Rate each item based on what you honestly observe in your organization — not policy, not aspiration. The accuracy of results depends entirely on honest input.
02
Review domain scores
Each of the six domains scores automatically. Any domain below 60% represents a structural psychosocial risk that requires attention.
03
Act on the results
Your results are a starting point, not a destination. Book a discovery call at execrn.com to discuss findings and build a targeted response.
1
Domain One · MHCC Factor: Workload Management
Workload & Sustainable Capacity
Framework: MHCC Psychosocial Factor #9 — Workload Management (Mental Health Commission of Canada, 2012). Also referenced in Guarding Minds at Work (Samra et al., 2012, SFU/CARMHA). Chronic workload misalignment is the most consistent predictor of exhaustion and the first domino in workforce attrition cascades.
1.1
Staff in my organization can consistently complete their core responsibilities within scheduled hours without requiring chronic overtime or off-shift work.
Never true
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Always true
1.2
When workload increases unexpectedly, there are functioning mechanisms to redistribute tasks, defer non-essential work, or access additional resources — not simply absorb the demand.
Strongly disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Strongly agree
1.3
Recovery time — breaks, vacation, and transition periods between high-demand cycles — is genuinely protected as an organizational priority, not just permitted on paper.
Not at all true
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Completely true
1.4
Staffing levels are informed by actual workload evidence — not budget constraint alone — and when gaps exist, leadership responds with visible, timely action.
Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Agree
1.5
The physical and emotional demands of the work are acknowledged by leadership as legitimate organizational data — not minimized, normalized, or attributed to individual weakness.
Framework: MHCC Factors #4 (Civility & Respect) and #12 (Psychological Protection). Psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999, 2019) is the strongest organizational predictor of team performance, retention, and the willingness to report unsafe conditions. Guarding Minds at Work (Samra et al., 2012) identifies civility as foundational to a psychologically safe workplace.
2.1
People in my organization feel safe to speak up — to raise concerns, ask questions, or identify problems — without fear of retaliation, ridicule, or being labelled as difficult.
Strongly disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Strongly agree
2.2
Interpersonal conflict and harassment are addressed promptly and equitably — with a clear, accessible process — rather than left to resolve informally or managed inconsistently.
Never true
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Always true
2.3
Senior leaders in my organization consistently model respectful communication — including in high-pressure situations — and are held to the same standards of conduct as all other employees.
Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Agree
2.4
People experiencing mental health challenges are supported with genuine dignity — accommodations are made without stigma, and managers are equipped to have these conversations competently.
Not at all
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Consistently
2.5
Mistakes are treated as organizational learning opportunities — not as events that trigger blame, public embarrassment, or disproportionate consequence.
Framework: MHCC Factors #8 (Involvement & Influence) and #3 (Clear Leadership & Expectations). Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) identifies autonomy as a fundamental psychological need. Lack of control is a primary driver of depersonalization — the most dangerous and least visible dimension of workforce deterioration.
3.1
People in my organization have meaningful input into how their work is structured, sequenced, and prioritized — not just what they are expected to produce.
Not at all
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Completely
3.2
When decisions affecting staff are made, there is a genuine consultation process — staff voice is sought before decisions are finalized, not after implementation.
Never
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Always
3.3
People have a realistic path to raise problems with their work processes — and a reasonable expectation that concerns will be genuinely considered, not dismissed or deprioritized.
Not at all true
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Always true
3.4
Role expectations, performance standards, and organizational priorities are communicated clearly — people know what is expected of them and why, without having to guess or navigate ambiguity.
Strongly disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Strongly agree
3.5
People trust that the information they receive from leadership is accurate and complete — not managed, withheld, or shaped primarily to manage their reaction.
Never
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Always
Domain 3 Score
—
Complete all 5 questions to see score
4
Domain Four · MHCC Factors: Recognition & Reward + Growth & Development
Recognition, Reward & Professional Growth
Framework: MHCC Factors #7 (Recognition & Reward) and #6 (Growth & Development). Insufficient reward predicts reduced sense of accomplishment — the third pillar of workforce deterioration. Deci & Ryan's (2000) Self-Determination Theory identifies competence as a fundamental human need. Unmet competence need accelerates disengagement.
4.1
When people do exceptional work, recognition is specific, timely, and publicly visible — not confined to annual reviews or performance appraisals months after the fact.
Never
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Always
4.2
Compensation in my organization is competitive, transparent in its structure, and perceived as fair by the majority of the workforce — not a source of ongoing resentment or inequity.
Strongly disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Strongly agree
4.3
Career development — growth opportunities, lateral moves, skill development, and promotion — is accessible and equitably distributed, not dependent on proximity to influential leaders.
Not at all true
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Always true
4.4
The meaning and purpose of people's work is acknowledged by leadership — the human impact of what staff do is named and celebrated, not only the outputs and metrics.
Never
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Always
4.5
People leave our organization feeling they have grown professionally — not that they survived, escaped, or were diminished by the experience of working here.
Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Agree
Domain 4 Score
—
Complete all 5 questions to see score
5
Domain Five · MHCC Factor: Organizational Culture + Engagement
Fairness, Equity & Organizational Justice
Framework: MHCC Factors #2 (Organizational Culture) and #10 (Engagement). Organizational justice research (Greenberg, 1990; Colquitt et al., 2001) consistently identifies perceived fairness as a stronger predictor of engagement than compensation. Unfairness perception triggers the same neurological threat response as physical danger — it is not a soft concern.
5.1
Decisions about promotions, assignments, disciplinary actions, and resource allocation are made transparently and consistently — not influenced by personal relationships, politics, or favoritism.
Strongly disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Strongly agree
5.2
Workload, responsibilities, and support resources are distributed equitably across comparable roles — without persistent patterns of some people consistently carrying more than others.
Not at all
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Consistently
5.3
When policies or decisions are unpopular, leadership provides honest rationale — and demonstrates genuine openness to feedback — rather than simply expecting compliance.
Never
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Always
5.4
Diversity, equity, and inclusion are reflected in the actual composition and advancement of leadership — not only in policy statements or aspirational language.
Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Agree
5.5
When someone raises a concern about unfairness or inequitable treatment, there is a credible, accessible process to address it — and a reasonable expectation it will be taken seriously.
Never true
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Always true
Domain 5 Score
—
Complete all 5 questions to see score
6
Domain Six · MHCC Factor: Psychological Support + Organizational Culture
Values Alignment & Moral Environment
Framework: MHCC Factors #1 (Psychological Support) and #2 (Organizational Culture). Moral distress (Jameton, 1984) — knowing the right action but being constrained from taking it — is one of the most significant and least-addressed drivers of attrition in caring professions. Moral residue accumulates silently until it reaches the threshold for departure or breakdown.
6.1
People in my organization feel that what they are asked to do at work is compatible with their own ethical and professional values — not in regular tension or outright conflict with them.
Strongly disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Strongly agree
6.2
When organizational decisions create ethical discomfort for staff — particularly in caring professions — there is a legitimate space to name it and have it acknowledged, not just implemented without discussion.
Never
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Always
6.3
The organization's stated values are reflected in how leadership actually behaves — particularly in difficult situations — not only in onboarding materials and wall signage.
Never
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Consistently
6.4
People feel genuinely cared for as human beings by this organization — not only valued as a productive resource that can be redeployed, managed, or replaced as needed.
Strongly disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Strongly agree
6.5
The wellness initiatives and support programs offered by this organization reflect a genuine understanding of what staff actually need — not only what is cost-effective, easy to measure, or good for the organization's public profile.
Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Agree
Domain 6 Score
—
Complete all 5 questions to see score
About This Tool — Methodology & Limitations
What this is: The ExecRN Signature Assessment is an evidence-informed organizational screening tool developed by Sarah Scahill, MHS, BN, RN, CDMP, CCHNC-C. All questions were developed specifically for this tool to reflect the six psychosocial domains identified in publicly available frameworks — the MHCC 13 Psychosocial Factors and the Guarding Minds at Work framework (Samra et al., 2012, SFU/CARMHA). No questions are reproduced from any existing validated instrument.
How scoring works: Each question is scored 1–10. Each domain contains 5 questions for a maximum of 50 points per domain and 300 total. Domain scores below 70% (35/50) indicate emerging or elevated organizational psychosocial risk in that area. Overall scores below 50% (150/300) indicate significant multi-domain risk requiring organizational attention.
What this is not: This tool has not been independently peer-reviewed or validated as a standalone psychometric instrument. It is an evidence-informed screening tool designed to prompt organizational reflection — not a clinical assessment, not a diagnostic instrument, and not a substitute for a comprehensive organizational research process. Results reflect the perspective of one respondent and should be interpreted accordingly.
Convergent validity: The six domains map to established psychosocial risk factors supported by published research. Domain 1 (Workload) correlates with emotional exhaustion literature (Maslach & Leiter, 2022). Domain 2 (Psychological Safety) correlates with Edmondson (1999, 2018). Domain 3 (Autonomy) correlates with Ryan & Deci's Self-Determination Theory (2000). Domain 4 (Recognition) aligns with reward-burnout research. Domain 5 (Fairness) aligns with organizational justice literature (Greenberg, 1990). Domain 6 (Values) aligns with moral distress research (Jameton, 1984; Rushton, 2018).
Complete all 30 questions to see your full results
Evidence Framework & Attribution
This assessment tool was developed by Sarah Scahill, RN (ExecRN Integrative Health Solutions) and is informed by the following publicly available frameworks:
Mental Health Commission of Canada. (2012). Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace: Prevention, Promotion, and Guidance to Staged Implementation. Ottawa: MHCC. · Samra, J., Gilbert, M., Shain, M., & Bilsker, D. (2012). Guarding Minds at Work: A Workplace Guide to Psychological Health and Safety. Vancouver: Centre for Applied Research in Mental Health and Addiction (CARMHA), Simon Fraser University. · Jameton, A. (1984). Nursing Practice: The Ethical Issues. Prentice-Hall. · Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. · Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. · Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 111–157.
Results are based on your responses across 6 domains. Each domain is scored out of 50. Your total score is out of 300. All scores reflect your honest assessment of your organization's current state.
Overall Psychosocial Health Score
—
—
—
Domain Breakdown
Based on your results — here's where to focus first.
Important: This tool provides a self-assessed organizational snapshot based on one respondent's perspective. It is not equivalent to a validated multi-rater workforce assessment and should not be used as the sole basis for major organizational decisions. For a comprehensive assessment — including validated instruments, stakeholder interviews, and a defensible written report — contact ExecRN at execrn.com. This tool does not constitute legal advice.