amitzi & schonberg paper

8/6/2019 Amitzi & Schonberg Paper

1/26


2/26

civil organization; the weight put on everyday life because ofthe multi-generation character of this organization, etc.We conclude by pointing to the methodological and practicalproblems that arise from holding a reified, organicist, systemicview of the organization.

I am a man you can trust, is how my customers viewme. Or at least, Im guessing it is. Why else wouldthey hand me their houses keys before they leavefor vacation?(They) take it for granted that Im agood person (). I could get up to anything (there). Icould unlock the outside door so as to slip back inovernight and rummage through all (they) own().Not that I would. But (they) dont know that. Theyjust assume it. They just take it for granted that Im

a good person.Come to think of it, I am the one who doesnt

take it for granted.Anne Tyler, A Patchwork Planet, New York, Alfred

Knopf, 1998 p3

What can I do for you?That, he said, is what I came to find out.Yes, but how do you think I can help?But, doctor, how should I know? That is what Icame to you to find out.Yes, but what is troubling you? Presumably youwanted to see me for something of which you arecomplaining.No, not at all. I have nothing to complain of. We arevery lucky.You must have wanted to come for some reason...Oh, I see my wife sent me.Ah, I see.

(But do I? So far the only thing

that is clear is that I am no wiser than Iwas when a brief note from his doctorasked me to see this patient thehusband of a woman whom he hadoriginally treated for pneumonia. Moreyour line than mine, he said.)

Your doctor must have thought you needed myhelp. Why was that?How should I know? Didnt he tell you in his note?I think he expected you to tell me yourself. So far,you know, you have told me nothing.

V.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, Trust in a Paranoid Environment p 2


3/26

(A blunder Iknew it before I hadcompleted mysentence. I sat backand waited. He

returned my gaze withuntroubled expressionand waited to hearmore. In the meantimeI thought we could notsimply continue to sitin silence, but I couldthink of no alternative.As time passed I felt achange was takingplace and that themeeting wasdeteriorating into acontest of wills. Whatis a will? Does Freudsay? Or Melanie Klein?Abraham? Ferencziperhaps?)

Wilfred R. Bion, Cogitations, London, Karnac Books,1992, pp364-365

Phantasies, Thoughts, and in-between

In professional work, especially when it is deeply rooted inthick theoretical ground and a large body of knowledge, itsometimes happens that we take some preliminary conditionsfor granted, and thus leave them un-examined. In this paper, wewill examine trust between consultee and consultant as such anoverlooked parameter.

When commissioned by the Tavistock Clinic to work with

groups, W. Bion, from his own experiences with those groups, aswell as from his experience with other groups, especially duringthe two World Wars, pointed to two modalities of groupfunctioning (Bion, 1961). One was reality-oriented, like an ego-function process which he called the Work group. The otherwas a non-rational, phantasy-based way of functioning, wherethe group acted in one of three different modes. The first mode,as if it was fighting, or escaping (fight/flight). The second mode,as if the group was wholly dependent on one leader fornurturing it (dependency). The third mode, as if out of the

group, and especially out of a couple in it, would arise or beV.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, Trust in a Paranoid Environment p 3


4/26

born she/he who would bring salvation to the group (pairing).This phantasy-based, irrational mode of functioning, sweeps thebehavior of the group. Following Bion, it is, in fact, a response tothe anxiety aroused among the members by the group situation,its ambiguity, etc., as well as emerging from deeper parts of the

psychological make-up of human beings. So that we can affirm,following Bions tremendous influence on the development ofthe psychoanalytic study of groups and organizations, thatemotions are one of the backbones of any psychoanalytic studyof groups, and hence, of organizations. In fact, following andelaborating on Bions distinction between Work group and BasicAssumption group, a great part of the psychoanalyticallyoriented literature on organizations, stresses the impact ofemotions and phantasies, and mainly the way in which theydeflect the rational view of the organization.

But this is only one part of the spectrum. In a seminalarticle, G. Lawrence (Lawrence, 1997) saw fit to recall Bioniansthat Bion was really interested in the two views of the behaviorin the group, two vertices. Not only that which Lawrence callsOedipus, referring to the feelings, emotions and phantasies, butalso another one, that of Thought, which he called Sphinx. Infact, much of Bions later interest, when he left the domain ofgroups and went to work, as a psychoanalyst, with psychotics,was much centered on the development of thoughts andthinking.

From Bions conceptual breakthrough till now,

psychoanalytical work in and around organizations have putforward a third way between thought and affect, betweenconscious work and unconscious basic assumption. Oneexample could be what L. Hirschhorn calls Primary Risk, whichpoints to another facet of the organizational life (Hirschhorn,1999). Risk is not simply a thought; it is neither an emotion. It israther a stand, a position, and a way to relate to theenvironment. We dont need to get deep into the psychology ofrisk taking to acknowledge that it has strong emotionalundertones, apparently based on previous personal history orsocialization. It is also well entrenched in cognitive, rational

processes. (Tversky and Kahnman, 1989).The Bions quote in the excerpt, about will, also points to thatin-between land, neither thought, nor emotions.

Trust

We want here to elaborate on another example of thatspecies of psychic phenomena, which are on the middle positionbetween thoughts and feelings: mainly, beliefs. Beliefs arethoughts heavily loaded with emotions, feeling and affect.

Beliefs are positions. They are not a pristine development ofV.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, Trust in a Paranoid Environment p 4


5/26

cognitive functions, nor a mere acknowledgement of reality.They are, rather, whatever their source, a quite personal andcommitted way to declare something about reality. It is as if wewere saying I am not going to test reality about this. It is as ifthere is some reality there, but which is untestable, or beyond

test. Trust is such a position, or belief, that we want to explorein this paper.

In the last years, there is a recrudescence of interest inthe concept of trust. Most of the writings are elaboration from aphilosophical-historical and moral point of view (Fukuyama,1995; Silver) or a sociological one (Luhmann, 19790, Seligman,1997).

As we deal with a psychoanalytic view of organization, ourinterest rests on an intermediate level, not only he micro,personal level, and not yet the societal, or global level. As wewill see, the main shortcomings of the literature about trust, isthat we have either a personal explanation of trust, or itsdefault, across the board; or, that we have a whole society, orhistorical period, a generalized view of trust. So that we cannotexplain how one particular person has trust in a particular other,in that particular organization, whereas he lacks this trusttoward another person, in the same or in other settings. Forexample, it is claimed (Fukuyama, 1995) that the modern,western and open society, that which is creating wealth, isbased on a community of more or less rational actors whobelieve that their actions are carried out in an atmosphere of

trust. The argument is that trust enables people withincommunities to associate and work together in groups andorganizations, and thus bring forth social and economicdevelopment and success. Fukuyama is primarily interested inthe shift away from trust in contemporary American society, andits probable influence in Americas economic, social and culturalfuture. It is not clear, though, how we can link the historical andcomparative perspective to everyday, and personal orpsychological processes.

Seligman (1997) brings us closer to the macro-microdynamics of trust in everyday interactions. He analyzes the

social-psychological approach, which views trust as apsychological state, characteristic of the individual, and basedon early socialization, (Rotter, 1971). Trust is expressed ininterpersonal relationships and puts the self in a position wherehe generally expects others to fulfill their obligations. Seligmanalso stresses the differences between confidence and trust.Following Luhmann (Luhmann, 1971) he defines confidence inpeople and institutions as the relative certainty we have in theoutcome of some interaction or role expectation. Trust, on theother hand, is based on role negotiability, on what is not given

or defined by norms. It is some sort of belief in the goodwill ofV.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, Trust in a Paranoid Environment p 5


6/26

the other, when we do not know what are his intentions, andwhen his behavior is not governed by clear or institutionalizedrules. In this view, trust is built within the open spaces of sociallife, trust enters into social interaction in the interstices ofsystem, or at system limit, when for one reason or another

systematically defined role expectations are no longer viable.()Trust may then come to exist () in that metaphorical spacebetween roles, that area where roles are open to negotiationand interpretation. (Seligman, 1997, pp 25-27). So we do havehere an attempt to conceptually link between personal, andinterpersonal relations, and the social, even global, level.

A Psychoanalytic view of trust?

A well-developed psychoanalytic theory of trust does notyet seem to exist, although the main elements for it are quiteready for us to use. We might begin from Freud renownrendering of the fort-da play that he witnessed when baby-sitting his grandson (Freud, 1920). He relates, quite at length,what he sees as the first game played by a little boy of one anda half year. The boy took small objects and used to throw themaway, shouting aloud o-o-o-o- - which was understood by hisparents and Freud to represent the German word fort i.e.gone away. This was confirmed when later on, playing with astring attached to a wooden toy, the baby threw the toy away,shouting his usual fort, and then pulled it back, exclaiming

da which means there it is. This fort-da game, accordingto Freud, was developed by the little boy as a way to masterand handle more easily the disappearance and reappearance ofhis mother. But, it seems that what is developed here isconfidence of the child in the reappearance of his mother, ratherthan trust.

Melanie Klein helps us getting further. We might, carefullyreading through the lines, link the development of trust to thecapacity of Love and Reparation, and then Gratitude (M.Klein,1937), within the lengthy and difficult path to escape thedreadful fear of death and circumvent envy. Through successive

reparations, trust might be established. In one of her latestessays, Melanie Klein began her discussion of envy andgratitude (Klein, 1956) by stressing the inherent frustration ofthe breast:

An element of frustration by the breast is bound,however, to enter into the infants earliest relationto it, because even a happy feeding situation cannotaltogether replace the prenatal unity with themother. Also, the infants longing for aninexhaustible and always present breast which

would not only satisfy him but prevent destructiveV.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, Trust in a Paranoid Environment p 6


7/26

impulses and persecutory anxiety cannot ever befully satisfied. () As a consequence, earlyemotional life is characterized by a sense of losingand regaining the good object. (Ibid. p212)

Only a full and stable feeling of gratification can ensure the

development of a strong, integrated and creative ego: For if the undisturbed enjoyment in being fed isfrequentlyexperienced, the introjection of themothers breast as a good object comes about withrelative security. The capacity to fully enjoygratification at the breast forms the foundation forall later happiness, as well as for pleasure fromvarious sources. ()A full gratification at the breast means that theinfant feels he has received from his loved object aunique gift, which he wants to keep. This is the basisof gratitude. Gratitude includes belief in goodobjects and trust in them. It includes also the abilityto assimilate the loved object not only as a sourceof food and to love it without envy interfering.(Ibid. p 215; italics in the text)

Although M. Klein explicitly used here the word trust, the mainidea is to explain the positive attitude of the infant, and later onof the adult or the patient, toward the mother, the analyst, andthe world in general, so that a full and creative life can beenjoyed.

M. Klein clearly declares that the capacity for loveappear(s) to be innate and that both destructive impulsesand the capacity for love are, to some extent, constitutional,varying individually in strength (ibid. p 215, p212). So we havehere a quite elaborate construction, which would explain, due toconstitution and to the actual development of object relations, amore or less constant level of trust, and associated feelings oflove and creativity.But, gratitude and love are not trust. And although M. Kleindiscusses at some length the suspicion inherently connectedwith envy, she is more concerned with the paranoid and schizoid

defences, which hinder the mitigation of envy and jealousy, andwith the resolution of the conflict between love and hatredthrough the depressive position.

The psychoanalyst who has mostly developed the conceptof trust is without doubt E. Erikson. In his developmentalPsychology, and as part of his encompassing anthropologicalstudy of childhood, he developed eight stages (Erikson, 1958).Erikson was basically interested in what makes up a childsidentity, and got to link ego qualities, developing in stages, tosocial structures and institutions. The first of those stages he

called basic trust vs. basic mistrust.V.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, Trust in a Paranoid Environment p 7


8/26

The general state of trust () implies not only thatone has learned to rely on the sameness andcontinuity of the outer providers, but also that onemay trust oneself and the capacity of ones ownorgan to cope with urges; and that one is able to

consider oneself trustworthy enough so that theproviders will not need to be on guard lest they benipped. (Erikson, 1958, p 248).

How is trust created?Mothers create a sense of trust in their children bythat kind of administration which in its qualitycombines sensitive care of the babys individualneeds and a firm sense of personal trustworthinesswithin the trusted framework of their cultures lifestyle. This forms the basis in the child for a sense ofidentity which will later combine a sense of being allright, of being oneself, and of becoming what otherpeople trust one will become. (Ibid. p.249).

Erikson s position seems adequate, but on closer look it issomehow circular or tautological: mothers create trust through asense of trustworthiness in the style of the cultures trust.Moreover, despite Eriksons wish to link psychological andsocial/anthropological variables, we have here a social factexplained through a personal psychological development. But itis not at all clear how we can transfer to any organizationalsetting, and to a particular client-consultant relationship, the

ontogenic development of trust in the child and his mother.

Trust and the Consulting Relationship

The consulting relationship is one of trust. The consulteeexpects, and is expected, to be candid about himself, hissituation, role, difficulties, etc. He will give a quite detailedpicture of his organization; analyze his and others roles. He willdelve into ambiguous or worrisome issues. He will divulge somesecret, or privately held view of other people. There will be talkabout projects, developments, strategy, competition, risks, etc.

For all this to happen, there must be some solid base of belief,not only that the consultant can be helpful, but also that he canbe trusted. Oddly enough, till the last years, there has not beenmuch material to be found on this basic position of theconsultee (But see, for example, Zucker, 1986). Most of it wasfound in the teaching material, for example in counselingeducation programs (Fong and Cox, 1983). There, trust is seenas a continuum, built-up through a process of learning, andthrough a series of tests, conscious or unconscious. Forexample, through telling some small secrets; or through

requesting some information, and then checking it. Recently,V.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, Trust in a Paranoid Environment p 8


9/26

trust popped up as a new candidate for the ephemerous buzzand all-explaining concept. Trust - and its absence - is stronglylinked to a culture of insecurity, (...) marginal loyalty and,often, damaged customer relations"(...)"some of the research ontrust (...) found compelling evidence that low levels of trust in a

work force can indeed lead directly to high stress, reducedproductivity, stifled innovation, slowed decision-making, andindirectly, to low morale, high turnover and frequentabsenteeism." (Zemke, 2000, p78). So trust, in a nice circularargument, becomes the new panacea for better customers andemployees relationships. Though, when examined a little bitcloser, this trust turns out to be an open, dependablerelationship of sorts, somewhat based on a family, or quasi-family model; or "Good Management Practices" making theorganization a place on which you can depend - which is not atrifle point, in those ages of massive lay-outs, mergers andacquisitions.Trust, as almost anything else in the mega-industry ofManagement theory and training, becomes 'a' something youcan manipulate to your own and your company's profit. How canyou gain trust from your employees? Make crediblepresentations; do the right things; take on tough challenges,etc. "If all these prescriptions seem, well a little on the SimpleSimon side, it's because trust is one of those 'you know-it-when-you-experience-it' factors that only become difficult to deal withwhen you are trying to make it easy for someone to do".

(Zemke, 2000, p83). Besides the omnipresent tautology andfuzziness (just what is a 'credible' presentation; what are 'theright things to do', etc.), it is a nice way to recognize that youactually don't know how you create that trust. But, at least, itshows that trust is based on practices and relationships, andthat it is mediated by emotions and beliefs. Similarly, in thetechnical literature on psychoanalysis, much is devoted toanalyst and analysand relationships, through the concepts oftransference and countertransference, but mostly assuming thatsome basic, stable, trustful foundation exists.We have seen that it is not enough to suppose or predict, across

the board, the existence of a trustful personality. We shouldstrive to understand the minutiae of trust building within aspecific relationship: how does this consultee come to trust thisspecific consultant, here and now. Whether intersubjectivitythinking is relevant or not to organizational work in general(Benjamin, 1995, Erlich, 1998), it seems not to be especially ofuse here. As it points to the mutual building of two subjects, itstrives to blur back the distinction, so critical in classicalFreudian, Kleinian and Lacanian views, between subject andobject, child and mother/father, and between the two sides of an

authority relationship. The trust dilemma is not one ofV.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, Trust in a Paranoid Environment p 9


10/26

symmetrical, or almost symmetrical relationships. On thecontrary, it points to a basically a-symmetrical position betweentwo parties: one who has to give trust, the other who is therecipient. It seems that the Kleinian tradition, as used byorganizational consultants, is more apt to deal with the delicate

interplay between two people, and the way trust may build-up.We might use the concept of projective identification (Klein,1946) where the consultant, being in the receiving end of thisprojection, can come to grips with the thoughts and emotions,which predominate within the consultee. But we should alsopoint to the other way round: how the consultee re-introjectssome basic feelings, among them, the trustworthiness of theconsultant. The containing function so much stressed by Bion(Bion, 1961), the equivalent of the mothers reverie in theconsultant, the relative absence of desires and memories, thosemight be the mechanisms by which, in a particular situation,trust is established toward a specific consultant.What are the conditions of its maintenance; when is itendangered? This question is especially interesting and criticallyimportant when dealing with suspicious, paranoid-likeorganizations, when any intervention can be thought to be partof a manipulation intended to benefit someone at the costs ofsomeone else.

It is proposed, here, to look at trust not merely as a traitor personality characteristic of the consultee, nor just as aconsequence of a type of environment, but as evolving from the

relationships between consultee and consultant. For example,through the way the consultants present themselves to theconsultee. The way they enable mistrust and suspicion to beprojected onto them, deposed within the consultants, and thuscontained, and not immediately expelled. It is suggested herethat the consultee consciously and unconsciously probes theconsultants, and, in fact, reacts to delicate and sophisticatedcues sent by the consultants, regarding the extent to which theyhave a personal, or political or organizational agenda, or apeculiar position regarding any controversial matters. To be toostrong, or too weak, in too pronounced a manner, may be as

detrimental to the relationship with the consultee and theorganization. Trust, ultimately, is build through the rich andinfinitesimal exchange of projections and objects in theencounter.

A Paranoid environment

Trust within organizations is, somehow, taken for granted.The ideal type of organization, the bureaucratic, rational model,crudely adopted from the classical work of the sociologist Max

Weber, apparently accounts for sophisticated mechanisms,V.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, Trust in a Paranoid Environment p 10


11/26

which either build trust, or ensure its functional equivalents. Thevery idea of organization, or institution, is deeply rooted in theordered recurrence of interactions and patterns, in certainty, or,at least, predictability. So that trust does not really appear as afrequent subject of discussion. But, suffice it to recall that

power, conflicts, coalitions, politics, etc. (Mintzberg, 1982) havebeen reviewed and analyzed as a ubiquitous part of anyorganization, and especially in those organizations whereinternal politics play an important part. Politics and trust do notmake an easy couple. Moreover, in an era of globalization,downsizing, mergers and acquisitions, and Stock exchangeinstability, the working place turns out to be insecure, and thatdoes not foster confidence, nor trust.Some interest in trust relationship, lately, arises about theincreasingly frequent relations between companies, and theattempt to explain how co-operative relations can take the placeof hierarchical arrangements (Ring and Van de Ven, 1992). Trustis deemed to be problematic only when organizations, that arenot mutually controlled, want or need to build a stablerelationship, enabling them to balance risk and opportunities.

We will not strictly define aparanoid environment: our useof the term here is mainly metaphorical (see also themethodological section of this paper). Part of what people meanby paranoid environment is suspicion, danger, over-sensitiveness, quite strong feelings of persecution, etc. But,another part of it is the presence of what Fried and Agassi

(1976) found as the distinctive characteristic ofparanoia vera.Paranoia is mainly a thought-deficiency, and it means to bestuck or fixated in an abstract system, an explanatory systemabout reality, without there being any possibility to take as analternative a public, institutionalized, explanatory system. Theparanoiac is logical; he might have a good perception; and hehas a pretty good integrative image of the world.So that the problem with a paranoid environment is that peopleare always, or most of the time, on their guard, seemingly forgood reasons. They know that others will try and harm them,etc. And, once they feel, or think they understand, or, even

worse, know that they are in this kind of system, the morelogical, perspicacious and keen they are, the more they will findreinforcement to their view.

A case Study

In this paper we wish to describe and analyze theformation of such a trustful relation between consultants and adelicately balanced organization. We will show thattrust/antitrust, manipulation/candor issues pervade every single

contact with the organization, and they bring a tremendous loadV.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, Trust in a Paranoid Environment p 11


12/26

on the consultants in their endeavor with the organization. Inthe following pages, we will describe the unfolding of trust andsuspicion between the client and the consultants, not assomething we strived to establish in order to make the best of ajob, but, rather, as an issue that evolved as if by itself, and

came to occupy our mind as consultants. We also try to keep onthe fuzzy, unorderly and natural sequence of events, and thedelicate projections and introjections, words and feelings thatappeared both in the client and in ourselves. We believe trust isnot "something", you achieve and possess and may build on,but rather a certain quality that builds up, then disappears, thenpervades a series of interactions, and then plunges back to anuncertain fate.

Characteristics of the organization

The case is a big public service, carrying critical functionsfor the economy. It is heavily unionized, with years longtradition of struggles and activism, exacerbated by thecontinuous changing policy towards the numerous unionsinfluence: sometimes management surrenders to the unions,sometimes it pays off the unions surrender with a lot of money,and in-between, it sometimes tries to curb their influence. Wemight call this organization a paranoid environment. Unionsand management are closely interwoven, and managementstrives to decrease the unions influence as much as the unions

want to achieve the opposite. The unions interpret every moveof management as an attempt to weaken them; and almostevery low level manager is suspected by management to alignthemselves with the unions, and not with management.To complicate matters a little bit further: management is splitbetween local management (we worked with the local part,named X in this paper) and the central, nation-wide NationalAuthority, which assumes over-all powers, if not responsibility,over the various local premises. X is the oldest organization ofits kind in the country, and the original reasons for creating ithad been both economical and social. It was meant to supply

work to the citizens in the new country as much as to contributeto the economy of the state. The many unions and theirstrength are part of the heredity of the organization origin.The original workers in the past, and also the majority today,who are engaged in the primary task of the organization, aremen. So this is a male-oriented organization, in spite of the fact,that through the years more and more women had joined X, inadministrative and office work, as well as in professional jobs.Since it is both a male oriented organization and a civil one,there are a lot of ex-army workers and managers in the



13/26

organization, and hence, it is caring a lot of attributes that arecoming from the Israeli army culture.

The contact and the first steps

David is the manager of the local part of that organization, wecall it X, as against the National Authority. The contact withDavid, the key client, had been made through his manager,Salomon, who is the general manager of the national Authority.David reports to him, and he is supposed to get policyinstructions and support from him. The first contact Salomonhad made with me was based on a professionalrecommendation given to him by a person who was linked(partly through the Army) both with Salomon and myself.I was called to save the potential client from himself, as apersonal request from his manager, who was interested inhelping his man in the system. The trust I was given was dueentirely to my connections and I was sent and had started thework after one very open and revealing telephone call fromSalomon and a five minutes meeting with him in an elevator.(Was I trusted so quickly because I belonged to the propercamp, whatever it may be?). The same pattern repeated itselfwith David, through a phone call in which old historicalconnections and common belonging to people and activities,had been found, and had opened the door for a face-to-facemeeting.

I do not recall having any conscious strategy that determinedmy actions, but I kept moving very slowly and carefully, notaccepting requests of heavy interventions during a few months.I offered David the freedom to separate or to stop the personalmeetings at any moment, emphasizing the view that nothingcould be done unless he wanted it and joined it. I alsorecommended him to pay his own consultation should he chooseto use it, not letting the Authority General Manager pay for him.David followed these recommendations.

(Was the trust created then, through the feelings of control the client

had over the consultation process? Had it come from his sense of

free options? Had the consultant unconsciously sensed the fragility oftrust?)

My intuitive, half-unconscious act to free myself from beingpaid by the National Authority - had weekend me from a politicalpoint of view, but gained me the beginning of the trust.I took a `loyal`, naive, romantic standing. I had made a choice ofsides. I had chosen the local organization X, giving up a sourceof political power, and probably a marketing power of not beenthe servant of the National Authority.

Analyzing backwards, I might have sensed the anxiety level and thesuspicion of David (i.e. his mistrust); I had identified with his emotions

(i.e. introjected his anxiety) and position, and hence intuitively, had



14/26

transferred the control to him. By this, I had given him the freedom of hisown will, thus lowered his suspicion and has planted the first seeds of

trust. A couple of months after the beginning, he once said, puzzled: Ido not understand why but I let you do what ever you like and I have

no worries about it; I trust you All this process had been

unconscious, or half unconscious, and of course held within it a degreeof gambling. Here, maybe an experience mixed with unconscious

communication within a specific context had taken place, in which it wassensed that any pressure or the slightest demand of any sort would put an

end to the fragile start of connection.

When I began meeting different managers and union leadersfrom the organization, I came across different levels ofreservation/openness in their attitude towards me. Graduallymany became more and more open. I had even received someprivate phone calls from different people from the organization,

and also from people from the National Authority, sharing withme some thoughts, requests, complaints, compliments andadvice. The belief in change was very low, and the main effectof the consultation was in improving the atmosphere andlowering the level of tension of David, which had been verynoticeable, and echoed in the whole system.When an additional consultant joined me, I arranged a meetingwith David, in order to make mutual presentations. In thesmall-talk examination that ensued, the new consultantmentioned a former client who might be known to David from anorganization where both had worked, though not necessarily at

the same time. It turned out that they were close friends.Greetings were sent through David. On the next meeting, thegreetings were reciprocated. It is probable that someacceptance test was operated through this commonacquaintance. Later on, the second consultant was acceptedwith an almost immediate cooperation by the whole team, whichenabled to play a significant role in a Team Developmentworkshop with the Top Management of the local organization.Considering the suspicion the team members had felt for eachother, and especially toward David, they had been quite openand frank in this workshop where they reflected on their mutualwork as a team.

Had the consultants been trusted because they managed to remain a

neutral factor in the mind of the consultees, namely, not been

anybodys specific people?Or, had the consultants taken the risk of giving themselves to their

consultees, and thus were prepared to be vulnerable, naive, believing,caring, mistrusted but trusting?

The local organization and the National Authority



15/26

The National Authority is younger then the localorganization X, and the former had only been created forbureaucratic reasons, under heavy national and internationalinfluences and constraints.Through the years this Head office, National Authority had

considerably grown up and developed, and had become a bigbureaucratic section in the organization. It is claimed that it hasno real legitimate right to exist, that it is a kind of a parasitepart of the organization, which is only sucking money, collectingpolitical power and is a non-productive sub-system.Has this perception or reality created the paranoia andsuspicion, or rather the paranoia and suspicion have createdthis myth?

The built-in conflict is also coming from a closer root. This localorganization historically was established not just for the benefitof the countrys economy, but also as a way to ensureworkplaces for the Jews who emigrated to Palestine and Israel.That is why there are so many political interests andbureaucracy within the organization and an everlasting conflictbetween the economical, the political and the social aspects.Another factor is the perception of the Head Authority asconfused, out of direction, lost, not leading hence cannot betrusted as a parent or leadership factor.The myth is that the power lies between the Head Authority, the

government, and the unions. Hence, the managers, within thelocal organization, X, feel they are empty of power or strength,and largely dependent on the different interests of the politicalgroups. Therefore, different members in this management teamare colluding either with non-formal partners in the NationalAuthority, or with some local unionists.

The Generations, the Camps and Loyalty

Another unique phenomenon in the life of this organization is,the existence of generations of workers.

There are three or even four generations, amongst the workers,who had been working in the organization. As a result, for asubstantial amount of workers, there is a family history withinthe organization and a deep feeling of ownership, a strongsense of this organization is my home.Any organizational change is experienced as a family change,and the division to `them and us` is very strong betweendifferent groups of workers: old and new, outsiders andinsiders politically planted and others. Any change in theenvironment is experienced also as a double survival threat.



16/26

This phenomenon is deeply entrenched in the culture of theorganization, towards any of those who are not in my camp.And since the camps are non-formal camps, one would beinclined to be more loyal to ones own camp union members,or committee members of union - than to ones subordinates,

boss or colleagues at work.The camps are very much connected to seniority and historicalfamily connections. A person who has been 10 years in theorganization could be considered as a newcomer, andtherefore as an outsider, not one of the family. His loyalty thencould be suspicious. By loyalty the meaning would be to hisunions, to the local affairs of the local workers.The committee member of the union, is the legitimate owner ofpower in the eyes of the organization, and even when he acts inan unfair fashion to some workers, they would not run tocomplain to the high managers, because they are a differentcamp, they are the enemies.The forum of the top management of the local X organization, isvery split and full of impotent feelings. They truly believe thatthey are between thee devil and deep sea. They cannot openlyjoin the workers and the local unions, or go to the National tradeunion, but they do identify with the workers and with the localunions, as many of them have themselves been union leaders inthe past. They are compartmentalized from affairs andinformation by their local manager and by their relevantreferents in the National Authority of the organization. This

departmentalization is again a power game, coming out ofmistrust, but its roots are within the structure of theorganization.The myth some of the managers hold is, that the power isalways outside, with the others: - either the unions or thegovernment or people in the National Authority. So what is leftfor them to do is to bend their head, go underground and wait.There is a switch between the basic assumption of dependencyand the basic assumption of fight/flight; you are a tool in aChess game, even not a player.Under such atmosphere, the consultants who might be met

suspiciously at first, are quickly been transformed into saviors hence the trust.When a case study was analyzed and David had rudely fallendown on the manager in charge, the remainder of the team didnot do better. They have joined in the slaughter. The only onewho dared standing up and saying something that was notpopular was Michael, the local HR Manager. Michael is both, anewcomer, only two years in the organization, and the one whohas not got the bonus and does not belong to any camp. So hehad nothing to loose because his position and status were



17/26

weak any-how. Paradoxically, that enables him in work to bebad, i.e. efficient.

Metaphors and the tradition of military culture

Here are some metaphors that were used in a teamdevelopment workshop of the local managers (i.e., David andthose who report directly to him)A day after Hiroshima; Head chopping; Bloodletting;Maze.Abandoning the wounded in the battle fieldAlleihom (An Arabic word, meaning an unholy crusade); Ihave been fried; I was put in the fire.All these metaphors are connected with aspects of danger, warsand disaster, and they are very much representing a paranoidenvironment. These were aroused mainly following thediscussion of some prospects of organizational and structuralchange, led by the National Authority. The local managementteam felt out of touch with those proposed changes, consideredthem as threatening the future and well being of the localorganization, and felt that they have no power to influencethem.On another day of workshop with the top management forum oforganization X, we have analyzed case studies from the day-to-day life of X.In one case, which has been raised by one of the managers, he

presented his distress from not been able to enact his authorityin front of the union leaders in his ward.David was not looking at it from a wide point of view of thecontext, in which the unions leaders always challenge theauthority of their formal managers. Instead, David has led a fieldtrial, or more accurately a lynch, against one of hissubordinates. He accused him of not following the sacredIsraeli combat leader s first command, i.e. I am in the lead,(first in the fire line), and you, the rest, follow me. He did thiswithout noticing he had deserted another wounded soldier, ateam fellow mate, in the field.

David, under the terms of the cultural perception of theorganization, has been acting as a lonely warrior, individually,collecting and building his own little camp of loyalists, on onehand, and on the other hand getting power from his ability toproduce work.He behaves as if he is alone in the field and that there areenemies from within and enemies from outside. Maybe this iswhy he does not build his own managers as a united andcohesive team. He has inherited them, he has not chosen them,he has to work with them and as they are. So he has to act

politically, because he is tied up by hundreds of rules andV.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, Trust in a Paranoid Environment p 17


18/26

historical agreements, which are the rules of the unions, thegovernment, the National Head authority etc.Paradoxically he is both trusted and mistrusted, because of hisloyalty to the work. He is mistrusted when this loyalty to theproduction, seems to be on the account of some personal or

group interests of one sort or another. He is trusted, because hedoes not give in easily or at all to pressures of one interestgroup over the other regarding the work.The metaphors above are fighting, war, and killing,metaphors of blood. The camps imagery, the enemies, are allcoming from a context of danger, survival threat, etc. Onereason might be the army past of a lot of managers who havehad in the past an army career (or at least experience) and havechosen as a second career public organizations or governmentalones.Another reason might be the fact that it is also an organizationof men mostly (the women are mainly doing secretarial jobs).The third reason might be the political attributes andconnections of the organization.

Mussers

From the beginning of the consultation process the consultantshave come across a common phenomenon that has been actedon within the organization. This phenomenon has been theexisting and activity of Mussers or Informers, (a

Hebrew/Yiddish slang for Givers). The people in these non-formal roles have been used for years in order to transfer falseand true information through the organization, with or withouttheir own interpretation. These informers have created a subtlenet, connecting different formal and non-formal groups within Xorganization, and between it and the National Authority.I have got my own Musser from the first telephone call I hadmade to make an appointment. It is Ruth, Davids` Headsecretary. She has created heart to heart communication withme, informing me immediately, that she has a direct connectionwith Davids` boss, Salomon. At the beginning, there was a lot

of mistrust between Ruth and David, and, by then, I wasconsidered without knowing it as the Musser of Solomon,the General Manager of the National Authority. This was why Ihad gained the immediate trust of Ruth, who was the only one(apart from Solomon and David) who knew that Solomon hadsent me, to save/help David.

This phenomenon of the `Mussers` is typical of a paranoidenvironment. Nothing is considered or accepted solely onits face value, everybody has got a secret and hidden role,and the complexity of the thin net-like web lines is quite

enormous.V.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, Trust in a Paranoid Environment p 18


19/26

My reaction was, both containing the seduction, and pairingthrough the work at the same time. I was both listening butdeclaring a general attitude in which the common shared goal ofall of the different role holders, was to create a less tensedenvironment and a more functional and cooperative team of

management. Again, the cautiousness through which I hadreacted to Ruth had sent a message of not colluding on oneside, but not offending - by not judging - on the other side.

(Was I protecting my role through my holding on to the primary task,which was: Developing the management team under the leadership oftheir Manager, David, and improving their working relationships?)

At the annual evaluation time, the local HR Manager, Michael,(who is one of the vice-managers of David), had beenrecommended by David for a bonus, but did not get it, becausethe General Manager of the National Authority, Solomon,Davids` boss, did not approve. Apparently, he did not approve,

because Michael, the local (X) HR Manager, refused to be aMusser for Solomon, but was rather too loyal to his direct bossDavid. At least, that was Davids interpretation.The refusal of the bonus had been sent by mistake to the localorganization X, through an open fax message, whichimmediately was spread all over the organization. The local HRManager is sure that David has been the cause for the refusal.David has not corrected him because of loyalty to hishierarchical boss Solomon (?)Some time later, David suggested to Michael to apply forexplanation directly to Solomon. Michael is completely confused

now, because he does not only know to whom to believe, hecannot believe in anyone at all full stop. Eventually, Davidrealized he should join his HR manager in such a meeting withSolomon.David knows that his other vice-manager, the productionmanager, Saul, is an old Musser. He finds it completely naturalto work in `trust` and cooperation with this vice-manager,without ever exposing this awareness.

Tests

I was informed, that the Human Resource manager of theNational Authority Raphael, had been quoted (through theGrape Vine of the Mussers) saying that the consultants of Davidwere his fig-leaf for the continuation of a very centralist andcontrolling management. The same Raphael appears friendlywhenever he meets David. The same Raphael had a veryvehement discussion with me, once, (in a meeting, that hadbeen `secretly` organized by Solomon, Raphael boss in theNational Authority), urging me to create a common forum ofmeetings between him and David. I transferred his request to

David openly. David and Raphael have never shared theV.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, Trust in a Paranoid Environment p 19


20/26

smallest hint about their common knowledge of that request, inany of the many face-to-face meetings they had with eachother, without my presence (according to David).Solomon had phoned me very shortly after the start of theconsultation, complimenting me for the huge impact and

significant change I had acquired with David. My immediateresponse was to both thank for and deny these claims,emphasizing that real change couldnt occur in such a shorttime.The different consultees amongst the managers, on the otherhand, used to leak bits of information to the consultants(mostly concerning their criticism of David), testing if and how itwill reach David. Finding that the information had not reachedits target, or that no harm has been done to them as a result,they have confided more and more in the consultants andbecame less cautious.

The consultants interpret these events as subtle tests, put to theconsultants, within the context of a so called a paranoid context of

this organization.The purpose of these tests, was twofold: on onehand, to check the consultants `side taking`, and transfer messagesand follow their path; on the other hand, to recruit the consultants toa certain `side.

The need for control and the drive toward the work

One of our interpretations is that Davids need to control asmany affairs as possible and to be involved in details is coming

(apart from his personality) from his suspiciousness anddisbelief in the ability of the people around him to do it exactlyas he would do it. More than this, he is not at all sure of theirloyalty (confidence and trust).The interesting point is that he finds it natural and lives with itwithout complaining, as if taking it on himself as his cross.Moreover, his attitude is very adaptive to the culture of theorganization, and proved to be right, because in spite of manyattacks on him, he is getting stronger on one side, andpromoting the work on the other side.Most of the time he is very friendly and respectful towards theconsultants. He listens carefully, and it is easy to consult withhim. He knows how to listen, he takes advises, he can sustainrejection and attacks, he can cooperate, and he never lets go ofhis own judgment.His bond to his work role, his ability to stick to the task, gavebirth to many envious enemies and opponents, but gains him asolidity that is hard to break. He produces results, and hissuspicion seems to be `realistic`, because it is not blurring toomuch his reality perception. His main weakness as a managerhas been his inability to lead his management along the same

road; i.e. let them grow and get stronger.V.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, Trust in a Paranoid Environment p 20


21/26

The National Authority has hired a PR agency that has leakedinformation to an influential local newspaper. Whenever Davidhas asked for PR assistance he did not get it. The leakingagainst him had been initiated and fed by his own bosses,because he had not been under their control. He was left on his

own against the unions, between them and the clients and hisown subordinates on one hand, while his bosses remained`clean` when he was smeared, but when eventually he won,they came back `supporting` him.There was a big article about him in the near-by town, in which,amongst other attributes, he has been described, as `non-friendly`, `journalists persecutor`, and `certificates seeker`.Behind these words, were his attempts to recruit new people tothe organization on the basis of their professional quality andnot their personal connections? He did not use the papers on hisown, out of loyalty to his bosses. He could not been blackmailedby the unions, so their National Organization in the local town,had used a journalist, incognito, for the article to the papers.David could not attend the full day of the latest workshop. Atfirst he wanted to postpone it. He did not understand at all themeaning of not been able to trust his subordinates team atwork, without him supervising and controlling it. He changed hismind immediately after we had interpreted that to him. Hemanaged to leave and let them work on, but he eventuallyphoned the consultants in the same evening to make sureeverything went well. His own people testimony was not good

enough.As we see, through these examples and more, this holding ofcontrol has been both adaptive and destructive at the sametime.

Trust as servitude

The issue of trust taints the whole consultationatmosphere. It appears that the trust issue has become aprison, with invisible but very real walls. Here are someexamples.

Once the idea popped up to write this paper on this assignment,the main dimensions of trust and paranoia came to pervadequite a number of sessions and meetings, if not all of them.Openly, in the briefings between both consultants, and, covertly,in the meetings with the consultees. Without memory anddesire turns out to become even more difficult than usual.Ruth, David secretary, asked, gently and with a great smile, toarrange by herself any meeting in the organization. So that allmeetings hours are not only recorded by us as consultants, forobvious billing reasons, but in fact, double-checked, and partly



22/26

beforehand. It is not clear, but seems quite obvious, that it hadbeen done on David s behalf.Some of our consultees, if not most of them, before the firstworkshop days, assured us that they would not speak there,because David is resentful, and will some day use whatever they

say against him. Also, they told us, whenever we will sayanything to David, he will try to track down who said it. This putus consultants in the awkward position to be doubly cautious insaying anything to David: we became afraid that any report,whatever vague and general, would give him enoughinformation to go back to the source. The newspaper articleincident that we reported earlier showed us that this analyzingskill is also characteristic of other people: for example, during awhole meting, Raphael analyzed for me the whole range ofpossibilities as to who was the instigator of this article. Hementioned John Le Carre Smiley as an example of the dynamicsat work in the organization.The consultants noticed that they rarely dared do anything ormeet anyone, or give advice or direction, without quicklyinforming David, or even without checking with him beforehand.They interpret it as their effort to lower his paranoia, `not toloose his trust`, to keep him controlling, or feeling at least thathe controls them by knowing all their acts. They had never toldhim what his subordinates said in their meetings, and neither heasked to know (unless it was some one from the NationalAuthority), but all the same, all the way long, they feel

compelled to be very cautious. In fact, sometimes the feeling, orthe thought, is, that David really controls the consultantsthrough his always-present and never-mentioned threat ofloosing his trust in them. David meets especially with one of theconsultants alone, and both consultants weigh carefully theneed to have triple meetings, and some planning is done beforethe meetings take place.

Verred had a dream about David. In the dream he is verykind, idealized in her eyes. His main virtue is kindness,which is never connected to him by anyone duringawakening time. She is aware in the dream of feeling a lot

of respect and admiration to him and a fear of loosing hisfaith (trust) in her. During the dream or immediatelyafter, she was urging herself to sober up and to stopidealizing him. To see him with his limitations.

It is understood that between both consultants there are nosecrets. Nevertheless, it happened that both consultants, indifferent occasions, had some prangs regarding what the otherconsultant would do with the situation at hand. Mostly, theissues were linked with suspected over-identification withDavid or one of the managers.



23/26

In the meetings between David, and both consultants, there is adelicate balance of eye contacts, smiles, irony and smallmisunderstandings, or fuzzy descriptions, on both sides. Davidteases his consultants: You wont like this, but, or, I knowyou believe it is not so good, but. It is as if David plays with

the fire, putting the delicate balance and relatedness of themanager and the consultants on the table, but in such a subtleway that it lays there, untouchable. The trust issue, in fact, putsus into his hands, because we are hostages to his recognition ofourloyalty, not merely of our competence, or true contributionto the development of the organization.One of the mechanisms David uses most frequently is denial:when presented with some evidence about some of his behaviorpatterns, he very skillfully finds plausible examples of thecontrary. Every time we tried to work on mistrust, we werecountered with opposite evidence.So, in the mutual meetings, we did not really succeed to presenthim our real views about trust and mistrust.It comes to the point that keeping trust alive has almost becomean aim by itself, which insidiously weakens the consultants andtheir work.

The bright side of consultation

Nevertheless, within a fragile frame of protection, we do havea constructive influence. We give a model of one of the ways to

confront David and stay alive, when we confront patterns ofdestructive behavior and communication in his managementstyle, in the presence of his management team. We tackle andwork with them all, individually and as a team, on unconsciousprocesses and their implications at work.Through us they manage, little by little, to find their voice and topursue their opinions. It is a slow journey but it is moving ahead.Is it possible that the way to gain trust in a paranoidorganization is by really having faith, trust, belief in the object atwork, or be in love with the work through the object to whomyou consult.

We seem to be walking on a thin line, on a narrow edge. On onehand we are feeding the consultees need for security, by actingtransparently, by being confidential, by reassuring again andagain. On the other hand we are taking risks, almost gambling,by refusing to be saviors, by confronting destructive acts and byfighting the seductions and our need to be loved.As if walking in a room full of spiders web, we are trying tomove without too much fear of tearing the wrong threads andkeeping the right ones.

Instead of conclusion: a Methodological noteV.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, Trust in a Paranoid Environment p 23


24/26

Instead of conclusion, a Methodological aside and itspractical application. It is methodologically unwise andpractically detrimental to hold a reified, organicist view of theorganization.

It is a common practice, especially but not only amongpsychoanalytically informed consultants, to shortcut theirdescription of organizations, and to imbue them with organicqualities. The very notion of social unconscious, and for that,unconscious in an organization, transcending specific anddiscrete people, time and situations, brings to the fore anorganic entity the Unconscious of the Organization. It is thuseasy to fall prey to what Whitehead called, in a very differentcontext, the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. It is temptingto view society, and organizations, as entities, which have aims,emotions, conscious and unconscious of themselves. But itmeans you hold some very definite metaphysical assumptions,not always fully examined (see the interesting analysis inAgassi, 1975; also Schnberg, 1998). It might be that such is thecase also with the rapidly developing trend of social dreaming(Lawrence, 1998). An opposite argument is presented here. Theorganization is not a psychological entity: at the most, peopleare.Practically speaking, it might be very detrimental to the work,and specifically to the building of trust, to consider theorganization as a whole, or as made of one piece. Because trust

is built, maintained or endangered, not with the organization,but rather with specific people. On the whole, there might be asystemic quality about trust: but, we cannot decide on this. Itis not a theoretical question, but rather, a matter of fact andexperience. For example, we cant decide yet if trust is a zero-sum game (viz. that trust in, or from, one person, meansautomatically less trust in, or on behalf of, other people,especially the managers), or if it can be extended all across theboard in that organization. Likewise, we do not know how todelimit this system. Should the National Authority beaccounted for as part of this system, or as part of the

environment? Those are not idle, merely theoretical or semanticquestions. The answer should lead us to practical decisions: dowe try to escape, or better, do we flee from the NationalAuthority, or do we need to try and build bridges towards it? Toparaphrase Kurt Lewin, a good theory should help us bepractical. So we might reformulate the question: how do youbuild trustful relationships with some people in such anorganization where suspicion, as a whole, is quite dominant,meaning by that, that statistically a great number ofinteractions are governed by mistrust, suspicion and disbelief.



25/26

And how do you do that, so that the amount of mistrust, overtime, gets smaller.

References

Agassi, J., (1975), Institutional individualism BritishJournal of Sociology, 26,pp144-155Benjamin, J., (1995), Recognition and destruction: An outlineof intersubjectivity, in Like Subjects, Love Objects, NewHaven, Yale University PressBion, W., (1961), Experiences in Groups, LondonErikson, E., (1958), Childhood and Society, New York,NortonErlich, Sh., (1998), The Search for the Subject and thePsychoanalytic Study of Organizations, Paper presented tothe 1998 Symposium, The International Society for thepsychoanalytic Study of OrganizationsFong M. L. and B.G. Cox, (1983), Trust as an UnderlyingDynamic in the Counseling Process: How Clients Test Trust,The Personnel and Guidance Journal, November, pp163-166Freud, S., (1920) Beyond the Pleasure Principle, Trans. J.Starchey, London, Hogarth Press, 1955Fried, Y. and J. Agassi, (1976), Paranoia: a study inDiagnosis, Dordrecht, D.ReidelFukuyama, F., (1995),Trust, New York, The Free Press

Gambetta, D. (ed.), 1988, Trust. Making and BreakingCooperative Relations, Basil Blackwell, OxfordHirschhorn, L. (1999), The Primary Risk, HumanRelations,Vol. 52, 1, pp.5-23Hosmer, L. T., 1995, "Trust: The Connecting Link betweenOrganizational Theory and Philosophical Ethics", Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 379-403Klein, M., (1937), Love, Guilt and Reparation, in R. Money-Kyrle (ed.), Love, Guilt and Reparation and other works1921-1945, New York, The Free Press, 1975Klein, M., (1956), A study of Envy and Gratitude, in J.

Mitchell (ed.), The selected Melanie Klein, New York, TheFree PressLawrence, W.G. (1997), Centering of the Sphinx for thepsycho-analytic study of organizations Paper presented atthe 1997 Symposium of ISPSO, Philadelphia, 1997Lawrence, W.G, ed. (1998) Social Dreaming @ Work.London: Karnac BooksLuhmann, N. (1979), Trust and Power, New York, WileyMintzberg, A., (1982), Power in and aroundOrganizations, New York, Prentice Hall

http://www.sba.oakland.edu/ispso/html/1998Erlich.htmhttp://www.sba.oakland.edu/ispso/html/1998Erlich.htmhttp://www.sba.oakland.edu/ispso/html/1997Lawr.htmhttp://www.sba.oakland.edu/ispso/html/1997Lawr.htmhttp://www.sba.oakland.edu/ispso/html/1998Erlich.htmhttp://www.sba.oakland.edu/ispso/html/1998Erlich.htmhttp://www.sba.oakland.edu/ispso/html/1997Lawr.htmhttp://www.sba.oakland.edu/ispso/html/1997Lawr.htm


26/26

Ring, P. S. & Van de Ven, A. H., 1992, "StructuringCooperative Relationships Between Organizations", StrategicManagement Journal, Vol. 13, pp. 483-498Rotter, J.B., (1971), Generalized Expectancies forInterpersonal Trust, American Psychologist, 26:pp443-452

Schnberg, A. (1998), Two Basic Assumptions in thePsychoanalytic Study of Organizations, Paper presented atthe 1998 Symposium of ISPSO, JerusalemSeligman, A.B., (1997), The Problem of Trust, Princeton,Princeton University PressStein, R. (1991), Psychoanalytic Theories of Affect, NewYork, PraegerTversky, A. and D. Kahneman, (1989), Risk and Rationality,Stanford University PressWeick, K. E., (1979), The Social Psychology of Organizing,2nd ed., Addison-Wesley Publ. Co, ReadingZemke, R., 2000, "Can you Manage Trust?", Training,February, pp 76-83Zucker, L. G., 1986, "Production of Trust", Research inOrganizational Behavior, Vol. 8, pp. 53-111

http://www.sba.oakland.edu/ispso/html/1998Schonberg.htmhttp://www.sba.oakland.edu/ispso/html/1998Schonberg.htmhttp://www.sba.oakland.edu/ispso/html/1998Schonberg.htmhttp://www.sba.oakland.edu/ispso/html/1998Schonberg.htm

amitzi & schonberg paper

Documents