My post “The End of Leadership” was one of the most read posts on my blog ever. But i owe the spark and the essence for this post to Rune Kvist Olsen, who keeps fine-tuning the concept by sending regular comments to that post. Here is one of these comments
As individual human beings we must learn to practise our free will in taking and making personal choices, and practise responsibility towards our self and each other as trustworthy, dignified, reliable and accountable humans.
The post also triggers comments in Google+ communities like this one by Leland LeCuyer:
Leader-ship puts the emphasis on the person, in particular upon the role that person is playing. Thus the title and the office give an individual certain powers, prerogatives, and duties. Certain other individuals are subordinate to the leader and are expected to execute what the leader commands.
Leading-ship emphasizes the action that is taken. It requires initiative mixed with talent, skill, and commitment. Instead of issuing orders to be carried out, it draws upon the ability of the person who is leading to inspire, teach, and motivate others to join her or him in acting. Most important of all, it doesn’t require an office or a title, just talent, skill and a commitment to act.
The differences are night and day. Carpe diem!
For others to join her or him in acting. That ties in wonderful with my updated “about” where i suggest:
“I love connecting with the experts,
the musicians, and artists of all kinds,
to bring out the very best in them,
to love to work & live with them
to show personal intent and integrity,
so that others want to join our projects too.”
But nothing better than the master himself 😉 Just a couple of days ago, Rune sent me his February update, and asked me to share it with my community and followers. It’s wonderful and deeply enlightening. Highlights are by your humble servant. Enjoy!
+++ Start Rune’s February 2012 update +++
1. Understanding the conceptualization of “Leadingship”
The ultimate core in the vision of “Leadingship” is the principle of self-determination at work. Subsequent that the individual human being is self-deciding within a defined area and field of work based on her or his individual competence. This principle should be the natural and self-evident choice in designing organizations regarding managing and leading working processes. “Leadingship” is a substantial humanistic principle by design and is stating the value of “Leadingship for Everyone”.
The contracting principle to “Leadingship” is that someone is leading and deciding over others and someone is led and decided over by others. The superior authority in subjugating people to subordination is designed by position and rank (contrary to competence). The design principle of “Leadership” authorizing the superior person in charge, is depriving the persons below their innate sense of being personal responsible of one owns contribution and performance of work. The relationship between superior people and subordinate people is legitimating the design of someone above who is worthy trust and responsibility and others below that is unworthy the dignity as equals and peers in the workplace. “Leadership” is definitive an anti-humanistic principle by design and is stating the value of “Leadership for Someone”.
In sum the natural design principle at work is to grant competent people their human right of self-decision. Depriving people their right of self-determination, is to devaluate their competence as authorities within their personal field of expertise. And that choice is both unnatural and anti-human.
2. Understanding the incomprehensibility and unintelligibility of the unknown matter of reality, through our adapted perceptions of beliefs and values.
To become able of understanding and learning anything that comes to us as a matter of something unknown, strange, different and perhaps controversial in challenging our ingrained beliefs and truths, we are dependent of an ability and a will force to think the unthinkable in understanding the unbelievable substance of the unknown matter at hand.
Unless our capacity of transgression beyond our force and power of mind exist, we will surely be stuck with our old beliefs and truths surrounded by ignorance, prejudice and convictions – as protective shields against challenges perceived as threats to our known measures of reality.
The journey of mind from Leadership to Leadingship, is an example of such a provocative, controversial and challenging test for our ability and will to move beyond the unthinkable of the common reality of theory and practice in organizations to day.
3. The pedagogical core of Leadingship
- As individual human beings we must learn to become independent responsible human entities interacting with each other on mutual and equal ground.
- As individual human beings we must learn to practice our free will in taking and making personal choices, and practice responsibility towards our self and each other as trustworthy, dignified, reliable and accountable humans.
- As individual human beings we must learn to convert our learning’s to personal competence by practicing our independence and responsibility through the adaption and application of our learning’s in real life.
- Being independent and responsible human beings at work. When we have become truly independent and responsible individual human beings at work by taking care of our self and each other, we have gained the personal ability to practice Leadingship in the process of leading our self together with others based on our competence and enabled by mutual trust and personal freedom.
4. Fear based relationship powered by Leadership versus trust based relationship powered by Leadingship
A relationship based on fear (of rejection, exclusion, punishment etc.) and managed by control, command and domination over other people in the organization, is an expression of a deep and intrinsic personal need, urge and desire of being in charge as a superior person ranked above others as subordinates ranked below. By being in charge the person has gained the superiority and the enforcing power over others. The nature of Leadership is to lead others by deciding over them and by subjugating others to be led through obedience and loyalty. The notion of being subjected to others mercy, is in it self a source of the threatening emergency of fear.
A relationship based on trust (of appreciation, recognition, acknowledgement etc) and managed by personal freedom, mutual respect and social responsibility, is an innate expression of a devoted and compassionate engagement between people who are regarding themselves as equal, peers and partners in either working alone or together. The social mutuality is practiced through the respect and appreciation of each person as a worthy, competent and valuable contributor in the integration and coordination of work. The nature of Leadingship is to lead one self together with others in taking personal responsibility for decisions within one owns field of work based on the shared trust in performing independence and responsible actions.
+++ End Rune’s February 2012 update +++
It should make us think deeply what we do with our organizations and the people working in it, for it, or even better from it. The “organization” is not anymore a objective in itself, but rather a tool, a platform for moving the needle of progress in the world. As mentioned before in this blog, I strongly believe that “Organizations are becoming Movements for Greatness”.
The old model has failed and is obsolete.
But we keep on training our young potentials based on the old-style model. Like the overall financial system has failed and is obsolete by only taking value out of the system but never giving back. The old model showcases perseverance in repeating the same greed errors over and over again. The old model fails to see the deeper ecological values beyond transactional relations based on raw power and money. The old model has failed because the power of leaders is based on hierarchical position, title and entitlement.
The old model has failed, and a new generation of leaders is standing up, protesting against the end-less and clueless forms of (re)organizations where people are still considered by “leaders” as pieces on a chessboard that can be moved as resources that are owned in a slavery type of relation, a power by leaders exercised on “subordinates”. These organizations are becoming toxic environments, where people are getting mentally and even physically sick, because they are deprived of genuine sharing and leadingship oxygen.
These new empowered employees are making a big plea for a more humanized workplace and call for actionable movements for greatness and inspiration. For a place where they are no longer seen as cogs in a machine, doing mindless repetitive work, soon to be taken over by machines
Ross Dawson and John Hagel recently elaborated in “Our future depends on the humanization of work“:
However perhaps the most important perspective is that work must be humanized.
As Hagel eloquently described, the problems we face have largely arisen because of the dehumanization of work. As we have built processes and structures that have made people into cogs in machines, it has indeed made them eminently replaceable.
In fact one of the great promises of the increased mechanization of work is that in a way it it forces us to be more human.
We are continually being pushed into the territory that distinguishes us from machines: emotion, relationships, synthesis, abstraction, beauty, art, meaning, and more.
Part of this is in designing jobs that draw on our uniquely human skills, and for all of us to bring our humanity to bear in our work.
Yet the broader frame is an economic structure that has made work inhuman and readily replaced by machines. We need to fundamentally change the nature of organizations and how we work together to create value. The systems must be humanized in order to allow the work to be humanized.
That is our challenge, our task, indeed our imperative if we wish our collective future to be happy and prosperous. Let us work hard to humanize work.
There is a huge role for independent and inter-dependent leadingship grounded employees to virally change the system from deep within, sticking out their neck for this good cause and leading from the edge.
I look forward hearing your comments. Have an inspiring day!
Petervan Studios 
Yes, thank you. I like the edgy insights. If leadingship means I add my power and you determine direction, we are working with the elements of help. Which, if honest and sustained, builds trust. A necessary condition for performance in business.
I am always concerned that many in our social space are not aware that what they RT or Fav becomes part of their autobiography. Thinking of Oscar Wilde’s Portrait of Dorian Grey – and as Eric Hoffer says ” we can never over-estimate the impact that people we influence have to influence us.” Please, please protect your core. And if you blog, also keep a private pen journal. In the rigor, Jennifer
The consistency in interactions between personal conceptions of reality and the influence of personal power in the organization.
The general conceptual principle: We are envisaging the reality as we are our self, and not as the reality is in it self.
The particular conceptual principle: We are seeing the reality in our organization based on Who we are as persons and What we have as persons.
The organizational design principle: Our reality conceptions at work
varies and fluctuates with our specific and factual organizational circumstances.
1. The reality conceived from a Leadership point of view:
As superior persons appointed to leadership positions we see the reality from above and downward. We are envisaging the reality based on our position and rank as superiors and will understand, interpret, explain and defend our conceptions and perceptions of the reality context accordingly to his respective circumstance of power over subordinates below.
The superior person in a leadership position is given the power to determine and ascertain the correct version and view of the truth and the power to enforce the authorative description of the reality.
The subordinate person must accept and comply to the version
of the true reality conception established by the ruling order with
loyalty and obedience, with the purpose of sustaining one owns
job and work.
The reality conception powered by Leadership is based on What we are and have by the virtue of positions and ranks.
2. The reality conceived from a Leadingship point of view:
The power of Leadingship is based on the principle that everyone in the organization are entitled and authorized personal power within a respective field of work, and entrusted with individual freedom and personal responsibility in making autonomous decisions.
Everyone are relating as equals and peers and are envisaging their reality context from a similar point of view (neither upwards or downwards – but sidewards) from the same platform of
outlooking the organizational reality.
A shared reality conception between individual human beings occurs when individiduals are able to understand that other´s
conception of reality can be as real, true and valuable as their own
conceptions and perceptions. The common awareness that our
reality are composed of a myriad of different views, conceptions and opinions, are the dynamical cord that are linking and connecting us togther through our individual personalities in shaping our common identity as a working community.
The reality conception powered by Leadingship is based on Who we are as individual human beings based on our personal competence and capacity in doing our respective jobs.
Rune Kvist Olsen
1. The Truth powered by Leadership:
The Subjective and Superior Truth as a matter of an Objective Supremacy Fact. The superior leadership person sees and rules the truth, and the subordinate person is told and ruled by this commanding truth:
– If and when a superior person in a leadership position don´t like, disagrees and disputes a ctrical and contraversial resport from subordinates, the superior person will most likely terminate and close the matter, and file the case in the archive as invalid, unreliable and unaccountable. The subordinates will be labled as disobedient, disloyal, dishonest and not trustworthy.
2. The Truth powered by Leadingship:
Subjectivity is a personal matter as an individual expression of reality conception. Objectivity is a collective matter as a result of shared understanding amongst the people involved.
– When people have gained the personal force to operate and function independently and entrusted the liberty to take responsibility of actions as equals and peers, they have at that moment of concsious state of mind attained enough personal confidence and willforce to accept and trust the reality description of others without fear, rejection, condemnation, denounciation. damnation and contempt.
Rune Kvist Olsen
Mars 2013
Leadership by definition is your “leadingship”. There are really a misuse of this concept in people management. Leader aren’t a title or condition, it’s a state based on day-by-day actions focused on people. Do you really think that creating another term would change this scenario? I think it is a culture and misinformation problem. Great article to start this discussion and spread the truth.
The consequence of a polarized reality conception powered by Leadership versus a shared reality conception powered by Leadingship.
1. The Leadership reality conception directed downwards and upwards:
* Mastering hegemony by monopolizing the truth.
* Colliding calues and believes.
* Minimizing, diiscrediting and ridiculing alternative statements as rhetorical and semantical matters (depriving and renouncing confronting aspects their authority in being serious and real).
* Conflicting priorities.
* Contradicting truthfullness.
* Compromizing reliablity and credibility.
* Alianation by separation.
* Ruling by dividing, conquering and domination.
* Verticalization of relationships.
2. The Leadingship reality conception directed sidewards:
* Sharing by beneficial benevolence.
* Cmmunication by levelling.
* Collaboration by coordination.
* Corporation by complementation.
* Connecting by integration.
* Equalizing by reciprocality.
* Horizontalization of relationships.
The structure in organizing, managing and leading work and people are a consequetial reflector of the structuring of power as the premissive shaper of the reality design in the organization.
Rune Kvist Olsen
Mars 2013
The necessety and essentiality of substituting and replacing obsolescentic and anachronistic believes and dogma (f.ex: Leadership) with new and alternative options and solutions (f.ex: Leadingship) – which are not part of the illness and disease that inflicts and infects the mental health of the human mind in contemporary organizational life.
The excellent and brilliant statement of Buckminster Fuller says everything about the necessaty in creating alternative options (model,
concept, system, structure) when dealing with obsolecentic matters opposing and counteracting new future realities:
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the
existing model obsolete.”.
The power and force embedded in the concept of Leadingship enables us in moving beyond exsiting mental bounderies in reaching the emergent future of a new workplace reality, where everyone are relating equally and mutually on the same level of co-existence. At that point of evolution in the state of mind of the individual human being, we have released the chain of control and command from someone above to lead and others below to be led. This significant action have made the existing model of Leadership for Someone superfluous by compensating this obsolescentic dogma with a new model of Leadingship for Everyone.
Rune Kvist Olsen
Mars 2013
Notorious governing administrative mechanisms and ruling Leadership techniques in enforcing silencing, subjugation and subordination in the workplace – in relation to Leadingship practice.
The purpose of well known and famous governing machanisms administrered by the system and ruling leadership techniques applied by the superior (leader, boss, supervisor, controller, director etc.) person in charge, is quieting and silencing people against advocating personal, individual and collective concerns, anxieties and worries about their work, working conditions and working contracts. The intention of such subtile and often concealed leadership action, are enforcing, protecting and preserving the interest of the powerholding and the powerbase that ensures supreme priveleges and advantages for the people in charge in ledadership positions.
In practising Leadingship everyone must take responsibility and operate independently because there are none to command and control, and subsequently there is an absence of manipulative mechanisms and techniques of silencing people to muteness. One main purpose behind Leadingship is to take each other seriously and not dismiss contraversial, challenging and critical arguments as invalid.
There are some factial and actual factors (mechanisms/techniques) applied by superiors above in governing/ruling subordinates below by legitimate leadership strategies and tactics:
1. Dismantling the existing workplace setting.
2. Dispersing/dissolving the working group.
3. Exiling persons from the workplace (oiffice/station).
4. Removing access to working instruments.
5. Depriving of tasks and functions.
6. Redrawing authorization, sertification and security clearence.
7. Degradation/depromoting downwards.
8. Excluding/outlocking from job.
9. Expelling from department.
10.Relocation to another physical setting.
11.Discharging/firing from job.
12.Dismissing/teminating contract
13.Disgraced/dishonored professional reputation.
Revealing and exposing pretentions, intentions and reasons behind the monumentation and cementation of the Truth of Reputation by the correct version of history decription,, is the only option in establishing transperency and prevent future veiling of manipulated truth powered bby Leadership.
I will end this enigmatic lesson with a statement from some yers ago:
“The truth is only threatened by its own essence when revealed as a deception and falsehood in concealing the real and sincere intentions and reasons behind a manipulative action in preserving the status quo.”.
Rune Kvist Olsen
Mars 2013
Identifying and mapping the consequences of institutionalizing the correct version of the Truth by the legitimate and authorized act of either superiority or equality in the organization.
Evidencing the Truth of reality by Leadership versus Leadingship. Our conception of reality becomes our truth depending on how we are letting and accepting the reality being described and interpretated by someone keeping the power based on (leadership) position, or by everyone sharing the power based on experience and knowledge (leadingship competence).
The act of indentifying the common reality experienced by everyone individually in the organization, can be done by proposing relevant questions in revealing and exposing the real truth about powering, organizing, managing and leading work and people:
1. Can you envision a workplace where all people are powered with authority by their own abilities to operate and function independently and responsible?
2. Can you envision a workplace without superiors and subordinates where some people have power to dominate, control and command others in the act of subjugating them to subordination?
3. Can you envision a workplace reality where the power to make and take decisions is linked exclusively to personal competence (in contrast to position and rank)?
4. How are your present workplace powered, organized, managed and led?
5. What are the intentions and reasons behind the existing structuring of power in your organization?
6. What would you regard as the most important, crucial and vital assets and requirements in changing your workplace to a reality where everyone have equal access to personal freedom and individual responsibility?
7. How can you contribute in addressing issues at work that you need to resolve in creating a transparent and ethical social conscience amongst the people in your organization?
The strategic option in this organizational context is either staying behind by maintaining and conservering Leadership for Someone or moving beyond by initiating and implementing Leadingship for Everyone.
Rune Kvist Olsen
Mars 2013
Why Leadership versus Leadingship are interconnected opposite poles in a dynamical learning progression interfacing each other through reciprocal intedependency and mutual influenciality.
A key to a dualistic relationship between diamentrical contrasting opponents ichallenging each other by their opposing differencies and inequalities, lies in the insight, knowledge and experience of how the essence on one spesific entity is shaped and formed in the relation to its absolute contrast. For example to understand white we must understand black, god versus bad, nice versus evil, sharing versus keeping, cold versus warm etc. Our conceptions and preceptions are constructed by this code of symbiotic dualism. Subsequently the insight and understanding of Leadingship is found in the knowledge of Leadership. The simple pedagogical motto is therefore;”Knowing the one by knowing the other and visa versa”.
The paradigm of dualism unites separation and integration as two opposite aspects of the same matter, both contradicting and presupposing each other at the same time in a dynamic and progressive process of attraction and repulsion. The pedagogical flow are the initiating energy behind all human learning as a composition of mutual interaction and interference between distinctive reciporocal components. These influencing factors generates a synergical and symbiotical impact of unified consciousness by the momentum of learning.
In balancing and harmonizing a dualistical process between opposite poles that are contesting the essence and nature of each other contantly, we must establish counterbalance that are enabling the potential and options of alternative choices granting us the freedom to choose. In choosing and selecting one spesific option, we must at the same time be aware of alternative options. Alternative options gives of the freedom of choice, while absence of alternative options will be forcing us to submit to the only given solution at hand. The lack of options is the opposite of freedom of choice. In balancing and harmonizing our choice in organizing, managing and leading work and people, the option of Leadingship contra Leadership is significant and essential in sustaing the free will and the freedom of choice. Subsequently the counterbalance of interconnected opposite poles in a learning perspective, is substantial in generating “learning of the one” by the “learning of the other” and visa versa.
We learn our self in relation to others by questioning What, Why and How we our self can perform, accomplish, achieve and pursue our intentions and purposes. We are not truly learning by letting others tell us what to do. Learning from others are just reproduction and copying old learnings. Others can help us to learn, but the learning is ours to do within our self. Learning is a personal process done inside the human embodiment. By internalizing and processing all types of inputs from outside and inside, we will be moulding our impressions to distinct emotions and thoughts that can transpire to learnings that enables spesific actions. By converting the learnings to actions, we are creating competence as we are testing our theories into prectical operations for our self and others.
Competence is a individual and personal matter that never can be conveyed and transferred to other people, because of the nature of the process as a personal matter inside the idividual person. Everyone must do their job and learn by themselves from birth to death. However we can share and exchange our knowledge and experiences so that others can internalize and process their own impressions, and later can convert their thoughts into competent expressive actions.
Learning as a dualistic matter is all about learning and understanding One Self through the relationship to others in true and affectionate mutuality of susceptibility and receptivity. In this way we learn by challenging and questioning the truth conveyed by others, and instead be searching for our own personal truth in becoming authentic individuals.
Rune Kvist Olsen
Mars 2013
Why Leadership versus Leadingship are interconnected opposite poles in a dynamical learning progression interfacing each other through reciprocal interdependency and mutual influenciality.
A key to a dualistic relationship between diametrical contrasting opponents is challenging each other by their opposing differences and inequalities, lies in the insight, knowledge and experience of how the essence on one specific entity is shaped and formed in the relation to its absolute contrast. For example to understand white we must understand black, god versus bad, nice versus evil, sharing versus keeping, cold versus warm etc. Our conceptions and perceptions are constructed by this code of symbiotic dualism. Subsequently the insight and understanding of Leadingship is found in the knowledge of Leadership. The simple pedagogical motto is therefore;” Knowing the one by knowing the other and visa versa”.
The paradigm of dualism unites separation and integration as two opposite aspects of the same matter, both contradicting and presupposing each other at the same time in a dynamic and progressive process of attraction and repulsion. The pedagogical flow are the initiating energy behind all human learning as a composition of mutual interaction and interference between distinctive reciprocal components. These influencing factors generates a synergical and symbiotical impact of unified consciousness by the momentum of learning.
In balancing and harmonizing a dualistically process between opposite poles that are contesting the essence and nature of each other constantly, we must establish counterbalance that are enabling the potential and options of alternative choices granting us the freedom to choose. In choosing and selecting one spesific option, we must at the same time be aware of alternative options. Alternative options gives of the freedom of choice, while absence of alternative options will be forcing us to submit to the only given solution at hand. The lack of options is the opposite of freedom of choice. In balancing and harmonizing our choice in organizing, managing and leading work and people, the option of Leadingship contra Leadership is significant and essential in sustaining the free will and the freedom of choice. Subsequently the counterbalance of interconnected opposite poles in a learning perspective, is substantial in generating “learning of the one” by the “learning of the other” and visa versa.
We learn our self in relation to others by questioning What, Why and How we our self can perform, accomplish, achieve and pursue our intentions and purposes. We are not truly learning by letting others tell us what to do. Learning from others are just reproduction and copying old learning’s. Others can help us to learn, but the learning is ours to do within our self. Learning is a personal process done inside the human embodiment. By internalizing and processing all types of inputs from outside and inside, we will be molding our impressions to distinct emotions and thoughts that can transpire to learning’s that enables specific actions. By converting the learning’s to actions, we are creating competence as we are testing our theories into practical operations for our self and others.
Competence is a individual and personal matter that never can be conveyed and transferred to other people, because of the nature of the process as a personal matter inside the individual person. Everyone must do their job and learn by themselves from birth to death. However we can share and exchange our knowledge and experiences so that others can internalize and process their own impressions, and later can convert their thoughts into competent expressive actions.
Learning as a dualistic matter is all about learning and understanding One Self through the relationship to others in true and affectionate mutuality of susceptibility and receptivity. In this way we learn by challenging and questioning the truth conveyed by others, and instead be searching for our own personal truth in becoming authentic individuals.
Rune Kvist Olsen
Mars 2013
The Learning Design of Leadership versus the Learning Design of Leadingship. The vital and crucial questions are:
1. Am I my self able in taking responsibility for my own learning or not?
2. Am I the person who know best what I need to learn most and in a way that suits me best?
Answers to these questions will be determining and forming the applied learning design principles regarding which force of power that will be ruling and governing our learning process and learning lessons.
The selected force of power will have two alternative options of choice:
1. My inner self capacity in taking care of my learning responsibility.
2. Someone outside my self who is assigned my tutor and appointed my superior being considered as best qualified.
I. The Leadership Learning Design:
Someone above as the superior authoritative person in charge is telling, instructing, training others below as subordinates what to do, why to do it and how to do it. The learning belief is that the person in the leadership position has the best knowledge and competence to determine what is best for the people below in performing their jobs, while the subordinate person is not personally equipped and endowed with the adequate and sufficient talent in taking care of one owns learning in an independent and responsible manner. This difference in preference and reference signalize the distinction between trust and distrust in people and in the emphasizing of the significence of position and rank. This differences in conception of who to trust as superior and who to mistrust as inferior, are the main reasons that someone is valued and regarded as best qualified to leadership positions and subsequently most trustworthy in taking care of others learning.
The leadership learning design principle is focused on organizing learning as a system of teaching, training and education from top down the hierarchical ladder by the appointed person in charge of the facilitation training program in employee education. The superiors themselves are summoned to exclusive Leadership programs in learning the design principles of organizing, managing and leading the subordinates below.
II. The Leadingship Learning Design:
Eveyone are considered qualified in taking care of their own learning actions as trusted equals and peers based on their respective competence and personal characteristics in adding value to the common good and the corporate benefit. The learning belief is that everyone are doing their learning from inside themselves based on personal choice of individual development. The learning must be subjected to personal choice and processes in order to evolve as a personal matter of competent individual actions. People will be operating independently and responsible in generating their learning and be converting their learning into applicative competencies.
The leadingship learning design principle is to situate and arrange necessary space for personal learning and collective sharing of individual learning, where the internalized learning outcome from everyone can be coordinated and integrated as a collective force of organizational competence. The leadingship design of learning is focused on organizing learning as a consecutive process of learning by
experiencing progress and regress in personal achievements, and by reflection on continous improvements in personal acomplishments.
The Leadingship programs of training and education are inclusive for everyone since everyone are learnng by themselves together with others all the way through their working life and private life.
The ultimate choice of the Design principle of Learning is subsequently a choice between either Leadership learning program for Someone or Leadingship learning prgram for Everyone.
Rune Kvist Olsen
Mars 2013
As in Heaven – So on Earth.
Leading and Learning through parallel perspectives of Reality.
In this time of solemn and holy reverencial sentiment to come for the celebration of the Easter holliday, I would like to summarize my posted lessons in both an earthly perspective as a spiritual perspective. I will be starting this angling approach with the spiritual part in relevance to the theme; Leading and learning in parallel pespectives of reality, by making a connection between references to spiritual experiences extracted from conveyed intervjues with persons under superconcsious hypnosis. The distinguished auther and scientist Dr. Michael Newton has uncovered the mysteries of our state of being in the spirit world, and has written several books covering experiences from living human beings who convey reports from their spiritual realm. The texts of Dr. Newton gives a facinating and an intriguing insight of how a parallel reality such as the spiritual world, could be organized, managed and led. The following statement is quotations from the book; “Destiny of Souls”: “While in a superconscious state during deep hypnosis, my subjects tell me that in the spirit world no soul is looked down upon as having less value that any other soul. We are all in a process of transformation to something greater than our current state of enlightenment. Each of us is considered uniquely qualified to make some contribution toward the whole, no matter how hard we are struggling with our lessons. If this was not true we would not have been created in the first place. (page 6)… Advancement through the taking of personal responsibility does not involve dominance or status ranking but rather a recognition of potential. They see integrity and personal freedom everywhere in their life between lives. (page 7)”.
A rather solemn and reverantial statement at this time of sentimental and cermonial refelction and contemplation, I would say. In either way these words of Dr. Newton can perhaps give us a touch in raising our senses in expanding our perspectives of existential matter.
I will be ending this lesson with an earthly part in relevance to the theme; Leading and learning in parallel perspectives of reality. The earthly duality of values and believes states the overture: “Someone are leading others and others are led by someone” powered by Leadership versus “Everyone are leading themselves together with others” powered by Leadingship.
At the moment when the majority of people are deprived their power of self-decision and ranked below as subordinates wiith superiors in charge, the structuring of power is shaped vertical and organized hierarchical. At this momentum of subjugation by subordination, someone is appointed the authority of leading others by the virtue of their superior position and rank, and others are subjugated to be led by the virtue of their corresponding inferior position and rank. This way of organizing, managing and leading work and people represent the rule of Leadership where the organization is adopting and adapting Leadership for Someone.
At the moment of revelation of the apparently devastating and damaging consequences of Leadership for Someone for the human energy and spirit in the workplace, where the majority of people are subdued to inferiority and subjugated to subordination, people will at the moment of despair understand that this vertical and hierarchical way of organizing is obsolete and destructiive ragarding human engagement at work. The mantra of Leadership for Someone would at this point be at its breaking point of revolution, and ripe and ready for replacement by the essence of Leadingship for Everyone.
The essence of Leadingship for Everyone is that all people are enabled the authority of self-decision at work. At this moment of transformation in the way we operate as free individual human beings, the structuring of power is shaped horizontal and organized egalitarian with people sharing power, exchanging resources and complementing each other in unified actions. This way of organizing, managing and leading work and people, represent the era of a humanized work life, where the organization is adopting and adapting the vision of Leadingship for Everyone. At this moment of truthfullness including and equalizing Everyone and Everybody in the organization, we are in a way alligned with the spiritual vision of leading and learning beyond our own comprehension of reality.
Enjoy the spirited season to come!
Rune Kvist Olsen
Mars 2013
Marginalizing human individuals through restructuring and reorganization of the present corporate system of reality by the power of Leadership, versus optimizing and releasing human potentials through creation of a new corporate system of reality by the power of Leadingship.
When the authorative power of Leadership is revealed, challenged, endangered and threatend, the forces of Leadership are mobilized in protection and defense of the ruling regime against oppositional forces. Such a Leadership mobilization (restructuration/reorganization) wiould be focused on:
1. Discrediting and invalidating troublesome elements suspected and accused of disloyal and disobediant actions in destabilizing and jepardizing the legitimate ruling order.
2. Neutralizing and marginalizing threatening elements that are pursuing real, substantial and sustainable change in the force of leading, managing and organizing work and people.
3. Moderniizing and modifying the exiisting system through System Recovery Actions (re-struct./re-org.) in removing annoying and disturbing threats of unpredictable forces.
Leadership for Someone will at the moment of restructuration of the ruling order become resurrected and restored as the legimate force of power in stabilizing and sustaining the corporate Truth by Someone, on behalf of Everyone. At the moment of enforcing the coporate Truth, the organization has chosen a predictable strategy powered by Leadership as a deffensive action by fearing the unknown future, instead of encountering the challenges in making essential offensive changes powered by Leadingship in preparing for the inevitable future.
The great paradixial deceit in choosing safety and security through defensive predictability as a strategy in organizational change, rather than facing future options and potentials through offensive organizational dispositions, is and will be an illusjon and delusion based on cowardice. The character of the human being is irrational in nature by its mere essence, and will regardless of the matter posess a free will to make individual choices in spite efforts of supression and oppression. The only option ready and adaptive for future cApril 2013ditions, will be organizing and practising individuality and personality through unconditional trust and freedom powered by Leadingship for Everyone based on courageousness.
Rune Kvist Olsen
April 2013
Leading and learning as a personal matter in becoming and being concsious, reflective, autonomous and responsible human beings,
is based on our personal apprehension and conception of our own state of realities.
The conceptualization of the pedagogical implications of progressing an awareness of our Human Self, is based upon the following design principles:
1. Learning as an individual process is natural and essential both as contradictory and coalscence at the same time and moment of existence. Therefore learning is a laborious and hardious matter in understanding, conceiving, and accepting contradictions as real elements in the same context of reality, as we internalize the impulses in the perception of mind. New knowledge emerge as a contrast to old knowledge in a dynamical intersection of obsolete and modern adaptions and applications. Learning as a paradoxical phenomenon is based on the presence of contradictions designed as learning principles in fulfilling symbiotical and synergical purposes in the releasing of human potentials. Learning through contradictions is driven by the following modes:
* Mutual dependency.
* Reciprocal contradictory.
* Complementary and supplementary.
* Presupposing and preconditioning.
2. Learning is an internal force of personal attachment powered by the free will of choice, and progressing within the human being in processing new knowledge related to the awareness of individual person.
3. Teaching is an external force of institutionalized arrangement powered by the educational system in recycling, reproducing and conveying old knowledge related to the reference and preference of the institution.
4. Competence is a result of applied learning by practising and experiencing the validity and reliability of learned lessons in a operative context of reality.
5. Pedagogy is a fusion between learning as a individual process and teaching as a institutional system. The distinction between learning as a process and teaching as a system must be related to learning as a process inside the individual human being respectively teaching as a opposite and contradictive matter outside the person. The individual person learn while others can teach the person to learn. Nobody can learn others anything while others can learn everything by themselves.
We wil be able to learn the art of leading as long as we can conceive and perceive the counterpart of the subject. With one part of the subject of leading absent and the other present, we will be learning old knowledge and we will be reproducing the same matter over and over again even if the production is modified and mordernized. In enabling learning of new knowledge we must apprehend and comprehend the counterpart of the subject. Subsequently we will learn Leadingship in relation to Leadership and vica versa. Then we can find out the real nature, essence and significance of the known matter when the nature of the new matter is revealed and manifested as a real option of choice. However Leadership or Leadingship can be THOUGT without the presence of the other, but that matter will take plece without the presence of LEARNING of the missing link.
Rune Kvist Olsen
April 2013
Preserving the human capital versus releasing the human potential –
by either Leadership for Someone or Leadingship for Everyone. The option og choice is either staying behind in the past by ruling and controlling the human factor, or by emerging into the future by releasing the human factor. Two major strategic options of choice in organizing, managing and leading work and people, and the conequences of the respective choices are:
1. The Leadership team has accomplished its intention and purpose in silencing, marginalisizing and neutralizing so-called troublesome, provocative, difficult and demanding individuals by reorganizing and restructuring the organization. Some of the stigmatizied persons are relocated to other jobs and workplaces. while ohers are forced to resign. The rebellious tendencies are removed and the people have returned to the organizational fold in conformative moods. The ruling order powered by Leadership for Someone has been restored.
2. The Leadership team has decided to move ahead into the future by intiating mutual trust and personal freedom, and by inviting everyone in raising their voices and speaking their minds up – without any fear of personal and collective reprisals. The individuals mobilize their personal resources in leading and learning by themselves in maximizing and optimazing individual and corporative benefits and profits. The human potential initiatives are enforced and enabled as the prime corporative force of power, and people are extending and expanding their performances, accomplishments and achivements by interfacing, interaction and intersection with each other based on personal and collective assignments.
The respective strategic decisions will subsequently either rule the direction and the survival prospects of the organization by controlling the indvidual human being through fearbased conformity, or be ruled by the human being in progressing and prospering the human potentials through trustbased creativity.
In either way, the corporation can decide its own future by selecting between Leadership for Someone or Leadingship for Everyone.
Rune Kvist Olsen
April 2013
Leading and Learning – Contradicting and contrasting terms or conjunctive and congruent terms?
We learn when we make our own choices and take responsibility for the consquences of our actions. By other words are self-imposed and self-made choices learnable options.
We do not learn in the same manner (learning by personal choices) when choices are been made for us by others. In that sense are others the learners who are making and taking choices on behalf of someone else. By others words we do not learn by imposed choices enforced upon us by others. Imposed choices inflicted upon us are subsequently not learnable options.
Self-determination is prerequisite for learning, as self-decision is prerequisite for learning by leading our self as independent and responsible human beings with access to free will and the freedom of choice. When we lead our self we learn because we make our choices and take responsibility for our own actions. When we in contrast are led by others, we do not learn because the choices are not ours to make and take. When we are led by someone our choices are handed over to others and are taken over by orhers by the virtue of their position and rank as superiors. It is the task and responsibility of the superior person in charge to make decisions for the subordinates and take the responsibility of their actions. That is the why the superior is assigned superiority and the subordinate is assigned inferiority. Superiority is granting learnablity as an assurance meassure of learning the rights and wrongs of desicions and choices. Inferiority is a preventive meassure of not being ivolved in the function of leading and the role as leader concerning decision making and responsibility taking.
Free will and the freedom of choice is subsequently paramount to the human desire and ability of learning. Deprivation of the free will and the freedom of choice in the decision matter as a learning potential, generates in contrast reluctanse, resentment, apathy and resignation towards learning new knowledge and skills, and disables the innate disposition in feeling responsible for decisions others have made on our behalf.
Leadership for Someone imply and implicate that someone will lead and others will be led. Therefore Leadership is a way in damaging and desructiing learnable options for those who are led. Leadingship for Everyone indicate that everyone will lead themselves together with others. In that way Leadingship is generating learnable options for everyone. In this respect we can state that leading and learning can both be contradictory and conjunctive dependent on the organizational conditions provided. Either contradictive in the sense of learnable options for Someone ranked above as superiors and unlearnability for those others ranked below as subordinates powered by Leadership. Or conjunctive in the sense of learning options and learnability for Everyone powered by Leadingship.
Learnability powered by your Self through your internal authority, makes you confident with self-esteem, self-respect, self-pride, self-diciplin and self-control. Powering your Self done by the self in togetherness with others, is the main force in becoming and being learnable. Teaching powered by someone else through external authority gives us access to formal education and job-advancement when the formal barriers of grades or popularity are passed. However teaching is not equal to learning and formal grades is not equivalent to competence. Climbing the organizational ladder and passing educational tests posed by external authorities, is a token of delegating power from someone above to others below. Delegating power or empowering someone in the system, is something done in creating and stating that learning is equivalent and proportional to the level of grades. However learnability is something we attain and accomplish from the lessons we internalize and process by our Self in life by self-powering, in contrast to the em-powering we are exposed to by the teaching from others at work or in school.
Powering our individual human being in the act of learning and leading, is the prime connector in making our person both independent and responsible. Empowering our person by the will of others is the same as making the person dependent of others and irresponsible towards own actions. Powerment is for Everyone enforced by Leadingship, while empowerment is for Others by Someone enforced by Leadership.
Rune Kvist Olsen
April 2013
Leading and Learning –
Two distinctive parts by one correlated matter of choice.
Cryptical milestones:
1. Where are you stated at this point of mindfullness?
2. Where are your organization stated at this point of alertness?
* Holistic and Dualistic.
* Leading by Powering (sourced inside the person).
* Leading by Empowering (sourced outside the person).
* Learning by one Self (inner authority).
* Training/instructing/teaching by someone else (outer authority).
* Leadership for Someone.
* Leadingship for Everyone.
3. Where are you going from here.
4. Where are your organization going from here?
5. Staying behind in the presence of the past or moving ahead into the potentials of the future?
Your respective choice will be revealing, decisive and conclusive – portraiting your comprehension of your current state, and your apprehension of your prospective state in viewing potentials and options. You will deserve your future by your choice and your future will deserve you. The options of choice are beyond predictability but within imaginability. Stay alive!
Rune Kvist Olsen
April 2013
Mastering and monitoring the conceptualization of Leadership for Someone versus Leadingship for Everyone, by balancing the dynamic elements of Naturality and Normality in the corporate mind.
Naturality and Normality are opposite and different aspects of the same and similar matter, as the case is for Leadership and Leadingship as contradictive and alternating properties of mind and structure.
The essence of “Natural” is Who you are according to your authentic and genuine personality acquired through lifehood, while the essence of “Normal” is What you are according to your professional training acquired through your careerhood.
The nature of Leadership is incorporated in the mainstreamed reality of Normality in corporate life, defining people in relation to What they are based on their positioning and ranking in the organization. According to the standards of Normality and the norms of corporate socialization, people must comply to the enslavement of subjugation in order to become accepted and verified as controllable and ruleable resources adapted to the the legitimate system of belief. This dominating belief system powered by Leadership, is that someone must lead and others must be lead in order to sustain the chain of control effectuated from above to below through superiors and subordinates.
The nature of Leadingship as the counterpart to Leadership, is that eveyone shall lead themselves together with ohers. This system of belief is anchored in the free will of choice stating that everybody are able in operating as independent and responsible human beings in the corporate community. Nobody are in the need of someone in charge when they are able in making and taking competent and responsible choices alone and together with others. This is the normal standard of Leadingship in designing the principles of Normality. The Leadingship Normality Standard is a systematizising of the human resources in realising and unlashing individual potentials controlled by the innate forces within and inside the human embodyment.
Naturality as a human force of individuality, independency and ingeniousity, is in its nature transgressing and transcending in relation to attain and sustain controllability and predictability of human actions. Leadership is enforcing control by external forces and are counteracting and mistrusting individual freedom of Naturality, while Leadingship is embracing the genuine human nature as a source of infinitive and unlimited actions in creating and adding values and benefits. The value of Naturality according to the belief system of Leadingship, is that the naural aspects and ingredients in the human embodyment must be fostered and nutured as precious and vital gifts to the present future of humankind.
Rune Kvist Olsen
April 2013
The ruling Order of Coprporate Normality powered by Leadership for Someone versus the Natural Law of Human Energy powered by Leadingship for Everyone – External control in sustaining the Order of Normality v.s. internal control in emanating the Law of Human Naturality.
Re-powering and re-charging the potent energy field of the human being is the essential and substantial driving force of power in the setting of learning, leading, managing and organizing work and people.
Establishing Leadingship (as a replacement for Leadership) has emerged as the core model in generating and realising the true and genuine potentials of human performance, accomplishments and achievemens at this stage in the history of organizational theory and practice.
Is it evident and obvious that the Order of Normality inclining and implicating that someone must rule and lead others and others must be ruled and led by someone, should be a normal lawfullness here to stay as an immutable and unchangeable fact in corporate life? Is it a virtue of necessity that people in general must be taken care of by some external authorities that thinks and knows the best, bacause people are unable and not incapable in taking care of themselves in organizational settings – regarding the responsibility of ruling and leading themseves based on their competencies.
The need and necessity of subjugating people to subordination lies in the fear of loosing power as superior authorities when people becomes independent and responsible human beings at work. The leaders are justifying their rule over people powered by Leadership, with the argument that people in general must be ruled and led in preventing chaos and anarchy. Unrulable and nonleadable persons could easily emerge as uncontrollable and unpredictable agitators disrupting the system of law and order. The need of ruling and leading people are not caused by the people themselves, but caused by the fear of the rulers in keeping their power for themselves without sharing power based on trust. People are in general quite able in taking care of themselves (as most of us do in privat life) when adequate conditions are provided and supported. People are able to function and operate as responsible human beings based on mutual trust and personal freedom.
However, the established common order is stating that corporate normality is conformity and uniformity, and that people must comply to the rule of someone above as superiors and others below as subordinates with loyalty and obedience – in the sake of keeping their work and jobs. This is and must be the law of corporate nature and the order of normality, in spite our knowledge and awareness of the ability and capability of human beings in taking care of themselves together with others. This is what we can call the peak of deception in corporate life.
How can this valid standard of Normality and the law of narture in corporate settings be confronted and challenged? By modifying and mordernizing the old model of Leadership, or by establishing a new model that will be providing a new set of values and methods? Leadingship as the counterpart and the alternative option to Leadership, is established as an alternative belief system in learning, leading, managing work and people. Leadingship as a system of modelling avd structuring the adaptions ans applications of human resources is:
1. Rejecting the view of the human being as an object of subjugation by the control and the will issued from others.
2. Embracing the view of the human being as a subject of freedom by the control and the will emanated from the Self.
The respective phases in the adoption and adaption of Leadingship for Everyone is:
1. Powering and charging the inclined disposition embedded in the mind of the human being, in becoming and being learnable, leadable, independent and responsible creator and shaper on the corporate stage.
2. Converting and transmitting the external control outside the individual person to internal control inside the person.
3. Re-make external control persons and control systems redundant and superflous, and make everyone at the corporate stage leaders by their own Self.
4. Emanating the Law of the Human Nature by releasing and optimizing the infinitive potentials of the individual human being.
Let the future begin!
Rune Kvist Olsen
April 2013
Leading and Learning is a personal matter in processing individual efforts of performances, accomplishments and achievements.
Leadership and Leadingship is an organizational matter in directing, structuring, powering and coordinating individual efforts.
Leading and Learning as a personal matter is taking place at any time, in any way and in any circumstances of human activity, regardless of the presence of either Leadership or Leadingship. Leadership or Leadingship as organizational matters are institutionalized as vehicles in unifying individual efforts by collective measures of intentions, goals, purposes,values, believes and actions.
The organizational matter of Leadership is functional in the sense of leading persons by the function and in the role of a superior person appointed as a leader of subordinated persons. The function of Leadership is based on position and rank designated by the belief of superiority and inferiority in human realtions, and designed by the chain of control and command in the hierarchical ladder of rule and order. The superior person as a leader of persons, will be taking responsibility on behalf of the subordinates according to the authority vested in the supreme leadership role. The subordinates on their side, will be given (delegating) orders in effectuating decisions made by the leader in charge. The superior will according to the function of Leadership be keeping the power of control over the persons below, while the subordinated persons will be getting a sort of responsibility in performing imposed assignments from above.
The organizational matter of Leadingship in functional in the sense of leading processes within a respective field of work. The individual human beings are leading themselves together with others as equivalent members of the corporate community. The function of Leadingship is based on personal competence designated by the belief of people able in taking care of themselves in togetherness with others as independent and responsible entities. Leadingship is granting everone the power in making individual decisions and taking personal responsibilty within a destinctive field of work. Power, trust and freedom is shared by everyone as fundamental factors in practising the free will and the freedom of choice. The function of control is internalized within the human being as a personal force of comittment and sense of responsibility.
The organizational options of choice in directing, structuring, powering and coordinating work and people are subsequently:
* Leadership for Someone as the option of the past validated for the present.
* Leadingship for Everyone as the option of the future validated for the present.
The paramount choice is either staying within the security of the past in preserving the state of the present reality, or moving beyond our conceptions of the present reality in challenging the state of the future.
Regardless of our resistance in keeping power, our resilience in sharing power, and our susceptibility of the threats and opportunities we are facing, the future has already begun and is here to stay – whether we like it or not. Let us become accustomed to that inevitable and unavoidable fact – first of all before last.
Rune Kvist Olsen
April 2013
Fully and total responsibility versus partly and partial responsibility at work. Responsibiliting the Few and Someone powered by Leadership versus responsibiliting the Many and Everyone powered by Leadingship.
A fully and total responsibility is something that we are taking by our self, by our free will and by our freedom of choice.
A partly and partial responsibility is something that we are given and getting by someone in charge of us, by the will of others and by the choice of others.
Leadership is a conditionally responsibiliting of persons in the vertical relationship between superiors and subordinates. The superior has the fully responsibility over everyone submissive in the ordering line of command and control, and is taking the responsibility for the consequences (credit/blame) for the subordinates actions according to the obligation and commitment vested in the function and role as a leader of persons. The subordinates are given and getting a partly responsibility in doing a job without an independent decision authority assigned parallel to the job performance. The authority in making and taking decisions is absolutely connected to the supreme responsibility of control and command based exclusively on position and rank. This is why the superior is a leader of persons and the subordinates are led as persons.
Leadingship is an unconditional responsibiliting of persons in the horizontal relationship between equals and peers. The equivalent co-operator has the fully responsibility over one owns actions and the consequences of ones actions. The co-ordinators are taking responsibility themselves as an obligation and commitment vested in the function and role as an independent co-oparator, co-cordinator, collaborator and co-worker, as leaders of processes. The responsible human being has the authority in making and taking independent decisions within a respective field of work based on ones competence. There is none to give, delegate, impose and order responsibility on behalf of no one, and none to get and receive responsibility from others. Responsibiliting in Leadingship is based on mutual trust, personal freedom and the internalizing of control as an innate and integrated part in the mind of the individual human being.
Leadership is responsibiliting for Someone in sensing and taking fully responsibility for persons, while Leadingship is responsibiliting for Everyone in sensing and taking fully responsibility for processes.
The choice of option is either enabling everyone as responsible human beings at work powered by Leadingship, or reserve responsibility as a privelege for a selective chosen few powered by Leadership. The core question will be what choice that will give the optimal benefit and advantage for the good of everyone and the many compared to the good of someone and the few – in creating and sustaining corporate prosperity and growth in the years to come for the human being and for the organization.
Rune Kvist Olsen
April 2013
Calm before the Storm or a Storm in a Teacup?
With this cycle of posted lessons (22) on the respective blogspots in the field of Learning and Leading, I have now reached the momentum of initial introduction in the nature of Leading and Learning of the relationship between Leadership and Leadingship.
I am hoping that the silence and calamity in the wake of these lessons are mere tokens of devouted sensations emerging as a stormfull awakening in challenging the state of leading, managing and organizating work and people, and in making a significant difference in changing the course of future actions in corporate life.
I will take this opportunity in thanking dearly Peter Vander Auwera for his services in establishing these blogposts as an excellent platform in communicating the lessons. I hope his initiative will prove its worth.
Please also watch the introductionary video of Leadingship in getting a vivid impression of the relationship between Leadership and Leadingship. The link is; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCiVO4fGbl8.
Rune Kvist Olsen
May 1. 2013
Hi you all!
The paper “Conceptoloy of Learning and Leading at Work” is now completed and ready sharing and reviewing. The paper is available in both a short and a long version. You can access the respective versions of the paper by contacting the author directly on e-mail.
Responses will be appreciated.
Rune Kvist Olsen
rukvol@online.no
Hi You All!
In humble respect for the dedications of the many persons affiliated and connected to the mission of enlightenment and promoting an alternative model of structuring, organizing, leading and managing work and people in organizational life, I am delighted to share and announce the completion of “A Conceptology of Learning and Leading at Work”. Please enjoy the revelation of a new paradigm at hand and the release of a potential challenge and an option of choice in the history of management.
You will find more information on the BlogSpot: https://petervan.wordpress.com/2013/10/07/a-conceptology-of-learning-and-leading-at-work-guest-post-by-rune-kvist-olsen/ .
The model is posted on the link: https://petervan.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/a-conceptology-in-learning-and-leading-_short-version_.pdf.
Here are some final lessons in the enlightenment of the Power of Leading Oneself and Everyone at Work:
Counter forcing new perspectives and alternatives in powering people at work.
Why documented results from academic and scientific research studies struggles with established conventions, conceptions and perceptions about what must be the ruling paradigm of truth, even if results from new research speaks of another and different story.
At this point of establishing an alternative approach of organizing, leading and managing work and people and present a new option of choice in strategic organizational direction, in relation to the mainstream dogma of “Leadership for Someone” with superiors above and subordinates below. the following striking reflections and statements comes into mind:
“The personal opinions of scientists tend to determine whether new ideas gain currency in science and whether articles about new or groundbreaking insights are published. … When new ideas do not fit the generally accepted (materialist) paradigm, many scientists perceive them as a threat. It is hardly surprising therefore that when empirical studies reveal new phenomena or facts that are inconsistent with the prevailing scientific paradigm, they are usually denied, suppressed, or even ridiculed. The history of science tells us a similar story. New ideas rarely received an enthusiastic response; they always evoked resistance.”.
This text is extracted from the book “Consciousness Beyond Life” by Pim van Lommel. M.D.
The ethos of “Leadingship for Everyone”.
Leadingship for Everyone and the Many (in contrast to Leadership for Someone and the Few) is a question of conscience and faith:
The term “integrity” is how I as a person view and conceive my self in the eyes of my own. The term “credibility” is how I am viewed an regarded in the eyes of others. My integrity -my internalized values and believes- is setting the standards and norms of how my conscience is preserved and nurtured. Since keeping my conscience intact in relation to pressure of external expectations and demands, my health and consciousness is assumed to be and stay in a state of well being and still going strong. Violencing and crossing my conscience by contamination, corruption and compromising my integrity and credibility by doing something my conscience can not defend and accept, I will catch infections and health deterioration. Crossing my believes by gaining short sighted advantages in the community, will surely damage and destroy the sense of Who I am as a individual personal and human being.
Consequently I am able to work with people on the basis of their personality as human beings according to Who they are as persons. I am not able to work with people on basis of their positions and ranks as either superiors or subordinates according to What they have as advantages or disadvantages gained from either positions above or below. In this case I have always facilitated Leadingship training programs for everyone based on their identity as individual human beings, and never done Leadership programs for Someone positioned and ranked as superiors. This is my credo and the ethos as a inventor and facilitator. The simple reason behind my professional conscience and faith is that everyone has the ability to be and become independent and responsible human beings at work. At this moment of truth everyone has obtained inside and internalized control and discipline and is able to lead one self together with others. Outer control is herby declared as superfluous and a degrading sign of disgrace and contempt for the human mind and body at work. The policy of “Leadingship for Everyone” is placing the value of Humanability and Humanability as the core essence of organizing, leading and managing work and people At the same time this ideology is rejecting the dogma of “Leadership for Someone” which renounce and deprive many people of their universal force in being responsible human being in charge and control of one self at work.
Perceptual Prejudices in contemporary Management and Organization.
Our contemporary managerial and organizational mindset is completely dominated by the thought and practice that someone as superiors above must lead and others as subordinates below must be led. In this hierarchical context leaders (of others) are subsequently assigned the legitimate power of enforcing and executing the authority of Leadership and Management exclusively, while the non-leaders are committed by compliance with the ruling order of subjugation and subordination.
This separation through verticalization between individual human beings in the contemporary organizational structure of power, have been setting the mind in a fixed state of dogma as a matter of fact and as an unquestioned truth of reality. The people with power over others are the keepers of the truth in preserving the ruling order, while the people without power must comply and submit to the truth of the keepers in order to retain ones job and work.
This system of Management and Leadership is a construction of The Natural Law of Corporate Organzation as the justification of exercising and executing the oppressive, repressive and suppressive mechanisms of subjugation, subordination, degration and disgrace.
This stigma of managerial and organizational construction is what we call “perceptual prejudices” as the bias of an enforced consensus in shaping and controlling the structure of human relations in organizational life through the mindful mantra of Leadership for Someone and the Few. The stigma is the result of the evolution in mind-programming by managerial doctrines and the ensuing indoctrination of the loyal and obedient commitment of everyone under obligation to the corporate values of the past. The urge in conserving and conforming existing values and believes is embedded in the sustention and shielding of the present state of mind from the potential threats and dangers from the future The managerial protective shield is for instance counteracting alternative models of leading caused by the nature of perceptual prejudices. Leadingship for Everyone and the Many where all and one are leaders in performing the Power of Leading at Work by One Self in unison with others, is at stake in dealing with the domination of the prevailing Truth of Management and Organization.
Rune Kvist Olsen
Inventor and facilitator in the Power of Leading Oneself and Everyone at Work
In the Year of Enlightenment 2013