5.6.6 Modelling

Understanding the process of modelling offers us an explanation of why we are what we are and why we behave the way we behave.

A model is that which we aspire to be, someone on whom we project what we desire for ourselves, or someone we imitate or emulate so that we can have similar characteristics.

People who wish to be successful in something look to other people who are successful for solutions in most areas of life.  For boys, great sportsmen are often models – that is, they want to be like them.  When I began writing songs there were elements in certain other songwriter’s songs that I found attractive and could relate to – so I was influenced by them.

The model family, that we were all encouraged to emulate, when I was growing up, was the Holy Family of Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

We were all children once, and we had parents, and if we think about it a little we will be able to trace elements of our behaviour, lifestyle, habits, etc. back to our parents and/or others who were (and might still be) significant in our lives.

Learning involves significant amounts of imitation.  Most of this imitation (or mimicking) is unconscious.  Even if, at first glance, we seem different to our parents, and perhaps have actively tried to be different to forge our own identity – which is very healthy and natural – we will find, with a bit of digging, that we have many traits and characteristics, habits etc. that they have or had.

I believe that all of us who are parents try to avoid what we might have experienced as, or thought to be negative elements in the way that we were parented, but, for good or bad, our parents’ ways are with us, usually unbeknownst to us. 

In general, I’d like to propose that in human behaviour, modelling needs to be good enough; no matter what we are modelling we cannot expect to be perfect.

Take, for example our work ethic.

We may ask ourselves is the intensity of our work good enough?  Do we work hard enough?

Given that people have different energies available to them at different times, hard work is an interesting factor to consider. We are often, after all, challenging families to work hard in attending to their responsibilities, (children, sobriety, etc.) and we need to model good enough hard work, while still taking care of our energy level, in our own work. 

And it is just as important to model taking care of self as it is to model hard work.

In the imperfect world of human relationships it is necessary for those in leadership positions to be reflective, aware of our prejudices and core beliefs, be able to grasp the essentials of situations in the moment, and work in a spirit of generosity and tolerance while still defining the boundaries of what is acceptable and what is not.

These will all be modelled to those who are seeking our assistance and/or those who we are leading.

To sum up, the kind of modelling that is the concern of this Sub-Chapter ensures that the explicit (conscious) messages that we are sending out are matched by the implicit (unconscious), thereby increasing their power significantly.

I have discussed chaos at some length in a previous Chapter.

Because members of families in our Focus Group are often aiming to put order on chaos I believe that it is most important to model coherence in our work. (I really like the description offered in the link – that if something is coherent all of its parts fit together well).

In human growth, the ability to cohere our actions, thoughts and feelings is an important developmental stage that can be hindered by exposure to continual chaos and trauma in childhood. We have discussed integration already, and in human growth coherence and integration are closely linked. Coherence is also linked to our Internal Working Model described here.

If, in our organisation, we value coherence and this is displayed in our dealings with others, we will at least model it to people who may be struggling – such as those in the throes of addiction. The expression the right hand knows what the left hand is doing comes to mind.

I find it helpful when considering coherence, and the strength that comes from it, to think of our organisation as being more of a matrix, or a grid, (like a wide stretched-out net) than a chain.

Unlike a chain, where every link has to be unbreakable, a grid allows for vulnerability. Or to put it another way, it gives people permission to be vulnerable. Every connection in the matrix, unlike a link in a chain, does not need to be strong all the time.  If enough are strong at any one time they will make up for the ones that are, for today, a little fragile and need some mending – or minding!

Interdependence is enhanced by coherence where the overall goals and aims are pursued with rationality and reason – rather than inflexible logic and rigidity – which I will return to later when I discuss power.

Our organisation will generally have a mission statement (or something like that) to describe to the public what we do or aspire to do. This will often be expanded upon in our introductory literature, website etc. with statements about our overall vision.

Generally such statements contain laudable ambitions that appeal to the public and include what we aspire to be and do. They generally do not reflect us warts and all.

We have come across congruence in different Chapters and Sections.

If our organisation is congruent a worker (or someone who uses our service regularly) will have an experience that is pretty close to what we state are our mission and vision.  (This is sometimes described by saying that it does what it says on the tin).

Naturally enough, 100% congruence would be difficult if not impossible to achieve but it is what we need to be aiming towards.  People in leadership positions are generally held to be responsible for upholding or protecting the statements to ensure that what they contain prevails – and while this is true, it is really everyone’s responsibility.

But; it is the leader’s responsibility to create the atmosphere in our organisation that makes it easy to have difficult conversations about whether or not we are doing what we claim to do in our mission/vision statements.

The previous post, coherence, is important here.

I propose that if what we deliver coheres with what is observed and experienced by both insiders and outsiders (that is, if it all fits together well) our message increases greatly in power.

The reason for this is that people, in addition to symmetry, are attracted to integrity, or genuineness, which also has a symmetrical dimension. (We all like to think of ourselves as, and, I believe, aspire to be, genuine).

If, on the other hand, the behaviour of the people in our organisation (particularly those of us in leadership positions) is observed to conflict with what is spoken, written, or being promoted in general, (or our mission-vision statements) the message is significantly undermined, and it loses much of its power.

Of course you will recognise parallels here with good enough parenting in a family, which is a microcosm of society anyway.

One of the most helpful elements to model in our organisation is diversity.

When I say diversity I mean that we accept everyone where they are at, and afford everyone equal status.  The reason that it is helpful is because our work in supporting vulnerable families involves encouraging them to accept difference anyway.

Comparison is often used as a method of getting children to behave better, or do better at school, sports or be like a successful classmate, cousin or sibling etc.

Why can’t you be like your brother?

This is often counter-productive although usually it is done with good intentions.

Even if we adults are aware of the damage comparing can do, we sometimes deliver comparison messages unconsciously.  (Just as an aside, is it not very ironic that in our democracy comparison is so prevalent in all walks of life, particularly within the Pillars)?

Comparison begins when we are very young, and throughout our entire schooling comparison, competition, compliance and conformity will always be more important than recognition of our uniqueness or difference [1].  In fact, we are fed strong messages that being different is thought to be not really that desirable.

Imagine how enriching it is for a child – whose confidence is eroded by constant comparison and harsh judgement – to come to an organisation where she is accepted for who she is and her unique gifts are celebrated.

This is what we are aiming for in our organisation that supports vulnerable families.

More subtly, (and I have covered this elsewhere) if logic always triumphs over emotion, we will model inflexibility and run the risk of being culturally distant from many people in our Focus Group – who may be in need of an immediate emotional response.

Not everyone will agree with me here but I believe that accepting a little bit of dysfunction, or oppositional behaviour, in our day to day encounters can be helpful in our aim to attract very distressed people.

I say this because I believe that people looking for help know, instinctively and intuitively, which dysfunctions are really harmful – and which would obviously need to be addressed – and which are harmless. That is, engaged in to, kind of, check out the level of acceptance of difference in our organisation.

I believe that people do this to ensure that our organisation is a safe place for them to be open and vulnerable.  If rigidity is experienced, or blind obedience is demanded (see also the next post on power) it will probably trigger feelings of rejection in respect of previous attempts at being accepted for who they are and where they are at, probably going right back to their schooldays.

And anyway, there is always some dysfunction in an organisation – it is impossible to eradicate it.  Indeed, striving to be perfect is a kind of dysfunction in itself!

Modelling diversity presents a particular challenge and is often inhibited (or at least undermined) by lack of confidence in what we are about and over-dependence on exterior judgment, (perhaps from statutory, funding, or academic sources – comparison again).

Part of the major challenge, arises, of course, from our temptation to focus on people that are conforming to our agenda, and ignore, or exclude, those who are not.

[1]. Comparing is also a favourite practice of the media and much entertainment is based on comparison, e.g. between right and wrong, good and bad etc. as we have noted already.  As media (newspapers, radio, TV etc.), are part of the entertainment industry, rational or thoughtful debate, or even truth, is often sacrificed in favour of comparison to make a story exciting.

What we model in respect of power has an impact on families, partner organisations, staff, volunteers, funders and all other stakeholders. 

Generally the community and voluntary sector is thought to be less powerful than the Pillars.  I have mentioned elsewhere that I have heard it referred to as the Third Sector, the First and Second Sectors being Government and Private Sectors respectively.  (And, as I said already, I believe, language is important)! [1].

I know many practitioners that start off in community type work and then get what are deemed to be better jobs in the Pillars – mostly academia and/or public/civil service.  (My fervent hope is that such people bring their knowledge and experience into the Pillars and thereby influence decision making therein. Many of them do).

I know a few people – but not that many – who chose to leave academia or the public/civil service and join the exciting but insecure (and modestly paid) world of community work.

But the migration is generally the other way.

Does anyone ever wonder 1): why that is so? and 2): what affect has the migration on building relationships with vulnerable people?

We want our organisation to advocate for and stand up for people who are powerless and are largely ignored by society, i.e. the Focus Group.  Such people might never have had a feeling of having power over decisions that they make in respect of their desire to be included as equals in society.

For example, take a situation like worried parents accessing support for their child who is struggling in school, or who has a chronic illness.

All around them they see children who need support getting it because either their parents have jobs and money, or they are well in with those in authority, or they can articulate their children’s needs clearly. And within the inevitable inefficiencies of our education and health systems, the needs of children of most so-called middle class, and/or working people are attended to relatively quickly.

When support services appear impenetrable, however, it is a different story.

I have experienced many, many parents who did not have either the money, contacts or skills in articulation to get their children’s needs met and whose children, despite the parents’ exhausting efforts, ended up addicts and ultimately in prison.

Many such parents will feel powerless, and dependent on the good will of others (almost always practitioners of various hues) to advocate on their behalf. 

If our organisation wishes to empower such parents (and, obviously other individuals who are not parents but who feel equally powerless over their own destiny) we will need to model empowerment in our dealings with each other – in a very common-sense and practical way.

Of all traits that organisations have, who has power and how it is used is something that is noticed by those who never had power.  That is because if we feel powerless we will be finely tuned in to the nuances of power and how it is used and abused.

If we want to be attractive and relevant to those who are always ignored, (and not just those who will respond in a way that pleases us), we may have to do quite a lot of reaching out – all the time assuring people that not only are we on their side but that we will be there for the long haul.

Reaching out is necessary because people who have tried over and over and still failed to get their needs (or their children’s needs) met are tempted to give up. But reaching out is, of course, undermined if we don’t get our own power structures right.

If, in our organisation, we have traits such as gossiping, dishonesty, playing games, comparison and competition, doing and returning favours, (all power struggles, sometimes done with what we might think to be justifiable reasons), then these will be spotted quickly.

If we want power for its own sake, or want to build empires, or are easily threatened, or have over the top reaction to minor events, such traits will also be spotted immediately – and they are the ones that are modelled to people in distress.

[1]. I believe that the Community/Voluntary Sector in Ireland is quite strong and would resist the label Third, but nonetheless vigilance is needed.

This is the final post in a Sub-Chapter that has been all about how we propagate values by modelling.

Recent studies on the brain, particularly those that prove the existence of mirror neurons, seem to agree with old sayings such as (in Gaeilge) ‘thaithníonn cíaróg cíaróg eile’ [1] and in English ‘birds of a feather fly together’, or the more prosaic – slightly different but similar theme – ‘it takes one to know one’, i.e. that we gravitate to what is familiar to us.

The expressions imply that we instantly recognise the traits that we have ourselves in others, and are attracted to them – mostly unconsciously.

People have debated, since time immemorial as to whether we are what we are because of our genes – that which is imprinted in our DNA at conception – or because of what we learned through modelling. That is, what we were immersed in and influenced by in the womb and then from birth onwards – i.e. our environment. (Obviously, as we see from the proverbs quoted above, we thought about such things ever before we knew what genes and DNA were).

This is often called the nature vs nurture debate.

I don’t have the answer here – as mature adults we are probably, in my guess, the result of both – but there is enough evidence from many studies to point to the importance of modelling as being very significant in why we do what we do.

[1]. This is a humorous saying which, literally translated, states that one beetle recognises another.  I’m not sure why the ancient Irish picked the humble beetle to represent the mirror neuron.