The 6 HR Indicators to Anticipate Rather Than React
In 2026, the question is no longer what happened.
The real question is: are we able to anticipate rather than react?
That is precisely the role HR indicators should play today.
Before presenting the six key indicators, I want to take a moment to explain where they come from. They are drawn from three very concrete sources:
- what we observe in current events,
- what is happening in the world of human resources,
- and most importantly, what organizations are experiencing on the ground.
Three major trends clearly stand out.
First, the growing impact of artificial intelligence on the way we work.
Second, the enormous pressure on productivity and teams’ real ability to sustain the pace.
Finally, the persistent shortage of critical skills.
Added to these trends are two unavoidable realities:
the central role of leadership in the success of transformations,
and, in Québec, the new obligations related to Bill 27 on the prevention of psychosocial risks.
It is at the intersection of these challenges that the HR indicators I am proposing take on their full meaning.
Skills Readiness in the Age of AI
There is no escaping it: artificial intelligence is already transforming our organizations.
But the real question remains: are we ready?
The key indicator here is the percentage of employees who possess the essential skills to operate in an AI-driven environment.
This includes both digital skills — data literacy, basic AI knowledge, technological ease — and human skills: critical thinking, communication, adaptability, and learning agility.
A low level of readiness is not just an HR issue.
It is a strategic risk for the organization.
For organizations that do not yet have a comprehensive skills map, a simpler indicator can serve as a starting point:
the percentage of employees who have completed at least one AI- or digital-related training course in the past year.
Sustainable Productivity and Chronic Work Overload
We talk a lot about performance and productivity.
But one essential question is often overlooked: can teams sustain this pace over time?
The key indicator here is the percentage of teams experiencing chronic overload.
Chronic overload is not a temporary spike.
It is pressure that settles in… and lasts.
This is a composite indicator based on several signals observed at the team level:
overtime hours, absenteeism, engagement, turnover, and performance.
Each signal that exceeds a predefined threshold is counted.
When two or three signals are present simultaneously, the team is considered at risk.
Why is this critical?
Because chronic overload is a major human risk: fatigue, psychological distress, errors, and avoidable turnover.
To start more simply, a solid proxy indicator is:
the proportion of teams exceeding a defined overtime threshold.
Internal Mobility and Securing Critical Skills
In a context of talent shortages, recruiting is no longer enough.
Some skills remain hard to find — and even harder to replace.
The most resilient organizations are those that develop talent internally and prioritize mobility over the external market.
The primary indicator here is the percentage of key positions filled internally.
A high rate demonstrates a real ability to develop talent and secure critical skills.
For a simpler approach, organizations can track:
the percentage of critical roles for which at least one successor has been identified.
This indicator makes it possible to quickly identify vulnerability zones where an unexpected departure could have a major impact.
The Cost of Turnover Among Key Talent
Not all departures are equal.
Losing a key talent is not just about replacing a position.
It means losing knowledge, experience, continuity — and sometimes even clients or strategic projects.
The key indicator here is the cost of turnover among key talent, expressed as a percentage of total payroll.
Why is this indicator so powerful?
Because it translates an HR issue into financial language.
And when we speak in dollars, decisions become much more concrete.
For a simpler version, organizations can track the turnover rate of key talent.
Even without calculating costs, this indicator helps identify the areas where departures are most damaging.
And when the most costly departures are analyzed closely, one observation comes up again and again:
it is not always compensation or working conditions that make the difference,
but rather the relationship with the manager and trust in leadership.
Trust in Leadership
Transformations do not fail because of tools.
They fail when teams do not buy in.
At the heart of this engagement lies front-line leadership.
The key indicator here is the trust-in-manager score.
It measures whether employees trust their manager, feel supported, and understand the decisions being made.
A low score is rarely insignificant.
It is often an early warning sign of disengagement, resistance to change, or organizational fatigue.
This indicator can be measured very simply through a survey — even with a single question:
“I trust my manager to support me through the changes that affect us.”
Simple, quick… and extremely revealing.
Managing Psychosocial Risks
This indicator is particularly relevant in Québec.
The key indicator is the percentage of teams presenting a high psychosocial risk, directly aligned with the spirit of Bill 27: prevent rather than react.
This is not based on a single signal, but on converging signals: persistent overload, deteriorating team climate, recurring conflicts, psychological distress.
When two or more signals are present, the team is considered at risk.
The objective is never to single out individuals, but to identify early the teams that need support — before the situation translates into absenteeism, turnover, or disability leaves.
For a simpler approach, an excellent starting point is the team climate score, measured using one or two questions, for example:
“The atmosphere in my team is respectful and collaborative.”
HR indicators are not just a compliance exercise.
They are early warning signals.
Signals of capacity, risk… and potential.
They allow organizations to act before exhaustion sets in, before costly departures occur, before transformations derail.
No matter where you start, the most important thing is to measure what truly matters to your teams.
Because in 2026, organizational performance will first and foremost depend on human performance.
What we choose to measure today determines what we will be able to protect tomorrow.
