The Invisible Revealed: Collusion as an Entry to the Group Unconscious

Gianpiero Petriglieri and Jack Denfeld Wood

Abstract earlier experience and all-too-familiar “dys- In group consultation, as in therapy, a functional” patterns of behavior. Whichever shared awareness of projective processes is our formal role in a group—as consultant or helpful to both consultant and client. If left member—we inevitably experience the constel- unaware, the flow of material can submerge lation of our unconscious complexes. All of us both. The consultant risks colluding with the can get “hooked” and “lose it” and regress to group by adopting their projections and then previous behaviors. We subsequently feel em- either withdrawing or acting out. When such barrassed or guilty and berate ourselves that we situations are “exposed,” they are usually “should have known” or “should have managed considered to be either professional embar- better” or “should have kept things under con- rassments or evidence of professional incom- trol.” petence. Yet careful investigation of the ex- Behavioral professionals are constantly perience of collusion can lead to a deeper warned by their teachers, supervisors, and col- understanding of the covert and unconscious leagues about the risk of losing their “objec- elements of working with a group. tive” and “unbiased” perspective—of “going ______native,” of having their “buttons pushed” and being “hooked” into their clients’ games, of Had we been a bit braver, we would have “falling out of role,” and so on. If this is a risk titled this article “The Importance of Collusion: when working with an individual client, it is Working with the Impulse to Withdraw and Act even more of a risk when working with a Out in Group Consultation.” Our aim is to ex- group, the gravity of whose psychological pull plore how consultants who find themselves col- is considerably stronger and much more multi- luding with their groups—and deploying de- dimensional. We are suggesting here, however, fensive behaviors such as withdrawal or acting that there is something to be said for allowing out—can profitably use those experiences as a oneself to be drawn into the emotional field of diagnostic instrument that can lead to a deeper a group—if it is done responsibly. working understanding of the unconscious di- The professional literature on group consul- mensions of the group’s life. We use the word tation does not generally support this view. “consultant” here to represent the behavioral Consider, for example, the subject of transfer- professional who works with a client group to ence and countertransference. Freud first men- foster its development or that of its members. tioned transference in 1895 in writing on the This broad definition includes educators, group psychotherapy of hysteria (Freud, 1895/1955, psychotherapists, organizational consultants, pp. 301-303). At their first meeting in 1907, project leaders, or organizational change Jung told Freud that the “transference” was the agents. Regardless of our training, beliefs, or “alpha and omega” of the psychoanalytic meth- preferred methods, none of us in such a role is od, and Freud replied, “Then you have grasped immune to the phenomena described in this the main thing” (Jung, 1946/1966, p. 172). At article. that point, the concept was not original. Trans- ference was just “a reincarnation of what had The Limits of Control been known for a century as rapport [to hypno- Groups provoke the best and the worst in all tists]. . . . Freud’s innovation lay not in intro- of us. They provide the ideal terrain for touching ducing the notions of resistence and transfer- sensitive spots, which can lead to regression to ence, but in the idea of analysing them as a

332 Transactional Analysis Journal THE INVISIBLE REVEALED: COLLUSION AS AN ENTRY TO THE GROUP UNCONSCIOUS basic tool of therapy” (Ellenberger, 1970, p. called in to repair a boiler (Berne, 1963) and 490). Psychodynamic theory and transactional the skilled surgeon performing “crisp” analysis agree that transference provides an interventions (Berne, 1966/1994). The surgical important learning opportunity for client and analogy was first employed by Freud consultant. Berne (1961/1975, p. 116) rec- (1895/1955, p. 305) to describe cathartic ognized the importance of transference in in- psychotherapy. Group consultation is neither dividual treatment and as a normal phenome- plumbing nor surgery, however, and no non in any group, occurring as it does toward one—regardless of his or her level of the therapist and between members (Berne, knowledge and skills or formal role—can enter 1966/1994, p. 154). More recently, transac- a group and be unaffected by its dynamics, tional analysis has been enriched by a more maintain a detached self-control, identify nuanced portrayal of transference and its place collective dysfunction, intervene with surgical in treatment (Clarkson, 1991a, 1991b; Moiso, precision, and establish control of the group. A 1985). surgeon makes contact with the physical body Countertransference—the projection of the of an anesthetized patient through latex gloves consultant’s internal psychic elements onto the and stainless steel blades. A consultant makes client group—is often viewed with some contact with the complexity of a group through ambivalence. Even authors who find it useful a largely irrational matrix of conscious and as a diagnostic instrument if it relates to the unconscious individual and collective client’s transference consider it problematic if psychological factors—thoughts, feelings, and it originates from the psychic tensions of the images. Consultants cannot avoid getting their consultant (Clarkson, 1991a; Novellino, 1984; hands dirty. To pretend they can restricts their Rycroft, 1983). For example, Reichard, potential effectiveness unnecessarily. Siewers, and Rodenhauser (1992) argued that The aim of control is a reassuringly in training groups counterproductive one. Most of us swing [countertransference] arouses the trainer’s between trying harder to establish and maintain own repressed impulses which further control and falling helplessly short of it. While complicates the interaction, turning a this may reflect a natural tension, it is the learning opportunity into a damaged consultant’s job to understand what is professional relationship, and interfering happening. It is not simply self-indulgent to with the participant’s right to learn. . . . ask, “What evoked that particular piece of my Once into such a situation, however, a self- past experience?” Nor is it enough to say, aware and knowledgeable trainer will “There I go again.” It is essential to ask why begin to analyze his own feelings, in order one “lost it” at this particular time, at this to take control of the situation. (p. 23, particular place, with this particular italics added) configuration of people. One’s Adult is a Berne (1966/1994) implied much the same helpful ego state from which to operate, but it thing—that control is the aim toward which is equally essential for the Adult to have a good group consultants should orient their working relationship with the Parent and Child. efforts—when he wrote that “group dynamics It is also helpful to see from which ego state the is the special branch of science requiring most fundamental need for control originates. serious study in order to attain the degree of It makes a difference. And while it is understanding necessary for effective unrealistic to expect that one can suspend self- leadership and control of a therapy group” (p. judgment, it is unfortunate if one is 21). immobilized by it. Parent control, Adult One might say that the whole of Berne’s control, and Child control are not the same. If theory and methodology for understanding and one can attenuate the adverse effects of critical working with groups is a brilliant form of self-judgment, then one can pose questions “intuitive engineering.” He described his work such as: “What was it in this group at this time with groups using two metaphors: the engineer led me to act irrationally?” The question and a

Vol. 33, No. 4, October 2003 333 GIANPIERO PETRIGLIERI AND JACK DENFELD WOOD provisional answer can provide clues to under- The wish to be relieved of a secret—without standing what the group is up to right now. becoming fully conscious of what it is—derives Whenever we are lost, confused, disappointed, from the intuition that the secret is at odds with or ashamed of what we have just done or felt, a group’s desired self-image, its collective per- it is helpful to pause and reflect. Guilt can be a sona. As with individual psychotherapy, any useful catalyst for curiosity, which can lead in developmental opportunity for a group presents turn to beneficial insight. Gut feelings and irra- a threat to its current identity, provokes initial tional reactions provide us with information not resistance, and constellates a defensive struc- only about ourselves, but also about the covert ture. When consultants enter a group, its pre- and unconscious dynamics of a group—dynam- disposition—marked by the wish for a solution ics that “dispassionate” observation usually and an avoidance of discomfort—will imme- misses. diately be attributed to them. The more the con- sultants want to be “good” and responsive, the Secrets and Solutions more they will be tempted to take charge of the Phillips (1995) tells us that “people come for problematic secret. As a result, their behavior psychoanalysis—or choose someone to have a and subjective experience will either begin to conversation with—when they find that they resemble that of the client group or appear as can no longer keep a secret. What was once its polar opposite. Racker (1968/1982) used the private has become, in spite of oneself, unbear- terms “concordant” and “complementary” to able; has become a means of recruitment, a describe these two alternative types of counter- message” (p. 33). Groups often contact consul- transference. tants for the same reason: There is a secret that For example, a group possessed by feelings they can no longer manage alone. Usually some of hopelessness may leave the consultant feel- subset of members feels something is wrong, ing that little can be done; “Why Don’t You, and while unable to put their finger on the Yes But” (Berne, 1964) is the consultation cause, they want to rid themselves of the disso- game par excellence. On the other hand, a nant feelings. The problem might manifest as a group that denies aggressiveness and pretends vague internal difficulty, as when a product de- to be polite—because aggression does not fit velopment team loses its creativity, or the prob- its desired self-image—may begin to irritate the lem might manifest as an external difficulty, as consultant. Sitting in a polite, mild-mannered, when a service team finds itself unable to meet and soft-spoken group, session after session, customer requests, even though there exists— the consultant may feel increasingly frustrated, or because there exists—a harmonious atmo- aggressive, and provocative—just the impulses sphere. And the client “wish . . . is to have the that the group is taking pains to avoid. The problems eliminated, not clarified” (Moylan, psychological mechanism that underlies these 1994, p. 51). dynamics involves a two-way projective process. At an archaic level, groups seek a consultant not to analyze and solve their problems, but to export them—locate them somewhere else— Projective Identification: Relief and provisionally within the consultant and even- Communication tually completely outside the group. Groups Projection and introjection are archaic and really do hope for a consultant who promises to unconscious means of simplifying a complex, remove their offensive problems and their em- ambiguous, and ambivalent reality—relieving barrassing feelings. If the problems cannot be oneself of unwanted psychic material via an- exported, perhaps at least the feelings can be. other person or, inversely, finding oneself In this sense, the function of a consultant is acting or feeling strangely different than nor- really the function of a scapegoat, literally—to mal as a consequence of a social interaction. carry the sins of the group off into the desert. It The psychological process of projection— helps if the consultant is aware that this is part locating largely unconscious elements of one’s of the job description. psyche elsewhere—was identified over a

334 Transactional Analysis Journal THE INVISIBLE REVEALED: COLLUSION AS AN ENTRY TO THE GROUP UNCONSCIOUS century ago, even before the early days of psy- Most schools of psychotherapy diligently choanalysis. Avenarius (cited in Jung, 1921/ analyze the cause of a particular symptom, but 1971, pp. 452-453) first introduced the term they rarely ponder the purpose. One of Jung’s “introjection,” but it was Ferenczi (cited in contributions was to consider both past cause Jung, 1921/1971, p. 452) who first defined in- and future purpose of psychological phenome- trojection as the opposite of projection, that is, na. In this teleological view, the symptom is as the incorporation of the object within one- understood as a “means to an end” (Jung, 1928/ self. Ferenczi was investigating occult phe- 1969, pp. 23-24). Whereas the origin of projec- nomena and noticed that “the patient could tive identification might be unconscious group evoke in the analyst, as though by thought repression, the purpose of the dynamic might transference, the disowned parts of himself” be to send the consultant a request for help and (Phillips, 1995, p. 22). Ferenczi had planned a to allow the client’s unconscious to reveal to book on “thought transference,” but Freud the consultant the origin of the group’s princi- urged him to abstain from publishing and pal difficulties and the scope of the potential discussing such interests (Brabant, Ffalzeder, & diagnostic field. It is then up to the consultant Giampieri-Deutsch, 1993). Such ideas ventured to disentangle the countertransferential aspects beyond Freud’s project, which was to assidu- of the experience. From both the group’s and ously avoid the “mud of occultism” (Jung, the consultant’s perspectives, “the projected 1961/1983, p. 173) and to keep psychoanalytic content is often held ambivalently and is both research well within the acceptable bounds of desired and feared—too conflicted to be con- scientific inquiry. tained within oneself but also containing a Thirty-five years after Ferenczi, Melanie positive valence that draws the subject toward Klein (1946) revisited the concept, observing it” (Horwitz, 1985, p. 24). The consultant con- that projection and introjection characterized sequently becomes the embodiment of what the the unconscious communication of affect be- group is attempting to reject—and at the same tween preverbal children and their mothers. time the personification of what it eventually She called this phenomenon “projective iden- needs to examine and integrate. tification.” Her contemporary, Wilfred Bion, From the point of view of the client group, considered projective identification to be a cen- the purpose of projective identification is to tral dynamic in group relations. From the point “move” the consultant in two ways: to fill the of view of the client, projective identification is consultant with the group’s feelings and to “a psychological mechanism by which the indi- mobilize the consultant to act on behalf of the vidual tries to manage an uncomfortable ex- group’s defenses. From the consultant’s per- perience by dissociating from it and inducing spective, the purpose of projective identifica- similar feelings in another person with whom a tion is to allow the projections to find a place continuing connection is established” (Shapiro within and then to “metabolize” them until they & Carr, 1991, p. 24). From the other side, Bion can be returned in a less virulent form to be (1961/1998) vividly described the consultant’s used by the client. Grasping the elusive ele- experience of being manipulated into a group’s ments of a group’s psychology transmitted drama as a “numbing feeling of reality” (p. 149). through nonverbal means such as projective But projective identification is not simply an un- identification requires the consultant’s willing- desirable defense mechanism to be avoided; a ness to be spontaneously and deeply affected group’s repression of unwanted thoughts and emotionally while still maintaining the capacity feelings, their projection onto the consultant, and to reflect on the possible meaning and purpose the internalization within the consultant provide of the experience rationally. While containing a means through which a group and consultant and identifying the projected elements is half of communicate and establish a connection. The the consultant’s job, the other half is working more distressed the group, the more projective with the content “in such a way that the materi- identification is employed to deliver a message al becomes integrated at a more mature, realis- (Hirschhorn, 1988; Moylan, 1994). tic and adaptive level” (Horwitz, 1985, p. 34)

Vol. 33, No. 4, October 2003 335 GIANPIERO PETRIGLIERI AND JACK DENFELD WOOD and then reflecting it back in such a way that it unacceptable is different for different groups. can be incorporated into the group’s conscious In some groups it is conflict, in others it is in- experience. timacy, in still others it is something else. The “consultant-as-scapegoat” is then trans- Collusion can be gratifying or painful. For formed into the “consultant-as-oracle” who ar- example, when a group wishes to avoid inter- ticulates the unconscious thoughts and feelings personal tension it sometimes tries to seduce its that the group cannot yet allow into conscious- consultant into “taking it easy” and “enjoying ness and put into words. Like a medium, the our time together.” When a group needs an consultant allows a group to make contact and enemy, it can try to seduce its consultant, like have a conversation with its own unconscious a spoiled child provoking an indulgent parent domain and find out what it is up to. Unfor- into frustration and anger, thus providing the tunately, this does not always happen. When group with an appropriately despicable target the group’s projected emotions overcome the while protecting it against the exploration of consultant’s capacity to contain them—because uncomfortable feelings associated with needs of their intensity or because they catalyze the for tenderness and closeness. Social games consultant’s particularly sensitive psychologi- such as “Schlemiel” and “Kick Me” (Berne, cal spots—the consultant’s ability to accept the 1964) are helpful illustrations. To the extent material, to entertain and integrate it, and to that the collusive elements of the relationship reflect it in a way that is acceptable to the remain out of awareness, it is not helpful to group is temporarily impaired. A collusive rela- either the client or the consultant. And, at tionship results. times, even an acknowledged “awareness” (e.g., “I own it!”) can serve as a superficially Collusion: Let’s Play Together! plausible defense against actually getting out of Collusion has gotten a bad name for some the game. very good reasons. In colloquial English, the Looked at one way, managing the process of word “collusion” means a secret agreement for collusion is a function of relative accessibility fraudulent purposes, a conscious complicity in across two boundaries—one internal and one a scheme. Rather than an overt, conscious interpersonal. From the perspective of depth agreement, there is a covert, conspiratorial one. psychology, managing the internal boundary The psychological meaning of the word “collu- involves awareness of, and dialogue between, sion” brings in another dimension—the uncon- one’s conscious and unconscious domains. scious. The Latin root of collude is colludere, From the perspective of transactional analysis, literally, to play together. Most interpersonal managing the internal boundary involves re- transactions, as well as the more ornate social maining accessible to the experience of Parent pastimes, games, and scripts in which we find and Child ego states while staying in executive ourselves engaged, are anything but overt, contact with one’s Adult. The interpersonal di- straightforward affairs. Human life provides a mension, in contrast, entails the management of wonderful matrix for playing out our precon- the boundary between client and consultant. scious and deeply unconscious patterns. Consultants collude with a group’s attempt to For a consultant, collusion means influencing avoid discomfort primarily in two ways: with- and being influenced by the client group with- drawal and acting out. In cases of withdrawal, out being aware of it (e.g., doing what the consultants use their role as armor against the group unconsciously wants one to do, such as group’s projections, protecting themselves unwittingly playing a designated role in the inside defensive routines—a studied aloofness group’s unfolding drama). A related way to de- from the group or the use of arcane technical fine collusion is as an unconscious agreement language or jargon are then rationalized as between the group’s and the consultant’s de- maintaining requisite professional distance. fenses with the indirect aim of avoiding dis- Withdrawal can be physical or psychological. comfort. Discomfort arises with the prospect of Both allow the consultant to “lock in and carry experiencing the unacceptable—and the away” the introjected material without having

336 Transactional Analysis Journal THE INVISIBLE REVEALED: COLLUSION AS AN ENTRY TO THE GROUP UNCONSCIOUS to confront the group, either to avoid being of an organization, each will begin to represent soaked further in the group’s experience or to the views and feelings of that department to the have the pleasure of nursing the unpleasant rest of the team. In a sense, organizational ten- feelings. sions and conflicts are exported into the con- When withdrawal no longer suffices to man- sulting team (Alderfer & Simon, 2002). In eith- age a group’s projections, consultants can end er case, consultants begin to think, feel, and up using their role more aggressively as a behave as members of the client system cannot weapon and employ the defensive routine of allow themselves to think, feel, and behave. So acting out. Instead of containing the introjected taken diagnostically, being caught in a parallel material and returning it to the group in an ac- process can lead to a greater understanding of ceptable manner, consultants discharge it un- the invisible dimensions of a group’s life—if digested—that is, they blow off steam—either one is able to stop enacting the assigned role in the group or outside it. The group is tempo- on the social level and start reflecting on the rarily reassured that the problematic material experience at the psychological level. (e.g., aggression or depression) does not belong The recovery of reflectiveness and the rein- within its ranks. In either case, a consultant is statement of clinical curiosity about one’s acting irrationally in part on behalf of the group thoughts, feelings, and behaviors—and how and its defenses; it thus functions as a transfer- they might relate to the client system—occurs ential object with a diminished capacity to sooner when we cut ourselves some slack. In work in a reflective, quasi-independent, and our experience, this is more easily accom- collaborative manner. In such instances a paral- plished with the help of a colleague—a cocon- lel process is underway. sultant or supervisor. Even experienced consul- Parallel process in the psychotherapeutic lit- tants are at times acutely deskilled by a client erature has usually characterized the reenact- system, and debriefing one’s work with the ment of the therapist-client relationship within help of a trusted colleague allows us to peer the supervisor-therapist one (Clarkson, 1991a, into our darker corners. The following case is p. 181). Parallel process in group and organiza- an example of how such an after-the-fact recon- tional consultation leaves the consultant think- struction and reflection with the help of a col- ing, feeling, and behaving in ways consciously league can yield the diagnostic information unacceptable to the client. The group’s “unac- concealed in blurred feelings, sensations, fan- ceptable” thoughts and emotions are exported tasies, and actions. via the consultant. This phenomenon is often portrayed in negative terms and described as Case History: The Innovation Board “contamination” of the consultant or consulting It was Monday morning, and Arthur was team by its client group or organization, as if the looking forward to going to work. He had just feelings and way of looking at things were a returned from an experiential leadership devel- disease—something pathological to be avoided opment program and felt that what he had —rather than a psychophysiological phenome- learned was of great relevance for his current non to be explored. Such moments of “incompe- professional challenges. He had been promoted tence,” however, can be supremely diagnostic. to the position of global vice president for in- In cases of parallel process, a lone consultant novation six months before, and he was in- to a single group will begin to think, feel, or spired by the overall mission of his new job: to behave like some subset of the group, like the achieve excellence in innovation. His company group as a whole, or else like something (“the was a multinational corporation in a technology- rules”) or someone (“they”) external to that intensive industry. Its market leadership relied group. A consultant getting pushed into the role on continuous innovation within its product of a despised and punishing upper management portfolio, and the corporate strategy placed top can feel his Critical Parent getting hooked. In a priority on technological innovations. consulting team in which each member is re- Arthur’s predecessor had introduced the sponsible for looking at a different department Innovation Pipeline Process (IPP) to speed up

Vol. 33, No. 4, October 2003 337 GIANPIERO PETRIGLIERI AND JACK DENFELD WOOD and standardize product development efforts. The next innovation board meeting is in The initiative had been very successful, and two weeks, and I hoped you might be able IPP was highly respected and religiously fol- to join us and facilitate a 15-minute de- lowed. It had reduced the average time needed briefing of our decision-making process to develop a new product—idea to market—by after each project presentation. I believe it 60% and had brought corporate headquarters is important to review the group process within the innovation loop. right after the action, isn’t it? While product development took place in the Donald suggested that it might be helpful if he different business units, all projects beyond a and Arthur met before moving ahead, and a few certain size had to gain approval from an “in- days later he traveled to his potential client’s novation board.” Arthur was the chair of this office. Arthur was in his late fifties and had group of high-ranking senior executives, whose been with the company for almost 20 years. cumulative field experience topped several Donald had been in organizational consultation hundred years, with its members having for several years. During their meeting, Arthur worked their way up in the industry. The group was welcoming and enthusiastic and shared his included directors sitting on the company’s feelings openly from the start. executive board, heads of business units, and a All in all, I think the innovation board is handful of other managers in relevant roles. not very good emotionally. The room is The innovation board met once a week for a often filled with tension and disappoint- half day to review four or five projects. Its ment both on our side and on the part of members always took the same seats around a the project managers. Sometimes we have U-shaped table: Arthur sat in the middle, with a good presentation and a smooth deci- two executive board members on either side. sion process; at other times either the pre- Opposite them was the screen that the project sentation or the decision or both are poor. managers used for their presentations. They I feel we need to improve. were young engineers or marketing experts Donald asked what the tension was about. who, after two or three years of solid perfor- The project managers come into the room mance, were given leadership of a project team eager to make a good impression and get of a potential new product. Each project mana- approval for their project—and they take ger had 40 minutes of the innovation board’s every comment very personally. No one time to give his or her pitch, after which there would come in front of us saying, “We was a discussion. At the end of the allocated should terminate my project because it time, the board decided either to sign an au- isn’t going to work.” The innovation thorization to continue with the project or to board wants to make sure that the new terminate it. Meeting the innovation board rep- product makes sense for the company. So resented a major milestone in the IPP and was what often happens is that a member of a moment of high personal visibility for project the innovation board will ask questions managers. —you know, we have people with decades Recently, the company was having difficulty of experience here—and the young project releasing new products on schedule while manager will defend himself with big num- maintaining high standards of quality and bers, market data, and so on. Sometimes safety. Arthur felt pressure to bring the inno- he will respond to a marketing concern vation process back on track and suspected that with a technical argument, or vice versa. the innovation board had something to do with You can watch the rift expand right in the problems. Why not bring in a behavioral front of your eyes. The innovation board consultant specializing in group work? Arthur members are on one side of the table, feel- contacted Ronald, a business school professor ing misunderstood and trying to read be- whom he knew, who in turn referred Arthur to tween the lines to spot the project’s con- his colleague, Donald. Arthur then contacted cealed weaknesses. The project manager Donald and explained his plan: is on the other side, feeling that months of

338 Transactional Analysis Journal THE INVISIBLE REVEALED: COLLUSION AS AN ENTRY TO THE GROUP UNCONSCIOUS hard work are being misunderstood, unfairly Donald: Why do you want an external questioned, and unappreciated by people who consultant rather than chairing it your- haven’t done a single customer interview. self? Donald remarked that there seemed to be a Arthur: I could—I mean, if I were not the lot of emphasis on making a good impression facilitator—I could take a chance at and not losing face in the dynamics Arthur de- sharing my views, but I thought it would scribed. The seating diagram, which Arthur had be better if I brought in a professional drawn at Donald’s request and which was solution. Nothing less. described earlier, was revealing (Berne, 1963, Donald: How open do you think the other 1966/1994). It suggested a tribunal rather than innovation board members will be? a cooperative problem-solving session. Arthur Arthur: Well, if you start pointing out what agreed. goes wrong, the discussion might open I would like each project manager to come up. Probably two or three members will out of the room thinking, “I have received think, “This is great, let’s go for it,” and assistance and help.” But many psycholo- the others will be scattered across the gists have told us that we are very hierar- board all the way down to thinking, chical. And I think we do a poor job at as- “Arthur is crazy.” But I thought of send- sisting and coaching our “high poten- ing them an email before the meeting tials.” We give them plenty of resources— announcing the initiative and attaching I mean money, technologies, people—and your résumé. we think that that should be enough. What Donald was growing uncomfortable at the else do they need? We conclude, incor- prospect of walking into the innovation board rectly, I believe, that if they can’t figure it with the expectation that he could successfully out, there must be something wrong with facilitate a meaningful debate on their un- them. In addition, I am not sure the inno- spoken issues in a 15-minute slot sandwiched vation board as a group is making the best between their regular activities. The time decisions it can on the projects. I am the would be short, he would have little authoriza- chair and I try to sense and summarize tion from the client group, and the organiza- where the group stands at the end of each tional culture did not seem to encourage open discussion. But it is not easy. You see, the discourse among executives from different weakness of my position is power. I am hierarchical levels. It was highly unlikely that not a business unit head or a board mem- the project managers would offer meaningful ber. I am a weak colleague—only a mod- feedback at the same time that their project was erator. under review. Finally, there was a high prob- Donald summarized Arthur’s two objectives: ability that other innovation board members repositioning the innovation board from a judg- would think the whole thing was imposed on ing entity to a resource for project managers them and that the consultant was there solely to and improving the transparency and effective- further Arthur’s agenda, whatever that might ness of the group’s dialogue and decision mak- be. The discussion risked falling flat or break- ing. The following exchange ensued: ing into open warfare. Donald: How do you think a 15-minute Therefore, Donald proposed an alternative debriefing chaired by me will help you approach: He would draft an initial proposal achieve your goals? for a cycle of planned change (Kolb & Froh- Arthur: I figure you might stir up some of man, 1970; Neumann, 1989), and Arthur would these issues that we never talk about. present it at the next meeting. If the group One thing that I learned in the lead- agreed, Donald would then join them in the ership course I took is that a “process following session for discussions of the pro- review” needs to happen right after the posal and relevant topics; this would also give action so the heat is still there and him the opportunity for some first-hand data change can be faster. collection. Arthur agreed, although his spirits

Vol. 33, No. 4, October 2003 339 GIANPIERO PETRIGLIERI AND JACK DENFELD WOOD seemed to have plunged. As the meeting drew successful consultation or not? After all, he had to a close, Donald asked him how he felt about avoided getting Arthur—and himself—into their conversation. trouble with the innovation board. On the other I feel like you are telling me, “Your idea hand, he had failed to convince anyone of the of the debriefings will not work; however, need for a more thorough and systematic diag- there may be a better way.” This conver- nosis of their difficulties. In addition, he lost sation has been helpful in clarifying how the work with the client. we’ll proceed, but not how the change will Several months later Arthur called. He was happen. again cheerful and thanked Donald profusely Sitting in the taxi on his way home, Donald for his advice. The innovation board had found felt relieved. He thought he had done the right out that they needed to engage the project thing; this way he could eventually become the managers more closely, and Arthur was putting whole group’s consultant rather than a useless in place a process to coach them before their crutch for its apparently powerless moderator. presentations and to obtain their feedback after- He could not help feeling also disappointed, ward. He reported that the discourse about de- however. He should have done better in the cision making was more open. He wished meeting. It was not so much embarrassment for Donald a Merry Christmas. not having had an immediate solution on hand, Donald felt puzzled. On the one hand, Arthur but regret at not having been able to win seemed genuine when he said he had found Arthur’s respect and trust in his approach. their brief contact helpful and enlightening, and Donald worked hard on the proposal and sent Donald had been paid promptly for the short it to Arthur for feedback and changes. Arthur consultation. With or without him, the client never called back. Donald tried to reach him organization was working on the changes it several times but could only get through the desired. On the other hand, Donald wondered day before the innovation board meeting. why he felt unappreciated. Arthur was in a hurry. Wish me good luck. I have not read the Case Analysis proposal yet, but I most certainly will be- As a consultant, it is helpful to ask oneself fore the meeting. Let’s hope I get “buy in” from time to time, who is the client now? Is it from my colleagues. the person with whom you speak? Is it the Donald replied that it would be helpful for the group the person represents? Is it the whole or- proposal to be circulated and kept to himself ganization? In this case, in retrospect, it was as his disappointment with his client contact’s if Donald consulted with the ghost of a group lack of involvement in reviewing and suggest- he was never to meet. A consultant does not ing modifications to the document. Two days need to meet all the members of a group to be later, Arthur called again. working with it, anymore than a therapist needs I have some bad news and some good to meet all the members of a patient’s family to news. The bad news is that the innovation be working with the family system. board has decided that we do not want to Arthur met Donald primarily in the role of have an external consultant. The good innovation board representative. Therefore, his news is that we are going to debrief our in- behavior was not merely a function of his indi- teractions after each project review starting vidual psychology; it expressed both conscious from the next meeting. They want me to fa- and unconscious aspects of the “spirit” of his cilitate. And by the way, I understand your group. Consciously or not, Arthur behaved ac- concerns now. If you came in without this cording to the group’s norms, and as the inter- discussion, it would have been a useless— action unfolded, the client-consultant pair en- possibly even counterproductive—move. acted the distant and often adversarial relation- As he hung up the phone, Donald again felt ship between the innovation board and the the mixture of relief and disappointment. He project managers. Beyond the spoken words, could not make up his mind: Had this been a Donald and Arthur were captured in a parallel

340 Transactional Analysis Journal THE INVISIBLE REVEALED: COLLUSION AS AN ENTRY TO THE GROUP UNCONSCIOUS process and staged a core issue on which the no place in the innovation board’s desired self- innovation board needed to work: the difficulty image. of achieving a creative partnership for the pur- Let us now explore further the purpose this pose of producing an innovative solution. group culture might have served. At one level, Arthur was trying hard to demonstrate that he Arthur and Donald, in their short meeting, un- had identified the problem, and he was ready to consciously embodied and enacted a major or- act decisively and provide a solution. He was, ganizational struggle. At a deeper level, it was therefore, disappointed at Donald’s request to perhaps an archetypal, intergenerational strug- slow things down. Donald felt that Arthur gle as well. In a company that rewarded up-to- wanted to intrude into his area of expertise and date technical expertise, the young and upcom- use him as a professional “pair of hands” ing project managers fought with the senior and (Block, 2000) or “hired gun” to implement the more experienced innovation board members, solution on which Arthur had already settled. with each side attempting to show the other Had he done the 15-minute debriefings follow- they were on top of things—in part to gain in- ing the innovation board’s decisions, without fluence through their ideas, in part to cover a an established relationship of trust with the fear of being incapable of contributing signifi- group, he would have set himself a task with an cantly and maybe even of being useless. As the extremely low probability of success. progress of innovations, quality, and safety Donald proposed a collaborative approach to lagged, uncertainty increased for everyone at organizational change (Schein, 1999) in which the innovation board meetings: the board mem- client and consultant shared responsibility for bers, the project managers, and Arthur. The in- diagnosing the issues the client group needed to novation board retreated behind structure and work on and for designing and implementing procedures. Even the seating arrangement was an ad hoc intervention. Arthur seemed upset by set. Ideas were to be treated more like finished Donald’s concerns and lack of a clearly deline- products to “sell” and “buy” than as creative ated technical solution. Like the project mana- works-in-progress. Solutions were the currency gers, the consultant was asked to provide a of power and influence—the artifacts of ambi- crisp, well-packaged, professional solution tion and the substitute for security. The psycho- rather than to develop a cooperative working logical modus operandi of the innovation board relationship with the innovation board. Donald encouraged the extrusion of any possible fear had no technology to sell. He offered a service, of failure. And everyone colluded in this. As he but he could not guarantee what the outcome left the meeting, Donald felt unsettled about his would look like that early in the project. performance. Apparently so did Arthur about Arthur appeared more interested in judging the result. In a similar fashion, it seemed that the quality of Donald’s alternative “solution” the innovation board disowned its uncertainties than in creating one together. This also re- about innovation and projected them onto the flected the culture of the innovation board. project managers, who were uncertain enough Donald’s approach violated all aspects of the about presenting finished technical solutions. group’s culture as described by Berne (1964). The organizational pressure was to provide re- The innovation board’s technical culture privi- assuring solutions that purported to guarantee leged predictable, standardized, reassuring the future success of a project and, by exten- “technologies.” The group’s etiquette pre- sion, of the company. scribed a professional persona with a high Both Donald and Arthur pledged to support value placed on being “in control.” Finally, the other while both resisted a closer collabora- according to the group’s character, departure tion. Arthur’s implicit refusal to work on the from professional intercourse was acceptable proposal and Donald’s declining the invitation only in the case of fact-based attacks and con- to attend the meeting both showed ambiva- frontations. The kind of collaboration that lence. Arthur was the initial conduit through could acknowledge and tolerate doubt and which the tensions encompassed in the uncertainty was simply not welcome. They had innovation board process were exported else-

Vol. 33, No. 4, October 2003 341 GIANPIERO PETRIGLIERI AND JACK DENFELD WOOD where. In two hours with Arthur, Donald had their own experiences a sense of the issues accumulated more diagnostic data than he that are important to the organization. (p. could possibly integrate and formulate immedi- 81) ately. He was unconsciously “loaded” with the However, using one’s whole self as an instru- same projected anxiety that the project mana- ment as described in this paper requires “a spe- gers experienced when they faced the innova- cial commitment to introspection and personal tion board. And without much awareness, he scrutiny” (Smith, 1995, p. 277). took over the group’s uncertainty and started A “good enough” knowledge of oneself does acting according to the group’s culture. Donald not lead the competent professional to be de- could have gone to the meeting not to facilitate tached and unaffected. It allows him or her to a debriefing, but to support Arthur and discuss be affected responsibly and purposefully by the “their” proposal. Of course, he would have had client system. In preparation for consulting to to contain the discomfort of being questioned a therapy group, Berne (1966/1994) wrote, by an intimidating group of senior executives “[The therapist] will examine his motives and as he invited them to work together with him fortify himself against temptation or exploita- on the issue at hand. Rather than providing a tion of his weakness” (p. 20). In our view, how- well-packaged solution to a problem, Donald ever, the consultant’s job is not to resist those would have had to admit publicly his uncer- temptations, but to be able to experience them tainty about both the problem and the likely without fending them off or giving in to them. outcome. This could have modeled the changes Through intense personal work, consultants that Arthur was trying to effect, but unfortu- develop a deeper familiarity with a wider range nately, the insecurity projected by the whole of experience. Therapy, after all, is an exercise innovation board triggered his own doubts in tolerating humanity. Reflection can only oc- about being competent as a solutions-oriented cur if we have permission to acknowledge and organizational consultant. At the time, he was tolerate our experience and behavior. The alter- unable to contain and reflect on his experience. natives are collusive withdrawal and acting out. Instead, he colluded with the innovation Working with groups and organizations re- board’s attempt to disown the inevitable uncer- quires the capacity to be pulled into the group’s tainty that goes with any innovation process. psyche and to reemerge with a deeper under- He reacted to the prospect of that discomfort in standing of the struggles our clients face—and a defensive fashion and used his role as armor, we with them. Maybe consultation is like surf- trying to convince himself that he had really ing. Paddling against the waves and ducking declined the invitation in order to follow the your head under water is necessary to reach the appropriate procedure of a collaborative ap- lineup. But once you are on a wave, there is no proach. In reality, he had dived for cover to es- place for the illusion that you can control its cape from his own anxiety. force. On the other hand, you do not passively resign yourself to being carried away. Surfers Conclusion try to use nature’s energy for their purposes, Reflecting on our experience and behavior keeping a sense of where they are trying to go during our work with groups often yields im- and how. Wipeouts, of course, are an integral portant insights into the group itself. Shapiro part of it. and Carr (1991) argue that we might define consultants as individuals who, in Gianpiero Petriglieri, M.D., is a psychiatrist using and interpreting their feelings in who works as an independent management and their roles, stand both inside and outside organizational development consultant and as themselves, and both inside and outside a psychotherapist in private practice. He is a their organizations. . . . Such consultants member of the National Training Laboratory become immersed in the dynamics of the (NTL) Institute for Applied Behavioral Science organization and consciously try to and a Regular Member of the ITAA. discover within themselves and through Jack Denfeld Wood, Ph.D., is a professor of

342 Transactional Analysis Journal THE INVISIBLE REVEALED: COLLUSION AS AN ENTRY TO THE GROUP UNCONSCIOUS organizational behavior at the International Jung, C. G. (1966). The psychology of the transference. In H. Read, M. Fordham, & G. Adler (Eds.), C. G. Jung: Institute of Management Development (IMD) The collected works (Vol. 16, pp. 163-323) (2nd ed.). in Lausanne, Switzerland. He is also a psycho- London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (Original work therapist in private practice and a diploma published 1946) candidate at the C. G. Jung Institute in Zurich, Jung, C. G. (1969). On psychic energy. In H. Read, M. Fordham, & G. Adler (Eds.), C. G. Jung: The collected Switzerland. works (Vol. 8, pp. 3-66) (2 nd ed.). London: Routledge & Please send reprint requests to Dr. Wood at Kegan Paul. (Original work published 1928) IMD, 23 Chemin de Bellerive, 1001 Lausanne, Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological types. In H. Read, M. Switzerland; email: [email protected] . Fordham, & G. Adler (Eds.), C. G. Jung: The collected works (Vol. 6). London: Routledge. (Original work published 1921) REFERENCES Jung, C. G. (1983). Memories, dreams and reflections. Alderfer, C. P., & Simon, A. F. (2002). Nonresponse rates London: Harper Collins. (Original work published to organic questionnaire items as evidence of parallel 1961) processes during organizational diagnosis. Journal of Klein, M. (1946). Notes on some schizoid mechanisms. Applied Behavioral Science, 38, 415-435. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 27, 99-110. Berne, E. (1963). The structure and dynamics of organiza- Kolb, D., & Frohman, A. (1970). An organizational devel- tions and groups. New York: Grove Press. opment approach to consulting. Sloan Management Berne, E. (1964). Games people play: The psychology of Review, 12, 51-56. human relationships. New York: Grove Press. Moiso, C. (1985). Ego states and transference. Transac- Berne, E. (1975). Transactional analysis in psycho- tional Analysis Journal, 15, 194-201. therapy: A systematic individual and social psychiatry. Moylan, D. (1994). The dangers of contagion: Projective London: Souvenir. (Original work published 1961) identification processes in institutions. In A. Obholzer Berne, E. (1994). Principles of group treatment. Menlo & V. Zagier Roberts (Eds.), The unconscious at work: Park, CA: Shea Books. (Original work published 1966) Individual and organizational stress in the human ser- Bion, W. R. (1998). Experiences in groups and other vices (pp. 51-59). London: Routledge. papers. London: Routledge. (Original work published Neumann, J. E. (1989). Why people don’t participate in 1961) organizational change. In W. A. Pasmore & R. W. Block, P. (2000). Flawless consulting: A guide to getting Woodman (Eds.), Research in organization change and your expertise used (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey development (Vol. 3, pp. 181-212). Greenwich, CT: JAI Bass Pfeiffer. Press. Brabant, E., Ffalzeder, E., Giampieri-Deutsch, P. (Eds.). Novellino, M. (1984). Self-analysis of countertransference. (1993). The correspondence of Sigmund Freud and Transactional Analysis Journal, 14, 63-67. Sandor Ferenczi (Vol. 1, 1908-1914). Cambridge: Har- Phillips, A. (1995). Terrors and experts. London: Faber vard University Press. and Faber. Clarkson, P. (1991a). Further through the looking glass: Racker, H. (1982). Transference and countertransference. Explorations in transference and countertransference. London: Maresfield Reprints. (Original work published Transactional Analysis Journal, 21, 174-183. 1968) Clarkson, P. (1991b). Through the looking glass: Explora- Reichard, B. D., Siewers, C. M. F., & Rodenhauser, P. tions in transference and countertransference. Transac- (1992). The small group trainer’s survival guide. Lon- tional Analysis Journal, 21, 99-107. don: Sage. Ellenberger, H. (1970). The discovery of the unconscious. Rycroft, C. (1983). A critical dictionary of psychoanaly- London: HarperCollins. sis. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin. Freud, S. (1955). Psychotherapy of hysteria. In J. Strachey Schein, E. (1999). Process consultation revisited: Build- (Ed. & Trans.), The standard edition of the complete ing the helping relationship. Reading, MA: Addison- psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 2, pp. Wesley. 253-305). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work pub- Shapiro, E. R., & Carr, A. W. (1991). Lost in familiar lished 1895) places. New Haven: Yale University Press. Hirschhorn, L. (1988). The workplace within: Psycho- Smith, K. K. (1995). On using the self as an instrument: dynamics of organizational life. Cambridge: MIT Press. Lessons from a facilitator’s experience. In J. Gillette & Horwitz, L. (1985). Projective identification in dyads and M. McCollom (Eds.), Groups in context: A new per- groups. In A. D. Colman & M. H. Geller (Eds.), Group spective on group dynamics (pp. 277-294). Lanham: relations reader 2 (pp. 21-35). Washington, DC: A. K. University Press of America. Rice Institute.

Vol. 33, No. 4, October 2003 343