What this is
What is a wellbeing survey?
What is a wellbeing survey?
A structured survey assessing psychosocial conditions at work, covering demands, control, support, relationships, role clarity, change management and related factors, used to identify where conditions are creating risk.
How does it differ from an engagement survey?
Engagement surveys measure how people feel about the organisation. A psychosocial survey assesses working conditions that create risk to health, which is a hazard question with a duty attached. The distinction matters because the second produces findings that require action rather than sentiment that can be noted.
Scope
When is a wellbeing survey required?
This surveys conditions. The actions and the individual support sit elsewhere.
Use this template when
- Assessing psychosocial working conditions across a site or organisation
- Establishing a baseline before an intervention and measuring after
- Identifying teams or units where conditions are concentrated
- Supporting psychosocial risk assessment with population data
- Tracking change over time where the instrument stays constant
Do not use it for
- Individual mental health support and referral, which is confidential and separate
- The psychosocial risk assessment, which this informs
- Engagement and satisfaction surveys, which measure a different thing
- Exit interviews and turnover analysis, which are separate signals
- Performance and capability processes
Compliance mapping
Which ISO 45003 requirements does this satisfy?
Psychosocial risk sits within occupational health and safety obligations, increasingly explicitly.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| ISO 45003 | Guidance on managing psychosocial risk, including hazard categories and control approaches | Results by theme |
| ISO 45001 cl.6.1.2 | Hazard identification including work organisation, social factors and leadership | Header |
| ISO 45001 cl.5.4 | Consultation and participation of workers, which a survey supports rather than replaces | Participation |
| ISO 45001 cl.8.1.2 | Hierarchy of controls, applied to psychosocial hazards as to physical ones | Follow through |
| Australian WHS Regulations | Psychosocial risk duties enforceable across jurisdictions, with control measures required | Follow through |
| HSE Management Standards | Demands, control, support, relationships, role and change as the assessment framework (GB) | Results by theme |
| ISO 45001 cl.9.1 | Monitoring and measurement of OH&S performance, including psychosocial indicators | Key findings |
| Privacy law | Survey data as personal data where identification is possible, restricting reporting granularity | Participation |
What it does not cover
- Individual support and referral, which is confidential and separate.
- The psychosocial risk assessment, which this informs.
- Engagement and satisfaction surveys, measuring a different construct.
- Exit interviews and turnover analysis, separate signals worth reading alongside.
- Performance and capability processes.
How to complete it
How to complete a wellbeing survey, step by step
Use a validated instrument, report at a level people recognise, and close the loop before acting.
Established frameworks assess the conditions known to create risk: demands, control, support, relationships, role clarity and change. Questions written in-house tend to drift toward how people feel about the organisation, which produces sentiment rather than a hazard finding and is much harder to act on.
Site-wide averages conceal the two teams where conditions are severe. Team-level reporting is actionable and risks identifying individuals in small groups. Setting a minimum group size, and combining small teams upward rather than suppressing them entirely, keeps both properties.
A twenty percent response rate in one department is data. In practice participation is usually lowest where conditions are worst, because people either lack time or do not believe the exercise is safe. Reporting participation alongside results prevents a favourable score from a small self-selected sample being read as good news.
Tell people what the results said and what will happen, including which items will not be addressed and why. An item raised and never mentioned again is read as refusal. Naming a constraint honestly costs less credibility than silence, and it is the difference between a survey people answer next time and one they do not.
What auditors find
Most common wellbeing survey findings
Survey findings concentrate on whether anything followed.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Survey run with no capacity or intention to act on the results. | ISO 45003 | It degrades future rounds and documents knowledge of problems left unaddressed. |
| In-house questions measuring sentiment rather than conditions. | HSE Management Standards | Use a validated instrument assessing the conditions that create risk. |
| Results reported only as a site-wide average. | ISO 45001 cl.9.1 | Averages conceal the units where conditions are concentrated. |
| Participation rate not reported alongside results. | ISO 45001 cl.5.4 | Low participation is a finding and usually clusters where conditions are worst. |
| No feedback to participants before action. | ISO 45001 cl.7.4 | Silence on a raised item is read as refusal. |
| Actions limited to individual resilience and support offerings. | ISO 45001 cl.8.1.2 | The hierarchy applies; support does not control a hazard that is in the work design. |
| Instrument changed between rounds, preventing comparison. | ISO 45001 cl.9.1 | Keep it constant or accept that trend data restarts. |
| Small team results reported in a way that identifies individuals. | Privacy law | Set a minimum group size and combine upward. |
| Findings not carried into the psychosocial risk assessment. | ISO 45003 | Survey results are population evidence for the assessment. |
| Managers of low-scoring teams given results without support. | ISO 45001 cl.5.1 | Results frequently reflect conditions above the team; treat as organisational. |
Case in point
Case in point: the second round nobody answered
An organisation ran a wellbeing survey with a response rate above seventy percent. The clearest finding was workload in two departments, described consistently and in detail in free-text responses.
Results were presented to leadership. Workload was acknowledged as a known consequence of a vacancy freeze, and no action was taken because none was available. Nothing further was communicated to staff.
The following year's survey achieved a response rate under thirty percent, and the free-text sections were largely empty. Several respondents used them to say that the previous survey had changed nothing.
The template
The template, field by field
The form exactly as it installs. Every field, option, score and conditional rule is editable, and the links to other templates come with it.
5 sections
- Reference
- HLT-022
- Archetype
- Assessment
- Record ID
- WBS-2026-000
- Scoring
- Wellbeing index
- Direction
- High is good
- Singleton
- No
- Basis
- ISO 45003
- Links
- Links Site
- Tags
- Wellbeing, Psychosocial
- Sections
- 5
- Fields
- 42
- Follow up fields
- 4
- Repeating sections
- 1
- Links out
- 2
Header
10 fieldsSurvey ID*
Auto sequence. Format WBS-2026-000.
The record's own ID. Other templates point at this value.
Status*
Drives who this goes to next.
- Planned2 pts
- In progress2 pts
- Complete3 pts
- Deferred0 pts
- Open0 pts
- Closed3 pts
- Overdue0 pts
Date and Time*
Completed By*
Site*
Site ID*
Format SITE-000.
Links to FDN-001 Site ID
Anonymous Or Useless
People will not answer honestly if they can be identified. Guarantee anonymity, publish the results, and act on them. Running a survey and doing nothing is worse than not asking.
Survey Period*
Anonymous*
Third Party Administered
- Yes3 pts
- No1 pt
Participation
6 fieldsInvited*
Responded*
Response Rate Percent*
All Shifts Represented*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Available In All Languages Used On Site*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Completed In Work Time*
Asking people to complete it unpaid at home suppresses response and signals what you think of it.
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Results by theme
Repeats6 fieldsTheme*
Workload, control, support, relationships, role clarity, change, fatigue or physical environment.
Score*
Benchmark
Versus Last Survey
- Improved3 pts
- Same2 pts
- Worse0 pts
Lowest Scoring Group
Priority For Action*
- High0 pts
- Medium1 pt
- Low3 pts
Key findings
6 fieldsLowest Scoring Theme*
Highest Scoring Theme
Overall Score*
Any Group Significantly Worse*
- No3 pts
- Yes0 pts
Group Identified
Free Text Themes
Often the most useful part. Summarise without quoting anything identifiable.
Follow through
14 fieldsResults Published To Workforce*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Published Within 30 Days*
- Yes3 pts
- Later1 pt
- No0 pts
Action Plan Agreed*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Actions From Last Survey Completed
The strongest predictor of next year's response rate.
Committee Consulted*
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Action Required*
Raise the action record, then enter its reference here.
- No2 pts
- Yes0 pts
Priority
- High0 pts
- Medium1 pt
- Low3 pts
CAPA ID
Format CAPA-2026-00000.
Links to FDN-014 CAPA ID
Action Owner
Next Survey Due*
HR*
Signature*
Site Manager*
Second Signature*
HLT-022 · record IDs look like WBS-2026-000 · Links Site
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
The survey measures conditions. What fails is a result nobody acted on and a second round nobody answered.
Runs a validated instrument with consistent wording between rounds, reports by theme and team above a minimum group size, and tracks participation.
Carries findings into the psychosocial risk assessment and tracks whether actions were taken before the next round runs.
Manages reporting granularity against privacy constraints, so team-level detail does not identify individuals.
Supports managers receiving low-scoring results, where the conditions frequently originate above the team rather than within it.
This template lives in KnowHealth — employee wellbeing. Exposure monitoring, health surveillance, case management and return to work.
Meet KnowHealth→Glossary
Wellbeing Survey definitions and key terms
- Psychosocial hazard
- An aspect of work design, organisation or management with potential to cause psychological or physical harm.
- Validated instrument
- A survey tool tested for reliability and validity, assessing conditions rather than sentiment.
- Management Standards
- The HSE framework covering demands, control, support, relationships, role and change.
- Minimum group size
- The threshold below which results are not reported separately, protecting anonymity.
- Participation rate
- Proportion responding, which is itself a finding and usually lowest where conditions are worst.
- Free-text response
- Open comments, which carry the specificity that scale scores lack and require careful handling.
- Closing the loop
- Reporting back what the results said and what will and will not be done, before action.
- Baseline
- The first measurement against which later rounds are compared, requiring the instrument to stay constant.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about wellbeing survey
Should we run a survey if we cannot act on the results?+
Generally no. A survey followed by no visible change demonstrates to people that describing problems achieves nothing, which reduces both honesty and participation in every subsequent round. It also documents that the organisation knew about conditions it did not address. Waiting until there is capacity to act is a more defensible position than gathering evidence and shelving it.
What should the survey measure?+
Conditions rather than sentiment. Established frameworks cover demands, control, support, relationships, role clarity and change management, which are the aspects of work design known to create psychosocial risk. Questions written in-house tend to drift toward how people feel about the organisation, which is harder to act on and does not constitute a hazard finding.
How granular should reporting be?+
Team level where group sizes permit, with a minimum threshold protecting anonymity and small teams combined upward rather than suppressed. Site-wide averages are safe and useless: they conceal the two units where conditions are severe, which are precisely the units the exercise exists to find.
What does low participation tell us?+
That something is wrong in the low-participating areas, usually. People do not respond because they lack time, because they do not believe it is confidential, or because they do not expect anything to change. Participation is typically lowest where conditions are worst, so a favourable score from a small sample should be read with that in mind.
What if we cannot fix what people raise?+
Say so. Report what the results said, explain which items will not be addressed and why, and describe what will be. An item raised and never mentioned again is read as refusal, and the reputational cost of that silence is considerably higher than the cost of naming a genuine constraint honestly.
Keep going
Related templates and programmes
Industries this is written for
Programmes this belongs to
Used together in Wellbeing and Mental Health
Psychosocial Risk Assessment
Assesses workplace factors that affect mental health, including demand, control, support and change
Workload Review
Reviews whether workload, hours and staffing are sustainable for a team
Wellbeing Program Plan
Sets out what wellbeing support is available and how people access it
Support Referral Record
Records that a worker was pointed towards support services, without recording why
Fitness for Duty Assessment
Assesses whether a worker is currently able to perform their role safely
Impairment Concern Record
Records a documented concern that a worker may be impaired and unable to work safely
More in Wellbeing
Psychosocial Risk Assessment
Assesses workplace factors that affect mental health, including demand, control, support and change
Workload Review
Reviews whether workload, hours and staffing are sustainable for a team
Wellbeing Program Plan
Sets out what wellbeing support is available and how people access it
Support Referral Record
Records that a worker was pointed towards support services, without recording why
Written and reviewed by
Siddarth Singh
Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Knowella
Certified Safety Professional and industrial and systems engineer with more than a decade inside food supply chain, freight and manufacturing operations. This page was written against the current text of the standards it cites, not against secondary summaries of them.
- Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Board of Certified Safety Professionals
- MBA, University of Chicago Booth School of Business
- MS and BS, The Ohio State University, Industrial and Systems Engineering
- Six Sigma Black Belt
Sources and last review. Reviewed 16 August 2026 against:
- ISO 45003:2021, occupational health and safety management, psychological health and safety at work
- HSE Management Standards for work-related stress (GB)
- ISO 45001:2018 clauses 6.1.2, 5.4 and 8.1.2
- Safe Work Australia model Code of Practice, managing psychosocial hazards at work
- ISO 45001:2018 clause 9.1, monitoring, measurement, analysis and performance evaluation
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.