Key Takeaways
The seven workplace mental-health KPIs worth tracking are absenteeism, presenteeism, EAP utilisation, employee engagement, team psychological safety, aggregate burnout indicators, and wellbeing-linked attrition, all measured at the organisational level, never the individual.
- Track all seven at the org level so HR gets a real signal without surveilling individuals.
- Scoring individual employees’ mental state requires clinical training and consent, and HR should not do it.
- Most teams track nothing beyond sick days or over-reach into individual scoring; the evidence supports the middle path.
In Detail
The Numbers Behind the Case for Measurement
Singapore’s own data tells this story locally, and the same underlying pressures, regional talent competition, hybrid and shift-based work, rising cost-of-living stress, are echoed across Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, and Vietnam, where iGROW’s own client base sits. The Ministry of Manpower’s Tripartite Advisory on Mental Health and Well-being at Workplaces cites a rise in poor mental health prevalence from 13.4% in 2020 to 17.0% in 2022. And the return on acting is well documented here too: a National Council of Social Service study found Singapore employers who implemented workplace adjustments for employees with mental health conditions saw an average $5.60 return for every $1 invested, alongside a 3.3% productivity improvement.
📥 Download the companion KPI Tracker (PDF) to start setting your own baselines.
Here are the seven KPIs worth building into your measurement framework.
1. Absenteeism Rate
The most basic and most under-used KPI. Track total sick leave days per employee per quarter, and watch the trend, not just the number. A rising trend across a team or department, even before individual cases become severe, is an early organisational signal worth investigating.
2. Presenteeism
Harder to measure than absenteeism, and more expensive. Deloitte’s UK research identifies presenteeism, employees working while unwell and performing below capacity, as the single largest cost driver in workplace mental health, ahead of absenteeism itself. Proxy measures include short, anonymous pulse surveys asking employees to self-report whether they’ve worked through illness or exhaustion in the past month, tracked in aggregate, never by name.
3. EAP Utilisation Rate
The percentage of eligible employees using your Employee Assistance Programme annually. Low utilisation usually means awareness or trust problems, not low need. MOM’s Tripartite Advisory specifically recommends offering EAP access and tracking effectiveness through administrative data like this. This is also the easiest KPI to act on directly: if utilisation is low, the fix is usually communication, not redesign.
4. Employee Engagement Score
Use a validated engagement survey, run consistently (same questions, same cadence) so you’re tracking trend, not noise. Given Gallup’s finding that disengagement is now a global cost measured in trillions, this is no longer a “nice to have” metric, it’s a leading indicator of both mental health and retention risk.
5. Team-Level Psychological Safety
Measured through anonymous, aggregated team surveys, never individual scoring. A team where people feel safe raising problems, admitting mistakes, and asking for help is measurably more resilient under pressure. This is an organisational climate metric, not a personality assessment.
6. Aggregate Burnout Indicators
Track organisational-level signals, exhaustion, cynicism, reduced sense of accomplishment, in aggregate across a team or department, never as an individual diagnosis. This distinction matters: burnout indicators tell you something about working conditions, not about any one person’s mental health status, and should never be used as if they were a clinical assessment.
7. Wellbeing-Linked Attrition
When exit interviews surface workload, burnout, or unsupported mental health as reasons for leaving, that’s a KPI, not just feedback. Track the proportion of departures citing these factors over time. It’s a lagging indicator, but a clear one, and it directly ties mental health investment to retention cost, the same link Deloitte’s ROI research is built on.
Putting This Into Practice
Knowing which KPIs matter is the start. Here is a practical way to begin measuring them without turning wellbeing into surveillance.
Key Questions Answered
What is the most important workplace mental health KPI for HR to start with?
If you’re only tracking one thing today, start with EAP utilisation rate. It’s the easiest to measure, the easiest to act on, and it tells you directly whether existing support is reaching the people who need it.
How is presenteeism different from absenteeism, and why does it matter more?
Absenteeism is time away from work. Presenteeism is being physically present but performing below capacity due to illness or exhaustion. Deloitte’s UK research found presenteeism to be the larger cost driver of the two, because it’s invisible on a timesheet but shows up in quality, errors, and decision-making.
What’s a good EAP utilisation rate to benchmark against?
There isn’t a single universal benchmark, utilisation varies heavily by industry, communication, and trust in confidentiality. The more useful exercise is tracking your own rate over time and after specific changes, such as a communication campaign or leadership endorsement, rather than chasing an external number.
Can workplace mental health KPIs be measured without invading employee privacy?
Yes, and they should be. Every KPI in this article is designed to be collected anonymously and reported in aggregate, never tied to an identifiable individual. Singapore’s Tripartite Advisory explicitly recommends this approach, using periodic surveys and administrative data as proxy indicators rather than individual monitoring.
How often should HR review these KPIs?
Quarterly is a reasonable starting cadence for most of these metrics, frequent enough to catch trends early, infrequent enough to avoid survey fatigue. Engagement and psychological safety surveys are often run less frequently (semi-annually or annually) since they require more employee time to complete meaningfully.
Sources
- World Health Organization, Mental Health at Work (2024)
- Gallup, State of the Global Workplace 2026
- Deloitte UK, Mental Health and Employers: Refreshing the Case for Investment (2026)
- Singapore Ministry of Manpower, Tripartite Advisory on Mental Health and Well-being at Workplaces (2023, updated 2024)
- National Council of Social Service (Singapore), Study on Employment of Persons with Mental Health Conditions (2017)