More Details

• Boundary Violation or needless worry? by Lillian, 3/24/99
  • Always use your powers for good, my son/daughter by William Reid, 3/19/99
    
    

Thanks for your interest. I'll go into a little more detail here.

>Interesting question, though a little short on details. It might be helpful to describe the setting a little more, as well what you mean by "invasive" and "probing" questioning at the "informal" gathering.

The Setting was an assessment centre for the recruitment of management consultants into a high powered organisation that deals with board level conflicts and major strategic consulting assignments. Therefore, people who joing this company must have an unusual and often volatile mix of characteristics.

Hi assertiveness/dominance Hi self motivation/drive Hi ambition Hi creativity/ability to innovate Hi stress tolerance

Lo tolerance of own weaknesses Lo tolerance of status quo etc...

The pressures are high because of the consequences to whole corporations of getting it wrong. Individuals of course also deal with the political dimensions and power plays inside these companies. Usually when we have gone in it means that something is badly wrong and there are careers and reputations etc at stake, volatile and interesting scenarios.

The other hi pressure is on ethics. Of course in our field the temptations of power are quite frightening, and each project brings its own ethical dilemmas and issues.

A little while ago, about 2 years, we had a frightening episode within the consultancy involving a practitioner of NLP who derailed himself somewhat, ending up with a group of about 5 of our people psychologically dependent on him. How competent and mature people fell into this situation was the question. One answer, vulnerable due to the pressure to perform. Much processing happened which ended up with the guy leaving, but not before he actually damaged a number of client project teams in the process.

So we have a hi pressure environment with a painful memory of what can happen when tools are misused.

So much for background.

The assessment centre was billed as a one day event during which the candidates would undergo various structured exercises to test their abilities. Characteristics tested for included, lateral thinking, logical deduction, team working, decision making, understanding a brief, dealing with pushback, reactions to stress. The candidates knew that they would be pushed and observed.

Exercises included: Everyone is blindfolded, a rope is tangled between everyone, the objective is to form a square.

Though this environment was harsh it was expected, structured, open, and applied to everyone in the session. Pressure that came was not personal.

The evening before, there was a meeting of the candidates and some of the people from the company in the bar of the hotel in which the event was being held.

It was assumed that people knew they would be under observation from the moment they walked into that bar. There was no mention of or expectation of any structured event that evening.

The evening became a little more than just an introductory session, and a session was started where everyone had to write down what they least liked to deal with in a client and with a colleague. So far no problem.

Then each person would stand up at the board and do a little role play and interrogation exercise. Also no problem here, because the pressure came upon the person because they were up at the board, or there was a relevant issue with regard to what they had written.

The problem came when the topic of people who lack confidence came up. Someone had written that they found it difficult to deal with people who lacked confidence.

The facilitator then said, "Ah but we all know people who are severely lacking in confidence" and he turned to a guy who was sat to one side of him, and said quite pointedly..."Don't we James...." and looked away.

Now given that confidence was one of the characteristics that were being looked for, this was a little odd. What did this facilitator know that we didn't. We were all in competition with one another, and this guy is pointing to a weakness already? ( The facilitator is a qualified indus psych).

Throughout the rest of the exercise, this guy James, was thrown snide remarks, when he went up to the board, the facilitator was noticably harder on him than he had been on anyone else. He was up at the board a good 60% longer under the questioning than anyone else had been.

When he was not at the board, the facilitator repeatedly drew the attention of the rest of the group to James, each time with questions and comments regarding James' implied lack of confidence.

James was clearly uncomfortable under this pressure, sweating and stumbling over his words during his time at the board and with a very closed body posture otherwise.

The issues I had with this were not really "Poor little James", but more "How does this display promote an organisation that prides itself on being absolutely ethical, evenhanded, fair, objective, professional, etc...".

I could not understand the purpose of this one pointed pressure. No one else received it. I could see no benefit to the individual or the group. Perhaps I was just not seeing the point.

In essence what I observed was:

1. A possible boundary violation 2. An intervention made without explicit consent

The guy is a certified psychologist, this gives him certain skills and tools and certain responsibilities. These responsibilities only apply in the context of his acting as a psychologist, specifically.

(Question, was he acting as a psychologist during that evening? If so then he was bound by his code of ethics. If not, then what authority did he have to facilitate the meeting and do the probing?)

One responsibility that a psychologist has is to weigh up the possible benefits and possible harm when considering an action, and undertake an action only if there is more benefit than harm and to consider at all times the dignity of the person they are working with:

(from the Code of Conduct of the Canadian Body)

I.2 Not engage publicly (e.g., in public statements, presentations, research reports, or with clients) in demeaning descriptions of others, including jokes based on culture, nationality, ethnicity, colour, race, religion, gender, etc., or other remarks which reflect adversely on the dignity of others.

Psychologists define harm and benefit in terms of both physical and psychological dimensions. They are concerned about such factors as feelings of self-worth, fear, humiliation, interpersonal trust, cynicism, self-knowledge and general knowledge, as well as such factors as physical safety, comfort, pain, and injury. They are concerned about immediate, short-term, and long-term effects.

I observed this: The guy was in a position of power as facilitator and part of the examining body. He focused the attention of the whole group on one member of that group in a way that was negative. He invoked ridicule and questioned suitability without evidence. He did this several times. To the same person. What purpose did this serve in the overall assessment of the whole group? What benefit did it give to the one member of the group he focussed on?

Luckily James recovered the next day and on being questioned about the assesment day, said nothing about that evening's session. Well he wouldn't would he, since it showed up and pressed on a weakness.

Yes it was definately an occupational environment and a voluntary one, but I would expect the same level of conduct from a psychologist during a voluntary consultation as during a clinical or research intervention..

>Also, may one assume that the applicants are all smart, presumably healthy folks who aren't really likely to be damaged by verbal probing?

Fortunately this guy was only temporarily upset and recovered quickly. But what about the people who have come undone under NLP and similarly subtle techniques.

>... We sometimes overestimate the power of psychological techniques (on the other hand, you're not talking about a highly suggestive, even coercive setting such as one sees in EST or cultish settings, ARE you?

No, not in this case, but the question remains, where do you draw the line. We drew the line when dealing with the NLP guy. All he was doing was giving people positive input and helping them perform, right? Yeah, at the same time creating intolerable internal pressure that some of our people have not yet recovered from 2 years later. The assessment centre situation was much easier to deal with because it was openly hostile.

I am no risk management freak. I hate the fact that we even have to consider litigation risks and the rest of it, in our daily dealings with people.

My main concern is that we overstepped a line somewhere, and as a company that thrives on ethics, and objectivity, I am not sure we can afford to be ignorant in this way.

I would be overjoyed if someone could convince me that this was really not a problem in any way, was totally ethical and safe, if a bit distasteful. But it gave me a very strong reaction and I felt a strong duty of care to my company, in which I have a lot invested, to take the issue up.

Thank you again for your patience and interest. I look forward to hearing your comments. I am waiting for responses before I decide what to do.

Lillian

• Whew; that's a long one! by William Reid, 4/7/99