MAN+ MODEL A definitive, non-summarized, soul-forward and index-journal-ready paper (fully developed)
Review Article
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58372/2835-6276.1388Keywords:
MAN , leadership development, new masculinity, psychological safety, emotional intelligence, ethical leadership, engagement, organizational culture, well-being, purpose, 4A modelAbstract
This paper presents MAN+ as a fully developed leadership framework that redefines “masculinity at work” as a trainable capability set rather than a gender identity claim. In many organizations, traditional masculinity scripts (invulnerability, dominance, status competition, emotional suppression, performance at any cost) operate as hidden governance systems: they shape how leaders decide, how teams communicate, how conflict is managed, how errors are treated, and what is considered “strong” or “weak.”
MAN+ proposes an alternative script grounded in sustainable performance and human dignity. The model is structured around four operational dimensions: M (Mindful), A (Accountable), N (Nurturing), and “+” (Purpose). Each dimension is defined as a cluster of observable behaviors supported by established streams in organizational psychology and leadership research (e.g., emotional intelligence, psychological safety, engagement, ethical leadership). The paper integrates MAN+ with the 4A activation framework—Learning, Attitude, Soul, Action—so the model is not merely descriptive but implementable.
Beyond conceptual definition, the paper provides: (i) a rationale for why masculinity scripts function as management variables; (ii) a detailed development of each MAN+ dimension including behaviors, typical failure modes, micro-practices, and cultural levers; (iii) an operationalization matrix (behaviors → indicators → tools) and measurement options; (iv) an implementation playbook across phases; (v) three developed organizational scenarios illustrating application; and (vi) a research agenda with testable propositions. The aim is to offer an academically defensible, practically usable, and culturally resonant model that helps organizations move from “performance at any cost” to “performance with meaning.”
References
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. Bantam Books.
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2016). Understanding the burnout experience: Recent research and its implications for psychiatry. World Psychiatry, 15(2), 103–111.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Free Press.
(Additional recommended expansions: Bass, 1990; Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Greenleaf, 1977; Kahn, 1990; Schein, 2010; Connell, 2005.)
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 American Journal of Medical and Clinical Research & Reviews

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.