Tag Archives: groups

Complexity and Management Conference 2-4th June 2017

Working in groups: what practical difference does it make to take complexity seriously?

One day introductory workshop on complexity and management Friday 2nd June.

2017Complexity and Management Conference 2-4th June 2017.

The booking page is now live and can be found by clicking this link. There is a £50 discount for booking before April 30th 2017.

‘The present historical situation shows clearly that human problems cannot be solved in isolation but only through concerted effort of the whole of humanity. The future of the human species may well be made or marred according to whether or not it is able to grasp this fact and act upon it while there is still time. Anything we can learn as to the relationships of persons towards each other, and of groups towards each other, is therefore, or great therapeutic significance.’ (Foulkes, 1947/2002)

Foulkes encouraged us to think about the importance of groups and ways of relating 80 years ago in the wake of the WWII – I wonder what he would have thought of our current predicaments. With increased social division, the rise of the far Right and demagoguery, we would be naïve to think that recent political upheavals in Europe and America do not also show up in different forms in organisational life.

Foulkes invited us to be more scientific about groups, seeing them  as a resource, as a means to liberate ourselves from unhelpful, repetitive behaviour, which may be informed by our primitive responses to each other. He thought it possible that we could learn better to adjust to each other and gain insight into our often stuck and unhelpful behaviour.  But by ‘adjustment’ he did not mean that we simply conform mindlessly. Rather, adjustment is made possible from our insight that we are interdependent and through the development of more helpful, negotiated ways of going on together.

The 2017 Complexity and Management Conference takes inspiration from Foulkes, but broadens his thinking by drawing on perspectives from organizational theory, sociology and philosophy. Our intention is to explore the complex responsive processes of relating in groups and to think about their relevance for our everyday experience of organising.

This year we are also offering an additional one day introductory workshop on Friday 2nd June. This workshop is suitable to anyone who would like to attend the conference but has had little exposure to the ideas informing the perspective of complex responsive processes. It is an opportunity to learn some of the basic concepts and to think about them in relation to your experience at work. The workshop is freestanding, and there is no requirement to attend the conference afterwards.

The conference itself runs as usual from 7pm Friday 2nd June till after lunch on Sunday 4th June. The conference fee includes all board and lodging and will have its usual mix of key note speeches, break-out discussions and informal socialising.

Key note speakers this year are:

Dr Martin Weegmann, who is a Consultant Clinical Psychologist and Group Analyst, and has specialised in substance misuse and personality disorders and is a well-known trainer. His latest books are: The World within the Group: Developing Theory for Group Analysis (Karnac, 2014) and Permission to Narrate: Explorations in Group Analysis, Psychoanalysis & Culture (Karnac 2016).

Dr Karina Iversen is a graduate of the Doctor of Management programme and an experienced consultant working in Denmark. She has co-authored a Danish introductory book on complex responsive processes of relating, which has gained a lot of attention in Danish communities interested in complexity. Karina is also an external lecturer at the Copenhagen Business School.

Professor Nick Sarra is a Consultant Psychotherapist working in the NHS and a group analyst specialising in organisational consultancy, debriefing and mediation within the workforce. He works on three post graduate programmes at the School of Psychology, Exeter University and is a Visiting Professor at the University of Hertfordshire.

If there are any queries then please contact Prof Chris Mowles: c.mowles@herts.ac.uk

Working in groups : what practical difference does it make to take complexity seriously?

Complexity and Management Conference 2017 –

2nd– 4th June: Roffey Park Management Centre

Human beings are born into groups and spend most of their working lives participating in them. Groups can be creative and improvisational, transforming who we think we are, and they may also be destructive and undermining. They hold the potential for both tendencies.

Many employers emphasise the importance of teamwork, yet employees in organizations are often managed, developed and assessed as though they were autonomous individuals.  And although many organisational mission statements include aspirations to be creative and innovative, it is a rare to attend a  meeting without a particular end in view, where participants feel able to explore the differences and difficulties that arise when they work together.

Meanwhile organizational development (OD) literature tends to idealize, and assumes that the best kind of organizations are those where staff ‘align’ with each other and learn to communicate in ways which bypass power and politics. They are offered step-wise tools and techniques to help them communicate with ‘openness and transparency’, so they can speak the truth and understand each other harmoniously. Conflict and power struggles are then topics that are avoided or ignored. The danger of the individualizing and idealizing tendencies in organisations is that they may leave employees feeling deskilled and unconfident about how to work creatively in groups.

At the 2017 Complexity and Management Conference we will discuss practical ways of working in groups, which assume that human interaction is necessarily imperfect, ambiguous and conflictual, and this contributes to the complex evolution of organizational life.

Keynote speakers this year: Dr Martin Weegmann, Dr Karina Solsø Iversen and Professor Nick Sarra

Martin Weegmann is a Consultant Clinical Psychologist and Group Analyst, who has specialised in substance misuse and personality disorders and is a well-known trainer. His latest books are: The World within the Group: Developing Theory for Group Analysis (Karnac, 2014) and Permission to Narrate: Explorations in Group Analysis, Psychoanalysis & Culture (Karnac 2016). He is currently working on a new edited book, Psychodynamics of Writing.

Karina Solsø Iversen is graduate of the Doctor of Management programme and an experienced consultant working in Denmark. Karina’s consultancy work is based on the practice of taking experience seriously as a way of working with leadership and organizational development. She has co-authored a Danish introductory book to the theory of complex responsive processes of relating, which has gained a lot of attention in Danish communities interested in complexity. Karina is also an external lecturer at Copenhagen Business School.

Nick Sarra is a Consultant Psychotherapist working in the NHS and a group analyst specialising in organisational consultancy,debriefing and mediation within the workforce. He works on three post graduate programmes  at the School of Psychology, Exeter University and is a Visiting Professor at the University of Hertfordshire.

Further details from c.mowles@herts.ac.uk. Booking begins early 2017.

Complexity and participative facilitation

Facilitated workshops are a very common feature of organisational life and are sometimes very good examples of the kind of thinking that assumes we need to design a process to have a process. This layering of process on process arises from the idea that groups of people called managers or facilitators can design interactions for other people which will encourage them to act in particular and more predictable ways, and will optimise people’s time together. Additionally, these designed processes of engaging are often informed by cult values, such as inclusiveness, openness and honesty. The point of designing workshops according to these values is to make them highly participative, democratic and ‘transparent’. By applying processes to the process of interaction, managers and facilitators believe they can achieve particular outcomes which tend towards the good. They are designing a culture for the workshop where people can express themselves freely, and have a safe and perhaps fun experience with others and ‘share learning’.

My own recent experience of a number of facilitated workshops has made me question whether they really are such positive and productive events, and whether they tend rather to suppress opportunities for learning rather than encourage them, the very opposite of what they intend. I am also sceptical about the degree to which one can agree and plan to have fun. I am concerned about how the focus on ‘fun’ can tend towards collusiveness and an avoidance of the exploration of difference and power relationships, and in particular the power of the facilitators and the guiding principles of the workshops themselves. To call the design of the workshop into question can appear as though one is against participation and transparency. Continue reading

Caught up in anxiety IV

I have been worrying away, caught up in my own anxiety if you like, about the spatial metaphors that seem so common sense when we start to talk about strategy in groups. So how can we possibly move forward unless we work out where it is that we want to be? Unless we have a map with an intended destination how do we know what to do when different options present? When I go out of the door in the morning do I turn left or right, a decision which is only possible if I know where I am going?

These ways of conceptualising what we need to be doing when we contemplate strategy  are very powerful, and to be appearing to take a position that seems to want to destabilise imagining a new future together can be experienced by participants in a group as a complete violation of the obvious. I think participants can sometimes experience a strong bodily reaction of frustration and suppression. I witness this as people visibly shift in their seats, mutter semi-audibly and clearly struggle with what they consider is the prevention of the blindingly obvious. I experience their discomfort with what it is I am saying when I am suggesting an alternative to spatial and directional metaphors. This makes me, in my turn, uncomfortable because I realise we are starting to struggle with what we mean by what we say.

Why are the reactions so strong? (And as I write this I am finding it almost impossible not to use spatial metaphors myself).

George Lakoff is a professor of linguistics from the University of Berkeley and has written extensively about how it is only possible for us to conceptualise  and rationalise, even in mathematics and physics, because we have developed metaphor. Moreover, the metaphors we use arise out of our bodily experience. As human bodies which have fronts and  backs we have a corporeal understanding of movement towards things and away from things. Quoting other research, Lakoff states that in most sign languages from around the world reference to the past  consistists  of a motion with the hands behind the signer. In addition, the metaphor of the journey is widely used to understand our lived experience – some of us conceive of our lives as a journey (and how many of us have done exercises in workshops where we are asked to describe our development in just such terms?), where we might lose our way or find ourselves at a crossroads, or not be sure which direction to take. We put the past behind us, we look forward to events. (An interesting exception to this is Aymara, a Chilean language of the Andes where it is the past which is ‘in front’ because you can immediately see the results of what you have done).

Because the metaphors we use to think about the future are embodied, rooted in our lived experience of the world, we may experience a bodily reaction to someone who appears to be cutting across our way of understanding the world and what it is we are engaged in. If I am encouraging a group to notice what is happening now, in the living present it may feel very counter-intuitive to what we ‘should be doing’. So an invitation to consider who we are, and what we are becoming can be experienced as a disruption of the more important question of ‘what we want to be’, which needs to be indentified in the future. As Hannah Arendt has pointed out, when the dominant mode is based in will, intentionality, then the dominant tense tends to be the future tense.

So an invitation to consider who we are, and what we are becoming can be experienced as a disruption of the more important question of ‘what we want to be’, which needs to be indentified as a point in the future towards which we are travelling. Along the line of time between where we are now and where we want to be be there will be landmarks, milestones, which we can use to orient ourselves as to whether we are travelling in the right direction.

In arguing that metaphors are useful because they help us rationalise and conceptualise arising out of our bodily experience of the world, Lackoff also warns against taking metaphorical language literally. Rather than being a best guess, an imaginative exercise in the face of an unknowable future, where what is most important is the way we negotiate, agree and disagree, pay attention to the relationships which are forming, strategy can become a fixed plan with milestones and targets for which employees will be ‘held accountable’. By ignoring, or perhaps failing to appreciate  the symbolic and metaphorical dimension of what we are doing we fall into the trap of believing that can predict the future.  We pay more attention to what we are willing, rather than what we encounter when we proceed with intention.