Relational distance as intervention

When two staff lock horns colleagues and the primary objective both suffer.

Is there a recipe for resolution? Not exactly: like history, systemic interventions don’t repeat, but they often rhyme. So what themes recur, and what does the practitioner do to elicit change?

Interrupting unhelpful communication patterns can be helped by introducing additional layers of distance before inviting reflection.

For example, A and B’s working relationship is rife with pain and fear, masked in self-protective judgement. Imagine A and B are interviewed by the practitioner in turn, with colleagues C, D, and E witnessing. C, D, and E then reflect on what they heard. Only then are A and B invited to share what they learned.

The additional layers of distance prevent A and B from replicating their usual pattern of conflict or defensiveness. Meanwhile, fresh perspectives humanise, and create opportunities for new ways of relating.

Even if, on the surface, an intervention hasn’t ‘worked’, questions reverberate long after they’ve been asked. Can you think of a rancid workplace dilemma where more distance from the problem could have created opportunities for change?

If you would like to read more about the origin of the ideas described, a helpful starting point is Andersen, T. (1987) 'The reflecting team: Dialogue and meta-dialogue in clinical work', Family Process, 26(4), pp. 415–428.