Mental workload, Work organisation, Operational performance, Management, HR
Mental workload, Work organisation, Operational performance, Management, HR
Mental workload: how organisation weighs on work
Mental workload: how organisation weighs on work
Published on · Updated on
Interruptions, pending approvals, unclear priorities: some fatigue builds up in the way daily work is organised. Making it visible reveals its cost and shows where to act. Some benchmarks and an approach to launch the first changes within a quarter.
Interruptions, pending approvals, unclear priorities: some fatigue builds up in the way daily work is organised. Making it visible reveals its cost and shows where to act. Some benchmarks and an approach to launch the first changes within a quarter.
How can you reduce what wears teams out while helping them do their work better?
How can you reduce what wears teams out while helping them do their work better?
How can you reduce what wears teams out while helping them do their work better?
A full day, and an important project has barely moved. In between: messages to answer, an approval that is slow to come, two incompatible requests and a meeting to work out who should decide. By evening, the project is still there. So are the questions left open.
This experience calls for a different look at workload. Hours count, and so do deadlines. But they say little about the effort it takes to find a piece of information, pick up an interrupted task or understand what is expected of you.
Two surveys published in 2026 shed light on the issue. Dares reports a fall in work intensity, the first since the 1980s. Between 2016 and 2024, the share of employees exposed to at least three constraints on their pace of work fell from 43% to 38%. Meanwhile, the Empreinte Humaine / Ipsos BVA barometer finds that one employee in two shows signs of psychological distress.
The periods, the people surveyed and the indicators differ. Setting the two side by side does not prove cause and effect. But it does invite us to look beyond volume and pace, at the way work is organised.
For leadership teams and HR managers, this is also an operational question: how much of their teams’ energy goes into coordination problems, at the expense of customers, production or business growth?
Picking up, working around, guessing
The first difficulty is constantly picking up the thread. You start an analysis, a message arrives, then a request on another channel. When you come back, you have to retrace your reasoning and get back into the task. As these switches multiply, the day moves on faster than the work.
The Observatoire de l’infobésité et de la collaboration numérique gives a measure of these demands: its 2026 benchmark reports an average of 169 emails received per week, with around half of replies sent within an hour. These figures describe digital habits; they do not directly measure mental workload. They do, however, show how much space these exchanges take up in everyday working life.
Not every demand is unnecessary. The problem arises when nothing distinguishes those that need an immediate reply from those that can wait. Everyone then has to keep an eye on every exchange so as not to miss a possible emergency.
The second difficulty is working around what stops you doing a good job. A piece of information has to be entered twice. A file goes through several approvals whose purpose nobody really knows. Two departments work to incompatible priorities, and someone has to reconcile their requests.
Yves Clot has shown how heavily ‘impeded quality’ can weigh on professionals: knowing what a job well done requires, while lacking the means to deliver it. Hard effort can then coexist with the feeling of not having done what matters most.
The third difficulty is guessing what is expected. Which request comes first? How far can you decide on your own? When is a piece of work finished enough? Without a clear answer, people check more, seek several opinions or wait for an approval that may not have been needed.
These situations can feed on one another. An unclear priority triggers extra messages. Those exchanges interrupt the work. The delay leads to a follow-up meeting, which cuts the time available even further. Teams and their managers then spend a growing share of their energy handling coordination problems.
Make the difficulties visible and put a cost on them
For an operational consulting firm, the findings must lead to decisions. You need to link the difficulties people experience to their causes, then to their consequences for the business.
One concrete question opens the discussion: what took up your time this week that could have been simpler?
The answers bring to light situations that management can act on: a decision awaited for several days, a meeting with no clear purpose, a request received through three channels, a responsibility two teams keep passing back and forth.
This is the starting point of the Spentia diagnostic. We invite every person in scope to describe their actual work in an individual, anonymous interview. The partners then compare these accounts to identify recurring difficulties and understand their causes. Listening also reveals what already works and could be extended.
Then comes the costing: how much time goes into picking work back up? What delay does an approval cause? How much sales or production capacity sits idle? Estimates must state their assumptions and avoid counting the same loss twice.
In a composite aircraft maintenance case drawn from past assignments, Spentia estimated the direct costs of several bottlenecks at €2.1 million a year, with potential gains of €1.1 to 1.3 million a year at the run rate reached after twelve months. These gains still need to be verified after implementation. They illustrate a costing method; they are neither a promise of results nor a measure of the cost of mental workload.
The point is to give managers a basis for their trade-offs: which problems to tackle first, with what resources and for what expected effect?
Picking up, working around, guessing
The first difficulty is constantly picking up the thread. You start an analysis, a message arrives, then a request on another channel. When you come back, you have to retrace your reasoning and get back into the task. As these switches multiply, the day moves on faster than the work.
The Observatoire de l’infobésité et de la collaboration numérique gives a measure of these demands: its 2026 benchmark reports an average of 169 emails received per week, with around half of replies sent within an hour. These figures describe digital habits; they do not directly measure mental workload. They do, however, show how much space these exchanges take up in everyday working life.
Not every demand is unnecessary. The problem arises when nothing distinguishes those that need an immediate reply from those that can wait. Everyone then has to keep an eye on every exchange so as not to miss a possible emergency.
The second difficulty is working around what stops you doing a good job. A piece of information has to be entered twice. A file goes through several approvals whose purpose nobody really knows. Two departments work to incompatible priorities, and someone has to reconcile their requests.
Yves Clot has shown how heavily ‘impeded quality’ can weigh on professionals: knowing what a job well done requires, while lacking the means to deliver it. Hard effort can then coexist with the feeling of not having done what matters most.
The third difficulty is guessing what is expected. Which request comes first? How far can you decide on your own? When is a piece of work finished enough? Without a clear answer, people check more, seek several opinions or wait for an approval that may not have been needed.
These situations can feed on one another. An unclear priority triggers extra messages. Those exchanges interrupt the work. The delay leads to a follow-up meeting, which cuts the time available even further. Teams and their managers then spend a growing share of their energy handling coordination problems.
Make the difficulties visible and put a cost on them
For an operational consulting firm, the findings must lead to decisions. You need to link the difficulties people experience to their causes, then to their consequences for the business.
One concrete question opens the discussion: what took up your time this week that could have been simpler?
The answers bring to light situations that management can act on: a decision awaited for several days, a meeting with no clear purpose, a request received through three channels, a responsibility two teams keep passing back and forth.
This is the starting point of the Spentia diagnostic. We invite every person in scope to describe their actual work in an individual, anonymous interview. The partners then compare these accounts to identify recurring difficulties and understand their causes. Listening also reveals what already works and could be extended.
Then comes the costing: how much time goes into picking work back up? What delay does an approval cause? How much sales or production capacity sits idle? Estimates must state their assumptions and avoid counting the same loss twice.
In a composite aircraft maintenance case drawn from past assignments, Spentia estimated the direct costs of several bottlenecks at €2.1 million a year, with potential gains of €1.1 to 1.3 million a year at the run rate reached after twelve months. These gains still need to be verified after implementation. They illustrate a costing method; they are neither a promise of results nor a measure of the cost of mental workload.
The point is to give managers a basis for their trade-offs: which problems to tackle first, with what resources and for what expected effect?
How much energy does it take just to be able to do your job, before you even start doing it?
How much energy does it take just to be able to do your job, before you even start doing it?
ARTICLE
ARTICLE
How much energy does it take just to be able to do your job, before you even start doing it?
ARTICLE
Three decisions to make work easier
The first is to organise incoming demands. A channel reserved for emergencies, agreed response times and protected blocks of work time can reduce the need to monitor every exchange. These rules become credible when managers apply them themselves and service continuity is organised.
The second is to simplify hand-offs. Who provides useful information? Who makes the decision? Who simply needs to be informed? Removing one approval or clarifying one responsibility can save many exchanges. The aim is to let everyone move forward with the information and authority they need.
The third is to make expectations explicit. People should understand the current priority, the expected result, their room for decision and the quality criteria without constant interpretation. Precise feedback on a piece of work lets them correct course before uncertainty turns into extra work.
Each action needs an owner, a deadline and an expected effect. Only then does listening change everyday work.
One quarter to get started and observe
A quarter can provide a starting framework for a defined scope: a department, a site or a process shared by several teams.
Month one: listen and prioritise. Identify the most costly or most frequent difficulties, understand their causes and select the ones you can act on.
Month two: decide and launch. Start a few changes with the managers concerned, specifying the resources needed and the results expected.
Month three: observe and adjust. Review the first effects, go back to the teams and correct what needs correcting.
Measurement must follow the problem being addressed. For approval waits, look at decision lead times. For re-keying, at time spent and errors. For interruptions, at incoming demands and meetings. And ask the teams: are priorities clearer? Is it easier to do quality work?
Fewer messages only help if they make work easier. A shorter procedure must preserve the quality of decisions. Reading a few operational indicators alongside the teams’ experience makes it possible to judge progress.
Treating mental workload as an organisational issue gives leadership teams a concrete grip on the subject. They can cut unnecessary waiting, make decisions clearer and free up time for their teams and their managers alike.
You can recognise the intended result in an ordinary day: a project that moves forward, a decision taken at the right time, a priority that is understood. And fewer work questions to take home.
Further reading
Sources
Dares, Quelles évolutions des conditions de travail et des risques psychosociaux depuis 2016 ?, 9 September 2026 — detailed write-up by Hellowork.
Empreinte Humaine / Ipsos BVA, 16th barometer of the psychological health of French employees, 2 June 2026 — republished press release.
OICN, 2026 benchmark and key figures, based on Mailoop data. The chair of the OICN is also co-head of Mailoop.
Yves Clot, Le Travail à cœur. Pour en finir avec les risques psychosociaux, La Découverte, 2010.
Spentia, method for operational diagnostics and aircraft maintenance example. Composite case and internal estimates; potential gains to be confirmed after implementation.
Three decisions to make work easier
The first is to organise incoming demands. A channel reserved for emergencies, agreed response times and protected blocks of work time can reduce the need to monitor every exchange. These rules become credible when managers apply them themselves and service continuity is organised.
The second is to simplify hand-offs. Who provides useful information? Who makes the decision? Who simply needs to be informed? Removing one approval or clarifying one responsibility can save many exchanges. The aim is to let everyone move forward with the information and authority they need.
The third is to make expectations explicit. People should understand the current priority, the expected result, their room for decision and the quality criteria without constant interpretation. Precise feedback on a piece of work lets them correct course before uncertainty turns into extra work.
Each action needs an owner, a deadline and an expected effect. Only then does listening change everyday work.
One quarter to get started and observe
A quarter can provide a starting framework for a defined scope: a department, a site or a process shared by several teams.
Month one: listen and prioritise. Identify the most costly or most frequent difficulties, understand their causes and select the ones you can act on.
Month two: decide and launch. Start a few changes with the managers concerned, specifying the resources needed and the results expected.
Month three: observe and adjust. Review the first effects, go back to the teams and correct what needs correcting.
Measurement must follow the problem being addressed. For approval waits, look at decision lead times. For re-keying, at time spent and errors. For interruptions, at incoming demands and meetings. And ask the teams: are priorities clearer? Is it easier to do quality work?
Fewer messages only help if they make work easier. A shorter procedure must preserve the quality of decisions. Reading a few operational indicators alongside the teams’ experience makes it possible to judge progress.
Treating mental workload as an organisational issue gives leadership teams a concrete grip on the subject. They can cut unnecessary waiting, make decisions clearer and free up time for their teams and their managers alike.
You can recognise the intended result in an ordinary day: a project that moves forward, a decision taken at the right time, a priority that is understood. And fewer work questions to take home.
Further reading
Sources
Dares, Quelles évolutions des conditions de travail et des risques psychosociaux depuis 2016 ?, 9 September 2026 — detailed write-up by Hellowork.
Empreinte Humaine / Ipsos BVA, 16th barometer of the psychological health of French employees, 2 June 2026 — republished press release.
OICN, 2026 benchmark and key figures, based on Mailoop data. The chair of the OICN is also co-head of Mailoop.
Yves Clot, Le Travail à cœur. Pour en finir avec les risques psychosociaux, La Découverte, 2010.
Spentia, method for operational diagnostics and aircraft maintenance example. Composite case and internal estimates; potential gains to be confirmed after implementation.