02 FE'

Working with Organisation-i

the concept n-the-M i nd

of

A paper for Inscape, Coesfeld, Germany,

15 September 2000

OThe GRUBB
INSTITUTE I~J

J1

Paper presented by Jean Hutton, Managing Consultant, The Grubb Institute, London

Oistinguishing between Organisation and Institution

This paperintroducesa way of thinking about organisation which has beendevelopedby The Gmbb Institute as a significant tool for leadership and management in institutions, and for consultants in working with their organisational clients. It focuseson organisationas it is being experiencedby the manager,and looks at how bis or ber internaIpicture is relatedto external eventsand assumptions". 1 would like to begin by distinguishingbetweenorganisation and institution. Thesewords are often used interchangeably in everydayspeech,but in the interestof scientific study they are frequentlyusedto identify different ways ofunderstandingpeople'scollective activity in pursuit of a defmedpurpose.

Institution is an entity constitutedto carry out a specific function, whetherofficiaI, unofficial, forD1al, or infOrD1al, eg family, business, church, government, voluntary agencies, arroy.

Organisation is the way the institution is structuredand developedin orderto deploy human and materialresources to carry out its purposes.

Sometimes the structureis setup on presuppositions which may not lead to the achievement of the primary task of the institution.

For example,1 had a client, a Methodistminister in the United States, who was sentto a developing,up-markethousingareato establish a new church. Togetherwith a small group of residents they agreedthat their aim wasto grow a church.Two yeaTS on they had a very large congregation and an extensiveprogrammeof churchactivities. Whenhe presented bis situation to me he indicatedthat he was concemedthat they had lost their way. After severalsessions an hypothesisemerged to suggest why fuis had happened. Though they had applied the label 'church' to their institution, at an unconsciouslevel their institution-in-the-mindwas about being a business.The locallay people,who were themselves highly successfulin their business

This paperis developed from an earlier paperby Hutton, Bazalgetteand Reed(1!1!17) on "Organisation-in-the-Mind,,1See alsoHutton (1997)2
1ne "'UDD In,mUle

and professionalcareers, were more familiar with a business culture and automaticallyapplied it to their new institution, the church. Togetherwith the minister they developedan organisation-in-the-mind along the lines of running a business, a venture in which they succeeded. Somehowin the processthe meaningof churchwas lost. Thathad led him to consultthe Gmbb Institute. It was not just a matterof different values or integrity, it was a matter of outcomes.His idea of the church/business institution was focusedon the needto grow in importance,strengthof numbers,popularity and senseof achievement, but with no specific spiritual outcomes.He needed fIrst to dermean outcomefor the churchand thento questionhis assumptions, beliefs, feelings, and knowledge abouthow the churchfunctioned.This shockgave him someinsights into himself, enoughto dermethe outcomedesiredin terms of the churchserving God and the Kingdom of God. Until he was able to graspthis insight and own it with his lay colleagues,it would be useless to go and changethe structures, to deconstruct their organisation-in-the-mind.

This exampleld the lnstitute to formulate defmitions aboutthesementalconstructs.Whenpeople startto examinewhat they meanby institution or organisation,they aretrying to identify what they have 'in-the-mind' aboutthem. The temptationis alwaysto reify them as existing 'out there', but the reality is that they are constructs, so areheld only in the mind. We tan thUgspeakof 'organisation-in-the-mind'and 'institution-in-the-mind'. [seealso W. Carl 1999]3.
Organisation-in-the-mind is a conscious or pre-conscious construct, focused around emotionai

experience oftasks, raies, purposes, rituaIs, accountabiIity, competence, failure, success. It caiis for management.

Institution-in-the-mind is an unconsciousconstruct,focusedaroundthe emotionalexperience of ideals,values,hopes,beliefs, dreams,symbols,birth, lire, death.It requiresleadership.

We Carl say that organisation-in-the-mind Carlbe understood as a metaphor of the body, and institution-in-the- mind as a metaphor of the spirit. Together they constitute a whole. A way of illustrating fuis would be to take the example of the nuclear family. 'Nuclear' describes the organisation-in-the-mind, and 'family' the institution-in-the-mind.

With organisation-in-the-mind the elements are able to be described and measured, as organisation is necessarily experienced in a specific context. An example ofthis in the United Kingdom could be a prison, described as an establishment for young offenders, aged 16-19, taking so many convicted young men and women from aIl over the country. The context is the courts which, by sentencing the accused, send them to prison under specified conditions.

With institution-in-the-mind the elements are more difficult to describe because they relate to unstated beliefs, emotions and values. What a prison is in reality reflects the currem values of the society and those appointed to administer justice, elements which cannot be quantified4. This leads to debates about its purpose and how to cape with criminal behaviour because of confusion about the unconscious institution-in-the-mind.

The Grubb Institute

To take anotherexample,that of the church.Organisation-in-the-mind would describechurch in terms of types of people -ministers, priests,lay people,buildings, liturgy, fmance, polity etc which bas a purposewhich may or may not be defmed.Institution-in-the-rnind wouId conceive churchas people with sornething to do with the idea of God, egthe Peopleof God, the Body of Christ. What it is for is a rnatterfor belief which will vary overtime and place.

Shapiroand cafiJ describetheseconceptsin a similar way: "...all institutions exist in the mind, and it is in the interactionwith thesein-the-mind entities that we live. Of course,aIl organisations also consistof certain real factors, suchas otherpeople,profits, buildings,resources andproducts.But the meaningof thesefactors derivesfrom the contextestablished by the institution-in-the-mind.Thesementalimages are not static: they arethe product of dynamic interchanges, chiefly projectionsand transference." Organisations start with someone who basan idea which requirescertainkinds of activity for that idea to be carried out. He. forms an organisation-in-the-mind as an expressionof somewish to set up an institution, eg a companyfor designingcomputerprogrammes,with certainvalues,hopes, beliefs in minci.He tries to communicate thosebeliefs and thoughtsto othersto make a structure to embodythe purposeand aim of fuis idea.ln fuis processthere are a number of stages:

First, the personwith the idea and vision may have a very unformedidea of institution-in-the-mindand there may be discrepancies between bis initial conceptand how he describesthat to others,and whathe believesand hopesfor asa result. 80 there is one aspect of uncertainty. Secondly,ashe works with ailier peopleto setup the institution with its organisation, those ailiers rnayfmd difficulty in interpretingthe ideas,ernotionsand values of the original plan in practice. Their attemptto embodythe aim and achieve its intentionscao also lead to uncertainties. Thirdly, there is the unknown of whetherthey tan employ competent skilled peoplewho are able to manage the resources availableto achievethe aim in a constantlyshifting and dynamic context.This againis a matter for uncertainty. The tasktherefore of the management of the organisation is to achievea dynamic balance betweentheseuncertainties andmake the bestuse of the resources. The actualresultsofthis processmay be discrepantwith the original intentionsan~ leadto problemswhich confuse management and staff.

Throughoutthe paper 'he' is rsed to meanhe or she

The Grubb Institute

An exarnpleof fuis is that of an ex-anny officer who was driven by his love and concemfor old people.He wantedto fmd a way of enablingthemto live out their lives in farniliar environments as much like their own homesas possible.He setup a schemeusing a row of existinghouses within a neighbourhood.This activity was so successful that he carneunderconsiderable pressure from well-wishers to grow and to becomea national organisation to reproducesuchplacesaIl over the country. An executivewas brought in to developand fUnthis growing organisation sincethe founder acknowledgedthat he was not a managerbut a visionary leader.However after a year or so there was a major split betweenthe nationaldirectorsandthe founderbecause the latter felt his original aim of the institution of caring for old peoplewas not being carried out. He becarne aware that his institution-in-the-mindwas quite different from his fellow directors.

They could not seethat thereneededto be a problem, althoughthey were fully awarethat relations were breaking clownbetweenthem andthe founderand the situationwas becomingunworkable. They felt the founderwas unreasonable and unrealistic.The founder, feeling deeplythe valuesof bis institution-in-the-mindwas unableto arguebis point in organisational termsbecause outwardly they were in agreement. The 'dynamic balance'1 referredto earlierwas not achievable. The founder left the original charity, and went off to round ~other housingschemewhich exists to fuis clayas a small separate entity alongsidethe highly successful national housingassociation.

The Grubb Institute

Understanding differences
Why do suchthings happenin organisationallife? Let me offer you a very simple diagram' oftwo people working in the sameorganisation."A" and "B" are trying to agreean actionto be taken by "B". They do agree,but afterwards"B" goesand doessomethingcompletelydifferent. Has fuis experienceeverhappened to you?

/s"'Figure 1 The problem is about eachofthem having a differentpicture of the (same)organisation-in-themind. "A" attributes certainvaluesto whathe gaysand what he hears from "B". "B" doeslikewise and they then agreeon the wording of the action, believing they know what the ailier intends. But "A" interpretseverything in terms of a 'square' organisation-in-the-mind, and "B" interpretsthe samewords and actions in terms of a 'triangular' organisation-in-the-mind.

A
Figure2

The difference betweenthem tan be attributedto the way theyhave eachexperiencedtheir work andthe lack of communicationskills which could havealertedthemto the different imageswhich eachhad, characterised by 'square' and 'triangle' in-the-Itlind. There is the further possibility that because they worked with differe~tvaluesand beliefsand had different emotions,they had different institutions-in-the-mind.Sincefuis was unconscious they were unableto grasphow different they were.

Bruce Reed conceivedthis modei in thecourse of developingOrganisational Roie Analysis, see p8

,ne Lrubb 'n,t'tute

1;:...

ln the example of the Housing Association,this latter explanationseems the most probableand this would explain why the founder' s actionappeared idiosyncratic and irrational to the national director. We are seeingtwo kinds of differencehere: The difference in" A 's" and "B's" minds with regardto organisation-in-the-mind basedon structureand experience, as shown in the diagrams. The difference betweenorganisation-in-the-mind at a consciouslevel of experience, and institution-in-the-mind which is influencingthe encounterat an unconsciouslevel. ln our Gmbb Institute courses we sometimes invite membersto work at theselevels by drawing a picture which describeshow they seeand experiencetheir business,company, school etc, at that point in time. Theyare invited to think of an imaginativeimage or metaphor,to avoid using words andto include themselvesin the picture. We suggest they considertheir work relationships, events,purposes, groups,clients etc and their feelings,and to try to encapsulate thesein the drawing. Whenthe resultantpicturesare discussed in the group, it often showssomethings to the artist which he or shewas not awareof, nevertheless it is a basicallypurposive and consciouslevel activity. Sometimes howevera commentby anothermemberon the picture revealsa deeperlevel of insight into the unconscious institution-in-the-mind.This uncovershopes,beliefs, valueswhich may affect the meaningof the image chosen,the way it has beenexpressed, what is included, and what is omitted. Howeverthere can be anotherreasonfor this difference.We are looking at the emotional experienceeither of the artist in the picture, or of" A" and "B" in their interaction at work. As a manageror leader1 may assert that1 want to be realistic, but 1 needto have the insightto understand that1 engagein unconscious processes in orderto cape with the stressof the realities ofmy work. The more1 understandaboutmy own innerworld, the more 1 am likely to be ableto deal with the realities constructively,because 1 will recognisethat fuis is a naturalhumanprocess and conveysimportant informationto me, not just aboutmyself and my own behaviourbut about the stateof the organisation and its dynamics. Melanie Klein6 suggests that asI, asa person,work in an institution, I introject (take into myself) aspectsofwhat is happeningto me from peopleand eventsto form internaI objects and part objects. Theseare symbols of my externatworld which I useto think aboutmy surroundings. Theseare real to me, but are Dotthe sameasthe 'real' peopleand things in my environment. Someof theseobjectswill give me pleasure,ailiers pain and discomfort: some I will keep in front of me consciously,ailiers I will forget, repress unconsciously.However, even if I repressthem they are still abjects in my inner world and affect my behaviour. As 1 facethe fearsand anxietiesof engagingwith the real world 1 respondto theseinternai objects;as1 feel, think, act1 am promptedby them.1 modify theseinternai objects which 1 draw upon (wholly or partly), or repress(wholly or partly) in my unconscious. ln orderto know how to

The lirubb Insmu.e

act, to make decisionsand to work with ailiers asa leader/manager, 1 try to make senseof everything which 1 am consciousofinside me -aIl my thoughts,feelings, ideasand 'bard data' availableto me. This processincludes my aims,plansand intentions,instructions from others, regulations,responses to changesin the context, my memoriesof earlier work environments and raies1 have taken,and so on. Exactly the sameprocessis going on in thosearoundme with whom 1 work.

What the squareandtriangle model illustratesis that, ashumanbeings interactingwith ailiers in our environrnent, we monitor and contrai, for a variety of reasons, what we take accountof in ourse Ives and in others.We are then taken by surprisewhenwe corne up againstsomeblotted out featureswhich are active and powerful, because they have beenintemalisedunconsciously.We fmd ourselvessuddenlyangry, guilty, pleasedor excitedand may not always know why. We also trigger unexpected reactionsin ailiers, which may be constructiveor destructive.Christopher Bollas, in bis book, TheShadow of the Object7, hasfuis wonderful term, the 'unthoughtknown', to refer to thosethings which are affectingme from my innerworld but l have not yet broughtto

consciousness.
Why do we represstheseexperiences in so much of our organisationallife? Because as a person-in-rolein my institution1 have my own needsand desires,fearsand anxietiesinto which cornethe experiences from my workplace. l 'monitor' consciouslyand unconsciouslywhat1 will allow myselfto 'know' and perceive,for the sake ofmy own survival, or for the sake of the institution, or for the sakeof my own ambition.

Nevertheless, as Larry Hirschhom suggests, the organisation that is happeningis not just out there -it is iD me. He calls it the 'workplace within's.
Ifl am a good manager, 1 want to relate effectively with the institution ofwhich 1 am a part. So 1 become caught up in what Winnicott describes as 'transitional phenomena'9. ln a formaI sense,

these phenomena may include defming aims, organising groups, making business plans, having discussions; and from these plans and encounters 1 fonnulate my actions and behaviour toward the actual situations of my work as1 perceive them in reality. ln fantasy 1 may have dreams and visions which impinge on me and affect my decisions and behaviour. But these things may not harness my real feelings, anxieties, fears and aspirations. The drive from my inner world may be unable to engage effectively with the real situation 'out there'.

ln Winnicott's tenns l needto discovera transitional object which tan carry my inner feelings, thoUghts, imaginings etc,to surfacemy internaI objectsand bridge the gap betweenmy inner world and the world outsideme, in which 1 have to act. Justas a teddybear enablesa child to handlebis anxietiesaboutdiscoveringbis own separate identity from the reality which is bis mother,this transitional objectis for me as an adult managersomethingthat enables me to tope with the stresses and uncertaintiesof making decisions,taking risks and being accountablefor what1 do. 'Organisation-in-the-mind' becomes the transitional object which l needto contain both my irrational thoughtsand unfonnulatedideasas weIl as my rational ODes.

The Grubb Institute

The transitionai abject is itseIfparadoxicaiin that is bath created by me (it emergesfrom my own internaI imaginings aboutthe pattern1 give to the components of organisation-in-the-mind), and discovered by me (the patternpresents itselfto me as ifit were independent of me), often in unexpected,surprisingways andplaces.Thus the transitional abjectis essentially a possession bath createdand discoveredby its owner. It containsaspects of irrationality because of its paradoxicalnature and because of my inner contradictoryfeelingsand anxieties.

What1 have beensaying is aboutemotionalexperience and it would be easyto think of it asthe property of the individual manageror client. My former colleague,David ArmstronglO,suggests that emotionalexperienceis very rarely locatedwithin a purely individual space. "Psycho-analysisfor exarnpleis not the investigationof the emotionalexperienceof the individual alone: it is the investigationof the emotionalexperienceof the pair, ofwhat passes betweentwo people...similarly in groupwork... ln institutions, it is the institution as a whole that containsthe emotionalexperience, within what1 referredto earlierasa 'boundedspace'." To explore fuis experience requiresmorethan a psycho-analyticperspective, therefore, it requires a systemic perspective. ln systemterms,the emotionalexperienceof the individual is the shared experienceof everybodyin the system.Whathe experiences at fuis momentin time is experienced on behalf of the systemand tells him things aboutthe stateof the system.The emotional experienceis important informationhelping him to understand the realities ofboth organisationin-the-mind and institution-in-the-mind. [seealsoD Armstomg 1991]11.

Organisational

Raie Analysis

The origin of the concepts relating to organisation-in-the-mind arasefrom the Grubb Institute's work in group relationsconferences. The development ofthis frameworkcame from a distinctive initiative from my colleague,Bruce Reed,in inventing in 1973the experientialmode1he cal1ed 'OrganisationalRole Analysis'.

The distinctive aspect was to enableclients (usuallyexecutives, managers and professionals) to explore the range oftheir experiences -personal, groupand institutional- in a one-to-onesetting, as an alternativeto attendinga grouprelationsworking conference. The model itself aroseasthe outcomeof an experientialworking conference.

Insteadof exploring a conference-generated experience, the client was invited to explore bis experiencein bis place ofwork -bis 'working experience'.Basedon the assumptionof organisation-in-the-mind, the consultant hypothesized that the client 'brought' bis entire company for studythrOUgh bis own experience. The Organisational Role Analysis model, (ORA for short), consistedof altematingbetweensessions with a consultant, held off-site, wherethe consultant would engagewith the experienceof the client ashe wishedto expre~s it, and a period oftwo to three weeksbefore the following session for the client to engagewith the actuallife of the organisation.Thus he could test out any working hypotheses developedin the ORA sessions and

The Grubb Institute

take note of bis own behaviour, eg under stressfulconditions. Each session was open-ended and the client decided in the here-and-nowof the session the working experience he wished to discuss. The desiredoutcome of the aRA is that the client willlearn how to make bis optimum contributionto bis institution throUghdiscoveringhow to managehimself in bis role in the 'real' dynamic situationhe is working in. An important aspectin this is the capacityto distinguish between the exerciseof power and the taking of authority12*. After working on severnlaRA projectswith different clients,Reeddecidedon the designof eight sessions oftwo hours duration. Each aRA extendsoverthreeta four months, which provides a sufficiently long period for clientsta learn ta managethemselves and ta take authority in their working raIes.

The Role of the aRA consultant

ln the Gmbb Institute we believefuis Talerequiresskilled andtrained organisationalanalysts. We have only used staff who have had experiencein staffroles in grouprelations conferences and with considerable understandingof the associated psycho-dynamicand behaviouralconcepts. The lnstitute bas developedan aRA consultant training programmewhich involves being an aRA client, observingan aRA, taking one undersupervision,and participating in group relations conferences and seminarson the conceptualframeworkand theoreticaltools.

Key Concepts
Sincethe aRA model was first devisedin 1973, severnlconcepts havebecomecritically significant in examiningworking experience, and have beendeftned in terms which we use differently from otherbehaviouralscientists. Four ofthese conceptsand how they mutually interactare illustrated in the following Venn diagramconceivedby Reed.

Figure 3
Reed,"Organisational Transfonnation",p12

The Grubb Institute

Working Experience describes the feelings,thoughts,des ires and reactionsof a personwho is engagingwith a systemby taking a foie. This is differentiatedfrom 'personaiexperience'where the personcannotfmd the foie by which to managetheir work -their contributionto the system. Reflection upon currentworking experience is a way of monitoring a person's understanding of themselves, the systemand its purpose,and the way the foie is being madeand taken.

Person, as used here, relates to the client. The construct in the mind of the consultant is distinguished from that of individual. Whereas individual points to separateness,person implies connectedness and relatedness with others. The consultant is sensitive to the part objects and projections the client is experiencing which transcend group and institutional boundaries, (see Armstrong), and are continually fluctuating. They constitute the emotionallife of the person

which influences bis values and beliefs. The client's self-knowledge, history and awareness of competencies and learned behaviours is being affected by these factors and shown in the way he is working and evaluating bis performance.

System is the working context of the persan as construed by the consultant, following Gregory Bateson's defmition of a system as 'activities with a boundary'13. For the client initially, 'system' covers the constructs of organisation-in-the-mind and institution-in-the-mind in the aRA process, but on a daily basis it is where he works and bas responsibility for contributing to the success of the workplace according to bis position within it. l hope it is clear l am speaking here of an organic, living system, not a mechanical one. Von Bertalanffy in "General Systems Theory"14 speaks of a living cell as a system with permeable boundaries, receiving inputs and expelling outputs into the environment.

Role is the critical construct of the aRA process and is a central point in its work. Its defmition derives from the Tavistock tradition but has been uniquely developed by my Institute. AlI 1 can do here is to introduce its principles and to distinguish our use ofrole from that of others. (For further discussion ofrole see ReedIS).

ln the Venn diagrarn, foIe is seen as Iinking person to system. It implies that to work for the benefit of the system, the pers on bas to function in foIe. Whenjoining a system, a person is generaIIy given a position, a job title and a task to carry out, but none of these is foIe in our terms. A 'RoIe' cannot be given to anyone by anyoneo. The person has to discover there is a foIe for him, then to mate that foie, and fmaIIy to take that foie. Properly understood, we suggest that the induction period offered to new staff can be the opportunity provided for them to begin to fmd, make and take their foIes.

For example a persan needs to learn what the purpose oftheir company/institution is, to decide whether, in their new position they can work for the benefit of the system and notjust for their own career. That is, they begin to discover if there is a raie for them to take.

Role as usedhere is differentiatedfrom the behaviourexpectedof the personby others, je assumedin their minds. The foie 1 asa personassume we cali 'psychologicalfoIe'; the foie which others expectof me we calI 'sociological foIe', which becomespart of the context in my finding, making and taking the psychologicalfoie.

Th. GrubbInstitut.

The aRA developsasthe consultantoffers hypotheses to the client basedon his working experience,which beginsto lead to the transfomlationofhis behaviouras he takeshis foie. The person'makes' the foIe by identifying not only the sim of the systembut also its structures, technologies,ethics,culturesand the types of peoplewho work there with their expectations.

The person needs to know hirnself and the intellectual and emotional contributions which he can offer to the system. He also needs to be knowledgeable about the context in which the system operates in order to take account of threats and opportunities for its well-being. As can be easily seen, at aIl phases of this exploration the client will continue to fmd, make and take bis foie it is a never-ending recurring process.

Since the head of the client institution is the one on the outer boundary, interfacing both intemally and extemally with the context, we prefer to start with him as the client and then to work with other people in the organisational structure who manage subsidiary boundaries, although some will also work on the outer boundary with the head.

Central to the aRA process is the construct of organisation-in-the-mind,

which will also be

subject to new perspectives as the aRA proceeds. The more the client can become sensitive to the unconscious construct of institution-in-the-mind, the more he is likely ta fmd new energy and

see new possibilities for bis work, personally and corporately. This will be enhanced if the client is able to think and experience the systemic dimension ofhis behaviour as being influenced by and influencing colleagues and others.

An illustration of the effect of aRA in practice cornes from an aRA with the headteacher of a secondary school in central London. This school took pupils from socially disadvantaged homes and had a local reputation for being a 'sink' school for failing pupils. She drew a picture ofher school which showed a marked contrast between the warm and caring environment of the lower school and the pressured and chaotic environment of the upper school, where students were achieving very poor academic results on which the school's reputation was being based.

ln the process of the aRA she saw that they had so compensated the 'poor' pupils in the lower school by being sorry for them as they came into the school, that when they were in the rigours of the upper school, faced with the reality of public examinations, they were not equipped for the pressures of entry into adult lire.

The organisation-in-the-mind now compelled ber to see that she was flot coping with holding the whole system together as an educational institution. She had split the school into a 'good' lower school and a 'bad' upper school, and had organised the school to fulfil those projections. She then began to realise that ber unconscious institution-in-the-mind was that she was running the school as if it were a social work agency. She had to face up to whether she could take the staff along with ber to enable the school to be transformed into a place of education and learning.

The Grubb Institute

REFERENCES
J Hutton, JohnBazalgette,Bruce Reed(1997) "Organisation-in-the-Mind" in Developing Organisational Consultancy, Routledge
2

J Hutton (1997) 'Re-imaginingthe Organisation ofan Institution', in Integrity and Change, Routledge

W Carr (1999) "Can we speak ofthe spirituality of Institutions?" in The Hidden Spirit, CMR Press,MatthewsNC

Bruce Reed (2000) "JustPrisons" in Prison Service Journal, July 2000 No 130 E Shapiro& W Carl (1991) Lost in Familiar Places: making new connections between individual and society, Yale UP, New Haven

M Klein (1963) "Our Adult World and ifs Rootsin lnfancy" in Our Adult World and Other Essays,Heinemann,London

C Bollas (1987) The Shadow of the Object: Psychoanalysisof the Unthought Known Free AssociationBooks, London

L Hirschhom (1990) The Workplace Within: PsychodynamicsofOrganisational Life MIT Press,CambridgeMass

D W Winnicott (1971) "Transitional abjects and TransitionalPhenomena"in Playing and Reality, TavistockPublications,London

10

D Armstrong (1992) Why bas the Psycho-analytic approach had so little impact on institutionallife?, The Gmbb Institute, London D Armstrong (1991)The Institution in the Mind: Retlections on the relation of psycho-analysisto work with institutions, The Grubb Institute, London B Reed (1999) 'Organisational Transformation' in Leading, Managing, MinisteringChallenging Questions for Church and Society, CanterburyPress G Bateson(1972)Stepsto an Ecology of Mind, Chandler,New York L von Bertalanffy (1968) General SystemTheory, Hannondsworth:Penguin(1973) B Reed (2000) An Exploration of Role, The Gmbb Institute, London

12

13 14 15

The Grubb Inslilule

T0 transform human behaviour through organisational analysis and social research The lnstitute pursues fuis using systemicandpsychoanalyticdisciplines. lt works on the principle that humansciences gain meaningwhen seenin a theologicalframework. It collaborates with individuals, groupsand institutions in working with their experience to achievetheir aims and objectives. Sponsors and clients cornefrorn business, educational, religious, statutoryand voluntarybodies at local, national and intemationallevels. 1tbasa full-time professionalstaffwhich co-operates with a networkof associates in the UK, Europeand othercountries. The lnstitute is an independent, non-profit making charity with a voluntary, Clmstian council.

OThe GRUBB INSTlTUTE ~

The GmbbInstitute, CloudesleyStreet,London NI OHU Tel: +44(0)207278 8061 Fax: +44(0)20 7278 0728 Email: info@grobb.org.uk Website:www.grobb.org.uk RegisteredCharityNo. 313460, April2000