Some conditions at work you can manage without.
Some you can't.
Lumara names the ones you can't, in language you can use. Be first to build your profile when Lumara opens. And the occasional note worth reading until then.
Sign up for early access, launch updates, and nothing else. Read our privacy policy.
NOTES
The evidence behind the framework.
The thinking here is ours. The testing is against research anyone can look up. This page sets out what the framework is built on, the outcomes it is held against, and the sources behind specific claims across the site.
How we hold it to the research
THE BASE
The framework was designed first, then tested against 182 peer-reviewed studies, each mapped to one or more of the twenty elements. Of these, 180 report a significant finding, and 161 carry associations graded moderate-strong or higher. Each element earns its place only where the research ties it to a real outcome at work; the least-supported rests on 20 studies, the best-supported on 94. The tiers that group them were held to the same test.
Every source is graded by how strong the evidence is, from very strong down to contested. Where the evidence is firm we say so. Where it is thinner we hold it more lightly, and we flag the contested findings.
That calibration is the point. We are precise about how well each part is supported, and honest about where it is still open.
The outcomes we test against
ESTABLISHED MEASURES
Each element is held against outcomes the field already measures. None is invented for the purpose. These are the families of outcome the evidence draws on.
WELLBEING
Burnout and exhaustion, physical health, psychological health, recovery and detachment, overall wellbeing.
WORK ATTITUDES
Job satisfaction, organisational commitment, trust, engagement, flow, motivation, organisational identification, perceived support, role clarity, team cohesion, needs-supplies fit, pay satisfaction, job insecurity, professional identification.
RETENTION
Turnover intention, actual turnover, organisational commitment.
WITHDRAWAL AND ABSENCE
Withdrawal, absenteeism, counterproductive work behaviour, work-life balance.
PERFORMANCE
Task performance, creativity and innovation.
DISCRETIONARY BEHAVIOUR
Discretionary effort, organisational citizenship, voice, learning behaviour.
CAREER AND GROWTH
Career advancement, career satisfaction.
Needs and capabilities
TWO CLAIMS
Talent travels less well than we think.
Star performers who moved to a new firm saw their performance fall, and it often stayed down for years. Much of what had made them a star was supplied by where they were. Those who moved with their team held on to more of it.
Whether work meets what you need shapes whether you stay and do well.
Across decades of person–environment fit research, how well a job supplies what a person needs is tied to job satisfaction, commitment, and staying.
The hierarchy of work needs
FOUNDATIONS
The structure unifies four established literatures.
Each of the framework's four tiers draws on a body of research that stands on its own: threat and depletion, social identity and belonging, organisational justice and dignity, and self-determination and meaning. The contribution is bringing the four into one system, and the structure was held against all of them.
THREAT AND DEPLETION
SOCIAL IDENTITY AND BELONGING
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
ORGANISATIONAL JUSTICE AND DIGNITY
Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: tunneling through the maze. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 317–372). Wiley.
SELF-DETERMINATION AND MEANING
NOTES
The evidence behind the framework.
The thinking here is ours. The testing is against research anyone can look up. This page sets out what the framework is built on, the outcomes it is held against, and the sources behind specific claims across the site.
How we hold it to the research
THE BASE
The framework was designed first, then tested against 182 peer-reviewed studies, each mapped to one or more of the twenty elements. Of these, 180 report a significant finding, and 161 carry associations graded moderate-strong or higher. Each element earns its place only where the research ties it to a real outcome at work; the least-supported rests on 20 studies, the best-supported on 94. The tiers that group them were held to the same test.
Every source is graded by how strong the evidence is, from very strong down to contested. Where the evidence is firm we say so. Where it is thinner we hold it more lightly, and we flag the contested findings.
That calibration is the point. We are precise about how well each part is supported, and honest about where it is still open.
The outcomes we test against
ESTABLISHED MEASURES
Each element is held against outcomes the field already measures. None is invented for the purpose. These are the families of outcome the evidence draws on.
WELLBEING
Burnout and exhaustion, physical health, psychological health, recovery and detachment, overall wellbeing.
WORK ATTITUDES
Job satisfaction, organisational commitment, trust, engagement, flow, motivation, organisational identification, perceived support, role clarity, team cohesion, needs-supplies fit, pay satisfaction, job insecurity, professional identification.
RETENTION
Turnover intention, actual turnover, organisational commitment.
WITHDRAWAL AND ABSENCE
Withdrawal, absenteeism, counterproductive work behaviour, work-life balance.
PERFORMANCE
Task performance, creativity and innovation.
DISCRETIONARY BEHAVIOUR
Discretionary effort, organisational citizenship, voice, learning behaviour.
CAREER AND GROWTH
Career advancement, career satisfaction.
Needs and capabilities
TWO CLAIMS
Talent travels less well than we think.
Star performers who moved to a new firm saw their performance fall, and it often stayed down for years. Much of what had made them a star was supplied by where they were. Those who moved with their team held on to more of it.
Whether work meets what you need shapes whether you stay and do well.
Across decades of person–environment fit research, how well a job supplies what a person needs is tied to job satisfaction, commitment, and staying.
The hierarchy of work needs
FOUNDATIONS
The structure unifies four established literatures.
Each of the framework's four tiers draws on a body of research that stands on its own: threat and depletion, social identity and belonging, organisational justice and dignity, and self-determination and meaning. The contribution is bringing the four into one system, and the structure was held against all of them.
THREAT AND DEPLETION
SOCIAL IDENTITY AND BELONGING
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
ORGANISATIONAL JUSTICE AND DIGNITY
Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: tunneling through the maze. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 317–372). Wiley.