The honest answer: it depends. We recommend the COPSOQ for European and multinational projects because there are validated language versions in Scandinavia, France and the Netherlands. It is often too unspecific for corporate development in Germany. The difference lies in the wording of the question: “I am satisfied with my manager” is useless as an item for a GBU – no measure can be derived from it. “Overall, I am satisfied with the way I or my team is managed by my direct manager” is operationally precise and leads to a clear result. This is exactly what our Eudemos GBU.Q is designed for. Regardless of the instrument selected, the following applies: additional scales for the sector and activity are not an option, but a must – police, fire department, nursing, educators, psychiatry or handling hazardous substances cannot be mapped with a standard instrument.

Because they systematically hide the problem. A department with 30 percent highly stressed and 70 percent unstressed employees has an inconspicuous mean value – and a serious problem. If you only see the average, you see nothing. Eudemos therefore works with response distributions, extreme group comparisons and area-differentiated reports.
Industry comparison values are overrated for the same reason: a stress factor can be positive in an industry comparison and still show an absolutely urgent need for action – and vice versa. Decisions are not made against the industry average, but against the actual impact in the specific group.

The Occupational Health and Safety Act does not specify a clear deadline for this. In legal terms, a distinction is made between two things that are often confused in practice: the annual updating obligation and the complete repetition. Updating means checking once a year whether new stresses have arisen – due to reorganization, new forms of work, changes in technology, changes in management or changes in work volumes. The complete repetition of the survey every two to three years is appropriate in standard supervisory practice.
Nevertheless, we recommend a different approach – and thus follow the logic of ISO 45003: the risk assessment is transformed from a one-off project into a continuous process. For us, this means a complete survey with GBU.Q every two to three years, with annual mini-checks in between for the areas in which the last round showed conspicuous values. In parallel, a dashboard with current HR key figures as early indicators: Overtime volume, absences and sick days, fluctuation, entries into the BEM, use of the in-house counselling service, utilization rates of critical functions.
The advantage of this logic: the GBU is no longer perceived as a regulatory obligation, but as an ongoing control parameter. Measures derived from the last survey are worked on during the year. The effectiveness check in accordance with Section 3 ArbSchG is therefore no longer a separate process, but part of regular operations. And for the supervisory authorities – who are taking an increasingly close look at whether documentation is meant seriously – this creates a seamless chain of evidence.

Not a tribunal, but a support meeting. Managers have a dual role: part of the project and often the subject of the results themselves. Many are themselves overloaded, sandwiched between top and bottom. We recommend setting up a regular “management consultation” process, where every manager with critical values has their own meeting in which the findings are explained, the context is understood and realistic next steps are agreed. As a rule, this leads to appreciative solutions that promote development.

Differentiated according to findings. In departments with non-critical results, the manager moderates the process themselves – GBU topics are core management topics. In departments with conspicuous findings, external Eudemos moderators moderate so that the manager does not fall into a defensive role. In addition, we conduct a separate management workshop separately from the teams – one of the most valuable but most frequently omitted process steps.

Five types of measures with different mandates: individual (BGF, resilience, EAP, return-to-work interviews), bilateral (welfare and employee interviews, agreements), team (meeting structure, team rules, Kanban, Scrum), with experts (HR, BGM, occupational health and safety specialist, IT) and strategic (staffing, process changes, structural reorganizations). Types 1 to 3 are the responsibility of the manager. Types 4 and 5 are handed over to a working group with steering committee members and decision-makers. Classic mistakes are the focus on 1-3 and the delegation of 4-5 back to the direct superiors.

First reason: because middle management has a structural motive to filter problems upwards. External consultants can communicate with management directly and without this filter logic.
Second reason: If management issues or political tensions become apparent, the moderator must be able to maintain neutrality – an internal health manager often cannot do this without jeopardizing their position in the company. In companies with fewer than 100 employees, self-implementation with OHM tools is an option.
Third reason: Because OHM management is often only a partial function and there is usually too little capacity available.

Through strict minimum group sizes and fine-grained rights in the portal. Our data protection officers recommend at least eight potential and at least five actual participants per evaluation group. Below that, no evaluation is carried out. Via AGIONT, each manager automatically receives exactly the reports for which they are authorized.

Because stress is abstract for the management. An exhaustion rate of 40 percent in a department is not. The Eudemos GBU.Q deliberately measures the outcome part – the consequences of stress and motivational health such as inner resignation and the intention to quit – because it is the decisive lever in communication with board members. Optionally, we supplement the Work Ability Index, which according to van den Berg (2010) indicates an average loss of productivity of 26 percent with poor values.

Under labor law, the employer has the final decision-making power, but must prove at the next GBU that it has done something effective, taking into account economic and health interests. In economic terms, something else happens, and more quickly: employees who perceive that a GBU is not being taken seriously make the decision to resign – usually the high-performing ones. A negative selection process is set in motion. The most expensive measure in a GBU is usually the one that is not taken. Diplomatic skill is needed when communicating with management and, in the public sector, with politicians.