Thanks for your comment, Philip.

It is hard for me to respond to your topics, because I think it may not lead to much. Why? You end your comment with the recommendation to the reader (and maybe myself): “Read Laloux. Read Wheatley”.
Which is fine. I read them. I know their work. It´s good stuff.
However, I also believe I understand the difference in scope & depth between their work and ours (which includes OrgPhysics, as outlined it in the article). If you do not find that difference important, or meaningful, or if you think that there is no advancement in OrgPhysics, compared with those otherpeople´s work, then be it so.
We do not have to agree.

What I find a little odd, though, in your response, is that you do not seem to appreciate that we are using the word “Influence” in a very specific manner, in OrgPhysics, and why.
Influence, in OrgPhysics, is the power held in Informal Structure. The other two powers we identify in OrgPhysics are called Hierarchy and Reputation. They are different in nature. And for good reason!
In your work and in your book (supposedly) you seem to give Influence a rather different, and, if I may say so, personal meaning.
Which is fine. We do not have to agree on the distinctions and meanings! Problem is: If we insist on different meanings of the same words, then dialog, or deep conversation, or learning from-each-other-with-each-other, become almost impossible. And I am not quite sure if you really learned something from OrgPhysics yet.

Which would be fine, of course, too.