VODENJE v vzgoji in izobraževanju 1|2020 3 Inner Trust: The Root of Teachers’ Self-Leadership Knut Ove Æsøy 17 Industry 4.0, Democracy and Education: What These Mean for School Culture and Leadership Right Now? Christopher Branson and Maureen Marra 33 Benefits and Challenges of Finnish Unified Comprehensive Schools (Grades 1–9) from the Perspective of Principals and Teachers Henry Leppäaho 47 Grand Theory of Antisocial and Destructive Behavior Herman Siebens 105 Max Weber on Various Types of Legitimate Dominance for Leaders: A Longitudinal Study of Adults’ View of Play and Learning in Preschool Dan Roger Sträng 121 Abstracts in Slovene This issue of Leadership in Education contains a selection of papers presented at the e n i r d e l m 2019 Conference, held in Ljubljana, Slovenia, 19–21 September 2019. Perspectives on Leadership Inner Trust: The Root of Teachers’ Self-Leadership Knut Ove Æsøy Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway This phenomenological article explores inner trust as an essential aspect of self-leadership. More specifically, I examine inner trust as a vital piece of becoming a professional worker by applying my theoretical approaches to a letter from a teacher. The letter is a genuine expression of teacher’s professional knowledge and exemplifies inner trust. My theoretical approaches are drawn from Bengt Molander (2015), Carl Rogers (1961) and Stanislas Dehaene (2014) and connect scientific philosophy with person-centered experiential therapy and neuroscience. I will focus on four ways of enabling individuals to increase their self-trust: trusting their own emotions, trusting their knowledge in practice, trusting routines and traditions, and trusting their holistic view of their profession. I will focus on the tension between trust and criticism. This tension must be balanced to enable teachers to be governed by self-leadership. Keywords: inner trust, criticism, emotional knowledge, knowing in practice, routines and traditions, holistic view Introduction Inner trust is a kind of emotional knowledge and a necessary foundation for self-leadership. Trust is a deep sentiment, a part of human nature (Løgstrup 2010, 17). This natural feeling can exist within the self and at the same time between people. To trust yourself or other people is risky. Trust in a relationship is understood as giving yourself to the other (Løgstrup 2010, 26). However, to surrender in this risky way – to become trustworthy – you have to have inner trust, in other words trust in yourself. This inner trust is ontological and innate to humans at birth. It cannot be created because it is inborn, but our actions and experiences may create distrust. The ontological understanding of trust connects to love, affection and caring. To trust in yourself is to love and care for yourself; this creates a positive view of the external world and strengthens our attachments to others. Carl Rogers ontologically understands trust in a way similar to Løgstrup. When it functions freely, human nature is constructive and trustworthy (Rogers 1961, 194). Trust is not a question of bevo d e n j e 1|2020: 3–15 Knut Ove Æsøy lieving in yourself; it is better described as faith in yourself. It is impossible to convince yourself or anybody else to trust themselves or others. Like faith, trust has to come from within and is discovered by each individual. Rogers understands trust as freedom to accept yourself and to act in a mature manner. It is the freedom to be and act without rewards or punishments required (Rogers 1961, 102). According to Rogers, external evaluation is not a part of helping relationship (1961, 55). To trust yourself or others is to feel accepted without rewards and punishments. Bengt Molander’s (2015) understanding of trust is more dualistic. According to Molander, trust is a part of a dialectical tension; the opposite of trust is criticism. His theoretical approach removes almost all dualities, but he views the polarity between confidence (trust) and criticism as an essential part of existence. This tension between criticism and confidence has to be balanced (Molander 2015, 289). Humans may never be fully free in Rogers’ sense of the word; relationships shall always involve external evaluations. There shall always be rewards and punishments; this is a part of what Molander understands as criticism. One’s inner trust depends on the community. He explains: ‘A community is therefore always presupposed when we refer to intentional actions, dialogue, knowledge and rules. Tension will, however, always remain: my certainty is my own – and yet it depends on descriptions, the validity of which I do not have the sole authority to determine. This is genuine tension’ (Molander 2015, 258). Trust is one’s confidence in oneself, while criticism creates insecurity and is always present. Humans can never escape the feeling of criticism or judgment from themselves or from the others, as assessment and interpretation are human cognitive abilities (Dehaene 2014). Everyone shall always feel the tension between trust and criticism. We need trust to do good, but criticism may undermine trust. At the same time, we trust criticism and consider it positive for development while criticizing trust is considered as something that prevents development. Method Trust is a phenomenon that occurs deep inside human beings. As Molander says, ‘The understanding of concepts such as confidence, familiarity and the like depends almost exclusively on examples and, hence, on activities that are relatively familiar and which we are capable of monitoring’ (Molander 2015, 235). Trust 4 Inner Trust: The Root of Teachers’ Self-Leadership may be observed in pictures or examples. To examine trust, this article will consider an example: a letter from a teacher who ended her career after teaching primary school for twenty years. Sonja (not her real name) wrote this letter just before she quit. She intended it as a warning, a statement about teachers’ working conditions in the school system in 2019. She considers herself a skillful teacher, and (in her own words) the letter was wrung from her soul. Therefore, this letter is an authentic source that provides a glimpse into the inner world of teaching. In the letter, Sonja writes her conscious thoughts about her situation. Inner trust or self-esteem is not explicitly addressed, but it can be felt beneath the surface, in the metaphors and parallels she uses to express her emotions. My goal is to examine inner trust as an essential tool for teaching by considering experiences of this teacher through the lens of philosophical and scientific theories. Trust in Your Own Emotions Sonja says she works against constant headwind. This metaphor conveys a feeling she cannot really express. She also mentions the feeling that she is constantly pushed in different directions, which makes her dizzy. This feeling is due to many conflicting recommendations teachers are given regarding how to work in the classroom. Different suggestions focus on different issues and use different methods to improve pupils’ results, pushing teachers in different directions. In the third metaphor, she compares teaching to running: ‘It’s a bit like jumping on a hamster wheel where you’re running a marathon, but the speed is set to run 200 meters.’ She compares these conflicting recommendations to headwind, to being pushed around, and to moving away from inner trust. These metaphors express feelings, telling her there is something wrong in the classroom. These feelings do not arise in one situation; she has been recognizing a mixture of feelings over several years, and it finally ended her career of a teacher. She felt that all those different recommendations were not something that would really work in the classroom. She sensed that the focus was often on the wrong things. She writes, ‘Things are decided from a distant office, and I think they know little about the everyday lives of pupils and teachers. How, then, can they know what changes we need to make; how can they see where the shoe pinches or decide what goals are best for the school?’ 5 Knut Ove Æsøy After many years in school, she doesn’t believe any external advisors can tell teachers what to do in the classroom. To know where the shoe pinches, you must wear it. This is called first-hand knowledge (or, in this case, first-foot knowledge). To know where the shoe pinches, you have to trust your own emotions. Feelings express important inner knowledge. Feelings show us values and sensations that are significant in a given situation. Neuroscience has discovered this important part of our unconscious brain: ‘our brain host a set of clever unconscious devices that constantly monitor the world around us and assign it values that guide our attention and shape our thinking’ (Dehaene 2014, 79). These unconscious devices also shape teacher’s thoughts; ‘no “pure” element of knowledge can be separated from an emotional aspect’ (Molander 2015, 257). This means teachers should not suppress their feelings but learn how to understand them and trust what they are saying. These feelings are more useful to teachers than external recommendations. Sonja also feels criticized if she expresses her concerns: ‘And when several teachers object and talk about how difficult the teaching job has become, they receive criticism from all sides. Even from their own [. . .] It felt like a punch in the stomach.’ We cannot choose how we feel. The emotional sensation of a punch to the stomach indicates a feeling of betrayal and a threat to your core values. To be criticized for feeling what you feel is an attack on your primal being. Feelings express essential knowledge, and this kind of criticism dilutes your trust in that essential knowledge. It is very difficult to explicitly state this knowledge but it is even more difficult to trust its message. In any profession, you experience dialectical interactions between internal and external experiences, and you have to trust your inner world in order to do the right thing in the external world. External criticism of your inner world creates an imbalance in this dialectical interaction, and people may end up trying to control or suppress their inner lives. Such people do not learn to express their feelings or the values and knowledge those feelings indicate. Rogers points out the incapability of feeling something and listening to those feelings as an adult. Even negative feelings are part of our emotional knowledge. A mature person will become angry when anger is realistic and appropriate but will not be carried away by aggression or anger (Rogers 1961, 194). Feeling anger means that important values are at stake. 6 Inner Trust: The Root of Teachers’ Self-Leadership Trust in Science, Lack of Trust in Practical Experience External recommendations can be seen as criticism and a lack of trust in teacher’s knowledge. This may create tension: ‘the tension between the “the certainty in action” of living knowledge and “enlightened” certainty which presupposes calculation, description and representation and hence a level of abstraction that leads us away from the sensual and away from certainty’ (Molander 2015, 260). Calculation, external descriptions, and imitations of what to do are abstractions of the essence of teaching. The consequence might be soulless teaching, a lack of trust in one’s own practice. Theoretical descriptions of what teachers should do are in many ways the opposite of practical routines developed through lifelong learning. Sonja expresses this tension by questioning her own knowledge in practice: But why do things feel so much harder now than before? How can I find that I do my job poorer today than when I graduated? Do we – trained teachers – steer this ship at all, or do we just ride it out as well as we can? We are more capable than ever. We must be, with all the experience and expertise we have gradually accumulated. However, I feel that we are not taken seriously enough. These questions express the tension between inner trust and external recommendations. The teacher is questioning her own ability to teach. It seems like other forces have taken charge of practice without being part of it. She even questions the knowledge she has accumulated through experience and expertise. She is asking to be taken more seriously, to be respected for all the good work that she does in the classroom, writing, ‘But I think we need to get more respect as teachers, for the jobs we do and for our pedagogical insight and knowledge.’ Sonja cannot clearly say why she feels this lack of respect. However, the dominant mindset in teacher education today lacks respect for practical knowledge (Æsøy 2017). A focus on researchbased teacher education creates distrust of all knowledge that has not been scientifically tested and is not expressed as theory. This dominant mindset argues that teachers should do what science tells them to be the best practice. Sonja’s feeling of tension represents a conflict between opposing values. She has to address social problems in the class, but, ‘at the same time, there is constant guilt that there are too few 7 Knut Ove Æsøy subjects, that we spend too little time on Norwegian, math, and English, and soon we will have national tests. Help! How will we place well in the national statistics?’ This dilemma is well known. What is new is the interest in comparing test results between different schools, creating competition that turns some schools into winners and the rest into losers. Teachers are responsible for the results, making it a form of external evaluation. In Sonja’s case, even though she considers herself a skillful teacher, she has negative feelings about these external evaluations. This forces her to focus on external evaluations rather than on what she considers the most essential parts of teaching. Sonja describes the problem of external critics: ‘We adapt, adjust, and stretch in all directions, and even when stretched to the breaking point, we still hear a lot of criticism.’ Later she uses the metaphor ‘it’s hailing criticism.’ This criticism is external; it doesn’t come from the teacher herself, and it challenges her trust in her own knowledge. Criticism and outside recommendations make it impossible for her to do a good job as a teacher. She explains, ‘We follow all the current trends and are constantly learning better ways of teaching, better ways of leading classes. We barely have the chance to start something new before we must throw ourselves at something else that is probably even better or more correct.’ The main problem with all these recommendations and criticisms is the time needed to do anything properly. To do something properly requires working without criticism. Knowledge can be destroyed when people are paralyzed by questioning. Asking questions may on occasion be a calling into question. The knowledge people have, their own faith in that knowledge is often an important part of their identity, frequently connected with a certain professional identity. Questioning such knowledge can easily become calling a person into question. This kind of questioning can kill knowledge (and individuals). It is equally clear that prohibiting critical questioning can have the effect that people continue to believe they have knowledge when they do not. [Molander 2015, 119] In practice, it may be possible to express recommendations, questions, or criticism without creating distrust in one’s knowledge: ‘[W]e understand our activities by relying on the practice we have trained to acquire, we rely on those who have taught us 8 Inner Trust: The Root of Teachers’ Self-Leadership and those who give us advice’ (Molander 2015, 234). This trust must be mutual (Molander 2015, 244). Teachers of teachers and those who give advice must trust practitioners. Overbearing suggestions, patronizing scientific descriptions, valuing external theory and evaluations over internal judgment, and a lack of interest in practical knowledge may destroy teachers’ identities. Trust in Tradition and Routines Sonja explains how the focus on new trends creates distrust of routines and traditions. Trends and new ideas may help teachers constantly improve their practice, but the lack of time makes it impossible to implement every new idea. Each is quickly followed by another trend with even ‘better’ ways to teach. Sonja expresses the impossibility of implementing all these ideas: ‘The constant shifting [from one trend to another] produces a lack of predictability; I really miss that.’ What she misses is predictability. Trust in practice is impossible without predictability. I believe this is one of the biggest problems in professional teaching today. Molander explains predictability as routines and traditions. ‘Routine and traditions provide a form of certainty in action, and in being, which has both more subjective aspects – trust in oneself and more objective ones – frequently success in what one intends or plan achieve’ (Molander 2015, 86). Today, the dominant mindset in teacher education views routines and tradition as negative, while openness to criticism and change are seen as positive (Æsøy 2017, 96). However, Sonja needs predictability. Furthermore, in a practical sense, trends can never be effectively implemented without the time and space to turn new ideas into routines and traditions. Traditions, routines, and predictability are essential aspects of rational human behavior. According to Rogers, ‘Man’s behavior is exquisitely rational’ (Rogers 1961, 194). Routine behavior and the ability to make good judgment in practice are functions of unconscious thought and emotions; ‘even the simplest conscious observation results from a bewildering complexity of unconscious probabilistic inferences’ (Dehaene 2014, 93). However, removing traditions and routines makes rational cognition impossible. Sonja struggles with her thoughts; she does not understand what has happened in the last twenty years. She writes, ‘It feels chaotic, incomprehensible – yes, insurmountable [. . .] We are always traveling for courses, meetings, conferences, special training, projects 9 Knut Ove Æsøy [. . .] I feel so inadequate. What do we get out of all this running around, all this stress?’ She feels the ‘wall’ is approaching, and she is thinking of giving up. She receives so much information that it overwhelms her conscious thought processes. She is constantly thinking about everything she is supposed to do to be a good teacher. In today’s dominant mindset, a willingness to change is connected to belief that the ability to make conscious choices is what enables teachers to make good decisions. Conscious choices are understood as those that conform to scientific knowledge and most modern recommendations (Æsøy 2017). However, Sonja feels that this overload of conscious thought is one of the biggest problems for teachers today. The belief that consciousness will optimize teaching may actually be the problem; this approach creates mental chaos, confusion, overwhelm, and feelings of inadequacy. Trust in conscious choices undermines teachers’ trust in their routine behavior. Humans lack cognitive capacity to make every choice consciously. According to Dehaene, ‘we constantly overestimate the power of our consciousness in making decisions – but in truth, our capacity for conscious control is limited’ (2014, 47). It would be extremely inefficient to consciously consider every choice we make, and this would paralyze our ability to act rationally. Instead, ‘our unconscious perception works out the probabilities – and then our consciousness samples from them at random’ (Dehaene 2014, 98). Trust in routines and tradition is also a necessary precondition of creativity. Sonja considers herself creative, but she no longer has the energy to be creative in her teaching: I have a lot of energy and I love to be creative, but I no longer want to use that energy to fight this headwind. I don’t want to use my creativity to try to trick parents into collaboration, to lure pupils to become a little more involved in schoolwork or to write more letters like this. I want to use my resources for something positive, and I know that I long to work with the wind and not against it. And I know that I speak for more than myself. I sincerely hope something is going to happen. I hope that we can come together and shout a firm ‘Stop!’ before it’s too late. To be constructive or creative, you have to trust your routines or habits. Lack of predictability makes it impossible to open up 10 Inner Trust: The Root of Teachers’ Self-Leadership and be creative: ‘Routines exist which encompass living alternatives and the readiness for change – preparedness that, for good or ill, leaves no room for uncertainty’ (Molander 2015, 284). Trust in oneself means being open to the world and willing to be in a process (Rogers 1961, 122). Molander understood that the ability to go beyond the status quo is part of knowing in practice. He explains, ‘In all “practical art” there exists a dialectic that resembles that of learning: a dialectic between “trusting blindly” in one’s own knowledge and being forced to “go beyond” it and steer one’s own course, with all the insecurity that may entail’ (2015, 16). Trust in ourselves and in our routines also prepares us to learn from our mistakes. Confidence in ourselves lets us dare to move on. Without confidence in ourselves, we would stop trying to do what we do (Molander 2015, 86). Openness without trust in oneself and in routines is just chaos; a teacher like this will not have the courage to continue, for: [. . .] openness can create anxiety. One can begin to lose confidence in one’s own actions. This may entail a skeptical depletion of self-confidence; in extreme cases, it can lead to self-annihilation. What we can see reflected here are aspects of the dialectic of enlightenment [where criticism or skepticism is part of the mindset]. The all-consuming drive to demythologize – in this case, one’s own action – can undermine action. [Molander 2015, 140–141] That means that inner trust is a kind of mysticism, inner knowing. It is a kind of common sense that manifests in the ability to be creative or constructive even when the world around us hinders action through skepticism or demands that our actions be based on evidence. Trust in a Holistic View of Teaching The teacher must trust in a holistic view of teaching. Teachers should not analyze or act piecemeal about what occurs in the classroom; ‘situations have faces’ (Molander 2015, 244). Humans can recognize a face without conscious analysis (Dehaene 2014, 195; Molander 2015, 52). Facial recognition is a holistic skill based on sensations and signals. According to Dehaene, ‘Some experiments even detect a correlate of conscious perception in brain signals that are recorded before a visual stimulus is presented’ (2014, 141). He adds, ‘Brain imaging is now sensitive enough to pick up 11 Knut Ove Æsøy the signal that, prior to a stimulus, already index the readiness of the cortex to perceive it’ (Dehaene 2014, 142). Experienced teachers trust their holistic understanding of teaching. They can sense and trust signals in the classroom the same way they remember and read faces. This holistic approach is also connected to meaningfulness or moral value of teaching. The ability to understand the meaning (semantics) of a situation is not always conscious. Nor do we need to consciously combine pieces into a whole (Dehaene 2014, 62). This means ‘that, in some respects, consciousness is irrelevant to semantics – our brain sometimes performs the same exact operations, all the way up to the meaning level, whether or not we are aware of them’ (Dehaene 2014, 73). Without trusting these signals, we could not orient ourselves in the world or decide what to do in a given situation. Similarly, teachers bring their values and pedagogical philosophies into every situation. Sonja does feel that her pedagogical philosophy and values are being developed in the classroom. She has less time for planning and teaching now than she used to have. Teaching is what she considers the most important part of her job. At the beginning of the letter, she discusses her colleague’s (here called Märtha) pedagogical philosophy: ‘I think Märtha is one of the most caring, warm, and generous teachers I have ever known. Märtha is a wise woman, and she probably saw this development before many of the others. Märtha concerns herself with the individual pupil and the human being, and I think recent developments make things a little difficult for small and large people in the classroom.’ In this text, Sonja implies that teachers are no longer interested in their pupils as human beings. Both Märtha and Sonja are still interested in the human being, but Sonja is not sure that new developments allow teachers to work with pupils in a holistic way. In the Norwegian school system, children are expected to reach specific learning goals, and teachers are expected to conduct external evaluations of each pupil based on each goal. Teachers become analytical judges, while children become learners. This completely opposes Roger’s idea that external evaluation has no place in a helping relationship. Such a practice of rewards and punishments encourages criticism more than inner trust, creating an unhealthy classroom environment for both pupils and teachers. Sonja has a different view of school purpose. As a part of her pedagogical philosophy, she considers school a kind of counterculture: ‘I believe that classroom teaching is extremely important in 12 Inner Trust: The Root of Teachers’ Self-Leadership today’s society, where young people communicate mostly through screens and rarely practice face-to-face interactions and real-life meetings.’ This viewpoint affects all Sonja’s interactions in the classroom. The purpose of school is not only helping pupils to meet specific learning goals. Sonja’s orientation here may or may not be true, but it provides insight into her teaching practice. Molander understands orientational knowledge as important theoretical knowledge that provides insight and directs our actions (Molander 2015, 191). Sonja positions school inside a broader theory about society and human beings. Orientational knowledge directs action and defines one’s understanding of what is important and relevant (p. 192). This kind of knowledge is based on an overview of emotions, actions, ethical considerations, and logical arguments. This kind of knowledge helps define what knowing is and changes one’s actions: ‘One has to be able to rely on one’s knowledge and one’s experience but at the same time to “know” their limits; one has to be able to shift perspective – this is a matter of insight, attentiveness and, above all, ethics’ (Molander 2015, 66). This kind of orientation is based on your trust in yourself as a whole human being. Dehaene discusses judgment of confidence that is not based on what one sees (which would be impossible) but on unconscious inferences and categorical answers in a situation (Dehaene 2014, 111). Humans must dare to think and learn by themselves, for ‘the most important things, such as artistry, wisdom and virtue, says Schön, alluding to Plato’s dialogue Meno, can only be learned for oneself’ (Molander 2015, 175). Orientational knowledge is connected to artistry, virtue, and wisdom. Roger writes about ‘significant knowledge and learning.’ He explains that ‘[significant learning] is learning which makes a difference – in the individual’s behavior, in the course of action he chooses in the future, in his attitudes and in his personality’ (Rogers 1961, 280). Furthermore, this kind of knowledge can only be learned from within: ‘The only learning which significantly influences behavior is self-discovered, selfappropriated learning’ (p. 276). This kind of knowledge is learned through relationships that involve an entire person. As Rogers further explains, ‘it is my total organism which takes over and is sensitive to relationship, not simply my consciousness’ (p. 202). The value of conscious knowledge is overestimated. For teachers to be wise, ethical human beings, they have to trust themselves enough to form relationships with pupils as complete human beings. 13 Knut Ove Æsøy To summarize, trusting a holistic view of teaching is multifaceted. It means seeing the big picture in different situations, identifying how a situation overlaps with teacher’s values and pedagogical philosophy, understanding the purpose of school, seeing pupils as human beings, and understanding teachers as complete humans who can learn from within in a holistic way. Trust in Yourself: Finding Balance To help others, we have to trust ourselves. A person being in balance with own inner emotional life will trust own feelings. Sonja does not talk about this inner balance, but she is aware of the need for teachers to balance their inner lives with external demands. She explains, ‘I myself have tried to find a balance between supporting and following up with each pupil as best I can, while also setting boundaries for myself and saying that we teachers are the educators who do things that we know work, that we are actually very good at, that lead to the best results for the class as a whole.’ However, Sonja also indicates that she has lost some of her trust in herself, that she is out of balance: ‘We don’t have a chance, I think. It really doesn’t help to raise your voice; it’s just provocative and increases the system’s resistance.’ The problem is the system and the dominant mindset in education; this attitude of enlightened certainty creates Sonja’s inner lack of balance. Sonja’s criticism of the system comes from her inner self. It is expressed as chaotic feelings, a feeling that her work is unbearable, that she is not respected or taken seriously. It even manifests as criticism of the feeling of being criticized. The system, however, does not accept this kind of emotional criticism; the system is based on a kind of enlightened rationality that does not consider emotions or the inner life to be rational. The mindset of enlightenment may turn humans away from humanity. The system embraces criticism, but not the criticism of the system itself. This imbalance makes it impossible for teachers to express their values and feelings as hopes, removing the possibility of hope itself. Sonja writes, ‘After all, I have dreamt that things will turn around, that the whole community will wake up one day and shout Stop!’ But this dream is becoming an illusion. She doesn’t really believe in it anymore. She doesn’t believe in the system, and maybe she no longer believes in herself as a teacher. The only option left is to get out of the system. 14 Inner Trust: The Root of Teachers’ Self-Leadership Summary Good practitioners have to trust their emotions, their knowledge in practice, their routines and traditions, and their holistic view of the profession. This is how we understand ourselves. However, this is not always the case. Mutual trust is essential. If those who offer advice do not trust teachers, their recommendations might feel like personal attacks. Even if teachers follow external recommendations, as Sonja has done, consequences in practice might include doubt, insecurity, and mental chaos. This is the case when teachers are given too many recommendations, when those suggestions are offered too frequently, when they are too detailed, and too contradictory. Criticism and doubt are not always good. It could become irrational. We should not doubt what we know and feel confident about in practice. Criticism may destroy our trust in our feelings and in our practical knowledge, leading to a lack of trust in our perspectives, insights, and philosophical orientations. However, there will always be criticism, and self-leadership means finding an inner balance between trust and criticism. The human criticism that comes from within, from one’s emotions and orientational knowledge, should be valued as much as the scientific criticism of the enlightenment. What really counts is the ethical question of a good life. References Æsøy, K. O. 2017. ‘Profesjon og vitskap: Ein samanliknande studie av tankemønster i nyare grunnleggande litteratur for grunnskulelærarog sjukepleiarutdanninga.’ Doctoral dissertation, Trondheim University. Dehaene, S. 2014. Consciousness and the Brain: Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts. New York: Viking Penguin. Løgstrup, K. E. 2010. Den etiske fordring. København: Klim. Molander, B. 2015. The Practice of Knowing and Knowing in Practices. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Rogers, C. 1961. On Becoming a Person. London: Constable. Knut Ove Æsøy is Associate Professor at the Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway. koas@oslomet.no 15 Perspectives on Leadership Industry 4.0, Democracy and Education: What These Mean for School Culture and Leadership Right Now? Christopher Branson Australian Catholic University, Australia Maureen Marra inLeadership Consultancy, New Zealand It is widely acknowledged that our world is in transition from the third to the fourth stage of the industrial revolution (Industry 4.0). From a world influenced by electronics, computers and automated manufacturing to one that will be influenced by cyber-physical systems in which real objects and virtual processes are interlinked. But getting to this fourth stage is not solely dependent upon technological developments, particular sociocultural changes will be required, too. As artificial intelligence, the internet-of-things, and machine learning dramatically change the nature of work, it is argued that, for the longer-term sustainability of humankind, enhanced interpersonal sociability, cultural democracy and moral integrity will become essential counterbalancing forces of an otherwise isolated and independent lifestyle. Hence, this article argues that a major challenge for today’s schools is the need to prepare students for such a different sociocultural environment. This involves more than learning about interpersonal sociability, cultural democracy and morality. Preparing today’s students for full participation in an Industry 4.0 world means that they must learn not only about interpersonal sociability, democracy and morality but also by being immersed within a school culture that unequivocally embodies these concepts. To this end, we argue that the latter requirement is unlikely for many of today’s students because not only are schools’ physical and organisational structures still largely aligned with an Industry 2.0 world, but also their leadership practices and organisational cultures are as well. Arguably, such practices and the individualistic cultures created by them are mostly composed from discrete entities joined together by pragmatic processes, so that relative discontinuity and independence rather than connectivity and interdependence are commonly found. Preparing students for Industry 4.0 demands changing these leadership and cultural tendencies. This paper describes ongoing research that seeks to accomplish these outcomes by means of a unique ecological exploration of school leadership and school culture where the quality of relationships becomes the pivotal focus. Keywords: fourth industrial revolution, school leadership, transrelational leadership, school culture, organisational ecology vo d e n j e 1|2020: 17–31 Christopher Branson and Maureen Marra Introduction It is widely acknowledged that our world is in transition from the third to the fourth stage of the industrial revolution (Industry 4.0). From an Industry 3.0 world influenced by electronics, computers and automated manufacturing to one that will be influenced by cyber-physical systems in which real objects and virtual processes are interlinked. But getting to this fourth stage is not solely dependent upon technological developments because particular sociocultural changes will be required, too. As artificial intelligence, the internet-ofthings, and machine learning dramatically change the nature of work, it is argued that, for the longer-term sustainability of humankind, enhanced interpersonal sociability, cultural democracy and moral integrity will become essential counterbalancing forces of an otherwise isolated and independent lifestyle. In other words, preparing today’s students for full participation in an Industry 4.0 world means that they must learn not only the effective career oriented knowledge and skills to enable them to be gainfully involved in a highly technologically influenced world, but also the affective knowledge and skills associated with interpersonal sociability, democracy and morality. While most of the Industry 4.0 associated literature focuses on the radically positive technological innovations likely to be generated, some also raise concerns about the potential negative effects that this fast growth in technological development and digitization will have on individuals and society (Luppicini 2012). Although this paper will focus on these potentially negative effects in order to establish an argument in support of what might be considered as mediatory educational changes required now so as to better prepare today’s students for the Industry 4.0 world, this should not be interpreted as an antagonistic treatise condemning the anticipated technological innovations. The aim is rather to strive towards developing the essential balance between technological and socio-cultural innovations required to ensure the anticipated Industry 4.0 benefits are able to be fully realized. This is to argue that, although the Industry 4.0 revolution might have the potential to reconstruct the idea of work as well as the nature of work, its more widespread consequences are not necessarily inevitable. If adequately prepared through education, future workers and employers can use the promise of the new technologies to shape socially and individually fulfilling responses, rather than be passive 18 Industry 4.0, Democracy and Education recipients of the consequences. This means that today’s students must be taught the socio-cultural skills and dispositions to deal with such challenges. To this end, it is posited that the following three general capabilities will be required of people in an Industry 4.0 world. First, although it is presumed that machines will be doing most of the routine work, we have not yet been able to automate tasks that demand human qualities that relate to thinking and feeling. This means that in the near future people will need to develop and use thinking skills such as critical thinking, judgement, creativity, computational thinking, problem-solving and communication. Secondly, if this means that people will be spending less time on routine individual tasks and more time working with others, including working for more than one employer in different settings, then they will need to have skills for collaboration, team work and interpersonal relations. Thirdly, as machines replace people in most routine and repetitive type tasks, it will then be essential for the people to be mindful of protecting working conditions, help to shape the extent of automation as applied to jobs, and prevent the digital revolution from widening inequalities. To this end, people will need to possess knowledge about their socio-cultural environment in order to be able to exercise such political skills as lobbying, advocacy and networking, to be respectful and empathetic of difference, and to have interpersonal skills and a disposition to work for the common good. We argue that such capabilities are the manifestations of a sincere and dedicated commitment to the principles of democracy. A person with knowledge, skills and sincere dedication to a fully democratic society firmly believes in the creation of a civil society formed out of widespread inclusive interpersonal relationships, which connects diverse peoples in a consensual and cooperative way so as to bring about order and stability. Such a person acknowledges themselves and others as being both rational and moral where just because something can be done does not immediately imply that it should be done. Given the encouragement, opportunity and right environment, each person is capable of compromising self-interests for the common good. Within a fully democratic society, which will be essential in Industry 4.0, the primacy of individualism is replaced by collectivism in which highly desired personal benefits are only gained through teamwork and networking with others. However, gaining such democratic knowledge and skills re19 Christopher Branson and Maureen Marra quires more than cognitive engagement with pragmatical implications. These need to be learned through immersion in real life experience (Bond 2016). We argue that this implies that today’s students need to learn them within a school culture that unequivocally teaches and embodies these concepts. Hence, this paper describes ongoing research that seeks to accomplish this outcome by means of a unique ecological exploration of school leadership and culture where the quality of relationships becomes the pivotal focus of study. Industry 4.0 and Its Less Prominent Implications One of the early promises of the digital revolution was that it would enhance democracy. In contrast with pre-internet times, it was claimed that the internet provided access to a greater range of news outlets and so would diminish the power of a small number of media monopolies; and at the same time, it would foster political participation by enabling people to express their views to a much wider audience (Reid 2018). Indeed, Rifkin (2014) went further and argued that the internet would become a ‘collective commons’ in which anyone can post, download and read material for the purposes of sharing for the collective good. Notwithstanding the achievement of such positive possibilities, the digital revolution is also posing a number of dangers to some of the key features of democracy that can only diminish, rather than democratise, the public sphere (Runciman 2018). A major concern is the negative impact that the digital revolution is having on our democratic election processes. At the heart of the problem is big data, which works by gathering large amounts of personal data from social media and using a powerful algorithm to analyse it to develop detailed profiles of individual voters. This enables political parties to identify each voter’s emotional triggers and so tailor messages to suit each profile. One high-profile example is that of Cambridge Analytica, the data mining and analysis company which, without authorisation, took personal Facebook data gathered from 50 million Americans in order to target them with personalized political advertisements during the 2016 American Presidential elections (Cadwalladr and GrahamHarrison 2018). A broader but related concern about social media relates to its tendency to drive people into like groups where their opinions and beliefs are constantly reinforced (Reid 2018). This encourages 20 Industry 4.0, Democracy and Education people towards only talking to others with similar views so that biases are being confirmed and alternative views are not being seriously considered (Hull 2017). Already, our communication technology is moving people towards rarely being exposed to points of view that vary from their own, so that they are becoming isolated in their own view of the world (Pariser 2011), thereby closing their minds and reducing the possibility of being able to participate in a truly democratic discourse. Moreover, the quality of democratic discourse in the public sphere is also reduced by the proliferation of fake news and conspiracy theories, which are fanned by the speed and reach of the internet (Reid 2018). Interestingly, the 2018 Freedom House Report, which compiles an authoritative report on the state of democracy around the world, claimed that in 2017 democracy faced its most serious crisis in decades as the fundamental conditions of free and fair elections, the rights of minorities, freedom of the press and the rule of law came under attack around the world. Clearly, the time is right for this threat to democracy to be not only acknowledged but also overcome. The fourth industrial revolution will have the potential to enhance our democracy but at the same time it is likely to contain the seeds of its further downfall unless action is taken now. To this end, it is argued that a pivotal purpose of education today is to reinforce and invigorate our socio-political democratic processes now and into the future. It is essential that today’s students learn how to be actively engaged Industry 4.0 citizens with the aptitude and competence to ensure that technological innovations are only introduced and used for the common good. According to Reid (2018), in order to ensure that students gain such an aptitude and competence, they need to gain the following capacities. First, they need to gain knowledge and understanding about democratic life. If some of the fundamental tenets of democracy are under threat, the first step in overcoming the dangers is for the citizenry to understand what needs to be defended and why. This suggests that it is getting more and more important for our students to understand our democratic system, its origins, history, institutions, processes and values. This understanding should not be static, but one that enables our students to recognize how to improve democratic processes or institutions in ways which are consistent with the basic principles of democracy. But such understanding must come with the competence and commitment to be actively engaged in civic and political affairs, especially those that 21 Christopher Branson and Maureen Marra have the capacity to undermine social cohesion and democratic processes. This necessitates the need for the person to be skilled in capacities of discernment and scepticism (Reid 2018). If factors such as fake news and hyper-individualised targeting at elections are likely to become even more prevalent in an Industry 4.0 world through technological innovations, then the citizens of such a world will need strategies to recognise and resist them (Susaria 2018). This suggests that we need to be able to support our students’ learning of skills enabling them to discern propaganda, identify the authority of any source, weigh up evidence, and be sceptical about unsubstantiated or biased claims. But, at the same time, be open to engaging, and learning from different views and beliefs. If the problem associates with social media, whereby it has a tendency to strengthen personal biases because it encourages people to only communicate with others with similar views, then, in order to safeguard democracy, an Industry 4.0 citizen will require the aptitude and competence to actively avoid such an unhealthy outcome by willingly seeking out alternative views and to engage in respectful discussion about them. However, Reid (2018) wisely points out that the capacities of discernment and scepticism must also be directed towards the biased perspectives, possibly concealed in modern media news scripts and corporate advertising. Where self-interests are disguised as community interest or benefits, and lead to superficial consideration of disparate issues, then today’s students need to develop strategies that allow them to discern authentic local, national and global trends, to reflect on the socio-cultural implication of these in depth, and to take appropriate constructive action whenever deemed crucial. This necessitates a sincere sense of society, distinct from individualism, and a firm moral commitment to the common good. It is crucial that, in democracy, its citizens have a commitment to think beyond themselves and consider benefits to the wider community. This will be particularly evident in situations where the introduction of machine learning innovations has the potential to cause unemployment, often for those least prepared to cope with it. Although it is true that teaching of such democracy aligned aptitudes and competencies is not new, the unique departure point for this research is its view that such learning must be inclusive of lived as well as cognitive experience. To ensure the deepest learning of these aptitudes and competencies requires the student to 22 Industry 4.0, Democracy and Education learn about, and to learn from within, all that constitutes an authentic democratic environment. To learn about democratic values, theories and principles, while simultaneously learning within a school culture that truly imbues democracy in action. It is argued that this is rarely the case in our current schools in which the administrative structure and functioning are more akin to that of an Industry 2.0 factory than what is required within an Industry 4.0 society. Moreover, we argue that in order to transform the school culture towards a far richer democratic learning space, it is essential to change the way we review and understand their functioning. To this end, this paper promotes and describes the application of an ecologically informed process for exploring and informing a school’s culture. A process in which the focus is more upon internal and external relationships than it is upon specific roles and practices. The Theoretical Foundations of the Ecological Research What this paper has argued to date is that today’s students need to learn these within a school culture that unequivocally teaches and embodies democratic concepts if they are to be adequately prepared to fully and effectively prosper in an Industry 4.0 world. To this end, this paper describes ongoing research that is accomplishing this outcome by means of a unique ecological interpretation of school leadership and culture where the quality of relationships becomes the pivotal focus of study. But such a unique interpretation must be founded upon credible and reputable theoretical principles. Potential possibilities can only be fully achieved when people truly connect with each other to create a shared understanding of the core purpose of their work (Senge 1990). Such a widely shared understanding cultivates a profound personal commitment because each person knows the important contribution they provide to the achievement of this core purpose. Genuinely connected people create a fertile ground for productive professional relationships founded upon the values of respect, inclusion, openness and collaboration. These values enable people to earnestly listen, learn and work closely with each other so that the organization can be confident in its capacity to fully achieve its core purpose. However, such connectedness is rare because its achievement is not sufficiently appreciated. Hence, workplace cultures are more likely to form pockets of disconnected groups and individu23 Christopher Branson and Maureen Marra als. Within these cultures, relationships tend to become competitive and exclusive, and fall well short in promoting the values of respect, inclusion, openness and collaboration. Rather than working together to realise the potential of the organization, some become disengaged in their work; they do the minimum and they limit their social interaction with their colleagues and clients. Each time this happens, the energy that drives the organisation’s potential is lost, and the core purpose achievement level is significantly diminished. Moreover, many leaders are often ill equipped to understand the complex causes of these cultural issues and therefore struggle to know how to overcome them. To date, practical ways to manage, control and artificially orchestrate collaboration and performance have dominated the advice to leaders on how to fix these problems. But this has produced little success. Rather than striving to impose collaboration upon a culture, the ecosystem approach seeks to understand the culture and to find out what is currently diminishing collaboration and performance. Essentially, this entails learning about: (1) the degree to which there is a clearly articulated shared understanding of the core purpose; (2) the ways in which the people are personally and professionally interacting in their workplace; (3) the cultural norms, values and beliefs that are driving these relationships and interactions; (4) the existing factors that are motivating the people at work; and (5) the influence of the leaders within this culture. These five factors underpin our ecological approach as it seeks to illuminate any habits and practices that are limiting interconnectedness and diminishing core purpose achievement. Describing the Ecological Research Approach Specific to the context of our research in schools, once there has been an exploration of understandings in relation to the school’s core purpose, an investigation occurs into the quality, diversity and extent of interconnectedness both within the school, as well as between the school and its community. During this investigation, judgements about interconnectedness are developed based on data gathered pertaining to the presence or otherwise of the following elements within existing relationships (table 1). These elements are seen as energy factors that are able to drive the school’s processes for growing and developing its students. It is argued that if this energy is reduced through the presence of some disconnections, the beneficial outcomes for students are reduced. Where the 24 Industry 4.0, Democracy and Education table 1 Key Elements of a Postive Relationship Compassion/care Harmony Information sharing Collaboration Commitment to Mission Respect Responsibility to Contextual Character Shared values and beliefs energy flow is optimised through strong and extensive interconnectedness, the beneficial outcomes for students are maximised. An appreciation of the important influence that interconnectedness plays in a school’s productivity can be shown diagrammatically as in figure 1. Importantly, this figure is an illustration rather than a detailed map of a school’s culture. A detailed map would be far too complicated. However, in the case of an actual school research site, the illustration would have some additional detail in order to show its closer alignment to the case in question, and not every arrow would be either dark grey in colour or double-headed. As such, the adjusted illustration would more clearly show the relative level of effective and efficient interconnectedness as indicated by the col- Professional Learning Community Government funding, enrollments, sponsorship, donations, volunteerism, . . . External influences Internal influences Community Education Professional learning Well-being Pedagogical innovation Outcomes Educated citizens Healthy young people Work-ready graduates Community connectedness Reputation Sustainability Teaching and learning Improved teaching Success indicators Enhanced student learning & well-being figure 1 A School Ecosystem 25 Christopher Branson and Maureen Marra our and direction of the arrows joining each part of the culture. Dark grey arrow indicates stronger interconnectedness than light grey arrows. Double headed arrows indicate excellent communication that goes both ways (i.e. strong interconnectedness), as distinct from single headed arrows which indicate that the communication is predominantly in the direction shown by the arrowhead. Thus, the figure illustrates the perception provided by the data that achievement of the school’s desired educational outcomes is being significantly compromised by a lack of appropriate professional interconnectedness throughout the culture. Research Methods Informed by the focus of this particular research being centred upon personal constructions, interpretations and perceptions of the quality of relational interconnectedness throughout the school, a qualitative research being underpinned by a social constructionist epistemology is adopted (Gergen 2015). Such an approach acknowledges the subjectivity of personal constructions, interpretations and explanations associated with common lived realities, yet these also enable the explication of generalised beliefs, perspectives and understandings. Hence, this research incorporates a case study methodology which gathers a rich array of data from individual interviews, focus group interviews, an online staff survey, and document reviews. A Constant Comparative Analysis (c ca) method is then used to consolidate, reduce, and interpret all of this data so that a rich and comprehensive understanding of it is gleaned. This data analysis method enables commonly held cultural insights to emerge from each interviewee’s reported interpretations and constructions of their reality, since these are grouped around common experiences and perceptions to form overarching impressions (Merriam nad Tisdell 2016). Essentially, this c ca method employs open and axial coding as well as triangulation of data sources, which, together, enables patterns of convergent understandings, perceptions, values and beliefs about the school’s leadership and culture to emerge. Research Outcomes Given that each school explored by this ecological approach is a case study, no generalizable or universal truths about school leadership and culture are possible. But deep insights into the unique 26 Industry 4.0, Democracy and Education capacity of the approach to discover and illustrate the array of current leadership and cultural strengths and weaknesses in a case school is clearly discernible. For example, the most recent research school was an Australian rural co-educational secondary school with an enrollment of approximately 1000 students and 81 members of staff. Although this school had maintained a very positive reputation in its local community throughout its 50 years, there was a growing perception amongst the staff, students, and parents that this was now under threat. Despite all the efforts being made to sustain the school’s reputation, student enrollment was decreasing. A growing number of students were even seeking to complete their final two years of secondary education at other available schools. Furthermore, a strongly held concern amongst those associated with the school community was that the school’s culture had become outdated. Essentially their view was that the school’s culture, with emphasis on senior academic achievements, the elite status of certain traditional subjects, and a very hierarchical and authoritarian administrative structure, needed to be replaced by one that was far more holistically inclusive, equitable and relational. But the serious challenge for this school community was twofold. The first serious challenge for the school was in determining whether or not this view was correctly defining the problem and, thereby, promoting the best solution. Then, the second serious challenge, if this view was correct, was in determining how to successfully change the culture. Without relevant data the leaders of this school community were not in a position to address either of these two serious challenges. The aim of the research was not only to address both of these serious challenges but also to provide some clear direction for how the school could overcome whatever unhelpful leadership and cultural issues that were present. The implemented ecological review of this school occurred within five school days, which saw a total of 77 persons – staff, students, parents, education system personnel, or key community stakeholders – being involved in an interview either individually or as a member of a focus group. In addition, 58% of the school staff completed the online survey. Data gathered in this way were then cross-referenced with that provided in official school documents including vision and mission statements, school prospectus, position descriptions, publicity brochures, school policies, strategic planning documents, and school newsletters. As a resultant of the data analysis procedures, data not only un27 Christopher Branson and Maureen Marra equivocally substantiated the view of the school’s culture as being outdated but also the following five leadership and cultural themes were determined as being key foci when implementing the desired cultural change: (1) A Compelling Vision, Mission and Purpose; (2) Educational Priorities and Strategies; (3) Structure and Function Primacies; (4) College Reputation and Promotion; and (5) Strategic System Support. Moreover, this ecological approach enabled us to use data to highlight both commendations and recommendation within each of these cultural themes. In total, this ecological review produced 17 commendations and 25 recommendations. In other words, this unique school review approach was able to explicate, with data-informed justification, some crucially significant cultural elements undermining not only the effectiveness of the school in achieving its Mission but also the democratic working environment. For example, data pertaining to the Structure and Functioning Primacies clearly highlighted such dysfunctionality with the Curriculum Coordinators’ Committee at multiple levels. At the level of purpose, the diverse views of members of this committee included comments such as, ‘the purpose of [this committee] is not clear,’ while another proposed that the purpose ‘is about resources and exam results’ but another claimed it was ‘about nuts and bolts – not long-term thinking.’ Arguably though, far more serious views were presented in regard to the functioning of the committee. A serious concern included the view that although the purpose of the committee was to enhance communication between the school’s leadership team and its subject-based middle leaders, so as to improve decision-making, in effect ‘most decisions are already made and we [the committee members] are merely left to enact these decisions.’ But it also included concerning views about the actual non-democratic tone of the meeting. One committee member described the tone as being ‘adversarial and provocative’ and another as ‘contentious and confronting’ and a third member described it as ‘tense, protectionist and challenging.’ Data from the staff survey supported the understanding that many of these curriculum coordinators were relocating similar undemocratic values and behaviours into the subject teacher team meeting which they coordinated. Only 20% of staff believed that there were positive professional relationships in the functioning of their subject team, while more specific data suggested that only 13% of staff had personally experienced feelings of inclusiveness and reciprocity as a member of a subject teacher team. Also, 40% 28 Industry 4.0, Democracy and Education of staff were concerned that their curriculum coordinator did not communicate effectively with them on a regular basis. While ethical considerations for anonymity and confidentially prevent further detailing of these commendations and recommendations, it is vitally important to note the capacity of this ecological approach to produce considerable numbers of both commendations and recommendations. A potential major concern when implementing any leadership or cultural change strategy is to be confident that one is not only overcoming an unhelpful element but also not undermining a beneficial one simultaneously. This ecological approach ensures that the school recognises not only those leadership and cultural elements that need to change but also those that need to be kept. Furthermore, by providing a rich array of data in support of the description of the elements needing to be changed, there is far less room for disagreement or discredit. Finally, guided by the data and such descriptions, it is far clearer as to how such unhelpful leadership and cultural elements can be changed. Arguably, however, the extraordinary effectiveness of this unique ecological approach to school reviews, being able to provide comprehensive, clear, precise, and defensible school review commendations and recommendations is best proffered by the Executive Director of the authority tasked with overseeing the administration of this particular educational system. This person wrote that the Review Report, ‘captured the school culture very well. The detail and the elaboration provided was presented with great clarity. [. . .] Being comprehensive in nature, it has enabled a detailed Action Plan to be developed by the school in consultation with Office based staff. [. . .] The commendations and recommendations have been fully embraced by the school leadership and the Office based staff and have been the basis for the development of a strategic action plan to assist in driving the necessary improvements in the school culture. One key action is being undertaken in this first week of the school year, with an external facilitator leading the staff in a process to reflect upon and renew their Vision/Mission/Values.’ Concluding Discussion While it is true that the aim of this research was not explicitly focused on establishing democratic leadership and culture within the school, the outcome generated by the ecological review pro29 Christopher Branson and Maureen Marra cess was. Essentially, the aim of the review process was to determine the actual reason why students were leaving the school and how this enrollment decline can be turned around. What the ecological review process established was that the school’s leadership and culture was deemed by a rapidly growing number of students and parents to be outdated and no longer suitable. Simply stated, the leadership and culture were often considered to be far too authoritarian, elitist, inequitable, and non-inclusive. Indeed, the ecological review process was able to readily provide a rich array of data describing and supporting these perceptions. Moreover, as this data not only captured many participants’ common impressions about the school’s leadership and culture but also their reasons for having such impressions along with their views about what they would like to see changed, the ecological review process effectually developed a comprehensive list of both the highly beneficial and the decidedly constraining elements within the current leadership and culture. Importantly, however, when considered together the actions required to both maintain the beneficial elements while redressing the constraining elements resulted in the creating of a far more democratic educational environment. This dual focus sought to develop a far more inclusive, equitable, open, ethical and empathetic learning and teaching environment. A school in which every person’s voice is heard and listened to for understanding so that decisions can be transparently based upon a commitment to the common good. More specifically, the outcomes generated by this ecological approach to the review of the school’s leadership and culture sought to create a far more ordered and stable learning and teaching environment. An environment dependent on a widespread commitment to inclusive interpersonal relationships in which diverse opinions, views and experience were provided, heard and considered in a consensual, cooperative and genuine way. This was aimed at replacing the existing individualistic culture with a collective culture whereby teamwork and interpersonal connectivity became the path to sustainability and success. Hence, these outcomes generated a far more democratic school culture founded upon leaders, staff, students and parents enacting democratic principles. Thus, we argue that, as our world moves towards Industry 4.0, all schools will need to seek a way to adopt a similarly democratic learning and teaching environment in order to ensure that today’s students are adequately prepared to live by authentic democratic principles. Achieving such an essential environment will be a 30 Industry 4.0, Democracy and Education significant challenge for many schools and school systems, because little has changed with respect to how schools are led, administered and structured since early last century during Industry 2.0. This being so, finding a practical and manageable means for overcoming this challenge is crucial. Our ecological school review process undeniably meets this challenge. References Bond, C. 2016. ‘Character Education in the Inner City: Making It Real.’ Journal of Character Education 12 (1): 89–93. Cadwalladr, C., and E. Graham-Harrison. 2018. ‘How Cambridge Analytica Turned Facebook “likes” into a lucrative political tool.’ The Guardian, 18 March. https://www.theguardian.com/ technology/2018/mar/17/facebook-cambridge-analytica-kogan -data-algorithm Gergen, K. 2015. An Invitation to Social Construction. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage. Hull, G. 2017. ‘Why Social Media May Not Be So Good for Democracy.’ The Conversation, 6 November. https://theconversation.com/why -social-media-may-not-be-so-good-for-democracy-86285 Luppicini, R. 2012. Ethical Impact of Technological Advancements and Applications in Society. Hershey, pa: Information Science Reference. Merriam, S., and E. Tisdell. 2016. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco, ca: Jossey-Bass. Pariser, E. 2011. The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You. London: Viking Penguin. Reid, A. 2018. Beyond Certainty: A Process for Thinking about Futures for Australian Education. South Brisbane: Australian Secondary Principals Association. Rifkin, J. 2016. ‘The 2016 World Economic Forum Misfires with Its Fourth Industrial Revolution Theme.’ The Huffington Post, 14 January. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-rifkin/the-2016 -world-economic-f_b_8975326.html Runciman, D. 2018. How Democracy Ends. London: Profile Books. Senge, P. M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday. Susaria, A. 2018. ‘How Artificial Intelligence Can Detect – and Create – Fake News.’ The Conversation, 3 May. https://theconversation .com/how-artificial-intelligence-can-detect-and-create-fake -news-95404 Christopher Branson is Professor of Educational Leadership at the Australian Catholic University, Australia. christopher.branson@acu.edu.au Maureen Marra is Director at inLeadership Consultancy, New Zealand. mmarra@inleadership.co.nz 31 Perspectives on Leadership Benefits and Challenges of Finnish Unified Comprehensive Schools (Grades 1–9) from the Perspective of Principals and Teachers Henry Leppäaho Toivolanranta Unified Comprehensive School, City of the Seinäjoki and University of Jyväskylä, Finland This qualitative study explores the work experience of teachers and principals at Unified Comprehensive Schools (u c s). Data was collected in Finland by means of a questionnaire from seven different u c s. The study reveals several challenges and problems in u c s, e.g.: multiple buildings, rush and time management, combining subject teacher and class teacher culture, and increased workload. Nonetheless, more than half of the teachers enjoyed their diverse working environment and would rather choose to work at u c s than at lower (grades 1–6) or upper (grades 7–9) schools only. The greatest wish for development, and the solution to many problems would be having a single-bodied school ‘under one roof.’ If the implementation of u c s is successful it shall provide much improvement for pupils; unbroken learning paths from 1st to 9th grade, easy transition from one school level to the other, familiar school environment and collaboration among pupils of different ages. As for the school administration, u c s offers a unique opportunity for efficient and economic use of teachers, classroom resources and facilities. Keywords: unified comprehensive school, leadership, teaching, learning, education Introduction and Theoretical Framework This article presents a survey study on Finnish Unified Comprehensive Schools. In Finnish school policy, the Unified Comprehensive School concept was born after the Basic Education Act (1998) and Basic Education Decree (1998) reforms in 1998–1999. By those reforms, the division of upper and lower comprehensive school was removed from the legislation. After the legislation reform, municipalities began to reflect upon organizing the teaching process in a way that would ‘break’ the level border between the 6th and 7th grade, while at the same time making it possible for classroom teachers and subject teachvo d e n j e 1|2020: 33–46 Henry Leppäaho Unified Comprehensive School Usually 1 Principal and 1–2 Vice Principals Preschool grade 0 Lower school grades 1–6 Upper school grades 7–9 Subject teachers Subject teachers Subject teachers Early childhood teacher figure 1 General upper secondary school grades 10–12 Subject teachers Unified Comprehensive School-model ers to cooperate. Of course, one important goal was considered for economic reasons; administration of different school levels could be merged in this way. After unified comprehensive schools were established, the aim was to reduce the difficulties of changing school levels (Sahlstedt 2015, 13). In Finland, the Unified Comprehensive School involves preschool (grade 0), lower school (grades 1–6) and upper school (grades 7–9) in the same school unit, which administratively and functionally includes grades 0–9. In addition, the same unit may include general upper secondary school and thus comprise grades 0 to 12 (figure 1) (Tanttu 2008, 122–123). The advantage of u c s is that there are no level borders in pupils’ school path throughout their comprehensive school. In addition, teachers are quite familiar to the pupils and the learning environment remains the same (see http://www.t-tiimi.com/syve/historiaa.htm). Research Objectives and Research Questions ucs are to stay in Finland. It would be unfortunate if teachers perceived their work environment as ‘heavy’ at u c s. However, more and more Unified Comprehensive Schools are being established. With the intention to provide information about the situation and developing work in u c s, this survey study sought for answers to the following research questions: 1. How do teachers and principals feel about their work at Unified Comprehensive Schools? 2. What kind of challenges do teachers and principals experience in their work at Unified Comprehensive Schools? 34 Benefits and Challenges of Finnish Unified Comprehensive Schools 3. What kind of benefits do teachers and principals experience in their work at unified u c s? 4. How should Unified Comprehensive Schools be developed? There are u c s all over the world, so their development will benefit not only Finnish school children and teachers, but also u c s in other countries. The main question is: how can we make the Unified Comprehensive Schools a better place for everyone. Theoretical Framework In the recent years, a number of u c s have been established in Finland. The reasons have often been economy, cost-effectiveness and reduction of administration. One positive thing related to u c s development has been an increase in expensive school buildings occupancy rate. For example, high-quality gyms and handicraft classes are now being used efficiently by many grade levels and pupils of different ages. Flexible and effective teaching arrangements are possible in ucs. It is clear that teachers’ knowledge of pupils is increasing: familiar teachers teach and guide their pupils throughout grades 0–9 and possibly even in general upper secondary school. Transition to the Unified Comprehensive School-model (figure 1) has not been easy. Separate criteria for teachers’ pay cause a lot of work, especially if the same teacher teaches in both lower and upper school of comprehensive education and in general upper secondary education. Different salaries and educational responsibilities amongst teachers prevent developing a pleasant atmosphere within the school community. Also, taking into account the age difference of pupils is challenging for teachers in different situations (Sahlstedt 2015; Rajakaltio 2011). According to Sahlstedt’s (2015) dissertation (data from the years 2005–2010), there were differences between respondents’ answers: 83% (n = 275) of the parents and 71% of the pupils (n = 871) were satisfied with Unified Comprehensive Schools. 70% of the parents and 60% of the pupils were in favor of building u c s. On the other hand, teachers (N = 64) were more critical towards the ucs: 53% were satisfied and only 29% supported the establishing of the ucs. Teachers viewed the school primarily from the perspective of their own work. Although u c s provide pedagogically rich and versatile working environment, their structure is heavy. 35 Henry Leppäaho Implementation of the Study Research Methods Research was qualitative (Alasuutari 2011; Denzin and Lincoln 2011; Metsämuuronen 2003). According to research literature, a qualitative approach is very suitable for the kind of research where we are interested in people being involved in natural situations and in their causal relationships. The survey was conducted in spring 2019, by using the Microsoft Forms electronic questionnaire. Participants were principals and teachers working in ucs. The survey contained six multiple-choice questions and eight open-ended questions. Participants of the Study Participants in this study come from the surroundings of Seinäjoki and Oulu in Finland. A total of seven ucs were selected. Principals of those schools were first invited to participate in the survey by telephone. After consent was given, further instructions were sent to them by email. Research permits were requested from the local school administrations as well. Due to a low number of participants, names of their schools are not given, to secure anonymity. No distinction was made as to whether the respondent was a principal or vice principal, so the term ‘principal’ is used throughout this text for all school leaders. The purpose of this study was not to compare the differences between two cities, but to seek information on the benefits and challenges faced by the leaders and teachers of the participating Unified Comprehensive Schools. Informing the principals and teachers about the study was similar. It was first sent by email to the u c s principals, with reply links. They were asked to forward the questionnaire containing the same reply link to their vice principals, and a different reply link to their teachers. Information was similar to the one sent to the principals. Teachers’ questionnaire was answered by 47 teachers (32 women and 15 men). The age distribution of the teachers is presented in table 1, as well as their work experience. Most respondents were experienced teachers. Over half of respondents had more than 11 years of teaching experience and about a third even more than 20 years. The questionnaire for school leaders was answered by 16 leaders (7 women and 8 men). More than half of the leaders were 46 36 Benefits and Challenges of Finnish Unified Comprehensive Schools table 1 The Age of the Participants Age group Teachers Principals 26–35 14 1 36–45 14 5 46–55 11 9 8 1 47 16 Teachers Principals 4 0 Over 55 Total table 2 The Work Experience of the Participants Work experience Under 5 5–10 11 4 11–15 10 1 16–20 7 3 21–15 6 6 Over 26 9 2 47 16 Total years of age or older (table 1). Every leader had experience in leading a school for more than 5 years (table 2), most of them for over 16 years. The ucs model is relatively young in Finland, so all the schools involved in the research were established in the 2000s. Results How do the Teachers and Principals Feel at Their Work at Unified Comprehensive Schools? The answers in the table 3 show that the feeling at u c s s is good. Only one of the principals felt passable at his/her work. Almost all principals and teachers felt good or excellent. Eight of the teachers felt satisfactory and two felt passable. No one said I’m not feeling very well. The result is promising when compared to the results of Sahlstedt’s (2015) dissertation in which only about half of the teachers were satisfied with the u c s. Table 4 summarizes answers to a question in which school form the respondents would like to work if they could choose. Less than half of the teachers (47%) would prefer to work in a single comprehensive school (s c s, either lower or upper school only) and 53% would choose the u c s for their workplace. Most principals, almost 70%, would choose the u c s and over 30% chose the s c s. 37 Henry Leppäaho table 3 Feeling at Work at ucs How do you feel at your work in ucs? Teachers Principals Excellent 11 5 Good 26 10 Satisfactorily 8 0 Passably 2 1 I’m not feeling very well 0 0 47 16 Total table 4 Choice of the School Model If you could choose whether you would work at? Teachers Principals Unified Comprehensive Schools 25 11 Single Comprehensive Schools 22 5 Total 47 16 Challenges of the Unified Comprehensive Schools The aim of the study was to find out what kind of difficulties teachers and principals experience in their work at u c s s. Teachers’ most difficult and often mentioned challenge was that the school operated in several buildings. Teacher 2 Combining two far away units’ the result is two nodding units. Teacher 14 Cooperation between schools suffers when they are separated. Other concerns included younger pupils learning bad habits from older pupils and the age gap between pupils. Teacher 41 Younger pupils learn bad habits from older ones (of course good ones, too) Teacher 38 The most challenging thing is to see how the world of the pupils in grades 7–9 influences the ones in grades 5–6. They no longer play like children, as they played in grades 1–4. Some of them take on the role of a teenager too early. Teachers also criticized communication. They felt that messages and information were not transmitted from one building to another. Teacher 17 Long distances between buildings pose a challenge for collaboration and communication. 38 Benefits and Challenges of Finnish Unified Comprehensive Schools According to the principals’ answers, the biggest challenges were time management and constant rush. Principal 4 Always rush and stacking. There is not enough time to spend on pedagogical issues. Principal 6 Management of time so that you are able to perform essential tasks within your working hours. Leading different kinds of groups and achieving unity was also challenging. A good, though heavy, description is given by one principal: Principal 8 Fragmentation, work is one shred. There is a lot of pressure from the administration to do things, which are not necessarily related so much to the everyday school life. [. . .] Special needs education (administration & pupils) take undue time. A few special education classes give one as much work as 16 ordinary classes. Benefits of the Unified Comprehensive Schools u c s have been established in Finland permanently, so one of the main ideas of the study was to gather information about what kind of useful opportunities u c s-model offers for teaching and education in the opinion of teachers and principals. According to teachers’ answers, ucs positive features would include unbroken study paths from pre-school to general upper secondary school and opportunities for teachers to cooperate between school levels. Teacher 2 Transition of ideas from one school level to another. Unification of pupils’ school path. Teacher’s collaboration. Teacher 7 The unified learning path from grade 1 to grade 9. Teachers are more aware of a pupil’s school path, and it is easier to follow over a longer period than for the duration of a single comprehensive school. Unbroken study paths make difficulties related to changing school levels easier or even prevent them completely. Although pupils move from one school level to another, they are allowed to continue in the same buildings and classrooms and are taught by the same familiar teachers. This increases their sense of security. Teacher 1 Pupils receive teaching and education from familiar teachers after lower school in grades 7–9. 39 Henry Leppäaho Teacher 17 The transition from lower school to upper school is easier. Familiar teachers teach throughout primary school + general upper secondary school. One good educational point that I found in teachers’ answers was that pupils of different ages learn to work together. Teacher 4 Pupils’ tolerance education; older pupils help younger ones. Everyone takes everything into account, etc. The most positive aspect for teachers is an increased cooperation between them. This was emphasized by almost half of the teachers. Collaboration, and especially co-planning, was seen as an important part of the teacher’s work. Teacher 47 Collaboration with class teachers and subject teachers. It is also allowed to teach lower school pupils. The principals also mentioned the unbroken study paths for the pupils. Thirteen out of sixteen principals included it in their reply. Principal 4 An unbroken study path for the students. Transition from the lower school to the upper school is easy. Teacher knowledge of the students grows during the nine school years. Students are familiar with school practices, whether they are in the upper school or in the lower school. The second most often mentioned advantage (in 8 principals’ answers) was the effective use of teachers’ skills at different school levels, and the opportunities for professional cooperation. Dual qualification of teachers (qualification as both class and subject teacher) increases teachers’ ‘utilization rate.’ Integrated school also has a positive impact on the employment situation, when lessons can be divided between lower and upper school, and general upper secondary school. Principal 1 Common and diverse operating culture at school. Helping with the employment situation: principal can divide the lessons for the teachers between upper and lower schools. Principal 7 Small upper school and small general upper secondary school, lessons are enough for teachers when we work together. For students, an easy transition from upper school to general upper secondary school. 40 Benefits and Challenges of Finnish Unified Comprehensive Schools Four principals believed that cooperation among teachers is one of the u c s strengths. A common and diverse operating culture that crosses the boundaries between lower school and upper school education is the u c s goal (Sahlstedt 2015, 13). Principal 6 That’s how the lower school was once planned. I think the best thing is the cooperation between the class teachers and the subject teachers. What Should be Developed at Unified Comprehensive Schools? Participants in the study had long working experience in u c s. Next, we focused on their potential focus related to development resources. Teachers hope for a well-functioning everyday life at school. Most teachers need common guidelines to clarify goals and assessment, as well as school rules and everyday practices. Teacher 1 More consistent practices, uniformity of assessment. The second most mentioned item was the development of cooperation among teachers. Teachers want more time and working models for cooperation, so that the ucs idea can be seen. Teachers also mentioned that, because of the separate school buildings and units, collaboration required more effort. Their goal was a truly cohesive school and eliminating of fragmentation. Teacher 3 Time for cooperation. Teacher 4 Really working collaborative models. Teacher 9 For our school, when the buildings are separate, the collaboration requires effort. There should also be more consideration for common themes and activities in the curriculum between grades 1–6 and 7–9. The third issue that needs to be developed is school buildings. Separate buildings slow down teachers’ access and make everyday activities more difficult when, for example, the principal cannot always be reached. Indeed, Teacher 24 states: ‘At the moment, I do not even feel like I am in a Unified Comprehensive school, because lower and upper school teachers work in different houses.’ When we are planning new ucs, we should take the area’s growth forecast into account, to get the right size for the school – ‘all under one roof’! 41 Henry Leppäaho Teacher 21 Three separate buildings are inoperative, the principal is rarely present because there are several buildings and jobs both in the primary and secondary schools. Teacher 22 Separate buildings and teacher rooms challenge unity and flow of information. However, the fact is that school buildings and their location are practically the only two development objects that the school staff can do nothing about. According to the principals, the most development was needed in the u c s’s legislation and in the collective agreements. The u c s practices vary between municipalities and schools, and are unclear. In the u c s, the principal’s workload is particularly high, since on both school levels there are issues that need to be taken care of, and these issues cannot always be combined. The labor division between school management is also challenging. Principal 1 u c s is not properly recognized in collective agreements. The practices are therefore unclear. Principal 5 Principal’s salary. There are several school grades in an integrated school, so this does not work with the one school’s special education and student welfare services resource. Another area of possible development is creating genuine u c s and developing their culture. The principals’ replies state that ucs quite often continue to operate as two units. Principals find a solution for this in discussing education goals and in more co-planning for those teachers who teach on both school levels. Four principals mentioned that unprofessional attitude between subject and class teachers needed improvement. Several principals thought that subject teachers are not very flexible in making plans for the whole school. Principal 4 [. . .] Subject teachers and class teachers are sometimes unprofessional. Removing this is a good area for improvement. Principal 11 The subject teaching system should somehow be made more flexible. A unique feature of integrated school is cooperation of students of different ages, which is hardly achieved on one school level. Teacher 9 Utilization the strengths of the students of different ages. Older students help/teach younger students. [. . .] 42 Benefits and Challenges of Finnish Unified Comprehensive Schools Principal 10 Using the skills of high-level pupils in the education of younger pupils is easy and beneficial for both younger and older pupils. Children learn from each other better. Children of all ages meet in a natural environment. Discussion and Conclusion The results of our survey were compiled from the responses of 47 teachers, 16 principals and assistant principals, in seven schools. All respondents had many years of experience in working at u c s, so it is reasonable to consider that the results are based on experts’ opinions on the situation in participating schools. Despite considerable workload, teachers and principals who responded to our survey were very satisfied with their work. Average weekly working hours were often exceeded. Teachers mostly spent more than 33 hours at work, a quarter of them up to 40 hours. The workload of principals appeared huge. Their workdays stretched over 40 hours, up to 48 hours per week. The teaching sector still seems to have ‘teachers and principals with the calling,’ but the risk of the burnout is high, especially for principals. This is also confirmed by national surveys (Opetusalan ammattijärjestö 2018). Therefore, cities and municipalities must make every effort possible to ensure the well-being of principals and teachers. The management system of the ucs was very similar in all participating schools. The principal was assisted by 1–2 vice principals. They were supported by a school planning or management team together with school teachers. Leading multiple school levels is challenging. New principals certainly need time and space to develop their leadership style. As research has shown, u c s’s leadership culture is created from several elements, such as equality, community, appreciation, communication and humor (Lahtero and Risku 2014). According to this study the most common challenges and problems faced by Unified Comprehensive Schools are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. multiple buildings, rush and time management, combining subject teacher and class teacher culture, increased workload, wide age range of pupils, 43 Henry Leppäaho 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. agreeing on common schedules, communicating, hard to reach the principal, human resource management, leading of different groups. Getting the u c s under the same roof with a shared teacher’s room was the wish of many teachers and principals. This would create the best conditions for daily encounters of all teachers and for creation of a common u c s culture. There is a large age distribution of pupils in comprehensive schools (grades 1–9), as well as great differences in skill levels among pupils. Centralization of special education classes in u c s close connection is not a viable solution for day-to-day management and workload. Because of many grades (even grades 0–12), teachers and principals already have enough work and differentiation of teaching even in mainstream pupils. If ucs implementation is successful, it will offer great opportunities. Based on this study, they the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. unbroken learning path from 1st to 9th grades, easier transition from one school level to the other, familiar school environment for the students, utilization of the skills and strengths of teachers with different backgrounds, professional cooperation opportunities for teachers, collaboration among pupils of different ages, flexible teaching arrangements, improvement of teachers’ knowledge of pupils, fast data transfer and communication in student matters. As can be seen, the above school strengths benefit the pupil first! In this study, participating teachers and principals were aware of the u c s-model benefits. But are there sufficient resources to implement them? Can Unified Comprehensive Schools utilize the strengths of its various teachers? How can those strengths be further highlighted? These are questions that have to be posed to local-level educational leaders. For local authorities as employers, the u c s offer a unique opportunity for efficient and economic use of teachers, classroom 44 Benefits and Challenges of Finnish Unified Comprehensive Schools resources and facilities. It is also possible to centralize pupils’ welfare services for pupils of different ages. Based on these economic considerations, u c s built ‘under the one roof,’ with its functional facilities, is a sensible investment for the employer. In addition, this supports the well-being of the staff. Unified Comprehensive Schools offer their pupils a uniform, continuous and safe school path where they can work with schoolmates of different ages. The achievement of the above aims is best supported by taking into account the potential of u c s in teacher education and professional development. Common courses for all students aiming at teacher profession would provide a good basis for the future collaboration of subject and classroom teachers. Leadership of different groups must be open-minded. One principal does not have enough time to do it all, so a clear solution for ucs leadership is Collaborative Educational Leadership (Jäppinen 2014). On the practical level, this means responsible cooperation in the school management among the principal, assistant principals, school management team and teachers. Ideally, classroom and subject teacher cultures will process an unparalleled working environment to u c s’s operating culture, as Teacher no. 24 wrote in his/her answer: ‘Opportunities for anything: Common education lines between grades 1–9. It can be used to benefit teachers’ expertise. Pupils’ learning path is safe as teachers become known over a nine-year period. Teachers’ knowledge of pupils is growing as we work at Unified Comprehensive School.’ Acknowledgments Special thanks to assistant principal Meri Aatsinki-Hämäläinen from the City of Oulu. The questionnaire of this study and the data collection were done in cooperation with her. References Alasuutari, P. 2011. Laadullinen tutkimus 2.0. Tampere: Vastapaino. Basic Education Act. 1998. https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/ 1998/en19980628.pdf Basic Education Decree. 1998. http://ncee.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2017/01/Fin-non-AV-6-Finland-Basic-Education-Decree.pdf Denzin, N. K., and Y. S. Lincoln. 2011. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage. Jäppinen, A. K. 2014. ‘Collaborative Educational Leadership.’ Complicity 11 (2): 65–85. 45 Henry Leppäaho Lahtero, T. J., and M. Risku. 2014. ‘Symbolic Leadership Culture and its Subcultures in One Unified Comprehensive School in Finland.’ International Journal of Educational Management 28(5): 560–577. Metsämuuronen, J. 2003. Tutkimuksen tekemisen perusteet ihmistieteissä. 2nd ed. Jyväskylä: Gummerus Kirjapaino Oy. Opetusalan ammattijärjestö. (2018). Opetusalan työolobarometri 2017. https://www.oaj.fi/ajankohtaista/julkaisut/2018/opetusalan -tyoolobarometri/ Rajakaltio, H. 2011. Moninaisuus yhtenäisyydessä: Peruskoulu muutosten ristipaineissa. Tampere: Tampere University Press. Sahlstedt, H. (2015). ‘Pedagogisesti yhtenäinen peruskoulu: Tapaustutkimus opettajien, oppilaiden ja huoltajien näkemyksistä.’ Doctoral dissertation, University of Helsinki Tanttu, K. 2008. ‘Yhtenäisen peruskoulun ja yhtenäiskoulun a b c.’ In Kestäviä ratkaisuja kouluun: Kokemuksia yhtenäisestä perusopetuksesta, edited by P. Johnson and K. Tanttu, 122–136. Jyväskylä: ps-kustannus. Henry Leppäaho is Principal of the Toivolanranta Unified Comprehensive School, City of Seinäjoki, and Collaborating Alumnus at the Institute of Educational Leadership, University of Jyväskylä, Finland. henry.leppaaho@seinajoki.fi 46 Perspectives on Leadership Grand Theory of Antisocial and Destructive Behavior Herman Siebens Independent researcher, Belgium Triggered by personal experience, an interdisciplinary literature review was conducted of characteristics, factors (annexed their mutual correlations) and dynamics of antisocial (a) and destructive (d) – hostile, abusive, irresponsible . . . – behavior inside and outside the workplace, among others characterized by their obstructive and toxic features. a d behavior seems to be on the rise (cf. bullying at work, traffic aggression, right-wing political thinking), not only against subordinates (downwards), against colleagues (horizontal) or against the school organization in general but also against headmasters/principals (upwards), which is a specific and often ignored form of hostile behavior (known as ‘employees’ upwards hostility’ (Camps 2015)). Although the academic disciplines of (social) psychology, sociology, criminology, (social) anthropology, (moral) philosophy, ethics, communication science, neuroscience (. . .) all appear to offer very interesting notions, concepts, theories and models of explanation, they remain very fragmented in their analysis of a d behavior. However, these studies generally point in the same direction. In this article, we attempt to combine a wide range of approaches and explanations into one overarching theoretical model: a Grand Theory of a d behavior. This way we hope to contribute to better understanding of what consciously or unconsciously leads people to antisocial, destructive and irresponsible behavior, in everyday as well as in professional life. Herewith, the article responds to insight that scientific discipline of (applied) ethics may need to pay more attention to negative, irresponsible behavior, what it causes and how it works, rather than to examples of prosocial and constructive behavior if it is to contribute better to responsible behavior between the average citizen and staff. The Grand Theory offers more insight into why destructive people do what they do – ‘a person’s failure to acknowledge what is too obvious to miss’ (Bok 1989) – and cues to recognize destructive and ‘evil’ behavior as a whole. Herewith, the Grand Theory opens perspectives on a new interpretation as well as a new approach (management) of antisocial and destructive behavior within organizations. Also in school organizations, leaders (e.g., headmasters and principals, members of the board) are confronted with antisocial and destructive behavior, not only by pupils/students or their parents but also by staff members, sometimes middle managers. For school organizations too, the Grand Theory of a d Behavior offers an impetus to an adapted policy for which we offer some suggestions. Keywords: antisocial, destructive, behavior, organizations vo d e n j e 1|2020: 47–103 Herman Siebens Personal experience with what Camps (2015) calls ‘employees’ upwards hostility’ prompted us in 2015 to start up a thorough literature study of how and – above all – why this kind of behavior appears: why do hierarchical subordinates behave opposingly (obstructively), aggressively and destructively towards a hierarchical superior, (precisely) when their superior pursues a responsible policy and management (an additional sub-aspect in our research). Regrettably, our search illustrated that literature on (professional and organizational) ethics and many other scientific subdisciplines has not yet provided a comprehensive and consistent answer to the question(s) of what and why related to antisocial, obstructive and destructive behavior, especially not when it concerns the upwards format. In many scientific disciplines, we do find partial analyses of hostility in general or of leader-subordinate hostility. Unfortunately, it is (still) impossible to refer to an exclusive and complete analysis of ‘upwards hostility,’ i.e. of subordinate leader-subordinate hostility, in the literature (of any scientific discipline). What else can drive individuals to defy risks of serious sanctions such as dismissal and prosecution when this is not a clear reaction to the so-called destructive or abusive leadership of their superior, although even the knowledge of abusive leadership can help us understand the nature of the a d behavior phenomenon in general? In the past, Tepper’s research (2000; Park, Simon, and Tepper 2017), along with many others, triggered the specific study of abusive supervision instead of the positive traits of good leadership. Herewith the leader is denoted silently and automatically as the origin and cause of obstructive and destructive behavior, a failing organization and a lot of negative consequences (a/o job satisfaction, employees’ deviancy, intentions to quit etc.). Also De Cremer et al.’s (2011) study employee hostility and deviant behavior towards leaders from the basic assumption that it all starts with mistreatment of employees by their leader. Organizationdirected, as well as superior-directed deviance (clearly connected) is considered to be the exclusive result of abusive supervision and negative affection and competence uncertainty among employees. When employees feel abused, especially when they are self-uncertain, they will be more likely to engage in deviant behavior (Ambrose and Mitchell 2007), whether positive or negative. However, by applying this ‘old school’ approach of abusive leadership, we can also interpret abusive leadership by middle managers (first-line supervisors) and by informal leaders towards the 48 Grand Theory of Antisocial and Destructive Behavior Organization Society Horizontally Bottom-up Top-down Interpersonal figure 1 Different Formats of hostile behavior other group members, even by everyone in general towards others downwards, horizontal and upwards (see figure 1): abusive behavior as ‘victims’ perceptions of the extent to which perpetrator(s) engage in a sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors.’1 This definition can even help us to define destructive behavior towards the organization as a whole and within society outside the professional world. But, for the time being, the question remains to what extent our knowledge of abusive leadership – always defined as abusive behavior of a superior towards his employees (downwards) – is also valid for abusive behavior of employees towards their superior (upwards), even if these employees themselves are also functioning as middle managers or as informal leaders of a group of employees. For some years now, against ‘old school’ approach researchers have been making room for deviant behavior by employees towards their organizations (Brown et al. 2014; Hurst et al. 2015), mostly called ‘counterproductive work behavior’ (c w b, as the opposite to ‘organizational citizenship behavior,’ o c b). Also, Park, Simon, and Tepper (2017) point out that even in the case of an abusive supervisor, this can be the result of abusive behavior from subordinates, at least based on the supervisor’s impression of their performance (‘victim precipitation theory’ and ‘moral exclusion theory’). Although they still connect the abusive behavior with the supervisor, they already leave the door open to deviant and abusive behavior coming from employees. And Pundt (2014) explains supervisors’ abusive behavior based on the fact that employees are provoking their sense of self-worth. Camps’ (2015) notion of 1 We see no reason to exclude physical contacts, as Tepper (2000) does at the end of this definition of abusive leadership, insofar these can be aggressive and violent and thus very hostile too. 49 Herman Siebens ‘employees’ upwards hostility’ fits within an open framework of a multiple, multi-motive and multi-stakeholder approach of abusive and destructive behavior. We agree with this approach of antisocial and destructive behavior, whatever its intent or direction. So, we can find a lot of partial answers – theories, models, concepts – in a multitude of scientific disciplines and sub-disciplines: (social) psychology, sociology, criminology, (social) anthropology, (moral) philosophy, ethics, h rm, communication sciences, neuroscience and so on. A thorough multidisciplinary literature study has consulted several hundreds of scientific articles and books, each of which offers a piece of the entire puzzle. Nowhere, however, we could find a summarizing overall picture; there is no comprehensive answer being formulated to answer the central question that has kept us going for the past years. Especially not when it comes to the sub-research question of the how and why related to antisocial, obstructive and destructive behavior of subordinates towards their formal hierarchical superior who tries to conduct an ethical policy and management. So we were propelled in direction of complementing our initial research with a secondary objective of building up such an overview: a ‘grand theory’ of antisocial and destructive behavior (ad behavior). It would be impossible to exclusively discuss just one specific form of ad behavior, i.e. the upwards form. As so far this form is a specific form of ad behavior, we should, first of all, try to gain insight into ad behavior in general. Only in the second phase of research (at a later stage), specific characteristics of ‘upwards hostility’ from subordinates towards their superiors can be addressed, specifically where it fits within the conduct of an ethically inspired and intended policy and management (and this may be precisely the reason and cause of antisocial, obstructive and destructive actions of the subordinates). Although this is not (yet) the subject of this article (Siebens 2018), we will, where possible, already point out the implications for ‘employees’ upwards hostility,’ specifically towards an ethically motivated superior. We believe that such a grand theory can make an important contribution to our understanding of irresponsible behavior – and therefore also of what responsible behavior means – but can also make a major contribution to avoiding and combating such behavior in professional organizations and relationships, among other from subordinates towards their formal superiors. In the meantime, it also allows us to create a positive definition of prosocial, constructive, responsible behavior (ethics). Herewith, we see 50 Grand Theory of Antisocial and Destructive Behavior many theoretical and practical (management) added values to our research, for instance how antisocial and destructive behavior can be prevented or tackled (management). A question to which we will briefly return by way of conclusion. Irresponsible Behavior: First Analysis Greenbaum, Kuenzi, and Mayer (2010) take note of the fact that ‘there are alarming statistics regarding the amount of unethical behavior.’ Vartia-Väänänen (2013) mentions a survey of 2007 within the e u-27 area illustrating that 53% of respondents think that violence, mobbing and harassment represent an important occupational health concern in their country (74% within the old eu-15 area). Bourdeaud’hui, Janssens and Vanderhaeghe (2018) studied the impact of sexually transgressive behavior, violence and mobbing on superiors. Their research found out that 7.6% notice mobbing, 4.3% physical violence and aggression, and 16.8% intimidation and threats. Although these results are lower compared to employees in a non-leading function concerning mobbing and concerning violence and aggression (resp. 9.6% and 5.3%) they are higher for intimidation and threats (only 15.6% with not-leading employees). The impact of antisocial, destructive and therefore hostile behavior is large and significant. In addition to clear impact on physical (such as stomach and intestinal complaints, heart problems and attacks) and mental level (such as depression, nightmares, anxiety attacks, burn-out), the victim also experiences social consequences (including shame, social relationships disappearing, damage to social reputation, gossip, tension with socalled friends), relational consequences (such as tensions in relationship with the partner and children, difficult relationship with family members, even leading to divorce), professional consequences (isolation, loss of professional reputation and reliability, loss of employment, irreparable damage to the career) and financial consequences (including serious loss of income, high litigation costs). In short, a d behavior leads to far-reaching and often lasting changes in the professional situation, but also in life and even in the personality of the victim. Ultimately, it even leads to suicide (attempts). What causes such destructive behavior? We only mention two theories, the most influencing ones and close to each other. A lot of research has tried to find out characteristics of anti51 Herman Siebens social, destructive, hostile or irresponsible behavior at the workplace. Where Galperin (2002) defines constructive deviant behavior as ‘voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and thus contributes to the well-being of an organization, its members, or both,’ Bennet and Robinson (1995; 1997; 2000) define destructive deviant behavior as a voluntary act of violating organizational norms, aiming to harm others and/or the organization. Both definitions focus on voluntary character of the act of violating group/organizational norms (morals) and its impact, harming or not. Though Bennet and Robinson (1995) with Lewis (1985) state that there is a distinction between deviant behavior and (un) ethical behavior, with the former measured by organizational norms and the latter by law, justice or social norms, it’s our opinion that in all cases the basic line is the same: whether or not individuals, groups or whole organizations behave according to one or another internal or external norm of conduct. Herewith deviancy is defined as transgression: deviant behavior is transgressive behavior. Nevertheless, though deviant behavior is de facto always transgressive to social or cultural norms, rules and basic laws, deviant behavior can also actualize some positive effects we should not forget: it resists simple ‘bureaucracy’ (legalistic behavior, acting by the book without any critical reflection), it gives voice to negative thoughts of employees, it can help to finetune norms and rules in the organization and, of course, it is a signal that something is going wrong. Besides unethical and destructive leadership, other characteristics can cause negative deviant behavior with subordinates, among them job characteristics, organisational culture and exposure to toxic colleagues. Some of these aspects are obviously not caused by or the responsibility of the formal leader, but of the whole organisation and/or the employees themselves. Also the reverse of organisational citizenship behavior (o c b), destructive or counterproductive work behavior (c w b) offers some interesting insights. Although we already know a long list of antecedents causing cwb, we have to notice that almost all of them are situated with the organization and/or the leader. What about individual characteristics? Alpkan and Yildiz (2015) point out that important role alienation could be noticed between these antecedents and the fact of c w b itself. According to Suarez-Mendoza and ZoghbiManrique-de-Lara (2008), alienation is a loss of capacity to express oneself at work and can be recognized by lack of concern, interest and attachment (commitment) to one’s work (Kanten and 52 Grand Theory of Antisocial and Destructive Behavior Ülker 2014). Therefore, an alienated person is a person lacking involvement in work role and disengaging from his work (Ceylan, Kaynak, and Sulu 2010). The authors relate alienation with some predictors on the one hand (such as work alienation, organizational climate, ethical disengagement, negative effect, organizational commitment, organizational justice, ethical climate, organizational structure, organizational culture, guilt proneness, ethical ideology, Machiavellianism, ethical orientation, personality traits, perceived fairness, negative emotions, management style and practises, job characteristics, lack of decision-making, limited control over the job, job involvement, performance related pressure) and with all kinds of destructive organisational behaviors on the other hand (such as low turnover intention, professional minimalism, dissatisfaction, counterproductive workplace behavior). Besides, professional minimalism and careerist orientation can also cause counterproductive work behavior (Adams 2011). Further, many studies (Hackman, Lawler, and Porter 1974; Black and Gregersen 1997; Chen, Lam, and Schaubroeck 2002; Nassehi 2005; Gilbert, Laschinger, and Leither 2010) illustrate a clear correlation between the degree of participation in decisionmaking and the level of performance and counterproductive work behavior: low participation relates to low performance and high counterproductive work behavior, high participation relates to high performance and low counterproductive work behavior. Overall, alienation could be a very crucial feeling, mediating between individual, job and organisation characteristics on the one hand and counterproductive attitudes and work behavior on the other hand. Alpkan and Yildiz designate and analyze three specific antecedents causing the feeling of alienation: poor level of person-organization-fit (Azura Dahalan, Rahim, and Sharkawi 2013), careerism (Adams 2011; Chiaburu, De Vos, and Diaz 2013) and lack of participative decision-making (Black and Gregersen 1997). In the meantime, Organ’s (1988) model of five determinants as basic model for o c b is largely accepted: (1) altruism, (2) courtesy (an attitude of concern for the welfare of others, of helping others in their work, and of considerate and respectful behavior), (3) sportsmanship (the non-complaining attitude when things do not go as one wanted, not being offended when others do not follow one’s suggestion, being willing to sacrifice one’s personal interests for the good of the group or the organization), (4) consciousness and (5) civic virtue (commitment to the organization as a whole and common good of the society, the willingness to parti53 Herman Siebens cipate actively in the governance of the organization, to look out for its best interests and to monitor the environment for threats). Later on, Organ (1997) decided on three main dimensions: helping, courtesy and conscientiousness. Herewith, a basic model of negative and destructive person-organisation-fit can be defined, running parallel to Blau’s (1964) traditional social exchange theory: self-directedness on one’s own needs and interests, lack of courtesy towards others, negligence and lack of commitment. From above-mentioned scientific disciplines, a long list of phenomena can be drawn up, illustrating and explaining aspects and characteristics of antisocial, destructive, hostile and irresponsible behavior. All scientific theories, models and concepts directly or indirectly studying the subject of destructive behavior at the workplace can be catalogued in three different areas, influencing the (in this case antisocial, obstructive and destructive) behavior of individuals at work: individual traits (or character, personality), the work environment and the social environment. Behind these areas some specific aspects can be defined, such as upbringing and education, genetic characteristics, organizational culture and social culture, or even destructive leadership (see figure 2). Herewith, unethical behavior, attitudes and situations are a clear example of the ‘many hands problem’ (Kaptein 1998), as well as of shared responsibility. Herewith, an exclusive approach or explanation of phenomena, e.g. burnout, is just wrong. When managers explain the number of cases of burnout in their organization as an exclusive effect of the way their employees organize their private life and their free time, they are fundamentally mistaken and clearly trying to avoid their personal responsibility for the situation (see ethical disengagement). When, in their turn, labour unions are explaining the same phenomenon as the sole outcome of bad work organization and leadership, they too are mistaken and clearly not willing to take the whole image seriously. We may conclude that also in school institutions antisocial, destructive and unethical behavior can and will result in variety and mix of causes which can be assigned to the school environment (social and culture characteristics of neighbourhood and town, society at as whole, social culture), work environment (e.g. job characteristics of a teacher, school culture, toxic colleagues, a destructive principal, bystanders) as well as individual characteristics of the people being part of it (e.g. alienation of the educational value of the job, careerism, personal ethics, professional minimalism, lack of teacher’s participation). This also means that pointing 54 Grand Theory of Antisocial and Destructive Behavior Individual characteristics Genetic traits • Upbringing and education • Ethical ideology • Behavior Work and work environment • Group/team culture • Organizational culture • Exposure to toxic colleagues • Job characteristics • Destructive leadership • Bystanders Social environment • Social culture figure 2 Factors Influencing Behavior at destructive leadership style of the principal, directly or indirectly, is at least an incomplete analysis of the situation at hand. To dig deeper into the phenomenon of antisocial and destructive behavior, we also have to pay attention to personal, interpersonal and group dynamics and to organizational environment in which this is taking place. Irresponsible Behavior, in So Far As Synonymous with ‘Evil’ The issue of a d behavior leads us directly back to everlasting but crucial philosophical question of how can we ultimately define and understand evil (behavior). On what basis can we decide what is right and wrong, that right is right and wrong is wrong? Is our western society indeed increasingly divided and indifferent about this issue of good and evil (ethical relativism)? Is there an absolute knowledge about good and evil or is it ultimately subjective and relative? Are our insights into good and evil fading because our education is shifting from a long educational tradition including philosophy and religion, arts and humanities, to a s t e m-oriented education of science, technology, engineering and mathematics? These questions, however fascinating they may be, fall outside the scope of this article, but some philosophical remarks in this respect can help us to further grasp the essence of a d behavior. According to Kant (1788), evil must be defined as a conscious human act (by nature), based on free will (not because of intrinsic limitations of every individual). This point of view, however confirming the fact of perpetrator’s responsibility is not in line with the General Aggression Model (g a m), one of the basic theoretical models of criminology. g a m relates the essence of criminal behavior to absence of self-regulation and the lack of self-control. Besides, Kant’s viewpoint does not explain what is really driving the perpetrator in his free act(s). Do all causes behind all differ55 Herman Siebens ent forms of antisocial and destructive behavior, among them opposition against a formal supervisor, have the same driving force in common? Behind it, we find a personality retreating in a position of resistance against losing a privileged, secure and safe situation without being certain that the new situation will offer similar guarantees. Considering all this, it is about fulfilment of one’s needs and interests against concern for needs and interests of other stakeholders and the common good of organization and society as a whole (Banaji, Bazerman, and Chugh 2005 call it ‘egocentric ethics;’ Furnham, Paulhus, and Richards 2013). For the perpetrator involved it is about (avoiding) a negative balance sheet. It is about losing positive situation and security, about losing control over the situation and losing the power to realize this control. Finally, it is about losing control under the threat of a negative outcome/evolution. As a conclusion, evil behavior should be understood as self-centered and self-regarding behavior, focused on one’s own needs and interests, preferences and wishes, and rights. This is the essential characteristic of antisocial and destructive behavior (and of psychopathy, that can be considered as the extreme of irresponsible behavior). This definition implies that an evil personality cannot and will not take into account the needs and interests of the Other(s) or the common good of the organization or the society as a whole. The actual social phenomena of nimby (not in my backyard) and nationalism are illustrating this description of evil. They illustrate the fact that our Western societies are recently shifting towards neo-liberal, in fact social-Darwinist point of view in which empathy (and consequently compassion and altruism) are fading away. Utilising this description, the good – as the opposite of evil – can be defined as taking the Other into account (cf. Lévinas 1961; 1972; 1974; 1985; 1991; 2003), his concerns – needs and interests, as well as risks – and the common good of the organization and the society as a whole. In line with this distinction between good and evil, we can distinguish both also by using the distinction between a small scope of discussion (‘one-issue’) versus holistic thinking. This includes open-mindedness (empathy), mental flexibility (creativity) and (self-) critical thinking. Parallel runs the distinction between taking into account the short term exclusively versus taking into account consequences and impact in the long term as well. A lot of other philosophical question marks are popping up. Is evil reality, just the absence of good or a purely subjective interpretation? Does free will really exist, or to what extent does it 56 Grand Theory of Antisocial and Destructive Behavior exist? What are the limits of our free will? Is there really an opposition between self-centered and self-regarding behavior and responsible behavior, given self-care as a basic responsibility toward our Self? Do we not have a first and basic responsibility towards our own community (communautarianism)? Do definitions of good and evil imply altruistic behavior to be the ideal? And so forth. Within the limited scope of this article we can only refer to renowned authors, among others Arendt (1963; 1969; 1970; 1971) and Fromm (1964; 1973; 1997). Philosophical reflections of evil teach that human behavior can be interpreted and described as a continuum between two extremes: on the one hand self-centered and self-regarding, herewith obstructive, destructive and toxic, sometimes even psychopathic and Machiavellian behavior and, on the other hand empathic, concerning (compassionate) and altruistic behavior (Ricard 2013). As often in life, both extremes come close to each other. We briefly point out that we define responsible action in terms of stakeholder thinking ourselves (Siebens 1994; 2010; 2013; 2019). Besides Freeman (1984) we also rely on Lévinas (1961; 1972; 1974; 1985; 1991; 2003) (regarding the philosophical basis of the case), Sen (1979; 1987; 1992; 2009) and Nussbaum and Sen (1993) (for their emphasis on capability) and Habermas (1981; 1984) (concerning communication and dialogue). In doing so, we make a sharp distinction between moral and ethical approach to the issue of responsibility, arguing for an autonomous approach to responsibility (as an added fourth phase to Kohlberg’s (1969; 1976; 1981; 1984) model of ethical development). Madore (2011) is warning about a purely individualistic interpretation of evil and pointing at the mediating and instrumental role of the group, organization and society in relation to conscious and blatant evil. Herewith also the issue of the worldview of people and society (politics, economics, and last but not the least, social relations) is put forward. According to the point of view, two above-mentioned oppositional worldviews can be defined. The one can be described as rooted in a simplistic (because not original) Darwinist view on nature and its social equivalent known as social-Darwinism (the ‘homo economicus’). In line with Nietzsche’s philosophy, power and will are the basic notions to understand how nature is working and only a society that adapts to its basic rule of the survival of the fittest will flourish. This approach is based on the belief that 57 Herman Siebens the human being fundamentally is egocentric (probable derailments of the economic system to the detriment of social life would be corrected automatically by an ‘invisible hand’). The oppositional worldview points at the complex interweaving of all things, plants, animals and (!) humans in eco-systems. Within these systems, each of the individual elements supports the survival of the others and survives with support of all others. The impact and consequences of our human activities on the environment, in general defined as ‘global warming,’ illustrate this complex interweaving. Though a minority clearly is fundamentally egocentric (according to Ricard (2013) about 20%), another minority (also about 20%) is fundamentally altruistic (the other 60% follows the opinions and attitudes in power and can merely be described as opportunistic bystanders). Nature itself shows us a rather confusing mix of both. Though a choice between both frames of reference and according basic attitudes in life is finally a matter of a very personal existential choice, built on personal life experiences, our world view (and view on humans) is also built on our upbringing and education, and the culture of groups and organizations we’re participating in during our lifetime. Herewith a new link to education is popping up: it is up to schools to educate children, youngsters and students about this existential choice between both world views. In this respect, the role of and educating about social media and the phenomenon recently called ‘alternative facts’ and ‘fake news’ are becoming of paramount importance. Digging Deeper: What Other Disciplines Teach Us Since there has not yet been one overarching theoretical model of antisocial and destructive behavior, we have to look at concepts, models and theories presenting partial insights and interpretations, e.g. Social Exchange Theory, the ethical hero, selfdeception, denial, the scapegoat, psychological and moral disengagement, choice supportive memory distortion, self-censure, positive illusion, moralization, Self-perception Theory, (social) ostracism, in-group prototypes, dehumanization, Upper Echelons Theory, dark personality traits, the bystander effect, organizational citizenship behavior versus counterproductive work behavior, perceived organizational support, psychological dissonance, Cognitive Dissonance Theory and the General Aggression Model. It is, of course, impossible to go into details of each in a limited article. Therefore, we will only touch on the most important elements in 58 Grand Theory of Antisocial and Destructive Behavior different disciplines, especially given their interconnections and the philosophical and ethical questions they often raise. Psychology In our attempt to understand what drives antisocial and destructive behavior with its obstructive and toxic side effects, psychology and social psychology are important sources of knowledge. For a long time, psychology has been revealing phenomena such as priming effect, repeated experience, positive framing, halo effect, w ys i at i, overconfidence, laziness of our reflective ability, loss/risk aversion, endowment effect etc. In addition, (social) psychology also teaches us the ‘Madison Avenue mentality’ (Sims 1992) in which behavior is considered ethically acceptable if it is socially accepted. Furthermore, these disciplines study the differences between the effect and the role of shame, guilt and remorse (Eisenberg 2000) and their relationship to empathy, anger and hatred, and aggression. In recent decades, social psychology has devoted a great deal of attention to characteristics of positive o c b (organizational citizenship behavior) and the opposite, c w b (counterproductive work behavior). Alpkan and Yildiz (2015) establish a connection with alienation, with self-control, and with participation. But (social) psychology also shows that identification makes people vulnerable. Emphasis is also given to negative attention and the difference in expectations. In a positive sense, these disciplines point to proximity as an important factor in our sensitivity of responsibility (Brown and Trevino 2006). Castano and Leidner (2012) point to the impact of the threat on shifting group norms. Of course, social psychology pays a great deal of attention to the factor of morality, such as group norms and group culture – as mechanisms of social regulation – and the relationship to and effects of the outside world outside the group, such as confirmation bias, motivated inaccuracy and self-deception. This brings us close to the cognitive dissonance theory, known in ethics as the is/ought-gap (or Ist/Soll-gap). It also brings us to the research by Bandura (Bandura 1990; Bandura et al. 1996) of ‘moral (ethical) disengagement,’ which in turn fits in with phenomena of ethical fading, cynicism, the scapegoat, we-against-them thinking, dehumanization, victimization and violence (social ostracism). Byington, Felps, and Mitchell (2006) analyze the process aspect of it. From an ethical point of view, many of these phenomena raise critical objections, among others by the notions of 59 Herman Siebens ‘parrhèsia’ (Foucault 2009), ethical hero/rebel and whistleblowing. It seems that for the ethicist, the role of ethical disengagement cannot be overestimated. These scientific disciplines have tried to reduce their knowledge to a schema of personality types. The Big Five and the extensive Hexaco model are now widely known and used in assessments. Based on the traits of the Big Five (Six) psychology has detected three, recently (Farb et al. 2018) four types of personality. We note here the ‘self-centered’ type. For the ethicist, it is also interesting to see that this part of the research is revealing that high giftedness is primarily characterized by a strong ethical sensitivity (sense of justice). Research on personality types (their mutual correlations and correlations between their sub-aspects) has, among other things, led to development of the notion of ‘dark personality’ (or ‘Dark Triad’) (Paulhus 2014; Kenrick 2014). There is clear evidence that antisocial behavior in general has genetic roots (defects in the brain, among other in the pre-frontal cortex and the amygdala), although it only becomes apparent within a specific environment (social circumstances). Countless studies of the combination of Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy teach us that correlations between these three are very high, that Machiavellianism and psychopathy are very strongly related (hence the title ‘Dark Dyad:’ on the one hand narcissism, on the other hand psychopathy-Machiavellianism), and that sadism should be considered as an independent fourth factor (‘Dark Tetrad’) (Reidy, Seibert, and Zeichner 2011; Buckels, Jones, and Paulhus 2013). Characteristics of psychopathic behavior – also the known ‘light psychopathy’ of many (formal and informal, high and middle) managers – are, among other, lack of affective empathy, strong self-mindedness, manipulation, impulsiveness, superficiality and lack of shame, guilt or remorse. Besides, some researchers (Kowalski, Schermer, and Vernon 2016) even defend the position of ‘Big One.’ The General Factor of Personality (g f p) is a positive trait. It is strongly negatively correlated with psychopathy and Machiavellianism and not significantly correlated with narcissism. It is a meaningful construct of social competence, with emotional stability (0.64), consciousness (0.36), agreeableness (0.19) and extraversion (0.13) as main aspects (Kowalski, Schermer, and Vernon 2016). Characteristics common for psychopathy and Machiavellianism explain why also cynicism – among other, the notion of cynicism means great in60 Grand Theory of Antisocial and Destructive Behavior sensitivity to consequences of one’s actions – can be considered as one of the main characteristics of the dark personality. So, this lack of sensitivity runs parallel to lack of attentiveness for another person’s vulnerability. Further also (dis)agreeableness (Egan and Jakobwitz 2006; Egan and McCorkindale 2007), absence of honesty and humility (6th element of the Hexaco-model), callouness (lack of sensitivity) (Ali, Amorim, and Chamorro-Premuzic 2009; Jones and Paulhus 2011; Bore, Douglas, and Munro 2012) and interpersonal antagonism are nominated as main characteristics. And there is also the characteristic of lack of empathy (Glaser 2013), leading to social aversiveness. According to the research by Edens, Fulton, and Marcus (2012) ‘disinhibition’ – lack of selfcontrol – is the main component. Four basic aspects of the dark personality can be articulated as follows: How great is the longing for power with the person concerned? How much flexibility does the person concerned have towards opinions and visions of others? • How great is the person’s capacity to empathize with feelings and visions of others? • What is his/her need for recognition? How difficult is it for the person concerned to praise others? • How easy and quickly the person concerned uses one or another form of aggression or violence (verbal, physical, sexual, etc.)? How great is his/her concern for the person when others suffer and are in pain? • Kurtulmus (2019) suggests discussing ethical leadership alongside characteristics of dark leadership i.e. dark personality. This leads us to the following four characteristics of ethical leadership: Is the leader concerned able to share his power? Is he/she capable of making decisions through discussions and collective decision-making? • Is he/she capable of empathizing with others, their opinions and arguments as well as their feelings and concerns? • Is he/she able to give credits to the group member who actually articulated the idea or did the hard job? • Does he/she avoid every kind of pressure, aggression of violence towards other stakeholders, whether internally or externally? • 61 Herman Siebens To the extent that psychopathy can be considered as a clear and central personality factor, the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (pclr) by Hare (2003) – used worldwide as a measuring instrument for psychopathy – can also serve ethics well as an indicator and description of antisocial, destructive and therefore irresponsible behavior. Neuroscience The research of how our brains are working, which parts of them are responsible for a certain function and how they interact with each other has progressed considerably over the past decades, but still has many questions to answer. For about two centuries, the question of whether, how, where and to what extent the functioning of our brains determines our sense of responsibility has been an important topic within this scientific discipline (Verplaetse 2006; Haidt 2008). Nevertheless, the latest technologies (fm r i, e e g, m e g, etc.) have during recent years resulted in enormous progress as far as our insights in this area. Awareness of responsibility – ethical sensitivity – appears to be the result of an extremely complex collaboration of more than ten specific brain parts. Remarkably, it appears to be strongly related to our ability to take perspective, i.e. to empathy – which turns out to be central and crucial factor of responsibility – versus superficiality and self-centeredness. Ethical awareness also appears to be related to self-control. We can conclude that failure of self-regulation or selfcontrol is all about what it literally means: a person losing control, ability to regulate one’s Self, so that he systematically prefers the pursuit of his perspectives, needs and interests instead of taking into account perspectives, needs and interests of the other(s) and the common good of the whole (organization and society). Here, the eternal question remains open as to whether lack of sense of responsibility should remain attributed solely to ‘defects’ in the brain (Davidson, Larson, and Putnam 2000) or to a conscious act by the person in question, to his free will. In this discussion, the philosopher and the ethicist are stressing the existence and the role of individual freedom in our actions. Anthropology The overall conclusions of anthropological research confirm the philosophical standpoint concerning our free will. To put it in ethical terms: we cannot disregard obstructive and destructive, viol62 Grand Theory of Antisocial and Destructive Behavior ent and evil behavior by externalizing it to our human nature, but we will have to accept our responsibility for its intentions and outcomes (Neckebrouck 2017). One of the main topics of anthropology is the role of identity. On the one hand, identity is a natural, even inescapable and unavoidable aspect of each (sub-) group (organization, society). Against this background, anthropologists refer to the insights concerning ethnocentrism. ‘Ethnocentrism is the technical name for the view of things in which one’s group is the centre of everything, and all others are scaled and rated by referring to it’ (Sumner 1906). And: ‘Ethnocentrism is an attitude of mind characteristic of those who regard their own cultural values as the only valid ones. (It is) the uncritical preference for one’s own mores and culture’ (Bidney 1959). And so: ‘Ethnocentrisme is the belief in the superiority of one’s own culture’ (Bodley 1975), including ‘l’attitude qui consiste à rejeter tous les modèles culturels qui nous sont étrangers ou tout simplement qui sont différents de ceux auxquels nous nous sommes identifiés depuis notre petite enfance’ (Laplantine 1974). For many decades, anthropology has known a large and heavy discussion whether ethnocentrism is, yes or no, a universal syndrome, thus found in all societies and groups. With Neckebrouck (2017), we can conclude that it is not universal, but indeed widespread. It includes the tendency to define the in-group members as ‘fully human’ and ‘fully developed,’ versus out-group members as inferior and savage, even animal-like. So, it is in ethnocentric thinking that we find the real roots of dehumanization processes, typical for the way groups are looking at each other and treating out-groups and deviant individuals, e.g. in cases of discussion and conflict. Sociology, Social Psychology and Social Anthropology Baumeister and Heatherton (1996), studying the phenomenon of self-regulation failure, also point at the influence of the sub/group culture considering what members believe to be appropriate, reasonable and desirable, in short – ethical. The impact of the group, organization and society on individual members through their culture, cannot be overestimated. This refers to paternalism, in its negative (prohibitions, bans and taboos; duties) as well as in its positive (proscriptions; obligations and rights) meaning. The underlying social identification implies self-categorization, commitment and loyalty to the group, self-esteem. It forces a social 63 Herman Siebens filter, brainwashing and social selection in reactions of the group members. However, this identification also leads to us-against-them thinking, scapegoating, racism and violence against other groups. The in-group versus the out-group. Ardrey (1966) and Bakker (1973) develop the ‘territory theory’ as an explanation. Fromm (1997) speaks of tribalism. Busch (2017) outlines the ‘diabolical transition process’ within a group, leading to that tribalism. Phenomena of persistent ethical illusions (‘cognitively impenetrable,’ dixit Pylyshyn (1999) and of ‘out-group homogeneity bias’ (Jones and Quattrone 1980; Badea and Rubin 2012) (see below) go hand in hand with strong group culture. We have (Siebens 2004) launched the notion of ‘cultural standard deviation,’ which describes the distinction between a strong and a weak form of culture. An important and interesting factor here is the ‘in-group member prototype:’ whoever is the most in tune with the abstract, subconscious prototype of the group member, has the most success and authority within the group. This is a determining factor for informal leadership (conversely, that person determines the actual meaning of the prototype more than the others). In a negative sense, it is the factor that leads to self-control and self-censorship, social sanctioning, ostracism and exclusion for those who do not or insufficiently comply with that prototype. It leads to generalizations, rationalizations (of behavior considered being normal), half-truth or false information, fantasies which are not and cannot be questioned inside the group. Fromm (1964; 1973) points to the impact of group narcissism and explains that collective/group narcissism is contradictory to the ‘scientific method’ of doubt, facts and figures, proof and open argumentation. Phenomenon of fake news, alternative facts and fact-free opinions illustrates this fully. These analyses run parallel to ‘ethical disengagement’ strategies adopted by, among others, Bandura. Antisocial, destructive behavior can be analyzed as an assessment (by the group, organization or society) of the individual behavior as being deviant from its ‘member prototype.’ Ackroyd and Thompson (1999) are convinced that qualification of ‘(professional) misconduct’ only points at the difference between this conduct and the conduct expected by the management: ‘anything you do at work you are not supposed to do.’ However, herewith a d behavior is reduced to morality (culture) of a specific group, organization or society, which fundamentally differs from the question of a broader and deeper ethical assessment. O’Leary-Kelly and Robin64 Grand Theory of Antisocial and Destructive Behavior son (1998) clearly show that individual antisocial behavior can be explained by collective antisocial behavior of the group. This sociological finding explains why a d behavior has a toxic effect. Communication Sciences Cognitive dissonance, microcosmos or ‘the bubble,’ all three notions express the phenomenon of the cognitive consistency principle: when facts or data create dissonance (conflict) to our beliefs and opinions we do not change our beliefs and opinions but reinterpret the facts and figures, just ignore their existence or search for new facts or data. The most common appearance of this phenomenon is in denial and rejection of new, contradictory information. It can lead to a ‘backfire effect’ in which given evidence against one’s opinions and beliefs is rejected and even makes one’s opinions and beliefs stronger (Silverman 2011). Running parallel, we know the ‘continued influence effect’ in which earlier misinformation still influences one’s opinions and beliefs after it has been corrected by new information (Colleen and Johnson 1994). The bias is stronger in case of information and situations with a clear emotional content. It ‘increases with the degree to which the evidence relates directly to a dispute in which one has a personal stake’ (Nickerson 1998). Besides, ‘framing’ is consciously and subconsciously used technique of combining and picturing information to confirm one’s opinion, to build a specific schema of interpretation functioning as a mental filter. Besides the objective of convincing others – up to manipulation – it can also be used to convince oneself of earlier adopted opinions and evaluations (prejudices). New, critical and provocative information, and alternative opinions and solutions are threatening one’s self-esteem, and psychological and social safety. So, this tendency is leading to drive for consistency, a conservative reflex (‘self-verification,’ ‘self-enhancement’) to defend our fixed mindset, our Self-schemata (being the conscious or subconscious construction of cognitive generalizations about our Self that organizes and guides the processing of self-relating information in our social experience) (Markus 1977). Criminology Insofar antisocial, destructive and abusive behavior is often also illegal and thus criminal, criminology can help us understand what 65 Herman Siebens is going on in perpetrators’ minds. Crucial for the modern understanding of aggression, cruelty and violence is the article of Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), where the authors develop their ‘general theory of crime’ centered on the notion of self-control (self-regulation; impulsivity). Not that the former ‘theory of the broken windows’ (Kelling and Wilson 1982) would be incorrect – a negative process down the ‘slippery slope,’ known within the discipline of ethics as the ‘ethics degeneration law’ – but criminologists recently often refer to the General Aggression Model (g a m) by Anderson and Bushman (2002). This model of aggression is built on the basic ideas and building blocks of other theories about the origins of aggression (as cognitive neo-association theory, social learning theory, script theory, social interaction theory). Among others, the research by Daffern and Gilbert (2011) illustrates the relation between personality disorders as narcissism and the tendency to violence, especially concerning the influence on arousals to violent behavior of cognitions creating cognitive structures and behavioral scripts repeatedly retrieved and used. These structures and scripts serve as definition and interpretation schemes of situations and as a guide for behavior (frames of reference). In other words, whether a person engages in obstructive, destructive or violent behaviour, one is inhibited in belief of the perceived appropriateness of such behavior. Within the gam-interpretation aggression, there is a way of coping with experienced imbalance, aiming to restore the internal state of equilibrium and rest. Crime is constituted by the promise of immediate and easy gratification of desires in short term, without any consideration of long-term negative consequences for the offender himself. So, central to the g a m-model is the idea of self-control or self-regulation. According to Gottfredson and Hirschi’s definition (1994), absence of the self-control attitude is the general heart of counterproductive work behavior. It seems that self-regulation failure or the absence of self-control is essentially the absence of control over Self, so that self-regarding or self-centered perspectives, needs and interests, preferences and wishes, and one’s rights are overruling empathic feelings for the other and the perspectives, needs and interests of the common good. Herewith, responsible behavior can be defined as selftranscendence (Cieciuch and Rogoza 2018), being the opposite of self-centeredness. The g a m-model for aggression and violence points at disruption of downwards processes in the phenomenon of violence by taking some time for (self-) reflection. 66 Grand Theory of Antisocial and Destructive Behavior Philosophy With the discipline of philosophy, we enter the domain of reflection on Evil. Central to this is the question of whether evil is an objective reality in itself or only the subjective experience of the absence of the good. In short: is antisocial, destructive, i.e. irresponsible action a reality in itself or just the absence of social, constructive, i.e. responsible action? In this context, since Kant, philosophy has also discussed the nature of free will: determinism versus responsibility. In his ‘ethics of proximity’ Lévinas (1961; 1972; 1974; 1985; 1991; 2003) entitles the ‘appeal in the Image of the Other’ as the founding element of responsible behavior. In doing so, he argues that our responsibility is a heteronomous experience: it is the Other who places us in front of our responsibility. Frankfurt (1988; 1999) seems, at a first sight, to have a different approach. According to this author, free will is an independent faculty of the human being, who is a (self-) reflexive being, able to reflect on his desires, what is also applicable when the person involved has no choice and therefore must not count on one’s intelligibility. One’s free will – autonomy, self-control and self-determination – is based on fundamental desires (‘second/higher order desires’). The essence, according to Frankfurt, is not the reflexive intelligibility of a human being, but his will to act with his consent by his deepest desires. This is what Frankfurt calls ‘autonomy.’ The philosophical discussion thus revolves around the opposition (or combination?) between autonomy and heteronomy in human existence. Over decades, Arendt’s statement (1963) that evil behavior of Eichmann was ‘banal’ caused frustration and discussion. Arendt means that we all are capable of doing this kind of violent deeds if we find ourselves in exactly the same kind of conditions, situations and environment. This implies that evil indeed is partially a ‘banal,’ structural element. Nonetheless, partially. Never can the individual escape from his personal responsibility to question his position and collaboration to the obviousness of his group and organization. Arendt (1971) states: ‘A good conscience does not exist except as the absence of a bad one.’ (Applied) Ethics and Moral Philosophy Fundamental to the ethical reflection on antisocial, destructive, in short – irresponsible behavior are the distinction between ascertainable facts versus intentions behind it and the distinction between an evaluation based on social norms (morality) versus 67 Herman Siebens generally applicable values, principles and arguments (ethics). It is appropriate to consider that good intentions cannot justify wrong outcomes, just as good outcomes cannot cover up wrong intentions. Harms, Lebreton, and Spain (2013) therefore make a difference between intention and outcome of a person and define ‘dark personality’ by the fact that intention of self-centredness itself, whatever the outcome, is destructive, malicious, aiming to harm others or at least accepting that harm and damage will happen when attempting to elevate oneself or fulfilling own perspectives, needs and interests. Seems all three profiles of the dark personality (Dark Triad) have self-centeredness as their final purpose (intention), whatever the concrete content of this self-centred behavior. Thus, the common core is the self-centered fulfilment of one’s perspectives, needs and interests, making it an intrinsic destructive way of behaving. To the extent that antisocial, destructive behavior can ethically be defined as egocentric, self-directed (as opposed to the stakeholder thinking that one should take into account all those involved), an increase in this behavior in today’s Western societies is not a coincidence. Where society is shifting towards socialDarwinist (or neo-liberal) thinking, what emerges is what SanderStaudt’s (2011) characterizes and defines as ‘a culture of neglect.’ This is nothing new, as it is in line with numerous theological and philosophical points of view. This is reflected in ethical phenomena such as the free rider, the single/one-issue/party/organization (particularism), n im b y or the bystander effect. At the ideological level, we see a tendency towards ‘ethical ideology:’ a closed mind with a strong conviction, limited to a single view, due to lack of openness to counter-arguments. From the research of Brown, Cosme, and Pepino (2014) we now know that ethical ideology/philosophy is probably strongly related to one’s political ideology. According to the authors, a more liberal ideology strongly correlates with empathic feelings, tolerance, open-mindedness and inclusion; a conservative ideology, on the contrary, correlates strongly with authoritarian beliefs, intolerance and less empathy, but also discriminatory opinions and exclusivity. What is lacking in each of these phenomena is also a healthy dose of self-critical sense. However, this requires mental openness and flexibility. Altogether, ethical personality can be determined by notion of open-mindedness towards the stakeholders, and to the whole of the environment of the person or organization – ‘organization-environment-fit’ – and in the long term. We 68 Grand Theory of Antisocial and Destructive Behavior can ground this open-mindedness first in Lévinas’ theory on the heteronomous encounter with the Other and in Freeman’s idea of taking all stakeholders into account. To put it simply, ethical personality is about competence to relativize or even disregard oneself and to take into account the other(s), to put oneself into perspective with the others and the common good. Many social factors and partial aspects in various scientific disciplines also explain toxic effect of antisocial, destructive behavior. The rule that ‘evil is stronger than good’ does all the rest . . . Intoxication takes place on individual, collective and organizational level, as well as on cultural and structural level. As far as ‘employees’ upwards hostility’ is concerned, this explains why informal and middle management leaders, focused on personal interests and ambitions, benefits and concerns manage to get support by other employees for their antisocial and destructive behavior, including their obstructive and dissident behavior towards their formal, hierarchical superior. The fact that this often involves ethical requirements of the formal leader in terms of commitment, quality assurance, customer focus, integrity and respect, etc. may not be a surprise given that the leader is actually the one pursuing ethical policy and management that can become the target of individual or collective upwards hostility. In addition to the toxic effect of antisocial and destructive behavior we must point out severe destructive impact of such behavior on individual colleagues (stress, burn-out, dismissal, up to suicide) and on professional organization in which they work (decrease in positive climate at work, demotivation, declining performance, increase in staff turnover, negative reputation, increased risks, financial losses, etc.). Negative effects are often enormous, and victims deal with consequences such as p t s d and burnout for a long time. The long and diverse list of phenomena related to the main topic, employees’ upwards hostility, makes us wonder whether there is a way to create an overview. Fritz-Morgenthal, Posch, and Rafeld (2018) present a global scheme based on three main areas: the individual, the collective (group) and the organisation. Park, Simon, and Tepper (2017) make a comparable distinction between behavior of the perpetrator, characteristics of the victim and contextual factors. In case of attempting to minimize cognitive dissonance, a combination of these aspects will, finally, lead to organizational misbehavior. It’s our aim to integrate all information on a d-behavior into one model called The Grand Theory. 69 Herman Siebens Organizational culture and structures In-group prototipycality group narcissism Individual antecedents: • Lack of empathy • Emotional deficiency • Self & social deception • Malfunctioning of prefrontal ventro-medial cortex, anterior singulate cortex, amygdala, paralimbic system • Callousness • Low agreeableness • Fearless dominance • Strong hostility Egocentricity: personal gain & self-interest • Ideological thinking • Hostility Situation at hand Cognitive dissonance (is/ought-discrepancy) Self-perception Choice Dark triad (psychopathy, Machiavellianism, narcissism) Lack of carebased ethics figure 3 AD Preceding the Moment of Choice (Part 1) Behavior: A Dynamic Process What Precedes It all starts with the moment when an individual person sees himself confronted with a situation he experiences as ‘cognitive dissonant’ (discrepancy between is and ought) that is threatening his positive self-image and social reputation (see figure 3). Siebens (1996) analyzes this experience as a moment of stress: imbalance between bearing capacity and bearing burden. Since the cause of this imbalance lies with an ethical dilemma, the author introduces a specific concept of ‘ethical stress.’ Whether, how and to what extent this ethical stress happens, depends on many elements that determine his personality and his position in the specific situation: individual antecedents and personality characteristics, group characteristics and organizational characteristics (FritzMorgenthal, Posch, and Rafeld 2018; Rafeld 2018). Discrepancy introduces ‘counterfactual reasoning’ (Petersen 2019), including the 70 Grand Theory of Antisocial and Destructive Behavior Macro-level Organizational culture Group culture Meso-level Micro-level figure 4 Individual values System Informal group structure Individual action From Micro to Macro phenomenon of retrospective sense making (that is closely related to phenomenon of ethical disengagement). Insofar this leads to unpleasant feeling of discrepancy, it encourages making a fundamental choice. This choice is not only just factual, but also existential. From Individual Choice to Organizational Impact Many studies (see above) show that a d behavior – also pro-social, responsible behavior – is not a spontaneous, almost intuitive choice of the moment, but product of a process which is also influenced by the group, organization and environment, albeit often unconsciously. Individual choices, e.g. by prototypical group members (such as the informal leader), are translated into collective attitudes (the so-called group culture), which in turn have a structural impact (the organizational culture). That is why we find that a d behavior – but also pro-social, responsible behavior – has a toxic effect, both from individual to group and from group to organization (see figure 4). A Choice for Self-Directed Behavior Although one should hope that no person will choose to do so, there is always a real chance that he or she will prioritize (more or less, consciously or unconsciously, partially or explicitly) his own concerns, needs and interests. Individual traits, group dynamics and organizational aspects can create a process of cognitive distortion (Gibbs, Goldstein, and Potter 1995; Barriga and Gibbs 1996), 71 Herman Siebens neutralization (Matza and Sykes 1957) and justification of questionable behavior: ethical disengagement (Bandura 1990; Bandura et al. 1996) leads to normalization. Then a process starts – being a ‘slippery slope’ – in which the characteristics of antisocial and destructive behavior become clearer, step-by-step. Ultimately, this process results in toxic influence on others and on the culture of the organization. Fortunately for mankind, the choice for self-directed behavior is neither an inescapable nor an irrevocable choice. If the person involved is highly ethically sensitive, the group has an open culture of debate towards questionable behavior and the organization takes care of its culture and functioning in line with ethical standards and norms. A person can withstand the process of normalization and the slippery slope towards antisocial and destructive, selfserving behavior. Self-critical reflection can increase one’s ethical sensitivity. And antisocial and destructive behavior, with all its components, can – if not deeply infected by psychopathy or Machiavellianism – evoke shame, guilt and/or remorse. In these cases, the door can open for a new, alternative choice. Here the issue of the personal free will is paramount. We want to emphasize that in our approach we do not only see responsible/irresponsible behavior and responsible/irresponsible leadership as an individual, personal phenomenon related to the leader. As abundantly demonstrated by studies within the approaches of the leader-member exchange theory and the institutional theory, behavior of the leader and that of members of the group/team residing under his/her leadership is strongly intertwined: both strongly influence each other. In this respect, bad leadership can be the output of the dark i.e. antisocial and destructive personality of the leader as well as of the group members individually (such as an informal leader) or the group as a whole (its group culture). Or both. Moreover, this dyad functions within structural, institutional context of an organization that may or may not, clearly or unclearly, set less or more flexible rules and standards for the behavior of all employees at all hierarchical levels. Micro-, meso- and macro-level are strongly interrelated. This brings us seamlessly to another well-known characteristic of dark personalities’ behavior: they are toxic. Their behavior has a contagious effect on colleagues and thus creates a ‘dark’ group/organizational culture, which in turn influences the institutional context (structures, norms and rules etc.). In the reverse direction, the institutional context will influence the group cul72 Grand Theory of Antisocial and Destructive Behavior ture, which in turn will have its influence at the level of individual behavior. Interpretation of the leader-member exchange in terms of toxicity leads us to Dekker’s (1990) notion of the ‘ethics degeneration law,’ but also to the opposite dynamics of the ‘ethics generation process.’ Where the former points to spontaneous downward pressure of unethical actions on other individuals, groups or organizations, the latter points to a possibly positive process (however, this second possibility implies that there is a conscious and targeted policy to uphold ethics by means of exemplary behavior of integrity (‘walk the talk’), ethical codes, policies concerning whistleblowing, policy concerning bullying and hostility etc.). Thus, concerning ‘employees’ upwards hostility’ as a specific and extreme example of antisocial and destructive behavior, we cannot simply consider the individual vicious behavior of a single person towards his hierarchical superior. To the extent that this interindividual aspect fits within a larger whole of toxicity, of group and organizational culture, and of institutional influences, antisocial and destructive behavior is not an exclusivity of a single individual and does not necessarily target only the superior. Antisocial and destructive behavior can and probably will also be directed against the group and against the whole organization. Through our research of the phenomenon of obstructive and destructive, and consequently also of toxic behavior of employees, we have noticed some fundamental (cor)relations between very different phenomena, namely: • • • • • • Negative and destructive behavior has some characteristics, among others a reduced level of perspective taking and empathic feelings, common to psychopathy; Negative and destructive behavior is characterized by a reduced level of self-control (‘self-regulation failure’), related to a reduced level of perspective taking and empathic feelings and to psychopathy; Negative and destructive behavior often goes accompanied by ethical disengagement, what is in turn related to as well reduced self-control/regulation, reduced perspective taking and empathy, and some degree of psychopathy; Ethical disengagement is also related to the absence of prosocial, responsible (ethical) behavior; Absence of self-control/regulation is related to a low degree of pro-social, responsible (ethical) behavior; Malfunctioning of the ventro-medial prefrontal cortex and 73 Herman Siebens Egocentricity:personal gain & self-interest Ethical fading Euphemismus Slippery slope of decision-making Errors in perceptual causation Constraints by representations of the self Bystander effect Motivated inaccuracy Ethical disengagement Lack of consciousness Choice Cynicism Ethical relativism Emotionrelated behavior Self-regulation failure Impulsivity Alienation Anti-social behavior • Aggression • Social ostracism • Dehumanization • Deviant behavior • Obstructive & destructive behavior • Counterproductive actions • Anti-social behavior • cwb Feelings of embarassment, shame, guilt, or remorse Toxicity figure 5 Process When Choosing for Self-Directed Behavior (Part 2) the amygdala is related to ethical disengagement and results in a low degree of self-control/regulation and a low degree of perspective taking and empathy. Further, concerning a d behavior towards a superior or the organization as a whole, we can differentiate between hesitation, resistance, opposition and revolt, distinguished by means of whether it is (un)conscious behavior, whether it is individual or collective acting, the level of impact, whether it is incidental or structural, whether it is directed towards a situation or a person, and the level of violence used. These criteria allow us to situate the four levels of hostile behavior, from hesitation to revolt, in the whole developmental process. Overall, all aspects and elements of ethical (responsible) and of antisocial and destructive (hostile) behavior can be summarized 74 Grand Theory of Antisocial and Destructive Behavior Compassion/concern: severity of need Open thinking Feelings of connectedness and commitment (oneness) Ethical identity: • Cognitive ethical development • Emotional intelligence • Mental flexibility • Consciousness • Agreeableness • Ethical courage • Idealism Perspective taking Emphatic feelings Feelings of embarassment, shame, guilt, or remorse gfp Big Five/Texaco Self-transcendence Choice Self-regulation/self-control Change of behavior Pro-social behavior: • Compassion • Care • Altruism & psychological ownership • Commitment • Willingness to sacrifice • ocb Transformative learning figure 6 Choice of Self-Transcendent Behavior (Part 3) in a general process (figure 5) illuminating the processes of the individual, its group and the organisational context, their mutual (intoxicating) connections and the different degrees of hostility: the ‘Grand Theory of a d Behavior.’ A Choice for Self-Transcendence Nevertheless, the moment of choice may also encourage the person concerned to take a broader approach to situation, taking into account not only their own concerns, needs and interests, but those of all stakeholders (cf. stakeholder-imperative (Siebens 1994; 2010; 2013; 2019)) and the common good. This choice, based 75 Herman Siebens on holistic thinking, if maintained, will lead to pro-social and constructive behavior: compassion, care, altruism. In organizational terms, we see commitment, loyalty and organizational citizenship behavior (o c b). The choice to make a decision and act in a way that goes beyond the exclusive choice of one’s own concerns, needs and interests and also to take into account the concerns, needs and interests of all other stakeholders, e.g. from emotions of compassion and the common good will evoke a feeling of belonging and unity. In the background, the choice is supported by an ethical identity based on a construct of ethical sensitivity and of social competence, with emotional stability, consciousness, agreeableness and extraversion as main aspects (Kowalski, Schermer, and Vernon 2016). Within this choice, self-control and self-regulation play a crucial role. Pro-social and constructive behavior ultimately leads to transformative learning. The whole implies that the individual succeeds in broadening and transcending his own Self: self-transcendence (figure 6). AD Versus Pro-Social Behavior Ultimately, the main characteristics of a d, namely irresponsible, unethical or ‘evil’ behavior can be presented in an overview. This can be mirrored to become a basic scheme about pro-social, responsible, in short ethical behavior. Finally, it’s all about: short-sightedness (number of stakeholders taken into account) • timescale taken into account (short versus long term) • subject of discussion (‘one-issue’ versus open-mindedness and holistic thinking) • Here, points of view (frames of reference). A Grand Theory of A D Behavior Taken together, all this allows us to sketch the dynamic picture of irresponsible and responsible behavior (figure 7). The Position of the Victim We already mentioned various and severe effects of a d behavior on the laughed-at victim. Often a lack of empathy prevents 76 Grand Theory of Antisocial and Destructive Behavior Organizational culture and structures Situation at hand Cognitive dissonance (is/ought-discrepancy) In-group prototipycality group narcissism Self-perception Egocentricity: personal gain & self-interest Ideological thinking Hostility Choice Open thinking Feelings of connectedness and commitment (oneness) Ethical identity: • Cognitive ethical development • Emotional intelligence • Mental flexibility • Consciousness • Agreeableness • Ethical courage • Idealism Dark triad (psychopathy, Machiavellianism, narcissism) Self-transcendence Individual antecedents: • Lack of empathy • Emotional deficiency • Self & social deception • Malfunctioning of prefrontal ventro-medial cortex, anterior singulate cortex, amygdala, paralimbic system • Callousness • Low agreeableness • Fearless dominance • Strong hostility Compassion/concern: severity of need Lack of carebased ethics Ethical fading Euphemismus Slippery slope of decision-making Errors in perceptual causation Constraints by representations of the self Bystander effect Motivated inaccuracy Ethical disengagement Lack of consciousness Perspective taking Emphatic feelings Feelings of embarassment, shame, guilt, or remorse Cynicism Ethical relativism Emotionrelated behavior Self-regulation failure Impulsivity Alienation Self-regulation/ self-control Change of behavior Anti-social behavior* Toxicity figure 7 Pro-social behavior* Transformative learning Grand Theory of ad Behavior (* see figures 5 and 6) 77 Herman Siebens the perpetrator from experiencing or seeing this. His/her lack of shame, guilt and repentance means that the perpetrator does not feel bad about it and does not realize that his/her behavior needs to be stopped urgently. But is the victim, as a directly involved party, completely helpless and powerless? This aspect of a d behavior also represents a separate chapter in the story, outside the scope of this article. The only thing we can say here is that the victim has to fight his or her own battle to overcome the feeling of powerlessness and great shame in relation to third parties, which compensates for shamelessness of the perpetrator. After all, unlike the perpetrator, it is the victim who considers himself guilty and therefore expects third parties to assess him/her as such. It is part of the social and professional isolation that often arises from the perpetrator’s a d behavior and that, intentionally or unintentionally, forms an intrinsic part of his/her behavior towards the victim. Seeking help from superiors or external specialized services, requesting legal protection from competent services (such as an external prevention service or police) are therefore the appropriate steps for the victim to break through the invisible psychological threads of manipulation, submission and powerlessness. This is the only way for the victim to regain control of his own life. The Bystander As Third Party How can an individual school employee, a school principal or a member of a school board cope with a d behavior, especially if it takes on serious and toxic forms (as in the case of the perpetrator in question who clearly shows signs of a ‘dark personality:’ psychopathic, Macchiavellian, narcissistic and sadistic)? At this moment we only see three possibilities to escape the inevitable outcome of a dysfunctional and ‘failing’ organization: bystanders who leave their neutral position and become ‘noble natures’ (Arendt 1971; 2003), hierarchical superiors (principals as well as members of the board) who take position and overpower the destructive power of hostile employees, and qualitative legal and juridical system that can provide the victim real and effective protection. In any case, solution is courage: the courage to do what one has to do. Ethical courage therefore, perhaps also of the victim, but certainly that of the ‘outsiders.’ The position and role of the ‘bystander’ – possibly in the role of a whistleblower – is in itself worth more study than it has received so far in scientific literature. According to Fonagy, Sacco, 78 Grand Theory of Antisocial and Destructive Behavior and Twemlow (2004) there are ‘bully bystanders’ (who become involved in harassment/mobbing practices after a while), ‘avoidant bystanders’ (who deny their responsibility in the situation), ‘victim bystanders’ (who become victimized themselves during the process) and ‘helpful bystanders’ (who attempt to defuse the situation). Van Heugten (2010) distinguishes between allies of the bullies, passive bystanders and hesitant supporters of the victim. They can therefore fit different profiles. For example, they can keep their distance and only act as neutral spectators. This phenomenon is known as ‘bystander effect.’ This, however, gives them specific and valuable insight into the situation in question. It is fair to say that such neutrality is an illusion. As stated by Madore (2011): ‘Indifference, so to speak, is never innocent, but the behavioral act of . . . not acting.’ They can also engage. On the one hand, they can side with the perpetrator, even if only for preservation (as is often the case with bullying). However, they can also support the victim. From an attitude of ‘intelligent disobedience’ (Chaleff 2015) and ‘helpless helpfulness’ (Van Heugten 2010) they then become ‘ethical hero’ (Arendt 1971; 2003). This attitude often goes hand in hand with an act of whistleblowing and is, of course, not without danger. The fact that the bystander always adopts a detached attitude is therefore not essentially the case. The most important is that one has the fundamental choice between being distanced and being engaged. In so far as the bystander is able to choose showing solidarity with his victim, he shall become a ‘solidary stakeholder’ (Siebens 1994; 2010; 2018) instead of a neutral, observing ‘third party.’ This is a crucial moment of ethical choice for the bystander, which is just as existential and essential as the choice mentioned for the perpetrator and for his victim. The bystander phenomenon is more complex than many think and raises a lot of questions (however, it is not the intention of this article to cover and answer them thoroughly here). What are bystander’s motivations and are there motivations that are ethically acceptable? After all, there are reasons (often of self-interested nature) to remain on the sidelines, to remain neutral and certainly not explicitly take sides with the victim(s). The feeling of powerlessness usually leads to what Bird (1996) calls ‘moral silence.’ Contrary to hypocrisy, where the person in question camouflages silence with noble intentions, moral silence is simply just silence. At first sight, it seems clear that moral silence cannot receive positive ethical assessment and that ethical assertiveness must be assessed positively. But is this really the case? By looking at the phe79 Herman Siebens nomenon of whistleblowing, which is a pronounced form of ethical assertiveness and moral courage, we may be able to picture ourselves the limits of the above-mentioned expectations and even demands towards employees and citizens in situations that seem to imply illegal or unethical actions. The fact that whistleblowing became a right is currently non-questionable and has found legal protection in many laws and regulations. But is it also a requirement, a duty? If it is but only a right, doesn’t that mean that every employee or citizen also has the right not to express his opinion, not to take action against alleged illegal or unethical situations, for whatever personal reason (of which possible sanctions are certainly one)? And if so, aren’t we also discovering a neutral, perhaps even a positive side to moral silence? The following additional question arises immediately: can we equate moral silence with emptiness, uncritical superficiality, shortsightedness, and indifference, as often associated with the bystander posture? Possibly not. After all, we note that moral silence as lack of necessary ethical courage for ethical assertiveness, says nothing about the underlying reflection of the person in question. He may well have reflected the situation, but came to a reflected and argued ethical conclusion that it is not up to him to act at that moment and in that given situation, either by making his ethical assessment (opinion) known or by actually acting in one way or another. Bird (1996) therefore falls short when he immediately qualifies a reflected silence negatively, as hypocrisy. Moreover, we have in the meantime acquired a great deal of insight into many strategies of ‘ethical disengagement’ (Bandura 1990; Bandura et al. 1996) by means of which are bystanders, among others, able to justify their neutral, passive attitude to themselves and third parties. Or is the bystander attitude ethically reprehensible always and everywhere? What do legal distinctions between negligence and recklessness, inadvertence and advertence about nuances and gradations, contextual and personal characteristics of a bystander posture teach us? When is the bystander’s attitude based on an attitude characterized by indifference, possibly reinforced by thoughtlessness (Arendt 1963; 1968) and short-sightedness, psychological motives and motivations do not seem to significantly differ from those of the perpetrator(s). But is this ground for an ethical, possibly legal conviction of the bystander for ‘guilty negligence’ of ‘helping a person in need’? And to the extent that the bystander shows lack of (self-) critical reflection, the question arises whether it is not precisely here that the fundamental (Kahneman 2011), ethically qualified 80 Grand Theory of Antisocial and Destructive Behavior difference between responsible and irresponsible behavior lies. Antisocial, obstructive and destructive behavior therefore not only raises questions on the side of the perpetrator(s), but also on the side of the spectator(s). How To Deal with A D Behavior? A study of indifference, thoughtlessness and short-sightedness (Siebens 2020), together with the bystander attitude and the phenomenon of ethical disengagement does teach us that the following elements can counteract (manage) the phenomenon of antisocial, obstructive and destructive behavior (however, we do not treat them exhaustively). Emotional Intelligence and Empathic Competence Although there is still some scientific discussion, a majority of scientists accept that there is a correlation between competence for empathy on the one hand and compassion and altruism on the other (Ricard 2013). Pro-social behavior is promoted by competence for empathy. And empathy is often mentioned in connection with emotional intelligence. Although emotional intelligence (e i) has long been recognized as a crucial skill/competence, researchers have still not reached consensus on a definition. Mayer and Salovey (1997) define it as ‘the ability to accurately perceive, assess, and express emotions; the ability to experience and/or generate feelings when they facilitate thinking; the ability to understand emotions and emotional knowledge; and the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth.’ Detweiler-Bedell, Mayer, and Salovey (in Feldman-Barret, Haviland-Jones, and Lewis 2008) describe emotional intelligence as ‘the ability to detect and decipher emotions in faces, pictures, voices, and cultural artifacts. It also includes the ability to identify one’s own emotions’ and as ‘a set of competencies concerning the appraisal and expression of feelings, the use of emotions to facilitate cognitive activities, knowledge about emotions, and the regulation of emotion.’ It relates to ‘the perception of the internal frame of reference of another person with accuracy and with the emotional components and meanings which pertain thereto as if one were the person’ (Rogers 1959). So, emotional intelligence includes cognition of the other person, affection for his feelings and performing a behavior that is in line with this cognition and affection. Therefore, it stands for the ability 81 Herman Siebens to assess the relationship with others, which contributes to mutual trust and respect. Conversely, many studies (Oliver 2017) indicate that insensitivity (‘cold-heartedness,’ indifference) counteracts the sharing of emotions and empathic anxiety. People with an underdeveloped empathic capacity appear to exhibit atypical or inappropriate social behavior (Finger 2016). Thoughtlessness, a lack of (self-) critical thinking, short-sightedness and indifference are counterproductive to pro-social and altruistic behavior (Siebens 2020). To what extent do empathy and emotional intelligence coincide? Scott (2011) investigates the correlations between the four aspects of empathy according to the iri (Davis 1983) and the eight aspects of e i as examined by the e q-i tool of Bar-on (1997) (being: self-esteem, self-control, flexibility, rationality, emotional regulation, interpersonal sensitivity, emotional expression and assertiveness). The empathic factor in emotional intelligence appears first of all to be the matter of taking competence to perspective, to be able to put oneself in place of the other (‘imagine-other’ perspective). On the other hand, personally experiencing the other person’s suffering and stress as if it were your own (‘imagineself perspective’), is hardly a characteristic of emotional intelligence. Scott concludes that ei is characterized by taking perspective and empathic anxiety, although always within a clear distinction between Self and the other, and certainly not by personally experiencing the other person’s grief and stress. Education and training institutions should and can pay more attention to phenomena that cause antisocial behavior. At the same time, however, education must include teaching children and young people that aberrant behavior is not necessarily antisocial. In other words, one must learn to distinguish between constructive, pro-social, constructional critical pro-social (such as appreciation for ethical heroes and for whistleblowing) and antisocial behavior. For older students, appropriate training is needed to make the necessary difference between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior, applied to specific sector(s) in which the students will be professionally active. We need to ask ourselves what is the best strategy herein: an integrated approach (subject integrated in all other courses) or a separate course. Probably neither option is in itself the right answer. Only the combination of both can be truly successful. Many of these learning objectives can be incorporated into curricula of 82 Grand Theory of Antisocial and Destructive Behavior different subjects and courses and invite a multidisciplinary approach. But not without taking seriously the remark that each student lives a unique moment when it comes to developing empathy towards ‘some others’ in ‘some’ areas of life and within ‘certain’ ethical views (Maxwell 2005). Education in this field must therefore be individual. So, in addition to a specific course on responsible citizenship (ethics), all other school curricula (such as history, religion, philosophy, applied ethics, etc.) should pay attention to those (and related) subjects in their own way, through role-play, for example. Harris and Foreman-Peck (2004) analyze conditions for effective role-playing, since most role-plays only serve the imagine-self perspective, in which case the role-play becomes nothing more than a ‘fictitious narrative.’ A good role-play should (1) be based on real individuals, (2) be based on contextual knowledge and evidence, (3) offer a problem-solving issue and (4) examine perspectives and motivations of those involved. There is also discussion about what is the right time for the right form of action. Maxwell (2005) advocates the age of primary school, because during adolescence and adulthood one already has a fixed personality, with its own level of cognitive and affective empathy, with its own gaps, limitations and prejudices. Given the development of mirror neurons, some very simple games and role-playing games can train children at a very early age to adopt the point of view of others. Taking the point of view of others as an ethical reference point can be used already from kindergarten on as a basic rule for education and could make a huge difference to development of citizenship in general. On the contrary, neuroscience also teaches that the age of adolescence and lateadolescence is the right age to model an ethical personality, due to the fact that it is at this age precisely that our brains create its more or less definitive theories of mind. Perhaps primary school is the time to learn about affective empathy, while secondary and high school period is the right time to learn more complex, cognitive and theoretical insights about constructive, pro-social and responsible behavior. This first approach should engage the organization and its leadership (school and management) in creating a warm environment in which empathy and emotional intelligence can thrive, both towards the pupils/students and within the team. It should support organizational culture and climate in which respect and trust prevail, in which there is room for everyone’s otherness (diversity) 83 Herman Siebens and in which there is certain room for imperfection and consequently for failure. The Courage to Blow the Whistle Since a few decades, phenomenon of whistleblowing about illegal or unethical acts and antisocial behavior has become a relevant subject in professional ethics. Although the phenomenon is probably as old as mankind, it is given more attention due to growth of the problem of professional misconduct, growth of economic impact of this misconduct and attention paid to responsible (professional) conduct since the 1980s. Vinten (1994) defines whistleblowing as ‘the unauthorized disclosure of information that an employee reasonably believes is evidence of the contravention of any law, rule or regulation, code of practice, or professional statement, or that involves mismanagement, corruption, abuse of authority, or danger to public or worker health and safety.’ Jubb (1999) defines it as ‘a deliberate non-obligatory act of disclosure, which gets onto public record and is made by a person who has or had privileged access to data or information of an organization, about non-trivial illegality or other wrongdoing whether actual, suspected or anticipated which implicates and is under the control of that organizations, to an external entity having potential to rectify the wrongdoing.’ As Strack (2008) argues, whistleblowers are ‘people who no longer silently tolerate illegal activities, maladministration or danger to human beings, the environment or the economy but reveal those abuses within or outside their business, their company, their organization or their bureaucracy.’ And Bjorkelo et al. (2008) connect whistleblowing with ‘situations where an employee is witnessing something illegal, illegitimate or unethical taking place within their organization, which he or she subsequently decides to take action against, thus trying to eliminate the wrongdoing.’ In general, whistleblowing is about situation in a group, organization or even society as a whole that is experienced as unethical (illegal, disrespectful, reckless, dangerous, harmful, irresponsible, etc.) by someone who then decides to make his negative impression (assessment) public with colleagues, friends, a superior or even the press, which, he hopes, will correct the wrongdoing. Chaplin (2004) reminds us that whistleblowing is not about expressing personal dissatisfaction with the policy of a government or company management, but about making facts known. It has to be about ‘facts and figures.’ 84 Grand Theory of Antisocial and Destructive Behavior But isn’t whistleblowing at odds with the required loyalty within a group or organization? In the first place, loyalty of an employee in a professional context has to go out to the task and the larger whole around it for which he has entered into a contract with his employer. Loyalty is therefore rooted in the organization’s mission, core objectives, core values and code of conduct, which sets out where and how the organization wishes to make a contribution to society and individual citizens, possibly with a view to realizing financial gain. This lays down the ‘license to operate’ of the organization and any violation of it would endanger the performance, reputation and possibly even the continued existence of the organization. This kind of loyalty goes for any personal loyalty to employer or direct superior. Where the employer or superior, possibly the entire organization, fails due to a goal displacement, the original basic loyalty requires that this be denounced. In general, it can be said that policy and management that want to discourage antisocial and destructive behavior should have a positive and motivating attitude towards whistleblowing, at least when it happens internally. This means that some necessary structural space should be provided, such as guarantee of anonymity, guarantee of freedom from sanctioning measures (against the whistleblower), hotline or ombudsperson, guarantee that every report will be taken seriously and examined. Dialogue with An Open Mind and Critical Reflection In line with the previous point, T’Sas (2018) points out the important role of a good conversation – ‘exploratory talk.’ The notion of an exploratory talk is very similar to Habermas’ notion of an open, non-violent, argumentative dialogue (Habermas 1981; 1984), which runs parallel to the notion of ‘stakeholder dialogue’ in applied and business ethics. What does it mean to have an open dialogue? Both emphasize that it includes not only the idea that all parties concerned have the right to participate, but also the idea that silent and absent stakeholders (e.g. future generations, the environment, the poor) should be the main focus of this dialogue. Above all, it means that all participants in the dialogue are not locked up in their own concerns, needs and interests, beliefs and opinions, expectations and wishes, but are also open to arguments consisting of concerns, needs and interests, beliefs and opinions, expectations and wishes of all other stakeholders, present and absent, and therefore of the general interest (‘com85 Herman Siebens mon good’) of the whole organization and/or society. This implies open thinking, confrontation with all facts and figures, confrontation with different interpretations and evaluations, willingness to look at data and to accept feedback, willingness to confront reality (‘is’) with ideals and utopian thinking (‘ought’), willingness to change and renewal. Since this dialogue is not based on formal power, but on argumentation, including facts and figures, thus on authority, it is intrinsically free from dominance. Nevertheless, an open and argumentative, domination-free (non-violent) dialogue requires first and foremost some willingness to engage in discussion and to articulate argumentations. Although we believe that ‘facts and figures’ is indeed the only alternative strategy to ideological argumentation, which is authoritarian by nature, it must be acknowledged that we also have to rely on common ground – culture – to interpret these facts and figures. Open and argumentative dialogue thus encompasses both open (non-ideological) and objective study of all the facts and figures, as well as open and critical dialogue on a common ground in order to interpret and evaluate these facts and figures. At the same time, this form of dialogue hides a major discussion and problem. After all, it seems to incline towards purely rational and therefore deliberately reflective speaking. What about our intuition, our gut feeling? Kahneman (2011) makes a distinction between a System 1 thinking based on intuition and a System 2 thinking based on rational reflection and emphasizes that both work together and both are necessary. Not only the daily experience, but also the notion of perception (impression) learns that what appears to be a fact is not always the fact. Often things seem to be one or another. Also in terms of social and/or ethical acceptability, things seem responsible or not at first sight already. Through reflection, this perception (impression) must be confirmed, adapted or denied. Besides individual forces, Hagen (2018) also mentions group forces and organizational/structural forces. In addition to specific characteristics of stakeholders, the situation itself (context, structures, culture) is also a crucial characteristic. Based on Kant (1788) we can also distinguish between intellectual knowledge, which can lead to insight, and reflection rooted in reasonableness, which can lead to wisdom. We should conclude that, within an organization, attention should not only be paid to facts and figures (e.g. statistics) – although this is a crucial basis for any open, argumentative dialogue – but above all to intuition and perception by those involved, individually and as a group. In 86 Grand Theory of Antisocial and Destructive Behavior that case Habermas’ dialogue will become more a Socratic dialogue, a collective reflection, a collective way of reasoning. It may be clear that this form of dialogue within the school walls, both with and towards the pupils/students and within the school team, implies a high level of reflective capacity and a great willingness to be open to all other points of view. This brings us back to the first point of emotional intelligence and empathic competence. Responsible (School) Policy and Management Again, this brings organizational culture into our sight. It concerns basic assumptions and beliefs, shared by most of employees of an organization, working unconsciously as ‘for granted’ (Schein 1997). As Ax et al. (2000) put it, it is about ‘the spiritual baggage of a certain group of people.’ Shared principles, values and norms, which define what the organization considers to be responsible behavior. According to Kreps (1990), organizational culture functions as the most basic principle(s) in the organization. Therefore, people have to behave according to this/these principle(s) in order to be accepted as members. If not, they could be marginalized or even expelled. How can one describe a culture of responsibility? Cadbury’s report (Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance 1992) mentions a culture of openness as the most important characteristic. Pearson (1995) speaks of a ‘high-integrity culture.’ Groenewegen and Ten Have (2008) mention four characteristics of an ‘accountability culture,’ i.e. an organizational culture in which responsibility (accountability) is normal practice: 1. 2. 3. 4. communication, in order to create a large support base, support of employees, practice and output as the main weapons of engagement, everyone concerned will be taken into account. Jacobs (1995) points at a truly participatory culture, based on a sense of We-feelings. For him this is: ‘a spirit of solidarity based on common values, common objectives and a common strategy. This impulse creates a detailed structure and tries to add value to the sum of individual efforts.’ It presupposes a bottom-up culture in which there is room for the concerns, needs and interests (etc.) and proposals of various parties involved. Kets de Vries (2001; 2006; 2010) concludes: ‘At the heart of a great place to work are 87 Herman Siebens trust and mutual respect between senior executives and their employees, and value-driven leadership – performance with purpose. Great places to work show a strong commitment from c e o and senior management (who walk the talk), a genuine belief that people are indispensable for the business, active communication among the entire organization, the perception of a unique culture and identity, a well-expressed vision and values that are lived and experienced at all levels of the organization. Furthermore, “employees” participation and involvement are the key success factors for organizational commitment.’ This should create a culture of ‘continuous self-renewal.’ In conclusion, we can identify a culture of responsibility by, among other things, the following main characteristics: An ethical organizational culture, based on awareness of the vital importance of good organizational fitness, based on awareness of the crucial role of customer concerns, expectations and preferences and the needs, interests and rights of all stakeholders in general. This implies good relationships with all stakeholders, the idea of the public good, within the team, the organization and society at large – an optimal ‘organization-environment-fit’ – and the pursuit of an optimal balance between efficiency and effectiveness, and caring. These basic ideas also represent concepts of total quality management (t q m), total responsibility management (t r m), and Quality of Work (q ow). • An open organizational culture in which argumentative dialogue is conducted with all stakeholders based on correct and complete information (facts and figures; data-driven management). • A dynamic, learning organizational culture in which critical and provocative, creative and innovative thinking and feedback are valued as signals of commitment and intrapreneurship. Mezirow (1990; 1991; 2000; 2009), influenced by Freire and Habermas, refers to such learning culture when describing ‘transformative learning’ in which participants change their mental frames of reference and thus their points of view and habits. Through transformative learning, individuals and groups/organizations not only learn new knowledge and technical skills, but first and foremost change their personality, their Self. In a way, this kind of organization supports autonomous working and the grow of the individuals’ • 88 Grand Theory of Antisocial and Destructive Behavior ‘person-environment-fit,’ both of which are also a crucial remedy for stress and burnout. Integration of the sense of responsibility towards all stakeholders (ethics) in the culture of the organization is the decisive factor in creating a more responsible organization (Freeman 1984; Staessens 1991; Heskett and Kotter 1992; Hogema and Koot 1992; Siebens 1994; 2010; 2013; 2019; Nelson and Trevino 1995; Pearson 1995; Dalla Costa 1999; Dietvorst, Mahieu, and Peene 1999; Van Muijen 1999; Cameron and Quinn 1999; Ax et al. 2000; Koopman and Van Muijen 2000; Goodwin 2000; Crane and Matten 2004; Breye 2005; Cautaert 2006; Webley and Werner 2008; Fullan and St. Germain 2009; Lambrechts 2009; Ardichvili, Jondle, and Mitchell 2009; 2014; Korthagen and Lagerwerf 2010; Burke et al. 2013; Lawton and Páez 2015; Chadegani and Jari 2016) in which the individual employees are encouraged to pro-social behavior and antisocial and destructive behavior is inhibited. In this context, what is responsible leadership? It may be clear that a responsible leadership style (especially when it clearly wishes to take on a facilitating role) requires a participative organizational structure and an organizational culture of responsibility. We endorse the conclusion that ‘the romantic, leader-centered perspective that has dominated during the past decades portrayed leaders as having almost heroic abilities and being always there to save the day. While such a view might be comforting, particularly in times of uncertainty, it also neglects . . . important facts’ (Camps 2015). Western (2008) observes a paradigm shift towards a post-clear model that even goes beyond the concept of transformative leadership. In short, ‘the age of hierarchy is over’ (Stewart 1989). On the basis of earlier research into the concept of ethical leadership (Siebens 2007; 2016), we therefore describe and define the essence of ethical leadership as facilitating, in line with the statements of Doppler and Lauterburg (1996) who define the role of the new type of leadership as ‘to create the general preconditions that make it possible to co-workers with a normal level of intelligence to perform their tasks autonomously and in an efficient way.’ So, we endorse the vision of Daniëls and Fabry (1995) on leadership: ‘Talk to people about their purposes and objectives. Help them to get apprehension in their situation and let them determine targets and goals. Then, give them the power over the processes in which they are involved, see to empowerment. And, as manager 89 Herman Siebens and coach, keep an eye on the process – review – without interfering in everything.’ In addition to curriculum, education and training institutions must therefore also pay attention to interrelational and social realm. By paying attention to social realm among pupils, between pupils and school staff, and within the school team (including the school management) the various phenomena discussed can be experienced and learned first-hand. Of course, teaching criticalreflective thinking and open, argumentative, non-violent dialogue à la Habermas is very important in curriculum of our educational institutions, but that will have little or no impact on pupils/students if this is not also the culture used in the school team. Within the school team, active participation of all those involved, based on the stakeholder imperative, and open, argumentative dialogue with (self-) critical questioning, in which one never plays the man, should be the normal course of events. Especially the growing problem of individual and collective harassment – mobbing and bullying – offers distinct opportunities for this. Discussion and Future Research It was our objective – to be more precise: our challenge – to create a grand overview of different scientific disciplines interested in the subject of antisocial, destructive (obstructive and toxic) behavior, including the aspects of a ‘dark personality,’ towards an overarching theoretical model to understand, interprete and analyze this issue, theoretically as well as practically. Indeed, the theoretical model has to be helpful for people who are victims of a situation of upwards hostility, to get more insight in the process behind this behavior and coop with it. But is our research acceptable from a scientific point of view? Methodologically one could start, of course, with articulating criticisms for each of individual articles/studies used. Specific samples (and their specific cultures) (as criminals, students, children or combinations of these or other distinctions) used by each research, and the differences between research with a natural group (forensic populations) versus research in experimental conditions (clinical populations) can be used as strong points of discussion concerning validity and relevance of results and significance of these results in view of their extrapolation. Also, there is a huge battle going on about measures and tools used, especially concerning measurement of correlations between person90 Grand Theory of Antisocial and Destructive Behavior ality traits and sub-traits – as criticism about use of self-reports and about significant differences in outcomes between research based on self-reports and reseach based on behavorial measures, for example. A much more profound and thorough criticism on many studies is the fact that almost all are based on hypothetical dilemmas and experimental, therefore artificial tests. However, about the subject and issues discussed and analyzed in this work we have no other alternative at the moment than artifical tests and hypothetical dilemmas. Given the importance of avoiding socially desirable answers, the only correct conclusion seems to be that only experimental settings can produce scientifically acceptable results. Finally, there is a distinction to be taken into account between the data, a hypothesized answer to the issue stated and possible alternative explanations for the data. Research within each discipline could undoubtedly be broadened, deepened and supplemented. So, there are always alternative explanations and conclusions. Science is definitely always ‘on the road.’ These critiques can be answered partly by the great number of articles and books from many different scientific disciplines integrated in this model. Overall, given a huge number of individual studies we integrated (more than 3500), it is our opinion that they are balancing each other out. In some way this can be interpreted as a kind of ‘triangulation.’ Nevertheless, regardless of the number of articles and books used, we could not yet explore all aspects and details of the phenomenon. Therefore, this analysis is no more than a first attempt to create a ‘grand theory’ on a d behavior at the work floor. Overall, we think we did succeed in creating a preliminary systematic overview of the phenomenon of antisocial, destructive behavior, more specifically concerning the phenomenon of ‘employees upwards hostility.’ Considering that this article must contribute in attempt to understand and explain a d behavior within a framework of ethical reflection, we should specifically mention that many analyses in various scientific disciplines confronted us with a fundamental distinction between morality and ethics, which we have already discussed elsewhere (Siebens 1994; 2010; 2013; 2019). To the extent that many studies define or approach a d behavior within the context of social, cultural or religious-philosophical norms – morality – the distinction between destructive deviant and constructive deviant behavior threatens to blur, and onsequently phenomena such as whistleblowing, ethical hero (‘noble nature’) and ‘victim bystander’ lose their specific meaning and role. Whether or not 91 Herman Siebens such moral norms are bound to the culture of a group, organization or society, they are extremely relative. On the other hand, ethics is an autonomous way of thinking about responsible behavior. Ethics also has its weaknesses, as it can be subjective and also relative, but such thinking in any case transcends the level of a morality that is often dictated by the prototypical individuals of a group, organization or society. This opens the door to self-centered manipulation, which can lead to a d behavior. Ethics, on the other hand, is open to dialogue (open, argumentative and non-violent, as Habermas (1981; 1984) defines it). There’s a lot of open questions left: • • • • • What are the most common motives for a d behavior? (Are there indeed many cases – how great is the risk for a scenario – that not accepted internal candidates are mobbing the newly appointed external formal leader with the objective to get rid if him/her and pave the way for themselves?) Are there aspects and scenarios that can be recognized often? For instance the process of victimization, feelings of silence and shame. What is the ‘critical mass’ (quantitative/number and qualitative/degree of destructiveness and degree of collusion) that makes destructive effects emerge within a team? Does ethical leadership style indeed contain a specific, supplementary risk factor? How is a d behavior dealt with topically and ideally? Nevertheless, we believe that our multidisciplinary research offers a lot of added-value to our understanding of ethical and unethical behavior in professional and organisational realm. However, further study is also needed to better understand the origins (motivation), scope (both quantitative and qualitative) and working methods (strategies) of a d behavior in the face of superior attempting to conduct ethical policy and management, so that here too the existing taboo can be broken and necessary conclusions can be drawn about a proper preventive and reactive approach to it. References Ackroyd, S., and P. Thompson. 1999. Organisational Misbehavior. London: Sage. Adams, J. W. 2011. ‘Examination of Inter-Relationships between 92 Grand Theory of Antisocial and Destructive Behavior Psychological Contract, Careerist Orientation, and Organisational Citizenship Behavior.’ Doctoral dissertation, City University, London. Ali, F., S. Amorim, and T. Chamorro-Premuzic. 2009. ‘Empathy Deficits and Trait Emotional Intelligence in Psychopathy and Machiavellianism.’ Personality and Individual Differences 47 (7): 758–762. Alpkan, L. and B. Yildiz. 2015. ‘A Theoretical Model on the Proposed Predictors of Destructive Deviant Workplace Behaviors and the Mediator Role of Alienation.’ Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences 210 (2): 330–338. Ambrose, M. L., and M. S. Mitchell. 2007. ‘Abusive Supervision and Workplace Deviance and the Moderating Effects of Negative Reciprocity Beliefs.’ Journal of Applied Psychology 92 (4): 1159–1168. Anderson, C. A., and B. J. Bushman. 2002. ‘Human Aggression.’ Annual Review of Psychology 53:27–51. Ardichvili, A., D. Jondle, and J. A. Mitchell. 2009. ‘Characteristics of Ethical Business Cultures.’ Journal of Business Ethics 85 (4): 445–451. Ardichvili, A., D. Jondle, and J. A. Mitchell. 2014. ‘Modeling Ethical Business Culture: Development of the Ethical Business Culture Survey and Its Use to Validate the c e b c Model of Ethical Business Culture.’ Journal of Business Ethics 119 (1): 29–43. Ardrey, R. 1966. The Territorial Imperative: A Personal Inquiry into the Animal Origins of Property and Nations. New York: Atheneum. Arendt, H. 1963. Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. New York: The Viking Press. Arendt, H. 1968. Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Arendt, H. 1969. ‘Reflections on Violence.’ Journal of International Affairs 23:1–35. Arendt, H. 1970. On Violence. New York: Harcourt. Arendt, H. 1971. ‘Thinking and Moral Considerations.’ Social Research 38 (3): 417–446. Arendt, H. 2003. Responsibility and Judgment. New York: Schoken Books. Ax, J., P. N. Karstanje, A. M. L. van Wieringen, and J. C. Voogt. 2000. Organisatie van scholen. Leuven: Garant. Azura Dahalan, N., A. R. A. Rahim, and S. Sharkawi. 2013. ‘Relationship between Person-Organisation-Fit, Psychological Contract Violation and Counterproductive Work Behavior.’ International Journal of Business and Social Science 4 (4): 173–183. Bakker, C. B., and M. K. Bakker-Rabdau. 1973. Verboden Toegang. Amsterdam: De Nederlandsche Boekhandel. Badea, C., and M. Rubin. 2012. ‘They’re All the Same! . . . But for Several Different Reasons: A Review of the Multicultural Nature of Perceived Group Variability.’ Current Directions of Psychological Science 21 (6): 367–372. Banaji, M. R., M. H. Bazerman, and D. Chugh. 2005. ‘Bounded Ethicality 93 Herman Siebens as a Psychological Barrier to Recognizing Conflits of Interest.’ In Conflicts of Interest, edited by M. H. Bazerman, D. Cain, G. Loewenstein, and D. Moore, 74–95. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bandura, A. 1990. ‘Selective Activation and Disengagement of Moral Control.’ Journal of Social Issues 46 (1): 27–46. Bandura, A., C. Barbaranelli, G. V. Caprara, and C. Pastorelli. 1996. ‘Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71 (2): 364–374. Bar-On, R. 1997. The Emotional Intelligence Inventory (e q-i): Technical Manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems. Barriga, A. Q., and J. C. Gibbs. 1996. ‘Measuring Cognitive Distortion in Antisocial Youth: Development and Preliminary Validation of the “How to Think” Questionnaire.’ Aggressive Behavior 22 (5): 333–343. Baumeister, R. F., and T. F. Heatherton. 1996. ‘Self-Regulation Failure: An Overview.’ Psychological Inquiry 7 (1): 1–15. Bennet, R. J., and S. L. Robinson. 1995. ‘A Typology of Deviant Workplace Behaviors: A Multidimensional Scaling Study.’ Academy of Management Journal 38 (2): 555–572. Bennet, R. J., and S. L. Robinson. 1997. ‘Workplace Deviance: Its Definition, Its Manifestations, and Its Causes.’ In Research on Negotiations in Organisations, edited by R. J. Lewicki, R. J. Bies, and B. H. Sheppard, 3–27. Greenwich, c t: ja i Press. Bennett, R. J., and S. L. Robinson. 2000. ‘Development of a Measure of Workplace Deviance.’ Journal of Applied Psychology 85 (3): 349–360. Bidney, D. 1959. ‘The Philosophical Presuppositions of Cultural Relativism and Cultural Absolutism.’ In Ethics and the Social Sciences, edited by R. L. Ward, 780–791. Notre Dame, i n: University of Notre Dame Press. Bird, F. B. 1996. The Muted Conscience: Moral Silence and the Practice of Ethics in Business. London: Quorum. Bjorkelo, B., S. Einarsen, S. B. Matthiesen, and W. Ryberg. 2008. ‘When you Talk and Talk and Nobody Listens: A Mixed Method Case Study of Whistle-Blowing and its Consequences.’ In International Journal of Organisational Behavior 13 (2): 18–40. Black, J. S., and H. B. Gregersen. 1997. ‘Participative Decision-Making: An Integration of Multiple Dimensions.’ Human Relations 50 (7): 859–878. Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley. Bodley, J. H. 1975. Victims of Progress. London: Mayfield. Bok, S. 1989. Secrets. New York: Vintage Books. Bore, M., H. Douglas, and D. F. Munro. 2012. ‘Distinguishing the Dark Triad: Evidence from the Five Factor Model and the Hogan Development Survey.’ Psychology 3 (3): 237–242. Bourdeaud’hui, R., F. Janssens, and S. Vanderhaeghe. 2018. Leidinggeven en werkbaar werk. Brussels: Stichting Innovatie and Arbeid. 94 Grand Theory of Antisocial and Destructive Behavior Breye, V. 2005. ‘Heeft de organisatie een persoonlijkheid? Een vergelijkende analyse van de begrippen ethos, organisatieklimaat en organisatiecultuur.’ Impuls 36 (3): 107–117. Brown, B., D. Cosme, and C. Pepino. 2014. ‘Empathy, Open-Mindedness, and Political Ideology: Conservative and Liberal Trends.’ E-Research: A Journal of Undergraduate Work 1 (3): Article 5. Brown, D. J., D. L. Ferris, H. Lian, and R. Morrison. 2014. ‘Blame It on the Supervisor or the Subordinate? Reciprocal Relations between Abusive Supervision and Organizational Deviance.’ Journal of Applied Psychology 99 (4): 651–664. Brown, S. E., and L. K. Trevino. 2006. ‘Ethical Leadership: A Review and Future Directions.’ The Leadership Quarterly 17 (6): 595–616. Buckels, E. E., D. N. Jones, and D. L. Paulhus. 2013. ‘Behavioral Confirmation of Everyday Sadism.’ Psychological Science 24 (11): 2201–2209. Burke, M. R., D. Jondle, T. D. Maines, and P. C. Young. 2013. ‘Modern Risk Management through the Lens of Ethical Organizational Culture.’ Risk Management 15 (1): 32–49. Busch, C. 2017. ‘Wanneer ons machtsapparaat “een nijdig Dolfke” wordt.’ De Standaard, 22 March. Byington, E., W. Felps, and T. R. Mitchell. 2006. ‘How, When, and Why Bad Apples Spoil the Barrel: Negative Group Members and Dysfunctional Groups.’ Research in Organisational Behavior 27:175–222. Cameron, R. E., and R. E. Quinn. 1999. Onderzoeken en veranderen van organisatiecultuur. Schoonhoven: Academic Service. Camps, J. 2015. ‘Once Upon a Jerk: A Follower-Centered Perspective on the Emergence and Maintenance of Abusive Supervision.’ Doctoral dissertation, University of Leuven. Castano, E., and B. Leidner. 2012. ‘Morality Shifitng in the Context of Intergroup Violence.’ European Journal of Social Psychology 42 (1): 82–91. Cautaert, E. 2006. ‘Organisatiecultuur in beeld gebracht.’ Basis 113 (6): 16–18. Ceylan, A., R. Kaynak, and S. Sulu. 2010. ‘Work Alienation as a Mediator of the Relationship between Organisational Injustice and Organisational Commitment: Implications for Healthcare Professionals.’ International Journal of Business and Management 5 (8): 27–38. Chadegani, A. A., and A. Jari. 2016. ‘Corporate Ethical Culture: Review of Literature and Introducing pp Model.’ Procedia Economics and Finance 36:51–61. Chaleff, I. 2015. The Courageous Follower: Standing up to and for Our Leaders. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Chaplin, A. 2004. ‘Is There a Duty to Blow the Whistle? Public Servants and the Public Interest.’ Paper presented at the symposium Values, 95 Herman Siebens Ethics and the Public Sector: How to Serve the Public Interest? Ottawa. Chen, X.-P., S. S. K. Lam, and J. Schaubroeck. 2002. ‘Participative Decision Making and Employee Performance in Different Cultures: The Moderating Effects of Allocentrism/Idiocentrism and Efficacy.’ The Academy of Management Journal 45 (5): 905–914. Chiaburu, D. S., A. De Vos, and I. Diaz. 2013. ‘Employee Alienation: Relationships with Careerism and Career Satisfaction.’ Journal of Managerial Psychology 28 (1): 4–20. Cieciuch, J., and R. Rogoza. 2018. ‘Dark Triad traits and their structure: An empirical approach.’ Journal of Current Psychology https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9834-6 Colleen, M. S., and H. M. Johnson. 1994. ‘Sources of the Continued Influence Effect: When Misinformation in Memory Affects Later Inferences.’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20 (6): 1420–1436. Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance. 1992. The Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance. London: Professional Publishing. Crane, A., and D. Matten. 2004. Business Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Daffern, M., and F. Gilbert. 2011. ‘Illuminating the Relationship between Personality Disorder and Violence: Contributions of the General Aggression Model.’ Psychology of Violence 1 (3): 230–244. Daniëls, E., and M. Fabry. 1995. ‘Industrie wil onderwijs niet vervangen.’ Intermediair 26 (2): 17. Davidson, R. J., C. L. Larson, and K. M. Putnam. 2000. ‘Dysfunction in the Neural Circuitry of Emotion Regulation: A Possible Prelude to Violence.’ Science 289 (5479): 591–594. Davis, M. H. 1983. ‘Measuring Individual Differences in Empathy: Evidence for a Multidimensional Approach.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44 (1): 113–126. De Cremer, D., D. M. Mayer, S. Thau, M. Van Dijke, and K. M. Workman. 2011. ‘Leader Mistreatment, Employee Hostility, and Deviant Behaviors: Integrating Self-Uncertainty and Thwarted Needs Perspectives on Deviance.’ Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 117 (1): 24–40. Dalla Costa, J. 1999. Bedrijfsethiek: Succesfactor voor de moderne onderneming. Amsterdam: Business Contact. Dekker, W. 1990. The Responsible Corporation and the Subversive Side of Ethics. In People in Corporations: Ethical Responsibilities and Corporate Effectiveness, edited by G. Enderle, 11–18. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Dietvorst, C., P. Mahieu, and P. A. Peene. 1999. Schoolcultuur: Van een extraverte school naar verantwoordelijk onderwijs. Alphen a/d Rijn: Samsom. 96 Grand Theory of Antisocial and Destructive Behavior Doppler, K., and C. Lautenburg. 1996. Change Management: Vormgeven aan het veranderingsproces. Amsterdam: Addison-Wesley. Edens, J. F., J. J. Fulton, and D. K. Marcus. 2012. ‘The Two-Factor Model of Psychopathic Personality: Evidence from the Psychopathic Personality Inventory.’ Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment 3 (2): 140–154. Egan, V., and S. Jakobwitz. 2006. ‘The Dark Triad and Normal Personality.’ Personality and Individual Differences 40 (2): 331–339. Egan, V., and C. McCorkindale. 2007. ‘Narcissism, Vanity, Personality and Mating Effort.’ Personality and Individual Differences 43 (8): 2105–2115. Eisenberg, N. 2000. ‘Emotion, Regulation, and Moral Development.’ Annual Review of Psychology 51 (1): 665–697. Farb, B., M. Gerlach, L. A. Nunes Amaral, and W. Revelle. 2018. ‘A Robust Data-Driven Approach Identifies Four Personality Types across Four Large Data Sets.’ Nature Human Behavior 2:735–742. Feldman-Barrett, L., L. M. Haviland-Jones, and M. Lewis. 2008. Handbook of Emotions. New York: Guilford. Finger, E. C. 2016. ‘Frontotemporal Dementias.’ Continuum 22 (2): 464–489. Fonagy, P., F. C. Sacco, and S. W. Twemlow. 2004. ‘The Role of the Bystander in the Social Architecture of Harassment/Mobbing and Violence in Schools and Communities.’ Annals of the New York Academy of Science 1036:215–232. Foucault, M. 2009. De moed tot waarheid. Paris: Seuil/Gallimard. Frankfurt, H. 1988. The Importance of What We Care About. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Frankfurt, H. 1999. Necessity, Volition and Love. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Marshfield, ma: Pitman. Fritz-Morgenthal, S. G., P. N. Posch, and H. Rafeld. 2019. ‘Whale Watching on the Trading Floor: Unravelling Collusive Rogue Trading in Banks.’ Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4096-7 Fromm, E. 1964. The Heart of Man: Its Genius for Good and Evil. New York: Harper and Row. Fromm, E. 1973. The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness. New York: Picador. Fromm, E. 1997. On Being Human. New York: Continuum. Fullan, M., and C. St. Germain. 2009. Passie en kracht in schoolontwikkeling: Handboek voor het creëren van een verbetercultuur. Vlissingen: Bazalt. Furnham, A., D. Paulhus, and S. C. Richards. 2013. ‘The Dark Triad of Personality: A 10 Year Review.’ Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7 (3): 199–216. Galperin, B. L. 2002. ‘Determinants of Deviance in the Workplace: An 97 Herman Siebens Empirical Examination of Canada and Mexico.’ Doctoral dissertation, Concordia University, Montreal. Gibbs, J. S., A. P. Goldstein, and G. B. Potter. 1995. The equip Program: Teaching Youth to Think and Act Responsibly through a Peer-Helping Approach. Champaign, i l: Research Press. Gilbert, S., H. K. Laschinger, and M. Leither. 2010. ‘The Mediating Effect of Burnout on the Relationship between Structural Empowerment and Organisational Citizenship Behaviors.’ Journal of Nursing Management 18 (3): 339–348. Glaser, J. E. 2013. Conversational Intelligence: How Great Leaders Build Trust and Get Extraordinary Results. New York: Taylor and Francis. Goodwin, B. 2000. Ethics at Work. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Gottfredson, M. R., and T. Hirschi. 1990. A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, ca: Stanford University Press. Gottfredson, M. R., and T. Hirschi. 1994. The Generality of Deviance. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis. Greenbaum, R. L., M. Kuenzi, and D. M. Mayer. 2010. ‘Examining the Link Between Ethical Leadership and Employee Misconduct: The Mediating Role of Ethical Climate.’ Journal of Business Ethics 95 (1): 7–16. Groenewegen, T., and R. Ten Have. 2008. ‘Verantwoorden moet je durven.’ q5-Magazine 2 (6): 8–11. Habermas, J. 1981. Theorie des kommunikatives Handelns. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Habermas, J. 1984. Vorstudien und Ergänzungen zu einer Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Hackman, J. R., E. E. Lawler, and L. W. Porter. 1974. Behavior in Organisations. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hagen, A. 2018. ‘How Neutral is Being Neutral? A Re-thinking of the Concept of Neutrality as a Practice of Contestation.’ Ethical Perspectives 25 (1): 31–60. Haidt, J. 2008. ‘Morality.’ Perspectives on Psychological Science 3 (1): 65–72. Hare, R. D. 2003. Psychopathy Checklist-Revised: Technical Manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems. Harms, P. D., J. M. Lebreton, and S. M. Spain. 2013. ‘The Dark Side of Personality at Work.’ Journal of Organisational Behavior 35 (s 1): s 41–s 60. Harris, R., and L. Foreman-Peck. 2004. ‘“Stepping into Other People’s Shoes:” Teaching and Assessing Empathy in the Secondary History Curriculum.’ International Journal of Historical Learning, Teaching and Research 4 (2): 1–14. Heskett, J. L., and J. P. Kotter. 1992. Bedrijfscultuur en prestatie. Schiedma: Scriptum Books. Hogema, I., and W. Koot. 1992. Organisatiecultuur. Muiderberg: Coutinho. 98 Grand Theory of Antisocial and Destructive Behavior Hurst, C., T. A. Judge, K. Kelley, and L. S. Simon. 2015. ‘Understanding Cycles of Abuse: A Multimotive Approach.’ Journal of Applied Psychology 100 (6): 1798–1810. Jacobs, L. 1995. De lerende organisatie is een organisatie onderweg. Kortrijk: vion. Jones, D. N., and D. L. Paulhus. 2011. ‘Differentiating the Dark Triad within the Interpersonal Circumplex.’ In Handbook of Interpersonal Psychology: Theory, Research, Assessment, and Therapeutic Interventions, edited by L. Horowitz and S. Strack, 249–269. New York: Wiley. Jones, E. E., and G. A. Quattrone. 1980. ‘The Perception of Variability within In-Groups and Out-Groups: Implications for the Law of Small Numbers.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38 (1): 141–152. Jubb, P. B. 1999. ‘Whistleblowing: A Restrictive Definition and Interpretation.’ Journal of Business Ethics 21:77–94. Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Pinguin Books. Kant, E. 1788. Kritik der praktischen Vernunft. Riga. Kanten, P., and F. Ülker. 2014. ‘The Effect of Management Style on Counterproductive Behaviors: Mediating Role of Work Alienation.’ Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 32 (1): 16–40. Kaptein, M. 1998. Ethics Management. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Kelling, G. L., and J. Q. Wilson. 1982. ‘Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety.’ Atlantic Monthly, March. Kenrick, D. T. 2014. ‘The Four “Dark Personality” Traits.’ Psychology Today, 18 December. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex -murder-and-the-meaning-life/201412/the-four-dark-personality -traits Kets de Vries, M. F. R. 2001. The Leadership Mystique: Leading Behaviour in the Human Enterprise. London: ft/Prentice Hall. Kets de Vries, M. F. R. 2006. The Leader on the Couch: A Clinical Approach to Changing People and Organisations. San Francisco, ca: Jossey-Bass. Kets de Vries, M. F. R. 2010. Reflections on Leadership and Career Development. San Francisco, ca: Jossey-Bass. Kohlberg, L. 1969. ‘Stage and Sequence: The Cognitive-Developmental Approach to Socialisation.’ In Handbook of Socialisation Theory and Research, edited by D. A. Goslin, 347–480. New-York: Rand McNally. Kohlberg, L. 1976. ‘Moral Stages and Moralization: The CognitiveDevelopmental Approach.’ In Moral Development and Behavior: Theory, Research and Social Issues, edited by T. Lickona, 31–53. New-York: Holt, Rhinehart and Wilson. Kohlberg, L. 1981. Essays on Moral Development. Vol. 1. San Francisco, ca: Harper and Row. Kohlberg, L. 1984. Essays on Moral Development. Vol. 2. San Francisco, ca: Jossey Bass. 99 Herman Siebens Koopman, P. L., and J. J. Van Muijen. 2000. ‘Organisatiecultuur als bindende factor.’ In Boven het maaiveld: Het vinden en binden van gemotiveerde medewerkers, edited by P. L. Koopman, 151–170. Amsterdam: Nieuwezijds. Korthagen, F., and B. Lagerwerf. 2010. ‘Diepgaande reflectie als stimulans voor een nieuwe schoolcultuur.’ Politeia 5:1–13. Kowalski, C. M., J. A. Schermer, and P. A. Vernon. 2016. ‘The General Factor of Personality: The Relationship between the Big One and the Dark Triad.’ Personality and Individual Differences 88: 256–260. Kreps, D. M. 1990. ‘Corporate Culture and Economic Theory.’ In Perspectives on Positive Political Economy, edited by J. E. Alt and K. A. Shepsle, 90–142. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kurtulmus, B. E. 2019. The Dark Side of Leadership: An Institutional Perspective. Cham: Palgrave MacMillan. Lambrechts, D. 2009. ‘Kwaliteitscultuur: De schoolcultuur als voedingsbodem voor kwaliteit; Kwaliteitszorg in het Onderwijs.’ Plantyn 24 (December): 17–26. Laplantine, F. 1974. Les 50 mots-clés de l’anthropologie. Toulouse: Privat. Lawton, A., and I. Páez. 2015. ‘Developing a Framework for Ethical Leadership.’ Journal of Business Ethics 130 (3): 639–649. Lévinas, E. 1961. Totalité et Infini. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. Lévinas, E. 1972. Humanisme de l’autre homme. Saint-Clémént: Fata Morgana. Lévinas, E. 1974. Autrement qu’être ou au-dela de l’essence. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. Lévinas, E. 1985. Ethics and Infinity. Pittsburgh, pa: Duquesne University Press. Lévinas, E. 1991. Entre Nous. Paris: Grasset. Lévinas, E. 2003. Het menselijk gelaat. Amsterdam: Ambo. Lewis, P. V. 1985. ‘Defining “Business Ethics:” Like Nailing Jello to a Wall.’ Journal of Business Ethics 4 (5): 377–383. Madore, J. 2011. Difficult Freedom and Radical Evil in Kant: Deceiving Reason. New York: Continuum. Maxwell, B. 2005. ‘Empathy in Practical Ethics Education: Sketch of a Work in Progress.’ Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for Moral Education, Cambridge, ma, 3–5 November. Nassehi, A. 2005. ‘Organisations as Decision Machines: Niklas Luhmann’s Theory of Organized Social Systems.’ The Sociological Review 53 (1): 178–191. Neckebrouck, V. 2017. Is dan alles relatief? Antwerpen: Garant. Nelson, K. A., and L. K. Trevino. 1995. Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk about How To Do It Right. New York: John Wiley. Nickerson, R. S. 1998. ‘Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises.’ Review of General Psychology 2 (2): 175–220. Madore, J. 2011. Difficult Freedom and Radical Evil in Kant: Deceiving Reason. New York: Continuum. 100 Grand Theory of Antisocial and Destructive Behavior Markus, H. 1977. ‘Self-Schemata and Processing Information about the Self.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35 (2): 63–78. Matza, D., and G. Sykes. 1957. ‘Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency.’ American Sociological Review 22 (6): 664–670. Mayer, J. D., and P. Salovey. 1997. ‘What is emotional intelligence?’ In Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Implications for Educators, edited by P. Salovey and D. Sluyter, 3–31. New York: Basic Books. Mezirow, J. 1990. Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood. San Francisco, ca: Jossey-Bass. Mezirow, J. 1991. Transformatice Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco, ca: Jossey-Bass. Mezirow, J. 2000. Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in progress. San Francisco, ca: Jossey-Bass. Mezirow, J. 2009. Tranformative Learning in Practice: Insights from Community, Workplace and Education. San Francisco, ca: Jossey-Bass. Nussbaum, M., and A. Sen, eds. 1993. The Quality of Life. Oxford: Clarendon. O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., and S. L. Robinson. 1998. ‘Monkey See, Monkey Do: The Influence of Work Groups on the Antisocial Behavior of Employees.’ The Academy of Management Journal 41 (6): 658–672. Oliver, L. D. 2017. ‘Function and Dysfunction in Distinct Facets of Empathy.’ Doctoral dissertation, University of Western Ontario. Organ, D. W. 1988. Organisational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington: Lexington Books. Organ, D. W. 1997. ‘Organisational Citizenship Behavior: It’s Construct Clean-up Time.’ Human Performance 10 (2): 85–97. Park, H. M., L. S. Simon, and B. J. Tepper. 2017. ‘Abusive Supervision.’ Annual Review of Organisational Psychology and Organisational Behavior 4:123–152. Paulhus, D. L. 2014. ‘Toward a Taxonomy of Dark Personalities.’ Current Directions in Psychological Science 23 (6): 421–426. Pearson, G. 1995. Integrity in Organisations. London: McGraw-Hill. Petersen, M. L. 2019. ‘Horizontal Unfairness and Retrospective Sensemaking.’ Philosophy of Management 18 (1): 5–22. Pundt, A. 2014. ‘A Multiple Pathway Model Linking Charismatic Leadership Attempts and Abusive Supervision.’ Zeitschrift für Psychologie 222 (4): 190–202. Pylyshyn, Z. 1999. ‘Is Vision Continuous with Cognition? The Case for Cognitive Empenetrability of Visual Perception.’ Behavior and Brain Sciences 22 (3): 341–365. Rafeld, H. 2018. ‘Essays on Rogue Traders and Collusive Rogue Trading: Implications of Control Balance, Organizational Misbehavior, and Behavioral Patterns of Group Dynamics.’ Doctoral dissertation, Dortmund University. 101 Herman Siebens Ricard, M. 2013. Altruïsme: De kracht van compassie. Utrecht: Ten Have. Reidy, D. E., L. A. Seibert, and A. Zeichner. 2011. ‘Unprovoked Aggression: Effects on Psychopathic Traits and Sadism.’ Journal of Psychology 79 (1): 75–100. Rogers, C. R. 1959. ‘A Theory of Therapy, Personality, and Interpersonal Relationships as Developed in the Client-Centered Framework.’ In Psychology: A Study of a Science. Vol. 3., Formulations of the Person and the Social Context, edited by S. Koch, 184–256. New York: McGraw-Hill. Sander-Staudt, M. 2011. ‘Care Ethics.’ www.iep.utm.edu/care-eth Scott, H. 2011. ‘Empathy in Healthcare Settings.’ Doctoral thesis, University of London. Schein, E. H. 1997. Organisational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco, ca: Jossey-Bass. Sen, A. 1979. ‘Equality of What?’ In The Tanner Lecture on Human Values, edited by S. M. McMurrin, 1:197–220. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sen, A. 1987. On Ethics and Economics. Oxford: Blackwell. Sen, A. 1992. Inequality Re-Examined. Oxford: Clarendon. Sen, A. 2009. Het idee van rechtvaardigheid. Rotterdam: Lemniscaat. Siebens, H. 1994. Zakenethiek. Leuven: Garant. Siebens, H. 1996. Stress op het werk. Leuven: Garant. Siebens, H. 2004. ‘De waarden-volle school-visie.’ School en Samenleving 6:9–38. Siebens, H. 2007. Facilitating Leadership. Antwerp: Garant. Siebens, H. 2010. Duurzaam ondernemen. Antwerp: Garant. Siebens, H. 2013. ‘Verantwoord Schoolmanagement.’ Doctoral dissertation, University of Antwerp. Siebens, H. 2016. ‘Facilitating Leadership: The Answer to the Quest for Responsible Leadership.’ In Leadership for Future Focused Education and Learning for All, edited by T. Hurley and E. O’Connor. Dublin: Dromcondra Education Centre. Siebens, H. 2018. ‘Ethical Leadership under Hostile Fire.’ In Wybrane Zagadnienia Zarzadzania i Przywodztwa Edukacyjnego, edited by R. Dorczak, 109–143. Krakow: Jagiellonsky University. Siebens, H. 2019. Responsible Professionalism. Oud-Turnhout: GompelandScavina. Siebens, H. 2020. Et alors? Van onverschilligheid naar betrokkenheid. Oud-Turnhout: GompelandScavina. Silverman, C. 2011. ‘The Backfire Effect.’ Columbia Journalism Review, 1 May. Sims, R. 1992. ‘The Challenge of Ethical Behavior in Organisations.’ Journal of Business Ethics 11 (7): 505–513. Staessens, K. 1991. De professionele cultuur van basisscholen: Elke school heeft naar verhaal. Leuven: Universitaire Pers. Stewart, T. 1989. ‘New Ways to Exercise Power.’ Fortune, 6 November. 102 Grand Theory of Antisocial and Destructive Behavior Strack, G. 2008. ‘Whistle-Blowing in Germany.’ http://www.drasuszodis .lt/userfiles/WB_inGermany%281%29.pdf Suarez-Mendoza, M. J., and P. Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara. 2008. ‘The Impact of Work Alienation on Organisational Citizenship Behaviour in the Canary Islands.’ International Journal of Organisational Analysis 15 (1): 56–76. Sumner, W. G. 1906. Folkways. Boston, ma: The Athenaeum Press. T’Sas, J. 2018. ‘Learning Outcomes of Exploratory Talk in Collaborative Activities.’ Doctoral dissertation, University of Antwerp. Tepper, B. J. 2000. ‘Consequences of Abusive Supervision.’ Academy of Management Journal 43 (2): 178–190. Van Heugten, K. 2010. ‘Engaging Bystanders as Change Agents in Workplace Harassment/Mobbing.’ Paper presented at the International Conference on Workplace Bullying and Harassment, Cardiff, 2–4 June. Van Muijen, J. J. 1999. Organisatiecultuur: Bouwstenen voor personeelsmanagement in de zorg. Houten: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum. Vartia-Väänänen, M. 2013. ‘Workplace Mobbing and Harassment in the e u and Finland.’ j i l p t Report, no. 12: 1–12. Verplaetse, J. 2006. Het morele brein. Antwerpen: Garant. Vinten, G., ed. 1994. Whistleblowing. Subversion or Corporate Citizenship? London: Chapman. Webley, S., and A. Werner. 2008. ‘Corporate Codes of Ethics: Necessary and not Sufficient.’ Business Ethics 17 (4): 405–415. Western, S. 2008. Leadership: A Critical Text. Los Angeles: Sage. Herman Siebens is independent researcher and author, Belgium. siebens-marckx@skynet.be 103 Perspectives on Leadership Max Weber on Various Types of Legitimate Dominance for Leaders: A Longitudinal Study of Adults’ View of Play and Learning in Preschool Dan Roger Sträng Østfold University College, Norway The preschool is challenged by the fact that organizational measures taken to reduce differences in dominance between different groups require guarantees against the arbitrary exercise of power by the leaders. Preschool workforce consists of teachers, educated pedagogical leaders of departments or groups of children, and assistants with no specific training requirements in the legislation. However, many assistants have completed a vocational training program in high school, but they have no leading positions. Head teachers or managers are responsible for the preschool as a whole and are often recruited from the pedagogical leaders level. This paper presents a longitudinal study of adults’ views on play and learning in preschool. The study is part of a comprehensive development project, its overall goal being to achieve a common understanding among preschool staff about the importance of play as a fundamental factor in children’s learning. Data was collected in the form of recurring letter-writing over a five-year period. In their letters, all employees had the opportunity to express their opinions regardless of education and formal position. The result of the study shows significant differences in the view on the importance of play between pedagogical leaders and assistants. In order to explain what happened during the development project and to achieve a deeper understanding of effects of different approaches in daily work, I turned to Max Weber and his typology of legitimate domination in an organization. Keywords: play and learning, letter writing, pedagogical leaders, assistants, legitimate domination Introduction This paper presents a longitudinal study of an on-going development project on adults’ view on play and learning in preschool. The study was conducted in an organizational network of 15 preschools in eastern Norway, with approx. 300 employees, 1100 children and 2000 parents. The preschools selected range in size vo d e n j e 1|2020: 105–119 Dan Roger Sträng from 28–121 children with different profiles and focus areas, such as sports, nature and literature. The overall purpose of the development project is to explore the possibilities of creating a common understanding between different groups of employees about the importance of play for learning. According to the preschool network, the development project, The Importance of Play in Preschool (t i p p), aims to improve the daily work of preschools by implementing new working methods that benefit children, parents and employees. The network’s philosophy is to be moving, willing and innovative. Norwegian preschools in general take their social mandate seriously and have good knowledge of the importance of the first years of a child’s life. The Scandinavian kindergarten model, characterized by a view of learning where care, play and learning are interlinked, has a traditional role in Norwegian preschools (Martinsen 2015). According to the Kindergarten Act (Ministry of Education and Research 2018), children have a legal right to participate in the daily program that consists of time, free to play, out-door activities, playing in groups, supervised activities, meals and reading/show-andtell time. In order to provide children with optimal opportunities to learn and develop, there are political expectations that every preschool should be characterized by professional and educational quality (Steinnes and Haug 2013). In preschool, there are different professional groups. Preschool workforce consists of educated pedagogical leaders of departments or groups of children, and assistants with no specific training requirements in the legislation. Assistants have no leading positions. Head teachers or managers often have a background as pedagogical leaders and are in charge of the whole preschool. Steinnes and Haug (2013) note that only about a third of the preschool staff acquired academic and professional knowledge from formal education. The remaining two thirds are employed as assistants with no formal job requirements. This can lead to challenges regarding education quality and different opinions of how to deal with daily work with the children. Results from the study show different views on the importance of play between pedagogical leaders and assistants. The experience-based positions and knowledge of assistants challenge the legitimate dominance of formal rules and procedures as well as the pedagogical leaders who execute them. In order to gain a deeper understanding of the views and attitudes of the various staff groups, and look for possible ways 106 Max Weber on Various Types of Legitimate Dominance for Leaders leading to further successful development, I turned to Max Weber and his typology of legitimate domination in an organization. Max Weber is one of the most cited organizational theorists, but knowledge of his works is often limited to his ideal typical organization model (Barcharach and Lawler 1980). However, Weber did not only recognize organizations as simply rationally determined systems of interdependent structures, but as systems in which political tension among interest groups can emerge and re-emerge. Studying groups of pedagogical leaders and assistants in preschool makes it important to assume that individuals may become political in groups, and will therefore have a greater impact on the organizational structure. To understand the political system in organizations, we also need to understand how and why groups mobilize their power (Omisore and Nweke 2014). What defines a system as ‘legitimate’ is much discussed and the answers depend on how we define the terms. According to Weber (1972), those subjected to domination have a certain degree of belief in the system, and that makes them willing to obey orders in a somewhat voluntarily way. Szelenyi (2016) raises the question of how strong the subordinates’ beliefs must be in order to acknowledge domination as legitimate. Another question is who should hold such beliefs. Steinnes and Haug (2013) emphasize that in order to answer questions like this in the Norwegian preschool context, we ought to investigate how the relationship between different groups of staff affect the activities and responsibilities in the preschool daily work and how the existing practice can be explained. Gaining a deeper knowledge and understanding of Weber’s view of the difference between power and dominance can help to answer these questions. Theoretical Framework A metaphor is ‘a basic structural form of experience by which human beings engage, organize, and better understand their world’ (Morgan 1983, 601). Organizations are described through metaphors as machines, organisms, brains, cultures, political systems and instruments of domination (Llewelyn 2003). In professional organizations, position of the chief executive (c e o) is at the base of the organizational pyramid. Professional experts dominate from the front line and other personnel provide the skills and service needed to complete the day-to-day work (Quinn, Anderson, and Finkelstein 1996). In preschool, the chief executive´s counterpart 107 Dan Roger Sträng is the headmaster or manager and the pedagogical leaders are the professional experts. However, the assistants carry out a large part of the daily work in practice, in close contact with the children. Some scholars (Dunbar and Burgoon 2005) claim that dominance occurs from not only the structure and hierarchy of the organization, but through the impact of predetermined interpersonal interactions. McCammon (2018) defines the basic idea of organizational domination as imbalance of power that enables certain members of the organization to control other members and their actions in daily work. Manifestations of domination and resistance occur simultaneously and are emergent, situated and concurrent (Alcadipani, Hassard, and Islam 2018). In contrast to power, dominance is always manifested and connected to context- and relationship-dependent interactional patterns. When dominance develops into oppression, it will lead to resistance, in terms of covert practice, ‘below the radar’ (Mumby 2005) from individuals and groups who feel threatened. Power struggles between different individuals and groups would commonly have a negative impact on organization’s work and results. Identifying causes of contradictions and looking for possible solutions is important for turning a negative trend into a positive development (Greer, van Banderen, and Yu 2017). Dominance resulting from the power struggle is a recurring element in Max Weber’s work on social relations and democracy (Breiner 1996). Legitimate exercise of power is, according to Weber, best suited to establish a balanced and functioning dominance occurrence in an organization. Power relations structured by the relationship between command and obedience relate to dominance (Armbruster 2006). Domination is a concept, more refined than power, since the existence of power does not always turn out like domination. Weber links the power to concepts of authority and rule, and defines it as the probability of actors within a social relationship carrying out their will despite resistance (Weber, Parsons, and Henderson 1947). Weber (1978, 94) speaks of domination as a special case of power that can emerge in diverse forms. [. . .] from the social relations in a drawing room as well in the market, from the rostrum of a lecture-hall as well from the command post of a regiment, from an erotic or charitable relationship as well as from scholarly discussion or athletics. 108 Max Weber on Various Types of Legitimate Dominance for Leaders Weber (1978) defines power as a probability of forcing one´s will on the behavior of others. In an organization, rational actors will choose the most appropriate means to realize their goals. As attending to goals depends on the behavior of colleagues, rational actors need options to influence colleagues’ activities in desired direction (Brennan 1997). Weber undeniably had a well-defined and elaborated concept of dominance but he did not formulate a complete theory in this area (Armbruster 2006). Weber’s view on domination assumes that those who are the subject of domination also have a certain degree of ‘belief’ in the system that dominates them (Szelenyi 2016). Similarly, the choice of a given order becomes to some extent a voluntary choice among the subordinated. Hodgkinson (1996) adds that when organization members are ready to accept authority, they sanction the actualization of organizational values, which is clearly visible in the letters from the preschool employees on all levels. In Norwegian preschool, there is an asymmetric structure and distribution of roles among the professionals. Steinnes and Haug (2013) emphasize that established kindergarten tradition, practical structures and different professional competence among the staff have contributed to an unbalanced prevalence of domination and submission between different groups of employees. To change this pattern, Steinnes and Haug (2013) recommend changes in kindergarten teacher education and educational courses for kindergarten assistants combined with long-term work-based developmental projects. However, it is not obvious that collective notions on learning and play in preschool will change, due to the increase of individual competence. Methodology of Research Successful development of an organization requires insight into the means of expression that individuals and groups use to describe and analyze their own work. Scherp (1998) points out that all employees need to rely on their own ability to judge what is appropriate in different situations. Conscious and planned experiential learning, with employees reflecting on their daily work, is an important part of a professional change process. Tiller (2006) talks about action learning, with reflective practitioners ‘who are open to insight into their practice, use self-confidence, and engage in participant-guided problem solving in continuous professional development’ (p. 53). 109 Dan Roger Sträng A longitudinal study is a research design following specific individuals over time, with data collected repeatedly (Caruana et al. 2015). In this study, I have investigated selected groups of preschool personnel over a period of five years. The chosen strategy has enabled me to reflect on appreciable patterns of change and predict possible directions for future development in the preschool network. As for methodological design, I chose autoethnography because of its ability to explain, describe and provide insight into human behavior in context (Purcell-Gates 2004). Autoethnography as empirical research methodology focuses on narrations and descriptions of personal experience in a context (Hughes and Pennington 2017). For data collection, I decided to use reflective letter writing (Pithouse-Morgan et al. 2012) to enable employees to describe themselves and reflect freely on their experience of their daily work in preschool. Clandinin and Connelly (1994) emphasize that letter writing as a research method is well suited in the context of personal experience. Letters offer a unique form of data, representing thoughts, feelings, and observations that may occur over a period (Barton and Hall 2000; Salmons 2018). Validity and reliability of letters depend on credibility of the narrators (Ellis, Adams, and Bochner 2011). With letters from preschool employees, written during their practice over time, I perceive that their descriptions of everyday life are truthful and coherent testimonies based on their respective reality. The empirical material consisted of 116 letters from managers, teachers and assistants from a number of selected preschools in the network. All personnel in the units selected were invited to write a letter based on predetermined questions or themes. Hughes and Pennington (2017) state that autoethnography allows the researcher to locate a phenomenon of interest and consider a critical reflexive approach to thinking and writing. Cohen and Manion (1991, 103) talk about ‘purposive sampling,’ in which the researcher selects the information units that can be perceived as relevant to describe a particular context. The first two sessions of writing in 2014 and 2015 aimed at identifying the daily work in participating preschools from the staff perspective. The following rounds in 2017 and 2018 were essentially formative evaluations of the ongoing development of the t i p p project. The issues and themes for the letters remained identical in the four data collections as follows. 110 Max Weber on Various Types of Legitimate Dominance for Leaders • • • • • • • Describe your experience of good play. Recount a personal experience of play you had as a child and why you remember it. Tell about a special occasion where you observed children’s play. In what way can play be the basis for learning and overall development? What effect can the adult role have on children’s play? How do you document children’s play and learning? How do you use guidance and reflection to strengthen your professional role? Results and Analysis According to Weber, the ideal types of domination are domination through a constellation of interests and domination through authority – regardless of personal motives or other interests (Kalberg 2005; Weber 1978). These ideals have different origins, with the first one based on the impact of goods and skills, and the other derived from an alleged duty to follow existing procedures and guidelines for the organization (Brennan 1997; Weber 1978). Weber (1978) argues that organizational members can act as free, autonomous individuals, only when one´s actions are rationally consistent with administrative values. Legal norms must turn into a common grounded idea of rationality with the aim of strengthening the work towards goal fulfillment, as outspoken by letters from preschool managers, which indicates that a development has taken place. I think adults play a central role in children’s play. We are responsible for facilitating good play. In my kindergarten, over a long period, we have the job of developing the three magic words: Start, Protect and Develop. [Manager 2014] We find that there has been a positive development and that we are on the right path. We have reached an increased shared understanding, and we are heading towards a common language of play and learning. We will continue to work for the mutual understanding of useful methods and tools. As Head, I will continue to inspire, motivate and guide based on the project’s goals and the preschool’s mission. [Manager 2018] 111 Dan Roger Sträng In most letters, there are efforts to develop the preschool’s work in accordance with the purpose of the project. The organization appears to be a culture of change – and perhaps moving towards a learning organization (Senge 1990). We talk a lot about our work. What do we do now? What is best for the children? Best for us adults? Do we have time for this? Prioritize first? How about a person who does not like large groups? Should we split? Reflections and conversations during the day. We make a large number of choices during the week that require competent adults. We talk informally together all day. [Pedagogical leader 2015] Statements from both assistants and pedagogical leaders show that they perceive their work as dominated by common interests in the view of children. These are examples of shared values, based on traditions and practical structures, independent of formal positions in the organization (Steinnes and Haug 2013). We look at the children and their play with different eyes and it is the alpha and omega that we talk together and share our observations with each other. [Assistant 2018] The main goal of t i p p was to strengthen the preschool as a learning arena through children’s play. This means that all children in our preschools should have a good play and learning environment, time for play and reflective adults with a common understanding of play and learning [Pedagogical leader 2018] The following statements, on the other hand, can be perceived as an example of how preschool teachers as executors (Breiner 1996) perceive dominance, resting on everyday faith of and respect for valid rules. The statement is from 2014 and describes a valid expectation for all preschool staff before the development work began. It is the responsibility of adults to be good role models and to create a good environment. It is also the responsibility of the adults to make sure that everyone has someone to play with. [Pedagogical leader 2014] Domination by a constellation of interests seems to be more oppressive than an authority having the duties of obedience clearly established. The conceivable contradiction between different perceptions of what is right and what is wrong is determined by a 112 Max Weber on Various Types of Legitimate Dominance for Leaders direct impact of power from a preschool manager. Weber (1972) defines it as a competitive selection, intended at the imposing of one´s will over others within a social relationship (Breiner 1996). The adults in the kindergarten should always be present and accessible to children. Adults should facilitate a good play, be a supporter of the children, give them advice and guidance, observe, help the children who strive to get into the play, intervene when needed and participate in the play on children’s premises [Manager 2015] Weber (1978) argues that domination by a constellation of interests within an organization must be converted to domination of authority to be successful. This is clearly visible in letters from assistants, who are not willing to limit their skills and experience as professionals just to subordination towards the formal educational leadership. We can certainly develop our experiences into something positive, through guidance and help. By showing what is right and wrong [Assistant 2014] From my own experience, I know that we can play a big role in children’s play. We are role models and it is amazing how much the children take after what we say, what we do and how we act in play [Assistant 2015] Weber (1978) points out that the heart of authority domination lies in its capacity to make the ruled internalize the will of the rulers as though it were their own. A starting point for t i p p was to identify existing perceptions of the content and performance of work. There was nothing new to add, just to get better at daily work, implemented from accepted norms and guidelines. I think I learn something new every day. New situations arise all the time and I have to have a plan for working with the different children and follow given rules and routines. Discuss different situations with my educational leader to develop my skills [Assistant 2018] Weber demands that ‘any given legal norm may be established by agreement or by imposition, on grounds of expediency or valuerationality or both, with a claim to obedience at least on the part of the members of the organization’ (Weber 1978, 217). One letter from a preschool manager explains the shared responsibility among the adults. 113 Dan Roger Sträng Summary Results 2014 According to the correspondents, there is essentially harmony in preschool units. No major issues of conflict are evident from the letters, although there are a few different opinions about certain parts of practical work with the children. 2015 Assistants and teachers express different views on a number of issues. What distinguishes them most is the perception of adult roles. Assistants feel frustrated that their knowledge and experience are not sufficiently utilized by the organization. They wish to contribute to collective learning, but the organization seems not to be adapted to a change. 2017 Both assistants and teachers are positive about new tools and working methods that have been added to workplaces through the t i p p implementation. Different groups’ perceptions of the adult role are still polarized – but now unconditionally discussed in different contexts and from different perspectives. 2018 In the fourth round of letters, the daily work seems to be characterized by planning and strategies for change. The willingness to cooperate among different professional groups has increased in the ongoing improvement process. Discussion The ‘The importance of play in preschool’ project (tipp) started in 2014. The overall purpose of tipp was to develop the participating preschools through an increased focus on children’s play. The basic idea was to implement methods that would contribute to more reflection, common understanding and to achieve a common language for children’s play and learning. After five years of development work, tipp is a well-established concept in the organization. Most employees have a relationship of some kind with t i p p. The concept of ‘user adoption’ (Pai and Arnott 2013) has been introduced to implement methods that employees are expected to adopt and make their own. The management clearly communicate what they expect from the employees. Over time, the understanding and acceptance of the implementation work seems to have increased. Decisions and actions based on rationality and clarity are customary in organization’s daily work. (Corvellec and Holmberg 2004). In recent years, the view of organizations has changed from mechanical systems to units that are more organic (Burns and Stalker 2015). 114 Max Weber on Various Types of Legitimate Dominance for Leaders Dynamics of change do not exist in formal structures only. In successful development work, informal action patterns of individual leaders and groups would be developed and disseminated to other parts of the organization. To develop an organization means, among other things, to negotiate and reach agreements by a kind of virtual negotiation between actors. Key elements of these negotiations are ‘we-thinking’ and thinking for and against common attention and action (Chater et al. 2017) In the letters, there is a noticeable desire to develop the preschool’s work in accordance with the project’s purpose. Virtual negotiations provide a bridge between individual cognitions and the unwritten rules of social interaction and culture in the preschool network (Misyak et al. 2014). On the other hand, different opinions between assistants and educational leaders on issues, such as the importance of adults for children’s play, seem to have increased. However, reflection and guidance give room to discuss various issues more unconditionally than before. When structural patterns are changed and adapted to new directions, conflicts may arise between individuals and groups who experience themselves as winners or losers. Voices of the assistants have undoubtedly contributed to a more nuanced discussion, but perhaps also to increased polarization on certain issues. Assistants and their belief in the strength and success of their work may challenge the traditional dominance of preschool rules and practices and of educational leaders as executors. It is a challenge for preschool that democratic impulses to equalize the dominance between different groups require equal rights and guarantees against arbitrary use of power. To explain what really happened in the t i p p project on the relationship between the various target groups, I immersed myself in Max Weber’s theory of organizations’ internal and external life. Clegg (1994) argues that Weber still has a relevance in studying organizations, not predominantly for his theory, but for his recommendation to analyze the cultural constitution of phenomena. Conclusion In the tipp project, those who have discovered the practical benefits of the new methods use them in their daily work and provide feedback that they have achieved a better overview of what they do and why. Reflection on requirements in the control documents has gained a greater place in planning and evaluation. The adults have 115 Dan Roger Sträng become more aware of what they are doing and of the opportunity to learn and develop in their profession in their own workplace. Methods have led to increased knowledge in the organization and children’s play has been given more space. Development projects often rely on ideal conditions, where each participant is uncritically expected to relate to plans and strategies presented, regardless of their opportunity for contributing to and influencing the process. A deficiency in t i p p results is the difference in how participating preschools have implemented new methods in reality. Empirical data shows that some of the participants seem to perceive development mainly as an unwanted addition to their regular work. According to Brennan (1997), Weber argues that in most relationships someone has the capacity to get others to obey commands even when the others may not want to. The dominated persons, acting with formal freedom, rationally pursue their own interests as they are forced upon them by objective circumstances. [Weber 1978, 943] Mills (1940) notes that structures of dominance in an organization include more or less abstract cultural values, expressed through different actions and vocabularies of motive. Clegg (1994) emphasizes that the main relevance in Weber’s analysis of organizations is the inevitableness of substantive values being the core of any organization (Clegg 1990). The basic values in the preschool network and the development project t i p p are outspoken by one of the heads. The soul in the kindergarten is created by our employees who care about their work, who are dedicated and who give of themselves in what they do professionally and playful. Our core values are Big Heart, Joy and Intense work. [Head] A central question is whether Weber would approve that individual members of an organization could come together and create a value-oriented system of legal norms by mutual agreement. If so, can it be consistent with Weber’s basic view of the interplay of self-seeking interests between impeccably rational actors? Another question is if Max Weber’s writings still hold in the twenty-first century. Some organizational theorists question the relevancy of Weber´s theories in our modern age of different economic, social and technological realities very different from his contemporary ones (Greenwood and Lawrence 2005; Lounsbury 116 Max Weber on Various Types of Legitimate Dominance for Leaders and Carberry 2005). Other scholars, on the contrary, claim that Weber’s writings on authority are still material in modern organizations and contribute to the thinking of today’s management scholars. Houghton (2010). Well, says Clegg (1994, 76), ‘Max Weber is dead: let us bury the reverberations of his pessimistic insights with him, leave the corpse interred and rewrite the epitaph and obituary.’ References Alcadipani, R., J. Hassard, and G. Islam. 2018. ‘“I Shot the Sheriff:” Irony, Sarcasm and the Changing Nature of Workplace Resistance.’ Journal of Management Studies 55 (8): 1452–1487. Armbruster, C. 2006. ‘Theory of Domination: Legitimacy, Authority, Hierarchy.’ https://ssrn.com/abstract=898469 Barcharach, S. B., and E. J. Lawler. 1980. Buy Power and politics in Organizations: The Social Psychology of Conflict, Coalitions and Barganing. San Fransisco, ca: Jossey-Bass. Barton, D., and N. Hall. 2000. ‘Introduction.’ In Letter Writing as a Social Practice, edited by D. Barton and N. Hall, 1–14. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Breiner, P. 1996. Max Weber and Democratic Politics. Ithaca, ny: Cornell University Press. Brennan, C. 1997. Max Weber on Power and Social Stratification: An interpretation and Critique. Brookfield, va: Ashgate. Burns, T., and G. M. Stalker. 2015. ‘Mechanistic and Organic Systems.’ In Organizational Behavior 2: Essential Theories of Process and Structure, edited by J. B. Miner, 214–225. New York: Routledge. Caruana, E. J., M. Roman, J. Hernández-Sánchez, and P. Solli. 2015. ‘Longitudinal Studies.’ Journal of Thoratic Disease 7 (11): 537–540. Chater, N., J. B. Misyak, T. Melkonyan, and H. Zeitoum. 2017. ‘Virtual Bargaining: Building the Foundations for a Theory of Social Interaction.’ In The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of the Social Mind, edited by J. Kiverstein, 418–430. London: Routledge. Clandinin, D. J., and F. M. Connelly. 1994. ‘Personal Experience Methods.’ In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 413–427. Thousand Oaks, ca: Sage. Clegg, S. R. 1990. Modern Organizations: Organization Studies in the Postmodern World. London: Sage. Clegg, S. R. 1994. ‘Max Weber and Contemporary Sociology of Organizations.’ In Organizing Modernity, edited by L. J. Ray and M. Reed, 46–80. London and New York: Routledge. Cohen, L., and L. Manion. 1991. Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge. Corvellec, H., and L. Holmberg. 2004. Organisationers vardag – sett underifrån. Malmö: Liber. 117 Dan Roger Sträng Dunbar, N. E., and J. K. Burgoon. 2005. ‘Perceptions of Power and Interactional Dominance in Interpersonal Relationships.’ Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22 (2): 207–223, Ellis, C., T. E. Adams, and A. P. Bochner. 2011. ‘Autoethnography: An Overview.’ Historical Social Research 36 (4): 273–290. Greenwood, R., and T. B. Lawrence. 2005. ‘The Iron Cage in the Information Age: The Legacy and Relevance of Max Weber for Organizational Studies.’ Journal of Organizational Behavior 26:839–865. Greer, L. L., L. Van Bunderen, and S. Yu. 2017. ‘The Dysfunctions of Power in Teams: A Review and Emergent Conflict Perspective.’ Research in Organizational Behaviour 37:103–124. Hodgkinson, C. 1996. Administrative Philosophy: Values and Motivations in Administrative Life. Oxford: Pergamon. Houghton, J. 2010. ‘Does Max Weber’s Notion of Authority Still Hold in the Twenty-First Century?’ Journal of Management History 16 (4): 449–453. Hughes, S. A., and J. L. Pennington. 2017. Autoethnography: Process, Product, and Possibility for Critical Social Research. Thousand Oaks, ca: Sage. Kalberg, S., ed. 2005. Max Weber: Readings and Commentary on Modernity. Malden, ma: Blackwell. Llewellyn, S. 2003. ‘Strategy in the Public Sector: Management in the Wilderness.’ Journal of Management Studies 40 (4): 955–982. Lounsbury, M., and E. J. Carberry. 2005. ‘From King to Court Jester? Weber’s Fall from Grace in Organizational Theory.’ Organizational Studies 26:501–525. Martinsen, M. T. (2015). ‘Structural Conditions for Children’s Play in Kindergarten.’ Nordic Early Childhood Education Research Journal 10 (1): 1–18. McCammon, C. 2018. ‘Domination.’ The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Archive. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/ entries/domination/ Mills, C. W. 1940. ‘Situated Actions and Vocabularies of Motive.’ American Sociological Review 5:904–913. Ministry of Education and Research. 2018. ‘Act Relating to Kindergartens.’ https://lovdata.no/dokument/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-64 Misyak, J. B., T. Melkonyan, H. Zeitoun, and N. Chater. 2014. ‘Unwritten Rules: Virtual Bargaining Underpins Social Interaction, Culture, and Society.’ Trends in Cognitive Sciences 18 (10): 512–519. Morgan, G. 1983. ‘More on Metaphor: Why We Cannot Control Tropes in Administrative Science.’ Administrative Science Quarterly 28 (4): 601–607. Mumby, D. K. 2005. ‘Theorizing Resistance in Organization Studies: A Dialectical Approach.’ Management Communication Quarterly 19(1): 19–44. 118 Max Weber on Various Types of Legitimate Dominance for Leaders Omisore, B., and A. N. Nweke. 2014. ‘The Influence of Power and Politics in Organizations (Part 1).’ International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 4 (7): 164–183. Pai, P., and D. C. Arnott. 2013. ‘User Adoption of Social Networking Sites: Eliciting Uses and Gratifications through a Means-End Approach.’ Computers in Human Behavior 29 (3): 1039–1053. Pithouse-Morgan, K., M. Khau, L. Masinga, and C. van de Ruit. 2012. ‘Letters to Those Who Dare Feel: Using Reflective Letter-Writing to Explore the Emotionality of Research.’ International Journal of Qualitative Methods 11 (1): 40–56. Purcell-Gates, V. 2004. ‘Ethnographic Research.’ In Literacy Research Methodologies, edited by M. K. Duke and M. H. Mallette, 92–113. New York: Gilford. Quinn, J. B., P. Anderson, and S. Finkelstein. 1996. ‘Managing Professional Intellect: Making the Most of the Best.’ Harvard Business Review 74 (2): 71–80. Salmons, J. (2018). ‘Letters as Data.’ https://www.methodspace.com/ letters-as-data/ Scherp, H.-Å. 1998. Utmanande eller utmanat ledarskap: Rektor, organisationen och förändrat undervisningsmönster i gymnasieskolan. Göteborg: Göteborgs Universitet. Senge, P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Currency Doubleday. Steinnes, G. S., and P. Haug. 2013. ‘Consequences of Staff Composition in Norwegian Kindergarten.’ Nordic Early Childhood Education Research Journal 6 (13): 1–13. Szelenyi, I. 2016. ‘Weber’s Theory of Domination and Post-Communist Capitalisms.’ Theory and Society 45 (1): pp. 1–24. Tiller, T. 2006. Aksjonslæring – forskende partnerskap i skolen, motoren i det nye lœringsløftet. Oslo: Høyskoleforlaget. Weber, M. 1972. Wirtscahft und Gesellschaft. Edited by J. Winckelmann. Tübingen: Mohr. Weber, M. 1978. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley, ca: University of California Press. Weber, M., T. Parsons, and A. M. Henderson. 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York: Oxford University Press. Dan Roger Sträng is Professor at the Østfold University College, Norway. dan.r.strang@hiof.no 119 Abstracts in Slovene Knut Ove Æsoy Zaupanje: temelj samovodenja učiteljev Fenomenološki članek raziskuje zaupanje kot bistveni element samovodenja. Natančneje, preučuje ga kot enega najpomembnejših delov lastnega procesa usposabljanja, z uporabo teoretičnih pristopov in na primeru pisem, ki jih pišejo učitelji. Pismo odraža učiteljevo strokovno znanje in vzbuja občutek zaupanja. Teoretični pristopi izhajajo iz del Bengta Molanderja (2015), Carla Rogersa (1961) in Stanislasa Dehaena (2014); povezujejo znanstveno filozofijo, v človeka usmerjeno izkustveno terapijo in nevroznanost. Delo je osredotočeno na štiri načine, s katerimi lahko posameznik pridobi več zaupanja vase: zaupanje čustvom, zaupanje znanju v praksi, zaupanje rutinam in tradicijam ter zaupanje holističnemu pogledu na poklic posameznika. Največji poudarek je na napetemu odnosu med zaupanjem in kritiko. Ta napetost mora biti uravnotežena, saj s tem učiteljem omogoča samovodenje. Ključne besede: zaupanje, kritika, čustveno znanje, znanje v praksi, rutine in tradicije, holistični pogled vod e nj e 1|2020: 3–15 Christopher Branson Industrija 4.0, demokracija in izobraževanje: vpliv na šolsko kulturo in vodstvo? Vemo, da naš svet prehaja s tretje na četrto stopnjo industrijske revolucije (Industrija 4.0). Svet, v katerem prevladujejo elektronika, računalniki in avtomatizirana proizvodnja se spreminja v svet kiber-fizičnih sistemov, v katerih so resnični predmeti in virtualni procesi medsebojno povezani. Toda prehod na četrto stopnjo ni odvisnen samo od tehnološkega razvoja – potrebne so tudi določene družbene in kulturne spremembe. Ker umetna inteligenca, internet stvari in strojno učenje drastično spreminjajo naravo dela, velja, da bodo za dolgoročno vzdržnost človečnosti bistveni dejavniki za uravnavanje sicer izoliranega in neodvisnega življenjskega sloga postali poudarjena družabnost, kulturna demokracija in moralna integriteta. Zato prispevek zastopa stališče, da je glavni izziv današnjih šol potreba po pripravi učencev na tako zelo drugačno sociokulturno okolje. Tovrstna priprava vključuje več kot le učenje medosebne družabnosti, kulturne demokracije in morale, saj gre za učenje v okviru življenjskih izkušenj. Z drugimi besedami, priprava današnjih učencev na izpolnjeno življenje v svetu Industrije 4.0 zajema ne le učenje medosebne družabnosti, demokracije in morale, temveč neposreden stik s šolsko kulturo, ki te koncepte nedvoumno uteleša. To zadnje številnim današnjim učencem zaenkrat ni dosegljivo, saj so tako fizične in organizacijske strukture šol, kot tudi njihove vodstvene prakse in organizacijske kulture še vedno v veliki meri usklajene s svetom Industrije 2.0. Predvidoma so takšne prakse – in individualistične kulture, ki jih ustvarjajo 121 Abstracts in Slovene – večinoma sestavljene iz ločenih subjektov, ki jih združujejo pragmatični procesi; relativna diskontinuiteta in neodvisnost sta torej mnogo bolj prepoznani kot pa povezanost in soodvisnost. Priprava učencev na Industrijo 4.0 zahteva spremembe vodstvenih in kulturnih nagibov. Članek opisuje tekoče raziskave, ki želijo tovrstne rezultate doseči z edinstvenim ekološkim raziskovanjem šolskega vodstva in šolske kulture, kjer kakovost odnosov postane osrednja usmeritev. Ključne besede: četrta industrijska revolucija, šolsko vodstvo, transrelacijsko vodstvo, šolska kultura, organizacijska ekologija vod e nj e 1|2020: 17–31 Henry Leppäaho Koristi in izzivi poenotenih osnovnih šol (od 1. do 9. razreda) na Finskem z vidika ravnateljev in učiteljev Kvalitativna študija raziskuje delovne izkušnje učiteljev in ravnateljev na poenotenih osnovnih šolah. Podatki so zbrani v sedmih takšnih šolah na Finskem, s pomočjo vprašalnikov. Študija razkriva več izzivov in težav, na primer: pouk v več poslopjih, stalno hitenje in zahtevno upravljanje s časom, združevanje kulture učiteljev in razrednikov ter povečan obseg dela. Kljub temu več kot polovica učiteljev uživa v svojem raznolikem delovnem okolju in bi se raje odločili za delo na poenoteni osnovni šoli, kot za delo izključno v nižjih (od 1. do 6.) ali višjih (od 7. do 9.) razredih. Največja želja, ki je hkrati rešitev številnih težav je šola »pod eno streho«. Uvedba takšnega sistema bi učencem ponudila kar nekaj izboljšav; neprekinjene učne poti od 1. do 9. razreda, enostaven prehod z ene šolske ravni na drugo, poznano šolsko okolje in sodelovanje med učenci različnih starosti. Kar zadeva administracijo, je to edinstvena priložnost za učinkovito in ekonomično izrabo učiteljev, prostorov in virov. Ključne besede: poenotena osnovna šola, vodenje, poučevanje, učenje, izobraževanje vod e nj e 1|2020: 33–46 Herman Siebens Velika teorija antisocialnega in destruktivnega vedenja Na podlagi osebnih izkušenj je bil izveden interdisciplinarni pregled literature na temo značilnosti, dejavnikov (z vključeno medsebojno korelacijo) in dinamike antisocialnega (a) in destruktivnega (d) – sovražnega, neprimernega, neodgovornega . . . – vedenja na delovnem mestu in izven njega, ki ga med drugim zaznamujejo moteče in škodljive lastnosti. Zdi se, da je a d vedenje v porastu (npr. nasilje na delovnem mestu, agresivnost v prometu, desničarsko politično razmišljanje), ne le do podrejenih (navzdol), do kolegov (vodoravno) ali 122 Abstracts in Slovene do šolske organizacije na splošno, ampak tudi do ravnateljev (navzgor), kar je specifična in pogosto spregledana oblika sovražnega vedenja (znana kot »navzgor usmerjena sovražnost zaposlenih« (Kampi 2015)). Čeprav se zdi, da akademske discipline (družbene) psihologije, sociologije, kriminologije, (družbene) antropologije, (moralne) filozofije, etike, komunikologije, nevroznanosti (. . .) navajajo zelo zanimive pojme, koncepte, teorije in modele razlage, ostajajo le-te na področju analize a d vedenja precej nepovezane. Kljub vsemu pa študije načeloma vodijo v isto smer. Članek predstavlja poskus združevanja široke palete pristopov in razlag v enovit in splošen teoretični model: veliko teorijo a d vedenja. Njegov namen je prispevati k boljšemu razumevanju dejavnikov, ki ljudi zavestno ali nezavedno vodijo v antisocialno, destruktivno in neodgovorno vedenje, tako v vsakdanjem kot tudi v poklicnem svetu. Odgovarja na trditev, da je treba v znanstveni disciplini (uporabne) etike posvetiti več pozornosti negativnemu, neodgovornemu vedenju, njegovim posledicam in načinu delovanja, kot pa primerom prosocialnega in konstruktivnega vedenja, saj je posameznike v različnih vlogah le tako mogoče usmeriti v bolj odgovorno vedenje. Velika teorija ponuja več vpogleda v to, zakaj destruktivni ljudje počnejo to, kar počnejo – »neuspeh posameznika priznati, kar je preveč očitno, da bi lahko zgrešil« (Bok 1989) – in opozarja na destruktivno in »zlo« vedenje kot celoto. S tem odpira perspektive za novo razlago in tudi nov pristop (upravljanje) antisocialnega in destruktivnega vedenja znotraj organizacij. Tudi v šolskih organizacijah se vodilni kader (npr. ravnatelji, člani upravnega odbora) sooča s antisocialnim in destruktivnim vedenjem ne le učencev/študentov ali njihovih staršev, temveč tudi uslužbencev, ponavadi srednjega vodstvenega osebja. Šolskim organizacijam velika teorija a d vedenja ponuja možnost prilagoditve politik in v zvezi s tem je podanih nekaj predlogov. Ključne besede: antisocialno, destruktivno, vedenje, organizacije vod e nj e 1|2020: 47–103 Dan Roger Sträng Max Weber o različnih vrstah zakonite prevlade: študija na temo mnenja odraslih o igri in učenju v predšolskem obdobju V predšolskem obdobju so prisotni organizacijski ukrepi za zmanjšanje razlik med različnimi skupinami. Na področju predšolske vzgoje delujejo učitelji, izobraženi pedagoški vodje oddelkov ali skupin otrok in pomočniki, za katere v zakonodaji ni posebnih zahtev glede usposabljanja. Mnogo pomočnikov je sicer končalo program poklicnega usposabljanja v srednji šoli, a kljub temu ne zasedajo vodilnih položajev. Učitelji ali vodje so odgovorni za predšolsko vzgojo v celoti in pogosto prihajajo iz vrst pedagoških vodij. V tem prispevku je predstavljena raziskava pogledov odraslih na igro in učenje v predšolskem obdobju. Študija je del celovitega razvojnega projekta, njen glavni cilj 123 Abstracts in Slovene pa je doseči soglasje zaposlenih v predšolski vzgoji na področju pomena igre kot temeljnega dejavnika pri učenju. Podatki so zbrani v obliki pisanja pisem skozi celotno obdobje petih let. V pismih so imeli vsi zaposleni – ne glede na izobrazbo in formalni položaj – možnost izraziti svoje mnenje. Rezultat študije opozarja na bistvene razlike v pogledih pedagoških vodij in asistentov. V pomoč pri pojasnjevanju dogajanja med razvojnim projektom, in za dosego boljšega razumevanje učinkov različnih pristopov v vsakodnevnem delu je tu delo Maxa Weberja in njegova tipologija zakonite prevlade v organizaciji. Ključne besede: igra in učenje, pisanje pisem, pedagoški vodje, pomočniki, zakonita prevlada vod e nj e 1|2020: 105–119 124