02 FE'

J1

Working with the concept ofOrganisation-i n-the-M i ndA paper for Inscape, Coesfeld, Germany, 15 September 2000

OThe GRUBBINSTITUTE I~J

Paper presented by Jean Hutton, Managing Consultant,The Grubb Institute, London

Oistinguishing between Organisation and Institution

This paper introduces a way of thinking about organisation which has been developed byThe Gmbb Institute as a significant tool for leadership and management in institutions, and forconsultants in working with their organisational clients. It focuses on organisation as it is beingexperienced by the manager, and looks at how bis or ber internaI picture is related to externalevents and assumptions".

1 would like to begin by distinguishing between organisation and institution. These words areoften used interchangeably in everyday speech, but in the interest of scientific study they arefrequently used to identify different ways ofunderstanding people's collective activity in pursuitof a defmed purpose.

Institution is an entity constituted to carry out a specific function, whether officiaI, unofficial,forD1al, or infOrD1al, eg family, business, church, government, voluntary agencies, arroy.

Organisation is the way the institution is structured and developed in order to deploy humanand material resources to carry out its purposes.

Sometimes the structure is set up on presuppositions which may not lead to the achievement ofthe primary task of the institution.

For example, 1 had a client, a Methodist minister in the United States, who was sent to adeveloping, up-market housing area to establish a new church. Together with a small group ofresidents they agreed that their aim was to grow a church. Two yeaTS on they had a very largecongregation and an extensive programme of church activities. When he presented bis situationto me he indicated that he was concemed that they had lost their way. After several sessions anhypothesis emerged to suggest why fuis had happened. Though they had applied the label'church' to their institution, at an unconscious level their institution-in-the-mind was aboutbeing a business. The locallay people, who were themselves highly successful in their business

This paper is developed from an earlier paper by Hutton, Bazalgette and Reed (1!1!17) on"Organisation-in-the-Mind,,1 See also Hutton (1997)2

1 ne "'UDD In,mUle

and professional careers, were more familiar with a business culture and automatically appliedit to their new institution, the church. Together with the minister they developed anorganisation-in-the-mind along the lines of running a business, a venture in which they succeeded.Somehow in the process the meaning of church was lost. That had led him to consult the GmbbInstitute. It was not just a matter of different values or integrity, it was a matter of outcomes. Hisidea of the church/business institution was focused on the need to grow in importance, strength ofnumbers, popularity and sense of achievement, but with no specific spiritual outcomes. He neededfIrst to derme an outcome for the church and then to question his assumptions, beliefs, feelings,and knowledge about how the church functioned. This shock gave him some insights into himself,enough to derme the outcome desired in terms of the church serving God and the Kingdom ofGod. Until he was able to grasp this insight and own it with his lay colleagues, it would be uselessto go and change the structures, to deconstruct their organisation-in-the-mind.

This example ld the lnstitute to formulate defmitions about these mental constructs. When peoplestart to examine what they mean by institution or organisation, they are trying to identify whatthey have 'in-the-mind' about them. The temptation is always to reify them as existing 'out there',but the reality is that they are constructs, so are held only in the mind. We tan thUg speak of'organisation-in-the-mind' and 'institution-in-the-mind'. [see also W. Carl 1999]3.

Organisation-in-the-mind is a conscious or pre-conscious construct, focused around emotionaiexperience oftasks, raies, purposes, rituaIs, accountabiIity, competence, failure, success. It caiis

for management.

Institution-in-the-mind is an unconscious construct, focused around the emotional experienceof ideals, values, hopes, beliefs, dreams, symbols, birth, lire, death. It requires leadership.

We Carl say that organisation-in-the-mind Carl be understood as a metaphor of the body, andinstitution-in-the- mind as a metaphor of the spirit. Together they constitute a whole. A way ofillustrating fuis would be to take the example of the nuclear family. 'Nuclear' describes theorganisation-in-the-mind, and 'family' the institution-in-the-mind.

With organisation-in-the-mind the elements are able to be described and measured, as organisationis necessarily experienced in a specific context. An example ofthis in the United Kingdom couldbe a prison, described as an establishment for young offenders, aged 16-19, taking so manyconvicted young men and women from aIl over the country. The context is the courts which, bysentencing the accused, send them to prison under specified conditions.

With institution-in-the-mind the elements are more difficult to describe because they relate tounstated beliefs, emotions and values. What a prison is in reality reflects the currem values of the

society and those appointed to administer justice, elements which cannot be quantified4. This leadsto debates about its purpose and how to cape with criminal behaviour because of confusion about

the unconscious institution-in-the-mind.

The Grubb Institute2

To take another example, that of the church. Organisation-in-the-mind would describe church interms of types of people -ministers, priests, lay people, buildings, liturgy, fmance, polity etcwhich bas a purpose which may or may not be defmed. Institution-in-the-rnind wou Id conceivechurch as people with sornething to do with the idea of God, eg the People of God, the Body ofChrist. What it is for is a rnatter for belief which will vary over time and place.

Shapiro and cafiJ describe these concepts in a similar way:

"...all institutions exist in the mind, and it is in the interaction with these in-the-mindentities that we live. Of course, aIl organisations also consist of certain real factors, such asother people, profits, buildings, resources and products. But the meaning of these factorsderives from the context established by the institution-in-the-mind. These mental imagesare not static: they are the product of dynamic interchanges, chiefly projections andtransference."

Organisations start with someone who bas an idea which requires certain kinds of activity for thatidea to be carried out. He. forms an organisation-in-the-mind as an expression of some wish to setup an institution, eg a company for designing computer programmes, with certain values, hopes,beliefs in minci. He tries to communicate those beliefs and thoughts to others to make a structureto embody the purpose and aim of fuis idea. ln fuis process there are a number of stages:

First, the person with the idea and vision may have a very unformed idea ofinstitution-in-the-mind and there may be discrepancies between bis initial concept and howhe describes that to others, and what he believes and hopes for as a result. 80 there is oneaspect of uncertainty.

Secondly, as he works with ailier people to set up the institution with its organisation, thoseailiers rnay fmd difficulty in interpreting the ideas, ernotions and values of the original planin practice. Their attempt to embody the aim and achieve its intentions cao also lead touncertainties.

Thirdly, there is the unknown of whether they tan employ competent skilled people whoare able to manage the resources available to achieve the aim in a constantly shifting anddynamic context. This again is a matter for uncertainty.

The task therefore of the management of the organisation is to achieve a dynamic balancebetween these uncertainties and make the best use of the resources. The actual results ofthisprocess may be discrepant with the original intentions an~ lead to problems which confusemanagement and staff.

Throughout the paper 'he' is rsed to mean he or she

The Grubb Institute3

An exarnple of fuis is that of an ex-anny officer who was driven by his love and concem for oldpeople. He wanted to fmd a way of enabling them to live out their lives in farniliar environmentsas much like their own homes as possible. He set up a scheme using a row of existing houseswithin a neighbourhood. This activity was so successful that he carne under considerable pressurefrom well-wishers to grow and to become a national organisation to reproduce such places aIl overthe country. An executive was brought in to develop and fUn this growing organisation since thefounder acknowledged that he was not a manager but a visionary leader. However after a year orso there was a major split between the national directors and the founder because the latter felt hisoriginal aim of the institution of caring for old people was not being carried out. He becarne awarethat his institution-in-the-mind was quite different from his fellow directors.

They could not see that there needed to be a problem, although they were fully aware that relationswere breaking clown between them and the founder and the situation was becoming unworkable.They felt the founder was unreasonable and unrealistic. The founder, feeling deeply the values ofbis institution-in-the-mind was unable to argue bis point in organisational terms becauseoutwardly they were in agreement. The 'dynamic balance' 1 referred to earlier was not achievable.The founder left the original charity, and went off to round ~other housing scheme which existsto fuis clay as a small separate entity alongside the highly successful national housing association.

The Grubb Institute

Understanding differences

Why do such things happen in organisationallife? Let me offer you a very simple diagram' oftwopeople working in the same organisation. "A" and "B" are trying to agree an action to be taken by"B". They do agree, but afterwards "B" goesand does something completely different. Has fuisexperience ever happened to you?

1;:...

/s"'-Figure 1

The problem is about each ofthem having a different picture of the (same) organisation- in-the-mind. "A" attributes certain values to what he gays and what he hears from "B". "B" does likewiseand they then agree on the wording of the action, believing they know what the ailier intends. But"A" interprets everything in terms of a 'square' organisation-in-the-mind, and "B" interprets thesame words and actions in terms of a 'triangular' organisation-in-the-mind.

A BFigure 2

The difference between them tan be attributed to the way they have each experienced their workand the lack of communication skills which could have alerted them to the different images whicheach had, characterised by 'square' and 'triangle' in-the-Itlind. There is the further possibility thatbecause they worked with differe~t values and beliefs and had different emotions, they haddifferent institutions-in-the-mind. Since fuis was unconscious they were unable to grasp howdifferent they were.

Bruce Reed conceived this modei in the course of developing Organisational Roie Analysis, see p8

,ne Lrubb 'n,t'tute

ln the example of the Housing Association, this latter explanation seems the most probable andthis would explain why the founder' s action appeared idiosyncratic and irrational to the national

director.

We are seeing two kinds of difference here:

The difference in" A 's" and "B's" minds with regard to organisation-in-the-mind based onstructure and experience, as shown in the diagrams.

The difference between organisation-in-the-mind at a conscious level of experience, andinstitution-in-the-mind which is influencing the encounter at an unconscious level.

ln our Gmbb Institute courses we sometimes invite members to work at these levels by drawing apicture which describes how they see and experience their business, company, school etc, at thatpoint in time. Theyare invited to think of an imaginative image or metaphor, to avoid using wordsand to include themselves in the picture. We suggest they consider their work relationships,events, purposes, groups, clients etc and their feelings, and to try to encapsulate these in thedrawing. When the resultant pictures are discussed in the group, it often shows some things to theartist which he or she was not aware of, nevertheless it is a basically purposive and conscious levelactivity. Sometimes however a comment by another member on the picture reveals a deeper levelof insight into the unconscious institution-in-the-mind. This uncovers hopes, beliefs, values whichmay affect the meaning of the image chosen, the way it has been expressed, what is included, and

what is omitted.

However there can be another reason for this difference. We are looking at the emotionalexperience either of the artist in the picture, or of" A" and "B" in their interaction at work. As amanager or leader 1 may assert that 1 want to be realistic, but 1 need to have the insight tounderstand that 1 engage in unconscious processes in order to cape with the stress of the realitiesofmy work. The more 1 understand about my own inner world, the more 1 am likely to be able todeal with the realities constructively, because 1 will recognise that fuis is a natural human processand conveys important information to me, not just about myself and my own behaviour but aboutthe state of the organisation and its dynamics.

Melanie Klein6 suggests that as I, as a person, work in an institution, I introject (take into myself)aspects ofwhat is happening to me from people and events to form internaI objects and partobjects. These are symbols of my externat world which I use to think about my surroundings.These are real to me, but are Dot the same as the 'real' people and things in my environment.Some of these objects will give me pleasure, ailiers pain and discomfort: some I will keep in frontof me consciously, ailiers I will forget, repress unconsciously. However, even if I repress themthey are still abjects in my inner world and affect my behaviour.

As 1 face the fears and anxieties of engaging with the real world 1 respond to these internaiobjects; as 1 feel, think, act 1 am prompted by them. 1 modify these internai objects which 1 drawupon (wholly or partly), or repress (wholly or partly) in my unconscious. ln order to know how to

The lirubb Insmu.e

act, to make decisions and to work with ailiers as a leader/manager, 1 try to make sense ofeverything which 1 am conscious ofinside me -aIl my thoughts, feelings, ideas and 'bard data'available to me. This process includes my aims, plans and intentions, instructions from others,regulations, responses to changes in the context, my memories of earlier work environments andraies 1 have taken, and so on. Exactly the same process is going on in those around me with whom1 work.

What the square and triangle model illustrates is that, as human beings interacting with ailiers inour environrnent, we monitor and contrai, for a variety of reasons, what we take account of inourse Ives and in others. We are then taken by surprise when we corne up against some blotted outfeatures which are active and powerful, because they have been intemalised unconsciously. Wefmd ourselves suddenly angry, guilty, pleased or excited and may not always know why. We alsotrigger unexpected reactions in ailiers, which may be constructive or destructive. ChristopherBollas, in bis book, The Shadow of the Object7, has fuis wonderful term, the 'unthought known',to refer to those things which are affecting me from my inner world but l have not yet brought toconsciousness.

Why do we repress these experiences in so much of our organisationallife? Because as aperson-in-role in my institution 1 have my own needs and desires, fears and anxieties into whichcorne the experiences from my workplace. l 'monitor' consciously and unconsciously what 1 willallow myselfto 'know' and perceive, for the sake ofmy own survival, or for the sake of theinstitution, or for the sake of my own ambition.

Nevertheless, as Larry Hirschhom suggests, the organisation that is happening is not just out there-it is iD me. He calls it the 'workplace within's.

Ifl am a good manager, 1 want to relate effectively with the institution ofwhich 1 am a part. So 1

become caught up in what Winnicott describes as 'transitional phenomena'9. ln a formaI sense,these phenomena may include defming aims, organising groups, making business plans, havingdiscussions; and from these plans and encounters 1 fonnulate my actions and behaviour toward theactual situations of my work as 1 perceive them in reality. ln fantasy 1 may have dreams andvisions which impinge on me and affect my decisions and behaviour. But these things may notharness my real feelings, anxieties, fears and aspirations. The drive from my inner world may beunable to engage effectively with the real situation 'out there'.

ln Winnicott's tenns l need to discover a transitional object which tan carry my inner feelings,thoUghts, imaginings etc, to surface my internaI objects and bridge the gap between my innerworld and the world outside me, in which 1 have to act. Just as a teddy bear enables a child tohandle bis anxieties about discovering bis own separate identity from the reality which is bismother, this transitional object is for me as an adult manager something that enables me to topewith the stresses and uncertainties of making decisions, taking risks and being accountable forwhat 1 do. 'Organisation-in-the-mind' becomes the transitional object which l need to containboth my irrational thoughts and unfonnulated ideas as weIl as my rational ODes.

The Grubb Institute

The transitionai abject is itseIfparadoxicai in that is bath created by me (it emerges from my owninternaI imaginings about the pattern 1 give to the components of organisation-in-the-mind), anddiscovered by me (the pattern presents itselfto me as ifit were independent of me), often inunexpected, surprising ways and places. Thus the transitional abject is essentially a possessionbath created and discovered by its owner. It contains aspects of irrationality because of itsparadoxical nature and because of my inner contradictory feelings and anxieties.

What 1 have been saying is about emotional experience and it would be easy to think of it as theproperty of the individual manager or client. My former colleague, David ArmstronglO, suggeststhat emotional experience is very rarely located within a purely individual space.

"Psycho-analysis for exarnple is not the investigation of the emotional experience of theindividual alone: it is the investigation of the emotional experience of the pair, ofwhat passesbetween two people... similarly in group work... ln institutions, it is the institution as a wholethat contains the emotional experience, within what 1 referred to earlier as a 'bounded space'."

To explore fuis experience requires more than a psycho-analytic perspective, therefore, it requiresa systemic perspective. ln system terms, the emotional experience of the individual is the sharedexperience of everybody in the system. What he experiences at fuis moment in time is experiencedon behalf of the system and tells him things about the state of the system. The emotionalexperience is important information helping him to understand the realities ofboth organisation-in-the-mind and institution-in-the-mind. [see also D Armstomg 1991]11.

Organisational Raie Analysis

The origin of the concepts relating to organisation-in-the-mind arase from the Grubb Institute'swork in group relations conferences. The development ofthis framework came from a distinctiveinitiative from my colleague, Bruce Reed, in inventing in 1973 the experiential mode1 he cal1ed'Organisational Role Analysis'.

The distinctive aspect was to enable clients (usually executives, managers and professionals) toexplore the range oftheir experiences -personal, group and institutional- in a one-to-one setting,as an alternative to attending a group relations working conference. The model itself arose as theoutcome of an experiential working conference.

Instead of exploring a conference-generated experience, the client was invited to explore bisexperience in bis place ofwork -bis 'working experience'. Based on the assumption oforganisation-in-the-mind, the consultant hypothesized that the client 'brought' bis entire companyfor study thrOUgh bis own experience. The Organisational Role Analysis model, (ORA for short),consisted of altemating between sessions with a consultant, held off-site, where the consultantwould engage with the experience of the client as he wished to expre~s it, and a period oftwo tothree weeks before the following session for the client to engage with the actuallife of theorganisation. Thus he could test out any working hypotheses developed in the ORA sessions and

8 The Grubb Institute

take note of bis own behaviour, eg under stressful conditions. Each session was open-ended andthe client decided in the here-and-now of the session the working experience he wished to discuss.

The desired outcome of the aRA is that the client willlearn how to make bis optimumcontribution to bis institution throUgh discovering how to manage himself in bis role in the 'real'dynamic situation he is working in. An important aspect in this is the capacity to distinguishbetween the exercise of power and the taking of authority12*.

After working on severnl aRA projects with different clients, Reed decided on the design of eightsessions oftwo hours duration. Each aRA extends over three ta four months, which provides asufficiently long period for clients ta learn ta manage themselves and ta take authority in theirworking raIes.

The Role of the aRA consultant

ln the Gmbb Institute we believe fuis Tale requires skilled and trained organisational analysts.We have only used staff who have had experience in staffroles in group relations conferencesand with considerable understanding of the associated psycho-dynamic and behavioural concepts.The lnstitute bas developed an aRA consultant training programme which involves being anaRA client, observing an aRA, taking one under supervision, and participating in group relationsconferences and seminars on the conceptual framework and theoretical tools.

Key Concepts

Since the aRA model was first devised in 1973, severnl concepts have become criticallysignificant in examining working experience, and have been deftned in terms which we usedifferently from other behavioural scientists.

Four ofthese concepts and how they mutually interact are illustrated in the following Venndiagram conceived by Reed.

Figure 3

Reed, "Organisational Transfonnation", p12

The Grubb Institute

Working Experience describes the feelings, thoughts, des ires and reactions of a person who isengaging with a system by taking a foie. This is differentiated from 'personai experience' wherethe person cannot fmd the foie by which to manage their work -their contribution to the system.Reflection upon current working experience is a way of monitoring a person' s understanding ofthemselves, the system and its purpose, and the way the foie is being made and taken.

Person, as used here, relates to the client. The construct in the mind of the consultant isdistinguished from that of individual. Whereas individual points to separateness, person impliesconnectedness and relatedness with others. The consultant is sensitive to the part objects andprojections the client is experiencing which transcend group and institutional boundaries, (seeArmstrong), and are continually fluctuating. They constitute the emotionallife of the personwhich influences bis values and beliefs. The client's self-knowledge, history and awareness ofcompetencies and learned behaviours is being affected by these factors and shown in the way heis working and evaluating bis performance.

System is the working context of the persan as construed by the consultant, following Gregory

Bateson's defmition of a system as 'activities with a boundary'13. For the client initially, 'system'covers the constructs of organisation-in-the-mind and institution-in-the-mind in the aRA process,but on a daily basis it is where he works and bas responsibility for contributing to the success ofthe workplace according to bis position within it. l hope it is clear l am speaking here of an

organic, living system, not a mechanical one. Von Bertalanffy in "General Systems Theory"14speaks of a living cell as a system with permeable boundaries, receiving inputs and expellingoutputs into the environment.

Role is the critical construct of the aRA process and is a central point in its work. Its defmitionderives from the Tavistock tradition but has been uniquely developed by my Institute. AlI 1 can dohere is to introduce its principles and to distinguish our use ofrole from that of others. (For furtherdiscussion ofrole see ReedIS).

ln the Venn diagrarn, foIe is seen as Iinking person to system. It implies that to work for thebene fit of the system, the pers on bas to function in foIe. Whenjoining a system, a person isgeneraIIy given a position, a job title and a task to carry out, but none of these is foIe in our terms.A 'RoIe' cannot be given to anyone by anyoneo. The person has to discover there is a foIe for him,then to mate that foie, and fmaIIy to take that foie. Properly understood, we suggest that theinduction period offered to new staff can be the opportunity provided for them to begin to fmd,make and take their foIes.

For example a persan needs to learn what the purpose oftheir company/institution is, to decidewhether, in their new position they can work for the benefit of the system and notjust for theirown career. That is, they begin to discover if there is a raie for them to take.

Role as used here is differentiated from the behaviour expected of the person by others, je assumed in theirminds. The foie 1 as a person assume we cali 'psychological foIe'; the foie which others expect of me we calI'sociological foIe', which becomes part of the context in my finding, making and taking the psychological foie.

Th. Grubb Institut.

The aRA develops as the consultant offers hypotheses to the client based on his workingexperience, which begins to lead to the transfomlation ofhis behaviour as he takes his foie. Theperson 'makes' the foIe by identifying not only the sim of the system but also its structures,technologies, ethics, cultures and the types of people who work there with their expectations.

The person needs to know hirnself and the intellectual and emotional contributions which he canoffer to the system. He also needs to be knowledgeable about the context in which the systemoperates in order to take account of threats and opportunities for its well-being. As can be easilyseen, at aIl phases of this exploration the client will continue to fmd, make and take bis foie -

it is a never-ending recurring process.

Since the head of the client institution is the one on the outer boundary, interfacing bothintemally and extemally with the context, we prefer to start with him as the client and then towork with other people in the organisational structure who manage subsidiary boundaries,although some will also work on the outer boundary with the head.

Central to the aRA process is the construct of organisation-in-the-mind, which will also besubject to new perspectives as the aRA proceeds. The more the client can become sensitive to theunconscious construct of institution-in-the-mind, the more he is likely ta fmd new energy andsee new possibilities for bis work, personally and corporately. This will be enhanced if the clientis able to think and experience the systemic dimension ofhis behaviour as being influenced byand influencing colleagues and others.

An illustration of the effect of aRA in practice cornes from an aRA with the headteacher of asecondary school in central London. This school took pupils from socially disadvantaged homesand had a local reputation for being a 'sink' school for failing pupils. She drew a picture ofherschool which showed a marked contrast between the warm and caring environment of the lowerschool and the pressured and chaotic environment of the upper school, where students wereachieving very poor academic results on which the school's reputation was being based.

ln the process of the aRA she saw that they had so compensated the 'poor' pupils in the lowerschool by being sorry for them as they came into the school, that when they were in the rigoursof the upper school, faced with the reality of public examinations, they were not equipped forthe pressures of entry into adult lire.

The organisation-in-the-mind now compelled ber to see that she was flot coping with holding thewhole system together as an educational institution. She had split the school into a 'good' lowerschool and a 'bad' upper school, and had organised the school to fulfil those projections. She thenbegan to realise that ber unconscious institution-in-the-mind was that she was running the schoolas if it were a social work agency. She had to face up to whether she could take the staff alongwith ber to enable the school to be transformed into a place of education and learning.

The Grubb Institute

REFERENCES

J Hutton, John Bazalgette, Bruce Reed (1997) "Organisation-in-the-Mind" in DevelopingOrganisational Consultancy, Routledge

J Hutton (1997) 'Re-imagining the Organisation of an Institution', in Integrity andChange, Routledge

2

W Carr (1999) "Can we speak of the spirituality of Institutions?" in The Hidden Spirit,CMR Press, Matthews NC

3

Bruce Reed (2000) "Just Prisons" in Prison Service Journal, July 2000 No 1304

E Shapiro & W Carl (1991) Lost in Familiar Places: making new connections betweenindividual and society, Yale UP, New Haven

M Klein (1963) "Our Adult World and ifs Roots in lnfancy" in Our Adult World andOther Essays, Heinemann, London

6

C Bollas (1987) The Shadow of the Object: Psychoanalysis of the Unthought KnownFree Association Books, London

7

L Hirschhom (1990) The Workplace Within: Psychodynamics ofOrganisational LifeMIT Press, Cambridge Mass

8

D W Winnicott (1971) "Transitional abjects and Transitional Phenomena" in Playing andReality, Tavistock Publications, London

9

D Armstrong (1992) Why bas the Psycho-analytic approach had so little impact oninstitutionallife?, The Gmbb Institute, London

10

D Armstrong (1991) The Institution in the Mind: Retlections on the relation ofpsycho-analysis to work with institutions, The Grubb Institute, London

B Reed (1999) 'Organisational Transformation' in Leading, Managing, Ministering-Challenging Questions for Church and Society, Canterbury Press

12

G Bateson (1972) Steps to an Ecology of Mind, Chandler, New York13

L von Bertalanffy (1968) General System Theory, Hannondsworth: Penguin (1973)14

B Reed (2000) An Exploration of Role, The Gmbb Institute, London15

The Grubb Inslilule

T 0 transform human behaviour through organisational analysis and

social research

The lnstitute pursues fuis using systemic and psychoanalytic disciplines.lt works on the principle that human sciences gain meaning when seen ina theological framework.

.

It collaborates with individuals, groups and institutions in working withtheir experience to achieve their aims and objectives.

..

Sponsors and clients corne frorn business, educational, religious,statutory and voluntary bodies at local, national and intemationallevels.

1t bas a full-time professional staffwhich co-operates with a network ofassociates in the UK, Europe and other countries.

.

The lnstitute is an independent, non-profit making charity with avoluntary, Clmstian council.

.

The Gmbb Institute, Cloudesley Street, London NI OHUTel: +44(0)20 7278 8061 Fax: +44(0)20 7278 0728

Email: info@grobb.org.uk Website:www.grobb.org.ukRegistered Charity No. 313460, April2000

OThe GR UBBINSTlTUTE ~