Researchers reviewing data
PROOF

See what engagement alone cannot.

Built on 140 peer-reviewed studies, the Thrive Index shows what’s sustainable, where people are depleted and what to address next.

Read the research → See the methodology
The evidence foundation

We turned established research into a practical measurement.

Construct validation
Thousands of adults
Statement-level psychometric testing on one harmonised Thrive Index.
Physiological pilot
18 months in-house
Development-stage work pairing Capacity Index responses with blood, wearable and recovery markers.
Literature base
140+ sources
Each of the 55 statements is mapped to published evidence.
What we claim today
Evidence-backed
The instrument measures what the literature already links to outcomes.
Engagement · looks back

How people felt.

Capacity · looks forward

What people can give.

Engagement onlyBothCapacity only
Both

The results are hard to ignore.

Unless a cell says otherwise, each figure compares the bottom decile of the Thrive Index with the top decile — validation study, n=10,000+, US and Europe.

Advocacy
29→99%
Would recommend their employer.
Near-total separation on an independently measured variable. Promoters climb 9% → 94% — a 155-point eNPS swing (−62 to +93), or 10× more promoters.
Burnout Resilience
15→98%
Not regularly overwhelmed.
6.8× more people are not regularly overwhelmed (15% → 98%). A separate energy measure — not running on empty — rises 17% → 79%, or 4.6×.
Performance
21→98%
Can regularly perform at their best.
4.6× more people can regularly perform at their best (21% → 98%) — the clearest link between the Index and output.
The index spread
48.9→90.9
Thrive Index, decile to decile.
A 42-point spread. Capacity moves 49.6 → 85.7 (+36) and Engagement 48.0 → 97.5 (+50).
Leadership cascade
67.7→79.4
Thrive rises with every manager layer.
By management layer, not decile: 67.7 for individual contributors, 73.7 for managers, 79.4 for managers of managers — monotonic across all three levels.
Leadership cascade · eNPS
−1→+63
A 64-point climb with seniority.
By management layer, not decile: −1 for individual contributors, +33 for managers, +63 for managers of managers — the same cascade, on advocacy.

Source: thrive at work validation study · bottom vs. top decile of the Thrive Index

Research & insights

The numbers, opened up.

Request the full library →
Analysis

The engagement–burnout paradox

Engagement scores keep rising while burnout rises with them. What the capacity data says is actually happening underneath.

8 min read→
 Benchmark report

Employee burnout statistics 2026

Where burnout risk concentrates by sector, seniority and market — and which capacity domains move first.

12 min read→
 Data brief

The cost of disengagement

Turnover, absence and lost throughput, priced against the decile spread in the Thrive Index.

6 min read→
 Method paper

How the Thrive Index is built

The eight domains, the statement selection, and how two indices resolve into one predictive score.

10 min read→
 Industry cut

Calibrated per sector

How the Index is calibrated across twelve sectors, with sub-sector groupings beneath each one.

5 min read→
 Tool

Cost of burnout calculator

Put your own headcount and turnover against the benchmark to size the opportunity.

2 min · interactive→
Scientific foundation

The scientists who define these fields.

Every statement maps to published research from named scientists working at the frontier of sleep, stress physiology, exercise science, attention, and the psychology of workplace demands. This is the shortlist — the full reference list runs to 140+ papers.

Sleep & Recovery
Matthew WalkerUC Berkeley
Center for Human Sleep Science
Russell FosterOxford
Sleep & Circadian Institute
Charles CzeislerHarvard Medical
Division of Sleep Medicine
Satchin PandaSalk Institute
Regulatory Biology
Stress & Resilience
Christina MaslachUC Berkeley
Burnout research lead
Elizabeth BlackburnUCSF
Nobel Laureate, telomere biology
Robert SapolskyStanford
Stress physiology
Bruce McEwenRockefeller
Allostatic load
Engagement & Culture
Amy EdmondsonHarvard Business School
Psychological safety
Adam GrantWharton
Organisational psychology
Teresa AmabileHarvard Business School
Progress principle
Daniel CableLondon Business School
Meaning & identity
Focus & Attention
Michael PosnerUniv. of Oregon
Attention networks
Adam GazzaleyUCSF
Neuroscape
Amishi JhaUniv. of Miami
Attention & working memory
Gloria MarkUC Irvine
Attention & interruption
Energy & Movement
Wendy SuzukiNYU
Exercise & the brain
Charles HillmanNortheastern
Activity & cognition
Daniel LiebermanHarvard
Evolutionary biology of exercise
Ulrik WisløffNTNU
Cardiorespiratory fitness
Growth & Motivation
Carol DweckStanford
Growth mindset
Angela DuckworthUniv. of Pennsylvania
Grit & perseverance
Richard RyanRochester
Self-determination theory
Edward DeciRochester
Intrinsic motivation
Common questions

The evidence, answered.

Is the Thrive Index evidence-based?
Yes. Every statement is derived from peer-reviewed research and maps back to a published instrument — nothing is invented for the survey. The result is an instrument built on established science, not opinion.
How do you know the questions actually work?
The instrument has been tested across multiple labour markets and validated against how people actually perform — then linked to objective physical markers of sleep, stress, recovery and energy. We only keep a question when it proves it measures something real.
Are capacity and engagement really distinct?
Yes. They measure genuinely different things — how people feel about their work versus what they can physically give to it. Capacity carries its own predictive signal for performance and retention that an engagement-only survey simply can't see.

Every figure on this page traces back to a paper or a dataset. Those sources, the cited data sets and the practical guides built on them are collected in our research and guides.

Ready to unlock your people’s
capacity to perform?

Start the change today.

Perform better.
Feel better.
Live better.
Book a demo