Managing Life

Let me tell you about my Uncle George. He was my father's little brother, and the general family understanding was that my dad taught him everything he ever knew. Of course, Uncle George went on to get his doctorate, and teach in several colleges, and write a few books on business management. He didn't invent the concept, but he is known for developing a classic business management style, Management By Objectives.
Oh, THAT George Odiorne!
Now, most of you are saying Huh? or Who cares? But many business managers (including one up at Post University- hi, Don!) are nodding wisely.
So when I see these political candidates vaunting their experience as businesspeople as qualifications for public office, I think of my Uncle George and feel uncomfortable. See, he never wanted any positions of leadership. The one time he was coerced into being dean of a business school, he couldn't wait until he could step down. He never forgot that he came out of a large working-class family where his father had to struggle to find work and his mother talked about escaping from poverty in Ireland. His approach to management was not top-down autocratic direction. It was collaborative and based on setting realistic goals with your co-workers.
For many business managers today, the bottom line is, well, the bottom line. Either ignore what can be done reasonably based on who and what you have, or set unrealistic goals and blame others if they are not reached. There is no sense of cooperation or compromise, as is so necessary in the public sphere. The watchword is damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!
Of course, a lot of things in the public sector can't be judged on profitability or "success," whatever that means. When was the last time a police department worried about whether or not they made a profit? And their definition of "success" has more to do with catching criminals than making a buck. Of course, there have been shameful examples of fire departments watching a house burn because someone hadn't paid their bill, but most firefighters are focused on saving lives and property, not money.
Some elected officials are so enwrapped in their own agendae that they cannot find a way to work together with others who do not agree with every jot and tittle of said agenda, Rather than seeking an objective which can be agreed upon, with a realistic timeline, they want what they want, no more no less. Yes, they can sound quite reasonable and even pleasant about it. But they still offer only two options: take it or leave it!
I can only wonder how Uncle George would have reacted. I think I know. Back when he was still teaching, he was on a campus where the security people patrolled on horseback during the summer. Unfortunately, the campus had few trees and it could get quite hot there. One of the few shady spots was just under the window of Uncle George's office, and inasmuch as he needed to keep the window open during the summer, the smell got a bit much. Finally, he went down and talked to the security guards: would it be possible to put the horses  elsewhere? Certainly, they said, but where. Over by the administration building, Uncle George suggested, they'll never notice the difference in the smell.

And Call Me In the Morning...

A nurse once told me they were "the vitamins of the New Millennium." 'Cause, see, everyone takes 'em, and the stigma is much less and  so no big deal....
We're talking here about psychopharmeceuticals, those miracle pills that have changed dramatically the psychotherapy field. Often, they are used as a therapeutic tool, as clinicians try to determine the proper diagnosis by trying different meds and different dosages. These are so fine tuned and so carefully dispensed that only the proper prescription will work with the proper diagnosis.
At least, that's what your med rep will say when he comes by with his satchel full of samples, free pens and notepads, and the sales pitch for the latest medication that will solve all yer ills, yessir, step right up, ladies and gentlemen!
Yes, much more can be done to help many more people with these little pills. People who formerly would have been condemned to a lifetime of emotional agony or hospitalization now can live lives that are as close to normal as anyone else. Rather than years of mental agony, people find some relief within weeks or even days.
So what's the problem? No, it is not that I don't have the training to prescribe when people come to me for help. I can refer them elsewhere for that if such is indicated.
The problem lies in two areas: the clinicians and the clients.
People are so used to pills that solve problems immediately, if not sooner. Got a headache? Take a pill. Got a stomach ache? Take a pill. Got anxiety? Take a pill. Got a relationship problem? Well, um, er..
Of course, not all pills, even these marvelous new ones, have instant results. The most common anti-depressants, for example, can take weeks to make noticeable differences. Yes, there are some pills that work quickly, but it can be hit-or-miss before the psychiatrist finds the one that works best for you. And once you have been taking most meds, it is not recommended that you stop on your own without checking with your doctor first. (There could be some rather unpleasant withdrawal effects.)
Of course, some people are not comfortable taking anything. They may still hark back to the early days when people on psycopharmaceuticals went about in a perpetual daze (not true anymore.) Or they be recovering addicts, and are wary of any pills, even aspirin. Or they resist medication for religious reasons, but come looking for some spiritual practice that will do just as well.
It is not all the fault of the client that the meds issue is often the topic in a first session.  The clinician can be a little too eager to pull out the prescription pad after the initial fifteen-minute session. See me in another month or six weeks for another fifteen-minute session where most of the time is given to determining if this prescription is working or if it needs to be changed. See you again in two months. Oh, you want real therapy? Never mind the therapist who referred you; we have someone right in this office who will give you some time (brief therapy, six to ten sessions).
This way, you see, the clinician can schedule as many sessions per day as time permits. Never mind therapeutic alliance, much less empathy. The clinician may be quite good as a therapist and even a very nice person. But that is not the model chosen. Insurance companies have opted for a purely medical model, with the focus on the diagnosis and the treatment rather than the person.
Plus, you get quick and measurable results with medications. It's not as fast and obvious with traditional psychotherapy.
Oh well, sorry for getting so upset. Maybe I should just take a pill..

The Empty Chair

So much talk, so little said.
So this actor gets up in front of a political convention to endorse their party's candidate. Big Deal. Has done it before with that party, and who listens to celebrity endorsements, anyway? But then he does something without setting the scene or preparing the context, something that upstages all the political speeches and carefully scripted presentations: he ad-libs a debate with an empty  chair that is supposed to represent the candidate of the opposing party.
Ooo Aaah! Gasp! What is going on? The delegates, most of whom were probably not paying much attention anyway, are confused and then annoyed. And since things were pretty pro forma up 'till then, the media, hungry for something to talk about, seized on this and ran with it,
Now let me say first of all, the content of this impromptu skit has not really been the issue. Yes, there were a few who noticed that things got "nasty" in this imaginary dialog. But most have been fixated on the empty chair. So much so that polls have shown little or no impact on the way people continue to feel about that actor.
But why is everyone obsessing over what Jon Stewart wittily called "The Old Man and the Seat"? Actually, empty chairs are important in two major parts of my life: acting and psychotherapy. Yes, empty chairs have been used as stand-ins as far back as when Edward R. Murrow used an empty seat to represent Joe McCarthy in that confrontation back on '50s TV. But even today, the "empty chair" technique is used on stage and in treatment.
Actors will use empty chairs to play against both in auditions and in full performances. Acting (he said, echoing his acting teacher Annie DiMartino down at Long Wharf Theater) is always responding to the others on stage, playing off of someone. And in a monolog, one still needs to have others  "there," hence the empty chair. Even in the classic Shakespearean monologs, the actor still needs a focus, a purpose. An empty chair.
And in clinical work, the empty chair represents someone who is not there but is needed there. In groups, if a member leaves for whatever reason, a chair is left vacant to help the others in the group to deal  with the loss. When a client needs to confront someone, to say something not otherwise possible, to face an aspect of him/herself, an empty chair representing that is used.
We  will not go into the classic empty chairs, like the Siege Perilous at King Arthur's Round Table supposed to be reserved for the Perfect Knight (eventually filled by Galahad, I believe.) Nor the empty chair saved for Elijah at the Passover Seder (plus an empty wineglass, although I'm not sure of that.)
No, the point for me is not the politics involved. Given the way most politicians avoid answering questions anyway, an empty chair may be an apt metaphor for everyone concerned. But the way so many today are answering questions here without knowing a coherent answer (nor, to be fair, what question is being asked), it should come as no surprise that they end up talking to an empty chair.