Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Change, High Stakes, and Extreme Behavior

The source for this post in is Frank Rich's editorial, The Rage Is Not About Health Care New York Times, March 28, 2010

Following the passage of the health reform bill, the Tea Party has expressed its rage against Congressmen who voted for it. Frank Rich, points out that those who came most under attack, were a Jew and three blacks:

"It's not a happenstance that [Barney] Frank, [John] Lewis and [Emanuel] Cleaver-- none of them a major Democratic players in the healthcare push-- received a major share of last weekend's abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan "take our country back," these are the people they want to take the country back from."


Rich links the angry outbursts to the rage in the past against Social Security under FDR, Medicare under LBJ, and after the passage of the Civil Rights Bill in the sixties. Frank Rich's point is that the rage is not against the health bill, but is about “an inexorable and immutable change in the very identity of America, not just its governance.”

The rage Rich is singling out is what Structural Dynamics calls a ‘high stakes behavior’. Recently introduced changes in our governing body—Obama, a black President, Pelosi, a female speaker of the house, Sotomayor, a minority female on the Supreme Court, as well as changing demographics--through which, all too soon, whites will become a minority, represent threats on identity, a high stakes matter for all involved.

In high stakes situations, behavior changes, often in the extreme. One phenomenon that raises the stakes is the “Power of ‘Other’”. At these times, ‘other’—the stranger, the outsider, the foreigner, any group or individual perceived as radically different from ‘us’ and from ‘self’--is accorded great symbolic power, which incites anxiety. At such high stakes times, dark, shadowy, and extreme behaviors are stirred up and acted out. Our model’s understanding of high stakes behavior, only partially represented here, perfectly describes the extreme rage we are seeing from the Tea Party movement.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Obama and Rahm Profiles--Match or Mismatch?

Introduction to the Language
The language has many terms—too many to grasp all at once. These concepts will be introduced gradually, from posting to posting. Repeat usage, which certainly will occur, can be followed by using the Labels function on the right pane of the page. Click on the term of interest and you will be brought to all the posts in which it was used. This way, you can see how the terms are applied in different situations, circumstances and contexts.

A Primer
The theory of Structural Dynamics has identified 36 Behavioral Profiles. Each Profile has three components: one covering an individual’s propensity for one of four action Modes (Mover, Follower, Opposer, Bystander;) three preferred Communication Domains (Affect, Power, Meaning) and three Operational Domains (Closed, Open and Random.) A Profile is an individual’s skeletal structure. Voice, nuance, intensity, and other qualities add fuller bodied resonance to a Behavioral Profile. Structural Dynamics emphasizes these core structures. They represent the subtext of all action propensities as expressed in speech and behavior.

Here are just a few quotes from an article that set the stage for my comments on leader's profiles--"The Limits of Rahmism" Rahm Emanuel is a Mover in Closed System Power. Barack Obama, is a Bystander in Open System Meaning.

Source: NYT Magazine March 14, 2010 “The Limits of Rahmism” By Peter Baker Online version

“…Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel, an unlikely tandem of inspirational leader and legislative mechanic, that was supposed to enact the most expansive domestic program since the The Great Society.”

Leaders choose their Followers carefully. Obama’s choice of Emanuel was a calculated strategic decision. Baker’s article raises questions about the wisdom of this choice.

“[This] paradox…has not been lost on Washington. A visionary outsider who is relatively inexperienced and perhaps even a tad naïve about the ways of Washington captures the White House and eager to get things done, hires the ultimate get-it-done insider to run his operation.”

In our view, for precisely Baker’s point, Obama made a smart choice. Obama is a skilled Bystander. Bystanders hang back, take in as much information as they can, internally reflect, and then act, Move. Emanuel, sleeves rolled up and quick to Act. That is, he is a strong Mover who is a known, arm-twisting Opposer as well. This combination may not endear him to adversaries, but no one doubts he intends to “get things done.” The Domain of Power, in our lexicon, is all about “getting the work done.”

“If Emmanuel’s philosophy is to put points on the board, to take what you can get and then cut a deal, everything negotiable except success, then the White House is testing the limits of Rahmism.”

Yes, the proof of a leader’s choice of Followers is in the results. One can imagine that during this critical search for Democrats to vote yes on the president’s health bill, Rahm Emanuel is not sitting on his hands wondering what to do.

“[Their relationship] is hardly a relationship of dependence and deferral. These are two strong willed individuals, yet…Obama calls the shots. When Obama makes a decision at variance with Emanuel’s advice, Emanuel does what staff members do and adopts the decision as his own.”

There are two main types of Followers. Those who follow faithfully, even blindly, and do not question (Actively Bystand) or Oppose (challenge their leader’s positions;) and those who do all this, but in the end, Move as One with the leader. Baker opines, we think correctly, that Emanuel is the second type.

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

An Introduction

My Purpose
I bring to this blog a theory of communication developed over decades of published research with families (Inside the Family, Jossey-Bass, Wiley) with couples, (My Lover, Myself, Riverhead Books, Putnam) and with executive teams (Reading the Room, accepted for publication by Jossey-Bass ). I call the theory that has emerged from this research, Structural Dynamics, and the practice that tests and applies this theory, Structural Intervention.

Structural Dynamics
is a theory of face-to-face communication, which describes how and why communication works and does not work in the three domains-–Families, Couples, and Organizations and their teams.

Structural Intervention describes how to make these communicative systems work better when they fail or break down.

Target Audience

Until now my audience was professionals in the social and behavioral fields. In Subtexts I hope to extend and test the applicability of these ideas to a wider domain, public discourse.

My Sources
Subtexts draws its material from a wide a array of public sources—from the newspapers, magazines and books I read, from films and plays I see, and from commentary on and literary criticism of these tracts. Focusing on what general audiences are exposed to in the public domain does not rule out my drawing on what I have previously learned in the more private, behind closed door domains of couples, families, and teams. From all above sources, I will focus on leaders and leadership. Leaders play a singular role in all contexts, thus, are singled out by writers in all venues for special attention, interpretation, and critical scrutiny. They are, therefore, meaty subjects for this blog.

How It Works
Each blog posting begins on Twitter, where I list a specific source. For example: Frank Rich’s column on Obama, NYT, Sunday, January 5, 2010, Opinion. On Twitter, I provide a link both to Subtexts and to my website, Kantor Institute. The latter is more for professional colleagues than for a general audience.

Kantor Institute is a commercial entity, which trains therapists and consultants in the two theories described above. It charges for these services and for some materials, but like this blog seeks to operate in the spirit of open source, making some materials available without cost.

On my blog, using concepts from my own model for understanding human discourse, I subject excerpted quotes from the original source and proceed with my own commentary, a reconstructive analysis of the original--in a word, a commentary on a commentary. Where possible, the blog provides a direct link to the original source or merely cites it when this makes more sense.

Many of these concepts will be strange to the general reader and unfamiliar, but less strange to professionals unfamiliar with my work. Readers who know my work will be able to play catch up on more recently conceived ideas. Subtexts, I say without apology, seeks the interest of readers in all three categories. My reasons for wanting to reach the many, as opposed to the few, are as much personal as professional. Failed communication is rampant. It does incalculable damage. My life of work has been devoted to solving the riddles of broken relationships primarily based--I am convinced--on failed communication. I have benefited personally and professionally from these endeavors. It is time to give back. This blog and the powers of Web 2.0 is my way of doing that.