Some conditions at work you can manage without.
Some you can't.
Lumara names the conditions you can't manage without, in language you can use. Leave your email and you will hear what we add next, the occasional note worth reading in between, and more about your own profile once you have one.
Check your email.
Click the link we've sent to confirm your subscription.
Occasional notes. Nothing else. Read our privacy policy.
HOW WE BUILT THIS
Lumara was built slowly, and on purpose.
We set one standard before we began: include nothing we can't stand behind.
The framework sets out the needs that shape how well people work, the tiers they fall into, and how they weigh against one another. We held the tiers and the needs within them against established theory and 182 peer-reviewed studies, each read for what it confirms, what it adds, and where it should give us pause. Every needs earns its place only where the research ties it to a real outcome at work, whether people perform, stay engaged, or quietly start looking elsewhere. The conditions that did not clear that test were left out.
We grade the evidence by strength, from very strong down to contested. Where it is firm, we say so. Where it is thinner, we hold the claim more lightly, and we flag the contested findings instead of smoothing them. Of the 182 studies, 161 carry associations at moderate-strong or higher.
We measure each need by what its absence costs. Asking how much someone wants something invites a tidy answer. Asking what its loss would cost reaches the version they have felt. That choice runs through the whole instrument.
We match our confidence to the evidence.
So when Lumara names something, it is because the research supports it, and we can show you where. Where the research is quiet, we are quiet too.
This is what the method produces.
HOW WE BUILT THIS
Lumara was built slowly, and on purpose.
We set one standard before we began: include nothing we can't stand behind.
The framework sets out the needs that shape how well people work, the tiers they fall into, and how they weigh against one another. We held the tiers and the needs within them against established theory and 182 peer-reviewed studies, each read for what it confirms, what it adds, and where it should give us pause. Every needs earns its place only where the research ties it to a real outcome at work, whether people perform, stay engaged, or quietly start looking elsewhere. The conditions that did not clear that test were left out.
We grade the evidence by strength, from very strong down to contested. Where it is firm, we say so. Where it is thinner, we hold the claim more lightly, and we flag the contested findings instead of smoothing them. Of the 182 studies, 161 carry associations at moderate-strong or higher.
We measure each need by what its absence costs. Asking how much someone wants something invites a tidy answer. Asking what its loss would cost reaches the version they have felt. That choice runs through the whole instrument.
We match our confidence to the evidence.
So when Lumara names something, it is because the research supports it, and we can show you where. Where the research is quiet, we are quiet too.
This is what the method produces.
Some conditions at work you can manage without. Some you can't.
Lumara names the conditions you can't manage without, in language you can use. Leave your email and you will hear what we add next, the occasional note worth reading in between, and more about your own profile once you have one.
Check your email.
Click the link we've sent to confirm your subscription.
Occasional notes. Nothing else. Read our privacy policy.
Some conditions at work you can manage without. Some you can't.
Lumara names the conditions you can't manage without, in language you can use. Leave your email and you will hear what we add next, the occasional note worth reading in between, and more about your own profile once you have one.
Check your email.
Click the link we've sent to confirm your subscription.
Occasional notes. Nothing else. Read our privacy policy.