Example  of  importing  behaviour  from  different  context

102   Analysis    

Furthermore,  in  one  particularly  interesting  case  (P4/G4),  the  new  metaphor  the  participant   formulated  in  the  post-­‐interview  had  no  relation  to  the  metaphor  he  formulated  during  the  MI   intervention.  Instead  he  used  the  MI  intervention  itself  as  source  domain  for  developing  

understanding  of  his  collaboration  with  colleagues  in  the  work  place.  I  return  to  this  example  in   section  5.6.1.  

5.4.2. Example  of  importing  behaviour  from  different  context  

In  this  section,  I  recount  in  detail  an  example  of  ‘importing  behaviour’.  P49’s  (G3)  problem  was:  

How  can  we  get  a  commitment  to  decisions  in  the  leader  group,  given  that  there  are   members  with  very  different  ideas  about  what  leadership  is  (control  vs.  delegation)?  

P49  was  one  of  five  department  leaders  in  a  public  sector  organisation.  She  found  that  there  was   no  commitment  to  the  decisions  they  made  in  the  management  team.  The  other  managers  agreed   to  decisions  in  their  meetings,  but  did  not  act  on  them  afterwards.  The  main  expression  she  used   in  the  pre-­‐interview  to  describe  this  was  lack  of  “fælles  fodslag”  (common  ground).  Literally,  

“fælles  fodslag”  translates  as  common  “beat  of  the  feet”.  Thus,  the  sense  of  doing  something   together  is  seen  in  terms  of  coordinated  movement.  Furthermore,  P49  saw  internal  

communication  in  the  management  team  as  limited,  due  to  individual  agendas:    

“Some  may  ensure  themselves  more  influence  by  –  consciously  or  unconsciously  –  

withholding  information…  We  are  very  much  pillars,  the  four  departments…    one  thinks  one’s   own  department  before  the  organisation”  (P49,  21,  00.00).    

During  the  pre-­‐interview  she  realised  that  she,  and  especially  one  of  the  other  department   managers  seemed  to  have  radically  different  ideas  about  the  role  of  management.  To  her,   management  included  giving  employees  autonomy  and  challenging  the  decisions  politicians   asked  the  organisation  to  carry  out  if  her  professional  expertise  found  it  necessary.  P49  believed   that  her  college  thought  management  was  about  controlling  employees  and  carrying  out  the   political  orders  without  questions  and  without  errors.  She  realised  her  colleague  probably  did  act   on  the  common  decisions,  but  framed  the  decisions  in  a  very  different  understanding  of  

management  –  thus  rendering  the  implementation  of  the  decisions  unrecognisable  to  her.    

“We  sometimes  find  it  difficult  to  make  things  work  and  maybe  also  to  have  trust  in  each   other  because  we  come  from  some  completely  different  places  –  but  these  things  we  never   talk  about.  We  talk  about  the  concrete  problem,  but  we  do  not  get  under  what  are  the  

Analysis   103   different  basic  attitudes  that  makes  it  difficult  for  us  to  find  common  ground  (fælles  fodslag)”  

(P49,  24,  00.59).    

This  insight  is  an  example  of  what  I  call  increased  clarity,  however  no  new  behaviour  was   imported  during  the  pre-­‐interview  and  no  judgments  were  removed.  She  still  judged  her  

colleague  negatively,  even  if  the  content  of  the  judgment  changed  slightly  from  her  colleague  not   being  loyal  toward  decisions  in  the  management  team,  to  her  colleague  carrying  out  the  decisions   in  a  ‘flawed’  way,  due  to  her  ‘flawed’  idea  of  management  as  control  and  carrying  out  orders   without  challenging  people  higher  in  the  system.    

In  the  pre-­‐interview,  P49  used  metaphors  based  on  the  primary  metaphors,  where  she  saw  the   problematic  situation  in  terms  of  uncoordinated  movement.  She  saw  her  own  and  her  colleagues   ideas  of  management  in  terms  of  contrasting  points  of  departure,  resulting  in  contrasting  

destinations.    

During  the  MI  intervention,  she  created  various  metaphors  for  the  situation  that  all  revolved   around  contrasts  and  uncoordinated  movements  –  like  those  she  used  in  the  pre-­‐interview.  She   wrote  a  poem  in  which  she  saw  the  problematic  situation  in  terms  of  an  uncoordinated  orchestra   performance  (uncoordinated  movement).  Furthermore,  she  used  various  forms  of  sensory  

contrasts  as  metaphor  for  relation  between  her  own  and  her  colleagues’  way  of  leading.  For   example,  she  used  a  monotonous  march  by  Händel  as  metaphors  for  her  colleague’s  controlling   approach  to  leading  and  contrasted  it  with  music  by  Prokofiev  as  a  metaphor  for  her  own   delegating  approach  to  leading:  

“It  does  not  sound  good  in  our  choir.  One  is  too  small  and  a  too  big.    

We  often  work  around  the  same  table,  but  everything  is  not  quite  what  we  think.    

When  one  plays  mother,  and  one  plays  earth  –  in  the  shoe,  there’s  sort  of  a  thorn.    

There  is  a  dissonance  in  our  song.  No  common  sing-­‐along.    

Do  we  have  different  range,  when  it  ends  in  a  bang?    

Or  just  each  of  our  cue,  to  get  started  and  create  hullabaloo.    

Maybe  we  should  just  say  'hello',  take  each  his  cello  –  and  not  just  be  good  –  alone,  or  in  twos.    

Now  we  lead  through  control.  We  paint  a  smooth  watercolor  –  in  colors,  all  pastels.  A   monotonous  march  of  Händel.    

We  should  dare  something  creative  and  crooked,  as  Prokofiev,    

104   Analysis    

Then  we  could  go  with  soul  and  life  to  lead,  create  respect  and  idea  and  common  sound   without  yells  and  squeaks”  (P49,  36,  00.00)  

In  her  pictures,  P49  used  trains  moving  in  opposite  directions  as  metaphor  for  the  situation.  This   complex  metaphor  incorporates  both  primary  metaphors  of  the  situation  as  uncoordinated   motion  and  two  leadership  styles  as  contrasting.  She  also  used  a  black  and  white  graphic  print  as   metaphor  for  the  relationship  between  her  and  her  colleague’s  leadership  styles.    

"That  was  the  problem.  Just   being  alone  instead  of  walking   in  a  common  group"  (P49,  36,   01.35)  

However,  one  picture  made  a  particular  big  impression  on  P49.  This   was  the  only  picture  she  remembered  in  the  post-­‐interview.  It  was  a   picture  of  a  scarf  left  on  a  bench.  This  came  to  represent  the  

experience  of  loneliness  of  the  problematic  situation.  Considering   this  aspect  was  new  for  her:  

“It  could  be  something  about  going  in  different  directions,  but  it  also   looks  a  bit  lonely.  So,  in  fact,  it  is  something  about  when  one  does  not   have  this  common  commitment,  then  everyone  stands  a  bit  lonely.  And   this  I  hadn’t  thought  of”  (P49,  36,  05.24).  

In  the  post-­‐interview,  P49  had  developed  this  insight  further.  Her   perception  of  the  situation  had  changed,  which  (among  other  things)   was  visible  in  that  her  emotional  response  to  her  colleague  changed:    

“In  a  way  it  is  a  bit  sad.  Maybe  more  than  being  angry…  then  why  is  there  someone  who  does   that?  Why  is  there  someone  who  thinks  she  needs  to  keep  things  to  herself?  Maybe  that   person  is  not  happy  with  it  either…  it  is  again  this  thing  about  trying  to  see  things  from  a   different  side  than  your  own”  (P49,  41,  16.10).    

Using  the  picture  of  a  scarf  left  on  a  bench  as  a  metaphor  for  the  problematic  situation  is  based  on   a  primary  metaphor  P49  had  not  previously  used.  Instead  of  seeing  the  problematic  situation  in   terms  of  uncoordinated  movement  and  contrasting  ideas  about  leadership,  she  now  saw  it  in   terms  of  isolation,  i.e.  lack  of  physical  contact.    

After  having  introduced  this  new  metaphor,  P49  realised  that  the  problematic  situation  was  not   simply  a  question  of  lack  of  commitment  to  common  decisions,  but  even  more  so  it  was  a  question   of  lack  of  relationships  between  the  managers  in  the  management  team  (48  00.00).  With  this  new  

Analysis   105   perception,  she  remembered  that  she  did  a  lot  of  things  to  create  good  relationships  among  her   employees  as  a  way  of  making  them  work  better  together.  And  she  realised  that  the  behaviour   she  used  to  create  relationships  in  her  team  of  employees  could  also  be  applied  to  the  leader   group  she  was  a  part  of.    

Thus,  when  P49  created  a  complex  metaphor  (the  lonely  scarf)  for  the  problematic  situation  that   was  based  on  a  primary  metaphor  she  had  not  previously  used  (common  commitment  as  

physical  connectedness  rather  than  coordinated  movement)  she  realised  that  behaviour  she  used   in  a  different  domain  (managing  her  employees)  was  applicable  to  the  problematic  situation.  The   new  complex  metaphors  she  created  during  the  MI  intervention  that  were  based  on  the  same   primary  metaphors  she  already  used  in  the  pre-­‐interview  (e.g.  trains  moving  in  opposite   directions  or  an  uncoordinated  orchestra  performance  both  based  on  common  commitment  as   coordinated  movement)  did  not  have  a  great  impact.  Even  if  they  were  new  metaphors,  she  could   barely  remember  them  in  the  post-­‐interview.