here - Circles for Connection

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Faculteit psychologie en pedagogische wetenschappen
Centrum voor Organisatie- en Personeelspsychologie
The systems psychodynamics of collaborative work: issues in
direction setting of the process
Proefschrift aangeboden tot het verkrijgen van de graad van Doctor in de
Psychologische Wetenschappen, 2006
door Silvia Prins
Promotor: Prof. Dr. Tharsi Taillieu

Cover illustration: “Ik ben, omdat wij zijn” (“I am, because we are”), Klaus Elle.
de Liefde, W.H.J. (2002). African tribal leadership voor managers. Van dialoog tot besluit.
Deventer, Kluwer.

Silvia Prins
Een systeem psychodynamisch perspectief op multipartij samenwerking: thema’s in het
richting geven aan het proces.
Proefschrift aangeboden tot het verkrijgen van de graad van Doctor in de Psychologische
Wetenschappen, 2006.
Promotor: Prof. Dr. T. Taillieu
SAMENVATTING
Multipartij samenwerking is een strategie waarbij vertegenwoordigers van verschillende
organisaties en sociale groepen samenwerken om duurzame oplossingen te ontwikkelen
voor een ‘metaprobleem’ dat allen aanbelangt. In gedeelde verantwoordelijkheid nemen ze
beslissingen voor de toekomst van het domein. ‘Leiderschap’ in dergelijke horizontale,
participatieve organiseerprocessen is een problematisch begrip. Over het algemeen is er geen
formele leider met hiërarchische autoriteit. Geen enkele groep of organisatie kan eenzijdige
beslissingen nemen voor het domein. Dit onderzoek richt zich op leiderschap als een
gedeelde groepsfunctie. Het doel was om te exploreren welke betekenis deelnemers gaven
aan thema’s en dilemma’s waarmee ze geconfronteerd werden. De onderzoeker ging na hoe
de dynamiek die rond deze thema’s ontstond de richting van het proces mee beïnvloedde.
Om de specifieke aard van inter-organisationele samenwerkingsprocessen te begrijpen, nam
de onderzoeker deel aan drie projecten waarin deelnemers poogden een meta-probleem op
te lossen: erosie, geïntegreerd management van een riviervallei, en pleegzorg. Het doel was
om de complexiteit en de uniciteit van deze processen in hun natuurlijke context te
documenteren. De dataverzameling was ontworpen om de diverse perspectieven doorheen
de tijd in kaart te brengen, waarbij de antecedenten en de context van het
samenwerkingsinitiatief eveneens gedocumenteerd werden. De onderzoeker gebruikte data
triangulatie: participerende observatie tijdens vergaderingen, interviews, documenten, en
dagboeknotities. Één project (pleegzorg) werd, op een systematische wijze, in de diepte
geanalyseerd. Een gedetailleerde reconstructie van het proces bood een voorlopig overzicht
voor analyse en interpretatie. De onderzoeker analyseerde daarnaast ook de thema’s die naar
voren kwamen op verschillende momenten in het proces: bij de start (stakeholder
interviews), tijdens het proces (observaties) en na het project (kritische incidenten
interviews).
De onderzoeker gebruikte het systeem psychodynamisch perspectief om betekenis te geven
aan de dynamieken die zich ontwikkelden tijdens de samenwerking. Dit kader benadrukt de
wederzijdse beïnvloeding van systeemkenmerken en processen: de dynamieken beïnvloeden
het systeem en het systeem beïnvloedt de interacties. Dit onderzoekskader maakte het
mogelijk om te begrijpen hoe de betrokkenen omgingen met de dilemma’s die inherent zijn
aan samenwerking over organisatiegrenzen heen en hoe ze teveel spanningen afweerden.
Het bood ook inzicht in welke voorwaarden en interventies taakgericht en productief werk
mogelijk maakten.
De gevalstudies zijn een narratieve weergave van zich ontwikkelende organiseerprocessen
en ze bieden een ‘dikke beschrijving’ van samenwerkingsprocessen. Dit empirisch
onderzoek draagt bij tot theorieontwikkeling in het domein van multipartij samenwerking.
De onderzoeker ontwikkelde contextuele inzichten voor elke gevalstudie, die relevant
kunnen zijn in gelijkaardige organisatiecontexten. De cases laten zien dat niet alleen
personen of organisaties in een ‘leidinggevende’ rol de richting van de samenwerking
i

epalen. Dit gebeurt ook door elementen in de context (b.v. evenementen, actoren in de
omgeving); de betekenissen die aan de taak worden gegeven (b.v. verschil tussen formele en
fenomenologische taak); het structureren en formaliseren van het proces (b.v.
stakeholderanalyse, formele rollen, interventies); en de manier waarop de actoren omgaan
met moeilijke relationele thema’s en dilemma’s. Enkele karakteristieke afweermechanismen
worden besproken. De onderzoeker besluit met een aantal specifieke interventies en
faciliterende voorwaarden die de negatieve gevoelens opgeroepen door de openheid,
complexiteit en onzekerheid van samenwerking kunnen dragen en betekenis geven.
ii

Silvia Prins
The systems psychodynamics of collaborative work: issues in direction setting of the
process.
Thesis presented to obtain the degree of Ph.D. in psychology, 2006
Promoter: Prof. Dr. T. Taillieu
SUMMARY
In multiparty collaboration stakeholder representatives of different organizations and social
groups work together to develop sustainable solutions for a meta-problem that concerns
them all. They jointly take decisions for the future of the domain. ‘Leadership’ in such
horizontal, participative processes of organizing, is a problematic notion. Usually there is no
formal leader with hierarchical authority. No single group or organization can take unilateral
decisions for the domain. This research focused on leading as a shared group function. The
aim of the research was to explore how participants made sense of the issues and dilemmas
with which they were confronted. The researcher investigated how dynamics that emerged
around those issues influenced the direction of the process.
In order to understand the specific nature of inter-organizational collaborative processes the
researcher participated in three projects dealing with a meta-problem: erosion, integrated
management of a river valley, and foster care. The aim was to capture the complexity and
uniqueness of the collaborative experiences in their natural setting. Data collection was set
up to assess the multiple perspectives over time, taking the antecedents and context of the
collaborative into account. The researcher used data triangulation: participative observation
of meetings, interviewing, documents, and journalizing. One case (foster care) was analyzed
in depth following a systematic approach. A detailed reconstruction of the process provided
a provisional overview for analysis and interpretation. The researcher also analyzed the
issues that emerged at different moments in the process: at the start (stakeholder interviews),
during the process (observations) and after the project (critical incident interviews).
The researcher used the system psychodynamic perspective to make sense of the dynamics
that emerged in the collaborative. This frame allowed for an interpretation of the
interconnection between system features and emergent dynamics in the system: the
dynamics influence the system and the system influences the interactions. This research
frame helped to understand how participants dealt with the dilemmas inherent in
collaboration across organizational boundaries and how they defended against uncontained
tensions. It also provided insight in conditions and interventions that facilitated task oriented
and productive collaborative work.
The case studies are narrative accounts of emergent processes of organizing and provide a
‘thick description’ of collaborative processes. This empirical research contributes to theory
building in the domain of multiparty collaboration. The researcher developed contextual
insights for each case that can be illustrative for similar organizational settings. The cases
demonstrate that not only persons or organizations in ‘leading’ roles set the direction in
collaborative work. Direction is also established through context elements (e.g. events,
players in the environment); sense making of the task (e.g. difference between formal and
phenomenological task); structuring and formalizing of the process (e.g. stakeholder
analysis, formal roles, interventions); and the way in which the participants deal with
difficult issues and dilemmas in their relationship. Some particular defensive dynamics are
discussed. To conclude, the researcher stresses a number of specific interventions and
iii

facilitating conditions to contain the negative feelings stirred up by the openness, complexity
and uncertainty of collaboration.
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DANKWOORD/ACKNOWLEDGMENTS........................................................................................................X
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................ XIV
READING INSTRUCTIONS ......................................................................................................................... XVI
PART 1: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...................................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 1: MULTIPARTY COLLABORATION AS AN ORGANIZATIONAL STRATEGY............................................... 1
1.1. Organizational context: societal and environmental 'meta-problems' ................................................... 1
1.2. Definition and organizational features of multiparty collaboration....................................................... 2
1.3. Challenges for direction setting: ’collaborative leadership’.................................................................. 4
CHAPTER 2: THE SYSTEMS PSYCHODYNAMIC PERSPECTIVE .............................................................................. 15
2.1. The field: origins and definition ........................................................................................................... 15
2.2. Basic assumptions in this research....................................................................................................... 17
2.3. A systems psychodynamic perspective on collaborative work: the challenges of direction setting...... 26
2.4. Direction setting and the ambiguity of authority relations................................................................... 32
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH APPROACH ................................................................................................................... 35
3.1. Interpretive inquiry: epistemological position ..................................................................................... 35
3.2. An attitude of inquiry: the interpretive stance ...................................................................................... 38
3.3. Subjectivity and inter-subjectivity as a source of data ......................................................................... 39
3.4. Methodological approach..................................................................................................................... 41
3.5. Relevance of this research.................................................................................................................... 49
3.6. References............................................................................................................................................. 51
PART 2: EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ................................................................................................................ 66
CASE STUDY 1: EROSION CASE .......................................................................................................................... 66
Context and antecedents of the erosion project........................................................................................... 66
Main events in the erosion project............................................................................................................... 67
Research approach...................................................................................................................................... 67
Conclusion of the erosion case.................................................................................................................... 69
For the reader ............................................................................................................................................. 70
“WHO’S IN CHARGE HERE?!” EMOTIONAL CHALLENGES AND EMERGENT DYNAMICS IN INTERDEPENDENT WORK
(ARTICLE 1)....................................................................................................................................................... 71
Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 71
Organizational frame: multiparty collaboration......................................................................................... 71
Frame for analysis: the systems psychodynamic perspective...................................................................... 73
Case: mud in the streets and water in the basement.................................................................................... 75
Conclusion................................................................................................................................................... 99
References ................................................................................................................................................. 101
CASE 2: RIVER VALLEY CASE........................................................................................................................... 105
v

Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 105
Context and antecedents of the river valley project .................................................................................. 105
Main events in the river valley project ...................................................................................................... 109
Research approach.................................................................................................................................... 113
For the reader ........................................................................................................................................... 122
BOUNDARY DYNAMICS IN NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: THE AMBIGUITY OF STAKEHOLDER INCLUSION
(ARTICLE 2)..................................................................................................................................................... 124
Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 124
Theoretical framework .............................................................................................................................. 124
The case: wet feet and dry marshes........................................................................................................... 130
Conclusion................................................................................................................................................. 151
References ................................................................................................................................................. 152
PART 3: MAIN CASE STUDY ....................................................................................................................... 156
INTRODUCTION CASE STUDY 3: FOSTER CARE.................................................................................................. 156
CONTEXT AND ANTECEDENTS OF THE FOSTER CARE PROJECT ......................................................................... 157
Socio-political context............................................................................................................................... 157
Institutional context................................................................................................................................... 159
Antecedents of the project.......................................................................................................................... 160
Main events in the foster care project ....................................................................................................... 161
Research approach.................................................................................................................................... 163
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................... 178
FOR THE READER............................................................................................................................................. 179
THE PSYCHODYNAMIC PERSPECTIVE IN ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH: MAKING SENSE OF THE DYNAMICS OF
DIRECTION SETTING IN EMERGENT COLLABORATIVE PROCESSES (ARTICLE 3)................................................. 180
Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 180
Collaborative work and the challenges of direction setting ...................................................................... 180
The psychodynamic perspective in organizational research ..................................................................... 182
‘Understanding’ dynamics ........................................................................................................................ 184
The case: from competition to collaboration............................................................................................. 186
Conclusion................................................................................................................................................. 204
References ................................................................................................................................................. 206
FROM COMPETITION TO COLLABORATION: DYNAMICS OF DIRECTION SETTING IN MULTIPARTY COLLABORATION
(ARTICLE 4) .................................................................................................................................................... 212
Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 212
Conceptual background............................................................................................................................. 212
The case: issues in direction setting .......................................................................................................... 215
Some reflections......................................................................................................................................... 238
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................... 241
References ................................................................................................................................................. 242
vi

PART 4: A SYSTEM PSYCHODYNAMIC PERSPECTIVE ON DIRECTION SETTING IN
COLLABORATIVE WORK ........................................................................................................................... 247
1. CONTEXT AND STARTING CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................ 249
1.1. Antecedents of the collaborative effort ............................................................................................... 250
1.2. Characteristics of the domain............................................................................................................. 251
1.3. Players in the context ......................................................................................................................... 252
1.4. Events and changes in the environment.............................................................................................. 255
1.5. Shared sense of urgency ..................................................................................................................... 257
2. TASK AND COLLABORATIVE AIMS ............................................................................................................... 258
2.1. The normative primary task................................................................................................................ 260
2.2. The existential task ............................................................................................................................. 262
2.3. The phenomenological task ................................................................................................................ 263
3. STRUCTURING AND FORMALIZING OF THE PROCESS .................................................................................... 265
3.1. Minimal structure ............................................................................................................................... 267
3.2. Structuring of the domain: stakeholder analysis and stakeholder involvement.................................. 268
3.3. Formal and informal roles ................................................................................................................. 270
3.4. Formal and informal structures and interventions............................................................................. 277
4. COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIPS, RELATEDNESS AND DYNAMICS.............................................................. 281
4.1. Working with diversity........................................................................................................................ 282
4.2. Mutual dependence and interdependence........................................................................................... 285
4.3. The paradoxical nature of ‘collaboration’: collusive behavior.......................................................... 289
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON DESIGNING AND FACILITATING EMERGENT ORGANIZATIONAL PROCESSES ................. 293
Critical competencies for designing and leading emergent processes ...................................................... 295
To conclude ............................................................................................................................................... 300
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................... 301
vii

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: COPP members involved in the different projects
Attachment 2: Overview of the stakeholders interviewed in foster care
Attachment 3: Presentation of analysis stakeholder interviews
Attachment 4: Stakeholder analysis of the domain of foster care
Attachment 5: Issues, questions and dilemmas based on the stakeholder interviews
Attachment 6: Categories and subcategories of provisional data analysis
Attachment 7: Process reconstruction foster care
Attachment 8: Issues that emerged during the stakeholder conferences
Attachment 9: Overview of ‘critical incidents’
Attachment 10: Output of the research
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Overview of approach to data collection in the erosion case........................... 69
Table 2: Overview of the phases, events and the main challenges in the erosion
project...................................................................................................................................... 79
Table 3: Overview of the organizations involved in the river valley cae.................... 107
Table 4: Main events and issues in the river valley case. .............................................. 113
Table 5: Organizational structure and participating organizations in the river valley
case. ....................................................................................................................................... 115
Table 6: Overview of the approach to data collection in the river valley case........... 118
Table 7: Organizational structure of the river valley project. ....................................... 132
Table 8: Differences between the two central groups in the coordination group (river
valley case). .......................................................................................................................... 138
Table 9: Overview of the phases and challenges in the foster care project................. 163
Table 10: Overview of data collection in the foster care case........................................ 168
Table 11: Membership of the project group and characteristics of the participating
organizations........................................................................................................................ 188
Table 12: Issues and sub-issues in direction setting. ...................................................... 249
viii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Organizational structure of the erosion project................................................ 77
Figure 2: A systems psychodynamic process model for direction setting in multiparty
collaboration......................................................................................................................... 292
ix

DANKWOORD/ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Dit onderzoek zou nooit gebeurd zijn zonder een ‘toevallige’ ontmoeting met
professor Leo Lagrou in de wandelgangen van het psychologisch instituut. Hij
herinnerde zich mijn licentiaatthesis en moedigde mij aan om eens contact op te
nemen met het COPP. Niet lang daarna begon ik aan mijn assistentschap en aan de
turbulente reis waarvan u het product nu in handen heeft.
Er zijn heel wat mensen die hebben bijgedragen aan dit werk en die ik hiervoor
oprecht wil danken. Uiteraard allereerst veel dank aan mijn promotor, professor
Tharsi Taillieu, die vanaf het begin geloofde in mijn werk. Zijn encyclopedische
kennis van het domein zorgde ervoor dat ik mijn weg vond in oude en nieuwe
theorieën die relevant waren voor dit onderzoek. Bedankt voor de vrijheid en de
ondersteuning op momenten dat ik die het meest nodig had.
Graag wil ik de commissieleden danken voor het vertrouwen dat zij schonken aan
dit project: Jos Corveleyn, Bert Overlaet, Norbert Van Beselaer, Danny Wildemeersch
Johan Hovelynck en René Bouwen. Ook dank aan Sandra Schruijer voor haar
constructieve feedback op mijn doctoraatsvoorstel. De juryleden wil ik danken voor
hun bereidheid en tijd om dit werk te lezen en hun vragen en bedenkingen te
formuleren: de professoren Sandra Schruijer, Jos Corveleyn, Danny Wildemeersch en
René Bouwen.
Dit onderzoek is gebaseerd op samenwerking in concrete projecten. Dank aan de
talloze mensen die mij en mijn collega’s toegang gaven in hun projecten en tijd
vrijmaakten voor interviews en besprekingen. Omdat de gevalsstudies anoniem zijn
gemaakt in dit werk, zal ik ook hier de namen niet noemen. De betrokkenen weten
wel over wie ik het heb! Allereerst bedank ik de mensen van het erosieproject, een
moeizame maar leerzaam proces om expertkennis aan de kennis van mensen op het
terrein te koppelen. Ook dank aan de initiatiefnemers en voortrekkers van het
rivierbekken project voor hun bereidheid ons deelgenoot te laten zijn van hun
x

zoektocht naar zinvolle manieren van participeren in een maatschappelijk belangrijk
project. Dank aan de leden van het pleegzorgproject voor het enthousiasme waarmee
ze samen met ons op zoek gingen naar een toekomstscenario voor structurele
samenwerking. De tientallen ‘stakeholder’ vertegenwoordigers die ik mocht
interviewen in de verschillende projecten ben ik ook dank verschuldigd.
Ook mijn collega’s van het COPP ben ik erkentelijk voor de leerrijke en plezierige
samenwerking in de projecten. Tharsi Taillieu voor het openen van deuren en de
feedback op mijn artikels over de ‘cases’. René Bouwen voor de inspirerende
reflecties op onze ervaringen in het ‘veld’. Marc Craps voor de fijne samenwerking,
de collegiale vriendschap en de talloze gesprekken en uitwisselingen. Johan
Hovelynck, mijn sympathieke bureaugenoot, voor de humor, de goede gesprekken
en de kritische zin. Karel De Witte voor het delen van zijn ervaring. Edward Van
Rossen voor de korte, maar aangename samenwerking. En dank aan Maarten
Andriessen voor de onvergetelijke ‘interviewmarathon’ doorheen het Vlaamse land
en de vele uren dat we samen worstelden met de analyses van de resultaten. Ook
dank aan de andere collega’s van het COPP voor hun collegialiteit: Art, Jacqueline,
Miriam, Karin, Eva, Greet, en Thomas.
De discussies met Stephanie, Greet, Liesbeth, Ann, Julie, Sophie, en Elisabeth,
thesisstudenten die worstelden met de theorie en praktijk van multipartij
samenwerking, waren ook stimulerend voor mijn werk.
Thanks to the members of the International Society for the Psychoanalytic Study of
Organizations (ISPSO) who warmly welcomed me in their midst and made me feel
‘at home’. Their writings, generous feedback and encouragement have been
extremely inspiring and helpful for my work. Thanks to Stephanie Wilke, Rose
Mersky, Burkhard Sievers, Erika Stern, Carolyn Cooper, Ellen Ramvi, Brigid Nosal,
Janet Fitzell, Lilian Hupkens, Larry Gould, Jim Krantz, Larry Hirschhorn, Karen
Poulenc, Michael Diamond, Lionel Stapley, Susan Long, Derek Raffaeli, Yiannis
Gabriel, Laura Crawshaw, and many others. I’m also grateful to Susan Schneider, for
xi

teaching me how to write up a case study and for her interesting feedback on one of
the papers.
Samen met mijn intervisie-collega’s van het International Professional Development
Programme (Prodev), Joëlle, Mark, Bart, Stef, Jan en Hans, zochten we naar manieren
om te werken met het systeem psychodynamisch kader in groepen en organisaties.
Bedankt voor de inspirerende sessies. Ook dank aan de staf van de IPDP opleiding:
Marie-Jeanne Vansina-Cobbaert, Sandra Schruijer, en Helgi Rasmussen. Mijn speciale
dank gaat uit naar Leopold Vansina. Zijn werk is steeds een grote bron van inspiratie
geweest voor mij. Ik heb veel geleerd van zijn erudiete kennis, kritische zin en
feedback op mijn teksten.
Ook dank aan de collega’s van de seminariegroep ‘psychoanalyse en leiderschap’:
Anita Wydoodt, Frieda Verbist, Johan De Groef, Johan Taghon, Johan Vereycken en
Bernadette Bertin. Samen bestudeerden we de ideeën van Anzieu, Enriques,
Hirschhorn en Menzies. Onze maandenlange worsteling met het werk van Bion zal
ik niet snel vergeten.
Thanks to Klaus Elle for graciously letting me use his artwork for the cover of this
book: ‘I am, because we are’. For me, this image is a visual representation of the
philosophy and hope expressed in this work.
Dank aan mijn lieve vrienden en vriendinnen die jarenlang geïnteresseerd bleven
informeren: “En? Hoe staat het met je doctoraat?” Dat deed me altijd oprecht deugd,
zeker in momenten, dat het moeilijk was. Ik noem er een paar en vergeet er zeker een
heleboel: Karin, Jan, Anneke, Hans, Karen, Katrien, Laura, Cécile, Kaya, Marc,
Benedicte, Frieda, Anouk, Jo, Welmoet, Wivina, Lieve, Sonja, Carla, Veerle, …
I am very grateful to Bettina Hausschild who helped me keep a healthy balance
between my work life and personal life. A special word of thanks to my friend Dan
Frank, who helped me believe in my own voice.
xii

Heel veel dank aan mijn ouders en zus Saskia voor de onvoorwaardelijke steun,
praktische hulp en hun geloof in mij.
Dank aan Luc om me steunen bij de start van dit onderzoek en om er te zijn voor de
kinderen wanneer dat nodig was.
Ik draag dit boek op aan mijn lieve kinderen Caspar, Clara en Felix. Zij hebben alle
turbulenties van deze reis van dichtbij meegemaakt zonder goed te beseffen waar het
allemaal om ging. Ik hoop van harte dat ze zullen leven en werken in een
samenleving waar mensen beter gewapend zijn om over organisatiegrenzen heen
samen te werken, zodat we van deze aarde een betere plek kunnen maken.
Leuven, 13 februari 2006
xiii

INTRODUCTION
This work on multiparty collaboration is part of ongoing research at the Center for
Organizational and Personnel Psychology. My colleague Marc Craps has written a
study on the inclusion of local communities. Art Dewulf studied issue framing in
multi-actor contexts. My specific interest was in how representatives who make up a
collaborative, make progress on their self-designed task when there is no formal,
hierarchical leader to guide them. By using a different and complementary
perspective, my aim is to contribute to a better understanding of the specific nature
of multi-stakeholder processes.
Multiparty collaboration is a strategy to develop sustainable solutions for pressing
and important environmental problems and societal issues that one organization
cannot solve alone. Over the years I came to the conclusion that multiparty
collaboration is an ideal. Conveners, facilitators and participants need to establish the
most appropriate way of organizing ‘their’ process, taking into account the
opportunities and restrictions in the domain. Multiparty collaboration, as an
organizational paradigm, can be used as a ‘model’. However, old paradigms and
scripts still govern our assumptions and behavior, in the field as well as in
academics.
This research reflects my search for an integration of clinical and organizational
psychology. I have often been puzzled by ‘irrational’ and unexpected behavior in
people, groups and organizations. The traditional management literature and
organizational theories, based on rational assumptions and an instrumental
approach, could not account for the phenomena I encountered. In this literature little
attention is given to the individual as a ‘human being’ in organizational life. The
individual is regarded as a 'resource' in a global and economically determined
context. According to Leopold Vansina (1998) one of the reasons for this evolution is
the split between organizational and clinical psychology. When I discovered the
‘systems psychodynamics perspective’ on working and organizing, I found an
integrated frame to help me understand what happens in organizations. My research
xiv

is inspired by the seminal work of action researchers associated with the Tavistock
Institute of Human Relations, and by contemporary work of members of the
International Society for the Psychoanalytic Study of Organizations (ISPSO), such as
Larry Hirschhorn, Jim Krantz, Larry Gould, Susan Long, Gilles Amado and Leopold
Vansina. Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity, so far, to thoroughly study
the French tradition of ‘psychosociologie’, which has its particular vision on
organizational life.
My motivation to undertake this research was to understand how people cope with
the challenges, increasing uncertainties and emergent nature of today’s
organizational life. The broader issue in this research is how organizational
psychology in general, and organizational design in particular, can respond to the
new challenges and realities in today’s organizational world. There is a genuine
demand in the field for new, adapted models and interventions to support
interdependent work across organizational boundaries.
xv

READING INSTRUCTIONS
This book is built around four articles that make up its essence. There are five parts
in this work, which I will briefly introduce.
In part one I present an overview of the theoretical foundations of my research. It
forms the basis for understanding the articles and the way in which I have carried
out this research. In chapter one I outline the theoretical insights that are relevant to
understand multiparty collaboration as an organizational strategy. I focus on
different views on ‘collaborative leadership’ and argue how I define this
phenomenon in my research. The second chapter introduces the system
psychodynamic perspective on working and organizing, which is the organizing
principle in this research. I discuss the origins, main theories, and assumptions that
inspired my research. Then I present the specific challenges for designing, leading
and facilitating collaborative work from this perspective. In the third chapter, I
discuss my research approach, the epistemological position I take as researcher, the
methodological choices I have made and how this established the way in which this
research was carried out. Finally, I conclude with the theoretical relevance of this
research.
In part two, I discuss two case studies. The first is a pilot case in the domain of
erosion management, which I worked out to fine-tune the subject of my research. The
first article is preceded by an introduction where I present the context and
antecedents of the project, and the approach to data collection and analysis. The same
structure was used for the introduction of the second article, which is based on a case
study in the domain of river basin management. Both case studies were written up as
an article and submitted for publication (see attachment 10).
Part three is dedicated to the main case of this research, a project in foster care. The
two articles, based on this case, are extensively introduced. Because of the restrictions
xvi

of journal articles, I have discussed the issues that emerged in the case analysis in
two articles. The issues were grouped in a coherent whole. Inevitably, there is
overlap for the reader between the introduction to the case and the theoretical and
methodological paragraphs of both articles. Extensive case material is available in the
attachments.
In part four, I compare the findings of the three cases in order to draw conclusions
for this research. I present the issues that influenced direction setting in collaborative
work in a structured way. Each issue is divided in sub-issues and illustrated with
case material. I conclude with some implications for the theory and practice of
organizational design in new, emergent organizing processes.
In the attachments, I present case material to support the main case. These include:
background information, information on the research approach, a process overview,
and intermediate steps in the data analysis. This may help the reader to make his or
her own sense of the issues and dynamics in the foster care case. In the attachments,
the reader also finds further information on the background of the four articles and
other output of this research.
A research account based on four separate articles inevitably results in overlap for
the reader of this ‘book’. The parts were written at different moments in the research
process (1999-2006). I have maintained the articles as they have been submitted or
published. The differents parts are linked by introductory texts. Hopefully this will
help you to follow the evolution of the core arguments and approach of the subject
throughout this work.
xvii

PART 1: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
CHAPTER 1: MULTIPARTY COLLABORATION AS AN ORGANIZATIONAL
STRATEGY
1.1. Organizational context: societal and environmental 'metaproblems'
A central characteristic of the present world of working and organizing is an
increasing interdependency, diversity and requirement for collaboration across
organizational boundaries. In this so-called ‘connective era’ there is a need for more
sophisticated forms of collaboration drawing on new competencies because of the
nature of the problems our society is facing (Chisholm, 1998; Lipman-Blumen, 1996).
Business opportunities and challenges for creative innovation can inspire inter-
organizational collaboration. This research, however, focuses on collaboration as a
strategy to deal with societal and environmental 'meta-problems'. “Since
problématiques, meta-problems, or messes - rather than discrete problems - are what societies
currently have to face up to, the cultivation of domain-based, inter-organizational competence
has become a necessary societal project” (Trist, 1983, 270). Solving these large-scale
problems or 'messes' requires multidisciplinary and multi-organizational
involvement (Chisholm & Elden, 1993; Ackoff, 1997). In dealing with the important
public issues and problems that threaten us all, no organization has the legitimacy,
power, authority or intelligence to act alone. No one is ‘in charge’ (Bryson & Crosby,
1992). We can only survive if we change our competitive attitude into an attitude of
collaboration accepting mutual dependency (Trist, 1983). Inter-organizational
collaboration can be considered as an adaptive response to the 'turbulent fields' with
which organizations are confronted, because it recognizes and deals with member
1

interdependencies and acknowledges the futility of competitive strategies (Emery &
Trist, 1997; McCann & Selsky, 1997).
Gilmore (1997) also argues that we can no longer rely on existing organizational
solutions and ways of working to face the societal and business problems of today.
We are in transition from hierarchical forms to ‘loosely coupled organizations’ in
which the relationship among the parties is negotiated rather than predetermined.
We have to learn to develop ‘emerging’ structures and processes, coupling several
organizations. These ‘loosely coupled systems’ are characterized by ambiguous
membership boundaries, unclear values and norms, role ambiguity, unclear
purposes or goals, and absence of formal systems and procedures (Chisholm &
Elden, 1993). A critical challenge is to create participative environments where all
parties feel responsible and jointly take up ownership for the collective output. This
requires people to establish relationships, think together, be curious together and
connect their ideas in defining a shared objective (Krantz, 1998). This is an ideological
perspective, reflecting a 'normative re-educative' strategy of change which might not
always be the most appropriate way of dealing with a task (Gray, 1989). In the
following paragraph I define multiparty collaboration and introduce its main
features.
1.2. Definition and organizational features of multiparty
collaboration
A general definition of ‘collaboration’ is one forwarded by Chrislip and Larson (1994,
5): “It is a mutually beneficial relationship between two or more parties who work toward
common goals by sharing responsibility, authority, and accountability for achieving results.
Collaboration is more than simply sharing knowledge and information (communication) and
more than a relationship that helps each party achieve its own goals (cooperation and
coordination). The purpose of collaboration is to create a shared vision and joint strategies to
address concerns that go beyond the purview of any particular party”. In collaborative
work people sit around the table to work across organizational boundaries towards
some positive end (Huxham & Vangen, 2005). Multiparty collaboration is one step
2

eyond inter-disciplinary work; it is a form of trans-organizational collaboration
(Cummings & Worley, 2001).
My research is inspired by the work of Barbara Gray and Chris Huxham, because
they focus on the ‘process’ of collaborating. Gray (1989: 5) defines multiparty
collaboration as “(…) a process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem
can constructively explore their differences and search for solutions that go beyond their own
limited vision of what is possible”. It involves a process of collective decision making
and negotiation among key stakeholders of a problem domain, focused on the future
development of that particular domain. Collaborative processes demonstrate five
characteristics: (1) the stakeholders are interdependent; (2) solutions emerge by
dealing constructively with differences; (3) the stakeholders take decisions in joint
ownership; (4) stakeholders assume collective responsibility for the future direction
of the domain; and (5) collaboration is an ‘emergent’ process (Gray, 1989). The
underlying assumption of this organizational strategy is that it is critical to include
stakeholders who are affected by the issue, those who are needed to address the
issue, and those who have the power to support or block collaborative action
(Chrislip & Larson, 1994). In their definition, Vansina and his colleagues (Vansina,
Taillieu & Schruijer, 1998, 4) emphasize the inter-group characteristics of the parties
and the self-defining nature of such systems. “(…) an emerging or developing
worksystem of people who, because of their membership in other groups, institutions or social
categories, come to work together on a largely self-constructed task or problem domain”.
A classical function of organizing is to reduce complexity and uncertainty to
manageable proportions. Collaborative forms, however, are likely to increase the
degree of turbulence (Wood & Gray, 1991). Collaboration between more than two
organizations or social groups confronts the participants with particular challenges.
Participants have to deal with more turbulent dynamics, unstable group
identification, large differences in social identity, the difficulty to establish trust, and
a bigger complexity regarding information, social processes, procedures and
strategy, inter-group phenomena (Kramer, 1991; Vansina, Taillieu & Schruijer, 1998).
3

A higher number of parties increases the amount of values, interests and perceptions
to be integrated and accommodated, and it increases uncertainty concerning the
motives and interests of others, and the perception of one’s own utility. On the other
hand, more participants represent more resources to work on solutions (Midgaard &
Underdal, 1977). Other potential features are an unclear and shifting purpose,
ambiguous values or norms, absence of formal systems or procedures, ambiguity of
role, membership, status and representativeness, complexity in structure, shifting
membership, coalition formations and shifting alliances (Chisholm & Elden, 1993;
Huxham & Vangen, 2000b). Exploring the nature of a collaborative process and
understanding how participants respond to the challenges it poses is at the heart of
this research.
A particular challenge in multiparty collaboration is how leadership is ‘translated’ in
such horizontal organizational contexts. A number of questions have triggered this
research. How do ‘equal’ parties make sense of leadership when there is no identified
leader? How do they enact leadership when authority relations are ambiguous? How
do they deal with the different leadership functions that have to be taken up? Is it
possible to share leadership functions? How do the parties balance attempts at
influencing the outcome and direction of the process? In the following section, I
describe the specific nature of leadership in a collaborative setting, I briefly discuss
some perspectives on collaborative leadership from the literature, and I conclude
with the conception I hold of ‘collaborative leadership’ in this research.
1.3. Challenges for direction setting: ’collaborative leadership’
1.3.1. The nature of collaborative leadership
Collaborative leadership has not been researched very often: “(…) it almost seems that
the inherently consensual nature of collaborative partnership working inhibit the emergence
of explicit or overt leadership, and research so far has largely ignored this topic” (Razzaque
& Stewart, 1998, 2). However, a critical aspect of multiparty collaboration is how to
facilitate productive work. A particular challenge is how leadership is defined and
4

enacted in a form of organizing where hierarchy is no longer a valid organizing
principle. The challenge is how to manage inter-organizational dynamics and the
relations between internal and external stakeholder groups (Stokes, 1998). Those
taking up leading functions have to learn how to design and facilitate collaborative
processes where different parties are brought together and collectively create fresh
maps of a new, emerging terrain (Gilmore, 1997).
‘Leadership’ in a collaborative context is a problematic notion. Traditional models of
leadership are not suitable in collaborative settings. The specific nature of
‘leadership’ in multiparty collaboration can be summarized as follows (Schuman,
1996; Razzaque & Stewart, 1998; Huxham & Vangen, 2000a; 2005):
- The existing leadership literature presumes there is a formal leader with
managerial responsibility functioning in a hierarchical relationship with
followers. However, in collaborative work no person, organization or social
group has the authority to take decisions that influence the future of the
problem domain.
- Leadership models presume a clearly specified and accepted goal, where
literature demonstrates that precisely agreeing upon collaborative goals is a
critical and difficult task.
- Leading a collaborative means influencing or transforming organizations and
not individuals.
- There is not always an identified ‘leader’; authority relations are usually
ambiguous. Moreover, membership of a collaborative is often unclear and
shifting.
- Often representatives with a stake in the domain take up leadership functions.
They are wearing ‘multiple hats’ and have to be able to switch roles effectively
in order to preserve the integrity of the process. This can make it hard for
them to be perceived as ‘neutral’ and impartial facilitators or conveners.
- The consensual nature of collaborative work, stressing empowerment,
ownership and joint decision making, is likely to inhibit the emergence of
overt leadership. Explicit leadership may lead to exclusion of the process
5

ecause it may be perceived as a one sided attempt of one party to push its
agenda.
Collaborative work takes place in groups such as project groups, steering groups,
stakeholder meetings, and work groups. The dynamics in this study refer to three
group processes: operational processes (how the group does its work),
developmental processes (how the group as an entity changes over time), and
adaptive processes (how the group reacts to events) (McGrath & Tschan, 2004). The
leadership function supports these three processes that operate simultaneously.
Bouwen and Taillieu (2004) distinguish two leadership functions. A first function is
task and strategic leadership. It consists of convening, setting the agenda, organizing,
and chairing meetings. It is about the day to day coordination of a collaborative
process, focusing on content or task elements. They have identified the following
problem-solving or task related activities: sharing perspectives on issues; defining
common issues and identifying resources; generating and sharing information;
exploring optional alternatives; selecting an intervention strategy; planning concrete
action steps; implementing in the field; and evaluating outcomes. Task leadership
helps a group or system to work on the task. This refers to the operational processes
in a group (McGrath & Tschan, 2004).
A second leadership function is process leadership, which is often the focus of social
scientists. Bouwen and Taillieu (2004) distinguish the following relational activities
that shape the problem solving process. Getting attention and awareness of
stakeholders; mobilizing actors to arrive at commitment to collaborate ; legitimating
stakeholders and conveners; dialoguing to explore diversity; connecting stakes and
interests; negotiating roles and identities; guaranteeing commitment of
constituencies ; and aligning efforts and agreements. Leadership of the process is
about creating conditions to get the most out of the diversity of perceptions,
competencies and resources, while ensuring that each stakeholder can realize his
objectives (Vansina, 1999). It is a stand-back role, attentive for the expression of
needs, anxieties, and obstacles to collaboration. This role requires insight in agenda
6

setting to initiate and stimulate the collaboration, and insight in group dynamics.
Neutrality and impartiality are important aspects of the role. The leading role should
provide the conditions under which the stakeholders can take up their responsibility
in defining and solving the problem (Vansina, 1999; Taillieu, Schruijer & Vansina,
2000). Key issues in taking a leading role are to invest energy: “(a) in raising the
importance of the collaborative task-system to counterbalance the pull towards the respective
parties; and (b) in trust-building by creating a minimal structure of ground rules” (Vansina,
1999, 52). It is important to facilitate direct interaction, to deal with frustration, and to
foster group development. According to Schruijer and her colleagues, the leadership
function crystallizes around “(a) creating conditions to enable the collaborative task-system
to go on with the work, rather than taking responsibility for finding an acceptable solution;
and (b) the capacity to ‘contain’ the messiness, divergence and ambiguity in the task-system
and to create ‘space’ to enable the stakeholders to discover areas where they can find one
another” (Schruijer, Taillieu & Vansina, 1998, 2). Process leadership supports the
group in its developmental process (McGrath & Tschan, 2004).
Chrislip and Larson (1994) found that strong 'process leadership' is a critical
condition for the success of collaborations (e.g. keeping stakeholders at the table
through periods of frustration and skepticism). The primary focus of process
leadership is how people work together and not the content of the collaboration. The
collaborative process is a self-reflective, emerging process that must be constantly
nurtured. Therefore “(…) it needs leaders who can safeguard the process, facilitate
interaction, and patiently deal with high levels of frustration. Collaboration works when there
are a few key leaders, either in formal or in informal roles, who keep the process going”
(Chrislip & Larson, 1994, 97). For instance, the leader has to be able to voice the
feelings of ambiguity and discomfort that are often brought about by the situation
(Roose, Taillieu & Sips, 2000). The main conclusion of Chrislip and Larson is the
inability of people to work together constructively.
According to Huxham and Vangen (2003), however, leading in a facilitative manner
from the spirit of collaboration is necessary but not sufficient to generate
7

collaborative advantage. Their research demonstrates that the right balance between
facilitative leadership activities (embracing, empowering, involving, and mobilizing
members) and pragmatic leadership activities towards collaborative ‘thuggery’
(manipulating the collaborative agenda, playing politics) help to make progress. The
literature hardly addresses leadership supporting ‘adaptive processes’ and focusing
on the interchange between the collaborative group and the environment in which it
is embedded.
Since no single person or organization has the formal authority to take decisions on
behalf of the inter-organizational domain, these leadership functions need to be
distributed, shared or outsourced. The participants in the process can share
leadership functions, take turns, switch roles, split task leadership and process
facilitation or delegate leadership or part of the leadership functions by bringing in
an outside facilitator, such as a mediator or third party (Schuman, 1996). The next
paragraph gives a brief overview of the literature on collaborative leadership.
1.3.2. Collaborative leadership in the literature
Some authors in the domain of multiparty collaboration focus on the collaborative
‘leader’. Lipman-Blumen’s (1996) concept of ‘connective leadership’ stresses the
psychological factors of effective leadership in an interdependent world. Bilimoria,
Wilmot and Cooperrider (1996) focus on the tasks the leader needs to perform:
managing vision, trust, reciprocity, identity, and meaning. Midgaard and Underdal
(1977) argue that the complexity of the process requires a chairman or leader to
conduct orderly and efficient interactions. Often, however, there is no single leader.
The multiparty literature has mainly focused on the role of the ‘convener’ (Wood &
Gray, 1991; Gray, 1985; Gray, 1996; Razzaque & Stewart, 1998). Wood and Gray
(1991) stress the role of the convener, the organization(s) or person(s) that identify
relevant stakeholders and bring them around the table to work on an issue that
concerns them all. A convener can be a natural authority, a stakeholder or a third
8

party (Gray, 1985). The literature does not provide much clarity on the specific
meaning of and relationship between convening and leading. Gray (1989) also
describes other leadership roles, such as mediator or facilitator. Razzaque and
Stewart (1998) identified eight leadership roles: champion, salesperson, interpreter,
broker, co-ordinator, visionary, representative, agent provocateur. Himmelman
(1996) describes collaborative roles that can be taken up by the participating
organizations to contribute to the collaboration (e.g. catalyst, community organizer,
facilitator).
Schuman (1996) stresses the importance of ‘process’ in collaboration, as process
issues “(…) are the means by which problems get solved and decisions made”. He
distinguishes social, cognitive and political processes. He does not, however, link
these processes to the issue of leadership. Hardy and Phillips (1998) focus on power
dynamics, or how stakeholders use their power and how this affects interactions
between them and other organizations in the domain. This perspective provides
insight in the underlying power relations in collaborative work.
In the multiparty literature empowerment, participation, and collective decision
making are highly valued. Many authors refer to some shared form of leadership.
These include: ‘shared leadership’ (Chrislip & Larson, 1994; Yukl, 1999), ‘shared
power’ (Bass, 1990; Bryson & Crosby, 1992), ‘leadership from a shared power base’
(Vansina, 2002), 'dispersed leadership' (Bryman, 1996), ‘joint ownership’ (Gray, 1989),
‘leadership as a network of influence’ (Feyerherm, 1994), ‘overall system leadership’
(Krantz, 1990) and 'distributed leadership' (Gibb, 1969; Brown & Hosking, 1986;
Miller, 1998; Gronn, 2002; Huffington, James & Armstrong, 2004). This perspective on
collaborative leadership stresses the importance of leadership in terms of actions and
processes (Bryman, 1996). It does not focus on the person of the leader, but on the
critical contribution of the participants. The participants need to share responsibility
for the process as well as for the outcome (Carlisle & Leary, 1981). The more they are
able to share leadership, the more successful and sustainable the collaborative effort
is expected to be. Taillieu and his colleagues (Schruijer, Taillieu & Vansina, 1998;
9

Taillieu, Schruijer & Vansina, 2000), for instance, stress that inducing shared
responsibility in collaborative work is a critical function of leadership. This
perspective accentuates mature and interdependent relationships as a condition for
sharing leadership functions.
The concept of 'distributed leadership' is not new. Gibb (1954) introduced the notion
of distributed leadership more than fifty years ago. He conceived distributed
leadership as 'leadership acts' or as 'a set of functions' which the group must carry
out (Gibb, 1969). Distributed leadership refers to the way in which influence is
distributed over the parties in an emergent inter-organizational system. This
perspective on leadership stresses the complexity of leadership processes. The level
of conceptualization shifts from the dyadic relationship (leader and follower) to the
group or system perspective. Leadership as a group phenomenon is not a new
insight. In the traditional group dynamic literature leadership functions are defined
as actions performed by group members. These actions are aimed at setting group
goals, moving the group towards its goals, improving the quality of interactions
among the members, building cohesiveness, or making resources available to the
group (e.g. Cartwright & Zander, 1960). Leadership as a shared group function refers
to the level of maturity in the group. Mature groups have outgrown dependent and
counter-dependent relationships with authority figures. In collaborative work,
however, the ‘group’ cannot develop by working through its conflict with the leader,
because there is no clear person or organization that embodies authority. This is a
new challenge. When members are able to share leadership functions they can work
in an interdependent way (Bennis & Shepard, 1956).
To conclude this brief overview: “The notion of collaborative leadership is, however, still
ambiguous, not well defined and described from different perspectives.” (Schruijer, Taillieu
& Vansina, 1998, 7). This research is an attempt to further develop the notion of
collaborative leadership, based on empirical data.
10

1.3.3. Collaborative leadership: sources of inspiration
My interest in leadership is inspired by some researchers in the domain of multiparty
collaboration. Huxham and Vangen (2000a, 1165) define leadership in multiparty
collaboration as “(…) the mechanisms that make ‘things happen’ in a collaboration. (…) the
mechanisms that lead a collaboration’s policy and activity agenda in one direction rather than
another”. They developed a holistic view on leadership in collaboration by taking the
notion of leadership beyond the individual and the organization. Two elements
influence the way in which collaborative agendas are shaped and enacted. The first is
‘leadership media' (structure, processes, and participants). As the members often do
not control these media, one can consider them as providing ‘contextual leadership’.
The second element is ‘leadership activities’, or those activities carried out by the
stakeholders to establish the agenda and drive it forward. This includes controlling
the agenda and mobilizing member organizations (Huxham & Vangen, 2000a).
Huxham and Vangen have broadened the concept of leadership to leadership
emanating from different sources, both from the stakeholders or participants and
from the context. Their central question was: what is it that participants do in order
to cope with, or build on, the constraints and possibilities dictated by structures,
processes, or other participants? A ‘leader’ in this perspective, is any individual who
tries to influence the direction or output of the collaboration. They focus on
leadership as a process of influence and as it is enacted by participants (Huxham &
Vangen, 2005). “Once we begin to understand leadership media and activities here as a
collective framework responsible for ‘leading’ the system then the balance of ownership and
responsibility is brought closer to the ‘individual players’” (Mac Rae & Huxham, 2000, 21).
Huxham, a senior lecturer in the field of management science, observed the effects of
external elements on the collaborative process. In her perspective these context
elements also provide 'leadership'. From a psychological perspective, however, the
effects only occur because people give meaning to events and external elements (e.g.
a deadline). I consider these external elements to be 'triggers' that generate meaning
and provoke responses: it is the people who are capable of generating and expressing
'leadership'. This view on leadership joins the classic definition by Katz and Kahn
(1978) who argue that human beings provide leadership: "(…) we consider the essence
11

of organizational leadership to be the influential increment over and above mechanical
compliance with the routine directives of the organization. Such an influential increment
derives from the fact that human beings rather than computers are in positions of authority
and power" (Katz & Kahn, 1978, 528).
Feyerherm constructs a dynamic leadership model based on the processes in
multiparty collaboration. Her model links leadership behavior to the activities and
meaning attribution of the stakeholders. She defines leaders as the persons “who
influence the course of events, the ways issues get framed and resolved, and the people who
influence the outcomes of the gathering” (Feyerherm, 1997, 1). Her definition of
leadership comes close to a classic definition in the group dynamic literature: “(…)
the leader is a person who engages in leadership behaviors” (Shaw, 1976). The leaders are
those who advance the task towards the collective goal. Chrislip and Larson (1994)
emphasize that in complex organizational settings different parties are part of the
overall leadership process. Direction is established through the process of
constructive, collaborative interactions between the stakeholders, including
alignment, involvement, agreement, motivation and inspiration. Ring and Van de
Ven conceive inter-organizational relationships (IOR) as ‘developmental processes’.
“From a developmental process perspective, cooperative IORs are socially contrived
mechanisms for collective action, which are continually shaped and restructured by actions
and symbolic interpretations of the parties involved” (Ring & Van de Ven, 1994, 96). Smith
and Peterson (1989) also define leadership as a process of influence, supported by
explicit structures, implicit conventions and emerging behaviors. Their focus of
research is on the meaning of events. Leadership can be considered as an emerging
process of influence that develops through actions and interactions between the
participating stakeholders. These actions and interactions are influenced by the way
in which the stakeholders make sense of events that occur in the process. The focus is
on how the organization is created 'in-action' and on the emerging quality of the
organizing process (Hosking & Fineman, 1990). These perspectives on leadership are
stimulating, because they try to understand and make sense of what is actually
happening in a collaborative process as it unfolds.
12

A final and important source of inspiration is the work of Taillieu, Vansina and
Schruijer on multiparty collaboration in simulations and educational contexts. Their
research includes studies of the phenomenon of leadership (Schruijer, Taillieu &
Vansina, 1998; Vansina, 2002), management of multiparty issues (Vansina, Taillieu &
Schruijer, 1998) and management of diversity (Vansina & Taillieu, 1997; Vansina,
2002). Their insights have been extremely helpful in the study of collaborative
processes in ‘natural’ settings.
1.3.4. Direction setting: issues and dynamics
For a long time I looked for an appropriate concept to label the phenomenon I was
trying to study and understand. These concepts shifted from ‘emergent coordination
processes’, ‘leadership processes’, ‘leadership dynamics’, to ‘distributed leadership’.
The notion ‘leadership’, however, provoked associations of individual leaders. I
looked for a broader concept which referred to the ‘mechanisms that make things
happen’ (Huxham & Vangen, 2000) and to the concept of ‘group locomotion’
developed in the classic literature on group dynamics (Cartwright & Zander, 1960).
Research in group dynamics has demonstrated the problems of coordination in
group work (Shaw, 1976). In collaborative groups, this is likely to be even more
problematic, because of the difficulty to set collaborative goals.
To capture the way in which the participants enact leadership, I explored how they
dealt with important ‘issues’ with which they were confronted. An ‘issue’ is a theme
or dilemma that arises in the process and that provokes questions, tensions and
anxiety in the participant(s) or in the system (e.g. dealing with diversity, choices
about membership). The issues reflect the essence of collaborative work and need to
be dealt with by those involved. They either relate to the task or to the relationships.
The themes and dilemmas are interrelated and often remain present during the entire
process (Huxham & Vangen, 2005). The participants attribute meaning to the issues
in a subjective and inter-subjective process. This research focuses on the dynamic
13

nature and evolution of the issues in the course of the process and the responses of
the participants when confronted with those issues. Issues can, for instance, be
ignored, denied, explored, dealt with, or they can provoke conflict. The dynamics
that unfold around those issues play at a formal and informal level (Ring & Van de
Ven, 1994). They are manifest or latent and may help or hinder progress on the task.
To explore the dynamics at the manifest and latent level, I have used the system
psychodynamic perspective on working and organizing. Unlike social psychology, it
focuses on overt behavior and the underlying dynamics (Schruijer, 1990). This
perspective on direction setting allows for a study of the dynamics in the group or
system, and of the system features that emerge as the process is formalized. In the
following chapter I present the theoretical foundation of this framework and the
assumptions I hold in my research. Then I couple this perspective with the
framework of multiparty collaboration and discuss a number of specific challenges
for direction setting in collaborative work.
14

CHAPTER 2: THE SYSTEMS PSYCHODYNAMIC PERSPECTIVE
2.1. The field: origins and definition
The frame of reference for studying direction setting in collaborative processes is
based on the work of the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London. The
foundations of the so-called ‘Tavistock model’ were developed through several
government funded post-war projects in the forties (Mosse, 1994). The aim of the
Tavistock was to integrate the social sciences and psychoanalysis and to relate the
internal world of object relations with the external world of society (Menzies, 1988;
Miller, 1997). This paradigm integrates the subjective experience of people (fantasies,
wishes, dreams) and the systemic features of an organization (Anderson & White,
2000). This body of knowledge is founded in psychodynamics, training in group
relations and open system thinking (see unpublished literature overview, Prins,
2001).
The notion ‘psychodynamic’ refers to a broad domain of insights, such as
anthropology, social and clinical psychology (Vansina, 2004). Most authors draw
upon the work of the Object Relations School represented by Klein, Bion and
Winnicott. This school emphasizes how people's perceptions and fantasies about
work, organizations and the people with whom they work, influence their feelings,
thoughts and actions in the workplace. This phenomenological view focuses on the
world of social interactions where we relate to one another subjectively and inter-
subjectively in order to give meaning to our life by sharing stories, feelings, ideas,
and opinions (Anderson & White, 2000).
Group relations conferences were organized by the Tavistock Institute of Human
Relations in collaboration with Leicester University since 1957. The experience of the
conferences has offered, and still offers, insight in leadership, authority and power
(Rice, 1965; Obholzer, 1994). A group relations conference is a temporary educational
institution, which provides various settings to learn about inter-personal, inter-group
15

and institutional relations, and about authority and leadership (Rice, 1965; Miller,
1990). The subject of today’s conferences is leadership in complex and uncertain
organizational contexts.
The third pillar of the Tavistock model is open systems thinking. During the Second
World War Wilfred Bion worked in the Northfield military hospital for mentally ill
soldiers. He discovered that the immediate surroundings of the military hospital and
the wider context had a critical impact on group functioning and mental recovery.
“Groups are not only passively influenced by their environments, but eager, active
interaction with the external environment is psychologically healthy.” (Vansina-Cobbaert &
Vansina, 1996, 13) When Harold Bridger took over Bion’s work, he introduced the
notion ‘open-system thinking’ in his work with groups. Until that moment group
analysis had been restricted to what happened within the boundaries of the group
itself (Bridger, 1990). Lewin also applied ideas from the open system theory
developed in biology (von Bertalanffy, 1950) to human systems. Miller and Rice
(1967) further elaborated these ideas. The open system perspective is the dominant
frame to conceive the structural aspects of an organizational system. An open system
has characteristics in common with a biological organism. Central concepts of the
'organizational anatomy' include: design, division of labor, levels of authority,
reporting relationships; the nature of work tasks, processes and activities; mission
and primary task; the nature and patterning of the organization’s task and
boundaries and the transactions across them (Miller & Rice, 1967; Zagier Roberts,
1994a; Gould, Stapley & Stein, 2001). The boundary separates what is inside the
system from what is outside. It provides a structure for the system and it regulates
transactions with the environment for the survival of the system.
In trying to define the field I came across a dozen different names for the so-called
‘Tavistock model’. A range of approaches stresses different elements and there is no
single 'psychoanalytic voice' because of the developments and variety in
psychoanalysis itself (Neumann & Hirschhorn, 1999; Vansina, 2000; Anderson &
White, 2000; Eisold, 1996). A number of recent publications try to clarify the present
16

oundaries of this emerging field of social science (Obholzer & Roberts, 1994; Gould,
Stapley & Stein, 2001; Huffington, Armstrong, Halton, Hoyle & Pooley, 2004). In this
research I adopt the so-called ‘systems psychodynamics of organizations’ as a frame
for exploring the dynamics of direction setting. My work is primarily inspired by the
ideas of Larry Hirschhorn and James Krantz. In what follows I develop the main
assumptions I hold in this research.
2.2. Basic assumptions in this research
2.2.1. The ambiguity of organizational and group life
The initial idea of setting up a multiparty collaboration may be a rational decision or
intention, but the emergent process of collaboration is not fully 'rational' or
conscious. Working in a collaborative is influenced by conscious as well as by
hidden, emotional and unconscious motives. The system psychodynamic perspective
provides a 'holistic' perspective on collaborative processes, considering both manifest
and unconscious dynamics, represented by the ‘iceberg metaphor’ (Anderson &
White, 2000; Lau & Shani, 1992). It is complementary to conventional organizational
approaches because it challenges the exclusively rational view on organizations. The
‘myth of management’ (Bowles, 1997), the ‘dominant logics’ (Vansina, 2000) or the
‘rational madness’ (Lawrence, 1998) stress the belief in competition, growth and
‘functional rationality’ where organizational activities are rationalized and
controlled. The psychodynamic perspective is primarily interested in the unknown
forces of organizational life and the sources of energy and motivation that are
inaccessible to the conscious mind (Neumann & Hirschhorn, 1999; Adams &
Diamond, 1999; Morgan, 1986; Denhardt, 1981; Mitroff, 1984; Driver, 2003).
The psychodynamic perspective stresses two aspects of group life. First,
organizational processes and groups have a ‘shadow’ side, because human behavior
is often the result of conscious and unconscious mental processes. The shadow side
of groups is well described by Bion (1961). He argued that a group functions on two
levels. On the one hand it is a ‘work group’ working on the task in a rational and
17

effective way. At the same time the group is united in a shared basic assumption that
may prevent the group from working on the task. Bion (1961) described three basic
assumption groups. In the basic assumption group ‘dependency’ the group assumes
that the leader will sustain the group. The group depends on the leader for
nourishment, material and spiritual protection. The leader is perceived as
omnipotent and omniscient (Miller, 1997). The group members feel powerless and
their dependency on the leader inhibits growth and development (Vansina-Cobbaert
& Vansina, 1996; Stokes, 1994). The second basic assumption is ‘pairing’. The group
believes that a future event will save them and expects the leader to form a pair with
something or someone. This group often functions on the basis of changing
subgroups and is dominated by feelings of hope which are disconnected from reality
(Vansina-Cobbaert & Vansina, 1996). The group is focused on the future as a defense
against the difficulties in the present (Stokes, 1994). The third basic assumption is
called ‘fight-flight’. The group members assume there is an enemy from which they
have to flee or that needs to be attacked. In this group the leader is important because
action is perceived as critical to ensure the survival of the group (de Board, 1978).
Other authors have described defensive motives for setting up teams in
organizations (e.g. Guerin, 1997), the paradoxical nature of groups (Smith & Berg,
1987), and the tension between personal identity and connection with the group
(Diamond & Allcorn, 1987; Gabriel & McCollom Hampton, 1999). In collaborative
work ambiguity is ever so great, because the group members are confronted with
many uncertainties and dilemmas. For instance, the boundaries of the group are
often fuzzy and membership is not always clear. Group members have to deal with
multiple identities in their role as representative. These issues may be played out at
the underlying level of the collaborative.
A second aspect of groups is that they embody important values in western culture,
such as teamwork, collaboration, informality and equality. The group can have a
motivating effect on people: it gives us the feeling we belong somewhere, it makes us
feel valued and gives us the feeling we make a significant contribution. Collaborative
work is associated with positive values such as empowerment, participation and
18

joint ownership. Groups and teams can offer a space where difficult issues can be
dealt with in an environment that is safer than other organizational structures
(Guerin, 1997).
2.2.2. The subjective experience of organizational life
People create their ‘psychic reality’ of organizational life. They attribute subjective,
emotional and partly unconscious meanings to experiences and relationships in the
work place (Adams & Diamond, 1999). This internal image is also called the
‘organization-in-the-mind’ (Hutton, Balzagette & Reed, 1997; Armstrong, 2005).
Attribution of meaning mediates between organizational reality and the human
experience. This ‘psychic reality’ influences the behavior of individuals and shapes
organizational processes and structures. The notion ‘organization-in-experience’
accentuates how organizational members experience the organization and ‘enact’
their formal role (Long, Newton & Dalgleish, 2000). It is an inter-subjective
perspective focusing on processes of sense making and on how participants-in-
interaction shape the organization. My research studies processes of sense-making
and the emotional responses to collaboration.
2.2.3. The interconnection of system features and emergent dynamics
Collaborative processes are not just organizational processes, but they are conceived
as 'psycho-social' processes. The ‘social’ refers to external realities, including the
organizational structures, culture, technologies, procedures, and products. These
social factors are connected to the psychological factors or the beliefs, values, hopes,
fears, defense mechanisms and sense making processes of the participants. The
structures stimulate particular patterns of individual and inter-organizational
dynamics and these, in turn, may determine how particular features of the
collaborative are formalized and structured (Gould et al., 2001). The internal and
external worlds are thus in continual interrelation (Wells, 1995; Amado & Ambrose,
2001; Gould et al., 2001). In this research I emphasize the interrelation between
system features and the dynamics that emerge in the process.
19

2.2.4. Anxiety and social defenses
Most people tend to avoid uncertainty, anxiety and threats to their self-esteem. They
often want to control their environment and make it predictable. Anxiety and
defenses against anxiety are part of organizational life. Developmental processes in
our early childhood play a critical role in present behavior and the way we deal with
uncertainty and stress (Neumann & Hirschhorn, 1999). The psychodynamic
perspective assumes that an organization offers containing mechanisms to protect
individuals from too much uncertainty and ambiguity. People can ‘use’ an
organization for unconscious reasons, to defend against anxiety, to renew their lost
sense of omnipotence, to enhance their self-esteem or as a psychological space for
play and imagination (Adams & Diamond, 1999).
When anxiety is too strong or not sufficiently contained, individuals, groups and
organizations will develop defense mechanisms. 'Social defenses' (Jaques, 1955;
Menzies, 1960) may emerge when a group unconsciously colludes to ward off the
anxiety and tensions of collaborative work, often at the cost of task performance. The
pioneering work of Menzies (1960) on social defenses, has demonstrated that
unconscious anxieties are often reflected in organizational structure and design,
which function to defend against the uncontained anxieties in the workplace. Social
defense mechanisms “relieve individuals of the burden of managing their escape into
illusion, of turning away from reality, by creating social systems that support systematic role
violations. The social defenses externalize individual defenses.” (Hirschhorn, 1988, 56) The
notion of social defenses demonstrates how individual unconscious fantasies and
defenses are expressed in social processes without reducing the latter to individual
psychology (Hinshelwood, 1989).
According to Krantz (1998) the social defense theory is more relevant than ever.
Working in today’s organizational world requires a state of mind and behavior that
stem from functioning in the ‘depressive position’: being able to see and integrate the
20

‘good’ and ‘bad’ elements of a situation without splitting off the ‘bad’ ones as a
defense (Hinshelwood, 1989; Segal, 1973). Novel ways of organizing elicit primitive
anxieties. New social defenses need to be created to cope with the changes we are
facing. These need to balance the need to avoid anxiety and the need to do
productive work. “The shape of social defense systems that are adapted to new marketplace
realities remains to be discovered” (Krantz, 1998, 100). A collaborative does not offer the
traditional containing structures (e.g. structured roles, procedures) to deal with the
task. Therefore it is likely that defensive dynamics will occur.
2.2.5. Containment of organizational anxiety: a transitional approach to change
A number of concepts are important for understanding the facilitating function of
organizational processes, structures and interventions. The concepts were developed
in the domain of child development and later adapted to the world of adults and
organizations. I will define and discuss the main concepts.
Containment
When the mother is capable to contain the projected fears of the child, Bion (1970)
speaks of ‘maternal reverie’. Containment is a psychic function where the mother
takes on the anxiety, and unpleasant emotions of the child in order to protect it from
destruction. In later life, every person who is able to take on the anxiety of another
person can function as a ‘container’ (Hinshelwood, 1989). “(…) the container can
absorb, filter or manage difficult or threatening emotions or ideas – the contained – so that
they can be worked with, or it can become a rigid frame or shell that restricts or blocks.”
(French & Vince, 1999, 9).
In the organizational context, containment is a psychic task where those in a leading
role temporarily protect their collaborators from being overwhelmed by the demands
and complexity of the situation. The ‘container’ – temporarily - carries the stress for
other persons, and gives it back in a manageable form. In organizational change,
managers and consultants can function as a ‘container’ by, for instance, reframing the
21

situation (Halton, 1994; Miller, 1997; Neumann, 1999; Boalt Boëthius, 1999; Cardona,
1999; Obholzer, 1999; Krantz, 1998; Hirschhorn & Gilmore, 1992). The ‘contained’ can
be an emotion, an idea or a person. The ‘container’ can have different shapes in an
organizational context. A ‘team’, for instance, can function as a container for the
organizational experience (Czander, 1997; Krantz, 1998). Whether or not groups are
capable of containment, determines their potential for development. “A group’s
capacity to elaborate on certain opinions, and mainly to contain new ideas and the fears that
come with them, to sort them out and possibly integrate them either fully or partially, is
essential to the continuous development and vitality of the group in question.” (Vansina-
Cobbaert & Vansina, 1996, 9)
Holding environment
A ‘holding environment’ (Winnicott, 1971) refers to the constant and consistent
physical and emotional care provided by the mother that enables the infant to
develop. Holding is protecting the child from too much stimulation coming from the
outside and from the inside. This requires a high level of empathy and sensitivity
from the mother. The ‘good enough’ mother helps the child to make a distinction
between the self and the outer world and to gain basic confidence. As the child
grows older, the holding environment is extended to the father, the family, and the
school. It protects the child against too much stress, conflicting demands and threats
in the outer world, also at a later age. “The psychological and physical holding an infant
needs throughout his development continues to be important, and the holding environment
never loses its importance for everyone.” (Abram, 1996, 183)
In the organizational world holding environments are still important to protect
people from the anxiety stirred up by the organizational experience. It refers to “(...)
those practices and symbols characteristic of a local organizational culture which supports
(either well or poorly) the specific identities of organizational members.” (van Buskirk & Mc
Grath, 1999, 812). From that perspective, organizational experiences can contribute to
the development of individuals. In change processes, leaders or consultants can
22

provide a holding environment, or a setting that itself can be trusted to provide
physical and psychological safety to those willing to experience and explore issues
that might normally be anxiety provoking, politically subversive or counter-cultural
within the organization. It allows for exploration of ideas and feelings that emerge
during work, which otherwise would be suppressed or operate in an underground
manner. It is important to contain such experiences and explorations so that they can
be integrated for work, rather than for counter-work purposes (Long, et al., 2000). “A
holding environment generates the feeling that things are all right the way they are, and that
it is acceptable to be anxious and insecure, helping people to accept their own doubts and
fears.” (Overlaet & Barrett, 2000, 16) Consultants or leaders can provide a holding
environment by “(...) serving as a safe container who can accept and survive the anxieties
and sometimes hostile projections (…).” (Miller, 1997, 191)
Transitional phenomena
Transitional phenomena refer to experiences in the mother-child relationship that are
critical for the development of the infant. It refers to a space that separates and
connects the internal and external reality. Winnicott (1971) used different terms to
refer to this space: ‘the third area’, ‘the intermediate area’, ‘the potential space’, ‘a
resting place’ and ‘the location of cultural experience’ (Abram, 1996). He did not use
the notion ‘transitional space’, which is often used in the organizational literature.
The ‘third space’ is located between the inner and outer world. “(...) the third part of
the life of a human being, a part that we cannot ignore, is an intermediate area of
experiencing, to which inner reality and external life both contribute. It is an area that is not
challenged, because no claim is made on its behalf except that it shall exist as a resting-place
for the individual engaged in the perpetual human task of keeping inner and outer reality
separate yet interrelated.” (Winnicott, 1971, 2) Culture, creativity and play originate in
this space (Abram, 1996).
The child uses ‘transitional objects’ to start distinguishing the self from the not-self
and to develop from total dependence on the mother to relative independence. This
23

is a self chosen object which represents the aspects of ‘mothering’, but at the same
time allows the child to create, by himself, what he needs. This object can be a thumb,
a blanket, a teddy bear, but also a tune, or a word. Its function is to defend against
the anxiety, which is particularly important when the child goes to sleep (Winnicott,
1971). At a certain point in time the child no longer needs the transitional object
because he is able to make the distinction ‘me’ ‘not-me’. He is capable to “(...) live in
the third area, keeping inside and outside apart and yet inter-related.” (Abram, 1996, 317).
According to Winnicott the notions of development, holding and transitional objects,
based in childhood, are paradigmatic for later life (van Buskirk & Mc Grath, 1999).
Harold Bridger and Gilles Amado transformed the ideas of Winnicott to the world of
adults and organizations. Because change efforts often fail, Bridger wanted to
understand the nature of change processes or ‘transitions’. According to Bridger,
transitional change is a psychological process made up of three phases: the ending
phase, the neutral zone phase and the vision or new beginning. It is a process of re-
birth, which requires the recognition of many losses for the people involved. In a
state of transition there is confusion and uncertainty, but also space for
experimentation and innovation (Amado & Amato, 2001). To facilitate such change,
it is important to design conditions for a ‘transitional space’. A transitional space is
“(…) an environment where options can be explored in safety without later repercussions,
where people can experiment with roles and behaviours beyond their habitual ones, and where
issues can be worked through that the normal working culture may not encourage to surface.”
(Klein, 2001) Leaders or consultants can establish the conditions for such a space, but
they cannot impose the experience. It is not a technique, but an opportunity for
development and change. The participants can use the space for reflection and
working through the emerging relations with work, colleagues and the new
organization. This allows them to make the transition from one state of existence to
another (Vansina, 1998). During a transition, the past and present are simultaneously
present in the here-and-now. It is not ‘real’ yet; it is a temporary, virtual world where
thinking, fantasy and play are central to prepare for the future. Transitional
experiences are “(...) the ‘in between’ when organizational members find that they cannot
24

ely on familiar routines and yet do not have new frameworks that are up to the challenge.
During such transitions old conceptions and practices are no longer valid, but new practices
are not yet available, and have to be constructed.” (Overlaet & Barrett, 2000, 3) In
transitional change processes, participants may choose a transitional object (e.g. a
compelling vision, a slogan, a computer model of a future state) to contain the
anxiety of the change. Transitional objects cannot be ‘designed’ by leaders or
consultants. They represent neutral ‘objects’ that acquire an emotional meaning. A
transitional object can serve different functions, such as prepare people for the future
or provide comfort and reassurance (Hutton et al., 1997). They may help people in a
change process to let go of the old and embrace something new.
The paranoid-schizoid position and the depressive position
In 1946 Melanie Klein (1993) described the ‘paranoid-schizoid position’. In the
earliest development the child experiences persecutory anxiety, resulting in
processes of fragmentation of the mind. “The splitting processes typically lead to
projection of parts of the self or ego (projective identification) into objects, with a depleting
effect on the self.” (Hinshelwood, 1989, 156) Splitting and projection are a defense
against the intense anxieties. “The paranoid-schizoid position is characterized by the
infant’s unawareness of ‘persons’, his relationships being to part objects, and by the
prevalence of splitting processes and paranoid anxiety.” (Segal, 1973, ix) Adults can also
function in the paranoid-schizoid position when they are confronted with extreme
anxiety. “Operating from the more primitive paranoid-schizoid end of the spectrum brings
out grandiosity, persecution, and inflexible thinking.” (Krantz, 1998, 81)
When the child is able to accept the positive and negative qualities of ‘objects’ (e.g.
mother), he is able to function in the ‘depressive position’. The child discovers that
the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are manifestations of the same person or object. “The infant, at
some stage (normally at four to six months), is physically and emotionally mature enough to
integrate his or her fragmented perceptions of mother, bringing together the separately good
and bad versions (imagos) that he or she has previously experienced.” (Hinshelwood, 1989,
25

138) The child recognizes the mother as a whole person and is able to relate to whole
objects (Segal, 1973). He needs to give up his self-idealization and accept the
complexity of inner and outer reality. The term ‘depressive’ refers to the experience
of guilt and sadness associated with this position (Halton, 1994).
Containment of the anxiety of the organizational experience facilitates functioning in
the depressive position; the participants are able to work with the complexity of
reality. “In the depressive position, omnipotent fantasy, obsessional ritual and paranoid
blaming can give way to thinking: one can seek to know, to learn from experience and to solve
problems.” (Zagier Roberts, 1994c, 118) Groups able to function in the depressive
position can cope with the emotional complexity of work and do not split off
negative elements. However, when the survival and self-esteem of a group is
threatened, there may be a tendency to return to more primitive ways of functioning
(Halton, 1994). The essence is to stay in touch with reality. According to Krantz, a
critical condition to function in new forms of organizing is to enable people to
function in the depressive position. This means that people need “(...) to be able to
learn from experience, to be vulnerable without feeling persecuted so that one can learn from
experience, to be curious about, rather than fearful of, the unknown, to be able to link with
others across important differences, and to be realistically connected to the genuine
opportunities and challenges they face.” (Krantz, 1998, 82)
The theoretical frame presented here, provided the organizing principle for my
research. In the following section I connect these theoretical insights with multiparty
collaboration and emphasize a number of specific challenges.
2.3. A systems psychodynamic perspective on collaborative work:
the challenges of direction setting
The ideas developed in this section are essentially inspired by the insights of Larry
Hirschhorn (1988; 1990; 1997; 2002) and James Krantz (1985; 1990; 1998). Their work
on new forms of organizing, the responses of individuals and groups to these new
organizational conditions, and new ways of conceiving and shaping leadership in so-
26

called ‘post-modern’ or ‘new order’ organizations has been stimulating in this
research on multiparty collaboration. In collaborative work, the participants need to
deal with the challenges of this complex organizational reality. In what follows, I
discuss a number of organizational features of multiparty collaboration that may
provoke anxiety and trigger defensive responses.
2.3.1. The socio-economic and organizational context
To understand the dynamics in a collaborative, it is critical to pay attention to its
environment. An exclusive focus on the group as a human system does not lead to a
full understanding of a collaborative experience. The group is always a group in a
particular historical, political, societal and institutional context (McCollom, 1995). It
is important to study how a group reacts to external events and which adaptive
processes emerge (McGrath & Tschan, 2004). The organizational context of a
collaborative is often complex, uncertain and ambiguous. Political processes and
dynamics in the environment, between the representatives and their constituency,
affect the collaborative (Schuman, 1996). The boundary between the collaborative
and its environment is extremely fluid.
The complex nature of the context and the inter-organizational domain (Trist, 1983)
may provoke tensions. In response, the participants may try to reduce the complexity
and rely on primitive defenses, such as splitting and projection (Segal, 1973;
Lawrence, 1998; Krantz, 1998). They can easily slip into dynamics, such as exclusion
of threatening stakeholders or premature formalizing of the process.
Collaborative work is also characterized by uncertainty. "For all actors at the beginning
of the process, this results in a high degree of uncertainty about how the process will be
handled and how the interaction with other actors will develop" (Koppenjan & Klijn, 2004:
7). 'Substantive' uncertainty concerns the availability of information. Relevant
information is not available, not available in time or interpreted in different ways by
the participating actors. Secondly, 'strategic' uncertainty is provoked by the strategic
27

choices the actors need to make with regard to the articulation of complex problems.
Unexpected strategic turns to solve problems and to take decisions are an intrinsic
characteristic of interaction processes dealing with complex problems. Finally,
'institutional' uncertainty refers to the tasks, opinions, rules and language of the
organizations involved. Representatives in a collaborative will most likely have to
deal with all three types of uncertainty.
Ambiguity is a quality resulting from the social process of negotiating different
frames, interests and values. In a collaborative multiple frames and perspectives are
used to make sense of the situation. The consequences are that different stakeholders
will give a different meaning to the situation, have different priorities, include or
exclude different issues, information and members, and choose different solutions. A
process of joint sense making and reframing can be an opportunity for change and
creative and innovative solutions (Dewulf, Craps, Bouwen, Taillieu & Pahl-Wostl,
2004). However, confrontation of different frames can also be threatening and result
in conflict or defensive responses.
Hirschhorn and Krantz stress the increase in organizational anxiety as a consequence
of the deep-seated changes, the fundamental uncertainty and the greater turbulence
with which we are confronted. “More specifically, the great vulnerability and insecurity
characteristic of today’s environments are likely to resonate with the very primitive fear of
annihilation and terrifying potential for psychological disintegration that many analysts have
found in the primitive recesses of their patients.” (Krantz, 1998, 86) Representatives need
to learn how to adapt to the changing opportunities and restrictions in the
environment.
2.3.2. The self-designing nature of the collaborative task
In multiparty collaboration the task is often of a self-designing nature. The first
challenge for the convener and the collaborative group is to develop a shared
understanding of the task and to establish ‘common ground’ (Gray, 1989). This
28

enables the development of interdependence, trust and productive work. Defining
the task is a critical act and a highly sensitive process, because the different interests
and ambitions of the parties are involved. Therefore a critical issue is: who is
included in the process of task construction? Stakeholders may fear to be excluded
from the process, or dominated by more powerful parties.
Traditionally the ‘primary task’ refers to the task the organization has to perform in
order to survive (Rice, 1958; Miller, 1993). This concept, however, is not relevant in
an inter-organizational context because of the turbulence in the environment and the
dynamic nature of a collaborative. A critical task of leadership is to ensure that the
primary task is constantly reviewed and adapted in the light of a changing
environment (Obholzer & Miller, 2004). In a context where leadership is a shared
phenomenon, all those involved need to pay attention to the relevance of the primary
task in relation to, for instance, changes in membership, changing boundaries, or
events in the environment.
2.3.3. The emergent nature of the collaborative process
For many, collaboration is a new and unfamiliar way of working. They often lack the
skills and scripts to deal with the situation. Working in a multiparty logic means that
participants engage in an open, under-organized process with an uncertain outcome.
The process is ‘emergent’ (Gray, 1989). The general direction and desired outcome
can be described, but the final outcome is not predetermined and will be shaped by
the interplay of different issues in the process. This demands the capacity to deal
with the uncertainty and ambiguity of the journey. There are few containing
structures and processes because these cannot always be established in advance.
Krantz (1998) argues that the decline of stable structures as a key dimension of
organizational life stirs up anxiety. “Many anxieties, formerly contained, become
‘dislodged’, others are stimulated by the fact of change, and still more are elicited by the
frightening and unknown conditions we often face” (Krantz, 1998, 87-88). Therefore the
29

isk is that participants will tend to reduce uncertainty and complexity and
prematurely formalize the process as a defense against the tensions of the openness.
Formalization or over-structuring of the process may result in a loss of the benefits of
collaborating. Trist (1983) calls it a referent organization taking ‘the wrong path’ by
establishing bureaucratic principles, central power, and hierarchical forms of
organizing. The result is a sub-optimization of diversity and interdependence.
However, uncertainty and anxiety as such are not a source of ineffective functioning.
According to Hirschhorn (1988) the critical factor is how anxiety is ‘contained’ by
individuals, groups and organizations. “(…) authority and facilitating structures are
necessary to channel anxiety into productive work. In their absence, the anxiety is bound up
in socially defensive or ritualized patterns such as basic assumption dynamics in teams or
ritualized organizational behavior, thus distorting the constructive use of available energy.”
(Guerin, 1997, 21) The challenge is to establish new forms of containment.
2.3.4. Development of collaborative relationships
Working in a collaborative confronts the representatives with relational challenges.
They need to deal with mutual dependency, diversity, asymmetries between the
parties, and with ambiguous authority relations.
Many years ago, Lewin (1951) argued that the essential aspect of a collection of
individuals which makes it a ‘group’ is the interdependency of individuals on one
another. In multiparty collaboration the stakeholders in the problem domain are, by
definition, mutually dependent upon each other to achieve results. In order to work
out sustainable solutions that are widely supported in the domain, stakeholders need
to develop interdependent relationships. ‘Dependence’ is a natural property of
groups. Interdependence can be viewed as the outcome of successfully negotiating
the inevitable anxieties generated by mutual dependence (Miller, 1993; Gould, et al.,
1999; Carr, 2001). In collaborative work it is critical to understand the broader social
field in which work takes place and to have a system perspective (Hirschhorn, 1988).
30

Most organizations and social groups are used to work independently and they often
cultivate their autonomy and competitive ways of working. Interdependence makes
actors vulnerable as their success depends on others. It seems paradoxical, but
collaborative relationships can provoke more anxiety than more familiar competitive
relationships (Krantz & Gilmore, 1990).
To arrive at optimal and sustainable solutions, the participants in a collaborative
need to integrate the diversity present in the system (Vansina, 2002). Therefore they
need to acknowledge the different perspectives, values, interests, and contributions
of the stakeholders. An appropriate degree of contesting with the other, without
conflict or evasion, seems required (Huffington, James & Armstrong, 2004). A
confrontation with diversity may jeopardize one's identity, position and feelings of
self-esteem. This may lead, for instance, to rivalry, independent action, ignoring the
interests of certain parties, or to the dominance of one perspective. The challenge of
collaborative work is to keep the diversity around the table and to work with
diversity.
Participants can experience the tension between the ideology and rhetoric of
'equality' and 'legitimacy' of all participating groups and organizations, and the
obvious asymmetries that exist. Asymmetries can relate to power, resources, know-
how, social network, competencies, status, available time, and degree of
involvement. It is important to explicitly acknowledge the legitimate presence of all
parties involved and to make sure the existence of the asymmetries is recognized.
Participants need to learn to relate to each other in new ways and develop a
‘collaborative attitude’. This attitude is characterized by trust, the capacity to work
with different power relations, the possibility to work in a situation of ‘not knowing’
and the readiness to learn from the experience of collaboration. Mature inter-group
relations, as opposed to defensive relations, can lead to a group culture aimed at
collaboration. It can also result in the development of genuine interdependence
between stakeholders as the result of working through the anxieties provoked by not
31

eing in control and by being dependent upon others (Long et al., 2000; Gould, Ebers
& Mc Vicker Clinchy, 1999; Carr, 2001).
These different sources of anxiety are important to consider in the study of processes
of direction setting. They relate to difficult issues that need containment, in order to
avoid the emergence of defensive dynamics that endanger collaborative work. In the
next paragraph, I briefly discuss the issue of ambiguous authority relationships, as
this is a critical aspect for direction setting.
2.4. Direction setting and the ambiguity of authority relations
According to Krantz (1998, 96) there are two important consequences related to
organizational anxieties and how we cope with them in the post-industrial world of
working and organizing. “With the decline of the bureaucratic order, the two key
dimensions of organizational life that were used in socially defensive fashion are diminishing:
stable structures and authority that is embedded in structure”. The psychodynamic frame
enhances insight in how individuals and groups deal with ambiguous authority
relations. As there is no identified ‘leader’, it is harder to blame, admire, despise, or
depend on someone. Upward identification and delegation of authority are not so
obvious. Moreover, dependency needs that are not responded to, may lead to
ambivalent feelings such as disappointment, anger, or fear (Hirschhorn, 1990).
In a collaborative people can no longer rely on stereotypes of leadership and
followership. “The new post-industrial economic order is leading to dramatic changes in
individual’s relationships with their organizations and in the character of authority relations,
creating pressure to re-examine the attribution of leadership exclusively to formal leaders”
(Krantz, 1990, 51-52). Authority relations are ambiguous and often authority is
implicit, difficult to identify and structures or formal roles to contain authority are
unclear or lacking. In a collaborative it is not always clear who is influencing the
direction and outcome of the process. According to Diamond and Allcorn (1987)
ambiguity in authority relations is one of the most important reasons for
32

organizational conflict and failure. It increases anxiety, regression, withdrawal,
projections and results in a defensive group culture. Czander (1993) argues that
under conditions of ambiguity, when roles and responsibilities are not clear, the
political and informal social systems will prevail. Therefore a collaborative needs a
'good enough' authority structure (Gilmore, 1997), such as clearly negotiated roles, in
order to experience some stability and emotional reassurance.
Literature on leadership in the post-modern world of organizing stresses ownership,
the need to take up personal authority and to be ‘psychologically present’
(Hirschhorn, 1997; Miller, 1999). People are increasingly expected to manage
themselves in their role and to take up authority (Zagier Roberts, 1999). This shift in
expectations challenges our common ideas on authority. According to Krantz (1990)
our assumptions on authority are partly maintained as defenses against anxiety. In a
collaborative setting, these assumptions may lead to tension between dependency
needs and the requirement to take up authority. The parties who are not in a formal
leading role may fall back on stereotypes or fantasies about leadership and project
their expectations on the parties that take up a leading role (e.g. facilitator, convener).
Not being able to rely on familiar and shared notions of authority eliminates the
reassuring, dependent fantasy that at least someone 'knows' or is in control (Shapiro,
2000). Having to let go of these assumptions is likely to stir up anxieties and may
provoke regressive behavior.
The concept of 'post-industrial authority relations’, developed by Hirschhorn (1990),
is relevant for collaborative work. Representatives need to negotiate their roles,
establish authority relations, and demonstrate the capability to take up ownership
(self-management). In new ways of organizing authority does not come from a
position or defined role, but from taking up authority. People engage in processes of
'authorizing' and 'de-authorizing' (Kahn & Kram, 1994). Symmetrical and horizontal
relationships, based on partnership, mobilize mature interdependence. They are
opposed to defensive relationships (e.g. dependency, counter-dependency) with the
unconscious purpose of containing anxieties (Miller, 1998; 1999). It is an issue of
33

individual development and group development. As negotiation becomes a critical
aspect of organizing, it is important to focus on the process of collaboration. This may
increase understanding of how leadership is enacted and how the direction of a
collaborative effort is established.
Collaboration confronts us with a paradox (Krantz, 1998). In order to arrive at
innovative, sustainable and accepted solutions, the actors need to develop mature
collaborative relationships. However, it is precisely the openness, complexity and
uncertainties of a collaborative journey that make it hard to develop open and
trustful relationships. This paradox is at the core of this research.
34

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH APPROACH
3.1. Interpretive inquiry: epistemological position
In this chapter, I position this research in the broad tradition of qualitative research. I
discuss the epistemological position I take and the specific nature of doing research
from the systems psychodynamic perspective.
Several authors define the nature of psychodynamic or ‘clinical’ research in
organizational contexts. Berg and Smith (1988) identify the following characteristics:
- Direct involvement with and/or observation of people or social systems ;
- The commitment of the researcher to engage in a process of self reflection
while carrying out the research;
- The readiness to change the chosen theory or method in response to the
experience of carrying out the research;
- A description of social systems that is ‘thick’ and deep rather than broad;
- Involvement of the social system under study, based on the assumption that
most of the relevant information can only be reported by the organizational
members.
Lowman draws a parallel between research in clinical and organizational settings.
“(…) the interventionist translates client-presented data to theories or understandings that
would explain the behavior and about which the client may be unaware. The veracity of the
theory is confirmed, if at all, by the reception it receives from the client in an interactive
process (…). The clinical inferential process is therefore personalistic and highly related to the
skill, intuition, and competence of the therapist or researcher.” (Lowman, 1988, 181). The
clinical researcher gives feedback to the client system with a double intention:
improve the functioning of the system and stimulate learning.
According to Schein (1987a) the clinical perspective is based on an ‘action research’
model. The assumption is that one cannot understand a human system without
35

trying to change it. The essential dynamics of the system remain invisible for the
passive observer. The aim of the interventionist is to change the system, because the
starting point is a ‘problem’ presented by the client. By intervening in the system the
consultant will provoke a response from the client (Schein, 1987b). “The nature of that
response then becomes primary diagnostic data for determining what may really be going on.
(…) In my own experience, it is the observed anomalies, blank looks in response to simple
questions, defensive denials and counterarguments, and various other kinds of emotional
responses that occur in reaction to my own behavior that are the most valuable sources of
insight into what is going on.” (Schein, 1987a, 29-30) The ‘clinician’ brings the system in
movement. In the action research model the focus is not on data ‘out there’ that can
be observed, but on a careful analysis of the relationship between the organizational
members and the ‘outsider’.
Psychodynamic research focuses on the manifest and latent meaning of experiences.
It is a phenomenological approach, where the researcher tries to bring the subjective
experience of the individuals to the surface and discover the meaning of that
experience. The aim is not to determine causal relations or to predict phenomena, but
to understand the phenomena in their complexity, wholeness and uniqueness
(Lapierre, 1993; Edelson, 1988). I have chosen for a study of specific cases in the
interest of understanding the complexity of a social process in a particular
organizational context (Druckman, 1977). The aim of my research is to construct a
‘thick description’ (Geertz, 1973) of meaning. Geertz’s interpretive anthropology
focuses on sense making. He opposed the structuralist tradition that was looking for
the ‘true’ meaning of, for instance, a myth or ceremony, in order to translate it into
scientific terms. The way meaning is shaped in a particular culture has to be ‘read’ or
interpreted by the ethnographer, just like one would read or interpret a difficult text.
It is not about a world of social facts waiting to be observed, described and analyzed.
“Rather, the inquirer constructs a reading of the meaning-making process of the people he or
she studies.(…) The task of ethnography is not observation and description, but the
inscription or thick description of these meanings of human action.” (Schwandt, 1994, 123)
36

In order to make sense of organizational experiences an interpretive method is
required. “The constructivist or interpretivist believes that to understand this world of
meaning one must interpret it.” (Schwandt, 1994, 118). In this research the
psychodynamic frame is a method of inquiry or a lens to collect and make sense of
the data, and not so much a theory to explain behavior. Some authors use misleading
images: the 'organizational detective' (Kets de Vries, 1999) or the 'forensic researcher'
(Gabriel, 1999). These images suggest that the researcher needs to discover 'a truth
out there’, under the surface.
Interpretation of the data is not the ‘truth’ or a certainty, but it is a co-creation of
meaning by the participants, the researcher, and colleagues involved in the process
(Hollway & Jefferson, 2000). My understanding is, necessarily, a 'partial
understanding'. Interpretation means proceeding from one hypothesis to another
hypothesis, rather than from uncertainty to certainty (Shapiro & Carr, 1991). A
psychodynamic reading of phenomena is one interpretation that cannot be a
complete description. It can be complementary, reposition existing views, or enrich
those views (Halton, 1994; Schonberg, 1998). Moreover, I assume there are multiple
‘truths’. The stakeholders differ in the way they make sense of their experiences, and
my interpretation may be different from their sense making ('multiple realities').
The case studies in this research are ‘confessional tales’ (Van Maanen, 1988). They are
stories with personalized authorship: I describe the role I played in the system and
share my point of view when relevant for the focus of research. According to Flick
(2002) this way of presenting a case gains in importance.
For each case study three levels can be distinguished:
1. The data in chronological order (observations, quotes from interviews and
meetings): what happened?
2. Processes of sense making: what meaning do participants attribute to the
events and issues?
3. Interpretation of the data: which dynamics and patterns emerge?
37

Interpretation of the experiences is based on the ‘wholeness’ of the data, linked with
the particular context in which the experiences occur. The meaning of the events and
experiences, ascribed by the researcher, is constructed following a systematic
approach for data analysis and interpretation.
3.2. An attitude of inquiry: the interpretive stance
Adopting the psychodynamic lens in research refers to a particular sensitivity to the
data during data collection and data analysis. I will briefly discuss some features of
the 'interpretive stance' (Shapiro & Carr, 1991).
A first feature is that the researcher should demonstrate an evenly divided attention
for the manifest and underlying dynamics. The researcher listens with the 'third ear'
to the participants and pays attention to the ‘hidden music’ in the stories (Reik, 1948;
Gilmore & Krantz, 1985). The manifest, latent and unconscious dynamics are closely
intertwined. This distinction is made for the sake of clarity.
Listening to the hidden music means the researcher needs to be sensitive to ‘clues’ in
order gain access to (latent) meaning. “The odd, the out of place, the significant exception
provide far more insight than large volumes of uniform and unidirectional data.” (Gabriel,
1999, 251) The researcher needs to be attentive for the incidental or unexpected event.
Special attention is directed at the energy level, non-verbal cues, what is not being
talked about, colorful language, images, silence, and unexpected or strong emotions
in the other or in the self (transference or counter transference). Levinson (1993), for
instance, stresses the importance of paying attention to first impressions when
entering an organization. A clue can hint to an underlying meaning of experience
that should be explored further.
The researcher needs to ‘listen’ both to the other and to the self and engage in
inquiry and self-inquiry (Gardner, 1989). The 'self' is used as an instrument in
38

sensing and exploring. This attitude requires a commitment to introspection, self-
reflection and personal scrutiny (Hunt, 1989). In listening to the self the researcher
pays attention to her emotions (e.g. bored, enthusiastic) and physical sensations (e.g.
tired, nervous). She should also be aware of her assumptions about the issue under
study. Whenever the researcher has an uneasy feeling, she should explore both what
derives from 'within' and what arises from 'without' and sort out what is 'me' and
'not me' in the experience (Shapiro & Carr, 1991). What the researcher is experiencing
might be what the other person is experiencing too. It requires careful exploration of
what it might mean.
To conclude, the researcher has to be able to tolerate and contain the anxiety of ‘not-
knowing’. Bion (1970) called this attitude ‘negative capability’: without memory,
desire, nor understanding (Vansina-Cobbaert & Vansina, 1996). In the research
context this means that the researcher should try to suspend judgment and to look at
phenomena with a fresh and open mind. It is important to be open for what happens
in the here-and-now, to be curious and receptive for surprises, and not to just hear,
see and feel what you expect to find. The purpose is not to look for illustrations of
theoretical concepts in the data. In the following section I further explore the
subjective nature of doing research.
3.3. Subjectivity and inter-subjectivity as a source of data
Fieldwork is an inter-subjective process, a dialogue and an interpretive endeavor,
mediated by the minds of the participant(s) and the researcher and by unconscious
processes (Hunt, 1989). The participant is not just a source of information and the
researcher is not just an objective observer, diagnosing a person or system in order to
classify it in a typology or link it to a theoretical concept (Edelson, 1988; Vansina,
1998). The researcher and participants are engaged in a relationship where
unconscious dynamics are at play that can be meaningful. The assumption is that the
subjectivity of the researcher generates data about what is going on in the system.
“The researchers must face their own often unconscious emotional biases to situations of
39

anxiety. (…) one must be maximally open to one’s own feelings and prejudicial ways of
coping with anxiety so that, when stimulated to feel in a particular way, one can use the
feeling as data about relationships in the client system.” (Hirschhorn, 1988, 249)
Researchers have to stay in touch with their feelings and be alert to situations where
they experience anxiety because this may be a sign that further exploration is
required.
It is critical to document the subjective dimension of the research process.
Journalizing allows for a continuous process of self-monitoring or 'disciplined
subjectivity' (Hutjes & van Buuren, 1992). It helps to make the assumptions and
biases of the researcher explicit, how the researcher is being used in her role and it
clarifies the distinction between personal dynamics and dynamics in the
collaborative (Berg, 1988; Huffington & James, 1999; Bradbury & Bergmann
Lichtenstein, 2000). Journalizing notes document the relevant issues for the research
process itself, such as implicit assumptions, reasons for choosing a method of data
collection, or the choice of a role (Hunt, 1989). It documents how data were
produced, to what extent the researcher has projected assumptions or fantasies onto
the case material, and it may reflect the connection between our intellectual and
personal life. Journalizing helps the researcher to assess how the anxiety provoked
by the research may lead to a defensive use of methodology, a defensive negotiation
of role, and a distortion in the perception and interpretation of the data (Devereux,
1967; Hunt, 1989; Clarke, 2002; Meek, 2003). Every researcher has hidden
assumptions about the research subject. “In journalizing the goal is not to remove biases -
that would be impossible - but instead to render them conscious” (Bradbury & Bergmann
Lichtenstein, 2000, 559). Journalizing stimulates an attitude of curiosity, inquiry and
exploration. The researcher can document premature hunches, questions, worries,
and fears. This enables formulation of working hypotheses as the process unfolds.
To conclude, journalizing is useful to document the dynamics in the research
relationship. In the psychodynamic research tradition the relatedness in the research
relationship is considered as an important source of data (Gilmore & Krantz, 1985).
40

'Relatedness' refers to the quality of our relationship with others based on what is in
our mind. “In contrast to ‘relationship’, relatedness refers to the quality of connectedness
between individuals or groups that are internally represented, and which, being partially or
fully unconscious, are unavailable as clear, articulated thoughts and feelings. As distinct from
the manifest experiences of contact, which gives rise to one dimension of the qualities of a
relationship, relatedness contains mutual projections, which stimulate other, deeper feelings,
which in turn, may affect the relationship in powerful ways as well.” (Gould et al., 1999,
700) A 'relationship' is based on actual personal contact (Shapiro & Carr, 1991).
Unconscious images mediate the relationship between researcher and participant.
"Any fieldwork encounter involves a shifting interplay of social interaction, unconscious
fantasy, anxiety, and defense" (Hunt, 1989, 69). Transference and counter transference,
projective identification and parallel processes are important dynamics in the
research relationship (Gilmore & Krantz, 1985; Hunt, 1989; Clarke, 2002; Diamond &
Alcorn, 2003). The first encounter between researcher and the participants can
provide clues. It is important for the researcher to pay attention to her feelings,
impressions, the attitude of the organizational members towards her, and events that
give her a good or a bad feeling (Levinson, 1993). Important clues for transference
reactions include strong emotions (e.g. anger, anxiety, shame, boredom, idealization)
how the researcher is perceived, and which role is forced upon her. Documentation
of what happens in the research relationship and scrutinizing its dynamics may
increase the meaning of the data obtained with other methods and provide access to
more subtle aspects of experience. However, these dynamics can also disrupt the
research (Devereux, 1967; Berg & Smith, 1988; Hunt, 1989; Gabriel, 1999).
3.4. Methodological approach
In this section I discuss the overall methodological choices and approach to the
research. In the introductions of the cases and in the articles (parts 2 and 3) I discuss
more in detail how I collected data and how I developed interpretations for each
41

specific case study. The main methodological concerns in my research were the
following:
- Can I retrace the methodological choices I have made and why I made them?
(transparency of the research process)
- Can I retrace where data come from? (transparency of data collection and data
management)
- Can I demonstrate that my interpretations are grounded in empirical data?
(transparency of data analysis)
3.4.1. Overall method: case study research
For several reasons case study research was the most suitable approach for dealing
with my research subject. Collaboration deals with interactions in the here-and-now,
in a natural setting, in a complex and dynamic organizational context. To arrive at a
deep understanding of the issues and dynamics in a collaborative process I included
multiple data sources. As Yin (1994) suggests, I was part of the process and my
presence and interventions influenced the system, but I had limited control over
what actually happened. I entered the field with a theoretical pre-understanding,
some insights from other experiences, and a number of explorative questions. During
the research process I strived for a balance between structure and flexibility. I started
the research with some general questions in order to explore the subject. The insights
I developed in the pilot case allowed me to specify the research questions and
influenced the way in which I approached data collection and data analysis in the
subsequent cases (= flexibility). The research was an explorative and iterative process
and the different cases influenced each other (Yin, 1994; Hutjes & van Buuren, 1992).
"Indeed, a key feature of theory-building in case research is the freedom to make adjustments
during the data collection process" (Eisenhardt, 1989, 539). The intention of my research
was to identify important issues and dynamics in collaborative processes embedded
in a particular context and to develop theoretical insights. For a long time I struggled
to find a relevant concept to describe the phenomenon I was studying (see chapter 1).
In the course of my research I redefined and changed the concept. This is not unusual
42

in grounded research, because "(…) the construct, its definition, and measurement often
emerge from the analysis process itself, rather than being specified a priori" (Eisenhardt,
1989, 542).
In this research I have treated each case as a single case. In two cases I collected data
by documenting an action research (erosion case and foster care case). In these cases
the research was ‘problem driven’ and the researcher(s) played a role in solving the
problem (Gabriel, 1999). Long gives the following definition: “Action research is a type
of problem-driven research which diminishes the distance between researcher and researched;
it emphasizes the active involvement of both researcher and researched in the process of
knowledge generation through active interventions.” (Long, 1999, 262). In the third case
(river valley) my role was more like an ethnographer, because I had to negotiate
access to the field, there was no ‘problem’ to solve for the research team, and my
position was mainly one of observer (Schein, 1987a). The cases were too different to
make a structured cross-case analysis (Yin, 1994). In part four, I will draw learnings
from the three cases and look for differences and similarities in the findings.
3.4.2. Systematic and structured approach to data collection
The approach in my research was not purely inductive. I started the analysis from a
theoretical pre-understanding, based on a thorough review of the literature. This
theoretical framework and the assumptions I held, presented in chapters 1 and 2,
provided the organizing principle in my research. In the case studies I have coupled
my theoretical pre-understanding with empirical material. This kind of research is an
iterative process moving back and forth between theoretical concepts and empirical
data. Gabriel (1999, 259) describes this position as follows: “Research and theory are
closely inter-related processes: it is not possible to research or even observe the world, unless
we have some frame of reference obtained from a tacit or explicit theory. Nor is it possible to
theorize without having some conceptual and methodological ideas of how theories may be
corroborated through research. Thus, neither research nor theory are purely cerebral
processes; they are social practices, subject to specific disciplines and controls, and involving
communities of practitioners and traditions of testing and presenting.”
43

In each case I used data triangulation, as suggested in case study research (Yin, 1994).
This enabled me to arrive at a ‘thick description’ of the process starting from the
'wholeness' of the data (Yin, 1994; Hutjes & Van Buuren, 1992; Flick, 2002). It allowed
me to capture the complexity and dynamic nature of the process and to interpret the
data in their context. Direct participation and observation provided the main data
for my research. I observed relevant meetings in each project. This allowed me to
observe the 'system-in-interaction' while participating in it. This approach was
relevant to deal with the research questions, because I wanted to understand the
process from within. Thus I could experience all the phenomena (e.g. emotions,
metaphors, stories) without explicitly having to elicit them (Gabriel, 1999). These
observations resulted in field notes, which also included ‘journalizing notes’.
In the three cases I interviewed the main actors in the collaborative. In the river
valley case and the foster care case I also interviewed a wider range of stakeholder
representatives in the domain. The aim of interviewing was to document the
subjective experiences of the participants (accounts). It provided additional insight in
the critical issues and their meaning for those involved (Clarke, 2002; Rubin & Rubin,
1995; Seidman, 1991; Kvale, 1996). It is difficult to gain access to the latent or
unconscious aspects of organizational life, because they are the result of defensive
responses. There are specific methods to stimulate 'free association' and fantasy in
participants (Hunt, 1989; Gould, 1987; Barry, 1994; Gabriel, 1999). I did not, however,
rely on psychodynamic methods for data collection (e.g. metaphors, social
dreaming), because they were too unfamiliar and may have provoked resistance in
the interviewees. In the foster care case I used a critical incident interview which is
used by a wide range of researchers (Gabriel, 1999; Chell, 2004).
In each case documents helped to reconstruct the antecedents of the collaborative
initiative, the features of the problem domain, the historical, socio-political and
institutional context, and the formal aspects of the collaborative (e.g. objectives). I
44

assumed it is not possible to understand the dynamics in a system without situating
them in the wider context.
A first step in solid theory building is the transparency of data collection. I used the
following principles as systematically as possible:
- Structured field note taking, marking a distinction between literal quotes,
descriptions, and personal reflections.
- Systematic documentation of personal reflections (‘journalizing’).
- Clear and complete descriptions of the context of data collection (e.g. date,
setting, relevant information about the participants) in order to arrive at a
vivid description of the important aspects of the study ('the whole picture')
(descriptive clarity).
- Systematic typing out of field notes using the same structure.
- Clear description of procedures used, indication of sources of information,
information about the data gathering process (e.g. gaining access, length of
time spent on data collection, amount of data collected) (procedural rigor).
I systematically typed out my field notes, made data summaries and overviews
based on interviews and observations. The data files were organized in a structured
way. I paid close attention to data management (Miles & Huberman, 1994) using the
following guidelines:
- Systematic filing and organizing of different kinds of data (e.g. interviews,
interaction moments, documents);
- Careful management of the case study databases (Hutjes & van Buuren, 1994;
Yin, 1994);
- Systematic reconstruction of the chronology of the collaborative process
indicating date, type of event, participants, content of the interaction, issues at
stake and available documentation;
- Reduction of the available data into categories based on clear criteria, for a
different kind of handling and analysis.
45

In part 2 and 3 I describe the methodological choices I have made for each case in
order to make the research process transparent for an outsider.
3.4.3. The internal quality and transparency of the research: a chain of evidence
Data analysis begins at the moment of data collection: sharing, comparing, finding
out and being curious about what is going on in the here-and-now of the situation.
To substantiate my interpretations of the dynamics in the process, I constructed a
transparent 'chain of evidence' (Hollway & Jefferson, 2000) from empirical data to the
interpretation for each case. My aim was to develop robust interpretations grounded
in empirical data and to make the research process as a whole transparent,
consistent, and rigorous in an ongoing ‘process of validating’ (Mishler, 1990). My
intention was not to reproduce reality, but to represent it and to present a credible
interpretation of the phenomena.
The process of data analysis consists of three activities: data reduction, data display
and conclusion drawing and verification. These three types of analysis form an
"interactive, iterative cycle" (Huberman & Miles, 1988, 362). In order to describe
dynamics of direction setting, I categorized the issues and looked for emerging
patterns and dynamics in each case separately. The aim of my research was to
develop contextualized insights that can be relevant for similar organizational
settings. The insights provide a 'dynamic understanding', that can inspire further
research.
In order to arrive at solid interpretations I followed five principles forwarded by
Clarke (2002). In this section I only mention them briefly; they are further discussed
in detail in the empirical part of my research.
1. data triangulation (see previous paragraph)
2. a systematic method for data analysis
3. peer debriefing
4. member check
46

5. use of rules for interpretation
I followed a systematic method for data analysis. For each case I made a process
reconstruction. To start the analysis it was important to become intimately familiar
with the case and to keep the ‘wholeness’ of the data in mind (Eisenhardt, 1989;
Clarke, 2002; Hollway & Jefferson, 2000). During this process I took notes on themes
and issues that emerged from the whole text. As I was interested in the manifest and
latent issues and dynamics in the collaborative process, I asked myself: what is the
‘message between the lines’ (Yin, 1994). Spradley (1980) considers such an overview
as a particular kind of field notes. It is a provisional overview for analysis and
interpretation.
A next step was to start making links and look for similarities and differences in the
material. In a first order analysis I remained close to the data and systematically
compared and contrasted field notes of interviews and observations within each case
in order to identify the critical issues (coding). Then I started to look for deeper
patterns and dimensions of understanding. I tried to build an interpretation of the
dynamics, by putting the data in a more theoretical perspective (second order
analysis). The final step was an interpretation of the dynamics that unfolded around
the issues.
‘Peer debriefing’ was an important method to support reflection on the research
process and to check emergent hypotheses with my colleagues (Clarke, 2002). In the
three cases I worked with colleagues who acted as sparring partners ('investigator
triangulation', Patton, 1987). In a continuous process of joint reflection (formal and
informal) I checked to what extent my experiences and insights were idiosyncratic or
biased, or whether they were congruent with the experiences of my peers.
Another method I have used is ‘member check’ or checking the findings and
interpretations with the participants of the research. In doing so it is possible to
buffer each progressive inductive cycle and to pay attention to the possible biases of
47

the researcher(s). I integrated the responses of the participants as additional data
(Hutjes & van Buuren, 1994; Huberman & Miles, 1988). In the three cases I presented
the findings of interviews and observations to the relevant groups of stakeholder
representatives. I also shared some writing (e.g. conference paper) with the key
actors of some projects. In the river valley case, for instance, we had an agreement
with the conveners that we would send them every text we produced about the case.
We invited them to send us their feedback, which they sometimes did.
A final principle is the use of criteria to arrive at robust interpretations. The literature
presents several criteria for interpretation (Kets de Vries, 1993; Hirschhorn, 1988;
Gould, 1993; Klein, 1996; Menzies Lyth, 1988; Levinson, 1993; Gabriel, 1999). The
main rules include the following:
- Interpretations need to be related to evidence and empirical data in order to
avoid 'wild interpretations'.
- The context (tasks and circumstances) of the collaborative needs to be taken
into account to understand the dynamics in the collaborative.
- Reliability and validity depend on a many times repeated process of
establishing hypotheses and returning to concrete situations in the process to
'test' , retest, refine and elaborate them.
- The goal of interpretative work is to find a common thread that unifies many
apparently disparate encounters, uncovering the purpose and meaning of a
person's or a group's particular action and experience. Different observations
are transformed to a coherent unity (thematic unity).
- The interpretations do not produce irrefutable explanations. The
interpretation has to be assessed on the basis of its economy and its ability to
account for many phenomena.
- The interpretation of parts is consistent with the interpretation of the whole;
different signs or clues point in the same direction (internal consistency).
Levinson (1993) argues that different researchers can arrive at different
interpretations. The value of the interpretation, however, is determined by the
48

‘evidence’ presented for the conclusions. My intention with this research was also to
contribute to organizational research informed by the system psychodynamic
perspective, because it can provide complementary insights in processes of
organizing. This point is elaborated in article 3.
3.5. Relevance of this research
3.5.1. Understanding the nature of collaborative processes
After reviewing the multiparty literature, I identified some aspects that were missing
and that seemed critical to a better understanding of collaborative work. A first
aspect that is lacking is an in-depth understanding of the nature of collaborative
processes. Gray (1989, 244) has pointed at the need for a "dynamic, process-oriented
theory of interorganizational relations". It is critical to study the social dynamics
(Bouwen & Taillieu, 2004). As I was particularly interested in how the participants in
a collaborative process make progress come about, I studied ‘practices of
collaboration’ (Huxham & Vangen, 2005). This is complementary to the approach in
social psychology, which does not study overt behavior in natural settings (Schruijer,
1990). This research is an attempt to understand the phenomenon of ‘group
locomotion’ (Cartwright & Czander, 1960) in a collaborative context and to develop a
psychological perspective on the ‘mechanisms that make things happen’ (Huxham &
Vangen, 2000a). The system psychodynamic perspective allows for an understanding
of the complexity of such processes. It relates different levels of organizational life
(Krantz, 1985). It focuses on the individual, the group and the organizations and the
way they are interconnected. Thus a rich, vivid and complex picture of collaborative
dynamics can be established (Eisold, 1996).
3.5.2. New perspectives on collaborative leadership
Secondly, I was interested in how the concept of ‘leadership’ is translated in
horizontal, participative, collaborative processes. I missed a process perspective on
leadership in multiparty collaboration. As suggested by several authors, little
research explores the enactment of ‘leadership’ in collaborative settings; leadership
49

as a ‘process’ has received little scholarly attention (Huxham & Vangen, 2000a;
Razzaque & Stewart, 1998; Ring & Van de Ven, 1994). According to Bryman (1996)
qualitative research can be especially instructive when it comes to exploring
processes of leadership. It enables an approach where leadership is seen through the
eyes of ‘leaders’ and ‘followers’, it is sensitive to the context where leadership
emerges, and it allows different questions and issues to be addressed. Kahn and
Kram (1994) argue there is little research on authority relations in collaborative ways
of working, dealing with processes of authorizing, de-authorizing and internal
models of authority. According to Schruijer and Vansina (1999) exploration and
research is required in two domains. (1) Understanding the nature of collaborative
processes that need to be 'led' to generate coordinate actions. (2) How persons in
attributed positions handle the projected leader-expectations to enable the
collaborative processes to be shared within that system of diversity. They argue that
in order to understand the conditions for and outcome of ‘distributed leadership’ as a
function, it is important to understand the group and organizational processes
embedded in a sociopolitical and economic environment. By using a qualitative
research approach focusing on the ‘process’, I contribute to insights in dynamics of
leadership and direction setting when there is no formal leader.
3.5.3. Understanding the latent and unconscious dynamics
A third issue that requires further elaboration is a better understanding of the latent
and unconscious dynamics in collaborative processes. Many authors (e.g. Kanter,
1994; Mintzberg, Jorgensen, Dougherty & Westly, 1996) acknowledge the importance
of relational aspects and communication in collaborative work. They do not,
however, address underlying dynamics that can severely hinder collaborative work.
The multiparty literature has mainly offered ‘rational’ responses to the difficulties of
participating in a collaborative effort. The quality of collaborative processes and the
relational and emotional challenges of collaborative work have not been explored
thoroughly (Gould, Ebers, McVicker & Clinchy, 1999; Czander, 1993; Page, 2003).
Little research has been conducted on relationship-based coalitions, including issues
50

like informal relationships, underlying organizational normative systems, or
informal roles (Crump & Glendon, 1998).
The psychodynamic perspective on inter-organizational relations looks at the nature
of transactions between parties, the inevitable conflicts that arise, the motivation for
inter-organizational collaboration, boundary and authority issues, internal images of
authority and inter-group phenomena like 'scapegoating' (Czander, 1993; Higgin &
Bridger, 1965; Gemmill & Elmes, 1993; Rice, 1990; Rice, 1965; Hinshelwood, 1987;
Zagier Roberts, 1994b; Kahn & Kram, 1994). This perspective can deepen our insights
in powerful irrational group and inter-organizational dynamics that may interfere
with or even derail the most manifestly sensible relationships. These insights may
provide an additional understanding of the frequently observed phenomena of
anomie, deadlock, process loss, and 'collaborative inertia', or the observation that the
output of collaborations is often slowed down or below the expectations (Carlisle &
Leary, 1981; Huxham, 1996). Finally, it helps to understand the dynamics of
facilitating interventions, processes and structures that foster creative and innovative
work and help participants to reach agreement.
3.6. References
Abram, J. (1996). The Language of Winnicott. A Dictionary of Winnicott’s Use of Words.
Karnac Books, London.
Ackoff, R. (1997). Systems, Messes and Interactive Planning. In Trist, E., Emery, F. &
Murray, H. (Eds.) The Social Engagement of Social Science. A Tavistock Anthology.
Volume III: The Socio-Ecological Perspective. Philadelphia: PENN, pp. 417-438.
Adams, G. & Diamond, M.A. (1999). Psychodynamic Perspectives on Organizations:
Identity, Politics, and Change. American Behavioral Scientist, 43 (2), 221-224.
Amado, G. & Amato, R. (2001). Organizational change theories and practices: a critical
review. In Amado, G. & Ambrose, A. (Eds.) The Transitional Approach to Change.
London: Karnac, pp.87-118.
Amado, G. & Ambrose, A. (Eds.) (2001). The Transitional Approach to Change. London:
Karnac.
51

Amado, G. & Vansina, L. (Eds.) (2005). The Transitional Approach in Action. London:
Karnac.
Ambrose, A. (2001). An introduction to transitional thinking. In Amado, G. &
Ambrose, A. (Eds.) The transitional approach to change. London: Karnac, 1-28.
Anderson, D. & White, J.D. (2000). Psychoanalytic Organizational Theory: Comparative and
Philosophical Perspectives. Paper presented at the 13th Conference of the Public
Administration Theory Network, Fort Lauderdale, Fl, January.
Armstrong, D. (2005). The organization in the mind. London: Karnac.
Barry, D. (1994). Making the invisible visible: symbolic means for surfacing
unconscious processes in organizations. Organizational Development Journal, 12 (4),
37-48.
Bass, B.M., (1990). Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership. Theory, Research, and
Managerial Applications. Third Edition. New York: The Free Press.
Bennis, W.G. & Shepard, H.A. (1956). A theory of group development. Human Relation,
9 (4), 415-457.
Berg, D.N. (1988). Anxiety in the Research Relationships. In Berg, D.N. & Smith, K.K.
(Eds.) The Self in Social Inquiry. Researching Methods. Newbury Park, California: Sage
Publications, pp. 213-228.
Berg, D.N. & Smith, K.K. (1988). The clinical demands of research methods. In Berg,
D.N. & Smith, K.K. (Eds.) The Self in Social Inquiry. Researching Methods. Newbury
Park, California: Sage Publications, pp. 21-34.
Bilimoria, D., Wilmot, T.B. & Cooperrider, D.L., (1996). Multi-organizational
Collaboration for Global Change. New Opportunities for Organizational Change
and Development. In Woodman, R. & Pasmore, W. (Eds.) Research in Organizational
Change and Development, Volume 9, pp. 201-236.
Bion, W.R. (1961). Experiences in Groups. London: Routledge.
Bion, W.R. (1970). Attention and Interpretation. London: Karnac Books.
Boalt Boëthius, S. (1999). In the Nick of Time: Reactivating an Organization through
Leader-initiated Interactions with Members of Staff. In French, R. & Vince, R. (Eds.)
Group Relations, Management and Organization. Oxford University Press, 173-189.
Bouwen, R. & Taillieu, T. (2004). Multiparty collaboration as social learning for
interdependence: Developing relational knowing for sustainable natural resource
management. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 14, 137-153.
Bowles, M. (1997). The Myth of Management: Direction and Failure in Contemporary
Organizations. Human Relations, 50 (7), 779-803.
52

Bradbury, H. & Bergmann Lichtenstein, B.M. (2000). Relationality in Organizational
Research: Exploring The Space Between, Organization Science, 11 (5), September-
October, 551-564.
Bridger, H. (1990). The discovery of the therapeutic community: The Northfield
experiments. In Trist, E. & Murray, H. (Eds.), The Social engagement of Social Science,
Volume I, The socio-psychological perspective, London: Free Association Books, pp. 68-
87.
Brown, M.H. & Hosking, D. (1986). Distributed leadership and skilled performance as
successful organization in social movements. Human Relations, 39 (1), 65-79.
Bryman, A. (1996). Leadership in Organizations. In Clegg, S.R., Hardy, C. & Nord,
W.R. (Eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies. London: Sage.
Bryson, J. & Crosby, B.C. (1992). Leadership for the Common Good: tackling Public Problems
in a Shared-Power World. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cardona, F. (1999). The Team as a Sponge: How the Nature of the Task affects the
Behaviour and Mental Life of a Team. In French, R. & Vince, R. (Eds.) Group
Relations, Management and Organization. Oxford University Press, 239-250.
Carlisle, J. & Leary, M. (1981). Negotiating groups. In Hackman, J. (Ed.) Groups at work
(and those that don’t): creating conditions for effective teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, pp. 165-188.
Carr, W. (2001). The Exercise of Authority in a Dependent Context. In Gould, L.G.,
Stapley, L.F. & Stein, M. (Eds.) The Systems Psychodynamics of Organizations.
Integrating the Group Relations Approach, Psychoanalytic, and Open Systems
Perspectives. London: Karnac, 45-66.
Cartwright, D. & Zander, A. (Eds.) (1960). Group Dynamics. Research and Theory. Second
Edition. New York: Harper & Row.
Chell, E. (2004). Critical Incident Technique. In Cassell, C. & Symon, G. (Eds.), Essential
Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. London: Sage, pp. 45-60.
Chisholm, R.F. (1998). Developing Network Organizations. Learning from Practice and
Theory. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Chisholm, R.F. & Elden, M. (1993). Features of Emerging Action Research, Human
Relations, 46 (2), 275-297.
Chrislip, D. & Larson, C. (1994). Collaborative leadership: How citizens and civic leaders can
make a difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Clarke, S. (2002). Learning from experience: psycho-social research methods in the
social sciences. Qualitative Research, 2 (2), 173-194.
53

Crump, L. & Glendon, I. (1998). A Multiparty Negotiation Framework: Building Bridges
Across Multiparty Domains. Paper presented at the 5th National Mediation
Conference, Brisbane, Australia.
Cummings, T.G. & Worley, C.G. (2001). Essentials of Organization Development and
Change. South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Czander, W.M. (1993). The Psychodynamics of Work and Organizations. Theory and
Application. New York: Guilford Press.
Czander, W. (1997). Work Related Fantasies. Corporate Downsizing and Teambuilding,
paper presented at the International Society for the Psychoanalytic Study of
Organizations Symposium, June.
de Board, R. (1978). The Psychoanalysis of Organizations. A psychoanalytic approach to
behaviour in groups and organizations. London: Tavistock Publications.
Denhardt, R. (1981). The Shadow of Organization. Regents Press of Kansas.
Devereux, G. (1967). From Anxiety to Method in the Behavioral Sciences. The Hague:
Mouton & Co.
Dewulf, A., Craps, M., Bouwen, R., Taillieu, T. & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2004). Integrated
management of natural resources: uncertainty, ambiguity and the role of framing and
reframing. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Uncertainty and
Precaution in Environmental Management, Copenhagen, June.
Diamond, M.A. & Allcorn, S. (1987). The Psychodynamics of Regression in Work
Groups, Human Relations, 40 (8), 525-543.
Diamond, M. & Alcorn, S. (2003). The cornerstone of psychoanalytic organizational
analysis: psychological reality, transference and countertransference in the
workplace. Human Relations, 56 (4), 491-514.
Driver, M. (2003). Nothing clinical, just business? Reflections on psychoanalytically
grounded organizational diagnosis and intervention. Human Relations, 56 (1), 39-59.
Druckman, D. (Ed.) (1977). Negotiations. Social-psychological perspectives. London: Sage
Publications.
Edelson, M. (1988). The Hermeutic Turn and the Single Case Study in Psychoanalysis.
In Berg, D.N. & Smith, K.K. (Eds.) The Self in Social Inquiry. Researching Methods.
Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, pp. 71-106.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of
Management Review, 14 (4), 532-550.
Eisold, K. (1996). Psychoanalysis today: implications for organizational applications.
Free Associations, vol.6, part two, no.38, 174-191.
54

Emery, F. & Trist, E. (1997). The Causal Texture of Organizational Environments. In
Trist, E., Emery, F. & Murray, H. (Eds.) The Social Engagement of Social Science. A
Tavistock Anthology. Volume III: The Socio-Ecological Perspective. Philadelphia: PENN,
pp. 53-65.
Feyerherm, A.E. (1994). Leadership in Collaboration: A Longitudinal Study of Two
Inter-organizational Rule-Making Groups. Leadership Quarterly, 5 (3-4), 253-270.
Feyerherm, A., (1997) Leading M.E.N.: Perspectives on leadership in multistakeholder
environmental negotiations. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Boston.
Flick, U. (2002). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Second Edition. London: Sage.
French, R. & Vince, R. (1999). Learning, managing, and organizing: the continuing
contribution of group relations to management and organization. In French R. &
Vince, R. (Eds.) Group Relations, Management, and Organization. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, pp. 3-19.
Gabriel, Y. (Ed.) (1999). Organizations in Depth. The Psychoanalysis of Organizations.
London: Sage.
Gabriel, Y. & McCollom Hampton, M. (1999). Work groups. In Gabriel, Y. (Ed.)
Organizations in Depth. The Psychoanalysis of Organizations, London: Sage, pp. 112-
138.
Gardner, M.R. (1989). Self Inquiry. Hillsdale: The Analytic Press.
Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Gemmill, G. & Elmes, M. (1993). Mirror, Mask, and Shadow. Psychodynamic Aspects
of Inter-group Relations. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2 (1), 43-51.
Gibb, C.A., (1954) Leadership, in G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology,
Volume Two, Reading: Addison-Wesley, pp. 877-917.
Gibb, C.A., (1969) Leadership, in G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.) The Handbook of Social
Psychology, Volume Four, Second Edition, Reading: Addison-Wesley, pp. 205-282.
Gilmore, T.N. (1997). The social architecture of group interventions. In Neumann, J.E.,
Kellner, K. & Dawson-Sheperd, A. (Eds.) Developing Organisational Consultancy.
London: Routledge, pp. 32-48.
Gilmore, T.N. & Krantz, J. (1985). Projective identification in the consulting
relationship: exploring the unconscious dimensions of a client system, Human
Relations, 38 (12), 1159-1177.
Gould, L.J. (1987). A Methodology for Assessing Internal Working Models of the
Organization: Applications to Management and Organizational Development Programs.
Paper presented at the 1987 Annual Meeting of the International Society for the
Psychoanalytic Study of Organizations, October 24-25, New York.
55

Gould, L. J. (1993). Gebruik van psychoanalytische kaders voor de analyse van
organisaties. In Kets de Vries (Ed.), Organisaties op de divan; gedrag en verandering
van organisaties in klinisch perpectief, Schiedam: Scriptum Books, pp. 39-54.
Gould, L.J., Ebers, R. & McVicker Clinchy, R. (1999). The Systems Psychodynamics of a
Joint Venture: Anxiety, Social Defenses and the Management of Mutual
Dependence. Human Relations, 52 (6), 697-722.
Gould, L.J., Stapley, L.F. & Stein, M. (Eds.) (2001). The Systems Psychodynamics of
Organizations. Integrating the Group Relations Approach, Psychoanalytic, and Open
Systems Perspectives. London: Karnac.
Gray, B. (1985). Conditions Facilitating Inter-organizational Collaboration. Human
Relations, 38 (10), 911-936.
Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Gronn, P., (2002). Distributed Leadership as a unit of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 13
(4), pp. 423-452.
Guerin, M.L. (1997). Teamwork at Barton Company: A Psychodynamic Perspective, paper
presented at the International Society for the Psychoanalytic Study of
Organizations Symposium.
Halton, W. (1994). Some unconscious aspects of organizational life: contributions from
psychoanalysis. In Obholzer, A. & Zagier Roberts, V. (Eds.) The unconscious at work.
Routledge, London, pp. 11-18.
Hardy, C. & Phillips, N. (1998). Strategies of Engagement: Lessons from the Critical
Examination of Collaboration and Conflict in an Inter-organizational Domain,
Organization Science, 9 (2), 217-230.
Higgin, G. & Bridger, H. (1965). The Psychodynamics of an Inter-group Experience,
Tavistock Pamphlet No. 10, London: Tavistock Publications.
Himmelman, A.T. (1996). On the Theory and Practice of Transformational
Collaboration: From Social Service to Social Justice. In Huxham, C. (Ed.) Creating
collaborative advantage. London: Sage Publications, pp. 19-43.
Hinshelwood, R.D. (1987). What Happens in Groups. Psychoanalysis, the individual and the
community. London: Free Association Books.
Hinshelwood, R.D. (1989). A Dictionary of Kleinian Thought. London: Free Association
Books.
Hirschhorn, L. (1988). The Workplace Within. Psychodynamics of Organizational Life.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
56

Hirschhorn, L. (1990). Leaders and Followers in a Post-industrial Age: A
Psychodynamic View. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 26 (4), 529-542.
Hirschhorn, L. (1997). Reworking Authority; Leading and Following in the Post-Modern
Organization. Cambridge Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Hirschhorn, L. (2002). The modern project and the feminisation of men. In
Hinshelwood, R.D. & Chiesa, M. (Eds.) Organisations, anxieties & defences. Towards a
psychoanalytic social psychology. London: Whurr Publishers, pp. 35-64.
Hirschhorn, L. & T. Gilmore (1992). The New Boundaries of the “Boundaryless”
Company. Harvard Business Review, May/June, v70, n3, 104-115
Hollway, W. & Jefferson, T. (2000). Doing Qualitative Research Differently: Free
Association, Narrative and the Interview Method. London: Sage.
Hosking, D. & Fineman, S. (1990). Organizing Processes. Journal of Management Studies,
27 (6), 583-604.
Huberman, A.M. & Miles, M.B. (1988). Assessing Local Causality in Qualitative
Research. In Berg, D.N. & Smith, K.K. (Eds.) The Self in Social Inquiry. Researching
Methods. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, pp. 351-381.
Huffington, C. & James, K. (1999). Issues in Management Research, and the Value of a
Psychoanalytic Perspective: A Case Study in Organisational Stress in a Japanese Multi-
National Company. Paper presented at the International Society for the
Psychoanalytic Study of Organizations Symposium, June.
Huffington, C., Armstrong, D., Halton, W., Hoyle, L. & Pooley, J. (Eds.) (2004). Working
below the surface. The emotional life of contemporary organizations. London: Karnac.
Huffington, C., James, K. & Armstsrong, D. (2004). What is the emotional cost of
distributed leadership? In Huffington, C., Armstrong, D., Halton, W., Hoyle, L. &
Pooley, J. (Eds.) Working below the surface. The emotional life of contemporary
organizations. London: Karnac, pp. 67-82.
Hunt, J. (1989). Psychoanalytic Aspects of Fieldwork. Qualitative Research Methods.
Volume 18. London: Sage.
Hutjes, J.M. & van Buuren, J.A. (1992). De gevalsstudie: strategie van kwalitatief onderzoek.
Meppel: Boom.
Hutton, J., Bazalgette, J. & Reed, B. (1997). Organisation-in-the-mind. In Neumann, J.E.,
Kellner, K. & Dawson-Shepard, A.(Eds.) Developing Organisational Consultancy,
London: Routledge, pp. 113-126.
Huxham, C. (Ed.) (1996). Creating collaborative advantage. London: Sage Publications.
57

Huxham, C. & Vangen, S. (2000a). Leadership in the Shaping and Implementation of
Collaboration Agendas: how Things happen in a (not quite) Joined-up World.
Academy of Management Journal, 43 (6), 1159-1175.
Huxham, C. & Vangen, S. (2000b). Ambiguity, complexity and dynamics in the
membership of collaboration. Human Relations, 53 (6), 771-806.
Huxham, C. & Vangen, S. (2003). Enacting leadership for collaborative advantage:
dilemmas of ideology and pragmatism in the activities of partnership managers.
British Journal of Management, 14, 61-76.
Huxham, C. & Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to collaborate. The theory and practice of
collaborative advantage. London: Routledge.
Jaques, E. (1955). Social Systems as a Defense Against Persecutory and Depressive
Anxiety. In M. Klein, P. Heimann & R. Money-Kyrle (Eds.) New Directions in
Psychoanalysis, London: Tavistock Publication.
Kahn, W.A. & Kram, K.E. (1994). Authority at Work: Internal Models and their
Organizational Consequences. Academy of Management Review, 19 (1), 17-50.
Kanter, R.M. (1994). Collaborative Advantage: the Art of Alliances, Harvard Business
Review, 72 (4), 96-108.
Katz, D. & Kahn, R.L. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations. Second Edition.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (1993). De rationaliteit van organisaties en managers: het einde
van een mythe. In Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (Ed.) Organisaties op de divan; gedrag en
verandering van organisaties in klinisch perspectief. Schiedam: Scriptum Books, pp. 19-
35.
Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (1999). What’s playing in the Organizational Theater? Collusive
Relationships in Management, Human Relations, 52 (6), 745-773.
Klein, L. (1996). On the Use of Psychoanalytic Concepts in Organisational Social Science,
paper presented at the International Society for the Psychoanalytic Study of
Organizations.
Klein, L. (2001). Transitional interventions. In Amado, G. & Ambrose, A. (Eds.) The
Transitional Approach to Change. London: Karnac, pp. 173-195.
Klein, M. (1993). Notes on some schizoid mechanisms. In Envy and gratitude and other
works 1946-1963. London: Karnac, pp. 1-24.
Koppenjan, J. & Klijn, E.H. (Eds.) (2004). Managing uncertainties in networks. London:
Routledge.
58

Kram, K.E. (1988). On the Researcher’s Group Membership. In Berg, D.N. & Smith,
K.K. (Eds.) The Self in Social Inquiry. Researching Methods. Newbury Park, California:
Sage Publications, pp. 247-265.
Kramer, R. (1991). The more the merrier? Social psychological aspects of multiparty
negotiations in organizations. Research on negotiation in organizations. Vol. 3,
Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press.
Krantz, J. (1985). Group Process Under Conditions of Organizational Decline, The
Journal of Behavioral Science, 21 (1), 1-17.
Krantz, J. (1990). Lessons from the Field: An Essay on the Crisis of Leadership in
Contemporary Organizations, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 26 (1), 49-64.
Krantz, J. (1998). Anxiety & the New Order. In Klein, E.B. & Gabelnick, F. & Herr, P.
(Eds.) The Psychodynamics of Leadership, Madison: Psychosocial Press, pp. 77-107.
Krantz, J. & Gilmore, T.N. (1990). The Splitting of Leadership and Management as a
Social Defense, Human Relations, 43 (2), 183-204.
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews. An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Lapierre, L. (1993). Onderzoek van leiderschapsprocessen. In Kets de Vries, M.F.R.
(Ed.) Organisaties op de divan; gedrag en verandering van organisaties in klinisch
perspectief. Schiedam: Scriptum Books, pp. 75-93.
Lau, J.B. & Shani, A.B. (Eds.) (1992). Behavior in Organizations. An Experiential Approach.
Fifth Edition. Chicago: Irwin.
Lawrence, G. (1998). Unconscious Social Pressure on Leaders. In Klein, E.B., Gabelnick,
F. & Herr, P. (Eds.) The Psychodynamics of Leadership, Madison: Psychosocial Press,
pp. 53-75.
Levinson, H. (1993). Systematisch diagnosticeren van organisaties. In Kets de Vries,
M.F.R. (Ed.) Organisaties op de divan; gedrag en verandering van organisaties in klinisch
perspectief. Schiedam: Scriptum Books, pp. 55 -74.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper.
Lipman-Blumen, J. (1996). The Connective Edge. Leading in an Interdependent World. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Long, S. (1999). Action research, participative action research and action learning in
organizations. In Gabriel, Y. (Ed.) Organizations in depth. London: Sage, pp. 262-266.
Long, S., Newton, J. & Dalgleish, J. (2000). In the presence of the other: developing
working relations for organizational learning. In Klein, E.B., Gabelnick, F. & Herr,
P. (Eds.) Dynamic consultation in a changing workplace. Madison: Psychosocial Press,
pp.161-192.
59

Lowman, R.L. (1988). What is clinical method? In Berg, D.N. & Smith, K.K. (Eds.) The
Self in Social Inquiry. Researching Methods. Newbury Park, California: Sage
Publications, pp. 173-187.
MacRae, M. & Huxham, C. (2000). Collaborative Leadership: an Analysis of the Dynamics
involved in Progressing a Collaboration, Paper presented at the Seventh International
Conference on Multi-Organizational Partnerships and Co-operative Strategy,
Leuven, July.
McCann, J. & Selsky, J. (1997). Hyperturbulence and the Emergence of Type V
Environments. In Trist, E., Emery, F. & Murray, H. (Eds.) The Social Engagement of
Social Science. A Tavistock Anthology. Volume III: The Socio-Ecological Perspective.
Philadelphia: PENN, pp. 185-202.
McCollom, M (1995). Reevaluating group development: a critique of the familiar
models. In Gillette, J. & McCollom, M. (Eds.): Groups in context. A new perspective on
group dynamics. Lanham: University Press of America, pp. 133-154.
McGrath, J.E. & Tschan, F. (2004). Dynamics in groups and teams. Groups as complex
action systems. In Poole, M.S. & Van de Ven, A.H. (Eds.) Handbook of organizational
change and innovation. Oxford: University Press, pp. 50-72.
Meek, H.W. (2003). The place of the unconscious in qualitative research. Forum
Qualitative Social Research, 4 (2), May.
Menzies, I. E. P. (1960). A case study in the functioning of social systems as a defense
against anxiety, Human Relations, 13, 95-121.
Menzies Lyth, I. (1988). Containing Anxiety in Institutions. Selected essays. Volume 1.
London: Free Association Books.
Midgaard, K. & Underdal, A. (1977). Multiparty conferences. In Druckman, D. (Ed.),
Negotiations. Social-psychological perspectives. London: Sage Publications, pp. 329-
345).
Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). An Expanded Sourcebook. Qualitative Data
Analysis. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Miller, E. (1990). Experiential learning in groups I: the development of the Leicester
model. In Trist, E. & Murray, H. (Eds.) The Social Engagment of Social Science. Volume
I. The Socio-Psychological Perspective. London: Free Associations Books, pp. 165-185.
Miller, E.J. (1993). From Dependency to Autonomy: Studies in Organization and Change.
London: Free Associations Books.
Miller, E. (1997). Effecting organisational change in large complex systems: a
collaborative consultancy approach. In Neumann, J.E., Kellner, K. & Dawson-
Sheperd, A. (Eds.) Developing Organisational Consultancy, London: Routledge, pp.
187-212.
60

Miller, E.J. (1998). The Leader with the Vision; Is Time Running Out? In Klein, E.B.,
Gabelnick, F. & Herr, P. (Eds.) The Psychodynamics of Leadership, Madison:
Psychosocial Press, pp. 3-25.
Miller, E. (1999). Dependency, Alienation, or Partnership? The changing relatedness of
the individual to the enterprise. In French, R. & Vince, R. (Eds.) Group Relations,
Management and Organization, Oxford University Press, pp. 98-111.
Miller, E.J. & Rice, A.K. (1967). Systems of Organization: The Control of Task and Sentient
Boundaries. London: Tavistock Publications.
Mintzberg, H., Jorgensen, J., Dougherty, D. & Westley, F. (1996). Some Surprising
Things About Collaboration - Knowing How People Connect Makes It Work Better,
Organizational Dynamics, Spring, 60-71.
Mishler, E.G. (1990). Validation in inquiry-guided research: the role of exemplars in
narrative studies, Harvard Educational Review, 60, 415-442.
Mitroff, I. (1984). Stakeholders of the Mind. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of Organization, California: Sage Publications.
Mosse, J. (1994). The institutional roots of consulting to institutions. In Obholzer, A. &
Zagier Roberts, V. (Eds.) The unconscious at work, London : Routledge, pp. 1-8.
Neumann, J.E. (1999). Systems Psychodynamics in the Service of Political
Organizational Change. In French, R. & Vince, R. (Eds.) Group Relations,
Management and Organization. Oxford University Press, 54-69.
Neumann, J. & Hirschhorn, L. (1999). The Challenge of Integrating Psychodynamic and
Organizational Theory, Human Relations, 52 (6), 683-695.
Obholzer, A. (1994). Authority, power and leadership. Contributions from group
relations training. In Obholzer, A. & Zagier Roberts, V. (Eds.) The unconscious at
work, London: Routledge, pp. 39-47.
Obholzer, A. (1999). Managing the Unconscious at Work. In French, R. & Vince, R.
(Eds.) Group Relations, Management and Organization. Oxford University Press, 87-97.
Obholzer, A. & Miller, S. (2004). Leadership, followership, and facilitating the creative
workplace. In Huffington, C., Armstrong, D., Halton, W., Hoyle, L. & Pooley, J.
(Eds.) Working below the surface. The emotional life of contemporary organizations.
London: Karnac, pp. 33-48.
Obholzer, A. & Zagier Roberts, V. (Eds.) The unconscious at work, London: Routledge.
Overlaet, B. & F. Barrett (2000). The Dynamics of Transitional Space, Paper submitted to
the ODC Division of the Academy of Management Meeting, Toronto.
61

Page, M. (2003). Leadership and collaboration challenges in not for profit partnerships.
Organisational and Social Dynamics, 3 (2), 207-225.
Patton, M.Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Razzaque, K. & Stewart, M. (1998). Networks and Nodes: Community Leadership in Area
Regeneration. Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference on Multi-
Organisational Partnerships and Co-operative Strategies, Oxford, July.
Reik, T. (1948). Listening with the Third Ear. The Inner Experience of a Psychoanalyst. New
York: Grove Press.
Rice, A.K. (1958). Productivity and social organization. New York and London: Garland
Publishing.
Rice, A.K. (1965). Learning for Leadership. Interpersonal and Inter-group Relations. London:
Karnac Books.
Rice, A.K. (1990). Individual, Group and Inter-Group Processes. In Trist, E. & Murray,
H. (Eds.) The Social Engagement of Social Science. Volume I. The Socio-Psychological
Perspective. London: Free Association Books, pp. 272-283.
Ring, P.S. & Van de Ven, A.H. (1994). Developmental processes of cooperative
interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19 (1), 90-118.
Roose, H., T. Taillieu & K. Sips (2000). The Reverse Effects of Governmental Policy and
Regulations in the Social Service Sector in Flanders. In Taillieu, T. (Ed.) Collaborative
Strategies and Multi-Organizational Partnerships, Leuven: Garant, pp. 147-154.
Rubin, M. & Rubin, I. (1995). Qualitative Interviewing. The Art of Hearing Data. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Schein, E.H. (1987a). The Clinical Perspective in Fieldwork, Newbury Park, California:
Sage.
Schein, E.H. (1987b). Process Consultation volume II. Lessons for Managers and Consultants.
Addisson Wesley OD Series.
Schonberg, A. (1998). Two Basic Assumptions in the Psychoanalytic Study of Organizations,
Paper presented at the International Society for the Psychoanalytic Study of
Organizations Symposium, June.
Schruijer, S. (1990). Norm violation, attribution theory and attitudes in intergroup relations.
Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
Schruijer, S., Taillieu, T. & Vansina, L. (1998). ‘Leadership’ in Collaborative Task-systems.
Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference on Multi-Organisational
Partnerships and Co-operative Strategies, Oxford, July.
62

Schruijer, S. & Vansina, L. (1999). Leadership and organizational change: an
introduction. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8 (1), 1-8.
Schuman, S.P. (1996). The role of facilitation in collaborative groups. In Huxham, C.
(Ed.) Creating collaborative advantage, London: Sage Publications, pp. 126-140.
Schwandt, T.A. (1994). Constructivist, Interpretivist Approaches to Human Inquiry. In
Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y., Handbook of Qualitative Research.Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Seidman, I.E. (1991). Interviewing as Qualitative Research. A Guide for Researchers in
Education and the Social Sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.
Segal, H. (1973). Introduction to the work of Melanie Klein. London: Karnac.
Shapiro, E.R. (2000). The Changing Role of the CEO. Organisational and Social Dynamics,
1 (1), 130-142.
Shapiro, E.R. & Carr, A.W. (1991). Lost in Familiar Places. Creating New Connections
between the Individual and Society. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Shaw, M.E. (1976). Dynamics of small group behavior. Second Edition. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Smith, K.K. (1988). Epistemological problems in researching human relationships. In
Berg, D.N. & Smith, K.K. (Eds.) The self in social inquiry. Researching Methods.
Newbury Park: Sage, pp. 123-142.
Smith, K.K. & Berg, D.N. (1987). Paradoxes of Group Life. Understanding Conflict,
Paralysis, and Movement in Group Dynamics. San Francisco: The New Lexington
Press.
Smith, P.B. & Peterson, M.F. (1989). Leadership, Organizations and Culture. An Event
Management Model. London: Sage.
Spradley, J.P. (1980). Participant Observation. New York: Holt.
Stokes, J. (1994). The unconscious at work in groups and teams. Contributions from the
work of Wilfred Bion. In Obholzer, A. & Zagier Roberts, V. (Eds.) The unconscious at
work. London: Routledge, pp. 19-27.
Stokes, J. (1998). Where are the boundaries? Paper presented at the annual symposium of
the International Society for the Psychoanalytic Study of Organizations, Jerusalem.
Taillieu, T., Schruijer, S. & Vansina, L. (2000). Dynamiek van samenwerking tussen
organisaties. In Bouwen, R., De Witte, K., De Witte, H. & Taillieu, T. (Eds.) Van
groep naar gemeenschap. Liber Amoricum Prof. Dr. Leo Lagrou, Leuven: Garant, pp.
147-164.
Trist, E. (1983). Referent Organizations and the Development of Inter-Organizational
Domains, Human Relations, 36 (3), 269-284.
63

Van Buskirk, W. & Mc Grath, D. (1999). Organizational Cultures as Holding
Environments : A Psychodynamic Look at Organizational Symbolism. Human
Relations, 52 (6), 805-832.
Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: on writing ethnography. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Vansina, L. (1998). The Individual in Organizations: Rediscovered or Lost Forever?
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 7 (3), 265-282.
Vansina, L. (1999). Towards a dynamic perspective on trust-building, In Schruijer, S.
(Ed.) Multi-organizational partnerships and cooperative strategy, Dutch University
Press, pp. 47-52.
Vansina, L. (2000). The Relevance and Perversity of Psychodynamic Interventions in
Consulting and Action Research. Concepts and Transformations, 5 (3), 321-348.
Vansina, L. (2002). Making the best out of diversity: working towards collaboration between
different interest groups. Paper presented at the annual symposium of the Society for
the Psychoanalytic Study of Organizations, Melbourne, June.
Vansina, L. (2004). Over zin en onzin van psychodynamiek voor organisatieadviseurs.
In Varwijk, W.G.J.M. & van Zijl, R.M.H.J. (Eds.) Strategie moet je samen doen. Visies
op strategisch management uit theorie en praktijk. Liber amicorum Prof.Dr. Michel
Vandenput. Ubbergen: Tandem Felix Uitgevers, pp. 159-177.
Vansina, L. & Taillieu, T. (1997). Diversity in collaborative task-systems. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 6 (2), 183-199.
Vansina, L., Taillieu, T. & Schruijer, S. (1998). “Managing” Multiparty Issues: Learning
from Experience. In W. Pasmore & R. Woodman (Eds.) Research in Organizational
Change and Development (vol. 11), JAI Press Inc., pp. 159-181.
Vansina-Cobbaert, M.J. & Vansina, L. (1996). W. Bion : Insights into and contributions to
group dynamics. (The original version was written and published in Dutch, Fall
1996)
Von Bertalanffy, L. (1950). An outline of General System Theory. British Journal for the
Philosophy of Science, 1, 134-165.
Wells, L. (1995). The group as a whole: a systemic socioanalytic perspective on
interpersonal and group relations. In Gillette, J. and McCollom, M. (Eds.). Groups in
context. A new perspective on group dynamics. Lanham: University Press of America,
pp. 49-85.
Winnicott, D.W. (1971). Playing and Reality. London: Routledge.
Wood, D.J. & Gray, B. (1991). Toward a Comprehensive Theory of Collaboration,
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27 (2), 139-162.
64

Yin, R.K. (1994). Case Study Research. Design and Methods. Second Edition. Applied Social
Research Methods Series, Volume 5, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Yukl, G., (1999) An evaluative essay on current conceptions of effective leadership.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8 (1), pp. 33-48.
Zagier Roberts, V. (1994a). The organization of work. Contributions from open system
theory. In Obholzer, A. & Zagier Roberts, V. (Eds.) The unconscious at work, London:
Routledge, pp. 28-38.
Zagier Roberts, V. (1994b). Conflict and collaboration. Managing inter-group relations.
In Obholzer, A. & Zagier Roberts, V. (Eds.) The unconscious at work, London:
Routledge, pp. 187-196.
Zagier Roberts, V. (1994c). The self-assigned impossible task. In Obholzer, A. & Zagier
Roberts, V. (Eds.) The unconscious at work, London: Routledge, pp. 110-118.
Zagier Roberts, V. (1999). Isolation, autonomy, and interdependence in organizational
life. In French, R. & Vince, R. (Eds.) Group Relations, Management, and Organization,
Oxford: University Press, pp. 224-238.
65

PART 2: EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
CASE STUDY 1: EROSION CASE
Two senior researchers at the Center for Organizational and Personnel Psychology
(COPP), CO1 and CO2 (see attachment 1), were invited to the erosion project because
of their expertise in the domain of multiparty collaboration. The direct reason was
that one of the university partners (soil expert) had collaborated with CO2 in a
similar project in Ecuador. They decided to engage in this project because it seemed
to fit well with ongoing research in the field of multiparty collaboration at the COPP.
At the moment the project started, in September 1999, I had just joined the Center. I
participated in the project from the beginning. The project provided me with an
opportunity to be closely engaged in a multiparty project while simultaneously
reviewing the literature. The project was the pilot study for my research. It helped
me to understand the reality and challenges of collaborative work and to develop a
focus for further research.
Context and antecedents of the erosion project
The case study was a European project sponsored by the Life Fund (1999-2003). An
engineering firm took the initiative for the project. They developed a project proposal
with three municipalities and submitted it to the funding organization. The aim of
the project was to manage erosion and flooding problems in a restricted area in the
province of Flemish Brabant (Belgium). The objective was to experiment with
innovative solutions for erosion management, to be used as a demonstration for
other regions in Europe.
66

The project included different types of organizations and social groups: profit
organizations (2 consulting firms), not-for profit organizations (e.g. farmer’s union),
universities (erosion specialists, organizational psychologists), government
institutions (local, provincial and Flemish), and unorganized parties (e.g. residents
living in the area). Approximately 15 stakeholders were represented in the steering
group. The project group was responsible for coordinating the project. It was made
up of representatives of the consulting firms, the university partners and the local
authorities.
Main events in the erosion project
In article 1 the main events and issues are summarized (table 2), based on a process
reconstruction.
Research approach
At the start of the project I did not have a clear research question yet. I focused on
the collaborative process and the dynamics in the project group. Over time, I
developed an interest in leadership issues in the project group. The research setting
was made up of different formal and informal meetings. My two colleagues and I
were members of the project group, the central group in this collaborative. I
participated in meetings of the project group, Steering group, and in information
sessions organized in the three municipalities (table 1). Moreover, I participated in
occasional events, such as visits to potential sites for experimentation or a visit of a
similar project in Holland. I also visited some farmers with one of the consultants
and had informal talks with several people.
In the project proposal the role for COPP members was described as: (1) facilitation
of a ‘participative’ and ‘bottom-up’ process, involving multiple stakeholders, and (2)
documentation of the collaborative process. In the course of the project we decided to
split up the two roles: the senior researchers acted as facilitators and I took up the
role of researcher. At several moments we involved other colleagues for specific
67

tasks (e.g. join a consultant on his interview round among the farmers). My aim was
to foster reflection and learning in the project by giving feedback to the participants.
Secondly, I wanted to have a collaborative ‘experience’, collect data for my research,
and clarify my research questions.
I used data triangulation to document the process (table 1). During the formal
meetings I took extensive field notes. I interviewed the members of the project group.
The focus of these interviews was on how the participant experienced the project:
what according to them was happening, and what helped or hindered the process? I
also consulted documents (e.g. project proposal, formal reports). During the process
I took journalizing notes.
Date/Period Method of data
September 1999 –
June 2003
July 2001 – July
2002
collection
Participative
observation
– Semi-structured
interviews
– No taping
– One
interviewer
68
Participants/Setting Type of data
– Field visits
– Project group
– Steering group
– Information
sessions at local
municipalities
Members of the
project group (10):
representatives of 3
municipalities, 1
soil expert, 6 junior
and senior
consultants of two
consulting firms
Field notes
Interview notes

January 2002 Feedback sessions
(‘member check’)
Ongoing Documents
69
1 st with project
leader
2 nd with project
group
Documents
produced by
members of the
project
Ongoing Journalizing Comments,
questions, etc in
field notes
Table 1: Overview of approach to data collection in the erosion case.
Field notes
E.g. project
proposal, journal
articles, formal
reports of meetings
Journalizing notes
Data analysis in this case study was based on a process reconstruction (chapter 3).
This allowed me to capture the process as a whole and to document the issues that
emerged over time. I did not analyze the data more in detail, as I was mainly
interested in relevant issues for further research that emerged from the data. In
article 1, I make sense of the issues and dynamics in this process. After the project I
shared a conference paper with one of the key actors. On a continuous basis, my
colleagues and I tried to make sense of what was happening in the project
(‘researcher triangulation’). The three consultants-researchers jointly wrote an article
based on this case study. I also organized a number of seminars where I discussed
the case with other researchers of the faculty (‘peer debriefing’). I had the
opportunity to work on the paper in a focused way in a seminar on writing and
publishing with the Academy of Management (see attachment 10).
Conclusion of the erosion case
The pilot case was an opportunity to learn about data collection and data
management, data analysis, and writing up a case study. It helped me to make sense

of my role as researcher. This case also provided more focus in my research. Initially
my interest was in ‘distributed leadership’. I discovered, however, that the concept of
leadership was not of primary concern for the participants in this particular case.
Instead I chose the concept of ‘dynamics of direction setting’ (see chapter 1). I
reformulated my research questions for the following cases:
- What are the issues and dilemmas with which representatives in a collaborative
are confronted?
- How do the dynamics that unfold around those issues set the direction of the
process?
For the reader
The article presented in the next section is, in broad lines, the paper I have submitted
to Human Relations (see attachment 10). The reviewers asked me to submit a revised
version of the paper (due: March 2006). I have made some minor adjustment to the
paper presented here, based on their feedback. The references follow the criteria for
publication applied by Human Relations. There is some overlap with the theoretical
framework presented in part 1 and with the introduction of the case, which will
hopefully not disturb the reader. The subtitles are not numbered.
As this project was not a success story, the case description and quotes are
anonymous for reasons of confidentiality (cover names). I have translated the quotes
from Dutch. The participants often used colloquial speech or dialect. It was
particularly challenging to express the essence of dialect, humor, word games,
metaphoric language or indirect references to people or situations. The quotes in the
case description are from interviews, unless mentioned otherwise.
‘I’ in the article refers to me as researcher and principle author of the article. The
reference ‘we’ includes the two senior organizational psychologists, involved as
facilitators and co-researchers.
70

“WHO’S IN CHARGE HERE?!” EMOTIONAL CHALLENGES AND EMERGENT
DYNAMICS IN INTERDEPENDENT WORK (ARTICLE 1)
Silvia Prins, Tharsi Taillieu & René Bouwen
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to explore the emotional challenges of working together
in a collaborative project and to make sense of the dynamics. We present an in-depth
case study of a 4-year project in the domain of erosion prevention. Our research
focuses on the emergent dynamics in the 'project group', responsible for leading the
project. We try to make sense of why this collaborative effort ended up in
'collaborative inertia', or the observation that the output of collaborations is often
slowed down or below the expectations (Huxham, 1996). We explore why in this
particular context, as in many collaborative groups, trust and openness were hard to
develop, politics were rife, conflict was accommodated, feelings and processes were
worked on covertly (Jarrett & Kellner, 1996). First we present the frames we used to
make sense of the dynamics. Then we introduce the case and discuss the main
themes that emerged. In the following section we present an interpretation of some
of the dynamics and conclude with relevant issues for further research.
Organizational frame: multiparty collaboration
In order to find sustainable solutions for societal and ecological problems,
multidisciplinary and multi-organizational involvement is required (Chisholm,
1998). 'Multiparty collaboration' (Gray, 1989; Huxham, 1996; Huxham & Vangen,
2005) is an organizational strategy designed to tackle such ‘meta-problems’ (e.g.
nature conservation, unemployment). Gray (1989: 5) defines multiparty collaboration
as “(…) a process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can
constructively explore their differences and search for solutions that go beyond their own
limited vision of what is possible”. It involves a process of collective decision making
and negotiation among key stakeholders of a problem domain, focused on the future
71

development of that domain. Five characteristics are critical: (1) the stakeholders are
interdependent; (2) solutions emerge by dealing constructively with differences; (3)
joint ownership of decisions is involved; (4) stakeholders assume collective
responsibility for the future direction of the domain; (5) collaboration is an emergent
process (Gray, 1989).
The multiparty context generates particular challenges that require an emotional and
relational maturity from the representatives involved. These challenges include
turbulent dynamics, unstable group identification, large differences in social identity,
the difficulty to establish trust, and a higher complexity regarding information, social
processes, procedures and strategy (Kramer, 1991; Vansina, Taillieu & Schruijer,
1998). The task is often of a self-designing nature, boundaries, norms and values are
ambiguous. Formal systems and procedures to structure the process are absent.
Ambiguity of roles, membership, status, representation, and authority relations
characterize collaborative work (Chisholm & Elden, 1993; Huxham, 1996; Krantz,
1998; Huxham and Vangen, 2000; 2005). The dynamics that emerge operate at
different levels: within the parties, between the parties in the collaborative system
and in the larger sociopolitical and economic environment (Schruijer & Vansina,
1999). Representatives therefore have to be able to deal with complex relationships,
unstable structures and a diversity of partners (Trist, 1983; Lipman-Blumen, 1996;
Ackoff, 1997).
Although many authors recognize the importance of communication and relational
aspects (Kanter, 1994; Mintzberg, Jorgensen, Dougherty & Westly, 1996) there is little
research in this domain. Many authors point at the need to investigate the nature of
collaborative processes and dynamics, the emotional challenges of developing and
leading a collaborative effort, and how to foster shared collaborative processes (Gray,
1989; Page, 2003; Schruijer & Vansina, 1999). The literature has mainly offered
‘rational’ responses to the difficulties of participating in a collaborative effort (Gould,
Ebers & McVicker Clinchy, 1999). In order to make sense of the specific nature of
72

collaborative processes, we adopt the systems psychodynamic perspective on
processes of organizing.
Frame for analysis: the systems psychodynamic perspective
This body of knowledge, originally developed by the Tavistock Institute of Human
Relations, is founded in psychoanalysis, group dynamics and open system thinking
(Miller & Rice, 1967; Bion, 1961; Menzies, 1960; Jaques, 1955). Some contemporary
representatives of this paradigm focused on the nature and challenges of working in
‘new’ forms of organizing (Hirschhorn, 1988; 1990; 1997; Krantz, 1990; 1998;
Huffington, Armstrong, Halton, Hoyle & Pooley, 2004). We will briefly present the
main assumptions we hold in this research.
The initial idea of starting a collaborative effort may be a rational decision, but the
emergent process of collaboration is not fully 'rational' or conscious. We assume that
working in a collaborative is influenced by rational, conscious as well as by hidden,
emotional and unconscious motives. Most people tend to avoid uncertainty and
anxiety and they often want to control their environment and make it predictable.
There are different sources of anxiety. First, we assume that working in a
collaborative provokes anxiety because the organizational context is complex,
ambiguous, and turbulent. The participants are confronted with interdependence,
diversity, uncertainty about the outcome of the process, and they have to deal with
fluid boundaries. The risk is that uncontained tensions result, for instance, in a
tendency to reduce complexity (e.g. exclude stakeholders) or to close down the
boundaries around the small group of those leading the collaborative effort. A
second source of tension is the self-designing nature of the task. The participants
involved in the process, need to define the task they are working on and establish
sufficient common ground (Gray, 1989). Moreover, the primary task of a
collaborative needs to be adapted continuously in response to changes within the
collaborative and changes in the environment (Miller, 1993). Thirdly, the process is
under-organized and ‘emergent’; there are few processes and structures to contain
73

the tensions of collaborative work (Krantz, 1998). The lack of containing structures,
models of behavior, and clear leadership confronts the participants with uncertainty.
The challenge is to develop new facilitating structures and processes Trist, 1983).
Finally, the participants involved in a collaborative have to deal with a number of
relational challenges. They have to be able to work with diversity, to develop an
interdependent relationship and to work from a shared power base while there are
obvious asymmetries between the participants. This increases the potential for
conflict and may, for instance, result in covert rivalry, independent action, bilateral
deal-making or exclusion of conflicting voices. These different sources of anxiety
may trigger defensive responses and result in social defenses to ward off the tensions
of collaborative work (Menzies, 1980; Krantz, 1998).
In this research we assume there is mutual influencing between the features of the
collaborative (system) and the dynamics that emerge between the participating
actors. System features generate particular patterns of individual, group and inter-
organizational dynamics (Amado & Ambrose, 2001; Gould, Stapley & Stein, 2001).
An obstacle to effective collaboration is the paradox that just as the necessity for
creative collaboration is growing, the rising level of diversity, uncertainty and
anxiety pose major barriers to achieving it (Krantz, 1990; 1998). In the case analysis
we try to make sense of the dynamics and to what extent they helped or hindered
work on the task.
Approach to the case study
Two senior researchers in the field of organizational psychology were invited to the
project because of their expertise in the domain of multiparty collaboration. The
project seemed to fit well with ongoing research in the field of multiparty
collaboration at the Center. At the moment the project started, I was involved. In the
project proposal our role was described as: (1) facilitation of a ‘participative’ and
‘bottom-up’ process, involving multiple stakeholders and (2) documentation of the
collaborative process. In the course of the project we decided to split up the roles: the
74

senior researchers acted as facilitators and I took up the task of documentation. My
aim was double: foster reflection and learning in the project, and generate relevant
questions for further research in multiparty collaboration.
The outcome of this research is in-depth case study. In order to make sense of the
nature of the process I used data triangulation: direct participation and observation,
interviewing, journalizing (introspection) and written documents (Yin, 1994). I
participated in all meetings of the project group, and other relevant gatherings (e.g.
field visits, public information sessions). I al kept journalizing notes to keep track of
my personal feelings, ideas, questions and hunches. This allowed for a continuous
process of self-monitoring or 'disciplined subjectivity' (Hutjes & van Buuren, 1994).
Halfway the project (2001) I conducted 10 semi-structured interviews with the
members of the project group. The focus was on how they perceived the process:
what helped and hindered the work in the project? To validate the interview findings
I gave feedback to the project leader and to the project group ('member check'). Their
responses were included as additional data (Huberman & Miles, 1988). Written
documents provided context information (e.g. project proposal, journal articles).
Based on these data I made a chronological process reconstruction. I focused on the
‘meetings’ and the issues that emerged in the interactions. This enabled me to keep
the whole process in mind without deconstructing or decontextualizing the data
(Hollway & Jefferson, 2000). Along the process my colleagues and I tried to make
sense of what was happening (peer debriefing, Clarke, 2002; Patton, 1987). We also
had informal conversations with the project leaders and we gave formal feedback to
the project group (member check, Huberman & Miles, 1988; Hutjes & van Buuren,
1994).
Case: mud in the streets and water in the basement
The regional manager of a large technical engineering firm initiated a project in the
field of erosion management on farming land in three municipalities in Flanders
(Belgium). He was a personal friend of a politician in the area who had complained
75

that other regions in Flanders obtained European money and their municipality
never did. The convener knew his way around in the labyrinth of European funding.
He acted as 'convener' and invited relevant parties around the table. His personal
and business relationships in the area facilitated this convening process. He
convinced three municipalities to participate in the project. A public officer of one of
the municipalities remembered "The convener came to sell the project. (…) They
presented a nice picture to the local authorities. (…) We ended up in the project without
really knowing how or what". The politicians of the municipalities were under pressure,
because the problem of flooding and mud in the streets had been bothering the
community for many years. With the local elections coming up (October 2000), this
project provided an opportunity to do something about this problem. The convener
worked out a project proposal for the European Community. His firm was hired to
carry out the construction works for the project. This convening process took about
one year.
The objective of the erosion project was to develop innovative measures to manage
erosion and to experiment with state of the art techniques. Relevant stakeholders
were to be consulted during the phases of problem analysis, the search for solutions
and implementation of the selected measures. The subsidizing organization
(European Commission) strongly promoted a bottom-up, participative, multi-
stakeholder approach in order to increase public support and to test the feasibility of
solutions in consultation with multiple stakeholders. To meet the requirements of the
funding organization, the erosion project included government institutions, profit
organizations, and not-for-profit organizations. The project proposal specified a
number of sub-systems to organize the participative process: a project group
(coordination), a steering group (advisory body) and several work groups (work out
solutions). In the case analysis we focus on the project group. It was composed of
representatives from the three participating local municipalities, a technical
engineering firm (the convening party) specialized in construction works, a
participative engineering firm specialized in facilitation of public participation
processes, erosion specialists from university, and organizational psychologists. The
76

ole of each member of this group was specified in the project proposal. Figure 1 is a
functional organizational chart which shows the relationships between the different
subsystems (report project group meeting, December 1999).
Scientific
advice: erosion
specialists,
organizational
psychologists
Figure 1: Organizational structure of the erosion project.
The 4-year project was approved and started in September 1999. Table 2 gives an
overview of the phases and main events in the collaborative project, based on the
process reconstruction.
Commissioners: 3
local authorities
Project group
Project team: 3
consulting firms
77
Steering group:
Flemish, Provincial,
local authorities,
farmers,
environmental
council
Workgroups:
farmers,
environmental
council,
consultants, local

Phase Events Main challenges
Convening
phase
(November
1998-September
1999)
Problem
definition
(September
1999 - March
2000)
Work out
solutions
(March 2000 -
June 2001)
– Convener solicits participation
in project
– Submission of project to
European Commission
– Start in September 1999
– Identification of additional
stakeholders
– Field visits and selection of
experimental sites
– First meeting of steering group
– 4 meetings of project group
– Public information sessions in
3 municipalities
– December 1999: first change in
leadership
– 2nd and 3rd meeting steering
group
– 5 meetings of project group
– Field visit
– Public information sessions in
3 municipalities
– Start up of local work groups
– October: local elections
– June 2001: second change in
leadership
78
– Identification of problem
domain
– Bring the parties with an
interest in the problem
domain around the table
and generate commitment
– Develop a definition of the
problem domain which
includes the interests and
perspectives of a wide
group of stakeholders
– Arrive at a sense of
common ground
Include expert and
experiential knowledge in the
elaboration of solutions

Negotiations
with farmers
(July 2001 -
March 2003)
Implementation
of solutions
(March 2003 -
September
2003)
– Municipalities complain about
lack of results: convener
intervenes
– Farmers complain about the
lack of information regarding
financial compensation
– Two rounds of visits to
individual farmers: no
contracts
– Information session for
individual farmers in each
district: low attendance and
handful of contracts signed
– Flemish government approves
new 'erosion policy' (December
2001)
– No meetings of project group
– Part of the farmers sign
individual contract with
municipalities
– 3 farmers implement
experimental measures
– No scientific or visual
monitoring and evaluation of
results
– Publication of inventory
report, 2 newsletters, small
newspaper articles
– Participation in information
sessions for local, regional and
Flemish government,
presentations at some
conferences
79
Commitment of farmers to
implement experimental
solutions on their farmland
– Demonstration of
ownership by
municipalities
– Implementation and
follow-up
– Demonstration of the
technical results and
learnings
Table 2: Overview of the phases, events and the main challenges in the erosion
project.

There were two changes in project leadership in the period of four years. With each
change, the collaborative process took a different turn. The first project leader was a
technical engineer, colleague of the convener. After a few weeks he was taken off the
job by the board of his organization, because of an internal restructuring of
responsibilities. The holding to which the technical consulting firm belonged had
acquired a small Dutch engineering firm specialized in facilitation of public
participation processes. Because of their expertise these 'participative' engineers took
over project leadership. Due to this change in leadership, the convening party shifted
from the role of convener and project leader to subcontractor, responsible for part of
the technical solutions. This shift was not easy for them. "They had a hard time
accepting it. They have invested a lot of work in it, but the project went to the other
organization. (…) They had to give away their baby." (a technical engineer).
The participative engineers led the process in a different way (e.g. interactive
construction of solutions with the stakeholders) and they favored cheap, small-scale
and ecological anti-erosion measures (e.g. small grass dams). This approach, which
was more in line with the intention of the project proposal, was a threat to the
business of the technical engineers. It endangered their contract with the pilot
municipality to carry out civil engineering interventions (e.g. construction of water
basins).
Inertia emerged early in 2001, in the period before the second project leader left.
Nothing seemed to happen, there was little direct interaction among the parties
involved, the negotiation process with individual farmers did not result in contracts
and participation in the project, there was little follow up of agreements, and
everybody seemed to be waiting for others to make things happen. The third project
leader described this phenomenon as, “In the beginning there was a lot of enthusiasm,
but then it collapsed like a pudding.” In June 2001 the second project leader left and his
manager took over. He limited his role to budget management and handed over
daily management of the project to a junior colleague who had been involved as
80

assistant of the second project leader. From this point on there were no more
meetings of the project group, because "the budget for meetings is finished" (third
project leader). Despite the focus on 'results' and 'action' there was little outcome.
In the final phase of the project 'ownership' of the problem became the central issue.
The project group expected the municipalities to take over ownership, but this did
not happen. This expectation, however, was never openly negotiated with the
municipalities. A public officer blamed the consultants for having "too much respect"
for the politicians and for not negotiating roles and responsibilities explicitly. In the
summer of 2003, shortly before the formal deadline, the project died a silent death.
When I asked the informal project leader (telephone conversation, January 2004)
whether there were any visible results, he said "No, hardly. There are only one or two
small interventions."
In the following section we discuss our observations. The main observation was an
increasing discrepancy between the intentions and objectives of the project, and what
the members of the project group were actually doing. Essential characteristics of the
project proposal were: (1) develop 'source oriented' erosion control measures; (2)
experimentation, innovation, demonstration and learning; (3) involvement of all
relevant stakeholders in the different phases of the project. We try to make sense of
what happened and why the project ended up in inertia and failure, based on themes
that emerged during the interviews and during the reconstruction of the
collaborative process. Sense making and interpretation were part of an iterative
process, moving between empirical data and theoretical insights (Gabriel, 1999).
Emergent themes
From experimentation at the source to solving real problems in the streets
In the course of the process the objective of the project shifted. The original intention
to experiment with state of the art erosion techniques on farmland (source oriented)
was replaced by a different objective. The politicians seemed more interested in
81

solving problems of flooding and mud sedimentation in the streets and sewer system
of their communities. For electoral reasons, it was more attractive for them to solve
real and visible problems. The choice of some sites for experimentation, for instance,
was inspired by the fact that a particular site was close to a residential area or near
the residence of a politician. In these cases the choice of the sites was not determined
by the formal criteria for selection, such as ‘demonstration effect, opportunities for
measuring, and the on and off site effects of erosion’ (Technical Final Report, 2003).
The technical engineers went along with the politicians. Their interest, as formalized
in the project proposal, was to carry out civil engineering constructions.
The participative engineers focused on experimentation with small scale
interventions on farmland, such as the use of green fertilizers. They did notice the
shift in objective. During a meeting of the project group (August 2000) the second
project leader observed "Now I see measures that are influencing the environment
downstream, while last time we agreed to concentrate on upstream interventions on farming
land in collaboration with the farmers!" The objective had shifted from prevention of soil
erosion on farmland (upstream) to flood prevention in the streets (downstream).
Lack of common ground and interdependence
In the course of the collaboration it became obvious there was little common ground
and hardly an integration of interests and objectives. Individual goals and positions
of the members of the project group (e.g. business, scientific, public interests)
prevailed and were not openly discussed around the table. One of the members of
the project group made a comparison with projects in developing countries where
the method of ‘participative problem analysis’ is used. People go along with the
approach, but everybody knows for which specific solution the money is intended.
This uneasy feeling was expressed by several members of the project group. A
participative engineer observed: "Everybody has set his goal for this project.” One of the
erosion specialists cynically stated "To put it crudely (…) now the money is in the pocket,
all sorts of things are being done with it, and nobody cares how it is spent." It was as if the
82

members of the project group tacitly agreed to each pursue their objectives, spend
the money from the sponsor, and not take a too critical look at how it was spent.
A critical factor was that most stakeholders expressed little interest in soil erosion. A
member of the project group observed: "Nobody has sleepless nights because of erosion.
That is probably the main problem." (Public officer). The farmers didn't perceive it as a
major problem in terms of decreasing production or permanent loss of fertile soil. "O,
this problem of erosion! We have had it for centuries and it never changes!" (a farmer). The
convener stated, "It bothers them but they don't experience it as a problem". He also
pointed at the lack of interests in soil erosion with the local authorities "They were not
interested in erosion, but they were in the flooding problems in the streets, out of political
interests." (Convener) This means that erosion was not a priority. There was no sense
of urgency, and no shared task to connect the stakeholders and drive interdependent
work.
From a multi-stakeholder approach to a ‘project’ approach
The formal objective of the project was to develop "an effective action program for
erosion management, integrating agricultural, community and ecological interests" (project
proposal). The intention was to include representatives from the agricultural sector
(e.g. farmers, landowners, and farmers union) the community (e.g. residents,
municipalities, fire brigade) and from environmental groups (e.g. environmental
council). At the start of the project the second project leader organized information
sessions at the three municipalities. He facilitated the construction of a joint
definition of the problem domain. This approach demonstrated the interdependence
of the stakeholders present in the room. The flow of events written up on cards on
the wall of the meeting room showed that not only the farmers were to ‘blame’ for
erosion and flooding in the streets. The responsibility of the municipalities also
became apparent. They were responsible for bad maintenance of the sewer and
drainage system and for granting building permits in lower parts of the community
that were known to flood on a regular basis. Residents were also identified as part of
83

the chain. Many had moved in from cities and were not used to living with water,
mud and dust. They complained more because they had a lower tolerance for the
kind of problems that the local residents had known for many decades.
The wider group of stakeholders was formally represented in the steering group.
This group was only convened three times in the course of the four year project. It
was reduced to a formal body and only had a marginal contribution to the project. In
the period after the second project leader left it became obvious that the influence of
the politicians and the technical engineers moved the project away from its original
intention of involving multiple stakeholders. The project group was no longer
convened and eventually most members of the project group worked separately (e.g.
measure the experimental sites, prepare contracts for construction work, negotiate
contracts with farmers, write articles) or stopped contributing.
Dealing with diversity: differences in dominant logic
Related to the previous issues was the observation that each member of the project
group and of the wider group of stakeholders held a different ‘dominant logic’
(Vansina, 2000) generating different assumptions, expectations and behaviors. This
logic can be determined by many aspects, such as social identity (e.g. farmer,
engineer, and scientist) or professional category (e.g. consultant, public officer). We
present some observations focusing on how different representatives made sense of
the stated ‘participative approach’ of the project and how two subgroups emerged in
the system.
According to the participative engineers participation meant "being prepared to
work in the evening hours and to have an open debate with the parties concerned
and jointly define the problem and possible solutions." They conceived their role as
process facilitator focusing on sharing responsibility, negotiation, and integration of
interests. For them the technical side of the project was not the main focus.
"Technique plays a minor role in this project. There’s a source of tension between on
84

the one hand technical measures and behavioral change and on the other hand
technology. (…) It is not about demonstrating that it works, that has happened
before. But it's about sustainability and how you can mobilize people to make it
happen. (…) It's a long term developmental process." (Informal conversation, April
2001) We supported this inclusive approach and tried to contribute to the design and
facilitation of stakeholder participation.
The technical engineers defined participation as "making a plan and asking for feedback"
(first project leader). They informed and consulted the stakeholders in view of
constructing a better technical solution. The erosion specialists also held an expert
logic and did not understand the need to invest so much time and effort in
participation. "In the old days we only needed a good idea and publish a scientific article
afterwards. Now someone has to have a real problem en the solution must be constructed with
the end users. That is not self evident for us scientists. (…) We scientists think it is not really
necessary. We already know it. But we have to give people the feeling that they are involved,
that's what I have learned." The municipalities had little experience with participation
and were surprised when they were asked to invite over 100 people to an
information session. "When the participative engineers came with their debate culture we
had a good laugh” (public officer). Other stakeholders such as the farmers (“What do
they want from us, they are so nice to us?!") and environmental group ("It is a fake
democracy”) also had little confidence in the good intentions of the consultants.
The convener admitted that the use of the notion ‘participation’ in the project
proposal had been strategic: "Your project has a better chance if you mention it." When
the project group was discussing the choice of the experimental sites, for instance, he
said, "Lets keep it deliberately vague. (…) Let's give them the impression they can decide
with us". The technical engineers conceived their role as technical experts and project
managers. For them and for the local authorities this project was a temporary
collaboration to solve specific problems driven by expert knowledge and political
decision making. One of the engineers said, "They have the last word. It is politics. (…)
85

We are in contact with the local municipalities using the classic method, through technical
designs."
This resulted in a polarization between two dominant logics: a solution-oriented,
expert and politically driven approach versus an interactive and inclusive process
stressing sustainability. The participative engineers observed the "formation of blocks"
and "two tracks sometimes crossed, but most of the time they were running in parallel". At
several moments the second project leader tried to address the differences in logic in
the project group. "There are different visions in the project group: steering or not steering.
(…) We do have the same objective, but our perspective on solutions differs. (…) Differences
of opinion must be possible in our group." (August 2000). His interventions, however,
did not result in an exchange about the meaning of participation, the underlying
logic was left implicit, and the subgroups drifted apart.
Role ambiguity: who's in charge here?
The roles of the members of the project group were formalized in the proposal, but as
the process unfolded members struggled with their roles or stepped out of role. The
interviews revealed that most members found it hard to contribute. We will discuss
the emergence of role ambiguity in the different members of the project group.
The two changes in formal project leadership were not intentional, but inspired by
external circumstances. Each project leader attributed a different meaning to his role
and worked with a different (implicit) logic. The first and third project leader used
technical and procedural aspects to manage the project. The second project leader
focused his energy on facilitation of the process and creating moments of direct
interaction (e.g. field trip, information sessions at municipality). Most members of the
project group expressed the need for explicit and directive leadership from the
formal project leaders and they criticized them all. On reflecting back on his
experience the second project leader had the overall impression that everybody felt
committed but nobody felt responsible. He observed, “When the drive, the momentum
86

disappeared in me, the whole project lost its momentum, it fell to pieces. Nobody was really
committed to this project.” Most members of the project group admitted that his loss of
motivation had a strong impact on the energy level in the project and on their
personal drive. The members of the project group were disappointed in the project
leaders and they, in turn, were disappointed in the group.
There were also ‘informal’ leaders. The first was the convener of the project who
played a critical role behind the scene. He made visible, explicit interventions at two
points in time when the project was in danger. He forcefully negotiated with the local
authorities to restore their confidence in the project. The members of the project
group had mixed feelings about his interventions. They admired him for the way he
‘saved’ the project, and were relieved someone finally took charge. At the same time,
however, they were suspicious about his intentions and wondered whether his
business interests prevailed over the interests of the project. A participative engineer
stated “This project is publicity in the area for his business. Even if it costs him money, I
think he is willing to pay it." The convener used political activity in a way that was
detrimental for the collaborative nature of the project. During one of his
interventions, the third project leader exclaimed: “who’s in charge here?!”
The second informal leader was a young engineer who had been involved in the
project since the start. When the third project leader took over, he handed over
project leadership to this young man, without publicly authorizing him to take the
lead. This made it very hard for him to exercise his authority. He had great difficulty
to determine his position: go along with the vision of the powerful technical
engineers and 'betray' the project, or follow up on his own ideas and ‘fight’ for a
participative approach?
The municipalities were critical actors who did not fully play their role for several
reasons. The project leaders never made an appeal on them and they did not contract
roles and responsibilities. Initially the representatives of the local authorities were
not even invited to project group meetings. Moreover each project leader had
87

different expectations from the municipalities. The technical engineers did not
perceive them as competent, interested or committed and they took over important
tasks from them (e.g. writing financial reports). One of them commented "In Belgium
the engineering firms drive those projects. (…) How the project is managed is not their
business." The second project leader expected the municipalities to take decisions,
determine the policy and drive the project. He said, “Here the advise and the decision
were with the consultant, although not formally. (…) The consultant is supposed to sit next
to them, but was given a central role. (…) The hired people have to do all the work. They
should be the motor. All they do is open the meeting." For him the role of the consultant
was to give advice and to facilitate the process. The representative of the
municipalities claimed they had 'no time' for the project. Towards the end of the
project the members of the project started to blame the municipalities for not taking
up ownership, although not openly. Open negotiation with the municipalities was
perceived as risky and 'not done'. This lack of openness about role expectations and
contracting led to ambiguous authority relations, suspicion, misunderstanding,
inefficiency and an authority vacuum.
The facilitators also suffered from role ambiguity. In the course of the collaboration
our role was reduced from active facilitation to designing scenarios for meetings,
writing articles, being shadow consultants, being observers, to being forgotten.
Because the second project leader took up an explicit role as facilitator, we were in
the background as his sparring partner. He stressed that in order to facilitate a
complex, technical process it is critical that you have to be 'bilingual': speak the
language of the technical experts and be a process expert. After he left the third
project leader did not believe the project would benefit from our facilitation. He
asked us for ‘hard evidence’ to demonstrate the added value of our contribution. At
one point he explicitly requested us to limit our role to documentation.
As it turned out most members of the project group had a hard time taking up their
formal role. We tried at two occasions to engage in role negotiation in the project
group. It was remarkable how little interaction emerged. These interventions did not
88

lead to clarification of roles or to a more focused participation in the project. The
participative engineers came up with several potential reasons. One was that not
everybody had been honest when expressing intentions and expectations. Another
reason they forwarded was “We were too nice to each other." The second project leader
found it hard to be clear and firm towards the other members of the project group.
He had not selected them in the first place, and avoided open confrontation about the
relevance of certain representatives. He observed “The roles were not explicit enough.
When a role is explicit, the composition of the groups becomes clear straight away.” He
judged that the presence of the erosion specialists, for instance, was not necessary at
certain meetings. "The situation had just grown this way. I found it hard to say ‘I do not
expect you to be present’. (…) I did not have the courage to do that, because otherwise I would
have lost them.” Not clarifying roles seems to have been a way of avoiding difficult
issues and interpersonal confrontation.
The importance of the context
It is hard to understand dynamics in a collaborative without considering issues and
events in the wider context. The permeability of the boundaries around a
collaborative system is essential for its survival. The project was embedded in a
socio-political context that influenced its direction and outcome. For instance local
elections (October 2000) contributed to the inertia in the project. They resulted in a
change in political representation in two of the three municipalities. Because of this
change some of the work had to be repeated (e.g. ‘sell’ the project), and there was a
halt in decision making for a period of about 9 months. An important institutional
change was the introduction of an erosion policy by the Flemish authorities. As they
would now sponsor 75% of the costs for farmers adopting anti- erosion measures and
the European project only 50%, the project lost some of its attraction and relevance.
For the same financial reasons one of the municipalities decided to collaborate with a
different European project for erosion management that had started in the area.
89

Another context factor is what Vansina (2002) calls the 'ghosts around the table':
parties who are not physically present during interaction moments, but who do
influence the agenda. The most important ‘ghost’ was the European Commission.
Their requirements (e.g. the nature of the parties to be involved, specification of
outcome, timing and approach) had a big impact on the process.
In this collaborative experience it seemed hard to engage in interdependent and
productive work. We will try to make sense of why it was so difficult to take up a
critical role and what the main emotional challenges and obstacles were in this
collaborative experience.
Sense making of the dynamics
Mirroring and parallel processes
In a psychodynamic perspective documenting what happens in the research
relationship and scrutinizing ‘parallel processes’ provides additional information
that may increase the meaning of data obtained with other methods. These data may
provide access to subtle aspects of participants and their experience (Gilmore &
Krantz, 1985; Schein, 1987; Berg & Smith, 1988; Hunt, 1989). We explored how we
were perceived by the members of the project group, what they did to us in our role
as researchers and facilitators, and which parallel dynamics emerged in our team.
To make sense of the dynamics in the project group I reflected on my experiences. I
found myself confronted with feeling enthusiastic, hopeful, confused, inexperienced,
powerless, and useless. For instance, towards the end of the project the informal
project leader forgot to let me know a meeting was canceled and he forgot to put
‘my’ issue on the agenda of a project group meeting. The notes in my research
journal enabled me to trace back that I was increasingly anxious about my role and
grateful I could ‘hide’ in my role of ‘documentation’ (Devereux, 1967; Hunt, 1989).
This role justified my presence at meetings and it gave me the feeling of contributing
to the project. I did notice I lost interest and started delaying things (e.g. writing up
90

eport, interviewing). I often had the feeling of going 'through the ceremony' of
meetings. The project and our contribution to it felt like a failure to me. This feeling
of failure resonates with what most members of the project group expressed in the
interviews.
The internal dynamics in our team seemed to mirror some of the dynamics in the
project group. They included procrastination, not treating the project as a priority,
involving different colleagues in the project which made it harder to feel responsible.
An important dynamic in our team was the repetition of the same discussion related
to our present and potential role. We discussed issues such as: can we promote or
push for sustainability or shouldn't we interfere on the substance? To what extent are
we allowed, expected, requested to actively take up our role as facilitator? Are we
responsible for the lack in progress? It was as if we talked as a defense against the
feeling of being inadequate, and because taking action seemed unwanted, hazardous
and risky.
The most prominent feelings in our team were hope and disillusion, and the anger
for not being ‘authorized’ to act as facilitators. At the start, however, the members of
the project group seemed to project expectations of competence and responsibility on
us. When I gave feedback of the interviews, however, I was struck by the reluctance
of the project group to discuss the findings. We seemed to give them the message
that what was happening was not 'right'. This may have provoked resistance and
irritation in the third project manager. He made us feel inadequate and vulnerable in
our professional role. We ended up in the position of 'evaluator' or 'punitive figure'
(Cooper & Dartington, 2004) and were put aside. We were sucked into the system. It
was as if the members of the project group were doing to us what they were doing to
each other: have high expectations and subsequently de-authorize the other by
inducing feelings of inadequacy.
91

Dealing with poorly defined leadership: defensive responses
Working in a collaborative requires a mental shift and a developmental process from
dependency on a 'leader', who is thought to be omnipotent and omniscient, to
sharing leadership functions. It is an evolution towards working from a shared
power base (Vansina, 2002). The participating actors did not seem to have a mental
model that could help them to take up a critical role (Hirschhorn, 1990; Kahn &
Kram, 1994). They seemed to rely on fantasies of a strong leader which were not
appropriate in this organizational context. They seemed powerless and dependent
upon those demonstrating leadership. These dynamics point at basic assumption
dependency (Bion, 1961) where the group hopes someone will guide them. Some
members of the project group projected expectations of strong leadership on the
convener when he came forward. After conducting the interviews I was 'the only one
who knew what everybody was thinking'. Some expressed the hope I would get the
project back on track by telling the project leader what was ‘really going on’.
In this collaborative there was no hierarchical leader with a mandate to take
decisions for the collaborative system. The project leaders were wearing 'multiple
hats': they were managing and facilitating the process, and at the same time
defending the interests of their organization. Therefore it was hard to perceive them
as 'neutral' facilitators. Authority relations had not been negotiated and were
ambiguous. The participants had contrasting expectations on who should be taking
decisions. The discrepancy between the formal and emergent authority relations
generated uncertainty in the system. This context created feelings of vulnerability
due to the absence of protective hierarchical structures and clear leadership roles.
The members of the project group did not succeed to contain the perceived risks and
to engage in productive work.
In new organizational forms such as multi-stakeholder processes, people have to
exercise personal authority without being able to rely on bureaucracy, position or
92

formal power (Hirschhorn, 1997; Huffington, James & Armstrong, 2004). The
convener did take up authority because his objectives were clear. In doing so he
disregarded those of the other parties involved and reduced the complexity of
reality. His heroic or tactical leadership was not ‘impartial’ and it ran counter to the
assumed 'equality' of the parties involved and the consensual nature of bottom-op,
multi-stakeholder processes. He mobilized power to impose his views, values and
interests and to determine who was included and who was excluded (Vansina, 2002).
In this project the function of leadership (inspiring, connecting, facilitating)
embodied by the second project leader, was split off from the management function
(budget control, project follow-up) taken up by the first and third project leader. A
lack of integration of the two functions made it hard for ideas to be implemented.
Krantz and Gilmore (1990) refer to both leadership functions and their idealization as
'heroism' and 'managerialism': two defensive ideologies that are used to avoid the
uncertainty and ambiguity of the organizational context. Each project leader seemed
so preoccupied with his perspective on the nature and requirements of the project
that a partnership did not get off the ground (Huffington, James & Armstrong, 2004).
De-authorization and blaming: killing off the leaders!
In this web of unclear authority relations we observed a striking dynamic: those who
tried to move the process forward were disempowered, de-authorized (Kahn &
Kram, 1994) and blamed. The first project leader was hardly given a chance to take
up his role. The second project leader took up a prominent role as facilitator, and in
doing so he disempowered us. He was heavily criticized when he left, even by his
close colleague and manager. The third project leader abdicated right from the start.
He passed over project leadership to his inexperienced colleague who was hardly up
to the task. This young engineer was not openly or formally authorized to take
charge. He was de-authorized by the local authorities because they did not accept his
instructions. The third project leader also explicitly de-authorized us to facilitate the
process and at the same time he criticized us for not contributing in a meaningful
93

way to the project. The group members criticized the third project leader for not
being visible, for not speaking up and for not being interested. Most group members
downplayed the competence and minimized the importance of the municipalities.
They were disempowered because they were not invited to most project meetings.
When it became obvious the project was going to fail, the municipalities got the
blame for not taking up ownership. Meanwhile, the 'invisible' leader (convener) was
pulling the ropes behind the scene. Explicit role definitions and role negotiation
hardly had an effect. The project group turned out to be an unsafe place to
demonstrate initiative. This was perceived as a threat to the self, leading to
regression in the group (Diamond & Allcorn, 1987).
Most members of the project group also de-authorized themselves to take up a
critical role. They came up with reasons such as lacking experience and seniority, not
wanting to exclude others, not having a formal position, not being asked to
contribute, or feeling small and insignificant. This process of disempowering oneself
and each other resulted in an authority vacuum where all group members were
waiting for others to take action. This vacuum allowed the differences in dominant
logic, interests, values and identity to paralyze the group, as there could be no
containment of the potential conflicts (Hirschhorn & Gilmore, 1992). Responsibility
became diffused and the lack of concentration of authority might have prevented the
project group from making and implementing decisions (Menzies, 1988).
Basic assumption me-ness: we are not a group!
The main characteristics of a ‘group’ are the interdependent relationship between
members and their commitment to a shared task. The lack of common ground made
it hard for members to take up a critical role, to focus energy and to sustain
motivation. The boundary of task was unclear; there was hardly an integration of
separate efforts. The members of the project group seemed to behave as if they were
not a 'group' with a task, mandate and responsibilities. In this basic assumption 'me-
ness' culture (Lawrence, Bain & Gould, 1996) it was not possible to join with others to
94

create something new. The boundary of identity (Hirschhorn & Gilmore, 1992) was
fuzzy. The name 'project group', for instance, was used for different constellations
and mixed up with other names. Juniors took over from seniors. Some
representatives joined and some left. There was no open contracting and there were
no clear ground rules. The members did not clarify the mandate of the group. Was
the group a space where decisions were taken, where information was shared, did it
have an advisory role or was it supposed to have, as one member suggested, a
‘modeling role’ for the municipalities?
The lack of face to face interaction hindered identification with the group and the
development of a sense of belonging. The group only seems to have had an
instrumental value for its members. It was as if the members could not decide to
bring an important contribution to the group. As soon as the inspiring leadership of
the second project leader stopped, the rest of the group lost their drive and sense of
direction. There was little containment offered by protective processes, such as clear
boundaries of roles, procedures, lines of accountability, or structures (Huffington,
James & Armstrong, 2004). The group itself did not develop a 'minimal structure'
(e.g. ground rules) or ‘normative system’ (Mills, 1967) to cope with the openness and
uncertainty of the situation and to establish trust. There were few containing
experiences, like for instance, reviewing the way we were working or working
through the uncertainty around our roles.
In the project group it was not safe to talk about issues related to the difficulties of
collaborating. These unwanted issues were partly split off, disowned and projected
outside the project group. For instance, the farmers were perceived as ‘difficult’,
‘only interested in money’, and ‘unwilling to collaborate’. The municipalities were
blamed for ‘not taking up ownership’, for being ‘incompetent’, and for ‘playing
political games’. The group discussed issues 'out there' (e.g. how can we involve the
farmers?), but failed to look at its own functioning. In doing so, the members of the
project group seemed to diminish their capacity to address important and difficult
issues. The project group disowned these relational aspects, and split them off as if
95

the relational challenges were not part of the overall functioning of the collaborative
system (Obholzer & Miller, 2004). The members of the project group seemed to avoid
personal responsibility for the success of the project. The result was a 'boarding
house' mentality where there was no sense of common venture.
Denial of interdependence and diversity
Developing an interdependent relationship with different kinds of stakeholder
representatives and the capacity to deal with diversity are critical emotional
challenges of collaborative work. An appropriate degree of contesting with the other,
without conflict or evasion, seems required (Huffington, James & Armstrong, 2004).
However, the confrontation with being dependent on others who are very different
may jeopardize one's identity, position and feelings of self-esteem. Depending on
others for success makes actors vulnerable. We observed rivalry (e.g. technical and
participative engineers), independent action (e.g. intervention of convener),
exclusion of perspectives (e.g. ecological voice), and dominance of the technical and
political logic. Actors seemed to struggle to find a balance between, on the one hand,
autonomy and holding onto one's identity, and on the other hand, engaging in
interdependent work and facing the differences.
In this collaborative process the successful implementation of the technical solutions
proposed by the engineers, ultimately depended on the readiness of the farmers to
participate. This issue only emerged when the technical designs were ready and
when it turned out the farmers were not so keen to participate. For experts and
engineers, it was not self-evident to put their solution mindedness and technical
expertise aside, to include the experiential knowledge of farmers and to open up the
debate. As soon as the second project left, the project fell back on 'old ways' of
working, based on dominance and centrality of technical expertise and autonomous
work.
96

Collusive and ‘as-if’ behavior
Another striking phenomenon was the emergence of ‘as-if’ behavior regarding a
number of issues. The first issue was the identified problem domain and the
motivation to start a project. There was no 'emotional context' (Vansina, 2002) for this
collaboration: no sense of urgency to do something about the identified problem and
a poor awareness of the need to find solutions through collaboration. Most actors
were not preoccupied with soil erosion and the consequences for the community (e.g.
pollution by chemical fertilizers, costs for cleaning the streets and sewers, permanent
loss of fertile soil). Our findings suggest that all actors had their personal reasons to
take part in the project. It was not so much a pressing problem in the community, but
the availability of European funds that triggered off the project.
The requirements of the financial sponsor resulted in the formal involvement of
different groups of stakeholders. Some actors, however, did not play their role. For
instance, the convener invited academic experts in soil erosion to the project. Their
task was to give scientific advice, to ‘measure’ and to present their results at an
international conference, organized by the project. They were hardly asked for advice
and the equipment to measure sedimentation before and after the interventions
failed. The project did not organize a scientific meeting. Inviting experts may have
been a way to increase chances for funding.
As the project moved on and uncertainty increased, collusive behavior started to
emerge. The project group acted as if there was ‘common ground’, and as if roles
were clear. Interventions to invite a discussion around these issues in the group were
systematically neglected or put aside. There was no transparency around budget
issues. Keeping these issues unclear might have served the function of sustaining the
ambiguity and leaving space for the stakeholders to pursue their personal objectives
and agenda.
97

Towards the end of the four years, when issues of failure, reputation and
responsibility were emerging, the group colluded around how to elegantly deal with
‘failure’, by calling it a ‘low-end version’. At that point it was still not clear what the
criteria for success or evaluation were. This contributed to the uncertainty and
anxiety in the project group. The members of the group were aware of the fact that
the project would not be a success and that their names were linked to it. There was
hardly discussion around the issue of not meeting the standards. As the parties lost
trust in the successful outcome of the collaboration, they abdicated and became more
passive.
The project group also engaged in collusive behavior around issues of integrity.
There were some practices at the limit of ethical behavior. For instance, the members
of the project group received their allowance for participation in the project at the
start of the project and did not openly justify their expenses in the project group.
Another ethical issue was the ambiguous and double role of the convening party.
They were both initiator of the project and hired as subcontractor for the
municipality. There was suspicion of political maneuvering, but nobody talked about
these issues in public. These practices were justified as 'this is the way things go here'
or they were labeled as 'typical Belgian practices'.
Collaboration as a cover
The question is whether the identified problem was suitable for a multiparty
approach. Why would a powerful party, like the technical engineering firm, promote
a participative way of working in the first place (Hardy & Phillips, 1998)? Why
would they share their power with other groups when their organization could cover
all aspects? The definition of the problem, know-how for solving the problem and
the means to carry out the solutions were concentrated with the experts, in particular
the technical engineers. The farmers, who were in the position to provide a
meaningful contribution to all three aspects, were hardly involved in the process.
They were asked for their reaction to the technical solutions proposed by the
98

engineers, thus providing the engineers with useful information as input for their
technical problem solving process.
In this project the subsidizing policy of the sponsoring organization generated a
paradoxical situation. The sponsor stressed the importance of multi-organizational
collaboration, transfer of knowledge between government institutes, non-
government institutes and/or socio-economical actors, using a ‘bottom up’ approach.
The project proposal used the collaborative rhetoric of the sponsor. However, before
the start of the project the solutions, organizational systems, procedures and
approach were already specified in advance (e.g. steering group meeting every 6
months). There was little space for the inherently emergent and open nature of
bottom-up processes. Moreover the budget for interaction moments turned out to be
very limited. This made a collaborative approach unrealistic. Thus the organization
holding the power to provide funding generated behavior where collaboration
turned into a ‘cover’. Even though some people tried very hard to do things
differently, participation and multi-stakeholder involvement were quite limited in
the end. ‘Cover’ collaborations often initiate with the hope of approaching a problem
in a different and more inclusive way. The societal cost of such endeavors is
disillusion in all stakeholders involved.
Conclusion
This in-depth case study demonstrates a number of striking phenomena. The project
group engaged in collusive behavior. They tacitly agreed not to question a number of
issues. These included: the lack of common ground and the shift in the task; the
absence of a pressing environmental problem and the underlying motivation for
setting up a project; the rhetoric of engaging in a multi-stakeholder, bottom-up
process where ‘collaboration’ was used as a cover for ongoing ‘business as usual’. A
final observation was the defensive way of dealing with poorly defined leadership,
where the participants avoided open contracting, de-authorized each other to move
things ahead, and where all participants just let it happen. This resulted in an
99

authority vacuum that moved the process towards inertia. The overarching dynamic
was a polarization between two different dominant logics. For the technical
engineers projects were driven on a solution-orientation, technical expertise, political
lobbying, the use of power when necessary, and a procedural organization of the
process. For the participative engineers these processes were about facilitation of the
process, inclusion of stakeholders, a focus on problem exploration and definition.
They valued shared responsibility, negotiation as opposed to management, and an
integration of interests. The gap between the two logics proved to be too wide. The
tensions stirred up by the differences in perspective resulted in defensive dynamics
that severely hindered innovative and productive work.
Individuals, groups and organizations will increasingly be invited or forced to
collaborate across organizational boundaries. It is critical to find new ways of
designing, developing, and facilitating collaborative processes. "The shift towards a
culture of fluidity, flexibility, and negotiated interdependences in social life contains new
possibilities for new forms of depth engagements, but in the absence of a function to do the
work of containment these are as likely to be risky, volatile, enervating, destructive, and
unpredictable as they are to promote solidarity, creativity, purpose, and growth rooted in a
sense of security" (Cooper & Dartington, 2004, 149). Collaboration confronts us with a
paradox. In order to arrive at innovative, sustainable and accepted solutions, the
actors need to develop mature collaborative relationships. However, it is precisely
the openness, complexity and uncertainties of a collaborative journey that make it
hard to develop open and trustful relationships (Krantz, 1998). This raises several
questions that require further research. How can insight in the underlying tension
and the (covert) dynamics inspire generative interventions? How can those taking up
leadership functions design and facilitate containing experiences if containing
structures are not available? Who will take up this containing function when there is
no identified or accepted leader or facilitator? How can a group responsible for
‘leading’ a collaborative effort arrive at some form of shared leadership and joint
ownership of decisions?
100

References
Ackoff, R. Systems, messes and interactive planning. In Trist, E., Emery F. & Murray H.
(Eds.), The social engagement of social science. A Tavistock anthology. Volume III: The
Socio-ecological perspective. Philadelphia: Penn, 1997, pp. 417-438.
Amado, G. & Ambrose A. (Eds.). The transitional approach to change. London: Karnac,
2001.
Berg, D.N. & Smith K.K. The clinical demands of research methods. In Berg, D.N. &
Smith K.K. (Eds.), The self in social inquiry. Researching methods. Newbury Park,
California: Sage Publications, 1988, pp. 21-34.
Bion, W.R. Experiences in groups. London: Routledge, 1961.
Chisholm, R.F. Developing network organizations. Learning from practice and theory.
Addison-Wesley, 1998.
Chisholm, R.F. & Elden M. Features of emerging action research. Human Relations, 1993
46 (2), 275-297.
Clarke, S. Learning from experience: psycho-social research methods in the social
sciences. Qualitative Research, 2002, 2 (2), 173-194.
Cooper, A. & Dartington T. The vanishing organization: organizational containment in
a networked world. In Huffington, C., Armstrong, D., Halton, W., Hoyle L. &
Pooley J. (Eds.), Working below the surface. The emotional life of contemporary
organizations. Tavistock Clinic Series, London: Karnac, 2004, pp.127-150.
Devereux, G. From anxiety to method in the behavioral sciences. The Hague: Mouton & Co,
1967.
Diamond, M.A. & Allcorn, S. The psychodynamics of regression in work groups.
Human Relations, 1987, 40 (8), 525-543.
Gilmore, T.N. & Krantz J. Projective identification in the consulting relationship:
exploring the unconscious dimensions of a client system. Human Relations, 1985, 38
(12), 1159-1177.
Gould, L.J., Ebers, R. & Mc Vicker Clinchy, R. The systems psychodynamics of a joint
venture: anxiety, social defenses and the management of mutual dependence.
Human Relations, 1999, 52 (6), 697-722.
Gould, L.G., Stapley, L.F. & Stein, M. (Eds.). The systems psychodynamics of organizations.
Integrating the group relations approach, psychoanalytic, and open systems perspectives.
London: Karnac, 2001.
101

Gray, B. Collaborating: finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco:
Jossey Bass, 1989.
Hardy, C. & Phillips, N. Strategies of engagement: lessons from the critical examination
of collaboration and conflict in an interorganizational domain. Organization Science,
1998, 9 (2), March-April, 217-230.
Hirschhorn, L. Leaders and followers in a post-industrial age: a psychodynamic view.
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1990, 26 (4), 529-542.
Hirschhorn, L. Reworking authority; Leading and following in the post-modern organization.
Cambridge Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1997.
Hirschhorn, L. & Gilmore, T. The new boundaries of the “boundaryless” company.
Harvard Business Review, 1992, May/June, 70 (3), 104-115.
Hollway, W. & Jefferson, T. Doing qualitative research differently: free association, narrative
and the interview method. London: Sage, 2000.
Huberman, A.M. & Miles, M.B. Assessing local causality in qualitative research. In
Berg, D.N. & Smith, K.K. (Eds.), The self in social inquiry. Researching methods.
Newbury Park, California: Sage, 1988, pp. 351-381.
Huffington, C., Armstrong, D., Halton, W., Hoyle, L. & Pooley, J. (Eds.). Working below
the surface. The emotional life of contemporary organizations. Tavistock Clinic Series,
London: Karnac, 2004.
Huffington, C., James, K. & Armstrong, D. What is the emotional cost of distributed
leadership? In Huffington, C., Armstrong, D., Halton, W., Hoyle, L. & Pooley, J.
(Eds.), Working below the surface. The emotional life of contemporary organizations.
Tavistock Clinic Series, London: Karnac, 2004, pp. 67-82.
Hunt, J. Psychoanalytic aspects of fieldwork. Qualitative Research Methods. Volume 18.
London: Sage, 1989.
Hutjes, J.M. & van Buuren, J.A. De gevalsstudie: strategie van kwalitatief onderzoek.
Meppel: Boom, 1994.
Huxham, C. (Ed.). Creating collaborative advantage. London: Sage, 1996.
Huxham, C. & Vangen, S. Ambiguity, complexity and dynamics in the membership of
collaboration. Human Relations, 2000, 53 (6), 771-806.
Huxham, C. & Vangen, S. (Eds.) Managing to collaborate. The theory and practice of
collaborative advantage. London: Routledge, 2005.
Jaques, E. Social systems as a defense against persecutory and depressive anxiety. In
Klein, M., Heimann, P. & Money-Kyrle, R. (Eds.), New directions in psychoanalysis.
London: Tavistock Publication, 1955.
102

Jarrett, M. & Kellner, K. Coping with uncertainty: a psychodynamic perspective on the
work of top teams. Journal of Management Development, 1996, 15, (2), 54-68.
Kahn, W.A. & Kram, K.E. Authority at work: internal models and their organizational
consequences. Academy of Management Review, 1994, 19 (1), 17-50.
Kanter, R.M. Collaborative advantage: the art of alliances. Harvard Business Review,
1994, 72 (4), 96-108.
Kramer, R. The more the merrier? Social psychological aspects of multiparty
negotiations in organizations. Research on negotiation in organizations. Vol. 3,
Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, 1991.
Krantz, J. Lessons from the Field: An Essay on the Crisis of Leadership in
Contemporary Organizations, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1990, 26 (1),
49-64.
Krantz, J. Anxiety & the new order. In Klein, B. & Gabelnick, F. & Herr, P. (Eds.), The
psychodynamics of leadership. Madison: Psychosocial Press, 1998, pp. 77-107.
Krantz, J. & Gilmore, T.N. The splitting of leadership and management as a social
defense. Human Relations, 1990, 43 (2), 183-204.
Lawrence, G., Bain, A. & Gould, L. The fifth basic assumption. Free Association, 1996, 6,
(37), 28-55.
Lipman-Blumen, J. The connective edge. Leading in an interdependent world. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1996.
McCollom, M. Group formation: boundaries, leadership, and culture. In Gillette, J. &
McCollom, M. (Eds.), Groups in context. A new perspective on group dynamics.
Lanham: University Press of America, 1995, pp. 34-48.
Menzies, I. E. P. A case study in the functioning of social systems as a defense against
anxiety. Human Relations, 1960, 13, 95-121.
Menzies Lyth, I. Containing anxiety in institutions. Selected essays. Volume 1. London: Free
Association Books, 1988.
Miller, E.J. From Dependency to Autonomy: Studies in Organization and Change. London:
Free Associations Books, 1993.
Miller, E.J. & Rice, A.K. Systems of organization: The control of task and sentient boundaries.
London: Tavistock Publications, 1967.
Mills, T.M. The Sociology of Small Groups. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1967.
103

Mintzberg, H., Jorgensen, J., Dougherty, D. & Westley, F. Some surprising things about
collaboration. Knowing how people connect makes it work better. Organizational
Dynamics, 1996, Spring, 60-71.
Obholzer, A. & Miller, S. Leadership, followership, and facilitating the creative
workplace. In Huffington, C., Armstrong, D., Halton, W., Hoyle, L. & Pooley, J.
(Eds.), Working below the surface. The emotional life of contemporary organizations.
Tavistock Clinic Series, London: Karnac, 2004, pp.33-48.
Page, M. Leadership and collaboration challenges in not for profit partnerships.
Organisational and Social Dynamics, 2003, 3 (2), 207-225.
Patton, M.Q. How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1987.
Schein, E.H. The clinical perspective in fieldwork. Newbury Park, California: Sage, 1987.
Schneider, S.C. Managing boundaries in organizations. In Kets de Vries (Ed.),
Organizations on the couch: clinical perspectives on organizational behavior and change.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991, pp. 169-190.
Schruijer, S. & Vansina, L. Epilogue to special issue on ‘Leadership and organizational
change’. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 1999, 8 (1), 135-138.
Trist, E. Referent organizations and the development of inter-organizational domains.
Human Relations, 1983, 36 (3), 269-284.
Vansina, L. Making the best of diversity: working towards collaboration between different
interest groups, paper presented at the ISPSO symposium, Melbourne, Australia,
June 2002.
Vansina, L., Taillieu, T. & Schruijer, S. “Managing” multiparty issues: learning from
experience. In Pasmore, W. & Woodman, R. (Eds.), Research in Organizational
Change and Development. (vol. 11). Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press Inc., 1998, pp.
159-181.
Yin, R.K. Case study research. Design and methods. Second Edition. Applied Social
Research Methods Series, Volume 5, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications,
1994.
Zagier Roberts, V. Conflict and collaboration. Managing inter-group relations. In
Obholzer, A. & Zagier Roberts, V. (Eds.), The unconscious at work. London:
Routledge, 1994, pp. 187-196.
104

CASE 2: RIVER VALLEY CASE
Introduction
In 2003 the Center for Organizational and Personnel Psychology (COPP) was
involved in a European project on ‘social learning in river basin management’
(HarmoniCOP project). The aim of one of the work packages (5: national case
studies) was to document local case studies to illustrate the practices of river basin
management in different European countries. In that context we were looking for a
specific project. We were in contact with a public officer from the Department Nature
of the Ministry of Environment whom we knew from a different project. He
suggested that the river valley project could be interesting for the European project. I
joined the project even though I was not closely involved in the European project,
because the project seemed interesting for my research purpose and the timing was
perfect. During one year I was engaged in the project with my colleagues (see
attachment 1). We developed a case study for the HarmoniCOP project from the
perspective of ‘social learning’. In a later phase I also analyzed the case from a more
specific research focus. Because I had chosen the foster care case as main case study
(see introduction part 3), I did not analyze the case in great depth.
Context and antecedents of the river valley project
This case study is based on a study project that was initiated by the subdivisions
Nature and Water of the Environment Administration. In 1998 the valley had
suffered the consequences of a severe flooding. This was the drive for the
administration to invest additional resources in an extensive study of the area. The
river in this case study is one of the tributaries of the Scheldt basin. The study
focused on a restricted part of the river catchment. The study was coordinated with
other planning initiatives which were being developed at the time, aligned with the
European Water Frame Directive. The study project was not intended as a pilot
experience experimenting with public participation, as promoted in the European
Directive. However, the initiators were genuinely interested in a participatory
105

approach in order to guarantee a societal support for an integrated valley plan. The
aim of the study project was to study the river valley as an ecosystem. The objectives
were:
- Work out an integrated vision for the river valley, with an emphasis on nature
and safety.
- Contribute to the development of a Strategic Nature Management Plan, for one
part of the valley.
- Work out a Nature Development Project Plan, a formal plan for a geographically
restricted part of the valley.
The conveners of the project were aware of the need to integrate their study in the
broader integrated management plan at catchment level (Flemish administration)
and in the more local sustainable water management plans (provincial
administrations) which were being developed simultaneously.
Environmental context
According to the Flemish Water Frame Directive, a river basin is a territorial area in
which all the affluent water flows through a system of rivers and streams to the sea.
There are four ‘river basins’ in Flanders: Scheldt, Meuse, Ijzer and Bruges Polders.
The three last mentioned basins cross international boundaries. A sub-basin, or
'catchment', is a territorial area in which the affluent water flows into another river or
stream. In Flanders this is generally the Scheldt or the Meuse. The river of this case
study is part of one of the 11 catchments identified in this logic. On the third level,
‘sub-catchments’ are identified (local water management plans).
The area of the river valley under study is defined by a city upstream and by a point
in the river downstream where two rivers come together. The distance of the river
section is approximately 27 kilometers. The total catchment of the river, with a
surface area of 191.000ha, is the largest of the 11 catchments identified by the Flemish
106

Water Administration for the integrated planning process (Water Framework
Directive). The area of the study (3.600 has.) is a small but critical part of the
catchment.
Institutional context
The subdivisions of Water and Nature coordinated the study project in a joint effort.
Table 3 gives an overview of the main actors involved in the study.
Governmental Environment
Semi-official
Non-
governmental
Regional (Flemish) level Provincial
Administration,
subdivisions Water and
Water
Navigable Waterways
Administration
“Related” subdivisions
(Woods, Landscape,
Spatial planning, …)
Flemish Environment
Institute
Flemish Institute for
Drinking Water
Nature Conservation,
Farmers, Landscape, etc.
107
level
Provincial
government
Sustainable
Local Water
Plans
Local level
Municipal
government
Polders and
Watering
Local sections
and
committees
Table 3: Overview of the organizations involved in the river valley cae.

Socio-economic and political context
Historically the river had an important economic value for shipping, transportation,
and water mills. As early as the 17 th century, interventions were implemented to
improve the use of the river. These human interventions contributed to the
occurrence of flooding in the valley. Although the river has not been used for
shipping purposes for the last 100 years, the river still had the status of ‘navigable’
river. Therefore the Navigable Waterways Administration, a subdivision of the
Infrastructure department of the Flemish Administration, still had the formal
authority over the river at the time of the project.
Due to demographical pressure and the evolution of agriculture in the 20 th century,
there was a high demand for arable land. By the end of the fifties a ‘note concerning
infrastructural works to improve the water affluence of the river’ was issued by the
Navigable Waterways Administration. Its aim was to control the river course by
damming it up, in the interest of agriculture and safety against flooding. Between
the sixties and the nineties the Navigable Waterways Administration carried out
drastic infrastructure works. As a consequence of these interventions the relationship
between the river and the surrounding alluvial plain was profoundly disturbed. For
instance, groundwater levels lowered dramatically, affecting the natural flora and
fauna in the valley. From the eighties on, agricultural interests diminished due to
worldwide competition. In the same period ecological awareness in society
increased. In the nineties the new ‘Environmental Department of the Flemish
Administration’ was created. ‘Water' and 'Nature' were subdivisions of this
administration. The Department developed an alternative vision on river
management. In this new vision safety against flooding was achieved by giving
space to the river. Water management and restoration and conservation of the
surrounding natural valley go hand in hand. A consequence of the severe floods in
the cities and villages in the valley in 1998 was that the conflicting visions between
the two departments of the Flemish administrations (Environment and
Infrastructure) came to the fore.
108

The Flemish Administration, various consultants and (academic) research centers
carried out studies to explore and document environmental aspects of the river and
the valley. In 1996 the Environment Administration set up an ‘Integrated Water
Management Project’ emphasizing measurement and modeling. The objective of the
initiative, the “Integrated Development Planning of the river valley”, was to
integrate previous and recent study results in a plan that is socially balanced and
negotiated with all stakeholders to create a societal platform guaranteeing its
implementation. The study was a joint initiative of the Nature and Water
subdivisions of the Flemish Environment Administration. However, the formal
authority over the river was still in the hands of the Navigable Waterways
Administration. At the start of the initiative the administrators of the Environment
Administration hoped and presumed that the authority over the river would soon be
handed over to their Administration. In the course of the project it became clear that
this would not happen in the near future. This produced a new governmental context
for the study.
Main events in the river valley project
Table 4 summarizes the main events and the issues that emerged in the process,
based on the process reconstruction I developed (October 2003 to November 2004).
Date Event Issues
June 2003 Start of the study project
August 2003 1 st meeting coordination
September
2003
committee
Information sessions in
five cities and villages
109
How to inform the local authorities?
Little interest and poor attendance

September –
November
2003
October
2003
October
2003
November
2003
Sector analysis by external
consultants, the provincial
and regional catchment
coordinators
Start of the research
1 st meeting of the
planning group
2 nd meeting of
coordination committee
110
– Make inventory of the interests and
claims on the water system by the
organized stakeholder groups
– Result: overview of bottlenecks and
opportunities
Formal start up of the project
Presentation of the project
– Tension between long term vision
and immediate needs
– Is there a need for a more active
participation of stakeholders in the
process?
– Politics take the final decisions
– Dominance of the interests of the
Nature and Water subdivisions
– Strategy: ‘not give in yet, because we
will have to give in later anyways’
– Ambition: determine the use of the
space of the planning area for the
future to make sure it will be
definitive
– What if transfer of the river will not
happen?
– Belief that a waterproof plan will be
sufficient to create consensus
between all actors in the valley

March 2004 3 rd meeting of the
coordination committee
March 2004 Joint meeting of steering
April-May
2004
and planning group
Start up of two work
groups: recreation and
hydrology
May 2004 4 th meeting of the
coordination committee
111
– ‘Ideal solution’: from the perspective
of the conveners
– Need to be defensive about the plan
is not justified because most
stakeholders are in favor of the
ecological agenda
– Organizational design of project is
unclear: authority relations, degree
of autonomy?
– How to organize the meeting of the
steering group and planning group?
– Presentation of the results of the
sector analysis
– Announcement and call for
participation in work groups
– What is specific mandate of work
groups?
– Can laymen participate in the
decision making?
– Presentation of hydraulic modeling
– Presentation of the overview of
bottlenecks and opportunities
– New planning of activities and
deadlines
– How to communicate about the
project?

June 2004 5 th meeting of the
8 September
2004
15
September
2004
coordination committee
6 th meeting of the
coordination committee
112
– Announcement of HarmoniCOP
workshop
– Reporting of work group hydrology
and recreation: mandate?
– Suggestion to consult relevant
stakeholders before organizing a
second meeting of the steering
group
– Steering group postponed
– Consultants hardly manage to meet
the deadlines (modeling)
– ‘minimum’ or ‘maximum’ scenario?
– Communication strategy (website,
press release)
– Start of the survey among farmers in
the valley
– Presentation of modeling results:
discussion ‘minimum’ or
‘maximum’ scenario?
– Presentation ground water modeling
– Organization of consultation
meetings with local authorities
Workshop HarmoniCOP Observations of the researchers
Discussion of learnings
Action steps

16
September
2004
October
2003
7 th meeting of the
coordination committee
8 th meeting of the
coordination committee
March 2005 2 nd meeting of the steering
group
113
– Navigable Waterways
Administration is present with five
representatives and tries to stop the
process: suggestion to duplicate the
measuring and modeling efforts of
the consultants
– Conveners insist on seeing the local
authorities and farmers, even with
an ‘unfinished’ plan
– Announcement by researchers:
survey, final interviews
– Reporting of information tour that is
ongoing (local authorities, farmers)
– Technical discussion about different
types of interventions and possible
scenarios
– Underlying conflict between the
Navigable Waterways
Administration (one representative)
and the other members of the
coordination committee
Technical presentation of a provisional
plan for the valley
Table 4: Main events and issues in the river valley case.
Research approach
Research question
My focus in this case study was on the dynamics of direction setting, since the
explicit issue of ‘leadership’ was – also in this case - not a central one. The
coordination group and, in particular, the small group of conveners set the direction
of this collaborative. In the analysis I emphasized boundary dynamics as this was a

central issue in the project. The conveners were struggling with the ambiguity of
including the voice of stakeholders in the process. Their decisions about inclusion
and exclusion had a strong influence on direction setting.
The research setting
The study project was an initiative of two subdivisions. The public officers of those
departments who conceived the study (‘conveners’) were our contact persons. We
were closely related to this small group of four public officers, because they were the
key actors driving the process. We participated in the ‘system in interaction’ and
attended and documented meetings of several subgroups in the project: the
coordination group, the steering group, the planning group and some meetings of
work groups (table 5).
Coordination
committee
Members Role and mandate
Approximately 10 members,
all public officers:
Flemish Water and Nature
administration
Institute for Nature
Conservation
Public officers responsible
for the Integrated river
Catchment Plan
Public officers responsible
for the Local Sustainable
Water management plans
A representative of the
Navigable Waterways
Administration
114
Coordinate and steer the
process
Supervise the consultants
Maintain contact with all
actors involved

Planning
Committee
Steering
Committee
Representatives of related
administrations, including:
– forest management
– nature and landscape
– spatial planning
+ the members of the
coordination committee
Stakeholder representatives:
local governments (province,
7 municipalities, and 2
polder governments)
civil actors (representatives
of officially recognized
organizations in the domain
of environment, agriculture,
woods, hunting, angling,
regional landscape)
Work groups Members of the Steering
Committee, Planning Group
and some interested
participants
115
Work out a vision for the
river valley
Consultative function:
Give proposals to planning
process
Give feedback on the results
(feedback is not binding for
policy makers)
Propose specific and local
solutions
Table 5: Organizational structure and participating organizations in the river
valley case.

Role of the researchers
We joined the project in October 2003; it had formally started in June 2003. We were
given access to documents, we could participate in the meetings of the project, and
we were allowed to interview a wide group of stakeholders. Moreover, the initiators
were interested in multiparty collaboration and in the HarmoniCOP project and they
voluntarily collaborated. The only restriction was that our presence or interventions
could not lead to delays in the timing of the project or to extra expenses. We
negotiated our potential role in the project, but the conveners had no interest or
resources to give us a more ‘active’ role (e.g. process facilitation, design). We
presented different models for participation to the informal group of conveners and
consultants. The conveners were uncertain on how to involve stakeholders without
endangering the objectives and values of their project. They also asked our advice,
for instance, on how to organize the meeting of the first steering group. We gave
them feedback of our observations and of the interviews from a learning perspective.
Our primary aim, however, was to document the collaborative process.
The members of the research team participated in the project with a somewhat
different focus. CO1 was directly linked to the HarmoniCOP project as senior
researcher. CO2 participated in the research as junior researcher for HarmoniCOP for
a period of about six months. I participated with my research agenda in the back of
my mind (see attachment 1).
Data collection
My focus was on documentation of the process. I used observations and accounts to
document the dynamics of direction setting in the process. I have summarized my
approach to data collection in table 6.
Date/Period Method of data
collection
116
Participants/Setting Type of data

October 2003
– November
2004
November
2003 -
February
2004
3 December
2003
13 February
2004
Participant observation
of interaction moments
(meetings)
Stakeholder interviews
semi-structured
2 interviewers
no taping
note taking
approx. 1,5 hour
Feedback of key issues
that emerged from the
stakeholder interviews
Reactions of the
participants included as
additional data
117
Coordination
committee (8)
Informal ‘restricted
committee’ (2)
Planning group (1)
Joint meeting
planning and
steering group (1)
Steering group (1)
First round: 5
members of
coordination
committee
Second round:
selection of 12
stakeholder
representatives
Two feedback
sessions with
conveners and
consultants
Field notes: 63p
Field notes: 106p
Field notes: 18p

15 September
2004
October 2004
- November
2004
Feedback of main
findings during overall
project and discussion:
‘Stakeholder workshop’
(1 day)
Reactions of the
participants included as
additional data
Final round of
interviews
Ongoing Documents: reports,
letters, mails, etc
118
Some
representatives of
the convening
organizations and a
selection of
interested
stakeholders
Members of
coordination group
(4) and some
stakeholder
representatives (4)
Issued by the
conveners,
consultants
Field notes: 16p
Field notes: 29p
Written documents
Table 6: Overview of the approach to data collection in the river valley case.
Interviewing
At the start of our research we interviewed the key actors (coordination committee)
and a sample of stakeholder representatives with our team of three researchers. The
interviews took place in the organization of the interviewee. We decided not to tape
the interviews for reasons of confidentiality. Some interviewees confirmed that this
made it easier for them to talk. One person took notes while the other asked
questions. After the interview we immediately typed up our written notes and
checked them with our colleague for accuracy. I participated in nine of the sixteen
interviews.

We used a number of guiding questions in order to make the results of the
interviews comparable. Questions included:
- Who do you represent?
- How are you involved in the project and how did you experience it so far?
- How would you like to be involved in the future and how can you contribute?
- What is your view on the objectives of the study and what would be the best
approach to reach them?
- Who are critical partners to be included in the process?
- Who is mainly influencing the direction and results of the project?
- What are the main enablers and obstacles in this project?
- When, according to you, will this project be successful?
First, we interviewed five members of the coordination committee. Then we fed back
our findings to the informal group of conveners and external consultants. This
enabled us to validate our findings and to help the key actors to become aware of the
challenges, opportunities and obstacles in the process. The conveners suggested
some names of relevant stakeholder representatives for further interviewing. With
the same set of questions we interviewed 12 stakeholders. Again we discussed our
findings with the informal group. I included the reactions to our feedback as
additional data.
At the end of our research, almost one year later, we organized a second round of
interviews. We talked to eight participants: four members of the coordination group,
and four members of the steering group. We split up the interviews: I interviewed six
persons and my colleague the other two. We did not interview the conveners for a
second time, because we just had an extensive discussion with them during a
119

workshop which we organized (September). The questions of these semi-structured
interviews included:
- What, according to you, are the main issues in the project now?
- How did you experience the way in which you and your organization were
involved in the process? And what about the other actors? And the public?
- What do you think about the way in which this project is coordinated?
- Do you feel part of this project?
- What event has, in the last year, most influenced the course of the project?
- What lessons do you draw from this experience?
We used the data from these interviews as additional information for the case study
report (HarmoniCOP). We did not feed back our findings with the coordination
group or with the conveners, because our participation had stopped and the
interviews did not reveal any new insights or information.
Participant observation
Usually two researchers of our team were present at the meetings. In most meetings I
took extensive field notes which I typed up straight after the meeting. I checked them
with one or two of my colleagues for accuracy.
Data analysis
Analysis of stakeholder interviews and feedback
We analyzed the interview data from first round of interviews in two batches (5 +
11). The three researchers scrutinized the data and categorized the issues that
emerged as critical. We presented them as ‘fields of tension’. The issues we found in
the first five interviews included:
- Mutual stereotyping between local and federal administrations;
120

- No direct contact with the wide group of stakeholder representatives: to what
extent is participation desirable or necessary and how should it be organized?
- The mandate of the study is unclear and ambiguous: what is at stake?
- Contradiction between the flexibility and openness in the approach of the
communication process and the rigidity of the project: how much space is
there to do things differently than foreseen in the project proposal?
- Mandate of the conveners: shouldn’t the formal authority be involved in the
process? Who will finance the interventions proposed in the plan?
The fields of tension from the 11 stakeholder interviews were:
- The conveners (one voice) vs. stakeholders (diversity and different voices)
- Radical vision (long term ecological interests) vs. pragmatic approach
(integration of interests)
- Lack of clarity in information (mandates, budget) vs. open and transparent
communication (status of study, consequences of the interventions)
- Technique (is data collection value free?) vs. politics (will the study be used to
put pressure on the transfer of authority over the river?)
- Interest of the stakeholders (desire and readiness to be more involved) vs.
know-how (lack of ideas on how to involve or be involved; problem of time
investment)
- Goodwill (stakeholders are willing to collaborate and participate) vs.
defensiveness (many stakeholders feel they are pushed in a defensive
position)
- Authority vs. actual role of the Navigable Waterways Administration (wish to
be included in the coordination committee)
121

Reconstruction of the collaborative process and inventory of emergent issues
Based on all available data I made a process reconstruction (see chapter 3).
Analysis of issues related to social learning
We first analyzed the issues and dynamics based on the framework used in the
HarmoniCOP project on social learning. The key concepts were: framing and
reframing; basic role assumptions; boundary management; evolution of interests,
functions, and strategies; critical moments; mechanisms that foster social learning;
barriers to social learning. We used a checklist based on these issues which we had
developed for work package 2 of the HarmoniCOP project (‘pool of questions’).
These questions helped to scrutinize the data and to focus our analysis. The results of
this analysis were discussed during the workshop and written down in the case
study report (see attachment 10).
Analysis of boundary dynamics
Based on the process reconstruction and the previous analysis I made a more
thorough and focused analysis of the boundary dynamics (inclusion and exclusion)
in the project. This issue, one aspect of social learning, was directly relevant for my
focus on the dynamics of direction setting.
For the reader
The paper presented on the next pages was published in January 2006 in Revue
Gouvernance (see attachment 10). The paper may overlap to some extent with the
text in this introduction. The subtitles are not numbered. As the project is still
ongoing and politically sensitive, I have tried as much as possible to guarantee the
anonymity of the participants. However, it was hardly possible to hide the identity of
the participating organizations. The quotes in the articles have been translated from
Dutch. I have tried to express the essence of what people say.
122

‘We’ in the article, refers to the two or three researchers involved in this project.
The findings are based on a case study on ‘Social learning in the development
planning of a Flemish river valley. This study is part of the HarmoniCOP project on
public participation in river basin management, funded by the EC 5 th Framework
Programme.
123

BOUNDARY DYNAMICS IN NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: THE
AMBIGUITY OF STAKEHOLDER INCLUSION (ARTICLE 2)
Silvia Prins, Marc Craps & Tharsi Taillieu
“We often experienced the river valley as a contemporary ‘battle field’ where interests,
opinions, and visions about the future are diametrically opposed to one another.”
(Publication dedicated to the river of the case study, 2004)
Introduction
This paper discusses a case study in the domain of water management and nature
conservation from the perspective of boundary dynamics. Multiparty collaboration is
proposed as an organizational strategy to manage natural resources. This approach
acknowledges the multiple perspectives of stakeholders, the differences in interest
and power, and it provides a strategy for change in a domain with a high potential
for conflict (Buckles, 1999). The first part of the paper outlines the theoretical insights
and frames that underpin the case analysis. Then it discusses boundary issues in a
project set up to design a plan for a river valley to solve problems of flooding and
deterioration of nature. With this in-depth case study in a complex organizational
setting we aim to contribute to empirical research on the perceptions of boundaries
in processes of organizing (Paulsen & Hernes, 2003).
Theoretical framework
Multiparty collaboration: working across the boundaries
The domain of nature and water management is traditionally governed by public
administrations. Conventional ways of managing based on hierarchy and control as
an organizational principle are, however, losing their meaning (Koppenjan & Klijn,
2004). Public authorities realize that solving environmental ‘meta problems’ (e.g.
flooding, pollution) calls for expert knowledge, while at the same time a wide range
of stakeholders wishes to participate in the process. In order to arrive at an
encompassing definition of the problem domain and to develop optimal, sustainable
124

and widely supported solutions with a fair chance of implementation, it is essential
to include a wide range of stakeholders with a diversity of perspectives. This
organizational strategy is called ‘multiparty collaboration’ (Gray, 1989; Huxham,
1996; Huxham & Vangen, 2005). Gray (1989, 5) defines multiparty collaboration as
“(…) a process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can
constructively explore their differences and search for solutions that go beyond their own
limited vision of what is possible”. It involves a process of collective decision making
and negotiation among representatives of stakeholders of a problem domain, focused
on the future development of the domain.
The issue of boundaries is critical in collaborative work, because a collaborative is
under-organized. It is an ‘emergent process’ (Gray, 1989). There are few traditional
structures and processes (e.g. hierarchy, structure, role, membership) to contain the
uncertainty and openness of the process. A critical issue in this context is how the
participants establish the boundary around the collaborative: who is included and
who is left out? Does the collaborative represent the diversity, complexity and
interdependence of the domain? The boundary of identity is an essential aspect in
direction setting. Those who are included establish the problem definition based on
their perceptions, interests and objectives, and consequently design the solutions.
This confronts participants with the fear to lose their identity, to be ignored, to be
overpowered by strong actors, or to be excluded from the process.
The system psychodynamic perspective on boundaries
An organization is a living system and boundaries make up its 'organizational
anatomy' (Miller & Rice, 1967; Schneider, 1991; Zagier Roberts, 1994; Gould, Stapley
& Stein, 2001). A boundary separates what is inside the system from what is outside
and it regulates transactions with the environment (McCollom, 1995a). The survival
of a system depends upon continuous interchange of ‘commodities’ (materials,
people, ideas, values, fantasies) with the environment. A boundary is a ‘construct’. It
can be conceived in different ways and serve different functions (Huffington &
125

James, 1999; Diamond, Allcorn & Stein, 2004). The conception of boundaries ranges
from concrete to abstract, from real to symbolic, and from physical to conceptual
(Ehrlich, 2001).
Boundary setting is an essential aspect of the process of organizing (Hernes, 2004).
We study boundary setting from a psychological perspective. We consider a so-
called ‘observable boundary’ as a reification. This refers, for instance, to physical,
spatial and time indications that can be drawn on an organizational chart. A
psychological boundary emerges when an individual or group marks a
differentiation. Subjective boundaries are experienced and perceived by those inside
and outside the system. They are enacted in the interactions among representatives
and can be experienced at different levels: the intrapersonal, interpersonal, group
level, the organizational, the inter-group or systemic level, and finally the inter-
organizational level (Schneider, 1991; Wells, 1995; Ehrlich 2001). We assume there is a
relationship between the system features and the boundaries as they are experienced:
the characteristics of the organizational context provoke particular dynamics and
these dynamics in turn shape the organizational context.
Because subjective boundaries are of an experiential nature, we use an interpretive
approach (Schneider, 1991). This perspective on identity is rooted in constructionism
rather than in social identity theory (Tajfel, 1978), which assumes that social identity
is not easily changed. We focus on the dynamics of identity developed through
interactions (Huxham & Vangen, 2005). The focus of the case analysis is on the
dynamic and paradoxical nature of the boundaries. A boundary is not a clear cut
line, but a ‘region’ or a ‘point of encounter’. It is subject to constant negotiation and
definition in an inter-subjective process (Ehrlich, 2001). Boundaries separate and
connect, constrain and release, restrict and enable, contain and create anxiety. “Once
boundaries have been drawn, the possibility of relationship emerges” (Berg & Smith, 1995,
115).
126

Hirschhorn and Gilmore (1992) define the boundary of identity as: “who is, and who is
not, ‘us’?” It is the group's understanding of who belongs to the group and who does
not (Redlich & Astrachan, 1975). The boundary of identity is based on values and
identification and defines the identity of a group. 'Sameness' or ‘difference’ refer to
professional identity or culture (e.g. engineers, civil servants), membership of a
particular local group (e.g. a project group, a hunting club) or it may have a more
personal origin (e.g. gender, religion). Social identity is expressed through rituals,
symbols or stories and the development of social norms. The identity of the system is
the abstract characterization of a unity that persists over time (Merali, 2002). The
group members can enact membership in their interactions with each other and with
non-members. The boundary of identity forms the psychosocial basis of group
structure and is part of group development (Hartman & Gibbard, 1974). Becoming a
formal member of a ‘task group’ is relatively easy. It means being part of a group of
individuals employed in an activity system (Miller & Rice, 1967). Psychological
membership takes more time to develop (McCollom, 1995a).
We analyze the case from the systems psychodynamic perspective on processes of
organizing (e.g. Huffington, Armstrong, Halton, Hoyle & Pooley, 2004). From this
perspective working in a collaborative is influenced by rational, conscious as well as
by hidden, emotional and unconscious motives. In collaborative work groups share
collective, unconscious assumptions about other relevant groups. “These assumptions
are manifested in both conscious and unconscious processes, including projections,
attributions, and stereotyping which shape the ensuing quality and character of their
intergroup relationships.” (Gould, Ebers & Clinchy, 1999, 700) The pioneering work of
Menzies (1960) has demonstrated that unconscious anxieties are often reflected in
organizational structure and design, which function to defend against the anxieties in
the workplace (‘social defenses’). We use this perspective to understand the
emergence of the boundary of identity in response to the tensions provoked by the
organizational experience. We analyze how the process was formalized and the way
in which this triggered particular dynamics in the collaborative group.
127

The boundary of identity and challenges for multiparty collaboration
A first challenge is to set boundaries around the collaborative that are sufficiently
firm. Collaboratives are often confronted with a fuzzy boundary of identity and an
unstable group identity (Kramer, 1991; Vansina, Taillieu & Schruijer, 1998). In such
case the collaborative remains an instrumental task group with fighting factions
(Zagier Roberts, 1994). Direct interaction, joint work, and a relatively stable
membership facilitate the process of group development and identification with the
collaborative. It allows the group to develop into a so-called ‘sentient group’ or
‘identity group’ to which individuals are prepared to commit themselves (Miller &
Rice, 1967; Alderfer, 1987; McCollom, 1995b). Firm boundaries protect the
participants from too much stress and uncertainty; they reduce the openness and
complexity of the process, and provide some predictability and reassurance.
Boundaries can contain the tensions of collaborative work and enable the group to
work productively. When the participants manage to create a safe ‘transitional space’
(Winnicott, 1971) they can engage in creative experimentation, innovation, and
imagine scenarios without immediate binding consequences. It provides them with a
temporary space where they can express their questions, concerns and hopes, work
them through, and jointly design the future.
Groups often develop their identity through comparing and differentiating
themselves from other groups, often a common enemy. In doing so the group
defends against its shadow aspects by splitting them off and projecting them on an
outside group (Gemmill, 1986, 1993). Strong identification with the group of
‘insiders’ and disregard of other groups may lead to in-group/out-group dynamics.
If the boundary of a collaborative is too firm it turns into a barrier and shuts out a
vital part of the domain. A group can, for instance, deny the importance of particular
stakeholders because they are experienced as a threat. In doing so, the system
retreats from reality. A rigid boundary may block off the capacity of group members
to relate, empathize, or deal appropriately with others. ‘Organizational silos’ emerge
as the result of fragmentation caused by rigid boundaries and confront outsiders
with a high threshold (Stein, 2004; Hernes, 2004). The boundary can be experienced
128

as a ‘grey zone’ where differences, separation and otherness are stressed (Diamond,
Allcorn & Stein, 2004). When this tension is not contained, it may trigger defensive
behavior (e.g. exclusion, scapegoating, or group think).
A second challenge is to establish adequately fluid and flexible boundaries.
Boundaries need to be adapted to changing conditions in the environment (e.g.
change in policy) and to changes in the collaborative itself (e.g. new member, shifting
objectives). In a multiparty logic a ‘convener’ invites stakeholder representatives to
sit around the table. It is critical to include those stakeholders who are affected by the
issue, who are needed to address the issue, and those who have the power to support
or block collaborative action (Chrislip & Larson, 1994). The boundary around a
collaborative is by its nature permeable because the members in their role as
representatives bring in the interests of their constituency. A fluid boundary enables
an inclusive process where all stakeholders who represent the diversity,
interdependence and complexity of the domain can participate in the dialogue. In
this organizational logic boundaries are negotiated and not so much managed or
controlled. However, a boundary that is too fluid can lead to confusion, over
identification with others, and a loss of focus. The challenge is to support a sense of
group spirit without disrespect for the potential contribution of other stakeholders
(Hirschhorn & Gilmore, 1992).
A final challenge is to create a multifaceted collective identity. A collaborative is
composed of representatives with different social identities (e.g. engineers, public
officers, farmers, residents). The representatives come together precisely because
they are different and because they hold different perspectives (Zagier Roberts,
1994). Diversity makes up the essence of collaborative work. Multiparty collaboration
is about trans-disciplinary work, or working with diversity, and not so much about
inter-disciplinarity. The challenge is to maintain the diversity around the table, and
to arrive at sufficient common ground and shared values to enable change and
productive work.
129

The case: wet feet and dry marshes
Antecedents and context of the case
The river under study used to have an important economic value for the region (e.g.
shipping activities, water mills). As early as the 17th century interventions to reduce
meandering were implemented to improve the use of the river. Although there has
not been any shipping activity for the last 100 years, the river was still, at the time of
the project, under the authority of the Navigable Waterways Administration. The
policy of this administration was damming up and deepening the river, and
straightening its course. Controlling the river was in the interest of farming activities
in the valley. A consequence of this policy was a low ground water level in the valley
leading to a deterioration of nature. On a regular basis villages were flooded, while
at the same time the valley was dry.
In the '80s the idea of ‘integrated’ water management gained in importance. In this
vision water is managed as a total system guided by the principle of sustainability.
The focus is on safety against flooding by giving space to the river, and preservation
and development of nature. In December 2000 the European Water Frame Directive
was issued. Flanders translated the European policy in the ‘Decree for integrated
water management’ (July 2003). The European Directive promotes integrated and
participative management of river catchments. At the time of the case study different
administrations managed surface and ground water, the natural environment, and
land use affecting the river: the Flemish government, Provinces, municipalities, and
local groups of volunteers. Moreover organizations of different kinds were involved:
governmental, semi-official and non-governmental. Responsibilities in water
management were unclear and dispersed.
Water management is by its nature a problem domain where the involvement of
multiple stakeholders with different perspectives, claims and interests is required.
Water is a powerful symbol of interdependence because it connects all actors. It
demonstrates the conflicts in use, claims and interests. Some stakeholders, for
instance, use ground water to purify it for drinking, while others use the river to
130

drain effluent from their industry. A water system includes not only surface and
ground water (quantity as well as quality), but also the plants and animals living in
and around the river, the chemical and biological processes, the river banks, the
bottom of the river and the technical infrastructure. It includes the ecological and
economical functions of the river and the valley. The new policy states that the
boundaries of a catchment establish the system responsible for managing the river
basin (e.g. across national borders), and not administrative structures.
The case study concerns a section of one of the 11 river basins in Flanders. As early as
the 90’s, before the European Directive, the Flemish subdivisions of Water and
Nature Management (established in 1990) carried out studies in this valley. They
developed a digital model of the area, installed monitoring devices, and adopted
software programs for modeling. The unique ecological value of the valley came to
the foreground since farming activities were in decline due to world wide
competition. Today a large part of the territory is protected area (e.g. European Bird
and Habitat Directives) and in the hands of the Flemish administration of Nature and
of environmental groups.
The case story
The departments of Nature and Water (Flemish Administration of Environment)
initiated the study project (June 2003 – March 2005) in a joint effort. For the
conveners (a core group of four public officers) it was the result of a long process.
The study represented the ‘the jewel on the crown’ and in their letter to the local
authorities they introduced it as ‘the ultimate study’. The aim of the project was to
develop an ‘integrated vision’ for the river valley, with a focus on flood prevention
and protection of nature. The study had to align with several other plans related to
river management, area planning and nature development which were being
developed at the same time. The negotiated outcome of the study was a plan for the
valley, supported by the stakeholders, that could eventually be integrated in nature
and river plans on a wider scale.
131

Subsystems Representatives of… Responsibilities/role
Coordination group Flemish and
administrations for Water
and Nature
Provincial administrations
for Water and Nature
External consultants
Planning group Public actors:
Flemish administrations in
water and nature
management
Steering group Civil actors:
Provincial administration
Local authorities (5 cities
and villages)
Organized stakeholder
groups (e.g. farmers,
industry, environmental
groups, forest owners, and
angling group)
Work groups Members of planning or
steering group and other
interested participants
132
Control the process
Disseminate information
Establish and facilitate
sub-systems
Communicate with
external consultants
Develop vision for the
valley
Table 7: Organizational structure of the river valley project.
Take decisions
Consultation
Participation
Work out proposals for
concrete solutions
The initiators structured the project to organize participation (table 7). Federal,
Flemish and provincial administrations, local authorities, three consulting firms and

a wide range of stakeholder groups in society were represented in the substructures
of the project.
The project was organized in three phases: (1) what do we have? (environmental
study and sector analysis); (2) what do we want? (visioning process); (3) what are we
going to do? (planning of specific interventions). In the first phase the consultants, in
collaboration with public officers from the catchment and sub-catchment planning,
interviewed the 'sectors' or groups of organized stakeholders (e.g. hunting group,
industry, housing, tourism). The purpose was to make an inventory of the pressures
and claims on the water system by different sectors. The result was an overview of
bottlenecks and opportunities. The conveners and consultants communicated the
results of the first phase to the steering group and the planning group in a first joint
meeting in March 2004.
In the second phase the conveners set up three workgroups to develop proposals for
solutions: recreation (e.g. align the claims of hikers, bike riders and horse riders on
the territory), hydrology (e.g. reconnect meanders) and land use (e.g. solve problems
of illegal weekend cottages). In the meantime the coordination group tried to
develop a scenario for the river valley based on simulation studies. In March 2005, at
the end of the 22 months, the coordination group organized a second meeting of the
steering group where they presented their provisional plan for the river valley.
Research approach
The project had started six months before we negotiated our participation. We
collected data over a period of one year (November 2003-2004). In March 2005 we
also attended the second meeting of the steering group. The initiators of the project
gave us access to documents, meetings and we were allowed to interview
stakeholders. They were interested in our experiences and ideas on multiparty
collaboration and open to discuss and learn from our feedback. Our role was a
133

combination of observation and interventions (Schein, 1987). In an action research
perspective we made the following interventions:
- Interviews (5) with the members of the coordination group
- Feedback of our findings to the initiators and consultants
- Interviews (12) with a selection of stakeholder representatives (e.g. hunters,
local authorities, environmental group, and farmer group)
- Feedback of our findings to the initiators and consultants and discussion of
potential bottlenecks and opportunities.
- Workshop at the end of the year with some members of the coordination
group and a small number of interested external actors (e.g. administration, a
municipality) to discuss our observations.
- Final round of interviews (8) with members of the coordination group and
some relevant stakeholder representatives to reflect on their experiences.
Over a period of one year we observed meetings of the coordination group (8), the
planning group (2) and the steering group (2). Our aim was to construct a rich, local
and contextualized understanding of this particular collaborative experience (Geertz,
1973; Yin, 1994). In the case analysis we discuss the following questions: (1) what was
the nature of the boundary of identity that emerged? (2) Which dynamics emerged at
the boundary? (3) What attempts were made to include stakeholders and to develop
a multifaceted identity?
Case discussion
Identification with the project: the boundary of identity
The institutional context influenced the formal structures that were established early
in the project. The conveners were concerned about the legitimacy of decisions taken
in the project. They relied on legal procedures in the field of nature conservation to
establish membership of the project, to define the role and mandate of the subgroups,
134

and to organize the process (table 7). The ‘coordination group’ was at the heart of the
project and of our research. The river valley as an ecosystem was characterized by a
number of physical features, such as water and land, water quality and water
quantity, and surface or ground water. These areas defined the responsibilities of the
administrations. The intricate nature of responsibilities and authority in the domain
was reflected in the project. The administration responsible for water quantity, for
instance, was at the heart of the project, but the administration for water quality was
only marginally involved (steering group).
An important aspect at the start of the project was the issue of ambiguous authority
relations. The largest part of the river section under study was not under the
authority of the department Water. Although there had not been any shipping
activity, it was still managed by the Navigable Waterways Administration. The
transfer of authority over the river to the department Water had been on the political
agenda for many years. The initiators had started the project assuming that a transfer
was imminent. They acted as if they had the authority to take decisions and did not
include the Navigable Waterways Administration in the conception phase of the
study. Originally they were not even a member of the coordination group. Exclusion
of this critical partner raised questions about the legitimacy of the project and the
likelihood of implementation. The representative of the Navigable Waterways
Administration pointed out they still had the power to refuse implementation if they
did not agree. "But we don't intend to do that. As long as we are sufficiently involved."
(Interview). They felt it should have been ‘their’ project.
The boundary of identity was strongly influenced by identification with ecological
values and by the way the conveners identified with their professional role. The
study was the result of a joint initiative of the departments Land and Water. Both
departments had been working together in the valley since 1995 in a project on
‘Integrated water management’. Submitting a joint project had been an
‘unprecedented’ and ‘very fruitful’ experience.
135

“Writing together, paying together, that is not self evident and it does not happen very
frequently!” (A convener, interview)
“Trust among us is 100%” (A convener, interview)
The project was inspired by common values and resulted in a shared strategy based
on the ‘natural space for water’ vision. This strategy, addressing the complex
interactions between water and the surrounding land, was promoted as an
alternative for the old “infrastructure and control” approach. The conveners strongly
identified with ecological values which they promoted as central in this study. Most
of them had been, or still were, active in environmental groups and they knew the
valley very well. When they started working at the departments for Nature and
Water, established in 1990, they hoped they were in a position to make a difference.
The initiators invested far more time than originally budgeted in the project. The firm
boundaries around the group of conveners, based on strong identification with the
values promoted in the project generated the energy and drive to commit to the
project.
One of the initiators talked about ‘our’ river and ‘our’ valley. We often wondered
who he was referring to. During the final workshop we organized, he made a
passionate statement. It clearly illustrates the values of the conveners, their
assumptions about stakeholder inclusion and how this influenced the way they
managed the boundaries in the project.
“The objective of the study is not open to discussion. Nature conservation must be realized. The
circumstances are favorable right now. This draws important boundaries for us and for
everybody. I want to protect those boundaries. The participative approach must also take those
boundaries into account. The project proposal has foreseen to work a little bit in a participative
way. We must take the actors into account. The agricultural study, for instance, is carried out by
an independent organization. So we know the concerns of the farmers. We wanted to do a
similar study for recreation last year but there were no resources. We have carried out a forest
analysis. The boundaries of the study are: the danger of flooding and nature conservation. The
other actors are in the valley. We have to do some sort of interactive process and take a
decision. Participative management is a flexible notion. Depending on the circumstances you
have to define and organize the degree of participation. I’m not in favor of extreme
participation. The problem definition had been defined a long time before the start of this
study!! (…) If we reach consensus with all the actors: how much would be left of nature? I don’t
believe in it. Nature interests always conflict with many other interests of individuals and
groups. Who defends nature against all those individual interests? (…) Nature conservation is a
very weak sector. In public participation nature always has to give in.” (A convener, workshop)
136

A second source of identification was the way in which the conveners made sense of
their professional role. They were convinced that the administration ‘knows what is
best for the public’ and that it has to ‘defend the public interest'. For the conveners
the study was about ‘policy preparation’. In their role of defenders of environmental
values in the interest of the public, they took a central position in the project, both in
the coordination group and in other subgroups. This central position was enacted
and expressed in different ways. For instance, all meetings of the coordination group
were held in the building of the administration for Nature. The documents of the
project were presented in a folder with a dandelion on the cover, which for some,
became a standing joke. At one point an informal ‘restricted committee’ was
established, made up of the conveners, the consultants, and the researchers. This
group of ‘insiders’ met several times to discuss the feedback from our interviews and
observations. The group was safe enough to openly talk about the worries and hopes
of the participants and about the opportunities and pitfalls of the project.
Not all the members of the coordination group identified with the ecological values
advocated in the project (table 8). There was a split between on the one hand the
conveners and some sympathizing administrations, and on the other hand the
Navigable Waterways Administration.
Conveners: Water and Nature
Administration
Vision The river as an ‘eco-system’:
river and land
Historical perspective: ‘natural
river’
Priorities Nature development
Safety against flooding
137
Formal authority: Navigable
Waterways Administration
A ‘controlled river’ as a
separate unit
Civil engineering
interventions
Safety against flooding
Control of the river

Professional
identity
Political and
financial power
Method of
influencing
Bio-engineers and system
engineers
Representatives of the public
interest
Low budget
No political support
No political influencing
Technical evidence to support
discussion
Consultation of stakeholders
No authority over the river
138
Civil engineers and hydraulic
engineers
Experts
High budget
Political support
Political lobbying
Technical evidence as solution
Unilateral interaction based on
expert knowledge
Formal authority over river
Table 8: Differences between the two central groups in the coordination group
(river valley case).
The administrations had had several conflicts in the valley. Following a severe
flooding in the valley in 1998, for instance, the Navigable Waterways Administration
had carried out civil engineering works at the river banks without construction
permit. After a formal complaint they had to take away the illegal dams because they
did not fit with the new policy of water and nature management. The result was a
hostile relationship in the valley between those in favor of the environment and those
in favor of engineering interventions.
“Lately a hostile image emerged around the environmental movement, due to what the
administration has done. The authorities act in a pretentious way. They ignore the people.
Communication has fallen still. They used to need us to become big and strong. But society
changes, underneath it is boiling. (…) The water company, for instance, wanted to build a
collector. They wanted to install the pipes in the streets. They bullied the people. They tell them
‘the environmentalists don’t allow us in nature, so therefore we are forced to go through your
streets. There is no point in objecting, because those of nature are in control.’ (…) They have
unnecessarily stirred up emotions. The engineers were rude. If there is resistance, they blame
the environmental groups!” (A representative of an environmental group, interview)
The antagonistic relationship between the administrations resulted in distrust,
mutual stereotyping, blaming and exclusion. The conveners blamed their rival for

eing incompetent, not knowing what happened in the field, a radical approach,
making mistakes, operating like a barony, and for not having any ecological
awareness. The Navigable Waterways Administration accused the conveners of
being ‘fundamentalist’, unrealistic and unfair. A representatives of the Navigable
Waterways Administration remembered feeling left out during the meetings of the
coordination group. He criticized the way in which the conveners positioned
themselves and how they dealt with the process. His colleague objected to the
stereotyping by the conveners.
“We are in a strange situation now. They are studying a river over which they have nothing to
say. (…) They are quite fundamentalist. They talk with everybody and then they don’t take that
into account. (…) Everything starts from their vision. And we have to adapt the river. That is
the world upside down! (…) I feel ignored in the coordination meeting. They take note of what I
say, but they simply continue what they are doing. (…) Is there sufficient support for what they
are doing? (…) I felt alone in a room full with green ghosts. (…) I have the impression they want
to prove they are right. And on that basis take over the authority over the river. I just want to
avoid they make a plan that cannot be implemented. I want to protect them against themselves.
(…) They have no money.” (A representative Navigable Waterways Administration, interview)
"We have done some interventions there in the nineties that were not appreciated by some. We
have lost part of our credibility with some administrations at that moment. (…) At the time the
river came to us on instruction of the Ministry of Agriculture, in the sixties. It was our task to
straighten the course of the river in order to create more potential for farming. We have fulfilled
that mission. The result was that the water is evacuated more quickly. Now there are different
and good ideas. The administration Water says: 'Those people from the Navigable Waterways
Administration have ruined everything.' But at that time the vision was totally different! That is
not our fault. Our vision changed a little later than theirs, but it did change in the meantime.
(…) The image they have of us is totally wrong and has nothing to do with who we are today."
(A representative Navigable Waterways Administration, interview)
The conveners had a hidden agenda that provided them with an extra drive. They
wanted to prove themselves, hoping this would speed up the transfer of authority
over the river.
“The study is an instrument to force a number of things. We say that the Navigable Waterways
Administration is slow and incompetent. For our own credibility we must be able to do it and
do it quickly.” (A convener, interview)
The initial exclusion of a critical partner, strong identification of the conveners with
ecological values and with their professional role established a firm boundary
around a small group of ‘insiders’. There was stereotyping and distrust on both
sides. This led to tense relationships and splitting in the coordination group: the two
subgroups had difficulty to perceive the other organization as both good and bad.
139

The conveners wanted to keep control over the process and defend their values,
interests and objectives. The small inner circle tried to provide the identity of the
project and to push their agenda, even though they had no formal authority. The
‘identity group’ seemed to be narrowed down to the small group of conveners,
supported by the external consultants and to some extent by the researchers. This
informal grouping provided the conveners with a ‘potential space’ (Winnicott, 1971)
where they could openly discuss their hopes, doubts, worries and where they could
safely engage in learning and experimentation with ideas and future scenarios. As
we will demonstrate, this made them more confident in the way they organized and
facilitated the process.
Fluidity of the boundary: the ambiguity of stakeholder inclusion
The conveners struggled with questions and dilemmas related to stakeholder
inclusion. How should we organize a participative process? Are representatives of
groups and organizations able to make conscious and well informed choices? At
what moment should we include the stakeholders? They asked us to present
different models for participation and were very interested in ways to involve
stakeholders. The conveners had designed participative procedures and structures in
the project. They encouraged the participants of the steering and planning group to
participate.
“We are going to involve everybody as much as possible. How are we going to do that? The
Federal government takes the final decision. We are going to organize consultation and
participation according to the guidelines. (…) This is an important decision process. It is the
first time in 45 years that we think about this river. Now is the moment. Information will be
available. If you want your voice to be heard: now is the moment to come forward. (…) Take
active part, give us your name and participate in the work group discussions!” (A convener,
first joint steering and planning group)
However, they were uncertain about how to organize participation without
endangering ‘their’ project. A number of assumptions about their role, the role and
potential contribution of stakeholders, and about participation in general prevented
them from actively including stakeholders in the dialogue. We discuss the
140

assumptions of the main representatives and the way they organized the process. We
conclude this section with some boundary dynamics which we observed.
At the start of the project the conveners assumed that the administration needed to
come up with a waterproof plan, elaborated by the coordination group and the
external consultants. They only felt safe enough to engage in a discussion with other
administrations and stakeholder representatives with a solid plan. For them
participation meant ‘selling’ the plan to the main stakeholders, establish sufficient
support, and then organize a meeting for the planning and steering group. Therefore
they organized several bilateral consultation meetings with the farmers and local
municipalities to make sure they agreed on the scenario. The conveners wanted to
avoid a public attack of their plan during a steering group meeting.
“You cannot just throw your plan for the lions. You have to prepare the terrain. The only
question is: how? (…) The steering group must get a finished product that we can defend. We
do not intend to discuss it with them.” (A convener, interview)
It was obvious for the conveners that the objectives of the study could not be
questioned. The conveners consulted the stakeholders (sector analysis) and after
almost two years informed them of the plans developed by the experts (steering
group). ‘Participation’ was used as an instrument to prevent resistance. The
conveners were defensive about their project because they feared that most
stakeholders in the valley were against their plans. This was partly due to a history
of conflicts between the administration and other stakeholders in the valley. It had
resulted in mutual stereotyping and a focus on what divided the parties. One
representative of a municipality, for instance, talked about the ‘unrealistic green
boys’ of the administration, while someone from the administration blamed the
municipalities for being ‘incompetent’ and ‘only interested in short term plans’
because of their political agenda. However, the sector analysis and our interviews
demonstrated that most stakeholders were in favor of an ecological agenda. For
instance, some hunters collaborated with the environmental group (e.g. shooting
wild ducks in the valley). A small number of farmers was involved in a project to
141

promote ecological tourism. Most interviewees did emphasize that other interests
had to be taken into account as well.
“The green movement has missed a tremendous opportunity by positioning themselves in a
diametrically opposed relationship to the farmers… By first going to the people you can avoid a
lot of problems.” (A representative of a local authority, interview)
Ambiguous assumptions about the legitimacy and competence of stakeholders
emerged. During the workshop most participants agreed on the importance and
relevance of gathering everyone around the table. They argued it was not always self
evident to identify which parties were legitimate stakeholders. A representative of a
municipality stated, for instance, that collaboration between government
organizations is relatively easy because those parties are ‘organized and competent’.
The conveners only wished to negotiate with representatives of ‘organized’
stakeholder groups and administrations. However, the conveners did not believe the
representatives were willing or competent to represent the interests of their
constituency. According to them, the representative of the hunting group only
participated in the work group ‘recreation’ out of personal interests and not to
defend the interests of his group.
"We want to get away from taking into account local and individual interests that oppose
general interests. It is not democracy, otherwise you cannot achieve anything. (…) The local
governments play an important role. I am a man of administrations. The governmental
structures are the result of democracy. You have to negotiate with the representatives. I don't
want to worry about all sorts of interest groups. The local governments are important.
Everybody has to do his job. But in practice the local governments do not represent the interests
of all societal groups. (…) The problem is: politicians want to score. There is a conflict between
short term interests and the interests of the community and interests that transcend
boundaries." (A convener, interview)
“Everybody in the area must be kept informed and from time to time must have the
opportunity to say something. (…) Maybe it sounds pejorative, but the local authorities are only
interested when they can score over a period of six years: industry zones, bike lanes, flooded
houses,… and when they have their face in the press. A federal plan and a study of two year do
not fit with their priorities.” (A convener, interview)
In the organizational design they had deliberately separated representatives of public
authorities (planning group) and stakeholder representatives (steering group) to
avoid confrontation. They were uneasy about direct interaction and uncertain about
changing their way of managing a project.
142

“We made sure the federal and provincial administrations were separated from the interest
groups. (…) Public institutions speak differently in the presence of societal groups. (…) It is a
steering group that does not steer. Something is not right… At this moment it is the only way.
There is no tradition.” (A convener, interview)
One of the insights in the workshop was that there had been no role negotiation or
clarification of the expected contribution of the stakeholders at the start of the
process. The participants realized that the stakeholder groups had not been aware of
their potential impact on the process. All stakeholders had assumed the
administrations would, as usual, take the decisions.
“It is important to draw the boundaries of participation and to clearly discuss expectations with
the participants. Telling them what their role and input can be and what will happen with their
contribution” (A participant in workshop).
The participants of the workshop considered consultation or involvement of the
general public as irrelevant and not constructive. One public officer gave an example
of an urban planning project where she had tried to directly involve the public. She
had been disappointed because the only response she got was: ‘not in my backyard’.
As is the custom in Flanders, public participation is reduced to an existing formal
procedure. It is a way of avoiding direct interaction with the public.
“Participation of the public is formally organized. That is the procedure of ‘public inquiry’. The
public has 60 days to look at the plans and introduce a formal complaint. (…) In such a process
you often get the most stupid remarks.” (A convener, interview)
Most stakeholders we interviewed argued that a unilateral plan from the
administration would not solve the problems in the valley. They were in favor of
participation and wished to contribute to the development of solutions.
“We became aware of the fact that we have to deal with the totality of the problem in a different
way. If we only intervene to solve separate aspects of the problem, the problem simply shifts.
(…) It is also important that it is more differentiated now. It is not about water, and that’s it. No,
it is about rainwater, waste water, etc. We did not make that difference before and therefore we
did not see clearly what the essence of the problem was. (…) We all used to sit on our little
island. Now we work more easily across boundaries. For instance, around mobility and water.”
(A representative of a local authority, interview)
“On the Flemish level the idea of participation and alternatives is getting accepted. Public
officers were used to being left in peace. 'We know better!' Now they are under fire.” (A
representative of an environmental group, interview)
143

Particularly at the start of the project the conveners perceived participation of
stakeholders as a threat. A dilemma that came up on a regular basis was the ‘timing’
of participation.
“In the beginning the direction is not yet established. Is it worthwhile to undermine the process
before it even started? (…) I see a tension between on the one hand wanting to have a finalized
product that is clear, so we know what to communicate. On the other hand, however, once it is
clear, there is no time left for discussion and consultation. That is a bottleneck." (A convener,
interview)
The conveners hoped the results of the simulations and modeling process would
reduce uncertainty and would provide them with solid, scientific information to
choose the ‘best’ scenario. They assumed that a perfect technical solution would be
acceptable to all stakeholders, and would solve potential conflicts in the valley.
Because of a strong belief in a technical solution, the conveners did not consider
stakeholder or public participation as a necessity and heavily relied on the expertise
of the consultants. For them the study was an “engineering contract” and not a project
focusing on “facilitation of a process” (a convener). This implicit assumption was
reflected in the project proposal. There was no budget or plan for ‘communication’.
The consultants expected the public officers to deal with that part of the process. The
conveners, however, could not specify how they wanted to organize the
‘communication process’. It seemed as if they had assumed that the technical
scenario and the legal procedures and structures would be sufficient to manage the
process.
A number of role assumptions also influenced how the conveners dealt with the
process. During the workshop they talked about the tension of being engaged in a
double role. The initiators primarily identified with the role of stakeholder,
defending the interests of their administrations. They also found themselves in the
role of ‘convener’ of the process. This role refers to one or more stakeholders who
create a forum for dialogue among the stakeholders and persuade others to
participate (Gray, 1996). They felt uncertain in the role of convener because it was
unfamiliar to them and they lacked the skills and experience to facilitate a multi-
stakeholder process. Some realized this double role could lead to a confusion of
144

interests. Indeed, many stakeholder representatives we interviewed did not perceive
the initiators as neutral and credible facilitators of a ‘participative process’. For many
the study was a vehicle for the administration to push the environmental agenda.
Many stakeholders felt left out, not heard, they did not know how to take up a
meaningful role, and they did not identify with the project.
"I have the impression that it is private business between the engineers and the administration.
That is how I feel it. There is a lot of decadence, inertia and it is an arrogant administration." (A
stakeholder, interview)
"It cannot be one-sided. The valley is in the first place a natural reserve, but it also has other
sides." (A stakeholder, interview)
"The danger is that someone says: we know best" (a stakeholder, interview)
In the course of the project, the initiators decided to split the two roles. Two senior
administrators took up the role of convener and president of the meetings. This
created space for their collaborators to defend the interests of the administrations.
They also handed over presidency of the ‘workgroup recreation’ to an acceptable
partner in the project. This enabled them to participate as stakeholder in the group.
According to the conveners the external conditions were not favorable for a
participative process. The conveners realized that decisions were taken in places they
had no access to. This undermined the credibility of the participative process. For
instance, in the course of the project, a new Minister for Environmental Affairs, who
was known to support farmers, was appointed after the elections. They feared that
this shift would endanger the priority of the project and the chances of
implementation. With the new Minister the transfer of the authority over the river
became unlikely. To add to the turbulence, the administrations were in the midst of
a reorganization process. The status of the project was uncertain: nobody knew what
would happen with the outcome of the study.
“The most important question of the stakeholders was related to the legal character of the
study: how binding are the results? (…) The fact that it is called a ‘study’ is confusing. It sounds
as if it is without engagement. The vision that will be developed… is it legally valid?” (A
representative of a provincial administration, interview)
145

In the course of the process we observed some boundary dynamics expressing the
ambiguity of the conveners to open up the boundaries of their identity group. A first
observation was the dominance of the technical discourse. This created a gap
between experts and laymen. For instance, when the consultants and specialists of
the administration presented the models and scenarios for the valley the participants
of the planning and steering group complained it was too ‘technical’. The members
of the ‘workgroup hydrology’ also needed a fair amount of technical expertise to be
able to follow the discussions (e.g. read maps, interpret results of simulation, and
understand the consequences of an intervention). This created a threshold for laymen
to participate.
“To what extent can you disconnect the technical solutions from the participative process? To
what extent are laymen interested in the technical part of the process?” (A public officer,
workshop).
The technical tools were not designed as communication tools, but merely as
technical instruments to discuss technical problems among experts. There was little
attention for a ‘translation’ of technical language to the wider group of stakeholders.
The result was that the consultants had a central role and a strong impact on the
agenda of the project. As they carried out the sector analysis (interviews with
organized stakeholder groups), they had the contacts, they possessed the knowledge
and they were the ones crossing the boundaries. The simulations seemed to function
as a transitional object (Winnicott, 1971) that helped them to contain the anxiety
stirred up by the openness and complexity of the process. It provided the
participants with a ‘plan’ to talk about’ and it facilitated the change process. The
technical tools and solutions gave the participants some security in an extremely
complex, highly visible and open process with an unknown outcome.
We were also struck by the uncertainty and fear of the conveners to engage in direct
interaction with the stakeholder representatives. It seemed more comfortable for the
initiators to work out solutions among experts and to avoid direct interaction with
the actors in the valley. Although the planning and steering group formally
represented a wide group of stakeholders, they were not used to keep responsibility
146

around the table and to provide a forum for open dialogue. The conveners did not
consider the stakeholders as legitimate and competent partners in the problem
solving process. At one point, the coordination group did decide to organize a joint
meeting of the steering and planning group. In the design of the meeting, however,
they tried to avoid direct interaction. It was a long, technical slide presentation and
there was hardly time for questions or discussion. The president of the meeting
evacuated the few questions that came up to the work groups later in the process.
The conveners stated it had been a strategic choice to only use the steering group for
information sharing.
On reflecting back on their experiences the participants of the workshop admitted it
took courage to assemble potentially adversarial groups around the table. They
feared they would not be able to deal with conflict and resistance. Due to the
institutional context (‘the way we do things here’), the initiators argued they favored
a ‘minimal’ form of participation. The firm boundary of identity around the small
group of insiders reflected a top-down vision on participation. The ‘internal’
stakeholders decided to cross the boundary to inform or consult ‘external’
stakeholders (Finn, 1996). The conveners felt more comfortable with bilateral contacts
and negotiation. The downside of this approach was that it reinforced the belief that
the project was an adding up of individual interests. It did not allow stakeholders to
realize that their claims on the river valley needed to be restricted and aligned with
those of others. By limiting the role of the stakeholders, they did not have a chance to
become aware of their interdependent relationships and to experience the diversity
of interests in the valley and the many different claims on the ecosystem. This
reduced the complexity in the process and shut out a large part of reality. The
consequence was also that a number of issues were not thoroughly discussed or
avoided (e.g. water quality and compensation for the farmers to clean up polluted
soil, financing of the technical interventions of the plan).
This ambiguity of inclusion and exclusion was also mirrored in the coordination
group. For the conveners the ‘ideal scenario’, or so-called ‘maximum’ scenario, was a
147

plan that fully integrated their ecological interests, without too many compromises.
Paradoxically, in order to arrive at a ‘natural’ environment many technical
interventions were required (e.g. deepening the river, restore meanders, dismantling
dams). The conveners wished to restore the valley to the situation of 50 years ago,
even though there were many changes in the environment (e.g. more concrete
surfaces, more rainfall, and more residents in the valley). The ‘minimum’ scenario,
defended by the Navigable Waterways Administration, mainly focused on flood
prevention and consisted of few additional interventions. This led to a paradoxical
situation. The ‘maximum’ scenario turned out to be a unilateral scenario in the
interest of one group of stakeholders (ecological interests). The 'minimal' scenario
was a more inclusive scenario because it tried to take the interests of a maximum of
stakeholders in the valley into account.
The conveners had been looking for ways to foster broad support for an ecological
perspective on the development of the river valley, without questioning their
objectives. Allowing other voices in seemed like a threat to their identity and to their
objectives and solutions. Because of this anxiety some defensive dynamics emerged:
a split in the organizational structures (planning/steering group), tightly controlled
interactions, avoidance of an open dialogue, exclusion of stakeholders, stereotyping
of ‘outsiders’ who were experienced as threatening, and projection of their
inadequacy on others. Strong identification of the conveners with the values
promoted in the project initially resulted in a rigid boundary to avoid the threat of
stakeholders watering down their ideal scenario.
Attempts to bridge diversity: steps towards a multi-faceted identity
The initiators were aware of the fact that policy makers had given them the
opportunity to work out a qualitative and balanced plan. The project provided them
with time and resources to foster support and deal with resistance. We will discuss
how the coordination group, and the initiators in particular, used this opportunity
and how they tried to loosen the boundary.
148

The project benefited from existing relationships and previous experiences in other
projects (e.g. joint management of natural reserves by the administration Nature and
the environmental group). The conveners welcomed social scientists in their project.
They were open to scrutinize their way of working and interested in alternative
approaches. Our presence enabled the conveners and some core actors to use the
informal ‘restricted committee’ and the workshop as a space to reflect on their
assumptions and practices and to learn from each other.
The ‘sector analysis’ contributed to the process of loosening the boundaries. The
findings (bottlenecks and opportunities) were integrated in later discussions and
plans. It was carried out by the external consultants jointly with a representative of
the Province, and the manager of the river under study. This approach helped to
work across the boundaries and was welcomed by the municipalities and other
sectors. After a year the initiators organized an extensive individual survey of all
farmers in the valley. Although this consultation happened a year too late because of
funding problems, it did help to establish a relationship with the farmers and to take
their interests into account.
At the start of the project the relationship between the initiators and the authority
over the river was antagonistic. Soon after our feedback from the interviews the
conveners asked the Navigable Waterways Administration to participate in the
coordination group. The representatives became regular members of the
coordination group. At a one moment in the project, the Navigable Waterways
Administration tried to take control of the process. They came to the meeting of the
coordination group with five (instead of the usual one) representatives, including a
senior manager. He criticized the accuracy of the scientific measures carried out by
the consultants and suggested to duplicate the calculations in their laboratory. To
emphasize his message he had brought two representatives of the laboratory along to
the meeting. His interventions were direct and quite intimidating.
“Everybody around the table wants more space for the river. But if you go public with water
levels that are higher than before, we lose face. You need more certainty before you start talking
149

to the local authorities! (…) Politically it is impossible at this point to implement this plan,
because the Minister supports the farmers association. In addition to that, the consultants admit
their program is full of bugs. My proposal is to make sure we are 100% certain before we start
talking about this plan, in order to avoid panic.” (General Manager of Navigable River
Administration, coordination group)
At that point there was a shift. The initiators refused to cancel their appointments
with the local authorities and farmers and they insisted on continuing the process
even with imperfect data. One of the conveners explicitly referred to the discussions
we had held the day before during the workshop.
“I am sure extra checking will not change anything fundamentally, even if you find a little
mistake here and there. The challenge remains the same: how are you going to communicate
this to the local authorities? If we postpone it for two more months to check the figures, the
issue is still the same and we will only have lost time. (…) We have learned the opposite in a
workshop yesterday: the more unilateral we develop our plan, the more resistance we can
expect from external actors. And the less opportunity will be left to take their concerns into
account. Therefore I strongly plead for communication with the local authorities as soon as
possible.” (A convener, coordination group)
The conclusion of the meeting was that consultation of the key stakeholders would
continue as planned and that a representative of the Navigable River Administration
would join the conveners on their visits. Gradually the relationship seemed to
improve. The initiators eventually acknowledged that their plans had been too
idealistic and not well grounded in scientific evidence. A more realistic and
constructive relationship with the formal authority of the river and an integration of
competencies and insights increased the likelihood of an acceptable, technically
sound and realistic plan and it enhanced chances for implementation.
The work groups, established in the course of the project, also contributed to increase
the permeability of the boundary around the collaborative. Although not foreseen in
the initial design, they proved to be the most suitable context to work across the
boundaries of different interest groups (e.g. recreation: industry, tourism, nature
conservation, local authorities). The work groups consisted of members of the
planning and steering group and other interested or relevant actors and were a cross-
section of types of stakeholders. These smaller groups allowed for direct interaction
and for ‘relational practices’. Relational practices enable different parties to engage in
150

actions and interactions: through ‘content’ they engage in a ‘relation’ (Bouwen, 2001;
Wenger, 1998). The work group recreation, for instance, organized a trip to a project
in a natural reserve to learn from that experience. The work group hydrology visited
particular parts of the river to see what the effects of different scenarios would be in
the field. For the conveners it was a new experience to involve ‘outsiders’ in the
process while the scenario was not finalized yet.
“We don’t even know where we’re going. We try to stay on top of the process and we attempt
to involve others from that position.” (A convener, interview)
As the process moved along the conveners cautiously tried to integrate the voice of
other stakeholders. At the end of our research, the conveners were seeking to find a
balance between on the one hand defending the objectives of their constituency and
the values of their study, and on the other hand, the legitimate claims of other
stakeholders in the domain and the restrictions and realities in the environment (e.g.
financial aspects). They gradually became aware of the necessity to enlarge the
boundary of identity in order to arrive at an encompassing assessment of the
problem domain and to work out optimal, realistic and sustainable solutions for the
river valley.
Conclusion
This paper analyzes the efforts of a group of public officers to develop an integrated
plan for a river valley. We have documented the assumptions of the key
representatives and the dilemmas they were facing when confronted with the wish
and need of stakeholders to participate in the process. The boundary of identity
proved to be a useful concept to demonstrate how strong identification with the
values and interests of a central party, hindered the inclusion of the stakeholder
voices. Loosening the boundaries was experienced as a threat to the passionately
defended ecological interests of the study and the identity of the initiators. The
process was characterized by ‘management’ and control of the boundaries and not so
much by ‘negotiation’ of boundaries. Within the 22 months of the project the
conveners did not succeed in developing a multifaceted identity of the study with
151

which a wide group of stakeholders could identify. Although strongly opposed by
some, the values of the initiators remained dominant in the process. As the process
moved along the conveners did try to loosen the close boundaries they had drawn
around the collaborative. They gradually succeeded to let go of control and to adapt
their ‘idealized’ vision of the future.
This case study demonstrates that the conveners of the change process were faced
with several challenges in managing public policy issues (Anderson & White, 2003).
Because technology was so complex, they needed to collaborate with external
experts. They experienced the effects of globalization, in the sense that they needed
to adapt their way of managing environmental issues as a result of European policy.
There was pressure, from policy as well as from the stakeholders, to manage the
process in a ‘participative’ way. The conveners seemed caught between policy
makers, the technical experts and the stakeholders in the valley. While they were
defending their interests and values they were also looking for an appropriate role
and a new identity. The project was a search process in how to design and facilitate a
complex process with an uncertain outcome, involving the relevant stakeholders
concerned by the problem domain.
References
Alderfer, C. P. (1987). An intergroup perspective on group dynamics. In Lorsch, J.
(Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior. NJ: Englewood Cliffs, pp. 199-222 .
Anderson, D.K. & White, J.D. (2003). Organizational psychoanalysis in public
administration. American Review of Public Administration, 33 (2), June, 189-208.
Berg, D. N. & Smith, K. K. (1995). Paradox and Groups. In Gillette, J. & McCollom, M.
(Eds.), Groups in context. A new perspective on group dynamics. Lanham: University
Press of America.
Bouwen, R. (2001). Developing Relational Practices for Knowledge Intensive
Organizational Contexts. Career Development, 6/7, 361-369
Buckles, D. (Ed.) (1999). Cultivating peace. Conflict and collaboration in natural resource
management. IDCR/World Bank.
152

Chrislip, D. & C. Larson (1994). Collaborative leadership: How citizens and civic leaders can
make a difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Diamond, M., Allcorn, S. & Stein, H. (2004). The surface of organizational boundaries:
a view from psychoanalytic object relations theory. Human Relations, 57 (1), 31-53.
Ehrlich, H.S. (2001). Enemies within and without: paranoia and regression in groups
and organizations. In Gould, L.G., Stapley, L.F. & Stein, M. (Eds.). The systems
psychodynamics of organizations. Integrating the group relations approach, psychoanalytic,
and open systems perspectives. London: Karnac, pp. 115-131.
Finn, C.B. (1996). Utilizing stakeholders strategies for positive collaborative outcomes.
In Huxham, C. (Ed.). Creating collaborative advantage. London: Sage, 152-164.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books
Gemmill, G. (1986). The dynamics of the group shadow in intergroup relations. Small
Group Behavior, 17 (2), 229-240.
Gemmill, G. (1993). Mirror, mask, and shadow. Psychodynamic aspects of intergroup
relations. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2 (1), March, 43-51.
Gould, L.J., Ebers, R. & Mc Vicker Clinchy, R. (1999). The systems psychodynamics of a
joint venture: anxiety, social defenses and the management of mutual dependence.
Human Relations, 52 (6), 697-722.
Gould, L.G., Stapley, L.F. & Stein, M. (Eds.) (2001). The systems psychodynamics of
organizations. Integrating the group relations approach, psychoanalytic, and open systems
perspectives. London: Karnac.
Gray, B (1989). Collaborating: finding common ground for multiparty problems. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Gray, B. (1996). Cross-sectoral partners: collaborative alliances among business,
government and communities. In Huxham, C. (Ed.). Creating collaborative advantage.
London: Sage, pp. 57-79.
Hartman, J. J. & Gibbard, G. S. (1974). A note on fantasy themes in the evolution of
group culture. In Gibbard, Hartman & Mann (Eds.) Analysis of groups. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hernes, T. (2004). Studying composite boundaries: a framework for analysis. Human
Relations, 57 (1), 9-29.
Hirschhorn, L and Gilmore, T (1992): The new boundaries of the “boundaryless”
company. Harvard Business Review, May/June, 70 (3), 104-115.
Huffington, C., Armstrong, D., Halton, W., Hoyle, L. & Pooley, J.( Eds.) (2004). Working
below the surface. The emotional life of contemporary organizations. London: Karnac.
153

Huffington, C. & James K. (1999). Issues in management research, and the value of a
psychoanalytic perspective. A case study in organisational stress in a Japanese multinational
company. Paper presented at the annual Symposium of the Psychoanalytic
Society for the Study of Organizations, Toronto.
Huxham, C. (Ed.). (1996). Creating collaborative advantage. London: Sage.
Koppenjan, J. & Klijn, E.H. (Eds.) (2004). Managing uncertainties in networks. London:
Routledge.
Kramer, R. (1991). The more the merrier? Social psychological aspects of multiparty
negotiations in organizations. Research on negotiation in organizations. Vol. 3,
Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press.
McCollom, M (1995a): Group formation: boundaries, leadership, and culture. In
Gillette, J. and McCollom, M. (Eds.): Groups in context. A new perspective on group
dynamics. Lanham: University Press of America, pp. 34-48.
McCollom, M (1995b): Reevaluating group development: a critique of the familiar
models. In Gillette, J. & McCollom, M. (Eds.): Groups in context. A new perspective on
group dynamics. Lanham: University Press of America, pp. 133-154.
Menzies, I. E. P. (1960). A case study in the functioning of social systems as a defense
against anxiety. Human Relations, 13, 95-121.
Merali, Y (2002): The role of boundaries in knowledge processes. European Journal of
Information Systems, 11 (1), 47-60.
Miller, E.J. & Rice, A.K. (1967). Systems of organization. The control of task and sentient
boundaries. London: Tavistock Publications.
Paulsen, N. & Hernes, T. (Eds.) (2003). Managing boundaries in organizations: Multiple
perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan.
Redlich, F.C. & Astrachan, B. (1975). Group dynamics training. In Colman, A.D. &
Bexton, W.H. (Eds.), Group Relations reader. Sausalito: Grex.
Schein, E.H. (1987). The clinical perspective in fieldwork, Newbury Park: Sage.
Schneider, S.C. (1991). Managing boundaries in organizations. In Kets de Vries (Ed.),
Organizations on the couch: clinical perspectives on organizational behavior and change.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 169-190.
Stein, M. (2004). Theories of experiential learning and the unconscious. In Gould, L.J.,
Stapley, L.F. & Stein, M. (Eds.) Experiential learning in organizations. Applications of
the Tavistock group relations approach. London: Karnac, pp. 19-36.
Tajfel, H. (1978). (Ed.) Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology
of intergroup relations. London: Academic Press.
154

Vansina, L., Taillieu, T. & Schruijer, S. (1998). “Managing” multiparty issues: learning
from experience. In Pasmore, W. & Woodman, R. (Eds.), Research in Organizational
Change and Development. (vol. 11). Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press Inc., pp. 159-
181.
Yin, R.K. Case study research. Design and methods. Second Edition. Applied Social
Research Methods Series, Volume 5, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications,
1994.
Wells, L. (1995). The group as a whole: a systemic socioanalytic perspective on
interpersonal and group relations. In Gillette, J. and McCollom, M. (Eds.). Groups in
context. A new perspective on group dynamics. Lanham: University Press of America,
pp. 49-85.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge
University Press.
Winnicott, D.W. (1971). Playing and reality. London: Routledge
Zagier Roberts, V. (1994). Conflict and collaboration. Managing intergroup relations. In
Obholzer, A. & Zagier Roberts, V. (Eds.), The unconscious at work. Individual and
organizational stress in the human services. London: Routledge, pp. 187-196.
155

PART 3: MAIN CASE STUDY
INTRODUCTION CASE STUDY 3: FOSTER CARE
In December 2002, CO1 (see attachment 1) informed me about a proposal he had
written for a project in the domain of foster care. The Minister of welfare rejected this
initial proposal which had been submitted by two foster care services. In October
2003, after the appointment of a new Minister, there was interest in the project. I
interviewed the main initiator (director of a foster care service) to assess whether the
project was potentially interesting for my research. Some weeks later, the Ministry
approved the project and I decided to participate. For one year (October 2003 –
November 2004), I was simultaneously doing research in two projects: the river
valley project and the foster care project. There were several reasons why I chose to
do this project in addition to the river valley project.
- Timing: this project was a one-year project, starting at a convenient moment in
the process of my research.
- Early involvement: I was involved from the start and was able to participate until
the end of the project.
- Access to the field: I had easy access to the field because research was negotiated
as part of the project.
- Clear role: the project was an action research where I had an active and defined
role.
- Multi-stakeholder process: the project was designed in a multiparty philosophy
and it concerned a societal problem affecting many different stakeholder groups.
156

- Interest of the informants: the participants (members of the project group) were
interested in reflection on their experiences, curious to learn, and willing to invest
time and energy in research activities.
- Emergent nature and unpredictability of collaborative processes: I was not sure
any of the two projects would continue or be sufficiently interesting for my
research. Therefore, I bet on two horses.
In a later phase of my research, when my participation in both projects had ended, I
decided to choose the foster care project as the main case for my research. The
reasons for this choice were:
- I had more interesting data;
- The collaborative and its organizational features fitted better with the definition
of multiparty processes in the literature;
- The foster care project was an action research with a clear intention to facilitate a
multi-stakeholder process, whereas in the river valley case the researchers were
mainly involved as observers of an ongoing process, looking at the project
through the lens of multiparty collaboration;
- The foster care case was more transparent in terms of historical, political and
institutional context. In the river valley case it was much harder to fully
understand or have access to the issues that played in the context (politics).
- In the foster care project, I had been able to focus on my research agenda, whereas
the agenda of the HarmoniCOP project dominated the river valley case.
CONTEXT AND ANTECEDENTS OF THE FOSTER CARE PROJECT
Socio-political context
Foster care is defined as full-time care, twenty four-hours a day, outside the child's
home. A foster family (temporarily) provides a safe family environment for children
157

who cannot live at home because of parental problems. There are different types of
foster families, based on characteristics of the child and on the length of placement
(e.g. emergency placement, pre-adoptive placement, long-term placement). The
foster family can be part of the child’s kinship network or it can be an unknown
family. The foster families are considered as ‘voluntary collaborators’ and receive an
allowance. Different types of foster care are available. Most placements are the result
of a decision by the juvenile court (mandatory) or the Committee for special youth
assistance (voluntary). A small proportion of the placements (10%) is organized by
private arrangement. In a few cases, parents consider themselves temporarily unable
to take care of their children. Referrals for cases in this type of preventive foster care
usually come from community services, hospitals, or community-based family
support agencies. These placements are mediated by a government agency (Child
and Family). In addition to these general types of foster care, there are at least seven
specific types of foster care (e.g. weekend families, rooms with special attention).
Several challenges and evolutions in the domain inspired people working in the
field to take the initiative for a project. There was pressure on foster care: demands
were rising, while the number of candidate foster families was decreasing. The foster
care services were confronted with a lack of candidate families for the increasing
number of children eligible for foster care. Recently, the number of foster care
situations increased with 20% (1998-2002). Moreover, the problem situations around
the child had become more severe and complicated. The services were aware of their
image: an unclear profile, a small player in welfare, an offer that was not well know,
and lack of transparency and an ineffective coordination between the services.
The subsidizing mechanism in foster case was perceived as the critical obstacle to
collaboration between the services. Subsidies were based on the number of
placements a service could organize and were only granted after placement of a child
in a foster family. The more placements, the more personnel a service was able to
contract. The managers felt caught in a competitive relationship due to this funding
logic. The services were very aware that they were ‘fishing in the same pond’.
158

Foster care is a politically interesting form of assistance, because it is often voluntary,
demand driven, it fosters networks and it is cheap compared to other forms of
assistance. For a long time policy makers had tolerated free initiative in the sector.
This freedom, however, had resulted in competition among the services. There was
an increasing pressure from policy makers to change. Government policy tended to
move towards a more integrated approach of assistance and a regional organization
of services. Foster care, as a small and separate sector, was seriously questioned. This
implied that foster care needed to align with other institutions and open up to other
forms of assistance (e.g. complementary or mixed forms of assistance). The services
also needed to develop a wider range of services and more specialized care. The
environment was turbulent because of many changes. The sector providing
assistance to handicapped people, for instance, was developing a new vision on
welfare assistance: demand driven, a stronger position of the user, and personal
budgets. The foster care services in the region under study were involved in a
welfare project that aimed at coordination of different forms of assistance for
children and adolescents in the region. Several years ago, there had been a forced
merger of a number of welfare centers. These changes in the environment made the
managers aware of the possibility of an imposed merger. This was an important
trigger to submit a project.
Institutional context
The institutional landscape of foster care is complex and intricate. The foster care
services are private agencies under authorization of and subsidized by the Flemish
Community. Their tasks are: recruitment, screening and training of foster families;
matching the child to the foster family; monitoring of the placement situation;
assisting the child and the foster parents; providing assistance to the parents. There
are several foster care services in each region. The services mediate between the
child, the foster parents, and the natural parents (the ‘systemic triangle’). The
Federation for foster care represents all the services in Flanders. They are member on
159

a voluntary basis. Its function is to promote foster care, to ensure quality service, to
be a think tank, and to represent foster care on the government level. There are four
subsidizing sectors: Special Youth Care (forced or voluntary placement of children in
a problematic situation), Care for the Handicapped, Mental Health (community
psychiatry), and Child and Family (prevention). Each sector follows its own rules
and regulations. The domain of foster care is characterized by differences in ideology
(catholic, pluralistic, liberal) which are reflected, for instance, in the organizations
representing the employers’ interests. There are also differences in policy on the
Flemish or Federal level (e.g. family allowances). The domain of welfare is
institutionalized and foster care is only a small player.
The organizations in de domain of foster care are interdependent and they
collaborate in different ways. In order to provide solutions for the child the services
collaborate with other institutions and centers on a regular basis. For instance,
residential institutions call upon foster care to take care of a child during the summer
holiday. Small foster care services exist in parallel with bigger services. This is an
expensive way of organizing foster care (e.g. costs of administration, salaries of
management).
Antecedents of the project
Two managers of different foster care organizations (two regions), took the initiative
to write a project in order to develop structural collaboration in the domain of foster
care (October 2002). They presented the idea to the members of the Federation for
Foster care and asked for their approval. In that period the initiator contacted CO1
on the basis of his expertise in multiparty collaboration. She asked for coaching and
research to support her ambition to develop a ‘network organization’. There was a
first meeting between the initiator, CO1 and an external expert in multiparty
collaboration. As the fee of the external consultant was too high, this person could
not be hired for the project. CO1 developed a design for the project. It was conceived
as an action research with a multiparty focus (November 2002). The scope of the
160

change was a three-year project for the area of Flanders. This project was rejected in
January 2003. When a new Minister from a different political party came to power,
the project was approved in a modified form (October 2003). Policy makers set some
limitations: funding was only for one year, the budget was cut in half, and the project
had to be located in one region only. Subsequently, the COPP was contracted to
coordinate and facilitate the pilot project.
In the project proposal, the convener had specified the desired output for each
stakeholder group. (1) Provide an offer adapted to the situation of the clients, by
coordinating and assembling existing forms of assistance and by developing new
forms of assistance if necessary. (2) Mobilize society and increase the number of
potential candidate foster families, by establishing a clear profile of foster care and
foster families (joint marketing efforts). (3) Ensure qualitative assistance, by making
optimal use of the resources and know how of professional staff members. (4) Find
quicker solutions for the child and facilitate collaboration between foster care
services and relegating parties, by establishing a clear profile of foster care and by
reducing the number of services. (5) Ensure more effective communication with
policy makers, by increasing transparency and coordination in the domain of foster
care.
Main events in the foster care project
Based on the process reconstruction I have summarized the main events and issues
in the process (table 9). The detailed process reconstruction can be consulted in
attachment 7.
161

Phase Main activities Issues
Convening
phase
(November-
December
2003)
Start-up phase
(December
2003-February
2004)
Inventory
phase
(February-
April 2004)
- Contracting with funding
agency, initiator, and
facilitators/researchers
- Selection of participating
organizations
- Convening and
commitment of the 5
services
- Planning project
- Stakeholder analysis
- Clarification of roles
- Planning interviews
- Stakeholder interviews
(34)
- Feedback to project
group: confrontation with
different perspective of
‘external’ stakeholders
162
- How to approach the project?
- Who is ‘in’ and who is ‘out’ in
this project?
- Who is at the core of this
project: the services for foster
care or the target group (parents
and children)?
- How much common ground is
there?
- How much of our identity can
we keep?
- How to involve personnel of the
services?
- How to engage the wider group
of stakeholders?
- Tension: holding on to identity
↔ efficiency and effectiveness,
best solution for the child
- Tension: focus on ‘internal’
stakeholders ↔ multistakeholder
approach
- How safe is it in the group of
‘internal’ stakeholders?
- Ambiguity around ‘being
different’
- What is the motive for
collaboration?
- Tension: solution mindedness
↔ openness of the process

Exploration
phase
(April-October
2004)
Final phase
(October-
November
2004)
- Stakeholder conference 1
(May) and 2 (June)
- Inactivity during summer
- 3 thematic work groups:
exploration differences
and similarities
- 1 service withdraws from
the collaboration
- First attempts to design
scenarios for
collaboration
- Stakeholder conference 3
- Formal end of project
163
- Tension: include external
stakeholders ↔ keep things
under control and hold up
positive image towards external
stakeholders
- Balancing between safety,
openness, caution ↔
confrontation
- Tension: expected role
facilitator (set direction) ↔
contracted role facilitator
(process facilitation)
- Tension: take time to include all
organizations ↔ move on and
exclude reluctant organization
- Sense of urgency? Who is the
driving force?
- How far do we want to go in
working interdependently?
- How can we include external
stakeholders?
- Tension: obtain results (policy
makers) ↔ take time for process
- How can we turn this project
into a sustainable collaborative
system with committed
members?
Table 9: Overview of the phases and challenges in the foster care project.
Research approach
In what follows I reconstruct the research process as a chain of evidence (Yin, 1994). I
describe how I designed the research, what choices and decisions I made regarding
data sampling, changes in the design, and methods for data collection. I document
how I proceeded from the real life experience of a collaborative, to field notes, to text
as data, and to the construction of a ‘new’ reality. I will describe the process in a

chronological order to make it transparent for an ‘outsider’. The steps in data
collection and data analysis are documented in the attachments (2-9).
Research questions
My research focus was influenced by a theoretical pre-understanding and
experiences in the other cases in this research. What emerged in the three cases as an
interesting phenomenon was how participants made sense of the organizational
reality in which they found themselves, the important themes and dilemmas with
which they were confronted, and how their way of dealing with those issues
influenced the direction and outcome of the process. I started to study the foster care
case with the following questions in mind:
- What are the issues and dilemmas with which representatives in a collaborative
are struggling?
- Which dynamics emerge around those issues and how do these dynamics
influence the direction and outcome of the collaborative process?
These questions stimulate exploration and discovery and are not aimed at testing
hypotheses or theories. In the process of exploration I suspended my a priori
knowledge in order to be as unbiased as I could.
The research setting
My research subject, a collaborative process, is an emergent, dynamic process, in a
complex and uncertain organizational context, and involving multiple participants.
The collaborative is formed by the relationships that develop between the
representatives of stakeholders who make up the collaborative. The research setting
can therefore be described as ‘a system-in-interaction’. Initially I selected the project
group, which consisted of the managers of five services, the head of the Federation,
and the four consultants, as the main setting for data collection (table 11, article 3). I
focused on the managers and the head of the Federation, as they turned out to be the
ones taking decisions for the future of the domain. However, after the project group
164

decided to organize meetings with external stakeholders, I realized that these
meetings provided a potential platform where the future of the domain of foster care
was designed in joint responsibility (Gray, 1989). Therefore I decided to include the
field notes of the stakeholder conferences as data. Towards the end of the project I
became aware of the role and influence of the consultants on the process and
included my field notes of our internal meetings as additional data.
Role of the researcher
The consultant team that was hired to design and facilitate the project was composed
of four members, all working at the COPP. Each member took up a specific, but
flexible role (attachment 1). CO1 had handed over the project to his colleague (CO2)
who was well acquainted with the domain of welfare. CO3 was asked to support him
with his facilitation tasks. CO4 was the coordinator of the project, doing most of the
daily management. My role was to take up specific research tasks. Therefore we
ended up with a fairly large consulting team. None of the four team members had
been involved in the initial negotiations with the convener.
The project was set up as an action research. The aim was to support the participants
in their search for a model for future collaboration and to facilitate the change
process. This included interventions such as interviewing, design and structuring of
the process, and facilitation of a search conference. The objective of action research is
always double: facilitate organizational change and generate insights and theory,
grounded in empirical data and in action (Eden & Huxham, 1996). My role was to
document the action research project, to introduce data in the system in order to
stimulate reflection, and to develop insights. I engaged with the participants in the
clear position of researcher and could directly experience the dynamics in the system.
I made some explicit interventions with the intention to improve the functioning of
the system (e.g. share feedback of interviews). I consider my mere presence as
researcher in the system as an ‘implicit’ intervention. Intervention and observation
cannot be neatly distinguished and usually run in parallel (Schein, 1987; 2000).
165

As research was a negotiated part of the project, I had easy access to documents (e.g.
project proposal, mission statements of the services), I could interview members of
the foster care services and the wide group of stakeholder representatives. I was
allowed to participate in all meetings of the project group, internal meetings with the
consultant team, and the three stakeholder days that were organized. My thesis
students also had access to the stakeholder representatives. They interviewed the
head of the Federation for foster care, participated in two stakeholder conferences
and did a survey to assess collaborative relationships.
Data collection
In order to capture the complexity of the process, the various perspectives and the
dynamics over time, I used a multiple approach to data collection with the following
features:
- Longitudinal: I collected data over a period of one year.
- Triangulation of perspectives: in order to capture the multiple perspectives of the
stakeholder representatives (Flick, 2002).
- Data triangulation: to enable a robust interpretation of phenomena I used
different sources (Yin, 1994; Clarke, 2002): different persons, at different moments
in the process, and in different settings.
- Triangulation of methods: I used an outside and inside perspective, accounts and
observations, real time and retrospective data, implicit and explicit recording of
data. The aim was to generate a rich set of data.
- Investigator triangulation was used in the following way:
o During all moments of data collection, at least one colleague was present
(interviews, meetings);
o I systematically checked my field notes with one or more colleagues;
166

o During the process of data collection and afterwards, I checked emergent
working hypotheses with colleagues (internal consulting meetings,
informal conversations, conference paper, research seminar with
colleagues);
o I interviewed my colleagues to ask what, for them, had been critical events
and how they made sense of them;
o I jointly wrote one of the papers with a colleague.
I made some choices to keep the amount of data at a manageable level.
- I selected 12 months using the dates of the project as boundaries of time;
- I mainly focused on the members of the ‘project group’ as they were the key
actors;
- I only documented ‘formal’ moments of interaction;
- I did not tape the meetings.
Table 10 represents an overview of the approach to data collection.
Date/Period Method of data
October
2003–
November
2004
collection
Participative
observation of
meetings
Participants/
167
Setting
– Meetings of project
group (13)
– Stakeholder
conferences (3 days)
– Internal meetings of
consultants (13)
Data
Typed field notes:
– Project group (66p)
– Stakeholder
conferences (44p)
– Internal meetings
(24p)
– Including
journalizing notes

February-
April 2004
March–May
2004
May-July
2005
Stakeholder
interviews:
– Semistructured
– 1,5 hour
– Two
interviewers
– No taping
Feedback sessions
to check findings
Critical incident
interviews:
– Semistructured
– 1,5 hour
– One
interviewer
– Taping + field
notes
34 stakeholder
interviews with wide
group of stakeholder
representatives
Project group (2
sessions)
Stakeholder conference
9 Members of the
project group
Table 10: Overview of data collection in the foster care case.
Participative observation
168
Field notes of
interviews (158p)
(Field notes, included
in the notes of
meetings)
– Approx. 14 hours of
tape
– Significant quotes
typed up
– Inventory of critical
incidents typed up
To obtain an ‘outside’ perspective I made field notes of observations of the ‘system-
in-interaction’ in real time. These consisted of meetings of the project group,
stakeholder conferences, and internal meetings of the consultant team. I considered
meetings as ‘communication events’ embedded within a socio-cultural setting which
the actors used to generate interaction and interpret events (Schwartzman, 1993).
This was a non-intrusive way to collect data. In my field notes I made a clear
distinction between literal quotes, descriptions of what was happening and personal
reflections (Spradley, 1980). After each meeting I typed up the written notes and
systematically checked the accuracy of the typed field notes with one or more
colleagues. All interaction moments were numbered (e.g. meeting project group 3). I

have consistently used the numbering of the interactions in the papers and in the
process reconstruction (attachment 7).
Interviewing
To document the subjective accounts of the participants I used interviews (‘inside’
perspective). Together with my colleague researcher I carried out so-called
‘stakeholder interviews’. The project group had made a stakeholder analysis. They
had identified the main players in the domain and tried to reconstruct their
relationships. On the basis of this analysis the group selected 34 stakeholder
representatives for interviewing. During the interviews we did ‘additional sampling’:
we asked all interviewees who the critical partners in this process were and checked
if we had forgotten any. We did not add any additional stakeholder representative to
our initial list. Attachment 3 presents an overview of the stakeholder clusters and the
organizations and social groups selected for interviewing.
We interviewed representatives of the wide group of stakeholders (including the
managers of the project group) in the first few months of the project. We documented
their perspective, needs, questions, future vision, hopes, and fears. All
representatives agreed to be interviewed. As most representatives were concerned
about optimizing foster care, they actively participated in the interviews which
increased the relevance of the data obtained. The interviews lasted, on average, an
hour and a half. The interviews took place all over Flanders, at the organization of
the interviewee. Some interviewees came to our Center because it was more
convenient for them. During the interviews I took notes, while my colleague asked
the questions. At particular moments I joined in with supplementary questions or
questions for clarification. This way of working allowed me to take extensive notes. I
did not tape the interviews to foster trust and to avoid an intrusive presence. Some
informants confirmed that a tape recorder would have inhibited them to talk openly.
The drawback of this ‘implicit’ method was that I could not listen back to recorded
data (e.g. listen to intonation of voices) or involve an external researcher (Gould,
169

1991). The data were necessarily filtered, less accurate, and less detailed. This was
compensated by the fact that I could consult my colleagues, as there was always at
least one colleague present. After each interview I immediately typed out my
interview notes. I checked the notes with my colleague for accuracy and
understanding.
The interviews were semi-structured. We used open, guiding questions that made it
easier to compare the data afterwards. The openness of the questions allowed the
interviewees to tell their story. The questions for the stakeholder interviews were:
- Who do you represent?
- What do you know about this project in foster care?
- What should be optimized in the way the collaboration is organized now?
- What would be your dream for this project?
- What are important conditions to arrive at a meaningful and realistic result for
the project?
- What are potential obstacles and pitfalls?
- Who are the critical partners who can influence results and whom have we
forgotten?
- Do you have experience with similar collaborative projects and what have you
learnt from them?
- What could you contribute to the project and how would you like to be involved?
After the project I decided to do some extra interviews because I wanted to check
some insights that were emerging. With retrospective interviews I aimed at checking
my sense making with the key players in the project. Therefore I decided to interview
the members of the project group that had been involved in the project: the five
managers of the foster care services (including a representative of the organization
that stepped out of the project), the head of the Federation, and my three colleagues.
170

Some months after the end of the project, I used critical incident interviews (Gabriel,
1999; Chell, 2004). The aim of this phenomenological method was to mediate the
inquiry process. This method encouraged the interviewees to engage in a search
process of retrospective sense making, to generate associations, and to draw
learnings from their experiences. The interview focused on the experiences of the
interviewee in the project. The data were a mixture of ‘facts’ (the event, behavior of
the interviewee, the behavior of the others involved, and the effects) and ‘subjective
experiences’ (sense making, emotions, associations, fantasies, interpretations).
The interview was semi-structured and lasted approximately an hour and a half. The
interviews took place at the work place of the interviewees. I used a tape recorder
since I was the only interviewer. I assumed that taping at that point in time, when the
relationship was established, would not be experienced as intrusive and that the
interviewees would talk openly about their experiences. No interviewee objected to
the taping. This way of working (explicit data collection) allowed me to listen more
carefully during the interviews and to listen back to the interviews. In addition, I
took some notes. The guiding questions for the interviews were:
- What, according to your experiences, were the most critical moments or events in
the project (turning points)? What makes them meaningful for you?
Additional questions:
- What happened?
- Who was involved?
- What did you do?
- What did you see the others do?
- What did you think?
- What did you feel?
- What was the result?
- How could it have turned out differently?
171

- In what way did it set the direction of the collaboration?
- What did you learn from the experience?
- What, according to you, will be the main challenge for this collaborative in the
future?
After the interviews, I listened back to the tapes and typed out the most significant
quotes, for potential use as case illustration in papers. In addition, I typed out the
issues in a separate file (see data analysis).
Journalizing
I documented my subjective experiences by using journalizing notes. For instance, I
made notes on premature hunches, such as “differences in ‘speed’ is not the issue; it
seems to be about differences in objectives!” I also documented the choices I made
and the tensions of doing the research. For instance, based on my notes, I could trace
back the implicit assumptions that inspired my initial choice for doing interviews.
My assumptions were that people are aware of the meaning they attribute to an
important event, that they can put this into words, that people are motivated and
willing to reveal their 'authentic' experiences. In that sense I adopted what Alvesson
(2003) calls a 'romantic position'. It made me realize that I needed to focus more on
the interactions as a source to document the ‘process’.
Data analysis
In order to arrive at robust interpretations grounded in empirical data, I followed a
systematic method for data analysis. This is one of the five principles forwarded by
Clarke (2002) that I have adopted. Although I present the steps in data analysis as
sequential, I did some of the analyses in parallel (e.g. reconstruct the process at the
same time as doing the second order analysis of the stakeholder interviews). I used a
double approach to analyze the data. First, I reconstructed a process overview in
order to have a holistic and chronological perspective of the process over time.
172

Secondly, I made a content analysis of the issues that were in the foreground based
on three data sets:
- Stakeholder interviews: this analysis represents the voice of a large group of
stakeholder representatives in the domain of foster care and their perception of
relevant issues at the beginning of the project.
- Interactions: analysis of issues and tensions during the process (real time), based
on field notes of participative observation.
- Critical incident interviews: an analysis of the events and issues perceived by the
key actors as a retrospective assessment of the process.
With this approach I followed a ‘process logic’, because the analysis reflects the
issues and dynamics at different moments in the process (beginning – during – after).
Step 1: Analysis of stakeholder interviews
Jointly with my colleague researcher, I analyzed the data of the stakeholder
interviews. Two researchers, working independently, allowed for a more reliable
analysis. We first made an analysis of the issues per stakeholder cluster. We
identified 9 clusters of stakeholders based on the stakeholder analysis (see
attachment 2). We used the structure of the questions to organize our analysis:
- Present situation: perception of the way foster care is managed and organized
today;
- Desired future state: ideal picture of how foster care should be managed and
organized;
- Obstacles to collaboration;
- Existing enablers and required facilitating conditions to foster collaboration.
In the first order analysis we, each separately, categorized quotes for each issue. Then
we compared our analysis, which resulted in an analysis we both agreed on. We
173

made the analysis anonymous by using the number of the interview for each quote (1
to 34). The result was a 37 page document with categories and literal quotes.
Example: topic enablers/conditions for collaboration:
“be prepared to give up certain things” (17)
“core competencies and a clear mandate” (07, 09)
“clarity: where are the differences and similarities” (15, 17)
Secondly, we made a general analysis of the issues that emerged over stakeholder
groups. We only mentioned the name of the stakeholder cluster with a capital letter for
each quote (A-I). This provided a first order analysis, close to the interview data,
made up of clustered literal quotes (10 pages).
Example: topic relationship foster care with authorities and representatives
“Foster care is light weight”; “foster parents are not taken into account” (H)
“Foster care is an outsider”, “little research” (I)
“Members play off the umbrella organizations against each other” (D)
“What is the authority of the Federation?” (I)
“Lots of extra work”; “few resources”; “external facilitation is not possible” (I)
The interviews had generated a large amount of rich and interesting data. We spent a
lot of time and effort to organize and structure the data and to find a manageable and
appealing way to present our findings. To validate the findings we used the principle
of ‘member check’ (Clarke, 2002). We organized feedback to different groups of
participants and included the responses of the participants as additional data
(Huberman & Miles, 1988). First we fed them back to the project group, then to the
larger group of stakeholders (first stakeholder conference), and later to the
Federation for Foster Care. We also discussed the general findings of our research in
a workshop for a wide audience working in foster care during the week of foster care
(Workshop 'Projects and Research in Foster Care', December 2004). We made a slide
presentation with a summary of our main findings, using the structure of the
interviews. We sent a report to all those stakeholders who had been interviewed, also
to those who had not been invited to the first stakeholder conference. We wrote a
report (May 2004) for the policy makers where this analysis was presented. The data
174

from the stakeholder interviews also allowed me to reconstruct the socio-political,
historical and institutional context of the collaborative.
It proved to be extremely difficult to share the information from the interviews with
the participants in the project because there were too many issues. It took us, for
instance, two meetings of approximately three hours to present and discuss the
issues in the project group (attachment 3 and 4). The presentation was ‘distant’
because the participants had not been involved in the interviewing. The consequence
was that the researchers became the ones who ‘knew’. We were held responsible for
representing the interests of the external stakeholders at the table. This put us in an
awkward position (article 3). Sharing findings with the participants was a way to pay
attention to the possibility of personal biases. It was also an intervention to make
visible what the group did not know or tried to keep implicit (Schein, 1987).
Although some of the information was unexpected and unpleasant (e.g. the services
for foster care were perceived as inefficient, not professional, and only defending the
interests of foster parents), the members of the project group were interested to hear
feedback from ‘outsiders’.
Step 2: Analysis of issues in the stakeholder interviews
On the basis of the first order analysis of the stakeholder interviews I made a further
analysis of this data set. During the analysis I regularly went back to the original
empirical data (34 interviews). I analyzed the data with a more focused question for
exploration: what issues related to collaboration in foster care emerge? I started to
organize the data using the following provisional structure:
- Content (substance): which issues are relevant for collaboration?
- Procedure: how should collaboration be organized?
- Relationships and process: how do they experience the relationships among the
services and the wider group of stakeholders?
175

- Context: in what way is the socio-economic context of the collaborative effort
helping or hindering collaboration?
After restructuring the raw data (quotes) in this structure, I developed broader, more
meaningful categories in relation to the critical issues related to collaboration. I asked
questions to the data and used the method of constant comparison to develop
categories. This second order analysis represents categories of critical issues based on
the perceptions of a wide group of stakeholders. The main results are presented in
attachment 6.
Step 3: Reconstruction of the collaborative process and analysis of issues during
interaction moments
As the process unfolded, I gradually developed a reconstruction of the collaborative
process. This reconstruction was based on my field notes, documents, and
journalizing notes. It provided a provisional overview for analysis and interpretation
(Spradley, 1980). It also allowed for a ‘total immersion’ in the data, it helped to
become intimately familiar with the case, and to keep the ‘wholeness’ of the data in
mind (Eisenhardt, 1989; Hollway & Jefferson, 2000; Clarke, 2002). The overview
formed the basis for the narrative of the case. The chronological overview was
organized using the following structure: date, type of interaction or event, persons
involved, content of the interaction, critical issues, and available data (see attachment
7).
In a first phase I used Atlas-ti to analyze the interaction moments. I introduced my
field notes of the project group meetings and the stakeholder conferences into the
software system. This provisional analysis helped me to organize and structure the
data and to easily find back relevant quotes for the papers I was writing. It also
allowed me to trace the life cycle of issues over time. I made links and looked for
similarities and differences in the material in a process of constant comparison,
coding and categorizing (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). This provisional analysis resulted
in a large number of categories (see attachment 8).
176

In a second phase I decided to include the internal meetings of the consultants as
data, because from the first provisional analysis of the data it appeared that the
consultants played a critical role in direction setting. I also decided to analyze the
issues more in detail, for each separate meeting. I made data summaries of the 13
internal meetings of the consulting group, the 13 meetings of the project group, and
of the three stakeholder conferences. I identified and structured the issues that were
raised, and introduced these summaries in the process reconstruction (attachment 7).
The analysis of the stakeholder conferences is presented in a separate file (attachment
9), in order not to overload the process overview.
To check and validate emergent interpretations, I consulted my colleagues for ‘peer
debriefing’ (Clarke, 2002). This happened during formal and informal conversation
in the course of the project. There was always at least one colleague present during
interviews or meetings. They acted as sparring partners ('investigator triangulation',
Patton, 1987). After the project, I organized a seminar to present my research findings
and discussed it with them. I also shared my papers with my colleagues. The critical
incident interviews helped me to validate my findings.
Step 4: Analysis of issues from the critical incident interviews
For the analysis of the critical incident interviews, I typed up the issues and
structured the data in the following way: (1) what happened? (2) what meaning does
the interviewee attribute to the event or issue? (3) In what way did the event or issue
set the direction of the collaborative according to the interviewee? (effects,
consequences)
This analysis resulted in a large amount of critical incidents, some of which
overlapped (see attachment 9). The withdrawal of the liberal service, for instance,
was reported by all interviewees as a critical incident that set the direction of the
process. The analyses of issues in the stakeholder interviews, during the interactions,
177

and in the critical incident interviews, provided the basis for interpretation of the
dynamics in the case (article 3 and 4).
REFERENCES
Alvesson, M. (2003). Beyond Neo-Positivists, Romantics and Localists: A Reflexive
Approach to Interviews in Organization Research. Academy of Management Review,
28 (1), 13-33.
Chell, E. (2004). Critical Incident Technique. In Cassell, C. & Symon, G. (Eds.), Essential
Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. London: Sage, pp. 45-60.
Clarke, S. (2002). Learning from experience: psycho-social research methods in the
social sciences. Qualitative Research, 2 (2), 173-194.
Eden, C. & Huxham, C. (1996). Action research for the study of organizations. In Clegg,
S.R., Hardy, C. & Nord, W.R. (Eds.) Handbook of organization studies. London: Sage,
pp.526-542.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of
Management Review, 14 (4), 532-550.
Flick, U. (2002). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Second Edition. London: Sage.
Gabriel, Y. (Ed.) (1999). Organizations in Depth. The Psychoanalysis of Organizations,
London: Sage.
Gould, L. (1991). Using psychoanalytic frameworks for organizational analysis. In Kets
de Vries, M.F.R. (Ed.), Organizations on the couch; clinical perspectives on organizational
behavior and change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 25-44.
Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Hollway, W. & T. Jefferson (2000). Doing Qualitative Research Differently: Free
Association, Narrative and the Interview Method. London: Sage.
Huberman, A.M. & M.B. Miles (1988). Assessing Local Causality in Qualitative
Research. In Berg, D.N. & K.K. Smith (Eds.) The Self in Social Inquiry. Researching
Methods. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, pp. 351-381.
Patton, M.Q. (1987). Qualitative Evaluation Methods. London: Sage.
Schein, E.H. (1987). The Clinical Perspective in Fieldwork, Newbury Park, California:
Sage.
178

Schein, E.H. (2000). The next frontier: Edgar Schein on organizatonal therapy. Academy
of Management Executive, 14 (1), 31-49.
Schwartzman, H.B. (1993). Ethnography in organizations. Qualitative Research Methods,
volume 27. Newbury Park: Sage.
Spradley, J.P. (1980). Participant Observation. New York: Holt
Strauss, A. & J. Corbin, (1999). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. Second Edition, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Yin, R.K. (1994). Case Study Research. Design and Methods. Second Edition. Applied Social
Research Methods Series, Volume 5, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
FOR THE READER
In the articles, papers and presentations I protected the identity of the actors, as the
change process is still ongoing. I attributed codes to the organizations (see table 11)
and to the consultants (see attachment 1). The quotes in the articles have been
translated from Dutch. I have tried to express the essence of what people say.
Sometimes it was hard to translate metaphors (e.g. ‘eenheidsworst’), dialect, humor,
word games, or technical jargon (e.g. ‘receptiefunctie’). The subtitles are not
numbered.
Article 3 is accepted for publication by the Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology. It will be published in September 2006 (see also
attachment 10). ‘Our’ refers to the four consultants engaged in the project. All of
them were working at the Center for Organizational and Personnel Psychology
(COPP) at the time of the project. ‘I’ refers to the researcher, the author of this paper.
Article 4 was submitted to The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science on 17
December 2005. The paper included in this work is a slightly longer version, as it
contains more case material (see also attachment 10). ‘Our’ refers to the four
consultants engaged in the project. All of them were working at the COPP at the time
of the project. ‘I’ refers to the researcher, the principle author of this paper.
179

THE PSYCHODYNAMIC PERSPECTIVE IN ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH:
MAKING SENSE OF THE DYNAMICS OF DIRECTION SETTING IN
EMERGENT COLLABORATIVE PROCESSES (ARTICLE 3)
Silvia Prins
Introduction
In this paper I demonstrate how the psychodynamic perspective contributes to the
study of organizing processes. Research from this perspective provides insight in
how people deal with the emergent nature of a collaborative where conventional
processes and structures are no longer available. First, I address the specific nature
and challenges of ‘multiparty collaboration’. Then I describe the characteristics of a
psychodynamic approach in organizational research and the kind of theory it
generates. I present a case study in the domain of foster care, where five independent
organizations tried to develop a scenario for future collaboration. In the case analysis
I focus on how participants and consultants set the direction of the collaborative. I
discuss some critical issues with which the participants were confronted and make
sense of the dynamics that emerged. To conclude, I emphasize the benefits of using a
psychodynamic perspective in the study of emergent organizing processes.
Collaborative work and the challenges of direction setting
Organizations and social groups are increasingly challenged to collaborate.
Multiparty collaboration is an organizational strategy to develop sustainable
solutions for societal and environmental 'meta-problems' (e.g. poverty, pollution)
that require multidisciplinary and multi-organizational involvement (Gray, 1989;
Huxham, 1996; Huxham & Vangen, 2005). Gray (1989: 5) defines multiparty
collaboration as “(…) a process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem
can constructively explore their differences and search for solutions that go beyond their own
limited vision of what is possible”. Organizations, social groups and unorganized
parties work across the boundaries to develop sustainable solutions for a problem
180

domain. Gray (1989) distinguishes five characteristics of multiparty collaboration: (1)
the stakeholders of the domain are interdependent; (2) solutions emerge by dealing
constructively with differences; (3) joint ownership of decisions is involved; (4)
stakeholders assume collective responsibility for the future direction of the domain;
and (5) collaboration is an ‘emergent’ process. The assumption in this paper is that all
five features of multiparty collaboration represent a challenge and a source of anxiety
for those involved.
A particular challenge of collaborative work is how to define ‘leadership’ in an
organizational context where hierarchy is not a valid organizing principle. Often
there is no formal leader, authority relations are ambiguous, and the consensual
nature of collaborative work inhibits the emergence of overt leadership. Clarity of
structures, lines of accountability, and clear role boundaries are reduced or
dismantled (Huffington, James & Armstrong, 2004). This study focuses on the
dynamics of direction setting, inspired by Feyerherm’s (1997, 1) definition of leaders
as persons “who influence the course of events, the ways issues get framed and resolved, and
the people who influence the outcomes of the gathering”. Emergent forms of organizing
require a shift from hierarchically embedded authority to a more personal and
laterally distributed exercise of leadership. The challenge is to mobilize new
processes and structures to contain the tensions inherent in collaborative work
(Hirschhorn, 1997; Huffington et al., 2004). The multiparty literature stresses the need
for a dynamic, process-oriented theory of inter-organizational relations and for
research on the quality of collaborative relationships, the emotional challenges posed
by interdependent work, and defensive dynamics in ‘emergent’ processes (Gray,
1989; Czander, 1993; Gould, Ebers & Clinchy, 1999; Page, 2003). In the next section I
discuss the assumptions and framework that underpin research from a
psychodynamic perspective.
181

The psychodynamic perspective in organizational research
Assumptions about collaborative work
The theoretical framework underpinning this research is based on the pioneering
work of the Tavistock Institute. This group of scholars engaged in action research
and promoted an integration of insights from social sciences and psychoanalysis in
the post-war period (Trist & Murray, 1990). In recent years a contemporary paradigm
has been developed to address the challenges of new forms of organizing (e.g.
Gould, Stapley & Stein, 2001; Huffington, Armstrong, Halton, Hoyle & Pooley, 2004).
The main assumptions of this paradigm can be summarized as follows:
• Behavior is often the result of conscious and unconscious mental processes. In
the study of organizing processes conscious and unconscious aspects have to
be taken into account.
• People create a subjective, emotional reality of the organization. Attribution of
meaning, through social interaction, mediates between organizational reality
and the human experience.
• Individual and group behavior and the structural features of organizational
life are in dynamic interaction: the organizational structures stimulate
particular patterns of individual and group processes, and these processes, in
turn, influence how particular features of the organization are developed.
• Most human beings are inclined to avoid anxiety, uncertainty and threats to
their self-esteem. Therefore they try to achieve control, predictability and
ways to enhance their self-esteem. 'Social defenses' emerge when a group
unconsciously colludes to ward off the anxiety and tensions of the work place,
often at the cost of task performance.
• There is an underlying assumption of a ‘healthy’ organization, characterized
by wisdom, humanity, and the ability to help itself to overcome defenses
(Neumann & Hirschhorn, 1999; Vansina, 2000; Amado & Ambrose, 2001;
Driver, 2003; Diamond & Allcorn, 2003).
The motive to start a collaborative can be conscious or rational, but the process is also
influenced by hidden, emotional and unconscious motives. In an inter-organizational
182

context, groups come to share collective, unconscious assumptions about other
relevant groups. “These assumptions are manifested in both conscious and unconscious
processes, including projections, attributions, and stereotyping which shape the ensuing
quality and character of their intergroup relationships.” (Gould et al., 1999, 700)
Participants in a collaborative are confronted with different sources of anxiety: the
context, the nature of the process and the relationships with other stakeholders,
which I will briefly discuss.
First, a collaborative is usually embedded in a turbulent and complex context.
Players in the context (e.g. constituent organizations, sponsors) influence the
direction of the process, although they are not sitting at the table. Policymakers, for
instance, can take decisions that profoundly affect a collaborative (e.g. stop funding,
change the law). Issues of power, politics, access to resources, and economic and
technological concerns influence the dynamics in the collaborative. Secondly, a
collaborative is an under-organized open system with few containing structures. It is
difficult to establish the primary task, procedures, roles and membership in advance.
Participants negotiate ‘psychological’ boundaries that are experienced and enacted in
the interactions. These relate, for instance, to authority (who is in charge of what?),
and identity (who is - and who is not - 'us') (Hirschhorn & Gilmore, 1992). The
emergent nature of collaborative work stirs up anxiety and mobilizes exactly the
kind of defensive responses that hinder effective collaboration (Krantz, 1990; 1998).
When negative feelings and tensions are not contained, defensive dynamics, like
premature formalizing of the process, are likely to occur. Finally stakeholders with
different and sometimes conflicting interests are challenged to establish
interdependent relationships. This requirement may provoke defensive responses.
There is usually little time for direct interaction and not much psychic energy
available to foster interdependent relationships (Cooper & Dartington, 2004). The
essence of collaborative work is to make use of the diversity in the system, but it is
precisely such a confrontation with differences that increases the potential for
conflict. Stakeholders are faced with challenges to their identity (e.g. fear to be
overpowered) and to their autonomy. Representatives need to deal with the paradox
183

of entertaining a relationship based on ‘equality’ with partners who differ in power,
size, access to resources, social status, etc. Participants need new skills, such as lateral
influencing based on personal authority, the competences to build collaborative
relationships, the ability to acknowledge and manage the uncertainties and
ambiguities of roles, the capacity to share responsibility for direction setting, and to
work creatively with sameness and difference (Hirschhorn, 1997; Page, 2003;
Huffington et al., 2004).
‘Understanding’ dynamics
The system psychodynamic perspective was the organizing principle of my research.
This approach to organizational study simultaneously maintains the systems view
and the ‘life-world’ view (Anderson & White, 2000). The world is not completely
subjective or completely objective (Heller, 2004). This frame explores the way in
which subjective experiences and fantasies about organizational life influence
feelings, thoughts and actions in the workplace (Menzies, 1988; Miller, 1997). The aim
of my research was to understand (‘Verstehen’) phenomena in their complexity,
wholeness and uniqueness, rather than explaining or predicting them (Edelson, 1988;
Lapierre, 1991). My intention was to construct a ‘rich’ and contextualized
understanding and to develop a ‘thick description’ of meaning grounded in
empirical data (Geertz, 1973).
I studied a ‘collaborative’ as an emergent process of organizing, because social reality
is a dynamic process (ontological position). Pettigrew (1997, 338) defines ‘process’ as
“a sequence of individual and collective events, actions, and activities unfolding over time in
context”. The method for studying the change process was based on process
narratives (epistemological position). This strategy involves the construction of a
detailed story from raw data collected in real time and in retrospect. It reproduces
the ambiguity that exists in the situation observed (Langley, 1999). The research
design was set up to capture the variety of perspectives and the complexity of the
subject. To study the effects of subjectivity on the process of organizing, I collected
184

the accounts of multiple actors over time. Making sense of life experiences requires a
longitudinal perspective (Dawson, 1997; Heller, 2004). I also focused on how the
participants collectively made sense of the collaborative experience. I explored how
unconscious meanings, conflicts, fears and beliefs were projected onto ‘others’ and
how people collectively managed these dynamics (Krantz, 1990). To avoid the risk of
‘psychological reductionism’, I included the history, context and system features of
the collaborative (Pettigrew, 1997; Schonberg, 1998; Neumann & Hirschhorn, 1999). I
constructed a narrative account of a process of organizing “by narrating emergent
actions and activities by which collective endeavours unfold” (Van de Ven & Poole, 2005).
The in-depth case study is a personalized account or ‘a confessional tale’ because it is
a mixture of descriptions of the subject and my experiences in studying it (Van
Maanen, 1988; Flick, 2002).
I used an interpretivist frame: in order to understand the world of meaning of the
participants I needed to interpret it (Schwandt, 1998). In a hermeneutic
phenomenology “the aim is to construct an animating, evocative description of the human
actions, behaviours, intentions, and experiences as we meet them in the life world” (Van
Manen, 1990, 19). I searched for patterns and underlying dynamics in an iterative
process of sense making. Interpretations emerged in a cyclic process of moving back-
and-forth between data and theoretical understanding (Pettigrew, 1997). Inevitably I
brought an intellectual pre-understanding to the case study, based on a review of the
literature and two case studies in other domains (Prins, Craps & Taillieu, 2006). The
conceptual framework of psychodynamics provided a hermeneutic grid for
understanding. At the same time I tried to observe the phenomena with a fresh look
(Obholzer, 1999; Schein, 1987).
The case analysis presents a psychodynamic reading of the phenomena in this project
as a complementary view that can enrich other perspectives (Halton, 1994;
Schonberg, 1998, Anderson & White, 2000). My aim was not to arrive at
generalisability of the findings (Dawson, 1997). The challenge is to make the
conceptualization of experiences in this particular collaborative relevant for similar
185

contexts. A better understanding of the ordinary, routine or ritualistic dynamics that
come to the surface can help to facilitate creative collaboration, change, and
productivity in emergent organizational contexts.
The case: from competition to collaboration
The story
This case study is based on a one year project in the domain of foster care in Flanders
(Belgium). The foster care services were confronted with a lack of candidate foster
families to take care of the growing number of children eligible for foster care. The
services were rivals because subsidies were only granted to them after placement of a
child in a family. Therefore they were competing for resources and funding was
unpredictable. A manager of a foster care service prepared a project to develop a
‘network organization’ and asked our Center to facilitate the process. The project was
a proactive response to new priorities in welfare policy (rationalization, regional
organization of assistance, imposed mergers). The negotiated objectives with policy
makers were: (1) develop a structural basis for collaboration among services for
foster care in one province in Flanders; and (2) develop a concept for a ‘reception
function’ for foster care. The idea was that the experiences and results of the project
could be used as a model for Flanders. A member of our Center, who was not
involved in the project later on, designed it as an action research in a ‘multiparty’
philosophy. The identified stakeholder groups were: users (parents and children),
voluntary collaborators (foster families), professionals (personnel), relegating parties
(e.g. social workers, juvenile court), and policy makers.
Five services working in the same region agreed to participate. Their region was
selected at a meeting of the Federation for foster care because the managers had set
up a regional consultation platform ten years ago and already collaborated in ‘safe’
domains (e.g. organize annual foster care week). The case analysis focuses on the
‘project group’ (table 1) as the vehicle for collaboration and the platform where the
dynamics of the system were played out.
186

Organization Represented by Characteristics of the organization
FC service 1
FC service 2
FC service 3
FC service 4
Director (convener)
187
– Funded by Special Youth
Care
– Pluralistic (catholic, liberal
and others)
– Services in all regions of
Flanders
Regional coordinator – Funded by Special Youth
Care and Care for the
Handicapped
– Pluralistic (catholic, liberal
and others)
– Services in all regions in
Flanders
Director – Funded by Special Youth
Care and Care for the
Handicapped
– Pluralistic (catholic, liberal
and others)
– Services only in the region of
the project
Director – Funded by Special Youth
Care
– Catholic
– Services only in the region of
the project
FC service 5 Regional coordinator and/or
manager Flanders
Federation for
foster care
– Funded by Child & Family
and Special Youth Care
– ‘Liberal’ (service explicitly
declaring itself as ‘nonconfessional’
in the religious
sense)
– Services in all regions in
Flanders
Head of the Federation Represents all FC services in
Flanders

Center for
Organizational
Psychology
– Coordinator: daily
coordination, facilitation,
research
– Senior consultant: facilitation,
scientific coordinator
– Facilitator: facilitation of
stakeholder conferences,
work group, project group
– Researcher: documentation
(interviewing, observation),
feedback, conceptualization
of the experiences,
participation
188
University center, specialized in
multiparty collaboration and
process facilitation
Table 11: Membership of the project group and characteristics of the participating
organizations.
The project group identified a wide group of representatives in foster care for
interviewing. Together with my colleague I spent two months interviewing 34
stakeholder representatives (e.g. foster parents; policy makers; residential
institutions; judges and social workers; employees, board members and managers of
the foster care services; umbrella organizations; experts). We made a structured
overview of the critical issues in the domain of foster care and fed back our findings
to the project group and the stakeholders. Their responses were integrated as
additional data (Huberman & Miles, 1988). This ‘member check’ allowed me to verify
the possibility of personal biases (Clarke, 2002). On the basis of our findings the
project group designed a ‘stakeholder conference’. This provided a forum for direct
interaction among the ‘internal’ stakeholders (employees, managers and boards of
the services). The ‘external’ stakeholders were only invited in the morning. The
internal stakeholders decided to focus on internal matters first and continued their
discussions at a second stakeholder conference where they established ‘work
groups’. Over a period of three months groups of employees worked around specific
organizational procedures: inflow of children and selection of foster parents. In
parallel, the project group organized a meeting with their board members in order to

each an agreement in principle on collaboration. During this meeting one of the
services (of liberal inspiration) stepped out of the project. All members of the project
group identified this as the most critical event in the process. With only two months
left before the deadline, the project group tried to obtain some concrete results for the
final stakeholder conference. The managers discussed potential scenarios for the
future, conditions for collaboration, and looked for additional funding. They invited
the external stakeholders for the final part of the third stakeholder conference. The
project group had not achieved the formal objectives of the project. As there was no
clear scenario for future structural collaboration, the work groups and managers
shared their experiences, ideas and learning with the external stakeholders.
The research approach
Action research
The consulting team, of which I was part, was hired to coordinate and facilitate the
process. My role was to document the action research. I observed interactions and
collected data, while actively participating in the process. This position allowed me
to balance between experiencing and observing and to 'sit on the boundary' (Smith,
1995). I introduced data in the system to facilitate reflection on the change process.
My assumption was that action research is more likely to produce reliable data,
because the participants are involved in circumstances that really matter to them
(Chisholm & Elden, 1993; Eden & Huxham, 1996). The aim of this action research
was to improve the client system and at the same time develop emergent theory from
practice.
Data triangulation enabled a rich and contextualized understanding of the dynamics
(Yin, 1994; Flick, 2002). Over a period of one year I systematically made field notes
during meetings of the project group (13), internal meetings of the consultants (13),
and stakeholder conferences (3 days). I considered meetings as ‘communication
events’, embedded within a context, which the participants used to interact and to
interpret events (Schwartzman, 1993). In this space the actors set the direction of the
189

process. Documents and interview data enabled me to reconstruct the antecedents
and context of the project. Six months after the project I interviewed the managers
and consultants of the project group. My aim was to identify important events and
issues in the process (critical incident interviews). I used this method as an
unobtrusive, phenomenological method to mediate the inquiry process and to
encourage the interviewees to reflect on their experiences (Gabriel, 1999).
Subjectivity and inter-subjectivity in the research
Doing fieldwork from a psychodynamic perspective is a subjective, inter-subjective
and reflexive process. It is a dialogue and an interpretive endeavor, mediated by the
minds of the participants and the researcher, and by unconscious processes (Hunt,
1989). The subjective dimension of doing research from a psychodynamic perspective
is reflected in different aspects of the research: the attitude of the researcher, the
subjectivity of the researcher, and the use of dynamics in the research team and
research relationship as data about the dynamics in the client system.
In my interactions with the participants and during data analysis I adopted an
‘interpretive stance’ (Shapiro & Carr, 1991). This attitude is characterized by
introspection, reflexivity and sensitivity. I tried to pay an evenly divided attention to
manifest and underlying dynamics. This means I had to listen with the 'third ear' and
be sensitive to the ‘hidden music’ in the stories and to ‘clues’ (Reik, 1948; Gilmore &
Krantz, 1985). “The odd, the out of place, the significant exception provide far more insight
than large volumes of uniform and unidirectional data” (Gabriel, 1999, 251). I paid
attention to first impressions, the energy level, non-verbal cues, humor, issues that
were avoided, colorful language, images, silence, and unexpected or strong
emotions. This can point at themes that are expressed elsewhere in the system.
Example. The managers often made jokes to reduce the tension in the group. They repeatedly
joked about our centre being part of a catholic university. As differences in ideology
increasingly provoked tensions, it seemed as if the group displaced their struggle with ideology
to the consulting team.
190

In order to get in touch with the underlying meaning I had to ‘listen’ to the other and
to my self. The 'self' is used as an instrument in sensing, observing and exploring the
subjective and inter-subjective world of work (Diamond & Allcorn, 2003; Gardner,
1989). I paid attention to my emotions (e.g. bored, enthusiastic), physical reactions
(e.g. tired, nervous) and my assumptions. Whenever I experienced an uneasy feeling,
I tried to sort out what is 'me' and what is 'not me' in the experience (Shapiro & Carr,
1991).
Example. During the two months of interviewing my colleague and I were extremely tired and
it was remarkable how often we yawned while driving around. It seemed to express the issue of
doing hard work that is not valued. The managers often complained how high the work load
was and how important foster care was as a solution for children in problematic situations. One
of the motives for the project was the frustration that policy makers did not understand the
importance of foster care and did not treat foster care as an equal partner. We seemed to ‘carry’
a lot for the system. (Note made during the data analysis, after the project)
I had to tolerate the tension of ‘not knowing’ and of not being in control. The attitude
of ‘negative capability’ (Bion, 1970) is opposed to the mentality of knowing and
judging which prematurely closes of exploration and observation (Vansina-Cobbaert,
2005).
I systematically made journalizing notes to ensure a continuous process of
'disciplined subjectivity' (Berg, 1988; Huffington & James, 1999; Bradbury &
Bergmann Lichtenstein, 2000). Self monitoring helped to document how I produced
data, to what extent my personal bias may have influenced interpretations, to see the
link between issues in my personal life and the research, and how anxiety may have
influenced the choice for a method or role (Devereux, 1967; Hunt, 1989; Clarke, 2002;
Meek, 2003). It also helped me to choose a more appropriate method for data
collection to document the ‘process’.
Example. At the start of my research I concentrated on interviewing as preferred method of
data collection, because I assumed people would be capable and willing to reflect on and talk
about their experiences and the interview was a controlled setting. I realized, however, that
only subjective accounts were not sufficient for a process analysis. I realized I had tried to
reduce the complexity, emergence and ambiguity in the research setting, and that these issues
were also predominant in my life at the time. Therefore I shifted to participative observation as
the main source of data. I also decided to pay explicit attention to the complexity of the context
of the collaborative by integrating documents on the history and the institutional context. (Note
three months after the start of the research).
191

The underlying assumption in this research is that the roles assigned to the
consultant or the dynamics in the consulting team recreate important and
unconscious dynamics present in the client system. Transference and counter
transference dynamics and parallel processes are important dynamics in the research
relationship (Gilmore & Krantz, 1985; Hunt, 1989; Clarke, 2002; Diamond & Alcorn,
2003). Strong emotions (e.g. anger, idealization) are a clue to detect transference
reactions, which are essentially unconscious. In the data analysis I included field
notes of our (i.e. the consultants) internal meetings, because I was aware that parallel
dynamics were taking place. In this paper I demonstrate how the internal dynamics
in the consulting team and the relationship between the consultants and the client
system provided data on dynamics in the collaborative (Berg & Smith, 1988; Gabriel,
1999). The quotes are from interviews and meetings.
Critical issues and dynamics
In order to make sense of the dynamics, I started with a reconstruction of the process
(type of interaction, participants, content, and emergent issues) based on the
available data. This allowed me to become intimately familiar with the case and to
keep the wholeness of the data in mind (Eisenhardt, 1989; Clarke, 2002; Hollway &
Jefferson, 2002). The reconstruction was a provisional overview for analysis and
interpretation (Spradley, 1979). Secondly, I made a systematic analysis of the issues
based on three sets of data: (1) stakeholder interviews, (2) field notes of interaction
moments, and (3) critical incident interviews. I looked for links, similarities and
differences in the material in a process of constant comparison, coding and
categorizing (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). During informal conversations and internal
meetings the consulting team systematically tried to make sense of what was
happening (investigator triangulation, Patton, 1987). On a regular basis, I checked
my interpretations with my colleagues (e.g. informal conversations, research
seminar) and I discussed my findings with peers (supervisor, mentor, colleagues at
conferences) to have an outside perspective. I paid attention to thematic unity and
192

internal consistency and to a transparent approach to data analysis (Kets de Vries,
1991; Gould, 1991; Levinson, 1991).
Issue 1: role ambiguity and ownership
The case analysis demonstrates, as Harold Bridger observed (Klein, 1976), that the
beginning of the intervention contained the key issues and dynamics of the process.
It was, however, not easy to immediately grasp the meaning of the data. I was
particularly sensitive to the issue of ambiguity as I struggled with the ambiguity of
my role. Was I an action researcher or documenting an action research? Was I
concerned with improving the system or was I only observing it? Why was I more
fascinated when things didn’t run smoothly? To what extent was I also responsible
for the quality of the results?
The starting conditions of the project were ambiguous. Unexpectedly policy makers
had approved the project. A participant called the project an ‘accident de parcours’.
Without preparation the five foster care services found themselves in a project to
foster structural collaboration. The contract with policy makers was ambiguous: the
expected results were predefined, but the design of the process was emergent and
consequently the outcome could not be known in advance. The expected output, a
concept for a ‘reception function’, provoked different assumptions and expectations.
For one of the consultants this concept was strategic jargon to speak the language of
policy makers in order to obtain funding. For the convener, however, it was the
definite agenda of the project. The objective of structural collaboration was also
ambiguous. There was a tension between idealistic, rational, societal and moral
motives for collaboration, and the emotional responses provoked by the prospect of
future collaboration. Some participants idealized collaboration, while others
experienced it as a threat (e.g. of a merger). In foster care the natural parents and
foster parents are rivals who are forced to collaborate in the best interest of the child.
The issue of ‘forced’ collaboration was mirrored in the collaborative process. Because
the services had originated from a history of ideological conflicts and splits, their
193

autonomy and identity were extremely important. Now they ‘had’ to collaborate
with their rivals. Small services in particular, were afraid to be absorbed by bigger
ones and to lose their identity. During the very first informal meeting of what was to
become the ‘project group’, I took a note of a casual remark. One of the managers
asked: ‘who is at the core of this project, the child or the foster care services?’ This
turned out to be a critical field of tension in the process.
The convener had a contract with the policy makers and the consultants
subcontracted to her organization. It was not clear who our client was: policy
makers, the convener, the project group, the internal stakeholders, or the
stakeholders in the domain. The convener found herself in an ambiguous position.
She spoke as foster mother, manager (business interests, responsible for
employment), convener of the process (informal leader), interest party (loyalty to
constituent organization), spokesperson for policy makers (fear of losing face), and
contractor of the consultants. With her enthusiasm she had initiated the project. She
had brought in external consultants to be able to ‘sit on her chair’ and defend her
agenda and the interests of her organization. She did not want to be addressed as the
‘convener’ of the project and insisted on being ‘like the others’. When she retreated
from her role as convener it was as if she had to deny her leadership capability in
order to create a collaborative relationship with the other managers. She expected the
consultants to take the lead and be the driving force of the process. It was as if we
had to defend her agenda. During the process she kept pushing the reception
function, although some participants and consultants did not share her vision.
During the interviews my colleague and I announced we would drop the notion of
‘reception function’, because it was a solution to a problem we were still exploring.
The convener, however, indirectly reprimanded us for this intervention.
“The objective is a reception function. It was not the idea to let go of this concept. Then we
might as well all go home. (…) My concern is: policy has given us an opportunity. If we present
this as result of the project we can forget it. I want to make the most of this opportunity, but I
don’t want to over rush things either. (…) At this point in time we cannot reach the objectives as
they have been agreed. I feel responsible. I don’t want to lose face as an organization.”
(Convener, meeting project group 9)
“What is the name of this project? I think we should call it ‘project reception function’.
(Convener, meeting project group 13)
194

The mandate and authority of the project group were ambiguous. Membership of the
project group was not representative, as the members were managers representing
the interests of their organization. The project group was not a platform representing
the diversity of the stakeholders, where solutions for the domain were developed.
The managers had different mandates, as a consequence of their hierarchical
position, the geographical presence of their organization, and the management
culture. One manager, for instance, could take decisions on a Flemish level, while
another was coordinator of a regional service and had to go back to her constituency
for important decisions. As the liberal service was the biggest in the region, they felt
compelled to participate. However, from the start they had been ambivalent about
their membership. They were convinced that this project would weaken the position
of foster care in negotiations with policy and that it would make it easier for policy
makers to cut expenses. The project group did not open up the boundaries in order to
create a steering group with wider representation. They wanted to stay in control.
Because they were not working in the field, the discussions were often about abstract
issues (e.g. values). This narrow membership reinforced an internal focus on the
change process.
The role of the consultants was formalized in the contract and discussed with the
project group: develop a methodology, facilitate and structure the process, and
scientific monitoring (table 1). At the start of the second stakeholder conference, we
stressed that as process facilitators we would establish the conditions in which the
participants could find their own solutions. Initially there was positive transference
on the consultants. We were seen as neutral experts and our involvement gave the
participants hope that this time they would finally move beyond the ‘intention to
collaborate’ and beyond ‘safe domains’. The presence of an impartial outsider
allowed the managers to speak for their organization. They trusted the facilitators
would contain the anticipated tensions and conflicts. Over time it became clear they
had different expectations from us. They assumed we would set the direction and
hoped we would provide them with a blueprint scenario for collaboration.
195

“There has to be more steering towards the objective. The consultants have to steer on the
content level.” (Convener, meeting project group 8)
The managers repeated over and over that process facilitation was a critical condition
for them and they emphasized that time for the ‘process’ was essential. I took a note:
‘This focus on process and process facilitation is starting to sound like a mantra!!’
Journalizing helped me to make sense of what I believed the managers were doing to
us and the defensive dynamics that were starting to interfere with the task. A tension
emerged between the necessity to produce concrete results, and the need to take time
to develop collaborative relationships. The managers did not want to come up with
quick results for the sponsors, but it did worry them in view of future funding. By
stressing the importance of the process, the managers could defend against the
anxiety to take task related decisions.
“We can continue, but process facilitation is critical. If there is no process facilitation, the
product is jeopardized. (…) We are the ones who most need process facilitation. We will have to
take decisions, set the direction.” (Manager 3, meeting project group 12)
“Without process facilitation it is almost impossible.” (Manager 2, stakeholder conference 3)
The consultants were sometimes frustrated by the dependency of the managers and
issues of ownership emerged. One of the consultants, for instance, had the feeling he
had to do all the ‘dirty’ work, be the driving force, and keep the participants
enthusiastic and motivated. This issue was not discussed in the project group. After
the project it seemed as if the managers blamed the consulting team for not achieving
the formal objectives. In the critical incident interviews they expressed some
criticism: the facilitators had not given personal feedback to the individual managers,
they had not helped them to make sense of their experiences, and they had failed to
reassure them that what they were experiencing was ‘normal’. We should also have
represented the voice of the external stakeholders around the table, because we had
done the interviews. The managers also regretted there had been little space to
disagree.
“We can deal with an open process, but you should have given us some landmarks! (…) Maybe,
after all, you were not as experienced in this matter as we had presumed…” (Manager 1, critical
incident interview)
196

“We tended to circle around the differences and not discuss them openly. But now we are
confronted with these differences anyway!” (Manager 2, critical incident interview)
The project was consultant centered, since we made up 40% of the project group. The
consulting team in itself was a multiparty collaboration because we had a different
roles, interests and assumptions on how to design and manage the process. It was
not always easy to find the time to talk things through, because of conflicting
agendas. There seemed to be a parallel dynamic between our team and the system:
little time for the project and no exploration of the diversity around the table. The
unexplored different theories-in-use (Schön, 1983) of the consultants added to the
ambiguity. The ‘senior consultant’ was not familiar with the multiparty approach,
promoted in the project. His colleague, who had made the initial design for the
project, had transferred the project to the senior consultant because of his experiences
in the domain of welfare. He clarified that he worked from the framework of conflict
management and OD. For him the project was about aligning five different
organizational cultures. He was reluctant to bring all stakeholders in a room, because
of the difficulty to process the amount of information and to find common ground. .
He didn’t think it was helpful to put everything on the table. When interactions were
tense he used bilateral contacts (‘shuttle diplomacy’). For instance, when there
seemed to be disagreement around the organization of the first stakeholder
conference, he asked the coordinator to call each of the five managers individually to
‘take the temperature’ and to assess potential areas of disagreement. Some members
of the project group experienced him as ‘too cautious’ and had the impression that
the fundamental differences and hot issues could not be openly addressed.
For the ‘facilitator’ the project was about changes in the domain of foster care as a
system. He tried to promote stakeholder involvement and direct interaction between
all parties. For him the most critical moment in the project was when the project
group made a distinction between ‘internal’ and ‘external’ stakeholders and decided
to focus on internal matters. He had pointed out that this choice would jeopardize
197

the multi-stakeholder approach. He recalled that for him from that moment the
project was no longer about foster care but about a reorganization of the services.
“You work from a system perspective, but the system cannot be present!” (Facilitator, meeting
project group 5)
“We also have to look where the input of the stakeholders influences the design of the process.”
(Facilitator, meeting project group 7)
“We say it is all about the children, but they are not here!” (Facilitator, stakeholder conference 1)
The consulting team, as a microcosm, did not pay much attention to its own
functioning, assumptions and learning. This seemed to reduce our effectiveness in
the design and facilitation of the collaborative. Our internal differences mirrored a
critical tension in the collaborative: the readiness to engage in an emergent, multi-
stakeholder process with an unknown outcome, and the need for stability, control
and predictability. The cautiousness and risk avoidance of the managers slowed
down the process and they seemed to project these qualities on the consultants.
The participants in this process needed to work in an ambiguous context, which was
manifested in the starting conditions, the objectives, the roles of persons and
subgroups, authority relations, and the assumptions about designing and facilitating
a multi-stakeholder process. Ambiguity is an essential feature of such processes,
because many issues cannot be clearly defined in advance. However, the ambiguous
issues in this process were not thoroughly explored, negotiated or defined. This
resulted in untested assumptions, confusion and defensive responses, hindering
progress on the task.
Issue 2: containment of the anxieties
Most participants claimed that collaboration was necessary. They expressed motives
such as a stronger impact on policy makers and judges, a more efficient use of
resources, less shopping behavior, career opportunities for employees (e.g.
specialization), a professional image, and higher chances of finding the optimal
solution for the child. There was tension between the intention to collaborate and the
198

ambivalent emotional responses to the prospect of collaboration. The employees, for
instance, feared that working in a large, anonymous organization would lower the
quality of assistance, creativity, diversity, motivation, and flexibility. They
anticipated the loss of their job, their expertise, their identity, and established
relationships. Collaboration, for them, implied they could no longer be ‘the best’.
“There is a formal procedure. The quality is in the tailor made approach. (…) How can you then
distinguish yourself? You want to make a difference. What if we collaborate more intensely? I
don’t want to be stuck in routine. (…) I don’t want to give in too much, because I have been
involved in developing our vision and procedure.” (Employee 2, interview)
There was external pressure on the managers to be ‘successful’. Policy makers
expected a model for Flanders, the stakeholders in foster care had high hopes for
better solutions, and the other foster care services in Flanders were closely following
the project because the results could have consequences for them. The managers
were anxious about losing the identity and autonomy of their organizations. They
were so preoccupied with their interpretation of the objective and intention of the
project that the collaboration did not come off the ground (Huffington et al., 2004).
They were afraid of conflict and did not want to endanger the collaborative
relationships they had built over the last ten years. It often seemed as if talking about
‘collaboration’ was a way to evade disagreement and discussion about the real
differences.
At the start some structures were established that contained the tensions in the
process. The formal terms of the contract (e.g. deadline) provided some landmarks.
The ‘project’ was a transitional phenomenon (Winnicott, 1971) to deal with the
anxiety of the change process that was much broader, fundamental, and longer than
the scope of the project. Initially, the concept of a ‘reception function’ facilitated
interaction around a shared theme; it served the function of a ‘transitional object’
(Winnicott, 1971). The participants projected different fantasies on to the idea of a
reception function (e.g. a ‘philosophical concept, a merger, a telephone line, a house,
a strategic notion to obtain funding), but they never thoroughly explored the
concept. The lack of a clear and shared primary task provoked tensions. As the
199

process moved along it became obvious that the agenda of the convener was not
shared by all and that the concept was too vague to mobilize energy.
The relatively small project group and the presence of a facilitator provided
containment and encouraged the managers to speak for their constituency and to talk
about their concerns. The managers often used humor to reduce the tension and
openly talked about their ‘anxiety’, ‘how a dream can turn into a nightmare’, and
having ‘sleepless nights’. They were stunned by the boldness of their own ideas
when they read them on paper. I did notice that the managers rarely shared and
explored their feelings. At one point, for instance, the convener mentioned that
maybe it would be interesting to reflect on their feelings and concerns, but this issue
was not picked up by the group. Instead, they talked about the ‘resistance’ of their
employees. Most meetings of the project group demonstrated an odd mixture of task
orientation and off-task behavior. On the one hand the agenda was full, the meetings
had to be ‘functional’ and timing was strict. There was little time left for informal
contact. On the other hand we were often surprised how difficult it was to keep the
group focused on the agenda. Usually there were lots of digressions, chatting about
trivial subjects, and sometimes the meetings were chaotic. This seemed to serve the
function of maintaining a good relationship, while at the same time it was used
defensively. The members hardly used the time and space of the meetings as a
‘potential space’ (Winnicott, 1971) where they could explore their feelings and work
them through, and engage in creative, playful experimentation and imagination of
future scenarios without immediate binding consequences. Such ‘transitional spaces’
facilitate change in emergent processes where the outcome is uncertain (Amado &
Ambrose, 2001; Amado & Vansina, 2005).
The managers were surprised by the emotional responses of their staff to the project
and established a minimal structure to contain the anxieties of their employees. They
provided some guarantees (e.g. no job loss, no merger) and gave a clear mandate to
the work groups (e.g. task, available time). The managers tried to be a model for their
200

employees and talked about their personal dreams and worries and the struggle they
were going through as ‘management group’.
“The frame must be clear. Too many things are fuzzy now. I don’t feel good about that.”
(Employee, interview)
“You cannot know in advance where you will end up, what the objective is. And when you
start, you get overwhelmed with fears!” (Employee, stakeholder conference 3)
The consultants made some procedural interventions to structure the process: a
project plan with phases, reporting of meetings, a stakeholder analysis, and a
structured representation of the critical issues. When tension was high the
coordinator constructed an ‘objective’ overview of the differences and similarities
between the services, based on their mission statements. Although this intervention
was intended to contain the anxiety of discussing the differences between the
services, some participants experienced it as a way to avoid direct interaction around
difficult issues. The managers did not experience diversity as an added value or
necessity for collaboration. During the preparation of the stakeholder conferences the
managers made a difference between ‘internal’ and ‘external’ stakeholders. By
excluding the external perspective they drifted away from the primary task. This
decision, which was intended to reduce the complexity and tensions of the process,
confronted the participants with new dilemmas. From that moment, the differences
between the services came to the foreground. The ambivalence of the managers
about collaboration was projected onto the liberal service. They were identified as
‘difficult’ and became the scapegoat for the group. The ‘liberals’ stepped out,
allegedly because of ‘ideological incompatibility’. The real reasons were not openly
discussed. This ‘us and them’ dynamic further reduced the complexity,
interdependence and diversity in the process.
Towards the end of the project the process was formalized into ‘classic’
organizational structures. Work groups were set up consisting of employees only.
Their task was to work out solutions and propose them to ‘management’ (project
group). This formalization maintained the hierarchical relationships between
employees, managers, board members, and closed down the boundaries between
201

internal and external stakeholders. On the one hand the work groups moved the
project ahead, although there was no clear intention or scenario for collaboration yet.
On the other hand, this premature formalizing of the process closed off the process of
exploration in the domain. The primary task had shifted from finding optimal
solutions for the child and its environment to the intention to reorganize two
procedures in four services, in the interest of organizational survival.
A number of unintentional and deliberate facilitating structures and processes
contained the anxiety in the process. However, the consultants and participants did
not manage to establish conditions for a ‘transitional space’ to facilitate the change.
There was no forum where the representatives of the domain could safely explore
scenarios for the future of foster care. The direction of the domain was established by
a restricted group of ‘internal’ stakeholders, who were locked in their positions.
Issue 3: Inadequacy and failure
As Mawson (1994) observed, in many work situations the main anxiety that needs to
be contained is the experience of inadequacy. Parental failure to take care of a child is
at the heart of foster care. The verdict of a judge to entrust a child to other people
who will – temporarily – take over the parenting role is extremely hard for parents. It
provokes feelings of inadequacy, shame, guilt, rivalry, and is a threat to the identity
of the parents. The children and parents were not interviewed or invited to any
meeting. The managers never gave us any names of children or parents for the
interviews. The participants all ‘spoke for’ the child, as if the child did not have a
voice of its own. The painful experiences of the foster child and the parents were shut
out. The concerns for the child seemed to be displaced. It was striking, for instance,
how the managers talked about board members ‘nurturing their child’, which
referred to the ideology of the services. The four managers, all women, acted as
protective mothers towards their employees.
202

One of the motives to start the project was the failure of the services to take care of
children in problematic home situations. Because potential candidate foster families
were scarce, the managers feared that they, or the others, would lower their
standards. This was morally unacceptable for them.
“The project text states: each child that requests help should be placed in the family that
provides the best fit. It is very crude, but in practice you try to couple the child with one of your
own families.” (Manager 1, meeting project group 9)
The issue of failure spilled over into the process. The convener and some of her
colleagues had invested high hopes in the project. They were impatient and
disappointed by the slowness of the process. They realized that organizational
objectives were getting in the way. The managers did not succeed within the time
frame of the project, to produce the expected results and to move beyond
collaboration in safe domains, which they had been trying to do for so long.
“The power of collaboration is the concern for the child, parents and foster parents and not the
concern to maintain your organization” (Board member 2, interview)
My sense of the relationship between the consulting team and the system was that
the consultants were doing the work and that both sides were frustrated. It was as if
the managers projected their negative experiences of failure and inadequacy onto the
consultants. The call for process facilitation was like a plea from the managers to take
care of them. It was as if both the managers and the consultants experienced the
anxiety of a ‘parentless’ process. As the process moved along, the senior consultant
started to over-function and to ‘take care’ of the managers. He accompanied them,
for instance, to negotiations with policy makers about the follow-up of the project.
The consultants were gradually drawn in a collusive relationship with the
participants. They went along with some decisions made by the managers that
moved the process away from the primary task. For instance, we did not emphasize
the need to explore the problem before talking about solutions. We let the convener
push her idea of a reception function. We did not sufficiently stress the necessity to
include the voice of the children and parents. We did not clearly challenge the
203

decision to focus on ‘internal matters’. Most stakeholders had claimed that the
subsidizing system was the principal obstacle to collaboration, but we did not
intervene when policy makers were not actively involved as critical stakeholder in
the process. These examples demonstrate that the consultants colluded with the
system at several moments.
It seems important to address painful issues and experiences, because they are
expressed in the system in different ways. Working through these issues can bring
the participants closer to the core of their work and to the primary task they
collectively need to work on. Those facilitating a collaborative process should watch
the risk of being drawn into the system.
Conclusion
This paper demonstrates how the psychodynamic perspective can be adopted as the
organizing principle in organizational research. It shows how an organizational
researcher can use subjective experiences as additional data to tap into the
underlying dynamics in the system. The dynamics in the action research were
analyzed by taking into account subjective data, observations, as well as the context
and history of the collaborative and its partners. The dynamics in the consulting
team, the relationship between consultants and the system, and parallel dynamics in
the system were discussed. The analysis emphasizes some defensive dynamics that
hindered task oriented work, such as exclusion of ‘external’ stakeholders,
scapegoating of a reluctant partner, and avoiding to deal with an important obstacle
to collaboration in the context. This approach resulted in a rich and contextualized
narrative of a dynamic process in its natural setting. The case analysis documents
how the consultants were absorbed in the system and how small events resulted in a
drift away from the primary task that was experienced as too threatening.
Making sense of the inevitable tensions and conflicts is at the heart of collaborative
work (Cooper & Dartington, 2004). From a psychodynamic perspective the role of a
204

facilitator in a change process is to be a ‘comforter’ and to – temporarily – contain the
anxieties stirred up by the uncertainty and ambiguity of the process (Amado &
Ambrose, 2001). A facilitator helps participants to adapt the rational knowing and
emotional feelings to the emergent situation (Vansina, 2004). The ambiguous starting
conditions, the contested role and implicit differences in assumptions of the
consultants, dynamics of splitting and premature formalizing of the process, and the
collusive relationship with the system, resulted in poor containment of the anxieties
stirred up in the process. Therefore it was hard to develop a shared task and to
establish common ground. This case demonstrates that in the unfolding process of
collaborative work, both participants and consultants needed to learn to ‘live with
the mess’ and with the emergence of the process. The challenge in new forms of
organizing, characterized by fluidity, emergence and interdependence, is to develop
new containing practices that enable anxiety and conflicts to be contained and
worked through (Huffington et al., 2004). Other cross-functional, cross-disciplinary,
and inter-organizational processes of organizing are confronted with similar
challenges.
The psychodynamic perspective provides additional insight in the study of what
actually happens in an emergent organizational process, both on the manifest and
latent level, and how subjectivity is expressed in the process. Addressing the
underlying forces also provides a deeper understanding of the dynamics that operate
in the construction of the research environment (Clarke, 2002). The psychodynamic
perspective offers insight in the phenomenon of 'collaborative inertia', or the
observation that the output of collaborations is often slowed down or below the
expectations (Huxham, 1996). This perspective makes us more aware of the
emotional challenges of developing an environment for collaboration, defensive
dynamics, and the facilitating conditions required for productive collaborative work
(Gould et al., 1999; Long, Newton & Dalgleish, 2000; Page, 2003; Ring & Van de Ven,
1994). Because the psychodynamic perspective also operates ‘below the surface’, its
main contribution is a better understanding of the paradox between the intention
and societal necessity for creative collaboration, and the emotional and defensive
205

esponses when participants are confronted with the dilemmas and ambiguity of
emergent collaborative processes.
References
Amado, G. & Ambrose, A. (Eds.) (2001). The transitional approach to change. London:
Karnac.
Amado, G. & Vansina, L. (Eds.) (2005). The Transitional approach in action. London:
Karnac.
Anderson, D. & White, J.D. (2000). Psychoanalytic organizational theory: Comparative and
philosophical perspectives. Paper presented at the 13th Conference of the Public
Administration Theory Network, Fort Lauderdale, January.
Berg, D.N. (1988). Anxiety in the research relationships. In Berg, D.N. & Smith, K.K.
(Eds.), The self in social inquiry. Researching methods (pp. 213-228). Newbury Park:
Sage Publications.
Berg, D.N. & Smith, K.K. (1988). The clinical demands of research methods. In Berg,
D.N. & Smith, K.K. (Eds.), The self in social inquiry. Researching methods (pp. 21-34).
Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Bion, W.R. (1970). Attention and interpretation. London: Karnac Books.
Bradbury, H. & Bergmann Lichtenstein, B.M. (2000). Relationality in organizational
research: exploring the space between. Organization Science, 11 (5), September-
October, 551-564.
Chisholm, R. & Elden, M. (1993). Features of emerging action research. Human
Relations, 46 (2), 275-297.
Clarke, S. (2002). Learning from experience: psycho-social research methods in the
social sciences. Qualitative Research, 2 (2), 173-194.
Cooper, A. & Dartington, T. (2004). The vanishing organization: Organizational
containment in a networked world. In Huffington, C., Armstrong, D., Halton, W.,
Hoyle, L. & Pooley, J.( Eds.), Working below the surface. The emotional life of
contemporary organizations (pp. 127-150). London: Karnac.
Czander, W.M. (1993). The psychodynamics of work and organizations. Theory and
application. New York: Guilford Press.
Dawson, P. (1997). In at the deep end: Conducting processual research on
organisational change. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13 (4), 389-405.
Devereux, G. (1967). From anxiety to method in the behavioral sciences. The Hague:
Mouton & Co.
206

Diamond, M. & Allcorn, S. (2003). The cornerstone of psychoanalytic organizational
analysis: Psychological reality, transference and counter transference in the
workplace. Human Relations, 56 (4), 491-514.
Driver, M. (2003). Nothing clinical, just business? Reflections on psychoanalytically
grounded organizational diagnosis and intervention. Human Relations, 56 (1), 39-59.
Edelson, M. (1988). The hermeneutic turn and the single case study in psychoanalysis.
In Berg, D.N. & Smith, K.K. (Eds.), The self in social inquiry. Researching methods (pp.
71-104). Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.
Eden, C. & Huxham, C. (1996). Action research for the study of organizations. In Clegg,
S.R., Hardy, C. & Nord, W.R. (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 526-542).
London: Sage.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of
Management Review, 14 (4), 532-550.
Feyerherm, A., (1997) Leading M.E.N.: Perspectives on leadership in multistakeholder
environmental negotiations. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Boston.
Flick, U. (2002). An introduction to qualitative research. Second Edition. London: Sage.
Gabriel, Y. (Ed.) (1999). Organizations in depth. The psychoanalysis of organizations.
London: Sage.
Gardner, M.R. (1989). Self inquiry. Hillsdale: The Analytic Press.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Gilmore, T.N. & Krantz, J. (1985). Projective identification in the consulting
relationship: Exploring the unconscious dimensions of a client system. Human
Relations, 38 (12), 1159-1177.
Gould, L. (1991). Using psychoanalytic frameworks for organizational analysis. In Kets
de Vries, M. (Ed.), Organizations on the couch; Clinical perspectives on organizational
behavior and change (pp. 25-44). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gould, L.J., Ebers, R. & Mc Vicker Clinchy, R. (1999). The systems psychodynamics of a
joint venture: Anxiety, social defenses and the management of mutual dependence.
Human Relations, 52 (6), 697-722.
Gould, L.G., Stapley, L.F. & Stein, M. (Eds.) (2001). The systems psychodynamics of
organizations. Integrating the group relations approach, psychoanalytic, and open systems
perspectives. London: Karnac.
Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: finding common ground for multiparty problems. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
207

Halton, W. (1994). Some unconscious aspects of organizational life: Contributions from
psychoanalysis. In Obholzer, A. & Zagier Roberts, V. (Eds.), The unconscious at work
(pp. 11-18). Routledge: London.
Heller, F. (2004). Action research and research action: A family of methods. In Cassell,
C. & Symon, G. (Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research
(pp. 349-360). London: Sage.
Hirschhorn, L. (1997). Reworking authority. Leading and following in the post-modern
organization. Cambridge Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Hirschhorn, L. & Gilmore, T. (1992). The new boundaries of the “boundaryless”
company. Harvard Business Review, May/June, 70 (3), 104-115.
Hollway, W. & Jefferson, T. (2000). Doing qualitative research differently: Free association,
narrative and the interview method. London: Sage.
Huberman, A.M. & Miles, M.B. (1988). Assessing local causality in qualitative research.
In Berg, D.N. & Smith, K.K. (Eds.), The self in social inquiry. Researching methods (pp.
351-381). Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.
Huffington, C. & James, K. (1999). Issues in management research, and the value of a
psychoanalytic perspective: A case study in organisational stress in a Japanese multinational
company. Paper presented at the International Society for the
Psychoanalytic Study of Organizations Symposium, June.
Huffington, C., Armstrong, D., Halton, W., Hoyle, L. & Pooley, J.( Eds.) (2004). Working
below the surface. The emotional life of contemporary organizations. London: Karnac.
Huffington, C., James, K. & Armstrong, D. (2004). What is the emotional cost of
distributed leadership? In Huffington, C., Armstrong, D., Halton, W., Hoyle, L. &
Pooley, J.( Eds.), Working below the surface. The emotional life of contemporary
organizations (pp. 67-82). London: Karnac.
Hunt, J. (1989). Psychoanalytic aspects of fieldwork. Qualitative Research Methods.
Volume 18. London: Sage.
Huxham, C. (Ed.) (1996). Creating collaborative advantage. London: Sage Publications.
Huxham, C. & Vangen, S. (2000). Leadership in the shaping and implementation of
collaboration agendas: How things happen in a (not quite) joined-up world.
Academy of Management Journal, 43, (6), 1159-1175.
Huxham, C. & Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to collaborate. The theory and practice of
collaborative advantage. London: Routledge.
Kets de Vries (Ed.) (1991). Organizations on the couch. Clinical perspectives on
organizational behavior and change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Klein, L. (1976). A social scientists in industry. Epping, Essex: Gower Press.
208

Krantz, J. (1990). Lessons from the field: An essay on the crisis of leadership in
contemporary organizations. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 26, (1), 49-64.
Krantz, J. (1998). Anxiety & the New Order. In Klein, B. & Gabelnick, F. & Herr, P.
(Eds.), The psychodynamics of leadership (pp. 77-107). Madison: Psychosocial Press.
Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management
Review, 24 (4), 691-710.
Lapierre, L. (1991). Exploring the dynamics of leadership. In Kets de Vries (Ed.)
Organizations on the couch. Clinical perspectives on organizational behavior and change
(pp. 69-93). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Levinson, H. (1991). Diagnosing organizations systematically. In Kets de Vries (Ed.),
Organizations on the couch. Clinical perspectives on organizational behavior and change
(pp. 45-68). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Long, S., Newton, J. & Dalgleish, J. (2000). In the presence of the other: Developing
working relations for organizational learning. In Klein, E.B., Gabelnick, F. & Herr,
P. (Eds.), Dynamic consultation in a changing workplace (pp. 161-192). Madison,
Connecticut: Psychosocial Press.
Mawson, C. (1994). Containing anxiety in work with damaged children. In Obholzer,
A. & Roberts, V. (Eds.), The unconscious at work. Individual and organizational stress in
the human services (pp. 67-74). London: Routledge.
Meek, H.W. (2003). The place of the unconscious in qualitative research. Forum
Qualitative Social Research, 4 (2), May.
Menzies, I. E. P. (1960). A case study in the functioning of social systems as a defense
against anxiety. Human Relations, 13, 95-121.
Miller, E. (1997). Effecting organisational change in large complex systems: A
collaborative consultancy approach. In Neumann, J.E., Kellner, K. & Dawson-
Sheperd, A. (Eds.), Developing organisational consultancy (pp. 187-212). Routledge:
London.
Neumann, J. & Hirschhorn, L. (1999). The challenge of integrating psychodynamic and
organizational theory. Human Relations, 52 (6), 683-695.
Obholzer, A. (1999). Managing the unconscious at work. In French, R. & Vince, R.
(Eds.), Group relations, management and organization (pp. 87-97). Oxford: University
Press.
Page, M. (2003). Leadership and collaboration challenges in not for profit partnerships.
Organisational and Social Dynamics, 3 (2), 207-225.
Patton, M.Q. (1987). Qualitative Evaluation Methods. London: Sage.
209

Pettigrew, A.M. (1997). What is processual analysis? Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 13 (4), 337-348.
Prins, S., Craps, M. & Taillieu, T. (2006). Boundary dynamics in natural resource
management: The ambiguity of stakeholder inclusion. Revue Gouvernance, 2 (2),
January, 2-11.
Reik, T. (1948). Listening with the third ear. The inner experience of a psychoanalyst. New
York: Grove Press.
Ring, P.S. & Van de Ven, A.H. (1994). Developmental processes of cooperative
interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19 (1), 90-118.
Schein, E.H. (1987). The clinical perspective in fieldwork. Newbury Park: Sage.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. New York:
Basic Books.
Schonberg, A. (1998). Two basic assumptions in the psychoanalytic study of organizations.
Paper presented at the International Society for the Psychoanalytic Study of
Organizations Symposium, June.
Schwandt, T.A. (1998). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In
Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research. Theories and
issues (pp. 221-259). London: Sage.
Schwartzman, H.B. (1993). Ethnography in organizations. Qualitative Research Methods,
volume 27. Newbury Park: Sage.
Shapiro, E.R. & Carr, A.W. (1991). Lost in familiar places. Creating new connections between
the individual and society. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Smith, K.K. (1995). On using the self as instrument. Lessons from a facilitator's
experience. In Gillette, J & McCollom, M. (Eds.), Groups in context. A new perspective
on group dynamics (pp. 276-294). Lanham: University Press of America.
Spradley, J. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). The basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures
for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Trist, E. & Murray, H. (1990). (Eds.) The social engagement of the social science. Volume 1:
the socio-psychological perspective. London: Free Associations Books.
Van de Ven, A.H. & Poole, M.S. (2005). Alternative approaches for studying
organizational change. Organization Studies, 26 (9), 1377-1404.
Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
210

Van Manen, M. (1990) Researching lived experience: human science for an action sensitive
pedagogy. London: Althouse.
Vansina, L. (2000). The relevance and perversity of psychodynamic interventions in
consulting and action research. Concepts and Transformation, 5 (3), 53-80.
Vansina, L. (2004). Over zin en onzin van psychodynamiek voor organisatieadviseurs.
In Varwijk, W. & R. van Zijl (Eds.), Strategie moet je samen doen. Visies op strategisch
management uit theorie en praktijk (pp. 159-177). Ubbergen: Tandem Felix.
Vansina-Cobbaert, M.J. (2005). A therapeutic community: A space for multiple
transitional change. In Amado, G. & Vansina, L. (Eds.), The transitional approach in
action (pp. 41-70). London: Karnac.
Winnicott, D.W. (1971). Playing and reality. London: Routledge.
Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research. Design and methods. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage Publications.
211

FROM COMPETITION TO COLLABORATION: DYNAMICS OF DIRECTION
SETTING IN MULTIPARTY COLLABORATION (ARTICLE 4)
Silvia Prins & Tharsi Taillieu
“Foster care is, in its method and essence, about making connections around the child, the foster
parents and the parents. So the issue of connection is critical in our organizations and in this
process.” (A manager of a foster care organization, interview)
Introduction
The aim of this paper is to understand how a collaborative, multi-stakeholder
process gradually shifted away from its original intention. The paper begins with an
outline of the organizational framework of multiparty collaboration. Then it
discusses how the systems psychodynamic perspective can provide an
understanding of how people deal with tensions that inevitably arise in collaborative
work. The paper discusses a case study in the domain of foster care where five
independent organizations set out to develop structural collaboration. The case
analysis draws attention to three issues with which the participants were struggling
and the dynamics that emerged around those issues. The aim of the paper is to
understand how these dynamics set the direction of the process and gradually
moved it away from a stakeholder approach focused on the domain of foster care to
an internal focus on the individual organizations.
Conceptual background
Multiparty collaboration: the challenges of direction setting
Multiparty collaboration is “(…) a process through which parties who see different aspects
of a problem can constructively explore their differences and search for solutions that go
beyond their own limited vision of what is possible” (Gray, 1989, 5). The parties come
together precisely because of their membership in other organizations or groups
(Zagier Roberts, 1994). Stakeholders have vested interests in the domain and differ in
perspective, information, power and resources. Therefore inter-group characteristics
212

are predominant in collaborative work (Vansina, Taillieu & Schruijer, 1998).
Stakeholders are compelled to collaborate, because incremental or bilateral efforts do
not produce satisfactory results. The diversity of perspectives is essential to establish
a comprehensive definition of the problem and to develop optimal, sustainable
solutions that are widely supported. Gray (1989) distinguishes five characteristics of
a collaborative: (1) the stakeholders in the domain are interdependent; (2) solutions
emerge by dealing constructively with differences; (3) joint ownership of decisions is
involved; (4) stakeholders assume collective responsibility for the future direction of
the domain; and (5) collaboration is an ‘emergent process’. This paper illustrates how
participants in a collaborative struggle with these issues.
A particular challenge of collaborative work is how to define ‘leadership’ in a setting
where hierarchy is not a valid organizing principle. Traditional models of leadership
are not suitable for the collaborative context and literature on leading and convening
often overlaps. Leadership is emergent and informal and it is often shared by those
involved (Huxham & Vangen, 2000). Because these concepts do not provide a
satisfactory basis for understanding how the direction of a collaborative is set, this
study focuses on ‘dynamics of direction setting’. This perspective is inspired by
Feyerherm’s (1997, 1) definition of leaders as the persons “who influence the course of
events, the ways issues get framed and resolved, and the people who influence the outcomes of
the gathering”. Attempts at influencing the direction and outcome are particularly
relevant when the authority structure is ambiguous, such as in a collaborative. In
order to make sense of these dynamics I adopt the system psychodynamic
perspective.
The system psychodynamic perspective: understanding collaborative dynamics
From the system psychodynamic perspective (Obholzer & Zagier Roberts, 1994;
Gould, Stapley & Stein, 2001; Huffington, Armstrong, Halton, Hoyle & Pooley, 2004)
working in a collaborative is influenced by conscious as well as by hidden and
unconscious motives. The assumption is that in an inter-organizational context
213

groups share collective, unconscious assumptions about other relevant groups which
are manifested in conscious and unconscious processes (e.g. stereotyping). These
assumptions influence the quality of the inter-group relationships (Gould, Ebers &
Clinchy, 1999).
Participants in a collaborative are confronted with different sources of anxiety that
stem from the context, the nature of the collaborative process, and the relationships
with other stakeholders in the domain. The organizational context is often
ambiguous, turbulent and complex. Representatives have to adapt to the changing
opportunities and restrictions in the environment. External events, such as a change
in policy, can have a profound effect on the collaborative. The collaborative process
is emergent and the outcome is unknown. A collaborative is often under-organized
and there are few containing structures and processes because these cannot be
established in advance (e.g. task, roles, membership). ‘Psychological boundaries’ are
experienced and enacted in the interactions among representatives. They relate, for
instance, to authority (who is in charge of what?) and identity (who is - and who is
not - 'us') (Hirschhorn & Gilmore, 1992). The requirement to develop collaborative
relationships confronts representatives with mutual dependency, diversity, the
potential for conflict, and asymmetries between the parties. They have to deal with
challenges to their identity (e.g. fear to lose one’s identity, to be excluded) and to
their autonomy. These anxieties may provoke defensive responses. The pioneering
work of Menzies (1960) on social defenses, has demonstrated that unconscious
anxieties are often reflected in organizational structure and design, which function to
defend against the uncontained anxieties in the workplace. According to Krantz
(1998) the social defense theory is more relevant than ever. Multiparty collaboration
as a new way of organizing requires new social defenses in order to balance the
needs of the individuals, groups and organizations. In case analysis I emphasize the
following phenomena. (1) The response of participants to issues or dilemmas that
provoke tensions. (2) The relationship between task, relationships and system
features: how the characteristics of the organizational context provoke particular
dynamics and how these dynamics in turn shape the organizational context.
214

The aim of this in-depth case study was to explore the way in which direction was
established. It discusses how the participants made sense of the collaborative
experience, both individually (accounts) and collectively (participative observation).
The research was designed to capture the variety of perspectives, the complexity and
the ambiguity of the subject (Langley, 1999). It focuses on the emergent process
embedded in a context over time (Pettigrew, 1997; Dawson, 1997; Heller, 2004). I
constructed a narrative account of a process of organizing “by narrating emergent
actions and activities by which collective endeavors unfold” (Van de Ven & Poole, 2005).
My aim was to arrive at an understanding (‘Verstehen’) of the phenomena in their
complexity, wholeness and uniqueness, rather than to explain or predict them
(Edelson, 1988). To avoid the risk of ‘psychological reductionism’ I included the
history, context and system features of the collaborative (Pettigrew, 1997; Schonberg,
1998; Neumann & Hirschhorn, 1999). The case study provides a rich and
contextualized understanding of a collaborative process and constructs a ‘thick’
description’ of meaning (Geertz, 1973). The insights are grounded in empirical data
and the challenge of this paper is to provide a conceptualization that is potentially
relevant for similar contexts (Chisholm & Elden, 1993; Eden & Huxham, 1996).
The case: issues in direction setting
The domain of foster care and antecedents of the project
The case study is based on a project in the domain of foster care for children in a
region in Flanders (Belgium). A foster family (temporarily) provides a safe family
environment for children who cannot live at home. Most placements are the result of
a decision by the juvenile court (‘mandatory’) or the Committee for special youth
assistance (‘voluntary’). A small proportion of the placements (10%) are organized by
private arrangement. The foster care services, the central organizations in this
project, are private agencies under authorization of and subsidized by the Flemish
Community. Their tasks are: recruitment, screening and training of foster families;
matching the child to the foster family; monitoring of the placement situation;
215

assisting the child and the foster parents; providing assistance to the parents. Each
region counts several foster care services. The institutional landscape of foster care is
intricate. The Federation for foster care represents all the services in Flanders. There
are four subsidizing sectors: Special Youth Care (forced or voluntary placement of
children in a problematic situation), Care for the Handicapped, Mental Health
(community psychiatry), and Child and Family (prevention). Each sector follows its
rules and regulations. The domain of foster care is also characterized by differences
in ideology (catholic, pluralistic, liberal) which are reflected, for instance, in the
platforms representing employers’ interests.
Several evolutions in the domain inspired practitioners to start a project. The foster
care services were confronted with a lack of candidate families to take care of the
increasing number of children eligible for foster care (1998-2002: 20% increase).
Moreover, the problem situations around the child had become more severe and
complicated due to, for instance, a growing number of divorces of both natural and
foster parents. This required more specialized assistance and increased the number
of players to be involved. The services were partly aware of how the field perceived
them: a negative image, an unclear profile, a small player in welfare, an unknown
offer, and no transparent or effective coordination of assistance. It frequently
happened, for instance, that social workers asked three services at the same time to
look for a family. Sometimes families or relegating parties played the services off
against each other. This way of functioning led to a waste of time, energy and
resources.
The welfare policy moved towards a regional organization of services and an
integrated approach of assistance. Foster care, as a small and separate sector, was
seriously questioned. This implied a need to align with other forms of assistance (e.g.
mixed forms), to develop a more varied offer, and to specialize. The environment
was turbulent (e.g. a project to integrate assistance for children and adolescents). The
foster care services realized that an imposed merger was likely. This was an
important trigger to take an initiative. According to the managers of the services the
216

subsidizing mechanism in foster care was the critical obstacle to collaboration.
Subsidies were based on the number of placements organized by a service and were
granted after placement of a child in a foster family. The managers realized they
were competing for resources and clients.
“The foster care services feel the need to collaborate in order to arrive at a more qualitative,
differentiated and efficient offer that can respond to the multiple kinds of requests for
assistance. The competitive position, due to a survival reflex on the shrinking market of
candidate foster families, and the present policy, make an effective collaboration very hard”
(Project proposal).
“We are all fishing in the same pond. (…) We have to change the subsidizing system because it
provokes competition.” (Manager 4, meeting project group 2, January 2004)
“You cannot grow too much, because it is always at the cost of another service.” (Manager 2,
stakeholder interview)
“The project text states: each child that requests help should be placed in the family that
provides the best fit. It is very crude, but in practice you try to couple the child with one of your
own families.” (Manager 1, meeting project group 9, July 2004)
“It’s a perverse system.” (Manager 1, stakeholder interview)
The story: the bumpy road to collaboration
The convener, a manager of a foster care service, asked our Center to help her to
develop a ‘network organization’. The convener wished to respond proactively to the
changes in welfare policy. Her experiences as foster mother, as coach of foster
families, and now as manager had convinced her that collaboration would lead to a
‘higher quality in foster care’. For her, this referred to the ability to offer a broad
variety of tailor made forms of assistance, and to an optimization of efficiency and
effectiveness of assistance by bringing together the know-how and resources of
different services. She wrote a project proposal and contacted our Centre. In
consultation with the convener, the project was designed in a multi-stakeholder
perspective. The project was a ‘pilot’ and the idea was that the experiences and
results could be used as a model for Flanders. The formal objectives of the project
were: (1) develop a structural basis for collaboration among foster care services in
one region; (2) develop a concept for a ‘reception function’ for foster care. A year
after submitting the project, funding was unexpectedly approved.
“The project is an ‘accident de parcours’. It started because of a conjunction of circumstances.”
(Head Federation, interview)
217

A consultant team of four, of which I was part, was hired to coordinate and facilitate
the process in an action research perspective. My task was documentation of the
process. I observed meetings, made field notes and also actively participated in the
project. This position allowed me to find a balance between closeness and distance, in
order to ‘sit on the boundary' (Smith, 1995). My primary aim was discovery and
learning from the collaborative experience, whereas the main aim of my colleagues
was to support the participants to pursue their objectives. To arrive at an in-depth
understanding of the emergent organizing process I used data triangulation (Yin,
1994; Flick, 2002). At the start of the project I interviewed 34 stakeholder
representatives, together with my colleague, to assess the perceptions of foster care in
the domain. We presented an overview of the issues and discussed our feedback
with the participants. Their comments were included as data (Huberman & Miles,
1988). After the project I interviewed the nine members of the project group to assess
the critical events in the process. I systematically made field notes of meetings of the
project group (13), the internal meetings of the consultants (13), and the stakeholder
conferences (3 days). I kept track of my personal experiences and feelings in
journalizing notes.
During a meeting of the Federation the convening organization and three other
services volunteered for the project. Ten years ago they had set up a ‘regional
consultation platform’, they had established a list of basic principles (e.g. a candidate
foster family can only be involved in a selection procedure in one service at a time),
and collaborated in ‘safe domains’ (e.g. organization of annual ‘foster care week’). In
the case discussion we will see that moving beyond those ‘safe domains’ proved to
be very difficult. The fifth service operating in the region, of liberal inspiration, was
not present at the Federation. A few days later, they agreed to join.
“We were contacted en we had two or three days to decide. When you read the project you
cannot but agree. You were all much further in making it concrete than we were at the moment
we stepped in.” (Manager 5, meeting project group 9)
A ‘project group’ (see table 11, article 3) was set up and met on a monthly basis. This
group was the main vehicle for collaboration and I assumed it was the platform
218

where the dynamics of the system were played out. From the multi-stakeholder
perspective, foster care is an inter-organizational domain (Trist, 1983) with
interdependent stakeholders. Accordingly, the project group identified a wide group
of stakeholder representatives in foster care for interviewing. Together with my
colleague, I spent two months interviewing. We constructed a diagnosis of the
important issues in the domain of foster care. Based on discussion of our feedback
the project group designed a ‘stakeholder conference’. This provided a forum for
direct interaction among the ‘internal’ stakeholders (employees, managers and
boards of the services). The ‘external’ stakeholders were only invited in the morning.
The internal stakeholders decided to focus on internal matters first and continued
their discussions at a second stakeholder conference where they set up work groups.
Over a period of three months two groups of employees worked around specific
organizational procedures: inflow of children and selection of foster parents.
In parallel, ten months after the start of the project, the project group organized a
meeting with the board members. They wanted to reach an agreement in principle on
collaboration. During this meeting, the liberal service stepped out of the project. As
there were only two months left before the deadline, the project group tried to
achieve some concrete results for the final stakeholder conference. The managers
talked about potential scenarios for the future, conditions for collaboration, and
looked for additional funding. They invited the external stakeholders for the final
part of the third stakeholder conference. As there was no clear scenario for future
collaboration, the work groups and managers shared their experiences, ideas and
learning. The project had an open end since there was no certainty at that point if
there would be additional funding to continue the process.
Sense making of the dynamics: drifting away from the inter-organizational domain
In order to make sense of the dynamics, I made a reconstruction of the process based
on the available data as a provisional overview for analysis and interpretation
(Spradley, 1980). This allowed me to become intimately familiar with the case and to
219

keep the wholeness of the data in mind (Eisenhardt, 1989; Clarke, 2002; Hollway &
Jefferson, 2002). Secondly, I made a systematic analysis of the issues based on three
sets of data: (1) stakeholder interviews, (2) field notes of interaction moments, (3)
critical incident interviews. I looked for links, similarities and differences in the
material in a process of constant comparison, coding and categorizing (Strauss &
Corbin, 1998). I paid attention to thematic unity and internal consistency and to a
transparent approach to data analysis (Gould, 1991; Levinson, 1991). During informal
conversations and internal meetings the consulting team systematically tried to make
sense of what was happening (investigator triangulation, Patton, 1987). After the
project I checked my working hypotheses with my colleagues (critical incident
interviews, research seminar). Moreover, I discussed my findings with peers
(supervisor, mentor, colleagues at conferences) to have an outside perspective.
For this paper I selected three issues with which the participants were struggling: (1)
searching for direction; (2) dealing with complexity, diversity and interdependence;
and (3) coping with the emergent nature of the process. Other relevant issues, such as
the influence of the consultants and their relationship with the client system, are
discussed elsewhere (Prins, 2006, forthcoming). The issues are discussed separately,
although they are intertwined. Each issue is discussed and documented with case
material. The quotes are from interviews and observations.
Issue 1: Searching for direction
As the process unfolded, there was a critical tension between the formal objective
and the process of negotiating a shared objective. The formal objective of the project
was to develop a concept for a ‘reception function’. This was in line with the ‘one
stop shopping’ philosophy of policy makers, and therefore to some extent normative
and influenced by an external authority. Initially, the concept of a reception function
provided the managers with a reason or a ‘cover’ to sit around the table to talk about
the future and to adapt their internal world to an anticipated external world
(Vansina, 2004). For a while it served the function of a ‘transitional object’ (Winnicott,
220

1971) because it helped the participants to deal with the uncertainty of the change
process. The notion ‘reception function’ provoked different images and fantasies.
Some suggested it referred to a foster care house, a telephone number, a joint intake
procedure, a multi-organizational team, a first step towards a merger, and for one
participant it was just a ‘philosophical concept’. One representative feared the output
of the project would play into the hands of policy makers. He assumed it would
weaken the position of foster care in negotiations and make it easier for policy to cut
expenses. Still others stressed the concept had only been used for strategic reasons, to
speak the language of the policy makers. The concept provoked different emotional
responses ranging from hope to fear. As Turcotte and Pasquero (2001) suggest, this
sort of ambiguity can be strategic because it deals with the diversity of objectives
present in the system.
“The objective is to make the services more client-oriented. This doesn’t necessarily mean one
door per region, but it does mean the same message, the same approach, the same name, etc. I
suspect there could be a difference in opinion around this.” (Manager 1, stakeholder interview)
During the stakeholder interviews, the interviewers decided to drop the idea of a
reception function. We argued it was a solution for a problem that was not yet fully
explored. Later in the project, however, the convener reintroduced it and stressed the
centrality of the reception function. She even suggested using the name ‘project
reception function’. This intervention marked a ‘point of power’ (Huxham & Vangen,
2005) and can be seen as an attempt by the convener to push her agenda. The
convener was an authority figure in the group. It was as if her agenda could not be
questioned. Towards the end of the project the concept was still a socially desirable
vision of the future that was not thoroughly explored. As it was an ‘imposed’
transitional object it could no longer contain the anxiety in the group.
“The objective is a reception function. It was not the idea to let go of this concept. Then we
might as well all go home.” (Convener, meeting project group 9)
“That reception function, I never really understood what that was all about!” (Director 5, critical
incident interview)
The aim of the first stakeholder conference was to arrive at an agreement in principle
for collaboration. The representatives of the five services, who met for the first time,
221

stressed the many areas where they did not want to collaborate. They could hardly
translate their objections into ‘conditions’ for collaboration. Some participants
wondered what the benefit of collaboration would be and feared conflict, whereas
others were very explicit about the necessity to collaborate. The managers had
assumed the formal objectives would mobilize all participants around a common
aim. They were surprised by the resistance and different interpretations of the
objective. The question ‘what do we want to achieve together?’ kept coming back
until the end of the project and was not resolved within the time frame of the project.
“I had the feeling we already had an agreement. It seemed like a step backwards.” (Manager 3,
meeting project group 8)
“I fear that the starting points are not shared by everyone in the same way. There is enormous
diversity in the individual responses.” (Director 5, stakeholder conference 2)
“But we have made the choice! We have the money; it is all written down on paper. It is about a
reception function!” (Manager 3, meeting project group 9)
“We keep saying: do we want to collaborate or not?! We have started this project almost a year
ago!!” (Manager 3, meeting project group 10)
All participants claimed that collaboration was necessary. They expressed motives,
such as more impact on policy makers and judges, a more efficient use of resources,
less shopping behavior, more career opportunities for employees (e.g. specialization),
a more transparent and professional image, efficient use of public money, and more
chances of finding the optimal solution for the child.
“If we would collaborate, we would have a wonderful offer and a big capacity. Now it is all
scattered. I want there to be a drive for foster care, for the children, and not for one’s
organization. (…) If we collaborate we can have more impact on policy. We fight for the interest
of the child, not of the parents. If we have more weight, maybe they will listen to us.” (Manager
1, meeting project group 2)
However, there was a tension between the rationality, social desirability and rhetoric
of collaboration and the ambivalent emotional responses to the prospect of
collaboration. The managers realized that self-interests were getting in the way of
collaboration. It was as if they assumed that changing their practices would
jeopardize the identity of their organization.
“I am not sure if all services are prepared to collaborate. It makes no sense to hang on to one’s
identity and history. (…) The power of collaboration is the concern for the child, parents and
foster parents and not the concern to maintain your organization” (Board member 2,
stakeholder interview)
222

“The discussion is very much focused on the organizations. (…) We have a great interest in
collaborating. A foster mother said ‘it is a mess’. We are forced to collaborate.” (Board member
1, stakeholder conference 2)
“It is about identity. They strongly feel owner of their service. That is an essential feeling. The
reflex is: our service, our quality, our foster families. That is a strong feeling.” (Head Federation,
meeting project group 9)
“The first time I got an oppressed feeling was when we threw our objectives on the table during
the meeting with the board members. I thought to myself, ‘Jesus, how am I going to sell this to
my people?’ It is a great ambition. I did not have night mares, but I did have some sleepless
nights.” (Manager 4, stakeholder conference 3)
Obviously there were different agendas, both manifest and hidden. Most external
stakeholders hoped the project would result in more effective collaboration among
the services. Some hoped foster care would open up the boundaries of their sector
and collaborate with other forms of assistance in the domain. Others hoped the
project would lead to a merger. The employees were keen to collaborate because they
felt the necessity in their daily work. Towards the end of the year most board
members also committed to the project. The managers, who had known each other
for many years, turned out to be the most hesitant. They had different agendas. The
liberal service had not participated intentionally in the project and the idea of
structural collaboration was new for them. The convening organization had been the
driving force that started the project. The convener, and some allies, had invested
high hopes in the project. She wanted to move fast towards her goal and was often
impatient and disappointed. The managers talked about ‘differences in speed’
between the services and between employees, board members and themselves.
However, it was not always clear where they were heading to.
“The issues for improvement and themes exceed the services for foster care. It is also
about collaboration with residential institutions. You have to see it in a broader
perspective. It is also related to regulation and to the mentality.” (Policy maker,
stakeholder conference 1)
“I was very disillusioned after the first day. I had the feeling: what happens here should have
happened before the start of the project! (…) We have an ambitious objective. (…) Differences
are allowed. My ambitions were much higher.” (Manager 3, stakeholder conference 2)
“Some are in favor of joint selection and want to create a pool of parents. That is impossible for
us. A pool would force us to refuse people we cannot refuse. Everybody has his own way of
doing selections. Sometimes collaboration can go too far. (…) The employees are very
enthusiastic about collaboration, but the managers in the regional consultation platform are
223

very reserved. That is related to tactical issues. Decisions in the regional consultation platform
are inspired by individual concerns of the organizations” (Manager 5, stakeholder interview)
As the project progressed some participants seemed to idealize collaboration as an
end in itself. Talking about ‘collaboration’ seemed like a way to avoid talking about
disagreement and differences (Cooper & Dartington, 2004). A number of participants
wondered if all parties really wanted to collaborate and some did realize that the
purpose of collaboration was not clear. The managers presented a vague, potential
scenario for the future, based on the existing collaboration between two of the five
services. There were no criteria to assess the added value of collaboration (e.g.
shorter time cycle between demand and solution, more varied offer of assistance,
more foster families, more efficient use of resources). The issue was raised but not
solved.
“You have to start from problems and bottle-necks if you want to collaborate. If there is no goal,
it is not meaningful. I am not inclined to collaborate if there is no added value. (…) Just what is
the reason for this project?” (Employee 5, stakeholder interview)
“’Better foster care’ is too vague. You have to make operational what that means.” (Head
Federation, meeting project group 13)
“What are criteria to assess actions? What is quality?” (Head Federation, stakeholder conference
3)
The liberal service had been reluctant from the start. They gave several reasons for
their ambivalence. Their relationship with the four services was difficult due to the
behavior of the previous director. At one point, for instance, they had been kicked
out of the ‘regional consultation platform’ because they didn’t respect the
agreements. At the start of the project they were having internal problems in their
organization (e.g. newly appointed director, lay-offs, and a decrease in placements).
According to them the discussions in the project were not based on facts and
evidence (e.g. are all relegating parties in favor of collaboration?) and they felt
attacked whenever they asked for clarification. After internal consultation the liberal
service concluded that the project did not sufficiently benefit the children. They were
concerned about more strategic issues, such as how to organize foster care in
Flanders, how to deal with diversity and competition in the field, and how to balance
the economical costs of care with the future of the children. They also experienced
224

ambivalence in the other organizations. A representative of the liberal service vividly
remembered a small but significant incident. Someone ‘closely involved in the
project’ had said: ‘yes, but you are not going to discover my business secret’. He
observed that it seemed easier for the services to take a big step (e.g. develop a
reception function), than to take small steps (e.g. share the mission statements of the
organizations). He wondered if they really wanted to collaborate. The managers of
the other four services labeled the liberal service as ‘difficult’ and ‘slowing down’ the
process.
“A condition to commit to the project is to not constantly manifest resistance. Otherwise it is
better not to join. Otherwise you become a burden for the process. You shouldn’t constantly say
‘yes, but’.” (Manager 3, stakeholder conference 2)
“During the discussions with the board members there appeared to be a big gap in confidence.
My question is: how far should we go to bridge that gap? I want to go very far, put it all on the
table, if there is a guarantee that… I understand the mistrust. It is related to our history. I want
to involve everybody. But how long can we still wait?” (Manager 1, meeting project group 9)
There was a tension between moving on with only four services and investing time
and energy to arrive at common ground between the five services. The liberal service
seemed to serve the function of scapegoat for the group. It was obvious, however,
that all parties were anxious to commit to the open change process.
According to Gray (1989) the first phase in multiparty collaboration is focused on
‘problem setting’ in order to establish direction. It seems obvious that working
towards common aims provides the basis for collaboration. Huxham and Vangen
(2000) observed that often it is extremely difficult to agree upon collaborative goals
and that those involved frequently take action without clear specification of the
desired outcome. The work of Sherif (2001) has demonstrated the importance of
creating superordinate goals that one group cannot reach alone in order to foster
collaboration and to reduce the tension among different groups that operate in the
same domain. In the collaborative the variety of individual and organizational
agendas and the asymmetry of stakeholder groups made it hard to develop common
ground and to set the direction. The representatives invested a lot of time and energy
in the ‘pairing dance’, stressing how much experience they had in collaboration and
225

how good their relationship was. This prevented them, however, from putting their
agendas on the table and engaging in ‘interest bargaining’ (Vansina, 2002). The
awareness that this collaboration was indirectly imposed by policy makers and
strongly influenced by the agenda of the convener may have provoked resistance.
There was a tension between the necessity and the risk to put the agendas on the
table. In the discussion of the next issue we will see that open discussion about
differences almost provoked a conflict.
Issue 2: dealing with complexity, diversity and interdependence
In the course of the collaboration some small events moved the process away from
the inter-organizational domain of foster care. This resulted in a reduction of the
complexity, diversity and interdependence in the process. This dynamic was
influenced by the starting conditions of the project, by decisions made by the
managers and by interventions of the consultants.
A duality in the contract with policy makers produced ambiguous starting
conditions. The need to achieve a pre-defined outcome reduced the possibility to
engage in an emergent, multi-stakeholder process, as advocated in the contract.
Secondly, the choice for one region and for the sector of foster care as the focus of the
project reduced the scope of the change process from the start.
“The fact that the project is about collaboration between services in that region is in itself a
choice with which you exclude other options. It is, for instance, not a choice for collaboration
across forms of assistance, and it is not a choice for collaboration on a national level”
(Representative of umbrella organization for employers, stakeholder interview).
“What I observe is that a project proposal to obtain funding requires a procedural language.
And I wonder if a procedural language can capture the process… I don’t think so. It is like
broadcasting a video film through the radio. It is based on a structure and on pre-established
outcomes. (…) The financing organizations look for certainty in structures. Whereas the people
involved in foster care look for certainty in collaborative relationships, on the basis of which
they will develop and design new structures. How do you deal with that?” (Facilitator, critical
incident interview).
At the start a ‘project group’ was formed. It was composed of managers of the
participating foster care services and the head of the Federation. There were no
representatives of employees, board members, or of foster care and welfare in
226

general. The group did not act as a ‘steering group’ to drive a change process in the
domain of foster care. From the start the restricted membership reinforced the focus
on the individual organizations. It made it harder for the managers and consultants
to perceive the problem as a societal ‘meta-problem’ concerning the domain of foster
care. Since the managers worked removed from the field the discussions were often
abstract (e.g. values). The boundaries of the group were kept closed, because the
managers wanted to stay in control.
The project group started with a stakeholder analysis to identify the critical
stakeholders in the domain. It was based on five stakeholder categories identified in
the project proposal: users (parents and children); voluntary collaborators (foster
families); professional employees; relegating parties; and policy makers. Foster
children and parents, the central stakeholders, were not interviewed or invited at
stakeholder conferences. We never received any names. The triangle inherent in the
client system (children, parents, and foster parents) was excluded from active
participation in the process. With my colleague I spent two months interviewing all
over Flanders. This resulted in a massive amount of data. We found it extremely
hard to organize, communicate and share the issues with the managers. The
consequence of this intervention was that the know-how based on interactions with
the stakeholders was with the consultants and that we – temporarily – took over
ownership. We found ourselves in the role of go-between, trying very hard to
introduce a sense of urgency and ‘reality’ in the system. I took a note in my diary
about how surprising it was that we were always yawning while we were driving
around for the interviews. For a long time I could not make sense of our tiredness.
Afterwards, we realized we found ourselves in the role of doing the work and
carrying the wishes, worries and hopes of the system.
“Instead of trying so hard to find ways of waking them up and encouraging them to reflect, it
would have been easier to bring everybody together and just let them talk directly. (…) I was
relieved it was over, because it was a very heavy project.” (Coordinator, critical incident
interview)
“That is the classic OD model: you start with collecting information from individuals who are,
in this project, representing an organization or community. And then the differences are written
down in a report which is distributed. The report was the start of the process in the project
group. And then the system is invited. (…) I observed how that contrasted with the approach of
227

inging the system in a room and taking it from there. As a way to simply bring all the
perspectives together and to have a dialogue with everybody on the spot.” (Facilitator, critical
incident interview)
During the feedback of the interviews, we presented a stakeholder model (Eden,
1996), based on two dimensions: the interest and perceived power of the
organization or group in the domain (see attachment 4). This intervention was an
attempt to deal with the complexity of the process. Because, as conventional, it was
presented in terms of power, we introduced an implicit hierarchy in the stakeholders.
In the organizational logic of multiparty collaboration all stakeholders are legitimate
and equal partners in the process. The model emphasized the central position of the
services and further marginalized the children and parents. A consequence was that
the services made plans for the future and only involved stakeholders when they
thought it was necessary. This narrow focus undermined the exploration of interests,
needs, and resources in the domain.
The managers made some decisions that set the direction of the process. During the
first meetings of the project group they decided not to organize the two-day,
residential search conference as foreseen in the design. Allegedly, this was not ‘part
of the culture’ in foster care. The managers assumed that most ‘external’ stakeholders
would not be willing to dedicate so much time to foster care anyway.
“The culture is from 9 to 4 and then a drink.” (Manager 5, meeting project group 6)
(About the external stakeholders) “They will not come and they are not going to say anything!”
(Manager 4, meeting project group 7)
During the preparation of the stakeholder conferences the managers made a
pragmatic choice and decided to organize two separate days. They expressed their
worries about what stakeholders might hear and what they might say. They did not
want to show their ‘dirty laundry’ to the outside world and assumed that people
would not speak up in the presence of outsiders. The managers started talking about
what they called ‘internal’ and ‘external’ stakeholders. Encouraged by the facilitator
they remained open to the idea of letting the stakeholder play their role. In the next
meeting, facilitated by the senior consultant, the group decided to only invite the
228

‘external’ stakeholders for the morning of the first stakeholder conference. The
second stakeholder day was for internal stakeholders only. Although the managers
realized it was essential to include external stakeholders, they settled on keeping the
boundaries closed to focus on ‘internal matters’ first. For the facilitator, who had not
been present when this was decided, these choices were critical and moved the
process away from a stakeholder approach. He recalled that for him from that
moment the project was no longer about foster care as a system, but about a
reorganization of the services. The stakeholders could not take part in the dialogue
and were only consulted and informed. This critical incident also demonstrates the
differences in assumptions between the two consultants.
“The list of participants for the stakeholder meeting is too internal. The basic philosophy of
multiparty collaboration is that you, ideally, involve all stakeholders in the process. (…) If you
involve others, you end up with different findings. (…) You work from a system perspective,
but the system cannot be present!” (Facilitator, meeting project group 5).
“I think it is easier for people to leave their chair if you involve other stakeholders. That makes
it easier to think broadly. Then you think for foster care. If you only meet with internal
stakeholders, you provoke the reflex ‘my service!!’.” (Manager 3, meeting project group 5)
“The stakeholders are systematically kept out! They are afraid of them.” (Facilitator, internal
meeting 8)
The first stakeholder conference provided an opportunity for a wide group of
stakeholder representatives to discuss the findings of the interviews. Carefully
designed subgroups with a maximum degree of diversity exchanged experiences.
The external stakeholders gave first hand information on the problems and needs in
the domain of foster care. As long as the external stakeholders were present the
internal stakeholders felt unified as ‘foster care’. As soon as they left, the differences
between the services came to the foreground. The external stakeholders were not
involved during the following six months of the project. At the second ‘stakeholder
conference’, which was entirely internal, the participants set up work groups made
up of employees. The aim was to get to know one another, to exchange experiences
and to propose ideas for collaboration. This choice further stressed the internal focus
of the process.
“The outsiders made a constructive contribution. (…) In the afternoon things were narrowed
down. We withdrew on ourselves. (…) Because the outsiders were no longer present, my
229

director could claim that ‘the relegating parties thought it was going well’. That could no longer
be contradicted by the relegating parties themselves.” (Manager 2, meeting project group 8)
“There was a constructive atmosphere and people talked about foster care. In the afternoon we
thanked the external stakeholders. (…) They left and in the afternoon the bickering between the
five services came to the foreground.” (Facilitator, critical incident interview)
“We stick together when the outside world is present, but not when we are alone.” (Employee,
stakeholder conference 2)
“We have kept up appearances for the outside world.” (Manager 1, meeting project group 8)
The starting conditions, the narrow composition of the project group, the decision
not to organize a search conference, the split between internal and external
stakeholders and the close boundary that was drawn around the internal
stakeholders were small events that, unintentionally, made the process drift away
from the intended stakeholder approach. The managers set the agenda, and the
consultants were getting absorbed in the client system. The result was that
stakeholders were not actively involved in the process and that responsibility for the
domain was not kept shared around the table. The boundary blocked off the capacity
of the participants to relate, empathize, and deal appropriately with ‘outsiders’
(Stein, 2004). This boundary redefined the topic of the collaborative effort: the focus
shifted from the domain of foster care to the foster care services.
“I heard people in the work groups explicitly remind themselves that ‘foster care’ was to
remain the central objective.” (Facilitator, critical incident interview)
Now that the boundary of the system was narrowed down to the internal
stakeholder in order to enable productive work, a different issue emerged. ‘Solving’
one issue resulted in a different issue that had to be managed (Huxham & Vangen,
2005). The managers soon realized that the ‘internal’ stakeholders were also strangers
to each other. Paradoxically the choice for an internal focus accentuated the need to
protect one’s identity. Dealing with diversity and the ambiguity of differences and
similarities among the services became the central issues. Many participants claimed
that ‘not knowing each other’ was a major obstacle to collaboration. Some
participants pointed at the similarities (e.g. shortage of candidate foster families,
heavy work load), whereas many stressed the differences between the services.
Differences related to interests, procedures, ideology, management style, culture,
230

mandate, organizational structure, size, role of the boards, and individual
differences. The participants discussed questions such as: are we too different to
collaborate? Are we only different in theory but not in our daily practices, or is it the
other way around? Are differences a source of conflict or a potential enrichment?
“That is exactly the problem. We don’t know to what extent we are different, because we don’t
know the others. (…) I have the feeling they want to collaborate while maintaining their
identity. How can you do that? Then you must first figure out what your uniqueness is.”
(Employees 3, stakeholder interview).
“So far I have never seen fundamental differences between the services. There are different
nuances. We also experience differences in culture. That is precisely the richness of the Flemish
landscape. The services have sufficient elements in common.” (Head Federation, meeting
project group 10)
“We have a lot in common. I often have the feeling ‘we do that too!’.” (Board member 1,
meeting project group 10)
Diversity is an essential condition for collaborative advantage and collaboration is
based on accepted differences. In confrontation with diversity groups try to confirm
their social identity and accentuate their distinctiveness from others. The sheer
presence of different interest groups seems to threaten the ‘survival’ and self-esteem
of the groups involved (Vansina 2002). The participants found it hard to openly
explore the differences. It was as if the internal stakeholders collectively assumed
that the differences between their services were an obstacle to collaboration. On the
other hand, being too similar accentuated the competitive nature of the relationships
and seemed like a threat to the survival of the organizations. One representative
jokingly observed that competition seemed easier than collaboration. Collaboration
requires a strong identity that can survive the confrontation with other groups and
organizations. However, precisely defining the core values and competences of the
services was a difficult exercise.
“It is confronting to communicate what you stand for. It may appear that we are not so special
after all. Then we will have an identity crisis! (Laughing)” (Manager 5, informal conversation)
“It took us time to accept the awareness that we were not, also in our pedagogy, so different
from the others.” (Director 5, critical incident interview)
“You all seem surprised that we don’t find differences. That in itself is maybe a problem!
(Laughter) When the differences are substantial, it might be easier to collaborate. Then at least it
is clear. Then you can work in a complementary way.” (Director 2, meeting project group 10)
231

Two months before the deadline of the project tension was high because the project
group had made little progress and there was no formal commitment from all
participating organizations. The project group organized a first meeting with the
board members. To facilitate open discussion the consultants had prepared an
‘objective’ overview of the similarities and differences based on the mission
statements of the five services. The aim of the meeting was to decide if, after
comparing the visions, operational collaboration was possible. The managers and
board members of the services commented on the matrix. Systematically the senior
consultant concluded with the observation that apparently there were ‘no
fundamental differences’. The representatives of the liberal service got upset. They
protested that the issue of differences was strongly reduced to ‘crosses on a matrix’
and that the consultants avoided open discussion. In the critical incident interviews
some managers also blamed the consultants for covering up the ‘real differences’.
“I have the impression that ‘the importance of the child’ can be very different from service to
service. On paper it looks very similar, a line with crosses. I am not certain we are talking about
the same thing. (To the senior consultant) You summarized by saying ‘there are no differences’.
But that is only appearance. (…) A condition for collaboration is that you are able to understand
the consequences of being different. (…) When I read ‘Christian inspiration’, I wonder what it
means.” (Board member 5, meeting project group 10)
The president of the board of the liberal service emphasized the specific nature of
their ‘pedagogical project’. The other services, however, did not perceive differences
in daily practice. It never became clear what care for children from a liberal
perspective meant.
“In the liberal principles I recognize things that are important for us too. I cannot grasp how
that can be of importance in foster care. I don’t understand how you do things differently than
we do.” (Manager 3, meeting project group 10)
At one point in the meeting two board members stopped the discussion. They
suggested it was time to speak up and commit to the project or to step out. After a
time out, the liberal service announced they withdrew from the project. They said
they felt like strangers in the group and had the feeling they were not taken
seriously. They judged it was too early and risky to engage in structural collaboration
and feared conflict would blow up the existing relationships. All interviewees
232

eferred to this incident as the major critical event in the project. The discussion was
focused on ‘ideology’ as a narrow interpretation of identity. The underlying reasons
for stepping out were not openly discussed. It seemed as if the issue of ideology was
used as a smoke screen to avoid talking about what really concerned the managers.
The departure of the liberal service further reduced the diversity in the system.
“I thought: he is the president of the board. I found it hard to decide in his place. And when he
referred to the pedagogical project, I didn’t want to stress that other issues were also important.
I did not want him to lose face.” (Director 5, critical incident interview)
“Suppose the focus had not been on the services, but on foster care, would the same thing have
happened?” (Facilitator, critical incident interview)
Now that the four seemingly ‘like minded’ services no longer had a ‘common
enemy’, the managers were confronted with the challenge to take decisions about the
future and to achieve quick results before the deadline. Often, external forces, such as
a funding deadline, introduce a sense of urgency and set a group in motion (Huxham
& Vangen, 2000). Holding on to the organizational identity and autonomy of the
services became major issues. Flanders is a region with a history of emancipation
from French speaking nationals and from catholic domination. This history has led to
a society where ideological power centers are still important and reflected in
institutions (e.g. education, unions). The history of foster care itself was also
characterized by ideological conflicts, splits and a process of emancipation. Therefore
the autonomy and identity of the services were important.
“In foster care all the services have emerged from one single service. There has been a conflict
which led to a split and to the creation of (service 2) and later also (service 3). This resulted in a
strong sense of autonomy of the services, the feeling that their service is better than the others
and a strong identification with their service” (policy representative, stakeholder interview)
Collaboration implied being dependent upon the other services for success: ‘all going
up, or all going down’. The consequence of collaboration was that it was no longer
possible to achieve individual growth of the organization based on hard work,
loyalty, and on ‘being the best’.
“Now you know that if you work hard, you have more placements.” (Employee 2, stakeholder
interview)
“If you lose your identity… Then you lose your drive. Then you are not prepared to think with
the organization anymore.” (Employee and manager 4, stakeholder interview)
233

The essence of collaborative work is to use the diversity in the system to establish an
encompassing definition of the problem domain, to develop sustainable solutions
and to increase the chances of implementation of the solutions. A challenge of
collaborative work is to what extent participants are able to relinquish the identity,
control and safety of their home-based organizational boundaries and locate
themselves within the uncertain boundaries of a new collaborative enterprise (Gould
et al, 1999). Can they accept the diversity of interests and perspectives and are they
capable of developing interdependent relationships? Although there were attempts
to involve ‘external’ stakeholders, these critical partners were not actively involved
in the process. The services were used to operate in a context where competition and
independent action were necessary for survival. Since the subsidizing mechanism
did not change it may have been too risky to make a move towards interdependent
work. Confronted with ‘internal’ stakeholders only, the familiar competitive way of
relating seemed safer than engaging in a new relationship based on trust, openness,
interdependence and accepting differences as a benefit.
Issue 3: dealing with the emergent nature of the process
The openness of the change process and the uncertain outcome provoked anxiety.
The employees anticipated many losses. They were afraid to lose contact with the
‘essence’ of their work and to give up their expertise and the relationships they had
developed over the years. Many had had long careers in foster care and strongly
identified with their service. They were worried about losing their job or having to
work at a different location or in an anonymous institution as a result of structural
collaboration. However, they were willing to collaborate and asked their managers
for clarity.
“You cannot know in advance where you will end up, what the objective is. And when you
start, you get overwhelmed with fears!” (Employee, stakeholder conference 3)
“The frame must be clear. Too many things are fuzzy now. I don’t feel good about that.”
(Employee 1, stakeholder interview)
234

The managers tried to come up with a minimal structure to contain the anxieties.
During the morning of the final stakeholder conference, they emphasized that the
purpose was not a merger, and that there was no hidden agenda. They guaranteed
the process would continue regardless of external funding, and that there would be
no job losses. The managers presented their experiences as a model and talked about
their personal dreams, worries and hopes for the future and their struggle as
‘management group’. However, they also realized that it was paradoxical to give
solid guarantees in an ‘emergent’ process.
The formal characteristics of the project (e.g. deadline, output) provided a minimal
structure for the managers. The project, which was a ‘paid episode’ in an ongoing
process, helped the managers to cope with the transition of the change process that
was broader than the scope of the project. The managers seemed to experience the
project as separate from their daily work and from the organizing process in their
respective organizations, as if it was not ‘real’. They often stated they had ‘no time’
for the project and expected the consultants to do the work and drive the process.
One manager imagined the change process could simply be ‘stopped’ if there was no
additional funding, as if the organizational dynamics that were triggered by the
initiative could simply be brought to a standstill.
The presence of a facilitator helped the managers to deal with the tensions provoked
by the change process (e.g. fear for conflict). It allowed them to ‘sit on their chair’ and
speak for their constituency. They often used humor to reduce the tensions and
openly used the word ‘anxiety’. They talked about ‘how a dream can turn into a
nightmare’, and having ‘sleepless nights’. They were stunned by the boldness of their
ideas and actions. We did notice, however, that they seemed to avoid opportunities
to share and explore their feelings, and work them through. For instance, at the end
of the 11th meeting of the project group, while they were discussing the resistance of
their employees, one of the managers suggested that maybe they should also talk
about their own worries. One manager had to leave and the meeting suddenly
stopped. The question remained unanswered and, even though the facilitator tried to
235

aise the issue in the next meeting, it was not taken up later in the process. The
meetings of the project group left little time for informal contact. The members, all
women, insisted on punctual ending in order to be home in time. Most meetings
demonstrated an odd mixture of task orientation and off-task behavior. On the one
hand, there was a full agenda, the meetings had to be ‘functional’ and timing was
strict. On the other hand, we were often surprised how difficult it was to keep the
group focused on the agenda. Usually there were many digressions, chatting about
trivial subjects, and sometimes the meetings were chaotic. The members did not use
the space of the meetings as a ‘potential space’ (Winnicott, 1971) where they could
engage in creative, playful experimentation and imagination of future scenarios
without immediate binding consequences.
“We did not spend so much time together, not even in the project group. (…) It was always
very task oriented more or less three hours per month.” (Coordinator, critical incident
interview)
The consultants offered some structuring interventions (e.g. action plan, stakeholder
model, structured feedback, comparative matrix) to deal with the emergent nature of
the process. However, these interventions often seemed to serve the function of
avoiding or controlling direct interaction. The stakeholder interviews, for instance,
were a time consuming substitute for a search conference with all stakeholder of the
domain. The idea to set up work groups structured the process and moved things
ahead, even when the future scenario was not yet known. However, these groups
reinforced the internal focus of the process and maintained the existing boundaries:
work groups for employees and the project group for the managers. The boards
formed a third organizational layer. This premature formalizing and structuring
seemed like a defensive dynamic to deal with uncontained negative feelings.
In the course of the project the managers realized that the scope and consequences of
the change process were much broader than they had foreseen. They were aware of
the expectations they had created, both with internal and external stakeholders. They
realized the consultants could not offer them a blueprint scenario. As the pressure to
take decisions was rising, the managers started to focus on the ‘process’. A field of
236

tension emerged between the need to invest time in establishing collaborative
relationships and the requirement to obtain results before the deadline. However, the
managers did not want to come up with quick results for the sponsors, but it also
worried them in view of future funding.
“We may and must go through a process, but there must be a result. I don’t want to hear at the
end of the year: ‘there is an intention to collaborate’. We have said that for the last two years.”
(Manager 4, stakeholder interview)
“If we present this as result of the project we can forget it. I want to make the most of this
opportunity, but I don’t want to rush things either. (…) At this point in time we cannot reach
the objectives as they have been agreed. I feel responsible. I don’t want to lose face as an
organization.” (Manager 1, meeting project group 9)
The managers insisted on external process facilitation as a condition to continue the
process. I took a note saying the emphasis on ‘process’ and ‘process facilitation’
almost became like a mantra. The excessive focus on the process and the dependency
on external facilitators seemed like defensive responses to the threat of taking
decisions and sharing responsibility for the future.
“We have to do something as soon as possible. The phase of acquaintance cannot take too long.
(…) We must have something concrete by November.” (Head Federation, meeting project
group 9)
“We can continue, but process facilitation is critical. If there is no process facilitation, the
product is jeopardized. (…) We are the ones who most need process facilitation. We will have to
take decisions, set the direction.” (Manager 3, meeting project group 12)
The managers had engaged in an emergent change process with few stable
structures. According to Krantz (1998) this openness stirs up anxiety and mobilizes
exactly the kind of defensive responses that hinder effective collaboration. The
project resulted in an intention to collaborate in specific, well defined areas: inflow of
children and selection of candidate foster parents. There were few boundary crossing
structures or interactions. The managers wanted to hold on to the existing services as
separate and autonomous organizations. This ‘survival reflex’ had been the obvious
mode of functioning for many years in a competitive environment. For a year the
managers had tried to move beyond collaboration in ‘safe domains’ and beyond the
‘intention’ to collaborate, but the road was more bumpy than they had expected.
237

Some reflections
Menzies (1960) demonstrated how the anxieties provoked by the task trigger
defensive processes and structures to cope with the tension in the workplace. The
findings discussed in the case can be related to her findings. The nature of the task
and relationships provoked tensions which resulted in defensive dynamics (e.g.
exclusion, blaming) and defensive structuring (e.g. non representative project group,
workgroups with only employees). Traditionally the ‘primary task’ refers to the task
the organization has to perform in order to survive (Rice, 1958; Miller, 1993). This
concept, however, is no longer relevant in turbulent environments. In emergent and
dynamic forms of organizing the core leadership task is to ensure that the primary
task is constantly reviewed and adapted in the light of a changing environment
(Obholzer & Miller, 2004). In a context where leadership is a shared phenomenon, all
those involved need to pay attention to the relevance of the primary task in relation
to, for instance, changes in membership or events in the context. In the case study the
task had shifted because the boundaries around the collaborative were narrowed
down and the notion of ‘stakeholder’ was redefined. The instrumental,
organizational interests of the services gradually prevailed over concerns for the
child and its environment and over societal interests.
Working on a task always requires people, as individuals and as organizations, to
deal with the mental pain provoked by the task. People collectively develop defenses
against realities that are too painful by establishing rules and procedures. This helps
them to cope with the task, as long as it does not interfere with it (Mawson, 1994).
Foster care is a radical form of assistance with a high threshold. The verdict from a
judge to entrust a child to people who will – temporarily – take over their parenting
role is extremely hard for parents. It implies failure of parents to take care of their
child and provokes feelings of inadequacy, shame, rivalry, and it represents a threat
to the identity of the parents. In addition, the services had not been capable to
provide optimal solutions for the children in distress, because there were few
families available and because they often felt forced to choose a solution in the
interest of their organization. The painful aspects of ‘failure’ to take care of the child,
238

oth of the parents and of the foster care services, were not present in the process.
The voice of the central stakeholders was not heard. The participants ‘spoke for’ the
child and parents. It was as if direct confrontation with the pain of the child and
parents was being avoided.
During the very first informal meeting, one of the managers had made a casual
remark: "Who is at the core of this project: the foster care services or the child?” This
turned out to be a critical tension in the project. A distinction between different
aspects of the primary task, proposed by Lawrence and Robinson (1975), may help to
make sense of what was happening. The ‘existential’ primary task of the services, or
the task the participants believed they were carrying out, was to couple the child to
the best foster family available. That hope or belief had driven the convener to
choose a collaborative approach. The ‘normative’ primary task was the task they
ought to be working on, dictated by an external authority: develop structural
collaboration. At the same time, however, the subsidizing mechanism that triggered
rivalry was not questioned or changed. There was no alignment between the
existential and the normative task. Therefore a ‘phenomenal’ task, or the task they
were actually engaged in, emerged (Hoyle, 2004). This task, also called ‘resistance to
change’, manifested itself in dynamics to protect the identity and autonomy of the
organizations.
Engaging in an open change process implied the readiness to let go of old beliefs, to
abandon current practices, to put jobs at stake, and to question the current
organizational boundaries and relevance of foster care as a separate field. The
process was prematurely formalized which reinforced the internal focus. The
structures that were established strengthened the existing boundaries and generated
dynamics that moved the group away from its intention. It seemed hard to establish
a temporary ‘transitional’ space where the participants could safely express and
work through their anxieties, experiment with scenarios for the future, and learn
from their experiences and from each other.
239

The evolution of the relationships was influenced by the fear to lose one’s identity
and autonomy. Gradually the diversity, interdependence and complexity in the
process were reduced. In the course of the process the ‘external’ stakeholders were
excluded from active participation. The foster parents were interviewed but kept out
of the ongoing dialogue. The policy makers, the most critical stakeholder in the
process, were not actively involved in the process even though all participants had
stressed the need to change the subsidizing system. The contract with policy makers
was bounded and the output defined. Therefore the managers could not question the
subsidizing mechanism as the critical obstacle to collaboration. In the group of
internal stakeholders, inter-group dynamics and rivalries emerged, masking
defensive processes and the flight from work (Obholzer & Miller, 2004). The
relationships were also characterized by ambiguous authority relations. No one had
the authority to take decisions based on positional power. The convener had
substantial influence on the direction of the process. Based on her agenda, she had
written a project. She was a very enthusiastic and convincing woman, with authority
in the group based on her seniority and a clear mandate to take decisions for her
organization. Because she realized she only represented ‘one of the participating
organizations’, she had openly stepped back from her leading role and trusted the
consultants to drive the process.
One of the meanings of the word ‘collaboration’ is working with the enemy. In this
project former rivals unintentionally found themselves in a project to develop a
collaborative partnership. The managers, however, seemed reluctant to change their
way of working and organizing. They were pressured by changing external
circumstances (e.g. welfare policy, nature of the problems, higher demands) to
collaborate in the best interest of the child. This mirrors a dynamic in the client
system of foster care where foster parents are forced to collaborate with the natural
parents. Collaboration proved to be more difficult than competition and seemed to
turn into a purpose in itself. However, it remained unclear what collaborative
advantage the participants expected. Why would the services bother to engage in a
difficult, lengthy and risky process, if the benefits were not specified? Was it only to
240

make a good impression and to be one step ahead of policy makers? It seemed
paradoxical to develop collaborative relationships in an institutional context
governed by rivalry for resources. The participants and consultants seemed to be
caught in a collusive relationship where everybody talked about ‘collaboration’ as a
cover for ongoing competitive relationships.
Conclusions
This paper gives a rich account of a collaborative process in a natural setting based
on observations and accounts. It describes how a group of representatives and
consultants tried to establish the future of foster care. The surprising conclusion of
this case study is that a number of small, seemingly insignificant decisions, events
and interventions, gradually moved the process away from its original intention. The
elements present at the start of the process were a precursor of the issues with which
both participants and consultants were struggling. The paper demonstrates how the
group drifted away from the intention to find the best solution for the child in a
process where all relevant stakeholders were to be involved, and how the interests
and the survival of the organizations started to prevail.
The system psychodynamic perspective on collaborative work allows for an
exploration of the interconnection between the nature of the task, the development of
the relationships, and the emergent organizing process. It provides a complementary
view on the phenomenon of 'collaborative inertia' (Huxham, 1996), or the
observation that the output of collaborations is often slowed down or below the
expectations. It helps to understand seemingly ‘irrational’ or emotional behavior
which is often labeled as ‘resistance’ to change, because it points at the emotional and
relational challenges of developing an environment for collaboration (Gould et al.,
1999; Long, Newton & Dalgleish, 2000; Page, 2003; Ring & Van de Ven, 1994). Further
research is required to understand the nature and challenges of collaborative
processes in order to develop adequate containing practices and transitional
experiences to facilitate productive and creative change.
241

References
Chisholm, R. & Elden, M. (1993). Features of emerging action research. Human
Relations, 46 (2), 275-297.
Clarke, S. (2002). Learning from experience: psycho-social research methods in the
social sciences. Qualitative Research, 2 (2), 173-194.
Cooper, A. & Dartington, T. (2004). The vanishing organization: organizational
containment in a networked world. In Huffington, C., Armstrong, D., Halton, W.,
Hoyle, L. & Pooley, J.( Eds.) (2004). Working below the surface. The emotional life of
contemporary organizations. London: Karnac, pp.127-150.
Dawson, P. (1997). In at the deep end: conducting processual research on
organisational change. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13 (4), 389-405.
Edelson, M. (1988). The hermeneutic turn and the single case study in psychoanalysis.
In Berg, D.N. & Smith, K.K. (Eds.), The self in social inquiry. Researching methods.
Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, pp. 71-104.
Eden, C. (1996). The stakeholder/collaborator strategy workshop. In Huxham, C. (Ed.)
Creating collaborative advantage. London: Sage, pp. 44-56.
Eden, C. & Huxham, C. (1996). Action research for the study of organizations. In Clegg,
S.R., Hardy, C. & Nord, W.R. (Eds.) Handbook of organization studies. London: Sage,
pp.526-542.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of
Management Review, 14 (4), 532-550.
Feyerherm, A., (1997). Leading M.E.N.: Perspectives on leadership in multi-stakeholder
environmental negotiations. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Boston.
Flick, U. (2002). An introduction to qualitative research. Second Edition. London: Sage.
Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Gould, L. (1991). Using psychoanalytic frameworks for organizational analysis. In Kets
de Vries, M. (Ed.), Organizations on the couch; clinical perspectives on organizational
behavior and change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 25-44.
Gould, L.J., Ebers, R. & Mc Vicker Clinchy, R. (1999). The systems psychodynamics of a
joint venture: anxiety, social defenses and the management of mutual dependence.
Human Relations, 52 (6), 697-722.
242

Gould, L.G., Stapley, L.F. & Stein, M. (Eds.) (2001). The systems psychodynamics of
organizations. Integrating the group relations approach, psychoanalytic, and open systems
perspectives. London: Karnac.
Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: finding common ground for multiparty problems. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Heller, F. (2004). Action research and research action: a family of methods. In Cassell,
C. & Symon, G. (Eds.). Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research.
London: Sage, pp. 349-360.
Hirschhorn, L. & Gilmore, T. (1992). The new boundaries of the “boundaryless”
company. Harvard Business Review, May/June, 70 (3), 104-115.
Hollway, W. & Jefferson, T. (2000). Doing qualitative research differently: free association,
narrative and the interview method. London: Sage.
Hoyle, L. (2004). From sycophant to saboteur – responses to organizational change. In
Huffington, C., Armstrong, D., Halton, W., Hoyle, L. & Pooley, J.( Eds.) Working
below the surface. The emotional life of contemporary organizations. London: Karnac, pp.
87-106.
Huberman, A.M. & Miles, M.B. (1988). Assessing local causality in qualitative research.
In Berg, D.N. & Smith, K.K. (Eds.) The self in social inquiry. Researching methods.
Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, pp. 351-381.
Huffington, C., Armstrong, D., Halton, W., Hoyle, L. & Pooley, J.( Eds.) (2004). Working
below the surface. The emotional life of contemporary organizations. London: Karnac.
Huxham, C. (Ed.). (1996). Creating collaborative advantage. London: Sage, 1996.
Huxham, C. & Vangen, S. (2000). Leadership in the shaping and implementation of
collaboration agendas: how things happen in a (not quite) joined-up world.
Academy of Management Journal, 43, (6), 1159-1175.
Huxham, C. & Vangen, S. (Eds.) (2005). Managing to collaborate. The theory and practice of
collaborative advantage. London: Routledge.
Krantz, J. (1998). Anxiety & the New Order. In Klein, B. & Gabelnick, F. & Herr, P.
(Eds.), The psychodynamics of leadership. Madison: Psychosocial Press, 77-107.
Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management
Review, 24 (4), 691-710.
Lawrence, W.G. & Robinson, P. (1975). An innovation and its implementation: issues of
evaluation, document no. CASR 1069, Tavistock Institute of Human Relations
(unpublished). (cf. Miller, E. (1993). From dependency to autonomy. Studies in
organization and change. London: Free Association Books.)
243

Levinson, H. (1991). Diagnosing organizations systematically. In Kets de Vries (Ed.)
Organizations on the couch. Clinical perspectives on organizational behavior and change.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp.45-68.
Long, S., Newton, J., & Dalgleish, J. (2000). In the presence of the other: developing
working relations for organizational learning. In Klein, E, Gabelnick, F. & Herr, P.
(Eds.) Dynamic consultation in a changing workplace, pp. 161-192.
Mawson, C. (1994). Containing anxiety in work with damaged children. In Obholzer,
A. & Zagier Roberts, V. (Eds.) The unconscious at work. London: Routledge, pp. 67-
74.
Menzies, I. E. P. (1960). A case study in the functioning of social systems as a defense
against anxiety. Human Relations, 13, 95-121.
Miller, E. (1993). From dependency to autonomy. Studies in organization and change.
London: Free Association Books.
Miller, E. (1997). Effecting organisational change in large complex systems: a
collaborative consultancy approach. In Neumann, J.E., Kellner, K. & Dawson-
Sheperd, A. (Eds.) Developing organisational consultancy. Routledge: London, pp.
187-212.
Neumann, J. & Hirschhorn, L. (1999). The challenge of integrating psychodynamic and
organizational theory. Human Relations, 52 (6), 683-695.
Obholzer, A. & Zagier Roberts, V. (Eds.) (1994). The unconscious at work. London:
Routledge.
Obholzer, A. & Miller, S. (2004). Leadership, followership, and facilitating the creative
workplace. In Huffington, C., Armstrong, D., Halton, W., Hoyle, L. & Pooley, J.(
Eds.) Working below the surface. The emotional life of contemporary organizations.
London: Karnac, pp. 33-48.
Page, M. (2003). Leadership and collaboration challenges in not for profit partnerships.
Organisational and Social Dynamics, 3 (2), 207-225.
Patton, M.Q. (1987). Qualitative Evaluation Methods. London: Sage.
Pettigrew, A.M. (1997). What is processual analysis? Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 13 (4), 337-348.
Prins, S. (2006, forthcoming). The psychodynamic perspective in organizational
research: making sense of the dynamics and emotional challenges of collaborative
work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Special Section ‘Beyond
Positivism and Statistics: Neglected Approaches to Understanding the Experience
of Work’.
Rice, A.K. (1958). Productivity and social organization: the Ahmedabad experiment.
Tavistock. Reprinted, New York and London: Garland Publishing, 1987.
244

Ring, P.S. & Van de Ven, A.H. (1994). Developmental processes of cooperative
interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19 (1), 90-118.
Schonberg, A. (1998). Two basic assumptions in the psychoanalytic study of organizations.
Paper presented at the International Society for the Psychoanalytic Study of
Organizations Symposium, June.
Sherif, M. (2001). Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflict. In Hogg,
M.A. & Abrams, D. (Eds.) Intergroup relations. Philadelphia: Psychology Press, pp.
64-70.
Smith, K.K. (1995). On using the self as instrument. Lessons from a facilitator's
experience. In Gillette, J & McCollom, M. (Eds.) Groups in context. A new perspective
on group dynamics. Lanham: University Press of America, pp. 276-294.
Spradley, J. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Stein, M. (2004). Theories of experiential learning and the unconscious. In Gould, L.J.,
Stapley, L.F. & Stein, M. (Eds.) Experiential learning in organizations. Applications of
the Tavistock group relations approach. London: Karnac, pp. 19-36.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). The basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures
for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Trist, E. (1983). Referent organizations and the development of inter-organizational
domains. Human Relations, 36 (3), 269-284.
Turcotte, M.F. & Pasquero, J. (2001). The paradox of multi-stakeholder collaborative
roundtables. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37 (4), December, 447-464.
Van de Ven, A.H. & Poole, M.S. (2005). Alternative approaches for studying
organizational change. Organization Studies, 26 (9), 1377-1404.
Vansina, L. (2002). Making the best of diversity: working towards collaboration between
different interest groups. paper presented at the ISPSO symposium, Melbourne,
Australia, June.
Vansina, L. (2004). Over zin en onzin van psychodynamiek voor organisatieadviseurs.
In Varwijk, W.G.J.M. & van Zijl, R.M.H.J. (Eds.). Strategie moet je samen doen. Visies
op strategisch management uit theorie en praktijk. Ubbergen: Tandem Felix Uitgevers,
pp. 159-177.
Vansina, L., Taillieu, T. & Schruijer, S. (1998). “Managing” multiparty issues: learning
from experience. In Pasmore, W. & Woodman, R. (Eds.). Research in Organizational
Change and Development. (vol. 11). Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press Inc., pp. 159-
181.
Winnicott, D.W. (1971). Playing and Reality. Routledge: London.
245

Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research. Design and methods. Second Edition. Thousand
Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Zagier Roberts, V. (1994). Conflict and collaboration. Managing inter-group relations.
In Obholzer, A. & Zagier Roberts, V. (Eds.), The unconscious at work. London:
Routledge, pp. 187-196.
246

PART 4: A SYSTEM PSYCHODYNAMIC PERSPECTIVE ON
DIRECTION SETTING IN COLLABORATIVE WORK
In this research, my aim was to understand the phenomenon of ‘group locomotion’
(Cartwright & Zander, 1960), the nature of ‘the mechanisms that make things
happen’ (Huxham & Vangen, 2000), and identify what makes progression come
about in multiparty collaboration. During the pilot case, it soon became clear that the
notion of ‘distributed leadership’, which I initially adopted to label the phenomenon
I was exploring, was too restricted. For the two following case studies, I used the
more general concept of ‘direction setting’. I explored direction setting by focusing
on the issues and dilemmas characteristic of collaborative work. I defined ‘issue’ as a
theme or dilemma with which participants are confronted as the process unfolds
(Ring & van de Ven, 1994; Huxham & Vangen, 2005). An issue may provoke
questions, tensions or anxiety in the participant(s) or in the collaborative. Unlike
Gray (1989), who identifies direction setting as the second phase of collaborative
formation, I assumed that direction setting was an ongoing process.
I studied three projects in which the conveners wished to develop solutions for a
particular problem that they could only solve by involving stakeholder
representatives in some way. I documented how the group of key actors responsible
for steering the process (‘project group’) dealt with those issues (observations) and
how the individual participants made sense of issues that were relevant to them
(subjective accounts). This approach allowed me to document fields of tension that
emerged in the process, and how these dynamics influenced the direction and
outcome of the process.
247

The three cases were based on ‘projects’ funded by policy makers and described in
formal contracts. The starting conditions (e.g. the formal task description, deadline)
influenced the process before the collaborative endeavor formally started. In the
analyses, it became apparent that forces other than the interventions of individuals
taking up a leading function had an influence on the direction and outcome of the
process. The issues I have identified in this research relate to the starting conditions
and context of the collaborative, the task and objectives, the way in which the process
was organized, and to the nature and development of the relationships between the
participants (see table 12). By using the systems psychodynamic perspective in the
study of direction setting, I was able to develop a complex and systemic perspective
on direction setting in collaborative practice. This framework allowed me to
interconnect the different types of issues: the task, the relationships, the system
features, and the particular context in which the collaborative was embedded.
Issues in direction
setting
Context and starting
conditions
Task and collaborative
aims
248
Sub-issues
- Antecedents of the collaborative effort
- Characteristics of the domain
- Players in the context
- Events and changes in the environment
- Shared sense of urgency
- Normative primary task
- Existential task
- Phenomenological task

Structuring of the
process and boundary
management
Collaborative
relationships,
relatedness and
dynamics
- Minimal structure
- Structuring of the domain: stakeholder analysis and
involvement
- Formal and informal roles
- Formal and informal structures and interventions
- Working with diversity
- Developing an interdependent relationship
- Collusive behavior
Table 12: Issues and sub-issues in direction setting.
In this concluding chapter, I describe each issue and illustrate it with case material
from the three cases. I discuss how the participants in the different cases made sense
of them, and how this influenced the direction of the process. Although I discuss the
issues separately, in practice they are closely interconnected. By comparing the cases
my aim is to draw conclusions that point at commonly observed themes and
dilemmas in collaborative work. In the discussion, I balance the contextualized
insights specific for a particular case, with more general conclusions that can be
relevant for similar contexts. The case examples used in this concluding chapter, are
based on the case discussions in the four articles included in this work. I conclude
this final part with some reflections on new requirements for designing and
facilitating emergent inter-organizational processes.
1. CONTEXT AND STARTING CONDITIONS
All cases demonstrated that the starting conditions and the context in which the
collaborative effort took place influenced direction setting. The ‘context’ refers to
249

different sub-issues of contextual influence that represent the ‘there-and-then’
influencing the ‘here-and-now’ of the process.
1.1. Antecedents of the collaborative effort
Often the collaborative project was a ‘paid episode’ in an ongoing process.
Sometimes it also brought people around the table who had never worked together.
Therefore, it was critical to assess the historical context and the events leading up to
the start of the projects to understand how this may have influenced the process.
In foster care the project was intended to intensify ongoing attempts to collaborate and to move
collaboration beyond ‘safe domains’. The individual drive of the convener started the process.
A welfare policy moving towards rationalization, a regional organization of assistance, and the
possibility of imposed mergers, helped the convener to convince the parties in the project that
collaboration was necessary and inevitable in the future. The good relationships between the
managers, the regional consultation platform, and established agreements helped the project to
come off the ground. The close collaboration that existed between two of the five services was
helpful (model function). A dramatic shortage of foster families increased political interest in
foster care. However, the participants experienced the unexpected start as a drawback; they felt
unprepared and taken by surprise. Some incidents between the liberal service and the other
services had resulted in caution and suspicion. The position of foster care in welfare influenced
the way in which the representatives of foster care positioned themselves in relation to the other
players in the domain (‘underdog position’). For instance, the managers were reluctant to
involve stakeholders, supposedly because stakeholders were not going to be interested, they
would be critical, or not show up at all. As demonstrated in the case analysis, this assumption
influenced the exclusion of stakeholder representatives from active participation in the process.
The foster care services participating in the collaborative had emerged from conflicts and splits
based on ideological differences. Their sense of autonomy and identification with their
organization was exacerbated by a context where rivalry for resources was installed by the
subsidizing logic of the government. These proved to be big obstacles to structural
collaboration.
In the erosion case the ‘connections’ of the convener facilitated the conception of the project. He
had strong business relationships with the municipalities, he personally knew a political
representative, and he knew how to apply for European funds. Heavy rainfall had put erosion
on the agenda of local politicians. However, other antecedents made it hard to move the project
ahead. For instance, the farmers had had bad experiences with similar projects. They were
skeptical about the good intentions of the engineers and about their potential benefits. Many
were reluctant to sign up for the project. This seriously jeopardized the project, because
participation of the farmers was critical to achieve success.
The river valley project profited from an increased societal and political awareness of the
importance of ecological values, ongoing studies in the valley, severe flooding in 1998, and a
European policy stressing the environmental agenda. A Minister from the ecologic party had
approved the project. Moreover, the convening organizations trusted each other and had had
good experiences in other projects. The conveners were confident to take the lead of the project,
because they assumed that the transfer of authority over the river to their administration was
imminent. Initially this facilitated the process. Other antecedents hindered collaboration. The
relationship between the convening organizations and some stakeholders in the valley (e.g.
municipalities, farmers) had been troubled by conflicts. This had damaged the reputation of the
conveners to some extent and there was mutual stereotyping. Their relationship with the
250

authority over the river was also antagonistic due to, for instance, severe conflicts over the
illegal construction of dams in the valley. This increased the potential for conflict in the project.
It is important to assess the antecedents and starting conditions of a project or
collaborative enterprise. The convener, who is closely involved in the start-up of a
collaborative, can help to raise those issues in the here-and-now discussions in the
collaborative as a basis for establishing common ground.
1.2. Characteristics of the domain
The specific nature of the inter-organizational domain also influenced the evolution
of the process. In all cases, the domains were turbulent, complex and the
stakeholders in the domain were interdependent.
During an information session in the erosion project, the farmers were relieved that they were
not the only party held responsible or blamed for the problem of erosion. The collective
problem analysis demonstrated the interdependent nature of the problem domain. The analysis
on visual cards on the walls showed how at different points in the chain different actors were
responsible for the problem and how each could contribute to solving the problem. This
increased commitment of the stakeholders, at least in the initial phase.
In the foster care case, the stakeholder analysis helped to visualize the stakeholders in the
domain, the way they were interconnected, and the place of the services in the intricate web of
connections. It convinced the managers of the project group that it was important to hear the
voice of all relevant stakeholder representatives. By listening to the hopes, worries and
suggestions of the stakeholders, the reality of the domain was introduced in the process.
The river valley case took place in the domain of natural resources, with a high potential for
conflict. Turbulence in the environment disturbed the process. Many changes were occurring at
the same time. The administrations in the domain were in the middle of reorganization. There
was a change in political leadership in the domain that reduced the importance of the ecologic
agenda. During the meetings, the participants hardly talked about these issues and how they
may have affected the collaborative.
Although the participants often had little influence on issues in the wider domain, a
better awareness of the nature of the domain could help them to understand why, for
instance, it was sometimes hard to move things ahead. It was obvious in most cases
that participants had difficulty to deal with the complexity, interdependence and
turbulence of the domain. As demonstrated in the group dynamic literature, groups
tend to be solution and action-oriented (Maier, 1963). In many cases, the key actors
shut out part of reality in an attempt to move the process ahead (e.g. internal focus in
foster care). Group members did not spontaneously engage in a broad analysis of the
251

problem or an exploration of the context in which the group was embedded.
However, system awareness is critical in a process that is strongly influenced by
external issues.
1.3. Players in the context
In all projects, players in the context influenced the process. These so-called ‘invisible
ghosts’ were sitting at the table and represented the ‘unknown’. In a collaborative,
this often leads to speculations and assumptions about intentions, resources and
power of these players (Vansina, 2002). In the three cases, the representatives
assumed that forces from the outside influenced the agenda or outcome of the
process. Different kinds of players can influence the collaborative from the outside.
1.3.1. Absent stakeholders: authorities in the environment
In the cases, the participants believed authorities and institutions in the environment
holding power influenced the process.
In foster care many employees believed that the hidden agenda of policy makers was a merger
of the services. Some feared the project would weaken the position of foster care in negotiations
with policy makers and that it would make it easier for policy to cut expenses
In the river valley case participants speculated that the results of the project could easily be put
aside. Some feared that politicians would throw away their work in the interest of their
personal agenda.
In the three cases, the most influential invisible player was the sponsoring
administration or organization. On the one hand, funding organizations provided
opportunities: resources to solve a problem, space for experimentation and
discovery, the chance to learn from each other, or the opportunity to realize a dream.
On the other hand, sponsors also imposed their restrictions, such as a tight deadline,
a predefined output, insufficient time for meetings, or high demands in terms of
reporting. They had the power to stop or extend funding, to implement the solutions
or not, to support the process or to obstruct it. The participants were accountable to
these commissioners. The sponsors thus maintained power over the domain.
The objectives of the foster care project (‘reception function’) reflected the agenda of the policy
makers. They granted resources to the services (e.g. external facilitation), but also imposed the
252

equired output. The procedural nature of the contract was in contradiction with the emergent
stakeholder approach proposed in the project. This resulted in paradoxical starting conditions.
The participants were bounded by the contract with the sponsors. They felt the tension between
the need to fulfill the requirements of the contract (e.g. produce results before the deadline) and
the necessity to take time for the process and work out what they really wanted to achieve
together. The authorities had created an ironic situation. On the one hand, they funded a project
to develop structural collaboration, but on the other hand, they did not question or change the
subsidizing mechanism that reinforced rivalry for resources. By creating this paradoxical
situation, the authorities remained in control and played the services off against each other. The
managers of the project group felt deserted by the policy makers. In the interviews, many
‘internal’ stakeholders expected support and facilitating conditions from the authorities. They
hoped policy makers would provide a clear framework, assess the quality of assistance in foster
care, reward collaboration, and change the ‘perverse’ subsidizing mechanisms.
The contract with authorities in the environment influenced the daily work of the
collaborative. It was not always clear, however, to what extent the participants
needed to strictly follow the contract. It was as if they could not question, adapt or
renegotiate the initial contract terms with the sponsors. The sponsoring organization,
as a critical party, was not involved in the process.
In the stakeholder interviews in the foster care case most interviewees identified the subsidizing
logic as the main obstacle to collaboration between the services. However, the managers did not
discuss this with the policy makers. They were not involved in the process. The managers soon
realized that the formal objectives of the project were unrealistic. However, they carried on and
decided to focus on process objectives (e.g. get to know one another, learn from each other).
They suggested setting up a meeting with the sponsoring organizations, but this never
happened. Only at the very end of the project, they reported to the funding organizations. The
managers strongly felt they needed to justify why they did not meet the formal objectives of the
project.
Usually there was only direct contact between conveners of the collaborative and the
sponsors before the start (negotiation of contract) and after the project (reporting and
evaluation). The sponsors were not involved in the daily operations of the projects.
Often, the participants complained about shortcomings of funding, information or
other resources, as if otherwise the task would have been easy to accomplish. The
participants often seemed to deny the impact of external players, which may have
been a defense against feeling powerless and vulnerable.
As a collaborative process is emergent, it is recommended to establish space for
renegotiation during the process in order to adapt to changes within the
collaborative and in the environment. Inclusion of a representative of the sponsoring
253

organization in a ‘steering group’, for instance, can establish a closer link with the
sponsors as stakeholders. This would allow for feedback and adaptation on a regular
basis. This finding also points at the need to engage in collaborative ‘thuggery’,
which includes ‘playing politics’ in order to move the process forward (Huxham &
Vangen, 2003). The participants need to be in contact (information, consultation,
active involvement) with players in the context and thus influence the process by
working across the boundaries of the collaborative.
1.3.2. Absent stakeholders: assumed power centers
Sometimes still different authorities, not formally represented in the collaborative,
influence the process. The participants assume that these so-called ‘super-ghosts’
organize, fund or control some stakeholders behind the scene (Vansina, 2002).
In the interviews in the foster care case some speculated that the ‘institutional lobby’ or the
‘invisible liberal network in welfare’ were in control behind the scenes. These speculations were
not openly discussed and made some cynical about the chances for success.
Such assumptions may provoke tensions, a decrease in motivation, suspicion or
distrust. The participants can also use those invisible power centers to blame them
for the lack of success or progress on the task. Conveners or facilitators can try to
check the speculations in order to test reality and take away the influence of those
invisible partners over the process.
1.3.3. The constituencies of the representatives in the collaborative
A ‘ghost’ may also refer to the constituencies of the representatives that influence the
process (Vansina, 2002). In all cases, the representatives experienced the presence of
their constituency.
In the river valley case, some participants were cynical about experimenting with participative
methods. The head of their department was openly critical about actively involving
stakeholders in the process. In his opinion, the multiparty perspective represented by the
researchers was ‘academic’ and unrealistic.
I will discuss the specific role of representatives in relation to their constituency in
the section on ‘roles’.
254

1.3.4. Absent stakeholders: excluded voices
The case studies also demonstrated another kind of absent party. In most cases, the
voice of a number of legitimate stakeholders was not heard and not formally
represented in the collaborative.
In the foster care project the foster children and natural parents were not heard and not invited
or included in any other way even though they were the core stakeholders (‘users’) in the
domain. They represented the emotional aspects of what was happening in the field and the
pain of failure to take care of children in a problematic situation, both by the natural parents
and by the services. The key actors seemed to have shut them out from the process because a
confrontation could have been too hard to deal with.
In the river valley case the public was not represented. Although the conveners argued that the
local authorities formally represented the voice of their community, they admitted at the same
time that in practice these did not speak in the interests of the public. They expected citizens
who did not agree, to turn to the formal procedure that was set up after the plans were finalized
(‘public hearing’).
It seems paradoxical, but often the critical stakeholders were not actively included or
represented in the collaborative (e.g. clients, users, sponsors). The danger of not
including important stakeholders is that they jeopardize the implementation of the
solutions or sabotage the efforts of the collaborative.
1.4. Events and changes in the environment
Events and changes in the context that occurred during the process frequently
proved to be important for the collaborative. Sometimes changes in the environment
gave a boost to the process.
The success of a neighboring project in welfare supported the foster care project. The new
Minister of welfare who was appointed during the project, demonstrated interest in foster care.
For instance, she unexpectedly turned up at a meeting of the Federation for foster care.
In the erosion case the approaching local elections initially helped to involve the local
authorities in the project. One political representative, for instance, invited over 100 farmers to
the information session at his municipality.
However, many times external events disrupted the process. In all cases, there was a
change in political representation that jeopardized the work. Turnover always means
a restarting of the clock, which slows down the process (Ring & van de Ven, 1994).
255

In the erosion case there was no decision making for nine months after the new representatives
of a different political party had taken over (municipal elections). Another external event
seriously disrupted the process. The corporation of the technical engineers was restructured. It
had acquired the small firm of the participative engineers, also involved in the project.
Management decided to hand over project leadership to the participative engineers. This
further emphasized the rivalry between the two engineering groups. The participative
engineers had to facilitate a process they had not designed. They had not chosen the partners,
nor negotiated with the local authorities. Half way the project, the Flemish authorities issued a
new erosion policy. It offered more financial compensation to the farmers (75%) than the
European project (50%), which made participation in the project less attractive for the farmers.
A Minister from the ecologic party had approved the river valley project. During the project, a
new Minister from a different party, was elected. This blew away all the hope of the conveners
that authority over the river would be transferred to their administration. It undermined the
authority of the conveners and represented a threat to the study. Some started to doubt whether
the plan would ever be approved or implemented. One of the representatives considered
changing jobs, because he was daunted by the influence of politicians on his work. He found it
hard to accept that the work of so many people, over so many months, could simply be put
aside.
This demonstrates the importance of paying attention to the effects of turnover and
changes in representation. Careful briefing and contracting can help to ensure
continuity. Changes in political representation are much harder to deal with because
newly elected or appointed politicians usually have little respect for the work of their
predecessors.
Handbooks on participation promote the idea of external communication and public
relations in order to reach out and foster support in the environment (e.g. ‘outreach’,
HarmoniCop, 2005).
The workgroup ‘recreation’ in the river valley project visited a similar project in Flanders. They
learned that communication with the public is critical to create goodwill. The project leader of
this initiative emphasized the importance of having a ‘brand name’ and an appealing vision for
the future to facilitate acceptance of unpopular decisions (e.g. close a road going through a
natural park). Later in the project, the conveners set up a public website and produced some
newsletters and articles.
It is important for a collaborative to build relationships across the boundary of the
initiative and to pay attention to forces in the external environment that can either
help or hinder the process.
256

1.5. Shared sense of urgency
The initial motivation to start up a collaborative often originates in the environment.
Policy makers, organizations or social groups become aware of a problem in the
domain and experience some sense of urgency. Vansina (2002) refers to the
‘emotional context’ of a collaborative: the felt urgency to solve a problem and the
shared level of awareness that a collaborative approach is required to solve it. The
motive for collaborating can be an urgent or important problem in the domain (e.g. a
severe flood, a sudden shortage of foster families). However, other motives can also
trigger a collaborative initiative. These include, a charismatic and committed
convener, the availability of funding, a crisis in the environment, the threat of
survival for single organizations, circumstances, or existing relationships based on
previous collaborative experiences.
As demonstrated in the erosion case there was no shared sense of urgency to solve the problem
of soil erosion because many participants did not experience it as a problem. There had been
erosion in the area for hundreds of years. Only the soil experts were worried about the loss of
fertile soil because of the impact on the wider environment and the loss of the ‘history’
represented in the different layers of soil.
Initially there was a sense of urgency in foster care. The convener was convinced it was critical
to collaborate with the stakeholder groups identified in the project proposal. Her personal drive
and enthusiasm helped to set up the project in order to make her dream come true. She
understood that a proactive response could avoid an imposed merger. However, as the process
unfolded, the sense of urgency dropped. The consultants tried to introduce a sense of urgency
in the system, by presenting the results from the stakeholder interviews. At one point, they
became the driving force, convincing the managers that collaboration was critical. There were
no meetings during the summer months. The approaching deadline (an external element) put
pressure to move on and take decisions.
In the river valley case the conveners were convinced that the problem they were trying to solve
was important and urgent. They talked about the ‘ultimate study’ as if it would solve all the
problems in the valley forever. The conveners were passionate about their project and spent
much more time than foreseen to make things happen. They were also aware of the need to
involve stakeholders in order to foster support for their plan. However, they were uncertain on
how to organize participation. They also gradually realized that for other parties the study was
not as critical or urgent.
A shared sense of urgency helps a collaborative to get started. In the course of the
process, the participants have to deal with their individual motives for engaging in
the collaborative. They often realize that they are ‘doomed to work together’ which
may help to enhance the motivation for change and the sense of urgency. An
important role for those leading or facilitating a collaborative is to stress the
257

elevance, importance and sense of urgency of the change by using a collaborative
strategy and to maintain this awareness during the process.
In this research, I assumed that the members of the ‘project group’ played out the
dynamics of the wider system in which the group was embedded (Vansina, 2007).
The constituencies and other players in the environment represent multiple
stakeholders in the context that powerfully influence the dynamics within the
collaborative. By focusing on the system-in-interaction (e.g. meeting of a project
group), it is difficult to capture the dynamics in the context and to assess how they
influence the dynamics within the boundaries of the system. Those in charge of
leading the process can increase contextual understanding by, for instance,
interviewing stakeholders, organizing large group interventions where the
representatives of the domain are all present in a room (e.g. search conference), or by
engaging in a ‘system-oriented assessment’ (Levinson, 2002; Harrison, 2005). The
findings in this research point at the relevance of focusing on adaptive processes in
collaborative groups or how members respond to the events and changes in the
embedding system of ‘boundary-less’ work systems (Hirschhorn & Gilmore, 1992;
McGrath & Tschan, 2004; Vansina, 2007).
2. TASK AND COLLABORATIVE AIMS
It seems obvious that clear and shared objectives and an agreed upon direction are
conditions to move a collaborative process forward. There is, however, a difference
between this common wisdom and common practice, which demonstrates that
lasting agreement on the direction is difficult to establish (Huxham & Vangen, 2005).
The cases show that the task and aims of the collaborative were often ambiguous.
Making sense of the task was a critical dynamic in the projects.
In the system psychodynamic tradition, the ‘primary task’ refers to the task the
organization has to perform in order to survive (Rice, 1958; Miller, 1993). This
258

concept, however, is no longer relevant in organizing processes in a turbulent
environment. A critical difference between organizations and multiparty
collaboration is the self-designing nature of the task. Even though there usually is a
formal task (e.g. written down in a project text), participants need to make sense of,
negotiate and define the task they want to be working on. In emergent and dynamic
forms of organizing, such as multiparty collaboration, the primary task also needs to
be constantly reviewed and adapted in the light of the changing environment and
changes within the collaborative. Feyerherm (1994) refers to the importance of ‘going
back to base camp’ in order to (re)interpret the purpose of collaboration. For instance,
when membership changes the participants need to reconsider the collaborative
aims. There is a mutual influence between the nature of participating organizations
and the goal of the collaboration: the focus defines the participants and the
participants define the focus (Huxham & Vangen, 1996).
In the river valley case the conveners needed to adapt their agenda from the moment they
invited the administration responsible for the river under study (civil engineers) to the
coordination committee. The aims turned to a more realistic scenario integrating the needs and
expectations of, for instance, the municipalities (safety against flooding) and farmers (financial
compensation). The presence of the civil engineers made the conveners realize they had to take
the technical feasibility, the restrictions, and the financial consequences of potential
interventions into account.
A distinction between different aspects of the primary task, proposed by Lawrence
and Robinson (1975), helps to make sense of what happened to the task in the
different projects. In this research, I was primarily interested in the differences
between what people say they are doing or would like to do, and what they actually
do in practice. This was an important issue in the three projects. The ‘normative’
primary task is the task on which representatives in the collaborative should be
working. External authorities (e.g. sponsoring organization) often dictate the
normative task. The ‘existential’ primary task is the task the participants believe they
are carrying out, which is often reflected in the rhetoric they use (e.g.
“participation”). The ‘phenomenal’ task is the task representatives are actually
engaged in (Hoyle, 2004). This task emerges as a result of how participants make
sense of the task, which is enacted in their interactions and in the way in which they
259

organize the process. This distinction between different aspects of the primary task
helps to clarify the observed changes in the task, and the way in which participants
dealt with the primary task.
2.1. The normative primary task
The formal objective, or the task the representatives should be working on, was
written down in the contract with the sponsoring organization. In most cases, the
convener(s) proposed a task description to convince funding organizations to
provide resources. Therefore, it was usually phrased in ‘politically correct’ terms. For
instance, in the erosion and foster care cases the conveners used specific jargon with
a strategic aim. Both conveners and funding agencies therefore had a strong impact
on the normative primary task, which set the agenda from the start. Huxham and
Vangen (2005) talk about ‘external’ aims, because collaborative aims are often related
to government policy drives or other external pressure. Conveners also used the
normative task to convince stakeholders to participate in the process. It provided a
trigger or reason to assemble representatives around the table.
In the foster care project the normative task (development of a ‘reception function’) which was
introduced in a project proposal, was the starting point. This objective was aligned with the
one-stop shopping philosophy of policy makers. It set the agenda of the project and strongly
influenced the direction of the process.
At the start of a process, participants assess whether the task is sufficiently
interesting to commit themselves (Mills, 1967). They need to figure out what they can
potentially get out of participation: ‘what’s in it for me?’ (Gray, 1989). The normative
task is the starting point for exploration of individual and collaborative aims. A
‘plan’ or formalized objective provides participants with a reason to sit around the
table to talk about the future. While participants explore what the collaborative is
about and whether they want to commit themselves, they are in the process of
building a relationship. Participants usually assume there is agreement on the task,
but often this is not the case.
260

A striking observation was that in some cases the formal task, which was expressed
in terms of a solution, was not thoroughly explored.
In the foster care project the consultants realized that a ‘reception function’ was a solution for a
problem that had not yet been systematically explored and there was no agreement on the
problem definition. The interviewers decided to stop talking about the reception function. Soon
after, however, the convener reprimanded the interviewers; she argued that the notion
‘reception function’ was the reason for being engaged in the project in the first place. Some
interviewees did wonder for what problem the reception function was going to be the solution.
The formal objective of the river valley study was to develop an ‘integrated’ plan for the valley.
The conveners were hoping for an ‘ideal’ plan. This implied a future scenario for the valley,
which maximally guaranteed their interests. The ecological agenda was dominant and their
objectives could not be questioned.
In some cases (e.g. foster care) the normative task was ambiguous. Turcotte and
Pasquero (2001) argue that a certain degree of ambiguity can be strategic in the sense
that it deals with the diversity of objectives present in the system.
In the first phase of the erosion project, the second project leader constructed a joint problem
definition with interested stakeholders in the area, based on the formal task description.
However, in the project group there was no agreement between the two consulting firms on the
meaning of the task of the project. As the group did not openly discuss this, it resulted in
polarization and sub-grouping.
The task, which in itself is neutral, can function as a ‘transitional object’ (Winnicott,
1971) and acquire an emotional meaning. It can help those involved in a change
process to deal with the uncertainty and openness of the process, connect them to
each other, feel committed to a joint enterprise, and adapt their internal world to an
anticipated external world (Vansina, 2004).
The normative task in foster care was to develop a ‘reception function’. Initially this concept
gave an identity to the collaborative effort and helped to start discussions on the desirable
future. As the process unfolded, it became clear there was no agreement or shared meaning of
the notion reception function. It generated different images and fantasies and provoked
different emotional responses ranging from hope to fear. The question ‘what do we want to
achieve together’ remained unresolved.
This points at common group phenomenon; participants assume they share the same
assumptions about the nature of the task. Often they do not openly explore the
different perspectives on the task. Group members and consultants escape in an
inspiring vision of the future and try to convince participants to endorse the vision
(Vansina, 2002). This enables them to avoid the tensions in the ‘here-and-now’ as a
261

esult of exploring how the interests of all participants can be integrated. In the cases,
the groups colluded in a shared, implicit assumption that they knew what they were
working on.
2.2. The existential task
The existential task was the task the participants believed they were working on. In
the cases, it became apparent that different stakeholders made different sense of the
task. Sometimes they openly talked about it and sometimes they left it implicit.
In foster care most participants believed they were in the process of establishing collaborative
relationships in order to provide better solutions for the children. However, some thought they
were merely engaged in a research project to assess the possibilities of collaboration. Others
postponed their plans to move building because they expected changes that would affect the
location of their personnel.
In the erosion case the participative engineers and psychologists thought they were facilitating
a multi-stakeholder process in order to experiment with new anti-erosion measures and to learn
from those experiences. The technical engineers and representatives of the municipalities
believed they were developing technical solutions (e.g. large water basins) for real problems.
From their perspective, consultation of stakeholders was only meant to improve their technical
plans.
This refers to the process of ‘issue framing’. A frame is determined by the
(professional, social) group to which stakeholders belong and by the context. As
different actors perceive a situation with a different frame, they consider different
aspects as problematic and propose different solutions. Parties in a joint initiative
will position themselves and others by the way in which they frame, and eventually
reframe, the issue under consideration. In the interactions, some frames can be more
dominant than others (e.g. Dewulf, Craps, Bouwen, Taillieu & Pahl-Wostl, 2005).
For the conveners in the river valley case the study was an ‘engineering contract’ for policy
preparation. They did not see it as a project focusing on ‘facilitation of a process’. The project
proposal reflected this assumption. There was no budget or plan for ‘communication’. For the
engineers it was a technical study; for the municipalities it was about flood prevention; for the
administrations in the domain of nature and for non-governmental organizations, the task was
about nature conservation or even nature development.
The rhetoric used by the participants revealed the perspectives on the existential
task.
The conveners of the river valley study often publicly talked about participation and the
importance of an ‘integrated’ and broadly supported plan. They believed they were involving
262

the stakeholders. However, their tight control over the process, the rare opportunities for direct
interaction, and the structured nature of the meetings with stakeholder representatives reduced
the impact of the stakeholders. There was a contradiction between the rhetoric of organizing a
participatory process and the underlying assumption of the conveners that the objectives of the
study could under no circumstances be questioned.
The managers and consultants in foster care talked about ‘stakeholders’; however, the meaning
of that word was reduced to the persons working in the foster care services. During the second
‘stakeholder conference’, for instance, no external stakeholders were invited.
It seems critical to explore the meaning behind of words that are used in a
collaborative by, for instance, the convener, sponsoring organizations or consultants.
Different assumptions and sense making of words (e.g. ‘participation’) has
consequences for the way in which the process is organized. A shared understanding
of words or jargon can help to avoid empty rhetoric that creates unfulfilled
expectations. If participants negotiate the existential task, this can result in a shared
and agreed task (common ground). If this shared existential task aligns with the
phenomenological task and with the normative task, it has the potential to mobilize
the group and set the direction of the process.
2.3. The phenomenological task
The phenomenological task is the task in which the participants are actually engaged.
Based on my observations and on interviewing, I was able to make sense of the
phenomenological task that emerged as the process unfolded. It revealed the
differences between what people claimed they were doing and what they were
actually doing. In the case analyses, I have used the system psychodynamic
framework to make sense of this phenomenon.
In foster care the phenomenological task that gradually came to the foreground was a
reorganization of the services. The managers were not prepared to give up their autonomy or to
jeopardize their identity with the change. The existential task, finding optimal solutions for the
child, disappeared in the background.
Gradually the convener in the river valley project realized there was no ‘best’ solution. The
names of the scenarios that were developed reflected this evolution; these changed from ‘ideal’
to ‘optimal’ to ‘compromise’ scenario. The conveners admitted, towards the end of our research,
that they had hoped and assumed that a technically perfect scenario would provide the
solution. They said they had secretly hoped a waterproof plan would avoid conflicts with the
stakeholders in the valley.
263

The cases demonstrated a tension between the need to clarify and define the task in
order to develop common ground, and the risk and reluctance to make the
individual perceptions on the task explicit. Some participants argued they were
afraid of a conflict that could endanger their participation in the collaborative or
could be embarrassing others. For the facilitators of the process it was not always
easy to deal with this. An explicit intervention referring to ‘hidden agendas’, for
instance, can do more harm than good, especially if trust is not yet developed
(Harrisson, 1970). In the foster care case, the pressure to put the cards on the table led
to the exclusion of one key actor. Huxham and Vangen (2005) also observed that
explicit sharing of understanding of the task and the attempt to formulate
collaborative aims sometimes reveals differences that are hard to bridge. This may
lead to greater inertia instead of setting the direction for constructive, collective
action.
The participants often experienced the latent tension between individual and
collaborative aims.
In the erosion project there was a shift in the task. As the technical engineers had more power
and became dominant again towards the end of the project, their influence on the task
increased. It changed from experimentation with state of the art anti-erosion measures at the
source of the problem (farmland), to solving real problems downstream in the villages.
Individual objectives of some participants gradually prevailed over the objectives stated in the
project proposal. The project group had failed to construct a shared task that could mobilize the
group. Few farmers participated and there were hardly any visible results on farmland.
Eventually the members of the project group could no longer deny the failure of the project.
They called it a ‘low end version’. This seemed to be a socially desirable way of saying: we
failed to reach the objectives. The project ended in inertia.
Usually the task was predominant in the interactions and the participants found it
hard to talk about the process and relationships. In the foster care case, however, the
managers were mainly concerned with establishing collaborative relationships.
However, as Vansina (2002) observes, collaboration as such cannot be the primary
goal, because it is an organizational strategy to solve a ‘meta-problem’.
In foster care the managers emphasized the ‘process’. They took a long time for the ‘pairing
dance’ and stressed that getting to know one another was important. This seemed a defense
against the anxiety of putting their cards on the table and taking decisions about the future
(task). Moreover, collaboration became a goal in itself. Several stakeholder representatives
wondered for what problem collaboration was going to be the solution. The managers and their
264

oards did not specify what the benefit of collaboration was going to be (e.g. criteria, quality
standards).
If those in charge of leading or facilitating a collaborative can align the three types of
tasks, this can be a powerful intervention to set the direction. It is important to work
on a shared task definition to counter the tendency of pursuing individual objectives.
Overarching objectives and a shared sense of common ground may help to foster
productive, task-oriented work. However, when the task and objectives are defined
at the start of the process, there may be less space for innovation and creativity.
Participants and facilitators need to find a balance between sufficient common
ground to mobilize the collaborative and sufficient adaptability of the task.
3. STRUCTURING AND FORMALIZING OF THE PROCESS
An appropriate organization of the process is required to allow task-oriented work.
Procedural interventions and structures can support the process (Bouwen & Taillieu,
2004). Collaborative processes are usually ‘emergent’, and participants cannot
establish structures or processes in advance (Gray, 1989). A collaborative does not
have clear organizational structures, rituals, routines, procedures and authority
relations. Feyerherm (1994) refers to an expedition or a journey ‘without much of a
road map’. From the psychodynamic perspective this implies that anxieties that used
to be contained in structures and authority embedded in that structure, are stirred up
by the unknown conditions with which the stakeholders are confronted (Krantz,
1998). Such emergent forms of organizing require new ways of designing and
facilitating. Particularly since no one is formally ‘in charge’, conveners, participants,
facilitators and sponsoring organizations need new skills and scripts to organize
effective collaborative processes. When a collaborative is formalized too soon or too
rigidly, there is a tendency to lose the benefits of inter-organizational collaboration.
Trist (1983) calls it a referent organization taking ‘the wrong path’ by establishing
bureaucratic principles, central power, and hierarchical forms of organizing. The
result is a sub-optimization of diversity and inter-dependence. Defensive dynamics
265

like ‘over-structuring’, ‘under-structuring’ or premature formalizing of collaborative
relationships are likely to occur when negative feelings around uncertainty,
interdependence and complexity are not contained.
When formal structures are lacking, so-called ‘psychological boundaries’ need to be
negotiated (Hirschhorn & Gilmore, 1992). Doing so can contain the anxiety of
collaborative work and provide some predictability and reassurance. Closing off too
soon is a means to reduce uncertainty. A premature development of structures can be
a defense against the openness of the situation; boundaries thus become barriers. It
is, however, important to keep options open long enough and to explore alternatives
(Taillieu et al., 2000). Excessive formalization may also lead to conflict and distrust
among the parties (Ring & Van de Ven, 1994). Boundaries that are both firm and
flexible allow for productive work on the task. In the face of uncertainty, the risk is
that participants make an inappropriate or premature choice, influenced by socio-
emotional needs rather than by the task itself (Menzies, 1988).
In the river valley case the process was over-structured and controlled from the start.
Consequently, many stakeholders felt excluded from the process and wondered what the
administrations and consultants were up to.
The way in which the key actors wanted to involve the stakeholders influenced the
organization of the process. The issue of inclusion and exclusion was predominant in
all cases. Different interpretations of ‘participation’ or ‘multi-stakeholder
involvement’ resulted in different ways of structuring the process. In most cases, the
process was already structured before the project started.
In the river valley project membership of the steering group and the number of times the group
was supposed to meet was set in advance. This was influenced, as it often was, by external
factors. In this case, legal procedures in the domain of nature conservation determined the
structures that were set up and the legitimacy of membership of those subgroups.
In most cases the participants failed to apply common insights from project
management, such as establish a problem definition before working out solutions.
They seemed overwhelmed by the complexity of the endeavor. It is also common
knowledge, for instance, that it is important to inform people about progress in a
266

project. The question in emergent processes is: inform them about what precisely,
when there is ‘nothing’ to report yet? The cases also demonstrated that different
parties (e.g. conveners, facilitators) organize a collaborative with ‘models’, ‘scripts’ or
‘work methods’ that originate from other domains and that may not be adapted to
the non-hierarchical nature of multiparty collaboration.
3.1. Minimal structure
A minimal structure provides basic conditions for productive, task oriented work. As
previously discussed, a provisional ‘plan’ can provide focus and facilitate
commitment and exploration to get the collaborative off the ground. A minimal
structure also refers to establishing ground rules. These rules can relate to task
aspects (e.g. we share all available information), procedures (e.g. the work groups
propose solutions, the project group decides) and relations (e.g. we respect
differences). A minimal structure may provide some predictability and trust among
the participants.
The project form provided some basic conditions, such as formal objectives or a
deadline, negotiated with the sponsor. In most projects there was some form of plan
with steps and phases.
In river valley case the process was structured in three phases (inventory, visioning, planning).
In the foster care project the consultants proposed a project plan to organize the work (e.g.
stakeholder interviews, feedback, stakeholder conferences).
In none of the projects, explicit ground rules were negotiated at the start. In general,
there was little reflection on how the project groups were working together or how
they wanted to work together. Sometimes rules did emerge during the process
because participants were confronted with a problem.
The project group in the foster care project made very few agreements. Over time they were
confronted with a number of problems. In response, they decided on some clear ground rules.
For instance, when the liberal service stepped out of the project, they stated that all the
documents related to the services were to be treated as confidential. They also agreed that if a
service stepped out of the project, it would still be a member of the regional consultation
platform. At the end of the year, the managers decided to give their employees some minimal
guarantees (e.g. no merger, no job loss) to contain the anxieties stirred up by the change.
267

A convener or facilitator can help group development by establishing some basic
rules for its functioning. Contracting can result in agreement on roles (of individuals
or groups), mandate, and status of the results of the process. Over-structuring the
process may even result in distrust (Ring & van de Ven, 1994). However, it is
impossible to negotiate everything in the initial phase of the process. An important
function of those facilitating the process is to create a climate where the participants
can discuss the way they are working together (meta-communication). This creates
the opportunity to adapt the way of working or to establish ground rules during the
process. In absence of formal agreements or ground rules, the participating
organizations have to rely on trust.
3.2. Structuring of the domain: stakeholder analysis and
stakeholder involvement
In a multi-stakeholder process, it is critical to identify the parties that have a stake in
the domain. In the multiparty logic, all parties with a stake in the domain are
legitimate and ‘equal’. A process usually starts with establishing membership: whose
voice will be heard, and whose voice is shut out? Hirschhorn and Gilmore (1992)
refer to the boundary of identity: who is ‘us’ and who is not ‘us’? The group of
representatives that emerges, sets out to define the task, which is a critical aspect in
direction setting. In some projects membership was established in advance.
Initially the conveners of the river valley study only accepted the members of the preestablished
steering group (stakeholders) and planning group (representatives of
administrations) as legitimate stakeholders. They only wanted to talk to and negotiate with
representatives of organized stakeholder groups and colleagues from other administrations. In
doing so, they excluded the public and unorganized interest groups. Later in the process, when
they decided to set up work groups, they also allowed others into the collaborative.
In foster care the convener had understood she needed to involve the ‘bad fairy’ (referring to
the tale ‘the sleeping beauty’), an internal stakeholder, in the process. Otherwise, she would
‘bewitch’ the collaborative. When the liberal service stepped out, there was no conflict and
relationships were safeguarded.
In one case, the key actors made an explicit stakeholder analysis. It helped them to
identify the relevant players in the domain, to understand the links between all
stakeholders, and to position their organizations in the domain.
268

In the foster care project the first step was a formal stakeholder analysis. It helped the group to
draw a list of stakeholder representatives for interviewing. This intervention also contained the
anxiety stirred up by the complexity of the context in which the project was embedded.
Stakeholder analyses (e.g. Eden, 1996) are usually based on power. If they are used to
evaluate the importance or relevance of stakeholders, it can result in a tension
between the rhetoric of equality and legitimacy of the stakeholders and the obvious
asymmetries among the stakeholders.
In foster care the researchers presented a stakeholder model which introduced an implicit
hierarchy in the stakeholders. This intervention seemed to legitimize the marginalization of the
foster children and parents. The asymmetry and inequality between internal and external
stakeholders was also accentuated by this intervention.
Finn (1996) draws a distinction between ‘internal stakeholders’, those involved in the
process, and ‘external stakeholders’, those who have a stake in the domain but are
not part of the process. In the projects, the boundary between these two types of
stakeholders was a critical issue. Sometimes the distinction was explicit; sometimes
the difference was more implicit.
In foster care the classification and labeling of ‘internal’ and ‘external’ stakeholders occurred
spontaneously. While the managers were preparing the stakeholder conferences they discussed
who was to be invited, at what moment during the conference, and with what specific purpose.
They decided to only invite the ‘external’ stakeholders during the morning of the first day. This
distinction was maintained throughout the process. It changed the task of the project.
In the other projects, a similar phenomenon emerged. ‘Internal’ stakeholders
involved ‘external’ stakeholders as a technique to avoid resistance to the plans of
those leading the initiative. The key actors (e.g. conveners, project leaders,
facilitators, members of the project group) were willing to share their power with
stakeholders under specific conditions. The assumption was, however, that they
could take this power back. The motive for stakeholder involvement was usually not
to take decisions for the domain from a shared power base (Vansina, 2002; Bouwen &
Taillieu, 2004). In the projects, it was clear that the motive was to reduce resistance, to
‘sell’ a plan, or to obtain information or feedback on proposed plans from
stakeholder representatives in order to improve them.
In the river valley case the conveners only wanted a ‘modest’ form of participation. They
assumed it was their task to propose an ‘ideal’ plan to the stakeholders. They were obviously
269

scared for direct interaction with a group of stakeholder representatives because they feared
conflict, attack and criticism. They had learned, however, that it was important to listen to
stakeholders. Therefore they organized a ‘sector analysis’ and an individual survey of all the
farmers in the valley.
Also in foster care, the stakeholders were only involved to give information, provide feedback
or listen to the results of the project that had been developed without their participation.
As a consequence the key actors had a strong influence on direction setting of the
process in the three projects. In retrospect, the influence of managers, experts and
consultants was predominant. They did consult the external stakeholders (e.g. sector
analysis, stakeholder interviews), but it was hard to share and integrate the
information and to involve them in the process. The input of the ‘external’
stakeholders was filtered, summarized and reduced, and often ended up in a report.
By bringing the stakeholders in one room (‘search conference’), chances are higher
that the leading actors integrate the direct input of the external stakeholders in the
process. Such interventions increase the awareness of interdependence and diversity
in the domain, and they reinforce the sense of urgency to work collaboratively.
3.3. Formal and informal roles
An important aspect of structuring is role negotiation. Role negotiation is essential to
enable participants in the process to make sense of their potential contribution. This
process of contracting occurs at the implicit and explicit level and is shaped by the
actions and interpretations of the stakeholders (Ring & Van de Ven, 1994). If
participants are not open to negotiation, the project depends on ongoing power
negotiation of competing stakeholders (Vansina, Taillieu & Schruijer, 1998). When
the participants map out the interdependencies among the roles, this enables each
stakeholder to connect his authority with that of others (Hirschhorn, 1988; Krantz,
1998). When actors take up a meaningful role, they can share leadership for the
future of the domain. A requirement for role negotiation is an accepted and shared
primary task.
270

In a collaborative ‘task authority gaps’ may emerge, because three interdependent
systems are not available in advance. There is no ‘official-role system’ (formal
organizational structure), no ‘task-role system’ (who does what and with whom), or
‘authority-role system’ (who has the legal authority to make what types of decision)
(Mackenzie, 1986). As the process emerges, the participants negotiate the
psychological ‘task boundary’ (who does what?) and the ‘authority boundary’ (who
is in charge of what?) (Hirschhorn & Gilmore, 1992). As previously discussed, the
primary task of a collaborative is often not clearly defined and it is subject to change.
Therefore, participants may take up informal or self-attributed roles, driven by the
need to get a grip on the situation or to move things ahead. Consistent attention for
the dynamic relation between task and roles is an important issue in facilitating
work.
In the erosion project the project leaders (consulting firms) did not exchange their expectations
and assumptions with the local authorities. The latter were critical partners in the process
because they were supposed to ensure the relationship with the farmers. There was no
contracting of roles and contributions. This resulted in ambiguity, disappointment, mutual
blaming, an authority vacuum and inertia in the project. In the project group the consultants
did try to exchange expectations and to negotiate the roles of the members of the group.
However, this formal intervention had little effect. Most members of the project group
struggled with their role and found it hard to contribute in a meaningful way.
In the foster care project the consultants clarified their role during the first meeting. However,
as the process unfolded, it became clear that the managers expected a different contribution
from the consultants. Projecting expectations of leadership on the consultants seemed like a
defensive response to the anxiety of having to take decisions for the future of the domain.
In the three projects, the participants took up different formal and informal roles.
Sometimes the roles overlapped or were shared by more than one person or
organization. In all cases, whenever a person, group or organization took up a
leading role, they became the subject of projected expectations. The way in which the
participants made sense of their role, stereotype assumptions of leadership, and
dependency needs prevented many participants from taking up their authority.
These phenomena also hindered the development of shared leadership and joint
responsibility for the future of the domain.
271

3.3.1. Convener
The role of the convener is to bring to stakeholders around the table and to provide
the starting conditions (e.g. funding, organize a meeting). This party creates a
platform for dialogue and negotiation for the stakeholder. As Gray (1996) points out,
conveners use different ways of influencing the process: legitimation, facilitation,
mandate and/or persuasion.
In the erosion case the convener was both powerful and credible. His consulting firm had an
established reputation in the area. He used his personal and business relationships to convince
three municipalities to sign up for the project. This took him almost one year. Later in the
process a civil servant from one of the municipalities claimed that the convener had talked the
municipalities into the project; they had not realized what the consequences would be (e.g.
amount of energy and time). The convener, however, was not perceived as a neutral party. His
business interests and reputation in the area were at stake. Even though the convener had
handed over project leadership to his colleague, he influenced the process from behind the
scenes.
Initially the convener of the foster care project was the drive behind the process. She was a very
passionate and persuasive person. She spoke from different positions: as foster mother,
manager (business interests, responsible for employment), convener of the process (informal
leader), interest party (loyalty to constituent organization), spokesperson for policy makers (fear
to lose face), and contractor of the consultants. When she ended up being a participant in the
project, she stepped back. She insisted that she was ‘only one of the five parties’ and refused to
play the role of convener. She wanted to defend the interests of her organization and relied on
the consultants to lead the process. On a regular basis, however, she put her agenda (reception
function) back on the table.
In the river valley case the conveners struggled with their double role. They wanted to defend
the interests of their administrations but also found themselves in the role of convener of the
process. They felt uncertain because this role was unfamiliar to them and they lacked the skills
and experience to facilitate a multi-stakeholder process. They did have the mandate, but many
stakeholders did not perceive them as neutral or credible facilitators. Eventually they split up
the two roles.
It is important, especially in the initial stages of collaboration, that the representatives
perceive the conveners as neutral, credible, trustworthy, powerful and fair (Gray,
1989; 1996). The convener, who may be one of the participants, is or becomes a
stakeholder in the success of the endeavor. As the cases have demonstrated, the role
of the convener can be very different. The shift from convening to leading or
facilitating, which is not well documented in the literature, also takes different forms.
272

3.3.2. Coordinator
In all projects, there were one or more persons or organizations in the formal position
of ‘coordinator’ or ‘project leader’. Their role was to assure daily management of the
project (e.g. finances, project planning, reporting). In some cases, the parties in a
leading role also had a stake in the problem domain. Because they were wearing
‘double hats’, others could not always perceive them as being ‘neutral’ and impartial.
The person or organization in the role of coordinator may be perceived as having
more decision-making authority than the others (Himmelman, 1996), which was
often true in the cases.
In the river valley case the initiators were not perceived as neutral or credible coordinators of
the project. Many stakeholders perceived the study as a vehicle from the administration to push
the environmental agenda. Some feared it was private business between the engineers and the
administrations. The conveners in their role of coordinators, did have a great influence on the
process (e.g. decide if, when, and how to organize a meeting of the steering group).
The participants sometimes fell back on stereotypes of leadership and projected
traditional leadership expectations on the coordinator(s). The members of the project
groups were often dependent on those taking the lead, as if they hoped an
omnipotent and omniscient authority would tell them what to do and where to go.
The members of the project group in the erosion project had expected clear decisions and
directives from the project leaders. Some were waiting for instructions, while others argued
they needed clear guidelines to be able to do their work. The two shifts in project leadership in
this project were disturbing because each coordinator had a different interpretation of his role.
One focused on task leadership, whereas another viewed himself as a process facilitator. This
prevented the group, at some point, from making and implementing decisions.
In foster care the coordinator, a member of the consulting team, had the impression he had to
drive the project, motivate the managers, do all the practical work, bring a sense of urgency in
the project and make sure there were results.
Sometimes participants tried to question the legitimacy or competence of the
coordinators by colluding and making them responsible for the failure of the
collaborative.
In the erosion case most members of the project group turned against the second project leader
after he had left. They had fostered unrealistic expectations of his leadership (omnipotence) and
blamed him for the lack of results. It seemed as a defense against the dysfunctioning of the
project group as the group responsible for setting the direction of the process.
273

3.3.3. External facilitator
External facilitators usually lead the process, focus on group development, and
create the conditions under which the participants can productively work together.
In two cases, there was an external or ‘third party’ to facilitate the process (Schuman,
1996).
External process facilitation was a critical condition for the managers in foster care. As they
feared conflict and did not want to endanger the existing collaborative relationships between
the five organizations, they insisted on having a neutral party to facilitate interactions. This also
allowed them to defend the interests of their constituency. The facilitators had a clear mandate
to focus on the process. After the project, some managers blamed the consultants for the slow
progress in the project. They had failed to give personal feedback, they had not helped the
managers to make sense of their experiences, they had not sufficiently represented the voice of
the ‘external’ stakeholders, and they had provided little space to disagree. The managers had
expected the facilitators to reassure them that what was happening in the project was ‘normal’
because it was a ‘phase’ in such processes. They had missed ‘landmarks’ and felt ‘left in the
dark’.
In the erosion case the organizational psychologists, hired to facilitate the process, could never
really take up this role. Since the second project leader emphasized process facilitation, he cut
the ground from under the psychologists’ feet. After he had left, his successor did not allow the
psychologists to facilitate the process. They had lost some of their credibility and neutrality by
teaming up with the second project leader.
Researchers in the role of action researcher or participative observer also influenced
the process. They helped the participants to find their solutions by, for instance,
facilitation of interactions, and organization and design of the process. They also
brought reflection in the system, for instance by giving feedback of their findings.
This helped the participants to become aware of their assumptions, experiences, and
what they learned from them (article 3). A critical condition for success was clear
contracting of roles on a regular basis.
3.3.4. ‘External’ and ‘internal’ stakeholder representatives
Stakeholder can share in direction setting of the process, when they have the
authority, potential, capacity and permission to act. However, in the cases the
‘external’ stakeholders could never really take up a critical and meaningful role or
take joint decisions for the domain.
The conveners in the river valley project clearly stated they only wanted to negotiate with
organized stakeholder groups. They did not believe that parties who could not understand the
technical details of the plans could make sensible, well-informed choices. During the workshop
the participants became aware they had missed an opportunity. They realized there had not
274

een any negotiation or contracting with the stakeholders about their role or contribution. The
stakeholders had assumed the conveners and consultants would decide on the future of the
valley and were frustrated. Meanwhile, the conveners had expected the formal representatives
in the subgroups to play their role of ‘stakeholder representative’ without clarifying what that
actually implied.
In the projects representatives of the ‘internal’ stakeholders, or ‘partners’
(Himmelman, 1996), were usually actively involved in the process.
In foster care representatives of the services actively participated during three stakeholder
conferences and some were member of the work groups. The employees in particular engaged
in the work with a lot of enthusiasm and hope. The managers realized that the members of the
boards should have steered this sort of change process, as they had a more strategic view on the
domain. However, these people (volunteers) did not have the time, and some not the
competence, to invest time and energy in this process.
In the river valley case it was not clear who the ‘internal’ stakeholders were. The conveners
drew the boundary of identity closely around their small core group, which made it harder for
others to contribute. The planning group, made up of public officers from colleague
administrations, did not have much influence on the process. The coordination committee was
split in subgroups, which took away some of the authority of the group.
The essence of multiparty collaboration is that a collaborative is composed of
representatives who speak for their constituency. Huxham and Vangen (2005)
discuss the ambiguity in representativeness. Are the ‘members’ of a collaboration the
individuals who work together in a collaborative group, or the organizations that
they represent? The representatives were confronted with a number of issues in their
role as representative.
In the foster care case the president of the board of the liberal organization (FC5) put pressure
on those representing his organization in the project. He insisted on the importance of a liberal
perspective on educational activities. The manager of FC4 also found herself squeezed between
the agenda of her board (collaboration across the boundary of foster care) and the objectives she
was supposed to be working on in the project group (collaboration between the services in two
specific areas). This took away her authority to act and weakened her mandate in the project
group. There was a marked difference between the mandates of the five managers in the project
group. Some represented a small, regional service and had to go back to their constituency for
decisions. Another manager represented a large Flemish organization and could autonomously
take decisions. This weakened the capacity of the project group to take quick decisions.
Moreover, there was a difference between the management culture of the services (top-down or
participative), and between the composition, role and power of the boards. These issues came
up in the project group on a regular basis.
The representatives were confronted with their mandate and the authority to take
decisions for their constituency. They were not always sufficiently informed to
275

epresent their organization. Sometimes there were conflicts of loyalty between the
representative and his or her constituency, due to differences in vision.
3.3.5. Experts
In order to solve complex environmental ‘meta problems’ the involvement of
external experts becomes critical (Koppenjan & Klijn, 2004). Therefore, dependency
on experts is likely and maybe inevitable. Particularly in the environmental and
technical projects, the experts took up an important role. Because of the complex
technical level of measures and solutions, other participants gave them a central role.
In the river valley case the technical experts were critical partners. They modeled solutions and
measured potential scenarios for flooding. They were also the ones talking to all stakeholders
(‘sector analysis’). The technical discourse dominated the process. The instruments and models
were not designed for communication, thus shutting out many stakeholders. The conveners,
who were also experts in the domain, were critical about the work and proposals of the external
experts and tried to be an ‘equal’ partner in the process.
In the two cases in the domain of natural resources, the experts made technically
solid plans for the stakeholders in the domain. However, they were confronted with
problems and resistance when they tried to ‘sell’ their plans. A critical issue is the
capability to bridge the technical experts and the non-experts or nonprofessionals.
3.3.6. Informal leaders
Sometimes informal leaders, involved as representatives in the process, competed for
influence in covert ways. They relied on different sources of authority to exercise
their influence (e.g. expertise, political relations, status, information, access to
financial resources, social network).
In the erosion case the powerful convener, who had stepped back from the moment the project
started, closely followed the project behind the scene. When the project was in danger, he came
to the foreground and took over. Even though consultants of the other consulting firm were in
charge of the project, he demonstrated on a regular basis that he was still in control. It was ‘his’
project. He used his political connections to restore confidence in the project. The members of
the project group perceived his interventions on the one hand as ‘saving’ the project, while on
the other hand they were aware that he was mainly defending his business interests.
276

This manifestation of tactical leadership is usually in the interests of one or a few
parties (Vansina, 2002). As ‘leadership’, by definition, was an ambiguous notion in all
cases, the influence of informal leaders added to the confusion among the
participants. By using power, informal leaders may endanger the collaborative
character of the process and the shared nature of leadership.
3.3.7. Funding agencies and context leaders
The sponsors and other influential players in the context were invisible in the
projects. The participants indirectly experienced their presence and influence by the
requirement, for instance, to submit reports, to present timely results, or to justify
expenses. Direct contact with those leaders was, however, scarce.
At one point, there was a festive event in foster care. The Minister was present at the meeting.
The managers missed an opportunity to make the Minister speak about their project. One of the
consultants reported that it struck him how timid the managers were whenever they took up a
role in public. Also at the final stakeholder conference, when a representative from the cabinet
was present to listen to the results of the project, the managers did not reach out to this person.
In order to involve all relevant players in the field, it seems critical to clearly identify
the sponsoring organization as a ‘stakeholder’ in the process, and to make sure this
party is represented in the collaborative. This may help to adapt the contract with the
sponsor in the course of events. Himmelman (1996) also argues that funding
organizations often fail to understand that a collaborative is more than a proposal to
which organizations attach letters of endorsement. Particularly, sponsors do not
realize that it takes time to develop a well designed collaborative with trusting and
respectful relationships. They often expect results before the participants have had
the time and opportunity to develop the collaborative fully.
3.4. Formal and informal structures and interventions
The central structure in all projects was the ‘project group’. Regular face-to-face
meetings of this ‘core group’ helped the key actors to stay connected to the project, to
each other, and to feel committed to the task. These meetings were a powerful
vehicle to set the direction of the process. The members of the project groups played
277

out the dynamics in the wider system. The role and status of this group was,
however, not always clearly negotiated.
In foster care the project group met on a monthly basis. In these meetings, the members of the
project group designed the process, discussed critical issues, explored potential scenarios for the
future. The group was the ‘motor’ of the process, although they were aware that the board
members should take the final decisions for the future.
In the erosion case the name 'project group' was used for different constellations and mixed up
with other names. Juniors took over from seniors. Some representatives joined and some left.
There was no open contracting and there were no clear ground rules. The members did not
clarify the mandate of the group. It was not clear whether it was the group where decisions
were taken, where information was shared, or where advise was prepared. The third project
leader did not think the meetings of the project group were still relevant when he took over
project management. He argued that the budget for meetings was used and that the meetings
were only used for ‘chatting’. When the project group stopped to meet in person, the members
worked on their objectives or simply stopped contributing.
In some cases, the formal structures to organize participation were established in
advance. The structures were a way to formalize membership and to legitimize the
stakeholder representatives.
In the river valley case the formal structures were established before the project started. They
consisted of the typical project substructures, such as a ‘project group’ and a ‘steering group’.
These structures were based on legal procedures in the domain of natural resources. In this
way, the conveners wanted to make sure that decisions taken by the formal groups were
legitimate for the Ministry. The planning and steering group consisted of a wide group of
stakeholder representatives. The choice for these two subgroups had been deliberate. The
conveners did not want representatives of civil actors (steering group) to discuss with public
authorities directly (planning group). The steering group was only convened twice in one year.
It was merely used to share information, present results ask for feedback on a plan that was
thoroughly worked out.
In the foster care case there was no formal structure representing the stakeholders in the
domain. The project group was only composed of managers of the services and the head of the
Federation. They did not act as a steering group representing the general interests of the
domain. This resulted in a narrow focus on internal stakeholders. The external stakeholders
could only show up twice for a conference.
In the three cases the ‘work groups’ were most effective. Since those groups were
small, which allowed for direct interaction, it helped the participants to develop a
relationship. They worked on specific and concrete issues, which made it easier to
contribute, make progress and take up joint responsibility.
Sometimes informal ‘subgroups’ emerged, which made it easier to talk about the
worries and questions of the participants (e.g. informal drink, field visit, car drive).
278

Opportunities for informal interaction or shared experiences helped to foster
ownership and commitment to the project.
In the river valley case an informal subgroup emerged: the ‘petit comité’. It was a space where
the conveners, consultants and researchers discussed the difficulties of organizing participation.
They also talked about the findings of the stakeholder interviews. For a while this small
informal group was a facilitating structure that helped the conveners to deal with the
uncertainty of the process.
In the three cases, my colleagues and I tried to encourage the leading actors to
organize some form of search conference (‘all in a room’). The aim of such a
‘structured’ process is to hear the voice of all relevant stakeholders, to integrate
information, to foster interdependence, and to encourage ownership and joint
decision-making.
In the foster care project the managers did not want a search conference, as proposed in the
contract. They thought stakeholders would not be interested to invest so much time in foster
care. They claimed it was not part of the culture in foster care to organize residential seminars.
Instead, they invited the external stakeholders to one morning and one afternoon of their
‘stakeholder conferences’ (3 separate days). One of the consultants worried about discussing
with a large group. He was afraid that it would be hard to deal with so much information and
to integrate the perspectives of all stakeholders. Although the managers had been hesitant of
directly talking to external stakeholders, they experienced the interactions as constructive and
helpful.
In the river valley case the conveners were anxious to openly talk with a large group of
stakeholder representatives. They claimed that meetings with such a large group were
‘impossible’. When they convened the steering and planning group together to share the results
of the first phase (approximately 50 persons), they tightly structured and controlled the
meeting. They feared conflict and an open attack on their plans.
The main interventions initiated by external facilitators were typical OD
interventions: individual interviewing, feedback, written reporting, reporting to the
larger system, and setting up work groups. Bringing the system in one room may
have been more appropriate than such classical interventions. I will further discuss
the implications for OD at the closure of this chapter. In the three cases, the
researchers organized feedback meetings to share their findings with the group.
Sometimes this fostered learning, but sometimes the participants experienced it as a
threat.
In the river valley case the requirement of the European project (HarmoniCOP) to organize a
‘stakeholder workshop’, helped to motivate several participants to spend one day to reflect on
their experiences. This was a constructive and fruitful experience where the participants openly
discussed their assumptions, hope and fears with each other.
279

In the erosion case the feedback from the interviews was interpreted as criticism. Although
formally the organizational psychologists were supposed to facilitate the process, they
wondered if they had the mandate from the members of the project group to feed back their
observations and findings.
In some instances, technical interventions and tools were prominent. These work
forms were used to enhance the credibility of the solutions, to exert power, or to
convince stakeholders of a solution, plan or vision. This often resulted in an
exclusion of those who could not understand the technical jargon.
The conveners in the river valley case used models, simulations and measures to convince the
stakeholders of their solution for the valley. The technical discourse dominated the process. The
instruments and models were sometimes too technical to be effective. The members of the
planning group, all experts in nature and river management, complained after the presentation
of the provisional plan, that it had been too technical and difficult.
Participative structures and procedures are no guarantee for stakeholder
involvement; they only provide conditions for participation. In the three cases, the
meetings of the formal groups (e.g. steering group) were not used to share
responsibility for decisions about the future of the domain. Although the project
proposals specified the formal role and mandate of these groups, the conveners or
leading actors rarely negotiated their assumptions and expected contribution of the
stakeholder representatives with the members of these groups. This procedural
approach reduced the participative structures to formal bodies. It often gave people
the feeling of going ‘through the ceremony’. The key actors (project group) colluded
in the sense that they did observe what was happening, but they did not raise the
issue.
Participants need to find a balance in the way they organize the process. There
should be sufficient structuring to provide containment and predictability. On the
other hand, it is essential to keep the process flexible in order to adapt it to changing
circumstances both within the collaborative and in the environment.
It is not sufficient to consider issues in the environment, to establish conscious
agreements on the task, to negotiate roles, and to organize the process. It is also
280

critical to develop collaborative relationships. In the following paragraph, I discuss
the main relational issues and dynamics observed in the cases.
4. COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIPS, RELATEDNESS AND DYNAMICS
The literature emphasizes the need to develop a ‘collaborative state of mind’. This
mind set, which seems like a normative ideal, is characterized by trust, the capability
to work with different power relations, the capacity to work in a situation of 'not
knowing' and the will to learn from the experience of collaborating. Several authors
assume that mature inter-group relations, as opposed to defensive relationships,
foster a collaborative work group culture resulting in productive, task-oriented work
(Long et al., 2000; Gould et al., 1999; Ring & van de Ven, 1994). Representatives in a
collaborative need to be able to deal with the inevitable tensions that arise in
collaborative work and cope with the emotional challenges it provokes. A condition
for developing mature working relationships is the opportunity for face-to-face
interaction. In direct interaction, participants can share their knowledge, ideas, and
perspectives and contest those (Bouwen & Taillieu, 2004). Facilitation of the
interactions and fostering group development are critical conditions.
By adopting the system psychodynamic perspective in this research, I focused on the
consequences of the anxiety and ambivalence provoked by the relationships between
the participants. I assumed that conscious as well as unconscious motives drive
behavior. The concept ‘relatedness’ refers to the emotional and unconscious nature of
relationships. The internalized relationships and quality of connection based on
processes of mutual projection, splitting, introjection, and projective identification
influence how people relate to one another (Triest, 1999; Gould et al., 1999). As
demonstrated in the case analyses, phenomena such as paranoid concerns, mutual
stereotyping, and fantasies about the lack of equity or the fear to be absorbed by
powerful organizations, often emerged in collaborative relationships.
281

4.1. Working with diversity
In the multiparty collaboration logic, the essence is to work with representatives
from different organizations and groups, precisely because they have a different
perspective (Zagier Roberts, 1994). The challenge is to work in the here-and-now with
the differences and similarities represented in the collaborative. It is critical to discuss
and explore the different interests and objectives of the participants, because
collaboration is based on real and accepted differences. In practice, however, the
presence of representatives holding different perceptions, information and interests
is a threat to the self-esteem of the participants (Vansina, 2002). This perceived
menace may result in exclusion, denial, or assimilation of diversity. On the other
hand, participants can also perceive the situation as an opportunity. This creative
tension emerges when parties have different interests and objectives which they
cannot completely achieve because of the presence of others, but which they cannot
achieve without the other party’s presence and contribution. The power paradox
arises from the fact that each party has the power to either prevent the other parties
from achieving their objective, or assist them to do so (Carlisle & Leary, 1981).
In the cases, the key actors often experienced the perceived diversity and differences
as a threat or an obstacle to collaboration. It seemed as if they were afraid to include
different voices, because that would question their objectives or endanger their
identity. They were reluctant to deal with the diversity of perspectives in the here-
and-now. Many expressed the fear for conflict if the ‘real’ differences would become
apparent. There was little collective exploration of the differences in perspective,
expectations, or potential contribution. In most cases, the different perspectives were
assessed (e.g. interviews, bilateral meetings) in an individual or bilateral way. This
could have maintained the illusion that collaboration is an adding up of individual
interests. If diversity is not represented around the table, the stakeholders cannot
realize that their claims, interests and objectives need to be aligned and integrated
with those of others.
In the river valley project the conveners were defensive and expected most stakeholders to be
against their plans. They believed their goals and those of the stakeholders in the valley were
incompatible. They used their power to structure and organize the process with the aim of
282

protecting their objectives and interests. Therefore they were reluctant to bring stakeholders
with different perspectives in one room.
In foster care the external stakeholders were only marginally involved. The managers were
defensive because of previous experiences. They talked about not being heard or taken
seriously by policy makers and bigger players in the domain (e.g. residential institutions), they
felt they were in an underdog position and expected the external stakeholders to be
uninterested and critical. Although some participants were aware of the importance and
relevance to include the voice of the stakeholders, they shut them out of the process out of fear
and tactical considerations.
Often there was a regressive pull to reduce the diversity in the process. This
frequently resulted in ‘us and them’ dynamics, blaming, splitting, rivalry or
exclusion.
In foster care a first reduction of diversity was the split that was established between internal
and external stakeholders. Secondly, the differences between the services were not thoroughly
explored. The managers got stuck in abstract discussions about differences in values and
identity. The liberal service, identified as ‘different’ from the start, stepped out. This further
reduced the diversity in the process. Afterwards, some managers blamed the consultants for
covering up the differences and for stressing compromise and similarities.
In the erosion project there was polarization and rivalry between the two engineering groups.
For instance, both groups had a different perspective on the nature of the problem, the best way
to solve it, their role in the process, and the role of the stakeholders and the local authorities.
There was little integration of their perspectives and expertise. They ended up working
separately.
In the river valley case the relationship between the conveners and administration responsible
for the river was antagonistic. At first, the administration responsible for the river was not
included in the coordination committee. There was splitting: the conveners represented the
‘new’ and the authority over the river the ‘old’ vision on river basin management. Initially both
parties hardly communicated and there was mutual stereotyping and blaming (e.g. ‘unrealistic’,
‘backwards’). Both parties seemed locked up in their identities, which resulted in sub-grouping
in the coordination committee.
Differences in interests often mobilize power to safeguard the survival of the group
(Vansina, 2002). In the cases, the key actors made interventions to protect the
interests or identity of their constituency. Mobilization of power was detrimental for
the collaborative nature of the process. It endangered the necessity to keep
responsibility shared around the table.
The managers in foster care used their mandate and authority to decide on an internal focus.
Their decision to keep the external stakeholders out of the process seemed driven by the
underlying aim to protect the survival of the five organizations. Later in the process when the
services were exploring their interests and objectives, many accentuated the differences as a
way to confirm and protect their identity.
283

In the erosion project the convener, the manager of a powerful engineering firm, used his power
to safeguard the implementation of his contract with the municipalities (civil engineering
constructions). The members of the project group perceived him as manipulating the process.
At one point in the river valley case the administration responsible for the river mobilized
power in an attempt to take over control of the process. They had come to the coordination
committee with five representatives instead of one or two. A high-ranking manager forcefully
stated that he wished to stop the process and duplicate the measures and modeling carried out
by the consultants. The conveners, however, did not give in. They continued their consultation
tour and invited a representative of the administration responsible for the river to join them.
In some instances, as collaborative relationships were developed, the actors
discovered the qualities and perspectives of others and of themselves. They realized
they needed a strong identity as a condition for collaboration.
For a long time the services in the foster care case struggled with the nature, relevance and
consequences of being similar of different. When they engaged in exploration of their
differences, the services became more aware of their identity and values. The liberal service, for
instance, was convinced it was ‘different’ from the other services. This had provided them with
their identity in relation to the other organizations. In the process, however, they discovered
they were not so ‘special’ after all. This was hard to accept for them, especially for the president
of the board who embodied the ideology and values promoted by his organization. The services
realized that a first step in collaboration was to identify their strengths and uniqueness. Identity
could not only be based on the formal ideology of the service (pluralistic, catholic or liberal), but
also needed to refer to the expertise, professional practices, and quality of assistance of the
organizations.
However, a strong identity and strong identification with the values and interests of
the organization sometimes endangered the development of collaboration based on a
diversity of perspectives. It also resulted in exclusion of other voices.
In the river valley case the conveners strongly identified with ecological and environmental
values and with their professional role (defend public interests). They seemed stuck in their
position. Their vision of the future and their belief in an ‘ideal’ solution for the valley hindered
the acceptance of the multiple interests and values. Initially, they gave a unilateral definition of
the nature of the problem and the potential solutions for the valley. This perspective prevented
them from accepting the legitimacy of the interests and claims of the stakeholders in the valley.
Since they were an interest party, they primarily focused on defending ‘their’ study. It was hard
for them to take up the role of convener and to bring the different perspectives around the table.
It is essential to work with the differences relevant to the task, represented in the
collaborative, by building relationships (Thomas, 1995). Responses such as denial,
exclusion or suppression of diversity decrease complexity and endanger the benefit
of collaboration. The challenge is to develop a sense of common ground that
represents the diversity in the system, without reducing it to a common
284

denominator. Talking about ‘values’ and hiding behind an organizational identity
does not foster trust or respect. It is important that participants show who they are,
what they do, and what they stand for. This may avoid positional bargaining where
parties are locked up in a self-chosen identity.
4.2. Mutual dependence and interdependence
A critical challenge of collaborative work is to change our independent and
competitive attitude into an attitude of collaboration and to develop a sense of lived
interdependence (Trist, 1983; Ackoff, 1997; Bouwen & Taillieu, 2004). This implies
that parties mutually negotiate, recognize and accept each other’s perspective,
interest, contribution, and identity. When they acknowledge their mutual
dependence to develop sustainable and optimal solutions for the domain the parties
develop interdependence. The multiparty paradigm moves away from a power
based approach to solving problems. It reflects the awareness that one organization
or group cannot act or decide alone. This confronts participants with a paradox:
interdependence gives each party the ability to damage the other. Forced
interdependence often results in a battle between the rational and emotional (Carlisle
& Leary, 1981). In a culture where autonomy and independence are idealized or
necessary for survival, imposed interdependence may elicit resistance. Moreover, in
an institutional context where rivalry for resources is necessary (e.g. foster care), this
state of mutual dependence can stir up anxiety. Participants need to work through
the anxieties provoked by being mutually dependent for success and the anxiety of
not being in control (Long et al., 2000; Gould et al., 1999; Carr, 2001). The cases
demonstrated different levels of interdependence.
A first level of interdependence was at the level of the project group. This research
mainly focused on the interdependence in the project group. The members of the
project group usually managed to accept their mutual dependence. The main reason
was that in most cases they knew each other and that they met on a regular basis. In
the cases, this core group was often at the origin of the collaborative endeavor and
285

therefore was one step ahead and more motivated than the other players in the
domain.
In foster care the managers had worked together for 10 years. They had personal relationships
and trusted each other. They had had positive experiences in working together. They realized
that collaboration meant either all going ‘up’ or all going ‘down’. They talked about ‘differences
in speed’, meaning that (most members of) the project group was further in their thinking and
more willing to collaborate than the employees and members of the boards.
This level of interdependence refers to mature interpersonal relations and the process
of group development (Bennis & Shepard, 1956). However, in most cases, contact in
the project group was quite superficial. The members did not address or explore
critical issues, such as the consequences of being dependent upon each other, or the
diversity of interests.
A second level was interdependence between the constituent organizations. The
constituencies were often more reluctant to accept their interdependence. The
members of the constituencies did not know each other, they had few opportunities
for interaction, and were involved at a later moment in the process. This level of
interdependence refers to inter-group phenomena (Schruijer, 1990; Gemmill & Elmes,
1993; Zagier Roberts, 1994; Vanbeselaere, 2000). Inter-organizational interdependence
was poorly handled. For instance, dynamics of exclusion of organizations or groups
occurred, as a defense against the tension of being dependent on other organizations
for success. The dynamics at this organizational level require further research.
A third level refers to the development of interdependence on the domain level,
among organizations, social groups, or stakeholders in the domain. The challenge of
collaborative work is to deal with the task by building relationships with all relevant
parties who have a stake in the inter-organizational domain (Trist, 1983). The cases
have demonstrated that this interdependence was often complex and experienced as
threatening. Dealing with interdependence in the domain was blocked by the way in
which the process was organized. Formal structures or premature formalizing often
left few opportunities for direct interaction and for experiencing interdependence in
286

the domain. The ‘participative’ platforms or structures were used in a procedural
manner and not as a space to jointly take decisions for the future of the domain.
In the cases, ‘leadership’ was ambivalent. On the one hand, the participants needed
to move the process ahead, mobilize ‘leadership’, and take up their authority. On the
other hand, they were aware of the fact that no one was in ‘in charge’ or had the
authority to take decisions for the domain. The actors had few role models for
interdependent decision-making. Moreover, they often realized that players in the
context were taking the final decision. In some instances, this confronted the
participants with an authority vacuum or ‘task authority gap’ (Mackenzie, 1986) and
resulted in inertia or a dependency on those in a formal ‘leading role’ (e.g. project
leader, coordinator, or facilitator). The ambiguity of interdependent decision-making
and shared leadership may provoke regression, withdrawal, and a defensive group
culture (Diamond & Allcorn, 1987).
In the erosion project the members of the project group expected explicit and directive
leadership from the person in the role of ‘project leader’, even though this person had no formal
authority to take decisions for the collaborative. The project resulted in inertia, partly because
there no one took the lead and because the project group was not able to take joint decisions.
The (third) formal project leader did not take up his leading role. He did not publicly authorize
his colleague to take the lead. The organizational psychologists were not authorized to facilitate
the process. The informal leader only showed up at critical moments. The municipalities who
could have taken up a leading role also abdicated. This confusion and ambiguity resulted in an
authority vacuum.
In the foster care case the managers demonstrated dependent behavior towards the consultant
team. They projected expectations of competence and leadership on the consultants and hoped
they would ‘know’ what to do and provide them with a blue print scenario.
In the cases, several aspects hindered the development of interdependent
relationships. A first obstacle was the task definition that often did not include the
interests of a wide range of stakeholders. Thus, a unilateral task definition set the
direction of the process.
In the foster care project the normative task was to develop structural collaboration among the
services. This task definition shut out other players in the domain who were necessary to
develop optimal solutions for the child (existential task).
287

Secondly, the split between internal and external stakeholders reduced
interdependent work. Internal stakeholders did not perceive the external
stakeholders as critical partners in the process and thus denied the importance of
interdependence. This seems to demonstrate the belief or hope that one party or a
small coalition of parties can take decisions for the domain.
In the river valley case the conveners believed they could work out an ‘optimal’ and ‘integrated’
solution for the valley in collaboration with the external consultants. They did not believe that
external stakeholders could contribute significantly to the solution of the problem domain.
Thirdly, the asymmetries among the stakeholders also hindered the development of
interdependent relationships (e.g. power, resources, information, social network,
available time). These asymmetries made it hard to establish ‘equal’ relationships
and to accept all stakeholders as ‘legitimate’ parties in the process. For instance, for
powerful parties it was hard to accept their dependence on weaker parties.
In the erosion case the soil experts wondered why it was necessary to involve the farmers. They
were used to develop technical solutions in an independent way. They had a hard time
accepting that the solutions needed to be jointly developed with the end users. The engineers
did realize they needed the support and participation of the farmers to achieve success
(implement experimental interventions). Therefore, they put a huge effort in trying to involve
farmers in the project (e.g. individual visits to the farmers).
A final obstacle to the development of interdependence was the lack of opportunity
and time for direct interaction. In some cases there was a tension between the
requirement to work on the task and the experienced need to invest time in the
‘process’ of getting to know one another, and to develop trust and commitment to
the process. Trust makes it safer for people to interact, it facilitates face-to-face
interactions, and secures equity, fairness and respect (Vansina, 2002). In other cases,
underestimating the importance of establishing interdependent relationships was
detrimental for the task.
In foster care the managers strongly emphasized the importance of the ‘process’. They argued
that developing collaborative relationships takes time. On the other hand, there was little time
for direct interaction, for the project group and for other participants in the process. Towards
the end of the project the emphasis on the ‘process’ was used as a defense against taking task
related decisions.
In the erosion case the project group met on a regular basis. This helped to feel committed to the
project and to the other participants. However, the third project manager stated that meetings
of the project group were no longer necessary. From that moment the members of the project
group did not feel committed anymore, they worked in isolation or stopped contributing to the
288

work. It seemed as if the focus on the task (‘results’, ‘visible output’) was used as a defense
against potential conflicting relationships in the collaborative.
A condition to develop interdependent relationships is the opportunity to engage in
direct interaction. ‘Relational practices’ are activities, actions and interactions among
stakeholders engaged in a collaborative process. They either occur spontaneously
and informally (e.g. a drink), or can be organized (e.g. a field visit). The interactions
take place in a particular historical and social context. Through 'content' or work, the
parties engage in a 'relation' (Bouwen, 2001; Wenger, 1998). The awareness of
interdependence can result in a ‘multifaceted’ identity of a change process, where all
stakeholders are connected in the process of constructing solutions for the inter-
organizational domain.
4.3. The paradoxical nature of ‘collaboration’: collusive behavior
The notion ‘collaboration’ has a positive connotation in itself. At the outset of the
projects, most participants were optimistic. They hoped that collaboration would
solve the problems they were facing or create new opportunities. In most cases, the
notion ‘collaboration’ represented different expectations and meanings. The meaning
of collaboration was usually not explored in the process. This represents a risk in
multiparty collaboration. There may be a gap between the ideal and rhetoric of
multi-stakeholder collaboration and what actually happens in practice.
In some cases, the conveners used the notion ‘collaboration’ as a cover to obtain
funding. Huxham and Vangen (2005) refer to ‘pseudo-aims’ that are invented to
legitimize the existence of the collaborative or to pursue personal involvement in the
collaboration. The strategic use of collaborative ‘jargon’ was intentional.
In the erosion case the convener had used collaborative jargon in the project proposal as it was
used in European policy documents (‘bottom-up approach’, multi-stakeholder strategy’). He
admitted he had made strategic use of the language in order to obtain funding. There was a
difference between the proposal text and what actually happened. It soon became apparent that
European money was the drive to set up the collaboration. The project was a ‘cover’ to work on
the personal agenda of the engineers (e.g. carry out large construction works) and the
politicians (e.g. realize visible results in the community in order to win votes). All members of
the project group colluded around this issue: everybody could see what was happening and
talked about it in private conversations, but no one raised it in public.
289

Often the participants got frustrated about the slowness of the process, the lack of
results, the complexity of the endeavor and the difficulty to make progress. In the
three cases, there was a tension between the rationality, social desirability and
rhetoric of collaboration and the ambivalent emotional responses to the practice or
prospect of collaboration. The case analyses demonstrate that entering a collaborative
often provokes anxiety in the participants. In all cases, some form of collusion
emerged. The participants tacitly agreed to cover up unwanted or unacceptable
aspects that emerged in the process. In doing so, they seemed to protect the group
from confrontation with reality and the anxiety this may have provoked (e.g.
embarrassment, unethical behavior, failure).
In foster care the participants tried to develop structural collaboration, while at the same time
the subsidizing policy - identified as the main obstacle to collaboration - was maintained. They
claimed to work on new ways of organizing in the benefit of the children, but self-interests were
predominant. The managers in the project group argued they wanted to ‘sit on their chair’ to
defend the interests of their organization and thus engaged in positional bargaining. There was
no platform where the interests of the domain were represented. This issue was mentioned in
individual conversations, but nobody raised it in public. The underlying aim seemed to be the
survival of the individual organizations in the prospect of a potential imposed merger of the
services.
In the cases, two different organizational logics were present. On the one hand, the
multiparty strategy, where all parties with a stake in the domain are considered as
legitimate stakeholders. On the other hand, a participation logic, where a small
group of key actors decides on how ‘collaboration’ is organized and implemented.
This reflects a top-down vision on participation. As Miller (1993, xvi) argues, “(…) the
notion of giving power is inherently patronizing – it implies dependency – and hence is of
itself disempowering”.
However, the final power of decision-making was with players in the context: policy
makers, sponsoring organizations or politicians. They were the ones deciding on
funding, approval or disapproval of plans, and implementation. The existing power
relations in the domain were maintained. This made it hard for the collaborative to
work from a shared power base (Himmelman, 1996; Vansina, 2002). It jeopardized
290

the credibility of the collaborative endeavor and the cautious attempts to involve
stakeholders in the process.
In all cases, the participants found themselves in a paradoxical situation. The contract
with the sponsoring organization was at the origin of this situation. What in essence
was intended as an emergent, open and therefore unpredictable process was caught
in procedural language and pre-established structures and procedures. A condition
to obtain funding is to speak the procedural language of sponsors and ‘play the
game’. However, this language cannot grasp the essence of an emergent process. One
of the consultants used the following powerful image to describe this phenomenon:
‘You cannot broadcast a video through the radio’. Financing organizations look for
certainty in structures, whereas participants in the collaborative seemed to be looking
for certainty in their relationships (e.g. trust, commitment). Thus, those making the
collaboration possible, dictated the opportunities, norms and restrictions for the
projects. In some sense, the funding organizations were part of the problem.
Participants found themselves in a double bind: external authorities established the
terms for collaboration and at the same time expected the participants to act by
themselves (Quaghebeur, Masschelein & Huong Nguyen, 2004). The contract was
bounded and limited the freedom of the participants to be critical. It was hard to
question or criticize the authorities, as they were the ones enabling the collaborative
process. Nobody tried to re-negotiate the terms of the contract.
The following model (figure 2) is a visual representation of the issues that influence
direction setting in collaborative work.
291

Antecendents
Collaborative
relationships
Figure 2: A systems psychodynamic process model for direction setting in
multiparty collaboration.
Context
Manifest dynamics of direction setting
Latent dynamics of direction setting
Formalizing of
the process
292
Task

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON DESIGNING AND FACILITATING EMERGENT
ORGANIZATIONAL PROCESSES
In this final paragraph, I discuss some challenges for organizational development
posed by the turbulent organizational context of today. I briefly discuss a few
perspectives on designing and facilitating new processes of organizing and change.
Then I present some critical competencies for those leading and facilitating
collaborative processes based on this research. The intention is not to present them as
a prescription or as a recipe, but they can be used as general guidelines or
recommendations.
Organizational development (French & Bell, 1990) is based on assumptions that are
no longer valid in new forms of organizing characterized by horizontal relationships,
complexity, high levels of interdependence, and unpredictability. Cummings and
Worley (2001) introduced the notion of ‘Trans-organizational Design’. Their
approach supports organizations to develop collaborative strategies with other
organizations. They present a strategy of planned change with ‘application stages’ to
create trans-organizational systems: identification stage, convention stage,
organization stage, and evaluation stage. Although this approach may be helpful to
structure the process, important aspects are missing. Stacey (2003) presents a
perspective on change based on complexity theory. He stresses the need to
understand processes of human relating in a context of increased interdependency.
Participation means direct interaction between people in a self-organizing process in
which patterns emerge. His theory is an attempt to understand the insights from
psychoanalysis on human behavior in terms of a process theory. Homan (2005)
emphasizes that change in turbulent contexts is not predictable and controllable and
that such processes are hard to plan and manage. His contribution is a combination
of insights from social constructionism and complexity theory in an attempt to
increase understanding of the natural dynamics of change. Bouwen and Taillieu
(2004) emphasize the need to focus on the social dynamics that lead to sharing
293

esponsibility: information exchange, shared construction of reality, empowerment,
and internalization.
The transitional approach to change (Amado & Ambrose, 2001; Amado & Vansina,
2005) emphasizes that change is not a linear process moving towards a clear and
predefined ‘vision’ of the future. Change reflects a state of temporary confusion and
uncertainty that can be overwhelming and result in defensive responses to contain
the anxiety. Under favorable conditions, however, the participants can use such a
state for experimentation, innovation, and for creatively designing a new future for
the domain or a reinvention of the organizations involved. Change is viewed as a
psychosocial process and not just as an organizational process. This implies that
changing structures and procedures is not sufficient. The convener or leader needs to
take the emotional responses, the underlying dynamics, and the complex nature of
people and groups into account (Amado, Faucheux & Laurent, 1990; Amado &
Amato, 2001a; 2001b; Huffington, James & Armstrong, 2004). They cannot come up
with a plan or promise a ‘solution’. The contribution of those taking up a leading role
is to facilitate the search process. Change can be more or less planned when the
objective is clearly defined and when all noses point in the same direction. However,
in collaborative processes there are many different ‘noses’ that point in different
directions and often the direction to take is unclear.
In this research, I was interested in the way in which anxieties stirred up by the
organizational context influence processes of organizing. This research argues that
change in multi-actor contexts is unpredictable and open-ended and that planning of
the process is difficult. Although change efforts, such as multiparty collaboration, are
often described in procedural terms, such processes are essentially iterative, heuristic
and ongoing. I view change as an opportunity for people to increase their
understanding of the realities around them, to become aware of the part they play in
the whole, to develop a shared vision of the future, and to increase awareness of how
they need to change to realize their vision. I assume that it is impossible to make
people change. It is critical, however, to create conditions to increase chances that
294

people will make the changes themselves (Amado & Ambrose, 2001). In the
following paragraph, I discuss some important competencies and interventions to
facilitate emergent processes where participants can share responsibility for direction
setting.
Critical competencies for designing and leading emergent
processes
Containment
A critical task of ‘leadership’ is containment of the negative emotions, conflicting
feelings and anxieties provoked by the change process. Containment (Bion, 1970) is a
psychic task where those in a leading role temporarily carry the stress of the
participants in order to protect them from 'destruction' or from being overwhelmed
by the demands and complexity of the situation. It refers to the capacity of those
facilitating the change to deal with the messiness, uncertainty and unknown outcome
of the process. The facilitator cannot rely on blueprints or checklists and needs to
resist the temptation of prematurely structuring and organizing the process. This
means that those in a leading role need to manage their personal anxieties and
contain feelings of uncertainty and inadequacy.
The process leader is confronted with the insecurities, anxieties and aspirations of the
participants. Good leadership, according to Alford (2001), is about interpreting the
hopes and fears of the parties and helping them to face the anxiety and work it
through without projecting it 'out there'. The ‘leader’ should be capable to stay in
touch with the here-and-now, with the underlying anxieties of the participants, and
to contain the messiness sufficiently long to enable alternative solutions to emerge
(Vansina, 2002). This requires the capacity to sense and understand underlying
dynamics and to cope with the emotions stirred up by the change. It is also important
to resist the regressive pull of groups to reduce the diversity, interdependence and
complexity of the process. Potentially destructive dynamics need to be contained,
because they may harm the process and the participants.
295

In forms of organizing where distributed leadership is promoted, containment needs
to be provided at the group level. The participants need to foster a culture of
collective reflection, share and process experiences, suspend judgment, engage with
conflicts, challenge and explore differences of perspective both overt and convert.
The challenge is to mobilize or develop processes, structures and interventions to
contain the organizational anxiety of emergent processes when hierarchical channels
are not available (Huffington, et al., 2004).
Transitional space: sense making
Those leading the process can support the participants to work through the
inevitable tensions of collaborative work by providing time and space for sense
making. A facilitating environment is a setting that itself can be trusted to provide
physical and psychological safety. A holding environment gives people the feeling
that their feelings of anxiety and insecurity are acceptable (Overlaet & Barrett, 2000).
Leadership can establish such a holding environment by “(...) serving as a safe
container who can accept and survive the anxieties and sometimes hostile projections coming
from the client system.” (Miller, 1997, 191) The facilitator uses interventions to enable a
double adaptation process. He helps the participants to adapt their inner and outer
world, as well as their rational knowing and emotional feeling to the new, emergent
situation (Vansina, 2004). In such conditions, the participants can use the space as a
'potential space' (Winnicott, 1971): they engage in an open relationship with the other
parties and share 'valid information' (Argyris, 1999). They explore issues that might
normally be anxiety provoking, politically subversive or counter-cultural. They learn
to live with the paradoxes and dilemmas that are inherent in collaborative work.
Participants work through the feelings that emerge during the work, which
otherwise become suppressed or operate in an underground manner. When such
feeling are contained, and the participants can make sense of them and learn from
them, they can be integrated for work rather than counter-work purposes (Long, et
al., 2000).
296

In the positive sense, the participants can also use a transitional space to share their
dreams, hope, and fantasies; they can 'play' with ideas, try out potential scenarios for
the future without binding consequences. This facilitates creativity and innovation
and enables the transition to something ‘new’. Relating to one another in this way
may foster commitment to the task, to the other stakeholders and enables the group
to develop. It allows parties to feel responsible for the collective output and to be
emotionally invested (Krantz, 1998). A transitional space is a meaningful space for
acknowledging different understandings, and a social space for acknowledging each
other’s presence and identity (Bouwen & Taillieu, 2004).
A transitional space support participants in the changes they are going through.
Bridger observed that people engage in three different but closely related types of
transitional experiences. (1) Relinquishing earlier roles, ideas and practices; (2)
creating, finding, or discovering new, more adaptive and feasible ideas and ways of
thinking and acting; (3) coping with the instability of changing conditions and with
the insecurity, this change provokes (Ambrose, 2001). Some form of ‘cover’,
‘comforter’, or transitional object (Winnicott, 1971) can facilitate the change.
According to Bridger the function of comforter “(…) permits some expression of
relationship with an uncertain external world while using fantasy exploration/working-
through phases of the transitional process to be developed and carried out” (Amado
&Ambrose, 2001, xii). Transitional experiences can be facilitated in different ways.
Interventions do not have to be restricted to verbal reflections. Relational practices,
different forms of engaging, or visual representations can help to make the transition.
In an African hospital, for instance, action researchers radically changed their
approach when a classic OD intervention had failed. They started using visual
images (photos and video), recorded by the people working in the hospital, as an
intervention. The aim was to make them aware of the risks of their hygienic practices
(contamination of HIV and tuberculosis) and to generate creative solutions for
increasing safety in the hospital (Lhuillier & Rolland, 2005). However, facilitators
cannot choose a transitional object for a group. The participants choose an ‘object’,
297

which in essence is neutral. When they invest their emotional energy in the object
(e.g. a ‘plan’, a visual image, a slogan), it can function as a transitional object for the
group and help them cope with the change.
Reviewing: reflection-in-action
Groups are usually action oriented and focused on the task. Leadership can
encourage and support the group to engage in ‘reflective action’ (Schön, 1983) and
reviewing as an opportunity for learning from the experience. Reviewing is an
attempt of a human system to increase awareness of how it is functioning at both the
manifest and the latent level. The aim of reviewing is to achieve the task and purpose
for which the system exists. “The purpose of review is to make sense of the system’s inner
life and to optimize its ongoing capability in a conscious way while remaining in tune and in
touch with the wider system of which it is part.” (Amado & Sharpe, 2001). This process is
at the root of learning from experience, creativity and innovation. It helps the group
to evaluate if the goals it is pursuing are still valid. The participants reflect on past
activities and collaboration with the intention to commit to future actions (Vansina,
2005). A secure atmosphere where the ‘search for sense’ is central and where
uncomfortable feelings that could disrupt constructive work are contained, provides
a facilitating condition for reviewing. Unconscious obstacles (e.g. dependency) often
hinder the participants in their capacity for self-analysis. Power issues (e.g. presence
of a manager) may inhibit open expression (Amado & Sharpe, 2001). Those
facilitating collaborative work can encourage exploration, sharing, comparing and
finding out (Harrisson, 1970; Vansina, 2005). In doing so, they have to take the
readiness and maturity of the participants and the level of trust among them into
account.
Reviewing focuses on how individual and group efforts affect the direction of the
process how the organization emerges in the interactions. Those engaged in
emergent processes can benefit from reviewing. It increases their system awareness
and helps them understand the manifest and latent dynamics that influence the
298

process. The participants can discover, for instance, what the system is doing to them
or how defensive inter-group dynamics obstruct task-oriented work. Reviewing can
help them to keep in mind that the collaborative is part of an overall system of
organizations (Huffington et al., 2004). It is not about ‘managing’ change, but about
how the participants themselves become aware of how they are changing (Homan,
2005).
Conveners, leaders and participants cannot establish the system features of a
collaborative process in advance. The collaborative process is ‘emergent’ and
therefore the focus shifts towards the process itself. A reviewing process emphasizes
sense making of the dynamics in the here-and-now. Reflection on the process helps
the participants to establish the optimal way to organize and structure the process in
a conscious manner, based on valid information. As the process unfolds, the
participants negotiate the psychological boundaries in order to facilitate work on the
task. They are stimulated to take up ownership and to set the direction of the process
in shared responsibility. In the process, they engage in social learning (Schusler,
Decker & Pfeffer, 2003; Bouwen & Taillieu, 2004; HarmoniCop, 2005).
As Cooper and Dartington (2004) point out, participants often experience a focus on
reflection and process issues as ‘touchy-feely’. Moreover, reflection is always under
pressure of more ‘urgent and important matters’. This research has demonstrated
the importance of the ‘process’ and relational aspects of organizing in complex
settings. Containment, the creation of a transitional space and reviewing are
interventions and processes that help to cope with the tensions of collaborative work.
They support all those involved in the process to deal with the issues that influence
direction setting in a balanced way. A task that is sufficiently clear and shared, while
at the same time open enough to stimulate creativity and innovation. A formalization
of the process in order to foster containment, but not too structured to obstruct the
benefits of collaboration. Relationships characterized by trust, openness and respect,
but with sufficient tension to foster constructive conflict and creativity. Finally, a
system with a boundary that is adequately firm to provide an identity for the group,
299

and sufficiently fluid in order to respond to the opportunities and threats in the
environment.
To conclude
During the research, I often wondered if multiparty collaboration is an ideal or
ideology, mainly fostered and defended by researchers, or if it is a realistic and
effective organizational strategy to develop solutions for inter-organizational
problem domains. This research made me understand there is no ideal model to
design or facilitate collaborative processes aimed at solving complex societal and
environmental problems. Conveners, stakeholders, coordinators, policy makers,
consultants, experts and other players engaged in collaborative work find themselves
in a complex, turbulent field of forces. They need to let go of the illusion there is an
‘ideal approach’, a ‘blueprint’ or ‘best way’. Therefore, it is not sufficient to develop
‘handbooks’ or ‘checklists’ to deal with the messiness and complexity of the process.
It is hard for all players to have an impact on the direction of the process and to
structure to work or predict its outcome. The only way is to improve the
‘collaborative capability’ (Huxham, 1993) of all parties involved.
A better awareness of the specific nature of collaborative processes, the critical issues
and dilemmas that influence the process and the underlying dynamics that either
facilitate or obstruct change may help to facilitate each collaborative endeavor in its
own, optimal way. The aim of this research was to increase psychological
understanding of the ‘mechanisms that make things work’, and to assess how
participants establish and enact ‘group locomotion’. Therefore, I have analyzed and
discussed different aspects that influence direction setting. In practice, however,
these issues are all part of an ongoing stream of activities. The challenge is to
facilitate the process as a whole and to work with all the issues simultaneously. I
sincerely hope this research has contributed to a deeper understanding of the nature
of collaborative processes.
300

REFERENCES
Ackoff, R. (1997). Systems, Messes and Interactive Planning. In Trist, E., Emery, F. &
Murray, H. (Eds.) The Social Engagement of Social Science. A Tavistock Anthology.
Volume III: The Socio-Ecological Perspective. Philadelphia: PENN, pp. 417-438.
Alford, C.F. (2001). Leadership by interpretation and holding. Organisational and Social
Dynamics, 2, 153-173.
Amado, G. & Ambrose, A. (Eds.) (2001). The transitional approach to change. London:
Karnac.
Amado, G. & Amato, R. (2001a). Organizational change theories and practices: a critical
review. In Amado, G. & Ambrose, A. (Eds.) The transitional approach to change.
London: Karnac, pp.29-85.
Amado, G. & Amato, R. (2001b). Some distinctive characteristics of transitional change.
In Amado, G. & Ambrose, A. (Eds.) The transitional approach to change. London:
Karnac, 87-117.
Amado, G., Faucheux, C. & Laurent, A. (1990). Changement organisationnel et réalités
culturelles. Contrastes franco-américains. In Chanlat, J.F. (Ed.) L’individu dans
l’organisation. Les dimensions oubliées. Les Presses de l’Université de Lavel, éditions
Eska.
Amado, G. & Sharpe, J. (2001). Review as a necessary ingredient in transitional change.
In Amado, G. & Ambrose, A. (Eds.) The transitional approach to change. London:
Karnac, pp. 119-136.
Argyris, C. (1999). On organizational learning. Second edition. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers.
Bennis, W.G. & Shepard, H.A. (1956). A theory of group development. Human Relation,
9 (4), 415-457.
Bion, W.R. (1970). Attention and Interpretation. London: Karnac Books.
Bouwen, R. (2001). Developing Relational Practices for Knowledge Intensive
Organizational Contexts. Career Development, 6/7, 361-369.
Bouwen, R. & Taillieu, T. (2004). Multiparty collaboration as social learning for
interdependence: Developing relational knowing for sustainable natural resource
management. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 14, 137-153.
Carlisle, J. & Leary, M. (1981). Negotiating groups. In Hackman, J. (Ed.) Groups at work
(and those that don’t): creating conditions for effective teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, pp. 165-188.
301

Carr, W. (2001). The Exercise of Authority in a Dependent Context. In Gould, L.G.,
Stapley, L.F. & Stein, M. (Eds.) The Systems Psychodynamics of Organizations.
Integrating the Group Relations Approach, Psychoanalytic, and Open Systems
Perspectives. London: Karnac, 45-66.
Cartwright, D. & Zander, A., (Eds.), (1960) Group Dynamics. Research and Theory. Second
Edition. New York: Harper & Row.
Cooper, A. & Dartington, T. (2004). The vanishing organization: Organizational
containment in a networked world. In Huffington, C., Armstrong, D., Halton, W.,
Hoyle, L. & Pooley, J. (Eds.), Working below the surface. The emotional life of
contemporary organizations. London: Karnac, pp. 127-150.
Cummings, T.G. & Worley, C.G. (2001). Essentials of Organization Development and
Change. South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Dewulf, A., Craps, M., Bouwen, R., Taillieu, T., and Pahl-Wostl, C. (2005). Integrated
management of natural resources: dealing with ambiguous issues, multiple actors
and diverging frames. Water Science & Technology, 52(6), 115-124.
Diamond, M.A. & Allcorn, S. (1987). The Psychodynamics of Regression in Work
Groups, Human Relations, 40 (8), 525-543.
Eden, C. (1996). The stakeholder/collaborator strategy workshop. In Huxham, C. (Ed.)
Creating collaborative advantage. London: Sage, pp. 44-56.
Feyerherm, A. (1994). Multiple paths for inter-organizational journeys. Paper presented at
the Workshop on Multi-Organisational Partnerships: Working together across
organisational boundaries. Brussels, September.
Finn, C.B. (1996). Utilizing stakeholder strategies for positive collaborative outcomes.
In Huxham, C. (Ed.) Creating collaborative advantage. London: Sage Publications, pp.
152-164.
French, W. & Bell, C.H. (1990). Organization development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Gemmill, G. & Elmes, M. (1993). Mirror, Mask, and Shadow. Psychodynamic Aspects
of Inter-group Relations. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2 (1), 43-51.
Gould, L.J., Ebers, R. & McVicker Clinchy, R. (1999). The Systems Psychodynamics of a
Joint Venture: Anxiety, Social Defenses and the Management of Mutual
Dependence. Human Relations, 52 (6), 697-722.
Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Gray, B. (1996). Cross-sectoral partners: collaborative alliances among business,
government and communities. In Huxham, C. (Ed.) Creating collaborative advantage.
London: Sage Publications, pp. 57-79.
302

HarmoniCop (2005). Learning together to manage together. Improving participation in water
management. Output of the project ‘Harmonising Collaborative Planning’, funded
by the European Commission.
Harrison, R. (1970). Choosing the depth of organizational intervention. The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Sciences, 6 (2), 181-202.
Harrison, M.I. (2005). Diagnosing organizations: Methods, models and processes. Third
Edition. London: Sage.
Himmelman, A.T. (1996). On the Theory and Practice of Transformational
Collaboration: From Social Service to Social Justice. In Huxham, C. (Ed.) Creating
collaborative advantage. London: Sage Publications, pp. 19-43.
Hirschhorn, L. (1988). The Workplace Within. Psychodynamics of Organizational Life.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hirschhorn, L. & T. Gilmore (1992). The New Boundaries of the “Boundaryless”
Company. Harvard Business Review, May/June, v70, n3, 104-115.
Homan, T. (2005). Organisatiedynamica. Theorie en praktijk van organisatieverandering. Den
Haag: Academic Service.
Hoyle, L. (2004). From sycophant to saboteur – responses to organizational change. In
Huffington, C., Armstrong, D., Halton, W., Hoyle, L. & Pooley, J. (Eds.) Working
below the surface. The emotional life of contemporary organizations. London: Karnac, pp.
87-106.
Huffington, C., James, K. & Armstsrong, D. (2004). What is the emotional cost of
distributed leadership? In Huffington, C., Armstrong, D., Halton, W., Hoyle, L. &
Pooley, J. (Eds.) Working below the surface. The emotional life of contemporary
organizations. London: Karnac, pp. 67-82.
Huxham, C. (1993). Collaborative capability: an intra-organizational perspective on
collaborative advantage. Public Money and Management, 12 (July-September), 21-28.
Huxham, C. (Ed.) (1996). Creating collaborative advantage. London: Sage Publications.
Huxham, C. & Vangen, S. (2003). Enacting leadership for collaborative advantage:
dilemmas of ideology and pragmatism in the activities of partnership managers.
British Journal of Management, 14, 61-76.
Huxham, C. & Vangen, S. (1996). Working together: key themes in the management of
relationships between public and not for profit organizations. International Journal of
Public Sector Management, 9 (7), 5-17.
Huxham, C. & Vangen, S., (2000) Leadership in the Shaping and Implementation of
Collaboration Agendas: how Things happen in a (not quite) Joined-up World.
Academy of Management Journal, 43 (6), 1159-1175.
303

Huxham, C. & Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to collaborate. The theory and practice of
collaborative advantage. London: Routledge.
Koppenjan, J. & Klijn, E.H. (Eds.) (2004). Managing uncertainties in networks. London:
Routledge.
Krantz, J. (1998). Anxiety & the New Order. In Klein, E.B. & Gabelnick, F. & Herr, P.
(Eds.) The Psychodynamics of Leadership, Madison: Psychosocial Press, pp. 77-107.
Lawrence, W.G. & Robinson, P. (1975). An innovation and its implementation: issues of
evaluation, document no. CASR 1069, Tavistock Institute of Human Relations
(unpublished). (cf. Miller, E. (1993). From dependency to autonomy. Studies in
organization and change. London: Free Association Books).
Levinson, H. (2002). Organizational Assessment. A step-by-step guide to effective consulting.
Washington: American Psychological Association.
Lhuillier, D. & Rolland, D. (2005). Action research and transitional processes: Risk
prevention in a hospital in Burundi. In Amado, G. & Vansina, L. (Eds.), The
transitional approach in action. London: Karnac, pp. 175-194.
Long, S., Newton, J. & Dalgleish, J. (2000). In the presence of the other: developing
working relations for organizational learning. In Klein, E.B., Gabelnick, F. & Herr,
P. (Eds.) Dynamic consultation in a changing workplace. Madison: Psychosocial Press,
pp.161-192.
MacKenzie, K.D. (1986). Organizational Design: the organizational audit and analysis
technology. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Maier, N.R.F. (1963). Problem-solving discussions and conferences. New York: McGraw
Hill.
Menzies Lyth, I. (1988). Containing Anxiety in Institutions. Selected essays. Volume 1.
London: Free Association Books.
Miller, E.J. (1993). From Dependency to Autonomy: Studies in Organization and Change.
London: Free Associations Books.
Miller, E. (1997). Effecting organisational change in large complex systems: a
collaborative consultancy approach. In Neumann, J.E., Kellner, K. & Dawson-
Sheperd, A. (Eds.) Developing Organisational Consultancy, London: Routledge, pp.
187-212.
Mills, T. (1967). The sociology of small groups. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Overlaet, B. & F. Barrett (2000). The Dynamics of Transitional Space, Paper submitted to
the ODC Division of the Academy of Management Meeting, Toronto.
304

Quaghebeur, K., Masschelein, J. & Huong Nguyen, H. (2004). Paradox of participation:
giving or taking part? Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 14, 154-165.
Rice, A.K. (1958). Productivity and social organization: the Ahmedabad experiment.
Tavistock. Reprinted, New York and London: Garland Publishing, 1987.
Ring, P.S. & Van de Ven, A.H. (1994). Developmental processes of cooperative
interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19 (1), 90-118.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. Basic
Books.
Schruijer, S. (1990). Norm violation, attribution theory and attitudes in intergroup relations.
Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
Schuman, S.P. (1996). The role of facilitation in collaborative groups. In Huxham, C.
(Ed.) Creating collaborative advantage, London: Sage Publications, pp. 126-140.
Schusler, T.M., Decker, D.J. & Pfeffer, M.J. (2003). Social learning for collaborative
natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources, 15, 309-326.
Stacey, R.D. (2003). Complexity and group processes. A radically social understanding of
individuals. Hove: Brunner-Routledge.
Taillieu, T., Schruijer, S. & Vansina, L. (2000). Dynamiek van samenwerking tussen
organisaties. In Bouwen, R., De Witte, K., De Witte, H. & Taillieu, T. (Eds.) Van
groep naar gemeenschap. Liber Amoricum Prof. Dr. Leo Lagrou, Leuven: Garant, pp.
147-164.
Thomas, R.Jr. (1995). A diversity framework. In Chemers, M., Oskamp, S. & Constanzo,
M. (Eds.) Diversity in organizations: New perspectives for a changing workplace. London:
Sage.
Triest, J. (1999). The Inner Drama of Role Taking in an Organization. In French, R. &
Vince, R. (Eds.) Group Relations, Management and Organization, Oxford University
Press, 209-223.
Trist, E. (1983). Referent Organizations and the Development of Inter-Organizational
Domains, Human Relations, 36 (3), 269-284.
Turcotte, M.F. & Pasquero, J. (2001). The paradox of multi-stakeholder collaborative
roundtables. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37 (4), December, 447-464.
Vanbeselaere, N. (2000). De social-psychologische benadering van intergroepsrelaties.
In Bouwen, R., De Witte, K., De Witte, H. & Taillieu, T. (Eds.) Van groep naar
gemeenschap. Liber amicorum Prof. Dr. Leo Lagrou. Leuven: Garant, pp. 165-184.
Vansina, L. (2002). Making the best out of diversity: working towards collaboration between
different interest groups. Paper presented at the annual symposium of the Society for
the Psychoanalytic Study of Organizations, Melbourne, June.
305

Vansina, L. (2004). Over zin en onzin van psychodynamiek voor organisatieadviseurs.
In Varwijk, W.G.J.M. & van Zijl, R.M.H.J. (Eds.) Strategie moet je samen doen. Visies
op strategisch management uit theorie en praktijk. Liber amicorum Prof.Dr. Michel
Vandenput. Ubbergen: Tandem Felix Uitgevers, pp. 159-177.
Vansina, L. (2005). The art of reviewing: a cornerstone in organizational learning. In
Amado, G. & Vansina, L. (Eds.) The transitional approach in action. London: Karnac,
pp. 227-254.
Vansina, L. (2007). Groups as tip of the iceberg: Locating issues in context. In: Vansina,
L. et al. (Eds.) Sense and nonsense of psychodynamics for consultants and managers. (to
be published in 2007).
Vansina, L., Taillieu, T. & Schruijer, S. (1998). “Managing” Multiparty Issues: Learning
from Experience. In W. Pasmore & R. Woodman (Eds.) Research in Organizational
Change and Development (vol. 11), JAI Press Inc., pp. 159-181.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge
University Press.
Winnicott, D.W. (1971). Playing and Reality. London: Routledge.
Zagier Roberts, V. (1994). Conflict and collaboration. Managing inter-group relations.
In Obholzer, A. & Zagier Roberts, V. (Eds.) The unconscious at work, London:
Routledge, pp. 187-196.
306

307

ATTACHMENT 1: COPP MEMBERS INVOLVED IN THE DIFFERENT PROJECTS
For the sake of anonymity I have used the following abbreviations to refer to my
colleagues of the COPP who were in some way involved in the different projects.
Erosion project
COPP members Role and involvement Referred to as
CO1 Senior researcher: design, facilitation “Facilitator”
CO2 Senior researcher: design, facilitation “Facilitator”
CO3 Researcher: documentation of the process,
River valley project
interviewing, feedback, design, some
facilitation
“Researcher”, “I”
COPP members Role and involvement Referred to as
CO1 Senior researcher: interviewing, feedback,
facilitation of workshop, reporting for
HarmoniCOP
CO2 Junior researcher: interviewing, feedback;
involved during the first 6 months
CO3 Researcher: documentation of the process,
interviewing, feedback
“we”
“we”
“we”
Attachments

Foster care
COPP members Role and involvement Referred to as
CO1 Senior researcher only involved during the
preparatory phase
CO2 Senior researcher, consultant to the project:
facilitation and scientific coordination
CO3 Senior researcher, consultant to the project:
mainly facilitation of stakeholder
conferences and work groups
CO4 Coordinator, scientific collaborator at the
center: daily management, research,
reporting, facilitation
CO5 Researcher: documentation of the project,
some facilitation
CO6 Senior researcher: only marginally involved
“Senior researcher”
“Facilitator”
“Coordinator”
“Researcher”
Attachments

ATTACHMENT 2: OVERVIEW OF THE STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWED IN
FOSTER CARE
Stakeholder cluster Organization/social
group
Authorities – Subsidizing
organization 1
– Subsidizing
organization 1
– Subsidizing
organization 2
– Subsidizing
organization 3
– Province
Umbrella organizations – Federation foster care
– Organization for
employers (catholic)
– Organization for
employers (pluralistic,
handicapped)
– Organization for
employers (pluralistic,
youth care)
Relegating parties – Juvenile court 1
Other institutions or
centers
– Juvenile court 2
– Social committee
– institution for youth
care 1
– institution for youth
care 2
– institution for youth
care 3
Interviewees
– Staff member of
headquarters
– Provincial
representative
– Coordinator + 2 staff
members
– Director
– Provincial depute
welfare
– Head
– Director
–
– Coordinator
–
– Coordinator
– Judge
– Judge + head social
service
– Regional coordinator +
6 team members
– Director
– Director
– Director + social
assistant
– Coordinator
– Coordinator
Attachments

– day center 1
– day center 2
Target groups Foster parents Group interview with 4
Experts Project ‘integrated care for
Foster care services (FC):
employees
Foster care services: board
members
Foster care services:
managers
youth’
FC 1
FC 2
FC 3
FC 4
FC 5
FC 1
FC 2
FC 3
FC 4
FC 5
FC 1
FC 2
FC 2
FC 3
FC 4
FC 5
foster parents
3 coordinators
6 employees
2 employees
1 employee (+ Director)
3 employees
8 employees
President
President
President
President
President + Director
Director
Coordinator
Director
Director (+ employee)
Director
Coordinator
Total: 34 interviews Total: 66 persons
Attachments

ATTACHMENT 3: PRESENTATION OF ANALYSIS STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
(Slide presentation of the analysis per stakeholder cluster, presented to the project
group on 24 March 2004 and 22 April 2004.)
Gebruikte afkortingen:
PGZD = pleeggezinnendienst
SW = samenwerking
IJH = Integrale Jeugdhulp
PZ = Pleegzorg
RvB = Raad van Bestuur
BJB = Bijzondere Jeugdbijstand
Q = kwaliteit
⌦ : geeft een spanningsveld aan (‘versus’)
� = ‘leidt tot’
COPP
Center for Organizational and Personnel Psychology
Terugrapportering: introductie
• Tijd: Februari – maart
• Lijst stakeholders opgesteld op vorige
projectvergaderingen
• Verlaten begrip ‘loketfunctie’: te vaag,
oplossingsgericht
• 4 basisvragen: huidig, toekomstige,
hinderpalen/hefbomen, betrokken actoren
– Vrij open vragen � mogelijkheid tot verhaal
– Minimale basisstructuur � analyse
Attachments

COPP
COPP
COPP
Doelgroepen:
Kind, ouder,
Pleegouder, VVP
Doorverwijzer:
JRB, Soc. Dienst,
Comité, PEC
Center for Organizational and Personnel Psychology
Overzicht stakeholders
Overheid:
Administratie &
provincie
Pleeggezinnen-
Diensten:
Personeel, RvB,
directie
Experten
IJH, UGent,
K.U.Leuven
Center for Organizational and Personnel Psychology
Analyse gegevens
• Interviewgegevens: uitgeschreven
interviews
• Rijke bron aan informatie
• Analyse met twee onderzoekers
• Per stakeholder oplijsting antwoorden op
basisvragen � gelijkenissen en verschillen
duiden
Center for Organizational and Personnel Psychology
Resultaten
• Nog niet alle stakeholders bevraagd
• Perspectief ‘perceptie van dienstverlening’
en ‘perceptie van samenwerking’
• Algemene lijnen
Aanwezige
Hefbomen
Huidig Toekomst
Hinderpalen
Conditionele
Hefbomen
Vertegenwoordiging:
WG-koepels &
federatie
Andere voorziening:
OOOC, CKG, OBC,
Thuisbegeleidingsdienst
Attachments

COPP
• Relatie CKG/OOOC en
PGZD: oriëntatie, selectie gezin,
overgang � geen continuïteit,
weinig wederzijdse bevruchting
• Positionering/ profilering van
PGZD niet duidelijk
• Plaats natuurlijke ouders?
• SW = persoonlijk gegroeide
contacten
• PGZD: voorlopers in SW,
deskundig, individueel naar
buiten
• Verschil tussen PGZD:
theoretisch, procedures, relatie
doorverwijzer
Center for Organizational and Personnel Psychology
Andere voorzieningen
• IJH
• locatie
• contextueel
• visie en
engagement
• beleid: lijnen en
opvolging
• PZ profileren
• Ideologie
• Overleg, enkel op directieniveau
• Tijdsdruk
• Regelgeving
• PZ als ‘zaligmakend
• Comité als drempel
• Op maat van het kind:
vraaggestuurd
• Overgang: continuïteit,
duidelijke regels, overdracht
dossier, traject volgen,
complementariteit
• Regelmatige informatie:
informeren en vraagbaak
• Verruimen van aanbod
• Geen eenheidsworst:
accentverschillen zijn goed
• Duidelijker profileren: PZ op
sociale kaart zetten,
verduidelijken aanbod
Attachments

COPP
• LOP: goed aanspreekpunt, basis
samenwerking
COPP
• Versnippering over 3 sectoren
• Aanbodgestuurd
• PZ imago van BJB
• Onduidelijkheid voor kandidaat
pleegouders
• niet professioneel in
vertegenwoordiging
• te weinig specialisme
Center for Organizational and Personnel Psychology
• goed fundament
• potentieel
• intersectoraal
denken
• Ideologie
Experts
• Regelgeving
• duidelijke opdracht: visie?
• keuzes: specialisatie,
gemeenschappelijkheid
•Mandaat LOP?
•Afstemmen IJH & PZ
•2 andere sectoren ook
betrekken
•Overheid:
randvoorwaarden
• Beslissingsstructuur: niveau PGZD
en inbedding in sectoren
Center for Organizational and Personnel Psychology
Overheid
•Integratiegedachte
aanwezig in PZ
• Rijp klimaat
• Bestaande SWdynamiek
• IJH
• Regelgeving – subsidies –
pleegouders (statuut?)
• concurrentie
• ideologie: vnl RvB
• Organisatie één toegang:
positief, efficiënt
• vraaggericht
• zo groot mogelijke
hulpgarantie
• Cultuurverandering
• harmonisering en aanpassing
regelgeving
• intersectorale SW: continuüm
• Werken in tussenstappen
• vraaggestuurd
• Engagement besturen
• preventie en
• Bereid zijn iets in te leveren
responsabilisering eerste lijn
• Historische vergroeiing: eigenheid
als drogreden, behoud posities?
• Intentie SW: écht samenwerken?
• Verschil in visie directie en RvB
• Verschil in mandaat vanuit de
organisatie
• Kleine diensten
• Beleid: stimuleren, sturen
en/of opleggen?
• Kerncompetenties: duidelijk
profiel en mandaat,
inhoudelijk, sluitende
afspraken.
• Privacy opgeven,
doorstroming informatie
• imago: moderniseren en
verduidelijken
• centraal aanspreekpunt voor
cliënt en verwijzers
• schaalvergroting,
standaardisering, kostenbesparend
Attachments

COPP
•Verkaveling: tussen sectoren,
territoriaal, tussen diensten
(eigenheid), geschiedenis PGZD
• Diversiteit als rijkdom
• Iedereen doet alles
• strikte regels
• Wat willen ze écht?
• geen programmatie aanwezig
in BJB
• grote druk verwijzers + geen
normen voor doorverwijzing
• ideologische verschillen
• underdog-gevoel
• geen open cultuur
• Overheid: visie op PZ?
• Leden spelen koepels tegen
elkaar uit.
COPP
• concurrentie
• niet kiezen van begeleiding
• verschillen in selectie &
vorming, ouders gaan shoppen
• kwaliteitseisen naar beneden
• beeld pleegouders
• rechten pleegouders
• kind staat niet centraal
• waarom 5 diensten?
• Wat willen ze met SW?
• werkdruk PGZD
• SW op papier
• pervers en ziek systeem
• relatie PGZD – doorverwijzers
• beeldvorming pleegkind,
slachtoffer
• bemiddelingscommisie?!
Center for Organizational and Personnel Psychology
Vertegenwoordigers
• historiek
• zelfde problemen
• basismethode =
• IJH
• overheid: interesse
• project = accident
de parcours
• kwaliteitsnormen
• loonharmonisering
• nieuwe denken
• goede positionering
vanuit persoon met
een handicap-sector
• stichters diensten
verdwenen
• Duidelijkheid
• Actie, bv. Pilootproject,
bottom-up
• Andere financieringsmech.:
sectorale regelgeving en
sponsoring
• Specialisatie
• Goedkeuren nota
• Management en
procesbegeleiding
• Bewust eigen identiteit
• RvB: vorming voorzitters,
zitjes voor collegadiensten
• Overheid: sturing, politiek
draagvlak
• geschiedenis
• politieke constellatie: andere minister en te eng
aangesproken
• schrik privatisering/ verzakelijking/ opleggen SW
• weinig creativiteit
• verschil in managementstijl
• verborgen agenda’s
• keuze dit project sluit andere keuzes uit
• Toekomstige ontwikkelingen: druk vanuit andere
zorgvormen
• Sterke lobby
Center for Organizational and Personnel Psychology
Pleegouders
• Maatschappelijke
veranderingen naar
nieuw
samengestelde
gezinnen
• wanneer SW: wat willen
we?
• slordig geworden in selectie, te
weinig kandidaten
• SW bestaat in verschillende
gradaties, loskomen van
hokjes
• Pleegouders teveel rechten geven
leidt tot meer gedwongen plaatsing
• Netwerk: rond cliënt, tussen
diensten
• Pragmatische SW
• specialisatie en
accentverschillen
• centraal aanspreekpunt
• schaalvergroting
• vraaggestuurd
• aanbodverduidelijking
• nieuwe vormen PZ
• Afspraken: gedragen door
iedereen, deontologische code
• mandaat PZ – overheid
• inhoudelijk beleid werkvloer
• Eén dienst, zelfde criteria:
externe dienst (neutraliteit)
• degelijke selectie, erkenning
deskundigheid pleegouders
• vorming leerkrachten
• PZ bekend maken
• kind centraal
• fijn profiel in pool, geen
supergezinnen
• zwarte lijst voor gezinnen die
geweigerd zijn
• Zeker met 5 samenwerken
• Flexibiliteit om van begeleider
te veranderen
• kan het comité geen 2 jaar
garantie geven?
• Moeten PGZD niet meer tamtam
maken over wat er misloopt
• Meer rechten voor
pleegouders
Attachments

COPP
• Is er nood aan SW? Kan dit
gebrek aan pleeggezinnen
oplossen?
• Achter de rug om; wat verwijten
ze ons?
• Verschillen diensten:
individueel engagement, cultuur,
geen verbinding
•geen aanspreekpunt, forum,
weinig overleg
•Gestandaardiseerde verslagen, te
oppervlakkig; soms informatie
afgeschermd; weinig
transparantie over waarom er geen
gezin voor handen is
• PZ geschikt voor kortdurende
opvang?
• Juridisch onduidelijk
• Niet tegelijk willen zoeken �
tijdverlies, geen keuze
•Ken aanbod niet; wat willen ze?
•PGD komen soms teveel op voor
pleeggezinnen; wij waken over
kansen natuurlijk milieu
COPP
Center for Organizational and Personnel Psychology
Doorverwijzers
• LPJ
• bestaande relaties,
vertrouwen
• beroepsgeheim
• schrik dat instellingen ‘modern’
willen doen
• schrik dat verscheidenheid verloren
gaat
•verschillen in werking
•allemaal afhaken als ze samengaan
•dubbele erkenning van sommige
PGD
• kandidaat ouders laten
• Criteria voor ideale pleeggezin,
praten met pleegouders: het zou hetzelfde moeten zijn
echte verhaal laten horen
•Gericht op zoek gaan naar
•forum PZ om met gezag te gezinnen, anticiperen
kunnen spreken
•contacten en
doorverwijzingen over
sectoren heen
•traditie: vanuit individuele casuïstiek
werken
Center for Organizational and Personnel Psychology
Pleeggezinnendiensten
•Gezamenlijke pool, betere
matching; 1 aanspreekpunt
• Verruiming en versoepeling
aanbod, vb. onthaalgezin
• Begeleiding pleeggezin tijdens
spitsmomenten
• Goede voorbereiding
pleegouders, vb. incest
• Specialiseren in familiale
plaatsingen
• Bestuur: Raden van Bestuur, directieleden
• LOP-leden
• Medewerkers pleeggezinnendiensten
Attachments

COPP
COPP
Huidig beeld
• imago PZ: langdurig, weinig bekend,
verwarring adoptie, versnippering, slecht
imago, moeilijk ‘product’, weinig waardering
bij bevolking
• verschillen:ver uiteen, verschillen in hoofden
vs praktijk, naast elkaar,concurrentie,
vooroordelen tov elkaar
• SW: drijfveer? Erbij willen zijn? Nog niet
veel goede SW gezien; bereidheid?
Praktische SW maar eigenheid behouden,
personeel en RvB voelen wenselijkheid aan
• kritische vragen mogen niet in de sector
• systeemvisie dominant
• grote organisaties: specialiseren
• verwijzers: shoppen
• relatie consulenten belangrijk,
spanningsveld, willen gewoon oplossing
• leden RvB kennen elkaar niet
Aanwezige hefbomen
• Integrale
• SW tussen 2 diensten
• we verstaan mekaar goed
• overleg: gemeenschappelijke nood
• vaak informele initiatieven
• personeel vragende partij
Conditionele hefbomen
• gezamenlijke visie, doel, draagvlak besturen
• vertrekken van concreet werk, vergelijken
• inspraak gebruikers
• open keuken, eigenheid appreciëren
• overheid: onderzoek, SW aanmoedingen, Q
criterium
• vertrekken vanuit gelijkwaardigheid
• forum voor gesprek & procesbegeleiding
• SW: pragmatisch
Center for Organizational and Personnel Psychology
Bestuur
Toekomstbeeld
• brede waaier hulpverlenings-vormen: PZ
niet apart
• eigenheid behouden ⌦ doel is niet
organisaties in stand houden
• kwaliteit verhogen & besparen
• SW rond: vorming, werving,
belangenverdediging
• eventueel nieuwe constellatie
• 1 dienst, moreel verplicht tot SW, betere
kansen voor kind ⌦ geen verdere SW, er
moet uitweg zijn als er conflict is, structureel
SW is personeel verliezen,willen er wel bij
zijn, voordelen meepikken maar rest hoeft
niet
Center for Organizational and Personnel Psychology
Bestuur
Hinderpalen
• geen wil tot veranderen, geen
zelfreflectie
• te grote cultuurverschillen
• vasthangen in kader
• wantrouwen, ambivalentie,
concurrentie, protectionisme, verborgen
agenda’s
• kleine diensten: bekommernis personeel
• onvoldoende ontzuild,
‘stichterssyndroom’
• SW als doel, waarom project?
• nog ingewikkelder
• mensen aan tafel soms geen mandaat
• RvB: engagement, kandidaten
• personeel: positie, inspraak,
betrokkenheid
• overheid: geen incentives
Attachments

COPP
COPP
Huidig beeld
• PZ zwakke broertje, lichtgewicht, pleegouders
tellen niet mee, verandert!
• regelgeving: perverse systemen, concurrentie,
‘ideologische verschillen’drogreden
• risico: Q eisen omlaag
• Gelijkenissen groter dan verschillen ⌦diensten
werken inhoudelijk verschillend
• SW: beperkt, extern gericht, ‘veilige’ domeinen,
‘tactisch’, regionaal of zorgoverschrijdend,
vooral kleinere diensten vragende partij, niet
rond gemeenschappelijke opdrachten
• 5 diensten is raar; iedereen doet alles; niet
afgesproken specialismen
• (pleeg)ouders & consulenten spelen diensten
tegen elkaar uit
• Soms onevenwicht inbreng diensten
• grote werklast, middelen en omkadering niet
meegeëvolueerd
• communicerende vaten
• verschillen in mandaat vanuit de organisatie
Aanwezige hefbomen
• SW is gegroeid
• overzichtelijk
• vraag vanuit medewerkers
• openheid, vertrouwen in LOP, kwetsbaar
• externen
• informele contacten
• we gebruiken mandaat, ruimte
• besef: kunnen leren van elkaar
• nieuwe directie Opvang
Center for Organizational and Personnel Psychology
LOP
Conditionele hefbomen
• open communicatie, vertrouwen, belangen op
tafel, goodwill, gelijkwaardigheid, evenredige
participatie
• SW RvB, medewerkers, gedragen door
dienst(en)
• stapsgewijs
• overheid: ondersteunen, krijtlijnen
• sterktes in kaart brengen, terreinafbakening
• iemand leiding durven laten nemen
• begeleiding
Toekomstbeeld
• SW: inhoudelijke werking, werving, pool
pleegouders, profilering naar verwijzers,
regionaal met andere hulpverleningsvormen, beter
met middelen omgaan, specialiseren, eerst PZ
optimaliseren, dubbel loket, moet functioneel zijn,
meer dan een intentie
• project: naar kern, weten waar je voor kiest
• subsidiesysteem veranderen
• 1 contactpunt: goede afspraken over verdeling
achteraf
• geen monopolie
• eigen identiteit behouden, geen eenheidsworst
• winst medewerkers: bijscholen, iets
ontwikkelen,…
• opvolging kinderen uitwerken
• minimale eisen familieleden netwerkplaatsingen
• overheid: Q bewaken
Center for Organizational and Personnel Psychology
LOP
Hinderpalen
• overheid: geen incentives, te weinig
middelen, enveloppefinanciering
• verschil in overtuigingen, autonomie,
ideologie promoten
• verschil visie RvB ⌦ directie, RvB
niet vooruitstrevend
• ‘instroom’ is gevoelig domein,
weerstand
• persoonlijk spelen als je systemen niet
ziet
• verschil mandaat
• zijn alle leden wel geïnteresseerd?
• sommige dingen niet op tafel
(financieel, personeel,..)
• basisdemocratie ⌦ managers
• hangt af van goodwill
• verlies drive medewerkers in groot
geheel
Attachments

COPP
Center for Organizational and Personnel Psychology
Medewerkers
Huidig beeld
• Wat is reden voor project?
• Rijkdom PZ = diversiteit en maatwerk
• absurd dat er 5 diensten bestaan
• informatie over kind versnipperd
• consulenten: shoppen, persoonlijke contacten,
verkeerd beeld PZ, weten waar we voor staan, mogen
werking niet toelichten
• hard werken � meer plaatsingen
• grote verschillen ⌦ onvoldoende zicht op wat
anderen doen, visie: zijn we uniek?
• Beeld PZ verwarrend, niet doorzichtig, PZ
buitenbeentje, weinig onderzoek
• slagkracht Federatie?
• veel extra werk, weinig middelen, externe begeleiding
kan niet
• SW op papier, geen opvolging
• PZ zit overal in: keuzes maken
• werkgroep vorming: weinig autonomie en
vertrouwen van LOP
• grotere diensten: meer geld, meer tijd en ruimte om
visie te ontwikkelen � druk, invloed, positioneren
COPP
Toekomstbeeld
• uitwisselen, intervisie selectie
• wat is eigenheid? � SW en eigenheid
behouden, geen eenheidsworst
• SW: werving, meer professionaliteit rond
tafel; vorming; jongerenweekends; specifieke
functies (bv. informaticus)
• 1 centraal punt doorverwijzers, willen
keuzevrijheid
• 1 pool: los van visie, is winst/service voor
consulenten en kind; matching door neutrale
persoon
• ‘Paal PZ’ sterker uitbouwen
• drive = verschil maken, je onderscheiden
• specialiseren qua doelgroep
• gaan we niet verliezen?
• Vrees invoering NL model
Center for Organizational and Personnel Psychology
Medewerkers
Aanwezige hefbomen
• LOP: doorgeven welke gezinnen geweigerd
• vanuit bestaanszekerheid gaat SW vlotter
• de dingen die we doen zijn zinvol
• concrete realisaties (bv.week PZ)
• Limburg heeft stapje voor qua SW
• we stappen al spontaan naar andere PGD
Conditionele hefbomen
• opdracht geven, autonomie en krediet geven, jaarlijks
evalueren
• 1 affiche en slogan, 1 pool en toebedeling afspreken
• externe onderzoekers
• RvB: neuzen in zelfde richting
• samen iets groots en duurs doen
• SW opleggen; ligt te gevoelig bij diensten
• mensen van diensten samenzetten
• tussenstappen (bv. centrale lijst)
• Basisvisietekst: wat is PZ?
• Knopen doorhakken: bottom-up ofwel sturen van
boven; duidelijk kader
• subsidiesysteem veranderen
Hinderpalen
• dubbel: geen aanmelding = geen personeel
• LOP: werkgroep gebruiken voor eigen
agenda; zitten niet op 1 lijn
• grootschalig: verlies dynamiek
• nog onoverzichtelijker, verdeelsleutel?
• Verzuiling nog steeds
• consequenties voor ouders
• 1 selectieteam = job kwijt
• verschil in visie � thema’s vermijden
• geen doel, probleem, knelpunt
• privacy
• gemeenschappelijk probleem ≠
gemeenschappelijke oplossing
• meer SW � minder creativiteit, soepelheid,
motivatie, betrokken; anoniemer
• mensen zijn werkgroepen kotsbeu; geen
beloning
• onvoldoende geld
Attachments

ATTACHMENT 4: STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS OF THE DOMAIN OF FOSTER
CARE
Structure of the collaborative system and stakeholders in foster care (based on Eden,
1996).
Schools
Mental health
services
Physicians
Province
Foster care adults
Umbrella
organiza-
tions
Residential
child care
The public
Mediation
commission
Subsidizing institutions
Services FC
Relegating parties
Minister of welfare
Experts
Foster care services in Flanders
Foster
parents
Center for
welfare
Federation
Natural
parents
Children
Regional
platform
youth
care
Attachments

ATTACHMENT 5: ISSUES, QUESTIONS AND DILEMMAS BASED ON THE
STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
Issue
Questions, dilemmas
Identity of foster care – vocation vs. professionalism
– strong identification with services
– diversity as richness vs. obstacle to
collaboration
– perceived as protecting the foster
families
Perception of assistance – driven by supply vs. by demand
– child not at the core
– positioning and profile unclear
– idealization of foster care as best
solution makes collaboration with
others hard
Motive for collaboration – ambivalence: collaboration in
competitive environment?
– Is collaboration a solution for the
shortage of families?
– Reception function is a solution for a
problem that is not well defined
Desired type of collaboration – Collaboration means losing personnel
vs. purpose should not be to maintain
the services
– Collaboration among services for
foster care or across sectors?
Perceived obstacles – History of splits and conflicts among
services
– ‘Pillarization’ of sector
– Subsidizing mechanism
– Time pressure
– Board members are volunteers and
should be the driving force (no time)
– Fear to lose identity, jobs, fear for
Attachments

Perceived enablers and facilitating
conditions
merger
– Interest and commitment of services
to the change?
– Only direct contact among
management of the services
– Employees are tired of work groups
– Resistance to change in sensitive
domains
– Goodwill and no ‘formal’
commitment of participating services
– Existing collaboration is safe domains
(informal, concrete actions, charter
with minimal agreements)
– Institutional situation in region is not
too complex
– Same basic approach in work
– Founders of the services are
gradually disappearing
– The managers use their mandate to
make changes
Required conditions – Commitment of services
– Be prepared to give in
– Be conscious of own identity
– Be open to exchange information
– Process consultation
– Decide if change is top-down or
bottom-up
– Provide clear framework
– Clarify mandate of project group
– Let go of feeling of being in underdog
position
– Keep commitment and energy high
and introduce some management
principles
Perceived relationships between the
services
– United because faced with similar
problems vs. rivalry for resources
– Strong sense of autonomy of the
services; loyalty
– Open, trustful relationships among
managers vs. distrust, hidden
agendas, protectionism
– Not knowing the other services;
Attachments

Relationship between foster care and
wider domain of welfare
assumptions and prejudice
– Growing awareness that services can
learn from each other
– Differences in vision within services
– One service identified as
‘troublesome’ from the start
– Reporting to relegating parties not
adequate
– Loss of time, no choice, because
services do not want to look for a
family in parallel
– Relegating parties play services off
against each other
– Nourishing personal contacts with
relegating parties is critical
– Foster care is not strong in relation to
magistrates
– Little cross-fertilization or
complementarities between foster
care and other services/institutions
– Little continuity in care when child is
transferred
– Social map of welfare in region is not
transparent
Attachments

ATTACHMENT 6: CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES OF PROVISIONAL
DATA ANALYSIS
Categories developed as a provisional analysis of the field notes, using Atlas-ti.
Antecedents of the project
– Positive and negative experiences with collaboration
– Culture of foster care (well meaning people, amateurism, little inflow of new
people and ideas, consensus model of decision making, everybody knows
everybody)
– Position of foster care in the domain of welfare (small sector, foster children less
visible)
– Self perception of foster care services (‘underdog’, is last solution because of a
high threshold)
– History of conflicts and splits in foster care (ideological differences)
– The regional consultation platform
– Perception of foster care by external stakeholders (defend the foster parents,
supply driven, lack of clarity about diversity, no understanding why there are
five services)
– Policy in foster care (availability of funding by ‘coincidence’)
– Strong wish of services in the selected region to participate in the project
Enabling conditions already present
Socio-political context
– Changes in the domain of welfare
– Interest of policy makers in foster care
– Pressure on policy makers to put foster care on the agenda
– Strategic use of the project
– Professionalization of the sector
– Right moment
– Societal pressure to collaborate
Attachments

Regional consultation platform
– Existing concrete initiatives
– Ground rules established in regional consultation platform (‘charter’)
– Existing collaboration between two services (model function)
– Trust among managers
– Personalized contacts among managers
– Personalities of the managers
– Willingness of the managers
– Managers use mandate to act
– Driving force of convening organization
– Links with other collaboratives
The services
– Interest and demand for collaboration of employees
– Changes in management of services
– Confronted with similar problems
– Small number of organizations in the region
– Felt necessity to collaborate
Conditions for collaboration that need to be developed or strengthened
Basic conditions
– Be aware of necessity to collaborate
– Broad support from the basis
– Be committed to the change
– Goodwill of participants
– Mutual appreciation and recognition
– Sufficient tangent planes between organizations
– Trust each other
– Openness
– Relationship of equality
– Move beyond individual organizational interests
– Be prepared to let go of part of identity
Attachments

– Sense of belonging (employees)
Facilitating interventions
– Stress similarities and what we have in common
– Balance between giving and taking (fairness)
– Have the courage to take the lead
– Take ownership
– External facilitation of the process
– Let go of central control
– Maintain domain of expertise
– Maintain ideology and values (identity)
Required guarantees
– No job losses
– Respect agreements
External conditions
– Clear framework by policy makers
– Incentive for collaboration by policy makers
Existing obstacles to collaboration
External obstacles
– Subsidizing policy
– Sudden and unexpected start of the project
– Differences in policy between the umbrella organizations
– Fear for liberalization of sector
– Playing off the services against each other (relegating parties, foster families)
– Limited resources
Internal obstacles
– Asymmetry in size (foster care services)
– Differences in ideology (services)
– Differences in management style (services)
– Differences in mandate (members of project group)
– Different interests of services
Attachments

– Not knowing each other
– Existing power relations
– Autonomy of the services
– Collaboration as a goal in itself
– Influence of founding fathers of the services
– Inefficiency and lack of effective use of resources
– Little experience with collaboration
– No differentiation or specialization in assistance
– No one takes up nurturing role
– No open discussion
– Lack of creativity
– No strategic thinking
Fears
– Fear for employment
– Fear for loss of identity
– Fear of becoming nothing more than a face in the crowd
– Tension between competition/loyalty to service and collaboration
Potential obstacles that could hinder the development of collaborative
relationships
– Failure in other related projects
– Unfair distribution of placements (‘distribution key’)
– Fear for tensions and conflict
– Personal conflicts
– Differences in ideology
– Differences within the services
– Voluntary nature of participation in the project
– Number of services too large
– Rivalry
– Lack of time
Attachments

Desired approach to the change effort
External interventions or change
– Change subsidizing policy
Task and procedural level
– Clarify collective task
– Start with collaboration in safe territories
– Clarify mandate of participants
– Develop shared frame of reference
– Clarify issues
– Involve constituency
– Develop collaboration between boards of the services
– Develop collaboration between employees of the services
– Establish clear profile of foster care
– Look at facts and numbers
– Focus on results
– Watch over quality
– Make clear agreements
– Translate reservations into conditions for collaboration
– Optimize organization
– Develop a strategy towards policy makers
Relational level
– Get acquainted
– Direct interaction among participants
– Explore differences and similarities
– Foster commitment
– Include diversity
– Put issues on the table
– Keep options open
– Learn from each other
– Learn from bench marking visits
– Make progress visible for all
Attachments

– Develop specialization of services
– Take the necessary time for this process
Desired results and output of the project (potential benefits)
Expressed by internal stakeholders
Effects on the product (assistance)
– Joint organization of activities (e.g. fair, education)
– Uniformity in procedures
– Optimizing procedures (e.g. selection, intake)
– Higher transparency of available foster families (‘pool’) for relegating parties
– A regional foster care house
– Increased chances of finding an optimal family for the child (better ‘matching’)
– Have a larger capacity
Effects in the environment
– A clear and consistent image and profile of foster care (clear overview of
assistance)
– Improve the image of foster care
– Speak with one voice to relegating parties (e.g. judges) in order to have more
influence
– Have more impact on policy
– Better positioning of foster care in the region
– Reduce shopping behavior of relegating parties
– Have a wider representation of foster care in different projects, workgroups, etc.
Effects on the organization of the services
– Clear inventory of differences between the services
– Identification of strengths of each service
– Develop strengths of each service
– Cross organizational team for selection and intake
– Specialization of the services
– A joint ‘pool’ of candidate foster parents
– Joint marketing efforts to promote foster care in society
Attachments

– Share work in order to save time and energy (e.g. write procedures together;
quality handbook)
– Share costs of marketing
– More effective use of resources
Effects on the employees
– Learning from each other
– Develop expertise
– Be recognized as experts
– Share know-how
– Exchange experiences between employees (e.g. selection)
– Increased career opportunities for employees
– Be able to rely on a team in order to increase quality and to feel supported
– Provide opportunities for training and specialization for employees
Expressed by external stakeholders
– Merger of the services on regional level
– Collaborate across the boundaries of foster care as a separate sector
– Provide a broader range of assistance
Potential drawbacks of collaboration in a large scale organization (internal
stakeholders)
– Rigidity and slowness of assistance
– Bureaucracy (‘paper matching’)
– Loss of motivation of employees in a larger structure
– Fear of becoming nothing more than a face in the crowd
– Lower quality of assistance
– Less personal
– Individual services lose their influence
– Relegating parties can no longer choose with which service they collaborate
– Risk of monopoly for candidate foster care families: no second chance if they are
rejected
Attachments

– Risk of monopoly for employees: no alternative if you lose your job or have
problems with management
– Loss of diversity
– Imposed collaboration does not work
Issues in the process
Experienced differences
– Ambition (disillusion, impatience)
– Commitment
– Objectives and task definition of the project
Experienced ambiguities
– Around differences and similarities
– About the value or threat of differences and similarities
– In motivation for collaboration
– Around authority: who takes decisions?
– Around inclusion and exclusion of stakeholders
– Around interdependence
– Around role and contribution of facilitators
– Around concept of ‘reception function’
– Around the fuzziness in the project
Fields of tension between
– The wish for collaboration and the fear to lose one’s identity and autonomy
– The rhetoric of open communication and suspicion of hidden agendas
– Expressed need to move on and the low sense of urgency
– Complexity of the process and reduction of complexity
– Solution mindedness (reception function) and exploration of the problem
– Openness of the process and control over the process
– Management and field workers
– The need to trust each other and the existing distrust
– The intended stakeholder approach and the choice for an internal focus
– Being a representative of a constituency and being facilitator
Attachments

ATTACHMENT 7: PROCESS RECONSTRUCTION FOSTER CARE CASE
The original process reconstruction was 66 pages. In this overview I have deleted the column with information on the available
documentation, because I did not think this information would be critical for the reader. I also deleted some minor, insignificant
events or interactions from the overview. I have copied the issues from the stakeholder conferences in a separate attachment (5). I
made the overview anonymous consistent with the names and number of the foster care services used in the introduction of the
foster care case. I have also used abbreviations for the consultants (see attachment 1). Finally, I have translated the document into
English, to make it consistent with the rest of the text in this book.
Date Event/
Convening
phase
interaction
2002-10-28 Letter to
Federation
Participants Content Issues
Two
convening
organization
s
Proposal for structural
collaboration in foster
care
Definition of qualitative
foster care
Identified stakeholders:
users (parents and children)
voluntary collaborators (foster families)
professional collaborators (personnel)
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
2002-11-27 Mail +
letter
(28/10/02)
2002-12-11 Explorative
conversation
2002-12-19 Mail & 1st
proposal
Participants Content Issues
Convener to
CO1
Convener,
CO1, two
external
experts in
multiparty
collaboration
CO1 to
convener
Identification of
stakeholders
Assumptions
Request for coaching and
research for network
development in foster
care
(no field notes or report)
Design of intervention by
COPP for project
proposal
Objectives:
protect foster care as
relegating parties
policy makers
They do not want a merger
Objective: unite forces and preserve the identities aimed at a
qualitative foster care (less time, energy and financial losses)
Approach:
involvement of wide stakeholder group
emergent process
action research
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
Participants Content Issues
educational practice
more effective
management of scarce
foster families
professionalisation of
foster care and
knowledge sharing in
foster care
more effective
representation of foster
care with legal and
authorities and policy
makers
Steps:
contact stakeholders and
getting acquainted
preparation future search
conference
research activities
meetings: design,
problem setting, agenda,
planning of action steps,
design sustainable
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
2002-12-19 Letter Convening
organization
s to Minister
of Welfare
and Special
Youth Care
2003-01-27 2nd
proposal
Participants Content Issues
CO1 to
convener
2003-10-16 Mail CO1 to
COPP
members
structuring
concluding meeting
follow-up
Submission of project
proposal ‘Project
network organization
development in foster
care’
Second proposal with
lower budget: less
budget for search
conference and final
meeting
Project has not been
approved because
Minister has abdicated.
Cabinet asks if convener
is still interested.
Convener checks with
Timing: three years
Area: Flanders
Budget was too high
Minister of welfare (ecological party): priority was on a higher
capacity in Special Youth Care
Proposal is not approved
New Minister of welfare
New conditions for the project:
One instead of three years
One region instead of Flanders
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
2003-10-22 Internal
meeting
COPP 1
2003-10-22 3rd
proposal
Participants Content Issues
CO1, CO2,
CO6, CO5
CO1 to
convener
2003-10-23 Interview CO5 with
convener
COPP if they are still
interested.
Chances that sponsoring
of the project will be
approved. Conditions:
Pilot project
Not only consulting
Stress the positive and
negative aspects of such
processes
If it is successful, it may
be transferred to other
regions
Budget consulting
reduced to 50%
Exploratory interview
with convener
50% of the original budget
Criteria for choice pilot area? 1 or 2 regions?
Lower ambition of project
How much budgetary space is there?
Dilemma: rivalry vs. collaboration
Foster parents have no voice
5 levels of stakeholders
xxx
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
2003-10-24 Meeting
Federation
2003-10-24 Informal
meeting
after the
meeting of
the
Federation
Participants Content Issues
Members
Federation
foster care,
CO1, CO5
4
representativ
es of the
services
present in
the region +
CO1 + CO5
Presentation of project
during monthly meeting
Convener introduces
project
Senior researchers
stresses multiparty
approach. Main message:
Part of the system will be
chosen, but the whole
system is involved
It is important to design
your own system
Aim is to keep
responsibility shared
around the table
The group adapts the
proposal for the Minister
and adapts it to the new
conditions: 1 year, 1
region, 50% of the
budget.
Proposal is sent to the
Cabinet on 25 October
Criteria:
Region with experience in collaboration
The 3 sectors must be represented
Result of the meeting:
Choice for region X
No representative of the liberal service present at the meeting
The decision is taken very quickly
A service, part of the convening organization, is involved in the
project
Lot of enthusiasm
Inclusion and exclusion: who is in and who is out? They do not
want an organization (mental health) located outside the region.
Who is at the core of the project: the services for foster care of the
parents and children?
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
2003-11-04 Mail Convener to
CO5
2003-11-14 Mail Convener to
CO5
2003-12-03 Mail Convener to
CO5
Start-up
phase
Participants Content Issues
2003.
The project is approved.
Financial aspects still
have to be approved by
board of convening
organization.
The liberal service has
agreed to participate in
the project. No news
from Brussels.
Ministry of finance has
approved the project
She sends the contract to
COPP
Liberal service has received a request to participate in the project
Internal problems with management of liberal service.
The president of the board is temporarily Director
More complex organization to collaborate with, but in the field it
works out.
Liberal service involved in project in a later phase of the process
and in a different way
COPP is subcontracted by the convening organization
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
2003-12-09 Internal
meeting
COPP 2
2003-12-11 Internal
meeting
COPP 3
2003-12-12 Meeting
project
group 1
Participants Content Issues
CO1, CO2,
CO5
Practical arrangements
(contract, budget
allocation)
Preparation meeting 12
December: set dates,
action plan, who are
stakeholders
CO4 & CO5 Preparation of questions
for the first meeting on 12
December
Members
project
group &
CO2
Aim: start-up project
CO2 presents proposition
of planning for the
project
Next meeting: 6 January
2004
Create sense of belonging: organize start up meeting?
Involve a broader group than just the participating
organizations: all directly involved actors
We raise questions about:
Content: e.g. is Federation only about placements in families? To
what extent are the organizations alike or different?
Procedure: e.g. which logic for collaboration now? Legal status of
personnel? Structure of foster care? How about the quality
policy? Financial structure?
Planning as presented by COPP is approved without further
questions
First important step is identification of the stakeholders (next
meeting)
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
2004-01-06 Meeting
project
group 2
Participants Content Issues
Managers FC
1-5, CO4,
CO5
Preparation : frame
stakeholder analysis
(Eden)
Getting acquainted
Discussion around
perceptions of what
collaboration could look
like: similarities and
differences
Stakeholder analysis
following the structure of
the 3 subsidizing
organizations
The system is not transparent and complex
Differences in mandate (‘who speaks for whom ?’) : size and
geographical presence of service
New member : CD of the Federation
Basis for collaboration : document with agreements (regional
consultation platform)
Context : lack of foster families
Want to collaborate but watch over fair distribution
Context : subsidizing system provokes competition ; regulation
as obstacle
Tensions
individual organization vs. big organization/network
autonomy/collaboration
drive and identification of employees vs. loss of energy
individualism vs. loss of energy
generalization vs. specialization
drive for foster care vs. concern for own organization
from underdog to impact on policy
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
2004-01-07 Internal
meeting
Participants Content Issues
CO4, CO3,
CO2, CO1,
collaboration means wonderful offer and bigger capacity
result on foster care adults ? (wider system)
collaboration as an intention (ideas) vs. something concrete
process facilitation enables defending the interests of service
what after the project? Not link future to the availability of
funding (sustainability)
develop a concept, but this is not transferable to other regions
OPZ Geel not included because no presence in Limburg
How broad do we identify the stakeholders? Who can contribute
to this project?
Group of ‘suppliers’ (e.g. schools, CLB) but that goes too far
Involvement of stakeholders: organizing a stakeholders
conference of two days is difficult; spread two days over time;
many different projects going on
To what extent are stakeholders interested and willing to
participate and how do they want to participate? (check during
interviews)
Decision to also interview the LOP members because they don’t
seem to say what is really on their minds…
Budget COPP (CO5) proposed a project plan and the project group
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
COPP 4
2004-01-23 Internal
meeting
COPP 5
Participants Content Issues
CO5
Role distribution COPP
Reflect back on meeting
of yesterday
CO4 & CO5 Planning interviews
Questions for
stakeholder interviews
accepts it without further expectations
Budget cut in half and consequences for our roles
Common ground is output project: ‘double reception function’
Diversity: internal personnel management also perceived as
output of project
Tension common services/assistance vs. identity of the
organizations
The notion of ‘reception function’ (terminology in the proposal)
is already a solution.
Developing a concept for this region and the risk of simply
taking over and copying it to another region
Encourage participants to take action themselves to make sure
the project will be successful afterwards (ownership)
CO4 becomes central person after the manager of FC3 sends
letter and puts him in Cc.; he is submerged with mails
Stakeholder list: almost complete; only missing names of foster
parents, foster children, employees
CO4 wants the project group to assign a contact person; this way
of working is not efficient
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
2004-02-03 Meeting
project
group 3
Inventory
phase
2004-02-05
until 2004-
03-01
Stakeholder
interviews 1
- 16
Participants Content Issues
FC 1-5, head
of
Federation,
CO4, CO5
+
coordinator
of FC 5
Stakeholder
representativ
es
Follow-up of agreements Head of Federation present for first time
Perception of:
Present situation in foster
care
Desired future situation
Obstacles to collaboration
Enabling factors
In what way does
stakeholder wish to be
They will ask whether foster parents are willing to be
interviewed
Agreement to ask older foster children to look back on their
experiences
Don’t think contact person among the group of managers is
necessary; CO4 can be central person
CO4 struggles with his position: is he supposed to keep them ontask?
There is a lot of chatting and wandering off from agenda
See attachment 2
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
2004-03-01 Meeting
researchers
2004-03-01 Internal
meeting
COPP 6
Participants Content Issues
involved? Is he/she
prepared to come to the
stakeholder conference?
Who is a critical partner
in this process?
CO4, CO5 Preparation COPP
meeting:
CO4, CO2,
CO1, CO3,
CO5
What have been surprises
so far?
Issues that emerge from
the stakeholder
interviews
The Federation is in favor of reception function
FC 5 is/was obstructing
One stakeholder received a phone call before interview to warn
him: did he know what he was getting himself into?
Reception function mandated by policy makers
Managers foster care and project integrated youth assistance
seem far apart: surprising
Would be helpful to make a clear picture with the proportions:
Special Youth Care, Flemish Fund for Handicapped, Child &
Family (subsidizing organizations)
Important influence of politics: subsidizing and approving
projects; also concerning a change of mentality: paternalism vs
emancipation of the client
Emergent issues in the 16 interviews so far:
Big vs. small organizations: can small organizations survive?
Tension holding on to identity, holding on to what has been
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
Participants Content Issues
developed vs. efficiency
External image: unclear; related to differences and similarities
Everybody is doing the same vs. own identity; related to
ideology and other differences
Different perspectives within the services: for boards, employees,
etc
Integrate foster care in the broader field or separate profiling?
Tension: merger or stay separate organizations?
Underdog position foster care vs. stakeholders who are willing
to collaborate
Antecedent: initial question of the convener was: big
organizations only think about themselves and only afterwards
about the children; policy makers do not talk with the small
players in the field
What is the alternative if they do not want to collaborate?
Inclusion/exclusion: Do we have to invite only the services
(boards, employees, management) for the first day?
Role researchers: if we interview the members of the project
group, can we use the information afterwards? What can come
on the table? If you do so, don’t you put yourselves in an
impossible position?
Attachments

Date Event/
2004-03-03
until 2004-
03-23
interaction
2004-03-24 Meeting
project
group 4
SI 17 - 32 Stakeholder
representativ
es
Participants Content Issues
FC 1-5, head
Federation,
CO2, CO3,
CO4, CO5
Feedback:
List of quotes stakeholder
interviews, organized per
stakeholder cluster and
Multiparty is about similar AND different interests; the different
interests will come forward in the interviews; necessary to
explore both similarities and differences; fake similarity cannot
be maintained towards the outside world
Intervention: clustering the stakeholders in different ‘stakeholder
clusters’
Output: tension between the objectives in the project proposal
and what happens in the collaboration
Issue: set up a steering group with the function of correcting the
project, give critical perspective, give their vision, carry the
project as a ‘sponsor’; if the question changes, does the sponsor
change accordingly? (idea CO2 based on experience in other
projects)
Stakeholder conference on a ‘neutral’ terrain
Some responses to the feedback:
Perception of being supply driven vs. demand driven
Hidden agendas don’t need to be negative!
Attachments

Date Event/
2004-03-30
until 2004-
04-06
interaction
2004-04-19 Internal
meeting
COPP 7
SI 32 - 33 Stakeholder
representativ
es
Participants Content Issues
CO4, CO3,
CO2, CO5
per question
General issues per cluster
on slide: present, future,
obstacles, enablers that
are present and enablers
that need to be
strengthened or
developed
Preparation stakeholder
conference
Agenda for next project
group
COPP sends report with
feedback interviews to
stakeholders; foster care
services invite
stakeholders to
conference
Objective day 1: what do
“not professional”: in relation to what criteria? Who says so?
We still did not receive any names of parents or foster children
from the project group!!!
Who to invite for stakeholder conference? (inclusion)
Discuss what issues?
How to feed back the results of the stakeholder interviews?
Also include those who have not been interviewed (different
levels of stakeholders)
Legitimacy of foster parents as representatives is questioned: are
not organized, representative, emotionally involved, may take
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
2004-04-22 Meeting
project
group 5
Participants Content Issues
FC 1-5, head
Federation,
CO3, CO4,
CO5
we want to do
together/separately in
the future? What is there
already today? What
needs to be developed?
What are fields of
tension, helping and
hindering factors?
Organization of the
issues from the
interviews
Preparation stakeholder
conference:
We do not have much
concrete information on
the basis of the analysis
for the conference
Proposal of a list with
names of 29 ‘internal’
stakeholders
Prepare for next meeting
advantage of this process to express their frustrations
Who is at the core of the system: the services, foster child and
foster parents?
Purpose: where do they want to go?
Function work groups: give concrete shape to the collaboration
Distinction between types of stakeholders emerges: action
stakeholders (key actors) sounding board stakeholders
Role researchers: structure the themes that emerge from the
interviews
Clarify (during stakeholder conference): what do they want?
What do they not want? Where is still doubt?
Who defends which stakeholder in the process of
mediation/placement in foster care? (Relegating parties vs.
services foster care)
Neutral position of foster care
What is the motivation for collaboration? Is a means or an end in
itself?
Project as vehicle to get to something concrete
Stakeholder involvement: cautious approach with only internals
or involve the externals from the beginning?
Boundary of identity: who is ‘internal’?? Whose voice can be
Attachments

Date Event/
Explora-
tion phase
interaction
Participants Content Issues
(5 May) a list with names
of people who can join in
the reflection
heard?
How safe does if feel to open up the discussion?
Effect of including externals: makes it easier to think for the
system; make abstraction from your ‘chair’; conceptual thinking
enabled; more neutral
Only internals: reflex is “my service!!”; protective and defensive
reactions; How safe is it to openly talk with ‘internals’?; this is
also a group of ‘strangers’
Enabler: make sure the boards get acquainted to start off a
collaborative process
The list of stakeholders for day 2 is too internal vs. philosophy
multiparty collaboration ‘involve all stakeholders’
Do internal work first before you can interact with externals:
how far do we want to go?
Risk of getting stuck in intentions, theorizing
Talking about system vision vs. the system cannot be present
Use the external stakeholder as an adviser
2004-04-26 Internal CO2, CO4, Reflecting back on Stakeholder conference: internal vs. external stakeholders
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
meeting
COPP 8
Participants Content Issues
CO3, CO1,
CO5
previous project group
meeting
Clarification of mandate
CO2 & CO5 for next
meeting project group
Considerations about the
stakeholder conference
‘Internal’ stakeholders:
What does ‘internal’ mean for them?
Are almost strangers to each other; almost as unsafe as with the
external stakeholders present!!
Potential role for external stakeholders:
Panel of experts
Observers
Give feedback and input
Fears and worries:
Fear for conflicting expectations of the stakeholders
They think about foster care as system, but forget to invite the
system!
Design issues:
Ideal: externals constantly present
Find ways to let internal and external interact: variety, intensity,
interaction, dialogue?
Integrate external perspective while respecting the fears of the
services
Build on insight expressed by MS: ‘when the externals are
present we come forward as foster care, if not as separate
services’
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
Participants Content Issues
Our concern: include sufficient external perspective
The concern of the services: keep things in control and not show
the public what their struggle and questions are (external image)
Design of conference:
Tensions open vs. structured:
Start in an open way or provide some input?
Give input vs. their ownership and initiative
If you give some input, they have something to relate to
Openness/safety vs. letting the external stakeholders directly
confront them; risk = issues are avoided, abstract level of
discussion, lots of talking, statements of intention
Potential input:
Interview material: quotes to show ‘life’: it is about children,
parents and foster parents
Extract some general principles for collaboration from interviews
What to do with the stakeholder perspective??!!
Tension: getting to know each other vs. getting some work done
in 1,5 days
Design: changing constellations; give them seats; active
facilitation
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
2004-04-30 Meeting of
Federation
2004-05-05 Meeting
project
group 6
Participants Content Issues
20 members
of the
Federation,
head of
Federation,
FC1, FC2,
FC4, CO4,
CO5
FC1, FC2,
FC4, FC5,
CO2, CO5
Current status of the
project
Start-up
Objectives
Interviews stakeholders
Results
Next step: stakeholder
conference
Aim:
A list of stakeholders
who will be invited to the
stakeholder conference
Look for a realistic design
Invite those from whom the project group expect obstruction
(e.g. someone from other region)
Physical limitation: maximum 40 persons in the conference room
Choice to restrict project to children and not to expand it to
adults (this has been an issue in December 2003)
How broad do we define ‘external’ stakeholder? Who do we
invite?
External stakeholders can give input
Discussion among internal stakeholders afterwards
Who to invite among the ‘internals’? Work with representatives?
Output after 2 days stakeholder conference: agreement on
principles around what we want to do together
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
2004-05-14 Internal
meeting
COPP 9
Participants Content Issues
CO4, CO3,
CO5
Aim:
Prepare next meeting
project group
Role stakeholders?
First design scenario
stakeholder conference
Idea of workgroups to concretely work out ideas
Design stakeholder conference
How to include external stakeholders: external panel, statements
on flip chart with external stakeholder, how to group them?
What input do we expect from external stakeholders?
What has to be discussed with ‘internals’ only, what while the
‘externals’ are present?
We should bring in statements from the interviews to clearly
convey the message of the external stakeholder on how the
services should collaborate (reality testing)
Importance of getting to know one another
Use the energy present in the group at that moment
Negative dynamics/feelings:
They keep out the external stakeholders; they are afraid of them
People feel exposed and vulnerable; both among ‘externals’ but
also with the ‘internals’ only
They are in a logic: ‘there will be shooting’, ‘let’s be careful’
(defensive, underdog)
Us and them logic: this is both true among internals as well as
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
2004-05-14 Meeting
project
group 7
Participants Content Issues
FC 1-3, head
Federation,
CO4, CO3,
CO2, CO5
(students
briefly join
to get
acquainted
with
managers)
Aim:
Design stakeholder
conference 1
between internals and externals
Internal dynamics
Decision about external-internal stakeholders taken in last LOP-
COPP when CO3 was not present: moves process away from
multiparty collaboration
Externals will not be present 2nd day; give them feedback
afterwards; otherwise it gets too complex; first neatly work out
the ideas (1,5 day with internal group) (reduction of complexity
and diversity; split internal-external)
Set framework and principles for collaboration
Clarify domains of collaboration more clearly
Direct interaction with external stakeholders:
Added value?
Input interviews
Risk of repetition with interviews
Added value is sitting together
In what domain can they contribute?
Objective is still vague: “optimizing foster care in the region”…
Focus on ‘inflow’ not on foster care in general; two domains:
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
Participants Content Issues
inflow of children and candidate parents
Split up group or discuss in large group? Split up on basis of
what criteria? Diversity of stakeholder representatives
Feedback of subgroups in presence of external stakeholders or
when they have left?
Fear that external stakeholders will not show up
Afternoon sh conference 1: only internals; does it feel like ‘us’?
Need to consult constituency around the agreement in principle
Risk: end of the end feeling like ‘we will see’…; then nothing
changes
Risk that employees don’t speak up if boards or management are
present
‘collaboration’ has different meaning for different groups (board,
employees, management): different ‘levels of speed ‘; how to get
these different dynamics together?
First step: getting to know each other
Reach common ground around the problem first
Result of the day? Something concrete?
Design of afternoon is emergent: depends on where the group
will be at the end of the morning
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
2004-05-28 First
stakeholder
s
conference
2004-06-07 Phone call
2004-06-09 Internal
meeting
COPP 10
Participants Content Issues
38
participants
in morning
(incl. CO2,
CO3, CO4,
CO5 and
thesis
students)
convener &
CO5
CO2, CO3,
CO4, CO5
Aim: arrive at agreement
in principle around
collaboration
Questions: what are your
impressions of the
stakeholder conference?
Aim:
Preparation meeting
project group 11 June
Preparation stakeholder
conference 2
See attachment 3
Convener is disappointed:
No clarity
Resistances not on the table
COPP should provide more leadership on the content
Worries and questions:
Are the values really so different?
Will FC5 step out?
Stakeholder conference: day 1
FC5: ideological concern seems to be upfront
‘reservations’: some manage to translate these into ‘conditions’;
FC5 is not able to make that translation and they only see the
impossibilities
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
Participants Content Issues
Different levels of resistance: gap between boards (talking about)
and work field (concrete action)
Condition requested by employees: they want a clear mandate
Level of group development: new group, focusing on being
‘similar’
Assignment between stakeholder conferences: managers give
feedback to their constituency and collect the reactions to feed
them back on the second stakeholder conference day
Upcoming stakeholder conference: day 2 in 17th June
Functions and levels of reporting of internal stakeholders is not
transparent
Who to invite?
3 levels of hierarchy present; advantage is push from underneath
(ideas)
3 levels: drawback is that employees will not speak up
Multiparty perspective: it is not about 3 levels of hierarchy, but
different levels of commitment
Involvement of two perspectives necessary:
Boards: give green light
Employees: involve them to know their concerns and to make
sure it is more than a policy process with the risk that nothing
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
Participants Content Issues
concrete happens on the work floor
Dilemma: invite three levels of internal stakeholders or only
boards and management?
Preparation: individual questioning of members project group
(telephone) to ask about their concerns? Expected resistance?
How to use information? Design second stakeholder conference?
What do they want and not want together?
Feedback from COPP:
Not capable of looking at the potential, things they do want to do
together
No sense of urgency
Not formulating reservations in terms of conditions (e.g.
distribution code)
Example of collaborative experiences that have worked so far
Concern: the feeling of getting nowhere at the end of the day
General critical issues
What are the consequences of not joining the project? Exclusion
from regional consultation platform? Bad image at Ministry?
The children and foster parents should be more central in the
project
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
2004-06-11 Meeting
project
group 8
Participants Content Issues
FC 1-5, CO4,
CO5
Reflections on stakeholder conference 1:
Presence of external stakeholders constructive
Not used their input in afternoon
External stakeholders could not contradict false information of
my director
We withdrew upon ourselves in afternoon
We have held up a façade in the morning
It is up to us to develop initiatives, not the external stakeholders
Afternoon: missed input of employees and boards: differences in
speed
Afternoon: brainstorm did not follow what had happened that
morning
Lack of clarity on mandates
Support needed (facilitation)
Employees surprised by amount of resistance
We have to go back to the initial assumptions of the project: it
does not fit anymore
Assumption there was an agreement, but that was not so: step
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
Participants Content Issues
backwards
FC5 does not meet the requirements
COPP should be more directive (also on content)
Resistances should come on table
Make distinction between participation in project and in LOP:
explore possibilities to step out
Flexibility: degrees of participation must be possible
Preparation SH day 2: critical issues
First step is: are the services prepared? Only then you can start
working
Focus on translation reservations into conditions + work on ideas
from brainstorm
More reservation in management than with employees
Work in separate groups: risk parallel process
Take everybody’s feelings into account
Stay concrete; talking about values is bullshit
Go back to original objectives of project
Objective is NOT to arrive at better communication; we have that
in LOP
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
2004-06-14 Phone calls CO4 with the
5 managers
Participants Content Issues
Preparation of the second
stakeholder conference:
Reservations and
conditions for further
collaboration?
What do you need to
move forward in this
process?
What if we get stuck?
COPP: point out this is a normal phase, otherwise people take it
personally
Big drawback of collaboration is the time for meetings!!
COPP will call each LOP member separately to discuss concerns
as input for design (bilateral contacts)
FC1:
Wants to go far in collaboration; develop foster care
Conditions: agreements, clear framework, guarantees, fair
distribution code
Core of resistance is competition for placements
Employees’ concerns are secondary now
Condition: everybody should put agenda on the table
Concerned about using foster care to disseminate liberal values
and power
Wants to change dependency relationship with relegating parties
and subsidizing parties
FC2:
Made effort to find support in own organization
Believes in specialization, but afraid it is a unilateral effort that
might lead to loss
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
Participants Content Issues
Work with differences in speed
Long term benefit should be gaining time
Prefer to optimize existing collaboration, than to loose it all
As concrete as possible
Go back to input external stakeholders
Hope my employees will come
FC3:
Wants all 5 to commit equally to project
Openness is difficult
New director FC5 has cleaning work in own organization
Surprised that resistance is located in 1 service; evenly divided
would have been easier
If resistance leads to blocking, I have a problem with it; don’t
want them to set the pace
Feels judgment and no openness in way FC5 talks; liberal values
play a role
We need clear framework
Needs to be clarified on management level first
FC4:
Want same investment and same objective for all
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
2004-06-16 Internal
meeting
COPP 11
Participants Content Issues
CO4, CO3,
CO5
Aim: preparation second
stakeholder conference
We want to go a step further
Condition: say what we think, open process
Collaboration means loosing at first; you don’t know what you
will eventually gain
Importance of internal support (board)
Transcend ideological differences
Have space for open discussion
Concrete!
FC5:
Too much focus on final objective (one reception function)
This is solution for part of external stakeholders, not for all;
seems more based on our perceptions than their input
Explore resistance and obstacles; e.g. organizational structure
that can be an obstacle to collaboration
Disappointment that after one day you start lobbying over the
phone: put it on the table and talk about it
Obstacle: having to clean up own organization first before being
able to collaborate (FC5)
Convener: expects COPP to set the direction more than we have
so far (content steering): role clarification at start of 2nd
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
2004-06-17 Second
stakeholder
conference
Participants Content Issues
Approx. 5
representativ
es of each
service (only
internal
stakeholders
)
+ CO2, CO3,
CO4, CO5
Aim: discuss items from
brainstorm of the first
day and make it more
concrete brainstorm
stakeholder conference
Antecedent: FC5 has once been excluded from the regional
consultation platform, because they did not follow the
agreements (under previous director)
Surprise that there is resistance with FC5 and Director of FC2
COPP: do we have to make sure things come ‘on the table’ and
are we supposed to motivate them?!
COPP: regret that we gave in to letting the external stakeholders
leave so early vs. they have an internal problem
The board of FC5 is blocking
See attachment 3
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
2004-07-01 Mail Director FC5
to CO4
2004-07-02 Meeting
project
group 9
Participants Content Issues
FC 1-5, head
Federation,
CO3, CO4,
CO2, CO5
Announcement that
board has agreed to
engage in the next step in
the project
Reflecting back on
stakeholder conference 2
Agreements on next steps
Formal commitment to continue of all 5 services
Reflections around stakeholder conference 2
Need to check action plans with external stakeholders
People speak in terms of ‘their’ service (strong ownership)
Output was not in line with project objectives
Ambiguity about objectives and approach
Contrast between far reaching forms of collaboration vs. step 1
‘getting to know one another’!
Ambivalence: move forward vs. feeling uncertainties
Workgroups: ready to go for it vs. reluctance because of unclear
mandate
Employee: we want to invest but we also want results
Focus on the process vs. there must be a clear objective
Not all services have same ideas in mind
Wish to include all parties, to do an effort to bridge the gap, to be
patient vs. need to move on
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
Participants Content Issues
Need to do internal work vs. producing results
Tension between top-down decisions and strong ownership of
employees
Group seems to question the objective each time
Differences in speed vs. differences in direction
Need for a period to get to know each other vs. we must have
concrete results for sponsor
Speed of some as obstacle for collaboration
Difference between the decision to start a project and the way
this decision was taken at the start
Question is not if we do it, but how?
What are ‘results’?
Getting to know one another is also a result
Present what we have done as a ‘result’ of project
Need to go back to project proposal: reception FUNCTION
When things become concrete, some parties may step out
Develop a critical mass; not everybody has to be convinced
Position FC5
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
Participants Content Issues
Agree on objective of collaboration around inflow
Will be different when it becomes concrete
Do not share history of 10 years in regional consultation platform
(kicked out once)
FC5 was contacted after the decision was taken; only 2/3 days to
decide (involved later, not intentional)
FC5 could not disagree with proposal, very sensible
Other services were already further in the process than FC5
Concerns
Not reach objectives as they were formulated
Seize opportunity given by policy makers vs. not go too fast
Fear to loose face as an organization (convener) if failure
Policy
There is interest and willingness
New funding depends on color of new Minister
Need something concrete in order to obtain new funding
Pressure to come with concrete results
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
2004-07/08 Summer:
Participants Content Issues
Letter to invite members
of work groups (CO4)
Mail (FC1) to external
stakeholders who were
present at first
stakeholder conference to
inform them of current
state of project
No meetings
Next steps
Share vision texts
COPP makes summary of visions
Develop different scenarios for collaboration
Operationalize
Workgroups give feedback
Management decides
Meeting with management + boards
Process facilitation required
How to keep external stakeholders informed: ??
Inertia: part of culture?
Frustration with CO4: feeling he has to pull; as if it is not ‘their’
project (ownership)
Sense of urgency???
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
2004-09-14 Meeting
work group
‘inflow
foster
children’
2004-09-24 Internal
meeting
COPP 12
Participants Content Issues
CO4 + 4
employees
representing
FC 1-4
(FC5 absent)
CO2, CO4,
CO5
Work group CO3
postponed to October
First meeting:
Getting acquainted
Clarify objectives
Aim:
Preparation meeting of
project group with board
members (work group
‘management’)
Preparatory document:
matrix with differences
and similarities among
the services, based on
their mission statements
(by CO4)
Discuss: what after the
project? Alternative ways
Convener is ambiguous position:
She is our employer
She is afraid to loose face with policy makers
Frustration in COPP over summer period:
I do not want to push the car while they are pulling!! (CO2)
What is the most appropriate channel to express frustrations?
(CO4)
Work groups inflow: one member not present (FC5) and some
completely new representatives
Work group ‘management’ on 28 September:
Objective: compare visions (= intentions) and decide if
operational collaboration is possible
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
2004-09-28 Meeting
project
group with
board
members 10
Participants Content Issues
Managers
and board
members of
FC 1-5, CO2,
CO4, CO5
to support this process?
President of board of FC4
is not present, because
the meeting was not
organized in the region
of the project (matter of
principle)
Central theme: are the visions really so different that
collaboration is not possible, or do other –unspoken- things get
in the way?
Concern: what if a service discovers they are not so unique
(identity)? Why would you then not collaborate?? What to do
when your carefully constructed identity falls apart?
Head of board of FC2 is not coming to meeting of work group
‘management’ because it is organized in Leuven and not in the
region of the project (matter of principle)
What are potential scenario’s for collaboration?
What results do we deliver on 30 November? What if results are
poor and if we don’t meet the stated objectives?
How to continue this process if there is no funding for a new
project?
Ambiguity around differences and similarities:
Explicit promotion of ideology vs. implicit use, not mentioning,
not important in practice of ideological inspiration
Organizational functioning: hierarchical vs. consultation of
employees
Position of the board and way they work
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
Participants Content Issues
Big organization: more structured
Differences in organizational culture; as part of the richness of
the Flemish landscape
Differences between services bigger than differences between
people
Distrust vs. not being able to empathize with another vision
Striking resemblances between services; a lot in common
FC5 being ‘different’: hard to understand what it means for
foster care; not concrete
Differences in expertise or domain of intervention (e.g. child
diagnosis)
Clear differences makes it easier to collaborate; work in
complementary way
It is similar on paper but the stories around it differ
Conditions:
There must be a red thread for the important things
Being able to imagine the consequences of being different
Think from perspective of foster parents and what they expect
from us
If process is well facilitated we are in
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
Participants Content Issues
Rising tension:
Irritation:
FC5: it’s a slow and careful process
Others: impression that FC5 is slowing down process; ‘yes, but’
Difference between intensive collaboration and progressing
towards reception function
Fear that concrete joint action will lead to conflict and that it will
blow up existing collaboration (FC5)
Tension:
FC5: joint positioning towards juvenile court ok; joint activities to
make foster care known ok; risky & too early to go further
FC1/FC4: reception function; move beyond the ‘safe’ domains
What is domain of Federation (e.g. develop vision?) and what of
project (e.g. clarity around time frame and procedure)?
Different interpretations of ‘pool’, output of project, ‘reception
function’, ‘joint system to keep track of families’
Turning point:
Time to take a decision; pressure two board members
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
2004-10-08 Meeting
project
group 11
Participants Content Issues
FC 1-4, head
Federation,
CO4, CO2,
CO5
New composition of
project group: FC5 no
longer member
Membership of regional
consultation remains the
same (representatives of
FC 1-5)
Clear commitment of one service (FC2)
Tension: remain with 5 and 1 hesitant partner vs constructive
collaboration with only 4
Take decision tonight; we have waited long enough; should have
been clear before the start
Relief when decision is taken
Conditions for stepping out
Structure of regional consultation platform is not same as project
FC5 can step back in at later date
They will be kept informed of project; are now external
stakeholder
Respect for their choice
Reflections about last meeting:
Perceived reasons for stepping out:
FC5 has different structure
Project came too soon
Director FC5 has to clean up own organization first
Director FC5 has to win his position
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
Participants Content Issues
Strategic: they want to grow
Go own way as liberals
No trust
FC5 feels like a stranger in regional consultation platform
There is a difference between head of board and director of FC5
Hard to collaborate if you cannot empathize with the values of
others
President of board FC5 could not make difference between
merger and ‘reception function’
They do not want to collaborate
They are stuck in their own specificity
President of board FC5 is the problem; it will change once he has
left
Benefit of long process: our organization (FC2) now also full
heartedly says ‘yes’
Consequences:
two contact points in the region
lost one form of assistance (Child & Family)
Now convener has sufficient trust to send all documents around
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
Participants Content Issues
vision!
Confidentiality of documents that have been exchanged
Lack of clarity in representation of FC5; different structure
Voluntary collaboration based on trust vs. forced based on
distrust and conflict
Next steps: scenarios
Role of workgroups: concrete elaboration
Role of management: draw framework, make sure the work
groups are committed
Scenario FC2/FC3 as model: relational organizing based on good
will, trust, openness, fair distribution
Requires lot of communication; alignment; clarify what must be
common and what can be different
Resistance employees: concerns about quality of work; they all
think they are more competent; proud of their work; motivation
Differences between services in terms of organizational
development: big with tradition vs. young and employees have
developed own way of working
Meaning of ‘pool’: one number; one team of intakers; service
only engages in coaching; distribution code
Worries of the managers themselves? Started talking about it and
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
2004-10-11 Meeting
work group
‘inflow
foster
children’
2004-10-11 Meeting
work group
‘inflow
foster
Participants Content Issues
CO4 + 4
employees of
FC 1-4
CO3 + 6
employees of
FC 1-4
Second meeting:
objectives
Assessment of
differences and
similarities
Learn from each other’s
know how
consistent with policy
and projects in the
environment
check feasibility of
potential scenarios for
collaboration proposed
by management
First meeting: objectives
(similar to other work
group)
then meeting was over (did not explicitly come back to it in later
meetings)
Procedures similar, the concrete approach is different,
differences are nuances
Curiosity about how the approach of FC5 is similar/different
Appreciate each other’s commitment to do this on a voluntary
basis
Added value of the services is in the coaching of families
Some ideas for future collaboration (e.g. shared list of criteria to
exclude candidate foster parents)
Some fields that require further attention and discussion
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
parents’
2004-10-14 Meeting
work group
‘inflow
foster
children’
2004-10-22 Meeting
work group
‘inflow
foster
parents’
Participants Content Issues
CO4 + 6
employees of
FC 1-4
CO3 + 7
employees of
FC 1-4
Second meeting:
Further discussion of
question: what services
do we offer and what are
our strengths?
Discussion of continuum
forms of foster care (per
service)
What does this mean for
collaboration?
Second meeting:
Discussion and
evaluation of scenario
proposed by managers
Focus on similarities gives energy
Interest to learn from each other (idea: establish peer group)
Assumption of equality: intention is not to arrive at one method
The more you do, the more subsidies you seem to get; everybody
does everything Loose discussion of potential ways of
collaborating: share information, work in complementary way,
joint folder, internal search instead of letting relegating
consultants do it, create independent matching team,
Obstacles: time and energy; big team is more distant and you
loose a lot
Benefits: if you bring everything together more chances of
finding a good solution;
Next steps: getting to know one another better; work on the
perception of foster care (relegating parties)
Feeling that management wants to go very far in collaboration
(e.g. FC1 postpones the move to new building because things
might change in the near future)
Reactions to scenario: fear for merger, loss of job and colleagues;
imposed merger is easier but also interesting to contribute and
design; developing a shared vision is essential; you cannot
Attachments

Date Event/
Final phase
interaction
2004-11-05 Internal
meeting
COPP 13
Participants Content Issues
CO2, CO3,
CO4, CO5
Aim:
Current state of work
groups: reporting
Program stakeholder
conference
copy/paste
Next steps: peer group; work in small steps because scenario is
too overwhelming
Work out concrete list of criteria for exclusion of candidate foster
parents
Output project: development of scenario or concept for
collaboration with conditions and processes
Work groups:
CO3: discussed small aspects; small successes; question for
management: what is our mandate?
CO4: intensive interaction; need decisions from management; in
favor of joint intake team
They go for it! Difference with energy level in management
There are big differences in ‘speed’ between services
Make sure there is continuity in the project:
Go back to list of brainstorm stakeholder conference 1
Respond to concerns expressed in the interviews
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
2004-11-09 Meeting
project
group 12
Participants Content Issues
FC1, FC3,
FC4, head
Federation,
CO4, CO3,
CO5 (FC2
Preparation stakeholder
conference 3
Concerns of management: what about those?
Idea that it is a 5 year plan is comforting
Importance of setting intermediate goals
Discuss the hot issues (e.g. job loss, distribution code,
specialization)
So far a relational way of organizing/collaborating (FC2/FC3):
what if someone from management leaves? Vulnerable way of
organizing
Resistance by FC5:
This gave the managers time to take a closer internal look at
support for the project
FC3 frustrated
FC2 positive: it gave her board time to fully approve the project
Concern: big difference between expectations of external
stakeholders and the results of the project; frame and explain it
Reflections on work groups:
Where do we want to go and where can they go?
No big differences, only nuances
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
Participants Content Issues
could not be
there)
Not clear where they are heading
Results: interesting topics to work on, result oriented; no clarity
on time they can spend on it; prefer to work on one topic that is
not too big; ideas for peer groups
Process: interested, curious, but also scared (job loss); need to
develop safety and to grow towards each other; no clear
mandate; not of laughing
Issues of working conditions come up (‘union issues’)
Image of flirting vs. big love
Parallel processes in two workgroups and management group
and in future with the group of coaches (broadening
participation)
Preparation stakeholder conference 3:
Strategic choice of participants stakeholder conference;
possibilities for funding (loose ideas)
Invite people and give them flavor of what is happening
Listen to concerns of work groups
Justify why the objectives were not met: is role COPP; managers
feel they cannot judge whether process was good or bad
Not give FC5 too much time & space during the meeting
Take sensitivities into account; hostess is catholic politician
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
Participants Content Issues
(Province)
Align with expectations of external stakeholders
Stress the process oriented approach, dynamic vs. administrative
approach
What after project?
Project stops but process continues
You need something concrete to obtain funding
Process facilitation is must, especially for management because
they take decisions and have to handle frictions
Be more selective in what ‘process facilitation’ means
Map out things but also start moving things; objectives and time
frame; flexibility
Observations:
No discussion about how the managers experience the process,
their resistance
Chaotic meeting; need for clear agenda
Frustration of facilitators (CO3 & CO4): they feel they work
harder for the project than the managers
Issues related to first phases of group development: who are the
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
2004-11-19 Meeting
project
group 13
Participants Content Issues
FC 1-4, head
Federation,
CO2, CO3,
CO4, CO5
Aim: preparation
stakeholder conference 3
(Name of the group is
now ‘steering group’.
The group was also
called ‘work group
management’ and
‘project group’)
other members? Am I accepted in the group? Are there
differences? How big can they be? Can there be differences?
How do we deal with differences?
Preparation of stakeholder conference 3:
Some important stakeholders ‘forgotten’ to invite: how to
respond to that?
Role of managers in project group:
present framework and time frame
give clear mandate: domain, time, authority
talk about their individual and shared ‘dream’
their reflections on withdrawal of FC5
clarify double role: promote project & go through process
themselves
talk about their worries, anxieties, questions to demonstrate it is
not a self evident process
why is this project important for the region?
bring the hidden topics on table (e.g. job loss)
clarify positions of boards
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
Participants Content Issues
clarify objective of project (concept)
talk about broadening of project (coaches)
option for process approach: what does this mean?
now: no merger, no job loss
process will clarify what will happen; no 100% guarantees
importance of open communication // foster care
employees need to know when they have done good job: need
for criteria for success
important to create common vision
issue: who takes the decisions?
managers and employees bring story: ownership (no central role
for consultants)
Communicate enthusiasm of project members
Should be interactive meeting
Talk about expectations and role of external stakeholders
Fear that FC5 will take up time & space; COPP will block off
Some loose thoughts about funding of next project:
Ask for how much?
Who makes proposal?
What is meaning of process facilitation for LOP?
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
2004-11-22 Third
stakeholder
conference
Participants Content Issues
Internal
stakeholders
from 4
services,
including
representativ
es of work
groups
External
stakeholders:
FC5, some
additional
foster
parents,
representativ
Morning: internal
stakeholders
Feedback of 3 work
groups
Preparation of
presentation for the
afternoon
Afternoon:
Feedback and current
state of project to external
stakeholders
Presentations by COPP:
What are chances of funding?
Important to be able to guarantee employees a continuation of
process
Other sources of funding (e.g. budget ‘training’)
Confusion about name of project: ‘project regional consultation
platform-COPP’; project ‘reception function’; ‘project COPP’;
project ‘foster care’
See attachment 3
Attachments

Date Event/
interaction
Participants Content Issues
es invited at
first
conference
CO2, CO3,
CO4, CO5
(1) looking back at issues
from stakeholder
interviews and what
happened with the
issues; (2) the experiences
in this project linked to
the model of multiparty
collaboration
Questions and discussion
Attachments

ATTACHMENT 8: ISSUES THAT EMERGED DURING THE STAKEHOLDER
CONFERENCES
First stakeholder conference (28 May 2004)
Perception of foster care and its position in the system
– Perceived as speaking up for foster parents, where the relegating parties speak up
for the parents
– An ‘unclear mess’ as a profile is daunting
– Perceived as doing only long term placements; network placements not widely
known
– Foster care as a three-unit: child, parents and foster parents
– Threatening for certain groups (e.g. teenage mothers: fear that child will be taken
away)
– What to do about profiling?
o Better profiling is necessary, both internal and external
o Communicate clear profiles for the services
o Communicate which assistance is available
o Clearly communicate what foster care is
o Present ourselves as experts: think and collaborate with others
– Profiling can lead to competition and a smaller ‘back pack’
Differences and diversity
– High degree of variety, within and outside the services
– Big diversity, but it is not known
– Diversity in forms of foster care, target groups, vision on coaching, methods
– Is difference as force or a weakness?
– It is mainly about differences between people!
– Diversity is not consciously organized; it has just emerged
Attachments

– Foster parents perceive the differences
– Differences are less visible from the inside than from the outside
– There is not yet a shared identity
– What to do with the differences?
o Maintain differences between services
o Important issue is clarity about differences
o Each service should hold onto identity
o Better management of diversity is needed
– In brainstorm: no suggestion (action step) to clarify the differences between
services
Provided services & assistance
– Very individual form of assistance
– We want to do everything and answer each call for assistance
– Expectation: develop forms of foster care that are directly and indirectly
accessible
– Desired services and assistance in the future:
o Provide continuity in assistance for the child
o Support the natural environment (parents and foster parents) because it
is a painful moment
o Not all or nothing in terms of foster care: Combination of assistance
should be possible (e.g. BJB & assistance at home)
o Develop shared criteria for foster parents
o Specialize
o Offer ‘intake’ as a module
o Be specialists in recruitment and selection
o Develop screening and investigation for family and network
placements
Present way of organizing (procedure)
– Depends highly on persons
Attachments

– Vulnerable when person leaves
Foster parents
– No ‘superfamilies’ required
– Are important party; listen to them
– What is their status and what are their rights and duties?
– Recognize their expertise
Natural parents
– Not underestimate the pressure of parents against foster care as a solution
– Condition: take care of foster parents because they are the potential
Relegating parties
– In case of short term solution it is necessary to ask several services for help
(juvenile court)
– Important to consult the advisers (social service) in the preparation
– Pool of parents would give relegating parties a view on the available candidate
foster parents
Other institutions and services
– Do not have clear vision on how services work and cannot inform parents; wrong
expectations?
– Wish: institutions not only refer to residential assistance but also automatically
consider foster care
The context
– Align with developments in IJH and BJB
– Trend personal budgets will profoundly change the dynamics in the field (sector
handicapped)
Attachments

Perceptions of collaboration
Aim of collaboration
– Aim: relegating parties and foster parents experience as little hinder as possible
from the way foster care is organized
– Do we want to attune our practices with each other or in parallel?
Benefits of collaboration
– Better matching
– Increase our expertise
– Higher efficiency and better use of resources, e.g. central selection
– One pool benefits the child
Enabling conditions
– Agreements regional consultation platform
– Experience with collaboration, e.g. jointly invest money in activities or actions
– There are a lot of similarities already, lots of goodwill; good chances for success
Conditions for collaboration
– Recognition of quality orientation of each other
– Services give clear mandates to those participating
– Open discussion, e.g. about organizational interests
– Readiness to learn from each other
– Moments of consultation and interaction are important but they have to lead to a
focus on specific domains/issues and to results
– Clarify aim, forms, conditions and time frame
– Collaboration should transcend the services: also with residential institutions,
regulation, mentality
‘Reservations’ and questions
– There are safe and unsafe domains of collaboration; selection of candidate parents
easier than children
Attachments

– Will one selection team lead to a loss of jobs or loss of tasks?
– Decide after step 1 if we are ready for step 2
– Pool is not interesting; will not lead to more potential parents than now
– How are differences in values expressed in daily practice? Are there really
differences?
– No paper or bureaucratic procedure, that takes the spirit out of it
– Collaboration giving up one’s identity vs. holding on to identities and differences;
is the aim to achieve uniformity?
– Little time for consultations and meetings
How to organize or approach the collaborative effort? Concrete steps:
– Getting to know each other
– Discover what we have in common
– Compare practices and concrete problems in services
– Clarify differences in criteria, jargon, procedures, effects of differences in ideology
– Observe each other’s practices
– Find out what we can do together and we want to do separately
– Start up a reflection process around optimizing the procedures
Emergent dynamics:
– Presence of external stakeholders generated a drive; experienced as healthy;
clarifies why we do this work
– Presence of external stakeholders experienced as a recognition for foster care:
they feel we are important
– After external stakeholders left the controversies re-emerge: being different or
thinking you are different
– FC5 emerges as service with most resistance and questions
– Need to trust the coaches of other services after the process of selection by a cross-
organizational team
– Talk about ‘open communication’ but hardly doing it
– The discussions in the subgroups in the afternoon are very carefully
Attachments

– No agreement in subgroup (afternoon) experienced as resistance
– 3 hierarchical groups present in one room experienced as inhibiting
– Different origins for resistance in the 3 hierarchical groups (employees,
management, boards)
– Risk that middle group (managers) are squeezed between the other two groups
– Facilitators opted for maximum diversity: 3 hierarchical groups together to avoid
a superficial agreement
– Convener: impatience
– The foster children and parents are missing in the stakeholder group
– Little sense of urgency
– Some feel resistance and are disappointed about the day
Attachments

Second stakeholder conference (17 June 2004)
Reflections on stakeholder conference 1
– Input of external stakeholders clearly indicated the need for collaboration
– After external stakeholders left, no further processing of what they said in the
morning
– We stick together when the outside world is present, but we are separate when
we are among ourselves
– Disillusion: what happened there should have happened before the project
started
– Resistance with FC5 and the director of FC2; that is ok and is part of processes
(protection); FC5 perceived as obstacle
– Collaboration around selection of child seems harder than selection of parents
(see: stakeholder conference 1)
– These processes take time: getting to know each other, talking, expressing
differences and similarities, agreeing on the desired form of collaboration
– We went too fast: go back and clarify the objectives
– Lack of sense of urgency: we must do something!
– It was hard to translate reservations into conditions for collaboration
– Afternoon focus on solutions, no attention for differences, resistance, obstacles, as
if they could not be there
Starting conditions of the project
– Uncertainty if all parties subscribe objectives; ranges from commitment to
develop a reception function (change legal structure of the organizations) to the
readiness to research and assess the possibility of a reception function
– Services have had different internal discussion about the project
– SH day 1 started from the assumption that the project was supported in the same
way by all
Attachments

Existing facilitating conditions and events
– Enabling conditions: domains on which we already collaborate
– Being able to sit around a table and talk; there is space to communicate directly
– There is readiness and curiosity to collaborate
Necessary conditions
– Support of initiative by whole organization
– Talk about the differences
– Clarity around resistances, tensions
– Turn reservations and questions into ‘conditions’
– Distribution code
– Clear objective and a long perspective
– Clear time frame, but also flexible
– Process facilitation, neutral
– Share work load
– Transcend our own interests
– See our own blindness
– Learn from each other
– Clear mandate for work groups
– Clarify meaning of ‘pool’ in relation to the issue of diversity
– Condition: letting go of a part of your identity in order to arrive at something new
that is now still unclear
– No job losses
(Potential) obstacles and challenges to collaboration
– Questions around the need and motivation for this project
– Uncertainty about having or not having the mandate to make decisions here
today
– Organizational structure of the services
– High work load; presence in different consultation structures and projects
Attachments

– Bad experiences with collaboration, scepsis, resistance vs. loyalty to services in
the project (FC5)
– Different perception of notion ‘reception function’: diplomatic (funding),
structural, ‘function’
– Differences in ambition in the objectives of project
– Differences in terms of when the organization was involved and how the project
entered the organization
– Lack of trust (FC5) that employees who do not share humanist values will
understand what the consequences for foster care really are (sensitivity to the
values)
– Challenge: make the theoretical concept of ‘reception function’ concrete
– Risk: because there are less families, the criteria for foster families are lowered
– Dilemma of representative: speak in terms of foster care in general or speak for
your own organization (survival)
Perceived benefits of collaboration
– Less work (long term…)
– Training for employees
Role of COPP
– Expected role (firm steering, set direction also on content of collaboration towards
the objectives) and negotiated role (process facilitation) of the external consultants
– Doing ‘research’ (scientists) vs facilitation (consultants)
– Provide neutral and objective summary of the visions and missions: facilitate
difficult discussion about differences and similarities (values, identity)
Emergent differences in commitment and interpretation of the objectives
– Question: should it be possible to participate only in different aspects or
participate with different levels of commitment?
– What to do if not all services commit to the goals of the project?
Attachments

– Differences in commitment and ‘speed’ between different layers of the
organizations: managers have been involved in this much longer than the board
members and the employees
– Differences in the way the starting point of this project is perceived
– Differences in the way the ‘reception function’ is seen as a certain outcome
– Four services committed, while one still hesitates; too early to fully commit to
project
Tension around differences and diversity
– Differences in pedagogical project must remain, in order to offer a choice to the
relegating parties
– Tension around domains where we have little experience of collaboration, e.g.
selection of children
– Exploration of what the ‘difference in pedagogical project’, claimed by FC5, really
means in practice: it remains unclear and ambiguous
Outcome: critical next steps and commitments
– Work group ‘management’ convinces FC5 to engage in step 1 before deciding on
further participation
– Agreement that stepping out will mean that membership of other groups remains
unchanged and that there are agreements in other domains
– Commitment to ask for a mandate in the home organization (FC5); no
commitment possible here and now
– Exchange texts on vision and mission; COPP makes summary; meeting with
managers and board members
– Make sure members of boards get to know one another before they are
confronted with difficult decision
Attachments

Final stakeholder conference (22 November 2004)
Reflection on the project
How and why project started:
– Dream: start from what unites us instead of what divides us in the interest of the
child.
– Project was unexpectedly approved: start was rushed
Aims:
– Discover from each other what we each do in practice and what our qualities are
– Positive image in the outside world, recognition by residential services
– Raise quality of foster care
– Better positioning of foster care
– Reach more children
– Collaboration of system around the child: improve efficiency
– Try to do things together within the boundaries of the existing regulations
– Aim of policy (cut back) is not our aim
– Very ambitious project
Fears and concerns:
– Paper reorganization; keep it alive; commitment with head and heart
– Not being able to sell the project to constituency
– One, impersonal, big organization; no interest as an individual employee
– Maintain specialization and identity of services
– Consequences (job loss, tradition of consultation in the services)
– Condition: fair distribution code
– More time consuming: more consultation required
Attachments

Approach to the project:
– Anticipate what policy makers find important
– It is an evolution, not a revolution
– Collaboration is about holding onto autonomy and putting different ‘functions’
together
– Tension: give impression on paper there are results vs. option here to grow in an
organic way and to nurture the developmental process
– Stress on emergent nature of the process (‘process approach’)
– Boundary of task: matching is included in project, but not placement of child
Results of the project:
– Euphoric feeling in workgroup: we deal with same things and think the same
– Work groups made good start: open communication, trust, lot of ideas, some
concrete results, plans for future meetings
– Ability to take colourful decisions and not end up with colourless compromises
(work groups)
– Hard to communicate energy and enthusiasm to external stakeholders
– The steps we have taken seem small from the outside (convener)
– Joint decision that FC5 would not continue
– Formal end of project is not the end
Long term expected benefits of and hopes for the project:
– Uniform output but internal diversity as added value
– Everybody can pursue his ambitions
– Time to read, study
– Employees enjoy their work and stay in foster care
– More effective, although need for more consultation and meetings
– Well being of child at centre
– Intake team more chances for good matching
– Avoid shopping behavior of consultants (only choice between FC or the reception
function)
Attachments

The future process: what after the project?
Fears and concerns:
– What if no more funding to continue?
– Conflicts, splits, or ending in inertia
– ‘Shopping’ will still be possible
– Will we manage to align everything?
– Fear for grey compromises vs. looking for the best solution
– Danger of work groups: endless discussions and talking
– Concern: effect of this project for those organizations who are also present in
other provinces; keep communication open and situate in larger context; takes
more time and resources to align and communicate
What gives them hope:
– FC5 very cooperative in regional consultation platform
– Relationship with FC5 is still good
– Differences are usually not so big in practice
Conditions for success:
– Time investment is minimal condition but hard to organize
– Get back to stakeholders to consult them
– Need for minimal process facilitation; otherwise find other ways of funding
– Include the coaches in this process too
– Keep communication with FC5 open, because they were not sure they made right
decision
– Need for criteria to evaluate and regular follow-up (operationalization)
– Sometimes you have to let go of what you thought you were good at
– Clarify mandate of work groups
– Work with representatives (transfer) of both teams to win time
Attachments

– Need for optimal heterogeneity in terms of history, structure, values: reason why
it did not work out with FC5 (differences too big, collaboration not possible)
Feedback of and relationship with external stakeholders:
– Align themes of Integrated Youth Assistance and project
– Timing and result orientation do not have to contradict with the process approach
– In each phase ask the question: who can we involve now in a meaningful way?
– Clarity around timing: when which results?
– Clarity around one service or autonomy of services?
– Announce they will come back for funding of follow-up project
– External stakeholders:
o inform them of new decisions/procedure/etc
o so far some have been kept out of discussions
o also ask what their expectations are
o involve in work groups?
o more than only the relegating parties
o foster parents not sufficiently included so far (work groups?)
Expected consequences:
– Consequences on labor conditions
– Consequences for the coaches of services
Emergent dynamics
– Claim on facilitators to stress the need for process facilitation when policy makers
are present
– Enthusiasm and energy of work groups (morning)
– The external stakeholders are informed via slides of the progress; the energy of
the morning fades away
Attachments

– FC5 seems to look for rapprochement: state they agree with the
principles/domains of collaboration as presented; are still ready to collaborate in
certain domains; only condition is clarity (‘reception function’)
Attachments

ATTACHMENT 9: OVERVIEW OF ‘CRITICAL INCIDENTS’
The following overview is a summary of the reported critical incidents based on the
critical incident interviews. These interviews were conducted after the project with
the members of the project group in order to assess retrospective sense making of the
process by the key actors. The detailed analysis of the nine interviews was 27,5 pages
long. The analysis was structured as follows: what happened? What sense did the
interviewee make of the incident? Effects and consequences for the direction of the
process? In the summary I only mention the headings of the issues. For reasons of
confidentiality I have simply numbered the interviewees without making a
distinction between managers or consultants.
Inter-
viewee
Reported critical incidents
1 – Unprepared start of the project
– Differences between the services
– Role and interventions of the consultants did not meet expectations
– Difficult process of trying to continue with 5 services
– The objective was not clear and not central
– Tension interests organizations – interests child
2
3
– FC5 leaves the project but are still member of the regional
consultation platform
– ‘Pillarization’ in the sector of foster care hinders collaboration
– Two fundamentally different visions among the services: strategic,
large scale structural collaboration also outside foster care, vs.
gradual, process oriented evolution towards collaboration within
foster care
– Consultants focus too much on similarities and consensus; no room
for disagreement and doubts
– Large influence of convening organization and convener
– The regional scope of the project
– Added value of process facilitation offered in the project
– FC5 stepping out
– Late emergence of the differences because boards were involved in a
late phase
– The difficulty of our internal process within the organization
Attachments

4 – The differences in vision with the liberal service
– Developing the objectives among the four services
– Low involvement of external stakeholders
– Differences in commitment of services to the process
– Tension between managers and boards
– Emergent nature of the process
5 – Internal situation of the liberal organization
– Attitude of the organization towards the project
– Ambivalence around collaboration
– Strategic concerns in relation to policy makers
– Lack of information in the discussions
– The liberal organization steps out
6
– Failure to involve FC5
– Late involvement of the boards
– Ongoing competitive relationships due to funding system
– Coordination not sufficiently intensive
– Low involvement of stakeholders
– The concrete added value of collaboration was not specified
– Lack of capacity for strategic thinking
– Project not build on concrete facts and figures
7 – Decision of liberal service to step out
– Stakeholders conference with external parties
– Concrete work and small steps of work groups
– Asymmetries in organizational structures of participating foster care
services
– Lack of time
– Tension between interests organizations – interests child
8 – Change of logic from stakeholder approach to internal focus and
classic OD approach
– The shift from five to four organizations
9 – The participating foster care services have different expectations
– Intervention: stakeholder interviews by consultants
– First stakeholder conference: difference between discussions with and
without the external stakeholders
– Liberal organization steps out
– Dependency on the external consultants
– Role of coordinator as driving force of project
Attachments

– Influence from workgroups on project group
– Paradox between strong personalities of managers and weak in
confrontation with external parties
– Influence of head of the Federation
– Little time investment in project
– Poor involvement of foster parents, children and parents
– Not fulfilling the requirements of the contract
– Little to transfer to the next coordinator
Attachments

ATTACHMENT 10: OUTPUT OF THE RESEARCH
Output of the literature study (part 1)
The literature review resulted in a proposal for my Ph.D. committee, which I
defended on 15 October 2002:
Prins, S. (2002). Distributed leadership in Inter-organizational Collaboration: a Systems
Psychodynamics Perspective. Unpublished Ph.D. proposal, Faculty of Psychology,
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, September.
I contributed to some theoretical publications on collaborative work:
Prins, S., T. Taillieu & R. Bouwen (2004). Gedistribueerd proces leiderschap in
multipartij samenwerking. In Varwijk, W.G.J.M. & van Zijl, R.M.H.J. (Eds.) Strategie
moet je samen doen. Visies op strategisch management uit theorie en praktijk. Liber
Amicorum Professor dr. Michel A.E. Vandenput. Ubbergen: Tandem Felix Uitgevers,
pp. 71-87
Craps, M., Van Rossen, E., Prins, S., Taillieu, T., Bouwen, R. & Dewulf, A. (2005).
Relational Practices to make Social Learning happen: A Case Study in Water and
Nature Management. In: Wildemeersch, D., Stroobants, V. & Bron, M. (Eds.) Active
Citizenship and Multiple Identities. A Learning Outlook. Frankfurt am Main: Peter
Lang, pp. 227-244.
The following published and unpublished articles and papers relate to the system
psychodynamic perspective on working and organizing. Some are directly related to
my research, whereas others are of a more general nature. In the first phase of my
research I made a thorough review of the psychodynamic literature. In order to
process the amount of information I made an extensive literature overview in Dutch
(194 pages). On 6 March 2001 I presented this overview to researchers from the
faculty of Economics and the Center for Organizational and Personnel Psychology in
a literature seminar. The overview is available on the internet. I gave a presentation
based on this document to students in organizational psychology in Rotterdam:
Prins, S. (2001). Het psychodynamisch perspectief op organisaties: modetrend of zinvolle
aanvulling op het denken over organisaties? Unpublished literature review, February.
Available on: http://ppw.kuleuven.be/copp/silvia_prins.htm.
Attachments

Prins, S. (2004): Het psychodynamisch perspectief op organiseren en adviseren: de
nieuwste ‘hype’ in het managementlandschap? Guest lecture, 2 March, Rotterdam
University.
I presented my theoretical insights in several presentations at conferences and
seminars:
Prins, S. (2001). Emerging coordination processes in multiparty collaboration: a
psychodynamic perspective. Paper presented at the EIASM seminar, May, Brussels.
Prins, S. (2001). Relationele processen in multiparty samenwerking: een
psychodynamisch perspectief. Een onderzoek naar leiderschapsprocessen in een
complexe organisatiecontext. Paper presented at a colloquium organized by the
Center for Organizational and Personnel Psychology (K.U. Leuven), 'Relational
organizing: the process that works, October, Haasrode.
Prins, S. (2002). Researching with Curiosity: the Interpretive Stance in Psychodynamic
Research. Presentation at the OPUS conference 'Organizational and Social
Dynamics: International Perspectives from Group Relations, Psychoanalysis and
Systems Theory', 22 & 23 November, London.
In addition, I gave some lectures in different settings:
Prins, S. (2002). Social Defense theory: containing anxiety in organizational life. The
perspectives of Isabel Menzies and Chris Argyris. Paper presented at the International
Professional Development Programme: Leading Meaningful Change, February,
Bévercé.
Prins, S. (2002). Leiderschap in woelige tijden: welke inzichten kan de psychodynamica
ons bijbrengen? Unpublished lecture, VOCAP, 30 April.
To conclude, I also wrote a number of book reviews, a conference report and a book
chapter in the domain of system psychodynamics:
Prins, S. (2003). Book Review: R.D. Hinshelwood & Marco Chiesa (Eds.), Organisations,
Anxieties & Defences. Towards a Psychoanalytic Social Psychology. (2002),
London: Whurr Publishers, 2002, Human Relations, vol.56, no.3, 359-364
Prins, S. (2003). Book Review: G. Amado & A. Ambrose (Eds.) (2001) The Transitional
Approach to Change. London: Karnac, Socio-Analysis. The Journal of the Australian
Institute of Socio-Analysis.
Prins, S. (2005). Verandering en ontwikkeling: inzichten uit de ontwikkelingspsychologie van
Winnicott voor organisaties. Book review of Amado, G. & Vansina, L. (Eds.) (2005)
The transitional approach in action. London: Karnac. 285 p., Tijdschrift voor
Psychoanalyse, 4, 290-291.
Attachments

Prins, S. (2001). Een psychodynamische kijk op destructiviteit en creativiteit in
organisaties. Nieuwsbrief NVOA, nummer 4, 11-13. (report of the ISPSO conference
in Paris, June 2001)
Prins, S. (2004). Delen en helen. Verandering en ontwikkeling bij Melanie Klein. In:
Wirtz, F. & Idenburg-Van Iperen, A. (Eds.) Hestia's Haardvuur. Schiedam: Scriptum,
pp. 89-100.
Output of the erosion case (part 2)
I presented the case at two seminars in our Faculty and discussed it with fellow
researchers:
- General doctoral seminar: ‘The ‘collaboration-in-the-mind’: a psychodynamic
perspective on leadership processes in multiparty collaboration’, 14 November
2001.
- Methodological seminar: ‘Distributed leadership in trans-organizational
collaboration: a psychodynamic action research’, 5 March 2002
I discussed my findings with colleagues outside the Faculty in order to have an
external perspective (‘peer debriefing’).
- paper and poster presentation at MOPAN conference Bristol (June 2001)
- presentation and discussion of the findings with colleagues at the International
Professional Development Program, Bévercé (October 2001)
- paper and presentation at ISPSO conference Melbourne (June 2002)
- paper and presentation at Inter-logics conference Holland (May 2003)
- paper and presentation at EAWOP conference Lisbon (May 2003).
This case study resulted in several papers:
Prins, S. (2002). Helping and Hindering Dynamics in Multiparty Collaboration: Designing
Psychodynamic Action Research. In: Purdue, D. & M. Stewart (Eds.) Understanding
Collaboration. Bristol: Faculty of the Built Environment, University of the West of
England, 163-165.
Attachments

Prins, S. (2002). “Who’s in charge here?!” Leadership Dynamics in Multiparty Collaboration. Paper
presented at the Symposium of the International Society for the Psychoanalytic Study of
Organizations, June 20 – 22, Melbourne, Australia.
Prins, S. & Bouwen, R. (2003). Distributed leadership in multiparty collaboration:
opportunities and challenges for leadership in the space-in-between organizations. Paper
presented at the Inter-logics Conference, Holland, May.
Prins, S. (2003). “Who’s in charge here?!” The Erosion of Leadership Dynamics in a Multiparty
Collaboration. A Case Study. Paper presented at the 11th European Congress of Work and
Organizational Psychology: 'Identity and Diversity in Organizations: Building Bridging
in Europe', Symposium: 'Bridging Diversity through Multiparty Collaboration', Lisbon,
14-17 May.
These papers provided the basis for an article which I submitted for participation in a
‘Professional development workshop’ on writing and publishing, organized by
INSEAD and the Academy of Management (Paris, October 2004). I received thorough
feedback from a reviewer of the Academy of Management (Prof. Susan Schneider,
HEC, University of Geneva, INSEAD). I also received feedback from three
participants in the workshop. I adapted the article and sent it back to professor
Schneider for a pre-review. Finally I submitted the paper for publication to Human
Relations in May 2005. My co-authors also provided valuable feedback on the paper.
Prins, S., Taillieu, T. & Bouwen, R. "Who's in charge here?!" Emotional challenges and
emergent dynamics in interdependent work. Paper submitted to Human Relations, May
2005.
On 24 November 2005 the reviewers decided that I could submit a major revision of
the paper. Their main observations were: a lack of clarity in the methodology,
insufficient development of the theoretical part, few implications for practitioners,
and finally not enough theorizing from the empirical data. Because these aspects are
developed either in the introduction of this case, or in the rest of this book, I have not
thoroughly rewritten the article. On the basis of the feedback by the three reviewers I
did make some small adaptations to the article. I will submit a full revision of the
paper for March 2006.
Attachments

Output of the river valley case (part 2)
I presented the case study at conferences and wrote some papers and articles. For
my research I wrote two papers on boundary dynamics in the case study. I discussed
those papers at two conferences. Both papers were published. I wrote a first paper
halfway the process. I presented this paper together with a poster at the MOPAN
conference, Sub stream ‘The Knowledge Space: An Enacted Context for Knowledge-
Based Coalitions and Collisions’:
Prins, S., Craps, M. & Van Rossen, E., Managing 'psychological' boundaries in a collaborative
effort: the dynamics of inclusion and exclusion in an ‘integrated’ study of a river valley.
Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Multi-Organizational
Partnerships, Alliances and Networks, Tilburg University 23-26 June 2004.
A revision of this paper was published:
Prins, S., Craps, M. & Van Rossen, E. (2005). Managing ‘psychological’ boundaries in a
collaborative effort: the dynamics of inclusion and exclusion in an integrated study of a
river valley. In Gössling, T., Jansen, R.J.G. & Oerlemans, L.A.G. (Eds.) Coalitions and
Collisions. Nijmegen: Wolf Publishers, pp. 255-264.
I wrote a second paper after our research period in the project had ended. I presented
this paper at the EGOS 2005 colloquium:
Prins, S. & Craps, M. (2005). Unlocking boundaries between public authorities and actors in civil
society in natural resources management. Paper presented at the 21st EGOS colloquium
‘Unlocking Organizations’, Sub-theme 32: The Symbolic Construction of Organization:
Boundary Setting, Identities, and the Process of Organizing, 30 June - 2 July 2005, Berlin.
On request of the reviewer of this conference paper, I submitted a revision of the
paper for publication. It was published in the issue of January 2006:
Prins, S., Craps, M. & Taillieu, T. (2006). Boundary dynamics in natural resource
management: the ambiguity of stakeholder inclusion. Revue Gouvernance, 2 (2),
January, 2-11.
During the research I involved a thesis student. I was co-promoter of her thesis
which focused on the critical issues in the river valley case from the perspective of
Attachments

multiparty collaboration. She based her research on data which I collected
(interviews, field notes of meetings):
Deman, S. (2005). Een empirisch onderzoek naar de kritische drempelvoorwaarden van een
multipartijsamenwerking. Case: X (anonymous). Verhandeling aangeboden tot het
verkrijgen van de graad van licentiaat in de psychologie, juni, onder leiding van Taillieu,
T. & Prins, S.
The case study was embedded in the HarmoniCOP project. In that context we
published several reports and presented the case at a conference organized in the
context of the project. In a first phase of the project (work package 2) the Center for
Organizational and Personnel Psychology (COPP) produced a report where the
concept of ‘social learning’ was presented. This formed the basis for further work in
the HarmoniCOP project and provided the structure for the case analyses (work
package 5).
Craps, M. (Ed.) (2003). Social learning in river basin management. HarmoniCOP, work package
2, Reference document. K.U. Leuven, Centre for Organizational and Personnel
Psychology. Prepared under contract from the European Commission, contract No.
EVK1-CT-2002-00120, deliverable no. 3a.
Craps, M., R. Bouwen, A. Dewulf, S. Prins, T. Taillieu & E. Van Rossen (2003). Constructing
a social learning concept for river basin management. In: Mostert, E. (Ed.), Public
Participation and the European Water Framework Directive. A Framework for Analysis.
Inception report for the HarmoniCOP project, prepared under contract for the EC, pp. 16-20.
Prins, S. & Craps, M. (2004). Poster presentation at the 5 th HarmoniCOP meeting, Leuven, 28
September – 1 October.
My colleagues presented the concept of ‘social learning’ at the MOPAN conference
in June 2003 in Glasgow:
Taillieu, T., R. Bouwen, M. Craps, A. Dewulf & S. Prins (2003). Multiorganizational
collaboration in River Basin Management and the social learning concept. Presented at the 10th
International Conference on Multi-Organizational Partnerships, Alliances and Networks,
Co-creating Emergent Insight, 25-28 June 2003, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow,
Scotland.
Attachments

We discussed our findings with the actors in the river valley case in formal and
informal settings. On 15 September 2004 we organized a one-day workshop: ‘Public
participation and social learning in water management’. Organization of a workshop
was a requirement of the HarmoniCOP project (work package 5). Representatives of
the following organizations were present: department Water, department Nature, a
local authority, a non-governmental organization in the domain of environment, an
external consulting firm, and members of the Center for Organizational and
Personnel Psychology (12 participants). Eight persons could not be present. We made
a report of the workshop for the HarmoniCOP project. A Dutch translation was sent
to the participants.
Craps, M. & Prins, S. (2004). HarmoniCOP WP5 “Case Studies”, K.U.Leuven, Centre for
Organizational and Personnel Psychology, The River Valley Development Plan: Report of
the Stakeholder Workshop, September.
The workshop helped us to validate our findings and to finalize the case study
report:
Craps, M. & Prins, S. (2004). Participation and Social Learning in the Development Planning of a
Flemish River Valley. Case study report produced under Work Package 5, HarmoniCOP
Project Prepared under contract from the European Commission, Contract No. EVK1-CT-
2002-00120, Deliverable nr. 7, November.
My colleagues also presented and discussed the case at the ‘Connections conference’,
organized in Leuven in September 2003. Two different versions of the paper were
published:
Craps, M., E. Van Rossen, S. Prins, T. Taillieu, R. Bouwen & A. Dewulf (2003). Social
learning and water management: Lessons from a case study on the Dijle catchment.
Proceedings of the Connections Conference on “Active Citizenship and Multiple Identities”,
Leuven, September, pp. 418-429.
Craps, M., Van Rossen, E., Prins, S., Taillieu, T., Bouwen, R. & Dewulf, A. (2005). Relational
Practices to make Social Learning happen: A Case Study in Water and Nature
Management. In: Wildemeersch, D., Stroobants, V. & Bron, M. (Eds.) Active Citizenship
and Multiple Identities. A Learning Outlook. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 227-244.
Attachments

After the HarmoniCOP project (October 2005) the coordinator of the project took the
initiative to bring together a number of papers for a special issue of ‘Ecology and
Society’, based on the HarmoniCOP project. We submitted a paper in January 2006:
Prins, S., Craps, M. & Taillieu, T. Social learning and boundary dynamics in collaborative
work: a case study in river valley planning.
Output of the foster care case (part 3)
The project resulted in three research reports describing the approach, the
interventions and the research results. They were written for the funding
organizations of the project (policy makers).
Andriessen, M., Prins, S., De Witte, K., Hovelynck, J., & Taillieu, T. (2004).
Samenwerking tussen diensten voor pleegzorg in Limburg: Eerste tussentijds rapport.
Rapport pleegzorg in opdracht van vzw Jeugdzorg in Gezin. Leuven: Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven, Departement Psychologie, Centrum voor Organisatie- en
Personeelspsychologie, Mei.
Andriessen, M., Prins, S., De Witte, K., Hovelynck, J., & Taillieu, T. (2004).
Samenwerking tussen diensten voor pleegzorg in Limburg: Tweede tussentijds rapport.
Rapport pleegzorg in opdracht van vzw Jeugdzorg in Gezin. Leuven: Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven, Departement Psychologie, Centrum voor Organisatie- en
Personeelspsychologie, Oktober.
Andriessen, M., Prins, S., De Witte, K., Hovelynck, J., & Taillieu, T. (2004).
Samenwerking tussen diensten voor pleegzorg in Limburg: Eindrapport. Rapport
pleegzorg in opdracht van vzw Jeugdzorg in Gezin. Leuven: Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven, Departement Psychologie, Centrum voor Organisatie- en
Personeelspsychologie, December.
In response to a call for papers I wrote a first article with a focus on the research
methodology I used in this case. The call was for a special section of the Journal for
Occupational and Organizational Psychology entitled: ‘Beyond Positivism and
Statistics: Neglected Approaches to Understanding the Experience of Work’. My aim
with this paper was to demonstrate the relevance of doing organizational research
from the psychodynamic perspective and to show that it generates complementary
insights that can help to understand why so many collaborative efforts fail or end up
Attachments

in inertia. The basis for the article was a methodological paper I had presented in
November 2001 in London.
Prins, S. (2002). Researching with Curiosity: the Interpretive Stance in Psychodynamic
Research. Presentation at the OPUS conference 'Organizational and Social
Dynamics: International Perspectives from Group Relations, Psychoanalysis and
Systems Theory', 22 & 23 November, London.
I presented a first draft version of the paper to the Research group for psychotherapy
and depth psychology, chaired by Prof. J. Corveleyn in March 2005. I submitted the
paper to the journal on 30 April 2005. On the basis of feedback by three reviewers I
sent a thorough revision of the article on 25 October 2005. In December the paper
was accepted for publication and will be published in September 2006.
Prins, S. The psychodynamic perspective in organizational research: making sense of
the dynamics and emotional challenges of collaborative work. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Special Section ‘Beyond Positivism and
Statistics: Neglected Approaches to Understanding the Experience of Work’.
I could not discuss all the findings within the boundaries of one article. Therefore I
decided to split up the issues and write two papers. The first paper discusses issues
related to the influence of the consultants on direction setting. The second paper
discusses more general issues that typically emerge in collaborative work (e.g.
dealing with diversity). Because the two articles are based on the same data, there is
overlap in the introduction of the case (e.g. conceptual framework, context and
narrative of the case). Since the issues are interconnected and need to be described in
their context there is also some overlap in the discussion of the issues.
The basis for the second article was a paper presented at the Symposium of the
International Society for the Psychoanalytic Study of Organizations in Baltimore,
June 2005. The paper fitted with the conference theme: ‘New Psychoanalytic
Responses in our work with Organizations and Society’. It was published on the
website of ISPSO. Later I thoroughly rewrote the paper to align it with the focus of
my research. I organized a research seminar at our center to discuss the paper on 4
Attachments

November 2005. I submitted the article to the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science
on 17 December 2005.
Prins, S. (2005). The emotional and relational challenges of working in collaborative systems:
the bumpy road from competition to collaboration. Paper presented at the 2005
Symposium of the International Society for the Psychoanalytic Study of
Organizations, ‘New Psychoanalytic Responses in our work with Organizations
and Society’, 17-19 June, Baltimore:
http://www.ispso.org/Symposia/Baltimore/2005%20papers/2005Prins.htm
Prins, S. & Taillieu, T. From competition to collaboration: dynamics of direction setting in
collaborative work. (submitted to the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, on 17
December 2005)
Two students were at some point engaged in the foster care project. I was co-
promoter of their master’s thesis on the critical conditions for collaboration in the
foster care project. They observed two stakeholder conferences and used data I had
collected (stakeholder interviews, field notes of stakeholder days). The students also
organized a survey among the large group of stakeholders, but the response rate was
relatively low. We had many conversations and discussed our observations. The
findings of the two students substantiate most of my findings.
Bos, L. & De Vos, G. (2005). Onderzoek naar de kritische succesfactoren in multipartij
samenwerking, project pleegzorg Limburg. Verhandeling aangeboden tot het verkrijgen
van de graad van Licentiaat in de Psychologie, K.U. Leuven, Centrum voor
Organisatie- en Personeelspsychologie (unpublished masters thesis).
Attachments