I have recently participated in an interesting writing project with colleagues.

The main author, a PhD-level therapist and organisational consultant who teaches at several universities in Europe and conducts training in various parts of the world, proposed a project by which he would write an initial draft, and then three colleagues would respond with comments at various places within the text. The main author was Seán Gaffney, and the responding commentators were Sue Congram (from England who is working on her doctorate in leadership), Brian Mistler (from the USA who is a PhD therapist working at a university counselling centre) and myself (representing Bermuda, and holding a doctorate in clinical psychology with a dual residency in organisational consulting).

Why do I choose to share this with you? I am reflecting this morning on the process, and I'm fascinated by it. Seán is a world-class thinker, teacher, consultant, and gestalt-oriented writer. He doesn't need to involve other people in the writing that he does, but what he does is all about involving other people, working with other people, consulting and coaching with other people. People in groups. People in the complex mix of society. People in what others might call multi-systems. Consequently, his interest, past experience, and satisfaction in working in groups and collaboratively with others affected his choice of method in writing about various subjects.

The original project proved to be so successful that he proposed a second project with virtually the same format. That one is on clinical supervision and management consulting, and I am finding it fascinating.

The gist of the article is on the idea of working with a situation from a position of being "once removed". That is, for the clinical supervisor, he or she works directly with the therapist but indirectly with the client of the therapist. Just as the process between the therapist and client often becomes replicated in the relationship between the therapist and his or her supervisor, the work between the therapist and the supervisor can affect the process between the therapist and his or her client. It is a complex situation involving overlapping spheres of influence. It is also a great example of what gestalt therapists refer to as "the field". Supervision is a way of working with the field instead of simply gathering a lot of facts about someone's history and theorising about the effect this or that fact has had.

You don't need to be a supervisor to work at a "one remove". There is a way in which what we do here ripples over there. If I'm in an office context and I suddenly slam my fist down on the desk and let fly with a socially offensive expletive, there will be consequences. There may be direct consequences that are easy to connect; the boss standing across the room calls me into his office. However, there will surely be indirect results as well, and these indirect "consequences" are the tracks of someone working with a one remove. Whenever what I do affects someone indirectly, the consequences come back to me slightly off-key, slightly refracted so that I cannot see a direct connection, but they are consequences nonetheless. Thus, if I slam my fist down, perhaps people hearing about it the next day start to avoid me.

As someone has said, "Nothing unconnected ever happens". The situation is never just one person's fault. It's a mix of factors that are all connected; it's a mix of ingredients contributed by many people. Some are working directly with others, but others are working at a "one remove".

Do you understand?

In a church, people stop coming, and one day you realise, "I have not seen so and so for a long time". Nothing unconnected ever happens.

In a family, a child starts taking drugs, and the grades take a nosedive. Nothing unconnected ever happens.

In an office, people stop relating to one another, and productivity declines. Nothing unconnected ever happens.

In the church it might be that people realised they were being talked about without being talked to, and the once-removed effect is that they felt marginalised, shut out, with an "us" and a "them" or an "in" and an "out" split becoming evident in the congregation.

In a family it might be that the child has seen his mother and father in conflict, hating one another while behaving like saints in public, and the hypocrisy has become demoralising.

In an office it might be that the boss is authoritarian and hypercritical of any creative expression, and the once-removed effect is that it squelches authenticity and spontaneity in those who observe the interaction of others from a distance.

What kind of one remove are you working at the moment? We all have something going on, and I can say that with confidence, because we are all involved with other people in some kind of social network or system. We cannot escape it.

Someone is influencing you indirectly right now, and at the same time you are also having an indirect influence upon someone else.

I invite you to consider this and to take notice of it. I encourage you to practice a mindful approach to working at the one remove. It can become more than fascinating; it can revolutionise the way you do things, the way you relate to others. Paying attention to the one remove can change the ripple that comes back to you in life.

So, I'm thinking I will share this column with my writing colleagues, and that is because they influenced me to write this column to you and writing it has affected my thoughts on the article, which will now go back into the article and affect them. Mind-boggling. I feel like I've fallen into a drawing by M.C. Escher!