Diagnostic Instrument

Employee Toxicity
Index

Not a sentiment tracker. A diagnostic system. Rate each statement 0 to 10 based on your lived experience at work.

Honesty Anchor
→
Psychological Safety
→
Operational Integrity
→
Human Sustainability
→
Diagnosis
This is not a quiz with right or wrong answers. It is a measurement. You answer 24 statements honestly, and the system does the maths. Here is exactly what it does with your numbers, step by step, so there is no mystery in what comes out the other end.
01
You Score 24 Statements
Each statement is rated 0 to 10. Zero means you strongly disagree. Ten means you strongly agree. The midpoint, 5, means neutral.

You answer 8 statements for each of the three pillars: Psychological Safety, Operational Integrity, and Human Sustainability.
02
Five Questions Are Flipped
Five statements are deliberately negative in phrasing. They are marked Reverse Scored. For these, your answer is subtracted from 10 before it is counted.
Example: You score 8 on "I regularly self-censor at work." That means self-censorship is frequent, which is bad. So the system uses 10 minus 8 = 2 as your contribution to the pillar. Agreeing strongly with a bad thing counts as a low score.

This prevents the tool from being gamed by someone who agrees with everything. It also catches people who may not notice they are describing a toxic situation.
03
Each Pillar Gets a Score
After reverse scoring is applied, all 8 answers within a pillar are added together and divided by 8. This gives each pillar a single number between 0 and 10.

A pillar score of 5.0 is the midpoint. Below 5.0 is a warning zone. Below 4.0 is serious. The three pillar scores are then combined to produce the final ETI.
The ETI Formula
PS Score
x 0.40
+
OI Score
x 0.30
+
HS Score
x 0.30
=
ETI
0 to 10
The three pillar scores are not simply averaged. They are weighted before being combined. The weights reflect how much each pillar matters to the overall diagnosis. They add up to 100%.
Why does Psychological Safety count for 40%?

Because fear corrupts data. If people are afraid, they will not honestly report unfairness or burnout. A low PS score means the other two pillars are likely being under-reported. PS is doing double duty: it measures its own dimension and tells you whether to trust the other numbers.

Why do OI and HS each count for 30%?

Operational Integrity and Human Sustainability are equally important to each other. Neither outweighs the other. Together they make up the remaining 60% of the composite. A problem in either one is a real problem, regardless of how the other looks.

A Worked Example (from the ETI Framework, Chapter 8)
Pillar Pillar Score Weight Contribution
Psychological Safety 5.8 x 0.40 = 2.32
Operational Integrity 6.2 x 0.30 = 1.86
Human Sustainability 4.9 x 0.30 = 1.47
ETI Composite 5.65
That score of 5.65 lands in Emerging Toxicity. But here is what the number alone does not tell you: the HS score of 4.9 is the most urgent problem. It is below the 5.5 critical threshold, which means active burnout conditions are present. And the PS score of 5.8 means the OI and HS readings may already be too generous because fear is likely suppressing honest reporting. The true condition is probably worse than what the numbers show.
Why the Composite Score Is Only Half the Story

Two people can produce the exact same ETI composite score while experiencing completely different problems. The pillar breakdown is where the real diagnosis lives.

Person A — ETI 5.8
PS 7.2 OI 7.0 HS 4.0

Burnout problem in a safe environment. The organisation is fair and people feel heard. But the workload is destroying them. The data is probably reliable. The fix is focused on workload and sustainability.

Person B — ETI 5.8
PS 4.5 OI 6.5 HS 7.2

Fear problem with contaminated data. The low PS score means the other readings cannot be trusted. People are afraid, and afraid people report better conditions than they are actually experiencing. The true OI and HS are likely much lower.

Same score. Opposite diagnoses. Opposite interventions.
Two Thresholds That Trigger Automatic Warnings
PS Below 6.0 — Data Integrity Warning
When Psychological Safety scores below 6.0, a warning is attached to all results. Every other number should be treated as a floor estimate, not the truth. Fear is present at a level that systematically distorts the data.
HS Below 5.5 — Burnout Alert
When Human Sustainability scores below 5.5, the Burnout Alert activates. The organisation is consuming people faster than it can replace them. Research shows this pattern precedes mass departure of high performers within 12 to 18 months if left unaddressed.
Honesty Anchor Below 6.0 — Survey Compromised
The opening question asks if you feel safe answering honestly. It is unscored. If it rates below 6.0, all scores carry a warning that they are likely optimistic. The real situation is probably worse than the numbers reflect.
Fear Questions Below 5.0 — Fear Index Trigger
Three specific questions measure fear directly. If those average below 5.0, the Fear Index Trigger activates. This is a diagnosis in itself: the environment is producing fear at a level serious enough to invalidate full trust in every other data point.
Response Safety — Honesty Anchor · Unscored
I feel genuinely safe answering this survey honestly.
This question is not scored. It calibrates the reliability of everything that follows. If you score it low, your results will carry a data integrity warning.
Strongly Disagree 5 Strongly Agree
012345678910
PS Psychological Safety Weight: 40%

Do you feel safe to speak, challenge, admit mistakes, and exist without fear? Without safety, everything else becomes theatre.

PS-1 I can raise concerns in this organisation without fear of negative consequences.
Disagree 5 Agree
PS-2 Mistakes in my team are treated as opportunities to learn, not as grounds for punishment.
Disagree 5 Agree
PS-3 My manager listens to my perspective without becoming defensive or dismissive.
Disagree 5 Agree
PS-4 Difficult conversations in my team are handled respectfully, with all perspectives considered.
Disagree 5 Agree
PS-5 Reverse scored

I regularly self-censor in meetings or written communications because I am concerned about the consequences of speaking openly.
Disagree 5 Agree
PS-6 Reverse scored

I have observed colleagues face negative consequences for raising legitimate concerns in this organisation.
Disagree 5 Agree
PS-7 Senior leaders in this organisation are approachable when I need to raise something important or difficult.
Disagree 5 Agree
PS-8 My ideas and contributions are taken seriously and treated with genuine consideration in this workplace.
Disagree 5 Agree
OI Operational Integrity Weight: 30%

Does the organisation function with fairness, clarity, and consistent accountability? Many toxic environments are not loud. They are quietly unjust.

OI-1 Promotions and opportunities in this organisation are based primarily on merit and demonstrated contribution.
Disagree 5 Agree
OI-2 My role expectations are clear and remain reasonably stable over time.
Disagree 5 Agree
OI-3 Rules and standards are applied consistently, regardless of seniority or position.
Disagree 5 Agree
OI-4 Leaders and managers in this organisation are held accountable when their behaviour falls short of stated standards.
Disagree 5 Agree
OI-5 I understand the criteria by which my performance will be assessed.
Disagree 5 Agree
OI-6 Reverse scored

Decisions in this organisation feel politically driven rather than based on merit or evidence.
Disagree 5 Agree
OI-7 Recognition in this organisation reflects actual contribution rather than visibility, politics, or personal relationships.
Disagree 5 Agree
OI-8 When something goes wrong in this organisation, the response focuses on understanding and fixing the system, not on finding someone to blame.
Disagree 5 Agree
HS Human Sustainability Weight: 30%

Does the environment support long-term health, energy, and dignity? A workplace can appear high-performing while slowly burning its people to ash.

HS-1 My workload is sustainable over the long term.
Disagree 5 Agree
HS-2 I am able to disconnect from work during personal time without feeling guilty or at risk.
Disagree 5 Agree
HS-3 This organisation's expectations around availability and responsiveness are reasonable.
Disagree 5 Agree
HS-4 Senior leaders in this organisation visibly model sustainable work practices.
Disagree 5 Agree
HS-5 This job does not negatively affect my physical or mental health.
Disagree 5 Agree
HS-6 Reverse scored

I regularly feel emotionally drained or depleted by the end of the working day.
Disagree 5 Agree
HS-7 Reverse scored

I would describe myself as experiencing burnout, or as approaching it.
Disagree 5 Agree
HS-8 I feel that my personal limits and boundaries are generally respected in this organisation.
Disagree 5 Agree
Data Integrity Warning Active

You indicated low confidence in answering this survey honestly (Honesty Anchor below 6.0). All scores below should be treated as potentially optimistically biased. The true condition of your workplace is likely worse than these numbers suggest.

Employee Toxicity Index — Composite Score
—
—

—

Psychological Safety
—
Weight x 0.40
Operational Integrity
—
Weight x 0.30
Human Sustainability
—
Weight x 0.30
Diagnostic Signals
Diagnostic Interpretation