Systems and Meaning: Consulting in Organizations

SYSTEMS AND MEANING
Consulting in Organizations
B y Gitte Haslebo and Kit Sanne Nielsen

T r a n s l a t e d b y Dorte Herholdt Silver
Systemic Thinking
and Practice Series
Work with Organizations
Series Editors
David Campbell and Ros Draper
KARNAC BOOKS
SYSTEMS A N D M E A N I N G
Other titles in the
Systemic Thinking and Practice Series
edited by David Campbell & Ros Draper
published and distributed by Karnac Books
Bentovim, A . Trauma-Organized Systems. Systemic Understanding of Family
Violence: Physical and Sexual Abuse
Boscolo, L., & Bertrando, P. Systemic Therapy with Individuals
Burck, C. & Daniel, G . Gender and Family Therapy
Campbell, D., Draper, R., & Huffington, C. Second Thoughts on the Theory
and Practice of the Milan Approach to Family Therapy
Campbell, D., Draper, R., & Huffington, C. Teaching Systemic Thinking
Cecchin, G., Lane, G., & Ray, W. A . The Cybernetics of Prejudices in the
Practice of Psychotherapy
Cecchin, G., Lane, G., & Ray, W. A . Irreverence: A Strategy for Therapists'
Survival
Dallos, R. Interacting Stories: Narratives, Family Beliefs, and Therapy
Draper, R., Gower, M . , & Huffington, C. Teaching Family Therapy
Farmer, C. Psychodrama and Systemic Therapy
Flaskas, C , & Perlesz, A . (Eds.) The Therapeutic Relationship in Systemic
Therapy
Fredman, G . Death Talk: Conversations with Children and Families
Hildebrand, J. Bridging the Gap: A Training Module in Personal and
Professional Development
Hoffman, L. Exchanging Voices: A Collaborative Approach to Family Therapy
Jones, E. Working with Adult Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse
Jones, E., & Asen, E. Systemic Couple Therapy and Depression
Robinson, M . Divorce as Family Transition: When Private Sorrow Becomes a
Public Matter
Smith, G . Systemic Approaches to Training in Child Protection
Wilson, J. Child-Focused Practice: A Collaborative Systemic Approach
Campbell, D . Learning Consultation: A Systemic Framework
Campbell, D. The Socially Constructed Organization
Campbell, D Coldicott, T., & Kinsella, K. Systemic Work with
v
Organizations: A New Model for Managers and Change Agents

Campbell, D., Draper, R., & Huffington, C. A Systemic Approach to
Consultation
Cooklin, A . Changing Organizations: Clinicians as Agents of Change
Huffington, C , &: Brunning, H . (Eds.) Internal Consultancy in the Public
Sector: Case Studies
McCaughan, N . , & Palmer, B. Systems Thinking for Harassed Managers
Credit Card orders, Tel: 020-7584-3303; Fax: 020-7823-7743;
Email: books@karnacbooks.com
Citte Haslebo & Kit Sanne Nielsen
edited by
Gitte Haslebo
translated by
Dorte Herholdt Silver
Systemic Thinking and Practice Series

Series Editors
David Campbell & Ros Draper
London & N e w York
KARNAC BOOKS
First published in 2000 by
H. Karnac (Books) Ltd, 118 Finchley Road, London NW3 5HT
A subsidiary of Other Press LLC, New York
Copyright © 2000 Gitte Haslebo and Kit Sanne Nielsen
The rights of Gitte Haslebo and Kit Sanne Nielsen to be identified as the
authors of this work have been asserted in accordance with §§ 77 and 78 of
the Copyright Design and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the publisher.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A C L P . for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 978 1 85575 235 1
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Edited, designed, and produced by Communication Crafts
Printed in Great Britain by Polestar AUP Aberdeen Limited
www.karnacbooks.com
CONTENTS
ABOUT THE AUTHORS ix
EDITORS' FOREWORD xi
PREFACE Xiii
1 O r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n s u l t a t i o n i n a systemic perspective
Gitte Haslebo 1
W h e n consultation is considered 3
2 Organizational consultation and learning

Gitte Haslebo 17
Learning i n organizations 17
Stages i n the collective learning process 22
Consultation as the staging of collective
learning processes 29
Methodological considerations and the collective
learning process 35
v
Vi CONTENTS
3 "Assess o u r manager a n d expose his shortcomings ': 7
a consultation i n a private company

Kit Sanne Nielsen 39
Case study 40
A systemic model of learning 61
The consultant's final reflections 64
Putting systemic concepts into practice 65
4 "Free us f r o m the past!":

a consultation i n a m u n i c i p a l i t y
Gitte Haslebo 73
Case study 74
Turning systemic ideas into practice 94
5 K e y concepts i n systemic t h i n k i n g
Gitte Haslebo & Kit Sanne Nielsen 101
5.1 First- and second-order cybernetics 101
5.2 The linear and the circular line of thinking 104
5.3 F r o m neutrality to irreverence 110
5.4 The professional domains 115
5.5 Hypothesizing 123
5.6 Interventions 128
6 The consultant's cognitive processes i n practice:

W h e n t w o consultants w o r k together
Kit Sanne Nielsen 139
H o w I learned to be an organizational consultant 139
Cooperating w i t h other consultants:
Similarities and discrepancies 141
Cooperating w i t h internal consultants 145
The consultant's o w n learning:
the qualitative leap 151
CONTENTS Vii
7 The consultant's cognitive processes i n practice:

receiving supervision
Gitte Haslebo 157
H o w I learned to be an organizational consultant 157

Supervision 161
Receiving supervision and the individual
learning spiral 169
8 Epilogue
Gitte Haslebo & Kit Sanne Nielsen 171
Consultation w o r k requires personal development 171
Consultation work is a learning process i n itself 173
The end of the information society? 173
Future leaders have to be experts at learning processes 175
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY 177
INDEX 183
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
GITTE H A S L E B O w a s b o r n i n 1943, educated as a p s y c h o l o g i s t in

1970, a n d licensed b y the B o a r d of P s y c h o l o g y . She also has a
M a s t e r s Degree f r o m the U n i t e d States a n d i n further e d u c a t i o n in
process c o n s u l t a t i o n a n d systemic consultation, a n d a license in
the M y e r s - B r i g g s T y p e Indicator.
G i t t e has 15 years' experience i n leader e d u c a t i o n , o r g a n i z a
t i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t , a n d employee" d e v e l o p m e n t t r a i n i n g , a n d 5
years' m a n a g e r i a l experience as manager of e d u c a t i o n at the D a n
i s h S c h o o l of P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n a n d as p e r s o n n e l director at
Kommunedata.
I n 1991 G i t t e f o u n d e d her o w n c o n s u l t i n g c o m p a n y i n w h i c h
she has w o r k e d extensively as a consultant i n b o t h p u b l i c o r g a n i
zations a n d p r i v a t e c o m p a n i e s . The tasks h a v e concerned o r g a n i
z a t i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t , team b u i l d i n g , leadership d e v e l o p m e n t ,
consultant t r a i n i n g , i n d i v i d u a l leader s u p e r v i s i o n , a n d career
counselling.
K I T S A N N E N I E L S E N w a s b o r n i n 1953, educated as a p s y c h o l o
gist i n 1981, licensed b y the B o a r d of P s y c h o l o g y , a n d later author
ix
X A B O U T THE A U T H O R S
i z e d to practice c l i n i c a l p s y c h o l o g y . Since 1985 K i t has w o r k e d

i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l , leadership, a n d e m p l o y e e d e v e l o p m e n t , a n d i n
1988 she established her o w n c o n s u l t i n g c o m p a n y . H e r c o n t i n u i n g
studies i n c l u d e one year of H D - o r g a n i z a t i o n , T h e T a v i s t o c k
Centre's conferences (Leicester conferences), a n d systeihic super
v i s i o n a n d t r a i n i n g at the K e n s i n g t o n C o n s u l t a t i o n Centre since
1991. She is also licensed i n the M y e r s - B r i g g s T y p e Indicator a n d
the C a l i f o r n i a P s y c h o l o g i c a l Inventory.
K i t has w o r k e d as a process consultant for b o t h p u b l i c o r g a n i
zations a n d p r i v a t e companies, a n d has d e v e l o p e d a n d c o n d u c t e d
leadership d e v e l o p m e n t trairiing p r o g r a m s . A s a consultant she
has been i n v o l v e d w i t h leader d e v e l o p m e n t , team b u i l d i n g ,
p r o b l e m s o l v i n g , a n d the process of change w i t h i n g r o u p s ,
departments, a n d organizations as w e l l as i n d i v i d u a l leader
counselling.
EDITORS' FOREWORD
A
s the series editors, w e have m a i n t a i n e d a p o l i c y , w i t h a
f e w exceptions, of p u b l i s h i n g first editions, so the series
as a w h o l e retains its r e p u t a t i o n as a place w h e r e the
reader c a n v i s i t a n d be guaranteed fresh ideas a n d i n n o v a t i v e
practice, presented w i t h c o n v i c t i o n . T h i s b o o k b y H a s l e b o a n d
Nielsen was originally written i n Danish and published i n Den
m a r k , w h e r e it has h a d f o u r p r i n t i n g s . W e felt that these authors
b r i n g a n e w perspective to systemic w o r k w i t h organizations, a n d
since there is far too little w r i t i n g to m a t c h the a m o u n t of w o r k
b e i n g done i n this area, w e d e c i d e d that this w a s a n i m p o r t a n t
b o o k to a d d to o u r series. A s a result, w e w o r k e d alongside the
authors i n recasting their o r i g i n a l v o l u m e to h e l p it fit i n t o the
f o r m a t of o u r series a n d to m a k e it easily accessible to E n g l i s h
s p e a k i n g readers.
Readers w i l l i m m e d i a t e l y feel f a m i l i a r w i t h the values a n d
the c o n c e p t u a l f r a m e w o r k that u n d e r p i n H a s l e b o ' s a n d N i e l s e n ' s
w o r k . T h e y see o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p r o b l e m s o c c u r r i n g i n a p a r t i c u l a r
context, they clearly trace the w a y p r o b l e m s arise out of relations
amongst the different parts of the larger system, a n d they p u r s u e
xi
Xii EDITORS' FOREWORD
the meanings that these problems have for i n d i v i d u a l s a n d or

ganizations alike. Yet they also introduce n e w conceptual m o d e l s ,
s u c h as K o l b ' s n o t i o n of experiential learning.
But these authors are, above a l l , practitioners. T h e y earn their
l i v i n g t h r o u g h their w o r k w i t h organizations, a n d it is this
precious first-hand experience that m u s t s o m e h o w be u n d e r s t o o d
a n d articulated so that other practitioners c a n take the ideas
into their o w n settings. The case studies are presented i n some
d e p t h a n d are u s e d to illustrate the w a y systemic concepts are
translated into consultation w o r k . The readers s h o u l d also f i n d
that b y c o n s i d e r i n g that this w o r k takes place i n a different c u l
t u r e — i n D e n m a r k — t h e r e is a potential for c o m p a r i s o n across
cultures a n d institutions that adds a n extra d i m e n s i o n to their o w n
l e a r n i n g . A l t h o u g h this b o o k is clearly w r i t t e n a n d accessible for
practitioners starting out to w o r k w i t h organizations, it is the
d e p t h of experience of the authors that comes t h r o u g h o n e v e r y
page.
David Campbell
Ros Draper
London
June 2000
PREFACE
W
o r k as a n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l consultant c a n be c h a l l e n g
i n g , u n p r e d i c t a b l e , stressful—and most g r a t i f y i n g . The
stressful experiences i n c l u d e situations w h e r e w e feel
stuck a n d d o not k n o w i n w h i c h d i r e c t i o n to proceed. The g r a t i
f y i n g experiences i n c l u d e situations w h e r e o u r clients d i s c o v e r a
larger pattern of u n d e r s t a n d i n g w h i c h makes n e w solutions a n d
actions possible, as w e l l as situations w h e r e w e as consultants
succeed i n creating for our clients better opportunities for d i a
l o g u e a n d the exchange of ideas about a n d w i s h e s for the future.
O u r b a c k g r o u n d is that of m a n y years of experience as p s y c h o l o
gists a n d external consultants to private a n d p u b l i c organizations.
F o r the past ten years w e h a v e been greatly i n s p i r e d b y systemic
t h i n k i n g , w h i c h has h e l p e d us to l o o k at our w o r k w i t h n e w eyes
a n d to ask ourselves deeper a n d m o r e h u m b l e questions: H o w d o
w e k n o w w h a t w e t h i n k w e k n o w ? H o w d o w e m a n a g e to de
v e l o p alternative hypotheses a n d d i s c a r d those that d o not w o r k ?
H o w d o w e d e v e l o p themes w i t h w h i c h o u r client-system c a n
connect? H o w d o w e create methods that encourage the p a r t i c i
xiii
Xiv PREFACE
pants to get i n v o l v e d a n d m a k e their resources a n d competencies

v i s i b l e to each other?
I n this b o o k , w e w a n t to share o u r thoughts a n d experiences
about f u n d a m e n t a l questions like these w i t h the reader. A l o n g
this l i n e of t h i n k i n g , w e h a v e the f o l l o w i n g intentions for the
book.
First, w e have sought to l i n k theory w i t h practice. W e therefore
d r a w f r o m o u r o w n experiences i n actual consultations. W e are
especially fascinated w i t h the transition a n d l i n k a g e b e t w e e n
thoughts a n d actions a n d b e t w e e n hypotheses a n d interventions,
a n d this focus is one of the m a i n axes of this b o o k . W e w i s h to
a v o i d treating theory a n d practice separately. Instead, w e t r y to
capture the m a n y subtle steps i n the m i n d of the consultant f r o m
thought to action a n d f r o m action to thought. T h i s leads u s to the
next p o i n t .
The second axis for this b o o k is the consultant's o w n t h i n k i n g
processes. W e describe w h a t w e d o as consultants as w e l l as the
process that l e d u s to the choices that w e m a d e . W h a t d o w e m a k e
of the events that take place i n the interaction b e t w e e n the client
s y s t e m a n d us as consultants? T h r o u g h w h a t filters d o w e v i e w
the events? H o w d o w e use the events as feedback a n d as a basis
for d e v e l o p i n g n e w insights? H o w d o w e perceive the o r g a n i z a
t i o n a l p r o b l e m s w h e n w e , as consultants, attempt to predict future
events? H o w c a n w e listen " b e t w e e n the lines"? W h a t c a n w e as
consultants l e a r n f r o m the events?
I n order to elucidate these questions, w e describe the events i n
the interaction w i t h the client-system i n t w o consultations as w e
p e r c e i v e d t h e m , as w e l l as the thoughts w e h a d a l o n g the w a y .
These thoughts are i n v i s i b l e to the client-system, b u t they are one
of o u r tools. W e are interested i n d i s c o v e r i n g a n d d e f i n i n g w h a t
can m o v e the t h i n k i n g processes a l o n g , a n d w h a t it takes to get
out of situations w h e r e w e feel that w e have r u n out of ideas.
The t h i r d axis is the systemic perspective. O u r paths t o w a r d s
w o r k i n g w i t h p s y c h o l o g i c a l consultation i n organizations have
b e e n different. O u r c o m m o n p l a t f o r m t o d a y is systemic thinking.
W e see the systemic a p p r o a c h as b e i n g excellently s u i t e d to b r i n g
i n g experiences a n d other p s y c h o l o g i c a l theories i n t o p l a y .
I n a d d i t i o n , o u r conceptual baggage includes other theoretical
frames of reference, s u c h as the h u m a n resources s c h o o l , gen
PREFACE XV
eral c o m m u n i c a t i o n theory, organizational d e v e l o p m e n t , o r g a n i

z a t i o n a l culture, the l e a r n i n g organization, g r o u p d y n a m i c s , p r o
cess consultation, p s y c h o d y n a m i c t h i n k i n g , psychoanalysis, a n d
the p s y c h o l o g i c a l w o r k i n g environment. W e consider this back
g r o u n d i m p o r t a n t to o u r w o r k as o r g a n i z a t i o n a l consultants. But
systemic t h i n k i n g is w h a t forms the o v e r a l l f r a m e w o r k a n d helps
us to determine w h i c h perspective is the most p r o m i s i n g i n a g i v e n
situation.
W e d o not i n t e n d to p r o v i d e an i n d e p e n d e n t presentation of
systemic t h i n k i n g — a n d certainly not a presentation of the v a r i o u s
h i s t o r i c a l stages a n d schools i n systemic t h i n k i n g . Instead, w e de
scribe, i n a v e r y selective w a y , h o w w e have a p p l i e d systemic
concepts i n consultations.
T h e structure of the b o o k is the f o l l o w i n g :
C h a p t e r 1 — " O r g a n i z a t i o n a l C o n s u l t a t i o n i n a Systemic Per
spective '—describes w h a t is special about systemic consultation.
7
Gitte H a s l e b o discusses h o w systemic t h i n k i n g m a y p r o v i d e i n s p i

r a t i o n for h a n d l i n g f o u r k e y issues i n organizational consultation:
h o w to t h i n k about p r o b l e m s , h o w to define the system, h o w to
u n d e r s t a n d change, a n d h o w to define the subject area.
I n chapter 2 — " O r g a n i z a t i o n a l C o n s u l t a t i o n a n d L e a r n i n g " —
Gitte H a s l e b o p r o v i d e s a v i e w o n i n d i v i d u a l a n d collective l e a r n
i n g i n organizations a n d then goes o n to present her ideas o n
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l consultation seen as the staging of collective learn
i n g processes.
This is f o l l o w e d b y t w o case descriptions. B o t h describe t w o
p a r a l l e l tracks: o n the one h a n d , the events a n d the consultant's
experiences; o n the other, the consultant's personal reflections,
w h i c h serve as w o r k i n g hypotheses for the consultant.
I n chapter 3 — " A s s e s s O u r M a n a g e r a n d Expose H i s S h o r t c o m
ings: A C o n s u l t a t i o n i n a Private C o m p a n y " — K i t Sanne N i e l s e n
relates a consultation assignment that lasted seven m o n t h s .
T h e o v e r a l l theme is "management a n d c o o p e r a t i o n " . The case
s t u d y describes the difficulties that the manager a n d staff w e r e
e x p e r i e n c i n g a n d h o w the consultant, t h r o u g h v a r i o u s forms of
i n t e r v e n t i o n , w a s able to help the system to f i n d n e w a n d m o r e
constructive approaches to management a n d cooperation. The
consultant's o w n reflections d u r i n g a n d after the process are p r e
sented as stages i n a collective l e a r n i n g process. A t the e n d of the
XVi PREFACE
chapter, the w a y systemic ideas were used to g u i d e the w o r k is

illustrated.
I n chapter 4 — " T r e e U s f r o m the Past!': A C o n s u l t a t i o n i n a
M u n i c i p a l i t y " — G i t t e H a s l e b o describes a c o n s u l t a t i o n assignment
that took place i n a m u n i c i p a l department of social affairs a n d
health. The client h a d requested h e l p i n c o p i n g w i t h a past that
w a s e m o t i o n a l l y v e r y b u r d e n s o m e c o n c e r n i n g a manager w h o
w a s n o longer w i t h the department. The case s h o w s h o w a shift i n
focus f r o m persons to o r g a n i z a t i o n a l perspectives h e l p e d alter the
u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the p r o b l e m a n d h o w c o m m u n i c a t i o n b e t w e e n
different levels of the hierarchy w a s re-established. The chapter
c o n c l u d e w i t h a n account of the w a y that a n u m b e r of systemic
concepts w e r e p u t into practice d u r i n g the consultation.
I n chapter 5 — " K e y Concepts i n Systemic T h i n k i n g " — b o t h a u
thors discuss a n u m b e r of k e y concepts: the linear a n d the circular
f o r m of u n d e r s t a n d i n g , f r o m neutrality to irreverence, the profes
s i o n a l d o m a i n s , the f o r m a t i o n of hypotheses, a n d i n t e r v e n t i o n .
I n chapter 6 — " T h e C o n s u l t a n t ' s C o g n i t i v e Processes i n Prac
tice: W h e n T w o Consultants W o r k T o g e t h e r " — K i t Sanne N i e l s e n
describes the challenges a n d opportunities inherent i n w o r k i n g
together w i t h another consultant as part of a team or w o r k i n g to
gether w i t h a n internal consultant i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n that c o n
tains the client-system.
In chapter 7—"The C o n s u l t a n t ' s C o g n i t i v e Processes i n Prac
tice: R e c e i v i n g S u p e r v i s i o n " — G i t t e H a s l e b o discusses situations
a n d d i l e m m a s w h e r e the consultant m a y benefit especially f r o m
supervision.
The style varies t h r o u g h o u t the book; i n the case studies w e
attempt to relate some interesting accounts f r o m real life a n d c o n
nect t h e m w i t h systemic ideas, whereas the theoretical sections
p r o v i d e a m o r e general i n t r o d u c t i o n to some of the k e y concepts
of systemic t h i n k i n g . The chapters d o not n e e d to be read i n the
o r d e r that they appear. Some readers m a y prefer to r e a d the case
studies first, before p r o c e e d i n g to the general chapters, w h i l e
others m a y prefer to read chapters 1, 2, a n d 5 before c o n t i n u i n g
w i t h the case studies i n chapters 3 a n d 4.
O u r paths t o w a r d s the systemic* a p p r o a c h a n d , thus, o u r expe
rience, t h i n k i n g , a n d approaches are different. W e have described
o u r p e r s o n a l careers as o r g a n i z a t i o n a l consultants i n chapters 6
PREFACE Xvii
a n d 7. These t w o chapters, w h i c h also discuss v a r i o u s contexts for

the consultant to w o r k w i t h her or his o w n l e a r n i n g processes,
m a y a p p e a l m o s t l y to those consultants, managers, a n d students
w h o are l o o k i n g for i n s p i r a t i o n for their o w n personal a n d profes
s i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t process.
W e hope that b y s h a r i n g o u r experiences w i t h t u r n i n g sys
temic concepts i n t o practice w e m a y inspire other consultants,
managers, a n d employees to j o i n i n the c o m m o n project that is
about t u r n i n g tacit k n o w l e d g e into w o r d s a n d reasoning.
F o r a consultant, it is g o o d to have a comprehensive toolkit.
It is characteristic, h o w e v e r , of the consultant w h o w o r k s f r o m a
systemic perspective that the m e t h o d has to materialize d u r i n g
the process i n a n interaction w i t h the client-system, a n d that
hypotheses a n d interventions have to be created o n the spot. It is
this creative process that w e have attempted to capture.
Gitte Haslebo & Kit Sanne Nielsen

CHAPTER ONE
Organizational consultation
in a systemic perspective
Gitte Haslebo
Systemic thinking is a new source of inspiration for the organi

zational consultant In recent years, there has been a growing
interest in Denmark in finding more holistic approaches to
family therapy, counselling, supervision and organizational
consultation.
Systemic thinking was first employed in individual and fam
ily therapy, and exciting methodological developments took
place in several countries in the 1970s. The next obvious step
was to use the approach in the supervision of those profession
als who work with individual and family therapy.
One might expect it to be a small step to go from the
supervision of professionals to consultation in organizations,
but it has turned out to be a large and difficult one. Whereas
the initial expectation was that concepts and methods from the
field of therapy could be transferred directly to organizational
consultation, it is now widely acknowledged that consultancy
in larger systems necessitates additional considerations.
1
2 SYSTEMS A N D MEANING
T
he o r g a n i z a t i o n a l consultant has a pressing n e e d for c o n
cepts that c a n be u s e d to grasp the c o m p l e x i t y of the larger
system. Regardless of the issues at h a n d i n the current c o n
sultation, the consultant needs to ask herself the f o l l o w i n g ques
tions:
• H o w can I m a k e m y s e l f u s e f u l to the entire organization?

• H o w c a n I grasp a l l those factors inside a n d outside the o r g a n i
z a t i o n that have a n i m p a c t o n m y h a n d l i n g of the assignment?
• H o w c a n I navigate the tension f i e l d between m a n y different
g r o u p s of stakeholders, a l l w i t h their o w n points of v i e w a n d
w i s h e s for the future?
• H o w c a n I m a i n t a i n m y curiosity a n d openness to the d e v e l
o p m e n t potential at the same time as I a m lectured about the
organization's history, traditions, m e n t a l m o d e l s , p o w e r s t r u g
gles, a n d managers' a n d employees' perceptions of each other as
enemies?
T h i s b o o k discusses h o w the organizational consultant c a n e m

p l o y systemic t h i n k i n g i n practice to meet s u c h challenges.
I n the f o l l o w i n g , I w i l l talk s i m p l y about systemic c o n s u l t a t i o n
instead of the m o r e cumbersome t e r m " o r g a n i z a t i o n a l consulta
t i o n i n a systemic perspective".
H o w c a n systemic consultation be defined? It is not a w e l l
d e f i n e d f o r m of consultation, but rather a loose assembly of ideas,
concepts, a n d methods. O n e u s e f u l d e f i n i t i o n , h o w e v e r , c a n be
offered:
A consultant helps a client solve a problem through m u t u a l

exploration and understanding of the meaning w h i c h the i n
ability to solve the problem has for the larger organization.
The meaning shows i n the w a y relationships are organized
around the problem. [Campbell, Draper, & Huffington, 1991a]
T h i s d e f i n i t i o n includes some of the concepts a n d u n d e r s t a n d

ings that characterize systemic t h i n k i n g i n particular. I a m n o w
A SYSTEMIC PERSPECTIVE 3
g o i n g to paraphrase s l i g h t l y the points that are m a d e i n the quote.

O n e interesting i d e a is that w h a t constitutes "the p r o b l e m " is n o t
the p r o b l e m itself but the meaning that it represents to the o r g a n i
z a t i o n . A n o t h e r interesting p o i n t is that p r o b l e m s a l w a y s h a v e
to d o w i t h — o r affect—the h u m a n relations i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n . A
t h i r d p o i n t is that p r o b l e m s o l v i n g is c o n s i d e r e d a collaborative
effort b e t w e e n the consultant a n d the client, w h e r e the client (and
not the consultant) is the one to solve the p r o b l e m .
When consultation is considered
S o l v i n g p r o b l e m s is a n integral part of b o t h managers' a n d e m

p l o y e e s ' w o r k . Sometimes the employees f i n d it h a r d to d o their
w o r k as w e l l as they w o u l d like. There is f r i c t i o n i n the coopera
t i o n , b u t they manage to overcome the p r o b l e m s a n d m o v e o n . I n
other instances, the p r o b l e m s g r o w so large that some m e m b e r s of
the o r g a n i z a t i o n b e g i n to consider d r a w i n g i n a consultant. L e t us
take a closer l o o k at h o w these events m a y occur i n the o r g a n i z a
tion.
W h e n c o n s u l t a t i o n is considered, it is a l w a y s a case of one or
m o r e persons i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n experiencing a p r o b l e m , i n the
sense that there is a discrepancy b e t w e e n the desired state of af
fairs a n d the p e r c e i v e d state of affairs. Sometimes the focus is
m o s t l y o n those aspects of the p e r c e i v e d state of affairs that one
w a n t s to get r i d of or a w a y f r o m . T h e case described i n chapter 3
deals w i t h a request for h e l p to a v o i d the c o n f u s i o n , uncertainty,
a n d lack of self-esteem i n the w o r k situation that some m e m b e r s
w e r e e x p e r i e n c i n g d u e to the manager's p r o b l e m s w i t h f u l f i l l i n g
his role as manager. T h e case i n chapter 4 deals w i t h a request f o r
h e l p to get over p a i n f u l emotions s t e m m i n g f r o m events i n the
past.
I n other cases the focus is m o r e o n the desired state of affairs.
Some m e m b e r s of the o r g a n i z a t i o n have a v i s i o n of w h a t the
actual state of affairs s h o u l d be.
Sometimes, the awareness of the p r o b l e m has been u n d e r w a y
a l o n g time. I n other cases it has occurred as the result of a n
i n t e r n a l crisis i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n or i n the relationship between

the o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d its e n v i r o n m e n t
The recognition of the p r o b l e m m a y occur close to the d e c i
sion-makers i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n or far a w a y f r o m them. If the
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l distance is s m a l l , the recognition m a y s o o n lead to
the d e c i s i o n that the situation requires special attention. If the
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l distance is b i g , it m a y take m o n t h s or years before
any action is d e c i d e d .
Initially, the considerations w i l l be whether the p r o b l e m can be
s o l v e d w i t h the use of internal resources. If this does not seem
possible or appropriate, the next step is to f i n d a n external c o n
sultant. If the o r g a n i z a t i o n is already u s i n g a particular consult
ant, he or she w i l l u s u a l l y be asked for h e l p i n f i n d i n g a g o o d
consultant. In m y experience, three factors i n particular influence
the organization's choice of a consultant: p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e of
the consultant, the consultant's reputation i n the organization's
n e t w o r k , a n d k n o w l e d g e of the consultant's qualifications a n d ar
eas of expertise—often i n that order.
The o r g a n i z a t i o n has l i m i t e d k n o w l e d g e of potential c a n d i
dates a n d the extent to w h i c h their qualifications m a t c h the p r o b
l e m — e s p e c i a l l y if it is the first time a g i v e n p r o b l e m occurs i n the
o r g a n i z a t i o n , a n d this is often the case w h e n a n external consult
ant is b r o u g h t i n .
It is therefore a n ethical challenge for the consultant to a l w a y s
meet requests w i t h a n o p e n a n d curious m i n d : "I w o n d e r if con
sultancy is relevant i n this case?" "I w o n d e r w h a t k i n d of c o n s u l
t a n c y ? " "I w o n d e r if I ' m the right p e r s o n ? "
A n y r e q u e s t — i n c l u d i n g requests that contain a clear a n d
concise d e s c r i p t i o n of a specific s o l u t i o n (for example, w e need
p e r s o n n e l e v a l u a t i o n , structural changes, or cross-functional m a n
agement t r a i n i n g ) — s h o u l d lead to a p r e l i m i n a r y phase w h e r e the
p r o b l e m a n d the connection between p r o b l e m a n d s o l u t i o n are
e x a m i n e d . This p r e l i m i n a r y stage is described i n more detail later
i n this chapter. F o r n o w , I s i m p l y w a n t to p o i n t out that i n the
early stages it is i m p o r t a n t to leave o p e n the question of w h e t h e r
consultation is a g o o d idea at a l l a n d w h a t sort of consultation is
a p p r o p r i a t e i n the g i v e n case.
How to think about the problems

A p r o b l e m exists w h e n there is a n unpleasant d i s c r e p a n c y be
t w e e n a p e r c e i v e d state of affairs a n d a d e s i r e d one. A central i d e a
w i t h i n systemic t h i n k i n g is that the existence of a p r o b l e m re
quires a n observer. T h e p r o b l e m - o w n e r is unable to reconcile the
t w o c o n d i t i o n s a n d i n that sense is stuck w i t h the p r o b l e m . H e
feels that progress w i l l be d i f f i c u l t or i m p o s s i b l e . T h e actions that
h a v e b e e n attempted so far have n o t h a d the d e s i r e d effect, a n d
the p r o b l e m - o w n e r cannot t h i n k of a n y t h i n g else to d o .
W h e n a m e m b e r of a n o r g a n i z a t i o n feels " s t u c k " , the reason is
often that the p r o b l e m p e r c e p t i o n itself determines w h i c h events
get n o t i c e d a n d h o w they are p e r c e i v e d . A v i c i o u s circle has b e e n
created, i n the sense that one interprets other people's actions a n d
statements i n a w a y that fits the p r o b l e m . T o p r o v i d e a n e x a m p l e :
a n e w e m p l o y e e perceives a p r o b l e m — t h a t the m a n a g e r is n o t
t a k i n g a n y interest i n her. W h e n the m a n a g e r does contact her, she
feels that he is w a t c h i n g her. T h i s experience makes her feel that
contacting m a n a g e m e n t is dangerous, so she keeps this contact to
a m i n i m u m . A s a result, she spends less a n d less time w i t h the
boss, w h o has little p o s s i b i l i t y of f i n d i n g h e r interesting. T h u s , h e r
u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the p r o b l e m has c o n t r i b u t e d t o m a i n t a i n i n g the
problem.
I n other w o r d s , a p r o b l e m is a l w a y s a p r o b l e m to someone.
P r o b l e m s d o n o t arise i n d e p e n d e n t l y of people b u t are created i n
o u r m i n d s a n d i n o u r interactions w i t h each other. T o the consult
ant it is i m p o r t a n t to investigate w h o f i n d s the p r o b l e m s i g n i f i
cant, w h o f i n d s it insignificant, a n d w h o does n o t f i n d it to be a
p r o b l e m at a l l . T h e consultant m a y also w a n t to f i n d out w h o w a s
the first p e r s o n to d i s c o v e r the p r o b l e m , w h o w a s next, a n d so
f o r t h . H o w d i d the p r o b l e m come to be d e f i n e d the w a y that it
d i d ? A t this p o i n t , it s h o u l d be p o i n t e d o u t that p r o b l e m s are n o t
c o n s i d e r e d m o r e or less correctly d e f i n e d , b u t they m a y be m o r e
or less " w i s e l y " d e f i n e d (see M c C a u g h a n & P a l m e r , 1994). T o p r o
v i d e a n e x a m p l e , a p u b l i c o r g a n i z a t i o n h a d a p r o b l e m that w a s
d e f i n e d as f o l l o w s : " W e get too m a n y c o m p l a i n t s . T h e n u m b e r of
c o m p l a i n t s has to be r e d u c e d . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , w e are unable to d o
that, because w e cannot hire a n y a d d i t i o n a l staff." A n o r g a n i z a
t i o n m a y l i v e w i t h this sort of p r o b l e m d e f i n i t i o n for years, w h i l e
frustration continues to m o u n t . Whether or not the d e f i n i t i o n is

"correct" is irrelevant. The k e y p o i n t is that it is " u n w i s e " , because
a l l available energy is channelled into ideas about a particular
change that is i m p o s s i b l e , instead of the energy b e i n g i n v e s t e d i n
a creative analysis of the o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d the execution a n d q u a l
i t y of the w o r k .
O n e explanation w h y organizations often create " u n w i s e "
p r o b l e m s is to be f o u n d i n the c o m p l e x i t y of events i n a n o r g a n i
z a t i o n . E a c h manager a n d each employee, d u e to their p o s i t i o n i n
the o r g a n i z a t i o n , has a particular vantage p o i n t f r o m w h i c h they
v i e w the situation. It m a y be d i f f i c u l t to i m a g i n e or g a i n i n f o r m a
t i o n about the v i e w s f r o m other vantage points i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n .
O r g a n i z a t i o n a l p o s i t i o n is one of the key factors i n d e t e r m i n i n g
problem understanding.
It is a basic tenet of systemic t h i n k i n g that p r o b l e m s — l i k e
other events or experiences—occur inside a frame of reference:
a context. The concept of context arose w i t h i n c o m m u n i c a t i o n
theory (Bateson, 1972) a n d has become a v e r y c o m m o n concept i n
the systemic literature. The use of it is a n indispensable tool to
the consultant w h o w o r k s f r o m systemic i n s p i r a t i o n . The concept
comes f r o m G r e e k a n d actually means "to w e a v e together"; it
is often interpreted as "the frame w i t h i n w h i c h a p h e n o m e n o n is
understood".
T o d a y , the concept is u s e d i n t w o w a y s , b o t h i n reference to
the official d e f i n i t i o n of a situation a n d i n reference to the u n i q u e
m e a n i n g that people attribute to the situations that they are i n
v o l v e d i n . F o r example, a situation m a y be officially d e f i n e d as a n
e d u c a t i o n a l situation, a n d e v e r y b o d y k n o w s this to be the context.
This frame of reference, h o w e v e r , m a y i n c l u d e m a n y different
k i n d s of m e a n i n g : one person sees the situation as a n e v a l u a t i o n
b y the consultant of the participants' management skills, another
p e r s o n sees it as management's w a y of h e l p i n g the m i d - l e v e l m a n
agers, w h i l e a t h i r d p e r s o n sees it as a n o p e n f o r u m for the ex
change of experiences between colleagues. The first p e r s o n v i e w s
the activity as a n evaluation, w h i c h is part of the relation b e t w e e n
participants a n d consultant. The second person sees the same ac
t i v i t y as a help, w h i c h is part of the relation between the p a r t i c i
pants a n d the management, a n d the t h i r d p e r s o n sees it as a n
exchange of experiences between peers. O b v i o u s l y , these three p a r
ticipants are g o i n g to notice v e r y different things, based o n the

w a y that they experience the context. S i m i l a r l y , their u n d e r s t a n d
i n g of other people's actions a n d statements is g o i n g to be i n f l u
enced b y w h e t h e r they see the context as e v a l u a t i o n , h e l p , or the
exchange of experiences a n d whether the most visible relation is the
one b e t w e e n the participants a n d the consultant, between the p a r
ticipants a n d management, or between colleagues.
I n this book, the w o r d "context" is g o i n g to be u s e d i n the
latter m e a n i n g — t h a t is, as the unique frame of reference within which
events are understood. A s the p r e v i o u s example demonstrated, c o n
text has to d o w i t h b o t h u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d action. W h e n w e are
u n s u r e about the context, w e become unsure about w h a t is
g o i n g o n a n d h o w w e can act. C o m m u n i c a t i o n becomes d i f f i c u l t ,
because w e s p e n d a considerable amount of energy o n l i s t e n i n g
w i t h o u t r e a l l y p a y i n g attention to w h a t is b e i n g s a i d , w h i l e w o n
d e r i n g w h a t it is that w e — a n d the others—are engaged i n . W h e n
w e d o not k n o w w h a t w e are engaged i n , w e are unable to act. O n
the other h a n d , if the context of a g i v e n situation is clear, w e c a n
concentrate o n the content of w h a t is b e i n g s a i d , a n d then w e
k n o w h o w to act.
W h e n events are labelled as problems, the challenge is to ex
amine the frames of reference that m a k e sense to the i n v o l v e d
parties. These frames of reference are often i m p l i c i t a n d , thus, not
part of the shared p o o l of k n o w l e d g e .
T h e context forms the i n v i s i b l e stage w h e r e the d r a m a , " p r o b
l e m x " , is acted out. If w e m o v e the spotlight f r o m the p r o b l e m to
the stage, s o m e t h i n g n e w a n d different can h a p p e n . Once this has
been done, there are m a n y w a y s to solve a p r o b l e m . For e x a m p l e ,
a p r o b l e m m a y be s o l v e d w h e n the conditions change i n s u c h a
w a y that the s y m p t o m s (the large n u m b e r of complaints, the p o o r
w o r k i n g e n v i r o n m e n t , the h i g h level of absenteeism, a n d so forth)
are interpreted w i t h i n a n e w context. O r a p r o b l e m is s o l v e d w h e n
the p r o b l e m - o w n e r s realize h o w their o w n thoughts a n d actions
are connected w i t h the problem—because this m a y cause t h e m to
discover n e w possibilities of action.
I n order for a p r o b l e m to change, the consultant has to increase
the total n u m b e r of possibilities for dialogue a n d feedback. This
m a y m a k e it possible for the p r o b l e m - o w n e r to assume a meta
position to his p r o b l e m . " M e t a " , o r i g i n a l l y a G r e e k w o r d , means
" a b o v e " . I n systemic t h i n k i n g it is used to describe a situation

w h e r e the p e r s o n sees the p r o b l e m f r o m above (from a b i r d ' s eye
v i e w ) or f r o m a different angle. W h e n a p r o b l e m is felt to be b i g
or " i m p o s s i b l e " to solve, the reason is often that the persons i n
v o l v e d have trouble distancing themselves f r o m the p r o b l e m ,
w h i c h therefore seems o v e r w h e l m i n g . In this situation, one can
take a b i g step towards s o l v i n g the p r o b l e m b y p u t t i n g oneself i n
a meta-position i n relation to the p r o b l e m .
It is quite difficult for the person i n v o l v e d to assume a meta
p o s i t i o n i n relation to the p r o b l e m . The consultant can help b y
a s k i n g questions s u c h as: W h o was the first to notice the problem?
T o w h o m is the p r o b l e m worst? W h o does not w o r r y about the
p r o b l e m at all? W h a t were things like before the p r o b l e m arose?
W h a t w o u l d h a p p e n if the p r o b l e m were to disappear?
The case s t u d y i n chapter 4 describes several instances of this
shift, for example at a p o i n t w h e n the participants began to w o n
der h o w the p r o b l e m h a d been a l l o w e d to exist for so l o n g .
The consultant has to listen respectfully to the client's presen
tation of the p r o b l e m a n d then challenge the client-system's p r o b
l e m definitions. Both case studies address the issue of h o w the
consultant can handle this discourse about problems.
How to define the system

It is a c o m m o n a s s u m p t i o n that it is the organization, seen as a
social system, that creates problems, a n d that the consultant there
fore s h o u l d w a n t to k n o w a n d understand as m u c h as possible
about the entire organization.
This is contrasted b y the v i e w that is characteristic of systemic
t h i n k i n g — t h a t it is the problem that defines the system ( A n d e r s o n ,
G o o l i s h i a n , & W i n d e r m a n , 1986). The consultant's w o r k is based
o n the p r o b l e m statements that she is presented w i t h . W h i c h per
sons a n d organizational entities are i n v o l v e d i n these p r o b l e m
statements? The answer to this question m a y help the consultant
to define the system that w i l l be useful to i n c l u d e i n a consulta
tion. D e f i n i n g the system is thus a choice to be m a d e — a n d a choice
that m a y have to be reconsidered d u r i n g the course of a consulta
tion.
In the process of f i n d i n g the most appropriate d e f i n i t i o n , it

m a y be u s e f u l f o r the consultant to consider w h i c h managers a n d
employees are parties in the consultation. O f t e n the consultant w i l l
meet the members of the o r g a n i z a t i o n i n this order: first the
referrer, then the commissioner, a n d finally the participants. T h e
referrer is frequently called the contact person. H e is the one w h o
first contacts the consultant, either b y telephone, letter, or per
s o n a l contact. T h e c o m m i s s i o n e r is the manager or management
team that has the f o r m a l authority over the resources (partici
pants' time, the consultant's fee, use of conference-rooms, a n d so
forth). T h e participants are those members of the o r g a n i z a t i o n
w h o are g o i n g to be i n v o l v e d i n the actual consultation. Some
persons m a y have m o r e than one role. T h e contact p e r s o n m a y
also be the c o m m i s s i o n e r , b u t that is rarely the case. In the case
described i n chapter 4, n o b o d y h a d m o r e t h a n one role. I n some
cases, the contact p e r s o n a n d the commissioner w i l l also b e i n
c l u d e d as participants. W h e t h e r or not this is appropriate is one of
the i m p o r t a n t issues to be resolved i n the i n i t i a l stage.
In F i g u r e 1.1, relations that are characterized b y direct contact
w i t h the consultant are s h o w n w i t h f u l l - d r a w n lines, w h i l e rela
tions characterized b y indirect contact are s h o w n w i t h dotted
lines. T h u s , the consultant m a y be able to observe directly w h a t
goes o n b e t w e e n herself a n d the contact p e r s o n b u t be unable to
FIGURE 1.1. Parties and relations in consultation

observe w h a t happens i n the relation between the commissioner

a n d the participants.
Figure 1.1 also includes "the c o m p a n y " i n order to illustrate
that there m a y be agents elsewhere i n the c o m p a n y w h o m the
consultant does not meet, but w h o influence the consultation. The
consultation includes the consultant a n d her f i r m or place of e m
ployment.
It is important for the systemic consultant to consider w h a t
characterizes a l l these relations. For example: H o w is the contact
p e r s o n v i e w e d i n the c o m p a n y ? W h a t m a d e this particular person
the contact person? W h a t is the nature of the relation between the
contact p e r s o n a n d the c o m m i s s i o n e r — d o they consider t h e m
selves i n cooperation or competition? W h a t does the rest of the
c o m p a n y expect of the consultant—perhaps based o n p r e v i o u s
experiences w i t h other consultants? W h a t does the consultant's
place of e m p l o y m e n t expect of, for example, the consultant's
choice of methods, a n d w h a t d o the consultant's colleagues con
sider success criteria? A n d so forth. The p o i n t here is that the
v a r i o u s understandings of the problem and the possibilities for solving
it are embedded in all these relations. Exactly h o w , the consultant w i l l
not k n o w f r o m the b e g i n n i n g : i n order to m a k e progress, it is
i m p o r t a n t that she explore the relations.
How to understand change

It is c o m m o n for organizations to see change as a p r o b l e m . C o m
plaints are heard that the organization is not c h a n g i n g fast
e n o u g h , that the staff is resisting change, a n d that managers need
to learn "change m a n a g e m e n t " i n order to i m p r o v e their ability to
m a k e people change i n accordance w i t h n e w structures, goals,
a n d policies.
In the consultancy business, similar v i e w s are heard: w h e n
management has declared its failure to make change h a p p e n fast
e n o u g h a n d successfully e n o u g h , then it is time to b r i n g i n c o n
sultants, w h o k n o w even more methods for m a k i n g people
change.
W i t h i n the last ten years, m a n a g i n g change has been declared
one of the greatest management challenges.
Systemic t h i n k i n g offers a r a d i c a l l y different v i e w of the d y

namics of change. H e r e , the basic idea is that organizations as w e l l
as p e o p l e i n organizations are constantly u n d e r g o i n g change.
C h a n g e is not the p r o b l e m . But the m e a n i n g or interpretation that
the members of the o r g a n i z a t i o n attribute to the changes m a y be
experienced as a p r o b l e m . W h e n employees declare, f o r e x a m p l e ,
the latest r e o r g a n i z a t i o n to be a p r o b l e m , the reason m a y be that
they see top management's decision to restructure as a disparage
ment of their efforts u n t i l then. This is not stated o p e n l y ; instead,
the structure comes u n d e r fire.
A n o r g a n i z a t i o n m a y be seen as a c o m p l e x n e t w o r k of rela
tions between people, their ideas, mental m o d e l s , values, attitudes,
a n d dreams for the future. Since these relations are v a l u a b l e to
people, h u m a n d e v e l o p m e n t requires a reasonable degree of
agree-ment between change a n d the relations that the i n d i v i d u a l
is a part of. It is a n i m p o r t a n t p o i n t i n systemic t h i n k i n g that
change is seen as b e i n g determined b y the structure of the system.
O u t s i d e " d i s t u r b a n c e s " m a y occur, but it is the system that decides
h o w it is g o i n g to r e s p o n d to these influences ( M a t u r a n a & V a r e l a ,
1980).
I n this sense, change is determined f r o m the i n s i d e — t o a
greater extent t h a n b e i n g controllable f r o m the outside. T h i s , i n
effect, is a controversial idea: that managers, consultants, parents,
a n d so f o r t h are unable to m a k e other people change as a result of
direct outside influences. This can be a n extremely d i s t u r b i n g i d e a
to goal-directed a n d impatient managers a n d consultants w h o are
m e a s u r e d b y themselves a n d others o n their ability to p r o d u c e
quick, v i s i b l e results.
T h i s w i d e s p r e a d v i e w of success also includes a n u n d e r s t a n d
i n g of change as a linear process, w h e r e each of the stages d e
p e n d s o n the outcome of the p r e v i o u s stage a n d p r o v i d e s i n p u t
for the f o l l o w i n g stage. C h a n g e management is seen as a r a t i o n a l
process that the manager can t h i n k out, p l a n , a n d force the staff
t h r o u g h , thus a c h i e v i n g the desired outcome. T h e w e a k l i n k i n
this v i e w is the idea that h u m a n thoughts a n d m e a n i n g - f o r m i n g
processes can be c o n t r o l l e d f r o m the outside. E v e n the most gifted
a n d c o m m u n i c a t i v e manager (or consultant) is unable to i m a g i n e
the m u l t i p l i c i t y of interpretations that employees create i n d i v i d u
a l l y a n d i n interaction w i t h each other.
T o the systemic consultant, the task is not to help management

control the change or to change people directly. Nevertheless, it is
a n essential part of the systemic consultant's expertise to be able
to w o r k w i t h processes of change. The purpose for the consultant
is to f i n d n e w w a y s of creating n e w contexts, w h e r e n e w ideas c a n
arise, w h e r e people w a n t to c l a i m the o w n e r s h i p of n e w ideas,
a n d w h e r e they have the possibility of i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h e m into
existing relations.
W h e n the frustrations i n an organization are p a r t i c u l a r l y
strong a n d attached to one or more f u n d a m e n t a l changes, s u c h as
a merger or a reorganization, w e often f i n d that b o t h management
a n d staff have a tremendous need for m a k i n g sense of w h a t ap
pears as madness. A t the same time, h o w e v e r , the possibilities for
a n o p e n dialogue are v e r y s l i m . The time spent together is l i m i t e d ,
a n d it is often felt to be dangerous to express questions a n d con
cerns about the changes. A s a result, m a n y people feel alienated
f r o m the changes, w h i c h then r e m a i n a foreign b o d y i n the o r g a n i
zation.
How to define the subject area

T h r o u g h o u t the consultancy business, the subject area is d e f i n e d
v e r y differently. I n traditional consultancy tasks, the focus is e i
ther o n the changes i n structure, technology, a n d systems or o n
the development of the members of the organization. In the first
case, the t h i n k i n g b e h i n d the consultation is as f o l l o w s : first, a n
investigation w i l l be carried out to analyse the p r o b l e m s , identify
the causes, a n d f i n d the best solution. Once the s o l u t i o n is f o u n d
a n d described, it is to be c o m m u n i c a t e d throughout the o r g a n i z a
tion. T h e n comes the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n phase, d u r i n g w h i c h the
employees are trained, their acceptance is secured, a n d a n u m b e r
of o l d procedures are to be abandoned a n d replaced b y n e w ones.
O f t e n this i m p l e m e n t a t i o n process does not r u n as s m o o t h l y as
expected. Some employees m a y not w a n t to learn n e w procedures;
some managers m a y not w a n t to i m p l e m e n t the n e w procedures;
some managers a n d employees m a y encounter unanticipated dif
ficulties; a n d so forth. This is w h e n "the h u m a n factor" becomes
a p r o b l e m . The s o l u t i o n w a s g o o d , but managers a n d staff "resist
change"—as p e o p l e say. W h a t w e n t w r o n g w a s that the i n d i

v i d u a l managers a n d employees d i d not get the time a n d o p p o r t u
n i t y o r the assistance to attribute m e a n i n g a n d v a l u e to the n e w
solutions together w i t h others.
I n the second case, the focus is o n the d e v e l o p m e n t of the m e m
bers of the o r g a n i z a t i o n . M a n y manager e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m m e s
a n d e m p l o y e e t r a i n i n g activities b e l o n g i n this category. T h e i n d i
v i d u a l is t e m p o r a r i l y r e m o v e d — o f t e n p h y s i c a l l y as w e l l — f r o m
the o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d g i v e n the o p p o r t u n i t y to w o r k w i t h his p e r
s o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t (for example, a course i n assertion training) o r
to g a i n n e w k n o w l e d g e (for example, a course i n h u m a n resources
management). T h e rationale b e h i n d these activities i s , first of a l l ,
that the i n d i v i d u a l w i l l get r e n e w e d energy f r o m b e i n g g i v e n a
chance to l e a r n a n d g r o w , a n d , secondly, that the p e r s o n is g o i n g
to be able to a p p l y h i s n e w k n o w l e d g e , insight, a n d s k i l l s o n the
job. O f t e n b o t h aspects are r e a l i z e d as p l a n n e d , b u t sometimes the
second p o i n t turns out not to be that s i m p l e : the n e w k n o w l e d g e is
not p u t i n t o use i n the c o m p a n y . The reason for this is that l e a r n i n g
a n d d e v e l o p i n g i n a n educational context tend to be "abstract", i n
the sense that they are not directly l i n k e d to the person's r e a l life
o n the job. T h e i n d i v i d u a l has to create these connections t h r o u g h
reflections after the event.
T o the systemic consultant, the subject area is neither the struc
ture p e r se, n o r the technology p e r se, n o r the i n d i v i d u a l p e r se,
b u t the individual in the organizational context.
C o n s e q u e n t l y , it is of great interest to the consultant to explore
h o w the i n d i v i d u a l m e m b e r of the o r g a n i z a t i o n is connected to h i s
or h e r role.
W h e n a p e r s o n gets a job i n a p u b l i c or a private c o m p a n y , he
is allotted a role that includes a specific p o s i t i o n i n the o r g a n i z a
t i o n chart a n d a set of tasks to be carried out. T h i s is a contractual
r e l a t i o n s h i p that i n c l u d e s b o t h a f o r m a l a n d a p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n
tract. T h e f o r m a l contract is described i n the e m p l o y m e n t contract
a n d i n the terms of the collective agreement. T h e t e r m " p s y c h o
l o g i c a l contract" refers to the e x p l i c i t — o r , frequently, i m p l i c i t —
m u t u a l expectations. T h e p e r s o n is expected to contribute i n
certain w a y s to the c o m p a n y ' s current activities a n d future d e v e l
o p m e n t , a n d the c o m p a n y is expected to p r o v i d e p a y , o n g o i n g
t r a i n i n g , a satisfactory a n d e m p o w e r i n g w o r k i n g e n v i r o n m e n t ,
a n d so forth. The degree of f o r m a l i z a t i o n i n terms of o r g a n i z a t i o n

charts, job descriptions, policies, guidelines, a n d so forth varies,
d e p e n d i n g o n the type of o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d organizational culture.
But a l l organizations have some level of f o r m a l i z a t i o n . T y p i c a l l y ,
the degree of f o r m a l i z a t i o n w i l l be i n an inverse relationship to
the degrees of f r e e d o m experienced b y the i n d i v i d u a l . T o some
extent, the organizational culture can m o d i f y this relationship: the
f o r m a l i z a t i o n exists, but it is not taken seriously. The explicitness
of the hierarchy a n d the impact of the f o r m a l i z a t i o n are i m p o r t a n t
issues for the consultant to explore.
T o the systemic consultant, then, it is i m p o r t a n t to be curious
about the i n d i v i d u a l ' s o w n assessment a n d v i e w of his role,
tasks, a n d relations to management a n d colleagues. H o w does the
p e r s o n perceive the opportunities a n d constraints offered b y the
role, a n d w h a t does the m e m b e r s h i p of the o r g a n i z a t i o n m e a n to
the i n d i v i d u a l ? It is m y experience f r o m m a n y consultations that
the m u t u a l expectations to roles a n d relationships are u s u a l l y i m
p l i c i t a n d — w h e n they are m a d e e x p l i c i t — t u r n out to be p o o r l y
m a t c h e d . There have also been situations, h o w e v e r , w h e r e a n i n
d i v i d u a l w a s afraid to express his thoughts, for fear that expecta
tions w o u l d t u r n out to be conflicting, but w h e r e this t u r n e d out,
i n the e n s u i n g process, not to be the case, m u c h to his surprise a n d
relief.
O r g a n i z a t i o n a l cultures v a r y a great deal i n terms of their
n o r m s for openness. In some organizational cultures, thoughts
a n d ideas concerning roles a n d relations are "off l i m i t s " . N o t that
this is ever stated directly, b u t it is i n the air that s u c h considera
tions are a personal issue that has no r o o m i n the p u b l i c life of
the o r g a n i z a t i o n . Therefore, the expression of thoughts, considera
tions, a n d concerns is o n l y a l l o w e d outside the o r g a n i z a t i o n or i n
the i n f o r m a l n e t w o r k s w i t h i n the organization, w h e r e other rules
a p p l y . I n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l cultures of this type the f o r m a l aspects
are p r e d o m i n a n t , a n d it is d i f f i c u l t for the i n d i v i d u a l to f i n d legiti
mate w a y s of connecting the f o r m a l a n d personal aspects of or
ganizational life.
I n other organizational cultures—for example, i n great parts of
the social a n d educational areas—openness is c o m m o n l y h e l d to
be a s i g n of a g o o d w o r k i n g environment a n d g o o d relations. The
greater the openness—also concerning f a m i l y life a n d recreational
activities—the better. I n this setting, frustrations often arise i f c o n

versations i n the w o r k p l a c e d o not live u p to this ideal. T h e c o n
sultant then meets a strong request to m a k e s o m e t h i n g h a p p e n
" s o that w e c a n become completely o p e n to one another". These
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l cultures often lack concepts for the f o r m a l aspects
of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l life. T h e members of the o r g a n i z a t i o n v i e w each
other as private i n d i v i d u a l s w h o also carry out a job together. If
difficulties d o arise, they are often u n d e r s t o o d to be the result of
likes a n d dislikes that cannot be altered. P r o b l e m s a n d conflicts,
therefore, are v e r y difficult to handle.
In the former type of organizational culture, the p e r s o n a l
aspects disappear or are m a d e illegitimate. I n the latter type, the
p e r s o n , to some extent, stands " n a k e d " , w i t h o u t the protection
offered b y the role.
This line of t h i n k i n g , w h i c h has the individual person in the
organizational context as its subject area, also i m p l i e s that the m e t h
ods of the systemic consultant have to respect the hierarchy, the
f o r m a l p o w e r structures, a n d the persons w i t h m a n a g e r i a l author
ity. T h e commissioner has to be able to rely o n b e i n g accorded
this respect, b u t respect alone is not e n o u g h . It has to be c o m b i n e d
w i t h b o t h s u p p o r t a n d challenge, i n the sense of a c u r i o s i t y to
w a r d s the thoughts, m e n t a l m o d e l s , a n d suggested solutions that
are e m b e d d e d i n the management system. W i t h o u t this curiosity,
the consultant runs the risk of b e c o m i n g subordinate to the m a n
agement as a sort of stand-in manager, w h i c h does n o t a d d any
t h i n g n e w to the organization. I n that case, the consultant has lost
her intellectual f r e e d o m of m o v e m e n t .
CHAPTER TWO
Organizational consultation
and learning
Gitte Haslebo
Consultation in organizations can be viewed as a special

framework for problem solving. Problem solving requires learn
ing. In this chapter I therefore focus on how individual and
collective learning take place in organizations and how organi
zational consultation can be viewed as the staging of collec
tive learning processes.
Learning in organizations
L
et m e m a k e it clear f r o m the b e g i n n i n g : l e a r n i n g is a
p s y c h o l o g i c a l process. People learn, organizations d o not.
T h e s t r o n g current interest i n "the l e a r n i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n "
a n d i n " o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l e a r n i n g " reflects a great ne e d to be able to
h a n d l e frequent a n d unpredictable changes i n our e n v i r o n m e n t .
M u c h of the literature, h o w e v e r , is f u l l of v a g u e concepts that
m a y give the reader the faulty i m p r e s s i o n that organizations
are capable of l e a r n i n g (for example, D i x o n , 1994, a n d P e a r n ,
R o d e r i c k , & M u l r o o n e y , 1995). Both concepts suggest that the
17
organization is an agent. This is m i s l e a d i n g , a n d I w i l l therefore i n

the f o l l o w i n g refrain f r o m u s i n g these concepts at a l l , a n d instead
d r a w i n s p i r a t i o n f r o m the m a n y exciting ideas that are also pres
ent i n this literature.
These ideas concern the questions of h o w the i n d i v i d u a l m e m
ber of the organization succeeds i n learning something that c a n be
u s e d i n action, h o w n e w u n d e r s t a n d i n g is d e v e l o p e d a n d shared
b y m a n y members of the organization, a n d h o w i n d i v i d u a l a n d
collective l e a r n i n g processes are connected.
In the literature, i n d i v i d u a l a n d collective learning are u s u a l l y
treated as t w o separate phenomena. O n e reason w h y N a n c y
D i x o n ' s w o r k is so fascinating is that she tries to elucidate h o w the
t w o are connected i n the organization. H e r discussion is based o n
a constructionist v i e w of learning. In this systemic v i e w , learning
is seen as the act of interpreting experience. H o w the i n d i v i d u a l
interprets experience a n d tries to make sense of it is u n i q u e to
each person, a n d the m e a n i n g that is created mediates actions. T o
d e v e l o p this v i e w of learning, she draws o n experiential learning
theory, w h i c h offers a holistic perspective o n learning, focusing o n
the integration of experience, perception, cognition, a n d behav
i o u r . Some of the valuable sources to the experiential l e a r n i n g
theory stem f r o m the philosopher John D e w e y , the founder of
A m e r i c a n social p s y c h o l o g y K u r t L e w i n , a n d the d e v e l o p m e n t a l
psychologist Jean Piaget (see D e w e y , 1934; L e w i n , 1951; Piaget,
1971).
The historical development i n this tradition is b r i l l i a n t l y de
scribed b y D a v i d A . K o l b i n his b o o k Experiential Learning: Experi
ence as the Source of Learning and Development, w h i c h has been a
stepping-stone for m a n y writers a n d consultants, w h o have subse
q u e n t l y sought to understand learning i n organizational contexts
( K o l b , 1984).
K o l b defines learning as "the process w h e r e b y k n o w l e d g e is
created t h r o u g h the transformation of experience" ( K o l b , 1984,
p . 38). H o w this takes place K o l b describes i n his m o d e l for the
i n d i v i d u a l learning cycle. The learning process has t w o d i m e n
s i o n s — p r e h e n s i o n a n d t r a n s f o r m a t i o n — w h i c h represent opposite
orientations.
" P r e h e n s i o n " refers to the t w o distinct w a y s of g r a s p i n g or
t a k i n g i n experience i n the w o r l d . Prehension can take place i n
LEARNING 19
Apprehension:
Concrete experience
P
R
E
H
E
N
S
i
i
O
N
Comprehension;
Abstract conceptualisation
FIGURE 2.1. The individual learning cycle:

the dimension of prehension
t w o different w a y s : w e c a n either grasp o u r experience b y r e l y i n g

o n the tangible, felt qualities of i m m e d i a t e experience, or w e c a n
grasp o u r experience b y r e l y i n g o n conceptual representation (see
F i g u r e 2.1).
T h e first w a y is called " a p p r e h e n s i o n " , a n d the second " c o m
p r e h e n s i o n " . W e can a p p r e h e n d a c o l d draft or a r e d c o l o u r i n a
g i v e n situation. A p p r e h e n s i o n is a n instantaneous registration of
experience. W e just k n o w . O n the other, h a n d , c o m p r e h e n s i o n of
experience is s l o w e r . W e search for w o r d s a n d concepts a n d m a y
c o n c l u d e , for example, that a g i v e n situation i n v o l v i n g a large
n u m b e r of employees constituted a " c o n f l i c t - r i d d e n m e e t i n g " . The
t w o different w a y s of g r a s p i n g experience have interesting i m
plications for c o m m u n i c a t i o n . It is d i f f i c u l t to c o m m u n i c a t e o u r
concrete experiences to each other, whereas concepts c a n be c o m
m u n i c a t e d t h r o u g h language.
P r e h e n s i o n alone, h o w e v e r , is not sufficient for l e a r n i n g to take
place. W h a t is grasped has to be transformed into k n o w l e d g e ,
w h i c h c a n take place i n one of t w o w a y s — e i t h e r t h r o u g h internal
reflection or t h r o u g h actions i n the external w o r l d (see F i g u r e 2.2).
K o l b considers the t w o d i m e n s i o n s , p r e h e n s i o n a n d transforma
t i o n , as e q u a l l y i m p o r t a n t to learning.
It is one of K o l b ' s points that the m o r e the possibilities for
l e a r n i n g increase, the easier it is to m o v e a l l the w a y a r o u n d i n the
l e a r n i n g cycle. People are different, h o w e v e r , because they h a v e
TRANSFORMATION
Active I Reflecting
experimen observation
tation
FIGURE 2.2. The individual learning cycle:

the dimension of transformation
d e v e l o p e d different preferences concerning h o w to f u n c t i o n . I n

his book, K o l b describes different learning styles, their d e v e l o p
ment a n d consequences. K o l b makes the p o i n t that i n d i v i d u a l
l e a r n i n g , of course, is not a n isolated process, but one that takes
place i n interaction w i t h other people. H i s m a i n interest is to l o o k
at l e a r n i n g i n relation to c h i l d development, education, a n d a d u l t
learning.
K o l b describes the i n d i v i d u a l learning processes as circular. I
prefer to talk about l e a r n i n g loops, as learning is a progressing
m o v e m e n t w h e r e y o u never r e t u r n to y o u r point of departure (see
F i g u r e 2.3).
This is the p o i n t w h e r e organizational psychologists take over.
T h e y d o this b y b r i n g i n g the discussion into the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
context a n d b y a s k i n g w h a t structural a n d c u l t u r a l factors i n the
FIGURE 2.3. The individual learning loop

LEARNING 21
o r g a n i z a t i o n are capable of p r o m o t i n g learning i n the i n d i v i d u a l

employees a n d i n v i t i n g t h e m to share n e w k n o w l e d g e (Swieringa
& W i e r d s m a , 1992).
A fascinating answer to this question is offered i n the b o o k
The Organizational Learning Cycle: How We Can Learn Collectively
( D i x o n , 1994). D i x o n attempts to l i n k the i n d i v i d u a l l e a r n i n g cycle
w i t h a collective l e a r n i n g cycle a n d i n this connection talks about
a n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l e a r n i n g cycle.
A g a i n I prefer the picture of the l o o p instead of the closed
circle. F i g u r e 2.4 illustrates h o w the i n d i v i d u a l l e a r n i n g l o o p c a n
be c o m b i n e d w i t h the organizational l e a r n i n g l o o p .
I n order to a v o i d the m i s l e a d i n g concept I m e n t i o n e d e a r l i e r —
that organizations learn—I w i l l talk instead about those o r g a n i z a
tional activities that m a y promote collective l e a r n i n g processes. B y
"collective l e a r n i n g processes" I m e a n individual learning in many
members of the organization who interact with each other, and where the
individual learning leads to new shared knowledge in the organization.
Stage 2:
Stage 4: Integration of
Respon knowledge within
sibility the organisational
for actions context
Stage 3:
Collective
interpretation
FIGURE2.4. The organizational learning loop

combined with the individual learning loop
In the f o l l o w i n g , I take m y point of departure i n D i x o n ' s m o d e l

a n d e x p a n d it w i t h m y o w n experiences w i t h various types of
organizations.
Stages in the collective learning process
Collective learning processes require there to be people i n the or

ganization—preferably m a n y p e o p l e — w h o get the o p p o r t u n i t y to
participate i n activities that go t h r o u g h a l l four stages (see Figure
2.4). The larger the c o m p a n y is, a n d the more it is d i v i d e d into
specialized organizational units, the more l i k e l y it is that distinct
organizational units deal w i t h each stage separately. This severs
the connection between the stages, a n d the possibility for collec
tive learning is lost.
Stage 1: A broad generation of knowledge
In Stage 1, there is a broad generation of thoughts and ideas. This

generation m a y take place outside the organization, for example
b y gathering opinions f r o m customers or other interested parties,
or it m a y take place a m o n g the employees of the c o m p a n y . The
focus is not so m u c h o n the p r o d u c t i o n of fragmented data as o n
contributions to coherent perceptions a n d understandings. The
p r o d u c t i o n of fragmented data w o u l d o n l y increase the degree of
detail, w i t h o u t necessarily increasing the d y n a m i c c o m p l e x i t y (see
chapter 4). A prerequisite for a broad generation is an openness,
b o t h between the organization a n d its surroundings a n d between
organizational units a n d levels i n the hierarchy. The organiza
tional structure a n d culture influence the extent to w h i c h this can
be accomplished as w e l l as the terms for the exchange.
The external generation of k n o w l e d g e w i l l d e p e n d , a m o n g
other things, o n h o w introvert or extrovert the organizational
culture is. Some cultures are introvert and not v e r y l i k e l y to ac
tively invite outside v i e w s . M a y b e it is mostly complaints that
are able to get t h r o u g h a n d attract attention. Other organizational
LEARNING 23
cultures, o n the other h a n d , are more extrovert a n d r e w a r d the

i m p o r t of interesting a n d u n u s u a l v i e w s to the c o m p a n y . R e a d
m o r e about this i n the b o o k b y Bridges, w h o has d e v e l o p e d a n
i n s i g h t f u l t y p o l o g y for organizational cultures based o n Jung's
w o r k (Bridges, 1992).
I n v e r y bureaucratic organizations, i n f o r m a t i o n is generated
p r i m a r i l y w i t h i n the i n d i v i d u a l organizational units. The p r o d u c
t i o n department, the sales department, a n d the economy depart
ment each p r o d u c e their o w n data. These data are seen p r i m a r i l y
as the department's o w n tools a n d are therefore p r i m a r i l y p r o
d u c e d to m a t c h the department's o w n needs.
The generation of i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e s the material that m a n
agement a n d staff have to w o r k w i t h i n the f o l l o w i n g stages. A
b r o a d a n d systematic dissemination of i n f o r m a t i o n a n d points of
v i e w is a first step. This is not a matter of quantity alone, i n the
sense of " t h e m o r e the better". M o r e m a y actually be w o r s e . F o r
example, the extensive p r o d u c t i o n of detailed data i n a depart
ment m a y m a k e it more difficult to get the b i g picture. A w i d e
generation across the b o a r d is more important than quantity, be
cause it makes it easier to sort t h r o u g h the data a n d focus o n the
essential aspects.
The activities i n Stage 1 a i m to e x p a n d the area, u s i n g the avail
able meaning structures i n the organization. This concept comes
f r o m D i x o n (1994).
She explains h o w m e a n i n g structures i n a n o r g a n i z a t i o n c a n be
p r i v a t e , collective, or accessible. The private meaning structures are
the thoughts a n d v i e w s that the i n d i v i d u a l m e m b e r of the o r g a n i
z a t i o n chooses to keep to himself. H i s reasons for d o i n g so m a y be
m a n y a n d n u m e r o u s : H e m a y consider it r i s k y to express a par
ticular v i e w , o r see it as a personal advantage to keep his o p i n i o n s
to himself. I n these cases, the private m e a n i n g structure is explicit
a n d articulated. Private m e a n i n g structures, h o w e v e r , m a y also be
i m p l i c i t , i n the sense that the person has not yet p u t t h e m into
w o r d s , but nevertheless acts o n the basis of them.
M e a n i n g structures i n organizations c a n also be c o l l e c t i v e —
that i s , they are shared b y m a n y members of the organization.
Collective meaning structures m a y deal w i t h success criteria for the
w o r k that is carried out, ideas about customers, standards f o r
c o m m u n i c a t i o n , goals a n d strategies, and so forth. A g a i n , collec

tive m e a n i n g structures m a y be explicit or i m p l i c i t . The explicit
ones, for example, m a y be the official image that top management
presents to the outside w o r l d , or they m a y be the shared u n d e r
s t a n d i n g that " w e are a progressive m u n i c i p a l i t y " or " w e are a
c o m p a n y i n the m i d s t of a crisis". The implicit ones are m a d e u p of
all the assumptions that are taken for granted a n d therefore d o not
come u p for discussion. The concept of " i m p l i c i t m e a n i n g struc
tures" is related to the everyday concept of " i n t u i t i o n " . W h e n act
i n g i n t u i t i v e l y , w e act w i t h o u t p a u s i n g . W e just " k n o w " that this
is the w a y to d o this. It is g o o d to be able to act i n t u i t i v e l y : it is
fast, it feels right, a n d it often produces the desired results. S i m i
l a r l y , there are benefits to the i m p l i c i t m e a n i n g structures: the
o r g a n i z a t i o n saves time, w o r k is done q u i c k l y , a n d re-assessments
are unnecessary. O n the d o w n s i d e , it is difficult to get to test the
v a l i d i t y of a n i m p l i c i t m e a n i n g structure a n d change it. In order,
for example, to test the v a l i d i t y of the assumption that a g i v e n
manager is " d a n g e r o u s " , it is necessary both to p u t it into w o r d s
a n d to f i n d data to assess it b y .
V a r i o u s organizational activities a i m to develop i m p l i c i t c o l
lective m e a n i n g structures. This is the case, for example, w i t h the
initiation courses for n e w employees a n d the joint activities that
are to promote the "team s p i r i t " i n the c o m p a n y . The u n i n t e n
tional a n d indirect learning that takes place t h r o u g h structures
a n d processes is a theme that has h e l d m y interest for m a n y years
(Haslebo, 1973).
In some organizational cultures, the collective m e a n i n g struc
tures are v e r y prominent. This is often the case i n o l d companies,
r i c h i n tradition, w h i c h emphasize the socialization of newcomers
i n order to secure the proper c o m p a n y spirit. In other organiza
tions the collective m e a n i n g structures are less prominent, a n d
" t e a m s p i r i t " m a y be attributed less importance.
The t h i r d category of m e a n i n g structures i n organizations is
referred to as accessible meaning structures, because these struc
tures can be m a d e the object of c o m m o n exploration w i t h i n the
organization. The greater the latitude for c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d the
f o r m a t i o n of meaning, the greater the chances for collective learn
ing.
LEARNING 25
Stage 2 : The integration of knowledge

within the organizational context
I n Stage 2 there is a n integration of new knowledge within the organi
zational context. This integration has b o t h a p h y s i c a l a n d a c o g n i
tive aspect. The n e w k n o w l e d g e has to be transferable i n order to
become available to a large n u m b e r of people i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n ,
a n d the i n f o r m a t i o n m u s t be cognitively accessible.
T h e d i v i s i o n into organizational units a n d hierarchical levels
often makes it d i f f i c u l t to transfer k n o w l e d g e . Several factors
p l a y a part i n this. If a n employee or a manager spends most of
her time i n her o w n department or o n her o w n level, the practical
opportunities for exchanging k n o w l e d g e across the d i v i s i o n s are
g o i n g to be l i m i t e d . In a d d i t i o n , each department selects the infor
m a t i o n that seems most comprehensible a n d useful. T h u s , each
department m a y w i n d u p h o l d i n g its o w n pieces of i n f o r m a t i o n ,
w h i c h the members k n o w i n d e p t h but w i t h n o ability to see h o w
the pieces fit into the bigger picture.
O f necessity, there is a h i g h degree of selection a n d filtering.
W h e n management a n d staff members c o m p l a i n that " n o b o d y
ever tells us a n y t h i n g " , it is rarely because they get too little i n f o r
m a t i o n , but because they lack relevant i n f o r m a t i o n for c a r r y i n g
out their jobs.
T r a n s f e r r i n g k n o w l e d g e u p a n d d o w n t h r o u g h the o r g a n i z a
t i o n a l hierarchy can be problematic too. I n organizational cultures
w h e r e it is considered a s i g n of weakness to a d m i t that there is
a p r o b l e m , i n f o r m a t i o n about potential problems is often kept to
a m i r d m u m , a n d the message c o n v e y e d to the higher levels is
" W e ' r e d o i n g f i n e " . In m y w o r k as a consultant I have often f o u n d
that top management h a d a far more positive i m p r e s s i o n of h o w
the o r g a n i z a t i o n w a s d o i n g than people further d o w n i n the hier
archy.
T r a n s f e r r i n g k n o w l e d g e is a first step, but does not necessarily
l e a d to cognitive integration. In some organizational cultures,
k n o w i n g who w a s i n v o l v e d i n the p r o d u c t i o n of the n e w k n o w l
edge is just as i m p o r t a n t as the actual content of the k n o w l e d g e .
This is t y p i c a l of organizations w i t h a power culture. H e r e , the
p o w e r figure's acceptance of managers a n d employees i n effect
determines h o w m u c h clout they w i l l have. S i m i l a r l y , k n o w l e d g e

p r o d u c e d b y external consultants is often met w i t h scepticism.
There is a c o m m o n u n d e r s t a n d i n g (implicit or explicit) of w h o the
k e y persons i n the c o m p a n y are. These people are recycled e n d
lessly i n a l l important committees. E v e r y b o d y i n the organization
k n o w s that it is more important to ensure the participation of these
k e y persons than to make u p project groups based o n k n o w l e d g e
and qualifications.
O n the other h a n d , members i n organizations w i t h a role-based
culture w i l l be sceptical of k n o w l e d g e p r o d u c e d i n other organiza
tional entities than their o w n , b u t v e r y o p e n to k n o w l e d g e p r o
d u c e d i n cooperation w i t h outside experts. The reason is that
members of role-based cultures tend to h o l d expertise i n v e r y h i g h
esteem. See H a n d y (1986) a n d Swieringa a n d W i e r d s m a (1992) for
a m o r e detailed description of these organizational cultures.
Stage 3 : Collective interpretation
In Stage 3, a collective interpretation of the n e w i n f o r m a t i o n ,

points of v i e w , a n d thoughts takes place. It is important to be
aware that receiving i n f o r m a t i o n a n d g a i n i n g m e a n i n g f r o m it are
two different things.
The interpretation of i n f o r m a t i o n is influenced b y the r e c i p i
ent's organizational p o s i t i o n . E v e r y d a y i n organizations, n u m e r
ous i n d i v i d u a l interpretations are carried out. The m a n a g i n g
director interprets the events at a management meeting f r o m his
perspective, the m i d - l e v e l manager f r o m a m i d - l e v e l perspective,
and the employee, w h o later reads the minutes of the meeting,
interprets events o n the basis of his particular b a c k g r o u n d , experi
ences a n d expectations. Interpretations also take place at g r o u p
level. " W e sales people f e e l . . / ' , " W e nurses m u s t d e m a n d . . . " or
" W e i n the home care d i v i s i o n w i l l n o longer p u t u p w i t h . . .".
The i n d i v i d u a l member of the organization always belongs to a n
organizational unit or a professional group, a n d m a n y interpreta
tions are based o n the group's point of v i e w . T h e perspective is
not a l w a y s stated as explicitly as i n the examples above. Interpre
tations often appear as a truth or a conclusion to the i n d i v i d u a l ,
LEARNING 27
s i m p l y because he or she is not aware of any other interpretations.

O n l y rarely d o the sales people, nurses, or home carers learn h o w
the w o r l d m i g h t appear f r o m other vantage points.
The b i g challenge i n relation to collective learning, then, is to
take the step f r o m i n d i v i d u a l or group-based interpretations to
collective interpretations. In order for this to h a p p e n , the members
need practical opportunities of getting together w i t h managers
a n d colleagues w h o have other organizational perspectives. The
size, structure, organization of the w o r k , meeting structure, a n d
p l a n n i n g of a d d i t i o n a l t r a i n i n g are a l l factors that can promote or
i n h i b i t this possibility. C o m p a n i e s w i t h a task-based culture often
use temporary project groups m a d e u p of employees f r o m differ
ent departments i n v a r y i n g combinations. In this case, one is v e r y
l i k e l y to hear about a n d take i n other perspectives. Some p u b l i c
a n d private companies have experimented w i t h job rotation
schemes a n d staff p o l i c y initiatives i n order to promote the m o b i l
ity between groups a n d departments w i t h i n the c o m p a n y . S u c h
initiatives also increase the members' ability to incorporate differ
ent perspectives into their interpretations.
The extent to w h i c h the organizational culture is based o n
egalitarian values is also of importance. D i x o n defines the three
most i m p o r t a n t values as the f r e e d o m to express oneself w i t h o u t
fear of retribution, equality, a n d m u t u a l respect ( D i x o n , 1994).
P o w e r relations, status differences, a n d i n f o r m a l success criteria
are some of the factors that c a n u n d e r m i n e these values. In the
p o w e r culture, f a v o u r i t i s m w i l l reduce the n o t i o n of equality a n d
m u t u a l respect a n d , thus, the personal courage to express o p i n
ions a n d interpretations. In the role-based culture hierarchical sta
tus differences influence the assessment of o p i n i o n s , a n d i n the
task-based culture it m a y be i n f o r m a l success criteria, s u c h as ac
cess to the mass m e d i a , that reduce the sense of equality.
It is a n i m p o r t a n t task for the consultant to promote activities
a n d skills for c a r r y i n g out o p e n dialogues w h e r e points of v i e w
c a n be expressed, listened to, explored, a n d challenged. The i m
portance of dialogue i n p r o m o t i n g the collective interpretation lies
b o t h i n the p o s s i b i l i t y of d i s c o v e r i n g w h a t w e ourselves actually
t h i n k — t h a t is, an exploration of the private, i m p l i c i t m e a n i n g
structures—and i n the possibility of l e a v i n g the egocentric per
spective b e h i n d b y discovering the m u l t i p l i c i t y of understandings.

O n e m i g h t also say that dialogue is the workout that makes the mind
agile.
Stage 4: Assuming responsibility for actions
In Stage 4 i n the collective learning process, one assumes responsi

bility for actions o n the basis of the interpreted m e a n i n g . H e r e , it
makes a difference h o w clearly the f o r m a l d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g a u
thority i n the organization is defined, and h o w easy (or h o w d i f f i
cult) the organizational culture makes it for management a n d
employees to m a k e decisions a n d to assume responsibility b o t h
for decisions a n d actions.
In organizations w i t h a role-based culture the f o r m a l decision
m a k i n g authority is often clearly defined t h r o u g h job descriptions.
H o w e v e r , there is often a v e r y p u n i s h i n g attitude towards m i s
takes, w h i c h makes it r i s k y to openly assume responsibility. U n
clear decisions are seen as an advantage, because the obscuritjf
makes it easier to make excuses later, s h o u l d the need arise.
In organizations that have a task-based culture w i t h a c o m p l e x
m a t r i x organization a n d w i d e s p r e a d delegation of authority it
m a y be unclear, b o t h to management a n d employees, h o w certain
types of decisions are to be made.
A s a consultant I have also met companies where decision
m a k i n g a n d action were v a l u e d so h i g h l y that the w e a k p o i n t w a s
i n m a k i n g sure that everything was based o n the collectively inter
preted m e a n i n g . There m a y have been data gathering a n d discus
sions i n an earlier stage, but at some point the project is pressed
for time, a n d actions are taken that do not b u i l d o n the p r e v i o u s
stages. The outcome of this is often more of the same. E v e r y t h i n g
remains the w a y it w a s — w i t h great frustration as the result. M a n
agers a n d employees w i l l ask, " W h a t was the point, then, w i t h a l l
those surveys a n d d i s c u s s i o n s ? " — A n d if a similar a p p r o a c h is
suggested later, they are less l i k e l y to participate actively.
LEARNING 29
Consultation as the staging

of collective learning processes
There are m a n y approaches to u n d e r s t a n d i n g systemic consulta

tion. O n e of t h e m is to see the consultant's w o r k o n the o v e r a l l
d e s i g n , contract, p l a n n i n g , a n d realization of activities as the crea
t i o n of structures a n d processes that i m p r o v e the conditions for
collective l e a r n i n g processes. I n accordance w i t h the p r e v i o u s de
s c r i p t i o n of change a n d learning, the consultant cannot guarantee
that collective l e a r n i n g w i l l take place. But the systemic consultant
w i l l attempt to use her expertise a n d creativity to create a d d i
tional possibilities for collective l e a r n i n g that are different f r o m
those that the o r g a n i z a t i o n itself is able to p r o v i d e .
W h e r e D i x o n ' s considerations e n d e d w i t h a d e s c r i p t i o n of the
i m p a c t of v a r i o u s organizational factors o n the collective l e a r n i n g
process, I w i l l take things one step further a n d describe h o w this
m o d e l m a y be m a d e applicable to the systemic consultant's c o n
siderations a n d concrete w o r k , (See also chapter 3.)
W h a t , then, are the k e y issues i n the d e s i g n a n d execution of a
consultation, seen i n relation to collective learning? T h i s question
w i l l be the topic of the f o l l o w i n g sections.
Defining the participant group

In the i n i t i a l stages of a consultation, w h i c h a n d h o w m a n y of
the organization's managers a n d employees s h o u l d be i n c l u d e d
as participants is often a major a n d o p e n question. N e i t h e r the
referrer n o r the c o m m i s s i o n e r necessarily has a v e r y clear or use
f u l i d e a about this. A s m e n t i o n e d i n chapter 1, the p o i n t of depar
ture of any consultation is a perceived p r o b l e m . I n consequence,
the m a k e u p of the participant g r o u p m u s t also be based o n c o n
siderations concerning the relations that v a r i o u s managers a n d
employees have to the p r o b l e m . A s systemic literature often
p o i n t s out, it is m o r e i m p o r t a n t to consider h o w the p r o b l e m de
fines the s y s t e m — t h a n h o w the system defines the p r o b l e m
( A n d e r s o n , G o o l i s h i a n , & W i n d e r m a n , 1986).
In this connection, the f o l l o w i n g questions come u p : W h o s e
p r o b l e m is it—that is, w h o perceives it as a problem? W h o has
i n f o r m a t i o n about the problem? W h o wants to, or is w i l l i n g to,

contribute to the consultation? W h o has the d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g
authority i n relation to the problem? In a n actual consultation,
the v a r i o u s questions d o not u s u a l l y point to the same g r o u p of
people. Some people w h o have i n f o r m a t i o n about the p r o b l e m
m a y not w a n t to participate, for example because they think that
other problems are more urgent. Others m a y be keen to contribute
i n f o r m a t i o n but lack the relevant decision-making authority. The
two case studies illustrate the potential c o m p l e x i t y of the situation
(see chapters 3 a n d 4).
The commissioner m a y often w a n t to include as few people for
as short a time as possible. A consultation is costly to the c o m
p a n y , w h i c h has to p a y managers a n d staff w h i l e they participate.
This means b o t h expensive salaries a n d the delay of activities re
lated to clients a n d customers that m i g h t otherwise have taken
place. The commissioner w i l l therefore be i n a situation w h e r e
l o n g - t e r m benefits have to be w e i g h e d against short-term costs.
F r o m the consultant's p o i n t of v i e w , there is often great uncer
tainty about w h a t w i l l be the most useful selection of participants.
A t the same time, this is a decision that has to be made d u r i n g the
initial contract stage. A s the consultant w i l l t y p i c a l l y be v e r y con
cerned about the potential negative consequences of l e a v i n g k e y
persons out, she w i l l often tend to w a n t to include as many people
as p o s s i b l e — a n d often for a longer p e r i o d of time than the c o m
missioner h a d i n m i n d .
N a t u r a l l y , the consultant has to respect the c o m p a n y ' s eco
n o m i c possibilities a n d priorities. This means that the consultant
has to consider h o w s m a l l the group can be, without compromising
the possibilities of going through the collective learning process. It is the
consultant's responsibility to make the necessary assessments of
this question a n d to i n c l u d e it i n the contract negotiations. In most
cases, it is possible to reach a c o m m o n g r o u n d that b o t h the c o m
missioner a n d the consultant can get b e h i n d .
In some cases, i n m y w o r k as a consultant, I have f o u n d this
c o m m o n g r o u n d h a r d to reach. I w i l l m e n t i o n one example: i n a n
organization, the commissioner (the m a n a g i n g director) perceived
a b i g p r o b l e m i n the f o r m of a conflict between t w o departments,
and he w a n t e d an investigation into the causes of this conflict. The
LEARNING 31
commissioner's first suggestion was for the managers of the t w o

departments to be i n v o l v e d ; he d i d not w a n t to participate h i m
self. The managers of the t w o departments, h o w e v e r , d i d not see
the conflict between the t w o of t h e m as the most serious p r o b l e m .
Instead they felt that other problems w e r e more pressing, s u c h
as p o o r c o m m u n i c a t i o n f r o m the top d o w n . I n s u c h a case, it be
comes a k e y issue whether the m a n a g i n g director is w i l l i n g to
enter into a dialogue w i t h the nearest l o w e r levels. If not, there is a
great risk that the managers w i l l have little m o t i v a t i o n to express
their v i e w s or m a k e use of other people's v i e w s . It is also difficult
to i m a g i n e h o w any n e w insight c o u l d be t u r n e d into decisions
a n d action.
The time factor

P r o b l e m s o l v i n g a n d learning take time. The time factor i n v o l v e d
i n the occurrence, recognition, maintenance, a n d s o l v i n g of p r o b
lems is crucial. It is therefore important to l o o k into the history of
the p r o b l e m . H o w l o n g d o various members of the o r g a n i z a t i o n
feel that the p r o b l e m has existed? W h e n d i d they first notice signs
of its existence? H o w l o n g was it f r o m the first signs u n t i l it w a s
d e c i d e d to conduct a consultation? A l l things b e i n g equal, it is
true that the longer a problem has been "underway", the longer it
is going to take to solve it. This includes not just the time spent i n
sessions w i t h the consultant a n d the participants, b u t also—-and
perhaps especially—the d u r a t i o n of the entire consultation p r o
cess a n d the s c h e d u l i n g of the time spent i n sessions.
C o n s u l t a t i o n means setting off a n d reserving time for l e a r n i n g ,
b u t there is a l i m i t as to h o w fast that learning can h a p p e n . Some
times the participants express this explicitly: "I can't stomach a n y
m o r e right n o w , I need a break", "That really is f o o d for t h o u g h t —
I need some time to t h i n k about that", " W e need time for it to sink
i n " , " I a m g o i n g to test that idea i n the next m e e t i n g " or "That w a s
unexpected, I need time to digest i t . " Interestingly enough, m a n y
of these metaphors stem f r o m the area of b i o l o g y . L e a r n i n g , too,
has a b i o l o g i c a l basis. The processes i n the i n d i v i d u a l a n d collec
tive l e a r n i n g processes take their time. It takes time to recreate the
history of the p r o b l e m . It takes time to establish n e w connections

between ideas. It takes time to integrate n e w ideas into one's per
sonal identity a n d w i t h one's previous u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the c o m
p a n y ' s situation. It takes time to test n e w insight against actual
w o r k situations. It takes time to agree o n n e w procedures, a n d so
forth.
A s the case studies demonstrate, learning not o n l y takes place
d u r i n g the i n d i v i d u a l consultation sessions, but also i n the w o r k
i n g periods i n between. This means that extensive and segmented
time promotes b o t h i n d i v i d u a l a n d collective learning.
This, b y the w a y , is not just true for the participants, but also
for the consultant, w h o needs time to think a n d reflect. W h a t the
systemic consultant can d o i n order to promote her o w n cognitive
processes w i l l be the topic of closer inspection i n chapters 6 a n d 7.
Drawing up the ground rules

Consultations are not o n l y defined i n time a n d space, but are also
characterized b y the fact that other rules a p p l y here than i n the
d a i l y w o r k i n the organization.
In m y experience, it is a good idea—regardless of whether
some of the same persons participated both i n the initial negotia
tions a n d i n the first meeting w i t h the participant g r o u p — t o
spend some time o n an explicit discussion of the g r o u n d rules that
a p p l y for the consultation. This can be done i n m a n y w a y s , but is
often based o n questions, s u c h as: " W h a t g r o u n d rules are neces
sary i n order for this consultation to lead to g o o d results?" or
" W h a t g r o u n d rules d o w e n e e d — i n order to make sure that this
is w o r t h w h i l e ? "
The g r o u n d rules that the participants come u p w i t h u s u a l l y
have to do w i t h openness, honesty, active listening, a respect for
differences a n d confidentiality i n relation to others outside the
consultation-room. A l l of these are important prerequisites for
progressions i n the collective learning process. O b v i o u s l y , it is one
t h i n g to d r a w u p these rules a n d quite another to respect t h e m
a n d to trust others to respect them. H o w difficult this is g o i n g to
be depends, a m o n g other things, o n h o w different these rules
LEARNING 33
s e e m to be f r o m the d a i l y n o r m s a n d b e h a v i o u r i n the c o m p a n y .
But w h e t h e r the difference is s m a l l or great, it is i m p o r t a n t to
describe the desired reality i n w o r d s , as this w i l l automatically
m o b i l i z e efforts towards m a k i n g it come true. T h i s is o n l y one
s m a l l example of h o w consultation can e m p l o y the e n o r m o u s
p o w e r of p o s i t i v e t h i n k i n g . (See m o r e about this i n , a m o n g other
places, C o o p e r r i d e r , 1990.)
Stages in the consultation

D e s c r i b i n g the stages of the consultation m a y be a g o o d device for
s t r u c t u r i n g time a n d activities, to the benefit of the c o m m i s s i o n e r ,
the participants, a n d the consultant. A n d i n d e e d , a l l areas of c o n
sultation i n c l u d e several m o d e l s that are based o n stages. These
segmented m o d e l s often e m p l o y reasoning f r o m the scientific
w o r l d , w h e r e stages i n a research project are described as b e i n g
l o g i c a l l y a n d r a t i o n a l l y separate, c o n t a i n i n g activities that are
separate—and m u s t be h e l d separate—from each other. In scien
tific research it is i m p o r t a n t , for example, to keep d e s c r i p t i o n a n d
interpretation separate. In systemic consultation, the opposite is
closer to the t r u t h , w h i c h I w i l l e x p l a i n b e l o w .
Segmented m o d e l s appear i n systemic literature too. B e l o w is a
m o d e l i n seven stages, i n s p i r e d b y C a m p b e l l (1995):
Stage 1: Referral
C o n s i d e r a t i o n s about the referral: H o w d i d it arise? W h a t is the
m e a n i n g of the referral for the different members of the o r g a n i
zation?
Stage 2: Learning about the organization and making hypotheses

W h a t k i n d of o r g a n i z a t i o n is this? W h a t is it l i k e for the e m
ployees to w o r k i n the organization? W h a t questions n e e d f u r
ther exploration?
Stage 3: Designing the consultation and agreeing on the contract

The consultant d r a w s u p a m u t u a l contract that clarifies the
expectations a n d w o r k i n g methods of the client-system a n d the
consultant.
Stage 4: Interviewing to gather data

Interviews can be carried out i n the f o r m of a large m e e t i n g or
w i t h i n d i v i d u a l s . The a i m is to talk to relevant people to ex
plore different hypotheses of w h a t is g o i n g o n , a n d h o w it
s h o u l d be interpreted.
Stage 5: Presenting your ideas

There are m a n y w a y s to d o this. The consultant m a y present or
i n v i t e for ideas i n the course of i n t e r v i e w i n g , i n reflecting dis
cussions, or i n the f o r m of more f o r m a l reports.
Stage 6: Planning and incorporation into the organizational life

Presenting ideas is o n l y the first step i n p u t t i n g them into prac
tice. A s s e s s i n g the consequences for the o r g a n i z a t i o n of any
p r o p o s e d changes s h o u l d be considered an essential part of the
consultation.
Stage 7: Exit (of the consultant)

Some time after the c o m p l e t i o n of the consultation, a meeting is
h e l d w i t h persons i n the organization i n order to p r o v i d e assist
ance w i t h h a n d l i n g the process of change that w a s triggered b y
the consultation.
A s it w i l l appear f r o m this m o d e l , stages i n systemic thinking

have a m o r e f l u i d character. The separation between the stages is
not as i m p o r t a n t as i n scientific research. The stage m o d e l is
m o s t l y meant as a g u i d e for the consultant, as a help to ensure
that the necessary considerations are made. F r o m one consultation
to another, o n l y the initial a n d f i n a l stages (1, 2, 3, a n d 7) w i l l be
the same, whereas there w i l l be great v a r i a t i o n i n the structuring
of the m i d d l e part of the time p l a n for a consultation. The t w o case
studies w i l l illustrate this. T o the client-system, the m i d d l e part is
the most interesting, w h i l e it w i l l often be difficult for the referrer
a n d the commissioner to imagine just how m a n y considerations
are necessary i n the i n i t i a l stages. They w i l l therefore be impatient
to "get g o i n g " , w h i l e the consultant feels that the process has a l
ready been l o n g u n d e r w a y .
LEARNING 35
Methodological considerations
and the collective learning process
H o w d o the stages i n a consultation relate to the stages i n the

collective l e a r n i n g process? A scientifically i n s p i r e d u n d e r s t a n d
i n g m i g h t give the i m p r e s s i o n that they m u s t be parallel: first a
stage w h e r e data is generated, then a stage w h e r e data is inte
grated, a n d so forth. This, h o w e v e r , is not the case. The m o d e l for
the collective l e a r n i n g process is a tool for the systemic consultant
w h o m a y use it to c o n s i d e r — i n each stage of the c o n s u l t a t i o n —
h o w to create possibilities for g o i n g t h r o u g h the stages of the
l e a r n i n g process once or repeatedly.
T h i s is true also of the i n i t i a l contact. Let us consider the first
m e e t i n g i n a potential consultation assignment as a n example.
Present m a y be the referrer, the commissioner (a manager), a n
e m p l o y e e , a n d the consultant. W i t h i n the setting of this m e e t i n g —
w h i c h t y p i c a l l y lasts about t w o h o u r s — a great n u m b e r of events
n e e d to take place i n order for the meeting to be successful: the
consultant has to establish a g o o d contact w i t h everyone present;
everyone has to have a chance to be heard; k n o w n i n f o r m a t i o n has
to be exchanged (concerning the c o m p a n y ' s situation a n d the con
sultant's b a c k g r o u n d ) ; credibility a n d trust have to be established;
a n d so forth. But the decisive criterion for a successful m e e t i n g
is w h e t h e r it creates possibilities for g o i n g t h r o u g h the collective
l e a r n i n g process. If the meeting is n o t h i n g more than an exchange
of k n o w n i n f o r m a t i o n , it is a d u l l affair. The p u r p o s e of the first
m e e t i n g is to establish a better basis for d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g than the
c o m p a n y already h a d . H e r e , the systemic consultant's p r e p a r a
tions a n d ability to i m p r o v i s e questions along the w a y become
essential. The challenge is to be able to f i n d the angles a n d the
questions that l e a d to the generation of i n f o r m a t i o n a n d points of
v i e w that are experienced as n e w a n d s u r p r i s i n g b y at least one of
the persons present. W h e n this happens, it creates energy, curios
ity, a n d a desire to get i n v o l v e d . Seen i n relation to the collective
l e a r n i n g process, w h a t happens i n these situations is that i n f o r m a
t i o n f r o m the private m e a n i n g structures becomes available for
discussion, a n d the i m p l i c i t collective m e a n i n g structures m a y be
o p e n to investigation as w e l l . The surprise s h o w s i n the b o d y l a n
guage b u t is often also c o m m e n t e d o n i n statements like, " R e a l l y , I
h a d no i d e a ! " or " B u t , y o u ' v e never mentioned that before!?" O n e

of the w a y s that n e w data can be generated is t h r o u g h the consult
ant's position-related questions: " W h e n d i d you—as m a n a g i n g
director—become aware of the p r o b l e m ? " , " W h e n d i d y o u — a s a
m e m b e r of the staff—first notice the p r o b l e m ? " This makes r o o m
for the differences that are often eliminated f r o m e v e r y d a y discus
sions.
The consultant's listening skills a n d interest i n different points
of v i e w w i l l help prepare the w a y for Stage 2: integration into the
organizational context. Information is transferred between i n d i
v i d u a l s a n d l i n k e d to personal points of v i e w .
The consultant can create possibilities for progressing f r o m
Stage 2 to Stage 3 b y asking questions concerning the u n d e r s t a n d
i n g a n d interpretations that the participants a p p l y to the state
ments of the others: "If m a n y employees perceive it the w a y that X
does, w h a t impact does that have o n . . . ?"
A first meeting s h o u l d always be c o n c l u d e d w i t h a n u m b e r of
decisions (Stage 4). A t a m i n i m u m , there s h o u l d be a joint decision
as to whether there is any basis for continued talks about the
potential consultation. If this is the case, there has to be a n agree
ment concerning w h e n a n d h o w . O r , perhaps, the parties already
agree to have a consultation, but they need some time to l o o k into
alternative w a y s of d e s i g n i n g a n d c o n d u c t i n g the consultation.
The consultant m a y think of the first meeting as an i n t e r v i e w
w h e r e the consultant's questions s h o u l d increase the chances for
progression i n the collective learning process. The i n t e r v i e w is
u s u a l l y the o n l y o p t i o n at the first meeting, w h i c h is u s u a l l y char
acterized b y the fact that there is no f o r m a l or p s y c h o l o g i c a l con
tract yet. The i n t e r v i e w is a familiar method, w h i l e m o r e " e x o t i c "
methods w i l l seem too alien, as l o n g as there is n o psychological
contract to make t h e m legitimate.
O n c e the contract has been d r a w n u p a n d the consultant's
latitude for d e v e l o p i n g a n d e m p l o y i n g various methods has
been d e f i n e d , the repertoire is extensive. The systemic consultant's
choice a n d application of methods w i l l be influenced b y c o n s i d
erations as to w h i c h progressions i n the collective learning process
it w i l l be most relevant to w o r k towards. In the b e g i n n i n g , the
m a i n emphasis w i l l be o n progressions f r o m Stage 1 to Stage 2, the
generation and dissemination of i n f o r m a t i o n a n d opinions. The
LEARNING 37
systemic consultant w i l l a v o i d activities that b e l o n g o n l y i n Stage

1, the generation of data exclusively for the consultant's use (as i n
expert advice) a n d w i t h o u t i m m e d i a t e d i s s e m i n a t i o n to the par
ticipants. I n r e l a t i o n to the collective l e a r n i n g process, the reason
for this is o b v i o u s : the integration of data into the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
context can o n l y take place if the data i n question become collec
tive p r o p e r t y .
Later i n the consultation, the m a i n emphasis w i l l be o n the
p r o g r e s s i o n f r o m Stage 2 to Stage 3. The integration of k n o w l e d g e
w i t h i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l context a n d the interpretation of this
w i l l often inspire the expression of a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n a n d
o p i n i o n s , w h i c h is w h y the emphasis o n the v a r i o u s progressions
has to be relative.
A t the e n d of a consultation, the focus w i l l be o n the p r o
gression f r o m Stage 3 to Stage 4: interpretation a n d decisions for
action. The systemic consultant w i l l carefully consider w h e r e to
Invitations to make
meaning structures accessible
Observation tasks Feedback of raw data
Making experience Descriptions of the
visible problem history
Feedback Activities with distinctly
separate speaking and
listening roles
Stage 2:
Stage 4: Integration
Responsibility of knowledge within
for actions i the organisational
I context
Making h i e r a r c h y \ ^
and management \
visible Sequential conversation
Discussion of Dialogue training
Stage 3:
hypothetical futures Circular questioning technique
Collective
Discussion of Positive reframing
interpretation
decision alternatives Addition of new concepts
Impact analyses
Action plans
F I G U R E 2.5. The systemic consultant's methods

seen in relation to the collective learning process
d r a w the line between the considerations about decisions that can

o n l y take place w i t h i n the consultation a n d those that m u s t be
referred to the management system. (See m o r e o n this i n the sec
t i o n about professional d o m a i n s i n chapter 5.4.)
In a segmented consultation, where there are a n u m b e r of
sessions w i t h w o r k i n g p e r i o d s i n between them (as i n b o t h the
case studies), there is g o o d o p p o r t u n i t y to i n c l u d e the experience
f r o m the intermediate w o r k i n g periods. M e t h o d s for a c h i e v i n g
this w i l l p r o m o t e the progression f r o m Stage 1 to Stage 4.
It is, thus, a n i m p o r t a n t p o i n t that the systemic consultant's
m e t h o d s are created a n d u s e d w i t h a v i e w to promoting progression
between the four stages in the collective learning process.
F i g u r e 2.5 p r o v i d e s examples of h o w this can be achieved.
Some of these methods are w e l l - d e f i n e d , others w i l l need to be
created d u r i n g the consultation. The use of these methods is i l l u s
trated i n the case studies as w e l l as i n a more theoretical context i n
chapter 5. Since, to m y m i n d , this progession is not a closed cycle
b u t a d y n a m i c process that never takes the participants back to the
same place twice, I have chosen to illustrate the l e a r n i n g process
as a spiral.
CHAPTER THREE
"Assess our manager

and expose his shortcomings'':
a consultation in a private company
Kit Sanne Nielsen
This consultation lasted seven months and took place in a

large, private company, for which I have done several assign
ments over the years. The organization has been disguised,
and the names are fictional.
I chose to include this assignment, because it required sev
eral intervention levels and was therefore particularly compli
cated. In addition, it is a practical example of how I use a
systemic learning model in my work as a consultant.
The psychological contract allowed a wide array of inter
vention levels and great freedom in the consultation work. In
addition, this assignment developed in unexpected ways,
which also contributed to its complexity. The consultation
took place on different levels: (I) an individual manager level,
(2) a team level, and (3) an organization level, because a new
departmental and management structure was established after
the assignment had been completed. The initial request dealt
with the interaction between management team and employee
team, the interaction within the employee team and the inter
action between organizational structure and manager. As will
39
become apparent, management relations and job satisfaction

played a prominent role, and the case reflects the different
aspects of the management task.
Case study
The request
Ihe request came from the company's personnel depart

m e n t — a n internal h u m a n resources consultant for w h o m I
JL have w o r k e d i n the past. The internal consultant called m e
a n d asked if I w o u l d be w i l l i n g to help one of the c o m p a n y ' s staff
departments w i t h a matter concerning management a n d coopera
tion. The consultant explained that for years several staff members
h a d been u n h a p p y w i t h the w a y that the department w a s b e i n g
m a n a g e d , a n d some of t h e m h a d , o n their o w n initiative, a d
dressed the issue w i t h the h u m a n resources consultant. The c o m
plaints said that the manager was w e a k a n d evasive a n d tended to
a v o i d conflicts at a l l costs, that he d i d not establish clear goals for
the employees, a n d that cooperation between the employees w a s
fraught w i t h suspicion, internal competition, a n d cliques. The e m
ployees also c o m p l a i n e d that the manager lacked an o v e r a l l v i e w
a n d control of the w o r k plans. The consultant t o l d m e that some
members of the staff were t a l k i n g b e h i n d some of their colleagues'
backs a n d h a d f o r m e d a u n i t e d front against them.
Since I h a d w o r k e d for this c o m p a n y i n the past, I k n e w the
following:
In this c o m p a n y , the h u m a n resources f u n c t i o n p r o v i d e s h u
m a n resources consultants w h o advise a n d support the line m a n
agers i n their h u m a n resources development w o r k . F o r several
years, h u m a n resources development has been a v i t a l area i n the
corporate development.
O n e of the c o m p a n y ' s f u n d a m e n t a l values is that it relies o n its
h u m a n resources. E m p l o y e e qualifications are a n important c o m
petitive factor. It is therefore necessary for the line managers to
have responsibility b o t h for the w o r k and for h u m a n resources
management. The h i g h p r i o r i t y o n h u m a n resources management,
A PRIVATE C O M P A N Y 41
h o w e v e r , reduces the line managers' possibility for t a k i n g care of

operations a n d w o r k . If the managers, o n the other h a n d , devote a
great d e a l of time to h u m a n resources management, there is a r i s k
that the h i g h l y q u a l i f i e d a n d s k i l l e d employees feel that the p r o
fessional aspects of their job d o not receive sufficient attention
f r o m the manager.
The c o m p a n y ' s attitude is that employee i n v o l v e m e n t is essen
tial for the c o m p a n y ' s success (in terms of market shares a n d q u a l
ity), a n d that it is management's job to create this i n v o l v e m e n t .
M a n a g e r s are frequently measured o n their ability to a c c o m p l i s h
this.
The d e m a n d for " d i a l o g u e - b a s e d " h u m a n resources manage
ment i n the c o m p a n y has been r i s i n g , a n d the i n t r o d u c t i o n of sev
eral types of management performance evaluations has directed
increased attention to the manager's ability for h u m a n resources
management a n d p r o b l e m s o l v i n g . This is p r o b a b l y an a d d e d
stress factor for m a n y managers a n d a " w e a p o n " i n the h a n d s of
dissatisfied employees.
I s h o u l d a d d here that I w a s not s u r p r i s e d to receive this re
quest. A f e w m o n t h s p r i o r to it I h a d carried out a consultation i n
a n adjacent department, a n d i n this connection I h a d t a l k e d w i t h
a n employee f r o m the staff department. The employee h a d ap
p l i e d for a s i m i l a r p o s i t i o n i n the n e i g h b o u r i n g department. U p o n
not getting the job, she asked for some personal feedback o n her
application. D u r i n g o u r conversation, she t o l d me that the very
poor working environment in the department w a s her m a i n reason for
w a n t i n g to leave. She gave me a detailed a n d lengthy d e s c r i p t i o n
of that situation f r o m the employees' p o i n t of v i e w . I remember
her t e l l i n g me that "I have told our manager that we need a consultant
to help us out of our problems, but he is so afraid of conflicts that I doubt
if he has the courage".
Stage 1: Initial contract with the manager, John

J o h n called me a n d asked for m y assistance. H e w a s extremely
interested, almost p l e a d i n g , a n d u s e d m a n y superlatives i n his
request for h e l p . W e arranged a meeting to talk matters over. The
Managing director
Director Director Director Director "Director
Manager = John
8 employees Special dept.,

4 employees
FIGURE 3.1. Organization chart
i n i t i a l arrangement was that I w o u l d interview h i m to clarify w h a t

sort of help he w a n t e d , a n d that w e w o u l d make an agreement
concerning the assignment a n d m y role i n the process.
In the meeting, I asked the manager to tell me w h a t he needed
h e l p w i t h , a n d w h y . First, he gave me an i n t r o d u c t i o n to the de
partment's tasks a n d a brief historical outline of the department's
p o s i t i o n i n the overall operations of the c o m p a n y (Figure 3.1).
This p r o v i d e d m e w i t h a g o o d b a c k g r o u n d for u n d e r s t a n d i n g the
job functions of the i n d i v i d u a l employees a n d the manager's re
sponsibility concerning the professional aspects of the w o r k . H e
then gave me a personal characterization of each employee i n the
department (this was his o w n choice). There were 12 employees,
a n d he spent 5 minutes o n each. O n e employee, for example, w a s
characterized as "reliable, stable, responsible, w i t h g o o d listening
s k i l l s " , another as "really g o o d professional skills, d y n a m i c , entre
preneurial, a m b i t i o u s " , a n d so forth. I was impressed w i t h his
great interest i n his team members as persons, a n d I noted a
strong i n v o l v e m e n t i n the employees. H e also described their per
sonal r e l a t i o n s — w h o got along w e l l , w h o h e l p e d each other out,
w h o h a d a problematic relationship w i t h each other. W h e n I asked
h i m w h a t he saw as the most pressing p r o b l e m for us to w o r k o n ,
he said: " I wish for everybody to think of this as a good place to work,
but I am afraid that some don't see it that way, I probably have my weak
points that I am not aware of, and—can't you help us see what the
problem is? I think that it will take a neutral outsider to define the
problem for us. I mean, I see and hear that some people are dissatisfied,
but I don't actually see quite what the problem is, and why it has to be
this way"
J o h n also t o l d m e about a difficult conflict. A year earlier, the
department h a d h i r e d a n e w , academic employee. D u r i n g the h i r
i n g procedure, there h a d been a disagreement between J o h n a n d a
g r o u p of employees concerning w h o s h o u l d be p i c k e d a m o n g 20
applicants. In the e n d , John h a d chosen someone that he c o n s i d
ered v e r y q u a l i f i e d — a person w h o m he k n e w f r o m before a n d
w h o m he h a d encouraged to a p p l y . This h a d caused considerable
d i s c u s s i o n a m o n g the employees. O n e " f a c t i o n " felt that the
w h o l e t h i n g h a d been pre-arranged, a n d they were f u r i o u s w i t h
w h a t h a d h a p p e n e d . J o h n h a d been called dishonest a n d m a n i p u
lative. The " n e w " employee h a d not yet been f u l l y accepted b y
certain of his colleagues. T h e y a v o i d e d h i m a n d m a d e sarcastic
comments about h i m , w h i l e others tried to defend h i m . The n e w
employee, of course, w a s i n a t o u g h spot himself, a n d he w a s not a
m e m b e r of any of the " c l i q u e s " .
A s there seemed to be several angles to reaching an u n d e r
s t a n d i n g of the p r o b l e m s , I suggested to J o h n that w e carry out a
climate survey. Part of m y reasoning for this w a s that the c o m
p a n y h a d d e v e l o p e d this organizational tool itself, a n d that the
department h a d not yet carried out its o w n climate survey. Be
sides, the results of the s u r v e y m i g h t p r o v i d e a g o o d p o i n t of
departure for a debate a n d an investigation of the p r o b l e m s w i t h
the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of e v e r y b o d y . This w o u l d be a g o o d w a y to be
g i n , as it w o u l d lead to a broader generation of k n o w l e d g e a n d
ideas, w h i c h a c o m m o n d i s c u s s i o n c o u l d be based o n (see chapter
2). J o h n l i k e d the idea. A t the e n d of the meeting, w e h a d d r a w n
u p the f o l l o w i n g action p l a n together.
W e w a n t e d to use the c o m p a n y ' s o w n m e t h o d for c a r r y i n g out
a climate survey. The s u r v e y w o u l d be processed i n the h u m a n
resources department (it w o u l d be an a n o n y m o u s survey). The
c o m p u t e r , results w e r e to be read b y J o h n a n d myself, a n d w e
w o u l d then s p e n d a theme day together w i t h the staff to discuss
the results a n d decide o n the next steps. John w o u l d brief the
employees about the meeting w e h a d just h a d a n d about the pre
l i m i n a r y p l a n . I w a s to e x p l a i n the m e t h o d i n more detail at our
m e e t i n g w i t h the employees.
If further consultation was needed, this w o u l d be d e c i d e d at

the e n d of the theme day. Qualitative interviews w i t h the e m
ployees a n d a t e a m - b u i l d i n g course seemed o b v i o u s possibilities.
J o h n w a s also offered s u p e r v i s i o n — a n offer that he accepted.
The s u p e r v i s i o n w a s to p r o v i d e a basis for t a k i n g stock of the
process together a n d to a i d a n d support John.
The contract
M y contract w i t h John stated the f o l l o w i n g :
I w a s to be the chief consultant. I w o u l d be g i v e n the f r e e d o m
to choose w h a t methods I deemed appropriate i n the process. I
w a s to s u p p o r t John i n h a n d l i n g the management task better a n d
p r o v i d e s u p e r v i s i o n along the w a y . The internal consultant, w h o
h a d h a n d l e d the i n i t i a l contact, w a s to be out of the project i n the
sense that he w o u l d not be receiving i n f o r m a t i o n , unless the m a n
ager thought it w a s relevant a n d w i s h e d to i n c l u d e the internal
consultant. In that case, the manager w o u l d have to contact the
h u m a n resources consultant himself. In that w a y , b o t h J o h n a n d
the h u m a n resources consultant w o u l d be a part of the client
system. I i n f o r m e d the h u m a n resources department of this, a n d
John w a s the one w h o signed the contract.
Reflections
John had decided to get outside help, i assumed that he had finally
caved in after the employees, the human resources consultant, and
manager colleagues in the neighbouring department had tried to
sell him the idea.
After the telephone conversation, I wondered about his "charm

campaign", and I wondered what it might reflect. It was clear that
he wanted to make a good first impression. Had he guessed that
others had spoken badly of him, and that I already knew these
views? Did he know that I knew that other people thought his
department was having problems?
What would happen at the meeting? H o w could I assume a rea

sonably neutral position and, at the same time, gain John's trust
that I would be loyal to him? What consequences might this poten

tial invitation to form an alliance have to our first meeting? I de
cided to use the first stage to gather information and to listen. It is
important for a consultant to be able to form alliances with every
body and nobody at the same time. This would be my opening
strategy for my first meeting with him.
M y impression after the meeting was that John was unsure about
the actual nature of the problems. His behaviour expressed an
almost humble and pleading style. He expressed a need for ap
proval and was clearly nervous about the process that he was
about to initiate. He addressed me "Dear Kit" several times, which
I interpreted as a strong desire to get me on his side. Was he
lonesome in his job? Did he need support? I chose to go along as
far as necessary to make it clear to him that 1 wanted to help him,
but at the same time I made it clear that everyone would have to
be able to speak their mind concerning the state of things in the
department. This later turned out to be a difficult balancing act. In
relation to the theory about professional domains (see chapter 5.4),
I was here clearly in the domain of ethics (also called the domain
of aesthetics, cf. Cronen and Lang, 1990). I had to make my own
personal ethics clear and put myself in a position where I could
remain open and curious while not getting won over by informa
tion and views from the various parties. At the same time, I had to
be loyal and understanding towards the difficult position that I
knew John was in. I knew that I had to make it clear from the
beginning that I had to be free to choose the methods, techniques,
and hypotheses that I found useful to my consultation, or I would
not be able to help the system find new ways of acting and cooper
ating.
Stage 2: Meeting with manager, assistant manager,

and staff
T h i s m e e t i n g b e g a n w i t h a short, personal presentation of every
one. I b r i e f l y e x p l a i n e d w h o I w a s , described m y k n o w l e d g e of the
c o m p a n y , a n d gave some examples of t y p i c a l assignments that I
h a d carried out for the c o m p a n y i n the past, I then suggested that
w e b e g i n w i t h a climate survey. I e m p h a s i z e d that everyone w a s

to be i n c l u d e d , f r o m the b e g i n n i n g , i n describing the job situation,
so that, later, everyone w o u l d share the responsibility for i m p r o v
i n g the situation. This w a s generally received w e l l , a l t h o u g h w i t h
some reservations. M a n y people l o o k e d relieved, a f e w people
expressed their doubts as to whether this w a s sufficient, a n d there
w a s some discussion of this point. I noted the great differences of
o p i n i o n w i t h i n the g r o u p . A f t e r I h a d explained the m e t h o d a n d
thematic content of the climate survey, e v e r y b o d y f i l l e d i n the
questionnaire.
I got the i m p r e s s i o n that the group was interested a n d pre
p a r e d to d e a l w i t h the problems, although some were m o r e
m o t i v a t e d than others. M a n a g e m e n t a n d cooperation problems
h a d existed for years, a n d expectations for the outcome v a r i e d .
Some w e r e eager to get started, others were more reserved a n d
sceptical. A few people felt that this w a s a waste of time, a n d that
a l l that w a s needed w a s for the manager to p u t the d i s g r u n t l e d
a n d c o m p l a i n i n g people i n their place. D e p e n d i n g o n people's
p o s i t i o n i n the g r o u p , they v i e w e d the p r o b l e m complex v e r y dif
ferently.
The questionnaires were returned to the c o m p a n y ' s h u m a n re
sources department, where the results were calculated b y a c o m
puter p r o g r a m m e .
Stage 3 : The findings of the climate survey

W h e n I received the findings of the climate survey a few days
later, I thought that John must f i n d them pretty shocking. If he
h a d m a n a g e d to block out the degree of dissatisfaction a m o n g his
staff, this w a s a real w a k e - u p call. In his version, the problems
h a d to d o w i t h a lack of m u t u a l respect a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g , but the
current f i n d i n g s reflected massive dissatisfaction i n every single
area that h a d been investigated. There were major problems con
cerning clarity of goals, customer orientation, influence o n tasks,
feedback a n d acknowledgement, cooperation, conflict-solving,
i n n o v a t i o n , a n d so forth.
The employees a l l h a d a h i g h level of education, a n d they
w o u l d therefore also expect their skills to be p u t to use a n d to be
able to develop t h r o u g h their job. The negative e v a l u a t i o n m i g h t

also be interpreted as a s i g n that people were not getting the
challenges a n d goals to ensure satisfactory development of their
skills a n d qualifications. The participants' replies s h o w e d that they
n e e d e d explicit goals a n d direction. D i s h a r m o n y , c o m p e t i t i o n , l o w
m o t i v a t i o n , a n d so forth seemed to be a part of the p r o b l e m . J o h n
a n d the g r o u p n o w h a d to decide w h a t conclusions to d r a w f r o m
the s u r v e y , a n d I w o n d e r e d h o w o p e n the discussion w o u l d be
a n d w h e t h e r the employees w o u l d o w n u p to their c r i t i c i s m w h e n
w e a l l met for the theme d a y .
Reflections
I was aware that this would be a blow to John, and I therefore
carefully considered how to discuss things with him. The climate
survey spoke very clearly; 9 2 % of the replies fell under the cate
gory of "potential problem areas". The severity of the result could
be read as a clear signal of dissatisfaction and a demand for
change. In that sense the results conveyed an unambiguous mes
sage. This matched the information that I had received before the
consultation began from my "first informant", the employee who
did not get the job that she had applied for. It reflected and con
firmed the assumption: the problems had existed for years and on
several levels—management, relations, and tasks. As a consultant,
I might consider why a group of employees would paint such a
bleak picture of their department. Was it a collective attempt at
mutiny—sending a loud and clear signal to the company that this
manager had to go? Why were the employees so angry/confused/
dissatisfied? What had caused this? What conflicts lay behind it?
What battles had taken place over the years? W h o had lost and
won?
Stage 4 : Theme day about the climate survey

O n the theme d a y , everyone w a s i n v o l v e d i n debating the climate
s u r v e y . I presented a n outline of the f i n d i n g s , a n d everyone
w a s g i v e n a c o p y of them. T h e n the team w o r k e d i n t w o smaller
g r o u p s , i n w h i c h they discussed a n d r a n k e d the problems. A f t e r

g o i n g over these i n the large g r o u p , I d e c i d e d to go one level
deeper a n d try to get a n answer to the f o l l o w i n g questions: H o w
d i d the i n d i v i d u a l employee experience the w o r k i n g e n v i r o n
ment, cooperation, a n d management o n a d a i l y basis? H o w were
things experienced emotionally? I chose to conduct this as a n o p e n
i n t e r v i e w a n d asked for a volunteer.
The rest of the g r o u p participated as a reflective team. The
e m p l o y e e w h o h a d agreed to be i n t e r v i e w e d represented the most
o u t s p o k e n g r o u p of dissatisfied employees. She expressed o p e n l y ,
honestly, a n d directly h o w matters were i n f l u e n c i n g her, b o t h per
sonally a n d professionally. She stated the f o l l o w i n g :
"I d o n ' t see h o w m y w o r k is part of the overall efforts of the

department, a n d I don't feel that our manager is h e l p i n g me
w i t h this i n any w a y . A c t u a l l y , I a m unable to c o m m u n i c a t e
w i t h h i m at a l l . O u r image to the outside is far too p o o r , a n d I
d o n ' t t h i n k that our professional level is u p to the standards
that the customers have a right to expect. E v e r y t h i n g is so
messy here, John has just delegated everything, a n d he never
f o l l o w s u p o n a n y t h i n g . I have lost m y m o t i v a t i o n , because
there is n o development. W e have just g r o u n d to a halt here.
J o h n makes peculiar decisions. H e keeps c h a n g i n g his m i n d ,
a n d it is u s u a l l y the last person w h o speaks to h i m that gets it
their w a y ! — W e lack trust i n each other, a n d there is n o real
team spirit. W e are stuck—no n e w ideas or goals, a n d I a m
getting out as soon as I f i n d another job!"
The team reflected o n these statements, a n d it became a v e r y

personal a n d intense session. In this session there w a s one p e r s o n
to w h o m I w i l l refer as the "team's oracle", because she w a s to be
the one to uncover a repressed story. H e r disclosure can be s u m
m a r i z e d as f o l l o w s :
The department h a d lost a treasured employee w h o h a d been
i n the department for 25 years, Peter. H e h a d d i e d f r o m cancer a
f e w weeks after his 60th birthday. The entire department h a d been
to his b i r t h d a y party. The loss was p a i n f u l , not just for personal
a n d e m o t i o n a l reasons, for the colleagues w h o h a d k n o w n h i m for
several years; the loss w a s greater than that. Peter h a d h a d the
role of " c o - o r d i n a t o r " between management a n d staff. H e w a s the

one w h o m a d e sure that John passed the appropriate i n f o r m a t i o n
o n to the team. H e was the one w h o t o l d John h o w things were
g o i n g i n the team. Peter was the one w h o cleaned u p a n d ordered
office supplies w h e n they were used u p — i n d e e d , it seemed that
Peter h a d been m a k i n g u p for a l l the things that n o w were n o
longer b e i n g taken care o f — i n terms of practical things a n d w o r k .
H e w a s a n organizational c o m m u n i c a t i o n l i n k between J o h n a n d
the staff—or, as one of the employees p u t it: I think w e a l l feel b a d
about this—Peter w a s the b l o o d y errand-boy for a l l of us.
Several of the team members were getting m i s t y - e y e d d u r i n g
this story. A couple of them cried openly. John was v e r y affected.
The story h a d touched o n something that was v e r y deep a n d p a i n
f u l to m a n y i n the g r o u p . I was surprised a n d pensive. I d e c i d e d
to give the g r o u p some time to express the feelings that were n o w
c o m i n g out. S l o w l y , there was a change i n the g r o u p . Some of
t h e m p u t a h a n d o n someone else's shoulder, a n d some b o r r o w e d
handkerchiefs f r o m the person next to them. Some of the e m p l o y
ees w h o h a d sat i n silence, listening a n d w a t c h i n g other people's
reactions, spoke u p a n d expressed surprise, emotions, a n d o p i n
ions. G r a d u a l l y , the atmosphere changed into a sense of s y m p a
thetic interest a n d compassion.
A t this p o i n t I f o u n d it appropriate to intervene w i t h a general
hypothesis, w h i c h was to serve the purpose of creating insight
a n d e m o t i o n a l relief i n the g r o u p . The hypothesis, w h i c h w a s de
v e l o p e d i n stages, c a n be s u m m a r i z e d i n the f o l l o w i n g w o r k i n g
hypothesis:
"It appears that Peter was a v e r y valuable p e r s o n to all of y o u .

H e f i l l e d a part a n d took care of a f u n c t i o n as the p e r s o n w h o
p i c k e d u p the loose ends, cleaned u p , p r o v i d e d c o - o r d i n a t i o n ,
d i d the p h o t o c o p y i n g , sent out the m a i l , a n d so forth, a n d he
h e l p e d distribute the practical tasks. These jobs have been
floating a r o u n d since then. Some of the jobs have been trans
ferred to the secretaries, w h o n o w feel over-burdened because
they have to h a n d l e a l l this i n a d d i t i o n to their other secretarial
duties. Furthermore, Peter helped John communicate w i t h the
staff—he acted as John's l i a i s o n a n d coach. H e sorted out m i s
understandings, gave John advice, a n d took action w h e n c o n
flicts were u n d e r w a y , acting as an emissary. O f course y o u

miss h i m . Understandably, some of y o u still have a h a r d time
w i t h this. But don't y o u think that Peter w a s h a p p y w i t h this
function, w h i c h he b o t h took a n d was given? Some of y o u
express anger, because he never refused this role as " e r r a n d
b o y " . Imagine that Peter was to give y o u a l l some g o o d advice
today; w h a t w o u l d he say?"
The silence i n the g r o u p was deafening. I then asked the g r o u p to

separate into smaller teams to reflect o n this a n d p r o v i d e some
ideas o n the k i n d s of thoughts a n d advice that Peter m i g h t have
h a d for them. This assignment led to m a n y thoughts a n d emo
tions, a n d the plenary session later s h o w e d that the g r o u p w a s
ready for a m o r e action-oriented phase. There were suggestions of
d r a w i n g u p a systematic list of the tasks to be h a n d l e d , d e f i n i n g
w h o w o u l d distribute t h e m i n the future. The group session that
f o l l o w e d w a s h a r d w o r k i n g a n d efficient a n d l e d to the establish
ment of a task g r o u p to l o o k more closely at the d i s t r i b u t i o n of a
n u m b e r of tasks i n order to f i n d a more flexible distribution. This
included:
1. secretarial tasks
2. entering data a n d reporting data
3. r e p a i r i n g a n d m a i n t a i n i n g technical equipment
4. other tasks (for example, traineeships, t i d y i n g , telephone c o m
plaints, r e f u n d i n g expenses after trips a n d courses, a n d so
forth).
The task g r o u p w a s to w o r k out a list of the tasks, w h o was re

sponsible for them, a n d w h o w o u l d carry them out.
This w a s the end of the theme day. The feedback at the e n d of
the d a y was positive. H o p e s were expressed that John a n d the
employees w o u l d p u l l together to solve the task as it h a d been
defined. J o h n asked the staff to agree to follow u p the theme d a y
w i t h a 3-day seminar, where the group was to define goals a n d
focus areas a n d continue w i t h a t e a m - b u i l d i n g process. The feed
back to John led to a w i s h for a team-building process that w o u l d
address differences between the employees, give training i n direct
c o m m u n i c a t i o n , and establish more respectful relations.
Reflections
The climate survey elicited many signals that the department was
lacking job satisfaction. In several areas, the employees felt that
relations between management and staff were burdened with sus
picion, dissatisfaction, anger, and frustration. The complaints over
poor management were clear and overwhelming. Since a dialogue
had been established during the theme day, I was hoping that the
group had begun to build a better foundation for a viable interac
tion. W e had only touched briefly on John's role and function. He
had been criticized, he had dealt with criticism, and perhaps he
had a sense that he should take more control of the department.
He had delegated many tasks, and he was criticized for not provid
ing sufficient foliow-up, but he now had the help of several of his
employees. W o u l d he put in an active effort himself? The meaning
of Peter's role had been made clear, both to John and to the staff,
but what conclusions would they draw themselves, and what
changes might it lead to? There were conflicting and repressed
feelings and attitudes towards Peter, and apparently the group had
kept them hidden for a long time. At least the violent reactions of
grief suggested that a dam had broken—and words, tears, anger,
and relief flowed freely. W o u l d this episode strengthen the group
internally and weaken some of the fronts and alliances that had
characterized the group for a year and a half? One of my interven
tions had been to help the group "bury" Peter and then to motivate
them to assume collective responsibility for the "clean-up". I was
hoping, of course, that this would prepare the way for a greater
degree of shared responsibility, and that this would have a positive
effect on the cooperation. The process work on the theme day took
place both in the domain of ethics and in the domain of produc
tion. The participants had expressed their own moral values and
attitudes to the interaction and worked on producing proposals
and ideas for new procedures and methods for various organiza
tional tasks. The participants had shown their willingness to work
together on defining and agreeing what activities should be given
higher priority, and to discuss how they might progress with this
systematic, practical work. In the domain of production, clarity is
of the essence, and by making the distribution of tasks, responsibil
ity, and authority more explicit, the department could benefit by
becoming more productive and efficient. These "virtues" were in
demand from the employees, who were ambitious and hardwork

ing. But in order for the department to function as intended, John
would have to make the necessary decisions while still being in
charge of co-ordination and control in this stage. This was exactly
the role that John was being criticized for not filling.
I was wondering how John would react later. Did he feel that the
employees were willing to support him in his job as the manager?
O r did he fear "the writing on the wall", which might lead to his
dismissal? The employees had expressed their criticism and
demands. They wanted goals, clear areas of responsibility, pro
cedures, and management, and to me they seemed willing to share
the responsibility. I was not sure whether John saw things the
same way, and whether he intended to assume leadership now
during this process of change. Did he have the necessary qualifi
cations? Did he have the will? Did he want to? M y next super
vision meetings with him would provide the answer. He appeared
to be open and responsive, but did he also have the will to partici
pate in changing the way things worked? He had expressed his
interest and good intentions, but was he able to live up to that? I
had my doubts and decided to find the answers to some of these
questions.
It was my impression that the group had been dysfunctional for a

while. The impression I had of the group suggested the following:
There was a basic lack of a joint and collective team spirit. There
were sporadic signs of a team spirit, but only in subgroups, and
there was considerable confusion as to the goals of the group and
how they should be reached by the group as a team. Rules, leader
ship, influence, and responsibility were drifting, and some of the
group members were not sure that they would be accepted into the
group. Others had found a social group where they felt secure, and
where they felt a sense of belonging. Some individuals got along in
a rule-governed group climate, where emotions were not dis
cussed, and work-related subjects were the only ones allowed.
Many were unhappy with John as a manager. Some tried to cover
for him. The big differences had polarized the group, which
needed a common vision and group identity. The unclear leader
ship made the group unable to handle differences in personalities
and opinions, aspects that were necessary in order to develop a

productive and functioning group.
The intermediate stage

D u r i n g the next stage, the established w o r k g r o u p w o r k e d o n
s t r u c t u r i n g a n d d i s t r i b u t i n g tasks. The progression a n d i m p l e
m e n t a t i o n of this w o r k appeared to be relatively unproblematic,
a n d the effect w a s a n internal solidarity w i t h i n the staff g r o u p ,
w h e r e areas of responsibility a n d authority were m a d e explicit. I
noticed that it w a s easier for the staff a n d for John to cooperate i n
the d o m a i n of p r o d u c t i o n than to cope w i t h the differences i n the
d o m a i n of ethics. B o t h i n the f o l l o w i n g meetings w i t h the m a n
ager a n d f r o m minutes of the departmental meetings, w h i c h w e r e
sent to m e , I c o u l d see that this w o r k w a s proceeding according to
p l a n a n d apparently w i t h o u t a n y great problems. T h e manager
expressed his satisfaction w i t h the process.
There were, h o w e v e r , still some areas that needed to be sorted
i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of responsibility between the manager a n d the
assistant manager, so I met w i t h t h e m a couple of times i n order to
h e l p t h e m define a n d describe a clearer d i s t r i b u t i o n of w o r k be
tween them.
Stage 5 : Interview stage
The staff w a n t e d m e to i n t e r v i e w a l l employees before the f o l l o w

i n g seminar. A n i n t e r v i e w stage h a d been i n c l u d e d i n the contract
as a possibility, if the staff a n d John f o u n d it to be relevant, a n d it
w o u l d give e v e r y b o d y a n o p p o r t u n i t y to elaborate o n the f i n d i n g s
of the climate s u r v e y w i t h qualitative statements o n h o w manage
ment a n d cooperation w a s perceived. E v e r y b o d y w a s i n t e r v i e w e d
one to one (except for a special g r o u p of four people w h o chose a
g r o u p interview). These interviews p r o v i d e d a great deal of infor
m a t i o n about the department's culture for cooperation, attitudes,
likes a n d dislikes, alliances, personal frustrations, a n d the " s k e l
etons i n the closet". T h e employees got some things off their chest
a n d , to some extent, u n d e r w e n t a " d e t o x i f i c a t i o n " . It w a s a great

benefit that e v e r y b o d y felt that they h a d been h e a r d , listened to,
a n d u n d e r s t o o d , a n d it gave m e the o p p o r t u n i t y to formulate n e w
hypotheses to p r o v i d e a p o i n t of departure for the p l a n n i n g of the
c o m i n g seminar. The i n t e r v i e w r o u n d also a l l o w e d me to f o r m u
late systemic questions i n connection to the interviews for the staff
members a n d John to reflect o n at the u p c o m i n g seminar.
A recurrent element i n the v i e w s of the employees h a d come
u p i n the interviews:
The c o m p a n y ' s top management h a d not been s h o w i n g m u c h
interest i n the o u t p u t of the department. But lately there h a d been
m o r e focus o n w h a t the department s h o u l d deliver, a n d h o w . The
" i n t e r n a l customers" i n the c o m p a n y felt that the department w a s
acting o n a w i s h to control other departments i n the c o m p a n y , a n d
that they d i d not p r o v i d e the guidance a n d feedback to other de
partments that were expected of it. The customers d i d not feel that
they w e r e getting the service they required a n d instead tried to
a v o i d contact w i t h the department. Therefore they w e r e not m a k
i n g d e m a n d s o n the q u a l i t y of the department's services. T h i s h a d
a d e - m o t i v a t i n g effect o n the department staff. I n an i n n o v a t i v e
a n d performance-oriented c o m p a n y culture, this h a d caused oth
ers not to appreciate the department a n d its services. F r o m a c o m
p a n y perspective, this o b v i o u s l y h a d a negative influence o n the
self-esteem of the employees i n the department. The employees
c o u l d not tell whether it w a s because of this situation, or whether
it w a s due to the internal problems, but i n any case the effect was
that John a n d his employees felt stuck a n d therefore h a d d i f f i c u l
ties d e v e l o p i n g . They lacked i n n o v a t i o n , spirit, a n d i n v o l v e m e n t .
O n e of m y hypotheses w a s that this h a d caused a b u i l d - u p of
energy that expressed itself t h r o u g h negativity, stress, a n d frustra
t i o n w i t h the lack of challenges a n d development.
Reflections
In my interpretation of the interview findings, the group in the
special section seemed to function well internally. But they were
*
tired of participating in the common departmental meetings and
witnessing what they referred to as the bickering in the depart
ment. The special section tended to watch things from the side
lines, as they were geographically located in other buildings and
only went to the main building occasionally. This group enjoyed
the cooperation with John and felt that he provided "professional
input". Their relationship with him differed from that of the other
employees in the main section, because they answered to a differ
ent manager on a daily basis. They had a number of interesting
observations. They felt that John's greatest difficulty was that he
practised "individual management instead of group management".
John liked to talk things over in the corridor with whomever he ran
into, instead of in a common forum. He made many special deals
with people "at random" (and was it really at random?), and he did
not treat his subordinates equally. This caused irritation and cre
ated internal competition. But, at the same time, many in the group
also felt that the rest complained too much and were unfair to
John. They thought that he should stand up to the people who
were complaining. They were somewhat annoyed that he did not
face up to more confrontations with the people who complained.
The interviews enabled me to define several intervention levels. It

was necessary to address:
1. the manager's responsibility and role

2. the team work and making the group's own resources visible
3. setting up goals for specific tasks and defining the department's
raison d'etre (mission-goals-strategy)
The department had initiated this last process before I came into
the picture, and it was clearly something that they wanted to con
tinue to work on.
I therefore d e c i d e d to o p e n the seminar w i t h the f o l l o w i n g ques

tions:
• W h a t sort of management does the g r o u p want?

• W h a t are the d e m a n d s a n d expectations?
• H o w does one communicate i n order to u n d e r s t a n d other
people?
• W h a t differences are there? A n d h o w are they utilized?
• W h a t resources does the g r o u p possess? A n d h o w m i g h t the

g r o u p w o r k towards u t i l i z i n g these resources?
• H o w does the g r o u p intend to proceed i n order to m a k e its
m i s s i o n a n d strategy visible to the c o m p a n y a n d the customers?
In m y o p i n i o n , the participants needed to look at themselves i n

stead of a l w a y s l o o k i n g at others.
The climate survey h a d been a n a n o n y m o u s process, a n d I
n o w w a n t e d every single employee to be i n c l u d e d a n d m a d e re
sponsible i n the continued process.
I also k n e w that negative stereotypes can be eliminated, once
people b e g i n to understand w h y other people act the w a y they
do. Projections are toned d o w n , w h e n the motivations of other
personality types are m a d e explicit. E v e r y t h i n g becomes less m y s
terious, a n d one recognizes oneself as w e l l as others. This makes
it possible to accept other people's motives a n d preferences. In
m y experience, s u c h a team process c o u l d p r o v i d e the basis for
greater respect a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g . W h e n one accepts a n d u n d e r
stands one's o w n preferences a n d aversions, one is more l i k e l y to
u n d e r s t a n d that others have similar feelings.
Stage 6: Three-day seminar
The t o o l I chose to use as m y f o u n d a t i o n was the M y e r s - B r i g g s

T y p e Indicator (MBTI), w h i c h I have used successfully i n team
b u i l d i n g activities (Myers & M y e r s , 1993). I began b y g i v i n g a n
i n t r o d u c t i o n to different types of personalities a n d their pref
erences. T h e n I gave the g r o u p a n u m b e r of exercises w i t h the
p u r p o s e of illustrating h o w people prefer to use different p s y c h o
logical dimensions i n different w a y s . The g r o u p t u r n e d out to c o m
prise m a n y different personality types.
A f t e r this, the group w a s g i v e n a n u m b e r of tasks to d e m o n
strate w h a t this meant to their cooperation w i t h i n the team. This
gave the participants a n o p p o r t u n i t y to discuss their o w n pre
ferred styles of c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d w h a t each of t h e m l o o k e d for
i n a job.
This was the cause of m u c h levity i n the g r o u p . Great energy
c a n be m o b i l i z e d b y b e c o m i n g aware of the differences between
one's o w n preferences a n d those of others; a n d as it w a s d e m o n

strated at the same time that a l l types have their inherent re
sources a n d possibilities, m a n y of the participants d i s c o v e r e d that
everyone c o u l d contribute i n some w a y .
The process demonstrated that the p r e v i o u s f o r m of coop
eration i n the g r o u p h a d been a n " e i t h e r / o r " situation. T h i s w a s
discussed o p e n l y , a n d g r a d u a l l y the participants themselves
d e v e l o p e d a w i s h towards a greater degree of tolerance a n d ac
ceptance of m a n y different w a y s of being, acting, a n d t h i n k i n g .
T h i s d i s c u s s i o n a n d awareness meant that the manager's p e r s o n
ality type a n d management style c o u l d be discussed o p e n l y .
John's type w a s different f r o m the majority of the people i n the
department. J o h n preferred to use a n enthusiastic, harmony-seek
i n g a n d process-oriented style. H e t h r i v e d o n j u g g l i n g several ac
tivities at the same time a n d tried to keep as m a n y possibilities
o p e n as possible. M a n y of the members of staff expressed a need
for a far m o r e structured management style, where John w o u l d
stick to his choices a n d decisions. H e h a d delegated everything,
b u t h a d neglected the f o l l o w - u p . This caused irritation, anger, a n d
confusion.
John a n d the assistant manager got a n o p p o r t u n i t y to alter the
d i s t r i b u t i o n of responsibility between them. W h e n they presented
the outcome, the employees p r o v i d e d feedback a n d ideas for the
p l a n , a n d it w a s agreed a n d w r i t t e n d o w n h o w the future p l a n
n i n g w a s g o i n g to take place, after the seminar h a d e n d e d . T h e
roster that the w o r k g r o u p h a d d r a w n u p w a s also negotiated a n d
co-ordinated w i t h J o h n a n d the assistant manager.
A t the e n d , e v e r y b o d y h a d a chance to p r o v i d e a n d receive
feedback. T h e result w a s a dialogue that i n c l u d e d e v e r y b o d y a n d
w h i c h h a d p r o d u c e d positive contributions a n d constructive p r o
posals for changes i n the i n d i v i d u a l participant's o w n w o r k i n g
style a n d cooperation style.
The last d a y of the seminar was spent o n a debate about goals.
John presented the c o m p a n y ' s o v e r a l l v i s i o n a n d strategy, a n d i n a
later session the participants w o r k e d i n groups o n articulating the
department's o w n goals a n d focus areas. T h e f o l l o w i n g questions
w e r e addressed: H o w s h o u l d our services change a n d i m p r o v e i n
the future? W h a t are the most important aspects to stress i n rela
t i o n to our customers? W h i c h projects s h o u l d w e finish? W h i c h

s h o u l d w e l a u n c h , a n d w h i c h s h o u l d w e abandon?
In conclusion, the staff agreed that cooperation w a s to be
h a n d l e d differently n o w . It w a s decided to give h i g h p r i o r i t y to
cross-functional projects a n d to establish project groups o n the
basis of interests a n d differences i n personality types. A s a final
step, the goals were to be presented to the m a n a g i n g director. The
staff themselves stated that they w a n t e d to include the m a n a g i n g
director i n order to demonstrate that the department w a s n o w
actively engaged i n m o v i n g f o r w a r d .
In the debate about goals e v e r y b o d y h a d been active a n d
motivated. O n c e the i n d i v i d u a l participants understood their o w n
preferences (needs), they also h a d more respect for other people's
preferences. The w o r k group that h a d been established w a s to
continue to w o r k o n proposals for action plans. The w o r k g r o u p
w a s assembled o n the basis of the group members' different types.
J o h n w a s a m e m b e r of the w o r k group.
Reflections
I chose to use re framing in the process, because it may introduce
new ideas about problem definitions and make new actions pos
sible. Positive reframing is a form of paraphrasing, where negative
statements (which are usually inhibiting) are changed into con
structive and challenging statements (which are usually motivating
and enhancing). The reframing consisted in my constant focus on
the group's resources and. possibilities by using the Myers-Briggs
Type indicator and asking positive questions concerning the dif
ficulties that the participants experienced during the seminar. For
example, I would ask: " H o w can each of you contribute to . . ." or
" H o w would you like things to be?" ! also simplified the problem
complex in order to make it more manageable for the group (to eat
an elephant, one must cut it into bite-size pieces). This way, large
complexes were turned into smaller units, which could be handled
step by step (this also made it easier for the group to act, because
80% of the group members preferred practical and concrete direc
tions). Another intervention on my part was to stimulate the partici
pants to relate to the future and avoid spending any more time in
the troublesome past. I felt that it was important to the rest of the
process that the group ' l a n d " in an atmosphere of trust and opti
mism. The new project groups that sprang from the debate about
goals were made up of people who differed in terms of their prefer
ences, and who had previously had a strained relationship. The
values that the group wanted to preserve had to appear stable and
express "the good things from the past" as opposed to "the bad
things from the past".
There was great pressure on John to add new areas of responsibil

ity to his tasks.
The employees had had an opportunity to express their expecta

tions to the leadership—and the ensuing dialogue had specified
the new management mandate.
Stage 7: The period after the seminar

A f t e r the seminar, m y s u p e r v i s i o n of J o h n c o n t i n u e d for about
t w o m o n t h s . W e h a d a n agreement that I w a s to participate i n a
d e p a r t m e n t a l meeting w h e r e the m a n a g i n g director w a s present.
A t this meeting, the department w a s to present its goals a n d focus
areas to the m a n a g i n g director, w h o w o u l d then discuss t h e m
w i t h the g r o u p . W e agreed that John w o u l d brief the m a n a g i n g
director o n w h a t the seminar h a d accomplished. The m a n a g i n g
director w a s interested i n d i s c u s s i n g the department's goals for
the c o m i n g p e r i o d , a n d he w a s i n v i t e d for this part of the m e e t i n g
exclusively,
J o h n h a d kept m e u p to date a n d told m e that the staff w a s
m o r e active, a n d c o m m u n i c a t i o n h a d i m p r o v e d noticeably. H e
h a d his doubts, h o w e v e r , as to whether he h a d the m a n a g i n g d i
rector's s u p p o r t . H e w a s not sure w h a t the source of the m a n a g i n g
director's scepticism w a s . H i s guess w a s that, perhaps, the m a n a g
i n g director w a s not sure if John w a s strong e n o u g h to be the
m a n a g e r of the department a n d m a i n t a i n the positive trend. J o h n
also s a i d that he lacked s u p p o r t a n d d i a l o g u e f r o m the m a n a g i n g
director. J o h n felt it difficult to ask for the m a n a g i n g director's
s u p p o r t , since the relationship between the m a n a g i n g director a n d
h i m s e l f h a d a l w a y s been f o r m a l a n d i m p e r s o n a l . J o h n felt that he

w o u l d be able to handle things o n his o w n at this point, a n d w e
agreed to e n d the consultation.
Epilogue
T h r o u g h a colleague w h o was an external consultant, I later h a p
p e n e d to learn the f o l l o w i n g :
A b o u t t w o months after the last departmental meeting at
w h i c h I w a s present, the c o m p a n y d i d a management-level re
shuffle. John w a s relieved of his managerial duties a n d m a d e sen
ior project manager o n a specific project. John's department
m e r g e d w i t h a n adjacent department, a n d the manager of this
department w a s n o w also the manager of John's department. The
n e w manager h a d p r o v e d to be a structured organizer so far, w i t h
g o o d abilities r e g a r d i n g control, coordination, a n d development.
The m a n a g i n g director a n d the top management were confident
that he w o u l d be able to continue the development process i n the
department a n d create stability a n d c o m m i t m e n t — t w o things that
w e r e very i m p o r t a n t to the organization.
John r e s p o n d e d to his d e m o t i o n w i t h grief, but he h e l d his
h e a d h i g h . It was a personal defeat for h i m , after 20 years as
manager of the department. H e h a d v a l u e d the prestige a n d a u
thority that came w i t h f o r m a l leadership. A s time w e n t b y , he
learned to accept his situation. W h e n I ran into h i m i n the c o m
p a n y , about a year later, he l o o k e d far more relaxed a n d at ease,
a n d he said that he w a s d o i n g w e l l n o w . It h a d been a difficult
p e r i o d , but he was relieved not to have to handle a stressful m a n
agement p o s i t i o n any longer. H e w a s r i d of a l l the hassle n o w , as
he p u t it, a n d was able to focus o n the non-administrative projects
that h a d actually a l w a y s h e l d his greatest interest.
The staff members, b y a n d large, were h a p p y about the
change. The core tasks were getting more attention, a n d there w a s
f o l l o w - u p o n current projects. O n the other h a n d , the department
m i g h t s t i l l split into t w o camps w h e n major changes occurred.
This reflects the great extent to w h i c h culture determines the be
h a v i o u r of the members of an organization.
A systemic model of learning
D u r i n g this consultation I used several methods to help m y client

system change the situation. M y choice of methods, h o w e v e r , de
pends o n the client-system's v i e w of its o w n problems. Therefore,
the choice of methods is subject to the p r o b l e m d e f i n i t i o n . O n e
t h i n g is w h a t the i n v o l v e d persons i n the client-system w a n t help
w i t h altering; it is quite another w h a t I, as the consultant, perceive
to be the need—that is, h o w I interpret the different parties' per
ception of the p r o b l e m . A n d a t h i r d issue is whether w e , i n coop
eration, are able to create n e w , different, more creative ideas for
s o l v i n g the p r o b l e m , i n order to make it exciting to change the
problematic situation. A f o u r t h issue is whether the consultant,
together w i t h the client-system, is able to create n e w perceptions
of the problems. This c a n be accomplished, for example, b y per
c e i v i n g the p r o b l e m s as resources, as beneficial a n d natural means
of interacting i n the organization, w h i l e still actively s u p p o r t i n g
the i d e a that, naturally, there m a y be other w a y s of interacting.
1. The generation of knowledge: The first stage i n investigating the

u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the p r o b l e m i n this case w a s to gather i n
f o r m a t i o n about w h a t the department w a n t e d help w i t h (see
F i g u r e 3.2). I obtained this i n f o r m a t i o n p a r t l y t h r o u g h m y
telephone conversation w i t h the internal consultant a n d p a r t l y
t h r o u g h m y first conversation w i t h John. Later, i n f o r m a t i o n
w a s gathered t h r o u g h the climate survey a n d the i n d i v i d u a l
interviews.
2. The integration of knowledge: John's a n d the staff m e m b e r s '

m e n t a l images a n d their emotional experience of the w o r k
situation were m a d e more explicit d u r i n g the theme d a y . D u r
i n g the theme day, the f i n d i n g s were g i v e n back to the client
system, a n d the participants were g i v e n a n o p p o r t u n i t y to
reflect o n their various w a y s of u n d e r s t a n d i n g the p r o b l e m .
H e r e they were i n v i t e d into a space w h e r e they c o u l d c o m m u
nicate about c o m m o n a n d i n d i v i d u a l opinions about the p r o b
lems. In a d d i t i o n , a space was created where the participants
c o u l d let out forgotten a n d repressed stories f r o m the past.
T h r o u g h the use of a circular i n t e r v i e w f o r m , s u p p l e m e n t e d
Stage 1:
Generation Invitations to make
Sequel of knowledge, meaning structures accessible
Departmental meeting Feedback of raw data
with the managing director ^ Descriptions of the
Change of manager problem history
Activities with distinctly
separate speaking and
listening roles
Stage 4: Stage 2:
Transforming Integration
it to action of knowledge
Intermediate stage:
Work groups, meetings Theme day
New plan for the Reflections on
distribution of tasks climate survey
Three-day seminar: Stage 3: findings
Teambuilding Team The story
Debate about goals interpretation about "Peter"
Project priorities
FIGURE 3.2. Model of learning
w i t h the use of reflecting teams, w e were able to uncover the

story about Peter. A t the same time, if w e v i e w it i n terms of the
learning s p i r a l (see chapter 2), the process progressed f r o m
Stage 1 to Stage 2, because learning took place that w a s i n f l u
enced b y the different mental images of the i n d i v i d u a l staff
members. B y listening a n d b y u n d e r s t a n d i n g h o w others per
ceive the situation a n d the past, the i n d i v i d u a l s e x p a n d e d their
perception. This, i n turn, created n e w points of insight that gave
the g r o u p n e w possibilities for u n d e r s t a n d i n g their c o m m o n
situation. The transition f r o m Stage 1 to Stage 2 o n the theme
d a y h a d h a p p e n e d i n a d y n a m i c f l o w that m o v e d b o t h back
w a r d s a n d forwards i n the learning spiral.
3. Thematic interpretation: This stage began d u r i n g the theme d a y

a n d c o n t i n u e d t h r o u g h the entire process. The intermediate
stage, w h e r e the team w o r k assumed practical f o r m w i t h the
systematic distribution of responsibility a n d management con
trol (controlled b y the staff), p r o v i d e d g o o d o p p o r t u n i t y for
testing n e w w a y s of cooperating a n d n e w relations. D u r i n g this

theme w o r k , the staff members experienced n e w sides of each
other, a n d the sub-groups that h a d existed i n the department
were loosened u p to some extent. In terms of the learning spiral,
this stage lay between the t h i r d a n d the f o u r t h stage, as it w a s
clearly centred a r o u n d action a n d debate concerning w h i c h
organizational tasks s h o u l d belong to w h i c h functions a n d per
sons. The three-day seminar, too, w a s a process that stimulated
this stage. The g r o u p gained n e w k n o w l e d g e about types
( M y e r s - B r i g g s T y p e Indicator) a n d got the o p p o r t u n i t y to w o r k
w i t h this tool, enabling them to reflect o n the implications of
their n e w k n o w l e d g e . O p p o r t u n i t i e s were created for g i v i n g
a n d receiving feedback f r o m one's colleagues, a n d the m a n
ager's role a n d responsibility were debated. The debate about
goals resulted i n the definition of project priorities, a n d J o h n
a n d the g r o u p agreed to include the m a n a g i n g director.
4. Transforming knowledge to action: The transition to the f o u r t h

stage took place i n the p e r i o d after the seminar a n d d u r i n g the
sequel. It w a s d u r i n g this phase that w e w o u l d see whether it a l l
h e l d water. Often, the external consultant is n o longer i n v o l v e d
at this stage, p a r t l y because the groups are responsible for
i m p l e m e n t i n g the plans and establishing n e w relations, a n d
partly because most organizations w i s h to get b y o n their o w n
w i t h o u t the consultant. O b v i o u s l y , m o n e y is also an issue. A c
c o r d i n g to m y i n f o r m a t i o n about this stage, h o w e v e r , John d i d
not, i n the l o n g r u n , manage to elicit sufficient trust f r o m top
management for h i m to develop a n d strengthen his leadership.
The department got a n e w manager, a n d apparently the staff
w a s rather h a p p y w i t h this change. John w a s g i v e n a n e w
p o s i t i o n i n the department—a p o s i t i o n that he later seemed
happy with.
The question, of course, remains: W h a t d i d John learn? W h a t d i d

the staff learn? W h a t sort of learning took place i n the o r g a n i z a
tion? The first t w o questions w o u l d p r o b a b l y be the easiest to
answer, p r o v i d e d the consultant h a d h a d a n o p p o r t u n i t y to ask
t h e m (I d i d not!). It is therefore easier to answer a f o u r t h question:
W h a t d i d I learn as a consultant?
The consultant's final reflections
I h a d g i v e n John a n d the staff the help a n d a r u n n i n g start

for the department to m o v e on, as h a d been agreed. M y job w a s
m o s t l y to prepare the w a y for more o p e n c o m m u n i c a t i o n a m o n g
the members of the staff a n d between John a n d the staff. This h a d
been accomplished, i n the sense that a better climate h a d been
achieved, a more flexible a n d tolerant atmosphere, as w e l l as
space for i n d i v i d u a l staff members' skills and interests. E m p l o y e e
m o t i v a t i o n increased i n the p e r i o d d u r i n g a n d after the c o n s u l
tation.
In m y assessment of the effect o n the w o r k itself, I c o n c l u d e d
that the reconstruction of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of tasks clarified the
responsibility for various tasks. These changes created a greater
sense of solidarity i n the g r o u p .
John's managerial responsibilities were clarified i n the process,
a n d the employees articulated their expectations for the k i n d of
leadership that they c o u l d get b e h i n d . This also m a d e it clear
w h e r e John's management difficulties lay. In this connection,
John's boss became aware h o w b i g the problems i n the depart
ment w e r e , a n d that these cooperation difficulties h a d existed for
years. I interpreted the m a n a g i n g director's management reshuffle
as a demonstration that he s u p p o r t e d the staff a n d s i d e d w i t h
them. In d o i n g so, he also demonstrated that he h a d n o confidence
i n John's abilities to exercise leadership.
Personally, m y biggest challenge w a s to a v o i d assessing
whether or not John was a g o o d manager, a n d to keep m y per
sonal opinions to myself. T i m e a n d again I w a s asked to speak
m y m i n d , b y the internal consultant, b y certain employees, a n d b y
the m a n a g i n g director. It requires great flexibility, s k i l l , a n d tact to
evade invitations of this sort. The art is to be able to reflect and ask
hypothetical questions instead of answering the questions.
T h i s m a y be interpreted as uncertainty a n d shiftiness, espe
cially b y top executives w h o are l o o k i n g for quick answers, so that
they can m a k e quick decisions. H e r e , the consultant m u s t stick to
her contract w i t h the commissioner or establish a n e w one, per
haps w i t h top management, where the context a n d relations are
defined. The consultant must refer to her professional right to re
main silent about the i n f o r m a t i o n that the client-system has p r o
v i d e d . T h e consultant m u s t m a i n t a i n that she is not present as a n

expert a d v i s o r b u t as a systemic consultant a n d a process consult
ant, a n d she m a y have to e x p l a i n to top management or to the
internal consultant w h a t this entails. I n m y personal experience,
this is accepted, as l o n g as I m a i n t a i n m y authoritative right to
define this role. T o p managers u n d e r s t a n d the language of profes
s i o n a l authority. It is essential for the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l consultant to
be able to argue this p o s i t i o n .
Putting systemic concepts into practice
In the case, I u s e d systemic concepts a n d methods, a n d I s u m m a

r i z e some of these b r i e f l y here.
The circularity in the consultants understanding

of the events
W h e n the consultant is to f o r m a picture of w h a t is g o i n g o n i n the
o r g a n i z a t i o n , she m a y v i e w the participants' stories, experiences,
a n d thoughts o n the basis of their different observations a n d p o s i
tions. O f t e n the stories of the members of the o r g a n i z a t i o n are
linear—that is, the i n d i v i d u a l has f o r m e d his o w n logical a n d u n
a m b i g u o u s e x p l a n a t i o n of w h a t goes o n i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n , a n d
w h y . W h e n the consultant a l l o w s herself to m o v e a r o u n d m o r e
freely w i t h i n these different stories, the perspectives are ex
p a n d e d , a n d , thus, the circular u n d e r s t a n d i n g is i n t r o d u c e d into
the consultant's u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the events (see also chapter 5.2).
The events i n the case c a n be v i e w e d f r o m several different v a n
tage p o i n t s , a n d here I w a n t to p o i n t to three: (1) John, the m a n
ager, (2) the team, a n d (3) the m a n a g i n g director.
1. John, the manager

It s o o n became clear to m e that John, the manager, felt h i s o w n
m a n a g e r i a l role to be problematic. H e strongly d o u b t e d w h e t h e r
he w a s able to satisfy his staff a n d p r o v i d e the s u p p o r t a n d direc
t i o n that they needed. H e w a s also concerned that others attrib

u t e d motives to h i m that he d i d not feel were really his. In a d d i
t i o n , he expressed that his relations w i t h the employees were
m a d e difficult because he was too close to some a n d too distant
f r o m others. The different qualities of the relationships m a d e h i m
unable to treat the staff members fairly. H i s leadership p o s i t i o n
a s s u m e d the nature of alliances w i t h particular employees, w h i c h
f a v o u r e d some employees a n d m a d e others feel rejected. I n sys
temic t h i n k i n g , w e consider it essential for the consultant to be
able to m o v e freely w i t h i n the client-system, an ally to everyone
a n d n o one at the same time. I n parallel to this, one m i g h t say t h a i
the manager s h o u l d m a k e sure to treat e v e r y b o d y as equal part
ners i n the w o r k context. This does not m e a n treating a l l e m p l o y
ees the same. E m p l o y e e s are different, b o t h as persons a n d as
professionals. It is the manager's job to take these differences into
consideration a n d to utilize them, so that everyone gets to b r i n g
their u n i q u e h u m a n a n d professional qualities to the department
a n d to the tasks. E q u a l i t y relates to the d o m a i n of ethics (see p .
116), because it expresses the m o r a l v i e w that a l l employees are of
u n i q u e importance a n d v a l u e i n the organization.
2. The team
John's lack of clarity about his o w n role as a manager is
easier to u n d e r s t a n d w h e n one considers his personal experience
i n relation to the p r o b l e m areas that were u n c o v e r e d w i t h i n
the employee team. In the team there w a s a s i m i l a r lack of clarity
about v a r i o u s m e m b e r s ' competencies, responsibilities, a n d i n
fluence. T h i s was the cause for competition between members.
A l t h o u g h it w a s never stated explicitly, there w a s a n o n g o i n g
competition about w h o w a s best at c a r r y i n g out especially the
sought-after tasks. A n u m b e r of w o r k areas h a d not been m a d e
clear b y the manager. W h o , for example, h a d the most experience
w i t h a n d k n o w l e d g e about customer expectations? W h a t w a s the
level of a m b i t i o n that the department sought to live u p to? H o w
w a s the i n d i v i d u a l s u p p o s e d to interact w i t h the others i n the
g r o u p ? H o w w e r e tasks to be d i v i d e d a m o n g the v a r i o u s profes
s i o n a l groups? A n d so o n . The fact that the manager w a s not able
to negotiate a n d determine this together w i t h the staff i n their

d a i l y w o r k s p a r k e d p o w e r struggles, conflicts, a n d jealousy
a m o n g the team members. There were too m a n y u n r e s o l v e d is
sues i n the d a i l y w o r k (the d o m a i n of p r o d u c t i o n : see p . 117). N o
time h a d been devoted to negotiating the collective contract be
t w e e n the manager a n d the staff, a negotiation that s h o u l d take
place c o n t i n u o u s l y , because the w o r k situation changes a l l the
time. These a n d other u n s p o k e n conflicts of interest were circulat
i n g i n the team, causing the team to d i v i d e into subgroups as w e l l
as c a u s i n g internal p o w e r struggles w i t h i n the team. In these c o n
flicts, the team members p u l l e d John's strings, m a k i n g h i m b e n d
over b a c k w a r d s to satisfy the different participants—frequently to
the detriment of the w o r k i n g environment as w e l l as of the m a n
ager himself.
3. The managing director

V i e w i n g this scenario t h r o u g h the m a n a g i n g director's eyes,
w e are able to discover a n u m b e r of things. First of a l l , the director
w a s a n n o y e d that John w a s unable to secure order a n d a peaceful
w o r k i n g e n v i r o n m e n t i n his department. H e chose, h o w e v e r , to
close his eyes to this fact. A t least, he h a d not been v e r y i n v o l v e d
i n the internal affairs of the department. H i s interest l a y m o r e
w i t h the o v e r a l l goals seen f r o m a larger c o m p a n y perspective. A s
a result of this, he d i d not establish a g o o d - e n o u g h contact w i t h
J o h n about the day-to-day operations i n the department, a n d he
w a s not v e r y s u p p o r t i v e or dialogue-oriented. There m a y be sev
eral explanations of this. T o p managers often assume the role as
coach to the l o w e r - l e v e l managers. In m a n y cases, this m a y actu
ally prevent p r o b l e m s a n d increase the efficiency of the manage
ment's efforts.
A n a l y s i n g the case f r o m these different vantage points, thus,
m a k e s it easier to see h o w the levels are i n t e r t w i n e d a n d together
w o r k to m a i n t a i n the system, for g o o d as w e l l as for b a d . S o l v i n g
the p r o b l e m s therefore requires changes o n other levels too. W h e n
John, for example, n o longer h e l d the management p o s i t i o n , a n e w
departmental structure w a s i n t r o d u c e d , a n d the f o l l o w i n g year
the m a n a g i n g director was replaced b y another person.
68 SYSTEMS AND MEANING
About using'different tools within a systemic framework

In the case, I used a n u m b e r of different methods a n d t w o p a r t i c u
lar tools (climate survey a n d a Jungian tool, the M y e r s Briggs
T y p e Indicator), This leads to the question: h o w can a consultant
use other psychological tools a n d still w o r k as a systemic consult
ant?
T h r o u g h their o w n learning, m a n y consultants have acquired
m a n y different methods a n d tools, at great benefit to their clients.
So one m i g h t ask: w h y replace these a n d start over w i t h some
t h i n g n e w (the systemic tool)? In our experience, one can easily
e m p l o y m a n y g o o d learning methods w i t h i n a systemic frame
w o r k . T o us, systemic t h i n k i n g constitutes the overall f r a m e w o r k
a n d the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of i n d i v i d u a l s a n d organizations that w e
have practised a n d felt i n s p i r e d b y for years. But w e have also
learned m u c h f r o m other psychological a n d organizational theo
ries. The basic ideas i n systemic t h i n k i n g , however, p r o v i d e a n
excellent f r a m e w o r k for w o r k i n g w i t h people i n an organizational
context. W e help the client-system change h u m a n relations b y
m a k i n g the f o r m a l system a n d the different positions explicit, as
w e w o r k w i t h the importance of u t i l i z i n g differences. W e use h y
potheses as a basis for initiating n e w actions. In our experience, it
is a g o o d idea to include a n d combine other tools. This is often
w h e r e w e f i n d the nourishment for our creativity a n d for invent
i n g n e w w a y s of d o i n g things. In this o n g o i n g w o r k process, w e
generate n e w learning for ourselves a n d for our clients. W e are i n
m a n y w a y s "irreverent" towards the tools, a n d w e adapt t h e m to
the systemic f r a m e w o r k that w e have chosen. W e use these tools
to h i g h l i g h t the systemic points.
Climate surveys can be used i n a normative a n d linear fashion:
to n a i l d o w n reality a n d point to specific causes (for example, it
is management's fault, they alone have caused the problems). In
linear thinking, every problem has one correct cause and solution. It is,
h o w e v e r , possible, to interpret climate surveys i n a circular fash
i o n : as an expression of h o w various participants perceive the
w o r k conditions. The answers i n a climate survey m a y be inter
preted as the different messages of the participants, thus consti
t u t i n g c o m m u n i c a t i o n directed at others (management or the
consultant). The consultant c a n use these messages i n f o r m i n g h y
potheses about the w o r k conditions. The consultant m a y then,

t h r o u g h her hypotheses, rephrase the answers to m a k e t h e m m o r e
positive a n d constructive. U s e d i n this w a y , p r o b l e m areas c a n be
p u t into a solution-oriented perspective a n d , subsequently, u s e d
as a basis for further investigations. That is actually w h a t h a p
p e n e d i n this case, w h e r e I offered a consultation to the g r o u p o n
the theme d a y (see p . 47) to explore the m e a n i n g of the answers i n
the climate s u r v e y .
T h e t o o l MBTI focuses o n differences i n personality types a n d
o n people's preferences for v a r i o u s actions. This detailed treat
ment of differences i n personality types often makes it clear to the
participants that differences are important a n d valuable. S u c h
carefully d e s i g n e d processes set the i n d i v i d u a l free a n d enable
h i m to m a k e his o w n competencies—as w e l l as his need for the
competencies of others—explicit. This makes it possible to f o r m
n e w relationships that have a positive effect o n t e a m w o r k .
The consultant's own window to the world:

the value of using hypotheses
F o r the consultant to influence the client-system a n d w o r k p r o
gressively t o w a r d s the future, she needs to reflect o n her observa
tions, thoughts, feelings, a n d intuitive notions. The consultant,
thus, enters directly into a meta-position. B y reflecting about her
observations, the consultant finds images a n d contributions that
can be u s e d to stage n e w contexts. The consultant's conclusions
are w o r k i n g hypotheses, w h i c h express her interpretation of the
events. B y c o m b i n i n g the factual aspects w i t h the experience of
b e i n g a n observer to the client-system, the consultant is able to
f o r m n e w understandings of a n d approaches to the case. The h y
potheses serve as feedback for the system, a n d the participants,
then, h o p e f u l l y , come u p w i t h n e w questions a n d obtain a bird's
eye view of the stories.
T h e w o r k i n g hypotheses, w h i c h the consultant uses to grasp
the case, are the exclusive p r o p e r t y of the consultant. The consult
ant m a y choose to m a k e t h e m explicit a n d give t h e m back to the
client-system, or she m a y choose not to. She has to consider care
70 SYSTEMS AND MEANING
f u l l y before she decides to d o one or the other. She has to consider

the ethical aspects of g i v i n g it back a n d attempt to assess the c o n
sequences that the message m a y have for the i n d i v i d u a l partici
pants a n d their positions. The consultant must make sure not to
damage the hierarchy a n d , for example, further discredit the m a n
ager to the staff. The consultant has to protect the system's w e a k e r
members a n d must a v o i d s i d i n g w i t h any one person or g r o u p .
If the consultant decides to make her hypotheses explicit, they
s h o u l d be flexible as w e l l as conducive to positive changes. The
consultant also has to a v o i d criticizing the client-system, since
e v e r y b o d y has done their best i n the g i v e n situation—regardless
of the fact that their behaviour m a y have made things difficult for
others.
W o r k i n g hypotheses represent the consultant's internal d i a
logue about the system's difficulties and resources. T h e y help p r o
duce n e w approaches a n d create methods a n d activities i n the
meeting w i t h the client-system. T h r o u g h her hypotheses, the con
sultant can define the context w i t h i n w h i c h she wants to create
interventions, and she can choose whether or not to share her
reasons for choosing particular methods w i t h the client-system.
M y experience is that if there is a h i g h degree of uncertainty,
anxiety, or resistance to dealing w i t h the problems w i t h i n the
client-system, then one s h o u l d o n l y p r o v i d e l i m i t e d i n f o r m a t i o n
about one's experiences a n d intentions. B y l i m i t i n g her feedback
a n d l e a v i n g r o o m for the participants' o w n contributions instead,
for example, b y asking questions (based o n her hypotheses), the
consultant makes the participants the active party.
In the case described above, I mostly kept m y hypotheses to
myself, but i n the b e g i n n i n g of the process I chose to present a
hypothesis about the role that a late colleague h a d h a d i n the
g r o u p (see p . 49). I explained m y methods, but not w h a t h a d made
m e select these particular ones over others. I k n e w that there w a s
a n expectation i n the department to v i e w the consultant as an ex
pert. This a l l o w e d me to d o as I saw fit, w h i c h was successful
exactly because the participants h a d positive expectations of m y
professional competence! The client-system i n fact expected m e to
have a better grasp of the situation than I felt I actually h a d at
times. But m y reflections a n d hypotheses were a g o o d help for me
i n this process. Systemic t h i n k i n g a n d the systemic a p p r o a c h e n

able the consultant to w o n d e r a n d ask q u e s t i o n s — w i t h o u t k n o w
i n g the answers. W e leave it to the client-system to answer the
questions a n d reflect o n them. This sets the consultant free to
m o v e w i t h i n the system a n d to create n e w conditions for action.
CHAPTER FOUR
'Tree us from the past!":

a consultation in a municipality
Gitte Haslebo
This chapter describes a consultation that lasted five months

from the initial request to the final seminar. Some aspects of
the factual information have been altered to make it impos
sible to identify the municipality in question. The names, too,
are fictional. I have met the problem areas mentioned here in
several guises, in both public and private companies. Many
readers are therefore likely to feel that they recognize the
story. The reason I chose to include this assignment is an
increasing number of requests from managers needing external
assistance for handling difficult situations, where they have
found themselves at an impasse. Part of the background often
turns out to be that strong interpersonal conflicts get tangled
up with organizational changes and assume a prominent posi
tion in the problem complex. These types of assignments can
be difficult for the consultant to handle, too. This is exactly
why it is so important to make the key concepts explicit and
to develop and improve the methods. This consultation was
carried out by a team comprised of a fellow consultant and
myself
73
Case study
The request
T
he request came f r o m Janice, w h o was acting manager of a
team of social w o r k e r s i n the department of social affairs
a n d health i n a m e d i u m - s i z e d m u n i c i p a l i t y . A p s y c h o l o
gist, w h o m she k n e w f r o m before, h a d g i v e n her the name of m y
colleague. In the first telephone conversation, Janice e x p l a i n e d
that her predecessor, Esther, h a d quit after a v e r y s t o r m y series of
events that h a d lasted just over a year. Janice t o l d m y colleague
that there h a d been severe conflicts, a n d that some of the staff
members were still affected b y it. N o w the g r o u p w a n t e d help to
deal w i t h these events, w h i c h h a d been h a r d o n m a n y of t h e m a n d
w h i c h h a d caused the team to get "stuck i n the past".
The request w a s f o l l o w e d u p w i t h a meeting at the b o a r d ,
w h e r e the head of the b o a r d (Thomas), Janice, a n d the chief assist
ant (Beth) w e r e present. M y colleague i n t e r v i e w e d t h e m about
the traumatic events. Beth explained that the conflict h a d existed
especially between Esther a n d some members of the staff w h o
felt that her management style w a s v e r y unpleasant. She h a d her
favourites a m o n g the staff, w h i l e the rest often felt unjustly criti
c i z e d . Sometimes employees w o u l d w a l k out i n tears, a n d
absenteeism w a s soaring. To make matters w o r s e , Esther w a s c o n
sidered professionally incompetent i n relation to the cases that the
team w a s h a n d l i n g . The team h a d tried to take u p the issue w i t h
the h e a d of department, b u t d i d not feel that he h a d p r o v i d e d
sufficient support a n d assistance.
The head of department said that he w a s aware that the team
h a d been h a v i n g problems, but that he h a d thought that the p r o b
lems h a d become manageable after Esther h a d resigned a n d
Janice h a d been m a d e acting manager. The p o s i t i o n w a s n o w a d
vertised as vacant, a n d the selection procedure h a d just b e g u n .
Janice related her first impressions of the team a n d said that
she h a d c o n v e y e d their w i s h for assistance to the higher levels of
management. M a n a g e m e n t h a d accepted the request a n d h a d of
fered to p r o v i d e an external consultant. The consultant, h o w e v e r ,
A MUNICIPALITY 75
h a d offered t h e m a m e t h o d course, w h i c h the team h a d rejected.

The team w a n t e d help to talk about w h a t h a d really h a p p e n e d
( w h i c h they w e r e unable to d o o n their o w n ) , a n d they w a n t e d
help to m o v e o n . There h a d been some i m p r o v e m e n t , but still,
w h e n the team experienced extraordinary pressure, the crisis-re
lated reactions reoccurred (tears, arguments, absenteeism).
M y colleague c o n c l u d e d that the assignment w o u l d require
t w o consultants, a n d he w o u l d therefore f i n d a colleague w h o
c o u l d take it o n at short notice. O n c e a suitable consultant h a d
been f o u n d , a n o n - c o m m i t t a l meeting w o u l d be h e l d w i t h the
team of social w o r k e r s , w h o w o u l d then be free to accept or reject
a n e w offer. A f t e r the meeting, the o r g a n i z a t i o n chart a n d job
descriptions w e r e m a i l e d to m y .colleague.
T h i s w a s w h e n m y i n v o l v e m e n t began. A t m y first m e e t i n g
w i t h m y colleague, w e w e n t over the papers w e h a d received.
These papers m a d e it clear that there w a s an a d d i t i o n a l l e v e l of
management, w h i c h h a d not been represented at the meeting.
T h i s w a s P a u l , the h e a d of office, to w h o m the four team leaders,
i n c l u d i n g Janice, answered.
T h e o r g a n i z a t i o n chart is s h o w n i n Figure 4.1.
Executive director
Dept. of social affairs

and health
Thomas
Head of office
Paul
Team leader
Janice
Beth+ 15
FIGURE 4.1. Organization chart

Reflections
W e first considered the aspect that we found the most puzzling:
w h y precisely now? It had been almost a year since the previous
team leader, Esther, had resigned. What lay behind the team's
decision to define itself as dysfunctional and in need of external
assistance? H o w could we best interpret the fact that the head of
office, Paul, was not only absent from the meeting, but was
never even mentioned by the others?
H o w should we handle management's idea that it was primarily

the team that had a problem? Maybe this meant that manage
ment expected us to work only with the team? This became the
basis for our first working hypothesis: Maybe the problem is best
handled if we see it in a larger organizational context? M a y b e
we were not just dealing with a dysfunctional team, but with a
dysfunctional management system, where (at least) three levels
of management—head of department, head of office, and team
leader—had already been involved, to no avail. The head of
department—and perhaps also the team leader—seemed to
think that the problem was located in the team. O u r notion,
however, was that it may be more productive to imagine the
problem as being "located" in the relations between the team
and the management above the team.
Based on this line of thinking, we made it a non-negotiable

condition for accepting the assignment that we would work with
a client-system that included all three levels of management as
well as the staff. At the same time, the assignment was under
severe time constraints, partly because of municipal budget re
straints, partly because we had to fit the assignment into our
schedules at short notice, among a number of other assign
ments. In order for us to be able to accept it, in practical terms,
we had to economize on time.
W e therefore decided to work out a project description that

contained a rather broad definition of the purpose, a process
divided into stages, and a definition of the client-system that
included the head of department, the head of office, the team
leader, and the staff. W e would present this description at the
A MUNICIPALITY 77
meeting with the team, and if there was any basis for proceed
ing, w e w o u l d forward it to the management.
The most important reason that we chose to draw up a project

description at such an early stage was our impression that w e
were dealing with an organization that had trouble reaching
decisions. A n early project draft w o u l d probably make the deci
sion-making easier. Secondly, w e wanted to be particularly
careful in our efforts to establish a psychological contract. In this
connection w e were considering the team's past experiences of
feeling let down by management and then receiving an offer of
help, w h i c h the team had rejected.
W e therefore planned a meeting with the team of social work

ers, where w e w o u l d let the individual participants tell their
story and relate their understanding of the problem and their
desire for help. Then w e w o u l d present the project draft and
elaborate on our thoughts concerning the draft. The idea was to
initiate a process already at the first meeting with the team, in
w h i c h the exchange of different versions of the story w o u l d be
possible (see end of this chapter).
Stage 1: Establishing a psychological and formal contract
Non-committal meeting with the caseworker team

Janice a n d t w e l v e of the staff members participated i n the
m e e t i n g , w h i l e f o u r w e r e absent that day. W e suggested a r o u n d
to let each p e r s o n e x p l a i n h o w l o n g he or she h a d w o r k e d i n the
department, h o w he or she p e r c e i v e d the p r o b l e m , a n d w h a t he or
she felt w a s needed i n order for the team to m o v e o n . There
t u r n e d o u t to be substantial differences w i t h i n the team, concern
i n g b o t h the current i m p a c t of past events a n d the p e r c e i v e d se
v e r i t y of these events. M a n y expressed a lack of trust i n the
management, feelings of h a v i n g been let d o w n , a n d a lack of c o n
v i c t i o n that the management h a d learned a n y t h i n g .
M a n y concerns a n d questions w e r e expressed, s u c h as: W h y
h a d it been so difficult? W h y h a d management not been w i l l i n g to
Interview with Half-day One-clay Half-day seminar

managementt
managemen —• seminar with
the team —• seminar with
the team —• with management
and the team
FIGURE 4.2. The process in stages
listen to the team? C o u l d the same t h i n g h a p p e n again? W h a t h a d

been s a i d b e h i n d closed doors? H a d Esther s a i d a n y t h i n g negative
about the i n d i v i d u a l members of staff to T h o m a s a n d P a u l , so that
they n o w h a d m i n u s - p o i n t s i n "the little black b o o k " , w h i c h they
themselves w e r e u n a w a r e of a n d unable to defend against? C o u l d
the past be u s e d against them? W h y h a d Esther been g i v e n the
p o s i t i o n i n the first place? D i d management agree that she w a s
incompetent? D i d management recognize the qualifications of the
team members? A n d so forth.
A f t e r s u m m a r i z i n g the m a i n themes w e h a d h e a r d i n the m a n y
statements, w e presented the two-page project draft.
W e d e f i n e d the p u r p o s e as "creating a d i a l o g u e about the p r o
cess that the team has been t h r o u g h for the past year a n d a half,
w i t h a v i e w to d e a l i n g w i t h the difficulties i n that process a n d
releasing energy for the team's future d e v e l o p m e n t a n d w o r k " .
The project draft p r o p o s e d the process s h o w n i n F i g u r e 4.2.
T h e team expressed a m i x t u r e of surprise, anxiety, a n d satis
faction w i t h o u r d e c i s i o n to i n c l u d e b o t h Thomas a n d P a u l . The
m e e t i n g e n d e d w i t h a n agreement that the team w o u l d go o n to
discuss whether it w o u l d accept o u r offer, a n d that w e w o u l d be
i n f o r m e d of the team's d e c i s i o n the f o l l o w i n g d a y .
T h e next d a y Janice contacted us to say, o n behalf of the team,
that they w o u l d like to use us as consultants.
Reflections
It made a big impression on us that the team was directing so
much attention and energy—mostly in the form of negative feel
ings—at the management levels above Janice. W e were seeing
the contours of a parallel problem: Whereas Thomas wanted us
to "fix" the team, to make it function better and the members
A MUNICIPALITY 79
thrive more, at least part of the team wanted us to " f i x " the
management, either by educating it to become more caring or
by agreeing with the team that the management was, to some
extent, incompetent
This led to our second working hypothesis: Maybe we are faced

with a client-system where communication between the organi
zational levels is so limited that it is difficult for the individual to
change perspective and imagine how reality looks from a differ
ent vantage point? If this was the case, it could increase the
tendency to see everything in black and white, w h i c h w o u l d
reduce the team's capacity for problem solving.
This hypothesis made it even clearer to us that it w o u l d be

difficult for us to achieve equally good connections with all
parts of the system. W e were worried that w e might already
have committed a blunder by presenting the draft to the team
before presenting it to the management. O u r concern was that
by forming an alliance with the team that was stronger than our
alliance with management w e might have jeopardized our neu
trality. The c o m i n g events w o u l d show to what extent this was
the case.
Signing the contract
A f t e r o u r m e e t i n g w i t h the team of social w o r k e r s , w e ex

p a n d e d the time w e p l a n n e d to s p e n d w i t h the management a n d
the team a little a n d a d d e d a d e s c r i p t i o n of the g r o u n d rules. W e
then sent the project d e s c r i p t i o n w i t h n o further changes to Janice,
o u r contact p e r s o n . It came back w i t h Thomas's signature.
T h e project d e s c r i p t i o n contained, as already m e n t i o n e d , the
p u r p o s e , p l a n , a n d g r o u n d rules, but not the contents a n d m e t h
ods, w h i c h w o u l d be d e t e r m i n e d o n the basis of the feedback
t h r o u g h o u t the process. The f o l l o w i n g activities were i n v o l v e d :
1. a joint i n t e r v i e w w i t h the h e a d of department, h e a d of office,

a n d team leader (2 hours)
2. a h a l f - d a y seminar w i t h the team a i m i n g at d e f i n i n g the p r o b
l e m a n d s p e c i f y i n g the team's need for assistance (3 hours)
3. a one-clay seminar w i t h the team to w o r k o n the themes that

h a d come u p d u r i n g the half-day seminar (7 hours)
4. a seminar w i t h the head of the b o a r d , the h e a d of department,
the team leader, a n d the staff (4 hours)
The entire consultation h a d to be completed i n a m o n t h .

W e f o u n d it necessary to begin w i t h a careful definition of the
g r o u n d rules that w e felt s h o u l d a p p l y to us as consultants, i n
c l u d i n g confidentiality concerning the statements of i n d i v i d u a l
participants. W e also m a d e it clear that w e w o u l d p r o v i d e feed
back o n l y concerning the organizational level, a n d that w e were
not acting as experts p r o v i d i n g solutions.
Reflections
W e were not sure to w h o m to send the project description: to
the contact person, Janice, or the commissioner, Thomas? Nor
mally w e w o u l d send the contract to the top manager (the c o m
missioner). W h y had w e been so uncertain about it this time,
and in fact chosen a different approach from the one w e nor
mally used? W e probed our doubts. What couid they tell us
about the organization? As for the first question, we agreed that
it was unclear whether the matter had been delegated. It was
interesting that Thomas was actually the one to sign the c o n
tract. As for the second question, we became aware that our
doubts also reflected our lack of faith that Thomas w o u l d par
ticipate whole-heartedly in the project. To one of us it had
therefore seemed "safer" to send the project description to the
highly motivated contact person than to send it to Thomas, lest
he "forget" to deal with it. The other one of us, through this
soul-searching, uncovered an underlying wish to protect the
team and make sure that it would get help. W e considered both
reactions a danger signal in relation to our neutrality.
Nevertheless, we were pleased and relieved to have the contract

back, signed and without comments. At least formally, it was
now approved that we could work with a client-system that
w o u l d be comprehensive enough for us to feel confident about
the assignment.
A MUNICIPALITY 81
This uncertainty gave rise to the third working hypothesis: Were

we the only ones to be confused about who decided what, or
was it a general quality of the management system to generate
uncertainty about which level made or was to make a given
decision? Was there somehow a connection between this uncer
tainty and the management's ability to understand and solve
problems?
In our preparations for the meeting, w e planned to interview

each person in turn, in order to obtain the maximum amount of
information, for their benefit as well as ours. It w o u l d be espe
cially important to us to interview Paul, w h o m w e had not yet
met, about his understanding of the problem and his assessment
of the likelihood that things might change.
W e were also anxious to see whether a decision had been

reached concerning w h o w o u l d be the new team leader. Janice
had applied, and by the time of the meeting it might have been
decided w h o w o u l d fill the position.
Stage 2 : Interview with three levels of management
W e w e r e anxious to see whether P a u l w o u l d t u r n u p , since he h a d

not been present at the first meeting. H e w a s there—albeit t a c i t u r n
and o n guard.
A t the b e g i n n i n g of the meeting, w e w e r e i n f o r m e d that the
selection p r o c e d u r e h a d been c o m p l e t e d a n d that Janice w a s to be
the n e w team leader. Janice l o o k e d pleased.
M o s t of the m e e t i n g took place i n a tense atmosphere. It w a s
o u r i m p r e s s i o n that it w a s a rare occasion for the three managers
to be together i n one r o o m . N e w aspects of the troublesome past
w e r e revealed. The p r e v i o u s team leader, Esther, t u r n e d o u t to
have been P a u l ' s b r a i n c h i l d . She w a s selected despite the team's
active resistance. P a u l expressed great bitterness w i t h the team
a n d m a d e several derogatory comments about it. T h o m a s w a s
v e r y u n d e r s t a n d i n g about the difficult situation that the team w a s
i n , because the employees h a d not h a d a n y w h e r e to go w i t h their
p r o b l e m s a n d frustrations. " W e never lent a n ear", as T h o m a s
reflected. W h e n w e asked w h a t it m i g h t take to m o v e o n , P a u l

r e c o m m e n d e d that Janice "get t o u g h " w i t h the team. Janice ap
p e a l e d to the other managers for s u p p o r t but got n o response
f r o m P a u l . Thomas, h o w e v e r , declared his w i l l i n g n e s s to tell the
team h o w he h a d experienced the events a n d the aspects h a d
seemed difficult to h i m . B o t h the head of department a n d the h e a d
of office expressed their recognition of the team's professional
competence. H o w e v e r , they d i d not feel that the team w a s u t i l i z
i n g these skills sufficiently, because it was stuck i n the past. T h o
mas s a i d that he was tired of h a v i n g the past i n his face a l l the
time.
The meeting w a s c o n c l u d e d w i t h a discussion of the next
stages i n the project a n d the roles of the managers a n d the consult
ants, respectively.
Reflections
After the meeting, we wondered about Paul's position and role.
He had held a managerial position in the department for years
and seemed—to us—defeatist and bitter. A year and a half prior
to our involvement there had been a major reorganization of the
department. Paul had been assigned a new position in this struc
ture, and it was at this time that the previous team leader had
been hired.
It was one thing for the team leader to feel that Paul was against
them because he had supported the previous team leader. But
was that sufficient explanation as to why he appeared to be so
completely out of the loop in the current system of manage
ment? W e could not gauge this but figured that we probably did
not need to. Whatever the reason, at some point in time a
vicious spiral may have developed at the organizational level.
This, then, was our fourth working hypothesis, w h i c h we pic
tured as shown in Figure 4.3.
Perhaps this v i c i o u s spiral h a d exacerbated the problems a n d also

l e d to a sense a m o n g the persons i n v o l v e d that it w a s difficult to
escape o n one's o w n . This w o r k i n g hypothesis w a s an important
step t o w a r d s d e v e l o p i n g a circular u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the problems
A MUNICIPALITY 83
Decreasing
communication
between levels
Differences of opinion
Suspicion about the concerning the selection
intentions of other levels of the previous team leader
\ Decreasing communication
Lack of job satisfaction between levels
Lack of *
feedback on
Uncertainty concerning the
assignments
expectations from other
levels to
individuals
FIGURE 4.3. Vicious spiral concerning

the communication between levels
(see p . 107). H e l p e d b y the w o r k i n g hypothesis, w e b e g a n to p l a n

the h a l f - d a y seminar w i t h the team, i n c l u d i n g Janice.
Stage 3 . Half-day seminar with the team

W e h a d three h o u r s at o u r d i s p o s a l . W e o p e n e d the w o r k i n g s e m i
n a r b y expressing o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g for the difficult past that w a s
s t i l l present i n the team i n the f o r m of questions about w h a t h a d
really h a p p e n e d , doubts, a n d uncertainties. W e suggested that the
time be spent e x a m i n i n g the part of the past that c o n t i n u e d to be
a r o u n d today, upsetting the w o r k process. W e encouraged every
b o d y to contribute w i t h aspects a n d versions of the story. T h e
team w a s t h e n d i v i d e d into r a n d o m l y selected p a i r s , a n d each
p e r s o n w a s asked to i n t e r v i e w the partner about h i s or her
questions, doubts, a n d uncertainties about past events. A l l the
contributions were w r i t t e n o n the flip-chart a n d g r o u p e d into

three categories.
A f t e r m u t u a l b r i e f i n g , they were d i v i d e d into n e w g r o u p s ,
based o n their functions w i t h i n the team. These n e w groups were
asked to w o r k w i t h the f i n d i n g s a n d to choose the t w o most i m
portant themes to discuss w i t h i n the f r a m e w o r k of this consulta
tion. The themes touched o n b o t h the past a n d the future, w i t h
questions s u c h as:
• W h y d i d it take management so l o n g to intervene?
• W h a t c o u l d w e have done to prevent things f r o m getting out of

h a n d the w a y they d i d ?
• H o w c a n w e change the general feeling of s u s p i c i o n t o w a r d s

a n d lack of confidence i n the management?
• C a n w e expect a m o r e trusting w o r k i n g e n v i r o n m e n t i n the

future?
• H o w s h o u l d cooperation w i t h management be c o n d u c t e d i n the

future?
The seminar w a s c o n c l u d e d w i t h a r o u n d concerning h o w w e

m i g h t m o v e o n f r o m here. The one-day seminar w a s a w e e k a w a y .
Reflections
W e were quite pleased with the seminar—first of a l l , because
we had managed to create more flexibility in the individual
team members' thinking, as it had been made clear that they
were not dealing with one history, but with many different per
ceptions and interpretations of events; and, secondly, the team
had become more curious about management's experience of
the w h o l e affair. The participants had also become more inter
ested in discovering h o w the past might be used for learning
something that could help build the future.
O n e way that the differences in perception was apparent was in

a division between the "old-timers", w h o seemed more dispir
ited and pessimistic, and the "newcomers", w h o seemed i m p a
tient to move on.
A MUNICIPALITY 85
W e also noticed that many team members were focusing on the

importance of communication as a means for moving on, at the
same time as there seemed to be the assumption that good
communication was possible only in the presence of personal
sympathy. So, if there was antipathy between two persons, it
was assumed that communication w o u l d necessarily be i m
paired.
O u r fifth working hypothesis, therefore, had to do with the as

sumptions in the team; w e wondered whether values, such as
respect for the individual, caring and close personal relations,
had come to be so prominent that it was difficult to keep func
tion and person separate? O n this basis, we decided to begin
the one-day seminar with a positive reframing of the problems,
w h i c h we w o u l d describe in terms of organizational dilemmas.
O u r idea was that if we could shift the focus from the personal
level (with blame, guilt, and shame) to the organizational, w e
w o u l d be able to expand the scope of understanding, thus creat
ing better conditions for progress.
The hypothesis about the vicious spiral (Figure 4 3 ) led to the

idea of working with communication tools. W e therefore de
cided to provide explicit instruction in constructive c o m m u n i c a
tion, on the basis of a model from the area of assertion training
(Dickson, 1982). W e were aware that time was running out.
Something had to happen quickly. W e hoped that instruction (a
form of intervention that we otherwise rarely use) at this time
w o u l d succeed in giving the client-system energy and new posi
tive experiences with successful communication.
Stage 4 : One-day seminar with the whole team

W e b e g a n b y a s k i n g p e r m i s s i o n to p r o v i d e feedback d e s c r i b i n g
o u r assessments of the situation. F r o m o u r vantage p o i n t as c o n
sultants, w e w o u l d " t h i n k out l o u d " about our hypotheses. The
t e a m w a s v e r y interested i n h e a r i n g o u r thoughts. W e then
w o r k e d as a reflecting team, f o r m u l a t i n g different angles to reach
i n g a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the organization. This part took 30 m i n
utes a n d h a d the f o l l o w i n g content:
• Praise for the team for its robustness: it h a d s u r v i v e d a n d main

aged to get h e l p .
• A hypothesis that the difficulties m i g h t be u n d e r s t o o d as con

flicts b e t w e e n t w o cultures: a role-based culture, i n w h i c h the
g r o u n d rules of the f o r m a l system a p p l y to p r o b l e m s o l v i n g ,
a n d a task-based culture w i t h completely different rules; w e
described these t w o cultures i n more detail.
• A hypothesis that w h i l e there w a s great clarity c o n c e r n i n g the

professional aspects of the roles as manager a n d employee,
great uncertainty s u r r o u n d e d the relationship between the staff
members as w e l l as that aspect of the management role that
dealt w i t h h u m a n resources management; unclear roles c o u l d
i m p a i r the c o m m u n i c a t i o n .
• A sense that the organization—despite its emphasis o n c o m m u

n i c a t i o n — l a c k e d the tools for constructive c o m m u n i c a t i o n
b e t w e e n the organizational levels.
D u r i n g o u r presentation, it w o u l d have been possible to hear a p i n

d r o p . W e then asked the team to reflect o n o u r observations i n
pairs, based o n the question: w h a t does this m a k e y o u think? I n
the e n s u i n g process, the participants w e r e v e r y t h o u g h t f u l a n d
v e r y o p e n to each other's considerations.
W e then gave an outline of o u r plans for the d a y : first, a focus
o n c o m m u n i c a t i o n tools, then the p l a n n i n g of the c o m i n g dialogue
w i t h management.
T h i s p r o p o s a l resulted i n the team s p l i t t i n g into t w o . The " o l d
t i m e r s " declared that, a l t h o u g h they saw the sense i n o u r sugges
t i o n , things w e r e n o w m o v i n g m u c h too fast. T h e y h a d so m u c h
p e n t - u p bitterness that they c o u l d not keep u p . T h e y w e r e also
a f r a i d that if they d i d not get some things off their chest, they
m i g h t " b l o w u p " i n a n inappropriate w a y at the m e e t i n g w i t h the
management. The " n e w c o m e r s " thought it w a s fine to m o v e a l o n g
as w e h a d suggested. W e d i d a r o u n d to f i n d out w h a t the i n d i
v i d u a l participants needed. It became clear that the v e r y different
needs of the t w o sub-groups c o u l d not be a c c o m m o d a t e d w i t h i n
the same process a n d at the same speed—at least, w e d i d not see
h o w . W e therefore suggested an i m p r o v i s e d session for the " o l d
A MUNICIPALITY 87
t i m e r s " o n one of the f o l l o w i n g days, dedicated exclusively to

w o r k i n g w i t h their troublesome emotions.
T h i s p r o p o s a l w a s v e r y w e l l received. It m a d e it possible for
the " o l d - t i m e r s " to participate i n the events p l a n n e d for the rest of
the d a y .
After lunch, we worked w i t h communication, and individual
participants w e r e g i v e n the o p p o r t u n i t y of assessing their p r e - ,
ferred m o d e s of c o m m u n i c a t i o n f r o m the p o i n t of v i e w of a n as
sertion m o d e l . Later, smaller groups w o u l d draft suggestions for
actual questions to be presented i n w r i t i n g to the h e a d of depart
m e n t a n d the h e a d of office before the c o n c l u d i n g seminar. E a c h
question w a s subjected to critical s p a r r i n g f r o m the other m e m
bers c o n c e r n i n g whether it h a d been f r a m e d i n a n assertive w a y .
Janice w o u l d b r i n g the questions to the h e a d of department a n d to
the h e a d of office, so that they w o u l d have time to prepare.
Reflections
During the one-day seminar, the extent of the perceived dis
tance between the team and both the head of department and
the head of office became increasingly clear to us. W e based
this impression on the persistent questions from the team about
the managers' actions, considerations, and reasoning. M a n y
team members had difficulties seeing that there even were any.
It also became clear to us that we had become very close with
the team and very good at empathizing with their difficulties.
W e felt great sympathy with the team—so much so that w e had
even offered to conduct an additional consultation (free of
charge) for the "old-timers". W e were genuinely concerned
about how the current developments looked from Thomas's and
Paul's positions, and whether we had jeopardized our freedom
of movement. Were we turning our alliance with the team into a
coalition against the management?
A c c o r d i n g to the original project description, the next step was

the seminar with both the team and the management. However,
w e no longer felt that this was an appropriate way to proceed.
The day on which the one-day seminar had taken place w e

therefore decided to write a letter to Thomas, suggesting an

additional meeting with the two managers. This meeting was to
have two purposes:
1. to bring management up to speed with the team by giving

- them the opportunity to hear the same feedback that w e had
given the team;
2. to provide counselling concerning their participation in the
seminar.
W e made it clear that this proposal entailed an additional fee.
Stage 5 : Meeting with the management

W e were i n f o r m e d over the telephone that the meeting w a s ok,
a n d a date w a s set at v e r y short notice. A t the meeting, the h e a d
of department, the head of office, a n d the team leader w e r e pres
ent. I n the meantime, the team leader h a d presented the team's
questions to the management. O u r observations concerning the
organizational d i l e m m a s met w i t h great interest, especially f r o m
T h o m a s . W e sensed a certain relief on his part that w e w e r e focus
i n g o n organizational culture rather than o n managerial responsi
bility.
P a u l ' s reaction to the team's questions w a s : " T h e y are w a y out
of line here." Janice e x p l a i n e d that establishing a n o p e n dialogue
a n d greater trust between the team a n d the management were
essential to her chances of being successful i n her n e w p o s i t i o n .
A t this p o i n t , w e presented our ideas about h o w the c o n c l u d
i n g seminar s h o u l d be conducted, the distribution of roles, a n d the
g r o u n d rules for c o m m u n i c a t i o n .
It w a s agreed that b o t h the head of department a n d the h e a d of
office w o u l d m a k e a statement early i n the seminar, relating their
experiences of the course of events.
It w a s e m p h a s i z e d that these statements needed to i n c l u d e
some answers to the team's questions.
A MUNICIPALITY 89
Stage 6: Improvised session with the "old-timers"

T h e i m p r o v i s e d session h a d been presented as a n o p e n offer to
those persons i n the team w h o felt a need for getting some things
off their chest. T h e m e e t i n g took place i n m y office, u n l i k e the
other meetings a n d seminars, w h i c h h a d taken place at the m u
n i c i p a l i t y ' s offices. F o u r persons accepted the offer. A fifth p e r s o n
h a d w a n t e d to participate b u t w a s unable to m a k e it at s u c h short
notice. W e carried out t w o v i s u a l i z a t i o n sessions, based o n w o r s t
case scenarios f r o m the difficult past. It t u r n e d out that the p r e
v i o u s team leader, P a u l , a n d T h o m a s were i n c l u d e d i n a l l the
i m a g i n e d situations. The troublesome emotions h a d to d o w i t h
feelings of impotence, of letting other people d o w n a n d b e i n g let
d o w n , of helplessness, of not b e i n g v a l u e d , of feeling anger w i t h
out b e i n g able to let it out a n d guilt t o w a r d s the p r e v i o u s team
leader, w h o w a s n o longer w o r k i n g i n the m u n i c i p a l i t y .
T o some, this w a s the first time they h a d expressed their feel
i n g s — t o others. T h e four participants expressed great relief w h e n
the session w a s over.
Reflections
As the project progressed, w e had gained more and more infor
mation about interactions between organizational levels—infor
mation that shed new light on the hypothesis of the vicious
spiral in Figure 4.3. These interactions had consisted of informal
meetings between individuals from the team and Thomas (as
well as managers in other places in the municipality). This made
us wonder about the team's share in maintaining the p r o b l e m —
w h i c h led to a new working hypothesis concerning whether the
team's use of informal contacts had contributed to weakening
the formal system (that is, the straightforward chain of command
from the team to Paul and from Paul to Thomas)? If this was the
case, it might have complicated the problem solving in a situa
tion involving a personal case. Personal cases, where dismissal
is a possibility, can in my experience only be handled within
the formal system. This w o u l d also be the appropriate approach
from an ethical point of view.
• the head of office

the head of office
backs up
hears nothing
the team leader
about the problems
the team leader

individuals contact maintains behaviour
other managers
the team criticises
on an informal basis
the team leader
in front of the
head of office
the team
criticises
the team gets the team leader
no reaction in front of the
head of office
the head of office does
not agree with the criticism
individuals contact
the head of department
on an informal basis the team
gets no
reaction
FIGURE 4.4. Vicious spiral concerning the formal

and the informal system
Perhaps there was a vicious spiral that looked like the one
shown in Figure 4.4.
Understanding this spiral made certain things clearer to us. But

when planning the concluding seminar, we still had our doubts.
W e had many ideas, but w e did not feel that any of them was
really appropriate. In order to progress, we had to air our o w n
worst-case scenarios. O n e of us feared mostly that Paul's state
ment w o u l d be embarrassing to himself and distressing to the
team. The other feared mostly that the whole thing might b l o w
up in our faces. W e were afraid that we might have to leave the
system after having only made matters worse. Briefly put, w e
had a problem of our o w n , which we needed to address first. In
a situation like this, it is good to be two consultants working
together, because we can test ideas and interview each other.
W h a t could we learn from our o w n reactions?
A MUNICIPALITY 91
W e became aware that our concerns were blocking our ability

to consider h o w we might help everybody carry out this balanc
ing act, so that they could change their perceptions without
losing face.
W e also had to look at our o w n ambitions and ask what it

w o u l d be realistic to expect from a four-hour seminar. W e r e w e
assuming too much responsibility for the situation and slipping
out of our roles as consultants? Based on these reflections, w e
decided to be very careful with the seminar design, making sure
that we provided a safety net via the structure and made the
participants aware of their options and the fact that they were
responsible for making their o w n choices. The challenge was
h o w to create a room for reflection where all parties partici
pated (see p. 119).
Stage 7: Concluding seminar with the team

and the management
W e o p e n e d the seminar b y repeating the team's questions a n d
o u t l i n i n g the g r o u n d rules for c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d then gave
T h o m a s the floor.
Before the seminar, w e h a d arranged the f u r n i t u r e i n s u c h a
w a y that the p h y s i c a l p o s i t i o n of the participants reflected their
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p o s i t i o n . The h e a d of department a n d the h e a d of
office sat together at a separate table, the team management, c o n
sisting of team leader a n d chief secretarial assistant, at another
separate table, a n d the f u n c t i o n groups w i t h i n the team at sepa
rate tables.
T h o m a s m a d e a l o n g , w e l l - p r e p a r e d , o p e n , a n d v e r y reflective
statement about the difficulties that he h a d experienced d u r i n g
the 13 m o n t h s . P a u l m a d e a brief statement about considerations
a n d decisions.
T h e s u b - g r o u p s w e r e then requested to ask a d d i t i o n a l ques
tions. The participants' reactions revealed that there h a d been
m a n y surprises a n d n e w pieces of i n f o r m a t i o n i n the t w o state
ments.
92 SYSTEMS A N D M E A N I N G
T h e n f o l l o w e d a dialogue—directed b y u s — w i t h questions
a n d answers r e g a r d i n g first the past a n d then the future.
A f t e r a break, w e o u t l i n e d the paths that the o r g a n i z a t i o n
m i g h t choose. These paths were based o n a n e x p a n s i o n of the
p r e v i o u s feedback a n d a presentation of the f o u r t h w o r k i n g h y
pothesis, about the " v i c i o u s s p i r a l " , w h i c h h a d u n t i l then o n l y
existed i n o u r m i n d s . W e presented it as our " t h i n k i n g out l o u d "
a n d d i d not invite discussion.
Instead, w e asked the participants to reflect i n smaller g r o u p s
o n the question: W h a t has m a d e the biggest i m p r e s s i o n o n y o u
today? The r o u n d revealed that m a n y participants h a d learned a
great deal about the different experiences of others, a n d that there
w a s a higher degree of o p t i m i s m concerning the future coopera
t i o n between the organizational levels.
The seminar w a s c o n c l u d e d b y Thomas, w h o s u m m a r i z e d the
events of the day. E v e r y b o d y then gave an i n d i v i d u a l , w r i t t e n
e v a l u a t i o n of the entire consultation.
The evaluations were a n o n y m o u s but stated the respondent's
organizational function. W e collected the evaluations a n d later
sent a s u m m a r y of the evaluations to Janice.
Final evaluation by the participants

I n the evaluations, e v e r y b o d y c l a i m e d to be " v e r y satisfied" or
" s a t i s f i e d " w i t h the consultation, apart f r o m one p e r s o n w h o w a s
" p a r t i a l l y satisfied".
The head of department a n d the head of office were " v e r y
satisfied" a n d " s a t i s f i e d " , respectively. Some t y p i c a l replies to a
question about w h a t the participants h a d gained were:
• The management's p o s i t i o n is clearer to me n o w .
• I feel that I have a m u c h better u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the p r o b l e m s

a n d events before the " s o l u t i o n " / d i s m i s s a l — a l s o seen f r o m
other levels i n the organization.
• I have r e n e w e d confidence that management actually sees a n d

acts i n relation to serious problems. I have a better u n d e r s t a n d
A MUNICIPALITY 93
i n g of the possibilities a n d constraints at other levels i n relation

to personal cases.
• W e have aired some h i g h l y critical emotions.
• W e n o w have insight that makes the events easier to u n d e r

stand.
• The differences have been p u t into w o r d s i n a larger f o r u m .
• I feel that I have h a d a chance to talk the difficult past over i n a

g o o d a n d systematic fashion. I have learned to l o o k at the or
g a n i z a t i o n i n a n e w w a y — i n positive as w e l l as negative terms.
• I have a greater degree of clarity about the d e f i n i t i o n of m y

o w n function.
• If a situation comes u p , I w i l l try to remember the c o m m u n i c a

tion model.
• The team is better e q u i p p e d to handle a n y problems that m a y

come u p .
• I w i l l continue to w o r k o n achieving a better dialogue b e t w e e n

the team a n d the management.
Concluding assessment by the consultants

In o u r assessment, the consultation h a d h a d v e r y different m e a n
ings to the persons i n v o l v e d , p a r t l y based o n their p o s i t i o n i n the
organization, p a r t l y based o n differences i n seniority a n d , thus,
their experiences i n the administration. For the " o l d - t i m e r s " , it
. h a d been liberating to get the emotions into the o p e n a n d p u t
into w o r d s . This m a d e t h e m better able to d i s t i n g u i s h between o l d
images of persons a n d the persons as they were today. For the
" n e w c o m e r s " , it h a d been a relief to escape the pressure f r o m
the " o l d - t i m e r s " to take over their interpretation of a story that the
" n e w c o m e r s " h a d not been i n v o l v e d i n themselves. The n e w team
leader, w h o h a d suffered the m i d - l e v e l manager's predicament,
w a s i n a n i m p r o v e d situation n o w . The taboos h a d been discussed
o p e n l y , a n d there h a d been direct a n d indirect attempts at l a y i n g
d o w n ground-rules for future cooperation w i t h i n the team a n d

between the various organizational levels.
Thomas h a d h a d the o p p o r t u n i t y to tell his side of the story
a n d to be listened to, w h i c h h a d not h a p p e n e d before.
P a u l ' s p o s i t i o n i n the hierarchy h a d been m a d e more visible.
The management a n d the social w o r k e r s ' team h a d a shared
* language n o w that they c o u l d use i n other forms of p r o b l e m s o l v
ing.
A l l i n a l l , w e were pleased w i t h our contributions as consult
ants. Regardless of the degree of satisfaction, h o w e v e r , w e have to
ask: W h a t c o u l d w e have done differently a n d better d u r i n g this
consultation? W e h a d t w o m a i n concerns: First of a l l , w e were not
sure to w h a t extent P a u l w o u l d be able to live u p to his responsi
b i l i t y for h u m a n resources management i n relation to the team.
W e were not satisfied w i t h our o w n achievements i n establishing
contact w i t h h i m . H i s p o s i t i o n i n the management hierarchy h a d
been m a d e more visible, but d i d he feel that he h a d received a n y
help? In retrospect, w e felt that w e s h o u l d have w o r k e d harder to
establish a n independent psychological contract w i t h h i m .
A second concern w a s that w e w o u l d have l i k e d to anchor the
c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d cooperation more f i r m l y i n f o r m a l proce
dures a n d meeting fora. The c o n c l u d i n g seminar e n d e d w i t h ideas
for this, b u t w i t h n o actual plans. H o w e v e r , w e d i d not see h o w
w e c o u l d have accomplished that i n the amount of time available
to us. W e c o u l d have s o l v e d this p r o b l e m b y re-negotiating the
contract a n d suggesting a n a d d i t i o n a l session. W e elected against
this, h o w e v e r , since it m i g h t send a message to the client-system
that, i n our o p i n i o n , they h a d not progressed far e n o u g h . So w e
chose to settle w i t h the n o t i o n that i n this client-system, the par
ticipants were basically satisfied a n d felt that they h a d received
the h e l p they h a d asked for: to escape the past a n d face the future.
Turning systemic ideas into practice
In our w o r k o n this assignment, w e were v e r y m u c h i n s p i r e d b y

systemic t h i n k i n g . I n the f o l l o w i n g , I w i l l discuss those concepts
a n d ideas that w e f o u n d particularly useful.
A MUNICIPALITY 95
There are many versions of reality

It is a basic a s s u m p t i o n i n systemic t h i n k i n g that there is n o objec
tive reality " o u t there" that one can perceive a n d u n d e r s t a n d w i t h
m o r e or less accuracy. Reality is a social construct, created b y
people w h o interact a n d communicate w i t h each other t h r o u g h
the means of language. T o the consultant, this means that it is
a l w a y s a n o p e n question h o w the members of the o r g a n i z a t i o n
perceive their i n d i v i d u a l realities a n d w h a t processes l e d to this.
In m y w o r k as a consultant—both to large a n d to s m a l l o r g a n i
zations—I have often been a m a z e d (even t h o u g h I " k n o w " ) to see
h o w m a n y a n d h o w different the existing versions of reality c a n
be a n d h o w they influence decisions a n d actions. O n e reason that
this is possible is, of course, that these versions are u s u a l l y i m
plicit. E v e r y b o d y takes his or her o w n v e r s i o n for granted a n d
assumes that it is shared b y m a n y others.
This case s t u d y is a g o o d illustration of the w a y that o r g a n i z a
t i o n a l p o s i t i o n a n d personal experiences i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n m a y
influence one's v e r s i o n of reality. But other factors p l a y a part too,
for example subcultures, profession, p o w e r games, a n d so forth.
T o the i n d i v i d u a l , it can be liberating to have a chance to tell one's
story i n the light of other people's stories. W h e n the past is reinter
preted, n e w options are created. W h e n — a s i n this c o n s u l t a t i o n —
m a n y members of the organization perceive the p r o b l e m as a
conflict, there is a great risk for c o m m u n i c a t i o n to become closed.
T h i s causes the various versions to r e m a i n concealed, w h i c h
means that they d o not enter into the accessible m e a n i n g struc
tures w h e r e collective learning can take place (see chapter 2).
In the case at h a n d , this u n d e r s t a n d i n g meant that w e , as c o n
sultants, tried especially h a r d to f i n d n e w w a y s of d i s p l a y i n g o u r
interest a n d curiosity. The attitude u n d e r l y i n g our interventions
w a s : "It is g o i n g to be interesting to see h o w different persons
describe a n d e x p l a i n the difficult past." The assignments a n d
questions that w e presented to the participants a i m e d at encour
a g i n g the i n d i v i d u a l to put his thoughts into w o r d s a n d exchange
thoughts a n d understandings w i t h others.
W h e n , for example, w e placed the participants i n the r o o m
a c c o r d i n g to their p o s i t i o n i n the hierarchy, w e d i d this i n order to
m a k e it easier to see h o w strongly one's organizational p o s i t i o n
influenced the context for u n d e r s t a n d i n g the p r o b l e m . (See chap

ter 1 for a m o r e detailed discussion of the concept of context.)
Focusing on relationships and connections

Systemic t h i n k i n g e m p l o y s b o t h a linear causality a n d a circular
u n d e r s t a n d i n g of connections (see section 5.2).
In m y experience, the linear e v e r y d a y logic is v e r y c o m m o n i n
most organizations. In this consultation, for example, it w a s ex
pressed i n the feeling that " w e are the v i c t i m s of a n uninterested
a n d indecisive management". One's o w n experiences a n d actions
are felt to be the n a t u r a l reactions to other people's attitudes a n d
intentions. Events are u n d e r s t o o d a n d e x p l a i n e d piecemeal, i n bits
that consist of s i m p l e links between cause a n d effect. I n a d d i t i o n ,
there tends to be a strong desire to place the blame somewhere, a n
i m a g e of oneself as a v i c t i m , a n d a development of negative stere
otypes, where others are perceived as hostile.
It is a b i g step to be able to perceive actions a n d events as
created not p r i m a r i l y b y persons, but t h r o u g h relations, a n d to be
able to see one's o w n actions, not just as effects, but also as the
" c a u s e " of other people's perception of reality a n d , thus, a contrib
u t i n g factor to other people's actions.
I n this consultation there were m a n y " a h a ! " experiences for the
participants, w h e n they learned h o w the actions or non-actions of
team members h a d contributed to m a i n t a i n i n g the p r o b l e m . For
example, that the negative stereotype of the nearest manager h a d
m a d e some members s k i p this level a n d go directly to T h o m a s .
S u c h actions u n d e r m i n e the f o r m a l system, w h i c h is, h o w e v e r , the
system best suited for h a n d l i n g a personal case.
There are a n u m b e r of methods a n d techniques that the con
sultant c a n use i n order to p r o m o t e a n insight into circular connec
tions. W h a t w e d i d i n this case w a s to begin w i t h tasks that dealt
w i t h the contents of the participants' u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the p r o b
l e m . It is a l w a y s important to meet the participants w h e r e they
are. W h e n d e a l i n g w i t h a situation that some feel o v e r w h e l m e d
b y , this becomes even more important. O n l y w h e n the partici
pants feel that they are b e i n g u n d e r s t o o d is it possible to go f r o m
content to process. W h e n d e a l i n g w i t h the process, it is possible to
A MUNICIPALITY 97
investigate h o w a n d w h e n the " p r o b l e m " came to be construed as

a p r o b l e m , a n d h o w the p r o b l e m relates to o r g a n i z a t i o n a l rela
tions a n d processes (see chapter 1). In the case at h a n d , w e d i d this
t h r o u g h the consultants' reflections a n d the r e f r a m i n g that w e of
fered at several points.
Dynamic complexity
F o c u s i n g o n relations a n d connections constitutes a major shift i n
perspective. In organizations it is p a r t i c u l a r l y c o m p l i c a t e d be
cause of the distances i n time a n d space that characterize o r g a n i
z a t i o n a l life. A person's actions i n one section of the o r g a n i z a t i o n
lead to reactions i n other sections, but the p e r s o n has n o p o s s i b i l
ity of o b s e r v i n g these a n d l i n k i n g t h e m to his o w n actions. There
m a y also be a significant d e l a y i n reactions.
Peter Senge (1990) has g i v e n a n excellent interpretation of
this p h e n o m e n o n i n c a l l i n g it " d y n a m i c c o m p l e x i t y " . A t the i n
d i v i d u a l l e v e l it is often possible to learn f r o m experience, because
one gets instant feedback o n one's actions. T h i s is especially ob
v i o u s w h e n one is l e a r n i n g skills, l i k e w h e n a c h i l d learns to r i d e
a bicycle: there is instant feedback as to w h e t h e r or not the b i
cycle is still i n balance a n d m o v i n g f o r w a r d . O r w h e n the a d u l t
attempts to use a foreign l a n g u a g e — c a n he m a k e h i m s e l f u n d e r
s t o o d or not? Reactions f r o m other people p r o v i d e instant feed
back.
M a n y — w e l l , p r o b a b l y most—situations i n organizations, h o w
ever, are characterized b y the absence of instant feedback. T o a
m e m b e r of a n o r g a n i z a t i o n , it is d i f f i c u l t to l i n k actions together.
A n d to m a k e it e v e n trickier: the m e a n i n g - f o r m i n g processes are
usually implicit.
* In this p r e v i o u s case s t u d y , the f o u r t h w o r k i n g hypothesis i l
lustrates the p h e n o m e n o n of d y n a m i c c o m p l e x i t y . W e are d e a l i n g
here w i t h processes that are created b y m a n y different agents at
different o r g a n i z a t i o n a l levels a n d w h i c h increase over time, b u t
of w h i c h the i n d i v i d u a l sees o n l y a s m a l l corner. D i a l o g u e across
the d i v i s i o n s i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n is a prerequisite to progress. C r e
ating the c o n d i t i o n s for this is one of the consultant's most i m p o r
tant tasks.
Establishing room for reflection

W h e n c a r r y i n g out the d a i l y w o r k w i t h short-term requirements
a n d u n d e r time-pressure, it is p a r t i c u l a r l y difficult to notice the
connections a n d processes that take place a n d change character
over time. I n processes of change a n d learning, time is of the es
sence (see chapter 2).
O v e r the years, I have h e a r d m a n y managers express their
frustration w i t h this. D e m a n d s for decisiveness a n d efficiency d o
not encourage the use of reflection to explore u n k n o w n results,
n o r d o they encourage any discussion about different versions of
reality.
Establishing the necessary r o o m for reflection is a n i m p o r t a n t
c o n d i t i o n for m a k i n g it possible to recognize l o n g - t e r m processes.
In this connection, the theory of the three professional d o m a i n s is
v e r y i n s p i r i n g (see section 5.4).
I n practical consultation w o r k , it is important to f i n d w a y s of
establishing a r o o m that promotes b o t h i n d i v i d u a l a n d collective
learning.
In this case, w h e r e the level of conflict w a s h i g h a n d the
m u t u a l distrust r a n deep, w e h a d to use a great d e a l of energy
t h i n k i n g about h o w to create this r o o m . W e felt that a n i m p o r t a n t
first c o n d i t i o n w a s to keep the " w a r r i n g factions" separate a n d to
establish a trusting relationship between ourselves a n d each or
ganizational level. W e created this possibility t h r o u g h the project
design. The next step was to create tasks as w e l l as a f r a m e w o r k
for c a r r y i n g t h e m out that w o u l d promote the generation of data,
w h i c h is the first step i n the collective l e a r n i n g process (see chap
ter 2). I n order to m a k e the participants feel safe, w e e m p h a s i z e d
clear, explicit structures a n d roles a n d frequent clarifications of
the context.
The extensive b o d y of literature that has been p u b l i s h e d i n
recent years about i n d i v i d u a l a n d collective l e a r n i n g has been a
great source of i n s p i r a t i o n to us i n this connection.
The consultants become part of the observing system

O n e of the b i g steps i n the development of systemic t h i n k i n g w a s
the transition f r o m first-order cybernetics to second-order cyber
A MUNICIPALITY 99
netics (see section 5.1). In first-order cybernetics, the focus is o n

the i n d i v i d u a l s or the organizations as objects that can be de
scribed i n themselves a n d i n d e p e n d e n t l y of the p e r s o n w h o is
o b s e r v i n g a n d describing them. In second-order cybernetics, it is
a s s u m e d that the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the object is context-dependent
a n d says as m u c h about the p e r s o n m a k i n g the d e s c r i p t i o n as it
does about the object. I n other w o r d s , "objective o b s e r v a t i o n " is a
c o n t r a d i c t i o n i n terms.
I n extension of this, it is an i m p o r t a n t p o i n t for m e as a c o n
sultant that I cannot consider myself a distant, neutral observer.
Instead, I become a part of the observing system that s u r r o u n d s
the p r o b l e m a n d i n v o l v e d i n co-creating n e w understandings of
the p r o b l e m . M y questions a n d thoughts as a consultant m i g h t be
different, but they are n o m o r e valuable t h a n the questions a n d
thoughts p r o d u c e d b y the agents w i t h i n the client-system. The
hypotheses, h o w e v e r — d u e to the consultant's p o s i t i o n outside the
o r g a n i z a t i o n — m a y just be different e n o u g h to give rise to n e w
meanings a n d possibilities for action.
I n this case s t u d y I have described the events w i t h a n emphasis
o n the relationship a n d the processes that e v o l v e d b e t w e e n the
client-system a n d us as consultants. O u r thoughts a n d feelings,
w h i c h w e r e m a d e clear i n this relationship, thus became a n i m
portant source for l e a r n i n g about the system that w a s d e f i n e d b y
the p r o b l e m (see chapter 1).
D u r i n g the consultation there w e r e a n u m b e r of critical p o i n t s ,
w h e r e it w a s beneficial to stop a n d examine w h a t w a s h a p p e n i n g
to ourselves.
In m y experience, the m o r e I a m able to p u t m y s e l f i n a learn
i n g p o s i t i o n , the better I a m able to invite others to d o the same.
A s a consultant, I therefore have to ask myself, for example: " W i t h
w h a t thoughts a m I meeting the client-system?" or " W h a t w o u l d
h a p p e n , if I replaced thought x w i t h thought y?" The challenge
here is s i m u l t a n e o u s l y to s h o w respect for the thoughts that are
created b y the members of the client-system, a n d to s h o w i r r e v
erence for m y o w n thoughts (see section 5.3 o n the concept of
irreverence).
CHAPTER FIVE
Key concepts in systemic thinking
5.1 First- and second-order cybernetics

[Gitte Haslebo]
Ihis chapter focuses on those concepts and basic ideas that

w e f i n d p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t for reaching a n u n d e r s t a n d -
JL i n g of systemic t h i n k i n g . A s this is a c o m p l e x area, it is n o t
easy to select the most i m p o r t a n t issues. M a n y w r i t e r s have c o n
t r i b u t e d to a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the concepts, a n d the concepts
have changed i n m e a n i n g f r o m the early stages of systemic t h i n k
i n g u n t i l today. T h e greatest shift w a s the change f r o m first- to
second-order cybernetics.
The early stages i n organizational p s y c h o l o g y w e r e character
i z e d b y first-order cybernetics. [Cybernetics is o r i g i n a l l y a G r e e k
w o r d that means control. T o d a y , cybernetics is the n a m e of the
science that deals w i t h the control a n d r e g u l a t i o n of systems
(Wiener, 1948).]
101
The consultant
The organization
FIGURE 5.1. First-order cybernetics
First-order cybernetics is based o n the a s s u m p t i o n that it is

possible to u n d e r s t a n d a system independently of the p e r s o n w h o
observes it a n d attempts to describe it. The consultant observes
a n d gathers data about the organization i n order to f i n d the q u a l i
ties that are t y p i c a l of the organization i n question. The o r g a n i z a
t i o n exists " o u t there", detached f r o m the consultant. The focus,
thus, is o n the observed system, as s h o w n i n F i g u r e 5.1.
I n the figure, the consultant observes the o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d , o n
the basis of her observations, w o r k s out a d e s c r i p t i o n of the or
ganization. The description is considered independent of the c o n
sultant a n d of the situations where the observations took place.
The transition to second-order cybernetics w a s m a d e possible
b y contributions first f r o m Bateson (1972), M a t u r a n a & V a r e l a
(1987), v o n Foerster (1981) a n d v o n Glasersfeld (1984) a n d , later,
f r o m the M i l a n school, whose first w o r k , Paradox and Counterpara
dox, became v e r y influential (Selvini-Palazzoli, Boscolo, C e c c h i n , &
Prata, 1978).
In second-order cybernetics, the focus is not o n the observed
system but, rather, o n the observing system. A system is not con
sidered a n objective entity that exists as such, b u t an image of
the w o r l d , constructed b y people o n the basis of their experiences
a n d basic assumptions. In the light of this, w e m a y w o n d e r h o w
w e c a n e v e n have the c o m m o n experience of s p e a k i n g to another
p e r s o n about a shared reality. W h a t makes this possible is that
w e have shared experiences a n d , thus, have d e v e l o p e d c o m m o n
frames of reference. F r o m the perspective of second-order cyber
KEY C O N C E P T S IN S Y S T E M I C T H I N K I N G 103
netics, the interesting question, rather, is h o w w e are able to base

c o g n i t i o n o n experiences. This line of t h i n k i n g is called construc
tionist epistemology (epistemology = the s t u d y of k n o w l e d g e ) .
(See, for example, the article b y L y n n H o f f m a n , 1985, about the
historical development.)
A c c o r d i n g to second-order cybernetics, the consultant s h o u l d
consider herself a part of the o b s e r v i n g system. The consultant
comes to a n o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h her personal experiences a n d theo
retical assumptions, a n d these tint the spectacles t h r o u g h w h i c h
she looks at the organization. H e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the o r g a n i z a
t i o n , therefore, is as m u c h a p r o d u c t of her b a c k g r o u n d as of the
o r g a n i z a t i o n . The challenge for the consultant is to examine h o w
she uses her experiences a n d concepts to u n d e r s t a n d the events i n
the o r g a n i z a t i o n — i n cooperation w i t h the v a r i o u s parties i n the
client-system. The consultant can attempt to observe herself as a n
observer of the organization, but she can never leave herself out of
the p i c t u r e — o r , to use a metaphor: she cannot r e m o v e her tinted
spectacles. (See F i g u r e 5.2.)
T o m e , a n i m p o r t a n t consequence of this line of t h i n k i n g is a n
attempt to r e m a i n h u m b l e : m y u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the o r g a n i z a t i o n
a n d the p r o b l e m is o n l y one a p p r o a c h a m o n g m a n y — a n d it m a y
not e v e n be the best approach. It is therefore i m p o r t a n t to keep a n
o p e n m i n d a n d be o p e n — c o g n i t i v e l y — t o entertaining alternative
approaches.
FIGURE 5.2. Second-order cybernetics

5.2 The linear and the circular line of thinking

[Citte Haslebo]
The linear a n d the circular line of t h i n k i n g are t w o f u n d a m e n t a l l y

different w a y s of e x p l a i n i n g h o w w e k n o w w h a t w e k n o w . O u r
line of t h i n k i n g determines h o w w e interpret the w o r l d a r o u n d us,
w h a t w e m a k e of it, h o w w e reach decisions, a n d h o w w e organ
ize o u r lives.
In o u r culture, the linear line of t h i n k i n g is the most c o m m o n .
W h e n u s i n g this approach, w e perceive the events that w e are part
of i n fragments—that is, bits of actions that fit together i n a certain
w a y . T o use a n example: i n an office meeting, a staff member sees
the boss s c o l d i n g the staff a n d then sees that her co-workers keep
silent. The order of events determines w h a t w e perceive as cause
a n d effect. The first event causes the event that f o l l o w s . That is: the
boss's s c o l d i n g has caused the staff to be silent. (See Figure 5.3.)
The linear line of t h i n k i n g is c o m m o n i n e v e r y d a y logic: w e
attempt to f i n d out w h a t caused the events that w e observe, for
example i n the course of a w o r k d a y . In the backs of our m i n d s are
questions, like: w h y d o the manager, the colleagues, the c u s t o m
ers, the users, a n d so forth, act the w a y that they do? N o t b e i n g
able to u n d e r s t a n d other people's actions is p e r t u r b i n g . The same
is true of one's o w n actions. In the linear line of t h i n k i n g u n d e r
s t a n d i n g something is the same as i d e n t i f y i n g the cause. I n order
to discover the cause, w e look for an explanation i n the events
that transpired i m m e d i a t e l y p r i o r to the incomprehensible act.
The first t y p i c a l c o n c l u s i o n therefore, is to infer f r o m the order
of events to cause a n d effect: A precedes B, ergo, A m u s t have
caused B.
The next t y p i c a l c o n c l u s i o n is to infer " b l a m e " f r o m "cause".
W h e n the staff stays silent, it is because of the boss's b e h a v i o u r .
H e is to b l a m e that the meeting becomes b o r i n g because no one
says a n y t h i n g . F i n d i n g the causes a n d assigning b l a m e are auto
matic thought processes. They create order i n a chaotic f l o w of
events, a n d it is comforting to k n o w where to place the blame.
P r o v i d e d that it is w i t h someone else. In order to u n d e r s t a n d these
d y n a m i c s , it is necessary to introduce the concept of punctuation.
A w o r k d a y is m a d e u p of an endless f l o w of events. W h e n this
KEY CONCEPTS IN SYSTEMIC THINKING 105
1. 2.
The boss scolds the staff •=> The staff stays silent
Cause Effect
FIGURE 5.3. Example of the linear approach
f l o w is d i v i d e d into fragmented actions, it is the result of a h u m a n

choice. N o t that w e consciously choose where i n the f l o w to m a k e
the cuts. The " c h o i c e " u s u a l l y takes place i n a split-second, as a
process that w e are u n a w a r e of. A n u m b e r of different factors
influence h o w a particular p e r s o n is g o i n g to punctuate the events.
In an o r g a n i z a t i o n , position is a factor w i t h significant influence o n
the p u n c t u a t i o n of events.
T o r e t u r n to the example above, let us attempt to see the meet
i n g as it w a s p e r c e i v e d b y the boss. H e has p u t a n u m b e r of i m
portant issues o n the agenda. H e needs i n p u t f r o m the staff a n d is
a n n o y e d that their c o n t r i b u t i o n is so meagre. H i s p u n c t u a t i o n of
the events w i l l be s o m e t h i n g like F i g u r e 5.4.
The boss sees his actions as a natural response to the silence of
the staff members; they are to b l a m e for his b e h a v i o u r .
The t h i r d c o n c l u s i o n i n the linear a p p r o a c h is this: if others are
to b l a m e for m y actions, then they m a y , i n fact, have intended for
m e to act this w a y . F r o m the staff m e m b e r s ' p o i n t of v i e w , the
situation is exacerbated if they not o n l y see the boss s c o l d i n g
t h e m , b u t feel that he is d o i n g it i n order to shut t h e m u p . A n d ,
f r o m the boss's p o i n t of v i e w , the situation is exacerbated if he not
o n l y sees t h e m b e i n g silent, but feels that they are b e i n g silent i n
order to spite h i m a n d m a k e his job m o r e difficult. A s s i g n i n g
b l a m e is thus often associated w i t h attributing (dubious) m o t i v e s
to the other p a r t y .
1. 2.
The staff is not contributing •=> I scold them
Cause Effect
FIGURE 5.4. Example of the linear approach

1. 2. 3. A. 5. 6. 7.
The boss => The staff ^ The boss The staff The boss The staff The boss
asks a members scolds them members asks a members scolds them
question think and think and question think and
stay silent stay silent stay silent
FIGURE 5.5. A longer sequence of events
W i t h i n the linear approach, a n a d d i t i o n a l c o n c l u s i o n m a y oc

cur: i f others are to blame (and, perhaps, act o n the basis of b a d
intentions), then they have to be the first to change. Staff members
w i l l feel that o n l y once the boss stops s c o l d i n g t h e m w i l l they dare
speak u p . C o n v e r s e l y , the boss w i l l feel that o n l y w h e n the staff
members b e g i n to contribute can he stop s c o l d i n g them.
L i n e a r t h i n k i n g , thus, often locks thought processes a n d ac
tions into repetitive patterns that n o one can change.
Let us n o w introduce a t h i r d perspective o n the events at the
office meeting. A visitor is present at the meeting a n d observes the
sequence of events s h o w n i n Figure 5.5.
F r o m this longer sequence of events w e c a n see h o w the boss
and the staff members chose different segments. T h e boss chose
Segments 1 t h r o u g h 3, the staff members chose Segments 3
t h r o u g h 4. A t the same time, they i g n o r e d other segments. The
boss does n o t see the staff m e m b e r s ' silence as a reaction to h i s
s c o l d i n g , a n d the staff members d o not see, for example, that they
are not r e s p o n d i n g to his questions.
T h u s , the differences i n their p u n c t u a t i o n of the events lead not
o n l y to different experiences of the office meeting, b u t also to dif
ferent interpretations. O n e c o m m o n feature i n their experiences,
h o w e v e r , is that they see themselves as victims a n d the other
p a r t y as the culprit. A n o t h e r c o m m o n feature is that b y p l a c i n g the
b l a m e w i t h someone else, they relieve themselves of the responsi
b i l i t y for c h a n g i n g the d y n a m i c s . A g a i n , it s h o u l d be p o i n t e d out
that these d y n a m i c s are rarely visible to the parties.
The linear approach, thus, does not promote change. A s s i g n i n g
b l a m e a n d attributing b a d intent is often associated w i t h m o r a l
judgement or condemnation. Faced w i t h this, it is a n a t u r a l re
action for most people to become defensive a n d to protect their
p e r s o n a l integrity. The " c u l p r i t " w i l l t y p i c a l l y focus his efforts o n
d e f e n d i n g himself, a n d the " v i c t i m " w i l l not even consider chang
ing. T h e y are l o c k e d into a pattern w i t h l i m i t e d options.
A n alternative to this a p p r o a c h is the circular line of t h i n k i n g ,

w h i c h w a s d e v e l o p e d w i t h i n the f r a m e w o r k of second-order cy
bernetics. In circular t h i n k i n g , events are seen as parts of a larger
pattern. The order of events is of interest, but it does not lead to
the d e f i n i t i o n of a n act as b e i n g either cause or effect. It is m o s t l y a
matter of p e r s o n a l preferences w h e t h e r one w a n t s to say that c o n
cepts of " c a u s e " a n d "effect" are d i s s o l v e d i n circular t h i n k i n g or
that actions a n d events are seen as both cause a n d effect s i m u l t a n e
o u s l y . T o a v o i d connotations of blame, the systemic consultant
w i l l u s u a l l y prefer to talk about connections instead of cause a n d
effect. C o n n e c t i o n s between events can be arranged i n circles
( w h i c h c a n be perceived as " g o o d circles" or " v i c i o u s circles"). It
w o u l d be m o r e appropriate, h o w e v e r , to talk about spirals, be
cause a l t h o u g h the pattern repeats itself, the parties never r e t u r n
to the same p o i n t . The events i n the office meeting can be c o n
s t r u e d as a s p i r a l that repeats itself (see F i g u r e 5.6).
In the circular approach, the segmented events a n d actions
s h o u l d be assembled into a larger w h o l e . The scope is e x p a n d e d
b y the i n c l u s i o n of a longer p e r i o d of time, a d d i t i o n a l agents, a n d
feedback mechanisms. It is of interest to see h o w the v a r i o u s par
ties' segments fit together. The attention is shifted a w a y f r o m i n d i
v i d u a l s a n d over to the pattern of relations, thoughts, a n d actions.
W h e n the i d e a about f i n d i n g the cause is a b a n d o n e d , so, too, is the
The b o s s
scolds them s c o l d s them
FIGURE 5.6. Example of circular thinking

idea of p l a c i n g the blame w i t h someone. The m o r a l c o n d e m n a t i o n

is replaced w i t h a curiosity about the c o m p l e x i t y of the pattern.
Instead of t r y i n g to f i n d the culprit(s) it becomes relevant to u n
/
cover the part that e v e r y b o d y p l a y e d i n creating a n d m a i n t a i n i n g

the pattern of events a n d actions.
The interest i n u n c o v e r i n g (other people's) intentions is s u p
p l a n t e d b y a n interest i n e x a m i n i n g the effects. Effect a n d intent are
t w o v e r y different issues. The general c o m m u n i c a t i o n theory c o n
tributed greatly to the shift i n focus f r o m intentions to effects
( W a t z l a w i k , Bearing, & Jackson, 1967). The important issue is not
w h a t the boss intends to say, but w h a t the staff members hear h i m
saying. The question " W h y d i d y o u d o that?" s h o u l d be replaced
w i t h s u c h questions as " W h a t were y o u h o p i n g to achieve w i t h
w h a t y o u d i d ? " The interesting point is to see w h a t message w a s
received, not w h a t message w a s sent. O r , i n the w o r d s of the p h i
losopher Wittgenstein: "I a m s a y i n g w h a t y o u are h e a r i n g . " W h e n
patterns of actions become unsatisfactory for the persons i n
v o l v e d , it becomes a c o m m o n project to f i n d out w h a t messages
are b e i n g heard. Back to the office meeting: if it becomes evident
that the staff members hear a different message f r o m the one the
boss intends to convey, then his o n l y o p t i o n is to change his c o m
m u n i c a t i o n . A n d , conversely, if it turns out that the boss hears a
different message f r o m the one the staff members are t r y i n g to
convey, then they have to make changes. In c h a n g i n g a pattern of
events, one's first step s h o u l d be to change one's o w n actions.
The circular approach, thus, i m p l i e s v e r y different ideas about
change a n d responsibility. The examination of a pattern is based
o n the a s s u m p t i o n that e v e r y b o d y , to some extent, is responsible
for its existence a n d , hence, for changing it. A pattern l i k e the one
illustrated i n F i g u r e 5.6 c a n be changed at a n y l i n k . A n y p a r t i c i
pant can h e l p alter the general pattern b y altering his o w n be
haviour.
The case s t u d y i n chapter 4 p r o v i d e s examples of shifts f r o m
the linear to the circular line of t h i n k i n g a n d of ideas about spirals
d e v e l o p i n g a n d b e c o m i n g visible to the consultant a n d to the
participants.
The linear a n d the circular a p p r o a c h b o t h have an i m p o r t a n t
p o s i t i o n i n systemic t h i n k i n g . L i n e a r t h i n k i n g lets the members of
a n o r g a n i z a t i o n s u p p l y the necessary b u i l d i n g blocks for the c i r c u

lar a p p r o a c h . The consultant w o r k i n g f r o m systemic i n s p i r a t i o n
has to k n o w a n d master b o t h approaches a n d be able to s w i t c h
between them. Systemic t h i n k i n g has often been m i s c o n s t r u e d as
s a y i n g that linear t h i n k i n g is useless a n d " b a n n e d " . This, h o w e v e r ,
is not the case. The reason that the circular a p p r o a c h has attracted
so m u c h attention a n d is often considered more or less i d e n t i c a l
w i t h systemic t h i n k i n g i s that the linear a p p r o a c h is s u c h a c o m
m o n — a n d , i n m a n y organizations, the o n l y — a p p r o a c h . W h e n
management decides to contact a consultant, it is often after a
series of failed attempts at s o l v i n g the g i v e n p r o b l e m t h r o u g h a
linear approach. Instead of s o l v i n g the p r o b l e m , this has caused
the o r g a n i z a t i o n to become more a n d more l o c k e d into causal
explanations a n d "the blame game". This is w h y there is u s u a l l y a
greater need to b r i n g i n the circular line of t h i n k i n g .
T h e challenge facing the consultant is to s h o w respect for the
w a y s that the members of the organization u n d e r s t a n d the p r o b
l e m , w i t h o u t getting caught u p i n d e t e r m i n i n g causal explana
tions a n d d e c i d i n g w h o gets the blame. W h e n the time is r i p e , the
consultant s h o u l d then b e g i n to explore the larger pattern that the
p r o b l e m is e m b e d d e d i n . In order for this to h a p p e n , it is essential
h o w the consultant phrases her questions, because some questions
encourage a linear line of t h i n k i n g , others a circular line of t h i n k
i n g . A question l i k e " W h y d i d he say that?" encourages a linear
response. C o n v e r s e l y , a question l i k e " W h a t is the difference be
t w e e n office meetings w i t h a great deal of s c o l d i n g , meetings w i t h
o n l y some s c o l d i n g , a n d meetings w i t h no s c o l d i n g at a l l ? " invites
a circular response. The circular questioning technique is a gen
eral t e r m for types of questions that are w e l l suited for the circular
a p p r o a c h . The p u r p o s e of circular questioning is to create reflec
tions. It s h o u l d not be possible to s i m p l y answer " y e s " or " n o " .
Instead, the circular questions m a y m a k e the p r o b l e m o w n e r see
the p r o b l e m f r o m other angles. O n e w a y of a c h i e v i n g this is b y
a s k i n g i n s u c h a w a y that the p r o b l e m o w n e r has to examine
his o w n w a y of relating to the p r o b l e m . " W h e n d i d y o u first n o
tice signs of this p r o b l e m ? " is a n example of a question that en
courages a n e x p l o r a t i o n of the process of realization. T h u s , the
question m a y help the p r o b l e m o w n e r detach himself f r o m the
p r o b l e m a n d p u t himself i n a meta-position to it. W h e n circular

questions are asked i n an o p e n f o r u m , the consultant's i n t e r v i e w
of v a r i o u s persons i n sequence w i l l p r o m o t e i n d i v i d u a l a n d
shared reflections, w h i c h helps n e w interpretations to d e v e l o p .
Questions of " b l a m e " , w h i c h belong i n the linear line of t h i n k i n g ,
are replaced w i t h alternative explorations of meaning.
H o w circular questions are created a n d phrased is a w h o l e
separate issue. A discussion of the n u m e r o u s different types of
circular questions w o u l d go b e y o n d the scope of this book, but the
interested reader m a y t u r n to, especially, K a r l T o m m (1984) a n d
T o m A n d e r s e n (1990).
5.3 From neutrality to irreverence

[Gitte Haslebo]
N e u t r a l i t y is a k e y concept i n systemic t h i n k i n g . It is also a c o n

cept that has been discussed, criticized, a n d r e v i s e d several times.
I w i l l first describe the historical development of the concept
w i t h i n f a m i l y therapy a n d then its a p p l i c a t i o n i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
consultation.
In 1980, the article " H y p o t h e s i z i n g — C i r c u l a r i t y — N e u t r a l i t y :
Three G u i d e l i n e s for the C o n d u c t o r of Sessions" (Selvini-
P a l a z z o l i , Boscolo, C e c c h i n , & Prata, 1980) w a s p u b l i s h e d . It later
p r o v e d to be a classic i n the field. The reasoning i n the article is
based o n the M i l a n group's f a m i l y therapy w o r k .
The article explains t w o important aspects of the concept of
neutrality. First, that neutrality has to d o w i t h the therapist's w a y
of relating to the f a m i l y members. The a i m is to m a k e sure that the
f a m i l y feels the therapist to be impartial—that is, that she is not
s i d i n g w i t h any one person m o r e than w i t h anyone else. This is
m o r e easily s a i d than done. A s it is also p o i n t e d out, it is i m p o s
sible for the therapist to devote an equal a m o u n t of attention to
everyone at the same time. The person to w h o m the t h e r a p i s t — v i a
her questions—devotes the most attention is g o i n g to consider the
therapist his ally. N e u t r a l i t y , therefore, has to be v i e w e d i n the
light of the time factor. In a k e y p o i n t , neutrality is defined as the
effect that the therapist's overall behaviour has on the family over time
T h e therapist has to shift her attention f r o m p e r s o n to p e r s o n to
create successive alliances that cannot be construed b y the f a m i l y

as the therapist choosing sides.
The second m e a n i n g of neutrality has to d o w i t h the absence of
personal moral evaluations and judgement of any k i n d . C o m m e n t s of
e v a l u a t i o n or judgement are g o i n g to be perceived b y the f a m i l y
members as invitations to f o r m or join alliances or coalitions. If a
coalition w e r e to arise, the therapist's distance to one p e r s o n or
s u b g r o u p i n the f a m i l y w o u l d decrease, w h i l e the distance to
other persons or subgroups w o u l d increase. This w o u l d c o m p r o
mise the therapist's meta-position—and, w i t h it, her cognitive
flexibility.
The interesting point i n this a r t i c l e — w h i c h the authors d o not
m a k e explicitly clear—is that neutrality is not described as a q u a l
ity i n the therapist's personality or actions, but as an effect on the
family. In other w o r d s , neutral is not something that one " i s " or
" d o e s " , but the perceived effect of one's actions.
In 1979, the M i l a n g r o u p split u p . S e l v i n i - P a l a z z o l i a n d Prata
c o n t i n u e d into research, d e v e l o p i n g n e w interventions, w h i l e
C e c c h i n a n d Boscolo continued to w o r k w i t h teaching, s u p e r v i
s i o n , a n d consultation.
O n e of the results of S e l v i n i - P a l a z z o l i ' s interest i n research
w a s the establishing of a cooperation w i t h a g r o u p of students
w h o were a l l w o r k i n g professionally as psychologists i n o r g a n i z a
tions (companies, hospitals, research centres, a n d schools). The
p u r p o s e w a s to s t u d y h u m a n behaviour i n large organizations.
The results of the group's w o r k were p u b l i s h e d (in Italian i n 1981,
i n E n g l i s h i n 1987) i n the book The Hidden Games of Organizations
(Selvini-Palazzoli, 1987). In the 1970s there w a s little experience
w i t h a p p l y i n g systemic concepts to p s y c h o l o g i c a l consultations i n
organizations. The group's m a n y discussions were based o n the
participants' actual w o r k i n the various organizations. I n m a n y
instances, the psychologist started off o n the w r o n g foot, i n the
sense that a clear f o r m a l a n d psychological contract h a d not been
d r a w n u p to define the psychologist's relationship w i t h the or
ganization.
It is a fascinating book, consisting of f o u r case studies a n d
a series of theoretical chapters. The case studies describe h o w the
psychologist gets caught u p i n internal games a n d p o w e r strug
gles that have been established l o n g before the psychologist be
comes i n v o l v e d , a n d w h i c h the psychologist often recognizes too

late. The b o o k paints a v i v i d picture of the c o m p l e x i t y of the c o m
m u n i c a t i o n that takes place o n three levels i n the f o r m of h i d d e n
agendas a n d i m p l i c i t a n d explicit appeals to the consultant for
help. The difficulties i n not getting r o p e d into h i d d e n alliances
a n d coalitions a n d , thus, choosing sides are m a d e v e r y clear.
The b o o k does not p r o v i d e a comprehensive, explicit treatment
of these difficulties i n relation to the concept of neutrality. I m p l i c
itly, h o w e v e r , neutrality is understood as the art of r e m a i n i n g
i m p a r t i a l i n the complex w o r l d of large organizations.
Some of the concepts a n d techniques that one can e m p l o y i n
order to m a i n t a i n neutrality, however, are i n t r o d u c e d here.
The M i l a n group's first interpretation of the concept of neutral
ity (from 1980) w a s the object of m u c h debate a n d criticism. The
critics felt that neutrality w o u l d create a therapist w h o w a s u n i n
terested a n d c o l d , w h o lacked distinct o p i n i o n s , a n d w h o w o u l d
not accept any responsibility w h e n faced w i t h i m m o r a l acts.
A m o n g the critics were the feminists, w h o felt that this neutrality
w o u l d m e a n a n acceptance of the oppression of w o m e n a n d w h o
therefore felt that neutrality was essentially unethical.
In 1987, C e c c h i n therefore felt p u t u p o n to address the issue
of neutrality again w h i c h he d i d i n the article " H y p o t h e s i z i n g ,
C i r c u l a r i t y , a n d N e u t r a l i t y Revisited: A n Invitation to C u r i o s i t y "
(Cecchin, 1987). In the article, he emphasizes that neutrality s h o u l d
be u n d e r s t o o d as the creation of curiosity a n d as an obligation to
develop different approaches. C u r i o s i t y is not to be used i n a search
for the best description or explanation of the f a m i l y ' s p r o b l e m but,
rather, to focus o n patterns a n d p o n d e r h o w a l l these f a m i l y m e m
bers' (different) descriptions fit together. C e c c h i n calls this interest
i n patterns a n aesthetic interest that feeds curiosity a n d respect.
Respect is a prerequisite for curiosity. W e have closed conclusions
r e g a r d i n g people for w h o m w e have n o respect i n o u r e v e r y d a y
lives ( " H e is completely incompetent", " T h e y are absolutely i m p o s s i
ble to w o r k w i t h " ) . C l o s e d conclusions d o not promote curiosity.
I n this sense, the respect for other people becomes a prerequisite
for the ability to r e m a i n curious about them. The aesthetic interest
enables the p e r s o n to rise cognitively to a meta-level, w h i c h offers
a better o p p o r t u n i t y for getting a comprehensive v i e w of the state
ments of several people. Thus, there are three ingredients to n e u

trality: curiosity, aesthetic interest, a n d respect.
N e u t r a l i t y is a challenge for the therapist—a challenge that
it c a n be h a r d to live u p to. C e c c h i n therefore also discusses h o w
the therapist can become aware that she is about to c o m p r o m i s e
her neutrality. H e mentions t w o sets of s y m p t o m s : psychosomatic
s y m p t o m s a n d b o r e d o m . The therapist s h o u l d be aware w h a t type
of psychosomatic s y m p t o m s she is most l i k e l y to d e v e l o p (for ex
a m p l e , headaches or stomach pains).
B o r e d o m occurs w h e n there is n o i n f o r m a t i o n that m a k e s a
difference to the therapist. This m a y h a p p e n w h e n the therapist
"becomes engaged to her hypotheses". The circular i n t e r v i e w (see
section 5.2) a n d the f o r m a t i o n of hypotheses (see section 5.5) i n
v o l v e techniques that the therapist can e m p l o y i n order to break
off her "engagement".
I n 1992, there w a s a n e w c o n t r i b u t i o n to the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of
neutrality, w i t h a title that m a y at first glance seem a bit f u n n y :
Irreverence: A Strategy for Therapists' Survival (Cecchin, L a n e , &
R a y , 1992).
The b o o k is based o n experiences f r o m a n u m b e r of contexts
w h e r e C e c c h i n h a d w o r k e d as a supervisor or consultant to p r o
fessional therapists d e a l i n g w i t h extremely difficult cases (vio
lence, incest, rape, s u i c i d a l tendencies, a n d so forth).
The authors describe h o w they a r r i v e d at the belief that the
irreverent p o s i t i o n m i g h t be a strategy for s u r v i v a l i n these severe
cases. A f t e r h a v i n g suffered, for years, f r o m doubts about w h a t
they s h o u l d do i n the face of these cases, the authors c o n c l u d e d
that this d o u b t s h o u l d be considered an asset.
Irreverence here means the courage to question critically one's
own ideas as a therapist and consultant, c o m b i n e d w i t h respect for
the persons w i t h w h o m one w o r k s . Essentially, the lack of irrever
ence t o w a r d s one's o w n ideas is an irresponsible p o s i t i o n , because
it m a y m a k e a p e r s o n b l i n d to the potentially unethical conse
quences of her o w n actions. This does not m e a n that one s h o u l d
meet a client-system w i t h o u t a n y ideas, theories, or hypotheses.
O n the contrary—the authors c l a i m that it requires t h o r o u g h
k n o w l e d g e of theories a n d ideas to be able to face t h e m w i t h i r r e v
erence a n d doubt.
The therapist s h o u l d meet the client-system w i t h hypotheses

a n d respect—and w i t h curiosity a n d the w i l l i n g n e s s to replace
p r o p o s e d hypotheses w i t h others that m i g h t p r o v e more useful. In
order to a c c o m p l i s h this, the therapist has to be able to reflect o n
the consequences of her o w n attitudes, basic assumptions, a n d
actions.
I n this historical development one can see the contours of the
transition f r o m first- to second-order cybernetics. N e u t r a l i t y , i n
the sense of impartiality, is a concept that belongs to first-order
cybernetics. The focus is o n the client-system a n d the effect that
the therapist's actions have o n the client-system. N e u t r a l i t y i n the
sense of curiosity is a v e r y b r o a d concept that can be u n d e r s t o o d
w i t h i n b o t h first- a n d second-order cybernetics.
N e u t r a l i t y i n the sense of impartiality a n d curiosity were (and
are) i m p o r t a n t concepts that can help the therapist a n d consultant
to d i s t i n g u i s h their activities f r o m expert advice. The expert's job
is to place his expertise at the commissioner's disposal. In d o i n g so,
the expert enters into a long-term relationship w i t h the c o m m i s
s i o n e r — a n alliance that m a y t u r n into coalitions w i t h others. The
expert advisor deals w i t h the contents aspect of the c o m m i s s i o n
er's problems a n d w o r k s w i t h i n a f r a m e w o r k of linear t h i n k i n g .
W i t h the development of the ideas about the circular line of
t h i n k i n g a n d the transition to second-order cybernetics, the n e u
trality concepts, h o w e v e r , p r o v e d insufficient. There w a s a need
for a concept that c o u l d help the therapist a n d the consultant act
as part of the observing system. This is where the concept of irrev
erence enters into the picture. The focus shifts f r o m the client-sys
t e m to the point where the consultant's theoretical assumptions,
attitudes, a n d experiences direct her learning about the client-sys
t e m a n d about the relationship between herself a n d the client
system. It then becomes interesting to p o n d e r the f o l l o w i n g
question: "I w o n d e r w h a t the client-system w o u l d l o o k l i k e if I
met it w i t h other ideas?"
To me, b o t h neutrality a n d irreverence are indispensable c o n
cepts to the organizational consultant. N o t that the concept of i r
reverence replaces the concept of neutrality. In m y experience,
actual consultations h o l d plenty of invitations that—if I were to
accept t h e m — w o u l d compromise m y i m p a r t i a l i t y as a consultant.
The invitations can be about c h o o s i n g sides i n a conflict, d e t e r m i n

i n g w h o is right, j o i n i n g secret groups or meetings, p a r t i c i p a t i n g
i n the m o r a l c o n d e m n a t i o n of a manager, expressing m y take o n
the core of the p r o b l e m , r e c o m m e n d i n g a particular s o l u t i o n , a n d
so forth. S u c h direct or indirect invitations can be seen as thoughts
a n d actions w i t h i n the linear a p p r o a c h . In the g i v e n situation, I, as
the consultant, h a v e to choose whether I w a n t to continue m y
i n q u i r y w i t h i n a linear f r a m e w o r k , or w h e t h e r I w a n t to s w i t c h to
the circular approach. I n this situation, it is i m p o r t a n t to c a r r y o n
b o t h a n i n t e r n a l a n d a n external dialogue. In the internal d i a l o g u e
I focus o n m y o w n thoughts, emotions, a n d personal judgement.
O n the basis of m y professional identity, I w i l l censor this d i a
l o g u e a n d select the elements that w i l l be the most u s e f u l i n the
external d i a l o g u e . T o m a i n t a i n a meta-position the consultant, i n
effect, has to have a d u a l consciousness.
C h a p t e r s 6 a n d 7, w h i c h are about the consultant's cognitive
processes i n practice, describe h o w s u p e r v i s i o n a n d cooperation
w i t h another consultant can be e m p l o y e d as a means of h e l p i n g
the consultant m a i n t a i n her neutrality a n d increase her irrever
ence t o w a r d s her o w n thoughts a n d ideas.
This section m a y give the reader the i m p r e s s i o n that the sys
t e m i c a l l y i n s p i r e d consultant always has to try to stay neutral. T h i s
is not the case, h o w e v e r . This question is the subject of the f o l l o w
i n g section, about professional d o m a i n s .
5.4 The professional domains

[Gitte Haslebo]
Since C e c c h i n ' s article i n 1987, m a n y other systemically i n s p i r e d

therapists a n d consultants have c o n t i n u e d to d e v e l o p the concept
of neutrality—as, for example, L a n g , Little, a n d C r o n e n i n their
article " T h e Systemic Professional D o m a i n s of A c t i o n a n d the
Q u e s t i o n of N e u t r a l i t y " (1990).
This is a v e r y i n s p i r i n g (but rather inaccessible) article, w h e r e
the authors set out to develop the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the concept of
n e u t r a l i t y i n relation to the c r i t i c i s m that h a d been l e v i e d against
it. The p o i n t of departure for the article is the inherent conflict i n

the systemic consultant's c o n d i t i o n : o n the one h a n d , she has to
stay n e u t r a l t o w a r d s the client's development efforts a n d , o n the
other, she w i l l encounter situations that require her to take a
stand. Therapists rarely have a job situation that a l l o w s t h e m to
w o r k exclusively as therapists; part of the time they w i l l have to
act as social supervisors, overseeing various rules a n d regulations.
H o w s h o u l d this conflict between roles a n d tasks be m a n a g e d
a n d understood? This is w h e r e the d o m a i n theory comes i n . It w a s
M a t u r a n a w h o i n t r o d u c e d the concept of the domain i n 1985 (in a n
u n p u b l i s h e d paper) a n d p r o v i d e d the b a c k g r o u n d for it i n the
famous book, The Tree of Knowledge (Maturana & V a r e l a , 1987).
Domain refers to a space for professional activities that is de
f i n e d i n time. The authors' a i m w i t h the article is to suggest h o w
one can d i s t i n g u i s h between various types of activities that profes
sionals carry out, w h i l e a d h e r i n g to the basic ideas i n systemic
t h i n k i n g . A f u n d a m e n t a l concept is M a t u r a n a ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g
that h u m a n language acts u n f o l d i n three different d o m a i n s : the
d o m a i n s of ethics, p r o d u c t i o n , a n d explanations, respectively. The
three authors m e n t i o n e d above especially use examples f r o m the
area of social w o r k , treatment, a n d therapy. In the f o l l o w i n g I
present the ideas f r o m the article, e x p a n d e d w i t h examples f r o m
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l consultation. I refer to the d o m a i n of explanations
as the d o m a i n of reflection, as this concept, i n m y o p i n i o n , better
expresses the k e y aspects of this d o m a i n .
T h e three d o m a i n s can be understood as three basic types of
contexts (see chapter 2). In a g i v e n situation, a l l three d o m a i n s
exist s i m u l t a n e o u s l y , but since it is impossible to e m p l o y three
different frames of reference at the same time, one of t h e m is go
i n g to assume the f o r e g r o u n d a n d control the events.
In the domain of aesthetics, ideas a n d values s u c h as beauty,
h a r m o n y , accordance, desirability, morals, a n d ethics are p r e
d o m i n a n t . A n y situation has a n ethical d i m e n s i o n , but not a l l s i t u
ations require professional attention to ethical questions. W h e n
they d o , it is often expressed i n intense, unpleasant, or e v e n p a i n
f u l considerations for the professional. For example, it m a y t u r n
out, at the b e g i n n i n g of a leadership seminar, that the p s y c h o
l o g i c a l contract between top management a n d the p a r t i c i p a n t s —
counter to the consultant's assumption—has not been discussed

t h o r o u g h l y e n o u g h . The participants feel that they are i n a coer
cive situation. The consultant k n o w s that l e a r n i n g o n l y rarely
takes place i n coercive situations. W h e n the consultant becomes
aware of the participants' p e r c e p t i o n of the situation, the consult
ant's context changes a n d the aesthetic d o m a i n becomes d o m i
nant. T h e ethical d i l e m m a before the consultant raises unpleasant
questions, s u c h as: S h o u l d I cancel the course? S h o u l d I carry o n
w i t h the course—perhaps just to pass the time? C a n a d i a l o g u e
be established b e t w e e n top management a n d the participants?
S h o u l d the consultant's contract w i t h top management be a n
n u l l e d or renegotiated?
I n the d o m a i n of aesthetics, the consultant cannot r e m a i n n e u
tral. I n this d o m a i n , the consultant is forced to consider h o w
theory, practice, a n d ethics are connected—or, rather, not c o n
nected. T h i s is a n essential part of one's professional t r a i n i n g : ac
q u i r i n g the a b i l i t y to consider the ethical consequences of the w a y
that one makes theory, m e t h o d s , a n d techniques interact.
The d o m a i n of aesthetics is considered superior to the d o m a i n s
of b o t h p r o d u c t i o n a n d reflection. The choice of u n d e r s t a n d i n g
one's w o r k w i t h i n either the d o m a i n of p r o d u c t i o n or the d o m a i n
of reflection is g o v e r n e d b y considerations t a k i n g place i n the d o
m a i n of aesthetics. If the consultant is unsure about this choice,
she has to revert to the d o m a i n of aesthetics.
In extension of these points, systemic consultation s h o u l d be
u n d e r s t o o d as a practice that springs f r o m a n ethical p o s i t i o n .
E t h i c a l issues c a n a l w a y s be traced back to considerations c o n
c e r n i n g the extent to w h i c h the given practice is going to contribute to
increasing the future possibilities for change, development, and growth.
In the domain of production, reality is considered objective: there
is one t r u t h , a n d it is this t r u t h that it is essential to uncover. The
i d e a of one universe is p r e d o m i n a n t . Practice i n the d o m a i n of
p r o d u c t i o n springs f r o m w e l l - d e f i n e d technologies based o n c o n
ventions that are w i d e l y accepted. The criteria for g o o d versus
inferior w o r k are w e l l k n o w n a n d accepted. The assessment of
persons b y , for example, social w o r k e r s , diagnoses b y doctors,
p s y c h o l o g i c a l tests b y psychologists, a n d arbitration b y l a w y e r s
i n conflicts about collective agreements are a l l examples of p r o
fessional practice based o n well-established k n o w l e d g e , k n o w n

m e t h o d s , a n d careful procedures. They are, thus, examples of ac
tivities w i t h i n the d o m a i n of p r o d u c t i o n .
This does not necessarily m e a n that it is easy for the profes
s i o n a l to f u n c t i o n w i t h i n the d o m a i n of p r o d u c t i o n , because she
can " s i m p l y " stick to conventions. Often, it is not that s i m p l e .
Experts, too, m a y disagree as to w h a t is the best technology, just
as there m a y be great v a r i a t i o n i n w h a t the professionals, o n the
one side, a n d the c o m p a n y , o n the other, consider the success
criteria for the execution of a g i v e n task. The nature of these differ
ences is b r i l l i a n t l y described i n , for example, the b o o k The Clash of
Cultures: Managers and Professionals (Raelin, 1985).
The d o m a i n of p r o d u c t i o n employs linear t h i n k i n g as w e l l as
cause-and-effect t h i n k i n g (see section 5.2). In this line of t h i n k i n g ,
events are considered the effects of distinct causes: the sales staff
is not t h r i v i n g because the manager is n o g o o d at h u m a n resources
management. The cause can be f o u n d i n the manager's (poor)
skills at h u m a n resources management, a n d the effect is l o w job
satisfaction for the staff. T h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g is based o n the u n
d e r l y i n g a s s u m p t i o n that the parties i n an interaction are separate
entities that are not connected to each other as parts of a system.
The interaction is u n i - d i r e c t i o n a l a n d sequentially ordered: first
comes the cause, then the effect.
W i t h i n the d o m a i n of p r o d u c t i o n , clarity is h e l d i n h i g h re
g a r d , a n d a n e i t h e r / o r approach is t y p i c a l . This affects consulta
tions that take place w i t h i n the d o m a i n of p r o d u c t i o n . In the case
of the conflict about the correct interpretation of the collective
agreement, the question to the l a w y e r is: w h o is right, the s h o p
s t e w a r d or management? Other examples i n c l u d e questions to the
consultant, s u c h as: is there too m u c h wasted time i n the w o r k
procedure (yes or no)? Is the l o w degree of job satisfaction i n the
sales department d u e to p o o r management (yes or no)?
C o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h i n the d o m a i n of p r o d u c t i o n is often s u p
p o s e d to l e a d to the identification of the factors that caused the
p r o b l e m s . G o i n g back to the questions above, the task m a y be to
f i n d out w h y the procedures are inefficient or the m a i n reasons for
the p o o r w o r k i n g environment. F i n d i n g the causes is often associ
ated w i t h p l a c i n g the blame. W h e n the consultant makes recom
m e n d a t i o n s based o n her f i n d i n g s , she explicitly takes a stand o n
the nature a n d course of the changes—and, i n that sense, is not

neutral.
Professional w o r k i n the d o m a i n of p r o d u c t i o n often has the
character of reaching a conclusion, so that management can m a k e
a decision. The consultant w i l l , therefore, t y p i c a l l y not be c o n s i d
ered neutral, i n the sense of b e i n g i m p a r t i a l . If, for example, the
consultant finds the cause of the p o o r w o r k i n g e n v i r o n m e n t really
to be p o o r management, the manager is not l i k e l y to consider the
consultant neutral. I refer here to the p r e v i o u s d i s c u s s i o n about
the concept of neutrality (see section 5.3), w h e r e the k e y criterion
for neutrality lay i n the client-system's perception of w h a t the
consultant does (and not i n the consultant's self-image or inten
tions).
T h e expert advisor, b y d e f i n i t i o n , cannot be i m p a r t i a l . It is,
h o w e v e r , i m p o r t a n t that the aspect of neutrality that deals w i t h
curiosity is also a guide for the consultant's w o r k i n the d o m a i n of
p r o d u c t i o n . A n assessment of a manager, for example, s h o u l d be
carried out o n the basis of a genuine curiosity about the n e w data.
Professional w o r k means that the result is not k n o w n ahead of
time a n d is not controlled, for example, b y l e a d i n g questions. It is
also a q u a l i t y requirement that the assessment take place w i t h
the client's consent. This is not always possible, h o w e v e r . F o r ex
a m p l e , a social w o r k e r m a y have to carry out a judgement w h e n
parents are suspected of neglecting or abusing a c h i l d . A s a m i n i
m u m requirement, the parents s h o u l d be i n f o r m e d about the
b a c k g r o u n d for the investigation a n d about their options. T o the
external o r g a n i z a t i o n a l consultant, the consent of the participants
i n , for example, a course or a n investigation is essential, since,
frequently, the f o r m a l contract w i l l have been negotiated o n l y
w i t h a few people i n top management. This necessitates a p o s s i b i l
ity for establishing a p s y c h o l o g i c a l contract w i t h the people w h o
are g o i n g to participate i n the course or investigation. Sometimes
the practical possibilities for this are not present or satisfactory.
There m a y not be time, for example, or the consultant m a y not
be p e r m i t t e d to meet w i t h the participants p r i o r to the b e g i n n i n g
of the project. (See also the section i n chapter 2 o n d e f i n i n g the
participant group.)
In the domain of reflection, reality is considered a subjective c o n
struct: there are m a n y experiences, perceptions, a n d explanations.
T h i s d o m a i n has a multiverse, m e a n i n g that there is a m u l t i p l i c i t y

of stories a n d perspectives, w h i c h are of equal rank. The w o r k of
the professional is governed b y neutrality, seen as i m p a r t i a l i t y ,
curiosity, a n d irreverence towards the consultant's o w n i d e a s —
still subject to the ethical requirement of increasing the potential
for d e v e l o p m e n t a n d g r o w t h .
The d o m a i n of reflection e m p l o y s the circular approach. It is
i m p o r t a n t to examine h o w each person's thoughts, emotions, a n d
actions influence a n d are influenced b y those of other people, a n d
h o w they fit into the larger pattern w i t h i n the system. D e p e n d i n g
o n the w a y that the various members of the o r g a n i z a t i o n p u n c
tuate the events, any action can be construed b o t h as " c a u s e " a n d
"effect". N o t o n l y is it impossible to k n o w w h i c h came first, the
c h i c k e n or the egg, reaching s u c h a c o n c l u s i o n is also irrelevant.
The i m p o r t a n t issue is to examine a n d convey h o w the v a r i o u s
positions i n the organization contribute to l a b e l l i n g some relations
a n d connections as important a n d others as u n i m p o r t a n t — a n d to
the different meanings attributed to them.
In the d o m a i n of reflection, every story is of equal v a l i d i t y a n d
is considered important i n p u t for the c o m m o n dialogue. The c o n
sultant's attitude is to be curious about a n d interested i n the sto
ries. It is her job to be an "explorer, m a p maker, story elaborator
a n d co-creator" (Lang et a l . , 1990).
N e u t r a l i t y also requires the consultant to keep an o p e n a n d
i n q u i s i t i v e m i n d to possible changes a n d their d i r e c t i o n a n d
speed. It is the client-system that makes the choices a n d decisions.
A f t e r this d i s c u s s i o n of d o m a i n theory, I discuss h o w d o m a i n s
are connected to the t y p o l o g y of consultancy approaches that w a s
established i n chapter 1.
A s it w i l l p r o b a b l y be evident f r o m the p r e v i o u s section, exper
tise consultation is a f o r m of consultation best u n d e r s t o o d as a
professional practice i n the d o m a i n of p r o d u c t i o n . It e m p l o y s the
n o t i o n of an objective reality, of w h i c h the expert is able to p r o
v i d e m o r e concise description a n d analysis t h a n the o r g a n i z a t i o n
itself is capable of. A n s w e r s a n d solutions to problems can he
closer to or farther f r o m the truth. Expertise consultation w o u l d
b r i n g t h e m closer to the truth. Expertise consultation, thus, is
based o n a certain theory of cognition, the positivist approach,
Systemic t h i n k i n g has m a d e m a n y a n d v a l u a b l e contributions

to the d e v e l o p m e n t of m e t h o d o l o g y w i t h i n the d o m a i n of reflec
tion. T h i s d e v e l o p m e n t is anchored i n general c o m m u n i c a t i o n
theory a n d the theory of social constructionism, w h i c h states that
reality is co-constructed i n a dialogue between i n d i v i d u a l s .
N o w , it m i g h t appear t e m p t i n g to equate systemic consultation
w i t h consultation i n the d o m a i n of reflection, b u t this w o u l d be
incorrect. H o w e v e r , the d o m a i n theory is a g o o d a i d for h e l p i n g
the systemically i n s p i r e d consultant take i n the situation a n d
m a k e sensible choices. It is one of the consultant's tasks to c o n
sider the d o m a i n s a n d create movements between t h e m . E v e n i f a
consultation assignment is d e f i n e d as l y i n g w i t h i n the d o m a i n of
reflection, it m a y be f r u i t f u l to shift the activity to the d o m a i n of
p r o d u c t i o n . T h i s can be done d u r i n g the process, for example i f a
g r o u p of participants is b l o c k i n g , because a management d e c i s i o n
is r e q u i r e d . A shift to the d o m a i n of p r o d u c t i o n s h o u l d a l w a y s
h a p p e n b y the e n d of a consultation. It is i m p o r t a n t that the p a r
ticipants assume responsibility a n d take charge of the process of
c o n v e r t i n g the insight that w a s reached i n the d o m a i n of reflection
to decisions a n d action plans.
O n e of the i m p l i c a t i o n s of this is that the k e y success criteria
a n d q u a l i t y requirements for a g i v e n consultation d e p e n d o n the
d o m a i n w h e r e the consultation is to be u n d e r s t o o d .
I n consultations w i t h i n the d o m a i n of p r o d u c t i o n , the most
v a l u e d elements are objectivity a n d concise data processing. A
criterion for g o o d q u a l i t y i n expert advice, for example, is that the
consultant attempt to leave her o w n personality out of the analy
sis, to prevent the f i n d i n g s f r o m being biased b y h e r p e r s o n a l
values (and prejudices).
The success criteria a n d quality requirements i n the d o m a i n of
reflection stem f r o m the ethical requirement, w h i c h is a n element
i n systemic t h i n k i n g , namely—as I have m e n t i o n e d before—that
the given practice contribute to increasing the possibilities for future
change, development, and growth.
A t this p o i n t , the interesting question is: can expert advice l e a d
to change? W h e n , for example, managers a n d staff are p l a c e d i n a
n e w structure, this is a change i n the w a y the f o r m a l side of the
o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d the people i n the organization are c o m b i n e d . But
that does not necessarily constitute change, if this is to be u n d e r

stood as changes a n d development i n people's thoughts, emo
tions, a n d behaviour. It is a change that comes f r o m the outside,
not f r o m the inside (see also chapter 2). A c c o r d i n g to the d o m a i n
theory, consultation i n the d o m a i n of p r o d u c t i o n is not capable of
p r o m o t i n g h u m a n development, but o n l y of p r o m o t i n g c o n c l u
sions a n d decisions.
W e m a y conclude, therefore, that if the goal is to attain organi
z a t i o n a l development as a p r o d u c t of h u m a n development, then
professional considerations about links between theory, m e t h o d ,
a n d ethics s h o w that the consultation s h o u l d be carried out p r i m a
r i l y i n the d o m a i n of reflection.
P r o b l e m s like "the organization is not t h r i v i n g " or " p o o r co
o p e r a t i o n " or "management incompetence" are best h a n d l e d
t h r o u g h methods i n the d o m a i n of reflection, where there is r o o m
for d i f f e r i n g experiences a n d mental models a n d a focus o n inter
p e r s o n a l relationships rather than o n the i n d i v i d u a l . W h e n this
happens, thoughts can m o v e freely a n d there is r o o m for i n
creased c o m m u n i c a t i o n , b o t h of w h i c h are prerequisites to d e v e l
opment.
O n e of the key issues i n the initial contract phase, therefore, is
to o p e n a discussion a n d secure a shared u n d e r s t a n d i n g as to
whether the particular consultation is best s o l v e d w i t h i n the
d o m a i n of p r o d u c t i o n or reflection. Since the consultant w i l l often
negotiate w i t h people f r o m different organizational levels—level
b y level—there is a real risk of different understandings of this. If
top management perceives a consultation as expertise consulta
t i o n w h i l e the staff sees it as the b e g i n n i n g of a process for i m
p r o v i n g cooperation a n d relations, a n d the manager i n charge is
not sure w h a t is g o i n g o n , then this lack of clarity about the context
alone w i l l be a n a d d i t i o n a l source of conflict rather t h a n a contri
b u t i o n to s o l v i n g the p r o b l e m .
5.5 Hypothesizing
[Kit Sanne Nielsen]
O r g a n i z a t i o n s are i n constant development, because n a t u r a l e v o

l u t i o n is inherent i n organizational processes. Constant change
means inevitable conflicts a m o n g the members of the o r g a n i z a
tion. Specific c o n f l i c t - s o l v i n g techniques are needed for s o l v i n g
these controversies. I n systemic t h i n k i n g , hypotheses are c o n s i d
ered a n effective means for creating change, for example b y i n
c l u d i n g observed actions. Let us assume that a h u m a n resources
f u n c t i o n initiates a management d e v e l o p m e n t p r o g r a m m e . T h i s
causes strong reactions i n the target g r o u p i n the f o r m of s u s p i c i o n
t o w a r d s top management. " W h a t are they u p to n o w — a r e n ' t w e
d o i n g o u r job w e l l e n o u g h ? " In this situation, the systemic c o n
sultant can f o r m a hypothesis that sheds light o n this u n s p o k e n
s u s p i c i o n . The hypothesis describes h o w the actions of the h u m a n
resources consultants appear to meet w i t h severe scepticism or
massive c r i t i c i s m . In this w a y the hypothesis, w h e n shared w i t h
the client-system, also functions as a n intervention. If the h y p o t h
esis is accepted, the target g r o u p has gained a n insight, w h i c h
m a y prevent s i m i l a r reactions to future initiatives.
The hypothesis is feedback o n certain reactions as w e l l as a n
attempt to u n d e r s t a n d a specific interaction. But the hypothesis
also raises n e w a n d p r o b i n g questions, for example i n the case
described above: " W h a t is the hypothesis g o i n g to m e a n for m a n
agement's relations w i t h the participants i n the f u t u r e ? "
The w o r d " h y p o t h e s i s " o r i g i n a l l y comes f r o m the G r e e k a n d
means: a scientific statement that "lies u n d e r " . H e r e , w e use a
hypothesis about a statement that expresses w h a t goes o n b e t w e e n
the lines i n a particular context. This means that it is a constructed
picture of connections between experiences.
I n systemic consultation, the hypothesis is one of the consult
ant's key tools. B y h y p o t h e s i z i n g , the consultant shines a t e m p o
r a r y spotlight o n certain conditions.
Systemic t h i n k i n g uses t w o categories of hypotheses:
1. Re-telling: A story or s u m m a r y that expresses a m e a n i n g that is

i m m e d i a t e l y comprehensible, understandable, a n d acceptable.
2. The actual hypothesis: A n interpretation of parts of a m e a n i n g ,

w h i c h has m o r e detail a n d nuances than the factual conditions,
because several assumptions are c o m b i n e d , a n d n e w u n d e r
standings can be i n t r o d u c e d .
Subordinate to this, two forms can be described:
1. A general hypothesis concerning the client's p r o b l e m .

2. A working hypothesis.
The general hypothesis

The general hypothesis is an image or a metaphor created o n the
basis of i n f o r m a t i o n a n d observations about the participants' be
h a v i o u r , intentions, expressed thoughts, a n d internal relations.
The working hypothesis

The working hypothesis is the consultant's o w n t o o l , w h i c h m a y
p r o v i d e a preliminary m o d e l for s u m m a r i z i n g a n d c l a r i f y i n g w h a t
is g o i n g o n i n the system. The purpose of f o r m i n g the w o r k i n g
hypothesis is to achieve a p r e l i m i n a r y u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the nature
a n d scope of the p r o b l e m . The w o r k i n g hypothesis therefore c o n
tributes to m a i n t a i n i n g the consultant's attention a n d curiosity. It
aims to create a cognitive change a n d to contribute to m a k i n g the
consultant alter her perspective i n a constant process. I n some
situations, the w o r k i n g hypothesis is o n l y a part of the consult
ant's inner d i a l o g u e , i n others the systemic consultant m a y use
the hypothesis explicitly i n an o p e n f o r u m . Therefore, hypotheses
often i n c l u d e questions. The hypotheses are not linear (cause - »
effect) i n structure, but circular. They p r o v i d e the consultant w i t h
a " w o r l d m a p " of the interaction that reflects the l o c k e d - u p situa
tion.
The hypothesis d r a w s o n several sources for its contents. O n e
source is the i n f o r m a t i o n that the consultant gains t h r o u g h her
interactions w i t h the client-system. A n o t h e r source is the consult
ant's p r e v i o u s experiences w i t h other assignments, a n d a t h i r d ,

the consultant's theoretical u n d e r s t a n d i n g . It is of n o interest to
w h i c h theoretical school the consultant belongs. O t h e r theoretical
approaches m a y p r o v i d e i m p o r t a n t sources of i n s p i r a t i o n for the
consultant's hypotheses. T h e essential aspect is the consultant's
ability to tie relevant theory, experience, a n d k n o w l e d g e together
a n d to d o this i n a d e v e l o p i n g a n d enthusiastic w a y .
A n i m p o r t a n t element i n the f o r m a t i o n of hypotheses is to u n
derstand the i m p l i c a t i o n s of the w a y that the events appear, a n d
to i n c l u d e m a n y varieties of possible understandings. The p u r p o s e of
f o r m i n g hypotheses is to give the participants a sense of b e i n g
u n d e r s t o o d . I n this w a y , the f o r m a t i o n of hypotheses focuses o n
the c o m b i n a t i o n a n d the l i n k between u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d options.
C a m p b e l l , D r a p e r , a n d H u f f i n g t o n (1991a) use hypotheses to
be able to w o r k w i t h :
1. conflicts b e t w e e n i n d i v i d u a l needs a n d the organization's cur

rent needs a n d life cycle
2. relational conflicts that occur as a consequence of change or

threats of change
I n f o r m a t i o n gathering is u s e d for f o r m i n g hypotheses. A k e y p e r
spective i n the a p p l i c a t i o n of hypotheses is to shed light o n a
"gain-loss discussion", w h e r e a typical question w o u l d be: " W h a t
m i g h t be the gains a n d losses to the i n d i v i d u a l or the o r g a n i z a t i o n
i n c h a n g i n g a g i v e n b e h a v i o u r ? " T h e process of h y p o t h e s i z i n g
d r a w s o n three different dimensions ( C a m p b e l l , C o l d i c o t t , &
K i n s e l l a , 1994):
1. clarity o r a m b i g u i t y i n d e f i n i t i o n of relationships
2. time—past, present, a n d future
3. discrepancies between beliefs a n d actions
The consultant w h o uses this m e t h o d i n f o r m i n g systemic h y p o t h

eses has to assume a n i n q u i s i t i v e a n d curious attitude to the situa
t i o n or p r o b l e m . A n i n q u i s i t i v e attitude requires a distance to the
situation w h e r e , o n the m e n t a l plane, the consultant is able to
detach herself f r o m the current p e r c e p t i o n of the p r o b l e m d e f i n i
tion. C a m p b e l l , C o l d i c o t t , a n d K i n s e l l a (1994) c a l l this a " m e t a

p o s i t i o n " . In systemic practice, the meta-position is the p o s i t i o n of
b e i n g f u l l y a n d completely i n v o l v e d a n d simultaneously u n i n
v o l v e d ! It is i n this frame of m i n d that the consultant forms her
hypotheses. The process of h y p o t h e s i z i n g also enables the consult
ant to m a i n t a i n a comprehensive v i e w a n d a reflected distance. B y
p u t t i n g forth different hypotheses about a p r o b l e m or situation,
the consultant gives the client a n e w perspective o n the d i f f i c u l
ties. The client gets an o p p o r t u n i t y to be a n observer to his o w n
situation a n d , i n a psychological sense, gets a safe space for v i e w
i n g things f r o m o u t s i d e / a b o v e / b e l o w . This gives the client a n
e m o t i o n a l space for distancing himself f r o m the situation.
T h e consultant must avoid considering or accepting hypotheses as
true and complete explanations. Hypotheses, rather, are the basis for
f o r m i n g concepts a n d meanings that can be shared w i t h others
a n d for s h i f t i n g experiences f r o m that w h i c h is grasped at a g i v e n
m o m e n t to w h a t is considered at the next m o m e n t . They d o not
w o r k as conclusions to complex situations. C e c c h i n points out that
the consultant's attitude towards hypotheses m u s t be g o v e r n e d
b y her ethical and moral working principles, as she decides w h i c h
hypotheses to present to the client (Cecchin & Stratton, 1991). H e
also points out that the consultant s h o u l d not " f a l l i n love w i t h "
particular hypotheses, but, o n the contrary, s h o u l d retain a p l a y
f u l , experimental, irreverent attitude to the hypotheses. W h e n
hypotheses cease to be useful, one s h o u l d be "faithless" to t h e m
a n d create n e w ones. W i t h irreverence, C e c c h i n means a n u n o r t h o
d o x a n d creative stance, w h e r e one challenges one's o w n a n d
other people's ideas a n d understandings i n a constant process.
T h i s w a y , the consultant can a v o i d h a v i n g the hypotheses appear
as r e a d y - m a d e solutions, w h i c h reduces the consultant's risk of
w i n d i n g u p i n a p o s i t i o n based o n p o w e r a n d expertise i n relation
to the client-system (Cecchin & Stratton, 1991).
H y p o t h e s e s , therefore, are more than s i m p l e a n d correct deci
sions, w h i c h is w h y it is u s e f u l for the consultant to establish
m a n y hypotheses, e v e n if they are m u t u a l l y contradictory.
W h e n the consultant formulates hypotheses, she s h o u l d p a y
attention to h o w they m i g h t influence the client. This occurs
t y p i c a l l y i n those cases w h e r e the consultant clings to a particular
hypothesis a n d w a n t s to lead the client d o w n a certain p a t h . If

the client takes over the consultant's hypothesis u n c r i t i c a l l y , there
is a r i s k that the hypothesis m i g h t not differ f r o m the client's o w n
t h i n k i n g . This w i l l not p r o v i d e the difference i n t h i n k i n g that is
the p r i m a r y p u r p o s e of the systemic hypothesis ( H u f f i n g t o n ,
1996). The p u r p o s e of f o r m i n g hypotheses is to create a n appreci
able difference f r o m the belief system that the client b o t h produces
a n d is a part of. The art is to r e m a i n i n t o u c h w i t h the client's
experiences a n d c o n t i n u a l l y compare the client's reactions w i t h
one's o w n ideas, w h i l e c o n t i n u i n g to p a y attention to one's o w n
t h i n k i n g . B y c o - o r d i n a t i n g , e x p a n d i n g , elaborating, a n d l i s t e n i n g
d u r i n g the feedback phase; the consultant can take the f o r m a t i o n
of hypotheses to a higher level of meaning. This w a y , the client c a n
acquire a n e w a n d different u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the p r o b l e m a t i c
situations as w e l l as a n e w set of options.
H y p o t h e s i z i n g is a creative activity that develops i n a s p i r a l
l i n g , progressive process. A s m e n t i o n e d earlier, the process of h y
p o t h e s i z i n g d r a w s o n unconscious m e n t a l images a n d i n t u i t i v e
processes, w h o s e goal is to p r o d u c e a n integrated picture f r o m the
f r a g m e n t e d i n f o r m a t i o n , so that first the consultant a n d later the
client m a y have a n " a h a " experience. W h a t is i m p o r t a n t is not
w h e t h e r the client likes the hypotheses, but whether he w i l l get
i n v o l v e d i n t h e m a n d p l a y along. If the hypothesis meets w i t h
resistance because it confronts the participant i n a w a y that causes
e m o t i o n a l a v e r s i o n a n d dislike, the consultant has to change the
hypothesis to " d e f u s e " the aspects that p r o v o k e a n d rephrase the
hypothesis to raise n e w questions.
T h r o u g h the f o r m a t i o n of hypotheses, those i n the client-sys
tem have a n o p p o r t u n i t y to see h o w differently a situation is
v i e w e d a n d experienced w h e n different persons are i n v o l v e d .
T h i s reflects the fact that experiences are interpreted b y i n d i v i d u
als a n d are therefore not accessible for s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d , c o n v e n
t i o n a l approaches. Therefore, the f o r m a t i o n of hypotheses alters
the m o r e o b l i q u e interactions a n d renders t h e m v i s i b l e .
Positive reframing is a m e t h o d that o r i g i n a l l y came f r o m sys
temic f a m i l y therapy. The concept can be illustrated as f o l l o w s .
T w o m e n l o o k t h r o u g h the p r i s o n bars; one sees m u d , the other
stars. The p o i n t is that one m a n sees the p r o b l e m , w h i l e the other
m a n sees hope. The purpose of positive r e f r a m i n g is to give the

p r o b l e m a positive slant. The p r o b l e m at h a n d is interpreted a n d
u n d e r s t o o d i n a constructive w a y , so that the participants free u p
resources for t a k i n g action. The positive r e f r a m i n g must be differ
ent f r o m the client's o w n p h r a s i n g , but no so far r e m o v e d f r o m it
that the client cannot use it to alter existing understandings a n d
behaviour. If the hypotheses are too far r e m o v e d , they w i l l appear
to be unrelated to the issue. If they are too s i m i l a r to the system's
o w n hypotheses, they p r o v i d e no n e w information. A s a first step,
the consultant has to uncover the client's o w n explanation of his
current situation. The client's o w n hypotheses w i l l u s u a l l y be l i n
ear (see section 5.2).
The consultant m u s t focus her attention o n l o o k i n g for some
t h i n g else—that is, f i n d i n g n e w connections that were not k n o w n
p r e v i o u s l y . C i r c u l a r questioning brings forth i n f o r m a t i o n that c a n
f o r m the basis for the consultant's hypotheses. The r e f r a m i n g aims
at m a k i n g the constructive aspects of the p r o b l e m visible i n order
to " d e t o x i f y " the client f r o m b a d experiences a n d feelings of beir^g
l o c k e d i n , of suffering a n d b e i n g a v i c t i m of the p r o b l e m .
It is i m p o r t a n t to remember that there is no " r i g h t " w a y to
f o r m hypotheses. O n e has to b u i l d a repertoire, v a r y it, explore
a n d seek n e w w a y s , accept inspiration, a n d p l a y along. O n e has to
be w i l l i n g to take risks a n d challenge b o t h one's o w n t h i n k i n g a n d
that of others. O n e has to elaborate o n the questions a n d ideas that
lead to the hypotheses. Systemic hypotheses b u i l d o n a d e v e l o p
ment process, w h i c h gets increasingly complex, as the insight into
the v a r i o u s relations grows.
5.6 Interventions
[Kit Sanne Nielsen]
The commissioner expects the consultant's efforts to lead to

changes i n a g i v e n situation or p r o b l e m . The commissioner w a n t s
the consultant to p r o v i d e interventions o n w h i c h the participants
can act. In systemic t h i n k i n g , the attitude to this is that, essen
tially, the client holds the key to the s o l u t i o n , w h i l e the consult
ant's role is to be a catalyst for the process.
T h e interventions that the consultant applies i n h e r practical

w o r k u s u a l l y range f r o m s i m p l e p s y c h o l o g i c a l advice to i n t e r v e n
tions of greater d y n a m i c complexity. S u c h interventions m a y i n
clude:
• Qualitative interviews w i t h people, i n d i v i d u a l l y o r i n g r o u p s .

H e r e , the consultant gathers data, forms hypotheses, a n d estab
lishes a f r a m e w o r k for the next steps i n the process.
• Passing on information (that is otherwise not disseminated) to key

persons in the organization.
• Bringing people together w h o n o r m a l l y d o not meet a n d talk, a n d

acting as a mirror or a translator i n these meetings.
• Clarifying roles, ground rules, demands, and expectations between

people w i t h different (hierarchical) authority.
• Guiding the formation of visions and goals, so that the system

acquires a shared context that becomes comprehensible to the
m e m b e r s of the organization.
The consultant chooses w h i c h interventions to e m p l o y after she

has h e a r d , c o m p r e h e n d e d , a n d interpreted the messages. O n e
or m o r e hypotheses are then f o r m u l a t e d a n d a p p l i e d i n order to
examine whether they m a k e sense to the client. The client-system
c a n t h e n use the hypotheses to discover n e w options b y d o i n g
s o m e t h i n g different f r o m w h a t h a d been done p r e v i o u s l y . O n e
m i g h t also say that i n systemic t h i n k i n g interventions a n d the
f o r m a t i o n of hypotheses are integrated processes. T h e v e r y g o a l
w i t h the consultant's interventions is to promote the o r g a n i z a
tion's o w n autonomous ability for adaptation and learning t h r o u g h
this feedback process. Sometimes the client does n o t agree w i t h
the consultant's n e w v e r s i o n . I n that case, the consultant s h o u l d
be h u m b l e a n d express that the client is the real expert, a n d that
the consultant is o n l y t r y i n g to l o o k at things i n another light. T h i s
often has a positive effect.
I have f o u n d the systemic a p p r o a c h applicable i n contexts o f
this nature, because it promotes the organization's o w n s k i l l s a n d
ability to m a k e decisions. B o t h circular questioning a n d the c o n
sultant's neutrality have a strong effect o n the client.
The consultant's choice of intervention is based o n her i n t u i t i v e

i m p r e s s i o n of w h a t w i l l be appropriate a n d u s e f u l to the client.
Interventions s h o u l d therefore be adjusted to fit the organizational
entity that is the object of the intervention: Is it top management
e x c l u s i v e l y — o r is it a particular manager a n d , if so, w h o ? Is it: a
management team, an entire department, a special g r o u p , a n d so
forth? The c o m p l e x intervention looks different f r o m the linear
intervention. A n example of a linear p r o b l e m statement is w h e n
the general v i e w i n the organization is that "the manager is i n
competent a n d has to change" or "the staff is b i c k e r i n g a n d has to
l e a r n to speak u p " .
The systemic perspective supplements the linear a p p r o a c h b y
offering techniques for seeing things f r o m a " h o w - p e r s p e c t i v e " .
The systemic perspective points to possible explanations a n d of
fers interpretations that can elucidate the "pattern of repetition" or
the "pattern of maintenance". A t the same time as this is b e i n g m a d e
v i s i b l e , a n e w frame of reference is b e i n g i n t r o d u c e d .
The f o l l o w i n g section describes five basic methods for inter
v e n t i o n . T h e y are i n s p i r e d b y M c C a u g h a n a n d P a l m e r (1994) a n d
b y C o o p e r r i d e r (1990):
1. positive r e f r a m i n g
2. directions for action
3. containment or maintenance of the status q u o
4. reflections
5. metaphors
Positive reframing
I n section 5.5, I described the concept of positive r e f r a m i n g i n
relation to the f o r m a t i o n of hypotheses. The p u r p o s e of positive
r e f r a m i n g as a general f o r m of intervention is to shed light o n the
participants' o w n possibilities of u t i l i z i n g their strong points a n d
resources a n d of a v o i d i n g v i c t i m i z i n g themselves i n the face of
other people's p o w e r a n d control. Interventions of this nature
have a d u a l p u r p o s e . O n the one h a n d , they a i m to de-emphasize
the negative a n d stressful aspects that keep the persons l o c k e d
into a g i v e n situation (for example b y a s s u m i n g v i c t i m s ' roles). O n

the other h a n d , they are to offer a positive experience i n contrast
to the v i c t i m i z a t i o n . A positive r e f r a m i n g of a v i c t i m ' s role c o u l d
be: b e i n g considerate a n d a l l o w i n g others to have influence. U s i n g
p o s i t i v e r e f r a m i n g i n interventions often m o b i l i z e s the person's
v i g o u r , responsibility, a n d obligation to take matters into his o w n
h a n d s a n d take action, because it p r o v o k e s n e w reactions.
I n his article, " P o s i t i v e Image—Positive A c t i o n s " , C o o p e r r i d e r
(1990) describes a n d discusses positive images a n d the impact
a n d effect they have o n people's organizational b e h a v i o u r . The
article's k e y issue is the w a y that positive m e n t a l p h e n o m e n a ,
for e x a m p l e the placebo effect, can b r i n g about r e s o u r c e - b u i l d i n g
positive p r e d i c t i o n s about the future developments of a n o r g a n i
z a t i o n . (The placebo effect is the m e d i c a l p h e n o m e n o n w h e r e b y a
t h i r d to t w o - t h i r d s of a l l patients w i l l s h o w m a r k e d p h y s i c a l a n d
p s y c h o l o g i c a l i m p r o v e m e n t s i m p l y because they believe that they
are g i v e n a n effective treatment, even t h o u g h they are o n l y get
t i n g , for example, a sugar tablet. It is the patient's positive expec
tations about the treatment that p r o d u c e the therapeutic effect.)
T h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l agents' positive images, expectations, future
dreams, or v i s u a l i z a t i o n s about the organization are p o w e r f u l fac
tors i n i m p r o v i n g the members' i n v o l v e m e n t a n d enthusiasm. If
top management invites the staff members to take part i n a d i a
logue about this, it m a y be the seed f r o m w h i c h the affirmative
ideas c a n g r o w .
A l b e r t E i n s t e i n has stated that " I m a g i n a t i o n is m o r e i m p o r t a n t
than k n o w l e d g e " (Cooperrider, 1990). It is a f u n d a m e n t a l h u m a n
gift to be able to perceive our life i n positive terms. O u r q u a l i t y
of life increases w h e n w e are optimistic a n d positive about o u r
p e r s o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t or the things w e h o p e to a c c o m p l i s h .
C o o p e r r i d e r calls this " a f f i r m a t i v e c o g n i t i o n " a n d describes it as a
u n i q u e , self-initiating development process.
W h e n w e l o o k to the h o r i z o n w i t h our positive expectations,
w e c a n convince ourselves that positive events can occur for
real. This a l l o w s us to m o b i l i z e our strength a n d actions i n the
d i r e c t i o n of o u r wishes. This can promote social b e h a v i o u r , the
appreciation of other people's efforts (the P y g m a l i o n experiment),
confidence i n one's o w n resources, a n d the belief that one is
capable of p u t t i n g i n a better effort. The classical Pygmalion s t u d y
demonstrated w h a t happens w h e n schoolteachers are t o l d ahead

of time that certain of their p u p i l s are especially gifted, w h i l e cer
t a i n others have a learning i m p e d i m e n t . The schoolteachers d e v e l
o p e d a positive attitude towards the " g o o d " p u p i l s a n d a negative
attitude t o w a r d s the p u p i l s w h o m they thought to be less gifted.
In fact, a l l the p u p i l s i n the class were equally gifted a n d talented.
A s time w e n t b y , a m a r k e d difference occurred between the p u
p i l s . The p u p i l s w h o met w i t h a positive attitude d e v e l o p e d f u r
ther, w h i l e the p u p i l s w h o were thought to be l a g g i n g actually d i d
b e g i n to fall b e h i n d . This p h e n o m e n o n has been c o n f i r m e d i n
m a n y subsequent e m p i r i c a l studies (see C o o p e r r i d e r , 1990).
O n c e I w a s a consultant to a department w h e r e w e were w o r k
i n g o n i m p r o v i n g the interactions w i t h i n a g r o u p . I suggested that
instead of l o o k i n g at the cooperation p r o b l e m s , w e s h o u l d l o o k at
the m e m b e r s ' positive experiences w i t h each other. The questions
that the g r o u p h a d to w o r k w i t h were as f o l l o w s : W h a t has
w o r k e d w e l l i n o u r cooperation? W h a t have w e done to m a k e it
w o r k ? W h a t are our hopes a n d dreams about the w a y that w e
w a n t to cooperate? W h a t h i g h points have w e shared? W h a t cre
ates a g o o d atmosphere i n o u r group? The consultant chooses this
a p p r o a c h not i n order to a v o i d t a l k i n g about the negative
aspects, b u t i n order to use a different language a n d talk about the
p r o b l e m s i n a constructive and energy-building w a y . This ensures a n
affirmative a n d s u p p o r t i v e language, w h i c h m a y inspire the par
ticipants, give t h e m faith i n their o w n possibilities, a n d b r i n g out
the resources that f u n c t i o n i n parallel w i t h the p r o b l e m areas i n
their d a y - t o - d a y cooperation. W h e n the g r o u p focuses o n this a n d
becomes aware w h i c h situations are l i f e - g i v i n g , they become ca
pable of i m p r o v i n g the emotional climate i n the g r o u p . This en
ables the members to boost their o p t i m i s m , hope, caring, joy, a n d
a l t r u i s m . The next question is w h a t the g r o u p s h o u l d d o once the
cooperation w o r k s w e l l , a n d h o w it can transfer these actions a n d
ideas to the areas w h e r e it wants change.
A n o t h e r example of the p o w e r of positive t h i n k i n g comes f r o m
a consultation w i t h a management team, w h e r e the managers
w a n t e d to discuss their roles a n d l o o k at h o w they were per
c e i v e d , personally, b y the employees i n the organization. A t one
p o i n t , the g r o u p w a s debating whether the top manager w a s too
charismatic or, as he p u t it himself, " w a s o u t s h i n i n g the other

m a n a g e r s " . A t this p o i n t I intervened a n d suggested that he d i s
cuss w i t h the other managers instead h o w they m i g h t "step o u t
into the l i g h t " w i t h h i m a n d share i n the desired image. T h i s gave
h i m the o p p o r t u n i t y to be a n appreciative a n d r e w a r d i n g m a n
ager, w h o w a s w i l l i n g to "share h i s c h a r i s m a " w i t h the other
managers. I n this w a y , the other managers, too, w o u l d h a v e
" a f f i r m a t i v e s o i l " for appreciating themselves, w h i c h c o u l d result
i n a m o r e p o s i t i v e attitude, b o t h about their o w n potential a n d
about the potential of their staff members.
Directions for action

The p u r p o s e of this f o r m of i n t e r v e n t i o n is to guide the client. T h e
consultant p r o v i d e s rather detailed a n d specific directions for
h o w the client m a y act differently or s h o w a different attitude i n
a specific situation. The M i l a n m e t h o d called this "directions for rit
uals" ( T o m m , 1989).
It m a y appear contradictory to prescribe specific actions w i t h i n
the f r a m e w o r k of the systemic m e t h o d . The e x p l a n a t i o n is that the
directions are to be seen as a p r o p o s a l for i n t e r v e n t i o n that m a y
s h e d l i g h t o n a n i n a p p r o p r i a t e pattern i n the relationships be
t w e e n t w o or m o r e persons. This m a y h e l p the client to discover
the problematic aspects of the situation. This n e w insight creates
clarity about, for example, games a n d distributions of roles a n d
tasks, w h i c h m a y have become f r o z e n . A t the same time, they also
realize that these patterns have d e v e l o p e d — a n d continue to d e
v e l o p — a s the result of interactive processes i n w h i c h they t h e m
selves are i n v o l v e d . T h e ritual is a p r o p o s e d e x p e r i m e n t — n o t
necessarily because it needs to be carried out, b u t because it a d d s
a n e w perspective to a g i v e n interaction between people. O n e ex
a m p l e is a staff g r o u p that is unable to solve a practical p r o b l e m :
W h o is s u p p o s e d to get the paper for the photocopier, clean u p the
c o m m o n k i t c h e n area, a n d so forth? T h e manager is irritated that
the staff cannot just be adults about it a n d w o r k it out. The contro
v e r s y has existed for a l o n g t i m e , a n d the manager has t o l d the
staff that they have to f i n d a reasonable s o l u t i o n . I n this situation,
the consultant c a n intervene b y suggesting that the manager a n d

the g r o u p together w o r k out a roster, w h i c h describes i n detail
w h o does w h a t , h o w often, a n d h o w . The suggestion can m a k e the
manager a n d the g r o u p aware that they have to help each other
w o r k things out i n b e h a v i o u r a l terms, a n d that sometimes the
manager has to act w i t h authority, p r o v i d i n g clear directions a n d
guidelines for his staff. A t the same time, the staff members are
m a d e aware that t h r o u g h their o w n lack of responsibility they are
a p p e a l i n g to a stronger management style.
A n i m p o r t a n t aspect of rituals is that they a l l o w the consultant
to m a k e k e y role expectations explicit b y describing specific be
h a v i o u r patterns. If the g r o u p a n d the manager d o not a c k n o w l
edge the r i t u a l a n d the behaviour does not change, the issue of
role a m b i g u i t y can be m a d e more evident i n the c o n t i n u e d c o n s u l
tation. In this respect, the ritual can be a means for c o n f r o n t i n g the
participants w i t h inherent a n d u n a c k n o w l e d g e d patterns a n d
games.
Containment
T h i s intervention technique is used w i t h the p u r p o s e of temporarily
keeping the person from making decisions and acting. B y e n c o u r a g i n g
questions, analysis, a n d hypotheses, he is a l l o w e d to focus m o r e
d e e p l y o n the p r o b l e m a n d is also i n v i t e d to become his own con
sultant. The p u r p o s e is to promote learning, analysis, a n d an u n
d e r s t a n d i n g of the connections i n v o l v e d . It also gives h i m a n
o p p o r t u n i t y to face the p r o b l e m a n d cope w i t h the e m o t i o n a l
pressure that w o u l d n o r m a l l y m a k e h i m act. M e m b e r s of the
o r g a n i z a t i o n learn to handle the potentially a m b i g u o u s emotions,
anxieties, irritation, a n d so forth that the p r o b l e m causes. I have
d i s c o v e r e d a s i m i l a r m e t h o d b y w a t c h i n g the w a y that a g r o u p
analyst intervenes. H e r e , the therapist holds back, listens, a n d e m
pathizes, g i v i n g the participants a n o p p o r t u n i t y to articulate their
concerns, w h i c h seems to have a therapeutic effect i n itself. This
p o s i t i o n often i m p r o v e s the c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h i n the g r o u p a n d
promotes a sense of c o m m u n i t y (Rice & Scott R u t a n , 1987). O n e
example is a management team that wants to get r i d of a difficult
e m p l o y e e . Several of the managers f i n d it h a r d to cooperate w i t h

this p e r s o n , a n d they are a n n o y e d w i t h his b e h a v i o u r . The c o n
sultant is able to assume a stance of u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d accept
ance, w h i c h gives the managers the space to h a n d l e the e m o t i o n a l
tension. This has a soothing effect. A d d i t i o n a l l y , the consultant
advises the management team not to m a k e a n y decisions to d i s
m i s s the employee before there has been a rational i n q u i r y into
w h e t h e r or not the difficult employee s h o u l d be let go.
Reflections
A s w e have discussed before (chapter 1), p r o b l e m - o w n e r s are
often v e r y concerned about the problematic situation a n d focus a l l
their energy o n it. The challenge before the consultant is to focus
instead o n the client-system's hopes a n d wishes for change. B o t h
the consultant's hypotheses a n d the participants' reflections are
forms of i n t e r v e n t i o n that can b r i n g about change. The challenge
is to focus one's o w n thoughts o n h o w conditions m i g h t i m p r o v e ,
" i f o n l y . . ." , as this is a far better vehicle for progress.
T h e consultant's task is to free the system f r o m the context
dependent experiences a n d to initiate a progressive transition to
w a r d s other points of v i e w . W h e n the consultant w o r k s alone a n d
w i t h o u t a reflecting team, she can change p o s i t i o n , instead, b y
c o n t e m p l a t i n g the events f r o m the different positions of the m e m
bers. B y reflecting o n the basis of these different positions, several
versions of questions a n d experiences are m a d e visible, a n d the
participants can later have a dialogue about these. The consult
ant's reflections s p r i n g f r o m the most i m p o r t a n t of the ideas, i m
pressions, a n d themes that the participants have v e r b a l i z e d . The
reflections are a c o m m e n t a r y o n w h a t the consultant has h e a r d
a n d p r o v i d e her feedback o n this to the participants. It is often
u s e f u l a n d v e r y effective to discuss the emotions that the p a r t i c i
pants have i n relation to the perceived p r o b l e m s . These emotions
are often not expressed, a n d w h e n the consultant expresses the
potential emotions i n connection w i t h the p r o b l e m , the partici
pants are able to relate to their o w n feelings m o r e o p e n l y . I n her
reflections, the consultant can ask questions or m a k e remarks that
are s u r p r i s i n g or u n u s u a l . This m a y enable the participants to

w o n d e r too, a n d this m a y make them ask n e w a n d different ques
tions about the p r o b l e m .
In chapter 3, I described h o w I h a d used a m o d e l for the re
flecting team. In order to attain a more detailed picture of h o w the
staff members perceived the cooperation problems, I i n t e r v i e w e d
one p e r s o n f r o m the g r o u p , w h i l e the others listened. T h e rest of
the g r o u p w a s d i v i d e d into three reflecting teams. The p u r p o s e of
this w a s to create listening positions, reflecting positions, a n d d i a
logue positions. The i n d i v i d u a l team member listened d u r i n g the
i n t e r v i e w , so that there w a s r o o m for other i n f o r m a t i o n for the
p e r s o n to listen to. This i n f o r m a t i o n w a s revealed once the reflect
i n g team began their reflecting dialogue about w h a t they h a d
h e a r d . The consultant needs to p r o v i d e v e r y specific i n s t r u c t i o n
c o n c e r n i n g the exchange of reflections.
I have m a d e it a habit to use the f o l l o w i n g guidelines for i n
structing the team members:
1. Speak i n constructive a n d positive terms a n d a v o i d c r i t i c i s m or

derision.
2. Let the thoughts f l o w freely a n d make r o o m for w o n d e r i n g .
3. B e g i n sentences w i t h expressions like, for example: "I w o n d e r
w h a t . . .", "I w o n d e r w h y . . . " , " W h a t m i g h t h a p p e n i f . . . " .
4. E x p a n d o n the ideas of other team members. The p o i n t is not to
reach a n agreement, but to construct different thoughts, ap
proaches, a n d questions.
5. The m o r e versions, the better.
6. A first step c o u l d be: H o w d o w e perceive w h a t the interviewee
is saying? W h a t effect does it have o n us a n d o n others inside
a n d outside the system?
7. T r y to p r o v i d e guidance: W h a t m i g h t it be a g o o d idea for the
interviewee to d o — f o r example: If I were X , I w o u l d . . . . W h a t
are other people's experiences w i t h a g i v e n solution? W h a t
ideas does the team have? W h a t sort of s u p p o r t w o u l d be
available?
The team's reflecting discussion p r o v i d e s i n p u t for the next i n

terview. The interviewee is u n d e r the same rules as the reflect
i n g team: w h i l e the reflecting team is debating, the interviewee

listens a n d is a l l o w e d to m a k e notes. U s u a l l y , the interviewee is
fascinated w i t h the constructive a n d p r o d u c t i v e d i s c u s s i o n that
u n f o l d s . It is i m p o r t a n t that the consultant m a i n t a i n to the inter
v i e w e e that comments a n d reflections that he makes afterwards
s h o u l d be the points that he f o u n d " p r o v o k i n g l y interesting". The
interviewee is not o b l i g e d to c o m m e n t o n e v e r y t h i n g . The inter
v i e w e e is also not a l l o w e d to interrupt the interaction i n the re
flecting team, so he has n o o p p o r t u n i t y of c o n v i n c i n g others of his
p o i n t of v i e w . F r o m this observing p o s i t i o n the interviewee d e v e l
ops a deeper u n d e r s t a n d i n g of his d i l e m m a or relationship w i t h
the system a n d is able to detach himself f r o m the p r o b l e m as w e l l
as c o n t e m p l a t i n g the p r o b l e m f r o m the outside (see C a m p b e l l et
al., 1991a). See also K a r l T o m m (1987b), w h o offers a v e r y detailed
treatment of the reflecting questioning technique.
Metaphors
T h i s is a n i n t e r v e n t i o n technique that I have f o u n d v e r y effective
to use. If the participants w i s h to u n d e r s t a n d their o r g a n i z a t i o n ,
this s h o u l d be a p p r o a c h e d w i t h the u n d e r s t a n d i n g that it is u s e f u l
to v i e w the o r g a n i z a t i o n as a complex, ambiguous, and paradoxical
entity (see M o r g a n , 1986).
M e t a p h o r s c a n be effective w a y s of handling complexity. In this
context, metaphors f u n c t i o n as revealing a n d p r o b i n g images of
p a r a d o x i c a l situations. A t the same time, the metaphors f u n c t i o n
as a c o m m u n i c a t i o n vehicle for w h a t has been perceived b u t not
yet p u t into w o r d s . It w i l l often be u s e f u l to e m p l o y the o r g a n i z a
tion's o w n language a n d metaphors—for example: "leave a l l h o p e
b e h i n d " or "this is a m a d h o u s e " . The consultant m a y then elabo
rate o n the metaphor. O r n e w metaphors can be i n t r o d u c e d i n
order to present a n image f r o m w h i c h the participants can de
v e l o p n e w associations (as I d o i n m y case about Peter's role i n the
g r o u p , i n chapter 3).
T h e p u r p o s e of metaphors is to be a means for e x p l a i n i n g
experiences or b e h a v i o u r if it is d i f f i c u l t for the participants
to express emotions a n d experiences directly (grief, anger, loss).
M e t a p h o r s constitute a pictorial language for expressing a n inter
pretation of certain conditions. This helps the participants to re

interpret a n d cope w i t h their problems. M e t a p h o r s m a y p r o v i d e a
c o m m o n g r o u n d for a shared u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d for the creation
of a n e t w o r k that an otherwise d i v i d e d g r o u p m a y use as a plat
f o r m for action.
There is a close l i n k between the w a y people t h i n k a n d the
w a y they act. Therefore, m a n y organizational problems stem f r o m
the m e m b e r s ' w a y of t h i n k i n g . W h e n the consultant varies a n d
qualifies her interventions, n e w w a y s of t h i n k i n g are i n t r o d u c e d .
M e m b e r s of the organization are g i v e n a possibility to alter their
u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d to f i n d n e w w a y s to act a n d , thus, an o p p o r
tunity to m a k e the changes that they w i s h for.
CHAPTER SIX
The consultant's cognitive

processes in practice:
when two consultants
work together
Kit Sanne Nielsen
How I learned to be an organizational consultant
onsultants are practitioners, a n d w e carry out o u r

activities t h r o u g h direct a n d indirect c o m m u n i c a t i o n . The
activities take place t h r o u g h m a n y types of actions, i n
w h i c h w e present o u r theories, methods, a n d reflections to others.
L a n g u a g e , m e a n i n g , a n d action are the k e y areas about w h i c h w e
ourselves also continue to learn.
T h e issue I w a n t to address here is h o w I, as a p s y c h o l o g i s t a n d
a consultant, d e v e l o p e d this competence.
W h e n l o o k i n g back at the years that I have practised as a n
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l consultant, I have been i n frequent contact w i t h
other consultants—consultants w h o , like me, w o r k as external c o n
sultants or as internal consultants ( h u m a n resources consultants
or e d u c a t i o n a l consultants). A s a person, I a m extrovert, seek c o n
tact w i t h others, a m action-oriented, a n d w a n t to test m y ideas
a n d l e a r n n e w things. I prefer challenges, change, i n s p i r a t i o n , a n d
creative tasks. M y w o r k needs to be m e a n i n g f u l a n d to present
139
opportunities for self-development. I have a l w a y s h a d a strong

interest i n a n d identification w i t h m y profession.
I e m b a r k e d o n a traditional career as a psychologist w o r k i n g
as a government employee i n a hospital system. This is w h e r e I
got m y practical experience a n d a d d i t i o n a l c l i n i c a l t r a i n i n g . D u r
i n g the first years, I w o r k e d w i t h diagnostics, p s y c h o l o g i c a l inves
tigation methods, g r o u p therapy, i n d i v i d u a l therapy, couple
c o u n s e l l i n g , a n d w i t h s u p e r v i s i o n a n d advice for the n u r s i n g staff.
T o d a y I recognize that the b a c k g r o u n d i n adult therapy a n d self
therapy that I also acquired d u r i n g these years has been an i m p o r
tant part of the f o u n d a t i o n for m y w o r k as a consultant.
The l e a r n i n g a n d t r a i n i n g that I w e n t t h r o u g h as a c l i n i c a l
psychologist w a s rooted i n p s y c h o d y n a m i c t h i n k i n g about sub
conscious processes. A s a therapist I focused o n u n d e r s t a n d i n g the
d y n a m i c processes i n the i n d i v i d u a l case history i n order to u n
derstand h o w these became manifest as deep m e n t a l patterns a n d
e m o t i o n a l memories. A t the time, m y m a i n focus w a s o n l e a r n i n g
h o w I m i g h t intervene as a therapist to change the code of the past
arid the client's expectations a n d self-image.
Later, I w o r k e d w i t h i n d i v i d u a l s a n d couples i n a private prac
tice, a n d I p r o v i d e d s u p e r v i s i o n to professionals i n v o l v e d w i t h
treatment: psychologists, therapists, social w o r k e r s , a n d so forth.
M y w o r k changed f r o m a direct client-therapist relationship into
a role as consultant. This n e w role p r o v i d e d a n o p p o r t u n i t y to
observe the therapeutic relationship a n d to reflect o n the relation
ships between therapist a n d client, w h i c h p u s h e d m e i n n e w
theoretical a n d m e t h o d o l o g i c a l directions. It was i n connection
w i t h this that I became acquainted w i t h systemic theory a n d prac
tice. W o r k i n g w i t h the s u p e r v i s i o n of treatment professionals h a d
b r o u g h t me into the treatment organization, w h i c h i n t u r n i n
s p i r e d me to w o r k w i t h the treatment system. I learned that the
observations a n d tools that I used for s u p e r v i s i o n c o u l d be trans
ferred to organizations, but that I h a d to s u p p l e m e n t m y p s y
chological k n o w l e d g e a n d experience w i t h a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g of
organizational theory. I w a s i n s p i r e d b y the l e a r n i n g I h a d gained
f r o m the Tavistock Institute, w i t h regard b o t h to g r o u p analysis
a n d to the systemic m e t h o d . The Tavistock Institute w a s f o u n d e d
i n 1946; it carried out research a n d teaching about change a n d
T W O CONSULTANTS WORK TOGETHER 141
FIGURE 6.1. My path to organizational consultation
d e v e l o p m e n t i n g r o u p s a n d organizations w i t h g r o u p analysis as
its frame of reference.
It w a s t h r o u g h w o r k i n g w i t h these thoughts, ideas, a n d m e t h
ods that I d e v e l o p e d m y practice as a consultant.
I n the years that f o l l o w e d , I participated i n w o r k s h o p s , re
c e i v e d s u p e r v i s i o n myself, a n d cooperated w i t h other o r g a n i z a
t i o n a l consultants i n a n exchange of experience a n d literature. I
participated i n t r a i n i n g sessions, i n D e n m a r k a n d abroad, i n order
to e x p a n d m y k n o w l e d g e a n d competence i n the area of o r g a n i z a
tional p s y c h o l o g y . D u r i n g this l e a r n i n g process, I w o r k e d as a
practitioner i n v o l v e d i n teaching, management t r a i n i n g , a n d c o n
sultancy to large a n d s m a l l p u b l i c a n d private companies. It w a s
d u r i n g this process that I met other consultants, w h o w e r e later to
be m y colleagues a n d w o r k i n g partners. It has a l w a y s been of
great i m p o r t a n c e to m e , as a solo consultant, to establish a n e t w o r k
that lets m e f i n d partners for assignments as w e l l as ideas, i n s p i r a
t i o n , a d v i c e , a n d guidance for m y o w n w o r k . (See F i g u r e 6.1.)
Cooperating with other consultants:

Similarities and discrepancies
I n m y experience, consultation can be a l o n e l y occupation, unless

one f i n d s other consultants w i t h w h o m to cooperate. There is a
danger of s e i z i n g u p , professionally, a n d of u s i n g u p one's o w n
i n t e r n a l r e s o u r c e s — b u r n i n g out. O n e has to be able to exchange
ideas w i t h others. It is t h r o u g h feedback a n d d i a l o g u e w i t h profes
s i o n a l partners that one has a chance to internalize n e w l e a r n i n g .
C o o p e r a t i o n w i t h a colleague o n equal terms is often a relation

that b u i l d s o n fascination a n d i d e a l i z a t i o n o n the one h a n d a n d a
fear of l o s i n g one's independence or of c o m p e t i t i o n o n the other:
"If he is better than me, then m y clients m i g h t choose h i m over
m e . " W h e n w o r k i n g together o n a specific assignment, it is a g o o d
i d e a to clarify w h o is the chief consultant. This m a y be deter
m i n e d , for example, t h r o u g h the f o l l o w i n g questions: W h o h a d
the contact? W h o s e is the client? W h o is the client's contact per
son? There needs to be a n agreement for every assignment as w e l l
as u n a m b i g u o u s rules.
D e f i n e the relationship w i t h the commissioner f r o m the outset.
W h o is i n charge of the process? This p e r s o n has to keep the other
consultant i n f o r m e d a n d handle the overall contact w i t h the c o m
missioner. W h o writes the i n v o i c e to the client? H o w is the fee to
be d i v i d e d ? It is i m p o r t a n t to sort out the economic aspects f r o m
the b e g i n n i n g , to a v o i d later controversies over this issue.
T h e partnerships that I describe here are based o n experiences
that I have m a d e over time. I f i n d that the interaction w i t h other
consultants promotes the client's o w n development a n d l e a r n i n g .
T h i s is not to say that the cooperation is w i t h o u t its p r o b l e m s . I
address the p r o b l e m areas i n more detail i n the section b e l o w .
W o r k i n g w i t h a partner holds b o t h benefits a n d d r a w b a c k s , as
s h o w n i n Table 6.1.
W o r k i n g w i t h a colleague can i m p r o v e the consultant's self
u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d , i n the l o n g term, can help the consultant to
d e v e l o p a n e m p a t h y w i t h the client's reactions, feelings, a n d atti
tudes. T h i s l e a r n i n g process gives the consultant an o p p o r t u n i t y
to project herself onto others a n d identify w i t h t h e m w i t h o u t t r y
i n g to change them. In stressful situations, the consultant has to be
able to react i n a c a l m i n g a n d non-judgemental manner, as this
also has a c a l m i n g effect o n the participants.
Cooperating with colleagues who have a different

professional background: discrepancy
The consultants w i t h w h o m I have cooperated fall into t w o m a i n
categories: psychologists a n d other related professional g r o u p s .
TWO CONSULTANTS WORK TOGETHER 143
Table 6.1. Working with a partner
Benefits Drawbacks
Having different positions means If the consultants begin to compete

having different views and actions. with each other, for example in
This gives the client-system more relation to the commissioner, the
nuances and options. quality of the work may suffer.
One can learn from one another— Cases where one feels that there is
expand one's methods and no learning or inspiration.
knowledge.
The relationship between the two
The client-system has the benefit consultants takes up too much
of two resource persons. room and drains energy from the
client-system.
It is possible to share the
workload, which reduces the risk Dual effort—both are doing the
of burnout. same work, but in different ways.
There is feedback on one's role, Feedback is perceived as criticism,
interventions and style. causing a defensive response.
The latter is c o m p r i s e d m o s t l y of people w i t h a b a c k g r o u n d i n the

humanities, i n law, or i n business administration.
The professional discrepancy has meant that w e have h a d dif
ferent qualifications; it has been a benefit that, as a consultancy
team, w e have covered a larger area of k n o w l e d g e . This coopera
t i o n has been u s e f u l i n external a n d internal management t r a i n i n g
a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l development p r o g r a m m e s , w h e r e w e have
acted as consultants, teachers, a n d trainers.
I have represented the area of organizational p s y c h o l o g y a n d
the interactive aspect w i t h a focus o n the processes of h u m a n
change a n d rejuvenating forms of cooperation i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n .
M y colleague w i l l have h a d her competence i n the area of c o r p o
rate strategy, where organizational goals, structural change, a n d
job-specific issues have been i n focus.
It w a s a l e a r n i n g experience for me, because I gained k n o w l
edge f r o m a n area outside m y o w n educational qualifications. I n
relation to the specific assignment at h a n d , it also meant that I
k n e w that the resources that the client m i g h t need w o u l d be
present. The n e w k n o w l e d g e i m p r o v e d m y ability to place m y

p s y c h o l o g i c a l k n o w l e d g e w i t h i n an organizational context. It
m a d e m e realize exactly where to d r a w the d e f i n i n g b o u n d a r i e s
for m y l e a r n i n g a n d w h e r e I w a n t e d m y strong points to be. It also
taught m e to focus o n the areas that interest me, w i t h o u t a n y
hopes or ambitions of mastering the entire spectrum.
When two psychologists cooperate:

Similarities and feedback
In other contexts, the cooperation w i t h other psychologists has
been u s e f u l — f o r example, i n connection w i t h activities concerning
p e r s o n a l development, cooperation training, a n d conflict s o l v i n g .
These activities have taken place i n management t r a i n i n g sessions,
departmental seminars, or consultations. In this connection, I w i l l
confine m y s e l f to cooperation i n consultations.
W h e n the cooperation takes place between t w o colleagues
w i t h i n the same field, a professional similarity comes into exist
ence—a shared dialogue about the psychological understandings
i n the consultation. The t e a m w o r k m a y f u n c t i o n as a professional
feedback loop, where w e are challenged o n the issue of o u r relation
s h i p w i t h the customer. The reflections that w e have established
together have g i v e n us a deeper u n d e r s t a n d i n g of our roles a n d
our o w n b e h a v i o u r as consultants. Because w e share the same
frame of reference, the feedback becomes more personal a n d c h a l
lenges o u r self-images. W e act " i r r e v e r e n t l y " t o w a r d s each other
(Cecchin, L a n e , & R a y , 1992) b y challenging o u r o w n ideas a n d
logic. I n order to d o this, one has to be able to receive the feedback
a n d be w i l l i n g to examine one's o w n ideas a n d m o t i v a t i o n . If
accepted, this sort of irreverent feedback can i m p r o v e one's o w n
flexibility a n d w i l l i n g n e s s to take risks a n d to express emotions,
controversies, a n d fantasies. It w i l l also i m p r o v e one's ability to
examine one's o w n motives, t h i n k i n g , a n d reasoning. This is a
rather confrontational relationship, w h e r e someone else questions
one's strategies. In m y experience, one has to learn to u t i l i z e this
a n d see it as a n extremely valuable chance for d e v e l o p i n g one's
o w n role as a consultant instead of fearing violations of one's per
s o n a l space. O n the one h a n d , one m i g h t perceive the c o m m e n t s

as c r i t i c i s m , rejection, a n d uncalled-for interference. O n the other,
it is beneficial to h a v e this check-up f r o m a colleague, if one w a n t s
to i m p r o v e as a process consultant. W h e n acting as a consultant
w h o needs to u n d e r s t a n d a n d intervene i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d i l e m
m a s , it is a great l e a r n i n g experience to be m o n i t o r e d b y another
p e r s o n . A n d i n m y experience, a f e l l o w psychologist (or a c o l
league w h o is a trained therapist) has the a b i l i t y to ask the m o s t
p r o b i n g a n d relevant questions. O b v i o u s l y , one has to trust the
intentions a n d qualifications of one's colleague i n a relationship of
m u t u a l trust. A partnership of this nature increases the d e p t h ,
whereas a cooperation w i t h a colleague f r o m a n adjacent area
increases the w i d t h .
Cooperating with internal consultants
Differences between the external

and the internal consultant
C o m p a r e d w i t h the partnership w i t h another external consultant,
c o o p e r a t i n g w i t h a n internal consultant creates a c o m p l e t e l y dif
ferent situation. The external consultant a n d the internal consult
ant have different b a c k g r o u n d s for their w o r k .
The i n t e r n a l consultant is i n v o l v e d i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l hier
archy a n d policies. The internal consultant has to adhere to a n d
s u p p o r t the corporate goals, a n d there are certain tasks that he
must take o n . The staff of a h u m a n resources department w i l l h a v e
to act i n a p a r t i c u l a r w a y t o w a r d s the managers a n d employees of
the o r g a n i z a t i o n . T h e y have to f o l l o w certain procedures a n d
chains of c o m m a n d . O n e has to c o m m u n i c a t e i n a certain w a y ,
d e p e n d i n g o n the positions a n d styles of the v a r i o u s managers,
a n d so f o r t h . The activities or p r o g r a m m e s that one is expected to
carry out a n d d e v e l o p have to be carried out i n a close d i a l o g u e
w i t h the affected persons (management or staff). O f t e n these ac
tivities are d e c i d e d b y others, a n d this can place the internal c o n
sultant o n the horns of a d i l e m m a : he has a n assignment that is
s p o n s o r e d b y others (for example, top management), a n d he has
to motivate, cajole, or force the participants to accept it. O n the

one h a n d , the internal consultant has to submit to the hierarchy
d u r i n g negotiations; o n the other h a n d , he has to obtain the ac
ceptance a n d consent of the participants, w h o w i l l often disagree.
The external consultant is confronted w i t h these issues too, but
not to the same degree. She has a m u c h larger market, a n d her job
h o l d s m o r e f r e e d o m . If necessary, she can choose to t u r n d o w n a n
assignment, a n o p t i o n that the internal consultant does not have to
n e a r l y the same extent.
The external consultant is free to ask questions a n d c o m m a n d s
a w i d e k n o w l e d g e base f r o m m a n y different organizations,
whereas the internal consultant has her local k n o w l e d g e a n d a
basic k n o w l e d g e as a participant a n d m e m b e r of the o r g a n i z a t i o n .
The internal consultant w i l l be able to spot the need for consulta
t i o n at an early time a n d thus become the catalyst for a desire for
change. This makes the internal consultant a stakeholder i n the
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l change, w h i c h can ease the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n phase,
because the internal consultant w i l l be able to utilize her k n o w l
edge of the o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d the p o w e r structures a n d policies to
i m p l e m e n t the changes.
B l o c k (1981) offers a n o v e r v i e w of the differences b e t w e e n the
internal a n d the external consultant. I have m a d e some a d d i t i o n s
to his m o d e l , as s h o w n i n Table 6.2.
In processes of organizational change, the internal consultant
has often observed a series of conflicts, but for a n u m b e r of rea
sons is reluctant about being the consultant o n the process herself.
She m a y feel that she lacks the objectivity or neutrality, perhaps
because she has allied herself earlier w i t h a certain g r o u p of
p e o p l e (for example the employees or management). It is exactly
because of this different p o s i t i o n that the external consultant may
be called for.
Who does what?
A s a n external consultant, one has to define a relationship w i t h

the internal consultant based o n a clear d i s t r i b u t i o n of roles. A t
the same time, one s h o u l d not be b l i n d to the fact that the internal
consultant is a part of the client-system. This m a y often be the first
Table 6.2. Comparison between the internal
and the external consultant
Internal consultant External consultant
Favourite expressions Measurement That raises an

interesting issue
Long run Fundamental and
underlying
Quick Deal
Practical Working through
Objectives Dilemma
Background Model
Cost Implications
Reassess at some point
in the process
Personal life Reasonably stable, A chaotic and
responsible and unpredictable life
rewarding
Fantasy life Envious of the external Envious of the internal
consultant's freedom consultant's continuity
and variation and stability
Underlying fears Being ignored, Being ignored,
rejected and treated as rejected and treated as
unimportant unimportant
Dilemma Perceives herself as Thinks that the
being outside the internal consultant is a
client-system part of the client
system
Dream position To be a co-consultant To be free to move
on the project and be around in the system
briefed by the external and maintain her right
consultant to withhold
information
147
a n d , perhaps, the biggest challenge i n cooperating w i t h a n i n

ternal consultant. I f i n d that, u s u a l l y , the internal consultant at
tempts to establish a close, confidential professional relationship
w i t h m e i n m y role as the external consultant. This i n v i t a t i o n for a
close professional relationship is t e m p t i n g but nevertheless p r o b
lematic. The problematic aspect is that the internal consultant m a y
o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m me, as the external consultant, w h i c h he
m a y use i n a p p r o p r i a t e l y . M y observations a n d hypotheses c o u l d
potentially be taken back to the o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d u s e d against the
participants w i t h w h o m I w o r k . It is i m p o r t a n t to be a l l o w e d to
keep one's observations to oneself w h i l e w o r k i n g o n the p r o b l e m s ,
as, otherwise, they m a y be taken for expert truths. I n that case, the
external consultant r u n s the risk of b e c o m i n g entangled i n the
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l politics, a n d before she k n o w s it, she is " s t u c k " .
This means that the consultant loses her a b i l i t y to assume the
n e u t r a l a n d reflecting p o s i t i o n that is a prerequisite for the c o n s u l
tation.
A n o t h e r i m p o r t a n t issue is h o w to i n v o l v e the internal consult
ant i n the process—that is, to w h a t extent a n d i n w h a t capacity he
is to participate i n the actual consultation. I have never experi
enced the internal consultant to actually b r o a c h this issue himself.
But as an external consultant, one needs to define the roles p r e
cisely. U n l e s s the external consultant is already a f a m i l i a r face i n
the o r g a n i z a t i o n , the internal consultant w i l l often participate i n a
n u m b e r of activities, meetings, p l a n n i n g , a n d so forth. W h e n
d r a w i n g u p the contract about the consultation, it therefore has to
be d e f i n e d to w h a t extent the internal consultant is to be i n c l u d e d ,
a n d w h a t his role is g o i n g to be. This ensures that the internal a n d
the external consultant as w e l l as the department k n o w the roles
a n d the premises for them. It m a y be u s e f u l for the external c o n
sultant to have a p o s i t i o n different f r o m that of the internal c o n
sultant. But there m a y also be activities a n d situations, w h e r e the
department or the client-system prefers to w o r k w i t h the external
consultant alone, because they w a n t a n unbiased a n d n e u t r a l p r o
cess management. This can also be addressed i n the consultation,
but perhaps that is not w h a t s h o u l d be the focus of attention.
C o o p e r a t i o n w i t h the internal consultant is of the greatest i m
portance i n the p r e l i m i n a r y a n d initial stages of a consultation.
The internal consultant possesses inside k n o w l e d g e about the or

g a n i z a t i o n , w h i c h m a y be u t i l i z e d i n t a i l o r i n g a management
t r a i n i n g p r o g r a m m e , so that the p r o g r a m m e can meet the p a r t i c i
pants' l e a r n i n g needs, b a c k g r o u n d s , a n d interests. Still, h o w e v e r ,
the external consultant has to meet the participants i n p e r s o n to
i n t e r v i e w t h e m about their wishes a n d expectations. This is neces
sary to m a k e sure that the t r a i n i n g activities can be c h a l l e n g i n g
a n d m a t c h the participants' needs, so that the external consultant
can establish a direct p s y c h o l o g i c a l contract w i t h the participants.
As an external consultant, one needs for the internal consultant to:
1, describe w h a t she perceives to be the p r o b l e m s that others have;

2, p r o v i d e her o w n d e s c r i p t i o n of w h a t she perceives the p r o b l e m
to be, a n d w h a t she has done i n relation to the p r o b l e m so far;
3. relate w h a t others (management, for example) expect of the
p r o b l e m s o l v i n g process;
4. p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n about the expectations concerning time
a n d scope of activities (resources, economy).
A cooperation b e t w e e n an external a n d an internal consultant re

quires a v e r y clear d i s t r i b u t i o n of roles. I n the case described i n
chapter 3, the functions of the internal consultant w e r e as f o l l o w s :
the internal consultant established the contact w i t h the depart
ment, represented b y the manager. H e s u m m a r i z e d b r i e f l y w h a t
the o r g a n i z a t i o n h a d done to address the p r o b l e m so far. T h i s
b r i e f i n g i n c l u d e d the history a n d some thoughts a n d ideas as to
w h a t the p r o b l e m m i g h t be as w e l l as his o p i n i o n as to w h a t the
o r g a n i z a t i o n m i g h t need f r o m a s o l u t i o n . This enabled m e to u n
derstand the expectations of top management a n d to c o m p a r e
these w i t h the expectations expressed b y the department a n d the
manager. A n y discrepancies or similarities between these versions
c o u l d f o r m the basis for the first of m y w o r k i n g hypotheses.
In the case i n chapter 3, the internal consultant w a s the c o n
sultant's contact person, a n d John (the manager) a n d his staff
w e r e the participants. John's department w a s the sponsor. The
internal consultant h a d h a n d l e d the i n i t i a l talks w i t h the manager
a n d the i n d i v i d u a l members of staff, a n d John's boss h a d a p
p r o v e d the use of an external consultant for s o l v i n g the p r o b l e m .
The internal consultant d i d not w a n t to handle the situation h i m

self, because he d i d not feel that he h a d an adequate picture of the
p r o b l e m . Besides, he felt that there was a need for a consultant
w h o c o u l d go into depth w i t h the internal relationships a m o n g
the participants. H e w a s not sure that he c o u l d manage this task. I
w a s selected, because I h a d a p s y c h o l o g i c a l b a c k g r o u n d , k n e w
the o r g a n i z a t i o n w e l l , a n d h a d p r e v i o u s l y h a n d l e d tasks of this
nature.
In this specific case, the agreement covered the following aspects:
1. h o w I w a s to be i n t r o d u c e d to John a n d his staff;

2. w i t h w h o m the contract s h o u l d be m a d e , a n d h o w w e were to
clarify the expectations a n d initiate the process;
3. h o w I w a s to gather i n f o r m a t i o n a n d data i n order to u n d e r
stand the problems a n d f o r m w o r k i n g hypotheses;
4. constraints concerning activities, time, w o r k i n g methods, a n d
seminars, i n c l u d i n g the cost of the entire consultation—alterna
tively, if occasional consultation w a s f o u n d to be m o r e a p p r o
priate, it w o u l d be defined as h o w m a n y there w o u l d be a n d at
w h a t h o u r l y rate; it also set a n approximate deadline for w h e n
these constraints were to be defined;
5. a list of the methods that m i g h t be used i n the process—for
example, a systemic approach i n c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h process
consultation, climate survey, M y e r s - B r i g g s T y p e Indicator
(Myers & M y e r s , 1993), methods for m o n i t o r i n g goals, a n d so
forth.
The role of the internal consultant was to be a part of the client

system, but w i t h respect for the special staff f u n c t i o n that he h e l d .
This meant that he c o u l d receive a l l the i n f o r m a t i o n he needed b y
m a i n t a i n i n g a dialogue w i t h the department's manager. I n the
course of the process, he w o u l d also be able to share his thoughts
about the situation w i t h me, a n d I c o u l d then p r o v i d e s p a r r i n g
o n his v i e w s . I c o u l d m a k e a situation report b y briefly stating
h o w far w e were into the process (for example: currently I a m i n
t e r v i e w i n g the staff—without revealing the content of the inter
v i e w s ) . In other w o r d s , I w a s i n charge of the process, a n d o n l y
w h e n the participants a n d I h a d agreed that m y i n v o l v e m e n t h a d

e n d e d c o u l d he take over.
A s the external consultant, I w a s responsible for e n s u r i n g the
f r e e d o m a n d the space to w o r k w i t h the department w i t h o u t i n
terference f r o m the internal consultant. It w a s also m y r e s p o n s i b i l
i t y to get the s u p p o r t f r o m the h u m a n resources department for
a d d r e s s i n g the p r o b l e m s . The internal consultant's d i l e m m a w a s
w h e t h e r he trusted m e to be able to w o r k w i t h i n the f r a m e w o r k of
the c o m p a n y ' s h u m a n resources p o l i c y .
The consultant's own learning:

the qualitative leap
In order to learn, one has to accept, o n a n existential l e v e l , that

there is s o m e t h i n g valuable outside oneself that one needs. T h i s
means that one has to a c k n o w l e d g e the existence of s o m e t h i n g
v a l u a b l e i n the outside w o r l d . The opposite of this is e n v y or
frustration s t e m m i n g f r o m not already representing every desir
able v a l u e . In other w o r d s , one has to overcome the obstacle of
c o n f r o n t i n g one's o w n lack of k n o w l e d g e . O n e has to recognize
that it is possible to learn f r o m others a n d tone d o w n one's sense
of self-sufficiency.
The consultant s h o u l d strive not to fall i n love w i t h her o w n
ideas or get m a r r i e d to her hypotheses. A s C e c c h i n , L a n e , a n d R a y
(1991) p u t it, one s h o u l d o n l y flirt w i t h them. B y p u t t i n g oneself
i n a different p o s i t i o n i n professional cooperation, one learns to
r e m a i n constantly curious a n d i n q u i s i t i v e t o w a r d s one's w o r k .
D a v i d C a m p b e l l states that the consultant runs a r i s k b y p l a c i n g
herself outside the comfort zone i n every n e w situation. H e rec
o m m e n d s that the consultant m o v e f r o m a p o s i t i o n of security a n d
comfort to a p o s i t i o n of i n q u i s i t i v e confusion. In her o w n process
of l e a r n i n g a n d i n q u i r y , the systemic consultant keeps u p a n o n
g o i n g debate w i t h herself a n d others. It is h a r d w o r k to r e m a i n
constantly flexible a n d break u p h a b i t u a l t h i n k i n g i n o r d e r to as
s u m e a so-called constructively opportunist position, w h e r e one asks
questions, examines differences, a n d reflects o n the reactions a n d
self-images of the participants ( C a m p b e l l , C o l d i c o t t , & K i n s e l l a ,

1994). I n m y o p i n i o n exactly the same m e t h o d can be u s e d inter
n a l l y b y the consultant team to reveal or disclose the consultants 7
o w n habitual thinking.
This presents several d i l e m m a s , as a g i v e n practice a n d w o r k
i n g style is u s u a l l y based o n a v e r y independent style. It is t y p i c a l
for consultants to feel a little superior a n d self-sufficient. There is a
d o w n s i d e to this self-sufficiency. Consultants strive to achieve
perfection i n their w o r k , a n d they are easily h u r t if they d o not
receive p r o p e r recognition. F a c i n g a situation that one cannot i m
m e d i a t e l y take i n can cause insecurity. T y p i c a l l y , one m a y try to
cover it u p (lest the clients notice any f l a w s or shortcomings).
Instead, it is far easier to talk about clients or colleagues h a v i n g
p r o b l e m s or g o i n g into a state of resistance. The strong p e r f o r m
ance d r i v e that consultants have m a y prevent t h e m f r o m introspec
tion a n d f r o m a c k n o w l e d g i n g their o w n weaknesses a n d l e a r n i n g
points. The consultant's w i s h for success—quick a n d v i s i b l e — t h u s
forms a n obstacle for her o w n learning.
C h r i s A r g y r i s (1991) describes the roots of the learning dilemma
i n detail.
A c a d e m i c s a n d consultants are g o o d at l e a r n i n g direct theory
a n d m e t h o d o l o g y o n their o w n . T h e y process q u i c k l y a n d repro
duce q u i c k l y . T h e y are h i g h achievers. Therefore, they have not
learned f r o m failure. This a l l o w s the consultant to a v o i d discuss
i n g or reflecting o n her o w n actions, a n d she does not learn h o w to
adapt her b e h a v i o u r for s i m i l a r future incidents. It m a y be the
v e r y w a y that the p r o b l e m is d e f i n e d a n d s o l v e d that is the source
of the p r o b l e m . A d m i t t i n g one's o w n part i n a mistake is a p r e
requisite to p e r s o n a l learning. B y intellectualizing or making excuses
for one's mistakes, one neglects to learn.
C o n s u l t a n t s often compare themselves w i t h others a n d are
constantly t r y i n g to i m p r o v e their o w n performance, but they d o
not l i k e to a c k n o w l e d g e or discuss this. This defensive reaction is
especially activated w h e n the consultants receive critical or nega
tive feedback o n their o w n performance. T h e y feel threatened. The
fact that their performance w a s not as g o o d as they h a d h o p e d
or thought makes t h e m feel g u i l t y a n d inferior—especially w h e n
they are getting g o o d m o n e y for their efforts! So, every time
their direct l e a r n i n g strategies f a i l them, they assume a defensive

stance, reject c r i t i c i s m , a n d t h r o w the b l a m e o n someone else.
B r i e f l y p u t : their ability to learn disappears at the time w h e n they
n e e d it the most ( A r g y r i s , 1991).
These reactions c a n be seen as a defensive response w i t h the
p u r p o s e of self-protection. The consultant tries to b l a m e others for
the mistakes that occurred. This m a n o e u v r e lets the consultant
direct the attention a w a y f r o m herself a n d f r o m the aspects for
w h i c h she is i n some w a y responsible.
A t management seminars I have e m p h a s i z e d countless times
that managers have to be able to a c k n o w l e d g e mistakes a n d l e a r n
f r o m t h e m . Nevertheless, I have to a d m i t that it is a d i f f i c u l t task
for consultants, i n c l u d i n g myself, to live u p to this d e m a n d . M y
c o n c l u s i o n is that the consultant needs to o w n u p to her o w n
feeling of self-sufficiency a n d w o r k o n it.
T h e consultant can receive s u p e r v i s i o n as part of her o w n
l e a r n i n g process (see chapter 7) a n d , together w i t h other consult
ants, she c a n learn h o w to change her o w n w a y of reasoning,
t h i n k i n g , a n d feeling. This requires facing the facts, c o n f r o n t i n g
one's w i s h e s , conscious as w e l l as subconscious, a n d seeing the
i n f l u e n c e that one has o n others. T h r o u g h a m o r e confrontational
d i a l o g u e a n d s p a r r i n g w i t h a colleague, one can l e a r n m u c h about
one's interaction w i t h others. The consultant has to be w i l l i n g to
e x a m i n e her o w n role a n d to see her o w n part a n d contributions
i n interactions. She has to question her o w n assumptions, observa
tions, a n d selections, a c k n o w l e d g e her o w n subjective vantage
p o i n t , a n d analyse the influence that this has o n the client-system.
It is t h r o u g h this sort of l e a r n i n g d i a l o g u e that the consultant gets
the o p p o r t u n i t y to transform her own role as a consultant. I w i l l c a l l
this the "quantum leap of learning".
T h e consultant's o w n process of searching a n d l e a r n i n g m a y
also m a k e her ask herself s i m p l e questions. She can then q u e s t i o n
her o w n feelings, w h a t she thinks she s h o u l d a v o i d d o i n g , a n d
w h a t m i g h t h a p p e n if she d i d it a n y w a y . T h i s w a y , the consultant
c a n m a i n t a i n her p o s i t i o n as a p a r t i c i p a t i n g observer a n d h e l p
e x p a n d the client's u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the p r o b l e m . The p o s i t i o n
that the consultant s h o u l d assume s h o u l d be "one d o w n " instead
of " o n e u p " (see chapter 1). T h i s is different f r o m the expert's
p o s i t i o n , as he m i g h t appear to be " l e c t u r i n g " the client. W h e n

a s s u m i n g a " o n e d o w n " p o s i t i o n , one has to love a s k i n g naive
questions, as these are the questions that challenge the system.
This is to the client's benefit, because the positive a n d appropriate
aspects of the situation c a n be considered along w i t h other pos
sible positions that m i g h t be equally appropriate.
In connection w i t h certain assignments, I have f o u n d it v e r y
v a l u a b l e , e v e n necessary, to w o r k together w i t h a f e l l o w consult
ant i n relation to a g r o u p . That has m a d e it possible to perceive the
subconscious a n d u n d e r l y i n g messages, emotions, a n d reactions
that m a y occur d u r i n g the process. The dialogue a n d processing
that take place cannot be replaced w i t h a s t u d y of books. In a team,
it is possible to take a critical l o o k at one's o w n reactions a n d learn
h o w to intervene more effectively, as w e l l as h y p o t h e s i z i n g to
gether about the problems i n the g r o u p .
W h e n t w o consultants w o r k together, it is also, i n m y experi
ence, easier to see t h r o u g h the defence mechanisms of the client
system. W h e n w o r k i n g w i t h conflicts a n d resistance to change, for
example, one is exposed to splitting. S p l i t t i n g is a p s y c h o l o g i c a l
defence m e c h a n i s m i n w h i c h the participants project their o w n
g o o d a n d b a d perceptions about the relationship onto o t h e r s —
for example, the consultants. The g o o d projections m a y be repre
sented t h r o u g h a n idealization, i n the hope that the consultant c a n
rescue the participants, heal them, a n d b r i n g t h e m h a r m o n y a n d
bliss. A b a d projection occurs, for example, w h e n the participants
believe that the consultant is angry w i t h t h e m or i n other w a y s
plans to b r i n g t h e m discomfort. A g r o u p m a y project the g o o d
a n d the b a d perceptions, respectively, onto one o r b o t h of the
consultants. B y s w i t c h i n g roles a n d reflecting o n the process, the
consultation team c a n address the defence mechanisms a n d in.
v a r i o u s w a y s attempt to r e s p o n d to (subconscious) appeals for
help. T h e consultation team c a n address the group's contradictory
w i s h e s , a n d f r o m their different perspectives a n d experiences the
consultants c a n reflect o n the m e a n i n g that the use of splitting has
for the g r o u p or the organization. This m i n i m i z e s the consultants'
o w n stress l e v e l a n d defensiveness.
I n consultations about development a n d change, one deals
w i t h participants w h o h a r b o u r feelings of b o t h anger a n d anxiety.
The participants w i l l often attempt to escape these feelings b y
s e v e r i n g t h e m f r o m themselves a n d projecting t h e m onto the

c o n s u l t a n t the manager, or others i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n . T h r o u g h
the consultant's e m p a t h y , u n d e r s t a n d i n g , c a l m , a n d reflection, the
participants c a n r e c l a i m their anger a n d anxiety, analyse these,
a n d change their perception. L e a r n i n g of this nature is extremely
i m p o r t a n t w h e n w o r k i n g w i t h , for example, resistance to change,
a n d as a consultant one s h o u l d expect to be the target of negative
emotions. If the consultant reacts w i t h a lack of u n d e r s t a n d i n g
a n d becomes i n d i g n a n t or angry, thus d i s p l a y i n g her p e r s o n a l
shortcomings, this w i l l strengthen the participants' negative feel
ings instead of c a l m i n g them. If this happens, the participants w i l l
not learn to u n d e r s t a n d their o w n reactions or defence m e c h a
n i s m s effectively, w h i c h again w i l l keep the conflict alive. A s a
consultant, one is often s u r p r i s e d b y the intensity of the p a r t i c i
p a n t s ' anger a n d even b y one's o w n anger w i t h the participants
over their reaction. O n e m i g h t e v e n get the feeling that one has
been attributed a role i n someone else's i m a g i n a r y d r a m a (Rice &
Scott, 1987).
CHAPTER SEVEN
The consultant's cognitive

processes in practice:
receiving supervision
Gitte Haslebo
How I learned to be an organizational consultant
M
y p a t h to w o r k i n g as a systemically i n s p i r e d consultant
to p u b l i c a n d private companies has passed t h r o u g h
n u m e r o u s stages. There is a thread r u n n i n g t h r o u g h
these stages, t o u c h i n g o n m y areas of interest a n d l e a r n i n g p r o
cesses, w h i c h is o n l y really discernible n o w , i n retrospect.
F i g u r e 7.1 is a n i l l u s t r a t i o n of the m o s t i m p o r t a n t stages; the
transitions to n e w stages are m a r k e d t h r o u g h changes c o n c e r n i n g
role, theory, m e t h o d , a n d client-system.
A l r e a d y i n m y student days, I w a s fascinated w i t h o r g a n i z a
t i o n a l consultation. N e a r the e n d of m y studies, I h a d the o p p o r t u
n i t y of s t u d y i n g i n the U n i t e d States for a year, a n d here I became
acquainted w i t h a w i d e array of writers w i t h i n the h u m a n rela
tions school. W h e n I returned to D e n m a r k , it w a s w i t h a n i n
creased awareness of n e w trends i n other countries. I r e a d , w i t h
great e n t h u s i a s m , the b o o k s b y , for example, W a t z l a w i c k , B e a v i n ,
a n d Jackson (1967), a n d w a s i n f l u e n c e d b y general c o m m u n i c a t i o n
theory a n d general systems theory. A s a trainee at the D a n i s h
157
FIGURE 7.1. My path to organizational consultation
Institute of Technology, w h i c h even then w a s the s t r o n g h o l d for

the d e v e l o p m e n t a n d a p p l i c a t i o n of laboratory t r a i n i n g ( H o y r u p ,
1975), I d e v e l o p e d a great interest i n theoretical a n d m e t h o d o l o g i
cal issues concerning h o w l e a r n i n g is created i n situations w i t h
v a r y i n g degrees of structure (Haslebo, 1973). A f t e r m y trainee
s h i p , I w a s able to participate as j u n i o r consultant i n a n u m b e r of
management courses a n d courses i n personal development. It w a s
i n this setting that I h a d m y first experiences as a process consult
ant.
W h e n I w a s nearing m y final exam as a psychologist, I w a s
encouraged to a p p l y for a teaching p o s i t i o n i n i n d u s t r i a l a n d or
g a n i z a t i o n a l p s y c h o l o g y at the P s y c h o l o g y Laboratory, the U n i
versity of C o p e n h a g e n . I took over the p o s i t i o n before the s p r i n g
semester i n 1970 a n d enthusiastically began teaching o r g a n i z a
t i o n a l p s y c h o l o g y a n d process consultation. T o d a y I w o u l d say: a
r i s k y venture. But a l l w e n t w e l l . I experimented w i t h experiential
teaching methods, where the students were o r g a n i z e d i n groups
that h a d to carry out " r e a l " consultation assignments d u r i n g the
semester—they were " r e a l " i n the sense that each g r o u p h a d to t r y
to d o s o m e t h i n g useful for a client-system that the g r o u p itself
w a s to contact a n d establish a f o r m a l as w e l l as a p s y c h o l o g i c a l
contract w i t h ; not quite so " r e a l " i n the sense that the consultation
w a s m o s t l y to be defined as a learning process for the students
a n d w a s therefore free of charge to the client-system. F r o m semes
ter to semester, the classes g r e w . A f t e r five v e r y satisfactory a n d
e d u c a t i o n a l semesters—and a total of nine years at the u n i v e r s i t y
RECEIVING SUPERVISION 159
as student a n d teacher, respectively—I felt that it was time for m e

to try m y h a n d at s o m e t h i n g else.
D u r i n g the next stage, I d i d research into l i v i n g c o n d i t i o n s (at
the U n i v e r s i t y Centre of Southern Jutland a n d i n the L o w Income
C o m m i s s i o n i n C o p e n h a g e n ) — e l e v e n years i n a l l . These years
p r o v i d e d m a n y u s e f u l experiences, o n w h i c h I d r a w t o d a y i n m y
w o r k as a consultant: k n o w l e d g e of quantitative a n d qualitative
research m e t h o d s , insight into e v e r y d a y problems i n a n inter
d i s c i p l i n a r y context, a n d a n e x p l o r a t i o n of the interface b e t w e e n
p s y c h o l o g y a n d the adjacent areas of sociology, a n t h r o p o l o g y ,
h i s t o r y , a n d p h i l o s o p h y . M y interest i n the transition b e t w e e n
" s m a l l " p r o b l e m s , as p e r c e i v e d b y a specific p o p u l a t i o n g r o u p ,
a n d the larger context w a s fostered—as was m y interest i n u s i n g
data as feedback for the persons w h o h a d h e l p e d p r o v i d e the data.
It w a s also d u r i n g this p e r i o d that I began to see the w r i t i n g p r o
cess as a challenge, seeking to present c o m p l e x issues i n a s i m p l e ,
easily comprehensible, a n d c a p t i v a t i n g w a y . I became aware that
w r i t i n g a n d c o m m u n i c a t i n g a subject to m y readers w a s a g o o d
w a y for m e to learn.
A f t e r this I returned to the w o r l d of consultancy. In 1983 I
obtained a p o s i t i o n as a consultant i n the M a n a g e m e n t T r a i n i n g
P r o g r a m m e at the D a n i s h School of P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , w h e r e
the first extensive management t r a i n i n g p r o g r a m m e (Course i n
P u b l i c M a n a g e m e n t ) h a d just b e g u n . The focus w a s o n p e r s o n a l
d e v e l o p m e n t i n the manager role a n d the execution of m a n y d i f
ferent m a n a g e m e n t tasks i n the p u b l i c sector, w h i c h w a s u n d e r
g o i n g major changes at the time. W i t h t w o classes a year a n d 32
participants i n each, the interest i n the p u b l i c sector s p r e a d m o r e
r a p i d l y t h a n w e h a d expected. W e were asked to h a n d l e projects
i n m a n a g e m e n t d e v e l o p m e n t i n those parts of the p u b l i c sector
f r o m w h i c h the first participants h a d come. There w a s a great
n e e d i n this area to develop a c o m m o n u n d e r s t a n d i n g for the
organization's s i t u a t i o n a n d future a n d for h a n d l i n g the manage
r i a l role m o r e professionally. I enthusiastically d e l v e d i n t o these
tasks, w h e r e I f u n c t i o n e d as a n external consultant. The issue that
interested m e the most w a s the possibilities for creating p e r s o n a l
d e v e l o p m e n t processes i n v a r i o u s organizational contexts a n d as
a n element i n c h a n g i n g the o r g a n i z a t i o n . T h e types of consulta
tions that I h a n d l e d h a d to d o w i t h organizational d e v e l o p m e n t i n

connection w i t h reorganization, team b u i l d i n g i n management
teams, management t r a i n i n g , a n d consultations w i t h a v i e w to
d e v e l o p i n g policies a n d strategies.
T h e n f o l l o w e d five years w h e n I w o r k e d , i n t u r n , as manager of
t r a i n i n g a n d development a n d director of h u m a n resources. These
years p r o v i d e d u s e f u l experience w i t h h u m a n resources manage
ment, processes of change seen f r o m inside the o r g a n i z a t i o n , sales
a n d m a r k e t i n g , b u d g e t i n g , a n d so forth. B y " u s e f u l " , I m e a n that
not o n l y h a v e I h a d the experience of h a n d l i n g different manage
m e n t tasks, I have also p e r s o n a l l y experienced m a n y of the c h a l
lenges a n d d i l e m m a s about w h i c h m y clients tell me today.
I n 1991, I felt that I w a s ready to establish m y o w n business
as a n i n d e p e n d e n t organizational consultant. I have been a n i n
dependent consultant since then, interrupted o n l y b y a r e t u r n
to u n i v e r s i t y , w h e r e again I taught organizational p s y c h o l o g y . It
w a s i n connection w i t h m y change to b e i n g a n independent c o n
sultant that I began to take m o r e direct a d d i t i o n a l t r a i n i n g w i t h i n
systemic t h i n k i n g . A n e w w o r l d opened u p to m e , a n d n e w c o n
nections i n life between o l d a n d n e w areas of interest became
apparent. T h i s n e w w o r l d consisted not o n l y of n e w thoughts, b u t
also of n e w clients a n d a n e w n e t w o r k of enthusiastic a n d h i g h l y
q u a l i f i e d colleagues. Systemic t h i n k i n g has p r o v i d e d a d d i t i o n a l
a n d different perspectives o n the v a r i o u s types of consultation
w i t h w h i c h I have w o r k e d a n d better opportunities for creating
l i n k s b e t w e e n theory a n d practice, w h i c h I cherish. A s part of this
process, the i d e a arose of w r i t i n g this book.
It is a n i m p o r t a n t challenge i n the w o r k of the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
consultant to p l a n consultation assignments i n s u c h a w a y that
one has the necessary time a n d financial means for c o n t i n u a l l y
e n h a n c i n g one's professional skills. This can be a c c o m p l i s h e d i n a
n u m b e r of w a y s . I have benefited a great deal f r o m p a r t i c i p a t i n g
i n a d d i t i o n a l t r a i n i n g a n d i n groups for the exchange of e x p e r i
ence w i t h other consultants. C a r r y i n g out assignments together
w i t h other consultants has also been a source of experience (see
chapter 6). I have explored the k e y q u e s t i o n s — W h a t w o r k s w e l l ?
. . . a n d : W h a t w o r k s less w e l l ? — t h r o u g h v a r i o u s w a y s of receiv
i n g systematic feedback f r o m m y client-systems. Last, but not
least, I w i l l m e n t i o n the use of supervision, w h i c h can be a n excel

lent w a y of g a i n i n g a n insight into one's o w n c o g n i t i o n processes
as a consultant.
I h a v e h a d v e r y g o o d experiences w i t h r e c e i v i n g c o n t i n u o u s
s u p e r v i s i o n as w e l l as w i t h receiving s u p e r v i s i o n at p a r t i c u l a r l y
d i f f i c u l t m o m e n t s d u r i n g specific consultations. S u p e r v i s i o n has
h e l p e d m e assume a meta-position i n relation to the c o n s u l t a t i o n
a n d the client-system a n d has p r o v i d e d a safe space for e x a m i n i n g
alternative l i n k s between practice a n d theory.
Supervision
Some assignments require the i n v o l v e m e n t of t w o consultants, but

m a n y are solo assignments. B e i n g alone o n an assignment means
b o t h h a n d l i n g a l l the contact w i t h the client a n d c a r r y i n g out a l l
the considerations d u r i n g the process as a n internal d i a l o g u e . I n
m a n y consultation assignments this is f u l l y adequate, but some
times one needs either to discuss a situation i n f o r m a l l y w i t h a
colleague or to seek f o r m a l s u p e r v i s i o n .
W h e n s h o u l d the consultant seek supervision? W h a t happens
d u r i n g the s u p e r v i s i o n — f r o m the s u p e r v i s e d person's p o i n t of
v i e w ? W h a t is the potential benefit i n relation to c a r r y i n g out a
p a r t i c u l a r consultation? These are the questions that I address
based o n m y o w n experience w i t h r e c e i v i n g s u p e r v i s i o n d u r i n g
consultations.
S u p e r v i s i o n is a p s y c h o l o g i c a l activity that is t r a d i t i o n a l l y de
f i n e d as f o l l o w s :
Supervision is a contractual, temporary, supportive, catalytic

process of professional monitoring, defined i n time, where a
more experienced person helps a less experienced colleague to
integrate professional skills and attitudes so that the colleague
becomes better equipped at handling the theories and meth
ods of her profession. [Keiser & L u n d , 1991]
S u p e r v i s i o n is a h e l p i n g profession related to consultation. O n e

of the differences between consultation a n d s u p e r v i s i o n is the
p o s i t i o n of "the theories a n d methods of the p r o f e s s i o n " . I n
consultation, the professional k n o w l e d g e is irrelevant to the

client-system—as l o n g as it w o r k s — w h e r e a s the relation between
assignment a n d professional k n o w l e d g e is essential to the consult
ant.
S u p e r v i s i o n u s u a l l y takes place as strictly p l a n n e d activities
w i t h i n the same organization—a counselling centre, a treatment
institution, a n d so forth. The d e f i n i t i o n m e n t i o n e d above is more
relevant i n this sort of context, because the aspect of observation
w i l l be m o r e apparent i n this situation t h a n i n situations w h e r e
one independent consultant receives s u p e r v i s i o n f r o m another.
T h e aspect of observation, h o w e v e r , never disappears completely,
b u t it is n o more p r o m i n e n t t h a n i n other professional contexts,
w h e r e psychologists have an obligation to be aware of ethical
issues a n d be prepared to intervene a n d p u t ethics o n the agenda
(see section 5.4, ' T h e professional d o m a i n s " ) .
In a systemic perspective, s u p e r v i s i o n w o r k s because a p e r s o n
(or several persons) step(s) into the picture, w o r k i n g f r o m a differ
ent position i n relation to the assignment than the consultant i n
charge. In this context, it is the change i n p o s i t i o n that is i m p o r t a n t
rather t h a n the greater experience. Greater experience—especially
w i t h the same type of assignment—is not an advantage i n itself, as
it m a y cause the supervisor to s i m p l y c o n f i r m her colleague's
t h i n k i n g . Greater experience w i t h s u p e r v i s i o n , h o w e v e r , w i l l be
an advantage.
The s u p e r v i s o r s h o u l d p l a n the situation w i t h a v i e w to p r o
m o t i n g the l e a r n i n g processes of the person w h o is receiving s u
pervision.
In this context, I w i l l consider s u p e r v i s i o n a method for increas
ing the supervised consultant's irreverence towards her own thoughts
and ideas. C e c c h i n i n t r o d u c e d the concept of "irreverence" (see
section 5.3: " F r o m neutrality to irreverence").
W h e n the p o s i t i o n changes, it becomes possible to see some
t h i n g else—and to a v o i d seeing w h a t one saw before. A w a r
m e m o r i a l i n Canberra, A u s t r a l i a , carries the i n s c r i p t i o n : " A n d a
h o r i z o n is n o t h i n g m o r e than the l i m i t a t i o n of y o u r v i s i o n . " Re
gardless h o w clearly w e see the h o r i z o n , the h o r i z o n is n o t h i n g i n
i t s e l f — o n l y the p r o d u c t of o u r vantage point. The l i m i t a t i o n that
w e choose i n a g i v e n situation has a n influence o n the possibilities
that w e see a n d the ones w e miss.
A s consultants, w e a l l have special experiences w i t h p e o p l e

a n d organizations. W e have our- prejudices a n d pet theories.
Sometimes, this ballast becomes a p r i s o n to the m i n d rather t h a n a
g o o d starting p o i n t for progress. It is i n situations like these that
s u p e r v i s i o n is a n o p t i o n . But h o w does a consultant w o r k i n g alone
k n o w w h e n s u c h situations arise? I address this issue i n the next
section, u s i n g examples f r o m m y o w n consultations d u r i n g w h i c h
I received s u p e r v i s i o n .
In their fascinating b o o k , C e c c h i n , L a n e , a n d R a y (1992) m e n
t i o n a n u m b e r of reasons that a therapist s h o u l d seek s u p e r v i s i o n .
These reasons are e q u a l l y v a l i d for the consultant. The consultant
m a y feel that the client is not m a k i n g a n y progress, or the client
feels stuck a n d lacks ideas for m o v i n g o n . The consultant m a y be
h e l d back b y too m u c h l o y a l t y to the theories a n d m e t h o d s of her
f i r m , or the consultant notices indirect signs v i a psychosomatic
s y m p t o m s that s o m e t h i n g is amiss. W h e n a consultation causes
headaches or stomach pains, this m a y be a s i g n that the consultant
needs h e l p to t h i n k a l o n g n e w lines. In that case, s u p e r v i s i o n is
one of the options. I n the f o l l o w i n g section, I describe three i n c i
dents, w h e r e I benefited f r o m s u p e r v i s i o n .
E x a m p l e 1: When there is a high level of conflict

I m a d e the d e c i s i o n of seeking s u p e r v i s i o n at a n early stage. A l
r e a d y after the i n i t i a l request f r o m a n e w o r g a n i z a t i o n , I felt that
this w a s a h i g h - r i s k assignment w i t h m a n y possibilities of getting
caught u p i n inscrutable p s y c h o l o g i c a l games between the v a r i o u s
w a r r i n g parties (Selvini-Palazzoli, 1987). In this situation, I really
n e e d e d to be w a t c h f u l a n d d i g i n m y heels. I therefore contacted a
p s y c h o l o g i s t w h o w o r k s w i t h consultation a n d s u p e r v i s i o n f r o m a
systemic p l a t f o r m a n d arranged for continuous s u p e r v i s i o n a d
justed to fit the stages of the consultation. The consultation lasted
for three m o n t h s , a n d I received s u p e r v i s i o n five times.
The request w a s f r o m B r e n d a , a top manager i n a large c o m

p a n y i n the service sector. She k n e w m e f r o m a m a n a g e m e n t
t r a i n i n g p r o g r a m m e that I h a d taught. She h a d been a p p o i n t e d
three m o n t h s earlier a n d h a d soon become i n v o l v e d i n a c o n
flict between a f u n c t i o n manager (Kevin) a n d m a n y others i n a

department that h a d cross-divisional functions for the entire
c o m p a n y , w h i c h h a d a total of over 1,000 employees. T h e de
partment h a d a p o o r w o r k i n g environment, a h i g h degree of
absenteeism, a h i g h t u r n o v e r of employees, m a n y complaints
f r o m the employees to management a n d m a n y w r i t t e n c o m
plaints f r o m the customers.
M y first m e e t i n g w i t h management was h e l d i n the m a n a g i n g

director's office. A t the meeting, i n f o r m a t i o n w a s presented
that e m p h a s i z e d the c o m p l e x i t y of the p r o b l e m to m e . The
p r o b l e m h a d existed for seven years a n d h a d b e g u n after a
reorganization, w h e n K e v i n h a d been m o v e d , against his
wishes, one step d o w n i n the hierarchy. The p r o b l e m g r e w , as
the h e a d of department a n d the four f u n c t i o n managers—espe
c i a l l y K e v i n — i n c r e a s i n g l y e x p a n d e d the conflict to i n c l u d e
other people, b o t h inside a n d outside the c o m p a n y , i n order to
f i n d s u p p o r t . M a n a g e m e n t felt that they h a d considered a n d
tried " e v e r y t h i n g " . Therefore, they w a n t e d an external consult
ant to take a closer l o o k at the conditions i n the d e p a r t m e n t —
a n d especially at K e v i n .
A f t e r the first meeting, I w a s even more pleased w i t h m y d e c i

s i o n to use s u p e r v i s i o n . This l o o k e d like a t o u g h situation: this
o r g a n i z a t i o n that h a d l i v e d w i t h the p r o b l e m for seven years! I
w o n d e r e d w h a t the v a r i o u s parties w o u l d lose if the p r o b l e m
w e n t a w a y ? H e r e w a s a management team that contained the
p r o b l e m to a department. I w o n d e r e d if it w o u l d not be m o r e
u s e f u l for t h e m to focus o n the relationship between manage
ment a n d the department.
The contract came to i n c l u d e i n d i v i d u a l interviews w i t h the

members of the management team, the h e a d of the department
a n d the f o u r f u n c t i o n managers, a n u m b e r of seminars w i t h
management separately, the head of department, a n d f u n c t i o n
managers together, a n d a l l three levels together. A l o n g the
w a y it became necessary to i n c l u d e a d d i t i o n a l consultations
w i t h management. A s it t u r n e d out, the consultation consisted
p r i m a r i l y i n assistance to the management c o n c e r n i n g its
m a n a g e r i a l tasks i n relation to the department. The assignment
w a s c o n c l u d e d w i t h a m u t u a l l y b i n d i n g action-plan that the

participants w o r k e d out.
E a c h instance of s u p e r v i s i o n took its p o i n t of departure i n m y

considerations about the stage to come: d e s i g n a n d g r o u n d
rules, angles of attack, a n d the p h r a s i n g of questions for the
i n d i v i d u a l interviews a n d the preparation of each of the s e m i
nars. The s u p e r v i s i o n w a s especially h e l p f u l for h a n d l i n g the
following dilemmas:
1. H o w to respect demands for confidentiality i n the i n d i v i d u a l

i n t e r v i e w s , w i t h o u t h a v i n g to h o l d back too m u c h u s e f u l
information? The s o l u t i o n to this w a s a n u m b e r of positive
reframings at the organizational level.
2. H o w to v a r y the consultant's role over time between the

extremes: the s u p p o r t i v e a n d optimistic consultant, w o r k i n g
i n close cooperation, a n d the confronting a n d pessimistic
consultant, w o r k i n g f r o m a greater distance? Considerations
about t i m i n g became essential. For example, this c o m m e n t
f r o m m y s u p e r v i s o r m a d e m e aware that it w a s time to i n
crease the distance: "It seems that they n o w trust y o u so m u c h
that they are leaning against y o u . Be careful not to become a
part of the o r g a n i z a t i o n — a n d , thus, a part of the p r o b l e m .
Y o u risk t h e m w a n t i n g y o u to be their in-house psychologist
for life. T h e y ' r e g o i n g to love y o u , a n d n o t h i n g is g o i n g to
change one b i t . "
3. H o w to listen respectfully to the contents, w i t h o u t g i v i n g u p

m y meta-position i n relation to the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l level?
H e r e , I f o u n d help for d e v e l o p i n g n e w w a y s to see events as
c o m m u n i c a t i o n between levels i n the organization.
Example 2: When neutrality is jeopardized

I n this example, I received s u p e r v i s i o n f r o m colleagues i n a n i n
f o r m a l g r o u p for the exchange of experience. W e h a p p e n e d to
have a m e e t i n g at the time w h e n a particular assignment w a s
t r o u b l i n g m e . I asked for p e r m i s s i o n to discuss " a s m a l l p r o b l e m " .
The case w a s a f o l l o w s :
A request h a d come f r o m a psychologist w h o w a s w o r k i n g as

a m u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y consultant. H e asked for consultation for a
g r o u p c o m p r i s i n g a manager a n d 10 employees. M o s t of the
employees w e r e dissatisfied w i t h their jobs, the t u r n o v e r of
employees w a s h i g h , a n d the lack of faith i n the manager w a s a
general issue.
A f t e r a m e e t i n g w i t h the psychologist a n d the manager, w e

m a d e a contract that i n c l u d e d three consultations, each lasting
one d a y , w i t h a couple of weeks i n between.
The first consultation w e n t w e l l — a s the staff a n d I s a w it. But

w h e n the manager gave his f i n a l evaluation, after the staff
m e m b e r s ' e v a l u a t i o n , he stated v e r y strongly that he d i d not
see any p o i n t i n the w h o l e t h i n g at a l l , n o r d i d he see a n y
chance of i m p r o v e m e n t .
Three days later, I received a phone call f r o m h i m . H e w a s

v e r y confused a n d frightened, b u t d i d not w i s h to discuss his
m a n a g e m e n t p r o b l e m s . Instead, he repeatedly requested m y
expert o p i n i o n o n each of the employees. I refused his request,
as it fell outside the scope of the contract. The conversation
w a s unpleasant, p a r t l y because it w o u l d not e n d , p a r t l y be
cause it w a s difficult to f i n d a c o m m o n w a v e l e n g t h .
A t this time, s u p e r v i s i o n became a n o p t i o n . I w a n t e d s u p e r v i

s i o n because of m y strong emotions a n d concerns as to
w h e t h e r I w o u l d be able to establish m y neutrality s t r o n g l y
e n o u g h for m e to be able to relate as o p e n l y to the manager as I
d i d to the staff.
I w a s angry w i t h the manager. I felt that I h a d been m a n i p u

lated into a o n e - h o u r - l o n g telephone conversation that w a s not
i n c l u d e d i n the contract. I felt sorry for the staff a n d d e e p l y felt
that he w a s essentially a n incompetent manager a n d a h u m a n
b e i n g i n d i s h a r m o n y . These feelings were so strong that I
f o u n d m y s e l f t h i n k i n g about the assignment constantly, w i t h
out s e e m i n g to get a n y w h e r e .
I n m y o p e n i n g statement for the s u p e r v i s i o n , I expressed m y

p r o b l e m as one of neutrality a n d of whether I w o u l d be able to
f i n d a w a y for establishing a viable contact w i t h the manager.

The s u p e r v i s i o n , w h i c h lasted a little over a n h o u r , consisted of
t w o r o u n d s w i t h the reflections of three colleagues. It l e d to m y
p e r s o n a l c o n c l u s i o n that I w o u l d break off the g r o u p consulta
t i o n — a d e c i s i o n that I h a d never before h a d to m a k e i n the
m i d d l e of a consultation. Instead, I w o u l d offer the manager
i n d i v i d u a l consultation. In m y f o l l o w i n g conversation w i t h
h i m he t o l d m e that he h a d gone into therapy. I a d v i s e d
against t w o p a r a l l e l processes, b u t left the offer of i n d i v i d u a l
consultation o p e n for w h e n he w a s done w i t h his therapy.
The s u p e r v i s i o n h a d m a d e the d i l e m m a clear to me: o n the one

h a n d , I f o u n d it impossible to carry out a consultation for a
g r o u p w h e n the manager w a s n o t w i l l i n g to consider h i s o w n
r e l a t i o n to the g r o u p . A n d , o n the other h a n d , I c o u l d not bear
to e n d the consultation, out of consideration f o r the staff, to
w a r d s w h o m I felt v e r y protective. This e i t h e r / o r d i l e m m a
w a s r e s o l v e d w h e n 1 discovered a t h i r d w a y .
Example 3 : When there is too little doubt

This w a s a consultation that i n c l u d e d a team of t w o consultants.
W e benefited greatly f r o m s p a r r i n g w i t h each other c o n c e r n i n g
o u r thoughts about the organization, the consultation, a n d poten
tial approaches. A f t e r the first request, o u r first m e e t i n g w i t h the
i n s t i t u t i o n , a n d the processing of the f i n d i n g s f r o m the question
naire s u r v e y , I h a d the o p p o r t u n i t y to present the assignment i n a
g r o u p of w h i c h I w a s a member, a n d w h i c h w a s i n the m i d d l e of a
t r a i n i n g p r o g r a m m e o n systemic consultation.
I n this case, m y first reaction w a s to be p u z z l e d at m e e t i n g a n
o r g a n i z a t i o n that w a s so different f r o m m y p r e v i o u s experiences.
B o t h m y colleague a n d I h a d a v e r y clear picture of the o r g a n i z a
t i o n , w h i c h I w a s n o w able to present.
T h e request came f r o m the h e a d of a treatment i n s t i t u t i o n w i t h

35 employees. T h e institution w a s u s e d to u s i n g consultants
each year o r every second year. A n d n o w it w a s that time
again. O u r first meeting w a s w i t h the head a n d f o u r members

of staff. T h e y asked us for help to w o r k w i t h management,
cooperation between the departments, a n d the institution's op>
tions i n d e a l i n g w i t h increasing d e m a n d s f r o m the outside
w o r l d . The consultation w a s to i n c l u d e one more meeting, a
questionnaire s u r v e y a s k i n g the staff members about s u g
gested themes a n d w h a t results they w o u l d l i k e to see, a t w o
d a y seminar, a n d a f o l l o w - u p after six months.
W e f o r m e d the i m p r e s s i o n that this w a s a n o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h a

h i g h level of competence i n dealing w i t h v a r i o u s methods
w i t h i n the d o m a i n of reflection (see section 5.4). U p o n s t u d y i n g
m o r e closely the several stacks of papers that w e h a d received
o n p r e v i o u s development activities, w e h a d the i m p r e s s i o n of
d e a l i n g w i t h themes a n d p r o b l e m areas o n w h i c h the o r g a n i z a
t i o n appeared to have been w o r k i n g for years.
The s u p e r v i s i o n w a s based o n m y fears that this i n s t i t u t i o n

w a n t e d us as consultants to s i m p l y d o " m o r e of the s a m e "
(various reflection methods), w i t h the result that e v e r y t h i n g
w o u l d stay the w a y it was. W e felt that, i n order to enable
l e a r n i n g a n d change, w e h a d to f i n d w a y s of demonstrating
h o w the institution c o u l d convert its insight f r o m the d o m a i n
of reflection into decisions a n d actions i n the d o m a i n of p r o
d u c t i o n . W e spent m a n y h o u r s t a l k i n g , t r y i n g to d e v e l o p a n
u n d e r s t a n d i n g of this one o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d its special charac
teristics.
The s u p e r v i s i o n l e d to a n a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t that o u r t h o r o u g h
preparations h a d m a d e us fall so m u c h i n love w i t h o u r u n d e r
s t a n d i n g of the o r g a n i z a t i o n that w e h a d lost o u r curiosity to
l e a r n about the organization. W h e r e w e saw an o r g a n i z a t i o n
closed to change, w e h a d neglected the risk that w e m i g h t be
closed to signals a n d i n p u t that d i d not m a t c h this u n d e r s t a n d
ing,
I also became aware that the theme "It is a l w a y s the same

themes—they just w a n t m o r e of the s a m e " m a y have been cre
ated b y o u r m u t u a l consensus—a consensus that c o n f i r m e d
o u r g o o d cooperation as consultants. In other w o r d s : the c h a l

lenge before us w a s to let i n the d o u b t a n d become better at
e x p l o i t i n g o u r differences as consultants a n d to place ourselves
i n a learning position.
T h i s w a s a v e r y u s e f u l insight, w h i c h w e reached i n time for

o u r m e e t i n g w i t h the w h o l e staff. W e t u r n e d it into practice b y
c h o o s i n g t w o v e r y different positions i n relation to the o r g a n i
z a t i o n a n d c a r r y i n g out o p e n reflections f r o m these positions.
T h e i n s i g h t also h e l p e d us to change our attitude about the
o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d be m o r e h u m b l e a n d h y p o t h e s i z i n g . W e d i d
not change the p l a n n e d p r o g r a m m e m u c h , b u t w e c h a n g e d
ourselves a n d the w a y w e r e a l i z e d the p r o g r a m m e .
Receiving supervision
and the individual learning spiral
I n o w discuss these three examples i n relation to the i n d i v i d u a l

l e a r n i n g s p i r a l described i n chapter 2.
E x a m p l e 1 (when the conflict level is high) dealt w i t h h e l p for
g o i n g t h r o u g h the l e a r n i n g s p i r a l d u r i n g each intermittent p e r i o d .
E a c h time, the s u p e r v i s i o n began w i t h a n initial clarification of the
areas w h e r e I m o s t n e e d e d h e l p . A f t e r that, the discourse f o l l o w e d
this basic m o d e l :
• W h a t h a d I done since last time? (Stage 1: Concrete experiences

of one's o w n a n d other people's actions.)
• H o w d i d I analyse these events? W h a t h a d proceeded as ex

pected? W h a t h a d s u r p r i s e d me? W h i c h events w e r e p a r t i c u
l a r l y i m p o r t a n t to focus on? W h a t h a d been the m o s t p u z z l i n g ?
(Stage 2: Reflections.)
• H o w d i d I interpret these events? W h a t concepts were a p p l i c a

ble? W h a t different m o d e l s of e x p l a n a t i o n c o u l d be f o r m e d ?
(Stage 3: The f o r m a t i o n of abstract concepts a n d alternative h y
potheses.)
• W h a t w o u l d m y focus be i n the e n s u i n g intervention? H o w

c o u l d I t u r n m y w o r k i n g hypotheses into concrete interven
tions? (Stage 4: A c t i v e experimentation.)
It w a s different every time at w h a t p o i n t i n the l e a r n i n g s p i r a l

the b l o c k a n d fixation were most p r o n o u n c e d . Questions about m y
experiences c o u l d lead to a different p r i o r i t y of events a n d attrib
u t e d meanings (Stage 2). O r ideas for specific actions m i g h t be
rejected, because the f o r m a t i o n of alternative hypotheses t u r n e d
out to have been neglected (Stage 3). W h e n this became evident,
entirely different ideas c o u l d occur. The result m i g h t be relief
s t e m m i n g f r o m d i s c o v e r i n g a d d i t i o n a l options or f r o m feeling
m o r e secure about the chosen interventions (Stage 4).
In E x a m p l e 2 (when neutrality is jeopardized), the s u p e r v i s i o n
o c c u r r e d at a n a d v a n c e d stage i n the consultation. The b l o c k l a y
b e t w e e n Stage 1 a n d 2, w h e r e strong emotions were b l o c k i n g for
reflections. O n l y w h e n I h a d h a d an o p p o r t u n i t y to get m y experi
ences off m y chest a n d examine t h e m i n relation to m y values a n d
ideas about professional consultation was I able to m o v e o n i n the
spiral.
I n E x a m p l e 3 (when there is too little doubt), the s u p e r v i s i o n w a s
also received i n the m i d d l e of a consultation. In this case, our
p r o b l e m , as consultants, w a s that w e were so pleased w i t h a n d
c o n v i n c e d of the products of our o w n reflections that our f o r m a
tions of alternative hypotheses d i d not take us far e n o u g h (Stage
3). This s u p e r v i s i o n process can also be seen as a h e l p for us to
m o v e f r o m first-order cybernetics, w h e r e w e w e r e t r y i n g to u n
derstand the organization, to second-order cybernetics, w h e r e w e
w e r e seeing ourselves as part of the observing system (see section
5.1). The s u p e r v i s i o n h e l p e d us to realize that o u r enjoyment of
o u r m u t u a l accordance m a d e it easier for us to notice similarities
w i t h i n the organization. In other w o r d s , o u r partnership as c o n
sultants h a d prevented us f r o m n o t i c i n g differences i n the o r g a n i
z a t i o n over time.
CHAPTER EIGHT
Epilogue
In this epilogue, we would like to focus on some issues that

are clearer to us now, after working on this book.
Consultation work requires personal development
W
o r k i n g as an organizational consultant is a c o m p l i
cated affair. A n d sometimes w e ask ourselves: W h a t
is our m o t i v a t i o n for this line of w o r k ? W h y d o w e f i n d
it interesting, exciting, educational a n d e n r i c h i n g — a n d at other
times difficult, h a r d , d r a i n i n g , a n d stressful?
W h a t p e r s o n a l characteristics d o w e need i n order to w o r k
i n the sometimes chaotic a n d c o m p l e x situations that w e f i n d
ourselves in? W h a t is a g o o d p o s i t i o n to take w h e n w o r k i n g as
a n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l consultant? In reflecting o n these questions, w e
have a r r i v e d at the f o l l o w i n g : W e need to be sincerely a n d o p e n l y
interested i n o u r s u r r o u n d i n g s , to use our t h i n k i n g i n t u i t i v e l y a n d
to be w i l l i n g to take o n tasks that, at first glance, appear d a u n t i n g .
W e a i m for a n interaction between equals a n d respect the ideas,
171
feelings, a n d experiences of the members of the organization. W e

are aware that they have done the best they c o u l d i n a g i v e n
situation. W e s h o u l d therefore be open a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g to
w a r d s those people w h o are positive towards o u r entrance into
the o r g a n i z a t i o n as w e l l as the ones w h o are m o r e reserved or
negative towards us.
B y a s k i n g the agents i n the client-system, " W h o are y o u ? "
" W h a t w o u l d y o u like to be?" " H o w can y o u achieve that?",
w e are confronted w i t h those same questions ourselves. W h e n
s t u d y i n g p s y c h o l o g y — s p e c i f i c a l l y developmental p s y c h o l o g y —
w e learned that identity is d e v e l o p e d t h r o u g h a b i o l o g i c a l a n d
p s y c h o l o g i c a l process of m a t u r a t i o n w i t h o c c u r r i n g b u i l t - i n con
flict phases stretching f r o m b i r t h to death. In systemic t h i n k i n g ,
identity is seen p r i m a r i l y as the p r o d u c t of interpersonal interac
t i o n . Identity is l i n k e d to the relations that i n v o l v e the i n d i v i d u a l
i n particular situations, periods, or contexts. C o n s u l t a t i o n offers
m a n y challenges to w o r k w i t h one's o w n identity i n relation to
one's role as consultant.
This means that w e have to be curious about ourselves, w o r k
o n o u r o w n possibilities a n d limitations, a n d constantly challenge
o u r o w n identity as professionals.
W e believe that we, as consultants, need to set off the time and
energy to work with our own personal development. This is a p r e r e q u i
site for us to learn b o t h h o w best to f u n c t i o n as consultants a n d
h o w to create a p r o d u c t i v e relationship w i t h o u r clients. E v e r y
time, this cooperation has to be created f r o m scratch—based o n
respect for this particular client's u n i q u e history, self-knowledge,
a n d v i s i o n s for the future.
Systemic t h i n k i n g a n d m e t h o d contain elements that, i n o u r
o p i n i o n , have been capable of r e n e w i n g our c o g n i t i o n processes
a n d o u r understandings of complex organizational issues. W e
have f o u n d it a fascinating w o r k i n g m e t h o d . B y u n d e r s t a n d i n g
i n d i v i d u a l systems a n d seeing t h e m i n other contexts a n d b y u n
d e r s t a n d i n g our o w n p o s i t i o n i n different contexts, w e are able
to m o v e a r o u n d a n d assume different positions. W e m a y , for ex
a m p l e , listen a n d empathize, control a n d confront, or w o n d e r a n d
reflect. This v a r i a t i o n of possibilities has p r o v i d e d us w i t h the:
necessary space to develop as consultants.
EPILOGUE 173
Consultation work
is a learning process in itself
W h e n w e w o r k as consultants, it is i m p o r t a n t that w e stay i n the

f i e l d of tension b e t w e e n k n o w i n g a n d not k n o w i n g . W h e n w e take
o n a n e w assignment, n a t u r a l l y w e meet the n e w client-system
w i t h o u r k n o w l e d g e of theory a n d m e t h o d , our experiences w i t h
organizations i n this a n d other areas, a n d o u r basic k n o w l e d g e
about this p a r t i c u l a r o r g a n i z a t i o n . The challenge is to be able to
e m p l o y this k n o w l e d g e f r o m a p o s i t i o n of not knowing. W e h a v e to
l e a r n about the o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d f r o m its members. W e have to
l e a r n w h i l e w e carry out the assignment. W e learn f r o m the inter
actions a n d the relations that w e have w i t h the members of the
o r g a n i z a t i o n . W e exchange points of v i e w a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g s ,
a n d i n this process w e also become m o r e conscious of a n d critical
of the k n o w l e d g e a n d assumptions w i t h w h i c h w e met the o r g a n i
z a t i o n . E x a m i n i n g the possibilities a n d limitations created b y h u
m a n t h i n k i n g becomes a joint project. W e let others observe u s ,
a n d w e get their reactions a n d their assessment of o u r efforts. This
gives us n e w k n o w l e d g e about w h a t w e d o a n d h o w others per
ceive the q u a l i t y of w h a t w e d o . O u r most i m p o r t a n t task m a y be
to listen b e h i n d the w o r d s a n d a d d n e w approaches. This w a y , w e
ourselves f i n d n e w approaches, based o n o u r o w n experiences.
Systemic t h i n k i n g is a n approach, a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g of m e a n i n g ,
that a l l o w s us to test v a r i o u s hypotheses a n d interventions based
o n the n o t i o n that there is n o absolute t r u t h or one right w a y to
a c c o m p l i s h an assignment. W e need to decide o n the next step,
take it, a n d see w h a t h a p p e n s — a n d allow ourselves to use the ensu
ing events as feedback and as a chance to learn.
The end of the information society?
I n o u r part of the w o r l d , the societal self-image has l o n g been that

w e l i v e i n the i n f o r m a t i o n society. I n f o r m a t i o n technology has
enabled us to access a n d process large amounts of k n o w l e d g e a n d
i n f o r m a t i o n — a n d , increasingly, m a k e t h e m accessible to l a y p e r
sons. This is true of organizations too. N o t o n l y can i n d i v i d u a l

w o r k i n g procedures be controlled more efficiently t h r o u g h infor
m a t i o n technology—the d a i l y w o r k i n g situation of the i n d i v i d u a l
manager or employee has become l o a d e d w i t h k n o w l e d g e a n d
i n f o r m a t i o n as w e l l . M a n a g e m e n t i n f o r m a t i o n systems, e - m a i l ,
a n d so f o r t h place a g r o w i n g d e m a n d o n the i n d i v i d u a l to stay, u p
to-date o n general aspects of the c o m p a n y ' s situation a n d d e v e l
o p m e n t . Internet access is g o i n g to increase the d e m a n d s for
s t a y i n g up-to-date o n g l o b a l events of relevance to the c o m p a n y ,
its p r o d u c t development, corporate strategy, m a r k e t i n g , a n d so
forth. The large amounts of i n f o r m a t i o n that each employee has to
take i n a n d process o n a d a i l y basis require constant l e a r n i n g a n d
the d e v e l o p m e n t of n e w skills o n the job. Information technology
has h e l p e d us cope w i t h a tremendous c o m p l e x i t y of detail. But
are w e any w i s e r f r o m it? This is, increasingly, the pressing ques
tion. O u r enthusiasm for the i n f o r m a t i o n society has been d a m p
ened b y our realization that huge amounts of i n f o r m a t i o n d o not
necessarily lead to w i s d o m a n d insight.
S o m e t h i n g is m i s s i n g . W e believe that meaning is the m i s s i n g
l i n k . I n f o r m a t i o n i n itself does not m a k e managers a n d employees
m o r e efficient or creative. N e w i n f o r m a t i o n is just as l i k e l y to
cause c o n f u s i o n a n d a sense of insecurity, anxiety, anger a n d
frustration. Sometimes these reactions are labelled "resistance t o ,
change". A n o t h e r w a y of u n d e r s t a n d i n g these reactions is to
see t h e m as a lack of u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the b i g picture or of the
m e a n i n g of the organizational process that has been caused b y a
particular change—what it means to the organization, to the c o l
leagues, a n d to me. K n o w l e d g e that w e cannot relate to ourselves
is " d e a d " k n o w l e d g e . W e can learn d e a d k n o w l e d g e b y rote (for
example, next year's budget, the corporate strategy, the h u m a n
resources p o l i c y ) , but w e cannot transform it into action u n t i l w e
are able to l i n k it to our job, our role, our skills, o u r relations w i t h
other p e o p l e i n the organization, our identity, values, a n d p l a n s
for the future. These l i n k s are w h a t create m e a n i n g .
W e believe that w e are about to leave the self-image i m p l i e d
b y the term the " i n f o r m a t i o n society" a n d o n the w a y to a n e w
one that has not f o u n d a n a m e yet.
EPILOGUE 175
Future leaders have to be experts

at learning processes
The c o m i n g phase is g o i n g to require n e w skills. It is not so m u c h

the ability to gather a n d process large amounts of i n f o r m a t i o n that
is g o i n g to be i m p o r t a n t , but, rather, the ability to ignore i n f o r m a
t i o n — o r , p u t m o r e positively: the ability to focus or to go to the
heart of the matter. The question: h o w can I f i n d out more? is g o i n g
to be replaced b y the question: h o w can I f i n d out w h a t it is neces
sary or useful to k n o w ? The selection procedure is g o i n g to be of
the essence.
T h i s is g o i n g to lead to a n e w question: W h a t criteria s h o u l d
w e use for selecting? This inevitably points to the ethical d i m e n
s i o n . I n order to be able to discriminate, w e have to be conscious
of the values that g u i d e us. This issue has become apparent i n
recent years i n a n u m b e r of research areas (how m u c h m o r e d o w e
w a n t to k n o w about efficient pesticides? about b i o l o g i c a l warfare?
about the s u r v i v a l rates of premature babies?). N o research area
lies outside the ethical d i m e n s i o n , a n d neither d o the d a i l y search
for i n f o r m a t i o n or the acquisition of k n o w l e d g e i n the o r g a n i z a
tion. The ability to select is g o i n g to become increasingly i m p o r
tant to a v o i d b e i n g o v e r w h e l m e d a n d stunned b y the i n f o r m a t i o n
l o a d . W i t h o u t this ability, the tremendous i n f o r m a t i o n l o a d is go
i n g to pose m o r e of an obstacle t h a n a tool for progress. The c h a l
lenge is to be able to select the relevant aspects that p r o v i d e
m e a n i n g a n d usefulness i n the g i v e n context.
O n l y w h e n w e k n o w w h a t is essential can w e m a k e decisions
a n d act. The p a t h to a deeper u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the o r g a n i z a t i o n
that one is a m e m b e r of or consult to, therefore, also leads i n
w a r d s . H o w d o w e k n o w that w e k n o w ? H o w d o w e come to
k n o w w h a t it is i m p o r t a n t to k n o w ? These questions direct atten
t i o n t o w a r d s one's o w n process of cognition. This introspective
a p p r o a c h cannot, h o w e v e r , stand alone. W e have to test w h a t w e
t h i n k w e k n o w i n a dialogue w i t h others. The d i a l o g u e is w h a t
p r o v i d e s the i n s p i r a t i o n for p u t t i n g o u r i n t u i t i v e a n d n o n - v e r b a l
k n o w l e d g e a n d experiences into w o r d s . This exchange b e t w e e n
introspection a n d expression is a n important part of the m e a n i n g
f o r m i n g process.
* **
It is o u r belief that it is g o i n g to be an increasingly i m p o r t a n t
management task to contribute to the development of these
n e w skills. M a n a g e m e n t m a y d o this b y m a k i n g the time a n d
space available for managers a n d staff to w o r k w i t h the selection
a n d assessment of i n f o r m a t i o n , i n d i v i d u a l a n d shared values,
c o g n i t i o n processes, a n d dialogue i n v o l v i n g e v e r y b o d y i n the
organization. I n this sense, the challenge to managers w i l l be to
act as experts at learning processes.
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Amtoft, M . , &c Stroier, V . (1996). Brug af metaforer i organisationsud

v i k l i n g . Fokus pa Familien, 2: 101.
Andersen, S. B., Betting, K . , & Haslebo, G . (1970). Proceskonsultation.
Organisationsudvikling. Kobenhavn: Dansk Psykolognyt, N r . 17.
Andersen, T. (1990). The Reflecting Team. N e w York: W . W . N o r t o n .
Anderson, H . , Goolishian, H . , & Winderman, L . (1986). Problem-deter
m i n e d systems: towards transformation i n family therapy. Journal
of Strategic and Systemic Therapies, 5: 1-14.
A r g y r i s , C . (1985). Strategy, Change and Defensive Routines. L o n d o n :
Pitman.
A r g y r i s , C . (1991). Teaching smart people h o w to learn. Harvard Busi
ness Review (May-June).
A r g y r i s , C . (1993). Knowledge for Action. A Guide to Overcoming Barriers
to Organizational Change. San Francisco, C A : Jossey-Bass Inc.
A r g y r i s , C , & Schon, D . A . (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory-in-
Action Perspective. Reading, M A : Addison-Wesley.
Bateson, G . (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. N e w York: Ballantine
Books.
Bateson, G . (1979). Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity. N e w York:
Bantam.
177
178 REFERENCES A N D B I B L I O G R A P H Y
Bennis, W , G . , Benne, K . D . , & C h i n , R. (1969). The Planning of Change

(second edition). N e w York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bevort, F., Jensen, P. E., & Prahl, A . (Red.) (1995). Engagement i arbejdet.
Involvering i organisationer. Arhus: Handelshefjskolens Forlag.
Bion, W . R. (1961). Experiences in Groups and other Papers. L o n d o n :
Tavistock Publications.
Block, P. (1981). Flawless Consultation. A Guide to Getting Your Expertise
Used. Texas: Austin.
Bor, R., & M i l l e r , R. (1991). Internal Consultations in Health Care Settings.
London: Karnac Books.
Borwick, I. (1986). The family therapist as business consultant. In: L. C .
Wynne, S. H . M c D a n i e l , & T. T. Weber (Eds.), Systems Consultation.
A New Perspective for Family Therapy (pp. 423-440). N e w Y o r k /
London: Guilford Press.
Boscolo, L . , & Bertrando, P. (1993). The Times of Time. A New Perspective
in Systemic Therapy and Consultation. N e w Y o r k / L o n d o n : W . W .
Norton.
Bridges, W . (1992). The Character of Organizations. Using fungian Type in
Organizational Development. Palo A l t o , C A : Consulting Psycholo
gists Press.
Campbell, D . (Ed.) (1995). Learning Consultation. A Systemic Framework.
L o n d o n : Karnac Books.
Campbell, D . , Coldicott, T., & Kinsella, K . (1994). Systemic Work with
Organizations. A New Model for Managers and Change Agents. L o n
don: Karnac Books.
Campbell, D . , Draper, R., & Huffington, C (1991a). A Systemic Ap
proach to Consultation. London: Karnac Books.
Campbell, D . , Draper, R., & Huffington, C . (1991b), Second thoughts on
the Theory and Practice of the Milan Approach to Family Therapy.
Cecchin, G . (1987), Hypothesizing, circularity, and neutrality revisited:
an invitation to curiosity. Family Process, 26: 405-441.
Cecchin, G . , Lane, G . , & Ray, W . A . (1992). Irreverence. A Strategy for
Therapists' Survival. London: Karnac Books. •
Cecchin, G . , & Stratton, P. (1991). Extending systemic consultations
from families to management. Human Systems, 2: 3-13.
Cooperrider, D . L . (1990). Positive image, positive action: the affirma
tive basis of organizing. In: S. Srivasta, D . Cooperrider, et al.,
Appreciative Management and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Cronen, V . , & Lang, P. (1994). Language and action: Wittgenstein and
REFERENCES A N D B I B L I O G R A P H Y 179
D e w e y i n the practice of therapy and consultation. Human Systems,

5 (1-2).
Cronen, V . , & Pearce, W . B. (1980). Communication, Action and Meaning:
The Creation of Social Realities. N e w York: Praeger.
D e l l , P. (1986). W h y do we still call them "paradoxes"? Family Process,
25: 223-234.
de Shazer, S. (1985). Keys to Solutions in Brief Therapy. N e w York:
Norton.
de Shazer, S. (1988). Clues. Investigating Solutions in Brief Therapy. N e w
York: N o r t o n .
Dewey, J. (1934). Art as Experience. N e w York: G . P . Putnam: Capricorn
Books.
Dickson, A . (1982). A Woman in Your Own Right? L o n d o n : Quartet
Books.
D i x o n , N . (1994). The Organizational Learning Cycle: How We Can Learn
Collectively. L o n d o n : M c G r a w - H i l l .
Dougherty, M . A . (1990). Consultation, Practice and Perspectives. Pacific
Grove, C A : B r o o k s / C o l e Publishing.
Engman, K . , & Soderqvist, M . (1992). "Det var inget fel pa oss". O m
losningsfokuserad personalgrupp. Fokus pa Familien, 3: 168-177.
Friedman, E. H . (1986). Emotional Process in the Marketplace. In: L . C .
Wynne, S. H . M c D a n i e l , & T. T. Weber (Eds), Systems Consultation.
A New Perspective for Family Therapy (pp. 398-422). N e w Y o r k /
L o n d o n : G u i l f o r d Press.
Fruggeri, L . , Telfner, U . , Castellucci, A . , M a r z a r i , M . , & Matteini, M .
(1991). New Systemic Ideas from the Italian Mental Health Movement.
Gergen, K . J. (1985). Social constructionist theory: context and implica
tions. In: K . J. Gergen & K . Davis (Eds.), The Social Construction of
the Person. N e w York: Springer Verlag,
H a n d y , C . (1986). Understanding Organizations. Harmondsworth: Pen
guin.
Haslebo, G . (1973). Betingelser for indlaering o m magt og konflikt i
forskellige undervisningssysterner. In: G . Haslebo et al. (Eds.),
Magt og pdvirkning i systemer. Kcbenhavn: Reitzels Forlag.
Haslebo, G . (1995). Livsorientering og organisationskultur. In: Jorn
Laursen (Ed.), Karriere og livsforlob. K0benhavn: Danmarks For
valtningsherjskoles Forlag.
Haslebo, G . , H o l b o l l , P., H 0 y r u p , S., Madsen, F. H . , & Nejsum, B. (Eds.)
(1973). Magt og pavirkning i systemer. Nogle socialpsykologers overvej
elser omkring dendring af sociale systemer. Kobenhavn: Hans Reitzel.
Hirschhorn, L . (1995). The Workplace Within. London: M I T Press.

H o f f m a n , L . (1985). Beyond power and control: toward a "second
order" family systems therapy. Family Systems Medicine, 3 (4): 381
396.
H o l m e , M . , & H u m l e , A . S. (1991). Fra problem til Usning. Samtale
behandling pa systemisk grundlag. Kobenhavn: Akademisk Forlag.
H 0 y r u p , S. (1975). Laboratories og sensitivitetstrsening. Anvendelsen af
intensiv gruppetraening til social indlaering og -udvikling. K0ben
havn: Gyldendals Paedagogiske Bibliotek.
Huffington, C . (1996). Own notes from a personal interview. L o n d o n :
Tavistock Institute.
Huffington, C , & Brunning, H . (Eds.) (1994). Internal Consultancy in the
Public Sector. Case Studies. London: Karnac Books.
Jensen, P. (1994). Ansikt til ansikt. System- og familieperspektivet som
grunnlagfor klinisk sykepleie. Norge: A d N o t a m Gyldendal.
Johnsrud Langslet, G . (1996). Loft av organisasjoner. Losningsfokusert
tilnaerming til utvikling og problemlosning. Fokus pa Familien 2: 84.
Keiser, L., & L u n d , M . A . (1991). Supervision og konsultation. Keben
havn: Socialpaedagogisk Bibliotek.
K o l b , D . A . (1984). Experiential Learning. Experience as the Source of
Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, N J : Prentice-Hall.
K u h n , T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: U n i
versity of Chicago Press.
Laing, R. D . (1961). The Self and Others. London: Tavistock.
L a n g , P., Little, M . , & Cronen, V . (1990). The systemic professional
domains of action and the question of neutrality. Human Systems,
i (i).
L e w i n , K . (1951). Field Theory in Social Sciences. N e w York: Harper &
Row.
Lingas, L . G . (1993). Etik for social- og sundhedsarbejdere. En grundbog.
Kobenhavn: Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Maturana, H . R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The
Realization of the Living. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Maturana, H . R., & Varela, F. J. (1987). The Tree of Knowledge: The
Biological Roots of Understanding. Boston: N e w Science Library.
M c C a u g h a n , N . , & Palmer, B. (1994). Systems Thinking for Harassed
Managers. London: Karnac Books.
M o r g a n , G . (1986). Images of Organization. London: Sage.
M o r g a n , G . (1993). Imaginization: The Art of Creative Management. L o n
don: Sage.
Myers, I. B. w i t h Myers, P. B. (1993). Gifts Differing. Palo A l t o , C A :
Consulting Psychologists Press.
REFERENCES A N D B I B L I O G R A P H Y 181
Pearn, M . , Roderick, C , & Mulrooney, C . (1995). Learning Organizations

in Practice. L o n d o n : M c G r a w - H i l l .
Perm, P. (1982). Circular questioning. Family Process, 21 (3): 267-280.
Piaget, J. (1971). Psychology and Epistemology. Harmondsworth, M i d
dlesex: Penguin Books.
Poulfelt, F. (1982). Konsulenttere. Kabenhavn: N y t N o r d i s k Forlag.
Poulfelt, F. & Brask, J. (1989). Ledelsen og konsulenten—om brug afkonsul
enter. Kefbenhavn: N y t N o r d i s k Forlag.
Raelin, J. A . (1985). The Clash of Cultures: Managers and Professionals.
Boston: H a r v a r d Business School Press.
Rice, C . A . , & Scott Rutan, J. (1987). Inpatient Group Psychotherapy: A
Psychodynamic Perspective. L o n d o n : M a c m i l l a n .
Risling, A . (1989). Konsult i organisation. Stockholm: N a t u r O c h K u l t u r .
Schein, E. H . (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Fran
cisco, C A : Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H . (1987). Process Consultation.Volume II. Lessons for Managers
and Consultants. Reading, M A : Addison-Wesley.
Schein, E. H . (1988). Organizational Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N J :
Prentice-Hall.
Schjadt, B., & Egeland, T. A . (1991). Fra Systemteori til Familieterapi.
Oslo: Tono.
Schon, D . A , (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. How Professionals Think in
Action. N e w York: Basic Books.
Selvini-Palazzoli, M . (1987). The Hidden Games of Organizations. N e w
York: Pantheon Books.
Selvini-Palazzoli, M . , Boscolo, L Cecchin, G . , & Prata, G . (1978). Para
v
dox and Counterparadox. N e w York: Jason A r o n s o n .

Selvini-Palazzoli, M . , Boscolo, L . , Cecchin, G . , & Prata, G . (1980). H y
pothesizing-circularity-neutrality: three guidelines for the con
ductor of the session. Family Process, 19 (1): 3-12.
Senge, P. M . (1990). The Fifth Discipline. The Art & Practice of The
Learning Organization. London: Century Business.
Swieringa, J., & Wierdsma, A . (1992). Becoming a Learning Organization.
Beyond the Learning Curved Wokingham, U K : Addison-Wesley,
Thyssen, O . (1994). Kommunikation, kultur og etik. Kebenhavn: Handels
h0jskolens Forlag.
T o m m , K . (1984). One perspective on the M i l a n systemic approach:
Part I. O v e r v i e w of development; theory and practice. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, 10: 113-125.
T o m m , K . (1985). Circular interviewing: a multifaceted clinical tool. In:
D . Campbell, & R. Draper (Eds.), Applications of the Milan Approach
to Family Therapy. L o n d o n : Grune & Stratton.
T o m m , K . (1987a). Interventive interviewing, Part I: Strategizing as a

fourth guideline for the therapist. Family Process, 26: 3-13.
T o m m , K . (1987b). Interventive interviewing, Part II: Reflective ques
tioning as a means to enable self-healing. Family Process, 26: 167
183.
T o m m , K . (1988). Interventive interviewing, Part III: Intending to ask
lineal, circular, strategic, or reflective questions? Family Process, 27:
1-15.
v o n Foerster, H . (1979). Cybernetics of Cybernetics. N e w York: G o r d o n &
Breach Science.
v o n Foerster, H . (1981). Observing Systems. Seaside, C A : Ihtersystems
Publications.
v o n Glasersfeld, E. (1984). A n introduction to radical constructivism.
In: P. Watzlawick (Ed.), The Invented Reality. N e w York: W . W .
Norton.
Watzlawick, P. (Ed.) (1984). The Invented Reality. N e w York: W . W .
Norton.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D . D . (1967). The Pragmatics of
Human Communication. L o n d o n : W . W . Norton.
Wiener, N . (1961). Cybernetics (2nd ed,). Cambridge, M A : M.I.T. Press.
Wilkes, J., & Wilkens, M . (1993). Training for systemic management.
Human Systems, 4: 331-347.
W y n n e , L . C , M c D a n i e l , S. H . , & Weber, T. T. (Eds.) (1986). Systems
Consultation. A New Perspective for Family Therapy. N e w Y o r k /
London: The Guilford Press.
Zenger, J. H . , Musselwhite, E., Hurson, K., & Perrin, C . (1994). Leading
Teams. Mastering the New Role. San Jose, C A : Zenger-Miller.
INDEX
accessible meaning structures, 24 boredom, symptom of therapist,

aesthetic interest, 112-113 113
aesthetics: Boscolo, L., 102,110, 111
case study, 45 Bridges, W., 23
domain of, 116-117
affirmative cognition, 131 Campbell, D„ 2, 33, 125-126,137,
alliances: 151-152
consultant and staff [case study], case studies:
45 consultation:
consultants and hierarchy [case in a municipality, 73-99
study], 79 in private company, 39-71
Andersen, T., 110 supervision, 161-168
Anderson, H., 8, 29 cause and effect: see circular
apprehension, and comprehension, thinking; linear thinking
19 Cecchin, G., 102,110-115,144,151,
Argyris, C, 152,153 162-163
hypotheses, 126
Bateson, G., 6,102 irreverence, 160
Beavin, J., 157 neutrality, 112-113
blame, and linear thinking, 104 change:
106,110 as exciting, 61
Block, P., 146 problems associated with, 10-12
183
184 INDEX
circular thinking: working with a partner, 141

domain of reflection, 120 145
and linear thinking compared, consultation:
104^110 awareness of need for, 3-4
Clash of Cultures: Managers and parties and relations, 9-10
Professionals (Raelin), 118 stages in, 33-34
climate surveys, 68-69 systemic perspective, 1-15
case study, 43, 46-52 containment, 134-135
cognition, affirmative, 131 context, of problems, 6-7
Coldicott, T., 125-126,152 contracts, 44
collective learning processes, 21 agreeing, 33-34
consultant's methods, 37 formal and psychological, 13
consultation and, 29-34 [case study, 77-81]
interpretation, 26-28 working with internal
methodological considerations, consultants, 150-151
35-38 Cooperrider, D. L, 33,130-132
and private meaning structures, corporate strategy, 143
35-36 cost, limitations of consultancy, 30
stages in, 22-28 Cronen, V., 45,115
communication, 7,19 cultures:
between levels of hierarchy [case organizational, 22-23
study], 83, 85 role-based and task-based, 86
and circular thinking, 108 curiosity:
formal and informal systems consultant's identity, 172
[case study], 89-90 and neutrality, 112,119
comprehension, and apprehension, cybernetics:
19 first- and second-order, 98-99,
confidentiality, 165 101-103
working with internal and neutrality, 114
consultant, 148
conflict, need for supervision [case defensiveness, consultant's, 152
study], 163-165,169-170 153
connections, 107,128 Dewey, J., 18
and relationships, 96-97 dialogue, and collective
consultants: interpretation, 27-28
cooperation between internal Dickson, A., 85
and external, 145-151 directions, for action, 133-134. See
personal development, 151-154, also instruction
171-176 Dixon, N., 17-18, 21-23, 27, 29
role of, 69-71 domains, professional, 115-122
supervision, 1,153,159-168 doubt, importance of [case study],
case study, 44, 52, 59 167-170
training and work, 139-141,157 Draper, R., 2, 125
161 dynamic complexity, 97
INDEX 185
education programmes, 13 Invitation to Curiosity"

effects, and intent, 108 (Cecchin), 112
Einstein, A., 131 "Hypothesizing-Circularity-
equality, importance of, 66 Neutrality" (Selvini-
ethics, 117 Palazzoli et al.), HO
case study, 45
and equality, 66 impartiality:
Experiential Learning: Experience ascase study, 80
the Source of Learning and importance of, 66
Development (Kolb), 18 see also neutrality; objectivity
explicit meaning structures, 24 implementation, change, 12-13
implicit meaning structures, 24
feedback: individual:
hypothesis as, 123 and learning, 18-21
working with a partner, 144 organizational context, 13-15
145 see also collective learning
Foerster, H. von, 102 processes
formalization, 13-14 information technology, 173-174
instruction, as form of
Glasersfeld, E. von, 102 intervention, 85. See also
Goolishian, H., 8, 29 directions
ground rules: internal consultants, cooperating
case study, 80 with, 145-151
consultancy, 32-33 interpretation:
collective, 26-28
Handy, C, 26 and learning, 18
Haslebo, G., ix, xi, xv, xvi, 1-15, interventions, systemic thinking,
17-38, 73-99,101-122,157 128-138
176 interviews:
Hidden Games of Organizations case studies, 48, 53-56, 81-83
(Selvini-Palazzoli), 111 data gathering, 34
hierarchy: first meeting, 36
communication [case study], 83, reflection, 136-137
85 intuition, 24
and transfer of knowledge, 25 Irreverence: A Strategy for
26 Therapists' Survival (Cecchin
Hoffman, L., 103 et al.), 113
H0yrup, S., 158 irreverence:
Huffington, C, 2,125,127 feedback, 144
hypotheses: and neutrality, 113-114
consultant's use of, 69-71,114 supervision, 162
systemic thinking, 123-128
"Hypothesizing, Circularity and Jackson, D. D., 157
Neutrality Revisited: An Jung, C. G., 23
186 INDEX
Keiser, L., 161 structures, implicit, 24

Kinsella, K., 125-126,152 structures, private and
knowledge: collective, 23-24
generation and integration, 22 meta-position, 7-8, 69,126,165
24, 61-62 metaphors, 137-138
organizational context, 25-26 Milan school, 102,111-112, 133
see also learning; meaning Morgan, G., 137
Kolb, D. A., xii, 18-20 Mulrooney, C , 17
Myers, I. B., 56,150
Lane, G., 113, 144, 151,163 Myers, P. B., 56, 150
Lang, P., 45,115,120 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
learning: (MBTI), 56, 58, 63, 69
consultant's self-assessment,
151-154 neutrality, 110-115,119,120
consultation work, 173 need for supervision [case
loops, 20-21 study], 165-167,170
case study, 62 working with internal
and organizational consultation, consultant, 148
17-38 see also impartiality
processes, collective, 21
consultant's methods, 37 objectivity, 120. See also cybernetics
consultation and, 29-34 observer, consultant as, 98-99. See
interpretation, 26-28 also cybernetics
methodological considerations, organizational consultants,
35-38 training and work, 139-141.
and private meaning See also consultants
structures, 35-36 organizational consultation, and
stages in, 22-28 learning, 17-38
selection process, 175-176 organizational context, and
systemic model, 61-63 individual, 13-15
Lewin, K., 18 Organizational Learning Cycle: How
linear thinking: We Can Learn Collectively
and blame, 104-106,110 (Dixon), 21
and circular thinking compared,
104-110 Palmer, B., 5, 130
domain of production, 118 Paradox and Counterparadox
Little, M., 11 (Selvini-Palazzoli et al.), 102
participant group, defining, 29-31
McCaughan, N., 130 Pearn, M., 17
Maturana, H. R., 11, 102,116 personal development,
McCaughan, N., 5 consultant's, 171-176
meaning: personality types, case study, 56
and blame, 107-110 57
and information technology, 174 Piaget, J., 18
INDEX 187
placebo effect, 131 case study, 46

"Positive Image—Positive Actions" Rice, C A., 134,155
(Cooperrider), 131 ritual, directions for, 133-134
positive reframing, 127-128,130 Roderick, C, 17
133 role expectations, and directions
positive thinking, 131-133 for action, 133-134
practice, use of systemic thinking,
95-99 Scott Rutan, J., 134
Prata, G., 102,110, 111 segmented consultation, 38
prehension, 18-19 Selvini-Palazzoli, M., 102,110, 111,
private meaning structures, and 163
collective learning, 35-36 seminars [case studies], 56-59, 83
problem(s): 88, 91-92
and makeup of participant Senge, P. M., 97
group, 29-31 size, of participant group, 30
and meaning, 2-3 Stratton, P., 126
and the observer, 5-8 subject area, defining, 12-15
relations in consultation, 10 subjectivity, 119-120. See also
as resources, 61 cybernetics
solving, in organizational supervision, 1,153,161-170
consultation, 17-38 case study, 44, 52, 59
production, domain of, 117-119, Swieringa, J., 21, 26
120,122 symptoms, 7
project description [case study], system, defining, 8-10
76-77, 79-80 "Systemic Professional Domains
punctuation, 104-105 of Action and the Question
Pygmalion experiment, 131-132 of Neutrality" (Lang et al.),
115
Raelin, J.A., 118 systemic thinking, 1, 68, 71
Ray, W. A., 113, 144, 151, 163 cybernetics, 98-99,101-103
re-telling, hypothesis, 123 domains, 115-122
reality, different versions of, 95 hypothesizing, 123-128
96 interventions, 128-138
referral, 33 linear and circular thinking, 104
reflection, 135-137 110
domain of, 119-122 neutrality and irreverence, 110
room for, 98 115
reframing, 127-128 use in practice, 95-99
case study, 58
see also positive reframing Tavistock Institute, 140-141
relations, impact on events, 96-97 team spirit, and management [case
respect, and curiosity, 112 study], 52, 66-67
responsibility: theme days [case studies], 43, 47
and actions, 28 53, 61, 62-63
188 INDEX
thinking: Tomm, K., 110,133,137

and acting, 138 transformation, and learning, 19
circular: 20
domain of reflection, 120 Tree of Knowledge, The (Maturana
and linear thinking compared, & Varela), 116
104-110
linear, 104-110 Varela, R J., 11,102,116
and blame, 104-106,110
and circular thinking Watzlawick, P., 157
compared, 104-110 Wiener, N., 101
domain of production, 118 Wierdsma, A., 21, 26
see also systemic thinking Winderman, L., 8,29
time, as factor in consultancy, 31 Wittgenstein, L. J. J., 108
Systems and Meaning:
By Gitte Haslebo and Kit Sanne Nielsen
This book by Haslebo and Nielsen was originally written in Danish and
published in Denmark, where it has had four printings. We felt that
these authors bring a new perspective to systemic work with organiza
tions, and since there is far too little writing to match the amount of
work being done in this area, we decided that this was an important
book to add to our series. Readers will immediately feel familiar with the
values and the conceptual framework that underpin Haslebo and
Nielsen's work. They see organizational problems occurring in a particu
lar context, they clearly trace the way problems arise out of relations
amongst the different parts of the larger system, and they pursue the
meanings that these problems have for individuals and organizations
alike. Yet they also introduce new conceptual models, such as Kolb's
model of experiential learning.
But these authors are, above all, practitioners. They earn their living
through their work with organizations, and it is this precious first-hand
experience that must somehow be understood and articulated so that
other practitioners can take the ideas into their own settings. The case
studies are presented in some depth and are used to illustrate the way
systemic concepts are translated into consultation work. Although this
book is clearly written and accessible for practitioners starting out to
work with organizations, it is the depth of experience of the authors that
comes through on every page.
— David Campbell and Ros Draper, from their Foreword
n: Terry B e r k o w i t z a n d S i d n e y G u a r d , N Y C
KARNAC BOOKS
(a division of OTHER PRESS, LLC)
58, G l o u c e s t e r R o a d , London SW7 40Y
224 West 20th S t r e e t , New Y o r k , NY 10011
www.karnacbooks.com '752351

Systems and Meaning: Consulting in Organizations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Systems and Meaning: Consulting in Organizations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SYSTEMS AND MEANING

B y Gitte Haslebo and Kit Sanne Nielsen

David Campbell and Ros Draper

Organizations: A New Model for Managers and Change Agents

Citte Haslebo & Kit Sanne Nielsen

Systemic Thinking and Practice Series

London & N e w York

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

ISBN 978 1 85575 235 1

Edited, designed, and produced by Communication Crafts

Printed in Great Britain by Polestar AUP Aberdeen Limited

ABOUT THE AUTHORS ix

2 Organizational consultation and learning

3 "Assess o u r manager a n d expose his shortcomings ': 7

a consultation i n a private company

4 "Free us f r o m the past!":

6 The consultant's cognitive processes i n practice:

7 The consultant's cognitive processes i n practice:

H o w I learned to be an organizational consultant 157

REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY 177

GITTE H A S L E B O w a s b o r n i n 1943, educated as a p s y c h o l o g i s t in

i z e d to practice c l i n i c a l p s y c h o l o g y . Since 1985 K i t has w o r k e d

the meanings that these problems have for i n d i v i d u a l s a n d or­

pants to get i n v o l v e d a n d m a k e their resources a n d competencies

eral c o m m u n i c a t i o n theory, organizational d e v e l o p m e n t , o r g a n i ­

Gitte H a s l e b o discusses h o w systemic t h i n k i n g m a y p r o v i d e i n s p i ­

chapter, the w a y systemic ideas were used to g u i d e the w o r k is

a n d 7. These t w o chapters, w h i c h also discuss v a r i o u s contexts for

Gitte Haslebo & Kit Sanne Nielsen

Systemic thinking is a new source of inspiration for the organi­

• H o w can I m a k e m y s e l f u s e f u l to the entire organization?

T h i s b o o k discusses h o w the organizational consultant c a n e m ­

A consultant helps a client solve a problem through m u t u a l

T h i s d e f i n i t i o n includes some of the concepts a n d u n d e r s t a n d ­

g o i n g to paraphrase s l i g h t l y the points that are m a d e i n the quote.

When consultation is considered

S o l v i n g p r o b l e m s is a n integral part of b o t h managers' a n d e m ­

i n t e r n a l crisis i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n or i n the relationship between

How to think about the problems

frustration continues to m o u n t . Whether or not the d e f i n i t i o n is

ticipants are g o i n g to notice v e r y different things, based o n the

" a b o v e " . I n systemic t h i n k i n g it is used to describe a situation

How to define the system

In the process of f i n d i n g the most appropriate d e f i n i t i o n , it

FIGURE 1.1. Parties and relations in consultation

observe w h a t happens i n the relation between the commissioner

How to understand change

Systemic t h i n k i n g offers a r a d i c a l l y different v i e w of the d y ­

T o the systemic consultant, the task is not to help management

How to define the subject area

change"—as p e o p l e say. W h a t w e n t w r o n g w a s that the i n d i ­

a n d so forth. The degree of f o r m a l i z a t i o n i n terms of o r g a n i z a t i o n

activities—the better. I n this setting, frustrations often arise i f c o n ­

Consultation in organizations can be viewed as a special

organization is an agent. This is m i s l e a d i n g , a n d I w i l l therefore i n

FIGURE 2.1. The individual learning cycle:

t w o different w a y s : w e c a n either grasp o u r experience b y r e l y i n g

FIGURE 2.2. The individual learning cycle:

d e v e l o p e d different preferences concerning h o w to f u n c t i o n . I n

FIGURE 2.3. The individual learning loop

o r g a n i z a t i o n are capable of p r o m o t i n g learning i n the i n d i v i d u a l

FIGURE2.4. The organizational learning loop

the meanings that these problems have for i n d i v i d u a l s a n d or

eral c o m m u n i c a t i o n theory, organizational d e v e l o p m e n t , o r g a n i

Gitte H a s l e b o discusses h o w systemic t h i n k i n g m a y p r o v i d e i n s p i

Systemic thinking is a new source of inspiration for the organi

T h i s b o o k discusses h o w the organizational consultant c a n e m

T h i s d e f i n i t i o n includes some of the concepts a n d u n d e r s t a n d

S o l v i n g p r o b l e m s is a n integral part of b o t h managers' a n d e m

Systemic t h i n k i n g offers a r a d i c a l l y different v i e w of the d y

change"—as p e o p l e say. W h a t w e n t w r o n g w a s that the i n d i

activities—the better. I n this setting, frustrations often arise i f c o n

Collective learning processes require there to be people i n the or

c o m m u n i c a t i o n , goals a n d strategies, and so forth. A g a i n , collec

In Stage 4 i n the collective learning process, one assumes responsi

There are m a n y approaches to u n d e r s t a n d i n g systemic consulta

A s it w i l l appear f r o m this m o d e l , stages i n systemic thinking

Ihe request came from the company's personnel depart

What would happen at the meeting? H o w could I assume a rea

that I would be loyal to him? What consequences might this poten

The task g r o u p w a s to w o r k out a list of the tasks, w h o was re

demand from the employees, who were ambitious and hardwork

The staff w a n t e d m e to i n t e r v i e w a l l employees before the f o l l o w