Working with Groups: Co-holding the Tangibles and the Intangible
Impact of Dual Task Group Relation Conferences, Socio Technical Systems (STS), and Socio-Economic-Approaches to Management (SEAM)
Preamble
This is the sixth and perhaps the final blog in the series — “Working with Groups”, where in each blog I have explored the impact of western thought on group dynamics, process work, group therapy, and change management teams.
While the first five blogs have looked at dilemmas of a consultant or a facilitator when working with groups, and subsequently mapped the historical evolution of theories, axioms, and practices that underlie the experience of working with groups. I have referred to the works of Kurt Lewin, Wilfred Bion, Alan Rickman, Sigmund Foulkes, Yalom, J L Moreno, and Augusto Boal. Many of the references were to their theories, their assumptions, and finally their impact on Sumedhas Process Work, as I have experienced it over the past 32 years.
Introduction
Content versus Process
Most OD consultants and Change practitioners are confronted with a core choice when it comes to designing an intervention — “should I work with the content of the intervention — new ideas, new practices, excellence etc.?” or “should I work with the process aspect in my intervention — group dynamics, intangible politics, unconscious processes?”
Very often clients as well as consulting practitioners get stuck in an ‘either-or’ stance –ending up defending their stances with an aggressive defensiveness that is palpable and counter-productive. And this has nothing to do with an innate ability for all of us — where we can explore and co-hold both the content and the process aspects.
Most of my clients in India prefer to look at content first — Is my CFT for Change bringing in new ideas? Has the team been innovative? Can we become better at decision making and strategic thinking? Has the team created greater revenues or improved efficiencies within the system — the preoccupation is with results, outputs, productivity, and task efficiencies.
There is a fair degree of reluctance to explore the intangible aspects of working together — especially when it means confronting themes that are not easily measurable, and or when the team is feeling ill-equipped to deal with such themes. For example, inter-functional alignment may have as much to do with design of interdependent processes as with unconscious or stated rivalry between two heads — and yet the go-to stance would be around designing better templates of processes with the hope that things would get resolved. Who would want to look at ‘rivalry’ — an unconscious process that could be replete with envy and competitiveness.
Much like the famous Mullah Nasruddin fable — perhaps it is more seductive to to work with the illuminated reality of content — processes, protocols, structures, and reviewing mechanisms as opposed to the shadowy processes that render the team dysfunctional. Even the HR function — the custodian of process realities in the olden days, has ‘evolved’ with advanced analytics and complex scorecards to explore the phenomena of resource efficiency and productivity.
It becomes important then to explore how in group dynamics and theory of groups, there have been many a practitioners and theorists who have chosen to straddle both the content and the process aspects of any group phenomena. And while there have been several such thought leaders who are building knowledge systems around Process and Content (as opposed to Process versus Content), I am choosing to refer to three schools that have been foundational in this respect.
A) The first part of the blog captures the work done by Harold Bridger who was a contemporary of Wilfred Bion and who innovated and pioneered the work on Dual Task GRCs. My earlier blogs have devoted considerably to Bion and Rickman’s work on basic assumption groups and group dynamics from a psycho-analytic lens — and most GRC practitioners would endorse my view that this work looks largely at the process phenomena. Therefore, I thought Bridger deserves a special mention on how he chose to bridge the two while remaining a part of the core who worked mostly with unconscious processes.
B) Subsequently I look at the well-researched work by the Socio Technical Systems (STS) practitioners including Tryst and Bamforth. Socio Technical Systems or STS was borne in Tavistock UK as well — and it offered another lens of view on how groups work and how technology disrupts not just the content aspect but also the group processes and where the OD consultant should focus on. For example, the increasing view of AI tools across work spaces, colleges, and universities should be examined from the STS lens.
C) Lastly, I would like to offer my experience of learning and working with Socio Economic Approaches to Management (SEAM) — a stream of work that I learnt in Lyon, France some two decades ago — SEAM remains exclusive to the French speaking domains across Europe and Africa — but it has much to offer to the OD consultant and the process worker.
I am not looking at LEAN and AGILE ideologies — but those of you who are familiar with either or both such philosophies of work — you would discover how the two build up on the three strands that I have outlined above.
To me, Lean as an ideology was an elegant integration of thought, feeling, and action, that allowed members of a system to counter the centrality of hierarchy and control in the traditional society of Japan and in many ways democratize the systems. Toyota was able to do so for decades, and yet the west only seems to look at Lean as a set of tools, frameworks and practices as opposed to a philosophy of living on this planet.
I suspect that the practitioners and management consultants may find this blog more interesting as it is quite application centric when it comes to OD interventions.
Part 1
Impact of the DUAL TASK Group Relations Conferences
It was an old friend and a colleague — Atul Sapre, who introduced me to the work at the Bayswater Institute — I clearly remember this meeting between he and I, and this was way back in 2009–10 as we were preparing to launch the Indian Academy of Organization Development certification program within Sumedhas, and this was the first time we read about the work done by Harold Bridger.
It was also the time, when Atul and I were debating on whether we invest our respective meagre savings into experiencing the Tavistock — Leicester Group Relations Conference or choose to participate in a Bayswater Offering of a Dual Task GRC — which was relatively unheard of. It was a difficult either-or decision as both of us were short of time, funds, and energy and both of us chose the former over the latter — albeit we went to Leicester in different years. In India, not many practitioners know about Bridger’s work.
However, the seed of a dual-task group relations conference got embedded in my mind since then.
The notion of ‘Double Task Approach’ — as developed by Harold Bridger in Tavistock (TIHR) in 1950s, was where Bridger emphasized that many groups such as change management teams, new product development teams, or strategic thinking teams are able to fulfill the primary task of emerging with key insights, ideas, and outputs — but very often end up being ‘obsessed’ with the outcome and miss the larger picture.
Harold was fond of saying that teams need to ‘suspend business’, and switch from the primary task to the second task (from a doing mode to a learning mode), and collectively reflect on the what, how, and why of working together. This emphasis of switching or pivoting from the primary task to the secondary task was quite intriguing — it was almost as if each member of the group and the groups per se, had to have an internal ‘switch’ that allowed the individual incumbent and the group to be reflexive. ‘Suspend Business’ is an apt phrase — it invites this switch from being over-focused on tasks and results — it becomes a catchphrase of sorts or a powerful switch.
It becomes useful to understand a bit about Bridger himself — he was an organizational consultant after having been one of the 12 founder members of the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations.
While he was trained as a psychoanalyst in Tavistock, his original discipline was Mathematics. Bridger in his later years, moved his focus away from therapy and spent more energies into organizational development. He got to work with leading companies of his time such as Philips, Unilever, and Shell — helping them unearth the ‘below the surface’ processes. In 1991, he helped found the Bayswater Institute and offered ‘Wisdom in Groups’ — a working conference. He died in 2005.
Bridger introduced the Dual Task GRC as an offering to invite the practitioner to look at and co-hold two tasks — this was his way of experimenting and building a body of knowledge.
Introducing
Dual Task Group Relations Conference Model
In a Dual Task GRC, the group is assigned two simultaneous tasks.
One task is the primary task, as in the Primary Task GRC — this is stated in all offerings of the traditional GRCs and this theme or task is introduced in the brochure itself — it would range from deploying personal authority to race relations to caste hegemonies. In the traditional GRC model, the primary task would be around a human process that is impacted by the unconscious.
Bridger brought in two tasks — where the first task is more about the tangible content and where the second task invited the group to look at the process. This was an interesting leap — and it is important to note the shift.
Key Differences from the traditional primary task GRC:
- Focus: Traditionally, Primary Task GRCs focus primarily on the task itself, while Dual Task GRCs introduce a second task to highlight specific group dynamics.
In my experience of GRCs, the primary task becomes the central purpose of existence of the group — and the basic assumption groups arise given the anxiety around the primary task. Thus the primary task GRC is more focused given the centrality of the task.
However there are times when the primary task becomes overwhelming as well as highly difficult to engage with for members who are not familiar with system psychodynamics. In some traditional GRCs, many a member chooses to abdicate his or her intuitive understanding of human processes, and emerges with no real knowledge of self and role-taking.
The assumption of a double task GRC is that participating managers can engage with one task that is familiar to them in terms of content and then learn from the second task that calls for reflexivity. Providing this link also becomes a scaffolding or a bridge between the content and the process.
- Complexity: Dual Task GRCs are generally more complex and can involve a higher degree of tension and conflict as the group struggles to balance both tasks. These would be equally intricate to facilitate as members reflect on the elements and challenges of both the tasks.
- Learning Opportunities: Both models offer opportunities for learning about group dynamics and individual behaviour. However, Dual Task GRCs can provide deeper insights into how groups handle competing demands and how individuals respond to stress and conflict.
Examples of Dual Task GRCs
Here are a few examples of dual task GRCs, often inspired by Bridger’s work:
a) The Timed Task and the Free-Form Discussion: In this exercise, the group is given a specific task with a strict time limit (e.g., brainstorming ideas for a new product launch or designing a strategy). Simultaneously, they are encouraged to engage in a free-form discussion about their feelings, thoughts, and experiences. This can highlight tensions between the need to be productiveand the desire for emotional expression.
The tension between being transactionally productive, and seeking an emotional intimacy as well as free-expression is palpable in most leadership teams and groups.
b) The Formal Meeting and the Spontaneous Role Play: The group is asked to conduct a formal meeting with a specific agenda. However, at any point, a participant can interrupt the meeting and suggest a spontaneous role play. This can reveal underlying power dynamics, conflicts, and resistance to change.
What I have liked about this design is the tension between remaining formally compliant to a given agenda and yet balancing this compliance with spontaneity and freedom — again an interesting tension that most leadership and management teams walk on.
c) The Structured Debate and the Unstructured Sharing: The group is divided into two teams and asked to debate a controversial topic. Simultaneously, they are encouraged to share their personal feelings and experiences related to the topic. This can highlight the tension between rational argumentation and emotional expression.
There can be designs where thought versus emotions (thinking versus feeling) can be worked with — and it allows the group to engage with plurality within — as opposed to merely entrenching themselves into conflicts, dilemmas, and pragmatics.
The design of double or dual task conferences resonated very much with my consulting over the past 20 years, where I have sought a balance when I work with senior leadership teams — looking at both the task of creating or delivering something (the tangibles), and the how’s and why’s of doing it (working with the intangibles). A degree in business studies, teaching strategy and OD, and a reasonable understanding of finance helped me build this fine yet fragile balance between the tangibles and the intangibles.
At TAO — a consulting organization that I was a part of between 1999 and 2018, my colleagues — K S Narendran, Abhay Phadnis and I created a leadership development center design — very much on the lines of a double task approach, when it came to looking at psychological role-taking as well as group processes while engaging with case-studies and simulations around strategy, scenario building, and transformation.
We partnered with the leading IT organization in India at their leadership campus in Trivandrum for over 10 years, as we sought to look at both the content (the tangible tasks of emerging with a strategy or change design) with psychological role-taking within the group including emerging politics.
Most simulations for learning should ideally leverage Harold Bridger’s design principles for it allows the group to engage with both the ‘content’ of their work and the group processes — conscious and unconscious that impact the former. It becomes very useful to earmark the two spaces, draw tight boundaries between the ‘tasks’ and use the magical switch of ‘Suspend Business’.
However, the design and facilitation can get tricky for someone who is unable to hold the balance between tangible content and intangible processes, and there appears to be very few of us who are able to integrate both of these elements. It is quite often when I encounter OD practitioners (who in the past were HR professionals) and Coaches, who carry a deeper understanding of the process and refrain from looking at the content of the phenomena.
Part 2
Socio Technical Systems (STS)
Sociotechnical systems (STS) in OD is an approach to complex organizational work design that recognizes the interaction between people and technology
The term also refers to coherent systems of human relations, technical objects, and even cybernetic processes that lie within large, complex infrastructures. The term sociotechnical systems was coined by ERIC TRIST, Ken BAMFORTH, and Fred EMERY in the World War II era, based on their work with workers in English coal mines at the Tavistock Institute in London.
Sociotechnical theory was pioneering for its shift in emphasis, a shift towards considering teams or groups as the primary unit of analysis and not the individual. Sociotechnical theory pays particular attention to internal supervision and leadership at the level of the “group” and refers to it as “responsible autonomy”.
Most of us would have read about how STS evolved in the changing landscape of coal-mining as observed by Trist and Bamforth in their legendary paper — “Some Social and Psychological Consequences of the Longwall Method of Coal-Getting: An Examination of the Psychological Situation and Defences of a Work Group in Relation to the Social Structure and Technological Content of the Work System E. L. Trist and K. W. Bamforth, Human Relations 1951; 4; 3”
The paper was exciting for me to read, as I grew up in the coal-mining belts of Dhanbad and Odissa and with several conversations with my father — a mining engineer who loved his vintage underground mines and then played a part in the boom of huge opencast projects taking over. It also offers very relevant insights with what we are witnessing today with Manufacturing 4.0 tsunami hitting us — along with its focus on ioT, robotics, and AI.
Socio Technical Systems
Mapping the dramatic shifts in Coal Mining
Before the onset of mechanized mining, coal had been mined for centuries in England — shallow seams of coal had been exploited and the trend was to dig deeper into complex underground mines. In the pre-mechanized era, this trend was dangerously risky as small teams engaged with ‘short-wall’ mining. With the rise of accidents and fatalities, this work was quite community centric and gave birth to ‘The Hand-Got system”, where teams comprising of essentially three craftsmen roles would undertake this risky work.
Trist and Bamforth trace the social contracts between the three roles — The Hewer, the Mate, and the Trammer (the Boy) who would bid for contracts — a process also replete with mischief, guile, and violence, and then execute the contract. The contracting was done with the Hewer but the group knew about the details.
The work relationships were quite tribalistic and devoted to kinship ties; the group would demonstrate a tenacity to work in ‘darkness’, and in isolation (the group had no supervisors) and had to be adaptive and flexible in tough working conditions. The group was also multi-skilled, as the conditions often meant that in case one of them was hurt or unwell, the others could take on the role.
The Hand-Got group was like a ‘family’ within — with clannish ties that enabled the group to invest into loyalties and tide over hurdles, injuries, and death, but had tremendous conflict with other such groups — where the competition was to secure a good ‘benk’. This inter-team conflict was structurally legitimate as teams brought in their angst and aggression which accompanied the nature of work.
While the kinship was a building block, the other aspects of this small group of three roles was how they would bid for the contract (and differentially share the proceeds — as the Hewer was the most complex role amongst the three roles) and how they demonstrated small group autonomy — for there was no boss!
The Advent of Mechanization & Long Wall Mining
Mechanization transformed the world of mining. The new value chain was three linear operations across three shifts — the first shift was for ‘cutting’ the face using task roles of the borer (who would drill bores into the face), the gummer (who would remove coal) and the belt breaker (who would change the conveyor), the second shift was devoted to ‘ripping’ — where the roles of the belt builder and the Ripper became important and the last shift was devoted to ‘Filling’ — where men would fill loose coal on to the conveyor.
As you can make out, the complexity of operations and individual role-taking changed — the three role Hand-got artisan or craftsperson group was broken up — and the third shift devoted to ‘Filling’ rendered the system not just mechanistic but also unequal. It was the Fillers who struggled most as they would discover failed interdependencewith earlier tasks and shifts. The Cutters and Borers were disconnected from the Fillers in this linear mechanistic mindset — and upstream / downstream alignment was not clear.
The phrase used by Trist and Bamforth was that mechanization brought in “unequal men with equal stints under unequal conditions”, for all waste in the system was discovered in the 3rd shift by the fillers — lag indicators that did not explore how the two shifts before them had contributed to the waste.
STS
Insights from Mechanization of Coal Mining and Working with Groups
1. With the onset of mechanization, the absence of kinship reduced the collective understanding of the total value chain to a single Job. This created a siloed mindset and more importantly was the first nail in the coffin of the ‘kin’ and its benefits in a dangerous work environment.
2. With the onset of mechanization, the notion of the Work Group got not just got threatened but also brought in the element of ‘external control’ (the significance of the supervisor / manager) as a variable to substitute the internal self-regulation of the Hand Got group. Trist and Bamforth speak of how a social system not just provided an emotional scaffolding but also endorsed self-regulation as men worked in tough conditions.
3. The third shift was equally significant — the original hand-got system nurtured a sense of multi-skilling where the absence of say the Trammer could also substitute for the Hewer. This multi-skilling aspect was substituted by specialization and destroyed given the design of the three shift structure.
4. Lastly, the system became a lot more prescriptive (there emerged standard methods, quantifiable procedures, measures et al) in the new age — the discretionary aspects of the task were lost. This was the last blow to the craft of mining — for the Hewer carried wisdom that was passed on to from one generation to the next.
All these shifts are quite significant and underline the need to look at ‘design of work’. The lean thinking wave that happened a century later spoke of newer work designs that could challenge the ‘alienation’ of the worker from mechanization.
Socio Technical Systems speak of integrating the intangible (the social system) and the tangible (the organization of tasks) and why it is necessary to discover new work designs that integrate the human with technology.
I would have also wanted to talk about STS at Calico Mills in Ahmedabad, where A.K. RICE in 1953 looked at new ways of working, innovating, and ideating for a group of workers (and it is useful to search this on the net if you are curious), for Rice tried to combat alienation of the worker with new ways of owning and being responsible for a group of looms.
I would rather look at how students for example use AI — ChatGPT for their assignments and the advent of this technology is challenging the pedagogy of leveraging group dialogue and group discussions as a way of learning. Learning today, as my 20-year old son studying engineering puts it, is highly individualistic and a function of how you use AI as an interface to learn. Of course, there are also many who have stopped learning as AI does more work than ever.
Working in Groups is perhaps being challenged on all fronts and the STS aspect needs more reflection and dialogue on how we could work in groups — otherwise we would end up making work roles more specialized, independent and also seed alienation and isolation — the social fabric has to be re-constructed and that needs creative ideas. There are OD practitioners that are looking at WFH and its impact on design of work.
Part 3
Socio Economic Approaches to Management (SEAM) and Working in Groups
It was Atul Sapre (again) who introduced me to the work by Henri Savall — Dr. Savall set up ISEOR in Lyon, France to create a crucible for his work on SEAM, after having been at Tavistock. In 2009, ISEOR had a team of 50 researchers who were supporting a SEAM interventions across the French-speaking part of the Globe and interestingly at School of Business and Technology at Duluth, Minnesota.
We made two long trips to the ISEOR campus to learn about SEAM and get certified on this work — the two long trips were worth our time and energy apart from interacting with Henri Savall and our own guru — Prof Marc Bonnet — he was kind enough to speak in English with us.
Prof Bonnet also helped us understand why Lyon is the gastronome capital of France!
What is Socio Economic Approach to Management?
The Socio-Economic Approach to Management (SEAM) is a holistic approach that focuses on both the human and economic aspects of organizations. It recognizes that people are the most valuable asset of any organization, and that their well-being and engagement are crucial for long-term success.
Henri Savall and his team of thinkers believed that it was not just technology that affects work design but the demands of the capitalistic world emphasises on the economic aspects of groups performing — that of profitability, cost etc.
Both Atul and I liked finance and accounting — and this aspect of integrating human and economic aspects was intriguing. Our understanding and our experience of the team at ISEOR Lyon was quite affirming for we had a resonance with the ideology and the key principles of SEAM.
Key Principles of SEAM:
· Socio-Economic Focus: SEAM emphasizes the importance of balancing economic goals with social and human concerns. It recognizes that a healthy and engaged workforce is essential for organizational success. Some of you may want to point out that French society and their 4-day weeks are not applicable for the Indian context — but we resonated with this principle quite a lot.
Quality of life and our concerns around communities that we are a part of, and process work warmed us to a large extent to appreciate that SEAM may allow us to create organizations that value both economic and human concerns.
The recent death of an EY professional in Pune due to over-work and Narayan Murthy’s recommendation to work for 70 hours a week only highlights how quaint SEAM is — but with its methods, it seeks a ‘balance’.
· Human Potential: SEAM views people as the primary source of innovation, creativity, and problem-solving within an organization. It encourages leaders to invest in their employees’ development and well-being.
A thing that stood out was that as opposed to the Japanese view of Lean Thinking, the French researchers at Lyon emphasized that all systems should have ‘some waste’ — this goes against the notion of zero waste and first time right — but intuitive makes sense.
Waste as the SEAM practitioners put it, offered the body and the fuel for the next phase of innovation.
a) Hidden Cost Analysis: SEAM recognizes that traditional accounting methods often fail to capture the full cost of organizational dysfunction. By identifying and addressing “hidden costs,” such as absenteeism, turnover, and decreased productivity, organizations can improve their overall performance.
This aspect of SEAM was exciting, and we did like many of the frameworks and methods to explore the notion of hidden cost. I think the attempt of researchers at ISEOR to discern and identify parameters that map hidden costs was commendable.
SEAM allowed a management team of a system to collectively embrace ‘hidden costs’ — the frameworks were logical and the ISEOR team had even designed a software system to capture waste, encourage root cause analysis and look at patterns across industries.
b) Whole-System Change: SEAM promotes a systemic approach to organizational change, addressing root causes rather than just symptoms. It encourages collaboration and participation from all levels of the organization.
This aspect was not unique to SEAM alone — for it is endorsed by most schools of organization development.
c) Management Philosophy: SEAM aims to shift the mindset of leaders from a purely economic focus to a more holistic approach that values human capital and long-term sustainability.
A thing that stood out was that as opposed to the Japanese view of Lean Thinking, the French researchers at Lyon emphasized that all systems should have ‘some waste’ — this goes against the notion of zero waste and first time right — but intuitive makes sense.
Waste as the SEAM practitioners put it, offered the body and the fuel for the next phase of innovation.
SEAM in Action:
Two conferences within the learning journey highlighted to the extent of impact of SEAM. We had consultants and researchers coming in from different parts of the French-speaking world — from Africa, the Gulf, and the continent — sharing case studies and implementation highlights. Both Atul and I noticed (through our frugal understanding of French — and yes the language was a barrier) that SEAM had its fans from service world — from hospitals to hotels — a world where the human being was still the centre of task systems.
SEAM has been successfully implemented in a variety of organizations across different sectors. It involves a structured change process that includes:
- Diagnosis: Identifying the root causes of organizational problems through data analysis and stakeholder interviews.
- Intervention: Implementing targeted interventions to address the identified issues, such as training programs, team-building activities, or process improvements.
- Evaluation: Measuring the impact of the interventions and making adjustments as needed.
- Sustainability: Ensuring that the positive changes are sustained over time through ongoing leadership and employee engagement.
I was more excited about the diagnostic capabilities of SEAM — its frameworks allowed a consultant to emerge with a sense of intangible and hidden costs — an explication that countered the way current accounting is designed on. Some of the principles of SEAM also resonate with Activity Based Costing, but what stood out was the integration of human processes with economic value addition within the firm.
Atul Sapre in Lyon, France
I must also confess that neither Atul nor I could become the torchbearers of SEAM movement in India — we had of course creates such fantasies for ourselves — and sadly so. There were many reasons where we failed to excite others about aspects of SEAM — part of it was because of a sharp difference in text — SEAM was all French and all artefacts including books and journals were in French, and partly because SEAM challenged OD consultants to work on both fronts — the Value Chain of tasks (Content) including economic parameters, and intangible processes of groups.
Conclusion
As mentioned before, all three streams — dual task GRCs, STS, and SEAM enabled me as a practitioner to bridge the task / tangible aspects of systems with intangible human processes and group dynamics.
Much of what gets conveyed in Change Management builds on the principles of these schools. I do hope that you have enjoyed the narratives outlined across the six blogs — please write to me at gagan.taoknoware@gmail.com or gagan@eumlens.in for any clarifications or thoughts.
As stated earlier, I am going to write a book on this series, and the six-blog series provides me a structure and would embellish each of the blogs with frameworks, implementation and intervention design guides, and of course some narratives — both inspiring and dark yet funny. This book is intended to target all practitioners who are working with groups — either in the process work space or in the consulting space — and a large part of the proceeds would be funnelled back to Sumedhas Academy for Human Context and other such bodies to promote their offerings.
