A joint panel with members of APsaA and the International Society for the Psychoanalytic Study of Organizations (ISPSO) was held in Boston in June, in conjunction with the simultaneous annual meetings of both groups. Kenneth Eisold, co-chair of the Committee on Organizational Consultation of the APsaA and also President-elect of ISPSO, moderated.
In his opening remarks, Eisold noted that among the obstacles to psychoanalytically oriented business consultation were analysts' internal inhibitions against working in a business environment and providing concrete help, rather than therapy. Both the panel and its subject matter, he said, were “boundary events,” each working at the boundary, between areas of inquiry and organizations, respectively.
Kerry Sulkowicz, chair of APsaA's Public Information Committee, remarked that psychoanalysis is in trouble from external and internal threats. One of the central notions of psychoanalysis is the concept of boundaries, which can be both a strength and a barrier in organizational consulting. Boundaries, often discussed in intrapsychic and interpersonal terms, can also be conceptualized in terms of organizations. He finds it ironic that the notion of boundaries was itself one of the biggest boundaries to organizational consulting. To psychoanalysts, boundaries are a way to protect the therapeutic frame and prevent the violation of ethical principles, but this idea can be taken too far and become reified, resulting in a distant and obsessional stance. This seeming paradox can be resolved by maintaining a critical attitude about when boundaries are being crossed, and what is going on, and why. Boundaries can be hiding places from emotional engagement, but they can also be helpful. The best work is often done at a boundary, where parties are pulled and stretched. Sometimes boundaries need to be crossed.
Kenneth Settel, co-chair of the Committee on Organizational Consulting of APsaA, traced his personal odyssey to becoming an organizational consultant, paying tribute to his mentor Dr. Harry Levinson, a founder of ISPSO, who was in the audience. Twenty-five years ago, Levinson recruited Settel to teach in his psychoanalytically based training program for business leaders. Initially, Settel wasn't certain that doing organizational consulting was compatible with being a psychoanalyst, but he credits Levinson with helping him overcome this prejudice. In his work with organizational problems, Settel listens for unconscious processes, but does not speak to primary process.
Settel summarized what psychoanalysis offers to organizational consulting into two broad areas: First is the power of the unconscious, especially transference including that between the organization and the consultant. Second is an understanding of developmental needs. This can often explain seemingly irrational behavior
Settel emphasized that he eschews psychoanalytic jargon, in favor of business language. Furthermore, he tries to help his organizational clients by providing a clear sense of what is going on and being direct.
Jon Stokes, director of the Tavistock Consulting Service in London, England, and past-president of ISPSO, outlined four major barriers to doing organizational consultation:
One is values and temperament. By encompassing an inquiry into emotional phenomena, psychoanalysis can be useful to the organizational consultant. However, to do organizational consulting, psychoanalysts may have to work with personality types different from themselves. Psychoanalysts, in Stokes' view, by temperament often overvalue thinking, are thin-skinned, easily hurt, and struggle with interpersonal relationships. Business leaders, on the other hand, often prefer action to thinking and are thick-skinned and gregarious.
A second is frame of reference. Psychoanalysis is conducted within an individual framework, which is not immediately transferable to a group. Ethics at an organizational level are different than at an individual level. Dr. Stokes recommended reading Machiavelli's “The Prince” to gain an appreciation of this fact. Whereas Bion wrote about “introducing the individual to himself,” Stokes likes to think of his work as “introducing the organization to itself” He tries to facilitate conversation within the organization. This does not require interpretation, other than to himself. He tries to get the staff in the organization to have the courage to explore deeper thoughts and feelings. In this regard, he referenced Christopher Bollas' “unthought known” and Bion's “thoughts waiting for a thinker”.
The third is maturational experience, which affects how one deals with tensions and conflicts. Dr. Stokes believes that a “valency” for one of Bion's basic group assumptions can be generalized according to occupational field. For instance, doctors tend to have a valency toward dependency, psychologists toward pairing, and social workers toward fright or flight. He added that the asymmetric framework of psychoanalysis is notoriously unhelpful in learning how to deal in an experiential and maturational way with problems with authority.
The last barrier is lacking an understanding of the client's field of work. Only by gaining such an understanding can the consultant be of help. Stokes has a partner who is an MBA. He believes this helps him immensely working with business people.
Stanley Gold, chair of the Center for Psychodynamic Studies in Melbourne, Australia, began his remarks by crediting his own mentor, Harold Bridger of the Tavistock Clinic in London, for stimulating his interest in organizational consulting. Dr. Bridger taught him that psychoanalysis does not belong solely to the individual treatment setting, but also has applications in business, politics, and health care. Gold summarized Bridger's mentoring with three phrases:
Mark F. Poster, M.D., is in private practice in West Newton, MA.
First, “start from where people are”—eliminate any preconceived notions and listen.
Second, “double-task”—the content is the primary task and the process is the secondary task.
Third, “balance and optimize”—pay attention to the swings and round-a-bouts, the positives and negatives, in the larger picture of the situation.
A lively discussion followed the speakers' presentations. Harry Levinson, reflecting on his fifty years of practicing and teaching organizational consulting, recalled the resistance to his early interest in this area. He highlighted three areas of particular importance:
First, like cultural anthropologists, consultants must immerse themselves in the culture of the field that they are studying.
Second, take the time to systematically study the organization with some formality and make a diagnosis of the problems.
Third, there is the continuing need for the problems in psychoanalytic institutes to be carefully investigated. That is the only way to diminish repetitive patterns of splitting and splintering.
Erik Gann asked whether the panel recommended that the prospective organizational consultant specialize in a particular size or type of organization. Eisold commented that he consults primarily with professional organizations, rather than businesses. Gold stated that he consults largely to health care organizations, an area with which he has much familiarity and experience. Businesses tend to be empirical and data-driven and it is sometimes hard to get psychoanalytic concepts “under the radar”
Eisold said a future conference is planned where an organizational consultation case would be presented and discussed.