An interpersonal relationship is a relatively long-term association between two or more people.

This association may be based on emotions like love and liking, regular business interactions, or
some other type of social commitment. Interpersonal relationships take place in a great variety of
contexts, such as family, friends, marriage, acquaintances, work, clubs, neighborhoods, and
churches. They may be regulated by law, custom, or mutual agreement, and are the basis of
social groups and society as a whole. Although humans are fundamentally social creatures,
interpersonal relationships are not always healthy. Examples of unhealthy relationships include
abusive relationships and codependence.
A relationship is normally viewed as a connection between two individuals, such as a romantic or
intimate relationship, or a parent-child relationship. Individuals can also have relationships with
groups of people, such as the relation between a pastor and his congregation, an uncle and a
family, or a mayor and a town. Finally, groups or even nations may have relations with each
other, though this is a much broader domain than that covered under the topic of interpersonal
relationships. See such articles as international relations for more information on associations
between groups. Most scholarly work on relationships focuses on romantic partners in pairs or
dyads. These intimate relationships are, however, only a small subset of interpersonal
relationships.
These relationships usually involve some level of interdependence. People in a relationship tend
to influence each other, share their thoughts and feelings, and engage in activities together.
Because of this interdependence, most things that change or impact one member of the
relationship will have some level of impact on the other member.[1] The study of interpersonal
relationships involves several branches of social science, including such disciplines as sociology,
psychology, anthropology, and social work.
Interpersonal relationships include kinship and family relations in which people become
associated by genetics or consanguinity. These include such roles as father, mother, son, or
daughter. Relationships can also be established by marriage, such as husband, wife, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, uncle by marriage, or aunt by marriage. They may be formal long-term
relationships recognized by law and formalized through public ceremony, such as marriage or
civil union. They may also be informal long-term relationships such as loving relationships or
romantic relationships with or without living together. In these cases the "other person" is often
called lover, boyfriend, or girlfriend, as distinct from just a male or female friend, or "significant
other". If the partners live together, the relationship may resemble marriage, with the parties
possibly even called husband and wife. Scottish common law can regard such couples as actual
marriages after a period of time. Long-term relationships in other countries can become known
as common-law marriages, although they may have no special status in law. The term mistress
may refer in a somewhat old-fashioned way to a female lover of an already married or unmarried
man. A mistress may have the status of an "official mistress" (in French matresse en titre); as
exemplified by the career of Madame de Pompadour.
Friendships consist of mutual liking, trust, respect, and often even love and unconditional
acceptance. They usually imply the discovery or establishment of similarities or common ground
between the individuals.[2] Internet friendships and pen-pals may take place at a considerable
physical distance. Brotherhood and sisterhood can refer to individuals united in a common cause

or having a common interest, which may involve formal membership in a club, organization,
association, society, lodge, fraternity, or sorority. This type of interpersonal relationship relates
to the comradeship of fellow soldiers in peace or war. Partners or co-workers in a profession,
business, or common workplace also have a long term interpersonal relationship.
Soulmates are individuals intimately drawn to one another through a favorable meeting of minds
and who find mutual acceptance and understanding with one another. Soulmates may feel
themselves bonded together for a lifetime and hence may become sexual partners, but not
necessarily. Casual relationships are sexual relationships extending beyond one-night stands that
exclusively consist of sexual behavior. One can label the participants as "friends with benefits"
or as friends "hooking up" when limited to sexual intercourse, or regard them as sexual partners
in a wider sense. Platonic love is an affectionate relationship into which the sexual element does
not enter, especially in cases where one might easily assume otherwise.

[edit] Theories
Psychologists have suggested that all humans have a motivational drive to form and maintain
caring interpersonal relationships. According to this view, people need both stable relationships
and satisfying interactions with the people in those relationships. If either of these two
ingredients is missing, people will begin to feel anxious, lonely, depressed, and unhappy.[3]
According to attachment theory, relationships can be viewed in terms of attachment styles that
develop during early childhood. These patterns are believed to influence interactions throughout
adulthood by shaping the roles people adopt in relationships. For example, one partner may be
securely attached while the other is anxious and avoidant. Thus, early childhood experience
(primarily with parents) is believed to have long lasting effects on all future relationships.
Jointness represents an encounter between mother and infant or any partners experiencing
simultaneously mutual intimacy, while concomitantly safeguarding separateness.
Social exchange theory interprets relationships in terms of exchanged benefits. It predicts that
people regard relationships in terms of rewards obtained from the relationship, as well as
potential rewards from alternate relationships.[4] Equity theory stems from a criticism of social
exchange theory and suggests that people care about more than just maximizing rewards. They
also want fairness and equity in their relationships.
Relational dialectics regards relationships not as static entities, but as continuing processes,
forever changing. This approach sees constant tension in the negotiation of three main issues:
autonomy vs. connection, novelty vs. predictability, and openness vs. closedness.

[edit] Development
Interpersonal relationships are dynamic systems that change continuously during their existence.
Like living organisms, relationships have a beginning, a lifespan, and an end. They tend to grow
and improve gradually, as people get to know each other and become closer emotionally, or they

gradually deteriorate as people drift apart and form new relationships with others. One of the
most influential models of relationship development was proposed by psychologist, George
Levinger.[5] This model was formulated to describe heterosexual, adult romantic relationships,
but it has been applied to other kinds of interpersonal relations as well. According to the model,
the natural development of a relationship follows five stages:
1. Acquaintance - Becoming acquainted depends on previous relationships, physical

proximity, first impressions, and a variety of other factors. If two people begin to like
each other, continued interactions may lead to the next stage, but acquaintance can
continue indefinitely.
2. Buildup - During this stage, people begin to trust and care about each other. The need for
compatibility and such filtering agents as common background and goals will influence
whether or not interaction continues.
3. Continuation - This stage follows a mutual commitment to a long term friendship,

romantic relationship, or marriage. It is generally a long, relative stable period.

Nevertheless, continued growth and development will occur during this time. Mutual
trust is important for sustaining the relationship.
4. Deterioration - Not all relationships deteriorate, but those that do tend to show signs of

trouble. Boredom, resentment, and dissatisfaction may occur, and individuals may
communicate less and avoid self-disclosure. Loss of trust and betrayals may take place as
the downward spiral continues.
5. Termination - The final stage marks the end of the relationship, either by death in the case

of a healthy relationship, or by separation.

6. Interpersonal communication is defined by communication scholars in numerous ways,

usually describing participants who are dependent upon one another and have a shared
history. Communication channels, the conceptualization of mediums that carry messages
from sender to receiver, take two distinct forms: direct and indirect.
7. Direct channels are obvious and easily recognized by the receiver. Both verbal and non-

verbal information is completely controlled by the sender. Verbal channels rely on words,
as in written or spoken communication. Non-verbal channels encompass facial
expressions, controlled body movements (police present hand gestures to control traffic),
color (red signals 'stop', green signals 'go'), and sound (warning sirens).
8. Indirect channels are usually recognized subconsciously by the receiver, and are not

always under direct control of the sender. Body language, comprising most of the indirect
channel, may inadvertently reveal one's true emotions, and thereby either unintentionally
taint or bolster the believability of any intended verbal message. Subconscious reception
and interpretation of these signals is often described with arbitrary terms like gut-feeling,
hunch, or premonition.
9. Context refers to the conditions that precede or surround the communication. It consists

of present or past events from which the meaning of the message is derived, though it
may also, in the case of written communications, depend upon the statements preceding

and following the quotation in question. Immediate surroundings may also color the
perceived meaning of words; normally safe discourse may easily become contextually
ambiguous or offensive in a restroom or shower hall. These influences do not constitute
the message by themselves, but rather these extraneous nuances subtly change the
message's effective meaning. Ultimately, context includes the entire world, but usually
refers to salient factors such as the following:
10. Physical milieu: the season or weather, current physical location and environment
Situational milieu: classroom, military conflict, supermarket checkout
Cultural and linguistic backgrounds
Developmental progress (maturity) or emotional state
Complementary or contrasting roles: boss and employee; teacher and student; parent,
child, and spouse; friend or enemy; partner or competitor
When you come to the realization that interpersonal relationships are based on needs then the steps following become
simple and effective
To understand what a relationship is, how to bring one about, how to enhance one, and why relationships are diminished
and lost, one must understand the power of a persons needs.
The most important things in the world, to us, are the things we believe that we need. Needs affect opinions, attitudes, and
viewpoints. Generally were more aware of unfulfilled needs than the ones that are consistently met.
Fundamental life needs in particular are so commonly accepted that we usually overlook them. No one is aware of the air
breathed, the ground walked on, the water drunk, and yet these are the needs we miss most when gone.
The key to a good interpersonal relationships is simple once you understand the role that needs play in making a
relationship weak, moderate, average, or strong. Lets give the word relationship a different definition from the dictionaries,
for unlocking the meaning of the word often leads to greater understanding.
Here is the word defined: A good relationship is a mutual filling of needs.
When two people have strong needs and each fills the others needs, there is a powerful interpersonal relationship. When
two people have weak needs and each fills the others needs, there is a mild relationship. When either person has strong
needs and those needs are not being filled, there is a poor relationship. When either has weak needs and those needs are
not being filled, there is a mild relationship, but one leaning more to the negative side than the positive. When a weak need
is not being filled, there isnt much caring either way.
To enhance any relationship is simple: find out what the other person needs and then fill that need. To end a relationship the
reverse is true. Find out what the other person needs and keep those needs unfilled.
Its as simple as that. The great principle of correspondence states, As above, so below, as below so above. When you
know the key to happiness you have also learned the key to unhappiness. Without realizing it, when you know how to be a
failure, you also know how to be a success.
When you are successful at failing in interpersonal relationships, you also know how to be successful at succeeding in
relationships, once the concept is understood. An individual who fails at a relationship is a person who neglects the needs of
the partner. So it would follow that the first step to a successful relationship is to determine what needs the other person has.
It is also vital to understand your own needs so that you can help the other person in the relationship to fill your needs.
Unfortunately not only do the great majority of people fail to see or to understand the other persons needs, they do not
understand their own. Children have wonderful relationships with their parents as long as their great needs are being filled.
When the needs are unfulfilled, the relationship changes and problems arise. As the child grows, needs change; it is
essential that the parent recognize the changes. As it is with the child to the parent, so it is with the parent to the child.

When you ask, How can I help better this relationship? you are asking the wrong question. To get the correct answer we
have to ask the right question. A better question would be, How can I fill this persons needs?
We now come to that fundamental question with regard to a good interpersonal relationship. How do I discover and
recognize needs? Needs in myself as well as needs in others. It is sometimes easier to recognize another persons needs;
our own needs are often hidden by fear, guilt, and programming.
The way to recognize needs in other people is by their response to you. When you do or say something and you get a
positive response, you are well on the way to need recognition. As it is in others, so it is in you. What is it you respond to in a
positive manner? What do you feel good about getting and about doing? What are you totally guiltless about? What can you
do with complete confidence and fearlessness? What emotional scene can you manipulate without fear or guilt? Look in
these areas for your needs and you will in all probability find your answers.
When using our methods for need recognition and relationship enhancement, the land of alpha will open you to a good deal
more information than a simple thoughtful moment at the Beta level of consciousness. As previously stated, our own needs
are often hidden by fear, guilt, and past programming. The techniques and exercises covered in the Power of Self Mind
Control will allow you to identify your needs and show you why you are who you are in regards to interpersonal relationships.
Your effectiveness in influencing and dealing with people will greatly increase with the power of self mind control.

Mapping Inter-organisational
and Inter-personal Relationships
Alistair Sutcliffe

Manchester Business School

University of Manchester
Manchester M60 1QD, UK
[email protected]
Abstract. This position paper describes an analysis approach which compares
organisational structures and social networks of organisational members. The
mapping approach is illustrated with a case study of relationships in not for
profit organisations.

1 Introduction
The TESS (Theory for Evolving Socio-technical Systems) project [5] is investigating
the relationships between people in social networks and the role of inter-personal
relationships within groups. The motivation is to analyse how social networks contribute
towards group effectiveness and how people identify with groups and collective
aims. Small Group Theory [1] predicts that one of the desiderata of effective
groups is a well developed social network, which can help coordinate individual
action, as well as developing trust between members to work collaboratively [2].
However, there is little firm data on the contribution of individual relationships to
group success. This paper reports a preliminary analysis of a case study of social
networks and group working in charities, or not-for-profit organisations, in the USA.
The aims of this position paper are twofold: first to propose and illustrate a visual
mapping approach for the analysis of inter-organisational as well as interpersonal
relationships; and secondly to report a preliminary investigation into how relationships
contribute towards group success.

2 Case Study
The data for this report comes from a study of not-for-profit organisations in State
College, Pennsylvania, USA in May-June 2007. Not-for-profits, or charities in the
UK, are good test cases for studying the intersection of social and organisational
relationships. People tend to work for charities because of a deep personal commitment
to society, a community or a cause, so their work becomes more than a commercial
job. Individuals who work for charities tend to share similar interests and
world views hence there is a good chance that they will be members of the same social
networks. Furthermore, since charities depend on the good will of many people to
function economically, i.e. via donations of money, materials, labour, etc., social
networks may well be more important for the success of charity organisations than of

commercial companies or other goal-related groups, such as hobby and sports societies.
Charities are also an important part of social capital within communities.
Data was collected from five organisations via interviews with 12 key personnel
in those organisations, by attending meetings, and by documentation analysis from
websites and other public sources of information on the charities and their personnel.
2.1 Organizational Mapping
One charity was focused on since it represented an innovative organisation which
could transform the way charities might collaborate. Charities, from their nature, tend
to run on a minimal budget, to keep costs to a minimum while delivering the main
focus of their mission, be that social care, performing arts, or environmental protection.
However all charities have core business functions which they need to maintain
to deliver their mission; for example, fund raising, volunteer management, accounting
and finance, personnel records, and activity reporting. These core business functions
require IT support, but IT is rarely considered to be an essential business function
itself. Hence most charities have these functions but they are rarely efficient and are
prone to IT reliability problems, especially in the smaller organisations. A prototypical
map of a charity structure and the inter-role relationships is shown in figure 1.
Figure 1. Organisation map of a prototypical charity organisation,
showing role relationships and functions
Boarrd llevell
Executtiive llevell
Volluntteerr llevell
strategy
policy
business functions
finance, fund raising
core activities

At the board level, a network of relationships is modelled, while the executive

level shows both a network of relationships and the hierarchical organisation chart.
This enables social and working relationships in a peer-peer basis to be compared
with the more formal organisation hierarchy. At the volunteer level, network relationships
are modelled. The board of the charity (called trustees in the UK) are responsible
for policy and strategic management. Board members also tend to be heavily
involved in fund raising through individual relationships and their public roles. Social
networking helps to transfer ideas between charities as well as recruiting individuals
to serve as board members. The executive-level members vary from one person to
several staff depending on the size of the charity. Business functions are delivered by
these individuals who are usually, but not always, paid employees. Individual relationships
at this level are important for smooth running of the organisation without
the overhead of line-management control. The third layer is populated by the volunteers
who give their time and expertise to help achieve the charitys mission. Individual
relationships at this level are important for recruiting individuals into the organisation.
Coordinating the volunteers and their activity is a key role of the executive
members.
2.2 Inter-organisational Mapping
One initiative to help charities solve their common problem of providing efficient
business functions and IT support for the same, is to share common facilities which
can include a building for office space, business and IT support, administrative personnel
and common business processes such as fund raising and publicity. The CASE
(Community for Arts, Society and Education) is an umbrella charity which aims to
create a multi-tenant not-for-profit facility, so several charities can share the building,
office staff, IT support facilities and business functions. Approximately 120 such
shared facilities exist in the USA and Canada. The organisation map for CASE is
illustrated in figure 2.
Figure 2. Organisation map of CASE showing organisation structure and
member organisations. Four individuals (shaded) were members of both the

board and the executive team

The organisation structure of CASE is more complex than a standalone charity
since it aims to serve many charities. In common with other charities it has a board
which is responsible for policy and strategic management; however, in CASE the
board is also composed of representatives from the client organisations as well as the
prime organisers of CASE itself. The executive is composed of five individuals who
are the main contributors to and organisers of CASE itself. Four of the executive team
are also board members. At present there is no operational or volunteer layer, although
this will arise when a building is found. As all members of the CASE board
and executive are also members of client charities, there is a potential conflict between
their loyalties between CASE and its clients. However, personal relationships
within the board membership could also reduce the need for governance between
CASE and its client charities, and hence save money by reducing transaction costs,
e.g. legal fees for contracts [6].
Boarrd llevell
Representatives of
15 organisations

Executtiive llevell
5 key members

15 Memberr
orrganiisattiion
Cluster in groups
Performance,
Arts,
Education

3 Relationship Mapping
In the interviews, individuals were asked to identify the people in the organisation
they worked most closely with and characterise those relationships as professional,
social or mixed, as well as giving an estimate of the closeness in any social relationships.
The individual relationship map for one charity which was involved in provision
of free health care to the poor is illustrated in figure 3 as an overlay on the organisation
chart.
Figure 3. Community Healthcare organisation chart and relationship map
The relationship map of chief executive is illustrated. She interacted with two
colleagues who also held managerial positions coordinating volunteer doctors and
provision of medicines and supplies. She also had close relationships with the chair of
the board and two key board members. All these relationships were characterised as
mixed social and professional, with the relationships between the two colleagues at
the executive level being rated as close. The chief executive and her colleagues also
knew many of the volunteers personally. Hence the chief executives relationships
provided a social and organisational glue not only to ensure smooth functioning in the
core business functions but also between the executive team and members of the
board. The close relationships spanned only part of the organisational hierarchy;
however, medical supplies and drug suppliers were the most important business functions,
so these were underpinned by personal relationships. This pattern was observed
for two other chief executives who were interviewed in other charities. These relationships
helped the Community Healthcare organisations to function effectively
without formal monitoring and line-management control procedures, because problems
were anticipated and solved by frequent interpersonal communication. While

Organiisattiion Hiierarchy
Chief
Executive
Finance Drugs &
Supplies
Dental
Services
Medical
Services

Chief executive

Strong interpersonal relationship

Interviewed

most communication was face to face, frequent e-mail contact also played a part,
especially between the executive members and the board as well as the volunteers.
The individual relationship map for CASE is shown in figure 4:
Figure 4. Individual relationship map for CASE: executive level
Four of the five executive team members were interviewed. They all had close
individual relationships which were mixed social and professional (shown with diagonal
shading in figure 4), although the one member of the executive team, who was
not interviewed, did not appear to be included in this social network. For two executive
board members their relationship also appeared in the client charity in which they
were both board members. Inter-individual networking was common among board
members in most of the charities we studied as the same individuals appeared on
several boards, and this became more apparent if the history of board membership
was considered.
Although several CASE board members were also on the boards of two or more
charities, the relationships between CASE board members, apart from the inner executive
team, was less clear. One client organisation board member who was interviewed
did not appear to work closely with any members of the CASE team and no
particular relationship was reported. In this case, membership was seen as a simple
business proposition for lower costs in the parent organisation. This dissonance between
the individual relationship network and organisation map may pose problems
for CASE in the future. The inner executive team all network closely together and
have developed trust, which bodes well for delivering their objectives. However,
some of the client organisations may have a more tenuous link with CASE. Furthermore,
as meetings are infrequent and CASE is not the focus of their main activity,
social relationships have less chance of forming. If conflicting goals appear between
the client charities, the lack of trust may make resolution more difficult..

Executtiive
llevell

strong relationship
shared organisation
membership

4 Conclusions
This exploratory study in social and organisational relationship mapping has
shown the potential for juxtaposing and overlaying social relationship maps on
organisational
structures, to see where the absence of social ties may make interorganisational
relationships more difficult to achieve. The key variable is trust[3].
Social networks promote trusting relationships which in turn provide the motivation
for effective collaboration and social oil to smooth over conflict. Within the charities
we studied, the chief executives had close relationships with professional colleagues
that reduced the overhead of line management, while the relationship with board
members promoted shared awareness between all three layers of the organisation, and
reduced the need for corporate oversight and governance. Networking of individuals
in the community who shared many board memberships enabled transfer of knowledge
and mutual fund-raising benefits. However, when new organisational structures
were introduced, such as the CASE common facility, it appears that social relationships
had yet to mature to provide an effective glue between the executive and client
organisations. Only time will tell if the organisation succeeds in spite of this.
This study was limited to interview-based subjective reports of relationships,
which can be improved by analysis of relationships from interactions or messages
exchanged. Social networks are then analysed for centrality and connectivity of individuals;
however such single viewpoints do not illuminate the associations or potential
clashes between organisational structures and inter-personal relationships [4].
While network representations can afford inspection of central or peripheral membership

of groups, network diagrams need to be juxtaposed with organisational hierarchies

to understand how organisational design helps or hinders working relationships.
Another approach is to overlay social relationships on geographic maps to locate
where individuals live, and thus investigate how distance may affect relationship
formation and maintenance. Multiple-view mapping as illustrated in this paper can
provide further insights into the links between organisational structures and social
relationships.

References
1. Arrow, H., McGrath, J.E., & Berdahl, J.L. (2000). Small groups as complex systems: Formation,
coordination, development and adaptation. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.
2. Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York:
Free Press.
3. Kramer, R.M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring
questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 556-557.
4. Moody, J. & White, D.R. (2003). Structural cohesion and embeddedness: A hierarchical
concept of social groups. American Sociological Review, 68, 103-127.
5. TESS project http://informat.web.man.ac.uk/research/groups/isd/projects/dtess/
6. Williamson, O.E. (1993). Calculativeness, trust and economic organization. Journal of Law
and Economics, 36, 453-486.

www.dsi.unive.it/mapisnet07/papers/sutcliffe.pdf

Managing Interpersonal Relationships

Why Managing Interpersonal Relationships?

Within any management situation there will be interpersonal relationship difficulties. When these arise within teams,
they can block the manager's success in achieving team cohesiveness, productivity and success. On the other hand,
when the problem occurs in the organisation then much more is at stake. Relationship tension erodes productivity,
progress and results - something has to be done.

What results will I achieve?

This workshop delivers invaluable skills that enable people to motivate and maintain performance in the people they
work with, especially when there is a considerable pressure to succeed. Participants are able to make consistently
accurate predictions about the communication needs of colleagues and thereby become more effective in roles
including manager, coach, communicator and implementor. Includes:

The nature of human behaviour and how others interpret it

Behavioural style identification

The consequences of judgements

Insights into difficult interactions that jeopardise many promising opportunities

Tension management

Skills to address the pressures of motivating, delegating, negotiating and working to deadlines

The benefits of versatility and style modification strategies

Who is it for?
Those who want to increase their versatility and be able to influence and manage a wider variety of personalities
through personal rather than positional power.

How is it structured?
Skills are demonstrated by the tutors, using short input sessions, exercises and skills practise. Frameworks are all
modelled upon people who have demonstrated Excellence in their field.

Understanding how interpersonal relationships underpin the workplace

01/04/2008

Interpersonal Relationships in Organisations (IRO) is one of Roffey Parks longest running programmes. For
over thirty years, Roffey Park has been pioneering the exploration of the dynamics of relationships in the
workplace and helping executives understand and develop their interpersonal skills. And, after all this time,
it remains a critical element of the successful organisation.
Interpersonal relationships are at the heart of Roffey Parks approach to learning, drawing on a long tradition
of adult learning and organisational development. We encourage open, candid discussion of the impact of
relationships by recreating
an organisational structure within the group. By allowing participants to interact with each other naturally,
we enable a
dynamic, real-time environment that explores how we relate to ourselves and each other.
The IRO programme begins by asking participants to gather feedback from their peers, managers and
subordinates. This provides an honest appraisal of core skills, such as the ability to listen, to ask pertinent
questions, to understand and fundamentally relate to all levels within the organisation. This then provides a
starting point for the programme itself.
Each programme lasts five days and is comprised of three main elements: large group work, small group
work and
optional workshops. There is also the opportunity to have one-on-one tutorial sessions with Roffey Parks
facilitators.
Of these, the workshop sessions provide the opportunity to focus on specific areas of learning, such as
psychometric profiling, influencing skills, managing conflict, models of understanding relationships, handling
emotions and understanding non-verbal behaviour.
The small group work sessions provide a forum to explore workplace scenarios. Each participant brings an
example situation that they work through as a team of three to four. This creates a climate in which risk
taking and thinking creatively are rewarding.
The large group sessions are usually the ones that have most impact on participants. There are five of these
sessions over
the course of the programme and their objective is to openly explore how individuals interact with each
other. Without a set agenda, these are fluid and dynamic environments that allow the participants to create
their own format and, in doing so, learn about how they interrelate.
IRO Programme Director Andy Smith explains: Many participants initially find the large group work sessions
a little intimidating. There is the instinctive expectation that Roffey Park's facilitators will lead the way and
set an agenda. By
challenging this, the session allows individuals to learn about relationships from the ones they are actually

forming in the
room. We find that patterns that exist in the workplace recreate themselves in the group in a short space of
time.
We evaluated the effectiveness of the programme through questionnaires sent to recent participants to find
out how useful the programme had been. Every respondent reported their behaviour had changed on
returning to work and 90% of respondents had taken specific action to improve successfully a working
relationship they discussed on the programme. Perhaps most significantly, 85% of respondents reported that
colleagues at work had commented positively on improvements in their interpersonal skills.
Participants on IRO can come from any level within an organisation but generally fall into three broad
categories. At one end of the scale, participants might be ambitious, taskorientated careerists but aggressive
or not as empathic as they could be. At the other end of the scale, participants might be lacking
assertiveness or influencing skills. In between are those who understand the significance of interpersonal
relationships and want to sharpen and hone their skills.
Falling into the last category is Ashley Azavedo, a banker with HSBC in Dubai. His manager had undertaken
the programme a few years ago and encouraged Ashley to look into it as a way of improving his
interpersonal skills. Having explored what Roffey Park had on offer, he decided it would be a useful
experience.
Im always keen to improve my skills at every level and, from the website, I could see that this programme
would prove beneficial, explains Ashley. I wasnt entirely sure what to expect but the flexibility and fluidity
of the programme really helped us to get under the skin of how we interrelate in the workplace.
It was five days well spent and I certainly achieved something. Im now a much better listener; whereas
beforehand I tended to assume people knew what I was talking about, I now ensure that everyone is in
complete understanding and agreement. Im more conscious of body language and other non-verbal cues
that help us to understand each other. My colleagues have noticed and remarked on the improvement and I
have already recommended IRO to colleagues. As a banker, we tend to focus on numbers
and the business rather than how we work together; Roffey Park has certainly helped remedy this and, in
the process, made me a better worker and colleague.
Andy Smith concludes: Roffey Park has been helping people explore and understand how they work
together for over thirty years with its IRO programme. Even now, it remains fundamentally important for
successful organisations so were looking forward to the next thirty years of helping people like Ashley
understand how they relate to others and how to communicate more effectively.