'We had no choice. It was inevitable.' Some
thoughts on parallel processes
between researcher and researched in response
to organisational change.

Jan Schapper
Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
email: Jan.Schapper@BusEco.monash.edu.au

May, 1997

This paper has many parts which hopefully will create a coherent whole. I have tried to present this paper in a way that reveals the process of learning as I grapple with my issues, the issues of the organisation and the issues that emerge in the relationship between myself as the researcher and the organisation as the object of my research. I'm not sure if the title of the paper is accurate; that is, I don't know if this is the process of parallel process. I am however becoming increasingly aware of the interdependence of the relationship and the difficulty this creates in claiming validity of the research.

Last week I had to present part of this paper to a doctoral seminar. Although the paper at that time had essentially two sections - the first an examination of the self in the research and the second a report on the research itself, I talked only of the research. The discussion that followed was desultory and polite. A friend, in response to my request for feedback later said it was fine, but she added that it lacked something because I wasn't in the paper. I thought about this. I didn't want to be - I wanted to be considered a professional who had some academic rigour. I didn't want to be the person who exposed my self for public scrutiny.

I then reflected on the paper I had written and the section I had presented. I said I wanted to discover the truth/s of the organisation; I was confronted with what I had chosen not to report in my research findings. I was confronted by the omissions, by the deletions and the half-truths. I decided to re-work the paper, and rather than cover-up my initial position, use it to illustrate the relationship between myself and the organisation. In so doing, I attempt some analysis of the research I first presented. Stylistically all that which has been added is in italics, parts of the original paper are in normal script. In order to remain within the required word length I have deleted some of the original paper - the deletions are of detail.

The research - the experience of local government amalgamation

What is the research? The task I have set myself is to research one organisation's experience of a major change. The organisation, the Tasman Coast Shire was created in December 1994 by the amalgamation of three and a bit local councils as part of a programme of municipal reform introduced by the-then newly elected conservative State government. The former municipalities embraced a small regional centre, a coastal tourist region and a farming district. Underpinned by the ideology of the need for efficiencies, improved service delivery and productivity, competitiveness and smaller government, the "reform" programme was introduced as a total package. The package included council amalgamations, the suspension of elected representatives and the appointment of Commissioners for a minimum of two years and the corporatisation of local government through the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering.

My initial interest in this choice of topic was essentially because of the dissonance between what I believed to be the truth of major change (ie, that it is dynamic, uncertain and so on) and the [mis]representation of organisational change as rational, planned, objective, responsible and value-free (cf. Dunphy 1996a), As we are all aware, the experience of radical organisational change appears to be a global phenomenon. New technologies, the internationalisation of business and the development of global economies, government regulation and de-regulation, changing economic conditions and ideologies have all been identified as triggers for significant organisational change (Dawson, 1994). Despite, (or because of ?) the chaotic and turbulent world of modern management, a plethora of change typologies have been developed to describe or prescribe change strategies (Dunphy and Stace, 1994, 1996; Bartunek and Moch, 1987; Golembiewski et al, 1989; Kumar and Thibodeaux, 1990). Notwithstanding the breadth of typologies and strategies, the language of organisational change is almost exclusively confined to the prevailing paradigms of organisational theory, business and management studies. Structural and cultural alignments are sought in order to enhance the product and satisfy the customer. Whether the discourse is one of politics (participative democracy), economics (economic rationalism), leadership (entrepreneurial and/or charismatic) or of war (military strategy) ( see Stace and Dunphy, 1996), change is premised on the need for stability, for strategic fit and for on-going organisational survival. Whatever the model, organisational change is presented as fixed, linear and controllable. Despite my dissatisfaction at the inadequacy of these unidimensional models of change, it is the relegation of the human response to organisational change to the reductionist concept of resistance to change (eg. ???) that raises my greatest ire. It was this dissonance between my knowledge of the rich and complex responses experienced by organisational members and the lifeless and often patronising presentations of organisational change that inspired my current research into the Tasman Coast Shire.

This sense of dissonance was a strong driving force in developing my research question. Rather than imposing a hypothetico-deductive model of research on an organisation, I wanted the opportunity to capture, record and interpret some of the richness and intense humanness that we who spend much of our paid daily lives, are so passionately aware. However, and I guess this should not be a surprise, during the course of preparing this paper I have become aware of my own humanness, which although significant to the conduct of my research, I had managed to hide from my own consciousness. It is because of the significance to the relationship between my role as researcher and the organisation that I am going to examine some of the unconscious and unchallenged assumptions I have, at this stage, been able to surface and expose.

Voicing truth

One of the overwhelming responses I have had as an organisational member faced with changes I have not supported or have felt to be outside my control has been to feel powerless and without a voice. I have felt as if a white noise of silence has been constructed to maintain a separation between management and the managed. It is this frustration, this sense of impotence and anger that has been, I now realise, projected onto the site of my research. I feel I don't have a voice to express my feelings about change, but I thought that I could provide a voice for others who, I hypothesised, felt the same as I did. About this desire to provide a voice for others, further discussion is required.

Contrary to concerns about current ethnographic practise that differentiates Self from Other and in so doing creates Self as the norm and the Other as the aberrant that is to be studied (Fine, 1994), it occurs to me that perhaps I have not sufficiently differentiated from those I am researching. My desire to speak for others has not emerged from fantasies of omnipotence and omniscience, but from a position of my own perceived powerlessness and despair. It has been my hope that the experience of others will legitimise and validate my experience. I have believed my struggle to be their struggle, and it is only in the recording of their struggle that my struggle can be voiced. My concern in terms of the validity of the research is that the other in this context does not have the separation implicit by the use of the capital Other, but has the potential to be little more than the object of the projected "I". An interesting methodological position - is research merely an examination of one's own projections? Not only do I need to be cognisant of my cultural and gendered position (Fine, 1994; Atkinson and Hammersley, 1994), but I am now keenly aware of the necessity to analyse my self in order to know the differentiated other. It was only the distress that I experienced when I felt I was being denied access to some of the operations staff that alerted me to this, less conscious and I believe, more powerful, aspect of my research. Horrified that I may not be able to hear (and retell) the stories and views of the road maintenance crews, I was confronted by the significance I had placed on this perceived role of my research. It has only been after much thought and reflection that I now realise that I needed their voice because I believed that their silence would rob me of my voice.

Researcher in the researched

This process of reflecting on my response to my many research experiences raised in a very real sense for me the nature of the relationship between the researcher and the researched (see Strauss and Corbin, 1994; Denzin and Lincoln, 1994; Steier, 1991; Berg and Smith, 1988). Despite the knowledge that there is so much that can be said, the limitations of this paper requires only a very brief discussion. It is apparent that in my report so far that I am striving to be self-conscious and present in my research. I do not seek to use this presence as a vehicle for self-expression but as an opportunity to reach a truth that is visible and transparent. In this context, it is clear that I do not believe that truth is a fixed and defined object to be discovered, described or to be deconstructed. I do believe though that there is a truth of the organisational members' experience of council amalgamations. My research indicates that the truth may be multiple truths that varies according to the different experiences staff have had of the amalgamation and the different meanings that members attach to their experiences. I am also cognisant that my understanding of the organisational truth is perhaps bounded by what is selected to be told or not told to me in my role as researcher. It will also be bounded by my ability to hear, to understand, to make sense of that which I experience. What I believe to be of significance to my role as a researcher is to allow the truths that can be told, to be seen and expressed as clearly as possible. Thus, my intention in reflecting on my role is to identify as many of my blindspots that I can. Because so many of our blindspots are outside our consciousness and visibility despite my every best endeavour I know that this is not always possible - nonetheless, it is for this reason that I am making my involvement in the research as explicit as possible.

And nowhere has this been more significant than in the selection of the subject of this particular paper. Faced with a desire to present a paper at the ISPSO Conference I reviewed my research notes and developed a list of themes that I felt were emerging from the research thus far. These themes included the presence of conflicted discourses in the experiences of the organisational change, the role of ideology and power, the shift from public to private provision of services as well as the issue of the inevitability of change. As is evident from the title of this paper, it was this latter theme that I chose to pursue. At the time, I thought my interest in this topic was derived from a book by Christopher Bollas called Forces of Destiny - Psychoanalysis and human idiom (1992) which I had read some months earlier. Although initially intrigued at the time of reading it by the possible gender constructions of destiny which Bollas (1992: 32-33) described as rational, aggressive, journey of the heroic [male?] and fate as capricious, irrational [female?], this book returned to me when thinking more about how organisational members managed the inevitability of organisational change. Most people I had interviewed from the organisation had indicated that they had deliberately and consciously chosen to work in local government because of the meaning that local government had for them. It was the sense of belonging to a community and a desire to make continued contributions to the welfare and well-being of the community that emerged as the most frequent rationale for working in this arm of government. As one person, an ex-engineer stated so succinctly,

... they gave me the job and I just loved it. It was fantastic being an engineer in your own town...for me personally there were so many things that I could see that should be done in the place that needed to be done and I had the opportunity to do something about it...I really had a passion for it.

This excitement and passion was echoed by many of those I interviewed. All had anticipated pursuing their careers within local government. And yet, all I interviewed had had to face the inevitability of significant change. It was to the dual concepts of destiny and fate articulated by Bollas that I turned in attempting to analyse the organisational response to this inevitability. In my abstract for this paper I asked some questions I sought to explore - "How is the inevitable managed by individuals, by groups and by the organisation? In what ways did organisational members defend against the anxieties invoked by the inevitable process of amalgamation? What occurs in individuals as they seek to accommodate radical assaults on their sense of future derived from their individual destiny template? What occurs at an organisational level to contain (or not) the emotional responses of the individuals within the organisation? How do organisations manage the ruthlessness of much of the decision-making during the period of change, and the subsequent pain of the impact of those decisions? What strategies for reparation were implemented? What sense do the surviving organisation members have of the death of their previous organisation and the creation of the new organisation?"

On re-examination I still believe these to be reasonable questions. And yet, for much of the time in which I have attempted to work on this paper I have typified my study as "dealing with destiny and fate." Not surprisingly despite many desperate hours and enormous frustration I could not find meaningful answers in the organisational material. I could not redefine their reality to fit the constructs I wished to impose upon them. Again, I had to spend time to think about the contributing issues that were blinding my attempts to understand, analyse and present a set of organisational realities.

At the time I developed the abstract for this paper, my husband was receiving treatment for a recently diagnosed illness. Although the prognosis was positive and he was able to maintain work, I spent almost four months, ostensibly on study leave from the university where I teach to work on my thesis, emotionally incapable of doing anything more than the most basic of academic work. At this time, my husband's illness meant I was confronted by the possible death of my life's partner, with the undeniable inevitability of death and because of my inability to work on my thesis, by the uncertainty of my own professional future. Issues of inevitability and awareness of destiny/ fate were very present in my own personal experience. Although not conscious at the time of the parallels, it is perhaps little wonder that I chose to explore the issue of the inevitability of [death] change. What I also did not realise was the extent to which I was constructing a perspective in which inevitable change had become synonymous with an intrinsic and fatalistic assault on destiny. Again I had projected my life onto the life of the organisation. Destiny and fate was my issue and not theirs.

Having reached this self-understanding, it was as if a veil had been removed and I began to literally see the organisational data in very different ways. In a note I made to myself some days ago, "with all this self - where are they?" Contrary to what may appear to be the case this paper has not been developed as a vehicle for self-analysis; it is therefore time for me to turn my attention to the organisation under analysis - the experience of the previous councils that now comprise Tasman Coast Shire as they responded to forced amalgamations.

History of amalgamations

From my research so far, it does appear that there are three quite distinct time periods in the process of amalgamation - the time leading up to amalgamation (June 1994-December 1994), the interim period immediately post-amalgamation (December 1994 to April 1995) and then the period beyond the newly structured organisation (April 1995 to today). It is the lead up to amalgamation in which organisational members are faced with a certain dramatic change that is the subject of examination in this paper. Although each of the three amalgamating Councils took different organisational approaches to the amalgamations and experienced quite different subsequent outcomes, I shall focus on only one of the Councils. Reasons of pragmatism have determined this choice - at this stage, I have more data on this organisation than the others. Before examining the experience of the rural shire, it is necessary however to place the process of amalgamations into its historical context.

In 1986, the previous state government, a Labour Government had sought to effect savings in local government through economies of scale and resource sharing instituting a move towards the amalgamation of councils. The local government association supported by the party in opposition, the Liberal/National party waged such an effective campaign against the amalgamations that the government backed down. Although the councils felt they had achieved a considerable victory, they nonetheless were aware that the intense scrutiny of their operations now placed amalgamations within the State political agenda.

In October 1992, the Liberal/National Coalition won the state elections with a massive majority. Shortly after, a Local Government Board was established to review the structure of local government in Victoria. Stating that "... one of the top priorities of the Government of Victoria has been to achieve a smaller government sector, with greater emphasis on private sector competition and streamlining the bureaucracy (Local Government Board, 1994: 8)" discussion of municipal reform now included the additional features of replacement of elected representatives by appointed Commissioners and the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering. The Shires had been invited to make submissions to the Local Government Review Board and all had done so. The Local Government Board released its interim report on the region in October 1994. On 1 December 1994 the amalgamating Shires ceased operations. It was on this day that the staff and residents of the new Tasman Coast Shire were informed of the make-up of the new Shire Council and the names of the appointed interim Chief Executive Officer and three Commissioners. The new Commissioners were sworn in on 2 December, 1994 and the business of running the Tasman Coast Shire began.

The Rural Council

It is apparent that the local shires knew that amalgamation was inevitable. Discussion of amalgamation was in the public domain and reported widely in the local press. On 1 March, 1994 the front page headlines of the local newspaper screamed - "Local councils: mergers certain". From this time, the local press reported each week on the local council's responses to the amalgamation process. On the 15 June, 1994 an article headed "[the rural council] rejects merger system" reported that "The Rural Council has slammed the state's municipal merger system as undemocratic and fraught with danger. It seeks a united front of local councils to promote that stand...". Although the merger was opposed publicly, the minutes from Council meetings in the preceding months were devoted to the development of a council position on municipal restructure. With the perspective that "existing municipal boundaries reflect the structure of a bygone era (Council Minutes, December, 1993)" amalgamation was presented as providing the opportunity to develop a municipal structure that was "capable of undertaking cohesive planning, management and governance, and...providing a comprehensive range of quality services and facilities for residents on an efficient, effective and equitable basis."

The rural council has been described by all those I interviewed as a small and friendly organisation with less than forty employees in total. At the time of amalgamation the council had an expenditure of over $A5 million dollars, was servicing a debt that exceeded $A3 million and represented a total population of less than 8,000 residents. Perhaps reflecting the vulnerability of their position, one of the managers of the Council recalls,

They [the Councillors] probably knew it [amalgamation] was inevitable... In fact at that time [1986], [the Shire] actually did not oppose it... We took the view that we were prepared to sit down and look at it and talk about it...the Councillors took a statesman-like view that maybe there is a better way of doing things.

He continued, "[there was] more a sense of inevitability than a sense of urgency. There was very little that we could do to influence it greatly. There were larger forces were at play."

To meet the required word-limit, sections of detail about the council's attitude ["committed to the process, proactive and positive"] to amalgamation have been omitted.

At the time, the outcome of the amalgamation process was hailed as a victory. One of the managers noted,

...we achieved what we set out to do and in the end the government accepted our proposal to the point where we almost drew the line for them where the boundaries went...when we were present at the announcement [of the amalgamation] we felt that we had had a win.

The amalgamation invoked images of life, energy and anticipation and although a ritual burning and scattering of ashes of Council memorabilia was held on the final day of the organisation's life, there seemed to be little grief expressed at the death of the organisation. The organisation was celebrated;"it was good spirits there, it was", but there was also resignation and acceptance of the reality; "it was sad in a way. But then I suppose it was progress."

Although for this council there was a sense of inevitability of change, they had managed to use the situation to their advantage, and implicit within the manger's comments is the idea that they had achieved their desired outcome. There is no sense in this instance of imposition of change; on the contrary, there is a hint of omnipotence as the local government amalgamation is portrayed as a Council victory. Within the organisational context, the view has been reinforced by the elevation of the Councillors to holding "statesman-like" status as they use their omniscient vision to position themselves when called on "to join the fray.". The council memory has been constructed to portray the organisation as winners rather than as powerless victims played with by larger forces.

The process of winning however was not without pain or difficulties. All who were interviewed reported that there was a climate of uncertainty and anxiety in the months leading up to the amalgamation. Although one of the managers recalled a threat of industrial action at the time of amalgamation, no other person from this Council that I have interviewed has mentioned this. Yet persons from other councils raised this threat of industrial action as indicative of the tension at the time. Although not everybody from this council who I have interviewed have personally benefited by the amalgamation, and despite my valency for identifying organisational conflict, there has been no hint at this stage of internal organisational conflict. Intrigued by the acknowledgment of anxiety and the difficult times leading up to the amalgamation, and the apparent absence of conflict, I wondered at what may be the idealisation of the council and the smoothing of conflict in the collective memories of previous members of the organisation. It took some considerable time before I realised that even though there was no record of conflict, a split did exist within the organisation. Although I had been seeking some signs of overt organisational conflict arising from the anxiety and uncertainty of the inevitable change, I now believe that the split was not one that necessarily became manifest in organisational conflict. It was a split however, that appeared to facilitate the organisational development of an adaptive approach to and acceptance of the amalgamations. There was, I believe, a split in the organisation between the elected councillors and the paid staff. This split seemed to be manifest in different ways.

It appears that any of the hostilities or conflicts that may have been experienced by organisational members were not held within the organisation but projected onto the State government, and in particular the Premier, Jeff Kennett. As mentioned, in none of the interviews has any criticism been levelled at either the past or current management; the only expressions of resentment or anger have been directed at Kennett. This view was not restricted to paid staff only. In a report from the local press the shire president stated,

The government should have made up its mind on what's planned for councils, including this one. A date for changes should have been long settled. It's like telling us that we will be executed, but withholding the date." The president added, "People simply do not know what's happening, what's planned, when it will happen, or where councils are heading." "It's really not good enough. I can't believe the government is treating people like this (June, 1994)."

From very early in the move towards amalgamation, there was an acceptance of the reality of the political agenda of the government. The spectre of execution invoked by the shire president, was a very real concern - in fact, the elected councillors were "to get the chop" to be replaced by government-appointed Commissioners. This notion of execution was echoed by a manager, who said,

[the] councillors did not know whether, to use a phrase, they were shot or poisoned. I think that a lot of them took it as a personal affront that the whole thing was being done because they were poor managers. They had deep suspicion of the motives of it, and there was resentment that another level of government thinks that something can be done better than they already do things.

I then deleted a section in which I offer detail of my perception of the split between the professional (paid) staff and the amateur (elected representatives) Council management which I suggest the leadership managed to create an environment in which employees felt they could face reality and prepare themselves for their future.

In what other ways did this council manage to contain the anxieties implicit within circumstances so powerfully described as organisational execution? How did the organisation deal with the inevitable change that council amalgamations would bring? I believe it was the managers' ability at an organisational level to acknowledge the inevitability of the change and in so doing work with the real anxiety experienced by organisational members that so successfully charted the organisation through this period. One of the managers spoke about the need to "work through change" and help people "face the unknown." Another manager commented,

[we tried] to convince them [the staff] that it was change, that it was inevitable but those who were good at what they do, were well placed to be winners out of the process. I think that some of them got that message, and it was right too.

A member of his staff, as if to attest to this manager's success at working through the change remembered "I wasn't really worried...he [the manager] kept everything quite smooth and I thought there would possibly be a job out of it somewhere." Although those interviewed expressed concern about whether they would keep their jobs, most appeared to be quite sanguine about this prospect. The view was that those people in the organisation who wanted to continue working for the newly amalgamated council "still had a position somewhere."

At this stage, I can develop only early hypotheses for this organisational response. Lead by two men, one with strong business and political acumen and the other with strong people skills, the organisation was small and friendly enough to be referred to as "one big happy family." Representing comfort and safety rather than conflict and pain, the metaphor of family was intrinsic to the development of an environment in which organisational members had their dependency needs met. This appeared to significantly reduce individual anxieties. One person stated "I wasn't that worried...have you spoken with P [one of the managers]?...He's easy-going." And this trust in management was echoed by yet another interviewee who stated with pride "even before it was on the news, we knew what was going on." When an employee from another council suggested that "management didn't know what was happening", this person replied "Our management did...whatever they knew they kept us informed about." Management was perceived to be all knowing, powerful and caring. It does appear that the organisational leadership was able to contain any paranoid fantasies about the organisation's future and convey to the rest of the organisation that the changes were part of a systemic program of municipal reform.

A later analysis of the research

I stated there were multiple truths. Yet nothing I have written has really indicated this. I have instead presented an "organisational" perspective. I, who queried the idealisation of the council, had in fact smoothed out differences and attempted to offer a coherent position of consensus. What am I doing? Why have I done this? Because I have a strong belief that change invokes emotion, one of the aspects of my research for my thesis is to examine the emotional responses of organisational members to the change. Yet I had presented a dry, rational and almost functionalist analysis of the organisation.

What are some of the truths I have omitted from this organisational analysis? Despite earlier indications, there were in fact substantial differences in the stories told by organisational members. The managers have had very clear memories of the time; the operations staff had difficulty recalling details of the period. Memories of the amalgamation were retold with passion and excitement by the managers who recalled the energy they experienced at the time. The secretarial staff had a hazy image of the bosses being busy, while they just kept on doing their work and expressed worry about having a job. And not all the managers presented a consistent picture. One spoke of the tears he shed the day he learned he had been unsuccessful in getting the job he wanted. He spoke of the pain and discomfort he experienced for some months as he continued to attend work but with no title or position. He related on tape his concern about the mid-life crisis he thought he was currently experiencing. A manager from the council in the regional centre described in passionate detail the day he threw in his job and resigned (he subsequently returned to the organisation in a position much lower in the organisational hierarchy than his previous position). Another manager, from the coastal council spoke of the breakdown he had experienced as a result of the outcome of the amalgamation.

Although three councils were amalgamated, I am for this paper, only using the material from one. Initially I thought that this choice was for reasons of pragmatism. Concern about the word-limit and because I had more material about this council than the others, I decided to delete the work I had already completed on the coastal council. This was a council that did not face the inevitability of change with intelligence and equanimity but fought the amalgamation "to stumps". They sought to deny the inevitability by holding out hope that they would stand alone unamalgamated. This was a hope shared by many staff, key managers and councillors.

This council was one in which an incredible amount of conflict existed. Overt conflict existed between the councillors and the staff as well as within the executive team of managers. Following amalgamation the physical and human resources of this council has been decimated - of the four most senior managers none from this council were appointed to positions in the new council - two subsequently sued the council, one was made redundant and one died shortly after. Many of the staff took offers of voluntary redundancy, others have subsequently been made redundant involuntarily. The administrative council staff that once serviced the region numbered over 30; this has now been reduced to two. Council property has been sold off, offices have been closed and equipment has been transferred to the new Council's offices.

One of the senior managers I interviewed in July last year, the ex-CEO of the coastal council who did not receive an appointment in the new Council was subsequently "let go" from the organisation before Christmas. When I interviewed him, his present title had been attached to a "non-position" of Organisational Development officer. He was waiting for the conclusion of two years of protracted legal battles with the council over the termination of his contract. At the time of the interview, he had no staff, no brief and had to find himself an office - which he did in the basement of the building. In the previous two years he had taken extended periods of sick leave, had successfully lodged a worker's compensation claim for stress and had, because of the drawn-out nature of the court case left and returned to the organisation three times.

One of the staff when recollecting the time of amalgamation wept at the memories of the distress that she, and others felt at the time. She, like others interviewed blamed the poor handling of the amalgamation process on the death from cancer of the senior manager who died six months after amalgamation. He had died from non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, the same cancer my husband was diagnosed as having.

Why did I not present the material of this council? Denial, conflict and destruction are of far greater interest than the story of adaptation. And yet I rejected it. I reported I searched the organisation for pain and conflict and said I couldn't find it. Yet the people from the coastal council I have interviewed have all expressed an incredible amount of pain, anger and anguish. There have been stories told of humiliation, attacks on self-esteem, grief and other very strong human emotions. And I chose to ignore them. What can this tell me about the organisation? Why am I in denial about the pain and conflict that is clearly part of the organisation's make-up?

When preparing for the writing of this paper, I had noted that when conducting a literature search of library data bases, that the key words of "inevitability" and "change" the system would keep throwing back titles of articles on inevitability of death. I did do some reading on the Kubler-Ross (1975) model of death and dying and in the section I had written on this council had started some analysis of trying to make sense of this council's experience from this perspective. I had written the following;

Using this model to understand the experience of this particular council in response to an inevitable death, it would appear that the council was unable to shift beyond the stages of anger and denial. But how useful is this in explaining why this may be the case?

It was at that point I deleted all reference to this particular council.

I don't feel I can offer an analysis of the process of presenting my research by separating myself from the organisation; the interdependency of the relationship is too great for me to understand at this stage. When I presented my research findings to the doctoral seminar I wanted to present as a professional. Everybody I have interviewed in the organisation has commented on the presentation of their council as professional - their logo, their stationery, their public signs, their uniforms, their name badges are all raised with pride as indicative of their new professional image "the colours are so much nicer than that embarrassing black and white thing we had before." I thought being professional was my issue alone; on reflection I don't think I can be as certain.

In the notes I made after visits to the organisation I write with joy and pleasure about the country-side, the people, the friendliness, the ease with which I have made connections and so on. Why have I idealised this organisation and why does the organisation wish to be so idealised? Why have I colluded with and so successfully introjected the organisational image of conflict-free, pain-free organisational change? I believe I have offered a smooth image of the amalgamation process because I have taken in the organisation's desire to deny the pain, the anger, the hostility and the conflict that I know, not from my gut, but from the data, was there. And yet, even though the organisational members were telling me I was denying this, omitting it and writing these conflicts out of the organisational analysis. I have not wanted to face issues of inevitability, which at both a conscious and unconscious level I have linked to the inevitability of death. By refusing to examine the experience of one council's denial of the inevitability of their metaphoric death, I have sought to avoid my own denial of the inevitability of death.

I don't have any neat conclusions to wrap up this paper. As a requirement of the funding I have received from the university to attend this conference, I need to re-work this paper for publication. Having embarked on this most instructive and painful journey of seeking some modicum of truth, I shall have a second attempt at presenting some of the complexities that do exist within the organisation. I am aware that there is a necessity to face yet more of my own painful truths to better see and understand the truths of the organisation. I am confronted by the presumptuous use of the concept of parallel process, a concept of which I claimed some knowledge in the title of this paper, but which I did not really know. The struggle to know has not been easy. But it has been powerful. And it is my hope that I will and can use this knowledge to contribute to my subsequent research and writing.

Confronted by her own sins of omissions, half-truths and deletions, the research that was to be presented by the researcher is now the object of research. Formally, this was to be a paper on the search for the truth of one organisation's experience of the inevitability of radical organisational change. Faced by the learning acquired through this process, this paper now reveals the painful awareness of the entanglement of relationships that is created between the researcher and the researched to deny that truth.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Atkinson, P. and Hammersley, M. (1994) "Ethnography and Participant Observation" in Denzin,N. and Lincoln, Y. eds. (1994) Handbook of Qualitative Research Sage Publications, California

Bartunek, J.M. and Moch, M.K. (1987) "First-Order, Second-Order, and Third-Order Change and Organization Development Interventions: A Cognitive Approach" Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, Vol. 23. No. 4, pp 483 - 500

Bollas, C. (1992) Forces of Destiny - Psychoanalysis and human idiom Free Association Press, London

Berg, D. and Smith, K. (1988) The Self in Social Inquiry: Researching Methods Sage Publications, California.

Dawson, P. (1996) "Beyond Conventional Change Models: A Processual Perspective" Asia-Pacific Journal of Human Resources Vol. 34. No.2 pp 57-70

Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994) "Introduction: Entering the Field of Qualitative Research." in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. eds. (1994) Handbook of Qualitative Research Sage Publications, California.

Dunphy, D. and Stace, D. (1992) Under New Management - Australian Organizations in Transition McGraw-Hill, Sydney

Dunphy, D. (1996) "Organisational Change in Corporate Settings" Human Relations, Vol. 49, No. 5 pp 541-552

Fine, M. (1994) "Working the Hyphens - Reinventing Self and Other in Qualitative Research" in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. eds. (1994) Handbook of Qualitative Research Sage Publications, California.

Ford, J.D. and Ford, L.W. (1995) "The Role of Conversations in Producing Intentional Change in Organisations" Academy of Management Review Vol. 20, No. 3

Golembiewski, R.T. (1989) "The Alpha, Beta, Gamma Change Typology: Perspectives on Acceptance as well as Resistance" Group and Organization Studies Vol. 14, No. 2, June pp. 150 -154

Kumar, K and Thibodeaux, M (1990) "Organizational Politics and Planned Organisation Change" Group and Organization Studies, Vol. 15, No. 4, December. pp. 357 - 365

Smith, K (1982) "Philosophical Problems in Thinking About Organisational Change" in Goodman, P. ed. (1982) Change in Organisations Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers. California

Stace, D and Dunphy, D. (1996) Beyond the Boundaries - Leading and Re-Creating the Successful Enterprise McGraw-Hill, Sydney

Steier, F. (1991) Research and Reflexivity Sage Publications California

Strauss, A and Corbin, J. (1994) "Grounded Theory Methodology: An Overview" in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. eds. (1994) Handbook of Qualitative Research Sage Publications, California.

Council Documents and local newspapers