1

Organisations as Configuration of Collective Relational

Images Oriented towards Meaning - Basic principles for

relational concepts of organisations

Michael Korpiun, Martin Thiele (2016) in: Lohkamp, L./Raeck, H. (Hrsg.): Tore und Brü-

cken zur Welt. Willkommen in bewegten Zeiten, 1. Aufl. (in print)

Summary

The success and effectiveness of organisational development essentially depend on how we

define organisation. Throughout the literature we can find very different definitions. In

practice we repeatedly see attempts to solve organisational development primarily through

the adaptation of the organisational structures and procedures. The results often are often

disappointing and unsuccessful.

In the following article we introduce different organisational concepts. We will then devel-

op a relational understanding of organisations. It starts, among others, with Berne's group

and organisational theories and continues them systemically. Arising from this, we will at-

tempt to stimulate thoughts with regards to possible implications for organisational devel-

opment.

1. Definition and Development of Organisation

The initiation and management of organisations is a corporate executive function. It is

usually the responsibility of the company management. The support and assistance of or-

ganisational development is a core concern of organisational developers, both within and

outside the company. Development itself is the task of all those working in an organisation.

Organisational development is an ongoing process. Its management can be more or less ex-

plicit. Sometimes it is more dynamic, sometimes less so. Sometimes it is more consciously

perceived than other times. The assessment of the effect of organisational development

depends largely on how we define organisation.

In the scientific literature as well as in practice we find numerous different organisational

concepts (see Kieser 2002). A convergence is not foreseeable (see Scherer 2002, p.2).

Berne has also explored the topic of groups and organisations (see Berne 2001, 1979; Fox

1975). The resulting forms of intervention for development depend on the conceptual un-

derstanding of organisations (see Bungard/Antoni 2004). In practice we keep seeing at-

tempts to solve organisational development primarily through the adaptation of the organi-

sational structures and procedures. The results are often neither satisfactory nor success-

ful.

The bases of any organisational concepts are the underlying human images (see

Glasl/Lievegoed 2011, pp.165 ff; Kirchler et al. 2004). Based on the concepts of “Homo

2

Oeconomicus” (Mill 1836) and the “Rational Choice”, subsequent images of man were de-

veloped, among others the “social man”, “self-actualising man” and “complex man” (see

Likert 1972, Schein 1980), (see Ulich 2001). We base our article on a relational image of

man (“Relational Man”) which understands the human being as a relational being (chapter

2). Building on this we develop a relational understanding of organisations (chapter 3). It

begins with Berne's group and organisational theories and continues them systemically.

Furthermore, we indicate the resulting implications for the development of organisations

(chapter 4). The goal is to augment existing approaches to organisational development. We

aim to build bridges between theory and practice as well as opening up new perspectives

of working in and with organisations.

2. Relational Image of Man

The first report of the Club of Rome (see Meadows et al. 1972) was a milestone for the de-

velopment of images of man (see Glasl/Lievegoed 2001, pp.30 ff). The limits of isolated

management, geared towards their own interest, became very evident (see Mesarov-

ic/Pestel 1974). At the same time, new socio-ecological concepts in economics started to

develop/began to evolve (see Giddens 1996; Hansen/Schrader 1997). It is tempting to un-

derstand this primarily as a social - intersubjective - challenge for humankind. The rela-

tional image of man however, understands the human being intrinsically – intrasubjective -

in relation, which can be characterised especially by the following three aspects (see also

table 1):

1. the relatedness of humans

2. the resourcefulness of humans

3. the meaningfulness of humans

Ad 1.) The relatedness of humans

Every person originates from intersubjectivity – before they know themselves as subject.

To recognise oneself as an individual we need the “you” of the other for development: “I

become through you”. [...] All real life is encounter” (Buber 2014, p.18). The development

of our individuality requires differentiation from the other (see Bauriedl 2004, p.107). At

the same time this differentiation can only be identified through our relatedness to others

(paradox of individuality and relatedness). Statements like “I am an analytical person” only

make sense in comparison to others who are seen as less analytical.

Sell therefore understands the ego state as expression of a relationship state (2009.

p.106). In this sense we do not have relationships, but our relatedness is intrinsic to us. We

are in relationships or we are not. Bauer phrases it this way: “We are – from a neurobiolog-

ical perspective – invested in social resonance and cooperation. At the heart of all human

motivation lies the search for acknowledgment, appreciation, attention or affection”

(Bauer 2013, p.23). Erskine describes relational needs (2008, p.287) as “the essential ele-

ments that enhance the quality of life and a sense of self-in-relationship” (Er-

3

skine/Trautmann 1996, p.322). And for Hüther life is “a process which transforms relation-

al experiences into relational structures” (Hüther 2013, p.28). In addition, the relatedness

of man corresponds in its recursiveness with the “I'm okay, you're okay” as element of the

transactional image of man.

Ad 2.) The resourcefulness of Humans

The resourcefulness of humans refers to their physical, mental, and spiritual abilities. They

represent the potential for personal development, expressed in relationships. Significant

resources could be, for example, the forms of relationships formulated by Sell (see Sell

2009). Sell calls them grammar, analogous to language acquisition, which can help to form

relationships constructively.

Human resourcefulness also understands internal psychological aspects, which may seem

limiting, as potentially helpful for their development. People with drivers in charge, for

example, experience significant restrictions in their working behaviour (see Hay 2009,

pp.95 - 112). At the same time, new access to one's own resources can open up when hid-

den abilities are consciously examined and dealt with in a mature way. Furthermore, hu-

man resourcefulness of is based on the assumption that everyone is the best expert of their

own development. Besides the conscious parts, this concerns particularly the access to un-

conscious development potential and development resources (see van Beekum 2006, 2015,

p.174). Human resourcefulness also corresponds with the need for growth as another ele-

ment of the transactional image of man.

Ad 3.) The meaningfulness of humans

The search for meaning is intrinsic to humans (see Hüther 2013, p.28). We find meaning by

inventing and interpreting “realities”. On the one hand there is the need to experience our

own actions in relationships as meaningful (see Korpiun 2015, p.177). On the other hand,

due to our perception, we can only grasp/capture parts of what we or others believe “real-

ity” to be (e.g. Watzlawick 2014). And we are constantly exploring the space between the

having-become and our own becoming. We thus keep inventing reality. It is, at the same

time, the source of our creativity and innovative power.

Consequently, in our search for meaning we also redefine our having-become, which is why

our self-construct (our “self-invention”) is generally viscous. This can be observed, for ex-

ample, when people apply for a new job which they see as challenging. Usually we reassess

our own resources and redefine aspects of our professional identity. This happens in order

to shape our own actuality. “People and organisations are designed as reality generating

systems” (Schmid 2004, p.18). In the Here and Now humans thus invent realities retrospec-

tively as well as prospectively.

Again it is worth mentioning that human inventions can be more or less helpful for forming

relationships. In addition to redefining, transactional analysis (TA) knows other models de-

scribing reality-constructing of our psyche, such as blocking out (Schlegel 1995, pp.116 ff)

or discounting (Mellor/Schiff 1975; Schiff et al. 1975, pp.14 - 16) or the frame of reference

4

(Schiff et al. 1975, pp.54 – 55). The human inventing of realities corresponds with another

element of Transactional Analysis: a person's responsibility for their actions based on their

decisions.

Table 1 provides an overview of the outlined relational image of man. In the following

chapter 3 we introduce the basic concepts of a relational understanding of organisation.

Characteristics Brief Description Correspondence to the Image of

Man in TA

1. Relatedness of

Humans

Humans do not have relationships but

they are intrinsic to their being (we

are relational beings instead of we

have relationships).

Everybody is ok, even when their be-

haviour is not ok.

2. Resourcefulness of

Humans

People have physical, mental and spir-

itual abilities for their personal devel-

opment.

Everybody has the need to grow, even

though some suppress this need.

3. Meaningfulness of

Humans

Creating and experiencing of meaning

in one's actions through construction

and interpretation of reality.

Everybody makes decisions and is

therefore responsible for their actions.

Table 1: Basic characteristics of the relational image of man (source: own presentation)

3. Relational Understanding of Organisation

3.1. Overview of existing views of organisations

There is clear evidence that organisations, as for example armies, monasteries or alliances

for the development of large construction projects, were already created thousands of

years ago. The scientific debate of organisations though, did not start until the end of the

19th century. However, since then a growing number of organisational theories has

emerged, resulting in as many concepts of organisations. An informed and differentiated

presentation of this development can be found at Kieser (2002) as well as as an overview

at Glasl/Lievegoed (2001).

The origins of the organisational concept can be found in the classical techno-structural

approaches, for example in Max Weber's Analysis of Bureaucracy or in the management ap-

proaches of Taylorism, followed by the psycho-social orientation of leadership and organi-

sation theories of the Human Relations Movement. The latter started in the Hawthorne ex-

periments in the early 1920s (see Roethlisberger/Dickson/Wright 1939). Other markers

were the emergence of behavioural decision theories, concepts of institutional economics,

as well as cybernetic systems theories, contingency theories, and finally systemic-

evolutionary theories. And this list is anything but complete. Along with this development

came a considerable expansion of the scientific reference base. Starting with economic

theories, it has become more and more differentiated. Today it includes psychological, so-

cio-psychological, and systemic research fields, and increasingly also those of science,

mathematics and neurobiology.

5

“The term 'organisation' means both the objective orientated management of activities in

a social system with several members (functional concept of organisation) and the social

entity itself (institutional concept of organisation)” (Laux/Liermann 2005, p.2). In numer-

ous organisational concepts the constitutive or descriptive attributes are the structure, the

membership and the target orientation (see, for ex. Picot et al. 2005, p.26; Laux/Liermann

2005 p.2; Scholl 2004, p.530; Kieser/Walgenbach 2003, p.6; Schreyögg 2003, p.4).

“Organisation is (...) interpreted as organisational structure. (...) It is intended to limit the

scope for action of its members and manage their behaviour purposefully in order to en-

sure coordination and motivation” (Picot/Dietl/Franck 2005, p.26). Kieser/Walgenbach un-

derstand organisations as “social entities which routinely pursue a target and have a struc-

ture through which the activities of their members should be geared towards/aligned with

the pursued target” (Kieser/Walgenbach 2003, p.6). The development of organisations is

thus implicitly seen as a change of organisational structures. Consequently, the focus is on

statements about the adjustments to the organisational and operational structure.

In our consulting practice we keep being confronted with situations in which organisational

development approaches have had little or no success because of a one-sided/biased struc-

ture. We find that a lot of time and energy is invested into a clarification of roles and re-

sponsibilities, e.g. in the framework of RACI or competence matrices, in qualifications, and

that processes are outlined extensively. Even though these may be necessary or useful el-

ements of organisational development, they are in themselves not sufficient to achieve

sustainable behavioural change and thus of the attitudes and mindsets of employees. This

suggests a closer look at the connections between organisational structure and behavioural

aspects of organisational development. This is the subject of the following chapters.

3.2. The importance of inner pictures for the

understanding of organisations

Given the fundamental complexity of organisations, both organisational research and prac-

tice have again and again developed pictorial and metaphorical ideas for their understand-

ing (see Morgan 1997). To give an example from our consulting practice: the associate of

an organisation with an annual turnover of several billion Euro sees his organisation as “a

machine which must always be properly oiled and now and then adjusted”. And even

though the associate is not actively involved in the management, the idea (dogma) is wide-

spread in the organisation that in principle the company would be as successful without

management (i.e. without senior control).

The organisational concept being activated here, probably unconsciously, is known in re-

search as “machine metaphor”, under the heading of Taylorism (see Weber 1921/1972), or

as used by Balling in his cultural diagnoses (see Balling 2005). Other empirical metaphors

are, for example, the “exploitation metaphor”, the “needs metaphor”, the “organism

metaphor”, the “network metaphor” (see Scholl 2004, pp.520 ff) or the “theatre meta-

phor” (see Schmid/Wengel 2001).

In the past the organisation mentioned above grew steadily, with above-average returns.

With increasing market saturation in Europe and the arrival of competitors, the challenge

6

becomes to be faster and more flexible, to access growth markets outside of Europe and to

develop the range of services in innovative ways. The organisation finds this difficult, due

to – the hypothesis assumes – the learned organisational concept and the related cultural

imprint, among other things. This example shows how important inner images and the cul-

ture resulting from it are, not only for the understanding but also the development of or-

ganisations. To dynamise the inner organisational image can help, in our view, the devel-

opment of the overall organisation.

Eric Berne, too, recognised the importance of inner images and their dynamics for an un-

derstanding of organisations. In his reflections he differentiates between “manifest” and

“hidden” structure and states: “These hidden structures are based on personal needs, ex-

periences, desires and emotions” (Berne 1979, p.100). Elsewhere he calls the hidden struc-

ture “mental image” (ibid. p.101) or “group image” (ibid. p.63). And since Berne does not

further distinguish between groups and organisations (ibid. p.88), it could also be called

“organisational image”. He assigns great importance to them: “The hidden structure de-

termines the success (...)”. (ibid. p.100).

Steinert takes up these considerations and further develops Berne's “group imago” to an

“organisational imago” (see Steinert 2006, pp.126 -128) as the “mental picture of what an

organisation could be” (ibid. p.126). Building on the underlying relational image of man

the inner images can be understood as relationship images. Their expression influences be-

haviour in organisations and thus the expressions of organisational structures. Sell there-

fore calls organisational structures “congealed relationships” (Sell 2015, handed down ver-

bally). It seems worthwhile for organisations to reflect on the dynamisation of inner rela-

tionship images. This will be discussed in the following chapter.

3.3. Inner images as dynamic relationship images of

organisations

Berne understands group images as fundamentally dynamic (see Berne 1979, p.245). He

distinguishes between the “provisional”, “adapted”, “operational”, and “secondarily ad-

justed group image” (see ibid. p.248). Tuckman developed an analogous model around the

same time (1965, 1977). An integration of these perspectives can be found in Hay (2009,

pp.165-179) or Glasl/Livegoed (2011, p.47). Berne also emphasises the importance of spa-

tial notions/concepts/ideas in the description of group images and organisations (ibid.

p.90). This also underlies his graphic representation of group images as expression of

closeness and distance of the group members (ibid. p.64, 276).

In the early 90s the British Grubb Institute developed another approach to the understand-

ing of organisations, based on inner mental images and their dynamics. This approach was

introduced by Pierre Turquet under the term “organization-in-the-mind” (see Armstrong

2005, p.3). According to this, organisations are “composed of the diverse fantasies and

projections of its members. Everyone who is aware of an organisation, whether a member

of it or not, has a mental image of how it works. Though these diverse ideas are not often

consciously negotiated or agreed upon among the participants, they exist.” (Shapiro/Carr

1991, pp. 69- 70).

7

The word choice “composed of” indicates that organisations are understood as aggregated

social entity. From a personal perspective “‘organisation-in-the-mind’ is what the individu-

al perceives in his or her head of how activities and relations are organised, structured and

connected internally. It is a model internal to oneself, part of one’s inner world, relying

upon the inner experiences of my interactions, relations and the activities I engage in,

which give rise to images, emotions, values and responses in me, which may consequently

be influencing my own management and leadership, positively or adversely …” (Hut-

ton/Bazalgette/Reed 1997, p.114).

The mental organisational images thus are comprised of „both the conscious and the un-

conscious ‚mental constructs‘” (Armstrong 2005, p.4). “[…] these might illuminate or cloud

the more manifest organisational dilemmas and challenges […] (ibid.). Analogous to Berne,

this is a clear reference to the idea that manifest organisational structures correspond with

inner images, an understanding Hüther states broadly as follows: “Life is a process of

transforming experiences into structures” (2013, p.27).

Naturally, manifest structures are more accessible for descriptive analyses than the rather

hidden inner images. For this reason, concerns in organisational development are more

likely to be named on the observable level of manifest structures, for example organisa-

tional structure, strategies, and procedures, than on the underlying mental images.

It is questionable at this point how collective organisational images can emerge from indi-

vidual mental images (see Steinert 2006, pp.126). And Armstrong, too, “began to wonder

whether these internal models, images, or fantasies, located in the individual, might ra-

ther be a response to something more primary that was a property of the organization as a

whole, something that was intrinsic to the organization as one socio-psychic field. From

this perspective, each individual’s internal model or constructs, conscious or unconscious,

might perhaps better be seen as a secondary formation, a particular, more or less idiosyn-

cratic, response to a common, shared organizational dynamic” (Armstrong 2005 pp.4-5).

The processes of addressing the various individual relational images and their expression

can, in our opinion, be considered an essential/significant and driving force of the devel-

opment of organisations. The next chapter will look at this in more detail.

3.4 From an individual relational image to a collective

organisational construct

As mentioned above, organisations are sociopsychological relational constructs. In organi-

sational research they are also referred to as “social systems” (see Vahs 2005, p.12; von

Rosenstiel 2003, p.6). They consist of the interaction, formation, and superposition of the

individual inner images of the people who work in them. This leads to a kind of matrix

where two basic perspectives intertwine:

1. each individual contains the organisation as a whole and all its sociopsychological

sub-constructs and

2. each organisation contains all its sociopsychological sub-constructs all the way to

the individual

8

Ad 1.) Each individual contains the organisation as a whole and all its sociopsychologi-

cal sub-constructs: Individual, mental, and thus relational images of the organisation con-

tain essentially three basic types of relationships: the I- you relationship, the I- them rela-

tionship, and the we- them relationship. These relational images contain or represent basi-

cally the entire conceivable relational complexity of organisations (see table 2).

I-You relationships typically comprise our inner images of us in relation to others within (as

in colleague x) or outside the organisation (e.g. customer y). They can be hierarchical rela-

tionships or on peer level. I-them relationships include inner images of us in relation to

groups or teams (inside or outside the organisation) all the way to the entire organisation

and also beyond. We-them relationships finally, comprise our inner pictures of the rela-

tionships of the departments, sectors, divisions among themselves, as well as towards the

organisation as a whole, and beyond that, inner images of the relations of the organisation

with suppliers, clients, and other stakeholders.

In total, this results in numerous (likely hundreds) of inner relational images which togeth-

er and dynamically shape our image of an organisation. They all can be of hierarchical na-

ture or on peer level. As mentioned above, these individual organisational images are part-

ly conscious, partly unconscious. To make unconscious parts conscious and to deliberately

deal with inner images presents another significant creative perspective in organisational

development. It precedes structural considerations but can influence them.

Type of rela-

tionship

Visualisation of individual mental re-

lational images Examples for manifestations

I–you relati-

onship

(1:1)

Employee – employee (peer level)

Employee – leadership (hierarchical)

Leadership – employee (hierarchical)

Leadership – leadership (peer level)

Employee – customers

Leadership - suppliers

I–them relati-

onship

(1:n)

Employee – colleagues (peer level)

Leadership – employee (hierarchical)

Employee – department

Employee – own organisation

Leadership - suppliers

Employee – customers

We–them rela-

tionship

(n:m)

Team 1 – Team 2

Department 1 – department 2

Team 1 – department 2

Department 1 – Teams 1-n

Team 1 – suppliers

Teams 1-n – customers

Organisation 1 – organisation 2

Table 2: Individual relational perspective of organisations (source:own representation)

9

Ad 2.) Each organisation contains all its sociopsychological sub-constructs all the way to

the individual: organisations in their complexity typically consist of divisions, depart-

ments, teams, groups, etc. A graphic of this complexity can be found in Berne in his model

of a complex group or organisation as an expression of its manifest organisational structure

(see Berne 1979, p.87, 93).

From a systemic perspective an organisation can be understood as system. The same can

be applied to divisions, departments, teams, and groups. Furthermore, we can understand

the relationships underlying the formation of divisions, departments, teams, and groups as

system. And just the same can a person be understood as a system, with numerous subsys-

tems, for example, psyche and physique, whereby the organisation contains all of these

subsystems.

The interweaving of these perspectives is shown in figure 1, based on Sell (2015, p.8). For

the benefit of the presentation we decided against a further diversification at this point,

for example of the intrapersonal system perspectives. The reference serves only to indi-

cate it. At the same time, the reference to the reality-constructing aspect of the relational

human image becomes apparent. This, too, Berne has already laid out. He puts forward

the hypothesis that “each single group member has a different mental image of a group,

which is based on his personal emotions” (Berne 1979, p.101). From this follows that the

organisational development is significantly influenced by changes of the internal organisa-

tional images held by the people working in the organisations. As soon as this change hap-

pens collectively, it can typically be seen as cultural development in an organisation. This

is particularly a matter of the development of relationship skills as motor for organisation-

al development (see Thiele/Korpiun 2016).

Even the change of an individual organisational image, though, will change the organisa-

tion. As mentioned, a change of attitudes and mindsets leads to a change in behaviour and

with it a change, however small, in the organisation. From this perspective an organisa-

tional developer can achieve sustainable change in an overall organisation. Working with

management or the board is not necessarily needed, even if it may be helpful for the or-

ganisation as a whole. An awareness of these correlations is a key concern of transactional

work in the field of “organisation” (see EATA 2014, Section 5). It is essential to focus de-

liberately on the relevant part of the system under consideration and with it the choice of

the system limit. Both are important facts when making decisions in development work in

organisations.

10

Organisation as system

group/team/department/division … as system

relationship as system

person as system

Figure 1: Integrative, relational system perspectives of organisations (source: own diagram, based on Sell, M. [2015],

p.8)

The actual complexity and the particular challenges for organisational development associ-

ated with it become apparent through the combination of the two introduced dimensions.

Figure two shows this in a diagram. Unlike in for example Barnard (1938) or Luhmann

(1984), employees in organisations are not being conceptualised as organisational environ-

ment. And unlike for example Simon (2007), we do not understand the “general inter-

changeability of staff” (ibid. p.18) as “one of the essential characteristics of organisations”

(ibid.). On the contrary, in our consultancy work we repeatedly experience that the indi-

vidual abilities to express relationship forms have a significant influence on organisational

action (see Thiele/Korpiun 2016). Consequently, we understand organisations neither as

systems of action nor of communication but of relationships, which stems from the human

relationality as an essential characteristic (see chapter 2). The results of organisational

action are thus dependent on the people working in them and with them. Simon rightfully

states: “When employees or their psychological systems are seen as part of an organisa-

tion, the organisation inevitably becomes a super complex system” (ibid.). The particular

challenge of the work of organisational developers lie in being able to deal with this com-

plexity (see Schmidt 2004/Messmer 2005; Mohr 2006).

11

Figure 2: Integrative, relational system perspectives of organisations (source: own diagram)

It follows from the above that inner relational images and their dynamisation can be of

significant value for the understanding of organisations and their development. Further-

more, the connection between individual and collective relational images on a structural

level was demonstrated. In a last step we will outline what contributes to the formation of

an organisation and its cohesion and thus gears it towards sustainability. This will tie into

the above-mentioned topic of target orientation.

3.4. The meaningfulness as constitutive characteristic of

organisations

Target orientation is named as a key characteristic of concepts of organisation mentioned

in chapter 3.1. (see Laux/Liermann 2005, pp.15 ff; Vahs 2005, p.11 f; Kieser/Walgenbach

2003, p.7). The question is whether and possibly how the individual objectives of employ-

ees match those of other employees and the collective objectives of the organisation. In

practice we find cascading target systems which break down organisational targets to lev-

els of divisions, departments, teams and even employees. The hope is to be able to effec-

tively steer organisations and influence employees. Lencioni points out convincingly the

related challenges (see Lencioni 2002) which he sees at the upstream level of relationship

forming.

From a theoretical perspective (chapter 2) it is also questionable whether objectives alone

are sufficient to bind employees sustainably to organisations and to contribute to their co-

hesion. As human beings we are searching for meaning in self-expression and our related-

ness to others. The joining together of people as expression of cooperative action becomes

the nucleus of basic human understanding and the associated basic needs. The transac-

tional perspective also asks how much the dimension of meaning can be seen as a contain-

ing, complementary, or even comprehensive aspect of basic psychological needs. Following

12

this thought, it is an essential human need in their search for and understanding of mean-

ing to become collectively involved and thus in an organisation with shared - meaningfully

guided - thoughts and actions.

Another example about this from our consulting practice: despite existing goals and strate-

gies in an organisation, its executives are searching for the higher meaning, why this or-

ganisation exists and what the purpose is of reaching the targets. Management does not

have an immediate satisfactory answer for this with the result that the steering process

grinds to a halt.

Eric Berne also considered this question. In his model of group forces (see Berne 1979,

pp.110 ff) he conceptualises the dichotomy of cohesive and dissolving forces for the exist-

ence and effectiveness of groups. Berne defines group cohesion as “the force which resists

outside pressure as well as inner agitation” (ibid. p.111). This cohesive force “stems from

the need of loyal group members to maintain the orderly existence of the group” (ibid.). In

our example agitative forces against management (question of meaning) counteract the

cohesive forces of management (provide guidance).

In summary it can be said that for a binding of employees to organisations conformity with

their goals is not sufficient. It has to be complemented by a clear prospect of individual

and, with that, collective meaningfulness. In practice this becomes clear in how organisa-

tions manage to let their own meaningful identity – e.g. by developing and manifesting

guiding concepts with mission, vision, goals and values - turn into a cohesive force which

succeeds in aligning the attitudes and mindsets of their employees and thus their behav-

iour. Dialogical negotiation processes are required for this rather than top-down instruc-

tions.

4. Conclusion for the Understanding of Organisations and

their Development

In conclusion we can summarise the following (see also table 3):

1. Organisations exhibit manifest structures which correspond with inner mental

images of people who work in or with these organisations or know about them.

Organisational development therefore starts with a dynamisation of these inner

mental images.

2. Due to the human relationality these inner pictures are relational images, in other

words simultaneous expression of individuality and relatedness on the levels “I-

you”, “I- them”, and “We- them”. The development of organisations can be

initiated at any of these relational perspectives.

3. These inner relational images are partly conscious and partly unconscious. Creating

awareness and dealing with unconscious parts, or parts that have the potential of

becoming conscious, presents another significant creative perspective in

organisational development.

13

4. The social character of organisations results from the genesis or formation of

individual relational images to a shared, collective relational image. For

organisational development this involves dialogical rather than discursive forms of

exchange.

5. The cohesion and sustainable configuration of organisations takes place through the

superposition of individually and collectively experienced meaningfulness as

significant cohesive force. In strengthening the dimension of meaning in the

organisational orientation thus lies a special opportunity for the development of

organisations.

Characteristic Organisational understanding Importance for the development

structure

Organisation as manifest expression of rela-

tionships, based on mental images (Sell:

Structure as congealed relationships)

Dynamisation of inner mental images,

which are reflected in a change of re-

lationship forming and corresponding

structures

relational images

Organisation as simultaneous expression of

individuality and relatedness on the levels

“I- you “, “I- them“ and “we- them“

Initialisation of change is possible on

useful on all levels of relational per-

spective

awareness Organisation as a partly conscious and part-

ly unconscious relational construct

Working with both the conscious and

unconscious parts which have the po-

tential to become conscious

social character

Organisation as genesis or formation of in-

dividual relational images to a shared col-

lective relational image

Dialogical instead of discursive forms of

exchange

cohesion and configu-

ration

Organisation as superposition of individual

and collectively experienced meaningful-

ness

Strengthening of the dimension of

meaning, for example through dialogi-

cal conceptual work in organisations

Table 3: Basic features of a relational understanding of organisations und implication for their development (Source:

own diagram)

In the view of the relational human image we presented, as well as the previous considera-

tions we understand organisations as configuration of collective relational images ori-

ented towards meaning. Accordingly, we see organisational development is the devel-

opment of the relationship skills of its members, to cooperate collectively and mean-

ingfully. Or in short: Organisational development is in essence relational development.

14

References:

Armstrong, D. (2005): Organization in the mind. Psychoanalysis, Group Relations, and Organizational Consul-

tancy. Occasional Papers 1989 – 2003, London/New York: Karnac

Balling, R. (2005): Diagnosis of Organizational Cultures, in: Journal of Transactional Analysis (JTA), Vol. 35, No.

4, pp. 313 – 320

Barnard, C. I. (1938): The functions of the executive. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press

Bauer, J. (2013): Prinzip Menschlichkeit: Warum wir von Natur aus kooperieren, 6. Aufl., Heyne: München

Bauriedl, T. (2004): Auch ohne Couch. Psychoanalyse als Beziehungstheorie und ihre Anwendungen, 4. Aufl.,

Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta

Berne, E. (1979): Struktur und Dynamik von Organisationen und Gruppen, Kindler: München

Berne, E. (2001): Structure and Dynamics of Organizations and Groups, Freemantle Publishing: Freemantle

(Erstveröffentlichung: 1963)

Buber, M. (2014): Ich und Du, 16. Aufl., Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus

Bungard, W./Antoni, C. H. (2004): Gruppenorientierte Interventionstechniken. In: Schuler, H. (Hrsg.) (2004):

Organisationspsychologie, 3. Aufl., S. 439 – 473, Huber: Bern u.a.

EATA (Editors) (2014): European Association of Transactional Analysis (EATA) Training and Examinations Hand-

book

Erskine, R. G. (2008): Beziehungsbedürfnisse, in: Zeitschrift für Transaktionsanalyse (ZTA), H. 4, 25. Jg., S. 287

- 297

Erskine, R. G./Trautmann, R. L. (1996): Methods of an Integrative Psychotherapy, Transactional Analysis Jour-

nal (TAJ), Vol. 26, pp. 316 - 328

Fox, E. M. (1975): Eric Berne‘s Theory of Organizations, in: Transactional Analysis Journal (TAJ), Ed. 4, Vol. 5,

pp. 345 – 353

Giddens, A. (1996): Konsequenzen der Moderne, Suhrkamp: Berlin

Glasl, F./Lievegoed, B. (2011): Dynamische Unternehmensentwicklung: Grundlagen für nachhaltiges Change

Management (Organisationsentwicklung in der Praxis), 4. Aufl., Haupt Verlag: Bern

Hansen, U./Schrader, U. (1997): A Modern Model of Consumption for a Sustainable Society, Journal of Consum-

er Policy (JoCP), Vol. 20, Ed. 4, pp. 443 – 468

Hay, J. (2009): Transactional Analysis for Trainers, 2nd Ed., Sherwood Publishing: Hertford

Hüther, G. (2013): Die biologischen Grundlagen der Spiritualität, in: Hüther, G./Roth, W./von Brück, M. (Hrsg.)

(2013): Damit das Denken Sinn bekommt. Spiritualität, Vernunft und Selbsterkenntnis, 6. Aufl., S. 25 –

37

Hutton, J./Bazalgette, J./Reed, B. (1997): Organisation-in-the-mind. In: Neumann, K./Kellner, K./Dawson-

Shepherd, A. (Editors): Developing Organisational Consultancy, pp. 113 – 126, London: Routhledge

Kieser, A. (Hrsg.) (2002): Organisationstheorien, 5. Aufl., Stuttgart: Kohlhammer

Kieser, A./Walgenbach, P. (2003): Organisation, 4. Aufl., Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel

Kirchler, E./Meier-Pesti, K./Hofmann, E. (2004): Menschenbilder in Organisationen, Arbeits- und Organisations-

psychologie, Bd. 5, Facultas: Wien

Korpiun, M. (2015): Dialog als Beziehungsgeschehen. In: Riess-Beger, D. (Hrsg.): Zukunft denken – Wandel ge-

stalten. Perspektiven zu persönlicher Entwicklung, gesellschaftlicher Veränderung und ökonomischem

Erfolg, 1. Aufl., S. 167 - 179

Laux, H./Liermann, F. (2005): Grundlagen der Organisation. Die Steuerung von Entscheidungen als Grundprob-

lem der Betriebswirtschaftslehre, 6. Aufl., Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer

Lencioni, P. (2002): The Five Dysfunktions of a Team. A Leadership Fable, San Francisco et al.: Jossey-Bass

Likert, R. (1972): Neue Ansätze der Unternehmensführung, Bern: Haupt

Luhmann, N. (1984): Soziale Systeme, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp

Meadows, D. L. et al (1972): Die Grenzen des Wachstums. Bericht des Club of Rome zur Lage der Menschheit,

Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt: München

Mellor, K./Schiff, E. (1975): Discounting, in: Transactional Analysis Journal (TAJ), Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 295 – 302

Mesarovic, M./Pestel, E. (1974): Menschheit am Wendepunkt. 2. Bericht des Club of Rome zur Weltlage, Deut-

sche Verlags-Anstalt: München

15

Mill, J. S. (1836): On the Definition of Political Economy, and on the Method of Investigation Proper to It, Lon-

don: London and Westminster Review

Mohr, G. (2006): Systemische Organisationsanalyse, 1. Aufl., Bergisch Gladbach: EHP – Edition Humanistische

Psychologie

Morgan, G. (1997): Images of Organizations, 2nd Ed., Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications

Picot, A./Dietl, H./Franck, E. (2005): Organisation. Eine ökonomische Perspektive, 4. Aufl., Stuttgart: Schäffer-

Poeschel

Roethlisberger, F. J./Dickson, W. J./Wright, H. A. (1939): Management and the Worker. An Account of a Re-

search Program Conducted by the Western Electric Company. Hawthorne Works: Chicago

Schein, E. H. (1980): Organizational Psychology, Englewood Cliffs: New York

Scherer, A. G. (2002): Kritik der Organisation oder Organisation in der Kritik? - Wissenschaftstheoretische Be-

merkungen zum kritischen Umgang mit Organisationstheorien. In: Kieser, A. (Hrsg.) (2002): Organisati-

onstheorien, 5. Aufl., S. 1 – 37, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer

Schiff, E. (1975): Cathexis Reader, New York: Harper & Row

Schmid, B. (2004): Systemische Professionalität und Transaktionsanalyse, 2. Aufl., Bergisch Gladbach: EHP –

Edition Humanistische Psychologie

Schmid, B./Messmer, A. (2005): Systemische Personal-, Organisations- und Kulturentwicklung. Konzepte und

Perspektiven, 1. Aufl., Bergisch Gladbach: EHP – Edition Humanistische Psychologie

Schmid, B./Wengel, K. (2001): Die Theatermetapher: Perspektiven für Coaching, Personal- und Organisations-

entwicklung, in: Profile. Internationale Zeitschrift für Veränderung, Lernen, Dialog, H. 1, S. 81 – 90

Scholl, W. (2004): Grundkonzepte der Organisation, in: Schuler, H. (Hrsg.) (2004): Organisationspsychologie, 3.

Aufl., S. 515 – 556

Schreyögg, G. (2003): Organisation. Grundlagen moderner Organisationsgestaltung, 4. Aufl., Wiesbaden: Gabler

Sell, M (2009): Beziehungsformen als Element konsequenter transaktionaler Denkweise, in: Zeitschrift für

Transaktionsanalyse (ZTA), 26. Jg., H. 2, S. 101 - 115

Sell, M. (2015): Kompendium Organisation. Transaktionsanalytische Modelle und andere Organisationskonzepte

in der Übersicht, INITA: Hannover

Shapiro, E. R./Carr, A. W. (1991): Lost in Familiar Places: Creating New Connections Between the Individual

and Society, Yale University Press: New Haven (NY)

Simon, F. B. (2007): Einführung in die systemische Organisationstheorie, 1. Aufl., Heidelberg: Carl-Auer

Steinert, T. (2006): Structural Organizational Consulting and Advanced Role Management. In: Mohr,

G./Steinert, T. (Editors) (2006): Growth and Change for Organizations. Transactional Analysis, New De-

velopments 1995 – 2006, pp. 102 – 137

Thiele, M./Korpiun, M. (2016): Wie die Ausprägung von Beziehungskompetenzen die Kulturen von Organisatio-

nen prägen. In: Lohkamp, L./Raeck, H. (Hrsg.): Tore und Brücken zur Welt. Willkommen in bewegten

Zeiten, 1. Aufl. (im Druck)

Tuckman, B. W. (1965): Developmental sequence in small groups, in: Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 63, pp. 384 –

399

Tuckman, B. W./Jensen, M. A. C. (1977): Stages of small-group development revisited, in: Group and Organiza-

tion Studies, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 419 - 427

Ulich, E. (2001): Arbeitspsychologie, 5. Aufl., Stuttgart: Poeschel

Vahs, D. (2005): Organisation. Einführung in die Organisationstheorie und –praxis, 5. Aufl., Stuttgart: Schäffer-

Poeschel

Van Beekum, S. (2006): The Relational Consultant, in: Mohr, G./Steinert, T. (Editors) (2006): Growth and

Change for Organizations. Transactional Analysis, New Developments 1995 – 2006, pp. 12 - 31

Van Beekum, S. (2015): A Relational Approach in Consulting: A New Formulation of Transactional Analysis Theo-

ry in the Field of Organizations, in: Transactional Analysis Journal (TAJ), Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 167-178

Von Rosenstiel, L. (2003): Grundlagen der Organisationspsychologie, 5. Aufl., Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel

Watzlawick, P. (2014): Wie wirklich ist die Wirklichkeit? – Wahn, Täuschung, Verstehen, 15. Aufl., München:

Piper

Weber, M. (1972): Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, 5. Aufl., Tübingen: Mohr (Erstausgabe 1921)