Organising exposure analysis
The expert report coordinated by Michel Gollac, associated with Marceline Bodier and published in 2011, is a reference for classifying psychosocial factors. It supports examining work content, organisation and relationships without reducing the issue to individual resilience.
The six families concern work intensity and time; emotional demands; insufficient autonomy; poor social relationships; conflicts of values; and insecurity of the work situation. One situation may involve several families, whose effects can interact rather than remaining separate.
Read the families in actual work
Intensity involves accumulating demands and deadlines. Emotional demands include responding to suffering or concealing reactions. Autonomy concerns discretion and opportunities to use skills. Relationships encompass support, recognition and the way people are treated at work.
Conflicts of values may arise when people lack the resources to do work they consider acceptable. Insecurity may concern employment or uncertain changes to the activity. These categories help formulate concrete questions; they do not automatically assign a risk score to each situation.
A case spanning several dimensions
A service receives more requests, loses supervisory support and retains quality targets it can no longer meet. Analysing workload alone would miss both the loss of support and the conflict between expected quality and available resources.
The prevention team can compare records, interviews and observations to establish when the situation developed and which decisions maintain it. It should then propose changes with assigned owners: adjusting capacity, clarifying priorities or restoring support channels. The classification improves coverage of the analysis but does not select those actions by itself.
Boundaries of the framework
A locally written survey should not be presented as validated merely because its questions are grouped into six sections. Selecting a method requires considering population, language, purpose and conditions of use, together with the evidence supporting its interpretation.
The framework does not replace national assessment duties. Its most useful role is checking that important dimensions have not been overlooked, discussing exposures with workers and following an intervention plan aimed at working conditions. Repeating the labels without investigating their organisational causes would add little preventive value.
