In every laboratory, there are individuals who hold sway—not through formal titles or org chart positioning, but through trust, credibility, and proximity to daily work. Julia Means, lead general and occupational safety specialist at UC Davis, calls these individuals informal influencers. She argues these individuals can be a powerful force, along with formal leadership, in shaping a lab’s safety culture.
Presented during the 2025 Lab Manager Leadership Summit, Means’ session outlined practical tools and strategic insights for lab and safety managers seeking to improve decision-making and positively influence safety outcomes. Her central message: “…leadership has the power to influence through collaboration,” and one of the most overlooked opportunities lies in how we engage frontline influencers.
Get training in Risk Communication and Decision-making and earn CEUs.
One of over 25 IACET-accredited courses in the Academy.
Understanding formal and informal leadership
To drive meaningful safety improvements, lab managers must distinguish between formal and informal leadership roles. Formal leaders derive their authority from their positions within the organization. These individuals—such as department heads, lab supervisors, and directors—are typically removed from day-to-day tasks and are responsible for setting strategic direction and driving organizational goals. Their power comes from their place in the hierarchy, and they tend to focus on broader initiatives rather than bench-level operations.
By contrast, informal influencers are peer-level staff members who do not hold official leadership titles but are widely trusted by their colleagues. These individuals exert influence through interpersonal relationships, shared experience, and credibility built over time. They are embedded in the daily flow of lab work and are often the go-to resource for newer team members or those facing unfamiliar procedures.
Importantly, informal influencers reflect the culture and communication norms of the front lines—sometimes adopting, and other times resisting, top-down safety messages. Their attitudes and behaviors can either reinforce formal safety practices or quietly undermine them, depending on how they perceive and communicate the intentions of leadership.
Means emphasized that every organization has informal influencers, whether they’re formally acknowledged or not. Their impact is especially significant when there’s a communication gap between leadership and frontline staff, which can lead workers to rely on peers rather than policies to guide their safety decisions.
Why informal influencers matter in lab safety
Frontline lab workers spend most of their time focused on task-specific, procedure-driven work. Formal leaders often have a broader, more abstract view, sometimes managing several labs or facilities at once. That physical and experiential gap creates a reliance on informal influencers—peers who can explain procedures, reinforce behaviors, and answer day-to-day safety questions.
Because of their proximity, these influencers share firsthand experience with lab hazards, provide real-time, credible feedback, shape risk perception and hazard recognition, and serve as default mentors for new staff. If leadership doesn’t actively engage with these influencers, peer-to-peer influence—whether good or bad—will drive safety culture.
When influence works against lab safety
Means shared a case in which a frontline worker named Joe subtly shaped how his peers responded to new safety initiatives. Despite being labeled a “problem employee” by leadership, Joe’s colleagues mimicked his actions, looked to him for cues, and aligned with his resistance to change. “Joe had significant influence. Ignoring him wasn’t just ineffective—it undermined the entire safety effort,” she explained.
Informal influencers like Joe often form their perspectives based on past experiences with leadership. If those interactions were marked by poor communication or neglect, the result may be skepticism, disengagement, or resistance—even in the face of well-intentioned safety improvements.
Building safety culture by engaging peer influencers
Means emphasized that positive lab safety culture doesn’t arise from mandates—it grows through relationships. To help lab and safety managers engage informal influencers more effectively, she shared three foundational tools:
1. Hazard recognition training
Beyond compliance modules, hazard recognition training should explore why hazards are often missed—whether due to inexperience, habituation, or lack of awareness. It should also help workers and formal leaders understand the broader system-level causes of unsafe conditions. “We need to move away from blame-based safety thinking,” Means noted. “Most hazards trace back to system-level failures—not individual negligence.” Establishing a shared vocabulary around hazard recognition and causation builds mutual understanding between frontline staff and leadership and enables more productive conversations about risk.
2. Walks for understanding
Instead of performing traditional safety audits focused on compliance, Means encourages lab managers to conduct “walks for understanding.” These are collaborative opportunities to observe work firsthand, engage staff in open conversation, and understand real challenges. The goal is not to point out what’s wrong, but to learn how tasks are actually performed, uncover hidden friction points, and build trust with informal influencers. When leaders walk the lab with curiosity and transparency, it demonstrates a genuine commitment to safety and shared problem-solving.
3. Sphere of influence mapping
This strategic tool helps teams prioritize safety issues based on their ability to take action. By categorizing concerns into the following buckets, lab managers can focus efforts where they will have the greatest impact:
- Areas within the lab manager’s control
- Influence with authority
- Influence without authority
- No influence or control
Means recommends using this method collaboratively with both leadership and frontline staff, turning safety concerns into shared action plans. Transparency is essential; even if a concern falls outside the team’s control, communicating that clearly—and outlining a future strategy—helps preserve trust and encourages ongoing participation.
Final thoughts: Influence with intention
Every laboratory has informal influencers shaping how work gets done and how safety is perceived. Lab managers and safety leaders who recognize this dynamic—and engage those influencers with purpose—can dramatically shift their lab safety culture for the better. Rather than relying solely on top-down initiatives, fostering collaboration with frontline peers allows organizations to align expectations, elevate risk awareness, and ensure that safety practices are both understood and embraced.
By focusing on relationship-building, shared language, and intentional influence, lab leaders can create safer, more connected lab environments—one conversation at a time.
