|
Article Excerpt
In this paper I demonstrate how the psychodynamic perspective contributes to the study of organizing processes. Research from this perspective provides insight in how people deal with the emergent nature of a collaborative where conventional processes and structures are no longer available. First, I address the specific nature and challenges of multiparty collaboration. Then I describe the characteristics of a psychodynamic approach in organizational research and the kind of theory it generates. I present a case study in the domain of foster care, where five independent organizations tried to develop a scenario for future collaboration. In the case analysis I focus on how participants and consultants set the direction of the collaborative. I discuss some critical issues with which the participants were confronted and make sense of the dynamics that emerged. To conclude, I emphasize the benefits of using a psychodynamic perspective in the study of emergent organizing processes.
Collaborative work and the challenges of direction setting
Organizations and social groups are increasingly challenged to collaborate. Multiparty collaboration is an organizational strategy to develop sustainable solutions for societal and environmental meta-problems (e.g. poverty, pollution) that require multidisciplinary and multi-organizational involvement (Gray, 1989; Huxham, 1996; Huxham & Vangen, 2005). Gray (1989, p. 5) defines multiparty collaboration as 'a process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can constructively explore their differences and search for solutions that go beyond their own limited vision of what is possible'. Organizations, social groups and unorganized parties work across boundaries to develop sustainable solutions for a problem domain. Gray distinguishes five characteristics of multiparty collaboration:
(1) The stakeholders of the domain are interdependent.
(2) Solutions emerge by dealing constructively with differences.
(3) Joint ownership of decisions is involved.
(4) Stakeholders assume collective responsibility for the future direction of the domain.
(5) Collaboration is an emergent process.
The assumption in this paper is that all five features of multiparty collaboration represent a challenge and a source of anxiety for those involved.
A particular challenge of collaborative work is how to define leadership in an organizational context where hierarchy is not a valid organizing principle. Often, there is no formal leader, authority relations are ambiguous, and the consensual nature of collaborative work inhibits the emergence of overt leadership (Huxham & Vangen, 2000). Clarity of structures, lines of accountability and clear role boundaries are reduced or dismantled (Huffington, James, & Armstrong, 2004). This study focuses on the dynamics of direction setting, inspired by Feyerherm's (1997, p. 1) definition of leaders as persons 'who influence the course of events, the ways issues get framed and resolved, and the people who influence the outcomes of the gathering'. Emergent forms of organizing require a shift from hierarchically embedded authority to a more personal and laterally distributed exercise of leadership. The challenge is to mobilize new processes and structures to contain the tensions inherent in collaborative work (Hirschhorn, 1997; Huffington, Armstrong, Halton, Hoyle, & Pooley, 2004). The multiparty literature stresses the need for a dynamic, process-oriented theory of inter-organizational relations and for research on the quality of collaborative relationships, the emotional challenges posed by interdependent work, and defensive dynamics in emergent processes (Czander, 1993; Gould, Ebers, & Clinchy, 1999; Gray, 1989; Page, 2003). In the next section I discuss the assumptions and framework that underpin research from a psychodynamic perspective.
The psychodynamic perspective in organizational research
Assumptions about collaborative work
The theoretical framework underpinning this research is based on the pioneering work of the Tavistock Institute. This group of scholars engaged in action research and promoted an integration of insights from social sciences and psychoanalysis in the postwar period Wrist & Murray, 1990). In recent years a contemporary paradigm has been developed to address the challenges of new forms of organizing (e.g. Gould, Stapley, & Stein, 2001; Huffington et al., 2004). The main assumptions of this paradigm can be summarized as follows:
* Behaviour is often the result of conscious and unconscious mental processes. In the study of organizing processes, conscious and unconscious aspects have to be taken into account.
* People create a subjective, emotional reality of the organization. Attribution of meaning, through social interaction, mediates between organizational reality and the human experience.
* Individual and group behaviour and the structural features of organizational life are in dynamic interaction: the organizational structures stimulate particular patterns of individual and group processes, and these processes, in turn, influence how particular features of the organization are developed.
* Most human beings are inclined to avoid anxiety, uncertainty and threats to their self-esteem. Therefore they try to achieve control, predictability and ways to enhance their self-esteem. 'Social defences' emerge when a group unconsciously colludes to ward off the anxiety and tensions of the workplace, often at the cost of task performance.
* There is an underlying assumption of a 'healthy' organization, characterized by wisdom, humanity and the ability to help itself to overcome defences (Amado & Ambrose, 2001; Diamond & Allcorn, 2003; Driver, 2003; Neumann & Hirschhorn, 1999; Vansina, 2000).
The motive to start a collaborative can be conscious or rational, but the process is also influenced by hidden, emotional and unconscious motives. In an inter-organizational context, groups come to share collective, unconscious assumptions about other relevant groups. 'These assumptions are manifested in both conscious and unconscious processes, including projections, attributions, and stereotyping which shape the ensuing quality and character of their intergroup relationships' (Gould et al., 1999, p. 700). Participants in a collaborative are confronted with different sources of anxiety: the context, the nature of the process and the relationships with other stakeholders, which I will briefly discuss.
First, a collaborative is usually embedded in a turbulent and complex context. Players in the context (e.g. constituent organizations, sponsors) influence the direction of the process, although they are not sitting at the table. Policy makers, for instance, can take decisions that profoundly affect a collaborative (e.g. stop funding, change the law). Issues of power, politics, access to resources and economic and technological concerns influence the dynamics in the collaborative. Second, a collaborative is an under-organized open system with few containing structures. It is difficult to establish the primary task, procedures, roles and membership in advance. Participants negotiate psychological boundaries that are experienced and enacted in the interactions. These relate, for instance, to authority (who is in charge of what?) and identity (who is--and who is not--'us') (Hirschhorn & Gilmore, 1992). The emergent nature of collaborative work stirs up anxiety and mobilizes exactly the kind of defensive responses that hinder effective collaboration (Krantz, 1990, 1998). When negative feelings and tensions are not contained, defensive dynamics, such as premature formalizing of the process, are likely to occur. Finally, stakeholders with different and sometimes conflicting interests are challenged to establish inter-dependent relationships. This requirement may provoke defensive responses. There is usually little time for direct interaction and not much psychic energy available to foster interdependent relationships (Cooper & Dartington, 2004). The essence of collaborative work is to make use of the diversity in the system, but it is precisely such a confrontation with differences that increases the potential for conflict. Stakeholders are faced with challenges to their identity (e.g. fear to be overpowered) and to their autonomy. Representatives need to deal with the paradox of entertaining a relationship based on equality with partners who differ in power, size, access to resources, social status, etc. Participants need new skills, such as lateral influencing, based on personal authority, the competences to build collaborative relationships, the ability to acknowledge and manage the uncertainties and ambiguities of roles, the capacity to share responsibility for direction setting and to work creatively with sameness and difference (Hirschhorn, 1997; Huffington et al., 2004; Page, 2003).
Understanding dynamics
The system psychodynamic perspective was the organizing principle of my research. This approach to organizational study simultaneously maintains the systems view and the life-world view (Anderson & White, 2000). The world is not completely subjective or completely objective (Heller, 2004). This frame explores the way in which subjective experiences and fantasies about organizational life influence feelings, thoughts and actions in the workplace (Menzies, 1960; Miller, 1997). The aim of my research was to understand ('Verstehen') phenomena in their complexity, wholeness and uniqueness, rather than explaining or predicting them (Edelson, 1988; Lapierre, 1991). My intention was to construct a rich and contextualized understanding and to develop a 'thick description' of meaning grounded in empirical data (Geertz, 1973).
I studied a collaborative as an emergent process of organizing because social reality is a dynamic process (ontological position). Pettigrew (1997, p. 338) defines process as 'a sequence of individual and collective events, actions and activities unfolding over time in context'. The method for studying the change process was based on process narratives (epistemological position). This strategy involves the construction of a detailed story from raw data collected in real time and in retrospect. It reproduces the ambiguity that exists in the situation observed (Langley, 1999). The research design was set up to capture the variety of perspectives and the complexity of the subject. To study the effects of subjectivity on the process of organizing, I collected the accounts of multiple actors over time. Making sense of life experiences requires a longitudinal perspective (Dawson, 1997; Heller, 2004). I also focused on how the participants collectively made sense of the collaborative experience. I explored how unconscious meanings, conflicts, fears and beliefs were projected onto others and how people collectively managed these dynamics (Krantz, 1990). To avoid the risk of psychological reductionism, I included the history, context and system features of the collaborative (Neumann & Hirschhorn, 1999; Pettigrew, 1997; Schonberg, 1998). I constructed a narrative account of a process of organizing 'by narrating emergent actions and activities by which collective endeavours unfold' (Van de Ven & Poole, 2005). The in-depth case...
|
