A Staff Diagnostic for Trust, Safety, and Organizational Health

A plain-language, anonymous staff survey designed to reveal conditions that conventional planning often misses, including belonging, psychological safety, repair, and trust in leadership, and to turn what is learned into action.

At a Glance

Client: NGO

Sector: Mission-driven organizations

Format: Assessment design

Audience: Internal Employees

What we noticed

When organizations decide to invest in their staff, they often begin by selecting an intervention based on assumptions about what people need.

What is frequently missing is an honest read of the conditions underneath: whether staff feel they belong, whether it is safe to speak openly, whether there is a working process for repair when harm occurs, and whether people trust leadership during periods of change.

Without that information, organizations risk designing support around guesses. Staff may also be asked to share honestly without knowing whether what they say will lead to any meaningful response.

The intervention

We built a ten-question, plain-language, anonymous staff diagnostic.

The questions follow a deliberate sequence. They begin with tenure and belonging, establish psychological safety as a central condition, and then explore communication breakdowns, repair practices, skill-building priorities, exposure to secondary trauma, and trust in leadership.

Each question is paired with guidance for administrators explaining what the response may reveal and how the information can inform action. The instrument also includes language organizations can use when introducing the survey to staff.

Why we designed it this way

We placed belonging and psychological safety before questions about skills because people are unlikely to answer honestly when they do not feel safe.

We also wrote the diagnostic in plain language so the findings remain understandable and usable to the organization, rather than becoming information only a consultant can interpret.

Finally, we built in the step organizations often skip: reporting the themes back to staff. Sharing what was heard and what will happen next is itself an act of accountability. A diagnostic that leads nowhere can teach people that speaking honestly changes nothing.

Questions for Consideration
  • What conditions must be present for staff to answer honestly about the health of an organization they depend on for their livelihood?
  • When an assessment surfaces difficult truths, what responsibility does the organization take on by asking the questions?
  • How does measuring a condition such as trust or safety affect the condition itself?

SELECTED ARTIFACTS