Unknown User4
When viewing job stress survey results and turnover/absence data together, is it okay to link them at the individual level?
2026.09.21 10:05
Burnout and Job Stress
When viewing job stress survey results and turnover/absence data together, is it okay to link them at the individual level?
By examining job stress surveys together with turnover and absenteeism data, you can view the effectiveness of organizational improvements in a more multidimensional way. However, Directly linking individual scores with individual personnel records This is an area where the purpose of the investigation and personal information protection principles need to be reviewed.
short answer
If the purpose is general organizational improvement Aggregated analysis by department, job group, work type, and time period rather than individual connections We recommend doing this first. If personal-level analysis is absolutely necessary, please verify the purpose, legal basis, whether the information constitutes sensitive data, minimum collection, pseudonymization, and access permissions separately.
If the purpose is general organizational improvement Aggregated analysis by department, job group, work type, and time period rather than individual connections We recommend doing this first. If personal-level analysis is absolutely necessary, please verify the purpose, legal basis, whether the information constitutes sensitive data, minimum collection, pseudonymization, and access permissions separately.
📌 First answer: If the goal is general organizational improvement, it is better not to start with individual-level connections.
When looking at job stress survey results together with turnover and absenteeism data, one might wonder whether high-stress employees actually resigned or were absent. However, if individual scores are directly linked to HR data, the survey responses Risk of transition to individual evaluation and personnel management This may increase, and respondent reliability may also decrease.
In practice, first Aggregation levels by department, job group, work type, and period It is safer to identify patterns and utilize them to improve the work environment within a scope where the possibility of personal identification is low. In particular, if job stress items can reveal physical or mental health conditions, sensitive information issues under the Personal Information Protection Act must also be reviewed.
🧭 Up to what level can we view together?
| Analysis method | Recommended for practical use | Points to note |
|---|---|---|
| Company-wide stress trends + overall turnover and absenteeism rates | height | Low risk of personal identification and suitable for verifying organizational flow. |
| Department/Job Group Stress + Department Turnover/Absence Rates | height | Small organizations require minimum personnel standards due to the possibility of individual estimation. |
| Comparison by work type and job category | Medium to high | Determine the group size and the purpose of the analysis first. |
| Individual stress score + individual days of absence | lowness | Risk of direct combination of health/psychological information and HR information |
| Individual score + Resignation status + Evaluation/Performance | Very low | There is a high possibility that this will escalate into personal evaluations and judgments of disadvantage. |
| Analysis for statistical and research purposes after pseudonymization | Conditionally possible | Must meet requirements regarding the purpose, procedures, access control, and prohibition of re-identification of pseudonymization. |
🔐 Why should you be more careful with person-to-person connections?
The Personal Information Protection Act requires that the purpose of processing personal information be clearly defined and that only the minimum amount of personal information necessary for that purpose be processed lawfully and justifiably. Furthermore, information regarding health is classified as sensitive information. If the questions and results of a job stress survey are structured to reveal specific psychological or health conditions, the processing of such information must be reviewed separately.
When HR data such as absenteeism, turnover, performance, evaluations, and disciplinary actions are combined, data originally intended for 'organizational improvement surveys' can be transformed into material for personal judgment. You must verify whether the purpose notified at the time of the initial survey aligns with the actual purpose of the combination and analysis, whether there is a separate legal basis, whether the data is minimal, and how access rights and retention periods will be handled.
📊 Analysis fully viewable without a personal connection
| question | How to view without a personal connection |
|---|---|
| Has turnover increased in high-stress departments? | Comparison of departmental averages/distributions and departmental turnover rates over the same period |
| Does the workload issue move in tandem with absenteeism? | Comparison of work requirement scores and monthly absenteeism rate trends by job group and organizational unit |
| Is the burden on shift workers high? | Comparison of aggregate results by work type and trends in absenteeism and turnover |
| Have there been any changes since the improvement measures were taken? | Comparison of Organizational Stress Indicators + Turnover and Absence Trends Before and After Improvement |
| Is there a problem with a specific manager organization? | Review organizational-level recurring patterns and other indicators together while avoiding the identification of a few individuals. |
👥 Individuals in small organizations may be visible even in 'counts'
In organizations with very small numbers, such as teams of five or fewer, or where there is only one resignation at a specific time, individuals can be easily identified even with 'department aggregation.' Therefore, instead of defining the unit of analysis simply by removing names, Group size, rare events, combination of rank, gender, and work type You must check up to that point and verify the possibility of re-identification.
Operational Example
If the department has a small number of personnel, you can reduce the possibility of individual overestimation by grouping similar job functions, analyzing data on a quarterly or semi-annual basis instead of monthly, or establishing minimum staffing standards. Please determine the specific minimum staffing standard based on the characteristics of the investigation, the size of the organization, and internal personal information protection standards.
If the department has a small number of personnel, you can reduce the possibility of individual overestimation by grouping similar job functions, analyzing data on a quarterly or semi-annual basis instead of monthly, or establishing minimum staffing standards. Please determine the specific minimum staffing standard based on the characteristics of the investigation, the size of the organization, and internal personal information protection standards.
🧪 If you really need an individual level analysis, please double-check your purpose first.
For example, if the purpose is 'organizational-level statistics and research,' you may consider the pseudonymized information system under the Personal Information Protection Act. The Act permits the processing of pseudonymized information under certain conditions for statistical compilation, scientific research, and public interest record keeping. However, pseudonymization differs from simply erasing names and requires separate management measures, such as the separation of additional information, access control, and the prohibition of re-identification.
Conversely, if the purpose is to 'identify who has high stress levels and frequent absenteeism and report them to managers,' you must first review whether the purpose itself is necessary and whether there is a risk of causing disadvantage to employees, rather than implementing a pseudonymization system.
✅ Pre-analysis Checklist
| Confirmation items | check |
|---|---|
| We verified whether the original purpose of collecting the investigation results and the purpose of the combined analysis were consistent. | □ |
| We reviewed whether individual analysis was truly necessary or if it could be replaced by organizational-level analysis. | □ |
| We reviewed the possibility that job stress results constitute health-related sensitive information. | □ |
| We confirmed the legal basis and scope for combining HR data, such as absenteeism, turnover, and performance. | □ |
| Use only the minimum necessary variables. | □ |
| We verified whether the aggregation units, such as departments and job groups, were at a level where individuals could not be estimated. | □ |
| The permissions of the analyst and the results viewer were restricted. | □ |
| If pseudonymization analysis is required, separate procedures and re-identification prohibition standards are applied. | □ |
| A principle was established not to use it directly as a basis for the evaluation, placement, or disciplinary action of individual employees. | □ |
| Criteria for retention and destruction were established after the purpose of the analysis was completed. | □ |
⚠️ Operations to particularly avoid
- A method of combining the list of employees at high risk of job stress and recent absentees and delivering it to the team leader.
- Method of including individual scores in decision-making materials for promotion, placement, and performance evaluation
- A method of extending the results for personnel purposes that was not disclosed at the time of the investigation
- An analysis that effectively allows for easy identification of an individual by removing only the name while leaving the employee number, job title, team, and work type.
- A method of widely storing analysis files on general HR shared drives
💬 The same principles apply as with EAP data.
Caution is also required when linking job stress survey results with EAP usage data to track, on an individual basis, 'who received counseling and whether absenteeism decreased afterward.' The mere fact of EAP usage can be perceived as sensitive, and counseling content is an area subject to stricter confidentiality standards. For evaluating operational performance, it is appropriate to examine usage rates, satisfaction, organizational indicators, and perceived changes among employees together, rather than tracking individuals.
Recommended Posts
How do you formulate an organizational improvement plan after a job stress survey? → How to verify the effectiveness of job stress improvement → How to Respond to Burnout in Teams with Difficult Workload Management → How much support should HR provide when a returning employee continues to complain of fatigue? →
❓ FAQ
Q1. Is it absolutely forbidden to connect on an individual basis?
It cannot be concluded that all cases are uniformly prohibited. However, if the purpose is general organizational improvement, it is advisable to first review whether the analysis objective can be achieved without personal connections. If processing at the individual level is required, the purpose, legal basis, whether the information constitutes sensitive data, minimum collection, and access controls must be verified separately.
Q2. If only the name is deleted, is it considered pseudonymized information?
This is not always the case. You must review the requirements for pseudonymization, such as whether an individual can be easily identified when combined with other information and whether additional information is managed separately.
Q3. Is it okay to look at departmental turnover rates and average stress levels together?
If the likelihood of individual identification is low and the purpose of organizational improvement is clear, the risk is lower than direct individual connections. However, in small organizations, a single resignation or high-risk response can be easily estimated, so it is advisable to establish separate aggregation criteria.
Q4. May I show the results of the job stress assessment to my team leader?
It is better to focus on sharing departmental trends and work factors requiring improvement, rather than individual scores or lists of high-risk personnel. Define the scope and purpose of sharing in advance and identify risks associated with minority groups.
👉 Next step
To effectively utilize job stress surveys and HR metrics together, try designing an analysis structure that identifies "which organizational conditions need improvement" rather than trying to find "who is at risk."
Inquire about Job Stress & EAP Operation →📚 Source and Verification Criteria
- National Law Information Center · Article 3 of the Personal Information Protection Act (Principles of Personal Information Protection)
- National Law Information Center · Article 16 of the Personal Information Protection Act (Restrictions on Collection of Personal Information)
- National Law Information Center · Article 23 of the Personal Information Protection Act (Restrictions on Processing Sensitive Information)
- National Law Information Center · Article 28-2 of the Personal Information Protection Act (Processing of Pseudonymized Information, etc.)
- National Law Information Center · Article 29 of the Personal Information Protection Act (Duty to Take Safety Measures)
This content explains general practical principles for utilizing job stress surveys and organizational indicators together. As the determination of whether job stress results constitute sensitive information, the legal basis for combining HR data, and the applicability of pseudonymization may vary depending on survey items, processing purposes, legal grounds, and organizational circumstances, a review by a personal information protection officer or legal expert may be required when designing actual individual-level analyses. Verification Date: September 21, 2026.
#JobStress #HRData #PrivacyProtection #Pseudonymized information #OrganizationalImprovement
Comments5
넛지EAP(관리자)- Unknown User3
- Unknown User2
- Unknown User1