|
Moshe Cohen
|
|||
|
There are between thirty and forty students in the Israeli National Defense College (NDC). The students are colonels and lieutenant colonels of the Israeli Defense Force, and their equivalents in the government service. The staff of the college consists of five to seven instructors, some are military officers, the others come from different government agencies. The NDC focuses on the study of national defense: the relationship between economical strength, military power, social strength, and international status of the country. The NDC staff plans and executes the program in cooperation with Haifa university. Most students are satisfied with the program, but on occasions, they complain about not being able to concentrate on any specific subject due to heavy workload. Until a year ago, the NDC program did not deal with leadership and management. The paper describes the process of adding a course titled "Organizational Culture - the Leaders’ Point of View" to the NDC program. The description focuses on the point of view of the team that initiated the course, developed the theoretical concept and did the actual teaching. The idea of adding a course that deals with organizational culture, evoked anxiety and resistance in the NDC staff. The paper describes the anxiety and resistance and offers a hypothesis as to the sources of the anxiety and resistance. The dynamics of the team and the dynamics between the team and the staff, as well as the parallel processes: the team - staff relationship and the team - students relationship, are deduced and analyzed. The team’s leader has started a two year program of Organizational Consulting and Development (OCD), where he currently studying the psychoanalytic approach to organization. The article describes how the materials studied in the OCD program have helped him in leading the process and containing the anxiety.
Background - The Israeli National Defense College There are between thirty and forty students in the Israeli National Defense College (NDC). The students are colonels, lieutenant colonels of the Israeli Defense Force, and their equivalents in the government service. The students are assigned to the college for a year. During that year, the students are "full time students" and most of them do not have any formal obligations other than school. While at school, the students are informed of their next assignment after they graduate. Each year, one or two students have to quit school before graduation due to urgent personnel needs. The staff of the college includes five to seven instructors, some of whom are military officers, the others are from different government agencies. Some serve at the NDC for long terms, five to ten years. Others serve shorter terms, one or two years. Like students, instructors might be taken out of college at short notice. Some instructors are promoted after serving at the NDC while others retire. The instructors are the coordinators of the program; Rarely do they teach. Most of the instructors had graduated the NDC before they became instructors. Serving as an instructor, is not the first choice of most officers. In addition to the instructors, there are about fifteen officers and soldiers who are in charge of different services such as library, cafeteria, computers, etc. The head of the NDC is a Major General a two star General (the Chief of Staff of the Israeli armed forces is a three star General), he is usually deeply involved with the program. The NDC focuses on the study of national defense: the relationship between economical strength, military power, social strength, and the international status of the country. During the year the students study about eleven hundred hours. Upon graduation, they get a masters degree in political science and an NDC graduation certificate. In order to earn both titles, the students are required to conduct a research, not as comprehensive as a thesis research. In addition to this research, they are required to submit several papers, to write tests and to participate in simulations. Most ministers, high ranking officers and government officials also lecture at the NDC; Each of them gives a lecture of about two hours. The planning and the execution of the program is divided into three: One part of the program takes place at Haifa university. This part is planned and executed by Haifa university with little intervention from the NDC staff. Another part takes place at the NDC campus, and is carried out by lecturers who are not university professors; The syllabus is approved by Haifa university. The third part of the program is planned and coordinated by the NDC staff with no involvement of the university. Mostly, when looking back, students are satisfied with the program, but while studying, they complain of being overloaded. As a result, they can not investigate any subject thoroughly. They say that the NDC prefers quantity to quality. Another common complaint is that there is too much frontal teaching. The students also accuse the staff of the NDC, instructors and soldiers alike, of being under employed. This accusation is very disturbing because there is generally a lack of manpower in the military. In the past several years, there have been no organizational studies in the NDC. An air force pilot, who was assigned to the NDC as an instructor after more than twenty years of service, initiated the idea of adding a course dealing with organizational culture. The officer, who has a masters degree in management, submitted a paper describing the general idea of the course, and expressed his wish to be the one to teach the course. While preparing the course, the initiator met with about eight professors of organizational behavior. He consulted with them about the idea of teaching a course dedicated solely to organizational culture. All of them supported the idea of teaching organizational culture as a separate unit. They believed that since the students were mature enough and had a lot of experience as organization members and organization managers, they would be able to understand and make use of the material studied. At first, the idea of the course was approved, but as time went by, the level of anxiety and resistance rose. The initiator’s idea to teach the course himself, contributed to the level of anxiety and resistance. The Students Group All the students of the NDC take the same classes (they do not have many courses to choose from). As a result, they all sit together for the whole year. Some students have not had any formal education for many years before entering the NDC. Most of the students try very hard to get as high grades as possible. Some students suffer from "exams anxiety", they feel frustrated when getting a lower grade compared to other NDC students. As a result of:
the group becomes a basic assumption group (to use Bion’s term). Bion characterizes a group as a working group if the group:
When a group creates its own reality because group members do not trust their ability to face reality, the group becomes a basic assumption group. A basic assumption group does not use scientific methods to test its hypothesis. Rather, it follows a certain pattern of behavior that is a balance between the group mentality and the needs of the individual members. When a group perceives reality to be too demanding, or when its resources are inadequate when confronting reality, it tends to create its inner reality. A reality that will not threaten the deep emotions and beliefs of the group. Bion calls such a group, a basic assumption group (ba. Group). Bion describes three kinds of ba groups: basic assumption dependency (baD), basic assumption fight flight (ba F/F), and basic assumption pairing (baP). The three types are characterized by the kind of reality they create. The students tend to complain about the professors, about the NDC staff and about the work load. Very few voice a different opinion. They keep on challenging the boundaries and sometimes exhibit aggressive behavior towards lecturers and staff members, as if they were teenagers. Off the record, some students express their discontent with the general atmosphere in class but, they feel they can’t provide an alternative leadership. Sometimes the students fight everyone outside the students group. At other times they develop dependency on the NDC commander. For example, they may complain to the General about a lecture starting too late... As a collective, they seem helpless, very different from the mature experienced leaders they are as individuals.
The NDC Staff The NDC staff members find it very difficult to contain the group’s aggressiveness, frustration and anxiety. The instructors’ role and identity is not well defined. The instructors are military colonels and their equivalents in the government service. Their identity is the one they had as leaders or officers in the organizations from which they came. The traditional formal and informal role of an instructor in the NDC, is that of a coordinator. By "coordinator" I mean a person whose main task is to coordinate time tables and lecturers; He is neither a researcher nor a lecturer. However, most instructors do not identify with this task, therefore they do not develop a "coordinator’s identity". The role of a coordinator does not provide a feeling of significance to the instructors who were used to being in influential positions. The fact that instructors coordinate lectures with ministers and generals, also contributes to the feeling of insignificance. These high ranking officials, when coming to lecture are sometimes anxious; They ask for guidance and feed back. Suddenly they are not just figures on television screens, but rather human beings, just like you and me. In the short time they are at the NDC, they tend to be more relaxed and informal, they feel safe since no media is allowed. As a result, it is possible that the instructors develop a fantasy; They feel as if they are just like these ministers, generals and influential managers. But the fantasy does not last long, the minister goes back to his office, he speaks to us via television screen, he does not ask for the instructors’ advice and feed back any more. The illusion fades away and the instructor is again left with the feeling of insignificance. Therefore, in the NDC, there is no such thing as "instructors’ identity". As a result of the lack of a professional identity, and a lack of significance, each instructor finds his way to survive without harming his ‘self’. Some make the very minimum effort they are required to make, some study (for their second or third degrees), some maintain an a-formal role in the organization from which they came. The culture of the instructors’ group is basic assumption me-ness. In reality, they hardly function as a group. Lawrence, Bain and Gould write about basic assumption me-ness (baM): "...we understand baM to be a cultural phenomenon engendered by conscious and unconscious social anxieties and fears. In particular we are putting forward the idea that as living in contemporary, turbulent societies becomes more risky so the individual is pressed more and more into his or her own inner reality in order to exclude and deny the perceived disturbing realities that are of the outer environment." The primary task of the military is to win a war. Winning means that someone else loses. The other side, naturally, wants to win as well, i.e. the other side wants to kill us!!! In order to create a climate in which people are willing to risk their lives, an army makes a sophisticated use of ba F/F, (mainly the fight). The aggressiveness that the military develops, needs to be expressed or ventilated. The military tends not to consider the emotional needs. The anxiety which arises when somebody is trying to kill us, and the untreated aggressiveness (and guilt feelings), create a culture of ba F/F in the military. We tend to put people of other units or branches in place of the enemy and to "hate" them. As a result, we are not used to cooperating with one another. In other words, we tend to transfer patterns of behavior from the battlefield to our internal environment. A military person feels significant only if he wins, i.e. only if an enemy loses. In case one has got no enemy to fight, one fights another member of the organization. In our fantasy, we are significant only when we kill an enemy or a colleague. Therefore, the sense of guilt and fear of retaliation can find no comfort in the closed group or team. No wonder then, that a member of such a group, will escape from the group, into his own inner world. What happens when one is pushed into his inner reality and finds no identity and no significant work to be proud of? These are the conditions which enable a basic assumption group to develop, and since there is no place for commeradity, baM is evolved. What happens when these two basic assumption groups, the students and instructors, work together? It looks as if the instructors’ Me-ness culture is stable while the students’ culture shifts from baF/F to baD. Each group tends to entrench in its old beliefs and to blame the other group for all the difficulties. It is no wonder that two conflicting attitudes began to develop: resistance to the course and to the idea of an instructor teaching it on the one hand, and support and acceptance on the other hand. The message was: "The subject is important, why not look for a professor of management to teach this course?" Another message, covert, was: "why should we give the students a tool to examine us?" Others expressed a lack of confidence in the capability of the initiator, fearing that this process might get out of control. Nevertheless, some people among the staff supported the idea of the course and of an instructor teaching it. At times, one staff member could be both supportive and resistant. The Team that Planned and Taught the Course In order to find support, the initiator turned to people outside the NDC. He met with several influential military figures in addition to those from the academy. All of them supported the idea. He also decided to form a team of four: three psychologists and himself. There were three reasons to forming this team: First, to reduce the anxiety and to create commitment. The fact that psychologists were working on the course made the course more dignified, in the eyes of the NDC staff; As if the experts’ title gave it a magic touch. The teams’ meetings could be observed: four people sitting in a small room. The instructors felt safer about the academic level of the course because they could notice that time was invested in the planning of the course. Why couldn’t the instructors’ group trust the initiator of the course? Why did they need external support? A possible answer might be that supporting the initiator is a threat to the groups’ culture - ba Me-ness. A support from the group means that there is a group, that there is a meaning in being part of the group, in giving up some of one’s freedom for the benefit of the group. In ba Me-ness culture it is easier to support an external person. The instructors’ group did not speak in one voice, as one could expect from a Ba Me-ness group; It was hard to know what the group thought. When speaking privately, the messages were also mixed: Support on the one hand and mistrust and suspicion on the other. Is this confusion typical of a ba Me-ness group? A second reason to forming the team was the assumption that a commonly produced product might be a better one. The third reason was the initiators’ need for support and acceptance. The initiator, in the meantime, began a two year program of Organizational Consulting and Development (OCD), where he studied the psychoanalytic approach to organization in conjunction with the open systems theory. He then became aware of such phenomena as a basic assumption group, aggressiveness and resistance as a product of the groups’ culture. Being aware of it, made it possible for him not to become defensive. In earlier cases, both at work and at home, he was trapped in the projection - counter transference game. Once resistance and aggressiveness had been noticed, he felt as if his authority was threatened, and as a result, he behaved defensively. Before learning Bions theory about basic assumption groups, he attributed the groups’ culture to his leadership only. For example, if a group he was leading behaved in an irrational manner, he tended to accuse himself for this behavior. After he had gained some knowledge about groups, he understood his role as a leader better, which was a relief. Understanding the psychoanalytic terms: "projective identification", "transference" and "counter transference", helped him to better understand the source of his emotions. The fact that he understood his feelings better, was also a relief. In the case of creating this course, he understood the groups’ resistance, thus, he did not behave defensively. Still, it was very hard for the initiator officer to contain the staffs’ anxiety and resistance and at the same time to be productive and creative and to lead a change in a non supportive and non accepting atmosphere. Therfore, the team was a source of support and containment for the teams’ leader. As a team leader, it was possible to contain the aggressiveness and resistance of the staff and the difficulties of the team, and at the time, to keep on leading the change. The team members joined the team on a voluntary basis. Once the team was recruited, the process of creating the course began from step one. The team did not continue the initiators’ work but rather started from asking "why are we trying to create this course?" In this way, the team members felt that they were creating something new, something of their own. The atmosphere in the team was that of trust and competence. Coordinating the teams’ meetings was very hard since all the participants were very busy. Very often, a meeting was canceled at short notice, but still the team’s work was significant for all the members of the team. The team leader took upon himself the task of coordinating the team. He did not feel challenged by the frequent schedule changes, he felt that this was a constraint that one had to live with. He trusted the team members, and trusted their attitude towards the task of creating the course. The trust was coherent to his style of leadership when working with people he appreciated. Yet he felt that the ODC program supported his ability to trust people working with him. It was the knowledge he had gained that helped him contain aggression. The team had two parallel primary tasks: the first was "to make the dream come true" - to support the process of adding the course to the NDC program. The other primary task was to build the course: to determine the purpose of the course, to develop the theoretical concept and the methodology and content of the course. The culture of the team was of changing moods. Anxiety and a depressive mood were expressed. There were two sources of anxiety: The first was the team leader’s fear that the course would not be approved. The second one was the concern that the students would regect the overall idea of the course. The team leader, an instructor, felt that if the course took place, it would be the only source of significance to his work in the NDC. Therefore, the question of whether the course would take place, was of great importance to him. In this case, unlike previous cases, he felt free to share his anxiety with the team members. Once shared, the anxiety was easier to handle. The anxiety experienced by the team leader was a part of his inner reality, therefore it was important for the team to face it. The question is, to what degree was the "anxiety sharing" reality and to what degree did it serve as a ventilation and a request for support ? The leader as a "boundary manager" does not share all his feelings with the group; When does such sharing enhance the groups’ capability and when does it inhibit group work? The possibility that the students would reject the concept or the teachers, was the second source of anxiety. This concern was enhanced by the instructors’ reactions and their wish that an external professor would be the course teacher. The team put an emphasis on making the course attractive, challenging and understandable. The anxiety was reduced to a manageable level by working on the identified source of anxiety. The trust and acceptance made it possible for the members of the team to share their feelings. Still, the team had times of joy and fun, mainly after creating something new, namely, advancing in developing the concept. So, the teams’ mood changed from depressive to a feeling of competence, from fearing that there would be no course to a feeling that nothing could stop the team. In Bions’ terms, one could say that the culture of the team was of a work group, since the team did use scientific methods to test its hypothesis. The team also enabled the expression of different feelings and opinions. On the other hand, the team was "near" baF/F, in a sophisticated fight mode. The perceived source of threat, was the NDC staff. This perception of reality, was over simplified as if one side is all black and the other pure white. The team members were convinced of the importance of the course. They believed that they could gain the students’ participation, but they were not sure what the staffs’ attitude would be. If the staff did not supporte the course, they believed, the NDC general would not approve it. It was clear though, that a direct fight was the wrong way to go about it. Therefore, the team made a sophisticated effort to join the staff and to become one group for the purpose of running the course. The question which arises is: since the team identified an external "all mighty enemy", was it a baF/F group or a work group? The fact that in the end, the two groups (the NDC staff and the course team) became one for the purpose of the course, suggests that the culture of the team was of a working group and not of a baF/F. Yet, the fantasy of the team that the staff group contained all the aggression and anger, was not realistic. Therefore, it is possible that the team’s culture changed from that of work group to that of baF/F. The Processes In and Among the Groups The processes inside the team and inside the instructors’ group were different. While the team worked and expressed all kinds of feelings, the staff group was watching the team, feeling that something was being created. The fact that the course was not a creation of an instructor, just like them, but rather a creation of a team of professionals, made it less threatening and easier to accept. Slowly, the resistance weakened and the level of anxiety among the staff members was reduced. Formally, the team leader was a member of the two groups: The instructors - i.e. the NDC staff, and the team. When one group member becomes a member in another group, his original group might use him, unconsciously, to project bad feelings into the other group. The one who is a member in both groups is a representative of each group in the other group. As such, the group, consciously or unconsciously, changes its attitude towards the representative member. Miller and Rice suggest that "setting up of any intergroup relationships involves the drawing, temporarily at least of new boundaries". Drawing new boundaries might evoke anxiety since it is a threat to the existence of the group. In our case, the team leader felt that his original group, i.e. the NDC staff, did not develop anxiety because of him serving as a representative. On the contrary, the level of anxiety among the NDC staff was reduced. There are two possible explanations to why the anxiety did not evolve. First, the instructor’s group was happy about the specific member being busy in an activity outside the group because they felt threatened by him. The second hypothesis is that a Ba Me-ness group, does not really care about an activity of a single member outside the group since the group members are anxious about losing their own identity. Therefore, if Ba Me-ness group’s members are busy somewhere else, the threat of a group swallowing a single member is somewhat reduced. Since in our case the team leader’s original group, the instructors’ group, was Ba me-ness, he felt stronger ties to the recently formed team. He got contradicting messages from the instructors (some times from the same person): On one hand he felt support and empathy, on the other hand, he felt anxiety and mistrust. The team gave him a sense of significance, it enabled him to express his creativity in a challenging atmosphere. The team members argued a lot, some times they could not reach an agreement, but the feeling of being together, of serving an important purpose, helped overcome these difficulties. The team leader, as a leader, managed the boundaries of the team, he also belonged to the instructors’ group. His emotional ties with the team were relatively strong since the team work was meaningful to him. The boundary around the instructors was relatively large and loose. The group members were on the boundary. Is it a typical Ba me-ness group? It was decided that the team would present the outlines of the course to the instructors about two months before the course was to begin, in order to win their confidence. The presentation went very well. The instructors participated in the discussion, they learnt the subject and made some interesting comments. It was the turning point in which the team and the instructors became one group for the purpose of holding the course. At that point it was clear that the course would take place and the instructors became more supportive. What was it that brought about the change? It seems as if three elements combined to make this change. The first, as mentioned above, was the fact that professional psychologists took part in preparing the course. The second was a wide support from officers outside the NDC: The team introduced the concept to several officers whose opinion is highly considered, those officers’ support was important. The third element was the amount of work that the team invested. The instructors saw the team members sitting in endless meetings, it gave them a feeling of responsibility and made the NDC committed to the purpose of the team, i.e. the course of organizational culture. As mentioned above, the team tried to find a way to make the class attractive and beneficial. It was decided to divide the class into three subgroups. About half of the course would take place in the class and the other half in sub-groups. Three of the team members were to be the leaders of these three sub-groups. The format was as follows: A lecture was to be given in class, in which the terms and the concepts were to be introduced, the lecture was to last about an hour. Then, the sub-groups were to meet for about an hour to discuss their experience in relation to the material of the lecture. After the course had begun, two days before dealing with the topic of changing an organizational culture , the team could not reach an agreement as to the model that should be used. The team leader had one model in mind, but one of the team members strongly objected to that model. The other two members did not like the model either, yet none of them could suggest an alternative model. The course than was nearing its end when this conflict arose. Up until that point, the course went smoothly. It seemed that the team, unconsciously, did not want to deal with the issue of changing culture. That subject was the last to be taught (it is possible that the team did not want to solve the model in order to leave something unresolved so that there would be justification for the team to exist after the course would be over). The team meeting adjourned, the members felt depressed and anxious. Two days later, ten minutes before the class began, they met to compare what they had prepared for the class. Each one prepared the class differently, the groups met and there were interesting discussions, it looked as if the three groups had gone through a significant learning process. Barrett describes creativity and improvisation in jazz. He says that jazz improvisation is on the edge of chaos. The ability of the musicians to connect with one another at an unconscious level is therefore crucial for their success. It is possible that the team members achieved a high level of tacit coordination. What was the students’ reaction to the material and the methodology? The course took place in the beginning of the NDC year, when the culture of the group was not yet set. After the introduction, there was resistance and resentment. It might be that people felt fed up with their role as leaders and did not want to deal with it while in NDC. Another hypothesis is that some students felt as if those unfamiliar terms were threatening, because having to admit that one does not know something which is important to one’s occupation, is frustrating. However, as the course continued, the resistance was dramatically reduced. A possible reason is, that as opposed to the fear of admitting ignorance, there was hope of gaining new understanding and insight. During the course, the students were required to attend classes, to read the material prepared for them, and to submit two papers. The papers were critiqued but not graded. The fact that their papers were not graded, made the students more willing to take the risk of studying a new concept. Not only were the papers not graded, but the feedbacks the students received were encouraging. The effort they put into their papers and the fact that they conceptualized the material were acknowledged first, and only then were the deficiencies pointed out. An appreciative learning culture was therefore established. The team members were enthusiastic about the course. The message they wanted to get across was: something can be done about the military’s organizational culture. As members in a big organization, we feel the rigidity of the organization. It looks as if nothing can be changed, it makes us feel very small and insignificant. W. Gordon Lawrence writes about unconscious processes in a Mass Society. He speaks about social passivity; people do not take responsibility over their destiny, they leave it to the state. A philosophy of "I want" evolves. In order to gain more power, the state unconsciously encourages passivity. The military is a typical mass society product. To use Toffler’s term, the military is in the second wave, i.e. the massive industrial wave. Toffler identifies three major revolutions in human history, three waves. The first wave was the agricultural wave, which started about ten thousand years ago. The second wave started with the industrial revolution; It is the industrial wave. The second wave is described as the era of big factories, of mass- production and of cheap labor, an era of rigid organization, of clear division of labor between management and workers. The third wave began in the fifties. It is the wave of the hi-tech industry, the information wave. Organizations in the third wave are more flexible, they are flattened and based on knowledge and not on money and equipment. Therefore the role of the individual has changed in the third wave. Toffler suggests that the military should transform to the third wave - the information society. Nevertheless, many officers will agree that the military has not yet changed its culture to the third wave culture. Therefore, as members in a big, second wave organization, we are drawn into the passive culture. The message the team tried to deliver, was of a different nature: we can get out of the passive mode of behavior. The two main ideas of the course were: the first - there is more to organizations than structure, procedures, materials, etc., and that is organizational culture. The second major idea was the idea of choice, in our personal life as well as in organizational life. The main term of the course was "value". Although we need common values in order to live in groups, we are still free, to a certain extent, to choose our own values, and we are responsible for our own choices. It is not easy to accept the idea of a value as a common "instrument" that allows us to live together, and a value as a subject of a relatively free choice. If everyone is free to choose his own values, how can we explain the fact that the group members chose some common values? Since the course dealt with choice, the concepts were suggested to the students, not forced upon them. The choice to accept or reject (or modify) the concepts of the course, gave the students a feeling of significance since they chose the concept they believed was the right one. The feeling of confidence, that the students would make the right choice, was suggested to them by the course teachers and made them feel competent. This way, they were free to risk and learn. Some after thoughts In a big traditional and masculine organization like the military, there is an urgent need to touch the "soft points" like feelings beliefs and significance. Barrett writes about masculinity in the US Navy. He counts aggressiveness, physical toughness and a refusal to complain among the qualities that Navy Officers attribute to themselves. It is the author's impression that only few military officers are ready to deal with their feelings and to acknowledge other sides of their personalities, except for aggression, the need for control and power. Very few are ready to acknowledge their depressiveness. Nevertheless, even in such an organization, there is room for individual choice. It is sometimes frustrating and always very hard. But sometimes, individual choice or initiative, makes the difference, then, it is rewarding. An example of a choice that made a difference, was the choice of the team to work together. The competency, trust and the mutual appreciation of the team members, the feeling of trust and significance, were an invaluable source of emotional energy. One question remained unanswered: Is relatively deep understanding of groups important for leaders? In the case described above, the knowledge the team leader had gained about groups’ behavior in the OCD program, did help him, and enabled him to handle the situation at the cognitive level and to manage his feelings constructively. Bibliography Barrett F, 1996, Hegemonic Masculinity: The Case of the US Navy, Gender, Work and Organization, Volume 3 Number 3 July 1996 Barrett F, 1995, Creating Appreciative Learning Culture, Organizational Dynamics, vol. 24, no. 1 pp. 36-49, fall 95. Barrett F, 1998, Creativity and Improvisation in Jazz and Organizations: implications for Organizational Learning, Bion, W. R. 1961, Experience in Groups and other papers, Tavistock Publications. Halto, 1994, Some unconscious aspects of organizational life in Obholzer and Roberts, 1994 the unconscious at work, pp. 11-18, New York. Lawrence, Bain, Gould, 1996, The fifth basic assumption, Free Associations Volume 6. Part 1 (No 37) Lawrence, W. Gordon 1979, A concept for Today: The management of Onself in Role, Exploring Individual and Organizational Boundaries, Wiley. Miller and Rice,1967, Systems of Organization, Tavistok Pablications. Toffler, 1990, Power Shift, Bantam Books, New York. Toffler, 1993, War and Anti-War, Little, Brown
and Company, New York.
|
|||
 |
|||