Methodology · Version 1.0 · 2026
Behind the Energy Leaks Framework
How the framework was developed, what the assessment measures, and what it does — and does not — tell you.
The idea
Where is the energy you already have going?
Most approaches to low energy focus on adding something: more sleep, more motivation, more discipline, more productivity, more recovery.
Energy Leaks starts with a different question.
The framework was developed as a practical way of examining four recurring areas that can place demands on our available energy: Sleep. Choices. Boundaries. Identity.
It is a practical self-reflection framework — not a medical or psychological diagnostic tool. Its purpose is simple:
Make invisible drains visible enough to act on.
How it was built
BUILT FROM EXPERIENCE. INFORMED BY EVIDENCE.
01
Two decades under pressure
More than twenty years of senior executive leadership, observing how performance holds — and quietly erodes — under sustained demand.
02
Endurance sport
Years of training, recovery, resilience and performance in endurance sport, where energy management is not a metaphor but a daily discipline.
03
Recurring patterns
The same four themes kept appearing across boardrooms and training blocks alike: recovery, cognitive load, competing demands and boundaries, and identity.
04
Four practical categories
Those observations were developed into four practical Energy Leak categories: Sleep, Choices, Boundaries and Identity.
05
A 20-question assessment
A self-reflection assessment — five questions per leak — designed to help people identify which area may currently deserve the most attention.
06
Real-world testing
Initial real-world testing and feedback, with the framework intended to continue evolving as more data and expert input become available.
The assessment is evidence-informed and built from experience — it is not scientifically, clinically or psychologically validated, and it is not diagnostic.
The four leaks
What each leak explores — and the research areas behind it.
Sleep
01What it explores
Recovery, restoration, sleep quality — and whether you are genuinely recovering from the demands being placed upon you.
Research context
Sleep is associated with cognitive performance, emotional regulation, recovery, attention and physical performance.
Choices
02What it explores
The amount of cognitive energy being spent on decisions, unnecessary complexity, competing priorities and mental load.
Research context
Connects to established research around cognitive load, attention, decision-making and mental fatigue.
Boundaries
03What it explores
Where commitments, expectations, availability and difficulty saying no may be consuming a disproportionate amount of energy.
Research context
Connects to research around workload, psychological detachment, recovery, role demands and boundaries.
Identity
04What it explores
The energy involved in maintaining roles, expectations, self-image — and the person you believe you are required to be.
Research context
Connects carefully to established work around self-concept, role identity, perfectionism and contingent self-worth.
An important distinction. Established research informs the concepts underlying the framework. The Energy Leaks Framework is Soul-Viva's practical synthesis of those ideas — the research below does not validate the framework itself.
How the assessment works
Twenty questions. Four scores. One action.
20 questions
About 3 minutes · free · no account needed
5 · 5 · 5 · 5
Five each for Sleep, Choices, Boundaries, Identity
Compare the four areas
Each leak is scored on the same scale
Identify your biggest current leak
The lowest-scoring area, right now
One practical action
Reset. Rebuild. Reclaim.
Each group of five questions explores behaviours, experiences and patterns associated with that Energy Leak. You answer each statement on a seven-point scale, from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7).
Every statement is positively worded — for example, “I wake up feeling genuinely rested most mornings.” The more strongly you agree, the healthier that area appears.
Your five answers in each category are summed into a score between 5 and 35, then expressed as a percentage so the four areas can be compared like for like.
Your primary leak is the category with the lowest relative score — the area where your answers suggest the most energy may be escaping right now. Your second-lowest category becomes the secondary leak; your two higher-scoring areas are treated as strengths to protect.
“Biggest leak” means exactly that: the lowest relative score produced by this self-reflection tool, based on your responses at that point in time.
It does not mean a diagnosis, a disorder, a medical or psychological condition, or a permanent personality characteristic. Scores are a snapshot — take the assessment again in a month and they may look different.
Clear on both sides
What this is. What this isn't.
What it is
- A practical self-reflection framework.
- A way of identifying possible drains on available energy.
- A structured starting point for reflection.
- A way of prioritising one area for action.
- A framework intended to evolve through use, feedback and further research.
What it isn't
- A medical diagnosis.
- A mental-health diagnosis.
- A substitute for professional healthcare.
- A validated psychometric instrument.
- A measure of someone's worth, capability or resilience.
If you are struggling with your physical or mental health, please speak to a qualified professional. The framework can sit alongside that support — it can never replace it.
The research behind the ideas
Established research informs each of the four leaks.
A deliberately concise selection of peer-reviewed research areas behind each concept. These references inform the framework's foundations — they do not validate the framework itself.
SleepView research referencesHide references
Van Dongen, H.P.A., Maislin, G., Mullington, J.M., & Dinges, D.F. (2003). The cumulative cost of additional wakefulness: dose-response effects on neurobehavioral functions and sleep physiology from chronic sleep restriction and total sleep deprivation. Sleep, 26(2), 117–126.
Chronic sleep restriction and cumulative cognitive cost.
Lim, J., & Dinges, D.F. (2010). A meta-analysis of the impact of short-term sleep deprivation on cognitive variables. Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 375–389.
Meta-analysis of sleep deprivation and cognition.
Irwin, M.R. (2015). Why sleep is important for health: a psychoneuroimmunology perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 143–172.
Sleep, recovery and health.
ChoicesView research referencesHide references
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.
Foundational work on cognitive load.
Leroy, S. (2009). Why is it so hard to do my work? The challenge of attention residue when switching between work tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2), 168–181.
Attention residue and the cost of switching.
Inzlicht, M., Schmeichel, B.J., & Macrae, C.N. (2014). Why self-control seems (but may not be) limited. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(3), 127–133.
Mental fatigue and self-control.
BoundariesView research referencesHide references
Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). The Recovery Experience Questionnaire: development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 204–221.
Recovery experiences and unwinding from work.
Bakker, A.B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands–Resources model: state of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.
Job demands, resources and strain.
Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2015). Recovery from job stress: the stressor–detachment model as an integrative framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(S1), S72–S103.
Psychological detachment and recovery.
IdentityView research referencesHide references
Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C.T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review, 108(3), 593–623.
When self-worth depends on performance domains.
Hewitt, P.L., & Flett, G.L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(3), 456–470.
Perfectionism and self-presentation.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
Self-determination, motivation and the self.
See it in practice
You don't need more energy. You need fewer leaks.
Energy Leaks Framework · Methodology Version 1.0 · 2026