When self-reflection and interpretations become perverse: Thoughts of an organisational consultant

Prof. Leopold Vansina Ph.D.
Professional Development Institute,
Belgium

Many authors start from the individual, psychoanalytical practice to clarify the role and task of the psychoanalytic informed organisation consultant. They (a/o. Zaleznik, 1995) work from a rather restricted, older notion of the unconscious. The consequence is that the task and the scope of work of the organisation consultant are seen rather restricted. Within that frame of reference they find it inappropriate to interpret the unconscious. When one starts from the psychoanalytic group, and one works with a broader notion of the unconscious the work of the psychoanalytic consultant gains in scope and content. In this article, I will try to illustrate this and at the same time point to some dangers of perverting the situation.

I like to start from the psychoanalytic group practice. More precisely I find my starting position in the study- or learning groups, where members come together to benefit from learning about group processes and their own experiences in groups. First, such groups have a given task, shared by all group members, which requires besides logical, rational thinking the discussion of members' experiences and concerns as they emerge in the here-and-now. In these groups the total person is clearly present with his conscious and unconscious mental processes. a) The unconscious in the way issues, and ideas become associated with the task, topics become introduces, broken off or meaning is given or becomes attributed to words, or to manifest behaviour (a/o. gestures, postures). In the way members interact amongst themselves and with the group consultant, as well as in the way meaning is portrayed in actual activities and group behaviour. b) Logical thinking is appealed to by the relevance of the given task, the plenary lectures or theory sessions, and by other small group activities like consulting groups. But foremost the logical thinking is present in the "work group mode" of dealing with the task (Bion, 1961). Second, in such groups there is the visual presence of an external reality, of other human beings (in contrast to the individual analytical session where the analyst is hidden behind the couch) observing, initiating and participating in what they individually or as a group come to perceive as the shared task. It is not because the perceptions may be coloured by transference, counter transference and other psychic mechanisms that they are less real and physically present. Group members and consultant are there and they do bring in their perceptions, their memories of what happened or what was said by whom at what time. It is in this process of sharing, comparing, finding out and cross checking their understanding of events and processes that realities become clarified and understood. In other words, the psychoanalytic work takes place in a social setting in which all members and consultant have access to a much richer variety of observable data than the spoken word and empathy.

There are several advantages in taking the psychoanalytic group as a starting model. First, this type of psychoanalytic setting is by far much closer to the organisational realities and dynamics than the individual, analytic sessions. The major focus is on the understanding of unconscious processes as they emerge during work. And only in as far as they have an impact upon the work, while one accepts that that behaviour at work is influenced by the direct and indirect presence of others and the organisation at large (a/o. Festinger, 1950; Janis, 1983). Second, the unconscious processes one is trying to understand emerge largely from the unconscious of the group and not from the narrowly defined notion of the individual unconscious. This enlarged notion, introduced by Suzan Isaacs (1948), further elaborated by Melanie Klein and in Bion's theory (1961), includes much more than repressed infantile conflictual impulses. Third, by focussing on this enlarged notion of unconscious processes and the group one stays away from the interpretation of individual conflicts or infantile impulses. Fourth, one can see more easily the different domains the psychoanalytic informed consultant can be active in. But before I can go on and distinguish the various domains of consulting practice it may be desirable to clarify this enlarged notion of the unconscious. Indeed, it appears that the changing meaning of the unconscious is largely responsible for quite some confusion in the literature, as well as in the practice.

In the early days, the purpose of psychoanalysis was to bring the repressed to consciousness so that it could be worked through and integrated in a more optimal way. Kleinian theory brought forward another understanding of psychic development of the human being, and enlarged the unconscious to contain a world of interrelated phantasies. Bion does not often talk about phantasies but uses the concept of "dream thoughts" which are the products of primary thinking. These dream thoughts and phantasies with ph can be understood as a primary form of giving meaning to emotional experiences, and perceptions whereby needs, desires, fears and objects become linked together (Vansina-Cobbaert, 1994). This form of giving meaning to a variety of experiences exists long before logical thinking becomes established and before the human being learns to talk. As such the unconscious contains also elements that never were repressed but are moved into the background by the dominance of logical thought. Furthermore it contains elements that never reach awareness. Things we noticed but do not register consciously. Something that has been demonstrated in social psychology by experiments on subliminal perception (Goleman, 1985). Yet all these elements are never completely lost. They reappear in adult life in our dreams, in creative ideas, in arts, in our basic assumptions about groups or they become displayed in our actions.

Of particular relevance, nowadays, are what I call the "dominant logics" which hinder persons to come to an appreciation of the total situation in organisational and community life. They stop the individual in further logical inquiry, and/or incapacitate the human being in "dream thinking". These "dominant logics" originate from collective thought, or from intended or unintended orchestrated media campaigns in business literature and speeches. They take the form of fixed ideas that attain an overruling importance like " cost competitiveness", "outsourcing" or "downsizing". Before the organisational issue is understood a decision about that particular course of action is already taken. When such "dominant logics" are highly integrated one does talk about meta economical theories that dominates our thinking processes and prevents us from exploring creative alternatives. A current meta economical theory goes as follows: In order to survive in a environment one must remain competitive and continuously improve quality, costs and response time. Unlimited growth, windows of opportunities are promised again while the painful requirements e.g. excessive flexibility like "work-on-call", relocation, unemployment, outsourcing and cost-cutting are presented as inevitable and righteous. Everything that is good for the economy is inherently good for the human being and society at large. It is this implied inevitability and the inherent morality of these thoughts that block further search for more suitable alternatives. Dream thinking is no longer possible, playful search is blocked because the mind is unconsciously programmed to follow the dictates of the "logical" thoughts. Furthermore, individuals are not often questioned in their "dominant logics" because so many of the people around them hold the same conviction (Vansina, 1998). To bring them back to awareness one comes to rely on others like critics of society and psychoanalytic informed consultants.

A. Zaleznik (1995) still works with the original Freudian notion of the unconscious. His reservations about making the unconscious conscious in organisational consulting must consequently be understood as bringing repressed (conflicting, infantile) impulses to the awareness of the client. Likewise is his views on the limited utility of psychoanalysis as serving primarily the consultant to gain a better (deeper) understanding of the client, is the logical consequence of this restrictive, original meaning of the unconscious.

The current, enlarged notion of the unconscious emphasises much more the development of the complementary of the conscious rational, logical way and the unconscious way of psychic functioning. Each has its own specific and uneducable characteristics, while the boundaries between these two ways of operating, are conceived as unclear, blurred and permeable. E. Menzies-Lyth (1989) already observed this when she wrote about the psychoanalytic informed consultant. I only take here two elements from her enlightening article as two basic requirements for organisational consulting. First, "a deep conviction about the existence of the unconscious" and second, a capacity "to recognise and understand the manifestations of the unconscious mind, both content and dynamics, in the conscious thoughts, feelings, speech and behaviour of the people one is working with and in oneself" (p. 28).

With this enlarged notion of the unconscious another view of the functioning of the psyche is introduced. There is not only the unconscious search to satisfy consciously unacceptable desires, but also unconscious processes are seen to play an important role in the working through and the integration of different sorts of experiences. The latter is illustrated in some of our dreams as well as in daily activities which serve, for example, the purpose of reparative work, or the use of transitional space to work through the anticipated consequences of organisational change (Vansina, 1998). Interpretation of these last unconscious processes is most often not needed to increase their integrative function. In fact bringing them to awareness may interfere with the process. At other times, these interpretations only add to our pleasure of understanding ourselves, our psychic functioning and to enable us to recognise similar processes in other situations (Vansina-Cobbaert, 1994).

What are then the various domains a psychoanalytic informed consultant can be active in, and how do they enrich one another?

If one takes the individual psychoanalytic session as a frame of reference, with or without the enlarged notion of the unconscious, the focus is often put on one domain. This first domain, is the domain in which a client in one or another organisational role regularly meets with the consultant as an individual to clarify his/her role conception and its embeddedness in the person. This first domain, I do not consider an exclusive part of the practice of the organisational consultant. It is closely related to individual counselling, and there is little evidence that this type of professional work becomes directly linked to organisational change or improvements. The individual client may however benefit from an increased capacity to take his/her responsibilities, which may indirectly lead to improved organisational performance.

On the other hand, if one takes the psychoanalytic group as a model for organisational work three other domains can be identified in which the psychoanalytic informed consultant can and often is active. The domains are partly overlapping, yet they differ in their objectives, their learning priorities and the role(s) the consultant takes. In the first of these three, which I call the second domain, the organisation consultant is working with a group of members of different or of the same organisations but with no established relations. They come together to learn about team development, group dynamics and their own involvement in this. Under this category we find besides the well-known group (or group relation) conferences, ad hoc team development projects for task forces, or project work. Bion's theory (1961) about groups is developed on the basis of work in this second domain: group members, without pre-established relations, brought together around a given task in relation to which they are interdependent. His theory deals with small groups of 7 to 15 members, who are interdependent for the successful completion of the task. A task which was generally experienced as delicate, ambiguous, uncertain, stressful and even dangerous. With a leader who set the task but refrains from giving instructions about how it should be carried out. The leader only explores what in fact is happening in that group. Yet, it is widely recognised that his theory is equally valuable for groups in which the consultant takes a more active role.

In a third domain the consultant works with and established group or a team of organisational members who have established relations and a "common" task. Some team improvement projects, process consultation of boards, management teams and worksystems fall within this domain. The learning objectives may not differ very much from the ones in the second domain, but the members do share a history and a common organisational environment.

In a fourth domain, the consultant works together with a group of organisational members who are decision-makers, leading parts, or stakeholders to a particular issue. The members then come together to work on an ad hoc shared task. Redesign team, maxi-mini groups of members who bring diversity of perspectives in "Future Search Conferences" are included in this category as well as the rich variety of action-research teams who together with the consultant study their own or another organisation for the sake of one or another form of organisational development or change project. Here, getting the work done is the primary objectives, while learning from the processes, although essential, comes in second place. The focus of the consultant's work in forth domain is no longer restricted to the interrelated analysis of roles, structure and work culture (people's attitude towards work), as Bain's (1982) saw it. It does cover a much broader scope which includes business processes and worksystems designs.

As one moves from the first domain to the fourth, the consultant becomes less dependent on data generated only in the here-and-now. Besides the subjective experiences of the clients' organisations, called the "organisation-in-mind", the consultant as well as the other members has indirect to direct access to observable, empirical, financial or statistical data of the organisation. It is precisely through this direct or indirect access (through sharing and comparing individual members' perceptions about an external reality) that one is able to form a much richer, multi-facetted picture about the "organisation-in-action" or the "issue-under-investigation". Comparing then the pictures of the "organisation-in-mind" with those of the "organisation-in-action" opens new avenues for exploration, understanding and learning. Furthermore, and as one moves down to the fourth domain, the consultant is not only confronted with clients who may not only lack the power or the resources to do what they consider should be done; they simply may not know what should be done or how to do it. Consequently, the consultant may introduce a method, new principles for organising activities, suggest alternative solutions, and engage in playful explorations of the issue at hand (Vansina, 1988).

There is one dimension, that runs through the four domains and which is always object of study, although accomplished in different ways, namely how the individual, the group or the organisation is relating to the shared task. Menzies-Lyth (1989) underlines the importance of this dimension in practice and in theory when she writes:"... more important...are the dynamic processes that go on in institutions at both the conscious and unconscious levels. Of particular significance are the defences developed to deal with anxiety, provoking content and the difficulties in collaborating to accomplish the common task. These defences appear in the structure of the institutions itself and permeate its whole way of functioning" (p.28).

Although learning from the way one is working on the task, is an essential part in all domains, it is no longer the first priority in domain three and four. Learning here is function of its necessity to complete the manifest task and to enable the client to solve the same or similar issues independent from the consultant. Consequently, the role of the consultant will change with the objectives and learning priorities of the project.

Getting in touch with " the organisation-in-mind", exploring how one is working on the task requires a "cultivated ignorance or negative capability" (Menzies-Lyth, 1989, p.31). Bion (1988) introduced the notion of "negative capability" and further talks about "evenly distributed attention to the manifest and the latent", about being attentive "without knowledge, memory or desire". Such a basic attitude is impossible to maintain, if the consultant is (passionately) involved to make the system work better or in introducing new concepts or methods to work on a given task. Suspending the work on the manifest task at times when one feels that the group is no longer making headway can in practice only accommodate for this requirement, or to organise regularly scheduled "debriefing sessions". Time-out sessions last as long as it takes to remove the barriers to constructive work. Their scope is much smaller, because they are initiated on the basis of a specific blockage or a feeling of not making progress. For example, in a plant we were exploring alternative production strategies with a group of managers. The discussion went flat, members seemed to experience difficulties to concentrate and the generated data did not further our understanding. I suggested time out to understand why we did not seem to make any progress. In the entailing discussion, it became clear that the members were stuck with an internal conflict: to redesign the plant to give it a future while such a process made it clear that some of their colleagues present were going to lose their jobs. The regularly scheduled debriefing sessions have duration, which is function of the time spent on work and the experienced difficulties. Here it is easier to take that basic attitude to reflect and to gain understanding of the ways one has been working on the manifest task. (Vansina-Cobbaert & Vansina, 1996). Since the consultant has been working with others on the manifest task, the consultant is often included in the reflections and interpretations. In time-out or debriefing sessions one uses a lot of observable data, to illustrate of to specify what particular interactions need further understanding, or on what basis the consultant judged it worthwhile to stop the manifest work.

The psychoanalytic informed consultant intervenes also on unconscious processes while working with the members on the manifest task. On one hand, he/she uses his/her understanding in selecting specific approaches and methods, which become interventions in itself, in the sense that one is working on a psychodynamic issue while working on the manifest task, without necessarily bringing the unconscious elements to the surface. The following example will illustrate this point.

A Dutch engineering company was facing a drastic reduction in government sponsored projects. During their 25 years of existence they always relied on them for research projects and for picking up the budget deficit at the end of the year. Now their survival depended on their capacity to compete on the international market. All managers were engineers, who had earned their reputation in science. They were very meticulous and precise in their work, but they had great difficulties in working with uncertainty and the high expectations of their colleagues. Uncertainty and change blocked them. From the different approaches possible, I selected one, which I thought would help us to develop a strategic, restructuring plan and at the same time enable the members to develop a capacity to work with uncertainty. We took the cost level of the major international competitor as a baseline and I asked them to play with the organisational consequences, under the assumption that all government funding would be stopped. Any funding acquired through their previously established reputation would be considered a welcoming profit. Together we played for some time with several rough scenarios, until management had sufficiently questioned their "organisation-in-mind", and became familiar with the thinking and scaring futures of another "organisation-in-mind": A sort of a picture of an independent, internationally competitive organisation with whatever it takes to operate like one. Only then we selected the most promising scenario and worked it out in more detail.

Equally, during the work on the manifest task the consultant may make short interventions that draw attention to a deeper meaning, or a fixed way of looking at things. These interventions are most often short and casual. In one company, we had developed with the management team a new strategic plan, which called for a major restructuring of the organisation, with an unavoidable loss of jobs. When, after a week I returned to the management team to continue our work, I found the team complaining about the anticipated difficulties with the unions. They were said not to accept the plan and what then. This talking continued until I remarked: "And what would happen if the unions do accept the plan. Would you feel you can turn the company around successfully?" A painful silence followed until the chairman, tapping his pencil on the table, said: "I have serious doubts". We then proceeded rethinking the plan.

Against this background information I can now state my view on the role of the psychoanalytic informed organisation consultant operating in domain four as distinct from a group consultant in domain two.[1]

I distinguish three parts in the role of the organisation consultant. The first part contains his/her responsibility to assist the client in resolving an issue or in completing an agreed upon project in such a way that the client is enabled to deal with the same or similar issues independently from the consultant. In this part the differences between the psychoanalytic informed and the regular organisation consultant may only be minimal. The two following parts make the distinction. The second part of his/her role covers the responsibilities for helping the group (and its members) to operate in the workgroup mode by exploring the possible relations between what happens in the group and the sources of anxiety that make members move into a basic assumption mode, or an "as-if mode" as Harold Bridger likes to call it. The focus is on the possible linkages between group behaviour and unconscious processes that interfere with accomplishing the common task, against the given objectives. Consequently, not just any process that may be unconscious is brought to awareness. The purpose of the interventions is to help the client learn from the unconscious processes that interfere with the task, in order to enable the membership to carry on with the task with a better understanding of the total realities at hand, and with an increased access to the available capabilities and resources. This part is very similar to the work of a group consultant in domain two. Many consultants may however shy away from endeavours to bring to awareness conflicting aspirations, "dominant logics" and/or elements of experiences which have been forgotten, or even repressed but that do interfere with the task. This crucial part in the role of the organisation consultant complements his/her first part to help the group, or the organisation deal with the issues or the project at hand. It implies calling for "time-out", and/or organising "debriefing" sessions. While these latter reviews form the ongoing tasks of most group relation conferences, they are here being separated out to allow the consultant to work with the members on the primary given problem or project.

A third part in the consultant's role is the development of a deeper understanding of the client's emotional experience of working in the organisation. This is achieved through an intensive exploration of the differences between the "organisation-in-mind" and the "organisation-at-work". When the learning from the way one has been working on the task enables the client to cope better with the total realities of the work, the learning from one's emotional involvement enables him to continue the work independently of the consultant. Consequently the consulting process contains a developmental aspect which is often missing in the work of the regular organisation consultant. The aim however is not so much to prevent the client from falling back into old psychic defensive processes while working on a task. The objective is to develop a capability in the client to first, recognise that underlying anxieties, ambiguities and uncertainties can trigger dynamic processes in most normal human beings that impede upon task accomplishment and dealing with reality. Second, to increase his capabilities to cope in a more realistic way with these (unconscious) forces. Or, to quote from Menzies-Lyth (1989):

" The consultant's responsibility lies in helping insight to develop, freeing thinking about problems, helping to get away from unhelpful methods of thinking and behaving, facilitating the evolution of ideas for change, and then helping him to bear anxiety and uncertainty of the change process" (p.33).

Working as an organisational consultant generated enriching insights for working in other domains. First, the " leaderless group" in Bion's sense of the concept is not an essential requirement to enable unconscious processes in groups to become identified and understood. The consultant can be active and suggest methods and approaches, yet the very nature of the task often eliminates the consultant's authority base as the one who always knows better what needs to be done than any other member in the group. Consequently, it is not surprising that the same or quite similar group dynamics emerge. Their form may be different and they may be less accessible for exploration, but they appear in the way the group is working on the shared task. Second, the temporary working party or "organisational community" often reflects the unconscious issues and psychodynamics of the deeper problems and concerns of the wider organisation. Third, the inclusion of observable data does not prevent the explorations of unconscious processes. On the contrary, the exclusion of observable data in self-reflections and interpretations lead to perverse interactions that stop inquiry and have a destructive impact on learning and development for the persons concerned and for the consultant.

I strongly believe that the absence of recognition of the fundamental differences in setting and purpose of the described four domains, do lead consultants to self-reflections and interventions without any reference to observable, external realities. We know and I accept that social realities are processed by unconscious elements operative in individuals and groups. And I do agree that the fullness of these social realities can not be reduced to only objectifiable data, because they have gained a meaning for the individual or the group. These total realities are not immediately intelligible, but they are elaborated by human beings and made sensible (Levy, 1997, p.27). Yet, without any reference to the observable, external world, self reflections and interpretations become perverse in the sense that they often deflect from real learning about the situation, and about oneself. Instead of encouraging inquiry they just stop it. Furthermore, they carry with them a destructive element for the members in the sense that they make them unduly dependent on the consultant's insights and understanding, while stopping inquiry, exploring alternative explanations, and learning to pay attention to the cues in order to explore "total realities" in the future. It is equally destructive to the consultant, because he/she loses attention to the manifest in favour of the latent content. The process of sorting out what is "me" and "not me" in the experience is thereby made very difficult, even impossible. What I don not want to argue is that every intervention the consultant make should include observable data, but the consistent absence of them perverts the learning situation. To illustrate this thesis, I have grouped my examples and vignettes in three categories: a) questionable interventions in-group relation conferences; b) the development of a cult; and c) interventions that don't clarify the complex interactions between an individual member and the group.

A. Questionable interventions in group relation conferences.

Most of us have had some experience with group relation conferences in which the consultant has a basic posture: not looking at members when they talk, not even when directly questioned. The eventual consultant's response sounds like an oracle often starting with: "The group thinks...." The group members look puzzled because their mind is still with that individual member whose question was manifestly not responded to. On top of this, what the consultant said can only painfully be related to what went on, manifestly. It may well be about the unconscious of the group, about something present that transcends the individual. But without reference to any cues, for example to the looks of various individual members, or to the undifferentiated way in which the members behave, such interventions can easily be understood as a generalisation; a lack of differentiation on behalf of the consultant. I strongly believe that this type of behaviour is still a carry over of the individual analytic session where the context of an intervention is less complex and in time linked to the analyst's comments. Or put in other words, his/her comments are linked by time to what immediately preceded.

Furthermore, the artificial posture and dress of the consultant looks like an impossible attempt to eliminate the person of the consultant from the social reality. Within particular schools this behaviour is passed on to the younger generation as a proper code of conduct. Some go even further and impose the consultant to wear a formal dress, and speak with a formal tone of voice to emphasise being different from the regular members. Granted that oracle-like interventions make members think and search for an understanding, but they do not help them to become sensitive to the data on which such an intervention was supposedly based. They don't encourage learning. Members are simply confronted with someone who on mysterious grounds says something that is deemed worth to be explored, because the consultant said it. In this way authority issues are being evoked which subsequently become the object of further analysis.

With the neglect of attention to manifest or observable data comes the inclination to make interpretations "from the book". For example, the group relation conference is in its last day, so "the group must be mourning its end" or "the group is denying the fact that this is its last session!". Such interventions made in the absence of any data or clues that the members are either subdued, in a low mood or not able to stay on a subject that is relevant to the task come out of the blue. Sadness for the end of the group is not a universal phenomenon. It even happens that members express that they are glad to go home. It has been a worthwhile experience, but they look forward to be back with their families. Or the group members are working very hard to finish an obvious important issues in due time. Some active members looking unobtrusively at their watches express their awareness of time. Yet, the consultant says that the group is denying the fact of ending.

Some consultants go even further. For example, in another group relation conference, an "intergroup exercise" was set up and the debriefing session was structured by asking the group members to be seated in rows behind their "ambassadors" facing the other group seated in the same arrangements. First the "ambassadors" were asked to review their visiting experience before the other members were allowed to talk. The setting was clearly designed to evoke feelings of competition, yet, surprisingly no feelings of being a better group than the others were being expressed, neither in words, nor in interruptions, nor in tone. Yet, while I was still wondering whether the delegates were still with the preceding, interesting group session, or trying to overcome the uncomfortable feeling of being artificially seated, one of the consultants came in with an intervention about the "competitive feelings being around". The members continued as if they did not hear the consultant's comment, while the other staff members let it go by. Seemingly they too took it as something off the beam. However, competition must be present at an unconscious level, because ... the setting was designed to bring competitive feelings out!

Let me come back to Bion's insights into the role and attitude of the consultant, because the four examples given above are not in line with my understanding of his writings. Bion attaches great importance to that "negative capability" or the capacity to bear the anxieties of not knowing and to go on with the search for the elusive truth. The elements describing this basic attitude of the consultant are spread over Bion's many works. I have condensed them in two major statements: 1) An evenly divided attention for both levels of psychic activity; and 2) without memory, desire, nor understanding. A few words about these basic elements because they often become misunderstood.

The consultant's attention is evenly divided over both levels of mental activity: The manifestly conscious and the latently unconscious. They correspond more or less with the work-group mode and basic-assumption behaviour. In my understanding both levels are at least partly expressed in observable behaviour. While their meaning can not be traced back fully to objectifiable data. But at least some observable cues should be included in the intervention first to appeal to the integrative and critical capacities of the client, and second, to provide cognitive support to the consultant for paying evenly attention to both mental activities.

Without memory does not mean that one must not remember what happened or was said during previous sessions, but that nothing is to be anticipated as to what is about to happen "here and now" on the basis of the past.

Without desire to cure or to develop people. Bion by no means denies the therapeutic or developmental strength of psychoanalysis, but the intention to cure; to develop, to make things better impedes the selfless quest for the truth.

Without understanding: "Not knowing", is so important because familiarity with theory or concepts often stand between the consultant and the client's emotional life. We see, hear or feel what we know, yet lose touch with what is really happening "here and now".

In the light of Bion's thinking, one may wonder to what extend making interventions from the book, setting up a stage to evoke particular feelings or processes can not be seen as defences against not knowing. But whether it is a defence or not can only be derived from explorations of the total context in which it all takes place.

B Self-reflections and interpretations as a cult.

The absence of any reference to an external reality can consequently turn into a cult: in which members share a specific complex of beliefs, and rites that will bring them some valuable, magical understanding. But cults often serve as a defence against the daily, existential realities of life, which are experienced as too threatening. Any reference to those external realities may consequently become anxiety arousing. Let me illustrate this with two examples.

A small consulting firm was in a transitional phase because its founder member and director was retiring. Finding a successor from within was not possible. Eventually, it became clear that the group did not want a successor at all. They wanted to continue as a team without any manager. Attempts to establish strategic alliances with firms holding similar values were equally broken off. Feeling himself in an impossible position to secure the long-term continuity of the firm, the founder resigned as director, but stayed in the firm till his formal retirement, two years later. The group wanted to take over the firm and make it "alive and kicking". They changed the constitution to bring it in line with the model of "a medical cabinet"; a social fund was set up to cover the possible expenses in case the firm would break up; and new equipment was bought. The staff meetings were split into morning and afternoon sessions. In the morning the staff met without the founder member to "test whether they could work together, managing the business". In the afternoon they briefed him shortly about their decisions and then continued with the review of their projects. These afternoon sessions became sacred and were full of self-reflections, comments and interpretations about how they were in their work. These sessions seemed to fulfil an urgent need of the members. Not once was there a reference to the transition, the social fund, or to the future of the institute. Any attempt to put on the agenda the future role and contributions of the founder after his formal retirement were turned down. The afternoon sessions had to be kept reserved for discussions of their projects.

Eight months after the formal retirement of the founder, two consultants left, another went part-time, the residence of the institute was given up, the social fund was used to cover part of the downsizing expenses and the library was distributed among the remaining members.

Since I was not the consultant, I can only speculate about two things in this obviously, highly complicated situation. First the way of organising the staff meeting through splitting in business and reflections on work, seems to portray an inability to discuss business in the presence of the retiring founder member. Second, it looks like the afternoons had to be kept to discuss their work as if nothing was changing. The case may illustrate how the unconscious becomes express not in words, but in the way activities are organised, and obvious concerns are omitted from the agenda. In this way a cult can be formed to protect the members from dealing with the management of the transition.

In another example, I was invited to a professional development programme to conduct a module on strategic management. The programme had in fact been turned into a "personal" development programme that the participants seemed to "enjoy" despite their many references to the heaviness of the experiences in their written, personal journeys, which were distributed amongst staff and participants. Several of these experiences were expressed in citations from poems. Some of them revealed vague feelings of anxiety and fear of losing oneself. In the programme, several exercises, and individual paintings had been introduced to reveal their deeper selves. Although little time and attention was given in trying to understand their meaning in relation to the tasks and objectives of the programme. In fact roles and tasks were never clarified in relation to the overall purpose of the programme. Even the roles of the staff changed regularly and their definition was seen as unnecessary, as self-imposed bureaucratic constraints that curbed spontaneity. Foremost was revealing oneself, and learning from feedback. During one of the debriefing sessions of a simulation on strategic management, the whole group became involved in an intensive search for the deeper reasons why one of the groups had such a hard time in working with the data in the simulation. The soul search went one, with no reference at all to the fact that the chairman of that group did no show up for breakfast and was found sleeping with one of the participants, that morning. Some kind of a romance had started in the previous module and was barely hidden in their respective "journeys". When I expressed my astonishment: "I am greatly surprised that we continue to search for deeper reasons to understand the difficulties in that group, when no one mentions the obvious fact that the chairman X was sleeping this morning with one of the participants. He came in late for the simulation and was so confused that we had to set time aside for clarification. Many, if not most of us know about this!" The group went first silent for a moment and then hurried to continued as if nothing was said. Then I commented that "the group wants to proceed with their explorations as if I had not said any thing". This time it could no longer be denied. The whole group including the other staff members fell over me. These were personal things that one should not talk about in public. (As if digging in possible, reasons for explaining the experienced difficulties were less personal.) The anxiety was seemingly aroused by different factors: some said that their sexual life was very important to them and they wanted to keep that within their families. Others commented on the fact that they did not want anyone to probe in their sex lives in the programme. Still others said to be unaware of what was going on between these two, but that such behaviour was unprofessional. At the end of the review session, one member of staff took me even aside to tell me with pity, what an unfortunate intervention I had made.

In this example it became clear that the soul searching, that also went on had a defensive function. It appeared as an attempt to avoid dealing with the obvious issue of the love affair that triggered anxieties of different sorts in the membership and the staff. The observable data was indeed more scaring than their personal revelations and feedback. From a practical perspective, I like to work on the manifest, observable behaviour first. Only when the group has reached a stage in which it is in pretty good touch with the external realities, do I move to other issues, which are more difficult to clarify in behavioural terms.

At another time, in a similar programme the participants were given a "career development exercise" to be discussed in small groups that regularly met over the various modules. They were informed that the staff was available for consultation but they could equally work without them. I went to one of the small groups, which had been working on the exercise and asked them whether they liked me to work with them. They did. I listened for awhile as they listed all the displeasure and lack of gist in their current careers and how they liked to do something different so that could find greater fulfilment in their lives. The dominant theme was more a wish to move away from their current careers, than a move towards a concrete alternative. Every time they started to explore an alternative, their explorations stopped with an anticipated difficulty and then the whole process started over again. As I noticed that all of them were over their forties, I started to feel that they were idealising a career as if it could or better, should provide nothing but interesting challenges, fun, a good income and growth potential. So I said: "When I listen to you, and I hear you complain how dull and unsatisfactory your career has become, and I notice your age, I wonder: can a career be better than the quality of life in general. We may hope to compensate in our careers what we feel we are, at our age, no longer getting from life itself". After some thoughtful silence, one of the members said: "all of us are probably stuck in a mid life crisis, but what do you do?" From that point on the group discussions became more realistic. They started sorting out what of their major dissatisfactions in their present careers could be avoided by their own actions, and what elements were just part of being alive.

In this vignette, it was the combination of what were being said and their observable age that revealed the more threatening issue of becoming older. Bringing the unavoidable process of ageing to awareness enabled them to deal better with the realities of their current careers. The way of drawing attention to these realities revealed at the same time how my mind was functioning.

It is not exceptional in professional organisations and professional development programmes to see a cult of soul searching being developed to protect the members from threatening realities in and around them. It may even become enjoyable because it provides an arena in which professionals may "safely" compete with one another for making the best, the deepest or most sophisticated interpretation. However, it does not mean that regular reviews on how one is working together to carry out one's mission, one's task to reach the given objectives, are not recommendable. The point I like to make is that one should guard against the tendency to exclude the obvious, external realities and the context from self-reflections and interpretations.

C. The individual group interactions.

Another area that needs further exploration is that of the complex interactions between the individual and the group. According to Bion, the consultant should only intervene at the group level. Sutherland (1985/1990) relatively soon after Bion's publication qualified two of his statements about disturbed behaviour in group members and the exclusiveness of group centred interventions. On the one hand he claims that we lack sufficient evidence that certain mental disturbances have their roots in group pathology, although some specific disturbances can indeed be related to specific group situations. On the other hand, he argues that next to articulating the underlying dynamics of the total situation there remains a much needed and usable space for non-group centred interventions.

The group always affects the individual in a group, even when there are no obvious group pressures being exerted. The group is in this sense omnipresent. There is ample evidence in social psychology that this is true (a.o.Sherif, 1935; Milgram, 1963). Yet there is also evidence that there are individual dispositions that make certain persons vulnerable for expressing particular group emotions (Redl, 1942). In the interaction of the two, we see, at one time, that the group provides space for a particular member to become a "central person", or a kind of leading figure who willingly expresses the emotions for the group. At other times, the group allows a particular member to take that space. So there are differences in degree to which a member with a particular disposition uses the group to reveal an emotion, and the group in an emotional state creating space for a more or less willingly member to express it. In the first instance, the individual disposition is clearly present, while in the second the individual has a "private task" to sort out why he/she is so willingly used by the group. Often these differences in degree become manifest in the way either the individual or the group is leading in setting the stage for an emotional expression. I like to build on that and argue that the omission of these observable data in interventions focussing on the specific interactions between the group and the individual may lead to misunderstanding and even contribute to a false self.

In one of our own professional programmes on group- and psycho dynamics, we had a man who had taken part in a kind of group relation conference. After a couple of days, in one of the group sessions, he reacts with only partly restrained aggression at one of the members who asked him a somewhat confronting question. When the aggression is controlled, he says: "I was expressing the anger for all of the group". The group looked puzzled and I ask: "What anger in the group?" After some explorations, the member responds: "I felt attacked by that man, and I attacked in return". At which time, one of the women in the group picks up the last statement and turns it into a question: "Did you feel that as an attack?" "Yes", he says, "and I expressed the aggression for the group". The emphasis was put on 'for the group', as if he did it because someone in the group had to do it, and he did it on behalf of the group. There was an altruistic tone in his voice, and it was said with such innocence as if there had not been an aggressive part in him. So, I said: "Some people here seem to question whether that question was really an attack, although probing. Could it be that you are very sensitive to this and quickly respond with a counter attack. Something that you in fact may not like doing at all?" There was a short silence. Then the discussion turned into the legitimacy of asking direct questions and the member's right not to answer.

One day later, in the Learning Community in which the Learning groups come together to explore and learn from what in the overall programme does hinder or facilitate the professional development process, the relevance of boundaries is being discussed. Are the confidentiality boundaries between the learning-, the counselling-groups and the learning community relevant? Should we not be allowed to discuss the themes freely, without disclosing the individual member's contributions? The issue is barely on the table, when the same man aggressively and in a loud voice attacks the person who suggested to remove the boundaries of confidentiality under the conditions mentioned above. "Who do you think you are to question the confidentiality we all agreed to at the beginning!" The anger in his face could hardly be missed. His were eyes burning. Several members look up in surprise by the sudden emotional outburst. Yet, some members continue the exploration of the pro's and cons. After awhile, having regained control but still angry, the man says again: " I am expressing the anger for the group and for all of us who don't dare to speak up although they too don't want it ..." Again the feeling is there that he lashes out on behalf of the group and in particular for those who do not dare to speak up in the large group setting. Several group members start looking around, seemingly trying to see who so far had not made his/her position clear. Only two persons had not said very much but whatever they said could be understood as having reservations to loose the confidentiality clause. At the same time it becomes clearer to me that the aggression is triggered by persecutory anxiety. Personally, I could not detect any visible sign of anger in the group, unless 'questioning an established agreement' is taken as an aggressive act. So I say something like this: "It is obvious that some people like to qualify the strict boundaries between the various groups, while at least one person is really upset by this eventuality, ... by what could happen if we do. It is quite clear that at least John feels strongly about the issue, while we don't know how some others feel, or whether they are angry or not. It is probably less important to know who is for and who is against, than to explore what we fancy that could happen if we loosen up the boundaries?" The group is seemingly relieved and the man looks thoughtful as if reflecting on what was said. After some time the group explores what could happen when all boundaries are removed. Eventually, they agree that every thing happening outside the Learning Groups can be brought in, but not the opposite.

A few sessions later the issue is brought up again in the Learning Group after another burst of aggression, which was about to be explained away. This time, it could become clarified and understood as his readiness to counterattack at the slightest hint, while putting the aggression back into the group, so that one does not need to feel 'concerned'. Much later in the group, we came to see that under the apparent aggressive front, there was a tender, loveable and caring self, needing protection.

In this example, we are confronted with a 'classical interpretation': "One persons is expressing or carrying something for the group" without any connection to observable data. It is a kind of interpretation that hides more meaningful content. It is a defensive interpretation with a double function. First it served to justify and/or deny the aggression in oneself. Second, the aggression covered 'another' part of the self that was much more sensitive and real, but could only become revealed when much more trust became invested in the group. Taken as such, his interpretation is not in itself perverting, it is simply defensive. However it becomes perverting when the consultant himself makes such an intervention, or when others in the setting make such "self-reflections" and the consultant does not pick it up for further exploration.

In groups we are constantly confronted with the delicate interactions between an individual and the group. I tend to sort out the extent to which the individual is a willingly subject for expressing the emotions of the group. If I can not sense the emotion in the group, I say so. Otherwise a group dynamic process is used to explain away the individual disposition, while attributing that feeling or emotion to the other members in the group, while covering up or closing off more meaningful material.

Concluding comments.

If we take the psychoanalytic group as a frame of reference for looking at the work of a psychoanalytic informed organisation consultant, we could distinguish three additional domains besides individual role clarification and consultation. The added advantage of this frame is that one clarifies at once that the organisational consultant is working in a social setting, where other members posses and process observable data. The presence of others, the group or even the organisation impacts the members and the processing of their data. In a way the others and the group are omnipresent. While the psychoanalytic group serves as a frame of reference, there is also a lot that can be learned from organisational consulting that is relevant for work in the other domains.

First, members do not need to regress that deeply for unconscious processes to emerge. The focus here is not at all on bringing infantile conflicts to awareness, but to help people work more effectively with the total realities in their situation. This includes gaining understanding in the way one is working on the task at hand and to learn from the differences between the "organisation-in-mind" and the "organisation-in-action". Second, even when the organisational consultant is actively working together with the group, on manifest tasks, which are often characterised by ambiguity and uncertainty, unconscious processes are evoked. They can be worked on or understood through different interventions during the work, but also during "time-out" and "debriefing" sessions.

Third, it is not uncommon that teams, or ad hoc groups, even large ones, come to display the problematic dynamics the wider organisation is trying to cope with. The overlap or congruency between the data collected through interviews or surveys and the observable processes in the "here-and-now" form an ideal setting to bring them to awareness.

Four, when the purpose of coming together is not cure but learning, one definitely has to enrich one's interventions with observable data. Thereby one enables clients to understand these processes and to learn from the experience. In this article, I argue that the absence of any reference to observable data in self-reflections and interpretations perverts the learning situation in itself. Rather than to stimulate inquiry it deflects or stops that very learning process. The destructive aspects can be observed in "interventions from the book", the development of a cult and the provision of defensive statements to members. The inclusion of observable data on the other hand, illustrates the equally divided attention to both the manifest and the latent mental processes. As such it supports the consultant's stance to work without memory, desire and knowledge; and prevent making wild interpretations from "the book", as well as the development of a closed system, a cult. Furthermore, the observation of what happens manifestly in the group provides cues to clarify that part of the individual that plays a role in the complex interactions with group emotions.

Fifth, the vignettes illustrate that the consultant's interventions are not restricted to bringing unconscious elements to awareness. They serve a much broader scope. They express the way of thinking and operating of the consultant so that alternatives of psychic functioning may open up for the client. In organisational consulting, interventions often take the form of a suggested method or approach that is likely to strengthen client's capabilities and resources. Their intent is to provide experiences of being able to face uncertainties and anxieties and their impact on performance. At other times consultant's interventions demonstrate that there are other ways to relate to the task and the "organisation-at-work", offering the members an opportunity to question their "organisation-in-mind". Foremost, the inclusion of observable data serves to demystify the consultant's work and to appeal to the client's cognitive and integrative capacities to validate and elaborate the offered understanding, so that one can learn for the future.

Bion, W.R. (1961). Experiences in groups, and other papers. London/Tavistock.

Bion, W.R. (1988). Attention and interpretation. London: H.Karnac Books.

Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57 (5), 271-282.

Goleman, D. (1985). Vital lie,simple truths. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Isaac, S. (1948). The nature and function of phantasy. In: M. Klein et al. (Eds.) Developments in psychoanalysis. London: Hogarth Press, 1952.

Janis, I.J. (1983). Groupthink. 2nd edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Levy, A. (1997). Sciences cliniques & organisations sociales. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.

Menzies Lyth, I. (1986/1989). A psychoanalytic perspective on social institutions. In: The dynamics of the social: Selected essays. London: Free Association Books. 26-44.

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral studies of obedience. Journal of abnormal and social psychology, 67(4), 371-378.

Redl, F. (1942). Group emotions and leadership. Psychiatry, 5, 573-596.

Schein, E. (1987). Process consultation: Lessons for managers and consultants, Vol. II. Amsterdam: Addison-Wesley Publ.

Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology, 187.

Sutherland, J.D. (1985/1990). Bion revisited: Group dynamics and group psychotherapy. In: E. Trist and H. Murray (Eds.). The social engagement of social science: Vol. I. The socio-psychological perspective. London: Free Association Books.

Vansina, L.S. (1988). On consulting practice: Toward the development of better balanced educational programmes. Consultation, 8 (2), 79-99.

Vansina, L.S. (1998). The individual in organizations: Rediscovered or lost forever? European Journal for work and organizational psychology. 7(3), 265-282.

Vansina-Cobbaert, M.J. (1994). Groepen en het onbewuste. Paper presented at the colloquium on the Unconscious, University Centre of Kortenberg, Catholic University of Leuven.

Vansina-Cobbaert, M.J. & Vansina, L.S. (1996). W. Bion: Inzichten en bijdragen aan de groepsdynamica. Werken, leren en leven met groepen. 3-20.

Zaleznik, A. (1995). The case for not interpreting unconscious mental life in consulting to organizations. Psychiatry, 58, 357-370

Notes

[1] The consulant's role in the thrird domain can take different forms as the given problem may call for a more structured appraoch than just process consultation in the wider sense of the notion given by E. Schein ( ). Consequently, we do not wish to elaborate it further in the context of this article.