Much of what I have to say needs to be considered in the form of hypotheses. My thoughts come from the intersection of my interests in psychoanalysis, group relations, and organization consultation.
What I have to say can be summarized in the following points:
Psychoanalysts should, but are reluctant to, think in group, inter-group, and organization terms; that they don't, to my mind, is to the detriment of their organizations, certainly their colleagueship, and, as shown by the Marketing Report, maybe their incomes as well.
I assume you may not be familiar with what I mean by “group relations.” It is a body of knowledge developed at the Tavistock Institute in London, which combines an understanding of organizational life in terms of social structural and systems concepts, group processes, and individual psychodynamics. These ideas provide a conceptual framework for shifting from thinking solely about individuals to thinking about organizational life. This shift in thinking is what, I believe, is necessary to accomplish organizational goals, such as marketing professional practice.
An example of its use can be seen in the issue in the Marketing Report of the disconnect between how analysts feel about themselves and how patients feel, and how analysts are thought of by the non-analytic community and by colleagues—intergroup phenomena [that can be] understood in terms like projection/introjection, helper vs. competitor, and the like.
Reluctance to use [a group relations perspective] is informed by the psychoanalytic focus on the individual, which makes it hard to broaden the use of psychodynamics to incorporate a systems view, not only as a structural view, but in the sense of being able to use concepts such as projection, introjection, and splitting in the social sphere and not just in the consulting room. An additional reluctance is that professionals [in general] resist strong organizational structuring because of [their] value on autonomy, proficiency, and individuality. Being subject to “command and control” methods to accomplish organizational goals is not something I associate with people like us. This is especially true in a volunteer/member organization such as APsaA.
I wonder whether there is a clear articulation of the multiple and contested tasks of the organization, their management in the face of limited resources, and the tensions that result along with the anxieties and coping mechanisms that are employed to accommodate to the tensions. Organizational problems are problems of contested tasks, not individuals.
The Marketing Report represents a particular position within the organization, which is to increase patient referrals and candidates for training. This is well and good for the Association's task of developing professional practice. But the Association has other tasks, for example, credentialing and research, among others. APsaA is not limited to the support of the actual practice of psychoanalysis. We have competing tasks that involve quality assurance, research, career development, and other interpersonal needs such as dependency, competition, anxiety, and power. I wonder whether there is a clear articulation of the multiple and contested tasks of the organization, their management in the face of limited resources, and the tensions that result along with the anxieties and coping mechanisms that are employed to accommodate to the tensions. Organizational problems are problems of contested tasks, not individuals.
Finally, I also wonder about a heroic vision of management where the expectation is that all can be solved (where differences are to be controlled and/or repressed) vs. a tragic view that things can only be good enough.
In this, as in any organization, there are group, intergroup, and organizational processes that need to be articulated, debated, and reconciled to the extent possible with the tensions, history, fantasies, and defenses against them made conscious, understood, and metabolized. I assume that much of this is done, but I think that the use of these [additional] frameworks would enhance the discussion and perhaps normalize, if not lessen, the tensions involved by making them more comprehensible.