Who can message whom at 9pm. What counts as urgent. Whether disagreeing with your manager is safe. Where feedback belongs. Nobody writes these down — so people collide, and by the time it reaches HR it is already a formal complaint.
Anonymous by design · Department-level reporting only · No employee IDs stored
The couples assessment does not transfer. Workplace conflict has a power gradient, leaving is expensive, and you did not choose the other person. So the Workplace Edition asks different questions.
30 core questions, with follow-ups that open based on what people actually say.
How criticism should be delivered, response-time expectations, and what is off limits in a disagreement.
Where the workday ends, what qualifies as an emergency, and PTO expectations.
What happens at capacity, how priorities get set, and whether declining is allowed.
The route when two people cannot resolve it, and what has blocked escalation before.
The line between direct and disrespectful, and whether standards apply evenly to senior staff.
Camera expectations, who sets in-office days, and monitoring.
Whether good work is seen fairly, and how promotion criteria are communicated.
People only tell the truth about their manager if they are certain it cannot come back to them. Anonymity here is structural, not a policy promise — the data model has nowhere to put an identity even if someone wanted to look.
Reports have no participant reference at all. There is no column to join back to a person.
Department results stay withheld until at least five people respond, so answers cannot be inferred in a small team.
HR sees department totals and trends. Individual response sets are never exposed in the dashboard.
Reporters track progress and read HR's reply through a random code — no account, no login, no email.
Most organisations are through the first cycle inside two weeks.
Add your teams and headcounts. Each participant gets a single-use access code — no accounts to create, no directory sync.
About 15 minutes on a phone, anywhere. They can stop and resume. Nothing is attributed to them.
Department analytics show where friction concentrates, participation rates, and open reports by team.
The anonymous channel remains live after the assessment, so issues surface continuously rather than annually.
Per seat, billed once per assessment cycle. Anonymous reporting is included at every tier.
No, and neither can we. Reports are stored with no reference to a participant, so there is nothing to look up. If you need attributable reporting for a regulated process, this is the wrong tool and we will say so.
Its results are withheld. Any department with fewer than five responses shows as suppressed rather than reporting numbers that could be traced to individuals.
No. Each person gets a single access code. There is no signup, no password, and no directory integration to configure.
About 15 minutes. Progress saves as they go, so they can stop and come back on the same device.
No. It is a standing channel for conduct and boundary issues. Legally mandated whistleblowing programmes have requirements this does not attempt to meet.
Yes. Most organisations run a cycle every six months and compare against the previous one to see whether an intervention actually moved anything.
The cheapest conflict to resolve is the one still described as a misunderstanding.
Start a conversation →