Our proprietary Resilience Impact Index™ (RII) isn't a diagnostic tool or a clinical assessment. It's a performance capacity measurement framework that helps you see what you can't otherwise see.
It pinpoints exactly where coaching will have the biggest impact, distinguishes individual development needs from organisational problems, and tracks how capacity improves over time. When we overlay RII data with your business metrics, it proves ROI using your own numbers—not generic case studies.
In short: The RII tells you where you are, where to focus, and whether it's working.
We didn't invent new science. We reviewed 50+ peer-reviewed studies on workplace resilience, stress, and performance, then selected eight evidence-based dimensions that research consistently links to performance, retention, and wellbeing outcomes. These eight dimensions are backed by 24+ published papers demonstrating their impact on workplace success.
Here's what makes the RII different: The 4+4 structure measures resilience as partnership between what individuals bring (4 individual capacity dimensions) and what organisations provide (4 organisational context dimensions). This balance prevents resilience weaponisation—ensuring low scores point to where help is needed, not who's failing.
Below is the research backing each dimension, and why we chose these eight over everything else we could have measured.
The RII is built on the established JD-R framework, which conceptualises workplace functioning as balance between demands (stressors) and resources (supports).
This foundational model informs our 4+4 structure: individual capacity represents personal resources, whilst organisational context represents both demands (Stress Load) and resources (Priority Clarity, Workplace Satisfaction, Workplace Support).
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056
Bakker, A. B., & de Vries, J. D. (2021). Job demands–resources theory and self-regulation: New explanations and remedies for job burnout. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 34(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2020.1797695
World Health Organization & International Labour Organization. (2022). Mental health at work: Policy brief. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240057944
The WHO policy brief establishes that excessive workload is an organisational risk factor for mental health problems. Organisations have responsibility to design sustainable work—directly supporting our inclusion of Stress Load as an organisational dimension.
Gallup. (2025). State of the global workplace: 2025 report.
Applied organisational research demonstrating that employee engagement (which includes satisfaction) predicts business outcomes including profitability, productivity, customer ratings, retention, safety, and wellbeing.
The RII also tracks outcomes from leadership development coaching informed by DISC behavioural profiling, which builds self-awareness and communication effectiveness.
Howard, J. M. (2022). Leadership development and self-awareness: The impact of the DISC personality assessment on self-awareness in Ohio Division I Athletic Directors. [Doctoral dissertation, Adler University]. View dissertation here.
This doctoral dissertation discusses how DiSC creates three key outcomes: affirms existing self-perceptions (giving leaders language for patterns they'd observed), creates space for objectivity (allowing strategic reflection on behavioural patterns), and enables intentional practice (value comes from actively using insights, not just receiving results).
Adeyemi, D. (2025). The DISC model and top management's impact on strategic leadership and innovation. Social Science Research Network (SSRN). https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5686462
This quantitative study found that no single DISC profile predicts leadership success—effectiveness depends on context and team composition. It also showed that organisations benefit from integrating diverse DISC profiles where each style's strengths compensate for others' limitations.
Sugerman, J. (2009). Using the DiSC® model to improve communication effectiveness. Industrial and Commercial Training, 41(3), 141–147. https://doi.org/10.1108/00197850910950952
Here the authors showed that organisations using DISC report improved communication effectiveness and reduced interpersonal conflict when team members understand and apply these behavioural insights.
Jones, R. J., Woods, S. A., & Guillaume, Y. R. F. (2016). The effectiveness of workplace coaching: A meta-analysis of learning and performance outcomes from coaching. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89(2), 249–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12119
This analysis demonstrates that workplace coaching produces significant improvements in skills development, performance, and wellbeing. Leadership coaching interventions show particularly strong effects.
Theeboom, T., Beersma, B., & van Vianen, A. E. M. (2014). Does coaching work? A meta-analysis on the effects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an organizational context. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.837499
This second meta-analysis confirms coaching effectiveness across multiple outcomes including performance, goal attainment, and self-awareness—all dimensions measured within the RII framework.
These dimensions measure what people bring to workplace challenges—their personal capacity to navigate pressure, regulate emotions, stay motivated, and trust themselves.
This is not about blame or performance ratings. We're measuring current capacity to identify where coaching can help people build skills and resilience. Low scores simply show where someone would benefit from support—not where they're failing.
Crucially, individual capacity doesn't exist in a vacuum. When we see low scores here, we look at organisational context dimensions too. Sometimes low confidence or depleted energy reflects organisational problems (excessive workload, unclear direction, inadequate support) rather than individual deficits.
The 4+4 framework helps us distinguish "What does this person need to develop?" from "What does this organisation need to fix?"
The goal: equip individuals with skills to perform at their best, whilst identifying what they need from their workplace to sustain that performance.
What we measure: How well someone recovers from and stays steady under workplace pressure; as well as how individuals recuperate from work demands.
Why it matters: Stress coping capacity is central to resilience across all research. It distinguishes true resilience (recovering quickly) from mere endurance (grinding through). Recovery capacity—how well people recuperate from work demands—predicts long-term wellbeing and sustainable performance.
Conservation of Resources (COR) theory explains that resilience depends on resource recovery. People who recover resources (energy, composure, focus) bounce back; those who don't, burn out. Self-regulation capacity—the ability to manage one's own stress responses—is trainable and predicts burnout resistance.
This dimension is directly improvable through EFT stress regulation techniques. EFT is shown to positively affect physiological and psychological wellbeing, and is easily self-administered, making it an excellent tool for self-regulation. Strong stress coping capacity links to retention (burnout prevention), reduced absence rates, and sustainable high performance.
Research basis:
Almarzouki, A. F. (2024). Stress, working memory, and academic performance: a neuroscience perspective. Stress, 27(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/10253890.2024.2364333
Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). The recovery experience questionnaire: Development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 204–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.204
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualising stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
Bakker, A. B., & de Vries, J. D. (2021). Job demands–resources theory and self-regulation: New explanations and remedies for job burnout. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 34(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2020.1797695
Bach, D., Groesbeck, G., Stapleton, P., Sims, R., Blickheuser, K., & Church, D. (2019). Clinical EFT (Emotional Freedom Techniques) improves multiple physiological markers of health. Journal of Evidence-Based Integrative Medicine, 24, 2515690X18823691. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515690X18823691
Blacher, S. (2023). Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT): Tap to relieve stress and burnout. Journal of Interprofessional Education & Practice, 30, 100599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xjep.2023.100599
What we measure: Ability to stay composed, reset after triggers, and respond thoughtfully rather than reactively.
Why it matters: Emotional regulation is crucial for effective leadership, customer-facing roles, and team collaboration. Developing this skill helps reduce workplace conflict, enhances team dynamics, boosts customer satisfaction, and fosters a psychologically safe environment.
Emotional regulation refers to the processes by which people influence which emotions they have, when they have them, and how they experience and express them. This ability is distinct from personality traits—it reflects a capacity that can be strengthened rather than innate calmness.
In the workplace, strong emotional regulation helps employees maintain high performance under stress. Those with weaker regulation tend to experience declines in their work output when pressured. Coaching focused on building emotional regulation skills can prevent burnout and support sustainable high performance, aligning directly with Lumarrae's approach.
This dimension is directly improvable through EFT, which positively influences stress-related biochemistry. This in turn supports better emotional regulation and improved performance under pressure, making it a foundational skill for success in demanding work environments.
Research basis:
Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271
Hung, T.-K., Wang, C.-H., Tian, M., Lin, M., & Liu, W.-H. (2022). How to prevent stress in the workplace by emotional regulation? The relationship between compulsory citizen behaviour, job engagement, and job performance. SAGE Open, 12(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221105483
Grant, A. M. (2017). Solution-focused cognitive–behavioural coaching for sustainable high performance and circumventing stress, fatigue, and burnout. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 69(2), 98–111. https://doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000086
Stapleton, P., Crighton, G., Sabot, D., & O'Neill, H. M. (2020). Reexamining the effect of emotional freedom techniques on stress biochemistry: A randomised controlled trial. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 12(8), 869–877. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000563
Berna, D., & Inangil, D. (2021). The effect of Emotional Freedom Techniques on nurses' stress, anxiety, and burnout levels during the COVID-19 pandemic: A randomised controlled trial. EXPLORE, 17(2), 109–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2020.11.012
What we measure: Drive to engage with work, energy available for challenges, enthusiasm for tasks.
Why it matters: Motivation and energy predict initiative, discretionary effort, and quality of work. Crucially, energy depletion often shows before coping collapse, making this an early warning sign for burnout.
Self-Determination Theory shows that intrinsic motivation—driven by autonomy, competence, and relatedness—predicts sustained performance and wellbeing. Extrinsic motivation alone leads to burnout. Job resources like support, autonomy, and development opportunities foster work engagement and motivation, which buffer against demands and predict performance.
This dimension is improvable through addressing both individual factors (sense of purpose, autonomy) and organisational factors (workload, recognition). The chain effect is clear: self-efficacy drives motivation, which drives performance outcomes.
Low motivation is often blamed on individuals ("they're not engaged"). But research shows motivation depends heavily on organisational factors. If Motivation scores are low, check Stress Load, Priority Clarity, and Support scores before assuming individual problems.
Research basis:
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056
Cherian, J., & Jacob, J. (2013). Impact of self efficacy on motivation and performance of employees. International Journal of Business and Management, 8(14), 80–88. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v8n14p80
What we measure: Self-trust in professional capability, belief you can handle challenges that arise.
Why it matters: Confidence predicts whether people actually use their skills. Knowledge without confidence equals no action. It's not competence (what you can do) but confidence (belief you can do it) that drives behaviour.
Self-efficacy—belief in one's capacity to organise and execute actions required to manage situations—predicts performance across all domains. Meta-analysis of 114 studies shows self-efficacy has a strong positive relationship with work performance (weighted correlation 0.38). This is a substantial effect.
Confidence erodes under micromanagement, unclear expectations, and lack of support. It's improvable through coaching (which builds self-efficacy) and organisational factors (autonomy, recognition). Strong confidence links to leadership effectiveness, innovation (trying new approaches), and speaking up.
Critical positioning: Confidence erosion often signals organisational problems—micromanagement, unclear expectations, lack of recognition, insufficient support. If Confidence scores are low, investigate Priority Clarity and Workplace Support before assuming individual "imposter syndrome."
Research basis:
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240–261. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.240
Cherian, J., & Jacob, J. (2013). Impact of self efficacy on motivation and performance of employees. International Journal of Business and Management, 8(14), 80–88. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v8n14p80
These dimensions measure what the workplace provides—the conditions that enable or undermine individual capacity.
This is strategic insight for leadership, not a naming and shaming exercise. Low scores in these dimensions reveal where organisational systems, structures, or leadership practices need improvement. They're opportunities to strengthen the foundation that helps people perform at their best—not evidence of leadership failure.
Here's what makes this powerful: When we see low individual capacity scores alongside low organisational context scores, we can say with confidence: "Your people aren't the problem. The system is overwhelming them." This shifts the conversation from "How do we fix our employees?" to "How do we fix what we're asking them to work within?"
Conversely, when individual capacity is strong but organisational context is weak, we identify exactly where leadership investment will have the biggest impact. Should you reduce workload?
Improve communication clarity? Strengthen manager support? The data points the way.
This is about partnership. Resilience requires both what individuals bring AND what organisations provide. These four dimensions measure the organisational half of that equation—the part leadership controls and can improve through strategic action.
The goal: identify which organisational factors need strengthening so your people can translate their capacity into sustained high performance. This isn't about blame—it's about knowing where to invest for maximum impact.
What we measure: Demands placed by workload, deadlines, complexity, and systems.
Why it matters: Stress Load represents organisational responsibility for sustainable workload. It's the 1 reason people leave jobs according to WHO and Gallup research. Excessive workload links directly to burnout, absence, errors, turnover, and mental health problems.
The Job Demands-Resources model shows that job demands (workload, time pressure, complexity) deplete energy and predict burnout when not balanced by resources. Chronic high demands overwhelm even strong self-regulation capacity. Individual resilience cannot compensate for organisational overload indefinitely.
Research also shows that organisational dynamics like workplace politics create additional stress that impacts both job stress and performance. Toxic organisational environments place demands on employees beyond their actual work tasks.
Low Stress Load scores indicate an organisational problem, not an individual deficit. If Stress Load is low (high demands), the recommendation is to reduce workload, hire additional support, clarify priorities, and remove low-value tasks—NOT "teach employees resilience to cope with more."
This dimension prevents weaponisation. If organisations try to use RII to say "your employees scored low on stress management capacity—they need resilience training," we point to Stress Load and say: "Your employees are drowning because you're overworking them. Fix that first."
Research basis:
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands–resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
Bakker, A. B., & de Vries, J. D. (2021). Job demands–resources theory and self-regulation: New explanations and remedies for job burnout. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 34(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2020.1797695
World Health Organization & International Labour Organization. (2022). Mental health at work: Policy brief. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240057944
Khan, H., Abbas, J., Kumari, K., & Najam, H. (2024). Corporate level politics from managers and employees perspective and its impact on employees' job stress and job performance. Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences, 40(3), 516–532. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEAS-12-2021-0246
What we measure: Clear understanding of goals, priorities, expectations, and how work contributes to organisational success.
Why it matters: Priority Clarity represents organisational responsibility for clear communication and direction. Ambiguity wastes time, creates stress, undermines confidence, and leads to inefficiency, poor decision quality, and rework.
Goal-setting theory shows that specific, clear goals improve performance whilst ambiguous goals undermine motivation and performance. Lack of clear information about expectations, priorities, and evaluation criteria creates stress and undermines performance. Organisational change and complexity erode role clarity, which predicts stress and performance problems.
If priorities are constantly shifting, information is contradictory, and goals are unclear, thinking clearly becomes difficult. The problem isn't individual cognitive capacity—it's organisational chaos.
Low Priority Clarity scores indicate a leadership or communications problem, not individual confusion.
If Priority Clarity is low, the recommendation is to improve leadership communication, clarify strategy and priorities, align team goals, and reduce competing priorities—NOT "help individuals cope with ambiguity."
Research basis:
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organisations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2), 150–163. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391486
Verlinden, J., Blom, R., & Härenstam, A. (2023). Blurred lines: Exploring the impact of change complexity on role clarity in the public sector. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 43(3), 479–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X221093573
What we measure: Whether role, culture, and work feel meaningful, fulfilling, and aligned with values.
Why it matters: Workplace Satisfaction is the strongest predictor of retention according to Gallup research. It links to discretionary effort, quality, innovation, and advocacy.
The Job Characteristics Model shows that meaningful work (skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, feedback) predicts satisfaction, motivation, and performance. Job design is organisational responsibility. Groundbreaking research published in Management Science demonstrates that employee happiness CAUSES productivity improvements—not just correlation. A natural experiment showed a 13% productivity gain from happiness increase.
This dimension reflects both individual factors (person-role fit, values) and organisational factors (culture, role design). Low satisfaction might indicate wrong role for person (individual mismatch requiring coaching to explore fit), toxic or misaligned culture (organisational problem requiring leadership intervention), or poor role design (organisational problem requiring roles to be redesigned for meaning and autonomy).
Satisfaction is distinct from capacity. You can like your job (high satisfaction) but lack skills (low capacity), or be highly capable (strong capacity) despite dissatisfaction with certain conditions. Both matter, but they measure different things.
Research basis:
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7
Bellet, C. S., De Neve, J.-E., & Ward, G. (2024). Does employee happiness have an impact on productivity? Management Science, 70(3), 1656–1679. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.4766
Gallup. (2025). State of the global workplace: 2025 report. Gallup.
What we measure: Backing from managers, team, and organisation—feeling supported, resourced, and not alone.
Why it matters: Research consistently shows that people handle high demands IF supported. Support buffers against stress. Lack of support is a stronger predictor of burnout than workload alone.
Perceived Organizational Support theory shows that employees form beliefs about how much the organisation values their contribution and cares about their wellbeing. This predicts commitment, performance, and retention. Social support from colleagues, managers, and organisation is a key job resource that buffers against demands and fosters engagement.
Support is improvable through leadership development (manager support) and organisational culture (systemic support). Strong support links to retention, psychological safety, team cohesion, and performance under pressure.
Why support matters more than you'd think: High demands + high support = sustainable performance. High demands + low support = burnout. Support is the difference between pressure being fuel versus poison.
Low Workplace Support scores indicate an organisational/leadership problem, not individual isolation. If Support is low, the recommendation is to train managers in supportive leadership, improve resource allocation, build team cohesion practices, and create psychological safety—NOT "teach individuals to be more self-sufficient."
Research basis:
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056
We've selected these eight dimensions for tracking because they are:
We welcome research collaboration opportunities. The RII framework offers opportunities for:
Research enquiries: [email protected]
The Resilience Impact Index™ is proprietary intellectual property of Lumarrae Workplace Transformation.
© 2025 Lumarrae Group Ltd. All rights reserved.
Performance Coaching for High Pressure Environments
