Time – For every purpose

I have had reason recently, as perhaps many of us have had, to think about time. Tick, tock – the seconds pass. Less tick, tock nowadays; more a visual passing on the screen of a mobile electronic device. The division of time into equal parts – seconds, minutes and hours, nowadays by atomic clocks, has a history dating back to the use of our relations to the sun, the stars and the seasons (see https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/devlin_12_99.html). It is a mathematical device for understanding our place in the physical universe – useful at a practical level for human communication: getting to a meeting on time; establishing the flow of events; marking the years of our lives.

But our experience of time is a different thing. Henri Bergson, a late nineteenth and early twentieth century French philosopher, argued that the experience of time was not equal to that of physical time. He talks of lived time or ‘duration’ compared to the time given by the physicists’ instruments (Bergson 1889). Psychological time is not simply a series of equal measurable bits. A moment cannot be measured as if a physical element in space. So, what is a moment?

In psychoanalytic thinking time has a fluidity and a fixedness. Just as the physicists’ have told us that light has both wave and particle properties, so the psychological experience of time has both continuous and discontinuous properties. Consciously, we imagine that we go through time in one continuous progression from past to present to future. We tell ourselves that story. But as Freud argues, the unconscious does not have such an image of time. Events and moments stay locked in and may emerge into consciousness or find a vehicle for expression at any – time. Understanding an event or moment may come long after the event and may change the memory of that event retroactively. Do we have then, a psychological time machine that can change the past? (See Freud’s account of the Wolf Man for examples of this – but I’m sure you have your own).

Jaques Lacan talks of moments in intersubjective time that are psychological not physical in the narrow sense of the word. In any occurrence there is an ‘instant of seeing’ (that is, a time for recognition), a time for understanding and a moment of concluding. This is experienced in short moments such as recognising say, that the countryside around me is not what I expected; to understanding that this is the case and that I have taken a wrong turn during my drive; to concluding that the action I must and do take is to turn back to where I know where I am. But importantly, these moments occur through a long process (perhaps in an analysis or through reflection) of recognising a pattern in my behaviour, thoughts or feelings; to understanding why this occurs; to transforming my actions thoughts and feeling through such understanding. Freud referred to this process as ‘working through’: a process much more extensive that simply a recognition of a problem through an initial interpretation. Time is seen as a discrete process of movement from one state or structure to another. Meaning in time is both retroactive and anticipatory.

So how are we experiencing time during Covid-19?

At NIODA we have had a weekly reflective space for people to talk about their thoughts and feelings, from the perspectives of person, role, system, context and source (the transforming experience framework used as a guide). Many themes and issues have emerged. Amongst these, is what gets described as a ‘hankering after the old days.’ There are feelings of loss and grief; yes, for those infected and dying from the disease, but also for the way the world was in the past. This includes the loss of freedoms during lockdowns, missing close relatives and other interactions, feeling isolated and lonely for those living alone (even though for some the lockdowns have been peaceful and productive times). Perhaps these discussions about what has been lost not just due to COVID, but due also to globalisation, social media expansion, global warming and the contraction of the humanities in higher education, are defences against change and a retroactive, redefinition of the past? Equally the space to mourn such changes in our organisations may have been missing and the mourning now is upon us more fully in the current moment. Sometimes reflections move to the future: what shape it might have and how it might be better than the past; how might we do things differently following the Covid experience? How might such anticipations shape our futures or might we just sink into defensive and thoughtless repetitions?

Is time itself experienced differently in such conditions? The instant of seeing has been different for different communities and different individuals. What is being recognised? That there is such a virus as covid-19? That it is deadly? That it can affect us in many ways that we might never have expected? When have governments recognised its existence and implications? Does such recognition come in an instant or slowly grow, or be recognised only retroactively, when health systems become overwhelmed? Or when the population becomes disaffected?

It seems we are each within a time for understanding (despite that there are those who deny the existence of the virus and their instant of recognition is for other issues bound up in conspiracy theories). Scientists are trying to develop vaccines. Politicians are trying to work out implications for coming elections or (it might be hoped) for their communities, health-wise and economically. Families struggling with implications and trying to live within new restrictions and circumstances. The time for understanding seems extensive and painful; almost endless as perhaps wave after wave may be anticipated and a hoped-for vaccine a distant possibility. In this we are not near the moment of concluding, even though some people anticipate the new future, whether it be the return to ‘normal’ or a hopeful transformation.

Time, it seems, is a ‘wibbily, wobbily thing’ to quote the prime character in the British Dr Who television series. We talk of using time to do things, of passing time, of wasting time or creating time as if it is a commodity. Time is given to us as part of our life, and time, psychologically for humans, is intrinsically linked to purpose. As said in Ecclesiastes 3 – there is a time for every purpose. It is purpose and meaning that create moments that are anticipated, experienced and remembered. Without purpose, time is lost. On one side, infinity without time may be gained – the unconscious everywhere: nirvana and ego-lessness, perhaps psychosis. But for daily life, for the sake of life and the planet, good, contained, creative purpose is central.

Edward Shapiro in his latest book ‘Finding a Place to Stand: Developing Self-Reflective Institutions, Leaders and Citizens’ follows the paths through which we move from family to institutional life and how through the complexities and chaos of our multiple roles, we might find a voice for the future of our institutions, not as rigid entities caught in unconscious unworked dilemmas that imprison us but, as vital social systems where our living moments might find fruitful purpose, meaning and expression.

Time during COVID may be the birthplace for such transformations.

Professor Susan Long
Director of Research & Scholarship, NIODA

23 September 2020

Time – For every purpose

References:

Bergson, H. (1989) Time and Free Will: An Essay on the Immediate Data of Consciousness (https://philosophynow.org/issues/48/Henri_Bergson_and_the_Perception_of_Time)

Lacan Écrits: The First Complete Edition in English [trans. Bruce Fink], New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2006. Includes 1945, Lacan, J. “Logical Time and the Assertion of Anticipated Certainty: A New Sophism”

Shapiro, E. (2019) Finding a Place to Stand: Developing Self-Reflective Institutions, Leaders and Citizens’ London: Phoenix Publishing

ps Are you a leader or manager and would like to learn more about reflective practice techniques? Have a look at the NIODA Master of Leadership and Management (Organisation Dynamics) course.

We are all in this together – Between Basic Assumption Me and Basic Assumption Oneness

‘We are all in this together’ has become a worldwide slogan for the fight against COVID-19. The slogan attempts to unify peoples and countries by indicating that anyone can get the virus, that the virus knows no borders and that the world is interconnected and we can ‘all do our bit to flatten the curve’. A good message. But who are the ‘we’ in this formulation and how might different groups identify with such a ‘we’?

This can be looked at from both rational conscious and covert and unconscious perspectives.

First consider, at the conscious level, what ‘we’ are hearing on the news. According to the statistics, yes, the virus is a global pandemic affecting people in 213 countries and territories (updated July 6 2020 on https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/countries-where-coronavirus-has-spread/). ‘We’ if we count this as the world’s population, are all in it.

Nonetheless, within those countries ‘the virus is already disproportionately impacting the poor in wealthy countries, where the most known cases are concentrated’ (https://www.globalcitizen.org/). It is expected that poorer third-world countries will be affected severely. So, no, many of the wealthier segments of society with robust medical systems and a capacity for citizens to self-isolate are not ‘in it’ in the same way as the poor, the homeless, the overcrowded and the unemployed; not to forget the front-line workers in health and other roles that expose workers disproportionately to the virus.

If the slogan means that we should all be ‘doing our bit’ to help slow the spread of the virus, then perhaps, yes, the ‘we’ might be more inclusive. Those who can continue to work in a reasonably safe environment, or from home or at a distance can help. But again, there are many who are unable to stay home, or stay at a distance from others (for instance the crowded cities of India), or who have cultural or religious beliefs that prevent them taking such measures, let alone the deniers, who are not part of the ‘we’ in the attempts to slow the curve; not necessarily by choice but more by circumstance.

Does the ‘in this together’ mean economically? Country economies are facing the biggest recessions since the great depression, and may well suffer far beyond that grim milestone. Households are being affected by unemployment. Many small businesses are closed. Larger industries also affected. And, yes, government economic packages across the globe are to be distributed to many. But there are limits and once more the wealth divide shows disproportionate effects. In Australia, for one small example, many casual and itinerate workers will miss out on government job-keeper support. Countries will sustain large debts and the ‘we’ who must pay may refer more to the younger working generation in years to come, than current mature workers.

But let me now come to a consideration of some more unconscious dynamics amongst groups.

‘We’, that is those who study unconscious dynamics in groups and societies, attempt to discern the unconscious basic assumptions that groups hold. These are collective ideas that guide thinking, behaviour and emotion in groups; those ideas that are part of the culture, not really closely examined taken-for-granteds. Two such assumptions that are of interest here are Basic Assumption Me (BAMe) and Basic Assumption Oneness (BAOneness), both described well in the group relations literature. The former assumes that a group is simply a collection of individuals, each out to satisfy their own needs, joined by a common interest but basically from a narcissistic stance. The latter assumes that a group is a unity with little differentiation between members – all caught together in a common need and with common responses. Perhaps these, in extreme, underlie capitalism and communism respectively. What then is the ‘we’ in BAMe and in BA Oneness? This is a question that has implications for moral responsibility – an issue at the heart of the emotional message in ‘we are all in this together’.

In BAMe ‘we’ means a collection brought together in the interests of personal survival, growth or gain. We are all in this together means if we each individually want to survive with our health and wealth we had better collaborate. Basically, in this form of ‘we’, personal responsibility is primary as well as individual gain. Shared responsibility is the result of agreements more or less loosely held. In the long run, the individual will look after his or her interests above those interests of the group as a whole. Fear and terror may instigate this basic assumption. I applaud the decision of New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Adern’s Government to reduce the wages for politicians and senior government officials at this time when many are losing their jobs. This shows a leadership not caught in BAMe.

In BAOneness, ‘we’ means the group itself with little differentiation between individuals. The group holds together for the protection and benefit of the whole and its identity – sometimes this is at the expense of the individual. Collective responsibility as a whole is foremost, implying that the group itself is a moral agent – an idea with many difficulties, especially in terms of the law. Often, though the collective responsibility is such that a whole collective may be seen to be blameworthy, such as is seen in racism. The message that President Trump of the US gives his country in withdrawing funding from the World Health Organisation indicates his mindset of the US being in a oneness against others – those to blame.

A position between BAMe and BAOneness is needed: one where ‘we’ is contingent on the work needed to be done by the group. On the one hand, differentiation between individuals and their roles is needed: different sub-groups have different responsibilities and authority, ‘Them’ and ‘us’ need to be distinguished. Not in a destructive and blaming way, but in a creative and task-oriented way: an appropriate division of labour. ‘Them’ and ‘us’ has taken on a bad name. On the other hand, Individuals need to collaborate, make agreements and at times personal sacrifices. My concern is that the growing interdict to avoid any distinction – any talk of ‘us’ and ‘them’ – may become the new political correctness; likely to deny the fact that ‘we are all in this’ in different ways.

The position in between BAMe and BAOneness is said to be the work group – perhaps the good- enough work group: Basic Assumption Collaboration with distinct differences between different groupings that can work across the boundaries, not dissolve and deny them. ‘We are all in this together’ but let’s not forget that we are in this in different ways and they need recognition.

Prof Susan Long
Director of Research & Scholarship, NIODA

16 April 2020

We are all in this together – Between Basic Assumption Me and Basic Assumption Oneness

ps Are you a leader or manager and would like to learn more about both rational conscious and covert and unconscious perspectives? Have a look at the NIODA Master of Leadership and Management (Organisation Dynamics) course.

Understanding Socioanalytic Methods and COVID-19

In these difficult times of COVID-19, I think a note on socioanalytic methods might be helpful. The flood of information, as well as anxieties, is on the surface of the virus spread – some critical and helpful; keeping us connected; some not; but can we also hold onto our minds and access what lies beneath?

Understanding Socioanalytic Methods and COVID-19

Psychoanalysis has been around for over a hundred years and many books have been written about its method with particular emphasis on the clinical encounter. But what about the methodology used in the exploration of unconscious processes in social groups and organisations (ie socioanalytic methodologies)?

While there are overlaps between socioanalytic investigations and other social science research methods, both psychoanalysis and socioanalysis are based in primarily ideographic and subjective frameworks. It can be argued that they involve the scientific study of subjectivity – individually and collectively (Long 2001).

Socioanalysis is the study of groups, organisations and society using a systems psychoanalytic framework. It “combines and synthesises methodologies and theories derived from psychoanalysis, group relations, social systems thinking, organisational behaviour, and social dreaming ” (Bain 1999; Long 2017). In simple terms, socioanalysis studies social groupings and phenomena by looking beneath the surface (and the obvious) to see the underlying dynamics and how these dynamics are interconnected.

A Philosophy of Science for Socioanalytic Study

The philosophy of science supporting socioanalytic study is different from traditional empiricist or positivist philosophies although some socioanalytic researchers may at times work also with these traditions. A primary philosophy of science supporting socioanalysis is that propounded by Charles Sanders Pierce, a late nineteenth-century philosopher who introduced the idea of “abductive logic” (Burch 2010; Long and Harney 2013). He conceived of scientific discovery as moving through stages of abductive, deductive and inductive logic. Abductive logic is involved in the early stages of hypothesis creation. At this stage, argument by metaphor leads to the creative development of what we call “working hypotheses” that can then be examined against new cases. This underlies the method of “negative case analysis” as practised in many sociological investigations (Patton 2001). Socioanalysis relies heavily on abductive logic. This may be due to its “youth” as a discipline, but it is also due to the nature of its subject – the unconscious dynamics of groups and organisations, where exploration of the unknown in systems is paramount.

A major research methodology in this discipline is the case study. The reasons for this include the complexity of concepts with non-linear causality; the use of narrative, qualitative, descriptive methods rather than experimental, quantitative methods; the use of action research which – because of the changing, systemic nature of organisations – utilises a social and political intervention alongside an exploratory method; and the use of abductive logic in the development of working hypotheses that aid in thinking through case material and organizational change. But within case studies, several different methods ranging from observation through social dreaming and drawings to work culture analyses have been used.

Connecting all these methods is their aim of “tapping into” the dynamic operation, following Long and Harney (2013), of what various authors now call the associative unconscious within and between social systems. The associative unconscious is – the unconscious at a systemic level. It refers to Bion’s notion of the “infinite” discussed latterly by Gordon Lawrence and stands in contrast to the individual repressed unconscious described by Freud. The associative unconscious covers all those associations available and potential within and amongst interacting social systems. It is a rich vein of golden insight into the underlying dynamics of the system. The totality of such associations is available to the system but not to any one individual. In Lacanian linguistic terms, the associative unconscious is that network of existing and potential signifiers that create the way the organisation or social system is experienced. And, somewhat like Hopper’s “social unconscious” it points beyond that network to “the existence and constraints of social-cultural and communications arrangements of which people are unaware or are denied” (Hopper 2003 p127), but, I add, become available through exploratory methods that use the association and amplification of free associations made in social contexts. More simply though, it is that network of thoughts, ideas and feelings that create the social system as it is and, more creatively, as it might become. The potentiality lies in what David Bohm (1981) calls the implicate order.

Numerous articles have appeared in scholarly journals such as Human Relations, Organisational and Social Dynamics, Organizational Studies, Journal of Management Development, Journal of Management Education, Social Psychiatry, Psychodynamic Practice, Socio-Analysis, and various journals of psychotherapy and group analysis amongst others, and books on specific methods have appeared. However, a book focused on a broad range of socioanalytic methods together with an underlying philosophy to link these methods is available. Socioanalytic Methods: Discovering the hidden in organisations and social systems edited by Susan Long and published by Karnac 2013 does just that.

Each of the methods discussed in the book accesses the associative unconscious in different ways. They help bring hidden dynamics to the surface for people to see how they influence, aid or inhibit their activities. Excitingly, they can show what we know at some level but have not yet been able to use. And, because the methods explore social systems, they can contribute to new collaborative endeavours for thinking the future.

Dr Susan Long
Director of Research & Scholarship, NIODA

24 March 2020

Understanding Socioanalytic Methods and COVID-19

ps Are you a leader or manager and would like to learn more about socioanalytic methods? Have a look at the NIODA Master of Leadership and Management (Organisation Dynamics) course.

References

for Understanding Socioanalytic Methods and COVID-19

Bain, A. (1999) On Socioanalysis in Socio-Analysis 1.1 pp. 1-17.

Bohm, D. (1980) Wholeness and the Implicate Order. London: Routledge.

Burch, R. (2010). Charles Sanders Peirce. In: E. N. Zalta (Ed.) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2010 ed.). Retrieved July 2012, from
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/peirce/

Hollway, W. and Jefferson, T. (2000) Doing Qualitative Research Differently: Free association, narrative and the interview. London: Sage Publications.

Hinshelwood, R. and Skogstad, W. (eds.) (2000) Observing Organisations. London: Routledge.

Hopper, E. (2003) The Social Unconscious: Selected Papers. UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Long, S.D. (2017) ‘The Socioanalytic Approach to Organisations’ Socioanalysis Vol 19

Long, S.D. and Harney, M. (2013) ‘The Associative Unconscious’ in S. Long, (ed) (2013) Socioanalytic Methods. Chapter 2.

Long, S.D. (2001) Working with Organizations: The Contribution of the Psychoanalytic Discourse. Organisational and Social Dynamics 2: pp. 174 – 198.

Mersky, R. (2011) Social Dreaming, Social Photo-Matrix, Role Biography and Social Dream Drawing: Structure, facilitation capacities and fundamental value to organizations. Paper given at the Annual Meeting of the International Society for the Psychoanalytic Study of Organisations. Melbourne, June 2011.

Patton, M.Q. (2001) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. USA: Sage Publications.

Climate Change Denial and Australia’s Devastating Bush Fires

Denial is a psychological defence employed when an individual or group is challenged in what they believe and when that belief is central to their sense of self. But what is most intriguing is that denial is a state of believing A and not A at one and the same time. It challenges logic and is not influenced by logical arguments. Hence, the experience that facing climate change deniers with scientific facts is not only not successful in changing their minds, but often strengthens their denial. Because at an unconscious level, something is known that must be strongly denied, lest one’s own sense of self and purpose is challenged.

Climate Change Denial and Australia’s Devastating Bush Fires

The fires that are now devastating several areas in Australia are linked, through heat, drought and intense winds to climate change according to climate scientists. Yet, many of our Australian leaders continue to deny links between climate change and bush fires, or even deny that climate change is a fact. This has been a great divide in Australian politics. Our position is increasingly recognised by overseas commentators, for example, Ketan Joshi in The Guardian, Wed 8th January 2020 says:

The prime minister, Scott Morrison, always teeters at the edges of this style of disaster denialism, using coded digs that suggest there is nothing unusual about what’s going on. “We have faced these disasters before” and “I know how distressing that [smoke haze] has been, particularly for young people who haven’t seen it before” both stand out as examples of Morrison’s strategy: disguise straightforward climate denialism with appeals to “common sense”, collective memory or the misguided passions of the young. (Something else is out of control in Australia: climate disaster denialism by Ketan Joshi The Guardian, Wed 8th January 2020)

In 2015, I wrote about climate change denial (Long 2016) where I noted:

at least three levels of denial with respect to climate change – now referred to as ‘climate variation’ by some governments, perhaps an institutionalised linguistic form of denial. These three levels are similar to Nuccitelli’s (2013) five stages but I place his second and third stages in my second level and his fourth and fifth stages in my third level.

The levels described there are:
Level 1

The general populace tends to think locally rather than globally and especially cold winters lend support to erroneous perceptions about global warming. This is the first level of denial. Often, contrarian writers, will cherry pick their arguments from local conditions and generalise. But because they appeal only to immediate experience rather than to a range of experiences and present quite emotionally charged arguments, they may capture an audience already wishing to deny the impositions that climate change recognition will impose on lives and beliefs. This first level of denial is simply that climate change does not exist. We are merely undergoing part of a normal fluctuation pattern in climate.

Level 2

Some large social institutions, governments and industry are beginning to believe the science. However, the second level of denial argues that human activity (anthroprogenic) has little if anything to do with proven climate change evidence. In the first instance, this dynamic involves splitting the reality (of climate change) from human accountability which is consequently denied. Connected to this is denial of the seriousness of climate change and its effects (see Dunlap and Mc Cright 2010). Dunlap and Mc Cright argue that while the self-interest of the large fossil fuel energy corporations is a large motivating factor for denial, the environmental protection and sustainability movements challenge a dominant social paradigm. This is the paradigm underlying the belief in permanent ‘western progress’ or the fantasy of perpetual economic growth. Climate change has become a focus point for the differences between the dominant ‘progress’ paradigm and the environmental movement. At a less conscious level, I will argue that the seriousness of the problem is also denied through a process of perverse dynamics (Long 2008) along with manic denial where companies hubristically believe they can overcome any issues through further technological development.

Level 3

Increasingly those governments who take the science seriously believe that communities, as well as attempting prevention measures must adapt to the changes. While such changes are necessary, they will only be available to those who have the resources to build adaptive practices. This is the third level of denial. It is not denial of evidence, but denial of global responsibilities and is manifest in international inability to make collaborative efforts to prevent further change or to build adaptive practice. This level of systemic denial is accompanied by the depressed stance of ‘there is nothing we can do’. In Australia, the consistent argument has been that we contribute only a small amount of pollutants to the world environment: a denial of our own responsibility to do as much as we can.

Denialists over time, slip from straight out level one denial to level two denial – which accepts some of what is known and denies other aspects. This allows an escape from the biggest challenges, while acceding to some of the ideas that seemingly attack the denialists belief.

Level three denial is perhaps the hardest of all to face as a community, because it implicates all and leaves us feeling helpless. If we are to act in a way that prevents such tragedies as are currently faced in fire-stricken areas, we must understand the dynamics of denial and their non-logical basis. We must understand our own part in the denial process and face up to what we have to change, even though this may challenge what we hold dear. But importantly we must find leaders who can do this and who are courageous enough to put the future before current egoistic desires. In Australian bush fire emergencies, we have a ‘leave early or stay and defend’ policy. It is now too late to leave the climate change problem early. We have to stay and defend what we have with courage.

Dr Susan Long
Director of Research & Scholarship, NIODA

10 January 2020

Climate Change Denial and Australia’s Devastating Bush Fires

ps Are you a leader or manager and would like to learn more about group dynamics? Have a look at the NIODA Master of Leadership and Management (Organisation Dynamics) course.

References

for Climate Change Denial and Australia’s Devastating Bush Fires

Dunlap, R.E. and McCright, A. (2010) ‘Climate Change Denial: Sources, actors and strategies’ in C. Lever-Tracy (ed) Handbook of Climate Change and Society, Routledge, N.Y. pp 240-252.

Long, S.D. (2008) The Perverse Organisation and its Deadly Sins, London: Karnac.

Long, S.D. (2015) ‘Turning a Blind Eye to Climate Change’ Organisation and Social Dynamics, 15(2) 248–262

Nucitelli, D. (2013) ‘The five Stages of Climate Change Denial are on Display Ahead of the IPCC Report’ The Guardian, September 2013.

Authority – a short enquiry

The NIODA Group Relations Working Conference in November 2019 (Identity, Gender, Authority and Community at Work) has a focus on how difference and identity influence the ways we take up authority and leadership. Authority is the legitimate use of power. But what do we count as legitimate authority and how is such legitimacy achieved?

Perhaps it means legitimate given the laws of the group, community or organisation, however formed and even when those laws may appear to be unfair or unethical? The idea of the ‘divine right’ of a monarch is seen as bestowing legitimate power from a deity, for example; or the power of a dictator may be legitimate in the sense of their power being supported in the law even when that law is despotic. There is an underlying assumption here that authority is linked to charisma – a term derived from the Greek ‘gift of grace’. Although now meaning a special power to influence others, its origins in divine conferral are clear.

Or, legitimacy may mean when the law and authority is endorsed by a majority, such as we believe occurs in a democracy – even if that majority may be persuaded by ‘false consciousness’ or misinformation, or even when there is awareness of the influence of ideological thinking (Zizek 1989 – The Sublime Object of Ideology) but with a blind trust in figures of authority.

Authority and its legitimacy, from a psychoanalytic perspective, stems from primary authority figures – parents, other family figures and teachers. The unconscious picture of authority is formed in early experience and then projected onto new figures of authority. The legitimacy here lies at both somatic and psychological levels and strong emotions of love, fear, anger and dependency are attached. Consequently, legitimacy in social settings may be achieved insofar as authorities mirror or resonate with unconscious images.

And, what of authority in those organisations that operate in a capitalist system? Authority lies in the structure of governance. First, company boards confer authority to senior staff. And boards, if they are vigilant and driven by organisational purpose, will attend to markets. In this sense, the authority invested in the board is market influenced, if not market-driven. The process is similar in family-owned or individually owned businesses. Except that there may or may not be a board in the governance structure. In the not-for-profit sector, most often a board drawn from the community and specialist professions is in place.

Such organisational systems are quite different to a democratic country government. In democratically elected government organisations, the legitimacy of authority is ultimately in the hands of ministers who delegate to public servants (even if the public servants have other powers of their own). Whereas the authority of the minister is endorsed by election from the group who vote, in companies and other organisations authority is bestowed from a few in specialised roles.

All this indicates that there may be good or bad authority as well as good or bad leaders who wield authority. As authority makes decisions on behalf of the group/community, so good authority makes decisions that fit laws that benefit the group as a whole and its individual members as much as possible. Any political system may become corrupt and no longer benefit the group, so it is important to find the safeguards that work against corruption: some of which might be in the ways we construct the nature of authority. So, the question of authority crosses the paths of group psychology/dynamics and political analysis.

How we conceive of authority is influenced by the way we recognise the source of its legitimacy: who confers what on whom. Put this way, it is apparent that identities are at play. Our creation of, and then perceptions and experiences of different identity groupings are critical because such distinctions so often endow the different groupings with differential charisma, power, capabilities, emotions, opinions and worth on the basis of unconscious assumptions, defensive dynamics and rivalrous intentions.

This group relations conference gives members the opportunity to look at how gender, identity and our understanding of community, in our work organisations in particular, affect the nature of authority and leadership. The conference uses experiential methods so that conference participants can learn from their own experience of gender and other identities in the different groups that the conference offers. The conference is a learning community structured as a temporary organisation.

The staff of the conference have been chosen to work alongside conference members in this exploration and has developed a program for this purpose.  Please visit www.nioda.org.au/events for a description and for online registration.

Susan Long