While we do not always meet the family contact rebus in motivational work, we do have ongoing contact with the organizational contact rebus. This is because the staff teams who encounter latently motivated clients are often part of the official, bureaucratic organizations in sectors such as healthcare, criminal justice, and social services. Whether these organizations are large or small, they all consist of different groups, often organized in a hierarchy (Motivational Work, Part 1: Values and Theory, pages 599 – 625).
Several levels of contact rebus occur in an organization, in terms of both individual and group contact rebuses. A number of teams may be merged into one large unit, and thus comprise several group contact rebuses. Since the organization as a whole is characterized by a pattern of contact rebuses, we can maintain that an organizational contact rebus also exists.
Like the group contact rebus, the organizational contact rebus contains an internal and external component and is represented in the contact rebus of each member of the organization.
The organizational contact rebus contains an inner ascribed untransmuted contact rebus targeted at its members which is chiefly conveyed by the management staff within the hierarchical structure. Like other contact rebuses, it consists of two components: one untransmuted constructive and one transmuted destructively.
The ambition of the untransmuted constructive component is for the organization to carry out its task as well as possible. This endeavor includes giving positive affirmation to staff when they have done a good job and generally taking care of the people within the organization.
The destructive component of the ascribed untransmuted organizational contact rebus consists of the needs of the organization, regardless of its mission. The needs of an authoritarian, hierarchical organization are that it survives and that its internal structure of power remains intact, as this constitutes its very foundation.
Should the hierarchy of power collapse, the organization will find it difficult to survive, so the destructive component of the ascribed untransmuted organizational contact rebus contains a message to any individual member wishing to undermine the power structure of the organization.
The organization wants staff to be loyal to this very hierarchy and to see this loyalty as their own primary aim. This component of the ascribed untransmuted organizational contact rebus is based on a sense of insecurity among the organization’s members: they are not confident that everyone wants the best for the organization.
If the members cannot detransmute this destructive component of the organizational contact rebus, an increasingly destructive interaction will be initiated in which the aggressor-victim role duo will be all the more evident.
Case Study
Two social services offices handle family cases. One of them is managed by the ambitious Styrbjoern, who sticks rigidly to his budget, and has his own ideas as to how to develop operations. His staff has been evaluated and proved to perform well. The other office is managed by Ernst, who is frequently outrunning his own antique business, perhaps doing his company book-keeping or ringing clients during work hours.
Rumors soon spread through social services until everyone, including the directors of the organization, know about their boss’s moonlighting. The evaluation made of Ernst’s office shows its performance to be much poorer than Styrbjoern’s, yet Styrbjoern is often met with skepticism at conferences and is actively resisted by the directors of the organization: they frequently do not grant him funds for the various projects he suggests.
He has on several occasions received harshly-worded correspondence warning him not to make his own decisions. Styrbjoern can nevertheless detransmute these reactions and does not take them personally, seeing his interaction with the directors as an exciting power play.
In contrast, Ernst is favorably received by the organization’s directors and often receives praise for his work. He is never questioned as to why his office has such a high food allowance, although everyone knows that the staff eats the clients’ food without paying. The poor performance of his office is not an issue either. Ernst cannot detransmute the organizational contact rebus and believes what the directors tell him.
Discussion
The manager who fails to take responsibility and performs poorly receives positive affirmation, as he is loyal to the organization from the point of view of its directors. His moonlighting during work hours only means they can control him; if he became too independent they would have a valid reason to be rid of him – besides he has no foundation to stand on in terms of good performance.
While Ernst cannot detransmute the controlling actions of the organization, Styrbjoern can. His situation is the complete opposite in that he experiences active resistance, and, although his team has been shown to be doing really well, he receives no credit for this at all. His ‘problem’ is that he is too independent in relation to the organization and they have nothing to pin on him.
As Styrbjoern’s team performs well and he is exemplary himself, he poses an even greater threat. However, Styrbjoern can detransmute his superiors’ reactions and does not enter a demotivational process. Instead, he receives life force from the organization and does not let himself be lead into a destructive interaction with its directors.
He would be much easier to control if he had felt wronged and disparaged, as his emotional reaction would have caused him to let go of his tactical thinking and increase the risk of his making a formal mistake. However, the directors and organization do receive life force from Styrbjoern and enter a motivational process with him, as seen in the negative rebound which he receives in response to his actions.