Interview with Lawrence Solomon

Introduction by Richard Farson
Welcome to our interview with the distinguished psychologist, Lawrence Solomon. I met Larry when we were both relatively new PhDs, and was so impressed with him that when we started WBSI, he was the first doctoral level person to whom we offered a job, and we were lucky that he accepted. He led us through several of our most interesting and pioneering programs, and I trust we will examine some of them from this distance in the interview. He went on to a professorship at the California School of Professional Psychology, and a career in industrial and organizational psychology and management consulting with major corporations. In recent years he's become an authority on conflict resolution, among many other fields. So welcome, Larry.

Response 22:1 Richard Farson Oct 09, 2007 16:16
I'll take the executive privilege of asking the first question. Larry, in the sixties you and Betty Berzon led our extensive work in studying the possibility that people could benefit from self-directed, leaderless therapeutic groups. You not only did the fundamental work that showed that in traditional group therapy the leader accounts for no more critical therapeutic events than does the average group member, but applied that finding to a major study comparing the effectiveness of self-directed groups with traditional leader-led groups, and found there to be almost no differences. That led you to develop tape recorded instructions to such groups to assist them in having more focused interaction which you called Encounter Tapes and were published by Bell and Howell. In a Stanford study led by Irv Yalom comparing the effectiveness of 17 different approaches to group therapy, your Encounter Tape leaderless group approach was rated #1 in perceived safety and #3 in overall effectiveness. You even wrote a book about that work. Now, my question. Why do you think that approach involving self-directed therapy groups has not grown to serve the millions who could benefit?

Response 22:2 Larry Solomon Oct 10, 2007 13:10
Q: Why haven't self-dircted therapy groups grown to serve the millions who could benefit?

A: Several thoughts come to mind in response to this question:

1. One cannot ignore the obvious economic threat this approach poses to the mental health establishment. Think of the thousands of therapists, psychologists, social workers and psychiatrists who would be negatively impacted financially if this approach gained in popularity. I'm not positing a conspiracy theory, but I cannot help but think of the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?" as another example of the establishment killing a workable idea that would have benefited millions.

2. Our self-directed groups did not spring up spontaneously; they needed a coordinator and instigator to get them going. Who would play such a role today. Perhaps the internet spaces (blogs, MySpace, etc) could serve that purpose. I would not look to the mental health professionals to instigate self-directed groups. At the same time, they could indeed play a useful role in screening potential group members to eliminate potentially "dangerous" members who might hamstring the group with input they cannot handle. (I remember in the early stages of our research I watched the group through a one-way mirror and intervened into the group if and when they pushed the "panic" button. I had to do that only once when the group was overwhelmed by their own unexpressed anger at an "outrageous" group member. My intervention statement, "This is a very angry group" unstuck the group, gave them permission to express their anger and to move on.)

3. Is our society today ready to turn to one another for help? Or are we so imbued with the awe of expertise and "higher authority" that "doing it yourself" is unthinkable in such a delicate and complex undertaking as psychotherapy? Carl Rogers wrote about "personal power"; but his was a voice in the wilderness in a social climate which primarily tends to "look upward" for guidance and help.

4. Derogatory comments about the "touchy/feely" approaches of the past, the extremist absurdity of films like "Bob, Carol, Ted and Alice", and an underlying fear of intimacy, openness, and vulnerability all contribute to today's distrust of the approach we pioneered in our self-directed therapy groups. Actually, if people were able to be freely open, intimate and vulnerable, would they need therapy in the first place?

5. I think of the abuse that "encounter groups" engendered when untrained "facilitators" pursued and imposed their own agenda, many times to the detriment of the group members. This has to have left a bad impression among many former encounter group members; and may be basis for warning others to stay away from such groups.

6. Finally, in today's litigious society, one has to be aware of the issues of responsibility and accountability, in case a group member decides to bring a lawsuit for alleged emotional damage. It is unclear who is responsible and to be held accountable in a "leaderless" group.

Response 22:3 Richard Farson Oct 10, 2007 14:51
I'd love to pursue each one of your most interesting points, and maybe we can, but let me follow up on your phrase "the awe of expertise" and ask you if you think that problem is worse here in the US than elsewhere, whether it's getting worse or better, and what you think, other than turning away from self-directed therapy groups, are likely to be the future consequences of that awe. Do you fear more authoritarianism?

Response 22:4 Mary Boone Oct 10, 2007 17:19
Hello Larry and thank you very much for joining us.

In my work with organizations, I am seeing a great deal of growth in the area of large group methods and while I wouldn't say that the majority of approaches are fully self-directed, I am certainly seeing a trend in that direction. Approaches like Open Space and Positive Deviance lean more towards a self-directed approach. Harrison Owen talks about "holding the space" (in Open Space) as the lead facilitator and this is a lot different from traditional facilitation. Positive Deviance goes a step further where the facilitator is internal and the "PD experts" are actually coaches.

As the levels of interaction and complexity increase in organizations (thanks to social media, permeable organizational boundaries, etc.), I suspect people (both those in power and those currently being "led") will get more comfortable with self-direction. However, I do think that there will be contexts in which more direction is appropriate (such as chaotic contexts).

What is your perspective on the current state of large group methods? And what role do you think context should play in the determination of the level of self direction?

I salute you for your prescience and important work in setting the foundation for current approaches to self direction.

Response 22:5 Kip Winsett Oct 10, 2007 19:17
Hi Larry, what a treat to have you aboard for this interview. My own memories of "therapy groups" in the late 60's (at places such as Kairos) were of a desire to "improve" oneself and one's relationship to others. It wasn't (again, in my own memory) just about healing. There was a sense that we could become internally richer - though that sounds a little simplistic. I think perhaps I'm trying to say that I didn't perceive it as having much of an external goal.

Today I have the sense that group dynamics are focused on "becoming more productive". for example we make work into "play" in order to be more creative in the workplace.

I come across quite a bit of this kind of thing and it makes me distrustful because the agenda seems to be "become better for the sake of the company" rather that for the sake of yourself.

Your thoughts?

Response 22:6 Richard Farson Oct 12, 2007 00:57
I've just heard from Larry Solomon, our interviewee, that he's been unexpectedly called out of the country and won't return until Wednesday the 17th. He wanted me to apologize for his absence, and will respond to your questions when he returns. I hope you will all sign back in then for the vigorous continuation of the interview.

Response 22:7 Larry Solomon Oct 17, 2007 14:44
Hi everyone; I'm back. First of all, thank you for the warm greetings from Mary Boone and Kip Winsett and the questions raised by them and by Dick Farson.

I do not consider myself a very good prognosticator, but I would not predict a surge in authoritarianism in our society. I cannot address this prospect for the rest of the world; at the same time, I anticipate that authoritarian rule and diminished self-direction will continue to be the mode for most of the non-democratic nations. Our current experiences in this country with what is turning out to be one of the most authoritarian federal administrations in recent history should turn the public in the direction of at least a desire for more public-friendly support for individual rights and needs. The church scandals, Bush-administration corruption and events in Iraq should all conspire to induce a greater longing for self-direction and an even greater suspicion of "authority".

Mary asks about the current state of large group methods and I must confess that I do not know what that is. I am out of touch with what is currently going on in that arena.

Kip raises the specter of group manipulation in the service of increased productivity and I, personally, would abhor such activity. The perversion of group dynamics to serve a "higher" purpose is, of course, the exact opposite of the original intent of self-directed groups.

Response 22:8 Richard Farson Oct 19, 2007 20:29
Larry, in the sixties you introduced WBSI to simulation and gaming as a way to study cold war strategies, and we did quite a bit toward helping the joint chiefs study deterrence. Do you think that with new computer technologies combined with television, we could create futuristic games that could educate the masses? Influence voting? Foreign policy? Do you ever dream along those lines?

Response 22:9 Mary Catherine Bateson Oct 21, 2007 11:27
Mary Boone asked about large group methods, which made me think of the techniques developed by Carolyn Lukensmeyer (AMerica speaks) and Juanita Brown (World Cafe) as new methods of involving large numbers not for therapy but for developing and expressing opinions. I am particularly interested at present in intermediate phenomena like the consciousness raising groups of the women's movement, which went in and out of self-help and study modes. It seems to me that a lot of useful therapy goes on in groups that are not defined primarily as therapeutic, and I wonder how you see the future of that phenomenon. Even reading groups, playing a role where family, church, and community life have diminished.

As far as the possibility of created massively multiplayer games, it would be nice to find ways to promote games with implicit value systems that are not so violent and conflictual. How to make emergent order and cooperation fun.

Response 22:10 Larry Solomon Oct 23, 2007 15:53
Unfortunately, cooperation is boring. It is much more exciting and challenging to "outwit, outsmart and out last" your opponent. The technology for large group interaction and involvement (via internet and other media) has been available for some time now. What is missing is the incentive. Why bother to be cooperative? What is the payoff?

In some of the simulation games (like Starpower) or interactive group games (like Win As Much As You Can)people often blindly persist in a competitive strategy, even when it becomes glaringly obvious that "you can't get what you want unless they get what they want." Once locked into a competitive strategy, it becomes increasingly difficult to build the trust that is necessary for cooperation to occur. People time and again continue in a lose-lose interaction, hoping that, in the long run, they can outwit the others and "win", even at the expense of the others.

It is seductive to dream about large groups around the world interacting with each other around cooperative issues and seeking solutions to world problems. At the same time, I don't see that happening until positive, concrete payoffs are identified for the participants and delivered to them quickly.

Trust takes time to build. Suspicions of others do not go away easily. Only through continued trustworthy behavior on the part of each party can distrust and suspicion be diminished.

In the meantime, vast numbers of tribal, gang-minded, undereducated individuals are growing in magnitude and I am not aware of any world-wide effort to counteract this trend.

I seem to be spiraling down into deeper pessimism; so I choose to stop here.

Response 22:11 Kip Winsett Oct 24, 2007 14:23
Larry, when I read your words, vast numbers of tribal, gang-minded, undereducated individuals are growing in magnitude I couldn't help but think of the barbarians, the vandals at the gates of Rome. We, as social beings with some history, can surely devise some methods of counteracting the disruptive influences of the "barbarians".

Do you think we need to work at those at the very bottom in a more direct way or can we take sort of a "trickle down" approach (e.g. in elementary schools today there is some education about not bullying and on handling conflict)?

Response 22:12 Richard Farson Oct 24, 2007 14:48
Larry, you were party to the design of situations involving groups of strangers who predictably became friendly, even affectionate, simply by following the suggestions embodied in your Encounter Tapes.....sometimes even without such suggestions, just meeting with the expectation that they were to use that time for their own benefit. By and large, I think you found that they did use the time productively in that regard.

I'm aware of the research you cite showing the domination of competitiveness, but if you were the designer of society, do you think you could do better?

Response 22:13 Larry Solomon Oct 25, 2007 13:54
Kip, I think that the "barbarians" are mostly in the third world countries. Let me address that issue in a moment.

Dick, I think I could design a great society, applying some of the principles proposed by B.F. Skinner in his book, "Walden II". We have a good foundation to build upon in a basically democreatic society. Universal education is mandatory and curricula can be modified to include lessons in cooperation, conflict resolution, etc. (as Kip recognizes.) Skinner's approach to building frustration tolerance and acceptance of the role that "chance" plays in our lives would be a great addition to the character-building content of today's school curricula.

But this is an ethocentric view. In the rest of the world, ignorance prevails, religious bigotry is inculcated as part of a child's upbringing, madrasas schools restrict pupil input to a recital of the Koran, and closed-mindedness is the norm with regard to social, moral and religious issues.

I don't have trouble thinking about designing a better society for us here at home; but, with the barbarians at the gates, would we really be safe behind our ideological walls?

Response 22:14 Richard Farson Oct 25, 2007 15:50
Skinner's Walden II is sort of a utopian scheme, but Harvard professor Herb Kelman (remember when he was a Visiting Fellow at WBSI?) has argued that all utopias become dystopias. He showed how Huxley's Island was in a fundamental way just like his Brave New World. Isn't Skinner similarly vulnerable to that charge? And is Solomon also? What about human rights in your scheme? In my book on children's rights, I argue against compulsory education!! How about that?

Response 22:15 Larry Solomon Oct 26, 2007 13:54
Anything of value can be abused perversely (medicine used to kill, education used to brainwash, etc.) The question is: what is the goal? If death and/or closed-mindedness are the goals, then I, too, would argue against compulsory medications and compulsory education. If the end goal is health and enlightenment, then the situation is completely different.

Skinners techniques of character-building (frustration tolerance and acceptance of the role of "chance" in one's life) are goals that I can support without fear of Big Brother's hidden hand.

Response 22:16 Richard Farson Oct 26, 2007 16:13
But aren't all tyrants' goals initially seen as beneficial? Are you suggesting that means aren't as important as goals? Or just Skinner's?

Response 22:17 Kip Winsett Oct 28, 2007 21:44
Larry, your #15 could be read as "the ends justify the means", but I'm reasonably sure that's not what you had in mind. Personally, I'm a fan of B.F. Skinner and character and frustration tolerance are critical components in functional groups.

Over the millennia various empires have attempted to deal with the barbarians (generally with little success). What seems to me perhaps to be different today is that the ability to ramp up and speed up education is now available. Can you see any scenario in which the speed and scope of modern communication could be used to at least somewhat dampen the ideological effects of today's barbarians?

Response 22:18 Larry Solomon Oct 29, 2007 13:42
There must be congruence between means and ends. Inhumane means cannot be used to pursue humane goals (hence the current debate over the use of "torture".) Informed consent is essential to maintain the dignity and personal control of the recipient of any methods used to facilitate the attainment of goals.

Modern communication methods hold the promise of impacting on "barbarian" mentalities; at the same time, questions of implementation, utilization and cultural acceptance remain unanswered, for the most part.

While the Muslim extremists are employing Mickey Mouse to promote their terrorist agendas, the same process could be used to present a more peaceful view of intercultural relations and could help to shape the minds of the next generation of potential terrorists.

Response 22:19 Richard Farson Oct 30, 2007 01:40
If you ran the field of psychology, or even if you ran an institute, what contribution do you think it can most usefully make in 2008?

Response 22:20 Larry Solomon Oct 30, 2007 13:12
I think that the psychology of intergroup relations, particularly ethnopolitical warfare, holds great promise for a major contribution to the welfare of the human race over the next several decades. The books by Martin E.P. Seligman and Daniel Chirot ("Ethnopolitical Warfare: Causes, Consequences and Possible Solutions") and by Stephen Worchel amd Wiliam Austin ("Psychology of Intergroup Relations") point the way.

The findings from social psychology in this area should inform policy decisions at both the national and international levels. Behavioral science input at these policy making levels is essential.

Response 22:21 Richard Farson Oct 30, 2007 17:47
You were once called by the American Psychological Association to be its liaison with government and, as I recall, you spent a year or so in Washington DC in the sixties in that capacity. I'd be interested in what your experiences were in influencing policy there, and what you think the current influence of social sciences might be. Somehow, we never seem to see politicians on TV saying they just met with a team of criminologists about the rehabilitation of convicts, but seem to come up always calling for bigger prisons, harsher sentences and more police....all of which, according to criminologists probably increase crime. Do you think there is a readiness now in Washington for social science help with ethnopolitical warfare?

Response 22:22 Larry Solomon Oct 30, 2007 21:39
I often said, when in DC, that the input I was able to facilitate was like dropping something into a bottomless well. Whether or not it hit bottom and had an impact on policy, it was impossible to tell. There was some slight indication that the input fostered by my office regarding the GRIT strategy for tension reduction did have an effect on the course of the Vietnam war. But this is a vague memory on my part and not at all verifiable at this point in time.

The Kennedy administration was very open to social science input and provided a friendly climate for such input. When Johnson took over, the climate changed and moved back to the "old boy" networking process for policy formulation. I think that is the current climate in Washington now, under the Bush gang.I would not look for any readiness for social science help until the administration changes.

There was not unanimous agreement among APA members that what I was doing in DC should be allowed. Having testified before the House Armed Services Committee regarding pending legislation to authorize the construction of atomic fallout shelters, there was a threat by an APA member to bring me up on ethics charges. It never happened, however.

Response 22:23 Richard Farson Oct 31, 2007 00:22
Interesting. Larry, in what part of your career do you feel that you have had the greatest impact....or if that is impossible to answer, in what part do you feel you have worked at your best?

Response 22:24 Larry Solomon Oct 31, 2007 14:46
The most positive impact directly on people has to be from my teaching. There I worked at my best and the feedback from students was consistently positive. I felt very much on top of my game during most of my teaching career. Only in the last couple of years, prior to retirement, did I feel I was slipping and should probably give up the task. When I closed my office door and pretended to not be there when students knocked, I knew it was time to retire.

A close second to my teaching has to be the work I did with Betty Berzon on the development of the Encountertapes and the publication of our book, "New Perspectives on Encounter Groups." I don't know to what extent that had an impact , but I don't think it was as powerful as the hands-on interaction that took place during my classes.

Response 22:25 Kip Winsett Oct 31, 2007 19:00
Larry, what was the major focus in your teaching? What aspect gave you the most pleasure to teach? At the time did you think that what you were teaching would have an impact on the world? Did it?

Response 22:26 Larry Solomon Nov 05, 2007 12:15
My most impactful course was "Conflict Management". One student said, "Best course I have ever had!". I did not anticipate any direct, discernable impact on the world from a single course at a relatively unknown university; at the same time, from thrity-some students, there is bound to be a ripple effect out into the community and maybe even a direct, positive consequence in some events. Who knows?

Response 22:27 Richard Farson Nov 05, 2007 15:11
During your WBSI days you successfully led us in several areas such as simulation studies of deterrence strategies, educational gaming, and self-directed therapeutic groups (the latter after our study showed that the therapeutic events in group therapy were just as likely to be initiated by the average group member as by the leader.) You and Betty Berzon directed the research and wrote the book and masterminded the EncounterTapes.....all of your work had the possibilities of revolutionizing the fields of study, and the practices that would follow. But as I recall, the Joint Chiefs and the diplomats didn't pursue the Graduated Reciprocal Initiative Deterrence strategy, educational gaming has not taken hold (but of course video gaming has) and therapists are still insisting on being present in all group therapy efforts, even the guys at Stanford who did the study showing the leaderless Encounter Tapes program to be the safest and third most effective form of group therapy (out of 17 studied). All of your studies were convincing, but didn't take hold of the professions. Sort of like all of the environmental and social psychological studies that have been ignored by designers. Looking back, how do you feel about all that good work not actually fixing the world?

Response 22:28 Larry Solomon Nov 07, 2007 14:28
Since I never really sought to "fix the world", but rather to make a contribution to the evolving zeitgeist, I don't feel too badly about the consequences of my "good work". As I understand it, that is the nature of science: small contributions which, in the long run, have a cumulative effect; with some lying fallow, only to be rediscovered at a later time when an independent line of inquiry cuts across the path alredy pioneered by someone else.

I'm waiting in the wings; ready for my close-up, Mr. Demille.

Response 22:29 Richard Farson Nov 08, 2007 14:23
Larry, I think that's a wonderful note to go out on. You have been a great interviewee, and we thank you.