Where next for the Fit Forum? Part 1 of 2

Since the Fit Forum was founded in June 2009, we have held several tele-conference events, covering a variety of themes ranging from the role of the unconscious in fit creation, Human Systems Dynamics and complex adaptive systems, and whether at a fundamental level there could be said to be something called ‘human fit’. The conversations we have had have stimulated debate amongst us as a group of practitioners, and brought into sharper focus the phenomena of ‘fit’ in the context of interpersonal human relationships. And we will shortly be announcing details of our next event, so watch this space for news of that.

Parallel to us, the 2009 Fit Conference, hosted on-line by the Open University, identified a number of trends in the area of academic research that form part of the backdrop to our work, namely:

• Understanding what underlies perceptions of fit;
• Distinguishing misfit from fit;
• Looking at organisational fit within its social, economic, and religious environments;
• Exploring organisational fit in different forms of work; International perspectives on fit;
• Assessing the impact of organisational fit on organisations and teams;
• Assessing fit for organisational use;
• Longitudinal studies of fit.

Key themes/questions to emerge from the conference relate to whether fit research is inherently a cul de sac, and if not why not, and a sense that the area is dominated by predominantly American constructivist researchers, heavy on quantitative rather that qualitative research methods.

In the context of the Fit Conference, we have been reflecting on what role the Fit forum could/should play in the arena of fit research, and what value we can bring. We believe the Fit Forum, whilst sharing similar aims to academic research in some respects, is different in four key respects:

1. Practitioner focused – the founders and most of the members of the Fit Forum are primarily practitioners rather than pure researchers (academic or otherwise).
2. Qualitative rather than quantative – more of a focus on what more relational models of psychology such as Gestalt can offer, with a preference for phenomenological and heuristic modes of inquiry.
3. Person – Person – fundamentally, we are interested in what happens at the contact boundary between individuals, and believe that it is from these encounters that the lived experience emerges and is co-created. This locates us within a subset of the academic research frame, namely fit in the context of Person : Person (PP) as opposed to e.g. Person : Environment (PE) and PO – Person : Organisation (PO).
4. Performance and fit – how can we link them? Can we identify any form of ROI in relation to an organisation focusing on the quality of relationships and social cohesion?

This last point is intriguing, and a follow-up to this post will cover this in more detail.

Steve Hearsum

Co-Founder, Fit forum