Dr. Lukasz Konopka

A wave of change is surging through the field of behavioral science, expanding our understanding of brain function and its relationship to mental illness. Where we once relied on our carefully honed observation skills to identify and define psychological disorders, we now have available to us a variety of advanced technologies that can be used to explain brain functions long considered mysteries. The use of neuroimaging—including tools such as EEGs—represents a prime example of how far we have come in understanding behavior.

In the early days, we found it impossible to define functional brain networks and their role in the expression of behavior. Only now can we relate brain function to normal and pathological states. As a result, we enter a new era where behavioral correlates can be defined by our understanding of normal and abnormal brain function. It is an approach that requires us to look at each patient and to design highly individualized treatment plans, rather than using a one-sizefits- all therapy plan.

Without knowing the biological underpinning of a disorder, our therapeutic approaches become no more precise than a shot in the dark or the flip of a coin.

I offer the example of two patients with clinical depression and identical depression measure scores. Although they appear clinically similar, we still may find they have different biological abnormalities that produce distinct responses to the same therapeutic interventions. Without knowing the biological underpinning of a disorder, we cannot know what we are treating: our therapeutic approaches become no more precise than a shot in the dark or the flip of a coin. It is not surprising then that for a number of clinically defined populations, published data reports significant pharmacological treatment failures and placebo responses.

Consider the issue of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, which was long conceptualized as a behavioral-psychological disorder without biological underpinnings. True, the work of a few researchers, such as Douglas Bremner, shed some light on the physiological manifestations of PTSD. Bremner used MRIs to identify changes that occurred in the region of the brain that plays a central role in memory, PTSD patients. However, the changes that he noted—specifically, a shrinking of the brain tissue, which could be correlated with a loss of memory—bear similarities to those noted in patients diagnosed with depression, making it impossible to use this single physiological factor as a basis for PTSD diagnosis. While the use of imaging has helped us take great strides in diagnosis and treatment, more research is needed to use these technologies to their greatest advantage.

During the years I spent as director of clinical neuroscience at Hines VA Hospital, my colleagues and I learned a great deal about PTSD using neuroimaging technologies. We learned, for example, that patients on the PTSD spectrum have unique electrophysiological measures (EEGs) that can be helpful in deciding on a course of treatment that will be effective. Another imaging technology—Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT)—was used to identify blood flow patterns. SPECT data provided us with a wealth of new information; we could use the patterns to predict the success of electroconvulsive therapy in patients whose depression had thus far been resistant to treatment and, in another study, we used the information to identify patient subpopulations with cocaine abuse histories. These findings open a number of new pathways for us; by becoming increasingly aware of various patient subpopulations, we will be able to design more precise treatments for them.

With some frustration, one might view these new technologies as the more accurate way to define and treat specific psychological problems; they may ask why we cannot just rely on biology instead of the more traditional observation methods. I believe the fundamental issue is that the development of the diagnostic classifications that are widely used today came about long before the availability of brain imaging, and well before discoveries in the fields of behavioral neurology, biological psychiatry, neuropsychiatry, and clinical neuroscience. By their very nature, these classifications lack the precision necessary to describe exactly what is happening to the brain. So the brain-to-behavior approach that is driving my work—and the work of other neuropsychologists— is far more complicated than simply reversing the process. We have a long way to go in bringing the fields of biology and psychology together, but the potential is great.

We must be prepared to ride the wave of change that is redefining behavioral science. I strongly believe we must shift our thinking and train clinician-scholars in the field of psychology by exposing them to sound scientific inquiry and brain-related sciences. We should also expose students to objective clinical research that relies on the scientific approach and struggles with data that relate brain function to behavior. To this end, I am very excited by our new Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) program with its rigorous assessments and precisely measured outcomes; I see tremendous opportunities for research collaboration among imaging, biomarker-based approaches, and ABA. ABA trains careful observers with a keen eye for behavior quantification and outcome measurement. One can imagine how well clinicians could develop patient-specific therapies when using careful therapeutic evaluation, imaging, and acute behavioral interventions. With this approach, we could design interventions that target dysfunctional networks while using the patient’s existing strengths.

Dr. Ellis Copeland, chair of the Department of School Psychology, was quoted in a Chicago Parent magazine story titled “Taking the Stress Out of School” (7/25). 

Dr. Nancy Davis, associate vice president of academic affairs, offered commentary for a Forbes.com story about people who embellish on their resumes. The story also ran in the Sydney Morning Herald (6/11). 

Dr. Todd Dubose, assistant professor of clinical psychology, appeared on the National Geographic Channel program “The Final Report.” Dr. Dubose discussed the psychology of cults, particularly the story behind the Heaven’s Gate cult from the late ‘90s (9/29). 

Dr. Michael Fogel, chair of the Forensic Psychology Department, was quoted in The Daily Journal about a criminal case in Will County (5/24). 

Dr. Evan Harrington, associate professor of clinical psychology, contributed to an EDGE Boston story titled “Gay Panic Defense Fading in Murder Cases” (7/17). 

Dr. Christoph Leonhard, professor of clinical psychology, was quoted in a Chicago Tribune story about people who compulsively collect recipes (6/4). The story also appeared in the Lincoln (Neb.) Journal Star (7/16). 

The Chicago School received mention on the WBEZ Chicago Public Radio program Worldview in a segment featuring Fr. Paul Satkunanayagam, S.J. Fr. Paul talked about his work to deliver counseling services to people in Sri Lanka and about his work with Dr. Michael McNulty, a Chicago School faculty member. 

Dr. Daniela Schreier, assistant professor of clinical counseling, discussed stress and economic anxiety for a Medill News Service story (10/7). She also was quoted in a Dallas Morning News story about people losing weight after a painful divorce (10/6). 

Dr. Hector Torres, Center for Latino Mental Health coordinator, appeared on WBEW FM-89.5 to discuss the center and The Chicago School’s Latino mental health initiative (9/11). The center was profiled in the Columbia Chronicle, a South Loop weekly (9/15). 

Dr. Debra Warner, assistant professor of forensic psychology, contributed to an article about negative self talk that appeared on moodletter.com, a website dedicated to mental health (10/8). She also was quoted in a Therapy Times article about political correctness and the patient-therapist bond (9/15). 

Dr. Nancy Zarse, associate professor of forensic psychology, was interviewed by ABC7’s Kevin Roy for a feature story about campus shootings (8/17).

INSIGHT: Let‘s talk about the psychological impact that this policy has had on servicemen and women, including the 13,000 who have been dishonorably discharged as a result.

Dr. Paul Larson

Dr. Larson: The impact has been to force men and women who are gay or lesbian to lead a double life. When society as a whole has made significant strides in being able to integrate fully our gay and lesbian people, the military has not done so.

Dr. Spaeth: I was active duty Air Force between 1996 to 2000. We were peripherally aware of DADT, but I did have coworkers whom I suspected were really struggling with this policy and keeping quiet about it. And I could see that it looked like they were certainly undergoing the stress of all of that.

When society as a whole has made significant strides in being able to integrate fully our gay and lesbian people, the military has not done so.

Dr. Petroy: I‘ve seen a lot working with online programs throughout my career in academia. I separated from the service in 1992 before DADT actually came about. I was stationed overseas for the majority of the time. Online programs were very popular with military personnel. One student was stationed at my base, and he always achieved the highest reviews. He was discharged for being gay in the military, and he filed a lawsuit against the military. It really impacted his ability to perform as a student or even in life because it changed the dynamics of his expectations and his belief in not only the military, but in the American way.

INSIGHT: Can you talk more about the impact on the transgender population?

Dr. Kerri Rönne

Dr. Rönne: I‘ve known many transgender people with long, eminent military careers. No one ever knew that they were transgender, but I know of several people who have purple hearts and served as Green Berets and were transgender the whole time but living as their biological sex. I know of one young man who, on a whim, joined the military after several years as a cross dresser, and we all thought, ‘Oh my goodness, this can‘t be good.‘ He came back about three months later, and he had been separated. He said that he had taken a dress with him and kept it in his locker hidden under things—a slinky red dress—and at some point, his barrack mates found it. They assumed that he had somehow snuck a woman into the barracks, and he got great acclaim for this; it was like, ‘Yay boy, you go.‘ Eventually this got to superior officers who called him in and, because he was in trouble for that, he said, ‘Well, actually the dress is mine.‘ And they just kind of quietly said, ‘Oh, well, in that case, you can leave. No dishonor, but we‘re just going to separate you.‘

Dr. Petroy: It brings about thoughts about M*A*S*H and watching Klinger.

Dr. Rönne: There are many reasons why transgender people are not allowed to join the military. Many, especially transsexuals, are taking hormones and are considered unfit for duty generally because of the possibility of being in a foreign country where they couldn‘t get their medication, much like being diabetic and insulin dependent would get you out of the military for the same reason. Also many people who are transgender had surgery that may render them looking not exactly like other people. The physical exam requires a genital exam, and if you look abnormal in any way, you‘re not accepted into the military.

Dr. Larson: What has happened since gay liberation is people saying, ‘I want to be who I am and serve at the same time.‘ That‘s what‘s caused the tension that resulted in the DADT policy, which was supposedly a compromise between forces of change and forces of resistance.

Dr. Spaeth: I always heard the rationale that they were afraid of the impact on the morale of a unit. If suddenly there were military members coming out as gay—the fights that it would cause, and if there were prejudicial feelings, it would be those kinds of divisive conflicts that would disrupt the trust and the cohesion of the unit itself.

Dr. Rönne: I think people express fears, some of which are real issues that should be considered and some of which are irrational and mass discrimination. For example, people automatically say, ‘Well, morale will suffer. You‘re going to have men housed together—some are gay, some are straight. They‘ll be sharing bathrooms. This is going to be a disaster.‘ But in reality, any time you go to a health club, you have gay and straight people sharing bathrooms all the time, and how often do you hear of any incident happening that‘s a problem?

Dr. Larson: The argument about unit cohesion was used when we integrated the military with African Americans, and when we brought women into the military. And the solution is not to not do that, but to then provide training and support and leadership to say this is what we‘re doing, and this is why we‘re doing it.

INSIGHT: The Pentagon announced recently that they were changing the policy to make it harder to dishonorably discharge somebody because of sexual orientation. What kind of impact will this latest policy have?

Dr. Larson: I think it‘s significant that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff indicated that it‘s not if we are going to change, but how we are going to change. That was a very clear signal that the very top leadership of the uniformed military services is fundamentally behind this. Now there are obviously going
to be some people who will voice concerns, but the military is an organization where top down following orders is the culture.

Dr. Anthony Petroy

Dr. Petroy: I am heartened to see senior leadership in the military courageously acknowledging that it‘s the, ‘right thing to do‘. It stands in contrast to what happened when President Clinton tried to open it up completely. There was such a backlash that he put DADT in place as a compromise. Of course, no one was happy with that, and everybody remembers him for putting in place this awful policy. But he did it because he was trying to have it be more open, and it just wasn‘t flying. Now there‘s been an evolution in attitudes and people who have been feeling more empowered to be supportive of that.

INSIGHT: Those of you who were in the military, was there any training around this issue at all?

Dr. Spaeth: It was taboo, actually. If we were told anything about it, it would be to avoid even asking questions remotely close to it in evaluations and assessments.

Dr. Petroy: You didn‘t want to be associated with any dialogue or any discussion around that just because of the fear or the stigma that came along with that. If you were talking about it, either you were associated with it or you knew something, and so they would call you into quarters to discuss it. I was in one of the three installations that had nuclear weapons and we would have 10-day deployments. When you‘re out there with a group of men for 10 days, and you‘re restricted in your interactions with other people… if you‘re discussing that stuff and someone higher up would hear something like that, it would be detrimental to your career.

Dr. Drake Spaeth

Dr. Spaeth: Yeah, I would echo that. There was always the possible threat of demotion if you‘re doing anything that they would disapprove of. It was very rare in the mental health flight for anyone to be given an official order by the head of the mental health clinic who would have to step forward as Lieutenant Colonel Smith as opposed to Dr. Smith. He would have to assume that kind of persona and give you an official order.

INSIGHT: What ethical dilemmas does that set up for mental health professionals?

Dr. Spaeth: There are notorious discussions about the ethical quandaries that active duty military psychologists and mental health professionals face trying to navigate the demands of the APA versus the demands of DOD. One big issue involves informed consent and confidentiality. The fact is in addition to what I like to call the ‘big three‘—danger to self, danger to others, disclosure of child abuse—where we would have to inform clients, we might have to break confidentialityfidentiality. There was a whole list of things that we would have to add to that. If the Office of Security Investigation was investigating some incidents, we would have to make records fully available to them. If their commanding officer would ask for the records, we would have to make those records fully available to them. It always pushed the boundaries of protecting confidentiality as defined by the APA and similar governing bodies. At the same time, the APA supported for the most part the military psychologists position as long as you made APA aware of what your dilemma was every step of the way. In the real sense, the Department of Defense is really who you work for, and that‘s part of the ethical issue there. If you, as a psychologist, feel that the person would benefit from talking about their sexual orientation, you still had to not do that to protect their own interest in remaining employed and remaining in active duty. So there‘s where I think it can potentially become tough.

INSIGHT: Do you have any thoughts about the long-range psychological impact of somebody who has served or who has had to enforce these rules?

There are notorious discussions about the ethical quandaries that active duty military psychologists and mental health professionals face trying to navigate the demands of the APA versus the demands of DOD.

Dr. Larson: I think that those who were discharged because of their sexual orientation will probably have more negative consequences long term, but not by too much from those who just kept a cover all the way through then retired. It would be different. The stigma of being discharged, the lack of veterans‘ benefits that would come with that, are very different than having to live a double life and feeling the tension of needing to hide all the time. Each of those different classes of people will have consequences that are slightly different.

Dr. Rönne: I do know people who have left the military specifically because they wanted to express their gender identity. Oftentimes, as transgender people age, they feel a stronger need to express their true self. So as they get to be middle age, they are just no longer able or willing to hide that any more. They have left long-standing military careers in order to be freer to be who they are.

Dr. Spaeth: It could potentially engender a crisis of identity or selfhood that could go either way. It could be a real positive and empowering movement toward authenticity, or it could potentially be stigmatizing and, again, sharpening the sense of incongruence.

INSIGHT: How do you see your roles as faculty members at a school of psychology dealing with this issue?

Dr. Larson: I stand very much in favor of full and complete integration of people of various gender and sexual orientations into our program, into society, as a whole. I look forward to the time when people who are in the military could be as completely open and well integrated into the communities as the students and faculty who are gay and lesbians here are.

Dr. Spaeth: It‘s important to me also, in terms of teaching diversity to students, that we really tackle that issue and educate students about military culture. Engaging with individuals from that culture is like engaging with individuals from other cultural realities too. I always feel like I‘m in an interesting position as a former active duty member because I‘m both critical of the military on many levels, especially around DADT, but I also feel a loyalty and a defensiveness where the military is concerned.

Dr. Petroy: I think it is critical for us to maintain that integrity of enforcing and working with diversity strongly in the classroom.

Dr. Rönne: We all have a strong duty to deal with issues related to discrimination and stigma in the world in general, and I think the military is part of that. When I teach my course on transgender issues, we talk about the military, but we also talk about many other elements of our society that are unfair and discriminatory to people with gender variance. So I see it as a component of an almost universal problem that is critical for our students to be educated about.

The topic of veterans is an acutely personal one for me. My brother and I followed each other in our tours of duty in Vietnam. Though we both were disabled during our service, Tom, now deceased, suffered far greater harm. My disability was mostly physical, while Tom’s cut to the heart of how he perceived himself as a person, and cast an ever-present shadow over his remaining years. To paraphrase Heraclitus’ famous quotation, one never steps back into the same life following experience in war. That was true of my brother as it is for all veterans before and since.

The television mini-series, The Pacific, chronicling battles of the Pacific theater during World War II, premiered in March on HBO. It was reminiscent of a series aired a decade ago, Band of Brothers, which followed E Company from 1942 to the final days of the war in Europe. The United States was involved in World War II for less than four years, but during the intervening decades, the war has inspired countless books, movies, plays, and retrospectives. It was called the “Good War” by Studs Terkel, while those who lived, fought, and died during that era have been immortalized by Tom Brokaw as “The Greatest Generation.” Depictions of World War II reflect an illusion of clarity and rightness of the cause unmatched in the intervening conflicts.

The title of this essay is taken from a 1973 Time magazine article, published shortly before I was discharged from the Air Force. It begins:

“Veterans of World War II returned to a grateful, generous country that was about to embark on an unprecedented quarter-century of prosperity. Korean War veterans cashed in on much the same rising curve of material benefits. Vietnam vets, by contrast, are the dubious beneficiaries of the nation’s immediate troubled past and uneasy future.

Flash forward: The United States is again engaged in a war on two fronts, Iraq and Afghanistan. Unlike the war portrayed on television, these ongoing wars are more reminiscent of that one fought in the jungles of Southeast Asia. The extended years of conflict and continuous deployments weigh heavily on the lives of military personnel and their families. Further, the frustrations inherent in the indeterminate nature of the “enemy” and the mission creep contribute to the feeling of endless conflict and illusory resolution.

Fortunately, today’s active duty military personnel and veterans are held in higher regard than were my contemporaries four decades ago. Though the term “hero” is cheapened by its profligate use in too many contexts and situations, the heroism and devotion to duty of today’s military is of equal gauge to service personnel at any time in our nation’s history. My fear as I write today is that the nature of contemporary war is grossly misunderstood, and the toll it takes on military personnel and their families remains underappreciated. We are all too easily inured by the media reports of military deaths and disfiguring injuries. We let ourselves become detached and unengaged; in a sense we defer responsibility to others far removed from our comfortable daily lives.

I chose to become a psychologist following my military service in part to give back to my contemporaries, but perhaps more importantly, to learn more about human motivation—my own included—and response to stress. I am optimistic that psychology can contribute in significant and meaningful ways in the intervention and prevention of the causes of societal strife. One small step has come with the inauguration of the first doctoral program of its kind in the world, the Ph.D. program in International Psychology. I believe we have an obligation, as Albee stated many years ago, to give psychology away. To me that means harnessing the power of our discipline and focusing it on the small and the big issues in our society. The world, personal and societal, that Tom and I left to go to Vietnam was neither the same one we stepped back into upon our return to “the world” nor were we the same naïve young men. It is our obligation today to simultaneously address the mental health needs of those involved in conflicts and to work to prevent such future conflicts.

Chicago Campus President Carroll Cradock was quoted in an ABC7 feature about coping with family conflict during the holidays (12/21). She was also quoted—along with Dr. Grant White, associate professor of clinical psychology—in a Chicago Tribune story titled, “Federal Funds Ease Anxiety at South Side Mental Health Agency,” about the federally funded project with the Community Mental Health Council (1/6). Both Cradock and White were quoted in The Chicago Defender’s profile of that initiative as well (1/13).

Dr. Lukasz Konopka, professor of clinical psychology, was quoted in a Chicago Sun-Times story titled “Museum of Science and Industry to Open New Weather Exhibit,” about people’s fascination with weather (3/16).

Dr. Cynthia Langtiw, assistant professor of counseling psychology, was quoted in a Christian Science Monitor website story titled, “After Haiti Earthquake, U.S. Kids Launch Their Own Aid Efforts,” about the psychological effects of the Haiti disaster (1/26).

Dr. Paul Larson, professor of clinical psychology, was featured in an ABC7 story about detecting signs of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in veterans returning from war by analyzing stress levels in their voices (11/15). He was also interviewed by USA Today for a story titled, “Caregiving Strains Families of Veterans with Severe Injuries,” about Afghan and Iraqi war veterans’ caretakers (1/27).

Dr. Christoph Leonhard, professor of clinical psychology, was quoted in a ChicagoNow and RedEye story titled, “Dare to be Scared,” about people involved in thrill seeking events and haunted houses (10/30).

Dr. Virginia Quiñonez, assistant professor of clinical counseling, was interviewed for a feature story on the Latina Voices website, which focused on her creation and implementation of a culturally competent curriculum that is helping to change Latino mental health services (1/20).

Dr. Melodie Schaefer, executive director of The Chicago School Counseling Centers, bylined the article, “The Best Valentine’s Tips for Singles!,” which was posted on the Single Minded Women website in February.

Dr. Daniela Schreier, assistant professor of clinical counseling, contributed her expertise to several media outlets since our last INSIGHT issue. Among these, she was interviewed by CBS2 for a story about Chicagoans’ knowledge of their politicians (11/03), two stories about Tiger Woods (12/4 and 2/18), and a story about the new French law regarding psychological abuse in relationships (1/6). She was also quoted in the New York Daily News about a new study indicating that women are bigger hypochondriacs than men, but are less likely to die of illness (3/26).

Dr. Debra Warner, associate professor of forensic psychology, now serves as the only psychologist on the Quality Health Medical Advisory Board. Qualityhealth. com is a website that provides articles and information about pressing health matters (12/1).

Dr. Nancy Zarse, associate professor of forensic psychology, was quoted in a Military Spouse website story titled, “The Tragedy of Inaction,” about shared responsibility to our military community and why people fail to intervene in others’ affairs (11/12). She also appeared on the national cable program “E! Investigates: Kidnapping of Jaycee Dugard,” serving as a clinical psychology expert on the case (1/20).

The Chicago School of Professional Psychology and Garfield Park Preparatory Academy were mentioned in a Rockford Register Start website story titled, “Area School Teams up with Academy for Good Cause” (2/1).

The State Journal Register, a Springfield newspaper, mentioned The Chicago School of Professional Psychology in a story titled, “Program Helps Soldiers, Families Return to Daily Life,” and its involvement in the Yellow Ribbon Program (1/16).

Dr. Connie Fuller, Assistant Professor, Industrial and Organizational and Business Psychology

As Catherine reviewed her calendar, she realized that her new intern was due for a six-week review. This was one review she was looking forward to! Jesse had been an excellent addition to the team so far, contributing actively in team meetings and always completing assignments on time and correctly. With a smile on her face, Catherine pulled out a pad of paper to capture her thoughts for Jesse’s review.

Out in the office, Jesse was frustrated. He had been in this internship for over a month and had been given no feedback whatsoever. He had repeatedly asked Catherine for feedback on his work, only to be told he was doing fine. “Fine” didn’t help him know what to do better, or even what to continue doing to keep his manager happy. This internship was important to Jesse. He wanted to do well, and he simply couldn’t do well if he didn’t get frequent and meaningful feedback from his manager.

Age won’t matter. But character will.

What’s happening here? Both Catherine and Jesse are doing what seems to them to be the “right” thing to do. Problem is, each has a different definition of “right.”

The challenges of a multi-generational workforce are only now beginning to appear as businesses face, for the first time, four fully functional generations in the workplace. These challenges will only increase as Gen-Y continues its march into the workforce of tomorrow. Four areas in particular will see significant change in the years ahead.

Who’s the Boss?

The roles of Traditionalists and Baby Boomers are evolving as these generations age and continue in the workforce. Neither generation wants, nor can afford, to retire and live a life of leisure. However, they are not necessarily interested in maintaining their previous roles of command and control. They are ready to hand over the reins to a younger generation and trade money and position for flexible hours and less stress. This is good news for younger workers who are more than ready to move into positions of power and influence. More than at any time in the past, we see older employees working for younger bosses, sometimes bosses half their age. This challenges younger leaders to motivate and satisfy workers whose values and norms are very different from their own. It also creates a challenge for older workers whose younger bosses are not likely to manage them in the way to which they have become accustomed.

Independence and Direction

Gen Xers, those most likely to move into leadership positions vacated by Traditionalists and Boomers, are fiercely independent. They hate being micromanaged. Just give them a job to do and let them do it. A hands-off approach will work fine with experienced Gen Xers. However, Gen-Y employees will need more direction. This younger cohort has been over-programmed since grammar school so they have not had as much experience figuring things out for themselves. They will work, and work hard, but they need a roadmap to show them the way. This is not to be confused with micro-management. Rather, it is coaching that includes feedback—early and often. Annual, bi-annual or even quarterly feedback sessions will not suffice. Daily feedback, formal and informal, is in order to bring out the best in Gen Y and to help them learn the independence and decisionmaking ability taken for granted by older generations.

Reward and Recognition

Traditionalists found reward in a job well done. Boomers sought recognition through power and influence. Both believed that there was a need to pay your dues and earn your way to the top. Gen X and Gen Y believe that reward and recognition should be based on the quality of your work. Period. In a multi-generational workplace, employees will compete on the value of what they contribute to the workplace, not on length of time they are there. Goals and timeframes will need to be clearly communicated, and accountability for achieving goals should be unwavering; how the goals are accomplished, however, may be very different for each worker. The nature of rewards will also shift. While sufficient income to support a desired lifestyle will still be important, time for a personal life is fast becoming the currency of choice.

Leadership

Traditional command and control leadership is dead. The hierarchy continues to flatten. The successful multi-generational workplace of the future will be an egalitarian organization that honors the individual strengths. It will provide resources to enhance those strengths for the good of both employees and the organization. Successful leaders will be teachers and coaches. Leaders will be effective communicators. Leaders will earn the respect of their employees through their actions. Age won’t matter, but character will. This type of organization and leadership has been discussed for years, but the mix of generations in the workplace today mandates an egalitarian organization and authentic leadership for tomorrow. Members of a multi-generational workforce will co-create the leadership model of the future.

The world of work is changing. Our generational differences provide us a wealth of opportunity to share what we know, to clarify what we need, to learn from one another, to grow, and to make the future of work what we need it to be for personal and organizational success.

Channel 35 Los Angeles aired a segment on The Chicago School honoring the late LAPD Deputy Chief Kenneth O. Garner with the inaugural President‘s Award for Visionary Leadership. President Michael Horowitz and Southern California President Michele Nealon-Woods were interviewed for the package (6/7).

Michele Kerulis, adjunct professor of sport and exercise psychology, was quoted in a Medill News Service story about people who are addicted to exercise. (10/13) She was also interviewed by the Associated Press for a story about the psychology of starting and maintaining an exercise program (5/13).

Dr. Michael Komie, affiliate professor of clinical psychology, was quoted in an MSNBC. com story about discouragement and frustration people face when searching for a job. The story was picked up by several affiliates including NBC Los Angeles (9/7). Crain‘s Chicago Business also interviewed Dr. Komie for a story about how entrepreneurship can take a toll on family life (5/11), and he appeared on WCIU‘s First Business program to discuss how the economy might be contributing to an increase in suicide rates (4/23).

Dr. Cynthia Langtiw, assistant professor of clinical counseling, commented in a Medill News Service story about seasonal affective disorder. (10/08).

Dr. Breeda McGrath, associate professor of school psychology, was quoted in a Medill News Service story about youth violence in Chicago (10/23).

Dr. Charles Merbitz, chair of the ABA Department, was quoted in a Voice of America story about the healthcare town hall debate (8/17).

Garfield Park Preparatory Academy and its principal, Dr. Denise Ross, were featured in a WBEZ Chicago Public Radio story about new Renaissance 2010 schools (9/8).

Dr. Ted Rubenstein, assistant professor of clinical psychology, was quoted in a Chicago Tribune story titled “Art Used to Help Young Patients Cope with Hospitals, Treatments” (10/14).

Dr. Daniela Schreier, assistant professor of clinical counseling, was interviewed by CBS2 for a story about the psychology of public opinion (10/22).

Dr. Hector Torres, coordinator for the Center for Latino Mental Health, appeared on the Spanish-language television program “Sin Censura con Vicente Serrano” to discuss mental health factors with obesity (9/18).

Dr. Nancy Zarse, associate professor of forensic psychology, was featured in two Q&As about Stockholm Syndrome and the Jaycee Lee Dugard case that appeared on the news site AssociatedContent.com—one on the case itself and one on parenting tips (8/31). Dr. Zarse was also quoted in the July/August issue of Monitor on Psychology in a story titled “Presentation Disasters.”

INSIGHT: We are starting with the premise that psychology— like so many other things—has changed, or perhaps taken on different focuses, different emphases, with each generation. We assume that it is as true for those of you who practice psychology as it is for clients. The four of you represent a range of generations, so I’d like to start by asking each of you what brought you into the field? What made you want to go into psychology?

Dr. Canul: There are two factors. One of them would be having been born and raised in Los Angeles and being quite aware as a child and then as a young person/adult of social-political issues. Then, when I went to graduate school, I was aware that psychology provided the opportunity to do research, to teach about social issues, and that we could provide services to help those with emotional health and mental health problems.

Dr. Kennedy: I am a Boomer and this was in the ’70s. Initially I was a theater major and psychology was my fall-back position, but I was amazed at how many different roles psychology could play, especially with social-political kinds of issues. Throughout my training I have been interested in the study of cultural issues and ethnicity, and in the ’70s there wasn’t a lot written. Part of it evolved from the generation, but watching the field grow from primarily a male field to a female-dominated field has been one of the observations I have made over the last 30 years.

Dr. Newton: Like Clive, I am a Baby Boomer and finished college in 1971. One of the issues for me was the notion of being in a profession that was new to women. I am the first woman in my family to graduate from college, so the idea that I could have a professional path, go on to get a doctorate degree, and all the exciting things that were happening in the psychology of women in the 1970s really shaped my decisions and my career path. The other exciting change was the emergence of the community mental health center movement and the deinstitutionalization movement. My first internship during my master’s program was a two-year internship at a state hospital that was in the process of deinstitutionalizing, you know, sending people out; and then my first job was in a young community mental health center. There was funding for that, so that was a pretty exciting time.

Dr. Wadland: I can relate to Clive as well, maybe for different reasons. When I initially went into undergrad, I wanted to be an architect. Psychology I liked—but for some reason I didn’t really want to make a career out of it. There was actually a moment—I worked at a bookstore—I ended up talking to this woman who had just started working there, and we talked for three and a half hours about a slew of different things and I remember realizing in that moment—along with some work I had been doing with some children who had been diagnosed with autism— that this was it. This was the thing I really wanted to do. I started graduate school in 2002. So I am technically part of Generation X—I was born in ‘77, so it puts me right at the cusp. But, the more readings I do, the more I realize that I relate to Generation X and sometimes I don’t—I relate more to the Millennials. So, I straddle both.

I was there when there was enthusiasm and hopefulness that something really important could happen. It has been very painful to watch the process never reach its fulfillment.

Dr. Kennedy: It was so exciting listening to you, Nancy. I was in California, and we had a governor named Ronald Reagan—you may remember him. I attributed a lot of the change that was taking place to him. So it is exciting to hear that this was happening somewhere else. I watched the state hospitals close, and I was really excited about this new community health movement, which I had a lot of enthusiasm about. And which would have worked if we had had the funding. But after the hospitals closed, the funding dropped off and there were individuals in the community who needed help and there wasn’t a lot of support for them. So, I had really strong feelings about this process, and it’s interesting that you introduced it as different in a different state.

Dr. Newton: A different state, but a very similar experience. I was there—it sounds like you were too—when there was enthusiasm and the hopefulness and the idea that something really important could happen. I worked in community mental health in Ohio and there was a short period of time when we thought it could be realized. For me personally it has been very painful to watch that process never reach its fulfillment and for us to be in a situation now. Boy, and with all the cuts in the state of Illinois and no funding for community services, it has really been a crime. When you talk about generational issues, I think it is that when people are entering adult life in their 20s, what’s going on in the culture and in the country makes a huge difference. Research suggests that people in their 20s are more impacted by what’s happening socially, politically, than any other generation. The difference in the culture in ‘71 versus the culture now is probably the biggest variable in terms of why people in different generations are different. The times, the healthcare, everything is different now as it impinges on the healthcare system and the stress on people’s lives and work experiences.

Dr. Wadland: I think for my generation of psychologists there is this negative spin to community mental health. Not negative in the fact that the services aren’t needed and necessary and wanted, but that the funding isn’t there. We don’t have that context of what could have been… the hope and the excitement you are talking about.

Dr. Kennedy: I have always interacted with colleagues at various stages and my students that I teach—or those that I supervise—are different cohorts. And so, I hope I do share my perspectives and my frustrations, and I’ll use Nancy’s term, “pain,” with what could have been in doing the work that we do.

INSIGHT: Do you see a difference in the younger psychologists who have come into the field who don’t have that context?

Dr. Kennedy: You mean who don’t have the bitterness? I don’t know. I tend to be very inclusive in my work, and so I never had thought about that… except the technological challenges that I have to deal with. You know, I came from a generation of using computer cards.

Dr. Newton: I don’t know that I see a difference. My sense is the people coming into psychology who are in their early 20s, they want to be helpful, they want to make a difference. I feel badly for them because the challenges of doing those good things are much harder. When I went to graduate school, my education was funded—the state paid for it, teaching assistantships— I didn’t come out of my Ph.D. program $100,000 in debt. Young people today seem caught between the jobs that will pay well but seem hard to find, and this debt from their graduate education. It is more difficult to live out dreams and visions than it was when I was in my 20s.

This generation has a tendency to look inward, self-analyze. Looking at the folks that came out of the 1940s, it was really about sucking it up and doing what you can for your family, your community, your country

Dr. Wadland: I agree completely. I want to do the social justice work where I am not necessarily getting compensated monetarily for that work, but I also know that a bank that will not be named is looking for payment every month. You have to take care of the more basic, daily things, and so your ideals get compromised in some way. The other part is that I was trained in a time when you just assumed that insurance companies are difficult to deal with… that wasn’t always the case.

INSIGHT: Do you feel that the perspective that each of you brings to psychology reflects your generation and impacts the way that you work?

Dr. Kennedy: I guess I was a flower child and very idealistic and community-focused, and so I think I bring that to the table in my work in the way I see families. At that time, I trained in a very strict behavioral program, and I kind of wandered onto the dark side of touchy-feely family therapy work as well. I think growing up in the ’60s and ’70s has certainly affected my perspective— not only with clients, but on a macro-level with the way I see communities as well. I think it is also a little different growing up as an African-American. I tend to have a more inclusive view of the world than someone else, but it’s just another type of diversity that I include in my life and my work.

Dr. Canul: As a Generation Xer, there was a lot accomplished in the ’60s, and some of that was passed on to the next generation of psychologists to continue to make progress for diversity. What I find is that a lot of students are willing to at least embrace a discussion and that’s really different from maybe five or ten years ago. I feel that we need to continue to benefit from that, and continue that struggle.

Dr. Newton: That is a really good point. I was thinking about how the financial situation is a constraining factor that makes it difficult on younger people, but I agree that there is such a huge change in the models of psychology. There is really no comparison between what they were when I went into graduate school and now. In the early ’70s, research showed that mental health professionals gave the same descriptors of healthy adults that they gave of men. When asked to describe a healthy adult, they would say they are assertive, they are independent. And when you ask them to describe a typical man, they would describe him exactly the same. If you asked them to describe a typical woman, they would say she is needy, dependent, and pathological. The whole view that there were ways of being female and being psychologically healthy wasn’t even on the map. And as off the map as women were, other minority groups weren’t even in the room. Unless you were there, it is hard to realize how the field itself has really been revolutionized in a way that makes it much more applicable, human, and practical.

Unless you were there, it is hard to realize how the field itself has really been revolutionized in a way that makes it much more applicable, human, and practical.

Dr. Wadland: When I was in graduate school, the world was my oyster. It was all about what model seems to fit you. It was clear that there were different ways of thinking about help—not just this male, white, middleclass way of thinking about it.

Dr. Kennedy: As I age, I tend to contextualize everything. For example, when I teach History and Systems, I talk about how it wasn’t that long ago that women were only allowed to go into professions like home economics and more traditional female roles. And the impact that had on the development of math and science as careers for women. As Nancy was talking, I was really listening to her trying to put things in perspective. I don’t know if that is a product of my generation or if everyone does that.

Dr. Canul:In graduate school, there was a real common theme, a male-dominated theme—I think it is still there in our profession— that’s shifting to be more inclusive, to embrace the issues of diversity. In each new generation of students and early-career psychologists, there is more openness and a willingness to incorporate different perspectives that may not be male-dominated. That, I think, is what makes the field so exciting.

INSIGHT: There is research that says the Millennial generation is the most depressed one yet, or that the Gen Xers are the most stressed. Do you have any perspectives on that from your research or from your personal experiences.

Dr. Canul: I think that this generation has a tendency to look inward, self-analyze— you get that from the media, whether it is Dr. Phil or Oprah. Looking at folks that came out of the 1940s, that generation was really about sucking it up and doing what you can for your families, your community, your country. As psychologists, we train and work with a variety of populations.

Dr. Wadland: When I’ve worked with individuals in their 30s and 40s versus late teens and 20s, their perspective of psychology and therapy is so much different. You are walking down the street and you see a client and I’ve had so many Millennials scream across the street, ‘Hey! How are you?’

INSIGHT: That’s not something you would expect from an older generation?

Dr. Wadland: I think it’s that stigma about mental health. But I guess there is that Millennial focus of, ‘I want to do something about it.’ There is more of a proactive approach.

Dr. Kennedy: From the 1900s to the 1940s. there was an ingrained scare of being associated with mental illness. It probably wasn’t until the ‘90s that there was a real loosening… an interest in wellness, emotional health, taking care of your body, taking care of your mind. This recent generation has had school-based mental health programs—a good example of how we have loosened up in the context of stigma. You have mental health (practitioners) come in and provide home-based services and parenting programs… good examples of how families, communities, educators got away from thinking about mental health as just pathology and more about helping people get along, function more effectively.

Dr. Richard Ackley, Professor of Psychology and Program Director, Business Psychology

We are scaling a face of economic change not confronted since the Great Depression. We are framing this as a recovery. But usually a recovery uses optimism as the lubricant for change. Here a lingering, devastating resignation has settled over the nation. Each day it is reinforced with news about how dark things are: Unemployment rising, foreclosures increasing, banks collapsing, and the stock market limping; problems escalating and no clear answers apparent. The din of pessimism is not an unnatural reaction.

The president of the United States talks of hope. I’ll suggest that hope enables. Hope is the reason that people buy lottery tickets. Hope isn’t always our ally. What we need is confidence. Confidence liberates. Hope is based on loss; it is the last grasp when all else has failed. Confidence is based on experience. ‘I’ve not handled this before but I have handled something close. Let me use those skills in this situation.’ It stems from understanding the connection between efforts and rewards: The stronger the connection, the more confident the person; the weaker the connection, the less confident the person. Eventually, learned helplessness can occur. And this has a catastrophic effect as people give up. Energy is depleted and productive effort vanishes. It is not that people do not do anything. But the efforts tend toward escape and other deflective behavior, even alcohol and drugs. We see progress evaporate as learning is inhibited. For only when we witness a connection between behavior and consequences can we learn from events.

The stimulus package is based on getting money to people, but it may not be effective in restoring a renewed sense of confidence. People who performed poorly receive things they have not earned. They will not acquire a stronger connection between their actions and their payoffs, which is the hallmark of personal responsibility. What we’re seeing here is a case of quick-fix solutions that may be seen as practical today, but are they prudent in the long term?

This also applies to corporations getting TARP money or bailout funds. They have failed. Even if we continue to give General Motors money, its leadership may know what they’ve done wrong, but they still don’t know what to do right. Giving money alone won’t improve learning. Again, the question of practicality over prudence applies.

Rewards, fairness, and motivation need to be balanced. There are hidden costs of rewards without equilibrium. With bailouts and stimulus packages, people look at what they contribute and what they derive. When they evaluate this comparison, three outcomes are possible: 1. The two ratios are even, meaning fairness is experienced. 2. One party views his or her ratio less than the others, meaning under-reward is felt. 3. One party views his or her ratio as greater than the other, meaning over-reward is felt. Each of the last two scenarios produces tension.

If there is over-reward between equals, the resulting feeling is often guilt. An example, think about Valentine’s Day. You give a box of candy and your significant other gives you a Rolex watch. What do you experience? For many, I suggest guilt. What would you do outside of giving the watch back? You will try to increase your contributions, perhaps act more friendly, pay for more meals, do more work, etc.

Now, if there is an under-reward, a more complicated state occurs. You gave the watch and got the candy. What happens? For many, a feeling of disappointment and anger occurs. Here you have two options: Expect a more positive reward next time or harbor a lingering feeling of resentment, which for some can lead to negative behavior that you feel is justified by being under-rewarded.

Let’s say, we call one party AIG and we call the other party homeowners. Here, it’s the insurance player who gets bailouts and is over-rewarded. Meanwhile, average Americans feel increasingly under-rewarded as they lose their houses and jobs. AIG is not going to give the money back. In fact, it asks for more and feels deserving of $165 million in bonuses.

So we have guilt that is transformed into arrogance and anger that turns into attack and recrimination. We are identifying villains and victims. But nobody feels responsible. Recovery is based on accepting responsibility. In the end, actions such as bailouts do the opposite of restoring our confidence; they deter long-term trust in our government and financial sectors, two economic players that need the support of the public.

In business consulting psychology, we help leaders execute large-scale change. We have found that project managers are good at developing solid solutions to technical problems, then their implementation often disappoints. It seems that ‘being right’ and ‘being heard’ are two different things. Being right is in the plan; being heard is in the message and its reinforcement. Research indicates that conservatively 60 percent of change strategies fail. For example, we don’t have to look further than our stimulus efforts: the Obama administration is pouring money into a banking system that does not change the lending behavior of banks; or the Bush approach to distribute money to people who did not spend it. The lesson is: As obvious as the ways to use incentives to change behavior appear, there are hidden costs to rewards. Unless the pull of behavioral economics and social psychology is accounted for, errant public policy, even awry business strategies, will continue to undermine our impact and our confidence.

Dr. Nancy Dubrow, director of the Center for International Studies, appeared on the NPR program Tell Me More discussing her past work in the Middle East helping children affected by war trauma (1/8).

Dr. Ken Fogel, assistant professor of clinical psychology, was on the panel of experts in the February 2009 issue of Men’s Health magazine offering insight on why people pace when they talk on the phone. Finally, Dr. Fogel also appeared on Chicago’s NBC 5 to discuss the importance of one’s name to his or her identity (11/17).

Dr. Evan Harrington, associate professor of forensic psychology, was quoted in Salon. com (12/5) and UK Telegraph stories about conspiracy theories surrounding President Obama (3/2). He also was quoted in a Times Argus (Vermont) story about the “bystander effect” (11/30).

Dr. Michael Horowitz, president of The Chicago School, discussed the topic of psychology and the economy with multiple outlets including the national NPR program Day to Day (3/9), WCIU’s First Business (2/7), and WTTW’s Chicago Tonight (1/28). He also commented in a Medill News Service piece about the Mental Health Parity Act (10/10).

Dr. Cynthia Langtiw, assistant professor of clinical counseling, was quoted in a Crain’s Chicago Business story titled “Travel divide: with kids or without?” (3/2). She also was interviewed by Chicago’s NBC 5 for a story about the effects of violence in the movies (1/31).

Dr. Paul Larson, professor of clinical psychology, discussed the Gov. Blagojevich case in a Daily Herald story (12/11).

Dr. Christoph Leonhard, professor of clinical psychology, was quoted by Medill News Service and NBC 11 Atlanta about phobias (10/22).

Dr. Michele Nealon-Woods, dean, Southern California campuses, was quoted in Parenting magazine about teaching kids to say “I’m sorry” (1/19). Dr.

Mike McNulty, affiliate faculty, was mentioned in Michael Sneed’s Chicago Sun-Times column for his work in Sri Lanka training counselors (12/23).

Business Psychology Professor Nancy Newton and assistant professor Jennifer Thompson received mention in The Vancouver Sun regarding a study they co-authored on executive workplace failure (12/25). The story also appeared in the Ottawa Citizen (Dec. 3).

Dr. Daniela Schreier, assistant professor of clinical counseling, discussed the Gov. Blagojevich case with a number of outlets including WTTW’s Chicago Tonight (1/26), CBS 2 Chicago—which appeared on the Drudge Report (12/10)—and the MSNBC national program 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. She also was profiled in a Medill News Service feature about how mental illness affects cancer patients and their caretakers (12/11), and was quoted in a USA Weekend story titled “Bullying: Like father like son?” (10/19).

Dr. Hector Torres, coordinator of the Center for Latino Mental Health, appeared on the WBEZ Chicago Public Radio program Eight Forty-Eight on the issue of Latino mental health in Chicago (2/25). He spoke on the same topic on Univision radio (1/29).