SCP Spotlight

Harry Levinson has a long and distinguished career which includes helping organizations create healthier workplaces, researching psychological concepts in the workplace, and educating others. He was a Thomas Henry Carroll-Ford Foundation distinguished visiting professor at Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration and taught at the Sloan School of Management at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Kansas State University, Boston University School of Business Administration, Pace University Graduate School, and Texas A & M. In addition, Dr. Levinson has taught internationally at the Finnish Government Institute of Occupational Health and the H.C. Mathur Institute of Public Administration in Jaipur, India. He has written 15 books and several articles which continue to be republished through Harvard Business Review as articles or book compilations. Dr. Levinson is the recipient of several awards, including: the Perry L. Rohrer Consulting Psychology Practice Award for Outstanding Achievement, the Massachusetts Psychological Association’s Career Award, the Society of Psychologists in Management Award, the Organization Development Professional Practice Award for Excellence from the American Society for Training and Development, the I. Arthur Marshall Distinguished Alumnus Award of the Menninger Alumni Association, and co-recipient of the American Psychological Association Award for Distinguished Professional Contributions to Knowledge. His book creations have won awards from the McKinsey Foundation, Academy of Management, and the James A. Hamilton College of Hospital Administrators (twice!!) He has created The Levinson Institute to bring psychological concepts into the workplace by delivering training on Executive Education, Organizational Consultation, and Executive Consultation. He is most known for distilling psychoanalytic concepts into workable theories and applying them in organizational settings.

Dr. Levinson participated in an interview with Diana Gordick, Ph.D. on September 23, 2003. The conversation, which discusses several of his contributions to the field of organization development, is presented below.

Diana: Harry, so far your career has spanned several decades. You’ve published several books and articles and are widely read. You’ve brought psychological concepts to a diverse array of organizations and influenced the lives of thousands of people. What activities are you most proud of?

Dr. Levinson: Among my professional activities, I’m most proud of integrating a whole range of material in a comprehensive manner that makes sense to the executive realm. I’ve translated psychoanalytic theory into something that can be used by executives. One of the things that pleases me the most is that I’ve written a number of articles for Harvard Business Review that continue to be published in the magazines. They also continue to be published in books of articles addressing several topics. Although much of my material dates back to the early 1970s, it continues to be useful and valid. The topics and their application are enduring, and I’ve translated the information in a way that makes it easy for others to hear and accept.

Diana: That was one of the things that stood out to me as I read your books and articles. You present concepts in the context of individual, structural, social, and cultural influences and then relate them to real world examples. Your writing and communication style is very accessible.

Harry: (laugh) Well, it’s pretty much been self-taught. When I started out I was clinically trained, but didn’t know anything about business. I realized that I needed to develop myself in that area and also needed to find a way to communicate psychological concepts to business executives who had no basis of training in psychology. In turn, I had to learn about their world. The upside of that self-training is you are not limited by what went before. One way I went about my training was in my work at Topeka State Hospital. I was approached by the director with the question of “how do we keep well people well?” This is a question from a public health sense applicable to an already established organization. A colleague and I spent 18 months interviewing psychiatrists, psychologists, physicians, and other staff about how to develop people in healthy ways. We realized then that what we knew as psychologists about how to develop people in a healthy manner was unknown by the management at the time. We took what we know about making people tick and translated what we knew to organizations. I started getting involved in organizations, obtained immediate examples, and developed seminars on psychoanalytic theory and change. We had an infusion of examples to teach with.

Diana: As you worked with people within the organization, what kinds of barriers did you find?

Harry: Well, I’ve worked with the Kansas State Hospital System, AT&T, and several major corporations. I typically become immersed in management. For example, we did a two year study of Kansas Power & Light to get a sense of how work influences health. That’s when we identified the psychological contract, the unconscious agreement between organizations. When this contract is fulfilled, everything goes well. When it’s violated, performance starts going downhill. This also gave us an indication of what behaviors were healthy and characteristic of good mental health. For example, if people are active and productive, if they treat others as individuals, not devices to be exploited, but rather treat them with sensitivity and understanding. Also, if they are flexible under stress. For example, if you lose one or two sources of gratification, you have others to turn to for psychological support whether they are your church, family members, or your community. Sources of loss could be caused by the loss of a job, death of a friend, etc. You could be more patient in finding a new job if your family is supportive. When you are rooted psychologically in your environment---a tree with deep roots can weather a storm better than a tree with a single root, you have a psychological clasp that helps you function.

Although Dr. Levinson's decades of contribution cannot be easily summed into a few simple ideas, the section below provides a very brief overview.

Psychological Man: Each person is a complex, unfolding, and maturing organism who openly engages in an interactive process with his or her environment. He or she evolves toward an idealized version of his or her hopes for himself with a complex set of drives and defenses. This idealized self is a primary motivator and a principle source of esteem. People typically attempt to meet the needs of their idealized self through work; as such work and the work environment have a significant effect on emotional health and motivation.

Psychological Contract: In general, a psychological contract is an agreement between two people or among groups of people. Related to organizations, it refers to the often unspoken agreement between an individual and the organization he or she works for. Implicit in the contract is the expectation that the individual will do good work for the organization and the organization will provide work and sustenance for the employee.

Noxious Feelings: Uncomfortable feelings that employees experience at work as a result of change, job loss, geographical or work-group changes can have a negative impact on organizational health if not dealt with effectively. We all seek to meet needs for love and affiliation, transforming feelings of aggression, managing dependency, and supporting self-esteem. When an individual’s source of support is removed, each of these driving needs is threatened. Although people react in a variety of ways, common outcomes include depression, grief, loss, and flight.

Poor Health: Pain and disruption stem from a breech of the psychological contract, an inability to address the four feelings above, or an inability to engage at work at the level of complexity where we function best.

Diana: Much of what you describe as affecting people stems from coping with changes in the current state of work, whether it’s job loss, transfer, etc., There is a loss of community and day to day work friendships. How do you help people deal with these changes in their work environments?

Harry: Well, executives really need to communicate about upcoming changes and the reasons for them. Often they are not prepared for resistance and you have to set their expectations. One has to confront people repeatedly with change and the logic behind it, and then help them mourn the loss of their previous ways of doing things. The CEO has to be the chief mourner, by explaining he doesn’t like the changes either, but that they are necessary. It may be terminating old friends, or finding new ways of doing things. You have to enable them to express their anger, depression, and worry. You have to keep them organized so they are mutually supportive and maintain the integrity of their work group. You may have to do retraining. There is usually anxiety about learning to use new machines. They worry if they are smart enough, quick enough. Organizations ought to allow the mourning of the loss of what they already do well. It’s also important to help people who have to leave the organization find new jobs, identify skills, make initial contact and get started. Maybe provide training sources in local vocational schools. People like to know that management gives a damn and is trying to help them. When people who leave come back in a reunion, where leadership is mutually supportive with expressions of anger and disappointment, it can be helpful.

It was difficult to get some executives to believe they had to help others. I’ve found the lack of knowledge and information to be the biggest barrier. People go from one organization to another more readily. Today there are a lot of people without jobs due to the tech decline or have jobs unrelated to their training. They are turned loose with no regard. The Menninger Foundation just left 1000 people without jobs when they moved from Kansas to Texas. I don’t know any program that could have met their needs fully. Even clinically trained people don’t always know how to manage the change process. The rapid pace of change is an issue. I don’t know of any program that helps managers deal with the speed at which things happen.

Diana: In contrast, what have been the biggest success stories you’ve seen from investing in human capital?

Harry: Companies in which people have worked for a long time are invested. They cost more to manage, but their reputation is more attractive to prospective employees. They can avoid possible lawsuits from terminating people and attract better talent. It is costly to do something psychologically wise and it is also costly to do something impulsively and without thought. You have to communicate a humane perspective to the people who remain. When they see the sensitivity they can be more comfortable and it dissipates bitterness and guilt. I think most people understand things have to change and people want to engage in change with the management. This builds continuity and morale.

Diana: How do firms create and sustain a psychological contract without becoming paternalistic?

Harry: You have to have open communication about what things will happen, what the change process will look like, and allow people as much control as possible.

Diana: So you need to provide the information, and allow employee independence and some control while being involved?

Harry: Yes, you reconstruct work groups, thrash out leadership issues, look at the hierarchy of the organization, and the alternatives to making changes. If you are engaged with people and carrying on a discussion about these things the fact of the interchange treats them as mature adults. You can’t have an effective psychological contract without communication about what’s going on and what’s expected of each party. You describe the current reality and allow people to react with anger or mourning. You retrain them and help them deal with the fact that some people are going to lose power. A person loses prestige and the feelings of competence that went along with having that power. We have to have a way for people to cope with that. One of the major New York newspapers went to computer when my cousin was a linotype operator. He went into a shell. Management has to recognize that some people will do this. Psychological management is an issue. People need to manage psychologically as well as they manage economically. When change occurs there is a loss of role, status, and often friends.

Diana: What kind of changes do you see affecting our work environments over the next 20 years?

Harry: The first is to recognize that people will no longer stick with a company if they are not adequately challenged and have room for upward mobility. More people are ready to move where there is greater challenge, opportunity, and compensation. A lot more attention has to be given to psychological growth. Some people will be fast movers and get rapidly promoted. Others will move more slowly. There is not much attention given to that or the implications for selection. It is important to realize people will reach a level of conceptual capacity and then taper off. We must learn more about conceptual development. The work of Elliot Jacques is a good start, and we need to meet employee needs more actively than we are currently. Second, we are having a lowering of the levels of hierarchy. There are fewer levels and greater flexibility for leaders at those levels. It’s a kind of decentralization. It’s good because more people will be able to rise more quickly if they have the capacity. Third, people will develop more competence. They will use training night schools as their skills rapidly become obsolete. It’s a competitive swim and they will have to keep up with it. At GE, they have lower level people coming into the organization teaching existing people skills so they can keep up with the rate of change. You will also see a greater effort at keeping people together for a specific task or function. High tech people that want to follow their own noses and innovate will split off and start their own company. If there is financial support and opportunity for continuous learning available, people are more likely to stay. There is greater transiency when people have shot their wad and are no longer challenged at work. Keeping these people involved requires more attention to training and re-training. It would involve learning more cultures and languages and developing activities in other countries. Kansas State University developed a Japanese Language Program—in Kansas. However, it’s a hit. People are becoming increasingly sophisticated about other cultures and economics. Work requires us to move so frequently that we can no longer be isolated and ignorant of others. This parallels the growth of psychological man. There is a movement from small towns to big cities. People want to be where the action is, where jobs are, and where they can continue to be stimulated. Unfortunately, there is a loss of support and loss of previous ways of doing things when people transition. I was just reading something about a small town in Mississippi that is practically empty and I know in , where I grew up, people are leaving for larger towns.

Diana: We’ve seen similar movement here in Georgia. One of my first consultation projects was with two elementary schools that were merging due to “urban flight.”

Harry: One of the things I really notice that helps or hinders people from adjusting well to change is the capacity for complexity. People have different capacities for managing complexity. If you look at the work of Elliot Jacques, he identifies 8 levels of conceptual capacity based on how far ahead people have to look. There are different levels of complexity for different roles. So, a brick layer has to look ahead 8 to 10 months, a social worker or teacher has to look ahead two years, a division head has to look ahead 10 years, and a CEO has to look ahead 50 years. This is even part of the reason for our divorce rate. Partners may start out at the same conceptual level, but one may develop more rapidly than they other. This psychological gap continues to grow as they mature to the point where they can hardly talk to one another. This is not addressed in our culture, these differences in conceptual capacity and growth.

Harry: In order to rise up in a flatter organizational you need a greater opportunity and skill in doing a wider variety of things. You are not limited by hierarchy, so if you are not being stimulated it makes for greater mobility across work groups or projects. In some organizations there used to be twenty levels. If you reduce these to five levels, people soon realize whether they have the capacity for the increased demand for complexity. You will easily notice which people have the greater innovative capacity. For example, in a chain of grocery stores that is limited to five levels, you can easily see which managers have bigger imaginations, or who responds to change more quickly. There is more visibility and more opportunity for mobility. In flatter organizations people can self-evolve, and if the organization won’t support it, they leave. You can see this across several companies; I just read an article about this happening at Proctor & Gamble.

Diana: Yes, similar movement is occurring across business sectors and those who leave often start their own firms. I’m teaching a graduate level class this semester and one of the basic concepts the students are getting a grasp of is the difference between collaboration and consultation and when to use each. When you work with companies on these issues, do you typically work from a collaborative or consultative perspective?

Harry: It depends on the company and the problem. For example, I started consulting with the CEO of a technology firm. Their in-house psychologist suggested he give me a call. The CEO was in a depressive rage. He did not want to change. I did a three day seminar on change processes for the executive group, and continued to consult over the years. I worked with the HR department to help them carry on the steps of change by doing a series of workshops. I continued to meet with top management people until they downsized to the point where I was no longer involved. It’s important to develop internal competence at companies. These concepts are teachable and understandable and can be carried out. There are several components of psychological management that you can teach on an ad hoc or ongoing basis. I’ve worked with IBM and GE in this manner.

What I’ve found with students, is it is helpful for them to get a sense of how much the client has to rigidly control what is going on. They need to work at finding ways of coming at the person tangentially so you don’t threaten their sense of control frontally. I try to teach them to have some judgment of the state of mind of the client. Sometimes the client is depressed. Sometimes they are dealing with a difficult problem and have thrown in the sponge. You have to look at what you need to do to bolster the client without helping them feel more helpless. In teaching consultation, it is also important to address countertransference. I had one student who was giving feedback and completely excoriated an executive. When we worked with that we found she was responding to countertransference. Students may not be aware of that kind of problem. You also have to help them confront resistance. We had one CEO who managed to always be away when the students were on site. Finally, we had the students show up when they were not expected. Sometimes people get wrapped up in avoiding and evading real and important issues.

Diana: Well, Harry, you’ve had a wealth of good ideas and experience. What’s on the horizon for you?

Harry: I keep one major client that I see as a member of an advisory board. It keeps me alert and on the ball. I’m also organizing some of my Harvard Business Review articles into a new book.

Diana: I really appreciate the opportunity to speak to you informally. You have made such a valuable contribution to the fields of psychology, organizational behavior, and consultation. I want to thank you for making the time to present your thoughts for our readers and for keeping us abreast of your new work.