Key concepts in humanistic management research

This week, I submitted my PhD research proposal to the Board for the Conferral of Doctoral Degrees at the University of Humanistic Studies . A milestone in the process, as their approval will mean I can start to actually DO research, instead of just thinking and writing about it. And although I have thoroughly enjoyed the thinking and writing part, I look forward to bringing some of my questions into the real world in the upcoming few years.

There are a few key concepts in my research proposal that I’d like to share. Maybe they can inspire you, or simply serve as food for thought. I will start with a short introduction into the humanistic management model before focusing my attention onto its key concepts; human drives, human dignity, and promoting dignity.?

The humanistic management model

My research revolves around the humanistic management model (Pirson and Lawrence, 2010; Lawrence and Pirson, 2015; Pirson, 2017). The model advocates an alternative to the wealth-maximizing homo economicus by introducing homo florens as a balance seeking human being. In this perspective, homo florens is in a continuous search for balancing four universal human drives (Lawrence, 2010). Finding a minimum balance is a prerequisite to flourishing; the so called ‘dignity threshold’ (Donaldson and Walsh, 2015). The role of leadership in this model is both protector and promotor of human dignity, using practical wisdom to create collective well-being.

Universal human drives

Paul Lawrence’s four drive model (2010) offers a new way of looking at human nature while explaining – yet explicitly rejecting - the limited view of homo economicus. Lawrence studied how human beings have evolved and survived, basing his insights on Darwin’s work The Descent of Man (originally published in 1871). Lawrence proposes four drives that evolved in human beings as survival mechanisms, operationalized as criteria human brains use in evaluating and decision making.

Humans share two of these drives with other animals, the other two are uniquely human (Lawrence, 2010). Humans share the drive to acquire (dA) – to stay alive and procreate - and the drive to defend (dD) – the drive to defend what is acquired - with all other animals. Although people can satisfy these drives in a many different ways, often together with others, there are two more independent drives that are unique to humans and have developed over the course of human evolution.

The drive to bond (dB) separated humans from the animal kingdom, initially to support the formation of the family bond, in the transition from homo habilis to homo erectus (Lawrence, 2010). Lawrence defines dB as “the drive to form long-term, mutually caring and trusting relationships with other people” (ibid, p. 14). The drive to comprehend (dC) emerged in the transition from homo erectus to homo sapiens, and is defined by Lawrence as “the drive to learn, create, innovate and make sense of the world and oneself” (ibid, p. 14).

We each need to balance these four human drives all the time. The economistic perspective is viewed as a reduction of human nature as it puts a strong emphasis on dA. In the humanistic perspective, the dA needs to be in balance with the other three drives, dD, dB and dC in order to contribute to a personal sense of dignity and well-being (Pirson, 2018). Truly humanistic leaders therefore should appeal to all human drives that underly motivation; through reward systems (catering to the dA), and performance management processes (catering to the dD), while simultaneously attending to people’s need to feel embedded in a group (dB) with whom they share a sense of purpose (dC) (Nohria et al, 2008).

Human dignity

In the humanistic model of human nature, the human dignity threshold is presented as a baseline in each drive, and a matter of balance in the four drives, requiring minimum fulfillments of each. The human dignity as a baseline concept is based on the idea of human rights for everyone (Pirson, 2014; Pirson et al, 2016; Pirson, 2017). This is why the humanistic model of human nature makes an important distinction between protecting and promoting dignity (Pirson, 2017).

Promoting dignity

There is an explicit focus on promoting human dignity by aiming for actualization of people’s potential. This is what McCaslin terms ‘potentiating leadership’ (2008); the art of actualizing human potential. Potentiating leaders (McCaslin, 2008) hold a moral imperative which McCaslin describes as “a dynamic and synergistic relationship between the potentiator(s) and the collection of human potentials within the human ecology. Together they are seeking a balanced development of the intellectual, emotional, spiritual, physical, social, and creative expression aspects of the potentiator and the collective creating opportunities to actualize a deep ecological wisdom” (2008, p. 2).

In other words: potentiating leaders operate interdependently within their teams (or ‘community of potential’; the ‘human ecology’) aiming towards the full actualization of team members’ potential. They do so by actively seeking to promote dignity through balancing the four drives, making sure to create a shared group identity (Haslam et al, 2010; Ellemers and de Gilder, 2022) with their teams and working towards a shared purpose (McCaslin, 2008). McCaslin (2008) explicitly separates transformational leadership from transpersonal, potentiating leadership by pointing to the quality of potentiating leadership as “an eudaimonistic journey, a journey of potential”. Potentiating leadership is thus an ethical approach towards full actualization of potential (ibid), adding a moral layer to the social identity theory Haslam and his colleagues introduced (2010), as creating a shared social identity mobilizes people for doing either good or harm; an effective leader is not necessarily a good leader (ibid).

What I will research

As dignity is – at least partly – a social construct, the question arises; can we use the concept of human dignity in a context of a multicultural team, in which people may have different experiences of dignity and varying ideas about what dignity?

In the next few years, I will try to answer the following general research question: how can leaders use the humanistic management model to promote human dignity in culturally diverse teams?

In my research, I will focus specifically on the variety of experiences of human dignity by team members of culturally diverse teams, and answer questions such as: How do team members from different cultural backgrounds experience human dignity differently? How do they interpret its meaning? How important is it to them? How does the experience of human dignity materialize in the interpersonal relations at work, with each other and with their leaders? Do they recognize a dignity threshold in themselves? Do team members recognize a universal and culturally contingent element to the concept of human dignity? Can Lawrence’s four drive model support the dialogue on human dignity? Do the four drives resonate with the team members? What role can team leaders play in promoting human dignity in culturally diverse teams? How do excellent global leaders balance the attention they direct to each of the drives across cultural divides? Which interventions can support global team leaders to promote human dignity in all of their team members, actualizing the potential of the diversity in the team?

I will try to answer these questions by focusing on qualitative research working with different culturally diverse teams. I can’t wait to embark on this journey after summer.

In the meantime, you will find me reading and writing again, as I will be working on my article analyzing the concept of human dignity in humanistic management and how it relates to justice, freedom and love.?

?

Do you have any questions? Are you interested in learning more? Would you like to participate in my research? Please leave me a message ????, I am very happy to get in touch. Thank you!

References

Donaldson, T., Walsh, J.P. (2015). Towards a theory of business. Research in Organizational Behavior 35 (2015) 181–207

Ellemers, N., Gilder, D. de (2022). The moral organization. Key issues, analysis, and solutions. Springer International Publishing.

Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S., and Platow, M. (2010) The new psychology of leadership: identity, influence, and power. Psychology Press, NY.

Lawrence, P. R. (2010). Driven to lead: good, bad and misguided leadership. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass

Lawrence, P.R. and Pirson, M. (2015). Economistic and Humanistic Narratives of Leadership in the Age of Globality: Toward a Renewed Darwinian Theory of Leadership. Journal of Business Ethics (2015) 128:383–394

McCaslin, M.L. (2008). The nature of transpersonal leadership: building potentiating relationships. Integral Leadership Review. Available online at https://integralleadershipreview.com/5058-feature-article-the-nature-of-transpersonal-leadership-building-potentiating-relationships/.

Nohria, N., Groysberg, B. and Lee, L.E. (2008). Employee Motivation. A Powerful New Model. Harvard business review. July-August 2008.

Pirson, M., and Lawrence, P. (2010). Humanism in business – towards a paradigm shift? Journal of Business Ethics 93(4): 553–565.

Pirson, M. (2014). Dignity - A Missing Piece in the Puzzle of Organizational Research? Humanistic Management Network Research paper no. 11.

Pirson, M. (2016). A New Humanistic Model (Chapter 3). Humanistic Management - Foundations and Applications, June 2016. Gabelli School of Business, Fordham University Research Paper No. 2818032 Humanistic Management Network, Research Paper Series No. 37/16

Pirson, M. (2017). Humanistic Management: protecting dignity and promoting well-being. Cambridge University Press.

?