THE INFLUENCE–SAFETY MAP
This tool combines two established areas of workplace research: how much informal influence someone feels they have, and how psychologically safe they feel speaking up. Here's what it draws on, and — just as importantly — what it doesn't claim.
The Safety half of this tool draws on Amy Edmondson's foundational definition of psychological safety — a shared or personal belief that it's safe to take interpersonal risks at work, such as admitting an error or asking a question that might make you look uninformed. Her original research studied this at the team level; this tool deliberately asks about it person by person instead, which is a related but different use of the idea, worth being clear about.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
The Influence half draws on two related, well-established research programs: one on "political skill" — a person's own sense of their ability to read people, build genuine relationships, and get things done outside the formal process — and one on how political people perceive their workplace to be in general.
Kacmar, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1991). Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale (POPS): Development and Construct Validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(1), 193–205.
Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., Douglas, C., & Frink, D. D. (2005). Development and Validation of the Political Skill Inventory. Journal of Management, 31(1), 126–152.
The four reflection prompts on the results page (why someone might land where they do) are grounded in established research, used here as reflection lenses rather than as new survey questions or diagnostic claims.
Research on power shows that when people with power feel threatened, they tend to become more defensive, controlling, and closed off — sometimes even toward people they previously supported.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, Approach, and Inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265–284.
Chris Argyris described how capable, well-intentioned people build habitual routines that protect them from feeling exposed or embarrassed — holding back information, avoiding hard conversations, going along instead of raising concerns — often without fully realizing they're doing it.
Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming Organizational Defenses: Facilitating Organizational Learning. Allyn and Bacon.
Self-determination theory holds that people have three basic psychological needs — to feel in control of their own work, to feel capable, and to feel connected to others. When those needs go unmet for a long time, people tend to either disengage quietly or keep trying without traction until they eventually give up.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
Research on leadership and gender shows that people from groups that don't fit the traditional image of a leader are often judged within a narrower range of acceptable behavior — read as "not leadership material" if too soft, or as "overstepping" if too assertive, for the same behavior that would be read differently in someone else.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice Toward Female Leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598.
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive Gender Stereotypes and Backlash Toward Agentic Women. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 743–762.