Jung's Legacy And Beyond : Exploring The Relevance Of Archetype Philosophy To Organizational Change

Description

Exploring the relevance of archetypal psychology to organizationalchange. We introduce this issue on the contributions of Jungian and post-Jungiananalytical psychology to organizational change management with the story ofour ‘‘chance’’ meeting at the Academy of Management:We – Rita and I – passed each other in the hotel lobby at the Academy of Management annualmeeting. Then I turned back. ‘‘Excuse me,’’ I said, ‘‘After glancing at your name tag andmoving on, I may have seemed rude, dismissing you somehow.’’ Rita laughed and as wecontinued talking, we discovered a common interest in Jung. The experience of synchronicityconfirmed for me that I was on the right path. At the time of the academy meeting, this special issue on Jung’s legacy was inprocess. Ken Eastman, from Oklahoma State University, and I had initiated thecall for papers and requested submissions that addressed views of unconsciouschange processes during organizational change; the role of typologies andbipolarities; the impetus for organizational change; the role of synchronicity;and emerging change models. The papers selected for this issue suggest avariety of ways in which analytical psychology and organizational changemanagement are linked: for example, by offering roadmaps for transformation;by linking the individual with the collective; by dealing with unconsciousblocks to collaboration and change; by incorporating emotions; and, as insynchronicity, by blurring boundaries between inner and outer experiences.Jungian psychology has traditionally relied on myths and stories torepresent the complexity of individuals in relationships and in the processes oftransformation. Therefore, this issue opens with the paper by Smith and Elmesentitled ‘‘Leading change: insights from Jungian interpretations of The Book ofJob.’’ Smith and Elmes incorporate a discussion of artistic rendering of the storyof Job, thereby ‘‘illustrating’’ the power of the image as a means to assist ininterpretation and communication. Further, these authors suggest that theincorporation of the feminine archetype into social, political, and economicsystems is crucial for healing and restoration in a time of loss (certainly atimely concern in today’s economic and social crises). That is, the story of Jobas presented by Smith and Elmes offers Jungian insights as roadmaps fortransformation. Relying on the words of Rumi (1995), they say: ‘‘Don’t insist ongoing where you think you want to go. Ask the way to the Spring.’’ Accordingto Smith and Elmes, the story of Job is the story of us all, today, and ourchanging definitions of authority, power, and soul. Matthews (this issue) expands the Jungian contribution to organizationalchange by exploring links between the individual and the collective – betweenpsychology and economics. Specifically, Matthews examines the relationshipsbetween Jung’s theory of archetypes and complexity theory in terms of thediscourse of competition. According to Matthews, Jung’s archetypes sharecharacteristics with complex adaptive systems in that both are dynamic withouter and inner ordering principles that underlie networks of relationships andinner self-adaptation, respectively. The interactions between and among theseouter and inner dynamics lead to emergent characteristics – to not onlyplanned but also unplanned change. Matthews argues that, as an orderingprinciple, competition contains mechanisms for the emergence of new forms ofcapitalism. With interdependence come increasing risks of disorganization asactions in one part of the network can produce unanticipated results elsewherein the network. Given the emergent properties of new capitalism, managementof change is increasingly difficult. Matthews offers the insights of Jung,together with elements of Sufi mysticism, as change aids and as alternatives tomore traditional, rational approaches to change management. As suggested by the insights of Smith and Elmes and Matthews, change canbe experienced as painful and therefore resisted. Unconscious blocks tocollaboration and transformation inhibit change. Carr (this issue) explains keyprocesses of identification, including archetypes, mirroring, and the ego-ideal,in their theoretical and historical context. Awareness of these psychodynamicprocesses in the workplace is valuable for change managers, particularly aspower dynamics inevitably come into play during organizational changes.Because change is dynamic, Carr argues, longitudinal study of change iswarranted. He provides the results of a ten-year study of organizational changeand highlights the psychodynamic processes of the work settings. Any change requires a passage through a liminal territory: between past andfuture, idea and enactment, old and new, even self and other. During times ofchange, boundaries, which may have provided a sense of safety, becomeblurred. Jungian thought suggests that this in-between state is also sacred:Jung’s appeal to a collective unconscious and Matthew’s reference to Sufimysticism blur the boundaries between the human and divine. Such bordercrossings – between the human and divine, the individual and the organization– have implications for organizational transformation. Durant (this issue)explores the movement across boundaries in relation to change management.She uses narrative and post-structuralism to explore paradox synchronicity,the acausal, but meaningful, correlation between an inner and outer event.Challenging either/or thinking, synchronicity is numinous and paradoxical; itexpresses both/and. Durant relies on Jung’s notion of synchronicity to discusscreativity, which, like synchronicity, blurs boundaries and both acknowledgesand unites differences. She then discusses implications of synchronicity andcreativity for change management. Durant’s emphasis on ‘‘both/and’’ recognizes and unites differences. Jessup(this issue) focuses on the recognition of differences as ‘‘gifts differing.’’ Shediscusses Jung’s theory of psychological type, which deals with oppositepersonality preferences. Jung’s typology was refined by the mother/daughterteam of Katharine Briggs and Isabel Myers, whose work was influenced by adesire to understand differences and, more specifically, to make sense of theconflict of the Second World War. Their work yields the Myers Briggs typeindicator (MBTI). Relying on words from the Biblical book of Romans, Isabelreferred to individual preferences as ‘‘gifts’’:So we, being many, are one body . . . and every one members one of another. Having then giftsdiffering (Romans, 12: 4-8). Jessup assesses the contribution of personality typology to changemanagement, emphasizes individual responses to planned and unplannedchange, and, citing Isabel Myers, suggests that understanding of differencesenables individuals and organizations to ‘‘go on’’ from wherever they are.Surely, ‘‘going on’’ requires not only a recognition of differences but alsorecognition of emotions. In a paper titled ‘‘The voice of the shuttle: mythical andorganizational transformations,’’ Starr-Glass (this issue) explores elements ofimaginal psychology from a perspective that considers reality in terms ofimages perpetuated through a shared mythology. Within the Jungian tradition,such images are archetypal. From an imaginal perspective, says Starr-Glass,sensemaking is primarily imaginal rather than verbal. Starr-Glass explainswith the myth of Tereus and Philomela. After raping Philomela, Tereus seversher tongue, but Philomela weaves her story in a roll of cloth. Powerful emotions– through the voice of the shuttle – leave imaginal traces and, thus, to seeevents in a mythological way provides insights into current transformations.The final paper in our special issue is appropriately titled, in part, ‘‘Leavingour father’s house’’ by Zanetti. Zanetti asks, ‘‘What does it mean to leave one’sfather’s house?’’ She answers: ‘‘Archetypally, the fathers’ houses represent thedominant content of a culture’s collective consciousness.’’ So, to leave thefather’s house is to explore social and psychological structures that repressindividual differences, specifically, for Zanetti, structures that repress feminineattributes. She explores these structures and elaborates outcomes of suchrepression in organizational settings. According to Zanetti, feminineconsciousness is concerned with process and with the journey, not the goal. Toleave the father’s house is not to invert the power in organizations, but rather tomanage contradiction, embrace the ‘‘dark places we fear most,’’ and transcendconflict by managing the tensions. An important Jungian image and challenge is to square the circle. To Jung,the circle is a symbol of wholeness. We suggest that the final article, ‘‘Leavingour father’s house’’, is closely linked with the first article, about Job, in that bothhighlight the value of the archetypal qualities associated with the feminine as ameans to bring about wholeness and health to our organizations. Theimplications of this for change is that the process – of caring, of relating, ofaccepting, of listening – is as important as the goal. Squaring the circle meansbringing to earth the singular, concrete, and contextualized; it meansindividuation. Any organizational change in the Jungian tradition is a journeyinward as well as forward, toward authenticity and uniqueness. In this sense,Zanetti’s and Durant’s contribution of their personal experiences suggests thepower of personal narratives; therefore, change managers might benefit frompaying attention to the unique stories of organizational members and theorganization as a whole. Respecting and balancing the individual and collective, the masculine andfeminine, inner and outer, and similarities and differences are, in the Jungiantradition, essential for effective change management. Further, changemanagers are encouraged to look inside themselves for the ‘‘gifts differing’’ andto recognize the spark of the divine in these gifts. We encourage the reader to‘‘take what you like and leave the rest’’ and to feel welcome to contact any of theauthors or editors if they have a story they would like to share. Alexis Downs Rita Durant Ken Eastman Guest Editors Previously published in: Journal of Organizational Change Management, Volume 15, Number 5, 2002