Mental health has long been a priority of mine—many of you know this already. It’s what led to Duck Score.
For over five years, we’ve used Duck Score in meetings as a simple, verbal check-in to gauge the mood of the team. It helped us spot early signs of burnout, stress, or personal struggles that might be affecting performance. And it worked.
It wasn’t a big deal—just a number and a reason. Yet, it transformed the way teams communicated.
Then Something Weird Happened…
When we digitised Duck Score, we expected it to work even better. A tool that could track patterns, offer AI-driven insights, and help teams support each other at scale.
But suddenly, something that had felt natural in a meeting room became controversial in an enterprise setting.
🛑 People didn’t want to log their score. 🛑 They didn’t trust the system. 🛑 They worried about how their data would be used.
We tried explaining. Over and over. We reinforced privacy, clarified data policies, made everything optional—but nothing shifted.
It wasn’t a misunderstanding. It wasn’t about awareness. It was deeper.
The Real Issue? Trust.
So, we stopped guessing and started listening.
We invested in actual research, surveying over 500 employees across different industries and seniority levels. We ran qualitative interviews, asking professionals what it would take for them to genuinely engage with workplace mental health support.
The results were clear:
🔹 65% of employees said they’d only share mental health struggles with select trusted colleagues—not workplace tools. 🔹 Career fear is real—many worry their mental health data could be used against them in performance reviews. 🔹 Senior leaders aren’t immune—even those advocating for mental health struggle to disclose their own challenges.
Why We Had to Write This White Paper
If businesses are serious about mental health in the workplace, they can’t just offer support—they have to build systems that people trust enough to use.
That’s why we wrote The Trust Paradox—a practical playbook for organisations looking to bridge the gap between offering mental health support and actually making it work.
In it, we outline: ✅ Why traditional workplace mental health programs fail (even with good intentions). ✅ What employees actually need to feel safe using them. ✅ A new framework for trust-first mental health initiatives.
It’s not too long, not too boring—just clear, practical insights for leaders who want to get this right.
Trust isn’t built through policies. It’s built through actions, transparency, and respect. If employees don’t trust how their mental health data is handled, they won’t engage—no matter how good the initiative sounds.
This research has changed how we think about workplace mental health at Duck Score—and I hope it helps you too.
Organisations face a critical challenge: whilst investment in workplace mental health programmes continues to rise, mental health challenges now cost the UK economy £53-56 billion annually through absenteeism, presenteeism and staff turnover – a 25% increase since 2019. Employee Assistance Programs (EAP’s), which serve over 13 million people across 80,000 UK and Irish organisations, are often the cornerstone of workplace mental health support. However, our comprehensive study of over 500 professionals across the UK, US, and Europe reveals that only 18% of organisations are rated as having “Excellent” mental health support by their employees – highlighting a critical disconnect between provision and effectiveness. Research suggests those most in need of support are often the least likely to seek it, creating a concerning gap in mental health provision.
Our research shows that trust and privacy concerns manifest differently across organisational hierarchies:
Selective Disclosure: Approximately 65% of respondents would only share mental health challenges with select trusted colleagues or HR/wellness staff
Universal Privacy Requirements: Across all seniority levels, privacy control and career protection emerge as non-negotiable requirements
Role-Based Variations: Senior leaders show higher comfort with disclosure, but still emphasize the need for bounded sharing and privacy guarantees
With one in eight work days lost due to mental health-related absence, and rising presenteeism costing UK businesses significantly more, addressing trust barriers is both a moral and financial imperative. Our research reveals three critical trust enablers that organisations must address:
Granular Privacy Control: The ability to selectively share information emerged as the top requirement across all roles
Career Protection: Clear separation from performance reviews and professional development processes
Evidence of Impact: Employees need transparent demonstration of how shared information improves support systems
This white paper presents a new framework for building trust-first mental health initiatives that employees will actually use, based on insights from individuals across organisational hierarchies – from individual contributors to senior management. We provide actionable insights for leaders to transform their approach to workplace mental health support, moving from broad, one-size-fits-all programmes to trust-enabled systems that drive genuine engagement and measurable business impact.
The Current Landscape
Deloitte’s 2024 Mental Health Report reveals that nearly 30% of UK employees have either left their jobs or are planning to leave in the next year, with mental health concerns driving almost 40% of turnover costs. Despite substantial investments, current approaches are delivering diminishing returns, with presenteeism remaining the largest challenge and staff turnover rates climbing.
This organisational challenge exists against a backdrop of growing personal investment in mental wellbeing. Employees are increasingly taking proactive steps to manage their mental health, evidenced by the explosive growth of mental wellness and mindfulness apps. Platforms like Calm and Headspace now serve over 170 million users globally, with individuals willing to invest their own time and money in mental wellbeing tools. This personal commitment to mental health makes the organisational trust gap even more striking – while people are actively seeking support through private channels, they remain hesitant to engage with workplace mental health provisions.
The current approach to workplace mental health typically centres on service availability and basic utilisation metrics. While organisations track service access and satisfaction scores, this surface-level analysis misses crucial opportunities for deeper insights and proactive intervention. According to Deloitte’s research, proactive interventions consistently deliver better outcomes and higher returns on investment than reactive approaches.
Organisations that successfully collect trusted mental health data gain access to critical insights that extend far beyond individual wellbeing. These insights can inform change readiness assessments, helping leaders understand their teams’ capacity for transformation. For example, as organisations navigate the implementation of AI into current business processes, understanding employee resilience and adaptability becomes critical to success. Early warning signals about resource pressure points and team stress levels can help leaders time and pace such significant operational changes effectively. This data-driven approach to transformation is particularly crucial given that 82% of employees report experiencing work-related stress, with the majority citing the need for better support during periods of organisational change.
Understanding Trust Barriers
The challenge isn’t just about providing mental health support—it’s about creating an environment where employees feel safe accessing it. Traditional approaches to workplace mental health often fail to recognize how trust dynamics vary across different organisational levels and contexts.
Senior leaders, while often advocating for mental health support, face unique challenges around vulnerability and information control. Our data shows that while they may be more comfortable discussing mental health in principle, they are particularly conscious of how their disclosures might impact their leadership authority. Middle managers find themselves in an especially complex position, needing to both support their teams’ mental health while managing their own challenges. Individual contributors, meanwhile, express the strongest concerns about how mental health disclosures might affect their career trajectories.
The impact of these trust barriers extends beyond individual wellbeing to affect critical business decisions. Without reliable mental health data, organisations struggle to accurately assess team capacity for change, identify optimal timing for major initiatives, or predict potential burnout points.
The Broader Impact of Trust
While our focus is on mental health support, building trust architecture has far-reaching implications for organisational performance. Harvard Business Review research demonstrates that high-trust organisations achieve remarkable advantages over their peers, including 76% more engagement, 50% more productivity, and 40% less burnout. Trust becomes the foundation upon which high-performing teams are built, enabling more effective collaboration, increased innovation, and greater resilience during periods of change.
These benefits create a virtuous cycle – as teams experience the positive impact of trust in one area (such as mental health support), they become more likely to extend that trust to other aspects of work. Organisations that successfully build trust architecture for mental health support often find these same frameworks enable better change management, stronger team dynamics, and more effective leadership overall.
Building Trust Architecture
The path to effective mental health support requires organisations to fundamentally rethink how they build trust with their employees. Our research reveals three critical components that together create an environment where employees feel safe sharing mental health information:
Granular Control Systems
Traditional mental health support often forces employees into binary choices: share everything or nothing at all. Our research shows that employees need nuanced control over their information. This means:
Selective sharing capabilities that allow employees to choose specific trusted colleagues
Tiered privacy settings that enable gradual expansion of trust circles
Clear visibility of who has access to what information
The ability to adjust sharing permissions over time
Professional Safeguards
Career protection emerged as a non-negotiable requirement across all organisational levels. Effective trust architecture must include:
Clear separation between mental health support and performance management
Protected career pathways that demonstrate disclosure won’t impact progression
Transparent policies about how mental health data influences business decisions
Strong governance frameworks that protect employee interests
Evidence of Impact
Employees need to see tangible benefits from sharing their mental health information. This includes:
Anonymous aggregate insights that help organisations make better decisions
Clear examples of how shared information leads to positive changes
Regular feedback loops that demonstrate the value of participation
Measurable improvements in organisational support systems
Implementation Framework: Next Steps for Leaders
Building effective trust architecture requires a systematic approach that balances employee privacy with organisational insight. Our research identifies four key implementation phases:
Phase 1: Trust Assessment
Before implementing new systems, organisations must understand their current trust landscape:
Conduct anonymous trust surveys using validated metrics like the Leadership Trust Index (LTI)
Map existing informal support networks
Identify key barriers to mental health disclosure
Assess current data protection and privacy mechanisms
Benchmark current trust levels against industry standards
Phase 2: Technology Infrastructure
Select and implement technology solutions that enable:
Granular privacy controls that put employees in control
Anonymous aggregation of mental health data
Secure data storage and transmission
Integration with existing wellbeing initiatives
Seamless connection with daily workflow tools like Slack and Microsoft Teams
Single sign-on to reduce platform fatigue
Phase 3: Trust-Based Rollout
Implement changes gradually to build confidence:
Start with pilot groups who can champion the approach
Demonstrate privacy protections in action
Show clear examples of how aggregate data informs decisions
Build feedback loops for continuous improvement
Implement recognition programmes that reward participation with additional wellbeing days
Create positive feedback loops between engagement and rewards
Phase 4: Measuring Impact
Establish clear metrics for success:
Engagement rates with mental health support
Reduction in absenteeism and presenteeism
Employee trust scores
Business impact of data-informed decisions
Overall team performance improvements
Conclusion
The trust gap in workplace mental health support represents both a challenge and an opportunity. While organisations have demonstrated their commitment through increased investment, the path to effective support lies not in spending more, but in building better trust architecture. By implementing the framework outlined in this paper, organisations can create an environment where employees feel safe sharing mental health information, leading to better individual outcomes and stronger organisational performance.
The benefits extend far beyond mental health support alone. As organisations build trust architecture, they create the foundation for high-performing teams, better change management, and more resilient workplaces. In today’s rapidly evolving business environment, this trust-based approach isn’t just about supporting mental health—it’s about creating the conditions for sustainable organisational success.
How Duck Score Enables Trust Architecture
Traditional workplace mental health solutions often suffer from low engagement due to trust and privacy concerns. Duck Score is designed to bridge this gap by providing a safe, simple, and privacy-controlled way for employees to engage with their mental wellbeing without fear of career consequences.
Granular Privacy Controls
Employees can self-assess their mental wellbeing through a 1-5 scoring system, with optional private journaling
Control over sharing: Employees choose whether to keep scores private, share within a trusted nest (small support group), or contribute anonymously to organisational wellbeing trends
Separation from Performance Reviews
Duck Score operates independently from HR and performance evaluations
Employees engage voluntarily, without risk of managerial oversight or judgement
Evidence of Impact: Data-Driven Wellbeing Insights
Organisations receive aggregated, anonymised insights to understand trends without compromising individual privacy
Provides leading indicators of wellbeing, helping employers make proactive adjustments to workplace culture and support systems
Flexible Implementation for Any Workplace
Available as a standalone employee wellbeing tool or as an enterprise integration (e.g., Slack, Microsoft Teams)
Supports organisations in monitoring the effectiveness of mental health initiatives through real-time, ethical data tracking
By embedding trust into workplace mental health initiatives, Duck Score transforms how organisations support employee wellbeing—without compromising individual autonomy.
Appendices
Full Survey Results
The survey engaged over 500 professionals from diverse industries and organisational hierarchies. Key demographic details include representation across technology, healthcare, finance, and manufacturing sectors. Respondents ranged from individual contributors to C-suite executives, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of workplace mental health dynamics.
Methodology Details
Duck Score conducted an anonymised online survey between January 1 and January 15, 2025. The questionnaire consisted of both quantitative and qualitative sections, exploring attitudes, concerns, and preferences regarding workplace mental health support. Data was analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic coding to uncover trends and insights.
References
BBC News (2024). “Investigation into EAPs: how the industry has reacted.” BBC Radio 4, 15 March 2024.
Deloitte (2024). “Mental health and employers: The case for investment – pandemic and beyond.” Deloitte UK, March 2024.
Deloitte (2022). “Mental Health and Employers Report.” Deloitte UK.
Duck Score (2025). “Trust in the Workplace: Mental Health Support Survey.” Survey of 500 professionals across UK, US, and Europe, January 2025.
Forbes (2024). “Leadership Trust Index: Quantifying Trust in Organizations.” Forbes Business Review.
Harvard Business Review (2024). “The Impact of Trust on Organizational Performance: A Quantitative Analysis.”
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology (2024). “Predictors of Engagement in Workplace Mental Health Initiatives.”
McKinsey & Company (2024). “Psychological Safety as a Driver of Performance.”
Mind (2023). “Mental Health and Wellbeing Survey.”
MIT Sloan Management Review (2024). “Innovations in Employee Wellbeing Programs.”
REBA (2024). “Inside track: Is your EAP delivering for your workforce?”
World Health Organisation (2024). “Economic Impact of Workplace Mental Health Issues.”
About Duck Score
Duck Score is a newly emerging company dedicated to transforming workplace mental health through innovation and evidence-based solutions. Our mission is to empower businesses with tools and strategies that foster trust, privacy, and psychological safety.
As a small but dynamic team of experts—including technology industry veterans Emma Mulqueeny and Mark Dando, psychiatrists and neuroscientists, data scientists, graphic designers, and developers — we bring diverse perspectives and skills to solve this critical issue. Our app, already live, captures data, generates insights, and facilitates small trusted groups, providing organisations with actionable frameworks to enhance employee well-being.
With this white paper, we aim to collaborate with forward-thinking organisations in piloting our solutions and testing hypotheses that address the pressing trust gap in workplace mental health. Join us in shaping the future of workplace well-being.
Our recent workplace survey revealed a crucial insight: the gap between providing mental health support and creating an environment where people feel safe using it. While 84% of organisations have increased mental health resources, our data shows that creating genuine psychological safety requires a more nuanced approach.
The concept of psychological safety, first introduced by Harvard’s Amy Edmondson, describes an environment where people feel safe taking interpersonal risks. Our research suggests this is precisely what’s missing in many workplace mental health initiatives.
When we analysed responses across different organisational levels, three key elements emerged as essential for building genuine psychological safety:
Trust Architecture – Our data shows that 73% of employees prefer sharing mental health challenges within small, trusted groups rather than through traditional organisational channels. This mirrors findings from Google’s Project Aristotle, which identified psychological safety as the primary factor in high-performing teams.
Privacy By Design – The most striking finding was that 92% of respondents cited privacy control as crucial for engagement. This wasn’t just about confidentiality – it was about agency. As one senior manager noted: “The ability to control who sees what is non-negotiable.”
Data-Driven Support – Perhaps most intriguingly, 72% of respondents expressed interest in anonymous aggregate insights. This suggests a desire to understand personal experiences within a broader context while maintaining individual privacy.
These findings point toward a new framework for workplace mental health support:
Structured Trust Networks
Rather than broad, organisation-wide programmes, our data suggests creating infrastructure for small, trusted support circles. These should be employee-driven but organisationally supported.
Granular Privacy Controls
The future of workplace mental health tools must offer sophisticated privacy settings that give employees complete control over their information sharing.
Anonymous Intelligence
Organisations should leverage aggregate data to understand trends and patterns while maintaining individual privacy. This enables proactive support without compromising personal boundaries.
The implications are significant. When McKinsey studied psychological safety in 2024, they found organisations with high psychological safety scores were 76% more likely to see increased innovation and 67% more likely to retain top talent.
Our research suggests that building psychological safety isn’t just about having the right policies – it’s about creating the right infrastructure. This means developing frameworks that support intimate, trusted connections while maintaining professional boundaries.
As we look to the future, it’s clear that workplace mental health support must evolve beyond traditional wellness programmes. The organisations that succeed will be those that create environments where employees feel genuinely safe discussing mental health – not because they’re told to, but because they choose to.
What has your experience been with psychological safety at work? Have you seen examples of organisations successfully building trust through structure?
Our full findings and detailed recommendations will be available in our upcoming whitepaper: ‘The 2025 Workplace Mental Health Trust Report’.
Our recent workplace survey revealed something fascinating about mental health support: it’s not just about having resources available – it’s about having control over how they’re used.
When we analysed responses across different organisational levels, from individual contributors to executives, a clear pattern emerged. 92% of respondents cited ‘control over who sees the information’ as a crucial factor in their willingness to engage with mental health support. This wasn’t just a preference – it was a prerequisite.
What’s particularly interesting is how this desire for control manifests differently across organisational hierarchies. Senior leaders, while generally more open to discussing mental health, still emphasised the need for bounded sharing. As one executive put it: “Clear privacy guarantees and control over information flow are non-negotiable.”
The data reveals three key elements employees want from workplace mental health support:
Granular Privacy Control Our survey showed that even in organisations rated as having ‘excellent’ mental health support, employees want fine-grained control over their information. 76% expressed interest in tools that allow them to selectively share with trusted colleagues while maintaining privacy from broader management.
Trust-Based Networks The concept of ‘trusted circles’ emerged strongly in our data. While only 15% of respondents were comfortable discussing mental health broadly at work, 68% were open to sharing within small, trusted groups. This suggests a move away from organisation-wide programmes toward more intimate support structures.
Anonymous Insights A surprising finding was the strong interest in anonymous aggregate insights. 72% of respondents indicated they would engage more with mental health support if they could see anonymised patterns and trends across their organisation – suggesting a desire to understand their experiences in context without compromising privacy.
This presents a clear challenge for organisations: how to provide comprehensive mental health support while maintaining the level of privacy and control employees demand? Traditional top-down wellness programmes may need to evolve into more nuanced frameworks that enable trusted connections while preserving professional boundaries.
The implications are significant. When MIT Sloan Management Review studied successful mental health initiatives in 2024, they found that programmes emphasizing user control and privacy saw engagement rates three times higher than traditional approaches.
As we continue to analyse our data, one thing becomes clear: the future of workplace mental health support lies not in broader rollouts of existing programmes, but in reimagining how these programmes can work within employees’ trust and privacy requirements.
What control features would make you more likely to engage with workplace mental health support? Have you seen examples of organisations successfully balancing support with privacy?
Watch for the final part of this series tomorrow, where we’ll explore how organisations can build genuine psychological safety using a data-driven approach.
A fascinating paradox has emerged in workplace mental health support: as organisations invest more in mental health initiatives, employees remain deeply hesitant to engage with them. Our recent survey of workplace mental health attitudes reveals that even in companies rated as having ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ mental health support, 73% of respondents would only share mental health challenges with select trusted colleagues – or not at all.
This mirrors findings from the 2023 Mental Health and Wellbeing Survey by CIPD, which found that while 84% of UK employers have increased mental health support, only 49% of employees feel comfortable discussing mental health at work. The disconnect is stark.
Our data suggests the core issue isn’t the availability of support, but trust and control. Every senior leader in our survey cited ‘control over who sees the information’ as a crucial factor in their willingness to engage with workplace mental health initiatives. This aligns with discussions in BMC Public Health, highlighting that trust and perceived effectiveness are significant factors in employee engagement with mental health programs.
Perhaps most telling is the consistent concern about career impact. Across all seniority levels, from individual contributors to executives, respondents emphasised the need for mental health support to be ‘separate from performance reviews.’ One senior manager noted poignantly: ‘I know for a fact that all mental health issues discussed will be in the back of their mind when deciding on promotions.’
This creates a challenging dynamic: organisations aim to support mental health but may inadvertently foster environments where employees feel hesitant to utilize that support due to concerns about their professional standing.
The implications are significant. According to the 2024 NAMI Workplace Mental Health Poll, while 74% of full-time employees in the U.S. believe it’s appropriate to discuss mental health concerns at work, only 58% feel comfortable doing so.
This disconnect underscores the importance of not only providing mental health resources but also cultivating a workplace culture that encourages open dialogue and psychological safety.
Our data suggests a potential way forward. While respondents were hesitant about broad workplace disclosure, there was strong interest in systems that enable sharing within small, trusted groups. 68% of respondents indicated they would engage with mental health support if they had granular control over information sharing.
This points to an evolution in workplace mental health support: moving from broad, organisation-wide programmes to frameworks that enable intimate, trusted connections while maintaining professional boundaries.
As we continue analysing this data, one thing is clear: the future of workplace mental health support isn’t just about providing more resources – it’s about creating environments where people feel safe enough to use them.
What has been your experience with mental health support in the workplace? Have you observed similar patterns in your organisation?
The next article in this series will be published tomorrow: The Privacy-Support Balance: What Employees Really Want
Duck Score 