CHANGING A CITY: THE FIGURE AND THE GROUND
Exploring the space between Governance and Community
by simulating a space between
desire and reality
Jane Chapman (Principal Author), in collaboration with
John Newton and Himadri Potter
ISPSO Annual Meeting 2007
Key Words:
serious play, simulation, splitting,
potential
space, desire
1.
The Paper, the Theory, the Story
I have very recently emerged,
bloody but unbowed, from the potential space of putting together this
presentation. Our symposium theme has
stalked me – and my two colleagues, John
Newton and Himadri Potter of
So we have the theoretical base to some degree sorted out in our minds
and thus the basis for a published article – well, we suspect, for 4 or 5
articles. Today, I’m going to tell you the story of a consultancy and invite you
into some of the spaces we encountered.
It’s an unusual story in some
aspects. I don’t think what we did has
quite been attempted before, either by a client system or by a consulting
system. I don’t know whether it ‘worked’,
whatever that might mean. I don’t even
know whether the client system is still my client. But I do know a number of things:
·
Most of the
participants enjoyed themselves. (That’s important from our theoretical
perspective of ‘serious play’ which underlies our design for our intervention
and our tentative understanding of what took place.)
·
The system in
various ways is still talking about it and, from the little feedback we are
currently getting – are certainly still encountering it.
·
A lot of things
happened in a very short period of time.
·
What happened
seemed to us to be bristling with possibilities for our client system to learn
to do some of their work differently. To a limited degree some of this has already been
taken up.
Back to the ‘don’t knows’:
·
Did I attempt too
much?
·
Was the system in
which I intervened just too big, despite their habitual use of representational
sub-systems; and – vitally –
·
What might
constitute an adequate holding environment, for the ‘happenings’ I am going to
describe, to grow from potential… to experiment… to planning… to policy… to
habit ….
2. Two
Questions
So – before I even set the
scene – I ask you to join me in holding in mind two questions, both practical
and theoretical. The first is a content,
client-based question:
How can the
city of
The second is:
How can one fruitfully intervene in a
very large system; is there a size
beyond which any intervention is fruitless, where indeed, the available spaces
are not capable of being potentiating but are deadening and despairing?
3. The
Client System
I have here a diagram which summarises the city’s self-conceptualisation as a brand. Now that’s different in some ways from its
sense of identity, or its ‘role idea’ as Bruce Reed would have it, or the ‘task
idea’ as I have previously written about.
It’s the pesuasive self-notion or self-representation that the city
wants to offer to its external world, to its marketplace: primarily potential
residents, potential workers and potential visitors. I’ll make that brand architecture diagram
available to the buzz group sessions. Here
I think we need to look at it as evidence of how the city as a system wants –
even yearns – to be seen by other systems and members of systems. It’s a series of thought- provoking clues
that stand as evidence for one side of a fundamental split in the city that
I’ll be presenting to you shortly.
The key clues here are the
notions of
i)
Orange offering
‘the best of the city with the best of the country’;
ii)
for residents or
potential residents, meeting the emotional needs of people who say:‘I want to
befriend a city that will befriend me’; and
iii)
the marketing tag line of; “Orange: A
Different Country”.
For the purposes of the
intervention here reported, the ‘city’ was understood to be comprised of 3 key
sub-systems:
1. Council: elected councillors including
Mayor and deputy
Mayor.
2. Council Staff: full-time
permanently employed or contract
employed personnel, with a
General Manager
appointed by council.
3. Community: ‘the
rest’: residents and workers,
agriculturalists,
employers,
enterprise and visitors.
Through its council staff
system the city had moved to pre-empt a State Government future requirement to
conduct a community consultation regarding the citizens’ vision of their city’s
future. This was known as the 2020
process. The output from 2020 was
considerable. At the qualitative end, it
was relatively easily expressed in a Values Charter and a vision-narrative.
(Also available in summary for the buzz groups)
Quantitatively, it yielded a massive, apparently unco-ordinated ‘wish
list’ of hundreds of items, actions, dreams, hopes and specifications. In the minds of the council and council staff
sub- systems, it was discernible that ‘vision’ had become ‘demand’.
I had a history with the
client system: I’d consulted to that
brand architecture exercise and to
various commercial groups within the city and environs, always under the aegis
of the Council Staff. I also consulted
to the closing stages of the 2020 project and helped the council and community
representatives pull together and articulate their understanding of what the
wider community was telling them.
As the Council Staff system
struggled with the ‘vision that became demand’, they asked me to help them with
‘fitting the 2020 output into the city’s strategic planning process’. That was meant to constitute a brief - yet it
was incredibly difficult to get a real brief from them. The ‘them’ was the Council Staff General
Manager and his five person directorate, who constituted the commissioning
client, as representing all three sub-systems.
In retrospect, that difficulty derived, I believe, from the very split in
the system that became so evident in the intervention event.
The client wanted:
·
To do the right
thing by the community;
·
To be a ‘leader’
in community vision and community consultation;
·
To do the right
thing by the past, by respecting past councils and staff and communities and
their efforts and contributions;
·
To do the right
thing according to the ways of
governance that had worked very well and made
·
To keep everybody
reasonably happy.
This is not an unusual
surface picture of a governance system in an elective model. What later events and our theoretical
analysis brought to light is a view of a split that can be seen as a constant
tension between ‘city idea’ (on the
one hand) and ‘city praxis’ (on the
other).
This split incorporated:
· Doing lots of often conflicting ‘right things’; being seen to do them; genuinely wanting them;
paying lip service to them; experiencing a bondage to ‘rules’ that are imagined
or believed to exist but are not genuinely tested, and many more paradoxes.
This tension, this split
finds different members of the city sub-systems in different parts of
themselves on differing sides of the split at different times. They find it incredibly confusing. So did we.
So do we.
It is entirely probable that
the total system, not just the
community system or small parts of the council staffing system, had already
located for itself- though neither articulated nor begun to understand - a
yearning, or desire, to go about its planning task differently; to break, not
with its past, which was and is highly valued and respected, but with past practices. The evidence for this was there, but has
become, for me at least, only discernible through the understanding broken open
by the “serious play” of the intervention we made. As the
· They chose a
consultant whom they knew to work in ‘some funny way’ that had something to do
with some form of psychology
· They agreed to the
intervention of a simulation event at all.
This was a very public and thus courageous experiment in doing things
differently. I was at the time deeply
moved by the trust they placed in me.
· They chose the two
people in their own council staff sub-system who had the greatest capacity to
work with such a consultant and who
were indeed the system-elected members with the highest valency to be both the
guardians and promoters of the ‘city
idea’.
In a way, I believe they were acknowledging ‘unknowingly’ (and I use
that term advisedly) the city governance split and giving the ‘ideas boys’ a
rein as free from the fetters of city-practice as possible. That, as it turned out, was something of a
false hope. But we’ll come to that. As members of the system, the ‘ideas boys’ (I
call them Stephen and Michael) were holders of the split. Well, of course: they
were members of the client system. But
detailing them to work with us freed us
from the split and let us work with the system as if both city idea and city praxis were capable of free dialogue.
One aspect of city praxis is worth explaining, as it had and has so much
power in constraining that praxis to a static phenomenon:
Even during the early
research that led to the consultant’s recommendations on the changes to the
planning process, numbers of the council and council staff had referred to the
‘squeaky wheel’ method of winning the priority competition for major commitment
of funds; i.e., ask long enough and loud
enough and often enough and eventually we will acquiesce. This squeaky wheel phenomenon was deplored
for its shortsighted view, for its lack of genuine representative nature, for
its lack of true thinking about what the city genuinely needed …… and annually adhered to. Allied to the squeaky wheel was the notion,
firmly located in the primitive/paranoid-schizoid
mentality of change (Krantz, 2001),
that expenditure may be
Either
BIG BANG or incremental.
This meant that you could either blow all available funds on one
project per planning cycle or you
could give a bit here and there to a series of projects or programs, BUT
the ‘amount available’ was a
very minor proportion of the total budget, because all past Council decisions had to be
honoured and continued,
regardless of their contemporary relevance.
Why? We believe because of the
relatively fixed nature of the city praxis it had become a rule that all past city ideas be preserved.
Thus both sides of the split were held in stasis:
[I have a somewhat mad image
in my mind of the ‘city fathers” sitting naked in the bath, counting their toes
and reciting the following:]
“ We do what we must.
We must do as we have done before.
We are what we have done. To stay
what we are, we do what we did to become what we are, or were, again. But we are – or were – forward looking … and
visionary…and leaders….”
And so on. Not an easy self view or self practice to
maintain – particularly from an either-or mind state. And not, of course consciously
acknowledged. All that the members of
the system appeared to know - including the guardians of the city idea - was
that whatever had happened was set in concrete.
Into this comes the fact of 2020.
This is the vision narrative that emerged from the 2020 exercise and
which the mayor endorsed as his
introduction to the published pamphlet from the process. (Read
the vision narrative) Also into this
comes the recommendation of this chosen consultant that the system simulates
itself as a way of exploring how its different sub-systems can encounter and
negotiate their differing priorities when it comes to planning the expenditure
of the city’s limited resources.
The 2020 exercise was an extended event, which may have looked like a
bid for resources, but which in essence was a deeply committed experience in surfacing,
articulating and even celebrating, the ‘city idea’. When the simulation occurred, we of the
consulting system provided the participants with a series of potential objects
for serious play. You will see as my
story unfolds that I – quite as unknowingly as our clients – stacked the array
of available objects in favour of the
city praxis, not city idea, the more evolutionary side of the split, for
which at the conscious level I had a greater likelihood of identifying. Intriguing,
isn’t it? Watch this space!
Oh, and a thought about our paper’s title: we submitted the abstract during the design
phase, where we had had the thought that the emergent design phase may have
turned out as more figural than the simulation itself. The simulation we had originally posited as
the figure to the ground of existing governance procedures. Well, like anything else in this multi
faceted occurrence, we were right and wrong – i.e. there are many cycles of
many experiences here; many new ideas emerging at different stages; many
sources and sinkholes for system energy and a raft of possible actions and
ongoing containers for the work. Can’t
count them all and you’ll be relieved to know that today I shan’t even
try. In continuing my story, I’ll tell
you what we did (partly); what happened (mainly); and two parts of the emergent
meaning of what happened that we are currently sitting with.
What was, and remains, in our
minds is the sense that, in Hirshhorn’s terms, the primary risk would be for
the community to pursue the wrong form of governance for its desired
future. Also, that the simulation would
only be a ‘potential space’ if the design could allow for the play that is at the heart of true
communication.
5. The Simulation Event, as Designed
We had: a 1-day simulation in which representatives of the 3 key
sub-systems were to take up, not just simulated roles, but roles of those from
sub-systems other than their own. Thus,
council staff and council could only take up community roles and vice
versa. There was a further
representative system of observers, with its own dedicated consultant.
As the design unfolded –the central notion of presenting the simulation
as serious play [Winnicott 1971] began
to be operative.
What we hoped for, desired for our client system, seemed during the
design phase to present as possibilities the following transformations:
From:
Hidden Agenda to
Open Dialogue
Competition to
Trade-off
Planning infrastructure to
Nurture of city life
Education for compliance to
Exploration of mutuality
Politics to
Representation
Cosmetic ‘consultation’ to Experiential dialogue
Certainly, in this phase, both the council staff system and the
consulting system were learning to think about both themselves and the city
system differently.
I say “present as possible” because such transformations were already
beginning to be manifested in parts of the council staff system and even with
those elected councillors who agreed to take part … including the mayor. Willingness to attend on the part of the
elected councillors was itself a significant sign that change was
possible. To take part in a simulation
is no small departure from, say being a Mayor, in the normal run of
things. To do so even when it looked
like a monumental waste of time was a step in faith that was truly admirable. Or perhaps, at the systemic level, it is more
properly viewed as a step in hope.
Certainly to me it looks from today’s perspective as another piece of
evidence that the sides of the city split may have a capacity to learn to
dialogue at the conscious level. At any
rate, at this stage, we and some of those with whom we interacted were learning
to think about the city system differently, or so we thought.
As events transpired, the whole project came to be experienced as a
series of potential and developmental spaces/phases, where figure and ground
shifted both between and within those spaces.
The above hoped-for transformations did in some sense take place, but in
ways that could not have been anticipated.
We also had:
-
a selection process for the system representatives who
would ‘play’ on behalf of the total system.
-
An ‘invitation to play’ which framed the task of what
had been originally conceived of as educating
the community to the realities faced by the ‘city fathers’ but became:
“to provide different parts of the Orange City
Community (councillors, council staff, community members) with the opportunity
to explore how priorities are experienced and arrived at, given:
(i)
a knowledge of community wants and needs
(ii)
available resources”
-
a selection of the ‘objects of play’ [Winnicott 1971]
to be made
-
available to the participants, including: venue, venue
design, a role-script from which participants chose their simulated
‘roles-as-others’, a scenario script which set some time and territory
boundaries. Significantly, it attempted
to set up a trade-off scenario, where the budget bottom line was not negotiable
and participants were supposed to argue for an internal re-alignment of priorities. That is, it was a purely either/or directive. There were also some spatial objects (e.g.
offices for the mayor, the General Manager, the local paper editor and the
Council Information Officer, plus community meeting rooms and city cafes,
notice boards, an observers’ lounge (open to all) and …. The Budget.
-
An event timetable, which set aside spaces for
briefing, role adoption (which was consulted to) and plenary processing of the
event.
6. The Simulation Event, as Occurred
·
All confirmed participants
arrived on time. There were 35 all told.
·
After the
introductory, task-setting stage, the real-life Deputy Mayor and one representative
of the local indigenous community dropped out.
·
All other
participants stayed the distance (and never looked like wanting to drop out)
·
All time
boundaries set by the scenario script were observed throughout the event. So were all territory boundaries.
·
The simulated
Council Staff system ‘went into hiding’ and were unavailable for contact or
dialogue for at least the first third of the event. In many ways Council Staff stayed unavailable
for the entire event. They later
reported that they were paralysed by
the size of their task, the fantasy of the other sub-systems that they ‘knew’
everything that the others wanted to know and were withholding that knowledge,
and that ultimately they resorted to lies and invention as a means of dealing
with their fear and paralysis. In the end,
they seamlessly joined with the simulated elected councilors … something that
is thought by some ‘should’ happen in real life but does not.
·
The other two
simulated sub-systems, councillors and council staff, were
lively, noisy, active. They seemed to
move easily within the spatial architecture of the event, to stay within role
and to pursue the goals-in-role they read into/discovered in the role outlines
provided (or much more likely, their role-of-other-in-the-mind). Until the key turning point in the
simulation. And it’s coming!!
·
The ‘action’ –
played out through a series of meetings and attempted meetings – focused on the
evolution of competing demands for money in the simulated financial year (1
year in the future). The competing
demands for money were mirrored in the pattern of competing (and generally
unmet) demands for the Council Staff time.
·
Then came the
turning point or ‘tipping point’ as it is currently known – the shift that
cannot be reversed once the need for realignment is felt across the
system. But here I feel the tipping point is still confined to the play of the
simulation and is studiously denied by the “real-life” system. More of this later.
·
The simulation system ‘dumped’ the scenario script
entirely in the last third of the simulation sessions. They simultaneously (!) dumped the
acknowledged planning protocol, a key plank of the city praxis platform, which
stipulates that any past decision by any past council must be honoured and observed. The simulated system purported to have solved the
trade-off challenge in one fell swoop.
Without consultation, the simulated Mayor, General Manager, other councilors and Council Staff announced
through the Mayor, that they had sold the civic Function Centre. This
was in fact the very venue in which the simulation was being held. The proceeds, they indicated, were $5m and
were now sufficient to meet all of the competing demands of the simulated
community (‘played’ it should be remembered by the real life councilors and
council staff.) Problem solved, said
they, looking extraordinarily pleased with themselves and looking also like the
embodiment of solidarity.
·
It was a lovely
piece of enacted irony: it, in effect, showed an amicable but determined finger
to the consulting system, (because we’d given them an either/or script, in
accordance with city praxis), to the council and council staff systems and to
the existing ‘rule’ about observing past commitments. It broke the either/or proposition (Smith, 1995) on which that rule was
based: Either:
You
may have only one new program or project per planning period because of the
maintenance of all past programs and projects.
Or:
You
may have a series of smaller increases spread across existing programs as needs
dictate.
In
either case, you can, in each planning cycle, access only about 5% of the total
budget. The rest is committed to
continuity of past practices.
·
In effect, the
real-life community said in simulation, to the real-life governance system:
We
can have both/and ( Smith, 1995): both
major capital expenditure and
incremental program support.
We
can do this by trading off, not one future against an alternative future, but a
communally desirable future against an aspect of the past which has outlived
its functionality. (We are convinced that at the system-unconscious level this
pun - i.e. the dysfunctional function centre- was fully intended.). The big bang is the sale and the diverting of
a no- longer- needed past; and its fruit is the growth and development of a
discovery process aimed at identifying genuine community need … i.e. 2020, as
the emergent (Long 1992) demonstration of the city-idea. The incremental is the continuation and
maintenance of those past actions that we currently value and wish to endorse
as part of our future – to reincorporate into our city idea.
·
The simulated
community (via the person of the real-life mayor in his simulated role as the
President of the Country Women’s Association) objected: about the lack of consultation; about the
lack of honoring past decision-makers and community members who had made
sacrifices so that the city could have its own Function Centre … and then
promptly congratulated the ‘Mayor’ (who had presented the fait accompli to the
assembled community with all the inherent charm of a snake-oil salesman) on
finding a way of accommodating the community’s demands. (As a data aside, the real life mayor is male
and a used car salesman)
·
In the pause
between this final session of the simulation and the ensuing processing
session, the real-life Mayor confided to one of the consulting team that the
council would love to dispose of the Function Centre, which not only ties up
capital but costs a lot to maintain and has now become a white elephant. But council is “not in a position to so break
with the past.” In the processing
session it was clearly and unequivocally stated that the Function Centre sale
‘could never happen in real life.” It
seemed not possible once council participants returned to their real-life roles
to entertain the possibility of doing things differently (or, more likely, to
be seen to entertain such a
possibility).
·
The feedback in
the informal drinks session following the simulation (attended by nearly all
participants) was upbeat and positive.
Report has it that this has continued in the system after the
intervention …. YET
·
The planned
follow-up session with the lead consultant and all simulation participants has
been cancelled on the advice of the two members of the Council Staff
directorate who were on the management team.
·
Reasons given are
that
1)
it might take the gloss off the good feelings generated by the simulation;
2)
it might perpetuate the split in Council around progressive change vs
continuity and connection to (past and therefore) existing practices i.e. the
city idea – city praxis split is alive and well.
·
At the same time,
two things are reported to have happened and two requests had been made:
-
One councilor is
pushing for an overhaul of the council committee system with the committees
reorganized in the language and value base of the 2020 consultation report;
(this is seen by council staff representatives as dangerous and by us as very
hopeful).
-
The council
directors from the management team are proposing recruitment to key committee
posts for some of the ‘more leadership thinkers’ from the community
representatives in the simulation.
-
The lead
consultant has been asked to come back with a recommendation for the next
financial year’s budget (!) as ‘what we should do next year’.
-
The Director of
Human Services (council staff) has requested that the closing comments by the
two other consultants on the use of power and authority [Ambrose 1989] be
written down, so that ‘people can go on thinking about them’.
-
Even before the
simulation event, in the chronos of consciousness, the council staff had
adopted the 2020 statement of values as
a values charter for the whole of the council annual strategic planning
process. And to use it in their published plans as
a reference to each specific action in the plan… i.e. publically made themselves accountable
to their constituent community on the basis of the community’s values.
-
6. A Key
Hypothesis
I hope the story to date has
justified my simply picking the eyes out of the intervention and its attendant
stages. There is just so much here and, we believe,
material for any number of papers from the business of intervening in very large
systems all the way through to that of working in a systems psycho-dynamic way
with client systems who do not know that this is what you are doing. Here, I will content myself with putting
forward a single hypothesis which has underpinned our developing understanding
of what took place. It concerns
Winnicott’s notion of serious play and how that enabled something to take place
which would not have been able to take place under any other
circumstances. It also relates to the
sense of a defining split in the city system:
the either-or struggle, the primitive, paranoid- schizoid split, in
Smith’s terms, between city-idea and city-praxis.
The simulation was explained
to participants as ‘serious play’ and interpreted to them as ‘pretend
reality’. Personally, I found it
interesting to note that the participants who found it easiest to play were
those most removed from the day- to- day praxis of governance and closest to
what they embodied as the city idea. In
many ways, for these community members, the split wasn’t a split, at least
within the play-pen of the simulation.
In the simulation, the community members connected with and preserved
the essence of the fruitful or generative past and purported to carry
it towards their desired and desirable future.
In other words, in serious and creative play, they momentarily fused
city-idea and city practice. Whatever
its faults (and there were many), this was the key strength of the event
design: only community members, only non- council staff and
non-councillors, we believe, could have made this creative leap: primarily because they did not ‘know’ that it could not be done. In one sense, this was another level of role dialogue [Long,
My hypothesis then, is that for a space to be truly potential, both container and contained- here, the
design and the participants – need to be
able to encounter within themselves a lack or lessening of what Ambrose refers
to as “the internal restrictions that prevent the child from playing in a free
and viable manner in order to imagine in play a different world or a different
way of inhabiting that world.” [Ambrose 1989] I believe that the community members who
played councillors and council staff started with less internal restrictions,
possibly because they were in a sense far more an embodiment of city idea than
city praxis. As they moved into role,
they experienced for a while the dead weight of city praxis, and in a way that
they developed a hatred for it. They had
also noticed that, whatever they did, the consultants who had designed this
peculiar past-time, did nothing at all when they tinkered with the design. So they broke the design rules. They refused to see the budget bottom line as
immutable. They needed extra money to
keep their city idea both intact and growing.
They’d been given a whole function centre to play with. Nobody had stopped them doing anything that they’d
done to date. So they took the two
biggest, unwieldiest objects of play with which they had been provided – the
city budget and the Function Centre itself - and they turned them on their ear:
with relish and mischief, and a good
deal of satiric humour… and with a committed seriousness underlying it all.
I would also suggest that another level of freedom was discovered in the
simulation design. Not only did the
real-life community members experience the freedom of not knowing the ‘rules’
that were so thoroughly inculcated in the mindset of council and council staff
but they also experienced, as did councillors and staff, the freedom of finding
themselves in the role- of- other. This
was a burden for some – but they found a way to slough off that burden by
continuing, rather than refusing to play. This was the case for the simulated
staff. On the other hand, the real-life
councillors and staff who were playing community members had a wonderful time. They poked holes in their own praxis with
matching relish – because they “knew” it
wasn’t real! So the ‘praxis boys and
girls’ also had a both/and moment most powerfully captured for me when the
real-life mayor upbraided the simulated mayor for flogging off a community icon
(which he secretly longed to do himself) while congratulating him on finding
sufficient resources for competing community demands (which, in play, he had
been vociferously demanding).
So both the container and the contained were able to experience ‘degrees
of freedom’. For a blessed, playful
moment, they solved their ‘problem’ and got their desired result.
Of course, The Empire Strikes Back.
This is a continuing saga. At least I hope it is. I, too, write and
speak from a potential space between desire and reality.
This, I think is the time to engage each other in some mutual thinking
in the buzz groups. I’ve got some
questions for the groups, but this too needs to be a both/and exploratory
space. For the moment I ain’t writing no
more either/or scenario scripts!
My questions are:
-
Have I read it all wrongly? Was it a fun exercise but ultimately a
patriarchal containment forum in order, in Australian slang, “to keep the
punters happy” i.e. give them a sense of false involvement while the ‘real’
power plays continue?
-
Why do my closest clients, the two directors who
worked as part of the management team, want to keep me away from the
action? Is it to protect me? Themselves? The event? The city? Do they believe that the city idea is best
protected by keeping it not too visible for the major proponents of the city
praxis?
For the groups, I have provided a copy each of :
The
2020 vision narrative
The
Values Charter
The
Brand Orange Architecture (see attachments)
References
Ambrose A. An Introduction to Transitional
Thinking , in
Working
with Organisations
Papers
to celebrate the 80th birthday of Harold Bridger
L.
Klein (ed) 1989 Published
Privately. P 2
Bridger H. (1999) in Gold S. & Klein L.
2004
Harold Bridger – Conversations &
Recollections (part 2)
Bion W. Experiences
in Groups, 1961
Organisational
& Social Dynamics
Chapman, J. Hatred
and Corruption of Task (2003, 1999) in
Organisational and Social Dynamics 3(1): 40-60 (2003);
and
in Socio-Analysis, Vol.1, No. 2
(1999)
Davis, Madeleine;
Wallbridge,
David (1981) Boundary and Space: An Introduction to the
Work of D.W. Winnicott Karnac:
Krantz, J. (2001)
Dilemmas of Organizational Change: a
Systems Psychodynamic
Perspective.
In L. Gould, L. Stapley & M. Stein (Eds.)
The Systems
Psychodynamics of Organizations. Karnac:
Long S. (1992)
Working with Potential Space: Individuals, Groups and Organisations.
Australian
Journal of Psychotherapy, Vol 11, No. 2, 64-78
Long, S..
Chapman, J. (2006)
Role Dialogue: Organisational Role Analysis with Pairs in the Same
Organisation.
In
J. Newton, S. Long and B. Sievers (Eds.) Coaching
in Depth.
The Organizational Role Analysis
Approach. Karnac Books :
Morgan, G. (2006) Images of Organisation. Sage:
Obholzer, A.
(1994) Authority, power and leadership. In A. Obholzer and V. Zagier Roberts
(Eds.)
The unconscious at work. Individual and
organizational stress in the human services.
Routledge:
Reed, B.D. (1976)
Organisational Role Analysis. In C.L Cooper (Ed.), Developing Social Skills
in Managers. MacMillan :
Smith, K.K.
Corse, S. (1986)
The Process of Consultation. Critical Issues. In F.W. Mannio et al. (Eds)
The Handbook of Mental Health Consultation, National Institute of Mental
Smith, K. K. (1995)
A Private Journey: Uniting the Fragmentary Self Through Contradiction.
In Thiery C. Pauchant and Assoc. (Eds.) In Search of Meaning. Managing for the
Health of our Organizations, Our
Communities, and the Natural World.
Jossey-Bass:
Winnicott, D.W. (1949)
Mind and Its Relationship to the Psyche-Soma. In Through Paediatrics to
Psychoanalysis. Basic Books:
Winnicott, D.W. (1971) Playing
and Reality. Routledge: