Social defenses in the time of coronavirus

This paper explores the ways in which social defenses (Menzies Lyth 1960) contribute to a good-enough holding environment (Winnicott 1971) in the volatile and uncertain times.

The starting point for this paper is a case-study action research project which explores the experience of a partially distributed team of therapists working with clients of the child protection system. Team members’ work was largely autonomous, relational and place-based, intersecting with multiple organisations through partnership arrangements. The research found that the dispersal of the team across multiple offices, use of technology, and the structural separation of decision-making and service delivery limited their capacity to work together as a team. I propose that, to effectively harness the emergent knowledge arising from the work, the team needs to be structured around the work (Lawrence 1997). A self-managing arrangement would better enable the experience of work to be held (Winnicott 1971) and create the conditions for effective teamwork.

This research has practical application for the understanding of group dynamics in contemporary organisations. More significantly, it creates opportunities to consider the experience of work in the context of the coronavirus pandemic.

Krantz (1998) writes that the post-industrial age necessitated a shift from authority that was related to roles and structure to one involving negotiated autonomy. This shift has been amplified by global organisational and social change arising from the rapid growth in digital technology and connectivity (Leadbeater 2010). The complex web of inter-organisational, multi-national relations creates environmental turbulence (Emery & Trist 1965), and is the setting for the coronavirus pandemic. Across the globe, initiatives are in place to limit contagion. Organisations have acted swiftly to adapt; distributed teams have become the norm rather than the exception. This paper will explore the structures, procedures and technologies necessary to contain anxiety (Bion 1984) and facilitate effective work.

References:
Bion, WR 1984, Attention and Interpretation, Karnac Books, London.
Emery, F & Trist, E 1965, ‘The Causal Texture of Organizational Environment’, Human Relations, vol. 18, pp. pp 21-32.
Krantz, J 1998, ‘Anxiety and the New Order’, in The Psychodynamics of Leadership, Psychosocial Press, Connecticut, pp. pp 77-107.
Lawrence, G 1997, ‘Centering of the Sphinx for the Psychoanalytic Study of Organisations’, Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the International Society for the Psychoanalytic Study of Organizations, Philadelphia, PA, 1997/06/15.
Leadbeater, C 2010, Cloud Culture: the future of global cultural relations,Counterpoint, London.
Menzies Lyth, I 1960, ‘Social Systems as a Defense Against Anxiety: An
Empirical Study of the Nursing Service of a General Hospital’, in The Social
Engagement of Social Science: A Tavistock Anthology, Tavistock Publications, London, 1, pp. pp 439-462.
Winnicott, DW 1971, Playing and Reality, Routledge Classics, London.

Session schedule

5 MINS

Introduction

30 MINS

Paper presentation

15 MINS

Small group discussion; impressions of the paper and developing questions for the presenter

15 MINS

Discussion forum with the presenter; moderated for the speaker to elaborate their ideas

15 MINS

Small group activity or discussion ‘What does this paper tell us about working into the future?’

15 MINS

Discussion forum with the presenter; themes from the discussions

25 MINS

Whole Symposium across the papers reflections on the sessions

Share this presentation!

Parallel Paper Presentations

The following are also presenting at this time