Don’t Shrink from Mental Illness

That reminds me of the time I spent 18 months in a psychiatric hospital… … pause … … as the director of Finance.

I have used the above line and it is interesting watching people’s reaction as they anticipate the end of the sentence  For that millisecond they are evaluating me and potentially re-assessing me in their own mental model.  Of course it is also a reflection on me in that I belatedly made clear that I was not a patient.

In other words, mental illness is something that society is still trying to figure out.  While we applaud Celebrities who come out of the closet, we also cross the street to avoid the disheveled and pungent homeless man screaming at his own personal demons.

The Shrink

Jeffrey A. Lieberman, has written a good book about the history of mental illness (Shrinks: The Untold Story Of Psychiatry).  While not without its own flaws (more on this later), it does give a good overview of the evolution of the professions aligned to treat mental disorders.

As a past-President of the American Psychiatric Association and a physician practicing since the mid-1970’s, he is well placed to provide observations on the evolution of the practice.  Two common themes struck me in this book.  Firstly the quiet desperation for both those afflicted and those trying to help the mentally ill and secondly the earnest-quackery involved in those attempting to alleviate this desperation. A few examples of theories/quackery are worth pointing out:

  • Animal Magnetism: invisible energy coursing through thousands of magnetic channels in the body.
  • Orgone Theory: a hidden form of energy uniting all of nature’s elements.  Treatment include sitting in orgone accumulators.
  • Psychoanalytic theory: A therapeutic method, originated by Sigmund Freud, for treating mental disorders by investigating the interaction of conscious and unconscious elements in the patient’s mind and bringing repressed fears and conflicts into the conscious mind, using techniques such as dream interpretation and free association.

The Greatest Quack

The last also had the greatest credibility for longest time.  Psychoanalysis is part of our understanding of the human mind (e.g. the concepts of unconsciousness or the ego).  It was also the first theory that provided some hope to alleviate the quiet desperation.  As a result, Lieberman spends a good portion of the book discussing the rise and eventual fall of psychiatric theory as the preeminent treatment modality in American psychiatry.  This includes the fight for and significant changes to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; DSM-5 being the most current version.

Much of the criticism for psychoanalysis was its disinterest in empirical evidence.  Because adherent saw Freud as a modern prophet and psychoanalysis as perfect gospel, testing or even questioning the precepts of the theory were vigorously fought against, at least in the United States.  In time, some brave souls (and an anti-psychiatry movement) dethroned psychoanalysis.  As an aside, like other treatments, psychoanalysis and talk therapy does have its place – for example in the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder.

The American Experience is Too Narrow

Unfortunately this is also where Lieberman could have made a ‘good book’ a great book had he spent less time on the American based politics of mental illness and more time on a global perspective.  While the DSMs were being created, other great psychiatric stories were being played out.  For example, the use of psychiatry in the former Soviet Union to muzzle dissidents, the role of mental illness in non-Anglo/euro cultures or even a larger history of mental illness and whether it is a relatively new phenomenon or not.

A more complete discussion on the alternatives to psychiatry would have been interesting as viewed from an insider’s point of view.  Although Lieberman spends sometime discussing the concerns of anti-psychiatry, in the end he primarily dismisses them in the context of current treatments.

The Hope for the Desperate

Despite these short comings, this is still a good book which sheds hope to the mentally ill because of treatments developed primarily (but not exclusively) over the past 40 years, including:

  • Pyrotherapy for advance syphilis.  Discovered by Julius Wagner-Jauregg.
  • Lobotomies which did not actually cure the mentally ill but did make them easier patients to house and manage.  Not currently used as a treatment.
  • Electroconvulsive therapy which applied a general electrical shock to the brain.  Still in use and effective for some conditions.
  • Psychopharmacology is the most common treatment currently with a myriad of drugs some developed for uses widely different from treating mental illness.
  • Talk Therapy.  Evolved out of Freudian psychotherapies, it has evolved from the therapist being an unemotional observer to the therapist being an empathetic partner in exploring issues.

The Mind versus the Brain and the Read

Psychiatry has centred around a dichotomy of the mind versus the brain as the source of mental illness.  Lieberman does a good job of merging these two extremes into current thinking that mental illness is both.  As well, Lieberman demonstrates great compassion about the plight of those afflicted and the social stigma it carries.

Overall Lieberman has done a good job of providing an American focused history of mental illness and its current state of affairs.  A book for those with interests in general and medical history as well as a general read about mental illness.

Can We Stop and Define Stop?

This week I will be going into an operational planning meeting.  Like most of the operational planning meetings I have attended, three questions are being asked:

  1. What do we want/need to start doing
  2. What do we need to continue to do or finish and
  3. What should we STOP doing?

The first two questions are relatively easy to answer and there is a plethora of information on How, Why, When, Where and What to plan.  In this blog, I want to focus on the Stop question, specifically:

What does “Stop” Mean in the Context of Operational Planning?

How Many Stops have been Really Stopped?

In my career, I have been in dozens of planning meetings and I cannot really recall something identified as ‘should be Stopped’ that was actually stopped.  At the same time, over my career, I have stopped doing many things that I used to do with out the ‘thing’ being part of a planning meeting.  Why is it so hard to identify a process to stop and then actually stop it?

Stopping to Define A Process

A quick stop for a definition and in this case the word ‘Process’ which is one of these wonderfully loaded terms.  Fortunately the good folks at the International Standards Organization can help: (source: http://www.iso.org, ISO 9000:2015; Terms and Definitions, 3.4.1, accessed 2016-04-02):

3.4.1 process: set of interrelated or interacting activities that use inputs to deliver an intended result (Note 1 to entry: Whether the “intended result” of a process is called output (3.7.5), product (3.7.6) or service (3.7.7) depends on the context of the reference.).

Assuming that an organization wants to stop a process, the challenge of doing so is built into the definition – when you stop something, you must deal with the inputs, the outputs and the impact on the inter-relation between potentially numerous activities.

Starting to Use a Process Focused Way of Stopping

Fortunately the above definition also gives us a methodology to evaluate what processes we can stop, change or that we are stuck with.  The Process Focused Way of Stopping uses a 2 x 2 matrix which asks two simple questions: will Inputs or Outputs Cease or Continue?  Inside the resulting matrix is a gradient between the extremes of fully stopping or continuing to deploy inputs and outputs. The four themed quadrants can help an organization understand the challenges and execution of stopping a process and interrelated impacts on the organization of doing so.

Process View Model

The Four Quadrants of Stopping

Or how to manage the “Law of Unintended Consequences“.

  • Full Stop!:
    • Inputs Stop, Outputs Stop
    • Business Example: Nokia, formerly a pulp and paper company that evolved into an electronics/cell phone company.
    • Organizational thoughts: abandoning or decamping from a process.
    • Risks/challenges: if a downstream process requires the output, a new and not necessarily better process may spring up to fill the void
  • Automation:
    • Inputs Stop, Outputs Continue
    • Business Example: Automation of airline ticketing and reservation systems over the past 40 years.
    • Organizational thoughts: automation is central to productivity enhancements and cost savings.
    • Risks/challenges: over automation can backfire, for example, being able to talk to a human is now seen as premium support for a product instead of simply directing customers to a website or a phone response system.
  • Costs Without Benefits (Yikes!):
    • Inputs Continue, Outputs Stop
    • Business Example: A mining company paying for site remediation long after the mine has been closed.
    • Organizational thoughts: Generally this is the quadrant to avoid unless there is a plan to manage the risks and downside costs (e.g. a sinking fund).
    • Risks/challenges: Organizations may land here as a result of the Law of Unintended Consequences..
  • Status Quo:
    • Inputs Continue, Outputs Continue
    • Business Example: any company that stays the course in their product line; this includes companies that should have changed such as Kodak.
    • Organizational Thoughts: this is a typical reaction when asked to changed processes.  Lack of organizational capacity and willingness to change supports general inertia.
    • Risks/challenges: As Kodak discovered, a lack of willingness to internally cannibalize and prune an organization may lead to external forces doing it for you.

How to Start Using a Process Focused Way of Stopping?

‘So What?’, how can this model be used?  At a minimum I plan to bring it with me to the next planning session and when someone identifies an activity to ‘STOP’ I will point to the quadrant the thing falls into.  This is not to prevent good organizational design, new ideas or planning; but it is to focus on the practicalities of planning and execution.

Limits of the Model

The model has its limits. The first is that is micro-biased. It assumes the organization, processes, outputs, and the like remain relatively constant. If your company is bought and the division shut down, the model is mute. The other limitation is technology. AI is seen as an automation tool but what happens when it becomes a game change at the macro level.

Nevertheless, hopefully you can start using this Stopping Model the next time you begin a planning meeting!