Skip to content
Human Advantage Insights

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.

Research by H.U.M.A.N. dimension

Recent reviews and older scholarly foundations. Day et al. (2021) is an editorial, not an intervention study. Each citation shows its editorial verification status.

These sources inform conceptual connections and practice design. None validates H.U.M.A.N., its instrument, scoring or outcomes. Older foundations are distinguished from recent reviews; a journal publication is not automatically evidence of an intervention's effectiveness.

Showing 1 of 10

  • Lee, A., Willis, S., & Tian, A. W. (2018). Empowering leadership: A meta‐analytic examination of incremental contribution, mediation, and moderation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(3), 306-325.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2220 (new tab)

    M · Review or meta-analysis · Earlier foundation · Verification pending

Research editor access

Assessment method

  • The current release has two pathways, one for people leaders and one for individual contributors and emerging leaders. Each has 25 behavioral items, 5 per dimension. Scores from the two pathways are never compared, 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

  1. Expert content review and construct mapping. Status: planned
  2. Cognitive interviews and accessibility and usability testing with people leaders and individual contributors. Status: planned
  3. Pilot data and item analysis. Status: planned
  4. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability where appropriate. Status: planned
  5. Convergent, discriminant and criterion-related validity studies. Status: planned
  6. Subgroup fairness and measurement-invariance assessment. Status: planned
  7. 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

Assessment 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. Optional AI features send only the text you separately approve for each request. Research Q&A never reads your assessment or lab work. Editorial citation records and approved explanations are stored separately, not participant data. See the privacy disclosures for each tool's storage choices and AI processing limits. No university or institution has approved or endorsed this tool.

The Change Leadership Lab keeps its industry survey signals and learning-design evidence on a separate research page, with what each source does and does not support.

Back to welcome

Research behind the practice

These are reasoned applications of research, not findings that these exact scenario mechanics improve outcomes. Neither this Lab nor H.U.M.A.N. has been empirically validated. No cited author, journal, university, Gallup or NYCPS endorsement is implied. No paid strengths instrument is required. Strengths do not replace clear expectations or attention to workload, bias, resources and organizational failures.

  • Vîrgă, D., Rusu, A., Pap, Z., Maricuțoiu, L., & Tisu, L. (2023). Effectiveness of strengths use interventions in organizations: A pre-registered meta-analysis of controlled trials. Applied Psychology, 72(4), 1653–1693.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12451 (opens in a new tab)

    Evidence: Twenty-one independent controlled trials found small average post-intervention improvements in workplace well-being and performance. Follow-up performance effects were not statistically significant. Online publication was in 2022; the final issue year is 2023.

    Practice application: Connect a demonstrated capability to a specific improvement task and review progress.

    Limit: Recent positive psychology foundation, not a test of this simulation or a guarantee of durable behavior change.

  • Breevaart, K., van Woerkom, M., Wang, J., & Planken, N. (2025). Strengths-based leadership: A critical review to guide future research. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 32(4), 429–448.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518251342658 (opens in a new tab)

    Evidence: A review of 39 empirical articles identifies variation in definitions and measurement and the need for stronger validation.

    Practice application: Define observable behaviors and keep interpretations developmental.

    Limit: Recent strengths-based leadership review, not a promise of performance gains or validation of this Lab.

  • van Woerkom, M., & Kroon, B. (2020). The effect of strengths-based performance appraisal on perceived supervisor support and the motivation to improve performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1883.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01883 (opens in a new tab)

    Evidence: Observational associations connect strengths-based appraisal, perceived supervisor support and motivation to improve.

    Practice application: Address a gap while recognizing a relevant demonstrated capability and practical support.

    Limit: Older directly relevant observational evidence, not recent experimental proof or evidence of causation.

  • Ren, Z., & Schaumberg, R. (2024). Disagreement gets mistaken for bad listening. Psychological Science, 35(5).

    https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976241239935 (opens in a new tab)

    Evidence: Across 11 studies, speakers perceived disagreeing listeners as worse listeners even when listening behaviors were held constant or manipulated.

    Practice application: Assess accurate understanding and responsiveness separately from agreement.

    Limit: Adjacent social and organizational research, not a positive psychology intervention. Counterpart satisfaction is not a success criterion.

  • 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.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206304271386 (opens in a new tab)

    Evidence: Foundational organizational behavior research conceptualizes social astuteness, interpersonal influence, networking ability and apparent sincerity.

    Practice application: Practice authentic communication, accurate representation, legitimate consultation and responsible power use.

    Limit: Not recent positive psychology research. This Lab does not reproduce or administer the inventory, its scoring or norms. Apparent sincerity is not instruction in feigning sincerity.

Ask about the research

Answers draw only on editor-verified sources and methodology notes. No assessment scoring, hiring recommendations or clinical advice.

Questions and replies stay in this tab and are not saved by this site. Asking sends your question to Lovable AI; provider service logs may apply. Do not include private assessment answers or identifying details.

An essential signed cookie enforces 3 questions per hour and 6 per day per visitor, with 40 requests daily and 2 simultaneous requests across the research tools. Only opaque quota metadata is stored, not questions.

Optional talk-to-text

Checking speech support…