MAKING THE INVISIBLE VISIBLE: SYMBOLIC MEANS FOR SURFACING UNCONSCIOUS PROCESSES IN ORGANIZATIONS

David Barry, Ph.D.

and the University of Auckland (email: d.barry@auckland.ac.nz)

A version of this paper was first published as “Making the Invisible Visible: Using Analogically-based Methods to Surface the Organizational Unconscious,” (1994 Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings). A second version was published under the same title in the Organizational Development Journal (1994, V12, 4, pp. 37-48).

NOTE: Though the content of this web-based version is largely similar to past versions, some terminology has been changed to reflect shifts in my thinking and practice.

ABSTRACT

This article initially identifies the importance of surfacing unconscious processes in organizational development & change; it then goes on to discuss ways in which symbolist methods, used in depth psychology and art therapy, can be used to bring unconscious organizational processes to light. Specifically, different approaches to symbolically mediated work (such as sculpture, drawing, drama, etc.) are briefly presented, and an illustrative case is used to generate methodological suggestions and theory.

INTRODUCTION

When first exposed to the field of organizational development & change, many come away confused by the proliferation of techniques and theoretical bases in the field. In attempting to make sense of the literature, the layperson often concludes that ODC is simply a grab-bag of techniques to be mastered, a language to be learned, or a system for creating humane organizations, one which strives to keep the ‘face within the space’ of the organizational chart.

Certainly I have adopted all of these perspectives at various times. But with time, I am coming to believe that organizational development & change is primarily about making the invisible visible, the unknown known. This dynamic is true of practically every ODC approach I have encountered. Sometimes, the discovery process is primarily diagnostic and aimed at bringing previously unshared views into a more public arena—e.g. increasing communication between line and staff via survey feedback. At other times, the discovery process is directed at finding new ways to do things, or to see what kinds of results a different approach might yield, as with action research models. Often, discovery systems in ODC presume that high levels of consciousness exist—that people in organizations know what they think or feel, even if those thoughts are not openly expressed. Within these systems, efforts are made to make hidden thoughts more discussible, as with many team-building interventions.

Yet it is becoming increasingly apparent that some of the most pernicious problems in ODC stem from repressed, unconscious material in organizational life. For instance, Gestalt theorists Merry and Brown (1987: 169-178) conclude that one of the most critical parts of ODC is identifying and understanding hidden organizational “games”—repetitive dysfunctional transactions aimed at keeping unthinkable and anxiety-provoking beliefs at bay. The unaccessed and hence unchallengable fears and beliefs that drive such games lead to progressively more serious forms of organizational dysfunction and eventually death. Kets de Vries (1991a), Argyris & Schon, (1974) and Schaef & Fassel (1988) are among others who have reached similar conclusions.

Those adopting this view generally agree that the surfacing of unconscious organizational patterns is essential if developmental interventions are to have a lasting effect. But, experience suggests that gaining entrance to the organizational unconscious is remarkably difficult. Much unconscious material is the result of repression, and is consequently highly defended and resistant to access. In the paragraphs that follow, I describe how symbolist processes, long used in the fields of depth psychology and art therapy, can be used to uncover unconscious organizational patterns.

SYMBOLIST METHODS: A Brief Overview

In short, symbol-based interventions consist of having clients create symbolic analogs of some internal mental map (see Edwards, 1987: 66)—symbols can take many forms (e.g. drawings, collages, sculptures, psychodramas, etc.), and can be created around many phenomena (e.g. a client can create symbols of her team, her job, or her organization). Once created, the client joins the consultant in interpreting the creation—the symbol mediates the inquiry process, and becomes a device through which insights can be elicited.

Normally, a person will project both conscious and unconscious material onto a symbolic form (Case & Dalley, 1992: 71-95). For example, a sculpture of a work team may represent the creator’s conscious impressions of spatial distance between group members along with unconscious representations of likes or dislikes for different members. Though explanations for this phenomenon vary, one view is that because the creative process is nontheateningly different from a client’s normal reality, it temporarily disengages a client’s resistance mechanisms, thus enabling repressed material to be expressed (Dalley, 1987; Oster & Gould, 1987: 10).

In this sense, symbolic constructions are like projective tests, where a neutral picture is used as screen on which unconscious patterns can be seen by a practiced clinician. However, two things differentiate such construction from conventional projective testing. One is that the client actively engages in a creative process—s/he does not simply respond to neutral stimuli. Many art therapy researchers maintain that it is this creative act that is primarily responsible for client development (Dalley, 1987).

Second, within symbolic construction as discussed here, the client usually joins the consultant in the interpretive process; while the consultant may have some idea of unconscious material suggested by the analog, it is the client who must derive the insight (Case & Dalley, 1992: 185). Hence, the dialog process takes on much greater importance than in projective testing. Instead of worrying over whether an interpretation is “correct” or not, the consultant is more concerned with helping the client to “peel the layers of the onion”—to provide a line of questions that help the client to reach progressively deeper layers of understanding. Because of its process orientation, symbolic construction tends to side-step the issue of interpretive reliability that has dogged the field of projective testing (Oster & Gould, 1987: 9; Suinn, 1969).

Symbolic inquiry has a rich history of use in clinical psychology, psychiatry, and art therapy. Jung pioneered its use by having his clients create mandalas in which they would depict important aspects of their lives (Jung, 1964). He also had his clients engage in dream painting. Both the mandalas and dream paintings provided major inputs into his theory of personality. More recently, researchers in the field of art therapy have made significant advances in using analogs, both for diagnostic and developmental purposes (see Case & Dalley, 1992: 5-16).

Symbolist methods have been used not only with individuals, but with families, and school systems. A variety of techniques have been developed and tested, including work with different graphic media, sculpture, and dramatic techniques. Such methods have also been applied to a variety of ends, including emotional release, problem solving, and creativity enhancement. From a cognitive point of view, research suggests that symbolically-based reasoning has several attributes that make it well suited to problem solving—symbolic analogs allow manipulation of naturally occurring mental images, ‘safe’ testing of alternative solutions, and promote creativity through introducing structural juxtaposition of disparate lines of thought (Johnson-Laird & Steedman, 1978).

Within the field of ODC, the use of symbolic analogs appears fairly common—for instance, people are often asked to draw lifelines or create group sculptures. But typically missing from this usage is the depth inquiry process that has developed elsewhere. Consequently, the unconscious processes alluded to earlier remain buried. Below, I discuss a case where symbolic means were used to surface unconscious organizational processes. The case was chosen as broadly representative of my experience with this method—many of the reactions, creations, and difficulties that arise within symbolic inquiry occurred with this organization. Following a presentation of the case, a discussion of the different phenomena encountered is given.

THE “IMPOTENT” MILITARY BASE

In this case, the client organization was a very large military base; the commanding officer had contacted me about running a comprehensive strategic planning exercise and developing an ongoing strategic planning system. After talking with members of the top team, it was apparent that the base was divided into numerous subcultures, many of which were at odds with one another. Territoriality was pronounced, to a point where past planning efforts had repeatedly failed (officers in feuding sections would use the planning time to undermine one another’s position). A further problem was that senior management turned over every three years, making efforts at continuity difficult. So, the request for a strategic plan was interpreted as a disguised wish to change the highly political and tension-filled organization to one where more rational-analytic processes might prevail.

Given the situation, it was recommended that the planning exercise be run in a way that addressed the territorial disputes, one that would bring up deep stakeholder beliefs and suppressed emotions. Specifically, I recommended using a symbolically mediated process in which participants would sculpt their impressions of the base as it was currently operating and as they wished it could be. This exercise was similar to gap analysis techniques that the officers on the base regularly employed; thus I hoped that the similarity would create a requisite level of “buy-in”. I further suggested that sculptures be done in mixed stakeholder groups—this might help bring old rivalries to the fore, where they could then be addressed.

These proposals were initially met with considerable resistance and skepticism. However, the commanding officer concluded that something different needed to be done, and ultimately agreed to the exercise. The top management group was asked to form the planning teams—they were to maximize differences within each group. In particular, they were asked to bring together those officers who were known to be in conflict with one another. The exercise was to be held offsite over a two day period. A total of seventy people (mostly from the top organizational level) were to be involved.

At the outset of the exercise, introductory explanations were given. The use of sculptures was justified in terms of its ability to foster creative, original thinking. Participants were encouraged to be playful, to temporarily suspend their old ways of thinking. Materials provided included building blocks, several kinds of paper (construction paper, typing paper, cardboard), tape, glue, and twine. Teams were told that their sculptures would be part of a “show and tell” period later in the day. The term “show and tell” was deliberately used to evoke a childlike point of reference, one in which emotion could be more freely expressed.

When first starting the exercise, the officers denigrated it in numerous ways, calling it “stupid, childish, a waste of time.” Within fifteen minutes however, all the teams were working in earnest. Over the next few hours, activity levels rose to a feverish pitch as participants began to revel in their creations. Much to the surprise of the commanding group, officers who had avoided one another for years were seen slapping one another on the backs, sharing materials and ideas, and joking with one another. The commanding officer commented, “I can’t believe this is happening—these are people that won’t come to the same meeting unless given a direct order.”

In an effort to maximize tension (thus invoking a strong impetus for change), sculptures of the existing base were processed prior to the creation of ‘ideal’ sculptures. In the work that followed, participants were asked to engage in detailed questioning of their creations. They were to assume that every inch of their creations had some message, some meaning that was waiting to be revealed. Thus, things like color differences, massing, use of space, supportive structures, use of boundaries, etc., became vehicles for inquiry.

At first, some participants were stymied, maintaining that their sculptures were devoid of meaning. This commonly occurring form of resistance was overcome by having these people listen to the interpretations of others. Soon, these people were finding meaning as well.

Most of the sculptures were fragmented, misshapen, and ungainly¾seemingly reflecting the conflicted emotions surrounding the organization. One “real” sculpture depicted a split level house. The roof was relatively unsupported, and had developed several small holes. The few windows were barricaded, and access to the single door in the house was partially blocked by a barbecue pit.

At first pass, the group maintained that their sculpture was primarily about how different levels and sections within the base were kept structurally separate. But, when asked which parts of their creation brought up the most discomfort, team members immediately pointed to the falling roof and the lack of access. Though it had not been the group’s conscious intention to build a weak roof or block access, they came to realize that what was most bothering them about their base was a sense of extreme vulnerability to outside forces, particularly upper government and higher levels of command.

Members of this team felt as though they were at the beck and call of each new administrative wave and that it was futile to attempt to build anything of value, as it would quickly be altered or ransacked. The blocked windows and doors were likened to the closing of the group members’ eyes and ears—what they could not see could not hurt them. These revelations were followed by expressions of anger and sadness. One officer pushed part of the sculpture off the table top, saying “That’s what I think of this place”, while another became so emotionally distraught that he had to temporarily leave the group.

An overtly different, yet underlyingly similar construction was a sculpture of a rocket ship. The rocket was long and thin, and about halfway up the rocket’s body, the group had secured a plate-like circle of cardboard. Ostensibly, the sculpture was supposed to represent the “new, exciting directions” the base was taking. Yet, when asked where the rocket was going, the team representative said, “I’m not sure—just up there somewhere.” The sculpture was quite frail—the group had chosen to construct the body of the rocket out of typing paper, rather than construction paper or cardboard. When asked about this, the team said that they built the rocket from the material that was most readily available, and denied that the choice of materials had any significance.

Ironically, during the middle of this explanation, the sculpture crumpled, causing both laughter and concerned looks. Finally, two members of the team commented on the obviously phallic nature of the sculpture. From that point on, the sculpture was seen as representing “organizational impotence,” a theme which was to become central for the organization as a whole. The group acknowledged that the materials choices were quite appropriate, given that they felt unable to make much of a difference in the way the base was run. They interpreted the plate-like ring as representing fears of having different initiatives “cut-off”.

Following this exercise, the officers built sculptures of their ideal organization. This process had a markedly different feel about it. Participants were considerably more sober and pensive during the building process. Discussions between members were intense, and centered around how they were going to address the issue of vulnerability brought up earlier. Were they going to become even more fortified against outside influences or try to find ways to work more harmoniously with external stakeholders? There seemed to be a depressive cloud hovering above the groups. Despite this, the sculptures created were relatively light and aesthetically pleasing, standing in strong contrast to the earlier forms. They were also more symmetric and compacted. During the processing period that followed, the participants said the sculptures were meant to represent “more grounding, connectedness, and balance.” Said one group, “to feel more secure about working here, we have to learn to work together more, and give each other more support.”

On the second day of the conference, there were several indications that the preceding work had made an impact. A large proportion of the group reported having unusually vivid and troubled dreams. Several of the officers said they had been unable to fall asleep. Many participants had written down different ideas—one officer commented, “It’s like we set off an idea explosion—I haven’t been able to stop thinking since yesterday.”

Following these opening comments, the participants were asked to “translate” their sculptures into a strategic action plan, still using the same groups. These plans were to be presented in plenary form at the end of the day. Interestingly, many of the groups elected to present their strategies using skits, keeping in line with creative norms that were being established. The plans developed evidenced strong concern for building more security and increasing external contacts as a way of buffering change.

Most of the participants seemed satisfied with the results. More importantly, when representatives of the base were contacted one and two years later, it was apparent that many of the directions developed during the exercise had been implemented. Territoriality was markedly reduced, and the managers of the base had become much more active in working with external stakeholders. Images and ways of understanding that had arisen during the exercise (such as using structural/building terms as metaphors for organizational processes) were still in use.

DISCUSSION

There are a number of levels at which both this case and symbolic processes can be discussed. One is at the level of technique: why are certain sequences and procedures used? Another is at that level of description: what are the psychophysical patterns that symbolic construction tends to generate and how might these patterns be addressed, particularly different forms of resistance? A third level of analysis is concerned with deriving theoretical explanations of the symbolic construction: how and why does it work? Each of these areas are examined in turn.

Technique

The question of “how” symbolic inquiry ought to be done in organizational development is not easily answered. As mentioned earlier, there are many techniques that can be said to be symbolically mediated, each with it’s own set of guidelines. However, there do seem some generalizable suggestions that have arisen over the last few decades.

One concerns the choice of media and modality. Basically, media should be chosen according to the client’s needs and, to a lesser degree, the client’s preferences (Dalley, 1987). In this case, a sculptural, tactile modality was deliberately used to get the participants away from the over-intellectualization that appeared to dominate at the base. Since ‘rational’ discussion seemed to be one more way of avoiding contact within the organization, I felt that a tactile and distinctively non-verbal approach might ‘derail’ the participants’ normal routine long enough for new perspectives to be developed. Also, this particular group evidenced a preference for working with ‘things’—most of the officers had worked extensively with some type of hardware (guns, electrical circuitry, building materials, etc.), and had, according to senior management, a “hands-on” management style.

Also, I thought that working with building blocks might bring about a childhood referent, one where fundamental issues of security, boundaries, and ownership (the issues that seemed to be operative at the base) are often insufficiently worked out. Invoking this referent allowed the possibility that these issues might be addressed in a deeper way—in particular, sustained ‘playing with blocks’ might allow some release and reorganization of old ‘mine and yours’ patterns (cf. Winnicott, 1965).

In terms of processing the constructions, long time users of symbolist methods provide several suggestions (see Furth, 1988: 34-37 for an overview). One is that inquiry be from the general to the specific; that is, the client should be directed to study the overall aspects of the creation before looking at its parts. Thus, questions like, “In general, what does this sculpture remind you of? What feelings does it generate?” should precede questions like, “What meaning might you assign to this part of your sculpture?” This line of questioning allows the client to make a gradual return to “normal” cognitive processing, which tends to be suspended in favor of “right-brain” processing during such exercises (Edwards, 1986: 10-13).

In addition, inquiry should focus on the unusual and different, as it is the distinctive elements of symbols that prompt clients to move to new frames of understanding (Furth, 1988: 39). Thus, questions like, “What seems unusual or out-of-place in your sculpture?”, or “Is there anything in your sculpture that seems unusually opened or closed, tall or short, large or small,” can prove quite helpful in generating transformative meanings.

Most symbolic constructions, though superficially static, are psychologically dynamic—there is a sense of conflicting forces being held temporarily in suspension (Simon, 1992: 14). Thus, directionally-based questions can help bring these forces to the surface where they can be worked with. The above question, “Where is this rocket going” is a good example—the question allowed the participants to realize that they were both unsure and dissatisfied with the organization’s movements.

Lastly, it is important that cross-linkages between the symbol and the client’s life be made. Because the symbol may harbor a host of difficult issues, there can be a tendency for the client to treat her creation not as an analog, but simply as an art object. This effectively removes client responsibility for working on these issues. In the above case, the group that built the rocket fell into this trap through their denials that the rocket’s flimsy construction or shape had any connection to their organization. As long as they believed that the rocket was just a rocket with little symbolic value, they were kept safe from the discomfort and anxiety that might accompany more genuine interpretations.

Psychophysical Patterns In Symbolic Inquiry

Beyond how symbolic inquiry is to be done lies the question of what can be expected from it—what kinds of responses, both conscious and unconscious, does it tend to elicit? Perhaps most important here, given the clients normally encountered in ODC work, are different forms of defensiveness that can arise (see Diamond, 1991; Hirschhorn & Young, 1991).

One form of defense, denial, was mentioned above. Denigration of the task is another. Less obvious mechanisms include ignoring or misinterpreting instructions, and becoming ‘helplessly’ confused. All of these reactions occurred during the above exercise.

Defensiveness is not necessarily a negative thing—it can indicate the importance of underlying issues. Generally, the greater the defense, the more important the thought/feelings being repressed (Davanloo, 1988). Also, the greater the initial levels defense, the greater the ultimate change in the client, provided the resistance is dealt with.

In this particular case, much of the task resistance was diminished through peer pressure. Those officers unwilling to engage in creating sculptures quickly changed their minds once they saw others working. Similarly, members of a group would call one another on different forms of misinterpretation. Art therapy researchers argue that the act of creation itself tends to defuse many of the usual forms of defense, given that it tends to disrupt one’s usual patterns of engagement (Dalley, 1987; Schaverien, 1987).

From this point of view, one of the most effective ways of handling resistance in symbolic inquiry is to quickly involve clients in the task. Once at work, many clients simply forget about their initial objections often becoming surprised at the insights that naturally arise from the process; symbolic construction creates a disparate yet parallel way of viewing a situation, which in turn generates more possible solutions than if the issue were handled only using conventional reasoning processes (Edwards, 1986: 30-36).

Several other psychophysical patterns are worth noting. One concerns the energetic shifts that take place (see Ehrenzweig, 1967). An almost manic level of activity seems common at the outset of symbol creation, particularly within a group context. Most of this activity seems to be an expression of anxiety, fostered either from anticipation of performing the task, or over what the task might evoke. In this case, some of the initial activity could be attributed to anxiety over working with long-standing rivals.

Where the building of an symbol starts with high energy, it is commonplace for a low-energy, depressive phase to follow. It is as if the client realizes that there is no place to hide; that, even if not consciously acknowledged, the problem is literally ‘out on the table.’ Ultimately, as a client reintegrates the issues represented by the symbol, the energetic state shifts to one of calmness and stability.

Alongside this pattern is a movement from intellect to emotion, and back to intellect. Normally, a client engages symbolic construction with many thoughts and expectations. Once in a creational mode, however, intellectual processes tend to become suspended—some maintain that this is due to right hemispheric functioning of the brain (Edwards, 1986: 10). Following this, it is common to see an even greater abundance of intellectual activity. In the present case, the vivid dreaming and references to “an idea explosion” are examples. This may be due to the new perspectives introduced by the symbol and releases of pent-up emotional energy.

Lastly, the form a symbol takes can reflect the level and kind of client involvement that is taking place. Symbolic forms and content change considerably, depending on the problem or event being represented. As noted above, problem representations often appear fragmented, heavy, and disturbing. One theorist refers to this as an “archaic” form of representation, one that connotes emotion and sensate feeling (Simon, 1992: 87-108).

If the client has expressed a great deal of previously hidden thought and feeling in the construction, emotions may become heightened to where there is a temporary loss of control (as with the one officer who left and another who destroyed part of his group’s sculpture). Conversely, clients who are avoiding contact frequently create minimalist forms, ones displaying simple lines, quick execution, and little involvement. Forms of ‘ideal’ states tend to assume a different set of qualities. In particular, relatively greater levels of compaction and symmetry can be seen. It is as though analogs of the “real” become spread out in order to contain the chaotic feelings invoked, whereas analogs of the “ideal”, through their smaller, more tightly defined forms, display a wish to re-contain these feelings.

Theoretical Explanations of Symbolic Inquiry

A third level of analysis concerns the “whys and wherefores” of symbolic inquiry—how might the processes seen be explained? One of the more compelling psychoanalytic explanations of this work has been given by Schaverian (1987). She argues that what most predominates in symbolic construction is transference—it is the temporary transference of a client’s hidden feelings and beliefs to the creation that gives the process its power; the construction becomes a “positive scapegoat.” Unlike the conventional therapist/client relationship, where the client projects wish states almost exclusively onto the therapist, symbolic inquiry leaves the consultant in a relatively neutral position. It is the symbol that absorbs most of a client’s projections (Weir, 1987). Interestingly, because there is little dialog during the creative process, the consultant is relatively unable to speed up or slow down the degree of transference—it is the client who moderates the transference rate.

If transference to the symbol is substantive, the created object begins to take on greater and greater importance and power. Schaverian (1987) has noted how the creative process in symbolic inquiry often moves from a “diagramatic” state, in which the analog merely illustrates the client’s superficial feelings and thoughts, to an “embodied” state, in which the construction represents deeper and stronger emotion, and finally to a “talismanic” state, where the creation seems to have powers of its own, similar to the way in which a favorite toy assumes lifelike properties in a child’s eyes. Each of these stages represents a greater degree of transference.

Psychoanalytic theorists argue that transference to an external object is a critical part of the change process (Kets de Vries, 1991b). As long as an issue remains repressed and contained within a client’s psyche, it is unamenable to change. However, transference of affect and thought is not enough for lasting change to occur—the client must integrate that which was transferred. In the above case, symbolic constructions became vehicles for containing unexpressed feelings of vulnerability and anger. Yet it wasn’t until these feelings were both recognized and accepted that the client groups were able to construct meaningful change programs.

As the integration process becomes complete, the construction loses much of its significance and attention-grabbing power. The process now enters the “disposal” stage, in which the client divests himself of the construction, perhaps to create other forms based on new understandings (Schaverian, 1987).

CONCLUSION

Much theoretical work remains to be done in this area, whether from a psychodynamic perspective or other frameworks. Traditionally important psychodynamic phenomena such as splitting, developmental stages, counter transference, categories of neurosis/psychosis, etc. could be productively applied to symbol-based work. Similarly, fruitful explanations of symbolic processes might be gleaned from using Gestalt or cognitive-behavioral perspectives.

In terms of the management field, there are many ways in which symbolic construction might be applied and enriched. Little has been said here about the developmental capabilities of symbolic processes, yet most art therapists work with symbols in this way—this suggests that ODC practitioners and scholars might also find ways of using symbols to foster specific developmental sequences. Different symbolic forms and creational sequences might be used depending on the scope or kind of ODC problem being addressed. For example, less threatening methods, such as drawing, might be used where high levels of organizational resistance are present; more sensate methods, such as group sculpture or psychodrama might be used where resistance levels are low. Many questions remain about symbolic construction at different organizational levels: are some forms and sequences more appropriate to individuals, teams, or divisions?

In sum, this article began by emphasizing the importance of the unconscious in ODC; from there, it was demonstrated that symbolically-based processes can play a powerful role in bringing unconscious organizational processes into view. Given the potential contribution of the approach to increasing organizational understanding and effectiveness, it is hoped that the next decade will see an increasing number of management researchers taking an interest in the area.

REFERENCES

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. 1974. Theory in practice: Increasing Professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Case, C. & Dalley, T. 1992. The handbook of art therapy. London: Routledge.

Dalley, T. 1987. Art as therapy: Some new perspectives. In Dalley, T.; Case, C.; Schaverien, J.; Weir, F.; Halliday, D.; Nowell-Hall, P.; & Waller, D. Images of art therapy, 1-35. London: Routledge.

Davanloo, H. 1988. The technique of unlocking the unconscious, part 1. International Journal of Short-Term Psychotherapy, 3: 99-121.

Diamond, M. A. 1991. Stresses of group membership: Balancing the needs of independence and belonging. In M. Kets de Vries (Ed.), Organizations on the Couch: Clinical Perspectives on Organizational Behavior and Change; 191-213. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Edwards, B. 1986. Drawing on the artist within. NY: Fireside Books.

Ehrenzweig, A. 1967. The hidden order of art. London: Paladin.

Furth, G. M. 1988. The secret world of drawings. Boston: Sigo Press.

Hirschhorn, L. & Young, D. R. Dealing with the anxiety of working: Social defenses as coping strategy. In M. Kets de Vries (Ed.), Organizations on the Couch: Clinical Perspectives on Organizational Behavior and Change; 215-240. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Steedman, M. 1978. The psychology of syllogisms. Cognitive Psychology, 10: 64-99.

Jung, C. G. 1964. Man and his symbols. NY: Dell.

Kets de Vries, M. 1991a. Exploding the myth that organizations and executives are rational. In M. Kets de Vries (Ed.), Organizations on the Couch: Clinical Perspectives on Organizational Behavior and Change; 1-24. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kets de Vries, M. 1991b. On becoming a CEO: Transference and the addictiveness of power. In M. Kets de Vries (Ed.), Organizations on the Couch: Clinical Perspectives on Organizational Behavior and Change; 120-139. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Merry, U. & Brown, G. I. 1987. The neurotic behavior of organizations. Cleveland, OH: Gestalt Institute of Cleveland Press.

Schaef, A. W. & Fassel, D. 1988. The addictive organization. NY: Harper Collins.

Schaverien, J. 1987. The scapegoat and the talisman: Transference in art therapy. In Dalley, T.; Case, C.; Schaverien, J.; Weir, F.; Halliday, D.; Nowell-Hall, P.; & Waller, D. Images of art therapy, 74-108. London: Routledge.

Simon, R. M. 1992. The symbolism of style. London: Routledge.

Suinn, R. M. 1969. The predictive validity of projective measures; a fifteen-year evaluative review of research. Springfield, Ill: Thomas.

Weir, F. 1987. The role of symbolic expression in its relation to art therapy: A Kleinian approach. In Dalley, T.; Case, C.; Schaverien, J.; Weir, F.; Halliday, D.; Nowell-Hall, P.; & Waller, D. Images of art therapy, 109-127. London: Routledge.

Winnecott, D. W. 1965. The maturational process and the facilitating environment. London: Hogarth Press.