Leslie Pratch on Business, Culture, and the Economy

Posted by Leslie Pratch, written by David Friedman

Today’s post is by David Friedman (a graduate of the Yale School of Management and former a partner at McKinsey & Company). He writes:

________________________________________________________________________
Leslie Pratch, Ph.D. is a clinical psychologist who trained at Northwestern Medical School with an M.B.A. in Strategy and Finance and a B.A. in Religion from Williams College. She works with boards of directors and private equity investors to select and develop executives. She can be reached at (312) 464-7919 or email her at leslie@pratchco.com or visit www.pratchco.com.

David Friedman is a consultant, educator and thinker who cares deeply about people and what happens to us. He is dedicated to creating high integrity individuals beginning with early childhood. He can be reached at www.bridgewellpartners.com or at  (312) 863-3489

By Leslie Pratch

When researching integrity as the fourth dimension of the active coping style, I read some ethical philosophers, one of which was Reinhold Niebuhr. Among the works I read by Niebuhr was The Irony of American History. His views on international relations embody two virtues: humility and prudence. In international relations, for example, he advocates that the United States should when possible focus on possible results—not good intentions. As human beings we tend to rationalize what we do as good—even if it is not.

As I endeavored to come up with an operational definition of integrity, I turned to Niebuhr. Although he was not much help on that front, I plunged into his books seeing an understanding of how to treat the human tendency to rationalize what we do in terms of good intentions and to hide from ourselves the harmful ramifications of our actions. Niebuhr’s emphasis on prudence, humility, and realism is impressive! But how do we develop a universal definition of integrity that fits all times and places? We cannot, but acknowledging that limit (how humble) helps put our views on a level playing field with the views of others who have every reason to believe their views should trump mine.

We all want to believe we are good. One friend, David Friedman, told me in effect to lighten up on myself when I whined about my fruitless  effort to develop a universal definition of integrity: “Even Aristotle was stuck on that question.” That made me feel better but did little to solve the little social science superego pounded into me at the University of Chicago.

My first quarter in graduate school, Mihalyi  Csíkszentmihályi, one of the teachers of one of the core courses we all had to take, gave me some good advice. He told me that I needed to learn to think empirically. He was right.

Csíkszentmihályi’s admonition to learn to think empirically suck. 20 years later, I needed a rigorous conceptual and operational definition of the criterion variable, integrity because I wanted to differentiate high and low integrity executives in order to help my clients select executives to run their portfolio companies. For the first time, I read Iris Murdoch, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Plato (Book IV, The Republic). I will be referencing their ideas in subsequent posts.

What did Niebuhr have to say about ethics and international relations? His views are as relevant to interpersonal relations as to international ones. His emphasis was possible results, not good intentions. The implications of such a focus are that we should study the interests, views, and nature of other nations and accommodate those interests, views, and natures whenever possible. He believed we could “combine an awareness of the limits on American power and American goodness with a profound American patriotism.”

We should be modest. We should try to see ourselves as others do. We should have empathy. This is a central theme of my work. In Niebuhr’s words, “Nations, as individuals, who are completely innocent in their self-esteem, are insufferable in their human contacts.” “In international affairs, it is essential that we try to see ourselves as others do.” To insist that the rest of the world trust in our benevolence is profoundly arrogant. No nation can expect that it is in its best interest to allow the United States to exercise unrestrained power. Again, citing Niebuhr, “Nothing is so fatal to a nation as an extreme of self-partiality, and the total want of consideration of what others will naturally hope or fear.”

Yet what we Americans did in Vietnam, and what we Americans have done in Iraq, contradicts the wisdom of the Founders of our republic. Our Founders recognized the folly of placing unlimited powers in any hands.  Humility and prudence and a realistic view of human nature are responsible for the checks and balances on power that are integral to the Constitution and to a viable democracy in American.

It may be possible for individuals and groups to relate concern for the other with interest and concern for the self, for neither the individual nor the community can actualize itself except in relation to other individuals and groups. Like Murdoch, Niebuhr believed that a valid moral outlook had to recognize one’s selfishness.

Of course, these questions can never be fully or permanently answered because life changes.

I can foresee no definitive reconciliation between the demands of society and the demands of the self. That’s human nature.

In every separate case a new ethical decision will have to be made, depending on the special circumstances, and that in every case the possibility exists that this decision will be wrong either practically or ethically. We have to live with that possibility while trying to maintain a community of reason. We also have to admit to the reasonableness of wanting a society capable of  commitment to an immovable standard of behavior (Kant’s emphasis) in order not to be subject to the whim of fad.

________________________________________________________________________
Leslie Pratch, Ph.D. is a clinical psychologist from the Northwestern Medical School with an M.B.A. in Strategy and Finance from Chicago Booth and a B.A. in Religion from Williams College. She works with boards of directors of public companies as well as private equity investors to assess and develop executives. She can be reached at (312) 464-7919 or leslie@pratchco.com or www.pratchco.com.

By Leslie Pratch

There is no question the fanatics of Islam have center stage and are unafraid to intimidate and kill anyone who tries speaks out against them. Unfortunately, the Muslim nations which have governments that want to control fanatics in their midst are often ill-equipped and not very effective. Then, of course, there are Muslim nations that support the fanatics. Saudi Arabia pays off certain groups, not so much because the Saudis want to support terrorism but because they are willing to do a deal so the terrorists don’t challenge the monarchy and don’t operate in Saudi Arabia. Remember: Osama Bin Laden’s rage is primarily with the Saudi Arabian monarchy. He directed the 9/11 attack at the U.S. after Saudi Arabia let the U.S. military use the country as a base for invading Iraq. Iran seems to be supporting Shiite terrorist groups everywhere and to some Iran acts like a terrorist state. It seems to me that the strife within Islam (Sunnis vs. Shiites, etc.) is just as big a problem and the strife between Islam and Israel and the West.  The fanatics are certainly willing to kill other Muslims just as readily as they are to kill Jews and Christians.

As Dr. Tanay points out, we have always had blood baths as part of human history. When certain people or groups initiate mass murder, there are forces that can stop them but are not always willing to stop them.  After all, in order to stop someone from killing, you probably have to be willing to be killed yourself. It is not an easy decision for most people or countries. The United States has certainly spent more blood and treasure than any other country trying to bring fanatics to defeat, or at least, under some control, but it is a large burden that we all want to be rid of. The silent majority in Islam is not likely to turn into the militant majority out to defeat the fanatics. I am not aware of an historic precedent where that happened. In the cases cited by Dr. Tanay it was the U.S. that defeated Germany, Japan, and Russia. We are trying again.

Religion is an historically universal phenomenon. The best explanation I have read as to why this is the case is a book called The Faith Instinct by Nicholas Wade. It is a Darwinian explanation that asserts that communities with religion out competed communities without religion for a number of reasons. Principally, religious communities were better able to manage selfish behavior, create rules that were good for the survival of the community, and, most importantly, had community members that were willing to die to protect or expand the community. The fanatics certainly are willing to die for their cause.

________________________________________________________________________
Leslie Pratch, Ph.D. is a clinical psychologist from the Northwestern Medical School with an M.B.A. in Strategy and Finance from Chicago Booth and a B.A. in Religion from Williams College. She works with boards of directors of public companies as well as private equity investors to assess and develop executives. She can be reached at (312) 464-7919 or leslie@pratchco.com or www.pratchco.com.

By Leslie Pratch

A friend who is an expert on Central European History and a Holocaust survivor responded vehemently and negatively to Dr. Tannay’s letter. I paraphrase him as follows:

“Every sentence may be historically correct [read: every sentence is historically incorrect and I will show you exactly how]. The MOOD is incorrect. People go along with government programs because it suits their economic and political interests. For example, many Germans who acquiesced with Nazi policies did not hate Jews or want to kill them.”

Another friend, who teaches strategy at a business school, wrote:

Most interesting. I have written a few pieces for use in my classes about the brilliant strategy of the Radical Islam Terrorists, (i.e., asymmetric warfare and how the U.S. shaped a workable though exceptionally unpopular response.) The ideas noted have great import to our current administration in Washington, which has signaled a far different approach to Radical Islam than the previous group, while also stating that victory in Iraq will be their greatest foreign policy accomplishment.

________________________________________________________________________
Leslie Pratch, Ph.D. is a clinical psychologist from the Northwestern Medical School with an M.B.A. in Strategy and Finance from Chicago Booth and a B.A. in Religion from Williams College. She works with boards of directors of public companies as well as private equity investors to assess and develop executives. She can be reached at (312) 464-7919 or leslie@pratchco.com or www.pratchco.com.

By Leslie Pratch

Another friend responded:

I believe that nothing in human cultures has done more harm than organized religion. That includes Christians, Protestants, Jews and Muslims. Exceptions: Quakers and Buddhists. Anyone who knows anything about ancient history understands that ‘peace-loving’ hardly applies to the activities of Christians, Muslims, etc. What is preached is one thing; what is done is quite another.

I do not think we will see the fires of militant Islam quenched in our time. Europe expelled them, finally, from Spain (after centuries of occupation) and they were stopped from expansion at the very walls of Vienna and at Lepanto.

If the most extreme exponents of the peace-loving and triumphalist Muslim religion get their hands on an atomic device they will use it without a second thought. That may happen even sooner than we think.

You can’t eradicate human stupidity, hate, and craving for illusions. Maybe the cockroaches will do a better job with what we leave behind of Earth.

Yours cheerfully,

________________________________________________________________________
Leslie Pratch, Ph.D. is a clinical psychologist with an M.B.A. in Strategy and Finance and a B.A. in Religion from Williams College. She works with boards of directors and private equity investors to select and develop executives. She can be reached at (312) 464-7919 or email her at leslie@pratchco.com or visit www.pratchco.com.

By Leslie Pratch

A year and a half ago, I wrote about my friendship with Dr. Aaron Hilkevitch (“Premature Anti-Fascist”). Dr. Hilkevitch was a psychoanalyst. When I started graduate school, even before starting graduate school I thought the kind of work that would be most meaningful to me was psychoanalysis. I thought  I might enjoy doing what Freud had done.

But the culture changed. Cognitive and behavioral psychology came to the fore and HMOs entered the scene. It seemed to me that one had either to accept the strictures of operating within managed health care or else be independently wealthy to maintain a psychoanalytic practice. The notion that we did not know ourselves as well as we believed was threatening to many, and the climate of trust in professionals (see my entry on Sissela Bok) also eroded. It is truly unfortunate because what is most curative in psychoanalysis is to learn to trust enough to accept another person’s insights as potentially valid and to learn to analyze ourselves as we have been analyzed.

Other factors militate against entering into psychoanalysis. In the first place, it is very long, very time consuming, and very expensive. Few candidates who are young, intelligent, and insightful enough to benefit from psychoanalytic inquiry are willing to invest the money, time, and energy and accept the pain that psychoanalysis requires. If parents are wealthy enough to pay for it, boundary problems diminish the efficacy that comes when candidates take responsibility for self-awareness and self-acceptance. My own practice has emphasized insight-oriented psychotherapy, aka “coaching” for high-achieving, high-functioning professionals who want to optimize their success and happiness professionally and personally. These professionals are generally between the ages of 31 and 48 and have enough income to pay.

Why should psychoanalysis, which involves saying whatever comes into your mind, be so difficult and painful?  The short answer is that we conceal a great deal that we think and feel, not only from others but from ourselves. We do not want to admit to ourselves that we have such thoughts or feelings.

Freud, as Herman Sinaiko points out, discovered that the range of thought, action, and passion in the human psyche is far larger and far more difficult to get at than previously understood.  He also found that much human misery was due to conflicts within the self, although sufferers usually do not realize the internal sources of conflict. Normally they attribute their unhappiness to external causes they cannot control. Freud found that we are far more ignorant of ourselves than we realize.

Psychoanalysis is a slow, painful process discovered by Freud through which candidates, helped by their analysts, come to understand themselves better. But what matters for this blog is that for Freud the process of self-discovery is essentially a conversation between the analyst and the client. We simply cannot discover the truth about ourselves by ourselves; we need to do it with someone else.  This necessity for dialogue is built into the human situation. If we could admit to ourselves what we really felt and thought about ourselves and those closest to us, we would not be so conflicted that we needed to suppress and hide significant portions of ourselves from ourselves. It seems as though the human psyche is structured such that the truth about ourselves is accessible only with the direct aid and support of someone we trust more than we trust ourselves.

The privacy and longevity of the process is paramount to its efficacy. But these criteria for effectiveness cannot be met by HMOs and cannot compete with the pharmaceutical companies claiming to cure everything from obesssive compulsive disorders in childhood to bipolar disorders in children, believe it or not, soon to become a diagnostic entity in the new DSM.

________________________________________________________________________
Leslie Pratch, Ph.D. is a clinical psychologist from Northwestern University Medical School with an M.B.A. in Strategy and Finance and a B.A. in Religion from Williams College. She works with boards of directors and private equity investors to select and develop executives. She can be reached at (312) 464-7919 or email her at leslie@pratchco.com or visit www.pratchco.com.