In this series of blogs I'm looking at how teamwork is affected by Jung's principle of compensation.  I illustrated the principle of compensation yesterday by showing that when SUV drivers focus on safety, unconsciously they increase the danger for other road users and in some ways for themselves (eg: through being lulled into a false sense of security, thereby driving less safely).

How this applies to teamwork and relationships can be illustrated by looking at a recent BBC news programme debate on SUV safety.  A representative of SUV drivers insisted that SUVs were safe, but a road safety campaigner insisted they were not.  They failed to reach agreement, and I suspect both went away feeling they had 'won the argument'.  This type of scenario can occur frequently in teams, so examining this BBC debate in more detail will illustrate how the dynamics of the conscious and unconscious can affect teamwork.

Looking at the dialogue from the SUV driver's perspective, she was consciously aware of how driving an SUV makes you feel safe, and also of crash research that illustrates how SUV drivers and passengers are less likely to be hurt in an accident.  In that context, the safety campaigner's assertion that SUVs were unsafe was simply nonsensical.  Also, the assertion that other road users are in greater danger is easily countered by saying that this is no argument to reduce SUV use - if more people used SUVs, then more people would be safer.  Also, the importance of the driver's conscious standpoint is reinforced by describing SUV drivers as mothers with young children, which has a strong emotional appeal.  However, the SUV driver's conscious and conscientious approach to safety has an unconscious achilles heel: as mentioned above and discussed yesterday, it creates other dangers.

Looking at this dialogue from the road safety campaigner's viewpoint produces an almost equal but opposite argument.  The campaigner was consciously aware of research showing the effect of SUVs in accidents on pedestrians and other road users.  Also, there is other research (mentioned yesterday) showing the greater likelihood of SUVs rolling over, and less-stringent attention to safety by SUV drivers.  In that context, the SUV driver's claim that SUVs were safer than ordinary cars was nonsensical: it contradicts everything of which the campaigner is consciously aware.

However, the campaigner's conscious standpoint also has a compensatory, unconscious impact.  The call for better safety on the roads by getting rid of SUVs presents a threat to SUV drivers: it is asking them to put themselves and their passengers at greater risk; in some cases, this is increasing the risk to which children are exposed.  In effect, it is asking parents to protect their families less, to be 'less safe'.

The problem with such arguments is that each person keeps reasserting their own conscious standpoint without realising the unconscious impact their approach has (nor do they recognise or value the conscious standpoint of the other person).  Unconscious messages often have great emotional power, and it is the case in both of these arguments:  the SUV driver's unconscious message is 'put pedestrians and other road users at greater risk', whereas the campaigner's unconscious message is 'put yourself and your family at greater risk, don't fulfil your primary parental role'.  It is no wonder that such conflicts are difficult to resolve!

In the next blog I'll look at how such irreconcilable debates or circular arguments can be addressd in a more construcive way.