In 2026, the question is no longer what happened.
The real question is: are we able to anticipate rather than react?

This is exactly the role HR metrics should play today.

Before presenting the six key metrics, I want to take a moment to explain their origin. They come from three very concrete sources:

• what we observe in current events,
• what is happening in the world of human resources,
• and above all, what organizations are experiencing on the ground.

Three major trends clearly emerge.

First, the growing impact of artificial intelligence on our ways of working.
Next, the enormous pressure on productivity and the actual capacity of teams to maintain the pace.
Finally, the persistent shortage of critical skills.

In addition to these trends, there are two undeniable realities:
the central role of leadership in the success of transformations,
and, in Quebec, the new obligations related to Law 27 regarding the prevention of psychosocial risks.

It is at the intersection of these issues that the HR metrics I propose take on their full meaning.

Skills Preparedness in the Age of AI

There’s no escaping it: artificial intelligence is already transforming our organizations.
But the real question remains: are we ready?

The key metric here is the percentage of employees who possess the essential skills to evolve in an AI-driven environment.

This includes both digital skills — data understanding, AI basics, technological fluency — and human skills: critical thinking, communication, adaptability, and learning ability.

A low level of preparedness is not just an HR issue.
It is a strategic risk for the organization.

---

For organizations that do not yet have a complete skills mapping, a simpler metric can serve as a starting point:
the percentage of employees who have completed at least one AI-related or digital training in the last year.

Sustainable Productivity and Chronic Overload

We talk a lot about performance and productivity.
But an essential question is often forgotten: can teams sustain this pace in the long term?

The key metric here is the percentage of teams experiencing chronic overload.

Chronic overload is not a temporary peak.
It’s a pressure that sets in… and lasts.

This is a composite metric based on several signals observed per team:
overtime, absenteeism, engagement, turnover, and performance.

Each signal exceeding 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, avoidable turnover.

To start more simply, a good fallback metric is to track:
the proportion of teams exceeding an overtime threshold.

---

Internal Mobility and Securing Critical Skills

In a context of scarcity, recruiting is no longer enough.
Certain skills remain difficult to find — and even more difficult to replace.

The most resilient organizations are those that develop their talent internally and focus on mobility rather than the external market.

The main metric 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, one can track:
the percentage of critical positions for which at least one successor is identified.

This metric allows for quick identification of vulnerability areas where an unexpected departure could have a major impact.

The Cost of Key Talent Turnover

Not all departures are equal.

Losing a key talent is not just replacing a position.
It’s losing knowledge, experience, continuity — sometimes even clients or strategic projects.

The key metric here is the cost of key talent turnover, expressed as a percentage of the payroll.

Why is it 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, one can track the turnover rate of key talent.
Even without quantifying costs, this metric already helps identify areas where departures are most damaging.

And when we closely analyze the most costly departures, one observation often recurs:
it’s not always conditions or salary that make the difference,
but the relationship with the manager and trust in leadership.

---

Trust in Leadership

Transformations don’t fail because of tools.
They fail when teams don’t buy in.

At the heart of this mobilization is proximity leadership.

The key metric here is the manager trust score.
It assesses whether employees trust their manager, feel supported, and understand the decisions made.

A low score is rarely insignificant.
It often constitutes an early signal of disengagement, resistance to change, or organizational fatigue.

This metric can be measured very simply in a survey, or even by a single question:

“I trust my manager to support me through the changes affecting us.”

Simple, quick… and extremely revealing.

---

Managing Psychosocial Risks

This metric is particularly relevant in Quebec.

The key metric is the percentage of teams presenting a high psychosocial risk, in direct coherence with the spirit of Law 27: prevent rather than react.

This is not an isolated signal, but converging signals: persistent overload, deteriorated climate, recurring conflicts, psychological distress.

When two or more signals are present, the team is considered at risk.

The goal is never to point fingers at individuals, but to identify early the teams that need support — before the situation leads to absenteeism, turnover, or disabilities.

For a simpler approach, an excellent starting point is the team work climate score, measured with one or two questions, for example:

“The atmosphere in my team is respectful and collaborative.”

---

HR metrics are not just a compliance exercise.
They are warning signals.

Signals of capacity, risks… and potential.

They allow action before burnout, before costly departures, before transformations derail.

No matter where you start, the key 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.