I would like to respond to the “Reactions from the Top” commentaries by Newell Fischer and Dick Fox, published in tandem with my piece on the crisis in finding willing candidates for the highest offices in the Association [TAP 36/4].
First, I want it to be clear that I regard both respondents with the highest respect and gratitude for their many contributions to our field, but especially for having taken on the burdens as well as the satisfactions that they both aver in serving as president. It is fortunate for us all that there are individuals such as these who are willing and capable of leading our ranks.
I would like to underscore two points, however, that are somewhat different from the personal considerations to which they both spoke in their statements.
First, the list of objections to running for office that I iterated is a distillation of actual statements and responses offered to us on the Exploratory Subcommittee of the Nominating Committee over several years work when soliciting possible candidates not only for president-elect but for all of the officer positions. It has become apparent that many people are intimidated by or unwilling to endure the sacrifices involved in assuming the responsibilities for running this organization.
Second, I opined—and this is the central point—that these perceptions by the membership are symptomatic not simply of structural and functional problems in the organization, but equally and perhaps more significantly of powerful, underlying, unconscious group dynamics that must be grappled with. If ignored, they will continue to exert pathological impacts that will not disappear.
The evidence is clear that these are not the only symptoms from which the organization has been suffering. Some ideas about the underlying dynamics of our group have been addressed by various individuals in different venues. But it seems to me that until and unless we undergo a systematic and rigorous evaluation in this domain, leading to an organizational structure based on rational conceptualizations of lines of authority and responsibility consistent with the current mission, the malaise that lingers may not be adequately dealt with to alter the picture I tried to portray.
The good news is that both Dick and Newell have recently begun addressing such issues at the January meetings in New York—Dick in his excellent plenary address concerning matters of authority, power, and leadership in organizations; and Newell, in announcing that the Executive Committee has been discussing and considering seriously the use of an organizational consultation. Both developments suggest good reasons for hope.
Erik Gann, M.D.