Research & Methodology

Purpose and authorship

H.U.M.A.N. is Dr. Patrick D. Fagan's conceptual, practice-informed leadership-development framework, informed by his industrial-organizational psychology background and executive human resources experience. The framework itself is the author's original model. The research listed below informs its design; no journal article has evaluated H.U.M.A.N. itself.

Three kinds of sources are kept distinct on this page: peer-reviewed empirical research, the founder's doctoral dissertation, and the founder's original practice framework. About the Founder & Researcher

Five dimensions and theoretical connections

These are conceptual connections, not evidence that the instrument measures each construct.

H: Honor the Human Contract: Clarity, listening, accountability and an environment where people can raise concerns.; Related literatures: Organizational justice, trust and psychological safety.
U: Use Intelligence Wisely: Responsible use of information and technology, transparent judgment and human accountability. Using AI is not required.; Related literatures: Human judgment, decision quality and human oversight of AI-assisted decisions.
M: Mobilize Human Capability: Delegation, development, recognition of overlooked contributions and meaningful opportunities.; Related literatures: Social cognitive theory, self-efficacy, learning goal orientation and capability development.
A: Accelerate Leadership Readiness: Preparation for transitions, developmental practice, coaching and usable management routines.; Related literatures: Leadership development, feedback, self-regulated learning and preparation before promotion.
N: Navigate the Human Side of Change: Explanation, employee input, operational support and adjustment as change unfolds.; Related literatures: Organizational change, employee voice, uncertainty and psychological safety.

Assessment method

The current release has one pathway for people leaders: 25 behavioral items, 5 per dimension. A pathway for individual contributors and emerging leaders is in development. Results from different pathways should not be compared directly, because their items differ.
Items ask how often you demonstrated a behavior during the past 90 days. Rate what you actually did, not what you intended to do.
Self-report scale: 1 (Never or almost never), 2 (Rarely), 3 (Sometimes), 4 (Often), 5 (Consistently or almost always). "No opportunity to demonstrate" is a separate response and is never converted into a number.
Each item belongs to exactly one dimension. All items are weighted equally. There is no overall score.
A dimension mean is shown only when at least 4 of its 5 responses are numeric. Otherwise the result reads "not enough behavioral observations", which is not a sign of poor performance.
Suggested priorities are dimensions with a mean below 4, lowest first, at most two. This is a planning convention, not a cut score.
Optional notes, reflections, context and support answers are unscored.
The results chart shows each dimension mean on a fixed 1 to 5 axis with an equivalent text table. The plan builder offers reviewed action templates linked to specific items.
Versions: instrument 0.2, scoring 0.1, action library 0.2, product copy 0.2.

Promotion is not proof of leadership readiness. Preparation must begin before the title changes and continue as the responsibility grows. The plan builder supports three stages: preparing before promotion; transitioning after appointment or expanded scope; continuing development in an established role. The stage changes suggestions only, never scores.

An optional AI + EQ Transformation Reflection (Pilot) is being designed as a separate, exploratory module. It will be interpreted separately, never combined with H.U.M.A.N. scores, and is not an emotional intelligence test.

Interpretation and appropriate use

This is a developmental self-reflection tool, not a validated selection, promotion, succession, clinical, or employee-ranking assessment.

Self-report answers can be shaped by memory, mood and the wish to see oneself favorably.
Because every answer comes from the same person and method, relationships between dimensions may be inflated (common-method bias).
Opportunities to show a behavior depend on role, team and organization.
How often a behavior happens is not the same as how effective a leader is.
Compare results with feedback and observed behavior, gathered with the consent of the people involved.

Validation roadmap

Expert content review and construct mapping. Status: planned
Cognitive interviews and accessibility and usability testing with people leaders and individual contributors. Status: planned
Pilot data and item analysis. Status: planned
Internal consistency and test-retest reliability where appropriate. Status: planned
Convergent, discriminant and criterion-related validity studies. Status: planned
Subgroup fairness and measurement-invariance assessment. Status: planned
Periodic revision, version control and replication. Status: planned

Selected scholarly foundations

Peer-reviewed articles

Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386-400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79-122. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027
Sitzmann, T., & Ely, K. (2011). A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in work-related training and educational attainment: What we know and where we need to go. Psychological Bulletin, 137(3), 421-442. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022777

Books

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.

Founder's doctoral dissertation

Fagan, P. D. (2025). A qualitative study on challenges faced and strategies used by African American men in senior leadership [Doctoral dissertation, Capella University]. This qualitative study did not evaluate the H.U.M.A.N. diagnostic.

Bibliographic details are pending the founder's final review before publication.

Privacy

Answers stay in your browser tab's memory and are not stored by this site. You can download a progress file or report to your own device. The only exception is the optional AI draft, which sends your own notes only after you confirm each time. No university or institution has approved or endorsed this tool.

Back to welcome