0
Reflexive Intervision: Discovering       What a Client Really Wants                Carole Eigen PhD & Philip Boxer PhD    ...
INTRODUCTION4th June 2012   Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC   2
Bridging two systems of meaning:            psychoanalytic and strategic frameworks •    The psychoanalytic               ...
Reflexive Process:            what does it require of the consultant?• The willingness:      – To tell what I am strugglin...
Outline of the dayTiming          Session                                   Comment09.30-10.00     Introduction10.00-11.00...
REFLEXIVE INTERVISION - A CASE   EXAMPLE4th June 2012   Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC   6
THE META-THINKING ABOUT HOW   THIS ALL WORKS4th June 2012   Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC   7
We will be working with four questions using               some particular concepts1.    How does the consultant work refl...
How does the consultant work reflexively with their intervention?   WORKING REFLEXIVELY4th June 2012           Copyright (...
The Action Learning Project                              Government’s Disability System:                              spon...
Thinking beyond what is said    Approximating to the     ‘whole’ dynamic…                                  (emergent)     ...
The Parallel Process and the Governing                           Metaphor• Parallel process emerges both in the wiRgo rela...
How is the consultant’s intervention positioned in relation to the client   system?   THE RELATION TO THE CLIENT   SYSTEM4...
Four parallel leadership systems                       1                                         2    Carole              ...
How was the consultant’s intervention       positioned in relation to the client system?                1       Carole ‘be...
Will the client system allow learning to emerge in the consulting process?   EMERGENT LEARNING4th June 2012           Copy...
To what extent will parallel process reverberate           through the four systems?            Mary’s         Participant...
The scope of the learning system             Mary’s             Participants’                          Agencies’          ...
How is the client system currently understood to be engaging with its   world in terms of its behavior?   UNDERSTANDING TH...
Primary Risk…    The risk that the alignment    between the client system’s                                               ...
Primary Task…                         The rules, systems & procedures                          etc constraining what happe...
Domain of relevance…                                                                                       The definition ...
… to distinguish what is getting ignored                                                   primary risk                   ...
What is not being addressed explicitly in the behaviour   of the client system – where is their ‘ceiling’?                ...
DESCRIBING YOUR OWN CASE   SITUATION4th June 2012   Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC   25
1: behind-the-mirror2: consultant leadership3: intervention on client system4: client system5: client system customers    ...
The ideas behind reflexive intervision   UNCOVERING GOVERNING   METAPHORS AND ‘GAPS’4th June 2012           Copyright (c) ...
‘Gaps’ create risks• Is the listener placing too much dependence upon one account of what is  going on?      – Is one pers...
‘Gaps’ create risks        Errors of intent: Attributing intent        in a way that ignores the influence         of his ...
The plus-one exercise - attending critically to the ‘speaking-listening’   dynamic   REFLEXIVE INTERVISION4th June 2012   ...
Presenting a Problem Situation• Speaker role           Task: presents a problem situation in his/her case which s/he curre...
Actioning learning as a creative response to ‘gaps’   LEARNING BY DOING4th June 2012           Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewa...
Actioning learning to mitigate risks•    To be effective in addressing ‘gaps’, an actioning learning also has to satisfy  ...
For further reading, see reflexiveintervision.wikispaces.com   ENDS4th June 2012           Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater ...
Reflexive Intervision                        A Case Example                Mary Burgess & Carole Eigen PhD4th June 2012   ...
The lived experience of being                          victimised• There is risk of re-enacting a disabled person’s  role ...
THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT4th June 2012   Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC   3
The Starting Point• The client was a government department that  funds services for people with a disability• The consulta...
The emerging difficulties• The department contact seemed overly  controlling, trying to cut the contract fee, no  money fo...
The decision to engage a Supervisor• The concept of asymmetrical demand presented  resonated strongly with her own experie...
Using counter-transference to discover ‘what is going on’ across four    leadership systems    The split screen journal   ...
What is required for reflexive                         intervision?• A consultant-client contract that enables emergent le...
The consultant’s client system                                                           State funded Disability Services:...
The leadership dilemma:                     center vs edge                                                                ...
The challenge for leadership                The leadership in the client system must find a way to                hold the...
The Action Learning Project                                   Government’s Disability System:                             ...
The Parallel Process                      The Reflexive Process                                  The Action Learning Proje...
Parallel systems    MARY’S EXPERIENCE WITH THE    CLIENT SYSTEM4th June 2012          Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Profe...
The Project Consultant Experience         First transition: Into Reflexive Consultancy     Phase 1: Sense of relief       ...
Finding the place to focus                Project Activities                                                        WIGO• ...
The intervention (1)• Your task is to help practitioners get the  most out of the system for their clients  (people with a...
Beginning of Real Engagement• The consultant shifts focus onto the  practitioners and their task in Workshop 4• They under...
The Project Consultant Experience      Second transition: Opening up Pandora’s box      Phase 2: Looking at               ...
End of Phase 2                      Getting StuckActivities                                          The Dynamic• The syst...
Struggling to face reality• A sense of disintegration – the practitioners won’t  work in action learning mode, the consult...
The interventions (2)• Is working individually with agencies part of  your brief?• Where do you want to be with the Qualit...
The Struggle: to avoid or face reality            Third transition: Struggle to avoid or face                             ...
Giving up controlSense of disintegration• Practitioners own process more & consultant  feels more useless with them• Consu...
The intervention (3)• The use of writing to discover what is not  known about the system itself is particularly  scary bec...
Breaking throughActivities                                       Dynamic• In the final two                               •...
The big picture – with hindsight!                            1st Transition: Relief – no longer alone       PHASE 1: Sense...
WHY WORK REFLEXIVELY?4th June 2012   Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC   28
Four parallel leadership systems  +1  Carolelistening       Reflexive      Intervision                                    ...
Why work reflexively?                Mary’s             Participants’                          Agencies’           wigo in...
To what extent will parallel process reverberate            through the four systems?                Mary’s         Partic...
ENDS4th June 2012   Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC   32
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Ispso 2012 workshop final

240

Published on

Reflexive Intervision (or reading between the lines): discovering what a client really wants.

Published in: Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
240
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Ispso 2012 workshop final"

  1. 1. Reflexive Intervision: Discovering What a Client Really Wants Carole Eigen PhD & Philip Boxer PhD Bridgewater Professional Associates June 4th 20124th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 1
  2. 2. INTRODUCTION4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 2
  3. 3. Bridging two systems of meaning: psychoanalytic and strategic frameworks • The psychoanalytic • The strategic – Psychoanalytic training – Engineering – Family Systems training – MBA – Director PhD program/ clinical – Strategy Research supervision – Lacanian training – Director Group Relations conference – Consulting practice – Leadership Learning Systems • Quest for practical tools and methods that combine psychodynamic and systems theory to effect organizational change processes. • Reflexive Intervision – reading between the lines4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 3
  4. 4. Reflexive Process: what does it require of the consultant?• The willingness: – To tell what I am struggling with instead of what I figured out – To recognize that there is something problematic about the way I am engaging with the problem – To question the very frameworks of meaning that determine what I assumed to be true – To be committed to tolerate and explore this disquieting impasse while working with the client system4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 4
  5. 5. Outline of the dayTiming Session Comment09.30-10.00 Introduction10.00-11.00 Reflexive intervision case A case study used to introduce the main concepts Break11.15-11.45 Describing wigo Situating reflexive intervision within the client context11.45-12.00 Application to case situations Trying out the concepts in your case situation12.00-13.15 Lunch13.15-13.45 Reviewing case wigo’s Discussing case wigo’s in 2’s/3’s and plenary13.45-14.00 Governing metaphors and ‘gaps’ The ideas behind reflexive intervision14.00-15.00 Reflexive Intervision in practice I Successive rounds of the process15.00-15.30 Break15.30-16.00 Reflexive Intervision in practice II Successive rounds of the process16.00-16.30 Review of Intervision in Plenary Discussing the issues and questions raised by ‘gaps’16.30-17.15 Planning next steps Making it matter, build, be practical and be valued17.15-17.30 Review of the day4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 5
  6. 6. REFLEXIVE INTERVISION - A CASE EXAMPLE4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 6
  7. 7. THE META-THINKING ABOUT HOW THIS ALL WORKS4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 7
  8. 8. We will be working with four questions using some particular concepts1. How does the consultant work reflexively with their intervention? – Speaking-and-listening, understanding what-is-going-on, reading governing metaphors2. How is the consultant’s intervention positioned in relation to the client system? – Five layers to describing the consulting relationship, parallel leadership systems3. Will the client system allow learning to emerge in the consulting process? Single loop, double loop, and triple loop learning4. How is the client system currently understood to be engaging with its world in terms of its behavior? – Its primary task, primary risk, implied domain of relevance and ‘ceiling’4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 8
  9. 9. How does the consultant work reflexively with their intervention? WORKING REFLEXIVELY4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 9
  10. 10. The Action Learning Project Government’s Disability System: sponsoring system-of-meaning Stakeholders implicitly determine what is allowed to happen Quality Advisor as Mary’s sponsor Mary’s way to Workshop observe and participant’s intervene: sense of their listening to the experience: speaking speaking truths what-is-going-on (wigo) for participants What is actually driving their processes in the Agencies? what-is-Really-going-on4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 10
  11. 11. Thinking beyond what is said Approximating to the ‘whole’ dynamic… (emergent) Governing metaphor speaking/listening +1 (the ‘espoused theory’) Carole listening to Mary speaking Mary’s speaking truths about her case wigo with its implicit organizing principles (the ‘theory-in-use’) Observing/listening is Mary’s what-is-going-on always ‘outside’ the system itself … to get at wiRgo with what-is-Really-going-on its unconscious drivers4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 11
  12. 12. The Parallel Process and the Governing Metaphor• Parallel process emerges both in the wiRgo relation and in the governing metaphor (emergent) Governing Sponsoring/ metaphor Stakeholder system +1 Mary’s way to Workshop Carole Mary’s observe and participant’s listening to speaking intervene: sense of their Mary’s about her listening to the experience: speaking case speaking speaking truths Participants’ wigo Mary’s wigo wiRgo/ wiRgo/ the unconscious the unconscious4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 12
  13. 13. How is the consultant’s intervention positioned in relation to the client system? THE RELATION TO THE CLIENT SYSTEM4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 13
  14. 14. Four parallel leadership systems 1 2 Carole 3 ‘behind- the-mirror’ Reflexive 4Intervision Mary’s 15 workshop leadership participants agencies 5 Mary intervening Participants intervening Agencies Persons with intervening disabilities 4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 14
  15. 15. How was the consultant’s intervention positioned in relation to the client system? 1 Carole ‘behind-the-mirror’ Reflexive intervision 2 Mary’s leadership Mary intervening 3 Participants’ interventions Participants intervening 4 The Agencies as their client systems Agencies intervening 5 The Agencies’ customers – people with disabilities4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 15
  16. 16. Will the client system allow learning to emerge in the consulting process? EMERGENT LEARNING4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 16
  17. 17. To what extent will parallel process reverberate through the four systems? Mary’s Participants’ Agencies’ wigo in the wigo wigo wigo lives of persons with disabilities The wiRgo fault line – the relation to what is being unconsciously ignored4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 17
  18. 18. The scope of the learning system Mary’s Participants’ Agencies’ wigo in the wigo wigo wigo lives of persons with disabilities These are This is the This is how This is what the issues model the client happens in raised by shaping the system’s practice… questioning way the client business this model in system does model is its practice ‘business’ applied It worries about It worries about who It worries about The client system how it is serving a it is being in a market how it does it does what it does customer’s interests Triple Double Single loop loop loop … leading to a difference to expectations4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 18
  19. 19. How is the client system currently understood to be engaging with its world in terms of its behavior? UNDERSTANDING THE CLIENT SYSTEM ‘WIGO’4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 19
  20. 20. Primary Risk… The risk that the alignment between the client system’s primary risk behaviour and what the customer wants is not right Agencies People with disabilities supply-side demand-side (client system) (the client system’s customers in their contexts-of-use)4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 20
  21. 21. Primary Task… The rules, systems & procedures etc constraining what happens identity: ‘on the ground’ what is shaping the way things can work primary task viability: the way things work in practice The definition implicit in the client Actual behaviors ‘on the ground’ system’s behaviour4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 21
  22. 22. Domain of relevance… The definition of relevance implicit in the client system’s hierarchy domain of relevance behaviour The things the Agencies concern themselves with edge What gets ignored4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 22
  23. 23. … to distinguish what is getting ignored primary risk hierarchy domain of relevance Agency Community/ Family/ Management life history contexts identity: shaping shaping demands what is shaping the behaviours way things can work The ‘HOW’ The ‘WHY’ primary task viability: The ‘WHAT’ The ‘WHO-for-WHOM’ the way things work in practice Response to Carers’ behaviors situations involving edge people with disabilities supply-side demand-side4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 23
  24. 24. What is not being addressed explicitly in the behaviour of the client system – where is their ‘ceiling’? Above their ‘ceiling’ Community/ Family/ Life The ‘WHY’ history contexts The ‘WHO-for-WHOM’ Situations involving people with disabilities The ‘HOW’ Agency Management The ‘WHAT’ Carers’ behaviors I II III IV single double triple Can be addressed loop loop loop explicitly Demand for increasingly differentiated behaviours 4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 24
  25. 25. DESCRIBING YOUR OWN CASE SITUATION4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 25
  26. 26. 1: behind-the-mirror2: consultant leadership3: intervention on client system4: client system5: client system customers primary risk hierarchy domain of relevance The ‘HOW’ The ‘WHY’ primary task The ‘WHAT’ The ‘WHO-for-WHOM’ edge4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 26
  27. 27. The ideas behind reflexive intervision UNCOVERING GOVERNING METAPHORS AND ‘GAPS’4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 27
  28. 28. ‘Gaps’ create risks• Is the listener placing too much dependence upon one account of what is going on? – Is one person’s version of the story being bought into, as though he or she knew and could give a total description of the problem situation?• Is the listener assuming that there will be a right way to interpret the presented problem? – Is a particular frame of reference being accorded unquestioned authority?• How is the listener ‘drawing the line’ around what is or is not relevant to the problem? – Who is part of whose problem, and is the listener able to formulate what is relevant to the problem in a way which includes himself or herself?4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 28
  29. 29. ‘Gaps’ create risks Errors of intent: Attributing intent in a way that ignores the influence of his or her own interest, or the interests of others (emergent) Governing metaphor Carole listening to Mary’s speaking Mary’s speaking about her case Errors of perception: Errors of interpretation: Putting Too much dependence the details together into a picture on one account of the Mary’s what-is-going-on detail? that is in some way inconsistent with all the details what-is-Really-going-on4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 29
  30. 30. The plus-one exercise - attending critically to the ‘speaking-listening’ dynamic REFLEXIVE INTERVISION4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 30
  31. 31. Presenting a Problem Situation• Speaker role Task: presents a problem situation in his/her case which s/he currently experiences as problematic ( 5 minutes without interruption)• Listener role(s) Task: asks clarifying questions to which the speaker replies, in order to make sense of what is problematic about the situation (5 minutes of dialogue)• Plus-one role (listening to the listening) Task: creates a metaphor to describe the assumptions being made (a) about how the situation has been understood, and (b) about what this implies might have been/is being ignored or left out. (5 minutes without interruption)• All together Discuss the ‘gaps’ this implies4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 31
  32. 32. Actioning learning as a creative response to ‘gaps’ LEARNING BY DOING4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 32
  33. 33. Actioning learning to mitigate risks• To be effective in addressing ‘gaps’, an actioning learning also has to satisfy four criteria: – It should matter: there should be an identified client and sponsor for the project to whom it can relate and report. – It should be practical: the project should be based on data and the result of the project should produce ground-level consequences, i.e. produce a tangible effect. – It should connect: the project should build on or take account of existing structures and culture, i.e. it must take notice of what is possible. – It should add value: the outcome of the project should be to give the organisation an ‘angle’ or leading edge over the way it creates value for its ‘customers’4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 33
  34. 34. For further reading, see reflexiveintervision.wikispaces.com ENDS4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 34
  35. 35. Reflexive Intervision A Case Example Mary Burgess & Carole Eigen PhD4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 1
  36. 36. The lived experience of being victimised• There is risk of re-enacting a disabled person’s role where this intersects with previous experiences in the system• The consultant feels victimized in entering the system• The consultant’s role is disabled• Systemic contagion: everyone gets to feel disabled in a ‘disability system’• By culling out the learning, trauma is converted into new learning4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 2
  37. 37. THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 3
  38. 38. The Starting Point• The client was a government department that funds services for people with a disability• The consultant had a task to assist 15 ‘at risk’ agencies to create a network to be well prepared for an external quality audit• The department wanted an action learning project of 10 x 3 hour sessions over six months with one ‘practitioner’ from each of the 15 agencies• The agencies provide services to people with a disability4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 4
  39. 39. The emerging difficulties• The department contact seemed overly controlling, trying to cut the contract fee, no money for catering or a venue – the consultant becomes angry, feels victimised• The selected practitioners seemed polite but disengaged – like the way disabled people interact with services they don’t trust• The consultant feels she’s lost her touch and has no energy for this project4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 5
  40. 40. The decision to engage a Supervisor• The concept of asymmetrical demand presented resonated strongly with her own experience of the disability system: “Systems need to develop the agility to take up a role in the lives of people, not the other way around” (Eigen C & Boxer P)• The consultant decided to seek supervision for this difficult project4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 6
  41. 41. Using counter-transference to discover ‘what is going on’ across four leadership systems The split screen journal Espoused theory vs. theory in use THE REFLEXIVE INTERVISION PROCESS4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 7
  42. 42. What is required for reflexive intervision?• A consultant-client contract that enables emergent learning• A consultant-shadow consultant contract based on ‘accompaniment’• A working model of the consultant-client system that considers : – The enterprise stakeholders. – the designated client system – the demands of the people the client system is set up to serve. – The position of the consultant .• A reflexive model that enables systemic parallel process to emerge and be utilized4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 8
  43. 43. The consultant’s client system State funded Disability Services:Primary task: readiness Quality Advisor of their Agencies for quality audit Mary 15 workshop participants agency practitioner agency agency agency Persons with 15 agencies: disabilities 4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 9
  44. 44. The leadership dilemma: center vs edge Government’s Disability System Quality Advisor Mary 15 workshop participants agency practitioner agency agency agency 15 agencies: Demands from persons with disabilities4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 10
  45. 45. The challenge for leadership The leadership in the client system must find a way to hold the tension between satisfying the government requirements for quality assurance AND keeping alive the actual needs of the person with a disability Then everyone can feel that they are collaborating to make a difference4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 11
  46. 46. The Action Learning Project Government’s Disability System: sponsoring system Stakeholders implicitly determine what is allowed to happen Quality Advisor as Mary’s sponsor Mary’s way to Workshop observe and participant’s intervene: sense of their listening to the experience: speaking speaking truths what-is-going-on (wigo) for participants What is actually driving their processes in the Agencies?4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 12
  47. 47. The Parallel Process The Reflexive Process The Action Learning Project Governing Sponsoring metaphor system-of-meaning +1 Mary Workshop Carole speaking Mary participants listening ‘truths’ listening speaking ‘truths’ Mary’s wigo wigo for participants wiRgo/ wiRgo/ unconscious process unconscious process• Using the parallel process to uncover what is being ignored4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 13
  48. 48. Parallel systems MARY’S EXPERIENCE WITH THE CLIENT SYSTEM4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 14
  49. 49. The Project Consultant Experience First transition: Into Reflexive Consultancy Phase 1: Sense of relief End Phase 1: Beginning and excitement of real engagement4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 15
  50. 50. Finding the place to focus Project Activities WIGO• System-consultant’s • Consultant feels work begins supported by the• Consultant writes about supervision her experience of the • Practitioners aren’t project engaging with the• Workshop 4 of 10 has action learning method yet to take place • Consultant feels useless with the group4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 16
  51. 51. The intervention (1)• Your task is to help practitioners get the most out of the system for their clients (people with a disability), and their organisation, not compliance4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 17
  52. 52. Beginning of Real Engagement• The consultant shifts focus onto the practitioners and their task in Workshop 4• They undertake two peer audits in Workshops 5 & 6 in their organisations talking directly with people with a disability• A practitioner names the Quality Manual a ‘monster’• The Quality Advisor is in the background not the foreground of the project4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 18
  53. 53. The Project Consultant Experience Second transition: Opening up Pandora’s box Phase 2: Looking at End Phase 2: Wanting data to turn a blind eye4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 19
  54. 54. End of Phase 2 Getting StuckActivities The Dynamic• The system-consultant • The consultant is back to explores the consultant lethargy & immobilisation being squeezed in the and not writing project • The CEO of the service• Some practitioners have hosting the second peer dropped out of the project audit stops coming to• The Quality Advisor comes sessions – never returns to a session and talks at the • The Quality Advisor wants a practitioners conference to ‘look good’ at the end of the project4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 20
  55. 55. Struggling to face reality• A sense of disintegration – the practitioners won’t work in action learning mode, the consultant gives up on it in Workshop 8• The Quality Advisor wants the consultant to report on the practitioners and their agencies• The consultant wants to work with the individual practitioners who have dropped out• Something can’t be faced - this is true in all parts of the system System-consultant makes two important interventions4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 21
  56. 56. The interventions (2)• Is working individually with agencies part of your brief?• Where do you want to be with the Quality Advisor at the end of the project?4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 22
  57. 57. The Struggle: to avoid or face reality Third transition: Struggle to avoid or face reality End of Phase 3: Facing Phase 3: Discovering the real work of the what is possible system and agencies -4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 23
  58. 58. Giving up controlSense of disintegration• Practitioners own process more & consultant feels more useless with them• Consultant not writing and cancels another skype session with system-consultant4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 24
  59. 59. The intervention (3)• The use of writing to discover what is not known about the system itself is particularly scary because ones self becomes a medium that gives up control in order to gain systemic perspective. Just as the system struggles to maintain its identity and protect itself from trauma, we risk not confronting that parallel trauma in ourselves.4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 25
  60. 60. Breaking throughActivities Dynamic• In the final two • The consultant helps workshops the the practitioners get practitioners plan how what they want to continue their work • The Quality Advisor also becomes helpful to the• They refuse to present practitioners instead of their learnings, instead wanting them to make present a proposal for her look good to the growth of their network system4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 26
  61. 61. The big picture – with hindsight! 1st Transition: Relief – no longer alone PHASE 1: Sense of relief & excitement END: Beginning real engagement 2nd Transition: Exploration – opening up Pandora’s box PHASE 2: Looking at data END: Wanting to turn a blind eye 3rd Transition: Struggling to avoid or face reality END: Facing the real work of the system and PHASE 3: Discovering what is possible the agencies4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 27
  62. 62. WHY WORK REFLEXIVELY?4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 28
  63. 63. Four parallel leadership systems +1 Carolelistening Reflexive Intervision Quality Advisor Mary intervening Mary Mary’s leadership 15 workshop participants agency Participants practitioner intervening agency agency agency Agencies 15 agencies: intervening 4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 29
  64. 64. Why work reflexively? Mary’s Participants’ Agencies’ wigo in lives of wigo wigo wigo persons with disabilities Reflexive process challenges the consultant to discover and to question what is being ignored• Consultants who work in complex systems tend to be captured by the way the stakeholders constrain what it is possible to accomplish.4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 30
  65. 65. To what extent will parallel process reverberate through the four systems? Mary’s Participants’ Agencies’ wigo in the wigo wigo wigo lives of persons with disabilities The wiRgo fault line – the relation to what is being unconsciously ignored4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 31
  66. 66. ENDS4th June 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 Bridgewater Professional Associates LLC 32
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×