Where's Daddy? Integrating the Paternal
Metaphor within the Maternal,
Tavistock tradition of Organizational thinking.

Simon Western MA
Simon Western is an Independent Organizational Consultant
Comments welcome.
swestern@enterprise.net

Abstract

Key Words: Organization, Organisation Psychoanalysis, Consultation, Lacan, Klein, Management, Change.

INTRODUCTION

The question ‘Where’s Daddy?’ has particular resonance to organizational thinking. Globalisation, complexity and turbulence reflect major themes organizations now face. It is recognised that new management thinking and new organizational structures are needed to address these conditions. A shift away from patriarchal/ paternal linear, hierarchies in organizations is taking place. The post-industrial, post-modern milieu demands that organizations in all sectors are more flexible, creative and responsive to change. This shift away from dependant structures has created new insecurities and anxieties within organizations. In the struggle to become more flexible and creative a reaction against structure and authority is occurring. The domineering patriarchal structures are being replaced with an idealisation of the ‘mother-infant’ pre-oedipal relationship, where oneness and unity become the phantasy. Evidence for this are the pre-occupation with flatter hierarchies and self-managed teams, which do not sufficiently acknowledge the necessary leadership and structures needed to create safe working environments enabling innovative work to take place. The results of these well intentioned changes are to stimulate envy and rivalry and covert forms of authoritarian structures which lie beneath the surface. Group Relations conferences demonstrate the dangers of the leaderless group and blurred roles resulting in states of basic assumption anxiety (Bion 1961) and chaos. The contemporary question is how to create ‘fluid structures’ which integrate both the ‘maternal’ elements, without which internal thinking -emotions becoming thoughts- cannot take place, with the ‘paternal’ elements of structure, authority, reality and acknowledging difference. Together these promote innovative and responsive organizations. Organizational leaders, employees and consultants need to develop and internalise new paradigms to enable these ‘fluid structures’ to become part of organizational culture.

In this paper a new psychoanalytic approach which addresses these issues is proposed. An initial theoretical sojourn will discuss this approach and propose a framework for its practical application which is then demonstrated through a piece of Organizational Consultation work.

THEORETICAL SOJOURN

Parricide and Incest

The Tavistock Institute’s organizational work, drawing upon object relations thinking, particularly from Melanie Klein and further developed by Wilfred Bion, is dominated by the mother-infant relationship. Klein’s (1959) concept of projective -identification, observed that the infant projects into the mother feelings it cannot manage, the mother introjects these feelings, containing them and offers them back to the infant in a manageable form. Bion (1961) further developed this work in groups. Halton summarises the Tavistock model for process consultancy, describing how Bion’s concept the "‘container-contained’ coming from the mother-infant relationship, is applicable to a wide range of relationships. In process consultancy the consultant acts as a container for the projected anxieties of the organisation which are then contained." (Halton 1996:3) This concept has also been applied to institutions acting as containers for social feelings projected into them (Obholzer 1994 ).

Working within the Tavistock tradition of organizational consultancy I have found the above methodology extremely useful but over a period of time became aware that something was missing. Working alongside colleagues utilising this framework and reading both casework and the theoretical literature I explored this ‘lack’. When posing the question ‘Where’s Daddy?’ it is useful to look at psychoanalysis, as developed via Object Relations thinking, in terms of the Oedipal Complex for an answer. Freud, the ‘Father’ of psychoanalysis, who placed the ‘Father’ at the centre of his work, has almost vanished from sight and with him much of his paternal focus.

"Klein heralds a shift within psychoanalysis from a phallocentric to a mammocentric universe;..........whereas the classical psychoanalysis of Freud revolved around the figure of the oedipal father, contemporary psychoanalysis centres on the mother - the first ‘other’ in terms of the child’s development" (Hoggett1992:4).

Psychoanalysis, began with a powerful Father figure -Freud- who highlighted the paternal. It then found a strong Mother -Klein- who focused on the maternal and the infant. After Klein, has this relatively young and developing Object Relations psychoanalytic school -the growing Child- acted out the Oedipal myth and committed parricide? Steiner (1985) suggests that "turning a blind eye" describes the ambiguity between the conscious and unconscious knowledge of the murder and the incest in the Oedipal situation. Have we in the Tavistock tradition ‘turned a blind eye’ to the omission of the ‘Father’ in our work and to the over-idealisation of the Mother-infant relationship? Has this Mother-infant relationship become all consuming, to the exclusion of all ‘others’, incestuous perhaps?

This scenario may be overstated but the transformative power of stories and myths give us such permission to help clarify our thinking. In this paper I am proposing to work through this Oedipal Complex and to reinstate a contemporary ‘Father’ into our theoretical framework when working with organizations.

Sigmund Freud and Jaques Lacan: The Paternal Metaphor

Freud’s concept of ‘Father’ has been difficult to integrate into current thinking. A construct of his historical and social-cultural experience, Freud’s ‘Father’ is often regarded as an omnipotent, castrating and terrifying figure. The splitting which seems to have occurred both within Object Relations thinking and organizations more generally (and perhaps in wider westernised society) has been to replace ‘bad Father’ with ‘good Mother’. Hirschhorn (1997) calls for a new culture of openness and new sensibility in the Post-Modern Organization. To create organizational cultures where this is possible, we need to integrate the ‘paternal metaphor' within our thinking and practice.

In clarifying the paternal concept Lacan’s work proves very helpful. Jaques Lacan provides a fresh interpretation to work with. A ‘Father’ who remains central but who reinstates the phallus as the mother’s ‘object of desire’ instead of becoming the castrating, terrifying Freudian ‘Father’.

The Lacanian ‘Father’ "prefers her as his object of desire and he appears more permissive giving and loveable..........He says, as it were, to the child ‘No, you can’t sleep with your mother’ and to the mother, ‘No, the child is not your phallus. I have it here.’" Benvenuto and Kennedy (1986).

Lacan’s ‘Father’ is less domineering and yet manages to introduce the principle of Law, which he referred to as the ‘Law of the Father’. The ‘Law of the Father’ is the law of language. Lacan’s view was that there was no unconscious without language and if this Law breaks down, or never existed, then the subject may suffer from psychosis. ‘The Law of the Father’ therefore refers to psychical internal organisation not a patriarchal -iron fist- Law. Lacan is absolutely clear that the ‘Father’ is symbolic

"The Father is not a real object so what is he?.....The Father is a metaphor" (Lacan 1958).

Using Lacan’s term the ‘Paternal Metaphor’ or the ‘Name-of-the-Father’ (Nom-du-Pere) it is the ‘Father’ as signifier and not the real father I am referring to in this paper. The ‘paternal function’ is separate from the presence or absence of the actual father.

"The Father is there in flesh and blood. But paternal authority can be lost in various ways, so that the Father forfeits his symbolic right to the great detriment of the child" Clement (1983:171)

Paternal authority can be lost in the presence of the real father and on the other hand a real father who takes up the paternal role in an authoritarian manner also excludes the ‘paternal metaphor’ from its signifying role.

"The damaging effects of the paternal figure are especially common in cases where the father really has or exercises legislative powers, whether he is actually a law maker or simply one who sets himself up as a pillar of faith.......all ideals providing all too many chances to be found wanting, inadequate, or fraudulent, opportunities for excluding in a word, the Name-of-the-Father from its place in the signifier." (Lacan 1966)

Lacan makes this vital point which has important implications for organizational thinking and how authority is taken up. So, clearly we are talking about a metaphor, a symbolic father that is not real and certainly not acting out in an authoritarian way. The taking up of legislative powers in a paternalistic manner, leads to rigid hierarchy, authoritarianism and bureaucracy. This actually diminishes the process proposed in this paper. The task is how to take up the ‘paternal metaphor’ psychically and culturally and to integrate it with the maternal, bringing a new paradigm to work with in contemporary organizations.

Organizational Consultancy and Applied Psychoanalysis.

I will now explore difficulties I have experienced and witnessed in the application of psychoanalytic consultation work to organizations. These difficulties are the settings in which we work and the methodologies we use.

"There is an important difference between psychoanalytical treatment and so-called applied psychoanalysis. The first one is linked to a specific setting: the couch, the free association method, the use of transference and counter-transference, the abstinence rule, a setting that has been thoroughly thought of both theoretically and methodologically, and which constitutes a quasi-experimental design for the production and investigation of unconscious psychic life." (Amado1995:351)

This psychoanalytic methodology, embedded in our personal and cultural psyches, provides the containing structure for psychoanalysis to take place. This tried and tested methodology needs further work for application to organizations in which there are no safe reliable settings in which to work. The patient arrives for analysis, with a partial ‘container in the mind’ such as the couch and the time boundary; it is for the analyst to provide the rest. In consultancy, using a psychoanalytic approach, there is much to do to prepare a safe consultative space in which to work. Applying a Tavistock approach to process consultancy drawing upon the stance of ‘maternal reverie’ as the key working tool, anxiety and regression are easily stimulated.

"Interpretations which require reflective thought, or which analyse the self are often felt to be precocious demands on the patient’s psychic capacity, and such people may react with acute rage or express a sudden sense of futility and despair" (Bollas1987:25).

Reflective thought is certainly precocious and intolerable without an adequate container. The regression that a stance of ‘maternal-containment’ creates, and the resulting acting out or failures are all too easily interpreted as solely organisational dynamics, when this is only a partial truth, ignoring the consultant’s impact on the system he or she enters.

Moylan and Jureidini write openly about some of these difficult dynamics, that arose when consulting to staff working with potentially fatal illness, on bone marrow transplant wards. They describe the consultation, saying "offering -psychotherapeutic understanding- might be for a ward the equivalent to maternal understanding for baby" (Moylan and Jureidini 1994:227). The resulting primitive emotions experienced by the staff were perceived "very quickly as making things worse not better" (ibid p.227) and after a painful time the staff eventually decided to meet together without the consultant. Moylan briefly mentions what would be necessary for the consultation to work, drawing parallels between their rejection as consultants and the rejection of transplants by the human body.

"no ‘irradiation’ was applied to the wards to prepare them for the consultation, so our rejection was perhaps inevitable at this early stage of our knowledge. More care in preparing the ward, for consultation, may be essential to avoid rejection" (ibid p236)

It is this preparation that builds a container, which I shall call -the consultative space- which, once constructed, enables the client to risk moving from a splitting defence, evacuating painful emotions via projections, towards a more depressive position, where understanding and reparation can begin to take place. To build a container we must work with a methodology that does not prematurely provoke anxiety and we must work in a reliable setting.

Building a Container

"First, as Anna Freud says, build the house; first, as Klein says, introject the good breast; first as Bion says, you have to have an adequate container; first, as Bowlby says, have a secure base." (Alvarez 1992:117).

Anne Alvarez in her book ‘Live company’ looks at work with autistic and severely disturbed children. She attempts "to sort out the theoretical baggage that was impeding her work from the theories and thinking that really helped" (Alvarez 1992:xi). She also addresses some of the limits of Bion’s concept of reverie:

"the receptive elements in Bion’s model were sometimes over stressed. Thus, what sometimes seemed to be the somewhat passive implications of the function of thoughtful reverie, seemed to leave something to be desired...............I began to feel the need to be more active and more mobile than with other patients for whom the containment model had proved helpful" (Alvarez 1992:54).

Whilst she is describing a case study with an autistic child difficult to reach, the learning can be translated to organizational consultancy work.

The containment model offered by Bion and enacted in the workplace, can be far from containing; as Moylan and Jureidini describe in their case study "it was not possible to get beyond the point, familiar in psychoanalytic therapy, where incomplete understanding felt more persecuting than helpful" (1994:32). These anxieties, usually managed by personal and social defences (Menzies 1960 and Jaques 1955) are felt to be under attack by the consultant’s stance of ‘maternal-containment’ which encourages understanding and reflective thinking in clients. Bion describes this when working in groups, saying he was identified with the sphinx in the oedipal myth,

"the enigmatic, brooding and questioning sphinx from whom disaster emanates .....being the object of inquiry arouses fears of an extremely primitive kind.....The investigation cannot be carried out without the stimulation and activation of these levels of fears and mechanisms that are characteristic of the paranoid schizoid position" (Bion 1961:162).

There is no short cut to the depressive position. Our methodology in process consultation work does provoke those fears. It is paramount that we provide a reliable container to hold these anxieties, allowing our clients to get beyond them.

Alvarez discusses ‘claiming activities’ of the mother as well as containing activities. "Alerting and arousing functions are as significant as soothing ones" (1992:61). Drawing upon infant developmental research she says that mothers respond to too much distress "evoking something which bears resemblance to reverie and containment (Bion 1962) too much withdrawal evokes sensitive drawing into contact" (ibid p.61). She also demonstrates the need to build a container, saying this may need a more active role than Bion’s more passive maternal reverie.

"Where’s Daddy ? "

The consultant’s task is to "mobilise a thinking and understanding process in the organisation itself" (Halton 1996:3). In order to apply oneself to this task, I have already identified the need to build a container in which this work can take place. Alvarez points to something else which was needed with her client group, a more active response, a claiming of the baby by the mother. In an organisational consultancy I too believe that something else is needed. However I wish to go developmentally further back and suggest that from conception and throughout childhood, the ‘Father’ (the Name-of-the-Father) is both necessary and present. I am suggesting that to conceive and nest-build, to provide a ‘good enough’ environment for the ‘maternal-containment’ to take place, and then to enable the Oedipal Complex to be worked through, it is a parenting couple and not just the ‘Mother’ that takes up this task. To avoid stimulating excess anxiety, which cannot be tolerated, by using ‘maternal-reverie’ prematurely in a consultation, the ‘Father’, ‘the paternal metaphor’ must be introduced at the beginning. The ‘paternal metaphor’ provides structure, task, boundaries, authority and reality. These are key building blocks helping to construct a reliable setting in which the containment of anxiety is more likely and a -consultative space- can be created. This is a psychic internal space but represented and initially formed by the creation and management of a physical external space, parallel to the analytic space within psychoanalysis. The suggestion is that the consultant, when taking up a psychoanalytic approach, needs to be able to draw upon the psychic stance of both ‘Mother’ and ‘Father’ in order to provide the containment, the thinking and to allow developmental stages in the client and organisation to be worked through. A methodology which can provide the flexible structure to support creative and innovative thinking is then possible.

A FRAMEWORK FOR PSYCHOANALYTIC CONSULTATION WORK.

The consultant takes up different positions along this line:

This framework is proposing fluid positions rather than static or polarised opposites. The consultant takes up different positions, as appropriate to the requirements of client and organisation, that will inevitably shift and change. As in the analytic space, where the analyst does not have a gender fixed position for the patient, and the transference may be directed towards Mother or Father in the same session, so with the consultant/client relationship.

In this model the organisation in relation to the client represents Mother. When the organisation is not providing a well structured and containing environment, what Jacques (1989) would describe as a ‘Requisite Organisation’, then the role of the consultant in the ‘Tavistock model’ is to shift towards a position of M/C to provide the conditions where thinking can take place. However, as stated above, if the consultant takes up a ‘maternal stance’ without first building a safe container then the psychic work will be unsupported and the increased contact with the emotions may be experienced as an attack on the defences and lead to destructive acting out.

Nest Building: Creating a Consultative Space

Before a bird lays an egg there is the preparation, finding the safest position and creating the nest itself. When consulting to an organisation the negotiations and contracting are vital to the success of the project. It is here that the ‘paternal/reality’ position needs to be taken up by the consultant, when boundaries, structures and contracts need to be addressed prior to ‘maternal-containment’ taking place. The nest has to be built first before the eggs can be laid and chicks nurtured.

Symbiotic Roles

Taking the ‘paternal stance’ does not mean eliminating maternal containment for that period. Winnicot (1964) describes the role of Father as at the back of Mother. I would view this differently, and say that these are interchangeable but both are present. That when the paternal stance is taken, the roles are reversed and the Mother is at the back of the Father.

So we have:

When the consultant takes one position, then the other does not disappear but remains in the background, always a presence. However, one position in relation to the client is in ascendance at any one time.

Figure one and two show the relationship between the Consultant, Client and Organization when utilising this framework.

Fig 1) Consultant Taking ‘Maternal Stance’ Forming Consultancy Dyad.

The consultant takes up the maternal stance in relation to the client, offering reverie, taking in the projections and returning them in a contained way so that they can be introjected and understanding/thinking can take place. The organisation as ‘Mother’ is not part of this dyad, replaced by the consultant taking up this role. The organisation is, however, in the mind of the client, allowing the emotional experience (of the organisation) to be thought about between the consultant and client.

Fig. 2) Consultant Taking ‘Paternal Stance’ Forming A Consultancy Triad

Taking the ‘paternal stance’ also signifies the relationship with reality and the external. Whereas the maternal stance is a dyad between the ‘Mother’ and infant, a pre-oedipal dyad, the ‘Father’ creates the triad by joining ‘Mother’ (organization) and infant (client).

This takes us to the oedipal.

"Where Narcissism Was, There Oedipus Will Be" (Grunberger 1989:34)

The paternal/reality stance from the consultant also takes ascendance at a developmentally later stage, when some internal thinking via the maternal containing has been accomplished and needs to be related to the wider systemic framework both within the organisation and external to it. Oedipus needs negotiating. Lacan gives a powerful account of the paternal signifier which replaces the fantasy of the oneness with ‘Mother’. The ‘Father’ signifies the reality principle, the struggle with structure, and of the Oedipal. It is tempting to maintain the comfortable ‘idealisation of oneness’ between consultant and client, however, unless the Oedipal is faced, any thinking will remain internal. Thinking in organisations needs to be linked to action to achieve results. Turning thoughts into strategic and operational planning, involves the paternal metaphor. It is the move from the dyad to the triad and beyond. The input from the consultant is to help the client/s look towards the external. To face the real world with all its complexity and to acknowledge difference; a major theme when negotiating the Oedipal situation. This may well be resisted by the client and unless this is faced difficulties for the organisation will inevitably occur.

"the narcissistic organisation culture is one in which its members believe that the organisation is the rationale for its own existence" (Hirschorne 1990:218)

Here the ‘paternal stance’ of the consultant is vital. The consultants task is to make links and connections with the external world. This occurs between individuals and teams within the organization and to the external dealing with the public, customers, stakeholders, competitors, the environment and the state. The paternal metaphor provides this vital link between Psychoanalytic and Systemic theory.

The Organizational Consultation Process

The consultant builds a container taking the paternal stance (P/R). This enables thinking to take place using the maternal stance (M/C). The paternal stance (P/R) is then taken up which allows the external to be negotiated and thinking translated into action.

It is important to reiterate that these positions/stances taken up by the consultant, are fluid not static, recursive not linear. One position cannot be taken without affecting the other. The developmental stages are re-negotiated at different times. At any one time the maternal or paternal is in ascendancy and the ‘other’ is always present, in the background. This reflects that reality is present, even during ‘maternal-reverie’ when the phantasy is of a total unity and oneness. Likewise our internal and emotional responses are present when we are focusing on structure and the external. It is for the consultant to work with these positions, to engage with the organisation via the clients, using whichever stance is appropriate to the stage of consultancy and the emotional and developmental life of the client and organisation.

THE CASE STUDY

An Introduction

This consultation was with a team of social workers, working for a child care support team dealing with children taken into emergency residential care. The setting was a very deprived inner city. To quote a colleague working in the church "it was a divided city, with a weak central authority and a collapsed economy. Its solution was football, humour, expressions in outrage, and messianic fantasy" (Hutton 1998). The team had been established following financial service cuts and staff re-deployment. Their task was unclear, the problems of their client group seemed insurmountable and the whole service was demoralised and dysfunctional. The team had two managers on long term sick leave, awaiting early retirement and had an acting manager Mark, who was often absent on trade union business. In effect they were leaderless, down to half their original work force -from eight to four- due to sickness and staff not being replaced when they left and they were expecting their team to be disbanded due to further financial cuts. I had previously worked as a member of a team of process consultants within this service over a two year period and the outcome of that work was poor.

Initial Meeting: Despair

At my initial meeting with the team to explore whether we could usefully work together I experienced the absolute despair they felt. They felt persecuted by the management and completely unsupported. These difficulties, compounded by the contagion experienced from the emotionally traumatised children with whom they worked, meant that they faced an intolerable position. One member spoke of her enthusiasm when joining the team a year ago but was now job hunting as she felt completely disillusioned. They externalised all of their difficulties, projecting their anger and frustration mostly onto the management. I faced an hour listening to a torrent of anguish and depression. They described themselves as ‘the lowest of the low’, ‘the poor relation to the rest’ and unable to get any training to improve themselves. However, in short intervals they also idealised themselves. One member said ‘we do a good job and work all hours, we really care about those kids’, another ‘we get in where others don’t’ and a team member who had chosen early retirement after years of service as she couldn’t face anymore added ‘where angels fear to tread’. Mark, their acting manager, said on two occasions when the depression became unbearable and the room fell into silence, ‘this team should be proud of the sensational work it does’. This was a classic, splitting, paranoid-schizoid defence (Klein 1959) where they and their client group were idealised and all the feelings of hatred and pain which could not be tolerated, were externalised. The pain and despair they experienced was projected directly into me as consultant even before I agreed to take up this role and I struggled to stay engaged. My initial reaction was to escape and not to return as their position seemed hopeless. I had introjected these very powerful feelings and wished to expel them immediately. At the end of the exploratory meeting they asked if I would offer them further consultation sessions. I was a little surprised due to the despair in the room but perhaps they saw this as a last hope. I promised to get back to them after I’d had time to think of the best way to move forward. On leaving the team one member apologised for ‘bending my ear’ that session and another wondered if I could ‘cure them’.

After much consideration I agreed to work with this team weekly, for twelve, one and a quarter hour sessions. The first two sessions were more of the same, filled with hopelessness and despair. I will now very briefly describe how I took up a ‘paternal stance’ in order to create a containing -consultative space- which I believe made the survival of this consultation work possible.

Paternal Stance: Building a Container

Faced with this despair, I knew that I had take on a more ‘paternal stance’ and be more active in the first few sessions. I focused on a clear contracting, structure, boundaries and the external. I very clearly negotiated the number of sessions, the time boundaries and the expectations that there would be full attendance and no interruptions. I was fully aware that this work could be sabotaged if it became too painful. I spoke directly to their senior manager getting his agreement and authorisation, I wrote a contract which included a written task, defining the consultation work, which I sent to the him and the team. Speaking to the senior manager represented an adult to adult discussion, me in the paternal role and he representing the organization -Mother. This provided a safety net to prevent splitting occurring and also gave the consultation the sufficient authority and credibility which it needed in order to stand a chance of succeeding. I was very aware of the resistance to any reflective depressive position thinking in this organization from my previous work with them. There was far too much vulnerability at all levels in this system, and my contact with the manager was in part to stop him sabotaging the sessions. I also used the ‘paternal-stance’ to teach, through role modelling or by providing information, as to the importance of boundaries and how reflective thinking can be useful. This provided them with a sense of why we were undertaking the consultation in this way which was new to them and very different to the culture they were used to working in. The basics we take for granted as consultants are not always understood by clients. Keeping tight boundaries can be experienced as controlling and reflective thinking, perhaps looking at lateness, can be perceived attacking unless it is understood that the search is for understandings not an attempt to undermine them. In setting up a ‘consultancy space’ we are often establishing a new working culture.

Supervision

I utilised supervision to help me contain these difficult feelings. My supervisor struggled with the despair I brought into the room after the first session and as we battled to shake off the hopelessness and tried to think about the work he said I needed to be more active ‘to animate the dead, to put life into this corpse’. He wondered if I could survive another eleven sessions. These graphic phrases summed up the bleak scenario I faced. At a later stage I was rebuked for working too hard, "I was not there to teach but to listen to my counter-transference and offer interpretations"

This was a turning point for me. The paradoxical advice ‘be more active-but don’t work so hard’ gave me the insight I was searching for. I disagreed with my supervisor. I trusted my experience, knowing that unless I worked hard, taught a bit, role modelled, and was actively creating a container then this consultation would fail. Emotions would be exposed without being worked through to the depressive position, the consultation would become too painful and finish prematurely. The insight I gained was that it was not an ‘either-or’ situation, ‘maternal containment’ or lose your process consultancy stance. It was a ‘both-and’ situation needing ‘paternal/reality’ and ‘maternal/containment’; an active element and a receptive element which together provided a more complete account of the containment necessary in organizational work.

Maternal-Stance: My First Interpretation

During the first two sessions whilst taking up a paternal stance I also offered them an appropriate amount of ‘maternal-containment’ as it was important for them to demonstrate the depth of their experience. It was equally important that I -and they- didn’t drown in it or turn in flight away from it. The first interpretation from the ‘maternal stance’ came as they projected into me their emotions. One team member said ‘what we need is a really strong leader’ another said ‘being in temporary accommodation felt like being homeless’ and she repeated quietly ‘they - management - listen but they don’t hear’. I experienced these statements as the regressed, childlike cries for good parenting from those fearing abandonment. I offered an interpretation linking these statements with the painful feelings of the children they worked with. This simple interpretation had a striking impact, silence followed by acknowledgement, as though for the first time they could make some sense of their despair.

Sabotage: The Paternal Stance, ‘Holding The Boundary’

During session three, the acting leader Mark, on behalf of the team and management attempted to sabotage the consultation. He announced at the beginning of the session that it would end fifteen minutes early, as the room was booked by somebody else and nearer the end of the consultation he told me that the management had booked a two day training event for all social workers the following week which they had to attend, therefore cancelling our consultation. After reflecting upon this I made a number of interventions drawn from a paternal stance. These were more active and challenging rather than reflective. I referred to their previous statements of needing ‘a cure’ and wondered if they were terminally ill or whether they could fight this illness? Could they use this resource they had requested or not? Could they take up their authority and tell the management that a contract had been agreed and that they valued themselves enough to fulfil it? They decided to get Mark to speak to the management. I said I would be there the following week as agreed in the contract. We worked until the usual time without finishing early. I had held onto the boundary and I left the meeting unsure whether this corpse had been brought to life, or more likely, that I had delivered the final death blow through my challenging interventions.

Followership to Leadership: Internalising the Paternal

In session four they arrived and announced that Mark had been off sick all week but in his absence they had telephoned the senior manager who then cancelled the other training. I immediately sensed a change in mood. They had in fact surprised themselves, by finding a space to play at taking up their authority, by taking a risk, they had actually achieved something.

"The significant moment (of play) is that at which the child surprises him or herself" (Winnicot 1971).

Having talked to senior management and been both listened to and taken seriously, felt like a very symbolic moment for them.

My only concern was that this happened in Mark’s absence, and I feared that he may either sabotage future progress or wondered whether a castration had taken place by the team (who had already managed to get rid of two managers), aided and abetted by me. I was very aware of the dangers of being put in the role of messiah or saviour, and that this team were certainly crying out for a phantasy leader. The supervision comment about ‘could I bring life to this corpse and animate the dead’ suddenly rang danger bells as I had associations with Christ’s resurrection and his miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead. Despite a personal valency towards leadership, I had no immediate ambitions to be crucified, which I knew would be the outcome if I was seduced into fulfilling their phantasy of a becoming a saviour. "The Messianic hope must never be fulfilled. Only by remaining a hope does hope persist" (Bion 1961:151).

Being aware of the dangers, I had to resist any seduction into offering solutions or comfort, and work at keeping Mark ‘on board’ with the hope that the team would allow him to take up his role as acting manager. Mark immediately responded to the team’s request for more frequent supervision from him as an invitation to lead. He took up his leadership role with skill and clear thinking. The difficulty in this team was for the followership role to be taken up; once this had been achieved the leadership role slotted into place. Mark soon gave up his union role, focusing wholly on his now legitimate role as acting team leader. Difference had been acknowledged, another developmental step had been taken by this team. Had I taken up the role of saviour into which I was being seduced, I would have been offering solutions and setting myself up as what Lacan referred to as ‘a pillar of faith’. I had no legislative powers in my role as consultant and could have been ousted at any time. I was taking up the ‘paternal metaphor’ not paternal authority and it was this that stimulated the change. This enabled Mark and the team to take up their legitimate authority in role, internalising the ‘paternal metaphor’ as a new model of empowering leadership which they had experienced.

During early consultations I alternated between the maternal and paternal, encouraging reflective thinking and carefully offering interpretations which could be heard but was always ready to identify the external and reality if they drifted too far into depression. Bringing in concepts such as the primary task and their individual or team’s role in the system would take them out of the despair enough to think about another aspect of their work. As the team drifted increasingly towards the depressive position I took up more of a ‘maternal containing’ role, being less active, listening receptively and offering interpretations from my counter-transference when appropriate. They were very engaged in this process and worked very hard both in and between sessions. The idealisation disappeared and they were able to acknowledge fears, weaknesses and vulnerabilities. They did some very powerful work on endings which was of great importance to them personally and which they could utilise in their work.

Oedipal Work: The Paternal as Mediator

"There is no question of the Oedipal complex if there is no father; conversely to speak of the Oedipal complex is to introduce the function of the father as essential" (Lacan 1957-8).

Towards the end of these consultations I again took up more of a ‘paternal stance’. This was to transform the thinking that had been achieved into action. I opened the metaphorical door to the external which the team, led by Mark stepped through. The results of this work were the production of a detailed and clear annual report making the case for new staff, stating clearly a newly defined team role with clear assessment procedure’s and separating emergency work and longer term therapeutic work. Tasks which in the past had been blurred and confused. It was crossing a boundary from the internal to the external, as were the new team leaflets they produced after two years deliberation; a significant move in saying to colleagues, professionals and clients external to their service; ‘we are here’ and ‘we have found our voice and we are confident in our task’.

Mark’s move away from the union role to take up his position as manager also signified a move from the narcissistic to the Oedipal. Through his union role he had access to senior management, and he would discuss this relationship in boastful ‘I have access to power’ and buddy fashion, as though they were his bed fellows. However, there was something illegitimate about the way he did this. It was like the pre-oedipal child filled with narcissistic omnipotence, pretending to be Daddy and in bed with Mum. He had remarked in earlier consultations about feeling like "a child in adults clothing waiting to be found out" when attending professional meetings. This went deeper than the conscious meaning of feeling belittled and not having adult confidence. His union liaison, whilst comforting temporarily, was non-sexual and no new life was born from it; it was a phantasy. His move to take up his legitimate role and then meet senior management in role, shifted this position for him. He (and the team) had crossed from the narcissistic to the oedipal. Conception then was achieved between the team and management. New ideas, new funding, new premises and new staff were the result.

Conclusion: Integrating and Internalising these Positions

The case study describes taking up the ‘maternal’ and ‘paternal metaphors’ in the role of consultant. This paradigm should also be thought of in terms of all leadership, managerial roles and in the context of organizational culture. Contemporary organisations in turbulent environments need ‘fluid structures’. They need sufficient containment to enable thinking to take place without rigid structures forming. As this paper suggests maternal function alone does not provide a full enough account of containment, neither can it provide the conditions for the Oedipal work to be achieved. We must link our work to the external, to reality, to the systemic and global. It is the parenting couple that provide the paradigm for this. A sexual couple, capable of creativity, passion/jouissance and of conceiving new life. Further work is needed to apply and refine this approach to organizations. The most difficult part will be to integrate both elements into ourselves, to internalise these, and then to use them appropriately in our different organizational roles.

Eric Miller (1997), in a paper reflecting back on fifty years of the publication ‘Human Relations’, describes the "Tavistock Clinic As Mother". Whilst attending a Masters Course on Organizational Consultancy I visited the Tavistock clinic once a week for two years. Towards the end of this time a statue appeared one day in the grounds, at the very front of the building. Each time I passed this statue, I was moved, something in my unconscious bubbled away. The statue was of Sigmund Freud, sat hand on chin, looking deep in thought and very paternal. He was looking out, away from the building, towards the outside world. I entered the Tavistock Clinic - the Mother- to learn, to experience, to process and to think, particularly about ‘maternal containment’. The ‘Father’, who had returned after an absence, mediated my journey between the Mother -my learning- and the outside world. My unconscious became conscious and new life is born.

Bibliography

Alvarez A. (1992) Live Company Tavistock/Routledge

Amado G. (1995) Why Psychoanalytical Knowledge Helps Us Understand Organisations; A Discussion with Elliot Jaques Human Relations Vol 48, No. 4

Benvenuto B. and Kennedy. R (1986) The works of Jaques Lacan: An Introduction FAB

Bion W. (1961) Experiences in Groups, New York Basic Books

Bion W. (1962) A Theory of Thinking in Second thoughts Jason Aronson

Bollas C. (1987) The Shadow of the Object: Psychoanalysis of the Unthought Known. FAB London

Clement C. (1983) The lives and legends of Jaques Lacan (Tr) Arthur Goldhammer New York Columbia Uni. Press.

Grunberger (1989) New Essays on Narcissism London, Free Association Books

Halton W. (1996) Anxiety and the Individual Unpublished paper, D10 Course Tavistock Institute.

Hirschhorne L. (1990) The Workplace Within, MIT press

Hirschhorne L (1997) Reworking Authority The MIT press

Hoggett P. (1992) Partisans in an Uncertain World: The Psychoanalysis of Engagement. FAB London

Hutton D. (1998) A Psychoanalytic Approach to Religion. Unpublished paper.

Jaques E. (1955) Social systems as a defence against persecutory and depressive anxiety, in Group Relations Reader 1, (1975) Colman A. D, Bexton W. H A.K Rice Institute Washington.

Jaques E. 1989) Requisite organisation, Arlington VA Casson Hall Pub.

Klein M. (1959) ‘Our adult world and its roots in infancy’, in A. D. Colman and M.H. Geller, Eds Group Relation Reader 2, A K Rice Series Washington 1985

Lacan J. (1957-8) Les Formations de l’inconsistent. Unpublished, cited in Dor J.(1997) Introduction to the Reading of Lacan London and New York Jason Aronson

Lacan J. (1958) Seminar Jauary 15 1958. cited in Dor J.(1997) Introduction to the Reading of Lacan London and New York Jason Aronson

Lacan J. (1966) Du traitment possible de la psychoses Ecrits Paris: Seuil 1966.

Menzies I . (1960) ‘A case study in the functioning of Social systems as a defence against anxiety’ ’ in Group Relations Reader 1, (1975) Colman A. D., Bexton W. H., A. K. Rice Institute Washington

Miller E. (1997) Editorial: On Reaching the Age of Fifty Human relations Vol 50 No. 1

Moylan D. Jureidini J. (1994) Pain tolerable and intolerable. In the Imaginative Body Psychodynamic Therapy in Healthcare Ed. Erskin and Judd Pub. Whurr.

Obholzer A. (1994) in Obholzer A. and Roberts V.Z. Eds. (1994) The Unconscious at Work Routledge

Steiner J. (1985) Turning A Blind Eye: The Cover Up For Oedipus

Int. J. Psychoanalysis 12 : 161-171

Winnicot D W. (1964) The Child, the Family and the Outside World

Harmondsworth: Penguin Books

Winnicot D W. (1971) Playing and Reality, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books