|
Before describing how this division came about, it will be convenient to outline the InstituteÕs structure and mode of functioning. It is an
independent, not-for-profit organization based on an Association of five hundred members - wellwishers in key positions in the medical and academic worlds and also in industry and other social sectors. To obtain
such a support base became possible only after prolonged effort. At this time, at its annual meeting, the Association elected a small working Council that met with the Management Committee (MC) every quarter.
Members of the MC were nominated by the staff and approved by the Council so that it could operate with a double sanction. The MC proposed its own chairman but the Council had to confirm the appointment. The MC
met weekly to guide all aspects of the InstituteÕs affairs as a group.
The permanent staff were of four grades - consultants, principal project officers, project officers and assistant project officers.
When the Institute was separately incorporated in I947 there were eight staff members, in I96I there were 22. A pension scheme had been negotiated by the Secretary after persisting difficulties. This gave a much
needed addition to security which, during the formative years, had been exceedingly low. There were a number of people on temporary assignment and many overseas visitors, especially from the United States, who
usually stayed a year. Administration was in the hands of a professional Secretary, Sidney Gray, who had voting rights as a member of the MC.
The MC met with the consultants quarterly and once every year
with the whole staff for a period of two days. There were fortnightly seminars to discuss project and theoretical matters. The Council insisted that members of MC be of professorial status. Salary scales had to be
approved by the whole staff and were in line with those of the universities, the Scientific Civil Service and the National Health Service. This system had functioned well; relations in working groups had been
good. A strong collegiate culture had persisted from the war and was strengthened by the Institute having to contend with a largely hostile environment.
In I958 Wilson had left to take up the position of
strategic adviser to Unilever world-wide. This was the first time a social scientist (other than an economist) had been asked to fill a strategic position at this level in industry. For ten years a balanced
relationship had existed between Wilson and Trist, as chairman and deputy chairman. Wilson was a man of daring seminal insights. He had immense prestige in both the medical and non-medical worlds and an
exceedingly wide range of contacts. He was adept at negotiations with government and foundations, and opened up diverse channels which led to new projects. Trist had complementary capacities in formulating
concepts, project design and research methodology and in acting as mentor to the growing body of younger staff who required rapid development. This partnership, however, was no longer an organizational
necessity; there was now a well-developed staff, several of whom were active in finding and maintaining projects and in coming forward with new ideas and methods.
The Institute had become over-busy with its
growing project portfolio. The quarterly meetings with the consultants and the annual retreats were not kept up. The place that had so strongly affirmed the need to pay attention to the process side of
organizational life had been neglecting its own. With the departure of Wilson, the MC should have asked for a radical reappraisal of the whole situation; but the requisite meetings with the consultants and with
the staff as a whole were never called. It was assumed that the status quo would continue and that Trist would become chairman with indefinite tenure. It was as though a quasi-dynastic myth had inadvertently crept
in to a supposedly democratic process.
The staff was now beyond the limits of the small face-to-face group it had been in I948. There was a far greater range of interests, capabilities and projects and the
problem of managing the Institute as a single unit grew correspondingly greater.
Conflicts, latent for some time, came to a head while Trist was in California on sabbatical. Rice, as Acting Chairman,
proposed that the Institute should divide into three self-accounting project groups. This division was resisted by many of the senior staff who wished to preserve the unity of the whole. The differences were
partly personal, partly professional, but there was also disagreement over the direction in which the Institute should best develop in the increasingly turbulent environment and how it should be shaped to meet the
new challenges. On TristÕs return an attempt was made to resolve the differences but in the end two groups were formed, the larger around Trist (the Human Resources Centre) and the smaller (the Centre for Applied
Social Research) around Rice.
Though not ideal, the partition provided a Ògood enoughÓ solution, to use WinnicottÕs (I965) term. Each group proceeded to work productively on its own lines.
|
|
|
The Matrix
The expansion of the Clinic and Institute during the I950s led to the need for more
space. The Ministry of Health offered to build new premises in the Swiss Cottage district of Hampstead on the other side of RegentÕs Park from the existing set of buildings and the question arose as to whether the
Ministry would agree to the inclusion of activities of the Institute that were not health related. The Minister at first said, ÒNo.Ó Sir Hugh Beaver, the then Chairman of the Council, had become convinced of the
need to keep the Clinic and Institute together and persuaded the Ministry to allow all activities to be included so that the overall unity could be preserved.
The I960s were now beginning. Many changes
and developments had taken place. How far was the original definition of mission, made I5 years ago, still applicable? How far was the requirement of psychoanalysis for all still relevant? How to find a
formulation that would no longer make the Institute appear as a para-medical organization but would express the broader idea of the social engagement of social science. Emery came up with the notion that
everything it did - clinical and non-clinical - was at a more general level concerned with improving what he called Òthe important practical affairs of man.Ó He prepared a document along these lines which was
accepted by the Council.
The Institute continued to administer the ClinicÕs research and training activities, which had grown into a large enterprise. Bowlby had molded them into what he called the School
of Family Psychiatry and Community Mental Health. An attempt was made to get the School affiliated to one of the London medical schools but the Tavistock was still too marginal and too identified with
psychoanalysis to be countenanced.
Another development which began at about this time led to the setting up of an Institute for Operational Research. A growing number of management and decision scientists
had become concerned that the capture of operational research (OR) by academic departments focussed on mathematical modelmaking was leading OR away from its original mission of dealing with real-world problems.
They were interested in establishing a connection with the social sciences. Russell Ackoff of the University of Pennsylvania, a leading authority on OR, who was in England on sabbatical during I962-63, suggested
setting up an institute for operational research in the Tavistock orbit in conjunction with the British Operational Research Society. This suggestion came to fruition. Ackoff also found a British colleague, Neil
Jessop, a mathematical statistician with social science interests, who was willing to give up a senior post in industry to head up the new enterprise.
There had been a large-scale development of OR in
Britain in industry but nothing had been done in the public sector, outside defense. If it were to enter the policy field where problems were often ill-defined, ambiguous and interest-group-driven, OR had to find
new concepts and methods to which the social sciences could contribute. OR people had found that their recommendations were only too often left on the shelf. They needed to involve the various stakeholders far
more than had been their custom, to admit the limits of rationality, to pay attention to unconscious factors in organizational life and to acquire process skills in dealing with them. The OR people had
considerable experience in dealing with large-scale problems at the multi-organizational level which the Institute was just beginning to enter and for which it lacked concepts and methodologies. On both sides
there was a need to establish common ground and to find an organizational setting in which this could be explored. The status of an independent unit within the Tavistock orbit provided the required conditions. The
new unit became known as the Institute for Operational Research (IOR).
The Family Discussion Bureau had also developed into a large undertaking of national standing. It needed a suitable identity to pursue
its mission of setting up a non-medical but professional channel for dealing with marital difficulties. The title of the Institute for Marital Studies was proposed and accepted. It became an autonomous unit within
the Tavistock orbit (Vol. I, ÒNon-Medical Marital TherapyÓ).
There were now five units: those deriving from the original Management Committee - the Human Resources Centre (HRC) and the Centre for Applied
Social Research (CASR); the School of Family Psychiatry and Community Mental Health; the Institute for Marital Studies; and the Institute for Operational Research. The Institute had become what Stringer (I967)
called a multiorganization, a federation of interacting units with the same overall mission of furthering the social engagement of social science. Emery suggested that it had acquired the character of a social
matrix - a nourishing and facilitating environment for all components. This matrix form of organization had the merit of showing to the external world that the overall mission could be pursued in different but
nevertheless related ways.
The mutation required a new organizational structure. While each unit worked out its own form of internal governance the overall organization was steered by a Joint Committee of
the Council and Staff, chaired by Sir Hugh Beaver with Trist as staff convener.
The broader formulation of mission and the greater variety of activities and people made it no longer possible or desirable
that all staff should undergo psychoanalysis. This had been falling into disuse since I958 and became a matter of individual choice. Awareness of psychoanalytic concepts and their relevance in the social field had
become more widely accepted. They were absorbed Òby osmosis.Ó Moreover, one or two people with strongly Jungian views regarding archetypes and the collective unconscious were now on the staff. It was also found
that capacity to work with groups and the process side of organizational life was to a considerable extent a personal endowment. Some of the best practitioners were Ònaturals.Ó Nevertheless, a number of people
continued to enter analysis and several became analysts.
The matrix worked well for several years. Major new projects were undertaken and a number of influential books produced. The HRC, for example,
embarked on what became known as the Norwegian Industrial Democracy Project (Thorsrud and Emery, I964; Emery and Thorsrud, I969; I977) and the Shell Management Philosophy Project (Hill, I971). The CASR was
instrumental in setting up an activity in the United States based on the Tavistock/Leicester Group Relations Training Conferences and Rice (I965) published a general account of this field. Miller and Rice (I967)
published their now classic book Systems of Organizations. The IOR broke new ground with a project in which they worked collaboratively with the HRC on urban planning. It was jointly carried out with the city of
Coventry with the support of the Nuffield Foundation (Friend and Jessop, I969). The Institute for Marital Studies, having published a book, Marriage: Studies in Emotional Conflict and Growth (Pincus, 1960) which
stated its theories and procedures, secured a multiplier effect by training case workers from a large number of organizations and extending its influence into continental Europe.
There were unanticipated
developments. Several key people left the HRC. At the end of I966, Trist was appointed to a professorship at the University of California (Los Angeles). Emery returned to Australia in I969 as a Senior Fellow in
the Research School of the Social Sciences at the Australian National University. In I97I van Beinum went back to Holland to develop a new Department of Continuing Management Education at Erasmus University and in
I974 Higgin left to set up a similar department at the University of Loughborough. Pollock became a full-time analyst. Growing out of his work with Unilever, Bridger instituted a unit of his own - a network
organization for career counselling. These individuals had all been at the Institute either from the beginning or for a great number of years. Though the moves all made sense and led to the appearance of new nodes
in an emerging international network, they severely reduced the capacity of the HRC. The CASR was greatly impeded by the unexpected death of A.K. Rice at the height of his powers.
The IOR also suffered the
death of its first leader, Neil Jessop, but the type of social-science-linked OR that he was developing created such a demand that the unit underwent extraordinary growth. It established offices in Coventry and
Edinburgh in addition to the London base; at its peak it had 20 professional staff, more than all the other units taken together. Three books - Communications in the Building Industry (Higgin and Jessop, I963),
Local Government and Strategic Choice (Friend and Jessop, I969) and Public Planning: The Inter-Corporate Dimension (Friend, Power and Yewlett, I974) - established its academic reputation. The theory and practice
of reticulist planning which it introduced are now taught in planning schools throughout the world.
In the mid-I970s, the International Monetary Fund intervened dramatically in the British economy. Public
spending was cut by four-and-a-half billion pounds sterling. This meant that the funds for the large IOR programs with government departments were instantly cut and reductions in staff took place. The larger parts
of HRC and IOR merged to form a unit subsequently known as the Centre for Organizational and Operational Research (COOR). In the early I980s even more drastic measures became necessary; all the working groups
became one unit in which the members were on individual contract. There were no reserves to tide people over between projects.
It seemed that the Institute might go under but this did not happen. None of
those left wanted the organization to die. They had the tenacity to keep it going and have been rewarded by seeing it re-expand and enter new areas of activity in which a younger generation has the task of proving
itself. The I987 annual report showed a staff of 20.
During the financial crisis the IMS could no longer accept the risk of remaining within the Institute. A new host organization was available in the
Tavistock Institute of Medical Psychology, kept in existence for just such a need. IMSÕs sponsors preferred this arrangement with its even closer connections with the Clinic.
Recently, the Clinic has
acquired university status by becoming affiliated with Brunel University in north-west London. There is no teaching hospital at Brunel. There is, however, an inter-disciplinary Department of Social Science founded
by Elliott Jaques, one of the Tavistock founder members. New opportunities, therefore, open up. The search for university status by the Clinic and the School of Family Psychiatry and Community Mental Health has
ended in a novel way that by-passed the medical school connection. This development was without precedent in Britain.
The International Network
With the establishment of the matrix there began to emerge an international network of Tavistock-like centers. These came into existence through the efforts of
pioneering individuals who had spent some time at the Tavistock or through the migration of Tavistock staff to these new settings. The growth of such a network was inherent in much that had been going on for
several years, but events in the I970s and early I980s prompted its actualization. Some of the projects were (and are) joint undertakings between people at the Tavistock and people in the other centers. A number
of new endeavors have been large in scale and have emerged in the socio-ecological perspective. They have needed more resources than the Institute alone could supply. They have often been international in scope
and it has been necessary for them to be mediated by organizations in the countries primarily concerned
Work in these different settings has had a far-reaching effect on the concepts and methods employed.
It is rarely the case that a single setting can carry forward a major innovative task for more than a limited period of time. The variety created by multiple settings sooner or later becomes a necessary factor in
maintaining social innovation.
The following tables summarize what has emerged. Table I briefly describes the centers or nodes and the principal initiating individuals. The entries are by country in the
order in which they commenced operation. Table 2 shows how far the movement was from the Tavistock to the node or in the other direction. Visits were often for several months or a year. Some key individuals
migrated permanently or for several years, playing major institution-building roles.
TABLE 1: INTERNATIONAL NETWORK: DESCRIPTION OF NODES (In order of establishment) |
NODE |
INITIATING INDIVIDUALS |
DESCRIPTION |
United Kingdom |
|
|
Scottish Institute of Human Relations |
Jock Sutherland |
When Sutherland returned to his native Edinburgh in the late 1960s, on retiring as Director of the Tavistock Clinic, he set
up this independent center to deal with the range of activities covered by the School of Family Psychiatry and Community Mental Health. |
Centre for Family and Environmental Research |
Robert and Rhona Rapoport |
This center was set up in London in the early 1970s when the Rapoports (both anthropologists and the latter also a
psycho-analyst) moved their work on dual career families and related concerns with the family/work interface outside the Tavistock to establish an independent identity. |
Department of Continuing Management Education, Loughborough University |
Gurth Higgin |
In 1974 Higgin was appointed to a new chair in this field and developed the first department of its kind in a British
university with a new type of graduate diploma and strong links with industry in the region. There has been an emphasis on participatory methods. |
Organisation for Promoting Understanding in Society (OPUS) |
Eric Miller |
This was set up in 1975 by Sir Charles Goodeve, the dean of British OR and a member of the Tavistock Council. It has an
educational function, through which citizens can be helped to use their own ""authority"" more effectively. It seeks to investigate whether psycho-analytical understanding can be
applied to society as a field of study in its own right. |
Foundation for Adapaption in Changing Environments |
Tony Ambrose and Harold Bridger |
This small Foundation concerned with projects in the socio-ecological field was set up in the early 1980s by Ambrose,
originally a developmental psychologist, at the Tavistock's Department for Children and Parents. It has the form of a network organization, being without permanent staff. Originally at Minster Lovell,
a village near Oxford, it has now moved to Geneva as so much of its work has become connected with the World Health Organization. |
Europe |
|
|
Work Research Institutes, Oslo, Norway |
Einar Thorsrud, Fred Emery, David Herbst, Eric Trist |
This has become one of the principal institutions world-wide for the development of the socio-technical and socio-ecological
perspectives. Thorsrud, its Director from 1962 until his untimely death in 1985, had been a frequent visitor at the Tavistock. Emery-and to some extent Trist - played a major role in its development
during the 1960s. Herbst, alo from the Tavistock, became a permanent staff member." |
School of Business Administration, Erasmus University, Holland |
Hans van Beinum |
In 1971 van Beinum returned to Holland to set up a department of post-experience management education at Erasmus University.
It has influenced the development of the socio-technical and socioe-cological fields in Europe. |
Insititute for Transitional Dynamics. Lucerne , Switzerland |
Harold Bridger |
This small but promising institute, set up by Bridger in the 1980s, focusses on organizational transitions. It is a network
organization without permanent staff. |
Australia |
|
|
Centre for Continuing Education, Australian National University |
Fred and Merrelyn Emery |
When Emery returned to Australia in 1969 as a Senior Fellow at the Research School for the Social Sciences at the Australian
National University, he became associated with this center which is on the boundary between the academic and practical worlds. It has become a southern Tavistock in all three perspectives, being
responsible for many of the key conceptual and methodological developments. |
Canada |
|
|
Action Learning Group, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, Toronto |
Eric Trist |
In 1978 Trist joined the Faculty of Environmental Studies with which his relations had been growing for several years. The
purpose was further to develop the socio-ecological perspective, especially in Third World projects, and to foster socio-technical projects throughout Canada. Search conferences nave been introduced
and teaching begun in futures studies. The center functions as a Canadian Tavistock. |
Ontario Quality of Working Life Centre |
Hans van Beinurn |
Toward the end of the 1970s the widespread interest in quality of working life (QWL) in Canada caused the Ontario government
to set up a center for advancing this field, supported by employers and unions. Van Beinum resigned from his chair in Holland to become its executive director. Changes in the industrial and political
climate in Canada have just recently prompted the Ontario goverment to close the Centre despite its considerable success." |
India |
|
|
BM Institute, Ahmedabad |
Kamalini Sarabhai, Jock Sutherland |
Kamalini Sarabhai, the wife of Gautam Sarabhai, head of Sarabhai Industries, one of the largest industrial concerns in India,
came to the Tavistock for training in child development. On returning to India she and her husband set up what is called the BM Institute, very much along the lines of the Tavistock Clinic School of
Family Psychiatry and Community Mental Health. |
National Labour Institute and Punjab Institute for Public Administration |
Nitish De, Fred Emery |
"n unusual Indian social scientist, the late Nitish De, pioneered the socio-ecological and socio-technical approaches in
the sub-continent. He had to move from one center to another because of political difficulties. He maintained strong relations with the Australian node. |
United States |
|
|
Wright Institute, Berkeley, California |
Nevitt Sanford, Eric Trist |
Sanford, a principal author of The Authoritarian Personality (1950), spent a sabbatical at the Tavistock in the early 1950s.
Prevented by constraints at both Berkeley and Stanford from integrating social and clinical psychology, he set up, during the 1960s, an independent organization modelled on the Tavistock. It has
functioned as a U.S. Tavistock (West). Since Sanford's retirement, however, it has been principally concerned with training clinical psychologists. |
A. K. Rice Institute |
Margaret Rioch, A. K. Rice |
In 1964 Margaret Rioch from the Washington School of Psychiatry, with which the Tavistock had close connections, set up an
American version of the Leicester Conference with the assistance of A. K. Rice. On his unexpected death in 1969 she named the American organization the A. K. Rice Institute. It has since developed
chapters throughout the United States. |
Center for Quality of Working Life, University of California, Los Angeles |
Louis Davis, Eric Trist |
Davis, an engineer turned social scientist, had introduced the socio-technical study of job design in the United States. In
1965/66 he spent a sabbatical at the Tavistock. The next year Trist joined him at UCLA and together they developed the first graduate socio-technical program in a university at both the master's and
doctoral levels. |
Department of Social Systems Sciences, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania" |
Russell Ackoff, Eric Trist |
Wishing to set up a new Department of Social Systems Sciences, Ackoff persuaded Trist, then at UCLA, to join him in 1969. A
very large and successful Ph.D. program developed, beginning a U.S. Tavistock (East). However, many Wharton faculty have not been friendly towards a systems approach and recently the University has
phased out the academic program. One of the two associated research centers has been absorbed into the Wharton Center for Applied Research. The other, with Ackoff, has become linked to the Union
Graduate School, where doctoral and master's programs are about to begin again. |
TABLE 2: INTERNATIONAL NETWORKS: INTERCONNECTIONS AND PERSPECTIVES |
|
PEOPLE ESTABLISHING |
PERSPECTIVES OF WORK* |
Node |
Visitor to Tavistock |
Visitor from Tavistock |
Migration from Tavistock |
sP |
sT |
sE |
Centre for Family and Environmental Research |
|
|
* |
* |
|
|
Scottish Institute of Human Relations |
|
|
* |
* |
|
|
"Department of Continuing Management Education, Loughborough University" |
|
|
* |
* |
* |
* |
Organisation for Promoting Understanding in Society (OPUS) |
* |
|
|
|
|
* |
Foundation for Adaptation in Changing Environments |
|
* |
* |
* |
|
* |
"Work Research Institute, Oslo, Norway" |
* |
* |
* |
|
* |
* |
"School of Business Administration, Erasmus University, Holland" |
|
* |
* |
|
* |
* |
"Institute for Transitional Dynamics, Lucerne, Switzerland" |
|
|
* |
* |
|
* |
"Centre for Continuing Education, Australian National University" |
|
|
* |
* |
* |
* |
"Action Learning Group, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, Toronto" |
|
|
* |
* |
* |
* |
Ontario Quality of Working Life Centre |
|
|
* |
|
* |
|
"BM Institute, Ahmedabad" |
* |
* |
|
* |
|
|
National Labour Institute and Punjab Institute for Public Administration |
|
* |
|
|
* |
* |
"Wright Institute, Berkeley, California" |
* |
* |
|
* |
|
* |
"A. K. Rice Institute, Washington, D.C." |
* |
* |
|
* |
|
|
"Center for Quality of Working Life, University of California, Los Angeles" |
* |
|
* |
|
* |
|
"Department of Social Systems Sciences, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
*The codes, sP, sT and sE, indicate in which of the three perspectives (socio-psychological, socio-technical, socio-ecological) work has been carried out in
the new settings.The network in its present state of evolution [1989] may be characterized as follows:
- All nodes express the philosophy of the social engagement of social science. The engagement is with meta-problems that are generic and field determined rather than with issue-specific single problems.
- The work is future oriented and concerned with the transition to the post industrial social order and the paradigm shift which this entails.
- Since they are concerned with bringing about basic change, the activities undertaken encounter opposition. This makes it hard for the various nodes to acquire the resources they need.
- This situation creates severe stress which in turn generates internal strain in both organizations and individuals.
- The nodes have been developed by pioneering individuals who gather groups around them and connect with similar individuals in one or more of the other nodes.
- Though most of the nodes have existed for a considerable number of years they are, nevertheless, temporary systems. Unless they can engage with the next
round of critical problems they have no further useful function.
- The nodes wax and wane, go out of existence or trigger new developments elsewhere.
- A number of them are no longer linked with the London organization.
- Apart from the London center, the most densely connected are the Work Research Institute, Oslo; the Centre for Continuing Education, Canberra; the
University of Pennsylvania group and the Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, Toronto.
- Several centers have added new ideas beyond the scope of the original organization. This is particularly true of the four mentioned above in which very
substantial advances have been, and are being, made both conceptually and in the type of projects undertaken. As these concern the socio-ecological perspective their exposition is reserved for Volume III.
It is postulated that networks of this kind will play an increasingly important role in the future development of fields concerned with the social engagement of social science. Next Section: "General Outcomes"
|