1 / 21

ASSESSMENT CENTRE STUDY GROUP. 2010

ASSESSMENT CENTRE STUDY GROUP. 2010. THE ROLE AND EFFECT OF UNCONSCIOUS DEFENSIVE STRUCTURES IN ASSESSMENT CENTRES. A SYSTEMS PSYCHODYNAMIC PERSPECTIVE Frans Cilliers Department of Industrial & Organisational Psychology UNISA. PROBLEM STATEMENT.

walt
Download Presentation

ASSESSMENT CENTRE STUDY GROUP. 2010

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ASSESSMENT CENTRE STUDY GROUP. 2010 THE ROLE AND EFFECT OF UNCONSCIOUS DEFENSIVE STRUCTURES IN ASSESSMENT CENTRES. A SYSTEMS PSYCHODYNAMIC PERSPECTIVE Frans Cilliers Department of Industrial & Organisational Psychology UNISA

  2. PROBLEM STATEMENT • AC paradigm, theory, technology focus on rational, observable, conscious behavior • Realization: “more is going on” below the surface of conscious observation, of a defensive nature, influencing AC outcomes • AC literature gives little access to these behaviors - in search for another paradigm

  3. RESEARCH QUESTION • What kind of defensive behaviours (or structures) could underlie AC observation which could influence assessment outcomes? • How do these behaviours manifest in and influence our work as consultants and behavioural observers in AC?

  4. RESEARCH AIM • To describe the role and effect of unconscious defensive structures on assessment centre outcomes

  5. RESEARCH PARADIGM • Systems Psychodynamics • Systemic psychoanalysis (Freud), object relations (Klein), systems thinking (Bertalanffy), Social systems as defense against anxiety (Menzies, Jaques) • Depth psychology and organisational theory • OD consultancy stance

  6. THEORY • Basic assumptions (Bion) Dependency, fight/flight, pairing, me-ness, one-ness / we-ness • Behavioral constructs • CIBART (Cilliers & Koortzen) Role, task, (anxiety), conflicts, authorisation, boundaries, identity

  7. DEFENSIVE STRUCTURES • System domain defensive structures (Bain) • Social defenses (Menzies) • Individual defenses (Freud, Blackman)

  8. RESEARCH DESIGN • Research approach Qualitative, motivation, ontology, epistemology • Research strategy Multiple case studies to test theory • Descriptive research

  9. RESEARCH METHOD 1 • Research setting Assessment centres. IOP Masters student applicants at UNISA over 4 years • Entrée and researcher roles Participant observer, analytical third

  10. RESEARCH METHOD 2 • Sampling Purposive sampling, 8 psychologists, in role of AC observers • Data collection. In-depth interviews Q1. Tell me about how you took up your role in the assessment centre Q2. How did your own dynamics influence the AC outcomes

  11. RESEARCH METHOD 3 • Recording of data Procedure, 1 week after AC, recordings • Data analysis Discourse analysis, generating working hypotheses, themes and research hypothesis • Ensuring quality data Trustworthiness, ethics

  12. FINDINGS 1. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY • Sentiments, attitudes, values • Perceptions Stereotypes (gender, race, age) Halo effect, contrast effort, selectivity Attribution (errors, biases) Prejudices

  13. FINDINGS 2. DEFENSES • System domain defensive structures • Social defenses / collusions • Individual defenses Splitting Introjections, projection, projective identification Transference, counter transference

  14. FINDINGS 2. THEMES • Individual dynamics influencing outcomes • Intergroup dynamics influencing outcomes • Diversity dynamics influencing outcomes • Moving from subject-subject relations tot object-object relations • Concern about the participant

  15. RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS The objectivity of AC observation is affected by unconscious psychodynamics in the form of individual and intergroup defensive structures. The awareness about these behaviours causes observers to start thinking about who’s behaviour is assessed – the participant’s or the observer’s

  16. LIMITATIONS • Only psychologists as observers and psychology students as AC participants used as sample • System domain and social defensive structures not yet explored in depth

  17. RECOMMENDATIONS • Training of AC observers should include awareness of systems psychodynamic behavior, its role and effect in observation • Self-development (as AC dimension) should be a requisite for observers, with thy focus on their sensitivity towards how the observer role is taken up in terms of behavioral dynamics

  18. REFERENCES 1 Armstrong, D. (2005). Organisation in the mind. Psychoanalysis, group relations and organisational consultancy. London: Karnac. Bion, W.R. (1961). Experiences in groups. London: Tavistock. Blackman, J.S. (2004) 101 Defences. How the mind shields itself. New York: Brunner-Routledge. Brunner, L.D., Nutkevitch, A. & Sher, M. (2006). Group relations conferences. Reviewing and exploring theory, design, role-taking and application. London: Karnac. Campbell, D. (2007). The socially constructed organisation. London: Karnac. Campbell, D. & Gronbaek, M. (2006). Taking positions in the organisation. London: Karnac. Campbell, D. & Huffington, C. (2008). Organisations connected. A handbook of systemic consultation. London: Karnac. Colman, A.D. & Bexton, W.H. (1975). Group relations reader 1. Jupiter: The A.K. Rice Institute.

  19. REFERENCES 2 Colman, A.D. & Geller, M.H. (1985). Group relations reader 2. Jupiter: The A.K. Rice Institute. Cytrynbaum, S. & Noumair, A. (2004). Group relations reader. 3. Jupiter: A.K. Rice. Czander, W.M. (1993). The psychodynamics of work and organizations. New York: Guilford. French, R. & Vince, R. (1999). Group relations, management, and organization. New York: Oxford University Press. Gold, L.J., Stapley, L.F. & Stein, M. (2001). The systems psychodynamics of organisations. London: Karnac. Hirschhorn, L. (1997). Reworking authority. Leading and following in the post-modern organisation. London: MIT.

  20. REFERENCES 3 Huffington, C., Armstrong, A., Halton, W., Hoyle, L. & Pooley, J. (2004). Working below the surface. The emotional life of contemporary organisations. London: Karnac. Jaques, E. (1990). Creativity and work. Madison: International Universities. Kets De Vries, M.F.R. (1991). Organisations on the coach. Clinical perspectives on organisational behaviour and change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kets De Vries, M.F.R. (2001). The leadership mystique. London: Prentice Hall. Kets De Vries, M.F.R. (2007). Coach and couch. London: Palgrave. Kets De Vries, M.F.R. & Engellau, E. (2007): Organisational dynamics in action. Klein, L. (2005). Working across the gap. The practice of social science in organisations. London: Karnac.

  21. REFERENCES 4 Klein, M. (1988). Envy and gratitude and other works 1946-1963. London: Hogarth. Lawrence, W.G. (1999). Exploring individual and organisational boundaries. A Tavistock open systems approach. London: Karnac. Menzies, I.E.P. (1993). The functioning of social systems as a defence against anxiety. London: Tavistock. Neumann, J.E., Keller, K. & Dawson-Shepherd,, A. (1997). Developing organisational consultancy. London: Routledge. Obholzer, A. & Roberts, V.Z. (1994). The unconscious at work. London: Routledge. Stapley, L.F. (1996). The personality of the organisation. A psycho-dynamic explanation of culture and change. London: Free Association. Stapley, L.F. (2006). Individuals, groups and organisations beneath the surface. London: Karnac.

More Related