Colophon

Originally published in Dutch by: Ed J. Baas, the Netherlands, 2009 as thesis from the Change

Management Course at the Free University of Amsterdam.

Thanks to: CvBp® (Centre for experience psychology). www.CvBp.nl

All parts of this publication may be reproduced, but it would be appreciated if you cited this source.

PREFACE

This booklet results from my fascination with the unconscious in people and organisations. I have written it as part of the postgraduate course Change Management at the VU University Amsterdam. This is not a subject that lends itself to obvious scientific research and language but I thoroughly enjoyed exploring and studying this subject under the supervision of Prof. Steven ten Have. This booklet is only the beginning. My objective is to understand unconscious processes and possibly construct models for them. This is not a simple task: there are only a limited number of publications about the unconscious while its scope is enormous, the resistance considerable and the final results extremely vague and uncertain. I have nevertheless set myself this task which could be comparable to explaining the colour red to a colour-blind person. I worked passionately on this task supported by ACTingPeople its stimulating environment and my colleagues there. For stylistic reasons I refer to the male individual but it goes without saying that this thesis relates to both men and women I hope that the subject will bewilder the reader, because only genuine bewilderment can pave the road to a greater awareness of the need to make the invisible visual. Ed J. Baas

PROLOGUE

Slowly but surely we are seeing a development in Change Management that lifts the subject – Change – above the stage of developing unqualified theories. This stage is characterised by a multitude of wide ranging and often conflicting opinions. Other characteristics are speculative ideas, strong viewpoints and a certain lack of understanding of context and situation. We also see an easy acceptance of gurus and a lack of empirical research and evidence-based work methods. Refreshing and creative ideas are still important even when we move on from the stage of unqualified theories. They will keep the subject field dynamic and encourage the search for contraindications and innovation. This booklet contains a number of ideas that could play such a role. It looks at the culture in organisations and clears the way to look at the nature of organisations. Nature is described as the unconscious, whereas culture refers to the conscious or even tangible part. In this viewpoint, culture is quickly changed through knowledge and awareness. There is the risk of getting sidetracked by a semantic and conceptual discussion about terminology such as culture, climate, collective memory, shared knowledge, basic assumptions and nature. This essential discussion should not be avoided. However, if it is held too early and entered into with too much at stake, it could smother a new concept –Nature- before inception. The concept of Nature could open the doors to more complicated, but equally relevant organisational realms or dimensions. We have to be careful that we do not ascribe to Nature the poorest manifestation of culture: everything relating to an organisation that we cannot explain. Nature could be the concept that will help us to understand behaviour (and its origins) that is not immediately visible and that is difficult to manipulate. For this reason alone we want to get to know Ed Baas’ views and explanations. As with wine, we can get to know it in two ways: as a wine lover or as a wine expert. The former will be looking for what is in the wine, the latter for what is missing. I am not sure which method will be the most productive, but I do know that the content is worthwhile. An idea could be to familiarise oneself with the concept as a lover first and then study it closer with the professional pretentiousness of an expert. In this way it will contribute to the further development of the product, the producer and most importantly to the subject area of change management. Steven ten Have Professor Steven ten Have lectures Strategy & Change at the postgraduate course Change Management at the VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Content Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Key questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 13 Current definitions of culture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 15 The individual. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 19

The individual. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 The individual and his unconscious. . . . . . . . . . . 20 The individual within the organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Culture and Nature as separate concepts. . . . . . . . . 29 Definitions of Culture and Nature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Culture close-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Culture: Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Culture: Adapted behaviour. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Nature close-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 The origin of Nature in organisations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 The conscious . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Collective Projection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Cultural Aspects: Behaviour and adapted behaviour... 44 Natural Aspects: The conscious and collective projection. 44 Adapted behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Collective projection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Implications for management. . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Awareness within the change process . . . . . . . . 49

What next? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Measuring and recognising adapted behaviour . . . . . . . . . 51

Verification methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 List of references. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

INTRODUCTION ‘To exist is to change, to change is to mature, to mature is to create oneself endlessly.’ Henri Bergson, philosopher

I have a fascination for individuals and their unconscious motives. I also have a fascination for organisations and how they operate, revitalise and evolve in their effort to adjust to the ever changing outside world. At first glance less successful organisations don’t seem to do anything wrong, but however neatly their processes, tasks and responsibilities are managed and made into sound procedures, their performance is still below the level of the competition. Why does a soccer team with the top eleven players in the world not become world champion? What makes some companies more successful than others, even though their visible services or products are seemingly the same? What made Ben Verwaaien (ex CEO British Telecom) capable of revitalising and leading BT to success? Could any other CEO have done the same or has he, unconsciously, addressed and revitalised the ‘typical characteristics’ that are the unconscious aspects of the organisation? Why do some organisations have disproportionally large numbers of individuals with lots of baggage (baggage = the negative past that is used again and again when changes occur)? The above questions, in combination with my areas of interest, are related to the subject of this thesis. The hypothesis I want to present is that in the current definitions of culture a distinction can be made between the Culture and the Nature of an organisation. My assumption hereby is that the individual is not only driven by conscious, rational and cognitive processes and motives, but also by unconscious ones. This assumption began with Freud (1856 – 1939) and is increasingly supported by other publications. My hypothesis is that the individual, partially driven by unconscious motives in his personal live, also makes a partially unconscious contribution to the organisation that he is part of. He therefore not only contributes in a visible and verifiable way but most certainly in an unconscious, and less definable way as well. I will divide both Culture and Nature into positive and negative aspects. Part of my hypothesis is also that organisations have their own, new and unique collective Nature that is not just a sum of individual Natures, but one with its own dynamics and characteristics.

KEY QUESTIONS

1) Can the currently accepted definition of culture adequately describe the values and beliefs, the myths and stories, symbols, structures and processes of an organisation?

2) If the answer is no, could we identify what element or part of the organisation is not

included in the definitions of culture even though it does have an effect on the organisation in its entirety?

3) If that is possible, could we view this element as a separate and independent

‘operational’ aspect of the organisational culture?

4) Can we develop a methodology that allows the change manager and/or leader insight into the effect that this independent operational aspect has on all the changes within the context of the organisation?

CURRENT DEFINITIONS OF CULTURE ‘If you have always done it that way, it is probably wrong.’ Charles Kettering, inventor

There are many definitions of the word culture in the literature. Kroeber and Kluckhonh (1952) already described 164 definitions of culture in 1952. They looked at culture within large social contexts of nations and tribes, but not at culture within organisations. As a result of industrialisation, organisations have become larger and therefore exponents of social networks. In the seventies, organisations were described as social networks that also had a cultural element, the so-called organisational culture; Turner (1971), Eldridge and Crombie (1974), Harrison (1976), Pettigrew (1979) and Hofstede (1980). Specific properties were ascribed to this organisational culture. Allaire and Firsirotu in Theories of Organisational Culture (1984):

Indeed, the proposition that organisations have cultural properties, that they breed

meanings, values and beliefs, that they nurture legends, myths and stories, and are

festooned with rites, rituals and ceremonies has been gaining rapidly in popularity.

Thus, the culture within organisations has values and beliefs, legends, myths and stories, rites and rituals and ceremonies as if the organisations were scale models of nations and tribes. In other words, it is the theatre where the employee can express his desires and qualities. The general tendency in the numerous descriptions is that organisations are, or should be, sociocultural systems that reflect the individual desire for structure and protection. The following citation refers to another important finding regarding the above mentioned properties of organisational culture (values and beliefs etc.):

Underneath the multiplicity of observable forms of organization may lurk some universal, immanent structure corresponding to the needs structure of members or, perhaps, of those

members more able to influence the nature and shape of the organization..() [they]come to

reflect in their goals and strategies the ‘value needs and preferences’ of their founders, chief executives or key managers.

Allaire and Firsirotu (1984).

We see here a key element in the definition of organisational culture. The authors indicate that they not only see other, hidden multiplicity in organisations, they also suggest that founders etc. play an important role in the reflection of beliefs, values and preferences. Furthermore, for the first time a link is made between the nature of an organisation and its shape or structure. Culture is a general form of rational, verifiable values and beliefs etc. as they play out within the organisational context. However, if we place the organisation’s culture into different structures, a variety of manifestations of this culture will arise. Harrison (1984) described the four types of structured culture: Power Culture, Role Culture, Task Culture and Person Culture. I mention this, because the manifestation of culture is not determined by the general characteristics of the culture, but by the structure in which it manifests itself. We can compare this to the individual who adapts himself to the existing environment or structure, thus revealing only a fraction of his characteristics.

THE INDIVIDUAL ‘It is not: “I think, therefore I am”, but “I experience, therefore I become”.’ Ed J. Baas

The individual What becomes of the individual who, via his employment, connects with an organisation and therefore, inevitably, with the culture of this organisation? The individual looking for a new employer in a new organisation will select the organisation for a variety of reasons. First of all he will make a choice on the basis of the opportunities in the organisation to use and develop his qualities, skills and expertise. He will also consider the financial aspects, the work place, travelling times, fringe benefits etc. These are rational aspects. However, people are not only rational, they also have emotions, urges and motives that go beyond rationality; Freud (1921), Jung (1933), Horney (1945), Erikson (1978). The individual not only bases his choice on the highest salary, the best fringe benefits and the shortest commuting time, but also on whether or not it ‘feels good’, if his intuitive ‘awareness’ fits in with the organisation and if he can feel at home.

One frequent proposal (cf. Malcolm, 1962) is that we draw an analogy from our own case to that of others. We find that a certain kind of stimulus situation will provoke in us

particular feelings, thoughts, wishes and actions; consequently, when we see another in

the same kind of situation and manifesting similar external behaviour, we infer by analogy that he or she has been having feelings and thoughts like ours.

John R. Maze & Rachael M Henry (1996)

Projection of one’s (emotional) aspects onto others is more often than not an unconscious rather than a rationally conscious process. In short, non-rational considerations play an important role. Kets de Vries (1991) put it aptly: ‘The myth of the rational organisation blew up ages ago.’

The individual and his unconscious ‘The price you pay for unconscious obedience is the loss of wholeness.’ Zweig & Abrams

The fact that people, as individuals, are not just rational but have unconscious motives as well, was first postulated by Freud (1856 – 1939). He described the precursor of the unconscious in the Studien Uber Hysterie (1896) which he wrote with Josef Breuer (1842 – 1925). His book Die Traumdeutung, about the link between the unconscious and the content of dreams, was published in 1899 (but dated 1900). Freud’s principle question was as to the why, whereas Jung (1875 – 1961) was more concerned with the wherefore. Freud saw the unconscious mainly as an element of urges and sexuality, whereas Jung (1933) saw it as a protective element to maintain ones balance. Before we move on, it is necessary to define the terms conscious and unconscious. Freud (1933) got away with it by stating that ‘the conscious part leaves no room for doubt’, which is not enough to substantiate this thesis. Paul Kline (1987) gives a helping hand in his article The Experimental Study of Psychoanalytic Unconscious, by citing Dollard and Miller (1950): ‘The conscious is that which we can put into words’. This also clarifies the definition of the unconscious as referring to the mental processes or state of being that we cannot put into words. This also includes what Freud (1933) called the preconscious. A characteristic of the unconscious is also that it takes an effort to become conscious. In terms of a consciousness threshold, the preconscious can become conscious sooner than the unconscious. Freud (1933). Freud’s students have written numerous articles describing the conscious and the unconscious in a wide variety of ways. One of them, Melanie Klein, stayed close to Freud’s thinking while others, such as Carl Jung and Alfred Adler, went their own way.

Jung added a distinction between the Collective Unconscious and the Personal Unconscious, the latter being the consequence of personal (negative) experiences. I quote from Eric van de Loo’s (2007) paper: Psychoanalyse en Organisatie.

...it is sometimes difficult for the small child to deal with intense fears, furies and frustrations that are evoked. (..).. It is essential that the experienced frustrations in relation to the outside world can lead to projections. That which is unbearable in one’s own person, is attributed to something in the outside world as an unconscious protective measure. Parts of the self are split off and, with the help of other defence mechanisms, projected in the other as idealisation and denial.

Eric van de Loo (2007) Projection is the transference of unconscious inclinations on people and objects outside us.

Nobody likes to admit to his own darkness. People who believe that their Ego represents their entire psyche, who don’t know its other qualities and don’t want to know them, have a tendency to project these unknown elements of their souls on the world surrounding them.

Jacobi (1967) Projection is not necessarily a bad thing. It allows us to get in touch with the world. However, more often it is masking our negative side, by projecting it onto others. If there was no room for anger in the family you grew up in, if it was rejected in your early years and you had to store it in your personal inner suitcase, then, in your view, anyone showing anger will be ‘inferior’, ‘strange’, ‘without self-control’, ‘a weakling’ etc. If you recognise and acknowledge the anger within you, and if you start to realise that others struggle with the same aspects as you do, then you can take this projection back.

The individual within the organisation When the individual enters an organisation, bringing with him his conscious and unconscious aspects, it is not likely that his unconscious aspects such as projections disappear. The individual continues to be a person who projects his negative, unconscious experiences, stored in his personal unconscious, onto the organisation and that will, unconsciously, have an effect on its culture. However, that is not all that happens. If there are others with similar projections, the individual will feel more connected to those similar specific projections than with different ones. This indicates that not only does an easily recognisable and measurable conscious group process occur, but also an unconscious group process.

If we accept as a basic assumption that every human individual is at any time part and

parcel of a group, or, to put it in a different way, of a number of groups according to which aspect of him we consider, if we accept this, we must assume that there is some form

of community or communication within such a group.

S.H.Foulkes (1971)

These projections are enclosed in communication. The conscious and unconscious are not strictly separated in the many forms of communication. Forms of communication are: verbal, nonverbal, expressions of feelings, emotions etc.

Much of this communication or these communication processes, can be conscious, but

more often they are not. It must also be noted that even quite conscious transmissions have

their unconscious aspects. We need only think, even in the verbal act of transmission, of the accompanying expression, the tone of voice etc. Talking, which is after all the main

manifest occupation of the group, carries an emotional charge, - but we must also

consider the meaning in the unconscious and symbolic sense of the term of the act of talking.

S.H.Foulkes (1971)

This (unconscious) symbolic communication creates a shared value in the group, a specific interaction that Foulkes called resonance:

This unconscious highly specific reaction in response to a stimulus is roughly what I have

called ‘resonance’. This may take the form of sympathetic symptom formations, defensive

mechanisms and other responses. Resonance is a good example of communication which can take place without any particular message sent and received...

S.H.Foulkes (1971)

Thus a communication takes place in the group without words and without conscious prior actions, which has a certain effect on the conscious actions of this group. Earl Hopper states in The social Unconscious: Theoretical Considerations (Hopper 2001) that:

The concept of the social unconscious refers to the existence and constraints of social, cultural and communicational arrangements of which people are unaware. Unaware, in

so far as these arrangements are not perceived (not ‘known’), and if perceived not

acknowledged (‘denied’), and if acknowledged, not taken as problematic (‘given’), and if

taken as problematic, not considered with an optimal degree of detachment and

objectivity. Although social constraints are sometimes understood in terms of myth, ritual and custom,

such constraints are in the realm of the ‘unknown’ to the same extent as the constraints of

instincts and fantasies,especially in societies with high status rigidity. Hopper (1981)

Here the unconscious group experience or social unconscious is separated from the sociocultural context. Hopper distinguishes the (socio) cultural constraints or limitations (myths, rituals etc.) from constraints resulting from the unknown. He states that this cultural part has an unconscious aspect that lacks objectivity. This is in accordance with Freud (1915):

It is a very remarkable thing that the Unconscious of one human being can react upon that

of another, without passing through the Conscious. This deserve closer investigation…but

descriptively speaking, the fact is incontestable.

Freud (1915/1962b, p. 194)

In summary I can state that the individual is affected by unconscious aspects: Freud (1923), Breuer (1901), Paul Kline (1987). The individual brings these unconscious aspects to the social context of an organisation. Unconscious communication takes place, which is directly linked to conscious messages, but is not visible from a cultural perspective. We call this the ‘Social Unconscious’: Karen Horney (1937), Fromm (1984), Hopper (1981) or ‘Resonance’: Foulkes (1971). I argue that this unconscious aspect is not externally visible, because its active interaction is sent and received without a conscious message. Freud (1915), Foulkes (1971). Therefore, unconscious forces or aspects are present in the social culture of organisations which could control or affect this external culture. I believe that the disconnection of these unconscious aspects from the sociocultural context creates scope for separate research and understanding of these unconscious aspects and their actual influence on the conscious sociocultural performance of the organisation. I give these unconscious aspects, disconnected from their sociocultural context, a separate place in the context of the organisation, thus dividing the traditional sociocultural context into two separate areas.

CULTURE AND NATURE AS SEPARATE CONCEPTS

‘No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it ‘ Albert Einstein

I have put forward in my hypothesis that there is a separate, unconscious aspect to every social group or organisation. Therefore we divide the definition of the general term ‘sociocultural’, which also comprises all unconscious aspects, into two parts, the conscious driving part and the unconscious driving part. I have labelled the conscious part Culture (capital C) and the unconscious part Nature (capital N). It is not easy to describe Nature using the standard terms generally used for the culture (no capital) of an organisation. The Culture of an organisation is composed of aspects such as knowledge, skills, structure, processes, but is separate from the Natural aspects (the aspects that are unconscious and indefinable, but with an impact nevertheless). The Natural aspect of an organisation runs parallel to the unconscious drive in the individual:

In various kinds of social systems, people tend unconsciously to recreate situations (in terms of actions, fantasies, object relations and affects) that have occurred in an other

time and space, such that the new or later situation may be taken as ‘equivalent’ to the old

or previous one. Hopper (1980)

However, the difference is that the Nature of an organisation is not simply the sum of individual unconscious elements. It has its own dynamics and form because of the variety of manifestations of projective identification:

Although ‘equivalence’ is based on the social unconscious, it is analogous to a person’s creation of symptoms or dreams in terms of unconscious fantasies emanating from the

biologically based unconscious mind or Id, at least from the point of view of traditional psychoanalysis. Equivalence occurs trough of externalization and internalization,

including projective and introjective identification.

Hopper (2001)

Thus, identification occurs via an unconscious part of the group.

Definitions of Culture and Nature Culture: The sum total of measurable, educable, definable and alterable human

achievements, skills, knowledge and potential that, set into structures, parameters, behavioural codes and behaviour, are used for the benefit of the organisation. Culture is readily changeable through knowledge and awareness.

Nature: The sum total of indirectly measurable and indirectly educable human manifestations

that are not quantifiable in current (Cultural) terms, but that have an effect on the overall performance and output of organisations and that have their own dynamics and expression. Nature can only be changed gradually.

Culture close-up With organisational culture divided into Nature and Culture, we can now look at the external (educable, definable) characteristics of Culture. In the field of change management we see a variety of forms of behaviour; they are the external characteristics of individuals and groups. This behaviour does not only have an outwardly (environment, colleagues etc.) positive and negative exponent, but it also has a positive and negative exponent within the individual himself.

Culture: Behaviour I have stated earlier that the individual does not leave his personal unconscious at the gates of an organisation; therefore this has an influence within the organisation where he works. This influence within the Cultural part incorporates positive aspects such as knowledge, skills and processes that influence behaviour, but it could also contain a negative component that I will call adapted behaviour.

Culture: Adapted behaviour I describe adapted behaviour as those competences that are demonstrated and practiced, but that are not delivered from an internal motivation but from the need to adapt in order to protect the self. Hirschhorn (1988) described this protection as social defence. Wilfred Bion (1961) described three basic assumptions: dependency, fight-flight and pairing. I would like to add adapted behaviour to this list. From childhood on, we have learned and refined this effective strategy for performing tasks and roles. We have learned it so well, that we don’t realise that, sometimes excellent competences, are not driven by internal motivation but by a need for protection.

...the manner in which someone behaves is also determined by events and influences from the past. The influence from key figures especially is significant, as this forms the basis for future internal scripts for relationships and behaviour. These inner scripts determine much of someone’s future behaviour, including their behaviour in organisations. Personal core themes are very steadfast and prove to be difficult to change, even with psychotherapy or psychoanalysis.

Eric van de Loo (2007) Many of these inner scripts are formed for the protection of one’s identity. The young child is dependent on the love, security and approval of his carer. He continually adapts in response to conflicting situations. It is exactly this adapted behaviour that becomes more obvious at a later age and psychoanalysis could bring it to a more conscious level. The use of this adapted behaviour as a protective structure becomes so much a routine that it is no longer recognised as such, unless it is consciously focused on via psychoanalysis. In that sense, it is not an unconscious manifestation, despite the fact that it is not experienced consciously. In other words, the origin of adapted behaviour is in the unconscious but it is a conscious manifestation. Therefore, adapted behaviour is an unconscious adaptation, it is not consciously present as an internal motive, but its workings in the external world are visible to everyone. This manifestation is certainly not unconscious in terms of the consciousness threshold and consequently adapted behaviour belongs to the Culture of an organisation. Larry Hirschhorn (1988) talks about three different social unconscious defence mechanisms: rituals, coalitions and basic assumptions. They serve to control work related anxieties; they reactivate earlier patterns of parent-child and child-child relationships by the unconscious impact on emotional events. In short, adapting to the environment is an unconscious, but very natural, action used for protection.

One characteristic of adapted behaviour is that if there is any stress on the personality, this adjustment will become negative. Tenacity becomes dogmatic, decisiveness becomes recklessness, control becomes manipulation, persuasiveness becomes arrogance and so on. This is an important fact within the context of change management interventions, because it is inevitable that stress will automatically increase from the moment changes are implemented. That is also the reason why many change managers are surprised by the increase of resistance that was not apparent from the outset. In real life we see this in public scandals such as those of Enron and Ahold (Dutch supermarket group). With increasing pressure, adapted behavioural patterns, which produced positive competences in less pressured situations, began to produce negative competences. Suddenly the controlling component was under so much pressure that it inevitably became manipulation as a form of adapted behaviour within the individual protection structure. Initially we see individual manipulation which subsequently, below the surface, turns into collective manipulation. From the sideline this seems hard to believe, but the unconscious is unrelenting and persistent: the protection of the self – me – is always paramount. However, it is impossible to bring this to the surface on one’s own. The Munchhausen effect, pulling oneself up from a swamp, does not apply in the physical world and neither in the psychological world. We cannot be a subject and an object simultaneously!

Nature close-up The origin of nature in organisations In its most elementary form, the Nature of an organisation begins with its owner or founder. His initial unconscious projections and characteristics form the Nature of the organisation. As the organisation grows, individuals join. They not only subscribe to the three aspects mentioned on page eight, but also, unconsciously, to the projections (the Nature) of the founder. It appears, however, as if the organisation as a whole, along with all the individuals in it, made a conscious decision based on cognitive motivation. According to my hypothesis, this decision was made in direct connection to the organisation’s underlying Nature. Foulkes (1964) describes four levels of relationships and communication in a group:

1. The current level – everyday relationship in which the group represents the reality, community, social relationships and public opinion. The conductor is perceived as a

leader or authority.

2. The transference level – corresponding to mature object relations, where the group represents the family, the conductor is perceived as a parent and the group members as

siblings.

3. The projective level – corresponding to primitive object relations of part-objects with projected and shared feelings and fantasies. Members can represent elements of the

individual self. The group represents the mother image or even her womb, and body images are reflected and represented by the group and its members.

4. The primordial level – the group represents shared myths, archetypical images and the

collective unconscious.

Brown (2001) adds that levels 2, 3 and 4 not only apply to the individual unconscious but also exist between and above groups. According to Brown we can also assume that the social unconscious can be present at any of these three levels. This also shines a different light on events such as mergers. Mergers of organisations with obvious Cultural synergy tend to result in failure more often than on average, or there is a lack of effective connection between the organisations with a loss of synergy. It is possible that the essence of the Nature of separate organisations and the underlying Natural differences play a role in successful integration.

No matter what the approach considered, they all propose a view of the organisation that

invariably surprises us. I believe that this is particularly due to the fact that these

approaches allow us to see the so-called technical failures or ‘political’ hearings that take

place in the organization – the repeated setbacks in the implementation of a strategic policy, indecisive behaviour on the part of the managerial staff, ‘irrational’ resistance to

change by certain categories of employees, managerial inefficiency, and so on (the list is

obviously not exhaustive) – in a new light Kets de Vries (1991).

Or:

From a psychoanalytic perspective, such ‘dysfunctions’, as they are commonly called in the world of organizations, are not, strictly speaking, dysfunctional at all; rather they

function on ‘another scene’ that sometimes emerges into view; the scene of the

unconscious as radically other. Gilles Arnaud (2002)

The conscious Nature, separated from the traditional cultural concept, plays an independent and unconscious role in organisations. It is therefore important to look at this new phenomenon within organisations and its effect on change management processes. Nature can be positive as well as negative. Unconscious processes such as projection onto others are not only negative; the projection of a teenager onto a pop idol could be the incentive for his own positive development and awareness of his own potential and qualities. Projection at a certain stage of life is a very useful tool for gaining self-esteem. Positive projection onto the leader of an organisation creates a new impulse and the energy to perform roles and tasks diligently. As I stated before, it also provides a very necessary link to the outside world. Positive projection is one of the factors that determine good leadership: good leadership depends not only on its connection with the Culture, but also with the Nature of an organisation. This could explain why leaders are not necessarily successful in organisations. Leaders who have proved themselves can fail in a different environment or, according to my hypothesis, in a Nature that they cannot connect with. I believe that leadership does not only comprise of knowledge, skills and well researched leadership styles, but also of a Nature that is broad enough to connect with organisations. Therefore I set more store on inner leadership which includes Nature, than on strategic, visionary or authentic leadership which has a more knowledge or skill based structure. Thus, the positive Nature can lead to personal consciousness and contribute to the positive development of the organisation.

Collective projection Negative Nature manifests itself in negative projections used as defence mechanisms.

It does not suffice to be aware of these projections or to dismiss them as being ridiculous,

at least not in the long run, because archetypes are an inherent part of every

psyche...dismissing archetypes as being useless would definitely be a loss. On the contrary, we should try and extricate these projections, and return them to the people who

have lost them because of spontaneous projections outside themselves. Jung (1933)

Negative projections could become positive again, as a result of which the negative unconscious undercurrent, so typical of poorly performing organisations, transfers to the conscious. The Neo-Freudians, such as Adler (1928), Jung (1933) and Fairbairn (1965) have extensively written about projections and their link to the individual. Below is a diagram of the positive and negative manifestations of Culture and Nature (fig 1).

Fig.1: The four quadrants of Culture and Nature.

DISCUSSION

‘Organisational performance is like riding a bike: to keep your balance you must keep moving.’ Freely rendered from Albert Einstein

It is time to return to the original questions. I have explained that organisational culture, as described in the literature, requires refinement and that the cultural part can be divided into Culture and Nature. Part of the Culture in the diagram on page 16 consists of adapted behaviour. I demonstrated that adapted behaviour is driven by the unconscious and that the individual is unaware of that. When the change manager acknowledges that the training of adapted behaviour could have a negative effect, the effectiveness of interventions will be greatly improved. Many interventions have no effect on the individual undergoing them, because his core qualities prevent him from being receptive. To put it bluntly: you cannot make a cow bark. If the objectives and strategies of the change take the Natural part of outward projection into account, the entire change process has a better chance of success. I will use the quadrants to substantiate this.

Cultural aspects: Behaviour and adapted behaviour Culture, separated from the sociocultural part, has a positive aspect (behaviour) and a negative aspect (adapted behaviour). This adapted behaviour is engrained in a child’s basic attitude, because, as illustrated previously, as a non-adult he had to behave in such a way that he would not be rejected by the people he depended on. The only possible escape from this struggle is adapted behaviour. The cause becomes unconscious but the adapted behaviour presents itself as a competence to the outside world.

Natural aspects: The conscious and collective projection Here, too, it is possible to speak of a positive Natural part (positive identification) and a negative Natural part (negative identification). The positive Natural element is that staff in an organisation (unconsciously) connect with the leader, thus raising their own inner process to a higher level. In this awareness process the leader is a role model. For a healthy individual this would only be a temporary role model, because through awareness he internalises his inner process and he becomes equal to this role model. The negative Natural aspects of an organisation are the outcomes of individual, unconscious characteristics that manifest in projections and shadow parts that the individual cannot cast aside when he joins the sociocultural environment. These natural characteristics have a collective quality because, unconsciously, the individual feels connected to the projections of others, thus creating a collective unconscious, with its own dynamics and manifestation.

Adapted behaviour Aside from conscious Cultural aspects such as knowledge, skills, competences and behaviour, Culture also has an unconscious part which I have labelled adapted behaviour. By only addressing and measuring the conscious behavioural aspects such as knowledge, skills, structures and processes, the change manager overlooks an important part of Culture, namely the aspect of the adapted behaviour that is very important for organisations. If the adapted behaviour is not acknowledged, the success of organisational change is uncertain, because, as we saw previously, it will play a significant role when the organisation is under pressure. In my view the current literature does not address these side effects of adapted behaviour, even though it is a part of everyday reality. The denial of adapted behaviour as a phenomenon means the rejection of a large part of human developmental psychology.

The problem is that the individual cannot recognise his competences, or those things he is good at, as adapted behaviour, because their source is imbedded in the unconscious, as a result of repression in his (early) childhood.

Collective projection In addition to adapted behaviour in the Culture, there is also the phenomenon of collective projection within the Nature of an organisation. This ‘energy below the surface’ projects negative aspects onto the organisation thus inhibiting optimal performance, output, cooperation and success. In its extreme, collective projection is a destructive force that can seriously hamper the organisation’s growth and success. I indicated in the definition that these projections can only be changed by the input of new ‘genes’. By way of explanation: that which we project from our unconscious, is reinforced by the social structure in which we exist. This entire social context is ‘used’ to shape and stimulate our projections. Connections are made within these projections. This chain reaction can only be stopped if new ‘genes’ or new individuals with differing, or maybe opposing projections are brought in. In my opinion, replacing people in organisations to change the projective aspect is the only effective method to bring about rapid and adequate change.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CHANGE MANAGEMENT ‘When a change manager does not know what harbour to look for, no wind is the right wind.’ Freely rendered from Seneca

Discussion The afore-mentioned hypothesis can be very significant for the practice of change management. At the centre of my hypothesis are two new research fields that have so far been overlooked or neglected in literature about change management: A) Adapted behaviour within the Culture of an organisation. B) Positive and negative identification with the Nature of an organisation. The separation of the traditionally accepted socio-culture in a Cultural and a Natural component of an organisation has implications for the method of approach to change questions in organisations and companies. Not only because Nature now has to be taken into account separately, as what happens below the surface has an effect on what happens above it, but also because the Culture changes now that it is separated from the Nature. The change manager can no longer rely on the facts and figures provided by the organisation, or on the behaviours of its people. He now has to take into account factors that are invisible to him, but that do have an important influence on the sum total of interactions and developments within the change process.

AWARENESS WITHIN THE CHANGE PROCESS The change manager knows that behaviour can have a negative component and will try to mitigate this and win people over by using information, training, discussion groups and so forth. Because we now accept that some of the behaviour occurs below the surface, he will have to take a different approach to behavioural components. This makes the change process more complex and less transparent. However, it is of utmost importance to develop ideas and methods to capture this complex phenomenon using models and/or process structures just as we are gradually doing for the behavioural aspects of individuals in organisations.

What next? Many questions still remain: A). How can we determine what is adapted behaviour and what is not? In other words: How

do we get to know the real core competences of an individual? B). How can we make (the extent of) the unconscious projections in an organisation visible

and reveal the impact they have on the organisation’s performance? C). Can we construct theoretical concepts to map these unconscious processes onto a

verifiable framework, giving the change manager a better picture of these processes? D). How can the answers to A, B and C help the change manager in practical terms to

successfully implement change processes within organisations?

MEASURING AND RECOGNISING ADAPTED BEHAVIOUR In this chapter I will describe a practical methodology that I use in my work as a change manager. I use it to recognise adapted behaviour and to acknowledge the influence of the collective shadow parts. I emphasise that this is only a hypothesis and requires further scientific research before it can be adopted as a valid, verifiable and falsifiable measurement tool in the field of change management. The database contains the data from approximately 600 people.

Verification methodology An often recurring term in my citations is ‘Archetype’. Archetypes represent inner images to which the individual can give his own interpretation. The archetype does not exist independently; instead the individual imbues it with a personal image. This is comparable to an electric current; the current is not visible, but when it is connected to a lamp, the current’s effect becomes visible and, moreover, its manifestation is dependent on the type of lamp (read individual). Archetypal images are meaningfull but not very personal. I called the personal Archetypes therefore Symchetypes, a combination of symbolic expression related to personal experiences and the Archetypal representation. Symchetypes are individual Archetypes and are therefore very personal. Another important characteristic of the Symchetypal image is that it cannot be controlled by the conscious. Archetypal images are of all times and cultures. Every culture has the hero, the fool, the witch and so forth. When presented with one of these collective archetypes, everyone has an image, but they are personal images. Using a recently developed measuring tool (Ed J. Baas, 2004) an individual chooses an Symchetypal image and the corresponding competences. The Symchetypal images are chosen first, followed by the competences. The participant is unaware of the connection between the Symchetype and the competence. The choices are mapped to create a so-called competences chart or circle of regulation. The principal idea is that Symchetypes (images) are chosen unconsciously, while competences (text) are chosen consciously. The relationship between the Symchetype and the competence provides a match between the image (unconscious) and the text (conscious). In addition, an observation can be made about the core competence, the developmental stage or the adapted behaviour. An Symchetype that is rejected (by the inner self) but chosen as a text, results in adapted behaviour. I use this instrument regularly with surprising results. The results are surprising because during a coaching interview, the candidate is methodically questioned about the origin of the competence. (The candidate does not know that his choice is a true competence or a competence based on adapted behaviour.) The coach does know this because of the measurement results. During the interview, the candidate examines how certain competences came about and how he responds when pressure is put on a competence. The correspondence between a choice and confirmation from the interview is very high (> 90%). The how and why is not yet entirely clear. The results are recorded in a database and subjected to Practice Based Evidence research.

CONCLUSION During change processes in organisations, the focus is not only on physical and management aspects and the organisational context but also on addressing and improving the behaviour of the individual. This behaviour has visible, verifiable and educable aspects that are above the surface, but it also has aspects below the surface. The change manager will benefit from the awareness that there are processes that are outside his field of vision. He has to be flexible and adaptable to include those elusive elements in the practice of change management and his systematic approach to the changes. It is obvious that recent years have seen an increased interest in unconscious processes and drives and the number of scientific publications about this subject is growing rapidly. There is also a trend to popularise this subject (Het slimme onbewuste (the clever unconscious), Ad Dijksterhuis, 2007), opening it up to the public in accessible language. This thesis does not intend to offer practical models, measuring methodology or even suggestions for taking unconscious processes into consideration. However, the awareness that such processes do have an impact is a step forward. If we take these phenomena seriously, we can gain new insights and possibly recognise the influence of the unconscious via measuring methods and models and modify it, in order to improve the success rate of complex changes. The Hague, the Netherlands Ed J. Baas, July 2008, Reviewed and renewed, July 2010, 2014, 2016

LIST OF REFERENCES Arnaud, Gilles (2002). The Organization and the Symbolic: Organizational Dynamics viewed from a

Lacanian perspective. Art Human Relations 2002; 55; 691

Ashkenas, Ron et all (2002). The Boundaryless Organization: Breaking the chains of organizational

structure. Jossey Bass.

Avey, James B. at all (2008). Can Positive Employees help Positive Organizationasl Change?. Art

Journal of Applied Behavioural Science 2008; 44; 48

Barrett, Richard (2006). De Waarde(n) van mijn bedrijf. Scriptum.

Bruel, Maurits en Colsen, Clemens (2007). De Geluksfabriek: over het binden en boeien van mensen.

Scriptum

Collins, Jim (2001). Good to Great. Random House Business Books.

Cozijnsen, Anton J. (2004). Anders veranderen: Sturen op slaagfactoren bij complexe

verandertrajecten. FT Prentice Hall

Cozijnsen, Anton J. en Vrakking, Willem J. (2003). Handboek verandermanagement. Kluwer.

Foulkes, S.H. (1971). Access to Unconscious processes in the groep Analytic Group. Art Group

Analysis 1971; 4; 4

Freud, S. (1961). The Ego and the Id. The standard edition of the complete psychological words of

Sigmund Freud (Vol 19) London. Hogard (Org 1923)

Freud, S. (1961). The Unconscious. The standard edition of the complete psychological words of

Sigmund Freud (Vol 14) London. Hogard (Org 1915)

Green, Alan (1996). A Company Discovers Its Soul. Berret-Koehler Publishers.

Have, Steven en Wouter (2003). Het boek verandering: over het doordacht werken aan de

organisatie. Academic service.

Helfgott, Jacqeline B. (1997). The relationship Between Unconscious Defense Process and

Conscious Cognitive Style in Psychopaths. Art Criminal Justice and Behaviour 1997; 24; 278

Hopper, Earl. (2001). The social Unconscious: Theoretical considerations. Art. Group Analysis (2001)

Jansen, P.G.W. (1996). Organisatie en Mensen: Inleiding in de bedrijfspsychologie voor economen

en bedrijfskundigen. Nelissen Soest.

Jung, C.G. (1977). Het ik en het onbewuste. Servire. (Org 1933)

Jung, C.G. (1984). Psychologie van de overdracht. Ontwikkeling tot individuatie. Lemniscaat. (Org

1935)

Kay, Neil M (1982). The evolving firm. The Macmillan Press LTD

Kets de Vries, M.ER. (2006). Leaders on the couch. Chichester: John Wiley

Keuning, Doede en Wolters, Matthijs (2007). Structuur Doorzien. FT Prentice Hall

Kline, Paul (1987). The experimental study of the Psychoanalytic Unconscious. Art Pers. Soc.

Psychol. Bull 1987; 13; 363

LeDoux, Joseph (2007). Unconscious and conscious contributions to the emotional and cognitive

aspects of emotions. Art. Social Science information 2007; 46; 395

Lewicki, Pawel and Hill, Thomas (1987). Unconscious Processes as Explanation of Behaviour in

Cognitive, Personality and sociall psychology. Art. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 1987; 13; 355

Loo, E.L.H.M. van de (2004). Leiders moeten zich kwetsbaarder durven opstellen. Boek verandering:

Have S.

Maze, John R. and Henry, Rachael M (1996). Psychoanalysis, Epistemology and intersubjectivity:

Theories of Wilfred Bion. Art. Theory Psychology 1996; 6; 401

Metselaar, E.E en Cozijnsen, A.J. (2005). Van weerstand naar veranderingsbereidheid. Holland

Business Publications.

Sandic, Marijana and Aneta (2006). The Archetypes Echoed in the Collective Unconscious of the

people. Art Group Analysis 2006; 39; 411

Steele, Robert S. and Morawski, Jill G. (2002). Implicit Cognition and the social Unconscious. Art

Theory Psychology 2002; 12; 37

Thygesen, Bente (2008). Resonance: No Music without Resonance- Without Resonance no Group.

Art. Group Analysis 2008; 41; 63.

Willmott, Robert (2000). The place of culture in Organization Theory: Introduction the Morphogenetic

Approach. Art in Organization 2000; 7; 95

Publischer: Centrum voor BelevingsPsychologie, Den Haag, The Netherlands

You can reach the publisher via: Info@cvbp.nl

You can reach Ed J. Baas via: research@actme.nl