What potential does any one organization have? The answer lies in understanding the organization as a system, which is code for understanding the organization as a purposeful web of (interdependent) relationships.
In hard (mechanical) systems the purpose becomes an achievable objective (e.g. profit) and in soft (living) systems the purpose is something that is never (once and for all) achieved (e.g. viability).
In regard to potential within soft systems, the critical characteristic of this web of relationships is its emergent properties. That is to say, the potential of an organization lies within its relationships and the manifestation (or actualization) of its potentialities emerge from the productivity of these relationships.
For soft systems, saying it another way the answer to the question lies in the interaction of the potentialities of the people of the organization. Each person presents a range of possibilities, some wider than others but a range nonetheless. The range presented by the collective is even far wider.
Any one potential is actualized through the interaction (between minds) with at least one other person. The synergy between two yields more than two. Hence, the need for the collaboration of minds, not competition between minds, being essential to the emergence of more of the people’s, and in turn the organization’s, potential.
Self-Actualizing System
Every organization self-actualizes: But not every organization self-actualizes its greatest potential. Many organizations are limited, not in potential but in what’s probable to emerge.
There is a difference between what is possible (in potential) and what is probable. While the range in potentiality presents a multitude of possibilities, those in positions of authority—a.k.a. the leadership/management—have the greatest influence on what will probably or likely emerge. Another way of saying this is, the people in the organization present what is possible and the management affects what will be probable.
Those in authority actualize potential by the psychological and physical space they create, through their choice of organizational design and management practice—they enable actuality. In other words, both management methods and measures prefigure what will probably manifest in experience; in short, what will likely happen. The operative principle being, whatever one focuses their attention on has a greater likelihood of manifesting in reality.
If management manages as if the organization is a hard mechanical system—relating to people as objects—then what gets actualized will be far less than the potential that is possible. For example, simply creating an environment wherein people are not allowed to be free and critical thinkers but expected to only do what the one in authority thinks, will significantly limit the emergence of (greatest) potential. The use of numerical goals as the means and measure of value and contribution to the organization, will also limit potential. Creating an environment wherein all decisions are determined by near-term profitability gains will limit what is possible. As Deming often said some have to reach down and others can’t possibly reach high enough to make their numbers.
What can the management of your organization change so that the potentialities within people are enabled to actualize?
[...] chaos. While fear makes others more controllable, it also diminishes the actualization of potential. What emerges is not greatness but [...]
[...] then being pro-business means advocating for enabling the flow of the human spirit and the emergence of potential through the conduct of business with a different aim. This requires taking the long view as well [...]
[...] Paul asserts a leader’s contribution has to become more about making sure that he/she is getting the best out of others; that others are really thinking the issues through, and that the leader is creating the broad framework in which people can get their jobs done and be as productive and focused as they can be. The hidden truth to this is, treat employees as people, not as objects: A good first step is to cease driving for results and begin enabling potential—be a mentor of people, not a mechanic of the machine. We all need productive relationships to make progress toward actualizing our human potential. [...]
[...] Paul asserts a leader’s contribution has to become more about making sure that he/she is getting the best out of others; that others are really thinking the issues through, and that the leader is creating the broad framework in which people can get their jobs done and be as productive and focused as they can be. The hidden truth to this is, treat employees as people, not as objects: A good first step is to cease driving for results and begin enabling potential—be a mentor of people, not a mechanic of the machine. We all need productive relationships to make progress toward actualizing our human potential. [...]
[...] create a context that is conducive to a collaborative and entrepreneurial culture emerging, a self-actualizing system not a self-interest based [...]
[...] in and through the process of performing the work of the enterprise. As explained in a previous post every organization self-actualizes: But not every organization self-actualizes its greatest [...]
[...] to do. If you don’t stretch people by leveraging their interests then you will unlikely actualize the potential that exists within the [...]
[...] to grow necessarily mean to grow slower, or to grow rigid, or to grow out of ideas, or to grow harmful to the entrepreneurial spirit? Absolutely not! It seems reasonable to assume that with more [...]
[...] What is really going on is the development of mutually helping relationships that serves both the individual and the organization. Manager and the managed are in partnership. This distinction is important since partnership implies equal status, not subservient status. When equal status is felt then constructive feedback is far more likely. To paraphrase Riane Eisler, partnership recognizes the interdependence of all roles and seeks effective and respectful ways to support each other’s role—command-and-control can’t even come close to doing this. When we approach leadership as a partnership then we approach each other as fellow human beings and increase the likelihood of actualizing potential. [...]
[...] with the very same thing, people, and both acknowledge the value of people and thus believe in the potential that both lies within people and the relationships among people. In other words, both treat [...]
[...] to do and why it is important to do. This is not about delegating work it is about enabling potential to become actualized through the [...]
[...] correlate. In other words pay attention to the hiring process and continue to develop people to actualize potential and provide meaningful work while paying attention to the culture you foster. Mke sure everyting [...]
[...] is about ranking, sorting, labeling and rewarding employees—and not about facilitating the actualizing of potential, looking good trumps doing [...]
[...] in any discipline, I look fat how they might enhance the capability of the team. It is about actualizing potential—the environment contains the nourishment that enables a flower to emerge from a seed—so culture [...]
[...] 29, 2011 by progressus Until business becomes the means for people to actualize their potential as human beings and not just the means for the wealthy to accumulate more wealth, there will [...]
[...] we don’t have are human beings engaging in humanly productive relationship affecting the actualization of human potential. It seems we’ve become so engrossed in maximizing profit (rather than [...]
[...] the context that is conducive to the emergence of a collaborative and entrepreneurial culture; a self-actualizing system not a self-interest based [...]
[...] To hire a person is a decision about the future not the past! Leaders don’t hire people for what they’ve done but for what they have the potential to do. Therefore, the way of organizing and managing must enable potential. Unfortunately, many organizations are limiting and thus limited, not in people’s potential, but in what those in authority cause to be probable. Leading effectively enables, it doesn’t disable, potential. Accordingly, organizing and managing guided by a vivifying vision can provide employees the physical and psychological space to actualize their potential. [...]
[...] and abilities of every one.” There is a difference between challenging and supporting people to realize their potential and expecting people to do things they may not be capable of doing. The former is inspiring and [...]
[...] organization’s capability. Thus toward sustaining viability, making a commitment to continually develop the potential of people by providing opportunities for learning is paramount. However, the benefits of education/learning [...]
[...] one and only person with creative ideas. Thus effective leadership is also about facilitating the expression of the potential that lies in others. This means that the effective leader provides the space—physical and [...]
[...] every organization self-actualizes, not every organization actualizes its greatest potential. Because of the organization’s culture many are limited, not in potential but in what’s [...]
[...] In Power vs Force David Hawkins explains and calibrates the levels of energy (i.e. consciousness) ranging from negative attractors (i.e. energy fields) to positive attractors that are significant determinants of behavior. The attractor levels ranging from negative energy to increasingly more positive energy, in non-linear progression are: shame, guilt, apathy, grief, fear, desire, anger, pride, courage, neutrality/non-attachment, willingness/engagement, acceptance, reason, love, joy, peace, enlightenment. Courage, the middle energy field in the progression, is the point where a person’s behavior begins to be initiated from within and thus reflects the foundation for the expression of one’s own power. Up to this point the energy fields (shame to pride) represent levels of response to outside forces and beyond this point represent increasing levels of self-awareness. Moreover, as one’s energy is canalized by or is given purpose through increasing self-awareness greater human potential is actualized. [...]
[...] It is all about the energy field from which those in authority operate. If the leader uses the triad of fear-desire-pride as the bases of his/her practice then all that will emerge will be rigidity of mind, divisiveness and competitiveness—in general whatever can be born of fear will spring forth. However if courage-neutrality-willingness (a.k.a. self-initiation-non-attachment-engagement) is the energy field that forms basis of one’s management practice then trusting relationships will develop; and with trust comes wonderful and unique capabilities—the actualization of human potential. [...]