance text can be used as follows.
If you experience anxiety, burnout, sleep problems, or relationship difficulties due to job stress survey results or work burden, you may utilize the EAP counseling channel. EAP does not replace the sharing of job stress survey results, managerial action, HR and labor judgments, medical diagnoses, or emergency responses; it is a supplementary channel designed to support the psychological burden of employees.
In cases of suggestions of suicide or self-harm, immediate safety risks, or risks of violence, do not respond solely with general EAP guidance; you must first check emergency routes such as 119, 112, or the suicide prevention hotline 109.
🔗 Related Posts
- Comprehensive Guide to Employee Burnout and Job Stress
- Comprehensive Guide to Job Stress Management Standards
- How do you formulate an organizational improvement plan after a job stress survey?
- Questions and Precautions for Managers to Check During Employee Stress Interviews
- How is confidentiality ensured in EAP counseling?
❓ Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. May I share the list of high-risk job stress groups with the team leader?
In principle, it is safer not to share individual high-risk lists directly with the team leader. It is recommended to share team-level trends, key work factors, improvement tasks, and follow-up action criteria with the team leader.
Q2. What should you do if your team leader says, “I need to know who is struggling to help”?
While a manager's intention to provide support is understandable, sharing individual results requires caution in terms of employee trust and privacy protection. Instead, it is better to communicate team-level improvement tasks—such as workload, deadlines, role confusion, and relationship burdens—and have HR provide separate guidance on individual support.
Q3. Is it okay to share information if the employee specifically asks the manager to provide it?
If the employee explicitly requests it, you may share information to the extent necessary for work adjustment. However, rather than conveying the diagnosis, counseling details, and personal circumstances in their entirety, it is better to organize the information around specific actions, such as "workload adjustment needed" or "schedule adjustment needed."
Q4. Is it okay to share the ratio of high-risk groups by department?
If a department has a sufficient number of personnel and individual figures cannot be estimated, the data may be shared for the purpose of organizational improvement. However, for departments with few personnel or where specific employees can be easily estimated, it is advisable to consolidate the figures at the higher organizational level or refrain from disclosing detailed figures.
Q5. Is it okay to share the EAP counseling recipient with the manager?
It is recommended to operate in a way that does not share EAP usage status or counseling content with administrators, as this can lead to individual identification. It is appropriate for the company to verify this information based on aggregated data, such as total usage volume, non-identifiable statistics by topic, and satisfaction levels.
Q6. Is it a problem if no action is taken even though the results show a high-risk group?
In job stress surveys, follow-up measures are more important than verifying the results. While it cannot be definitively determined whether a legal violation occurred, if high-risk trends are identified, it is advisable to review actionable measures such as improving work factors, manager training, EAP guidance, and follow-up monitoring.
Next step
Criteria for sharing results for high-risk groups and
If you would like to revise the administrator response principles together
If you would like to revise the administrator response principles together
Organize personal information protection, de-identification aggregation, administrator training, EAP integration, and follow-up standards into a single operational principle.
Go to Nudge EAP Implementation Consultation →📚 Source and Information
- WHO, Guidelines on mental health at work
- WHO, Mental health at work
- HSE, Stress and mental health at work
- HSE, What are the Management Standards?
- National Law Information Center, Article 16 of the Personal Information Protection Act: Restrictions on the Collection of Personal Information
- National Law Information Center, Article 23 of the Personal Information Protection Act: Restrictions on the Processing of Sensitive Information
- Health and Welfare Counseling Center, Suicide Prevention Hotline 109
- Korea Labor Welfare Network, Introduction to the Employee Assistance Program (EAP)
This content is intended for general informational purposes. Specific matters regarding HR and labor relations, personal information protection, job stress surveys, mental health, psychological counseling, and crisis response may vary depending on workplace circumstances, the latest laws, and official guidelines; therefore, review by relevant experts or agencies may be required. In cases involving indications of suicide or self-harm, immediate safety risks, or risks of violence, do not respond solely through general interviews or EAP guidance; instead, prioritize checking emergency channels such as 119, 112, or the suicide prevention hotline 109.
Comments6
넛지EAP(관리자)- Unknown User3
- Unknown User2
- Unknown User1넛지EAP(관리자)
Most Engaging Posts in the Community
- 0160026.10.22
- 0260026.10.22
- 03CommentsWe also have a lot of short-term contract workers during peak season, so I get confused every time I have to handle the training for rehired employees. I'm also curious how other places handle cases where contracts are renewed immediately without any gaps.132226.10.21
- 01coach AnswerHello, this is Nudge EAP ☺️ You should group tasks based on whether the actual work type and conditions are the same, rather than the process name. Tasks can be considered the same if the worker posture, number of repetitions and time, handling weight and frequency, movement, and equipment and tools are similar. Therefore, even within the same assembly process, it is better to separate "seated assembly" and "standing assembly while moving materials" into separate tasks. First, list the detailed tasks within the process and compare them using the criteria above; separating only the tasks with significant differences makes organization easier, even with a large workforce. If there are multiple tasks under the same conditions, you can select a representative sample that includes the worker with the highest workload. The KOSHA guide suggests using at least two tasks with high work intensity as a sample when there are 10 or fewer identical tasks. Shifts can be grouped together if the equipment, workload, speed, and personnel are the same, but if the conditions differ, please separate them by shift. For rotation workers, you can make a judgment by recording all detailed tasks performed during the day, along with the time and frequency of each. For the final classification, confirm the opinions of on-site workers, and if you record the basis for the grouping on the survey form, it will be easier to explain during inspections.753326.09.18
- 02CommentsThe distinction between receiving a report and reaching a conclusion is important. Global HR teams should secure immediate protection and confidentiality before trying to decide whether the conduct legally qualifies as harassment.734426.09.02
- 03coach AnswerHello, this is Nudge EAP.☺️ The simplest method is for employees to simply receive guidance and apply directly, as the company does not transfer personal information. If you want a health manager to forward a name and contact information to an EAP agency for contact, it is safer to explain the receiving agency, purpose, items, retention period, and the right to refuse consent, and to obtain clear consent from the individual. Since checkup results and symptoms are sensitive health information, do not consider them included in the existing health checkup consent; instead, please write down only the content to be conveyed and obtain separate consent. In practice, it is common to separate the options into ① consent for forwarding name and contact information and ② consent for forwarding checkup results and symptoms, ensuring that there is no disadvantage in using the EAP even if the second option is not agreed to. The burden of repeating explanations can be reduced by providing the option for employees to send a summary of their consultation request, written directly by the employee, to the agency. However, since the wording and procedures may vary depending on whether the contract with the EAP agency involves the outsourcing of personal information processing or the provision of information to a third party, please review the contract details with your in-house personal information manager before implementation. It is a good idea to define the scope of responses in advance to the company to prevent unnecessary feedback regarding consultation requests or their content.708926.09.21
- 04
- 05
- 06
- 07
- 08
- 09
- 10
- 04
- 05
- 06
- 07
- 08
- 09
- 10