“I don’t know why, but I trust you”

Trusting the Consultants in a Paranoid

Environment:
A case study

Verred Amitzi, M.Sc. Organizational Consultant

Manager, Go-On Ltd. Lecturer, Kibbutzim College
Board Member, I.C.S. Innovation and Change in Society, Israel
Moshav Talmei-Elazar 38812, Israel
Tel:+972-6-637 3438 Fax:+972-6-627 1049
e-mail: verred@mail.netvision.net.il
And
Andre Schonberg, M.Soc.Sc. Conseiller de Synthese
CHANGE CONSULTANTS
Board Member, I.C.S. Innovation and Change in Society, Israel
P.O.Box 822 Ra’anana 43107 Israel
Tel: +972 52 89 37 31 Fax:+972 153 9 743 50 97
e-mail: andre@actcom.com

Abstract

Trust is a double-edged sword. It can open opportunities of

mutual productive work and at the same time, can be a
sophisticated trap, in which the partners of trust are captured.
Trust is an example of a third range of psychic phenomena,
beliefs or positions, that exist between thoughts and emotions,
conscious work and unconscious basic assumptions. These can
be conceptualized as thoughts heavily loaded with emotions,
and a way to declare something about reality. In this paper, we
examine trust between consultee and consultant as a position
too often overlooked.
To be useful as a working concept, trust has to be studied as it
enfolds and develops into a specific situation, between
particular actors, not as a personality trait or a characteristic of
a whole culture.
We choose to explore this through a detailed study of an
ongoing consultation in a big public service, carrying critical
functions for the economy. This organization is heavily
unionized, with years long tradition of struggles and activism,
exacerbated by the unstable policy towards the numerous
unions’ influence.
We show that trust/distrust, manipulation/candor issues
pervade every single contact with the organization, and that
they bring a tremendous load on the consultants in their
endeavor with the organization, especially with its manager.
Various patterns are examined: the role of ‘informers’ within
the organization; the various tests that the consultants have to
successfully pass; the heritage of a military culture within the

V.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, “Trust in a Paranoid Environment” p1

 civil organization; the weight put on everyday life because of
the multi-generation character of this organization, etc.
We conclude by pointing to the methodological and practical
problems that arise from holding a reified, organicist, ‘systemic’
view of the organization.

I am a man you can trust, is how my customers view

me. Or at least, I’m guessing it is. Why else would
they hand me their houses keys before they leave
for vacation?…(They) take it for granted that I’m a
good person (…). I could get up to anything (there). I
could unlock the outside door so as to slip back in
overnight and rummage through all (they) own(…).
Not that I would. But (they) don’t know that. They
just assume it. They just take it for granted that I’m
a good person.
Come to think of it, I am the one who doesn’t
take it for granted.
Anne Tyler, A Patchwork Planet, New York, Alfred
Knopf, 1998 p3

“What can I do for you?”

“That”, he said, “is what I came to find out”.
“Yes, but how do you think I can help?”
“But, doctor, how should I know? That is what I
came to you to find out.”
“Yes, but what is troubling you? Presumably you
wanted to see me for something of which you are
complaining.”
“No, not at all. I have nothing to complain of. We are
very lucky.”
“You must have wanted to come for some reason...”
“Oh, I see – my wife sent me.”
“Ah, I see.”
(But do I? So far the only thing
that is clear is that I am no wiser than I
was when a brief note from his doctor
asked me to see this patient – the
husband of a woman whom he had
originally treated for pneumonia. “More
your line than mine”, he said.)
“Your doctor must have thought you needed my
help. Why was that?”
“How should I know? Didn’t he tell you in his note?”
“I think he expected you to tell me yourself. So far,
you know, you have told me nothing.”

V.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, “Trust in a Paranoid Environment” p2

 (A blunder – I
knew it before I had
completed my
sentence. I sat back
and waited. He
returned my gaze with
untroubled expression
and waited to hear
more. In the meantime
I thought we could not
simply continue to sit
in silence, but I could
think of no alternative.
As time passed I felt a
change was taking
place and that the
meeting was
deteriorating into a
contest of wills. What
is a ‘will’? Does Freud
say? Or Melanie Klein?
Abraham? Ferenczi
perhaps?)
Wilfred R. Bion, Cogitations, London, Karnac Books,
1992, pp364-365

Phantasies, Thoughts, and in-between

In professional work, especially when it is deeply rooted in

thick theoretical ground and a large body of knowledge, it
sometimes happens that we take some preliminary conditions
for granted, and thus leave them un-examined. In this paper, we
will examine trust between consultee and consultant as such an
overlooked parameter.
When commissioned by the Tavistock Clinic to work with
groups, W. Bion, from his own experiences with those groups, as
well as from his experience with other groups, especially during
the two World Wars, pointed to two modalities of group
functioning (Bion, 1961). One was reality-oriented, like an ego-
function process – which he called the Work group. The other
was a non-rational, phantasy-based way of functioning, where
the group acted in one of three different modes. The first mode,
as if it was fighting, or escaping (fight/flight). The second mode,
as if the group was wholly dependent on one leader for
nurturing it (dependency). The third mode, as if out of the
group, and especially out of a couple in it, would arise or be

V.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, “Trust in a Paranoid Environment” p3

born she/he who would bring salvation to the group (pairing).
This phantasy-based, irrational mode of functioning, sweeps the
behavior of the group. Following Bion, it is, in fact, a response to
the anxiety aroused among the members by the group situation,
its ambiguity, etc., as well as emerging from deeper parts of the
psychological make-up of human beings. So that we can affirm,
following Bion’s tremendous influence on the development of
the psychoanalytic study of groups and organizations, that
emotions are one of the backbones of any psychoanalytic study
of groups, and hence, of organizations. In fact, following and
elaborating on Bion’s distinction between Work group and Basic
Assumption group, a great part of the psychoanalytically
oriented literature on organizations, stresses the impact of
emotions and phantasies, and mainly the way in which they
deflect the rational view of the organization.
But this is only one part of the spectrum. In a seminal
article, G. Lawrence (Lawrence, 1997) saw fit to recall Bionians
that Bion was really interested in the two views of the behavior
in the group, two vertices. Not only that which Lawrence calls
Oedipus, referring to the feelings, emotions and phantasies, but
also another one, that of Thought, which he called Sphinx. In
fact, much of Bion’s later interest, when he left the domain of
groups and went to work, as a psychoanalyst, with psychotics,
was much centered on the development of thoughts and
thinking.
From Bion’s conceptual breakthrough till now,
psychoanalytical work in and around organizations have put
forward a third way between thought and affect, between
conscious work and unconscious basic assumption. One
example could be what L. Hirschhorn calls “Primary Risk”, which
points to another facet of the organizational life (Hirschhorn,
1999). Risk is not simply a thought; it is neither an emotion. It is
rather a stand, a position, and a way to relate to the
environment. We don’t need to get deep into the psychology of
risk taking to acknowledge that it has strong emotional
undertones, apparently based on previous personal history or
socialization. It is also well entrenched in cognitive, rational
processes. (Tversky and Kahnman, 1989).
The Bion’s quote in the excerpt, about “will”, also points to that
in-between land, neither thought, nor emotions.

Trust

We want here to elaborate on another example of that

species of psychic phenomena, which are on the middle position
between thoughts and feelings: mainly, beliefs. Beliefs are
thoughts heavily loaded with emotions, feeling and affect.
Beliefs are positions. They are not a pristine development of

V.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, “Trust in a Paranoid Environment” p4

cognitive functions, nor a mere acknowledgement of reality.
They are, rather, whatever their source, a quite personal and
committed way to declare something about reality. It is as if we
were saying “I am not going to test reality about this”. It is as if
there is some reality there, but which is untestable, or beyond
test. Trust is such a position, or belief, that we want to explore
in this paper.
In the last years, there is a recrudescence of interest in
the concept of trust. Most of the writings are elaboration from a
philosophical-historical and moral point of view (Fukuyama,
1995; Silver) or a sociological one (Luhmann, 19790, Seligman,
1997).
As we deal with a psychoanalytic view of organization, our
interest rests on an intermediate level, not only he micro,
personal level, and not yet the societal, or global level. As we
will see, the main shortcomings of the literature about trust, is
that we have either a personal explanation of trust, or its
default, across the board; or, that we have a whole society, or
historical period, a generalized view of trust. So that we cannot
explain how one particular person has trust in a particular other,
in that particular organization, whereas he lacks this trust
toward another person, in the same or in other settings. For
example, it is claimed (Fukuyama, 1995) that the modern,
western and open society, that which is creating wealth, is
based on a community of more or less rational actors who
believe that their actions are carried out in an atmosphere of
trust. The argument is that trust enables people within
communities to associate and work together in groups and
organizations, and thus bring forth social and economic
development and success. Fukuyama is primarily interested in
the shift away from trust in contemporary American society, and
its probable influence in America’s economic, social and cultural
future. It is not clear, though, how we can link the historical and
comparative perspective to everyday, and personal or
psychological processes.
Seligman (1997) brings us closer to the macro-micro
dynamics of trust in everyday interactions. He analyzes the
social-psychological approach, which views trust as a
psychological state, characteristic of the individual, and based
on early socialization, (Rotter, 1971). Trust is expressed in
interpersonal relationships and puts the self in a position where
he generally expects others to fulfill their obligations. Seligman
also stresses the differences between confidence and trust.
Following Luhmann (Luhmann, 1971) he defines confidence in
people and institutions as the relative certainty we have in the
outcome of some interaction or role expectation. Trust, on the
other hand, is based on role negotiability, on what is not given
or defined by norms. It is some sort of belief in the goodwill of

V.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, “Trust in a Paranoid Environment” p5

the other, when we do not know what are his intentions, and
when his behavior is not governed by clear or institutionalized
rules. In this view, trust is built within the ‘open spaces’ of social
life, “trust enters into social interaction in the interstices of
system, or at system limit, when for one reason or another
systematically defined role expectations are no longer viable.
(…)Trust may then come to exist (…) in that metaphorical space
between roles, that area where roles are open to negotiation
and interpretation”. (Seligman, 1997, pp 25-27). So we do have
here an attempt to conceptually link between personal, and
interpersonal relations, and the social, even global, level.

A Psychoanalytic view of trust?

A well-developed psychoanalytic theory of trust does not

yet seem to exist, although the main elements for it are quite
ready for us to use. We might begin from Freud renown
rendering of the ‘fort-da’ play that he witnessed when baby-
sitting his grandson (Freud, 1920). He relates, quite at length,
what he sees as the first game played by a little boy of one and
a half year. The boy took small objects and used to throw them
away, shouting aloud “o-o-o-o-“ - which was understood by his
parents and Freud to represent the German word “fort” – i.e.
“gone away”. This was confirmed when later on, playing with a
string attached to a wooden toy, the baby threw the toy away,
shouting his usual “fort”, and then pulled it back, exclaiming
“da” – which means “there it is”. This “fort-da” game, according
to Freud, was developed by the little boy as a way to master
and handle more easily the disappearance and reappearance of
his mother. But, it seems that what is developed here is
confidence of the child in the reappearance of his mother, rather
than trust.
Melanie Klein helps us getting further. We might, carefully
reading through the lines, link the development of trust to the
capacity of Love and Reparation, and then Gratitude (M.Klein,
1937), within the lengthy and difficult path to escape the
dreadful fear of death and circumvent envy. Through successive
reparations, trust might be established. In one of her latest
essays, Melanie Klein began her discussion of envy and
gratitude (Klein, 1956) by stressing the inherent frustration of
the breast:
“An element of frustration by the breast is bound,
however, to enter into the infant’s earliest relation
to it, because even a happy feeding situation cannot
altogether replace the prenatal unity with the
mother. Also, the infant’s longing for an
inexhaustible and always present breast – which
would not only satisfy him but prevent destructive

V.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, “Trust in a Paranoid Environment” p6

 impulses and persecutory anxiety – cannot ever be
fully satisfied. (…) As a consequence, early
emotional life is characterized by a sense of losing
and regaining the good object.” (Ibid. p212)
Only a full and stable feeling of gratification can ensure the
development of a strong, integrated and creative ego:
“ For if the undisturbed enjoyment in being fed is
frequently experienced, the introjection of the
mother’s breast as a good object comes about with
relative security. The capacity to fully enjoy
gratification at the breast forms the foundation for
all later happiness, as well as for pleasure from
various sources. (…)
A full gratification at the breast means that the
infant feels he has received from his loved object a
unique gift, which he wants to keep. This is the basis
of gratitude. Gratitude includes belief in good
objects and trust in them. It includes also the ability
to assimilate the loved object – not only as a source
of food – and to love it without envy interfering.”
(Ibid. p 215; italics in the text)
Although M. Klein explicitly used here the word “trust”, the main
idea is to explain the positive attitude of the infant, and later on
of the adult or the patient, toward the mother, the analyst, and
the world in general, so that a full and creative life can be
enjoyed.
M. Klein clearly declares that the capacity for love
“appear(s) to be innate” and that “both destructive impulses
and the capacity for love are, to some extent, constitutional,
varying individually in strength” (ibid. p 215, p212). So we have
here a quite elaborate construction, which would explain, due to
constitution and to the actual development of object relations, a
more or less constant level of trust, and associated feelings of
love and creativity.
But, gratitude and love are not trust. And although M. Klein
discusses at some length the suspicion inherently connected
with envy, she is more concerned with the paranoid and schizoid
defences, which hinder the mitigation of envy and jealousy, and
with the resolution of the conflict between love and hatred
through the depressive position.
The psychoanalyst who has mostly developed the concept
of trust is without doubt E. Erikson. In his developmental
Psychology, and as part of his encompassing anthropological
study of childhood, he developed eight stages (Erikson, 1958).
Erikson was basically interested in what makes up a child’s
identity, and got to link ‘ego qualities’, developing in stages, to
social structures and institutions. The first of those stages he
called “basic trust vs. basic mistrust”.

V.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, “Trust in a Paranoid Environment” p7

 “The general state of trust (…) implies not only that
one has learned to rely on the sameness and
continuity of the outer providers, but also that one
may trust oneself and the capacity of one’s own
organ to cope with urges; and that one is able to
consider oneself trustworthy enough so that the
providers will not need to be on guard lest they be
nipped”. (Erikson, 1958, p 248).
How is trust created?
“Mothers create a sense of trust in their children by
that kind of administration which in its quality
combines sensitive care of the baby’s individual
needs and a firm sense of personal trustworthiness
within the trusted framework of their culture’s life
style. This forms the basis in the child for a sense of
identity which will later combine a sense of being ‘all
right’, of being oneself, and of becoming what other
people trust one will become.” (Ibid. p.249).
Erikson ‘s position seems adequate, but on closer look it is
somehow circular or tautological: mothers create trust through a
sense of trustworthiness in the style of the culture’s trust.
Moreover, despite Erikson’s wish to link psychological and
social/anthropological variables, we have here a social fact
explained through a personal psychological development. But it
is not at all clear how we can transfer to any organizational
setting, and to a particular client-consultant relationship, the
ontogenic development of trust in the child and his mother.

Trust and the Consulting Relationship

The consulting relationship is one of trust. The consultee

expects, and is expected, to be candid about himself, his
situation, role, difficulties, etc. He will give a quite detailed
picture of his organization; analyze his and others’ roles. He will
delve into ambiguous or worrisome issues. He will divulge some
secret, or privately held view of other people. There will be talk
about projects, developments, strategy, competition, risks, etc.
For all this to happen, there must be some solid base of belief,
not only that the consultant can be helpful, but also that he can
be trusted. Oddly enough, till the last years, there has not been
much material to be found on this basic position of the
consultee (But see, for example, Zucker, 1986). Most of it was
found in the teaching material, for example in counseling
education programs (Fong and Cox, 1983). There, trust is seen
as a continuum, built-up through a process of learning, and
through a series of tests, conscious or unconscious. For
example, through telling some ‘small’ secrets; or through
requesting some information, and then checking it. Recently,

V.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, “Trust in a Paranoid Environment” p8

trust popped up as a new candidate for the ephemerous buzz
and all-explaining concept. Trust - and its absence - is strongly
linked to” a culture of insecurity, (...) marginal loyalty and,
often, damaged customer relations"(...)"some of the research on
trust (...) found compelling evidence that low levels of trust in a
work force can indeed lead directly to high stress, reduced
productivity, stifled innovation, slowed decision-making, and
indirectly, to low morale, high turnover and frequent
absenteeism." (Zemke, 2000, p78). So trust, in a nice circular
argument, becomes the new panacea for better customers and
employees relationships. Though, when examined a little bit
closer, this trust turns out to be an open, dependable
relationship of sorts, somewhat based on a family, or quasi-
family model; or "Good Management Practices" making the
organization a place on which you can depend - which is not a
trifle point, in those ages of massive lay-outs, mergers and
acquisitions.
Trust, as almost anything else in the mega-industry of
Management theory and training, becomes 'a' something you
can manipulate to your own and your company's profit. How can
you gain trust from your employees? Make credible
presentations; do the right things; take on tough challenges,
etc. "If all these prescriptions seem, well a little on the Simple
Simon side, it's because trust is one of those 'you know-it-when-
you-experience-it' factors that only become difficult to deal with
when you are trying to make it easy for someone to do".
(Zemke, 2000, p83). Besides the omnipresent tautology and
fuzziness (just what is a 'credible' presentation; what are 'the
right things to do', etc.), it is a nice way to recognize that you
actually don't know how you create that trust. But, at least, it
shows that trust is based on practices and relationships, and
that it is mediated by emotions and beliefs. Similarly, in the
technical literature on psychoanalysis, much is devoted to
analyst and analysand relationships, through the concepts of
transference and countertransference, but mostly assuming that
some basic, stable, trustful foundation exists.
We have seen that it is not enough to suppose or predict, across
the board, the existence of a “trustful” personality. We should
strive to understand the minutiae of trust building within a
specific relationship: how does this consultee come to trust this
specific consultant, here and now. Whether intersubjectivity
thinking is relevant or not to organizational work in general
(Benjamin, 1995, Erlich, 1998), it seems not to be especially of
use here. As it points to the mutual building of two subjects, it
strives to blur back the distinction, so critical in classical
Freudian, Kleinian and Lacanian views, between subject and
object, child and mother/father, and between the two sides of an
authority relationship. The trust dilemma is not one of

V.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, “Trust in a Paranoid Environment” p9

symmetrical, or almost symmetrical relationships. On the
contrary, it points to a basically a-symmetrical position between
two parties: one who has to give trust, the other who is the
recipient. It seems that the Kleinian tradition, as used by
organizational consultants, is more apt to deal with the delicate
interplay between two people, and the way trust may build-up.
We might use the concept of projective identification (Klein,
1946) – where the consultant, being in the receiving end of this
projection, can come to grips with the thoughts and emotions,
which predominate within the consultee. But we should also
point to the other way round: how the consultee re-introjects
some basic feelings, among them, the “trustworthiness” of the
consultant. The containing function so much stressed by Bion
(Bion, 1961), the equivalent of the mother’s “reverie” in the
consultant, the relative absence of desires and memories, those
might be the mechanisms by which, in a particular situation,
trust is established toward a specific consultant.
What are the conditions of its maintenance; when is it
endangered? This question is especially interesting and critically
important when dealing with suspicious, paranoid-like
organizations, when any intervention can be thought to be part
of a manipulation intended to benefit someone at the costs of
someone else.
It is proposed, here, to look at trust not merely as a trait
or personality characteristic of the consultee, nor just as a
consequence of a type of environment, but as evolving from the
relationships between consultee and consultant. For example,
through the way the consultants present themselves to the
consultee. The way they enable mistrust and suspicion to be
projected onto them, deposed within the consultants, and thus
“contained’’, and not immediately expelled. It is suggested here
that the consultee consciously and unconsciously “probes” the
consultants, and, in fact, reacts to delicate and sophisticated
cues sent by the consultants, regarding the extent to which they
have a personal, or ‘political’ or organizational agenda, or a
peculiar position regarding any controversial matters. To be too
strong, or too weak, in too pronounced a manner, may be as
detrimental to the relationship with the consultee and the
organization. Trust, ultimately, is build through the rich and
infinitesimal exchange of projections and objects in the
encounter.

A Paranoid environment

Trust within organizations is, somehow, taken for granted.

The ideal type of organization, the bureaucratic, rational model,
crudely adopted from the classical work of the sociologist Max
Weber, apparently accounts for sophisticated mechanisms,

V.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, “Trust in a Paranoid Environment” p 10

which either build trust, or ensure its functional equivalents. The
very idea of organization, or institution, is deeply rooted in the
ordered recurrence of interactions and patterns, in certainty, or,
at least, predictability. So that trust does not really appear as a
frequent subject of discussion. But, suffice it to recall that
power, conflicts, coalitions, politics, etc. (Mintzberg, 1982) have
been reviewed and analyzed as a ubiquitous part of any
organization, and especially in those organizations where
internal politics play an important part. Politics and trust do not
make an easy couple. Moreover, in an era of globalization,
downsizing, mergers and acquisitions, and Stock exchange
instability, the working place turns out to be insecure, and that
does not foster confidence, nor trust.
Some interest in trust relationship, lately, arises about the
increasingly frequent relations between companies, and the
attempt to explain how co-operative relations can take the place
of hierarchical arrangements (Ring and Van de Ven, 1992). Trust
is deemed to be problematic only when organizations, that are
not mutually controlled, want or need to build a stable
relationship, enabling them to balance risk and opportunities.
We will not strictly define a paranoid environment: our use
of the term here is mainly metaphorical (see also the
methodological section of this paper). Part of what people mean
by “paranoid environment” is suspicion, danger, over-
sensitiveness, quite strong feelings of persecution, etc. But,
another part of it is the presence of what Fried and Agassi
(1976) found as the distinctive characteristic of paranoia vera.
Paranoia is mainly a thought-deficiency, and it means to be
stuck or fixated in an abstract system, an explanatory system
about reality, without there being any possibility to take as an
alternative a public, institutionalized, explanatory system. The
paranoiac is logical; he might have a good perception; and he
has a pretty good integrative image of the world.
So that the problem with a paranoid environment is that people
are always, or most of the time, on their guard, seemingly for
good reasons. They know that others will try and harm them,
etc. And, once they feel, or think they understand, or, even
worse, ‘know’ that they are in this kind of system, the more
logical, perspicacious and keen they are, the more they will find
reinforcement to their view.

A case Study

In this paper we wish to describe and analyze the

formation of such a trustful relation between consultants and a
delicately balanced organization. We will show that
trust/antitrust, manipulation/candor issues pervade every single
contact with the organization, and they bring a tremendous load

V.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, “Trust in a Paranoid Environment” p 11

on the consultants in their endeavor with the organization. In
the following pages, we will describe the unfolding of trust and
suspicion between the client and the consultants, not as
something we strived to establish in order to make the best of a
job, but, rather, as an issue that evolved as if by itself, and
came to occupy our mind as consultants. We also try to keep on
the fuzzy, unorderly and natural sequence of events, and the
delicate projections and introjections, words and feelings that
appeared both in the client and in ourselves. We believe trust is
not "something", you achieve and possess and may build on,
but rather a certain quality that builds up, then disappears, then
pervades a series of interactions, and then plunges back to an
uncertain fate.

Characteristics of the organization

The case is a big public service, carrying critical functions

for the economy. It is heavily unionized, with years long
tradition of struggles and activism, exacerbated by the
continuous changing policy towards the numerous unions’
influence: sometimes management surrenders to the unions,
sometimes it pays off the unions’ surrender with a lot of money,
and in-between, it sometimes tries to curb their influence. We
might call this organization a ‘paranoid’ environment. Unions
and management are closely interwoven, and management
strives to decrease the union’s influence as much as the unions
want to achieve the opposite. The unions interpret every move
of management as an attempt to weaken them; and almost
every low level manager is suspected by management to align
themselves with the unions, and not with management.
To complicate matters a little bit further: management is split
between local management (we worked with the local part,
named X in this paper) and the central, nation-wide National
Authority, which assumes over-all powers, if not responsibility,
over the various local premises. X is the oldest organization of
its kind in the country, and the original reasons for creating it
had been both economical and social. It was meant to supply
work to the citizens in the new country as much as to contribute
to the economy of the state. The many unions and their
strength are part of the heredity of the organization’ origin.
The original workers in the past, and also the majority today,
who are engaged in the primary task of the organization, are
men. So this is a male-oriented organization, in spite of the fact,
that through the years more and more women had joined X, in
administrative and office work, as well as in professional jobs.
Since it is both a male oriented organization and a civil one,
there are a lot of ex-army workers and managers in the

V.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, “Trust in a Paranoid Environment” p 12

organization, and hence, it is caring a lot of attributes that are
coming from the Israeli army culture.

The contact and the first steps

David is the manager of the local part of that organization, we

call it X, as against the National Authority. The contact with
David, the key client, had been made through his manager,
Salomon, who is the general manager of the national Authority.
David reports to him, and he is supposed to get policy
instructions and support from him. The first contact Salomon
had made with me was based on a professional
recommendation given to him by a person who was linked
(partly through the Army) both with Salomon and myself.
I was called to “save” the potential client from himself, as a
personal request from his manager, who was interested in
helping “his” man in the system. The trust I was given was due
entirely to my “connections” and I was sent and had started the
work after one very open and revealing telephone call from
Salomon and a five minutes meeting with him in an elevator.
(Was I trusted so quickly because I belonged to the “proper
camp”, whatever it may be?). The same pattern repeated itself
with David, through a phone call in which old historical
connections and common belonging to people and activities,
had been found, and had opened the door for a face-to-face
meeting.
I do not recall having any conscious strategy that determined
my actions, but I kept moving very slowly and carefully, not
accepting requests of heavy interventions during a few months.
I offered David the freedom to separate or to stop the personal
meetings at any moment, emphasizing the view that nothing
could be done unless he wanted it and joined it. I also
recommended him to pay his own consultation should he choose
to use it, not letting the Authority General Manager pay for him.
David followed these recommendations.
(Was the trust created then, through the feelings of control the client
had over the consultation process? Had it come from his sense of
free options? Had the consultant unconsciously sensed the fragility of
trust?)
My intuitive, half-unconscious act – to free myself from being
paid by the National Authority - had weekend me from a political
point of view, but gained me the beginning of the trust.
I took a `loyal`, naive, romantic standing. I had made a choice of
sides. I had ‘chosen’ the local organization X, giving up a source
of political power, and probably a marketing power of not been
the ‘servant’ of the National Authority.
Analyzing backwards, I might have sensed the anxiety level and the
suspicion of David (i.e. his mistrust); I had identified with his emotions
(i.e. introjected his anxiety) and position, and hence intuitively, had
V.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, “Trust in a Paranoid Environment” p 13
 transferred the control to him. By this, I had given him the freedom of his
own will, thus lowered his suspicion and has planted the first seeds of
trust. A couple of months after the beginning, he once said, puzzled: “I
do not understand why but I let you do what ever you like and I have
no worries about it; I trust you…”All this process had been
unconscious, or half unconscious, and of course held within it a degree
of gambling. Here, maybe an experience mixed with unconscious
communication within a specific context had taken place, in which it was
sensed that any pressure or the slightest demand of any sort would put an
end to the fragile start of connection.
When I began meeting different managers and union leaders
from the organization, I came across different levels of
reservation/openness in their attitude towards me. Gradually
many became more and more open. I had even received some
private phone calls from different people from the organization,
and also from people from the National Authority, sharing with
me some thoughts, requests, complaints, compliments and
advice. The belief in change was very low, and the main effect
of the consultation was in improving the atmosphere and
lowering the level of tension of David, which had been very
noticeable, and echoed in the whole system.
When an additional consultant joined me, I arranged a meeting
with David, in order to make mutual presentations. In the
“small-talk” examination that ensued, the new consultant
mentioned a former client who might be known to David from an
organization where both had worked, though not necessarily at
the same time. It turned out that they were close friends.
Greetings were sent through David. On the next meeting, the
greetings were reciprocated. It is probable that some
acceptance test was operated through this common
acquaintance. Later on, the second consultant was accepted
with an almost immediate cooperation by the whole team, which
enabled to play a significant role in a Team Development
workshop with the Top Management of the local organization.
Considering the suspicion the team members had felt for each
other, and especially toward David, they had been quite open
and frank in this workshop where they reflected on their mutual
work as a team.
Had the consultants been trusted because they managed to remain a
“neutral” factor in the mind of the consultees, namely, not been
“anybody’s” specific people?
Or, had the consultants taken the risk of ‘giving’ themselves to their
consultees, and thus were prepared to be vulnerable, naive, believing,
caring, mistrusted but trusting?

The local organization and the National Authority

V.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, “Trust in a Paranoid Environment” p 14

 The National Authority is younger then the local
organization X, and the former had only been created for
bureaucratic reasons, under heavy national and international
influences and constraints.
Through the years this Head office, National Authority had
considerably grown up and developed, and had become a big
bureaucratic section in the organization. It is claimed that it has
no real legitimate right to exist, that it is a kind of a parasite
part of the organization, which is only sucking money, collecting
political power and is a non-productive sub-system.
Has this perception or reality created the paranoia and
suspicion, or rather the paranoia and suspicion have created
this myth?

The built-in conflict is also coming from a closer root. This local
organization historically was established not just for the benefit
of the country’s economy, but also as a way to ensure
workplaces for the Jews who emigrated to Palestine and Israel.
That is why there are so many political interests and
bureaucracy within the organization and an everlasting conflict
between the economical, the political and the social aspects.
Another factor is the perception of the Head Authority as
confused, out of direction, lost, not leading – hence – cannot be
trusted as a parent or leadership factor.
The myth is that the power lies between the Head Authority, the
government, and the unions. Hence, the managers, within the
local organization, X, feel they are empty of power or strength,
and largely dependent on the different interests of the political
groups. Therefore, different members in this management team
are colluding either with non-formal partners in the National
Authority, or with some local unionists.

The Generations, the Camps and Loyalty

Another unique phenomenon in the life of this organization is,

the existence of ”generations of workers”.
There are three or even four generations, amongst the workers,
who had been working in the organization. As a result, for a
substantial amount of workers, there is a family history within
the organization and a deep feeling of ownership, a strong
sense of ‘this organization is my home’.
Any organizational change is experienced as a family change,
and the division to `them and us` is very strong between
different groups of workers: old and new, “outsiders” and
“insiders” “politically planted” and others. Any change in the
environment is experienced also as a double survival threat.

V.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, “Trust in a Paranoid Environment” p 15

This phenomenon is deeply entrenched in the culture of the
organization, towards any of those who are not ‘in my camp’.
And since the camps are non-formal camps, one would be
inclined to be more loyal to one’s own camp – union members,
or committee members of union - than to one’s subordinates,
boss or colleagues at work.
The camps are very much connected to seniority and historical
family connections. A person who has been 10 years in the
organization could be considered as a ‘newcomer’, and
therefore as an outsider, not one of the family. His ‘loyalty’ then
could be suspicious. By loyalty the meaning would be – to his
unions, to the local affairs of the local workers.
The committee member of the union, is the legitimate owner of
power in the eyes of the organization, and even when he acts in
an unfair fashion to some workers, they would not run to
complain to the high managers, because they are a different
camp, they are the enemies.
The forum of the top management of the local X organization, is
very split and full of impotent feelings. They truly believe that
they are between thee devil and deep sea. They cannot openly
join the workers and the local unions, or go to the National trade
union, but they do identify with the workers and with the local
unions, as many of them have themselves been union leaders in
the past. They are compartmentalized from affairs and
information by their local manager and by their relevant
referents in the National Authority of the organization. This
departmentalization is again a power game, coming out of
mistrust, but its roots are within the structure of the
organization.
The myth some of the managers hold is, that the power is
always outside, with the others: - either the unions or the
government or people in the National Authority. So what is left
for them to do is to bend their head, go underground and wait.
There is a switch between the basic assumption of dependency
and the basic assumption of fight/flight; you are a tool in a
Chess game, even not a player.
Under such atmosphere, the consultants who might be met
suspiciously at first, are quickly been transformed into saviors –
hence the trust.
When a case study was analyzed and David had rudely fallen
down on the manager in charge, the remainder of the team did
not do better. They have joined in the ‘ slaughter’. The only one
who dared standing up and saying something that was not
popular was Michael, the local HR Manager. Michael is both, a
‘newcomer,’ only two years in the organization, and the one who
has not got the bonus and does not belong to any camp. So he
‘had nothing to loose’ because his position and status were

V.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, “Trust in a Paranoid Environment” p 16

weak any-how. Paradoxically, that enables him in work to be
‘bad’, i.e. efficient.

Metaphors and the tradition of military culture

Here are some metaphors that were used in a team

development workshop of the local managers (i.e., David and
those who report directly to him)
“A day after Hiroshima”; “Head chopping”; “Bloodletting”;
“Maze”.
“Abandoning the wounded in the battle field”
“Alleihom” (An Arabic word, meaning an unholy crusade); “ I
have been fried”; “I was put in the fire”.
All these metaphors are connected with aspects of danger, wars
and disaster, and they are very much representing a paranoid
environment. These were aroused mainly following the
discussion of some prospects of organizational and structural
change, led by the National Authority. The local management
team felt out of touch with those proposed changes, considered
them as threatening the future and well being of the local
organization, and felt that they have no power to influence
them.
On another day of workshop with the top management forum of
organization X, we have analyzed case studies from the day-to-
day life of X.
In one case, which has been raised by one of the managers, he
presented his distress from not been able to enact his authority
in front of the union leaders in his ward.
David was not looking at it from a wide point of view of the
context, in which the unions’ leaders always challenge the
authority of their formal managers. Instead, David has led a field
trial, or more accurately a ‘lynch’, against one of his
subordinates. He accused him of not following the ‘sacred’
Israeli combat leader ‘s first command, i.e. I am in the lead,
(first in the fire line), and you, the rest, follow me. He did this
without noticing he had deserted another “wounded soldier”, a
team fellow mate, in the field.
David, under the terms of the cultural perception of the
organization, has been acting as a lonely warrior, individually,
collecting and building his own little camp of loyalists, on one
hand, and on the other hand getting power from his ability to
produce work.
He behaves as if he is alone in the field and that there are
enemies from within and enemies from outside. Maybe this is
why he does not build his own managers as a united and
cohesive team. He has inherited them, he has not chosen them,
he has to work with them and as they are. So he has to act
politically, because he is tied up by hundreds of rules and

V.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, “Trust in a Paranoid Environment” p 17

historical agreements, which are the rules of the unions, the
government, the National Head authority etc.
Paradoxically he is both trusted and mistrusted, because of his
loyalty to the work. He is mistrusted when this loyalty to the
production, seems to be on the account of some personal or
group interests of one sort or another. He is trusted, because he
does not give in easily or at all to pressures of one interest
group over the other regarding the work.
The metaphors above are ‘fighting’, ‘war’, and ‘killing’,
metaphors of blood. The camps imagery, the enemies, are all
coming from a context of danger, survival threat, etc. One
reason might be the army past of a lot of managers who have
had in the past an army career (or at least experience) and have
chosen as a second career public organizations or governmental
ones.
Another reason might be the fact that it is also an organization
of men mostly (the women are mainly doing secretarial jobs).
The third reason might be the political attributes and
connections of the organization.

‘Mussers’

From the beginning of the consultation process the consultants

have come across a common phenomenon that has been acted
on within the organization. This phenomenon has been the
existing and activity of “Mussers” or “Informers”, (a
Hebrew/Yiddish slang for ‘Givers’). The people in these non-
formal roles have been used for years in order to transfer false
and true information through the organization, with or without
their own interpretation. These informers have created a subtle
net, connecting different formal and non-formal groups within X
organization, and between it and the National Authority.
I have got my own ‘Musser’ from the first telephone call I had
made to make an appointment. It is Ruth, David’s` Head
secretary. She has created heart to heart communication with
me, informing me immediately, that she has a direct connection
with David’s` boss, Salomon. At the beginning, there was a lot
of mistrust between Ruth and David, and, by then, I was
considered – without knowing it – as the ‘Musser’ of Solomon,
the General Manager of the National Authority. This was why I
had gained the immediate trust of Ruth, who was the only one
(apart from Solomon and David) who knew that Solomon had
sent me, to “save/help” David.
This phenomenon of the `Mussers` is typical of a paranoid
environment. Nothing is considered or accepted solely on
its face value, everybody has got a secret and hidden role,
and the complexity of the ‘thin net-like web lines’ is quite
enormous.

V.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, “Trust in a Paranoid Environment” p 18

My reaction was, both containing the seduction, and pairing
through the work at the same time. I was both listening but
declaring a general attitude in which the common shared goal of
all of the different role holders, was to create a less tensed
environment and a more functional and cooperative team of
management. Again, the cautiousness through which I had
reacted to Ruth had sent a message of not colluding on one
side, but not offending - by not judging - on the other side.
(Was I protecting my role through my holding on to the primary task,
which was: Developing the management team under the leadership of
their Manager, David, and improving their working relationships?)
At the annual evaluation time, the local HR Manager, Michael,
(who is one of the vice-managers of David), had been
recommended by David for a bonus, but did not get it, because
the General Manager of the National Authority, Solomon,
David’s` boss, did not approve. Apparently, he did not approve,
because Michael, the local (X) HR Manager, refused to be a
Musser for Solomon, but was rather too loyal to his direct boss
David. At least, that was David’s interpretation.
The refusal of the bonus had been sent ‘by mistake” to the local
organization X, through an open fax message, which
immediately was spread all over the organization. The local HR
Manager is sure that David has been the cause for the refusal.
David has not corrected him because of “loyalty” to his
hierarchical boss Solomon… (?)
Some time later, David suggested to Michael to apply for
explanation directly to Solomon. Michael is completely confused
now, because he does not only know to whom to believe, he
cannot believe in anyone at all – full stop. Eventually, David
realized he should join his HR manager in such a meeting with
Solomon.
David knows that his other vice-manager, the production
manager, Saul, is an old Musser. He finds it completely natural
to work in `trust` and cooperation with this vice-manager,
without ever exposing this awareness.

Tests

I was informed, that the Human Resource manager of the

National Authority – Raphael, had been quoted (through the
Grape Vine of the Mussers) saying that the consultants of David
were his “fig-leaf” for the continuation of a very centralist and
controlling management. The same Raphael appears friendly
whenever he meets David. The same Raphael had a very
vehement discussion with me, once, (in a meeting, that had
been `secretly` organized by Solomon, Raphael boss in the
National Authority), urging me to create a common forum of
meetings between him and David. I transferred his request to
David openly. David and Raphael have never shared the
V.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, “Trust in a Paranoid Environment” p 19
smallest hint about their common knowledge of that request, in
any of the many face-to-face meetings they had with each
other, without my presence (according to David).
Solomon had phoned me very shortly after the start of the
consultation, complimenting me for the ‘huge impact’ and
‘significant change’ I had acquired with David. My immediate
response was to both thank for and deny these claims,
emphasizing that real change couldn’t occur in such a short
time.
The different consultees amongst the managers, on the other
hand, used to ‘leak’ bits of information to the consultants
(mostly concerning their criticism of David), testing if and how it
will reach David. Finding that the information had not reached
its target, or that no harm has been done to them as a result,
they have confided more and more in the consultants and
became less cautious.
The consultants interpret these events as subtle tests, put to the
consultants, within the context of a so called a paranoid context of
this organization. The purpose of these tests, was twofold: on one
hand, to check the consultants’ `side taking`, and transfer messages
and follow their path; on the other hand, to recruit the consultants to
a certain `side’.

The need for control and the drive toward the work

One of our interpretations is that David’s need to control as

many affairs as possible and to be involved in details is coming
(apart from his personality) from his suspiciousness and
disbelief in the ability of the people around him ‘to do it exactly
as he would do it’. More than this, he is not at all sure of their
loyalty (confidence and trust).
The interesting point is that he finds it natural and lives with it
without complaining, as if taking it on himself as his cross.
Moreover, his attitude is very adaptive to the culture of the
organization, and proved to be right, because in spite of many
attacks on him, he is getting stronger on one side, and
promoting the work on the other side.
Most of the time he is very friendly and respectful towards the
consultants. He listens carefully, and it is easy to consult with
him. He knows how to listen, he takes advises, he can sustain
rejection and attacks, he can cooperate, and he never lets go of
his own judgment.
His bond to his work role, his ability to stick to the task, gave
birth to many envious enemies and opponents, but gains him a
solidity that is hard to break. He produces results, and his
suspicion seems to be `realistic`, because it is not blurring too
much his reality perception. His main weakness as a manager
has been his inability to lead his management along the same
road; i.e. let them grow and get stronger.
V.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, “Trust in a Paranoid Environment” p 20
The National Authority has hired a PR agency that has leaked
information to an influential local newspaper. Whenever David
has asked for PR assistance he did not get it. The leaking
against him had been initiated and fed by his own bosses,
because he had not been under their control. He was left on his
own against the unions, between them and the clients and his
own subordinates on one hand, while his bosses remained
`clean` when he was smeared, but when eventually he won,
they came back `supporting` him.
There was a big article about him in the near-by town, in which,
amongst other attributes, he has been described, as `non-
friendly`, `journalists’ persecutor`, and `certificates seeker`.
Behind these words, were his attempts to recruit new people to
the organization on the basis of their professional quality and
not their personal connections? He did not use the papers on his
own, out of loyalty to his bosses. He could not been blackmailed
by the unions, so their National Organization in the local town,
had used a journalist, incognito, for the article to the papers.
David could not attend the full day of the latest workshop. At
first he wanted to postpone it. He did not understand at all the
meaning of not been able to trust his subordinates’ team at
work, without him supervising and controlling it. He changed his
mind immediately after we had interpreted that to him. He
managed to leave and let them work on, but he eventually
phoned the consultants in the same evening to ‘make sure’
everything went well. His own people testimony was not good
enough.
As we see, through these examples and more, this holding of
control has been both adaptive and destructive at the same
time.

Trust as servitude

The issue of trust taints the whole consultation

atmosphere. It appears that the trust issue has become a
prison, with invisible but very real walls. Here are some
examples.
Once the idea popped up to write this paper on this assignment,
the main dimensions of trust and paranoia came to pervade
quite a number of sessions and meetings, if not all of them.
Openly, in the briefings between both consultants, and, covertly,
in the meetings with the consultees. “Without memory and
desire” turns out to become even more difficult than usual.
Ruth, David‘ secretary, asked, gently and with a great smile, to
arrange by herself any meeting in the organization. So that all
meetings hours are not only recorded by us as consultants, for
obvious billing reasons, but in fact, double-checked, and partly

V.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, “Trust in a Paranoid Environment” p 21

beforehand. It is not clear, but seems quite obvious, that it had
been done on David ‘s behalf.
Some of our consultees, if not most of them, before the first
workshop days, assured us that they would not speak there,
because David is resentful, and will some day use whatever they
say against him. Also, they told us, whenever we will say
anything to David, he will try to track down who said it. This put
us consultants in the awkward position to be doubly cautious in
saying anything to David: we became afraid that any report,
whatever vague and general, would give him enough
information to go back to the source. The newspaper article
incident that we reported earlier showed us that this analyzing
skill is also characteristic of other people: for example, during a
whole meting, Raphael analyzed for me the whole range of
possibilities as to who was the instigator of this article. He
mentioned John Le Carre‘ Smiley as an example of the dynamics
at work in the organization.
The consultants noticed that they rarely dared do anything or
meet anyone, or give advice or direction, without quickly
informing David, or even without checking with him beforehand.
They interpret it as their effort to lower his paranoia, `not to
loose his trust`, to keep him controlling, or feeling at least that
he controls them by knowing all their acts. They had never told
him what his subordinates said in their meetings, and neither he
asked to know (unless it was some one from the National
Authority), but all the same, all the way long, they feel
compelled to be very cautious. In fact, sometimes the feeling, or
the thought, is, that David really controls the consultants
through his always-present and never-mentioned threat of
loosing his trust in them. David meets especially with one of the
consultants alone, and both consultants weigh carefully the
need to have triple meetings, and some planning is done before
the meetings take place.
Verred had a dream about David. In the dream he is very
kind, idealized in her eyes. His main virtue is kindness,
which is never connected to him by anyone during
awakening time. She is aware in the dream of feeling a lot
of respect and admiration to him and a fear of loosing his
‘faith’ (trust) in her. During the dream or immediately
after, she was urging herself to sober up and to stop
idealizing him. To see him with his limitations.
It is understood that between both consultants there are no
secrets. Nevertheless, it happened that both consultants, in
different occasions, had some prangs regarding what the other
consultant would do with the situation at hand. Mostly, the
issues were linked with ‘suspected’ over-identification with
David or one of the managers.

V.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, “Trust in a Paranoid Environment” p 22

In the meetings between David, and both consultants, there is a
delicate balance of eye contacts, smiles, irony and small
misunderstandings, or fuzzy descriptions, on both sides. David
teases his consultants: “You won’t like this, but…”, or, “I know
you believe it is not so good, but…”. It is as if David plays with
the fire, putting the delicate balance and relatedness of the
manager and the consultants on the table, but in such a subtle
way that it lays there, untouchable. The trust issue, in fact, puts
us into his hands, because we are hostages to his recognition of
our loyalty, not merely of our competence, or true contribution
to the development of the organization.
One of the mechanisms David uses most frequently is denial:
when presented with some evidence about some of his behavior
patterns, he very skillfully finds plausible examples of the
contrary. Every time we tried to work on mistrust, we were
countered with opposite ‘evidence’.
So, in the mutual meetings, we did not really succeed to present
him our real views about trust and mistrust.
It comes to the point that keeping trust alive has almost become
an aim by itself, which insidiously weakens the consultants and
their work.

The bright side of consultation

Nevertheless, within a fragile frame of ‘protection’, we do have

a constructive influence. We give a model of one of the ways to
‘confront David and stay alive’, when we confront patterns of
destructive behavior and communication in his management
style, in the presence of his management team. We tackle and
work with them all, individually and as a team, on unconscious
processes and their implications at work.
Through us they manage, little by little, to find their voice and to
pursue their opinions. It is a slow journey but it is moving ahead.
Is it possible that the way to gain trust in a paranoid
organization is by really having faith, trust, belief in the object at
work, or ‘be in love’ with the work through the object to whom
you consult.
We seem to be walking on a thin line, on a narrow edge. On one
hand we are feeding the consultees’ need for security, by acting
transparently, by being confidential, by reassuring again and
again. On the other hand we are taking risks, almost gambling,
by refusing to be saviors, by confronting destructive acts and by
fighting the seductions and our need to be loved.
As if walking in a room full of spider’s web, we are trying to
move without too much fear of tearing the ‘wrong’ threads and
keeping the ‘right’ ones.

Instead of conclusion: a Methodological note

V.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, “Trust in a Paranoid Environment” p 23

 Instead of conclusion, a Methodological aside and its
practical application. It is methodologically unwise and
practically detrimental to hold a reified, organicist view of the
organization.
It is a common practice, especially but not only among
psychoanalytically informed consultants, to shortcut their
description of organizations, and to imbue them with organic
qualities. The very notion of social unconscious, and for that,
unconscious in an organization, transcending specific and
discrete people, time and situations, brings to the fore an
organic entity – the Unconscious of the Organization. It is thus
easy to fall prey to what Whitehead called, in a very different
context, the “fallacy of misplaced concreteness”. It is tempting
to view society, and organizations, as entities, which have aims,
emotions, conscious and unconscious of themselves. But it
means you hold some very definite metaphysical assumptions,
not always fully examined (see the interesting analysis in
Agassi, 1975; also Schönberg, 1998). It might be that such is the
case also with the rapidly developing trend of social dreaming
(Lawrence, 1998). An opposite argument is presented here. The
organization is not a psychological entity: at the most, people
are.
Practically speaking, it might be very detrimental to the work,
and specifically to the building of trust, to consider the
organization as a whole, or as made of one piece. Because trust
is built, maintained or endangered, not with the organization,
but rather with specific people. On the whole, there might be a
‘systemic’ quality about trust: but, we cannot decide on this. It
is not a theoretical question, but rather, a matter of fact and
experience. For example, we can’t decide yet if trust is a ‘zero-
sum game’ (viz. that trust in, or from, one person, means
automatically less trust in, or on behalf of, other people,
especially the managers), or if it can be extended all across the
board in that organization. Likewise, we do not know how to
delimit this ‘system’. Should the National Authority be
accounted for as part of this system, or as part of the
environment? Those are not idle, merely theoretical or semantic
questions. The answer should lead us to practical decisions: do
we try to escape, or better, do we flee from the National
Authority, or do we need to try and build bridges towards it? To
paraphrase Kurt Lewin, a good theory should help us be
practical. So we might reformulate the question: how do you
build trustful relationships with some people in such an
organization where suspicion, as a whole, is quite dominant,
meaning by that, that statistically a great number of
interactions are governed by mistrust, suspicion and disbelief.

V.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, “Trust in a Paranoid Environment” p 24

And how do you do that, so that the amount of mistrust, over
time, gets smaller.

References

Agassi, J., (1975), “Institutional individualism” British

Journal of Sociology, 26,pp144-155
Benjamin, J., (1995), “Recognition and destruction: An outline
of intersubjectivity”, in Like Subjects, Love Objects, New
Haven, Yale University Press
Bion, W., (1961), Experiences in Groups, London
Erikson, E., (1958), Childhood and Society, New York,
Norton
Erlich, Sh., (1998), “The Search for the Subject and the
Psychoanalytic Study of Organizations”, Paper presented to
the 1998 Symposium, The International Society for the
psychoanalytic Study of Organizations
Fong M. L. and B.G. Cox, (1983), “Trust as an Underlying
Dynamic in the Counseling Process: How Clients Test Trust”,
The Personnel and Guidance Journal, November, pp163-
166
Freud, S., (1920) Beyond the Pleasure Principle, Trans. J.
Starchey, London, Hogarth Press, 1955
Fried, Y. and J. Agassi, (1976), Paranoia: a study in
Diagnosis, Dordrecht, D.Reidel
Fukuyama, F., (1995),Trust, New York, The Free Press
Gambetta, D. (ed.), 1988, Trust. Making and Breaking
Cooperative Relations, Basil Blackwell, Oxford
Hirschhorn, L. (1999), “The Primary Risk”, Human
Relations,Vol. 52, 1, pp.5-23
Hosmer, L. T., 1995, "Trust: The Connecting Link between
Organizational Theory and Philosophical Ethics", Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 379-403
Klein, M., (1937), “Love, Guilt and Reparation”, in R. Money-
Kyrle (ed.), Love, Guilt and Reparation and other works
1921-1945, New York, The Free Press, 1975
Klein, M., (1956), “A study of Envy and Gratitude”, in J.
Mitchell (ed.), The selected Melanie Klein, New York, The
Free Press
Lawrence, W.G. (1997), ”Centering of the Sphinx for the
psycho-analytic study of organizations” Paper presented at
the 1997 Symposium of ISPSO, Philadelphia, 1997
Lawrence, W.G, ed. (1998) Social Dreaming @ Work.
London: Karnac Books
Luhmann, N. (1979), Trust and Power, New York, Wiley
Mintzberg, A., (1982), Power in and around
Organizations, New York, Prentice Hall

V.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, “Trust in a Paranoid Environment” p 25

 Ring, P. S. & Van de Ven, A. H., 1992, "Structuring
Cooperative Relationships Between Organizations", Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 13, pp. 483-498
Rotter, J.B., (1971), “Generalized Expectancies for
Interpersonal Trust”, American Psychologist, 26:pp443-452
Schönberg, A. (1998), “Two Basic Assumptions in the
Psychoanalytic Study of Organizations”, Paper presented at
the 1998 Symposium of ISPSO, Jerusalem
Seligman, A.B., (1997), The Problem of Trust, Princeton,
Princeton University Press
Stein, R. (1991), Psychoanalytic Theories of Affect, New
York, Praeger
Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman, (1989), Risk and Rationality,
Stanford University Press
Weick, K. E., (1979), The Social Psychology of Organizing,
2nd ed., Addison-Wesley Publ. Co, Reading
Zemke, R., 2000, "Can you Manage Trust?", Training,
February, pp 76-83
Zucker, L. G., 1986, "Production of Trust", Research in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 8, pp. 53-111

V.Amitzi & A. Schonberg, “Trust in a Paranoid Environment” p 26