learning for leadership

[ 46 ]

Leadership & OrganizationDevelopment Journal17/6 [1996] 46–52

© MCB University Press [ISSN 0143-7739]

Learning for leadership

Wesley CarrDean of Bristol, Programme Adviser, The Tavistock Institute Group RelationsProgramme, London, UK

Addresses the question ofwhether individuals, usingpsychoanalytic insights, canlearn from their experience ofleadership. Believes thatleaders can develop insightsin an experiential manner andconcludes that most developthem by listening, hearingand responding.

Parts of this article weredelivered as the keynoteaddress to the Twelfth Sci-entific Meeting of the A.K.Rice Institute in Washingtonin May 1995.

Introduction

Kenneth Rice published Learning for Leader-ship: Interpersonal and Intergroup Relationsin 1965. The book is a mixture of report of aprocess and theoretical reflection on it. Theprocess later evolved into the so-called “Tavi-stock” model of learning through the study ofgroup relations in conferences. The first ofthese was held in 1957, when a conference fortraining in group relations was organized bythe University of Leicester and the TavistockInstitute of Human Relations. Subsequentlyconferences have been held at least annually.They have been sponsored by different bodiesover the years, but they are now widelyknown as “The Leicester” or “The TavistockConference’. The pattern of working has beenreplicated in many countries and some evolu-tion in design has occurred (Miller, 1989). Yet,although books and articles have been pro-duced, Kenneth Rice’s original work has notbeen superseded. Nor has the capacity of suchconferences to disturb settled positions and toencourage new learning diminished. Some-one who recently attended a conference in theUSA included the following paragraph in hisreport to his colleagues:

The thing that intrigues me about the Tavis-tock perspective is that it provides anextremely well developed vocabulary, logicand (most important) practice for under-standing and engaging with what I increas-ingly see as a key dimension of work in thenew economy – the place where the personaland the organizational, the “private” and the“public” intersect. At a time when, arguably,acuity about interpersonal and organiza-tional dynamics is becoming an importantpart of what it means to be an effective man-ager, the conference exposed me to a power-ful way of building a kind of insight, a waythat I want to explore further (Howard, 1995).

The writer has grasped the essence of theapproach. There are today many who offer toteach leadership. Books on the topic prolifer-ate and seminars abound. Their effectivenessis evaluated by the measurable impact thatthey immediately make on individuals andorganizations. The approach developed byRice and his colleagues is explicitly different.It is founded not on teaching but on learning.

An example of how this approach bothemerged and was radically applied may beseen in a development that occurred at anearly stage in the life of these conferences.The design originally included a series ofacademic lectures. These had two purposes:to provide some theoretical framework and“to provide a familiar form of teaching (myitalics) in what is otherwise an unfamiliar ...and strange experience” (Rice, 1965, p. 126).The lectures were soon abandoned in favourof further experiential working: the residual,and probably dependent, reliance on thefamiliar and on teaching was superseded bythe underlying commitment to learning. Thegeneral task – however it is refined in specificconferences – is to offer people opportunitiesthat they may or may not use for themselvesin whatever way they choose and their col-leagues allow. The corollary of this is a scepti-cal view about what may or may not belearned. Every conference is a new construc-tion. And because of the intensity of the expe-rience of participation there is a correspond-ing wariness of any immediate learning.These two points produce a third: little iswritten about what may be learned, since thismight appear to begin to circumscribe theopenness of the whole approach. Rice wrote:

In the field of human relations he [thetrainer] can provide opportunities for learn-ing; he can teach little or nothing. Thosewho come as students must have the chanceof learning or not learning, as they wish, orat least of learning at their own pace. Theprocess of learning is a process of “internal-ization”, of incorporating felt experienceinto the inner world of fantasy and reason(Rice, 1965, p. 24).

A similar looseness about both process andoutcome continues. The brochure advertisingthe 1995 Leicester Conference typically offersonly:

To provide opportunities to study the exer-cise of authority through the interpersonal,inter-group and institutional relations thatdevelop within the conference institution.

Learning

Underlying the theory of this approach to learn-ing about leadership is a psychoanalytically

[ 47 ]

Wesley CarrLearning for leadership


informed stance. But this does not imply thatthe task itself lies somewhere in the field ofgroup psychoanalysis. Occasionally languagemay be employed which appears to bring thetwo themes together, such as when someonespeaks of “the psychoanalysis of organiza-tions” (de Board, 1978), but this is a confusionof categories. Even less does a psychoanalyti-cally informed stance imply that the partici-pants are drawn from the therapeutic profes-sions. The earliest conferences had a prepon-derance of non-therapist members, althoughthere has been a discernible shift in members’backgrounds towards those who are therapeu-tically trained. Many styles of learning aboutgroup process have evolved since the 1950s andsome make claims to connections with theTavistock approach. But the core of the designwhich Rice and his colleagues initiatedremains an educational stance. Personal val-ues and needs are inevitably explored. Indeedmany participants in such conferences findthat they become caught up in changes intheir personal and professional lives. Never-theless, such matters remain for the scrutinyof the individual participant and are notexposed as material for the conference as awhole.

To offer learning opportunities is a differ-ent activity from that of making promises ofteaching. Not surprisingly, therefore, some ofthe major theoretical advances based on theseries of group relations conferences haveoccurred in thinking about the sort of learn-ings that are entailed. Barry Palmer haselegantly described the process of learningthat can be discerned in the conferenceapproach. Enlarging a theory of Bateson(1972) he discerns three levels of learning.Level 1 is that of merely noting some newphenomena. Members of a conference, forexample, as they join the process are oftenamazed by their experiences. They mostlydiscover that there seems to be an uncon-scious process at work in a group. Little moremay be said: the experience itself is all forthe moment. Level 2 moves from experiencetowards new insight. This is especially likelyto involve reflection on the way that con-scious and unconscious processes interact.How these two levels of learning occur andare experienced has again been welldescribed by Howard (1995):

Participating in this conference was noteasy. Indeed, on the purely personal level itwas often confusing, frustrating and occa-sionally painful. I have some questions inmy mind as to whether this is a function ofthe particular Tavistock method or whetherit is inherent to authority and group life. Atthe beginning of the conference I was moreinclined to the former view (Level 1). But as

the conference progressed I began to see thevalue of the method and how it could be usedto learn things about my own experience ofauthority and leadership that l would neverget access to in a more traditional setting(Level 2)[1].

Level 3, however, involves a major shift to adifferent set of inputs and responses. It isconcerned with change, as the participantdiscovers “a capacity to doubt the validity ofperceptions which seem unquestionablytrue” (Palmer, 1979, p. 142). In a later studyPalmer, in collaboration with McCaughan(1994), has extended this thinking by usingideas from Torbert and Fisher (Torbert, 1991;Torbert and Fisher, 1992). In this book theyhave made the shift from learning in generalto explicit learning about leadership. Theynote that what Palmer originally called Level3 learning requires both involvement anddetachment. It is a sophisticated stance andone which can be learned only through bothexperience and mature reflection on experi-ence. If someone is to learn to lead, then thiscapacity for detachment will be a distinguish-ing mark:

Dysfunctional and unjust organizations canonly be transformed by men and womenwho are capable of and committed to areflexive process of learning ..... The catch isthat ... it appears that very few peopleapproach life with this sort of non-attach-ment to the fundamental distinctions bywhich they define themselves (Palmer andMcCaughan, 1994, p. 100).

The style of learning

Rice and his colleagues devised a model forlearning that has on the whole remainedintact over the years. Each of its three basiccomponents is simple in itself. They are:holding, dynamics and the group focus. Manyeducational events are offered which containone or more of these. For example, a teacherin a classroom has to sustain a holding envi-ronment if the pupils are to risk themselvesin order to change through learning. Over theyears, too, as a result of the impact of thera-peutically founded thinking on groups andtheir behaviour, some awareness of theimportance of discerning a prevailingdynamic has become commonplace. Even,though possibly less so, the primacy of thegroup may be acknowledged. The originalityof Rice’s design as a means for learning forleadership lies in the way that the three arecombined and allowed to interact.

HoldingThe “holding environment” was first fullydescribed by Winnicott (1960). Focusing on

[ 48 ]



the bond between mother and child, he dis-cerned the environment which is required iffundamental human development is to occur.The mother has to be sufficiently empathetic(in Winnicott’s memorable phrase, “goodenough”) and able to tolerate aggression.Only so will the child gain a sense of self-esteem and discover that his or her powerfulimpulses can be used creatively withoutdestroying relationships. One consequence ofthe elaboration of this theory is that greaterattention has since been paid to the family asa system rather than as an agglomeration ofindividuals (Shapiro, 1982). Rice does not usethis language, but implicit in the design of theconference that he describes is the need forsufficient holding for the members. Hederives this thinking from Bion’s work ongroups which has been and remains seminal(Bion, 1961), though not slavishly. One task ofthe staff is to provide the conditions whichare necessary for any regression by the mem-bers and containment of their aggression anddisarray. They do this principally by workingto time and territory and to the educationaltask, especially by eschewing tendencies totherapeutizing.

DynamicsAt any moment during a group relationsconference four different contributors to theprevailing dynamics can be discerned. Howthey interrelate and interact is always com-plex, but this is the node around which learn-ing most occurs. The four are: 1 the individual member; 2 the specific event; 3 the occasion within the event; and 4 the conference as a whole.

Rice addresses this complexity in Learningfor Leadership (1965). But neither there, norin subsequent writings by him or others, isthere a successful attempt to convey the expe-rience. It is something that has to be under-gone. Nevertheless, we can to some extentclarify the dynamics.

During the conference the member is some-where on a spectrum from using others tobeing used by them. The individual workswith his or her internal world in the contextof both what is being projected into and fromthe self. This experience is intense, but it alsotakes place within a specific event. This maybe, for instance, a small study group, a largestudy group or an intergroup event, but thisevent itself runs for a series of sessions dur-ing which the individual’s experience willalter considerably as different dynamicsprevail. In particular the unconscious activ-ity which manifests itself in basic assump-tion behaviour is here discerned[2]. But all

such events can also be reduced to their com-ponent sessions, which brings a new dynamicto bear: what is happening between separatesessions that brings about a change withinthe next one? For example, take a small studygroup event of 12 sessions. The event buildsup its own dynamic culture: it is held in thesame place, with the same members and thesame consultant. It becomes familiar. Indeedamid the stresses of a conference it may evenseem sometimes so familiar that it becomes“home”. Yet the interactive dynamic betweenthe system of that event and the rest of theconference is compounded by theunconscious behaviour of the group withinthe series of 12 meetings, and all this takesplace within the setting of the conference as awhole, which generates yet another dynamic.

It is in thinking in this area perhaps thatmost developments have occurred sinceRice’s original work. In particular two topicsbecome prominent. First, is it possible to talkabout institutional transference and counter-transference? These themes, especially theformer, have a long history in individualpsychoanalysis. Recently, however, they havebeen perceived to be available for study inorganizations. In a group relations confer-ence the consultant works out of his or hercounter-transference. By that is understoodthe idea that feelings which are generated inthe consultant as he or she works with agroup are clues to what is happening in thegroup as a whole. Rice does not use this lan-guage and Bion (1961) is cautious with it. Butwhen we realize, as Freud recognized, thattransference is a universal phenomenon, theidea of institutional counter-transferencebecomes intelligible. Second, the distinctionbetween “relationship” and “relatedness”.The former implies at least some personalcontact. But the idea of “relatedness” is moresubtle: it describes the sort of connectednessthat we have with notions that are in themind. The concept of “the institution in themind”, although the phrase was not used byRice, has become crucial in thinking abouthow we learn for leadership. I return to thisbelow.

The group focusThird, the approach adumbrated by Riceunequivocally makes the group the focus ofattention and interpretation. This is not, aswith a therapy group, a means to assist theindividual in greater self-awareness andunderstanding. The group itself, and thegroup alone, is the focus of the study. In so faras, therefore, this is worked at, the experienceof such learning is always to enlarge theboundaries. The individual, for instance,discovers how he or she is always also part of

[ 49 ]



a social construct. Indeed for many duringthe conference there may be an experience ofpersonal dissolution: where does the groupend and “I” begin? But the group, too, isalways part of a larger group – for example,the conference as a whole. And then that toobecomes self-consciously part of even largergroups, such as nations or cultures. Suchenlarging creates its own new dilemmas.Barnes (1984) recounts how trainee socialworkers were thrilled by the way that theirhorizons were being enlarged through anapplied form of conference learning. Ulti-mately, however, they discounted it on thegrounds that it made the scope of their worktoo vast and would therefore require thatthey first did “world therapy” before theycould deal with an individual client. The riskof grandiosity is obvious. The way in which itcan be dealt with is through two discoveries:first, the importance of idea of a boundary;and second, the significance of role.

A typical conference brochure may includethe following:

Members will be able to explore the bound-ary between person and role and betweenthe inner and outer worlds of the individual.They can investigate various kinds of dis-crepancies: between an officially designatedrole and that which the individual seemscalled upon by the group to adopt; orbetween the authority formally delegated bya superior, the authority sanctioned bysubordinates, colleagues to clients, and theactual or imputed personal power that theindividual brings to his or her role .... Lead-ership may or may not be vested in a desig-nated leader. To lead may be thought of asmanaging a boundary between what isinside and what is outside. For example,there are boundaries between one group andanother, between a group and the organiza-tion, and between an organization and itsenvironment .... The kinds of institutionswhich we have also express underlyingprocesses in society. Political and economicideologies and the assumptions abouthuman behaviour that are associated withthem influence the sort of institutions thatwe think we need. Effective management oforganizations, therefore, requires someunderstanding of processes in society aswell as of what may be expected of an orga-nization and its leadership in the widersocial context[3].

The originality of Rice’s design and why itcan be claimed to offer a unique approach tolearning for leadership lies in the way thatholding, dynamics and the primacy of thegroup are held together. From this mixtureemerges a key concept for learning for leader-ship: the idea of an institution in the mind.

Institution and organization

A core event in a modern group relationsconference is the Intergroup Event whichdeveloped into the Institutional Event. TheIntergroup Event is an activity betweengroups where the staff are available to themembers as consultants. By contrast theInstitutional Event aims to examine the foun-dations of the conference institution as awhole, with all participants, whatever theirformal roles, present in the study[4]. In recentyears there has been a discussion as to pre-cisely what is available for study. Is it theinstitution or is it the organization? In thebrochure for the Leicester Conference 1995,for example, the description reads;

This event enables the study of the related-ness between the Working Conference, theTraining Group and the Staff in the confer-ence as an organization (my italics).

By contrast in 1994, and with variations formost times previously, it read:

This event involves all members and staff,and concentrates on studying the related-ness between them in the context of theconference institution as a whole (my italics).

It may seem recondite to discuss the differ-ence between institution and organization inthese texts. But the difference is importantfor the theme of learning for leadership, for itdraws attention to one of the most usefulconcepts that has emerged in the socio-tech-nical approach which underlies conferenceand consultancy work. This is the notion ofthe “institution in the mind”. Where what isinside and what is outside come together the“institution in the mind” is generated. Specif-ically it is made up of the projections andfantasies of all concerned (and that can be avery wide range of people). These becomenegotiation points as people deal with eachother and create the notion of an institutionwith which they work and around which theyjoin:

An organization is composed of the diversefantasies and projections of its members.Everyone who is aware of an organization,whether a member of it or not, has a mentalimage of how it works. Though these diverseideas are not often consciously negotiated oragreed upon among the participants, theyexist. In this sense, all institutions exist inthe mind and it is in interaction with thesein-the-mind entities that we live (Shapiroand Carr, 1991, p. 70)[5].

An example of this concept may be drawnfrom my own professional background. Iwork in Bristol Cathedral, one of the ancientcathedrals of the Church of England. To beDean of Bristol is to hold a wide range ofroles, some of them obvious and others

[ 50 ]



occupying a place in people’s unconsciousexpectations. An instance of the first might beas chairman of the executive body of thecathedral; the latter would be mobilized whenI function as a priest in liturgy or pastoralcare. Among these roles is that of fund-raiser.To persuade people to give, however, requiresthat I tap into and negotiate with people’ssense of the “cathedral in the mind”. A cathe-dral stirs up powerful fantasies and the asso-ciated projections are often painful. Yet thismix creates the “cathedral in the mind” everytime someone or some group gives to BristolCathedral. The institution that they are sup-porting is not just what they see, althoughthere is that external reality. As they givethey also mobilize an internal construct “inthe mind”. At the same time, of course, thecathedral in my mind (and in my colleagues’minds) is also renegotiated.

We may therefore propose a distinctionwhich is important for thinking about leader-ship. There is on the one hand the institution,which is ultimately a complicated set ofunconscious constructs in the mind. And onthe other there is the organization, thataspect of the institution that invitesconscious reflection and handling. The twothemes are not separable. It is difficult toconceive of an institution that does notrequire some organization. The connection isalso illuminating for the twin themes of lead-ership and management which have becomeconfused. We might make the following dis-tinction. An institution, being anunconscious construct, requires leadership.This calls for the capacity to be sensitive tohow powerfully oneself and others functionin the area of fantasy and projection. Withoutsome awareness of these dimensions to life,both of individuals (including oneself) and ofgroups and corporate bodies, the dynamicattachment that people feel to one anotherand to their institutions will be undervalued.The result can be an increasing, but usuallynot articulated, sense of discomfort with theinstitution and even dissociation from it. Bycontrast, the organization is that whichrequires management. It is the area whereremedies for problems can be supplied – achange in the system, an external consul-tancy or new technology. These are not to bediscounted, but they prove illusory as solu-tions to dynamic issues that reside in themind. We might speculate that one of theskills of the genuine leader is to be able tohold these two facets of institution andorganization together without forsaking onefor the other.

For illustration I will develop further theexample that I began above. The Dean of Bris-tol is the focus for many projections and

undoubtedly a myriad fantasies. It is difficultto know in prospect what to do in that role,although I am made acutely and uncomfort-ably aware of it when I get things wrong. Thisis because I am operating largely in the areaof unconscious activity that surrounds anypublic figure. But at the same time I am,among my other roles, chairman of the board(called the Chapter), chief executive, teacher,preacher, administrator, spiritual guide,representative and so on. The role of Dean,which relates chiefly to the institution of theCathedral, cannot be accurately described interms of management: on the whole I have tointerpret it to myself and others, but there islittle that I actually manage. Leadership –that is, someone who can sustain a workingvision for all concerned with the life of theCathedral that they are part of a whole – forall its richness and complications – is alwaysdemanded, and in the series of other roles Iam required to manage much.

It would appear, therefore, to be importantfor today’s learning for leadership to re-estab-lish a working distinction between “institu-tion” and “organization”. The former essen-tially resides in the unconscious and calls forleadership; the latter is largely to be foundand dealt with in the conscious world andrequires management. There is obviously adanger in so simple a classification and anysuch dichotomy is suspect: what is split offfrom what? But as a working definition it hasvalue. It also explains some of the problemsthat we see in institutions today. For thedemands of the organization call for peoplewho will get things done and, on the whole,disregard or discount the unconscious. Bycontrast the concept of institution calls forleadership, but to exercise that essentiallyinterpretative function may today beregarded as to over-conceptualize and compli-cate the theory and practice of management.Even if this way of seeing institutions andorganizations rings true, it may be seen astrying to deal with what is either inaccessibleor the preserve of the individual alone,namely the unconscious.

About the first conferences Kenneth Ricewrote:

I am now working on the assumption thatthe primary task of the residential confer-ences ... is to provide those who attend withopportunities to learn about leadership.Leadership involves sensitivity to the feel-ings and attitudes of others, ability to under-stand what is happening in a group at theunconscious as well as the conscious leveland skill in acting in ways that contributeto, rather than hinder, task performance.But increased sensitivity and understandingare means, not ends, and the end is the

[ 51 ]



production of more effective leaders andfollowers (Rice, 1965, p. 5) (my italics).

He then went on to explain that he could noteasily distinguish leadership from manage-ment – a problem not peculiar to him.

Learning about institutions

All conferences are to some degree reflectionsof the social context in which they take place(Rioch, 1979). They are not, and cannot be,isolated from society or culture. It is a majorpart of the opportunity for learning that thesocial complexity of the conference and itscontext is addressed. Over the years thedesign of the Institutional Event has changed,but usually to allow issues which are at anymoment becoming prominent in society to beexamined. But one problem which seems tobe endemic among staff and members alike ishow to sustain a sense of the conference“institution in the mind”. From the earliestdays, as Rice reports, the pressure in thisevent has been to emphasize management:

In an intergroup exercise[6] the staff are inconstant danger of imagining that they aremanaging an exercise for its own sake; thatis, that they are managing a communicationsystem, but not necessarily a learningprocess (Rice, 1965, p. 109).

Many managerial defences are raised. Forinstance, reports about what happened in asector become confusing and extended, as ifsuch data or information matter. This is notnew. Rice commented:

Certainly as director of the exercise I oftenfeel that I do not need to be told about mem-bers’ behaviour. I have only to observe staffbehaviour. That epitomizes what is happen-ing in the exercise (Rice, 1965, p. 111).

Questions about provision of resources tendto arise, as if the staff had falsely allocatedthem. The issue of communication (evenmore the bane of the modern conference thanin the early days) nearly always becomesprominent, and above all the excessive defini-tion of delegate status obscures the task.

This latter point is central to learningabout leadership. At the opening of the Insti-tutional Event the Director will usually dis-cuss how authority is delegated to andassumed by an individual on behalf of his orher group or set of groups. It is suggested thatauthority is best thought of as lying on acontinuum. At one end lies the minimalauthorization of the observer, who may goand watch and listen, but not speak for his orher group. Towards the mid-point we find thestatus of delegate. This person is authorizedto convey a group’s viewpoint and discuss it,but not to negotiate on its behalf. That role is

reserved for the other end of the spectrum,where we find the plenipotentiary. Represen-tatives with this authority may use their owndiscretion to speak and act on behalf of theirgroup. In terms of leadership we might saythat only the last position constitutes anyleadership, since by inference there have tobe some followers – those who have delegatedauthority to someone not only to representthem but to act on their behalf.

All of these concerns may be part of thedeveloping life of the conference as thisemerges for study in the Institutional Event.But they are all also potential defencesagainst learning. This manifests itself in thedifficulty which members sometimes expressover coming, as they often put it, “to thedoor” of the room where the staff is working.Part of this confusion may lie in the short-hand that is used. In the Institutional Eventthe staff becomes spoken of as “manage-ment”. This is correct: the staff collectivelytake responsibility for the boundary condi-tions that make the conference possible, espe-cially time, territory and task. But this work-ing concept frequently slides into the staffbecoming “the management”. This is anotion which is largely made up of fantasiesand projections. Yet when members come to“the management” that they are assuming itseems rarely as well interpreted as it mightbe. The term is initially accepted without itbeing perceived that this use tends to reifythe idea of the institution into somethingwhich is being “managed” in a conventionalsense. As a result the “institution in themind” which is both the object of study andthe point of major learning may becomeunnecessarily obscured. Yet precisely at thispoint leadership and management need dis-tinguishing. Because of the dependence thatis endemic in any institution, the staff areperceived as leaders – good, bad or indiffer-ent. It is not a role that can be rejected; it can,like everything else, only be interpreted. Yetin the conference the leaders – those aboutwhom fantasies are sustained – are also pre-sent as management of the organization thatenables the institution do its work – espe-cially task, time and territory.

The clue to understanding in this contextlies in the staff being able to hear that thepresenter is always “right” and their beingable confidently to address this hearing. Themember represents some image of the institu-tion, the unconscious set of pictures that isconstantly being renegotiated as the eventruns. This is different from merely some facetof the organization. When the InstitutionalEvent is simplified or treated too casually, thecontemporary culture of management andorganizations, which is basically about

[ 52 ]



getting things done, is unwittingly endorsed.As a result members and staff strugglearound themes in what I can best describe asa “quasi-consciousness”. Projection and fan-tasy are identified and named but adequatelyworking with them does not occur. As a resultstaff try to conform to the members’ expecta-tions that they will somehow “manage”and sosucceed only in confusing them. The theme ofauthority and its exercise may be intenselyscrutinized. But the larger and more signifi-cant concept of an “institution in the mind” islost and so the study of leadership isdisplaced.

Conclusion

Rice’s (1965) approach, as developed subse-quently, remains a lively one for learning forleadership. It is less interested in theory (thatwould be to learn about leadership) than indiscovering how to exercise leadership. Thedistinctive clue to this lies less in acquiringskills or techniques than in developing abasic, but under-used, human capacity, that ofbeing able not only to listen but also to hearand respond. When that is perceived, some ofthe standard issues of leadership whichperennially return may be differentlyaddressed. For example, the relationship andrelatedness between leader and followers, orthe question of whether anyone who leadsmust possess some form of charisma areviewable from a new perspective. Learningthrough such conferences is an unusual expe-rience. Many who have participated claimthat for them it provided a unique opportu-nity to learn for leadership.

Notes1 The references to the levels are inserted by me,

not Howard.2 There is a vast literature on this theme which

originates in Bion (1961). Rice describes itthus: “A basic assumption is a tacit assump-tion; and members of a group behave as if theywere aware of it, even though it isunconscious. Not only is participation in abasic assumption unavoidable, but it involveseach member’s sharing in the emotions towhich he contributes” (Rice, 1965, p. 12).

3 This is taken from the 1994 brochure for theLeicester Conference of which I was Director.

4 This distinction was not originally made. Itrepresents a refinement of conference design.

5 If I were writing this now I would argue thatwe should be more careful about “organiza-tion” and “institution”. I would also reckonthat “not often” is an understatement.

6 At this period there was no conceptual distinc-tion between the Intergroup and InstitutionalEvents.

ReferencesBarnes, G.G. (1984), Working with Families,

Macmillan, London. Bateson, G. (1972), Steps to an Ecology of Mind,

Ballantine, New York, NY. Bion, W.R. (1961 ), Experiences in Groups, Tavis-

tock, London.de Board, R. (1978), The Psychoanalysis of Organi-

zations: A Psychoanalytic Approach to Behav-iour in Organsations and Groups, Tavistock,London.

Howard, R. (1995), unpublished manuscript.Miller, E.J. (1989), The “Leicester” Model: Experien-

tial Study of Group and OrganizationalProcesses, Tavistock, London.

Obholzer, A. (1994), “Authority, power and leader-ship”, in Obholzer, A. and Roberts, V.Z., TheUnconscious at Work, Routledge, London.

Palmer, B. (1979), “Learning and the group experi-ence”, in Lawrence, W.G. (Ed.), ExploringIndividual and Organizational Boundaries,Wiley, London.

Palmer, B. and McCaughan, N. (1994), SystemsThinking for Harassed Managers, Karnac,London.

Rice, A.K. (1965), Learning for Leadership: Inter-personal and Intergroup Relations, Tavistock,London.

Rioch, M. (1979), “The A.K. Rice group relationsconferences as a reflection of society”, inLawrence, W.G. (Ed.), Exploring Individualand Organizational Boundaries, Wiley, Lon-don.

Shapiro, E.R. (1982), “The holding environmentand family therapy with acting out adoles-cents”, International Journal of Family Psy-chiatry, Vol. 3, pp. 69ff.

Shapiro, E.R. and Carr, A.W. (1991), Lost in Famil-iar Places, Yale University Press, New Havenand London.

Torbert, W.R. (1991), The Power of Balance, Sage,London.

Torbert, W.R. and Fisher, D. (1992), “Autobiograph-ical awareness as a catalyst for managerialand organizational learning”, ManagementEducation and Development, Vol. 23.

Winnicott, D.W. (1960), “The theory of parentinfant relationship”, International Journal ofPsychoanalysis , Vol. 41, pp. 585ff.

learning for leadership

Documents