4.4.2 Energy In Systems

In this Sub-Chapter we will consider energy in systems.

By 2050 it is hoped that the motive power for all cars will be a battery, charged using power generated by solar radiation, wind turbines or similar.

But, traditionally, cars used the internal combustion engine, which is a system of cylinders, pistons, oils, fluids, electrics, coolants, etc. and the energy is provided by the fuel, (petrol or diesel).  If one of the parts is faulty, fuel (energy) is wasted because the faulty part of the engine acts as a negative force on the system.

Of course we are not engines but for the purposes of this discussion an analogy can be drawn.  If we consider our human system (like a team of workers) to be a number of individuals committed to achieving a particular goal, each, like the components of an engine, fulfilling a role that is interdependent, then, (making the assumption that we are all reasonably healthy and well fed – that is, our physical energy is taken care of), the fuel is our emotional wellness, or the level of our spiritual energy.

If we are emotionally well, the available fuel will be high quality. That is, if the majority of us are emotionally well enough [1] we will have sufficient energy to achieve our goals.  We may even have some left over for innovation and creativity!

This is a great advantage in a group of businessmen, engineers, builders, doctors, etc. but is not of vital importance.  That is to say, they can achieve their goals even if a number of them are emotionally unwell.  Profit can still be made.  Of course, profits will probably increase with high morale, but it is usually not a matter of survival or going under.

However if we are a group of family support workers in an organisation committed to supporting families in the Focus Group we need emotional wellness as much as a carpenter needs a T-square or a doctor needs a stethoscope.  High morale, positive self-esteem, and its first cousin self-confidence (there is a slight difference between the two) are tools of our trade and all are of vital importance.

People who come to our organisation looking for help will intuit whether or not we have high morale, self-esteem and self-confidence, if we are emotionally well, and have high energy.

Or not!

You might remember the description of the human tendency to be care-giving as well as care-seeking from the Sub-Chapter on Attachment.

There is an old saying that ‘God gives us the burdens that we can carry’.  I don’t know whether or not this is true but I do believe that people in distress give us practitioners the burdens that, they intuitively feel, we can carry.

Just like a child, who, (because his care-giving kicks in), will only give the parent the burden that she intuitively, or instinctively knows he will be able to carry [2], the person seeking help will intuitively know what a practitioner is able for and generally tailor requests, descriptions of distresses, etc. accordingly.

In some cases, where someone’s role in a family of origin may have been a caretaker one, they may begin to adopt the exact same caretaker role with the people that are employed (and being paid) to help them. 

(To understand this a little better, it might be interesting to think back to our own childhood and try and remember things that we didn’t tell our parents because we – often unconsciously, but sometimes in full conscious awareness – knew they would respond in a way that didn’t invite further discussion).

I believe that the emotional wellness of our group; or how much we can carry, or hold is intimately connected to how responsibility is viewed, both individually and collectively.

The principal reason for this is that our tendency towards responsibility [3] (as I stated in previous Chapters) is an existential given.

This will be further explored in the next post.

[1]. This includes being emotionally well enough to support, and not be judgmental of, a member of the group that is emotionally unwell from time to time.

[2]. Children are always giving parents their burdens to carry.  Good enough parenting involves handing back many of the burdens so that the children learn age-appropriate responsibility.  This is easier said than done, particularly when the child displays behaviour that is worrying the parent, triggering the parent’s rescue mode.

[3]. When I say that humans have a tendency towards responsibility I mean that, consciously or unconsciously, (as we grow) it is something that we yearn for, feel satisfied about, and gives meaning to our lives.

As good enough parents we model appropriate responsibility as our children grow. 

Being appropriately responsible gives us energy. Taking on too much responsibility (worrying about everyone and everything else) drains our energy.

What about taking no responsibility?

Surely if we take on no responsibility we’ll have loads of energy because we’ll have nothing to do or worry about. But actually I don’t believe that that is the case.

Being irresponsible is also an energy drainer because, ultimately, it will probably cause us trouble. Also, we may feel emotionally upset that we are not being true to ourselves – the existential guilt that I referred to in an earlier post.

Appropriate responsibility involves taking responsibility for all our successes, but also taking responsibility for things that go wrong.  And it means we take responsibility and not blame others, either explicitly or implicitly, for our own emotional state.

If we are good enough parents we judge what our child is capable of handling at a particular stage of development.  We can take on too much responsibility (i.e. cleaning our 10 year old’s room – thereby letting him off the hook), or too little responsibility (i.e. leaving our 10 year old in charge of a toddler and a baby when we go out drinking for the night) – thereby burdening him with too much too soon.

In the first instance, a child may feel the beginnings of (unconscious) existential angst or guilt (that is, the guilt that we aren’t being true to ourselves as I just mentioned) as he has an unconscious need to be responsible anyway.  In the second case, he will feel overburdened as he will have too much responsibility appropriate to his age.

As stated above, emotionally well parents will take responsibility for all their successes – and/or all their failures and it is the same in organisations.

How often have we heard people in an organisation that struggles to achieve its goals attributing blame not on themselves as individuals, but the organisation?  (A good clue as to the willingness to acknowledge responsibility is to listen to someone complaining and observe whether he uses the terms they, or we when talking about the organisation of which he is a part).

In almost all cultures of the world the fundamental system in human society is the family, and I have already explained the rationale for considering it to be an appropriate context to assist hurt children.

A popular model of therapeutic intervention with a family (which is based on Systems Theory) is known as systemic family therapy.  This is where the work with the family is done with an awareness of how each person’s behaviour affects everyone else and then the family as a whole.

A staff team in an organisation is also a system and many of the characteristics of families are transferable to staff teams.  For instance there could be a caretaker, a clown, a hero, a scapegoat, etc.  Almost always, these roles will be taken on unconsciously.

I believe that it gives us an energy boost if we become aware of, and then take responsibility for the roles we adopt.

Of course, the roles are usually not at all as pronounced as they would be in a family because a staff team will lack the privacy of a family. Also, a staff team will be governed by company rules, policies and procedures whereas a family will behave more in accordance with norms emanating from individual members’ different personalities, core beliefs, rituals, practices and responses to emotional experiences learned and handed down through many generations.

And, just like a family, the more the individuals take responsibility, the less pronounced the roles will be.

People can put energy into a team or take it out.

The amount of energy available to a team is a sum of the energies of each individual plus a mysterious group factor.

I mentioned in a previous post that an important law of physics is the Law Of Conservation Of Energy, that is, energy cannot be created or destroyed. I wondered about this law when applied to groups of humans. Because – I believe anyway – while it probably holds true in respect of physical energy I’m not that sure if it’s true in respect of the spiritual energy we described earlier.

The reason that I wonder about this is that a well-functioning group of humans (such as, for example, a successful sports team) seems to have, in addition to the sum of the energies and skills of each member, a mysterious little bit extra that is indefinable. That is, once again quoting the old sage Aristotle; the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. They seem to be lucky, and little things that matter seem to go their way [1].

This is what we are aiming for in a team working with families in the Focus Group.

Now, in a team, obviously, on different days, different people will have different energy levels.  One could, for instance, have the ‘flu, and have very little to input.  Also, one could be suffering emotionally, (perhaps have problems at home), and need others on the team to ease his distress.  Taking account of all the ups and downs that affect individual members, I propose that in a healthy, well-functioning team the amount of energy available to do the work will go up and down but it should be relatively constant over a long time frame e.g. a year.

If a person comes into a team, i.e. a new staff member, it is expected that for a certain time they will take energy out of the system as they will be instructed, (and learn for themselves), how the team functions.

Just like a new teenager joining an already established gang, or a new baby being born into a family, there is a period of readjustment as the system gets accustomed to the new team member.

The period of time it takes for the energy to recover to its former level depends on how quickly the new member becomes a part of the team, how well trained she is for the job to be done, how empathic she is with the norms and ethos of the existing staff members, how she understands the essentials of the work, how well functioning, welcoming, generous, and open the existing staff are, and, crucially, how good she is at incidental learning.  (I will come back to incidental learning in the next post).

In a well-functioning team it is the case that this will be effected smoothly and the energy level will soon experience a net increase as the new member settles into his role and begins making a contribution.

It is sometimes difficult to break into a team – teams always have people who are close to each other and form friendships.  New members will gravitate towards those on the team they find common ground with and these can form cliques.

I propose that there is nothing wrong with close friendships unless they exclude others for mischievous or disingenuous reasons. [2]. In this, I believe that the more dysfunctional a team is the more damaging the cliques may be.

And unwelcoming cliques will certainly drain energy from a team.

[1]. I will describe the Johari Window in the Chapter on Training.  In the Johari Window the unknown pane can be considered to be the fount of great creativity, innovation, and even luck as people and organisations become more open, i.e. enabling a larger public space and more willing to accept and work on constructive criticism i.e. feedback.  The willingness to do this, is, of course, a function of the emotional wellness of the team. The Johari Window is a very useful tool for building awareness among individuals and teams – so long as members are up for it!

[2]. Though people may be excluded for operational reasons which would be different.

In respect of energy, I believe that a droplet of incidental learning in an individual joining a team is worth an ocean of induction training delivered by the organisation!

This is not because I am lazy, or do not wish to spend hours preparing induction training packages and days delivering them.  Naturally I think it is important that a new member of a team is instructed thoroughly on the essentials of the post and the organisation. 

However, I also believe that the person who is not able (or willing) to learn incidentally is probably not suitable to do the job, as mostly, our work with the Focus Group requires people to think on their feet and find out things by observation and experience, using initiative, creativity, and curiosity rather than being handed everything on a plate [1]. 

Also, it is far more powerful to learn a task by watching others and then integrating the learning than being explicitly taught. This is, after all, how the vast majority of us learned to sit up, to walk, to talk, to string together sentences (and maybe even to read), to play games, and a zillion other living skills that we take for granted.

The voyage of discovery undertaken by the new staff member will be complemented by the spirit of generosity in existing team members, who will assist her in settling in. The spirit of togetherness and camaraderie, the willingness to help others, be generous, (i.e. the morale), is the most important factor in ensuring that the energy level of a team remains high.

The necessity of induction type training, will, of course, vary from profession to profession.

For example, to allow an aircraft mechanic to learn by trial and error would be potentially catastrophic and highly irresponsible.

However, in family support work we need to remember that to err is human and while safety of vulnerable people is paramount in our work, there can be great learning for both the helper and the person being helped in the fixing of an error.

If we tie down our work too much in rules and regulations like those that would be necessary for an aircraft mechanic we stand the risk of losing spontaneity, humanity, creativity, vulnerability and many other desirable traits that contribute positively to the amount of energy in a team but that wouldn’t be much good keeping a plane from falling out of the sky.

[1]. I use this term to describe the learning done by observing others interacting.  It is vital in family support work with families in distress.  Studies show (and you may have observed yourself) that workers learn much more from watching others, trial and error, asking colleagues, etc. than from formal training.  If you are interested in these matters have a browse through articles about John Dewey, a radical thinker on education.  In common parlance incidental learning can be described as cop on!

Conflict is inevitable among a group of people living or working with each other. (There is probably no need to say that)!

Here I will consider conflict in our team and how it affects the energy available to do work.  Of course energy can come from the resolution of conflict and this can be a very positive thing.  It can thus be looked at (by a perceptive leader and/or supervisor) as an opportunity for growth and development.

However it can also be very destructive – particularly if it is not recognised for what it is.

Conflict appears to galvanise us far more than cooperation ever does.  For example, in a country going to war, every element of the state apparatus is mobilised to assist, and huge amounts of money and human resources are invested in the war effort.

This willingness of everyone to pull together can be easily understood, because the goal is to defeat an enemy which (rightly or wrongly) is thought to be a threat to our culture, livelihood, etc.

Not so easy to understand, however, is the general day-to-day attractiveness of conflict (disconnection) over cooperation (integration), which I also refer to here, and/or the reasons we find people hurting each other attractive to watch.  Whether it is serious headline crime that is reported in gory detail with great enthusiasm, through fiction in books, films, TV series, documentaries about people who are suffering, violent video games, or media that plant themselves in war zones, we appear to be almost addicted to watching people hurt each other and/or watching people suffer.

It may be because of our need for excitement (mentioned later) but I intuit that it is deeper than that.  Perhaps it is linked to our attractiveness to what is taboo and what we’d normally not encounter in our day-to-day lives; or a deep unresolved rage that we keep the lid on because to express it openly would not be in keeping with what society expects of us.

Whatever it is, I would say anyone who ever has worked as part of a team will recognise this galvanising, and sometimes destructive quality that conflict has.

It is important for leaders not to be drawn into the excitement of conflict and add to it.

That is, while conflict is an inevitable reality that needs to be acknowledged on an ongoing basis I believe that it can be given too much oxygen by leadership.

Not all conflict can be worked through, dealt with and finally resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.  Sometimes it needs to be parked.  Indeed the energy used to resolve conflict between two people who are unwilling to be reflective could often be used to further the well-being of those who seek our assistance.

The emotionally-well-enough staff member will be willing to park issues and hold difficult emotions until an appropriate forum (i.e. supervision) is available to move towards mature and responsible resolution.

It is true that the legal profession gains a lot from ongoing conflict that can sometimes be endemic in teams large and small – but much can be solved without recourse to external assistance too if a spirit of good-will is the dominant ethos in the organisation.

Now the purpose of engaging in conflict is usually to get one’s needs met.  (I refer to a previous post in the Chapter on Systems Theory in Section Three).  These needs might, of course, be unconscious and contain an element of dysfunction or even neurosis.

Underneath conflict there is often an element of suffering; the depth of which is dependent on the nature and/or intensity of the conflict, and how deeply the issues challenge our core values.  Suffering, in turn, is virtually always accompanied by a charged emotional state which is usually dominated by emotions such as anger, fear, anxiety, envy, insecurity, etc.

In our work we are in constant contact with members of families that often exhibit high levels of anger, fear, anxiety and similar emotions. How trauma finds its way into teams was discussed in a previous post and that is relevant here.

It is our responsibility to accommodate these emotions (including, very often, the chaos we spoke about in a previous Chapter), make sense of them, reframe them if appropriate, absorb some of the more irrational outbursts, and listen carefully for wisdom that might be usable as change nodes [1] which might not be that easy to spot. 

(More on this in the Chapter on Leadership in Section Five when we discuss Power).

Also, good enough leadership involves not allowing the conflict that we deal with every day among the people we are helping to be mirrored in the day to day encounters within our team.  This mirroring, or parallel process, is quite common among organisations that work with distressed families – we only have to look at how competitiveness, never ending rows, turf wars, power struggles, and a multitude of time and energy wasting issues abound in organisations, both statutory and voluntary.

[1]. Node is a term borrowed from computer and/or communications networks.  From our point of view it is a place where things happen together, or merge. So a change node can be viewed as a potential opportunity for either proposing a different view or framing a problem from a different perspective. A technical description is available here.

The sometimes unwanted (or unwelcome) tension – that can arise from unresolved conflict – that might exist between workers in our team can either paralyse us or provide a template for great creativity and innovation.

Many creative endeavours are the result of tension.  It could be tension between two personalities (for example, song-writing partnerships that produce great songs are often rife with tension) or an inner tension in an individual that precipitates a burst of energy which produces a great work of art.

Beyond art, music etc., many great inventions that changed the world resulted from an inner tension in individuals as they struggled with conflict within themselves.  On my own journey, the tension between what I was and what I wanted to be (or, the direction I wanted my life to take) gave me the energy to change my career.

Let us look at the family again to explore this further.  It is often the case in a family that while Mam and Dad will wish the same for their children they may have different priorities in respect of how they get there.

This comes from their different life experiences (i.e. the Atlantic Ocean of waves of feelings that we mentioned in the Chapter on Systems Theory).  Gender may well influence their priorities also.  The different priorities will inevitably cause some tension, the resolution of which can be either constructive or destructive, relationship-wise.

If we want the outcome to be constructive, it will be very helpful if the self-esteems of Mam and Dad are robust and healthy, so that they interpret a difference of opinion as being something that can be beneficial.  In this situation, the blend of both views will have great potential to be positive and ultimately creative in the resolution of the myriad of complex challenges that rearing children brings with it.

It is also, of course, very good modelling for the children as they observe expression of different opinions as a normal part of living, contributing to life, resolution of problems, and indeed, the norm for relationships that thrive.

It is the same in teams.  I believe that tension in a team is a good thing.

The expression of views, opinions, strong feelings arising from different personalities and life’s experiences is enriching and adds to productivity if, (like in the family) the atmosphere in our team is one that promotes and affirms diversity.

Such affirmation will increase our level of energy and, also like the family, will be very good modelling for people who come looking for help.  Much of what we explored in the Chapter on the Universal Theories of Change applies to tension in teams and agencies, and how it is dealt with when it manifests.

For example, in respect of the root foundations, it is healthy for our team to have a strong identity.  And freedom to express strong opinions leads to a distinct identity – just as it is manifest in a song-writing team, or indeed, in a sports team playing to its optimum.

It is also healthy to foster good relationships among members.  There is huge potential for emergence in every team which can arise from healthy tension between members as opinions flow.

I believe that it is a sin (a long time since I used that expression) for leaders, managers, Boards, owners etc. to ignore people’s gifts, and their desire to use their gifts, or worse, see them as a problem.  Of course, I am talking here about gifts that fit the mission of the organisation – but I have found over many years that, mostly, people’s gifts are adaptable.  It’s amazing when you think of it that people’s gifts – and even wisdom – can lead to conflict!

In many cases, I have observed organisations hiring expensive external experts while ignoring the wisdom that is right under their nose [1], and that comes absolutely free.

Wisdom is a very important gift that often comes from genuine heartfelt encounter.

In the Chapter on the Family Support Shamrock I posited creativity as a vital characteristic in an organistion that supports families in the Focus Group.   I believe that the creativity that we aim for in our work in supporting families should be also present in day-to-day encounters among our team, whether at formal team meetings or any other informal discussions.

(There is a separate Chapter devoted to Creativity in Section Five). 

[1]. Though, of course, that part of my mind that tends to be a little suspicious thinks that it suits the perpetuation of Pillars values to hire people at very high cost to perpetuate the practices I referred to when I discussed the impact on the Focus Group.  I will give some examples in the Chapter on Research and Evaluation.