Leading Through Conversations - Shadows 

Model A - ‘Happy Talk  

Considers the open way the people can interact with other people in the organisation. This is where both the individual and the organisation are being honest with each other. Both parties are aspiring to operate on a trust based relationship, where problems and concerns can be raised and discussed without any ulterior message or motivation. Both parties are happy to deal with the here and now and to act in an adult way about their behaviour and feelings. People are able to openly disclose their strengths and weaknesses without feeling threatened or subjugated by the organisation. The only tensions likely to surface are those that both groups know can be easily resolved, and hence are more about exploration and expansion rather than negative conflict.

Model B - ‘ If I Was’  

Turns the model inwards to look at the internal balance between an individual's open and shadow side. It considers the interaction between the known and unknown parts of an individual and, in particular, how many people can actually be out of touch with their shadow side, and hence who they really are. This creates a situation where people have internal conversations that are quite angry in many ways. he raging internal debate of shall I have just one more drink or cigarette.  So the conversation in this section might be onside me - debating who I am against what I want to be.

Model C - ‘Two Tribes’  

Explores the idea that any group will have two schemata - the one the people talk about and the one that they are not prepared to discuss. In the same way that two people can interpret a piece of art in different ways, so two people can talk about different aspects of the same organisation. In talking with one individual about their business, he or she might talk about the pay, procedures, polices and products that it has. Another individual might talk about the power battles, the covert actions against the competition and the way it disposes of unwanted people. Although they are talking about the same organisation, one is looking at the overt or espoused factors, the other is viewing the hidden or shadow elements that operate at a subterranean level.

Model D - ‘Looking For Clues’  

Considers the difficulties that conversational leaders have when operating with a group that is behaving in an apparently irrational way. Essentially, how can someone deal with the imbalance that occurs when they are trying to deal in a rational way with a group that is behaving in a covert and superficial way? While groups often spend their time talking about open issues, there are instances where the image of the groups  shadow is presented to the people. The shadow conversations emerge when the group organisation is placed under stress. It might be:

• When the group is asked to do something unusual .

• If the membership changes.

• Two group form to create a new entity

For all of these situations, it is likely to adopt a non-standard response, doing things that it might have thought unthinkable before in that it adopts a new set of operating rules and norms. It can also trigger the group to make greater use of the grapevine and social network to spread ideas rather than using the formal communication channels.

So, how does the average individual feel when forced to deal with these shadow behaviors? In many cases the effectiveness of the leader  can be halved during times of turmoil and chaos. The reduction emerges because people can resort to bunker mentality when they have to deal with the uncertainty offered by operating in the shadow world. ‘If all the world around you is in chaos, keep your head down and wait for the bad times to pass by’. This in turn results in a set of behaviors that are not conducive to the effective conversations.

The problem the conversation leader faces is a daunting one. A lone person can do little against a group that is operating out of the negative shadow arena. Dealing in a rational way with irrational behaviour is not necessarily successful. The end result is often a weakened group, one that is driven more by fear and repression rather than creativity and generative learning.

Model E ‘It’s all in the Game’   

Looks at the problems that arise when leaders use their shadow side to influence and drive a groups s open systems. This often manifests itself as game playing with people trying manipulate the conversation to meet their own ends. 

Examples of this type of behaviour often abound within an organisation - typically where people either knowingly or unconsciously decided to circumvent the systems to satisfy their personal needs. Of all the formal control systems that exist within organisation, the use of budgets and their linkage with corporate plans and strategies is potentially one of the most abused. In a typical organisation, the budget is used to convert the long-term strategy into a set of short-term action plans. In theory, it helps to decide the allocation of resources, and to monitor spend against planned expenditure so as to understand the financial consequences of any actions. Hence, a manager without a decent budget will be relatively ineffective within the business, and is unlikely to be able to deliver any of their objectives. So any conversation that takes place around the setting management of a personal budget is often clouded by covert messages and signals being issued by the person's shadow side.

ModeL F - ‘Going Underground’  

Considers how the groups and individual’s shadow sides can conspire together to bring about their eventual decay and downfall. 

In this model both the leader  and group have a tacit and unspoken contract to avoid those issues that might prove potentially damaging to their well-being. This phenomenon is referred to as Defensive Routines, and has been extensively covered by Chris Argyris since the 70’s. They might be defined as routines used by both the people and the organisation to keep themselves deliberately in the dark so as to avoid unpleasant surprises, threats, or anything that might be construed as uncomfortable.]

However, lies can only be lived for so long, one day the truth will out. If the leader and group persistent he continual use of shadow conversation, so the external environment will eventual rear its head and force the group to live into real world or cause it to inwardly explode and fall apart. When the group realise that they have been flouting the system for a long time, what will happen? Well, as in all good organizational stories, the witch hunt will probably begin; The search will be on to find the guilty party who failed to ensure that the group operated effectively. The next response is likely to be that people will adopt their best defensive routines - they will convince themselves and others that they really were really being open and honest and that it must have been someone else who created the problem. The final stage will probably be to fire the leader or for the leader to fire the person who will offer least resistance.