Research Deep Dive - Day 5 of The Quiet Power Playbook
The Quiet Power Playbook: For kind leaders who want promotions, not politics
By Martin Schweinsberg, Ph.D. | kindandquiet.com
The Person × Situation × Construal Framework
The Psychology of Everything can help you predict how stakeholders might think, feel, and act. Consider how these three elements might interact in these situations:
| Person | Situation | Construal | Likely Behavior | Strategic Response |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low agreeableness | Budget cuts threatened | "This is battle" | Direct challenge in meeting | Frame your proposal as "winning" against external competition |
| High exploration | New initiative proposed | "This is opportunity" | Asks many questions, delays decision | Provide multiple options, build in exploration time |
| Low balance | Team conflict | "This is personal" | Emotional response, may hold grudges | Focus on facts, give processing time |
| High agreeableness | Resource competition | "We should share" | Seeks compromise even when unnecessary | Show how your approach benefits the broader team |
| Low exploration | Process change | "If it ain't broke..." | Resistance, wants proof | Provide case studies, pilot programs |
| High balance | Crisis situation | "Let's analyze this" | Stays calm, may miss urgency | Provide data but emphasize time constraints |
The Multiplicative Effect
Research in social psychology demonstrates that Person × Situation interactions predict behavior better than either factor alone. Think of it this way: when a situation is 'strong', there is a sort of script of how you are meant to behave.
Take a salary negotiation where both parties kind of know how they and their counterpart are likely to behave. Or let's say there is a graduation ceremony: what people do is almost dictated by the situation they're in.
On the other hand, consider an unstructured meeting 'to discuss ideas'. Such open brainstorming sessions might play out very differently from time to time, because people are free to behave in different ways.
Strong situations minimize personality differences, while weak situations amplify personality differences.
Expanded Research: The Kim, Di Domenico & Connelly Meta-Analysis
Methodology Deep Dive
The 2019 meta-analysis examined 309 independent samples, so the total sample considered more than 30,000 participants across various contexts1:
Key methodological strengths:
- Included both workplace and personal assessments
- Controlled for relationship length and context
- Examined both self-other agreement and assumed similarity
- Meta-analytic techniques to estimate the overall effect (random-effects models with robust variance estimation)
Findings Beyond the Headlines
- The Acquaintanceship Effect: Accuracy plateaus after about 2 years of knowing someone, suggesting we form stable impressions relatively quickly.
- The Trait Visibility Hypothesis: We're most accurate about traits that can easily be seen (because they're reflected in observable behaviors): Extraversion and Agreeableness|
And we're less accurate about traits that we can not always see because they mostly reflect internal processes: Emotional stability/Balance
The Complete Three-Dimensional Framework
Agreeableness: The Collaboration-Competition Spectrum
Agreeableness is a fundamental dimension of interpersonal orientation.
Workplace Manifestations:
Low Agreeableness (Direct Challengers):
- Likely to view negotiations as zero-sum games
- Comfortable with confrontation (may even enjoy it)
- Value directness over diplomacy
- Respect those who push back
- Strategic advantage: Clear positions, quick decisions
- Strategic weakness: May alienate supporters, miss collaborative opportunities
High Agreeableness (Harmony Builders):
- See potential for mutual benefit in most situations
- Avoid confrontation even when beneficial
- Likely to prioritize relationships over substance
- Build strong coalitions over time
- Often underestimated in competitive environments
- Strategic advantage: Strong alliance networks, high trust
- Strategic weakness: May be seen as lacking conviction
Balance: The Emotional Regulation Dimension
Balance (also known as emotional stability, or as the opposite of 'neuroticism') influences stress responses, how comfortable you are making decisions under pressure, and other interpersonal dynamics.
Workplace Manifestations:
Low Balance (Emotionally Sensitive):
- Experience emotions intensely and frequently
- High emotional memory (remember how situations felt)
- Visible emotional expression (others know their state)
- Stronger stress response to workplace challenges
- Often highly empathetic and attuned to team dynamics
- Strategic advantage: Strong intuition, emotional intelligence
- Strategic weakness: May be perceived as volatile or unreliable
High Balance (Emotionally Steady):
- Maintain composure across situations
- Difficult to read (poker face advantage)
- Logic-driven decision making
- Lower stress response to workplace pressures
- May miss emotional undercurrents in team
- Strategic advantage: Perceived as reliable, rational
- Strategic weakness: May seem disconnected or uncaring
Exploration: The Openness-Practicality Continuum
Openness to Experience is indicative of innovation adoption, learning agility, and strategic thinking.
Workplace Manifestations:
Low Exploration (Practical Executors):
- Want proven methods and clear outcomes
- Frustrated by ambiguity and endless discussions
- Value efficiency and completion
- Focus on implementation over ideation
- Often excel in operational roles
- Strategic advantage: Gets things done, reliable execution
- Strategic weakness: May miss innovative opportunities
High Exploration (Possibility Thinkers):
- Energized by new ideas and approaches
- Comfortable with ambiguity and complexity
- Value understanding over speed
- Focus on possibilities over constraints
- Often gravitate to strategic or creative roles
- Strategic advantage: Innovative thinking, pattern recognition
- Strategic weakness: May overcomplicate or delay decisions
Advanced Interpretation Techniques
The Compensation Hypothesis
People might develop complementary skills to compensate for their natural tendencies:
- Low agreeableness individuals may develop exceptional diplomatic skills (learned behavior)
- High exploration individuals may create rigid systems to ensure execution
- Low balance individuals may develop strong emotional regulation strategies
Therefore: Don't assume behavior always reflects underlying personality. Look for patterns across multiple situations.
Cross-Trait Interactions
These three dimensions can interact in complex ways:
Agreeableness × Balance:
- Low both: Confrontational and emotional (explosive combination)
- Low agreeableness + High balance: Strategic challenger (powerful combination)
- High both: Supportive and stable (trusted advisor type)
- High agreeableness + Low balance: Easily hurt (needs careful handling)
Exploration × Agreeableness:
- High both: Collaborative innovator (ideal for transformation)
- Low both: Competitive executor (ideal for turnarounds)
- Mixed: Creates unique dynamics requiring careful navigation
Practical Integration Strategies
Building Your Influence Portfolio
Based on your assessment of key stakeholders, develop a portfolio approach:
- Identify Your Natural Allies: Those with similar profiles (easy connections)
- Map Your Complementary Partners: Opposite profiles (powerful but requiring work)
- Recognize Your Tension Points: Specific trait conflicts requiring strategic bridging
The Temporal Strategy
Different personality types respond to different temporal approaches:
- Low exploration: Present immediate actions and quick wins
- High exploration: Allow processing time, multiple meetings
- Low balance: Address when calm, avoid high-stress times
- High balance: Can handle difficult conversations anytime
- Low agreeableness: Get to the point quickly
- High agreeableness: Build relationship before request
Creating Your Strategic Communication Template
For each key stakeholder, document:
- Their likely profile (your assessment)
- Their typical construals (how they frame situations)
- Situational triggers (what contexts amplify their traits)
- Successful approach patterns (what has worked before)
- Failure patterns (what consistently doesn't work)
References
💡 Can’t access these papers? Here’s how to get them legally (often free), and here’s why it costs $40 in the first place.
- Kim, H., Di Domenico, S. I., & Connelly, B. S. (2019). Self–other agreement in personality reports: A meta-analytic comparison of self- and informant-report means. Psychological Science, 30(1), 129–138. DOI link
—
The Quiet Power Playbook: For kind leaders who want promotions, not politics
More at kindandquiet.com
Martin Schweinsberg, Ph.D. (ESMT Berlin)
1