The Leadingship Fieldbook

Humanistic Management-

The Leadingship approach in optimizing and releasing

the human potential at work

A Fieldbook in developing your local workplace and organization

Rune Kvist Olsen © 2012

The Fieldbook AgendaWhat this practitioner manual is all about

Sharing my:

Dream Purpose

VisionMission

- through conceptualization ofterminology and methodology

- with You All…

Do you know what this Equilibrium State of Mind is ?

Think about it !

Can you imagine when the Equilibrium of Mind

is reached ?

Think about it !

The Equilibrium State of Mindin this setting is achieved when:

1. All externalized and outer control, ruling and leading is transferred from outside the individual person to inside the human being- from the outside of us to the inside of us.

2. The individual person has adoptedand adapted the sense of authoritativepower and internalized this sense of

mindstep inside and within the emotional and mental body.

3. The awareness of the individualized internal power has grown to become an integrated

part of the indentity and personality, and has been established as an intrinsic

force of personal authority.

The narrative at this Momentum of Equilibrium

The individual human being is able to operate 100 % independent and function 100 % responsible

in the workplace.

The corporate consequence of this momentous stage caused by the

personal shift in the state of the human mind, is that external controlling mechanisms and systems in the organization can be

removed and replaced by the internal forceof power inside and within the

individual person.

And then the latent human potential can be fully released and applied in adding infinitive values at work.

Managing Beyond or Behind Frontiers

You are invited to explore, discover,encounter and experience the dimensions

between ”behind” and ”beyond” and find out whether you want to

stay behind or move beyond.

The moving beyond will provide you with insight to capture new and alternative

ways in managing work and people(risk-based approach).

The staying behind will at the present momentprotect you from the challenges and changes

that belongs to the future and in stead confirm your well known practices and beliefs

(evident–based approach).

Managing behind or beyondthe Frontier

Behind:

The old traditional, conventionalmanagement theory and practise

(evidencing the known and the safe).

Beyond:

The new alternative, progressivemanagement theory and practise

(risking the unknown and uncertain).

Managing behind or beyond the FrontierA Model

Behind Conventional and traditional approach

Present

Known

Predictable

The way we always have done the job

The old way is evident-based and still valid and sufficient

We know what we have, but we don´t know what we get

Beyond Progressive and alternative approach

Future

Unkown

Unpredictable

The new way is risk-based where exploring and experimenting with new potent resources is essential, and as such might become both vital as fatal

The old way is obsolete and not appliable in solving new challenges and will be replaced by a new set of mind

Moving beyond or staying behind.The Management Dilemma

1. Where are you going ? What are yougoing to do considering your present

and future prospects ?

2. Where is your organization going ?Staying behind within the bounderies

or moving beyond in front ?

3. What are the demands and requirements you and your organization are facing in making

and taking significant and substantial choicesconcerning future options and potentials ?

My credo - still intact as a confident value system of belief

Everyone can leadwhen the adequate conditions

(internal/inside and external/outside)are provided and supported

• Personal freedom • Mutual trust

• Individual independence • Personal responsibility

Methodology: Leadingship for Everyone

The credo of Leadership:Methodology for Someone

Someone above to leadand others below to be led

(based on imposed dependency)

As the author Jim Collins is stating(”And the walls came tumbling down”)

”Allow those with true leadership torise to positions of responsibility”

What is the understatement and the underlying meaning here ?

This previous statement indicate that ”those few” shall occupy positions of responsibility

while ”those many” ”freely” commit to follow in line. The walls are therefore still intact in spite of

the veil of delusion of change. The many are still dependent on the few in

attaining the privelege of taking responsibility independently and autonomously.

We have seen many attempts the last decades of disassociating and distancing one self from the

Leadership Stigma of fixed and rigid positions/ranks and the callous justice of control/command,

in shaping and making the message of Leadership more edible and digestible.

Is the polishing attempts of the term occuring because that the authoritarian traits and features of Leadership (for instance ”subjugation”and ”subordination”) are something that people in general and superiors in particular feel that they rather not should be associated and connected with ?

Independency

Independency (personal freedom) is a relationship established between

equal human beings where the respective individuals are

enabled with the power and force of personal authority.

The individuals are able to providecomplementary expertice and

supplementary capacity whenever people choose to cooperate in

sustaining the interpersonalconfidentiality of working

alone or together.

Independency

Social integration based on the value of the free will and the belief in the free choice

(in contrast to interpersonal segregation and separation based on the fear of social conflict and repulsion)

Dependency

Collaborative coordination when people are acknowledging that they are natural dependent

of each other in releasing collective options and fulfilling common purposes for their

own benefit and advantage

Deprivation of personal authority- cause and effect

Deprivation of personal responsibility and individual independency in the

relationship between those who rules and those who are ruled,

is leading to unnatural dependency and personal irresponsibility.

The repeatedly pattern of deprivationis avoidance and evasion of further,

of more, or of none responsibility at all, because of the

distrust and mistrust embedded in the nature of deprivative actions.

Independency and Dependency in Relationships

Your comments/reflections

Advantages Disadvantages

A culture of independencyand natural dependency

A culture of imposed and unnatural dependency

Leadingship is thereforeinversely proportional

to the exercise of powerby the few

Leadership ison the other hand

inversely proportionalto the exercise of power

by the many

Self-Leadership and Self-Managementis connected to the person in charge,

while Leadingship is connected tothe function of leading processes.

In other words Self-Leadership or Self-Management is for those few

in position to excercise power, compared to those many othersdependent on their superiors

in becoming empowered.

Behind Beyond

* Leadership * Leadingship

Someone above to lead and others below to be led Everyone lead themselves together with others

* Followership * Fellowship

The follower is subjected in following behind the leader (expected and used to stay behind)

The people are fellow human beings alongside each other (used to drive each other in moving ahead)

* Servantship * Commonship

The subordinate oblige and obey the superior The people unite together as independent partners in sharing services through mutual respect towards each other

Sustaining factors: • Control • Command • Subjugation • Subordination

Sustaining factors: • Personal independence • Individual responsibility • Freedom • Trust

`

The Leadingship ApproachA journey from the known into the unknown

• Exploring, discovering, encountering the ultimateboundaries in the field of managing work and people

• Experiencing the dynamic dimensions between “behind” and ”beyond” on the frontier of organizing and leading

• Challenging, confronting and questioning our perceptionsand preconceptions regarding our intrinsic disposition in keeping

to our existing beliefs, values, norms, practices and knowledge about organizing and leading work and people

• Eventually changing our mind set in moving out of the box and beyond our present state of mind

Confronting our existing beliefs and values

Consistence and inconsistence betweenthinking and acting – saying and doing

When we are thinking together, we can be moving

in a transitional landscape of mind (between behind and beyond).

When we are acting together we are usually in the habit of returning to our

familiar landscape (comfort zone) where conditions are set, fixed and well organized (within and behind).

Why the discrepancy between thinking and acting ?

How can we explain it ?

What is happening during the progression ?

How are your actions and thoughtscorresponding in general ?

What would you say happens if youractions and thoughts are colliding ?

Inconsistence ?

Feeling

Thought

Action

Consistence ?

You could do what you have meant to do and what your feelings have told you to do,

in a state where your mental power might be overrun by your emotional power in generating actions

(when your expressed thoughts would have been opposite and inconsistent with your ensuing actions).

Therefore your actions can be consistent with your feelings (meanings) in the actual matter, while the same actions can be inconsistent

with your expressed thoughts (you just did not do what you said you would do

because you did not meant to do it).

Your conscience being manifested as your Human Self and embedded deeply in

your feelings/emotions, is your intrinsic compass that tells you what to do if you listen carefully, closely, attentive

and vigilant to the spirited signalspenetrating your mind as intuition.

Acting according to your conscienceis an act of pure authentic presenceof independence and responsibility.

Acting against or across your conscience is an act of false pretention with the risk of compromising your true Human Self

- in serving opportunistic intentions,ambitions and agendas.

How can you best serve your own integrity, reliability,

credibility and accountability ?

To get your thoughts congruent and alligned with your actions,

you must unite your mental state of mind and

your emotional state of soul.

A unity of mind and soul is however dependent on your awareness and consciousness of

your Human Self and your ability to connectwith your inner flow of conscientious energy.

In that way you should be able to synchronize your thoughts and actions, and get what you say

and do unanimous and equivalent(reliable, creditable, accountable).

Some reflective questions:

1. Can you envision a workplace without superiors and subordinates where people no longer have power over

others by virtue of their positions and ranks ?

2. Why are people inclined to feel more responsible when they are taking responsibility themselves,

compared to people who are getting responsibility from others ?

3. Do you think your sense of responsibility and willingness to take responsibility will differ without

others are telling you what to do ?

Future adaptability of mind

Moving out of our present mental box of reality conception

could lead us on the way of changing our state of mind

in creating and enabling our future adaptability to reality.

Remaining inside our mental box will consolidate our existing

perceptions of reality and preventour adaption to a future reality.

Then we have chosen to renounce the inevitable reality of future and in

stead preserve and protect our current reality conceptions from change.

The pedagogical framework behind Leadingship

The main pedagogical design principle is:

Learning through contradictions and counterbalance in creating and shaping

learning dynamics through controversial and paradoxical phenomenon.

We know what is white through our knowledgeof black and contrary. Cold through warm.

Light through dark. Good through bad.Etc.

We notice the likeness and unlikeness of connected elements at the same time,

in understanding that the opposite elements are linked reciprocal together as a entire whole.

The learning paradox is that contradicting andcontrasting factors includes each other in a

mutual necessity and dependency.

The conventional orthodoxical conception of learning would be that opposite factors will

exclude each other because of their essence and nature as contradictions and in such way be incompatible in creating necessary consistence.

When we adapt learning as a matter of contradiction we will grasp and understand Leadingship subsequently

through our knowledge and experience of Leadership.

Demonstrating personal belief through exposing values in action

Learning through contradictionversus

teaching through consistence is the axis of polarization between forces that creates and generates

vitalized actions in pursuingtruth and truthfullness

(our belief system)

What your values are (integrity)

How you are valued (reliability)

Why your values are esteemed as such (accountability)

Learning is an internal process thattakes place inside the

individual human being.

Competence is the result of theadoption, adaption, application

and implementation of learning

through practice.

Teaching is an external process that takes place outside the

individual human being.

An external person as a teacher canhelp people to learn but can´t learn

anyone anything.

Competence is a result of personal learning

and therefore can´t be transferred from

one person to another.

Competence is applied learning

Transmitted competence is inconsistent as a pedagogical principle.

The thought that someone can learn others anything through lecturing, coaching, councelling, instruction,

supervision and trainingis an illusion and a deceit.

People have to learn by themselves through the individual and personal internal processing of experiences.

It is what you are doing with your learningthat is the main thing

and not the learning in it self.

System Process

Education

Teaching

Training

Grades

Learning

Knowledge

Experience

Competence

What you attain Who you become

Pedagogical parameters

System Change

The structure with positions/ranks, equals/peers is a consequence

and effect of the respective system in powering authority in an organization.

The consequences of a system is its symptoms and not its causes.

Eliminating symptoms of a system without removing the defects of the system

or the system it self, can in the best case postpone the effects of the system, but never solve the substantial

and underlying problems caused by the system.

Without dealing with the real causes, the system will sustain it self

and continue producing symptomsas a self-fulfilling prophecy of

confirmative predictions and anticipations.

Modernizing, modifying or improving the existing system through System Recovery Actions,

will not take away the latent and essential causes in how the system

operates and functions. This is because System Restoring Inventions is

problem(symptom)solving at the surface, and not profoundly treatment

of the underlying causes.

Your notion of change ?

1. Can you create and innovate something entirely new as beliefs, ideas, values, practises etc.

without changing the mere substance of the factual matter, for example a working condition ?

2. What are the main distinction between ”absolute change” respectively of

”relativ change” regarding theimpact of substantial adaptability ?

3. Name 3 criteria in accomplishing and achieving sustainable change in your organization ?

Changing the designation of the existing structurell components (position/rank – function/role)

will just be a superficial and a artificial maneuver in pretending a real change of the organization.

The terrain will still be the same.

For instance resigning, dismissing, sacking or firingpersons from their positions will not in any way changethe substantial condition connected to the mechanism

of structuring power and organizing authority.

The only way to create a real and substantial change in an organization, is by substituting and replacing the inherited patterns and mechanisms

with completely new ways of doing the job.

The system is the problem and not its people. People use and take advantage of what the system offers as long as the system

invite and encourage people to play along.

Research studies the last decades throughout the western world shows

some common features:

Ca. 20 % of the employees in working life are engaged, dedicated and committed to their tasks and the purpose of their organization.

Ca. 20 % are indifferent while ca. 60 % manage their ambivalence and ambiguity regarding their work performance.

Who are these 20 % truly motivated persons ?

In my own research on this specific topic I found that:

Ca. 90 % were leaders/managers (superiors)

Ca. 10 % were professionals, experts, specialists (self-managed persons)

The Potential of ChangeThe results from this reseach and other similarstudies during the last decades emphasize that

the potential options of constructive, progressiv and radical change in organizational life are vast and huge.

The procentage average score on the different variables are not the main point. The main concern

is that there are crucial and critical underlying notifications regarding working conditions and

working arrangements that should be encountered, addressed and resolved.

This is what change is all about in creating andestablishing a New Workplace Reality that isfounded on individual independence through

freedom and personal responsibility through trust.

Work satisfaction, demands and influenceEmpirical research studies about correlation and coherence between job

demands and employee influence on the state of work satisfaction, shows a systematically change in satisfaction when the deflection of the scale

indicators varies proportionally with rating intensity.

1. Work Engagement; High influence/participation and high demands/expectation.2. Indifference; High influence/participation and low demands/expectations.3. Exhaustion; High demands/expectations and low influence/participation4. Depression; Low demands/expectations and low influence/participation.

The Work Satisfaction Model

Influence/participation

Contribution/performance

Indifference Engagement

Depression Exhaustion

Real change is based on the energy andengagement within the individual human being.

People welcomes change and variation as long asthey are performing as active change partnersand not are being imposed change by others.

As someone once said: ”I don´t like being changed,but I like the option to change when it is up to me and us”

Empirical analysis displays in general that:

Imposed Change is met with resistance, reluctance, opposition, and resignation based on fear

and ignorence of the intention and purpose behind.

Chosen Change is empirically met with resilience, cooperation,engagement and contribution based on trust

and understanding of the need and necessity behind.

Reality Change Enablers

Similiar thinking is stated in following quote:

”We don´t resist change, but we resistbeing changed” (P. Senge)

We can translate this expression to our own context:

”We don´t resist management or leading,but we resist being managed and led.”

Why this innate resistence inside of us towardsoutside and external imposed auhority ?

Because subjugation and subordinationhumiliates our pride and sense of honour and

violates our true nature as human beings regarding our intrinsic desire and drive to

feel, think and act as sovereign individuals.

Hierarchical

Superior(leader/boss)

Subordinate(follower/servant)

Egalitarian

Co-ordinate(equal/fellow)

Co-ordinate(equal/fellow)

In this mental modelling we will be experimenting with two main forms of organizational structures. In making a mental shift between

the hierarchical and the egalitarian form, we will be sensing how our perceptions and preconceptions affects our belief system and our

adaptability to change our fixed current practises.

Mental modelling of organizational form

1. Place your thoughts within a hierarchicalbelief system and get the sense and the notion

of 100 % independence and responsibilityfor everyone at work.

A. What do you feel about your encounter with this notion regarding your own workplace ?

B. What do you think of this idea ? Could it be accomplished in practise within a hierarchical organizational form ? If so what would be demanded of processes, structures, attitudes and commitments ?

C. Based on this notion about individual independence and personal responsibility in connection with a hierarchical belief system, will everyone in the workplace be able to operate and function without being led from above ?

2. Place your thoughts within an egalitarianbelief system and get the sense and the notion

of 100% independence and responsibility for everyone at work.

A. What do you feel about your encounter with this notion regarding your own workplace ?

A. What do you think of this idea in regard to the practical implications within an egalitarian organizational form ? If the vision could be accomplished in real life, what would be required of necessary preconditions and precautions ?

A. Will everyone in the workplace be able to work independently, responsible and be leading one self within an egalitarian organizational context, if all the necessary conditions could be provided ?

In work life withpositions/ranks

- functions/roles

In privat life withpositions/ranks

- functions/roles

Vertically Horizontally

How are your relationships actually organized ?

Can each of you in your group make a sign in one of the columns where you feel connected ?

Verticalization and Horizontalization at Work

Leadership training/development

Limited to someone beingleaders and managers

Leadingship training/development

Open to everyone being responsible at work

Vertical power structure Horizontal power structure

Positions and ranks Competence

Outer/eksternal authority Inner/internal authority

Hierarchical organi-zational structure

Egalitarian organi-zational structure

Superiors and subordinates Co-ordinates

LeadershipSomeone above to lead

and others below to be led

LeadingshipEveryone lead one self

together with others

The Definition of Power in the workplace:

The authority to makeand take decisions at work

The process of decision-making is framed through the structuring of power by a formalization of organization and by

an authorization of personell.

Vertical powering Horizontal powering

• Position

• Rank

• Superior

• Subordinate

• Positional responsibility

• Competence

• Function

• Co-ordinate

• Equal/peer

• Personal responsibility

Powering at work - regarding the processing of

conversations in relationships

Vertically implied Horizontally implied

One-sided from above to below

Two-sidedside by side

Talkingto

Talkingwith

Monolog Dialog

Information Communication

Delegation Collaboration

Leadership Leadingship

Management Behind or Beyond the Frontier

Verticalization Horizontalization

TheFrontier

Behind Beyond

VerticalRelationship

HorizontalRelationship

PositionalResponsibility

(connected to position/rank)

PersonalResponsibility

(connected to work/competence)

Leadership To Leadingship

The Potential Change Perspectivefor the Future Organization

From Leadership training and development

for someonebased on their

positions and ranks(staying within and behind)

To Leadingship training and development

for everyonebased on their

person and competence(moving outside and beyond)

1. Point out one single learning objective that have made a substantial and significant impression and impact

on you during this event.

This learning objective is your commited willpowerthat will lead you to a decisive action in transforming

and converting this learning experience to competence in your own workplace.

2. Draw a short summery of this action in how you willproceed with the processing of this spesific piece of competence when you are back in daily working life.

Supportive resources:

1. Workshop Conceptual Exposition, ”Vertical Relationships versus Horizontal Relationships”, text posters, number 1. – 43., Rune Kvist Olsen, 2012

2. Paper ; ”Humanistic Management – Responsibility in the workplace”, Rune Kvist Olsen, 2012

3. Paper; ”Humanistic Management – Balanced Relationships in the workplace”, Rune Kvist Olsen, 2012