Dear Chris,
Thanks for taking this further. I continue a little more with some
bullet points below so we know we are in the organisational field.
Boundaries and appropriateness are a big issue in Organisational
Constellation work.
I wrote an article for the Jan 2009 issue of the Knowing Field on
this subject. I think it was published. I havent received the
cheque yet, but I guess its in the mail!
The more I work in therapy and constellations the more I think that
boundaries and what is appropriate are about my needs as well as the
clients, and are very subjective.
If you work with organisations it can be good to have quite a few
tools in your toolbox for all the different settings and clients
groups you can encounter.
I think of boundaries as what we need to feel safe, and in a way are
imaginary, there are no boundaries in reality. My clients have taught
me that.
Two cases stand out for me. One, a business had problems moving
forward. It related to the owners dead twin, who was never born. In
another, a business was looking to list on the stock exchange, but
again there was some sort of blockage with the investors, which
related to the unacknowledged contribution of the founders ex-
girlfriend.
As for your statement, differentiation between family and other
organisations is important in stopping us from inappropriately
applying observations made in families to other organisations.
Some observations can be quite similar, such a where the leader of
the organisation and the family want to stand.
I would like to add to what you say.
The tricky part is that Organisations often operate like families.
For example:
*A board of directors in conflict, then the MD who came to the
workshop realised he was treating them like his 4 brothers.
*A man who didnt trust his male staff, but then he didnt trust his
father either.
Helping clients see how they project their family life onto their
organisations can be very useful, and I think is large part of the
classical organisational constellation.
This can then help the client then see, more unentangled, the more
purely organisational dynamics that exist in their Organisation.
But in working with organisations, how we work, depends on a variety
of issues including ourselves, the client, the setting, the issue,
who else is present and so on.
A big topic.
David Mathes
.Melbourne and Guangzhou
Re: Organisations and Families
Posted by: "Chris Walsh" chrisjwalsh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:52 am (PST)
Hi David
Thanks for engaging with this theme.
I agree with all of your observations, although I must say that the deep
bonding of individuals with the organisations of their workplace is much
less these days with constant restructuring and people moving jobs
much more
regularly. That however does not affect the level of systemic bonding
which
occurs at a deeper soul level.
I don't think we can get past the actual facts here. We are all born
into
families, pre-existing soul units formed by nature outside of our
voluntary
control except for the voluntary act of sexual intercourse between a
man and
a woman. That is a fact . No other human organisation is formed in
this way.
I have often chatted with people who have moved from one side of the
planet
to the other in a futile attempt to get away from their family. It is
futile because their family is always with them. They just can't
shake them
off. They can't forget about them. This is an unfortunately common
experience. A similar experience with work organisations is much much
rarer.
While organisational bonds can be deep, meaningful and powerful just
like
friendship bonds they can be and often are broken, often quite easily.
People very rarely move to the other side of the planet because they
can't
cope with a job and are trying to forget it. They do move to get away
from
family or country quite commonly and as I said it is doomed to fail at a
soul level. Remember nations and cultural groups are something
between the
organic systems of families and the humanly made organisations such
as the
workplace.
The difference between family bonds and organisational bonds is
similar to
the difference between family bonds and non sexual friendship bonds.
Unless
there is an existential bonding like risking your life to save someone
else's then the friendship just does not enter into the deeper family
soul/system. That is why friends hardly ever have an important role in
family constellations. The friendships interact with the family in
day to
day life just like people's family systems interact with their works
systems
as you correctly point out. Nonetheless they are largely independent
systems.
There is also a greater soul and at that level everything is totally
interdependent but that is another story. That is why we need to be
clear
which system we are talking out and at what level that system operates.
Otherwise our thinking becomes very muddled. I suspect it is partly
because
people find this sophisticated process of shifting perspective
overwhelming,
that they turn slogans that are meant to help guide us into commandments
that can oppress us and shutdown our ability to see what is happening
right
in front of our eyes. When used this way slogans give a false sense of
security - just like George Bush's "you're either with us or against us"
I agree with you that everything has an effect. I believe the
differentiation between family and other organisations is important in
stopping us from inappropriately applying observations made in
families to
other organisations. We need to ask ourselves:
. What are these effects?
. How long do they last?
. How deep are these effects in the system?
Aside from cultures and countries I think it is very clear that these
effects run deeper and endure much longer in most families than they
do in
most organisations.
hasta la vista
Chris Walsh
Melbourne, Australia
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
