James Hennessy
Introduction
I have spent nearly 30 years in a storied organization, one with a renowned history and replete with shared memories of the past and desires for the future. While we do not usually think of organizations in these terms—as generators and repositories of profound remembrance and longing—we nonetheless experience such feelings every day and reveal them in the stories we tell about the lives we lead at work.
My curiosity about these stories, and particularly my organization’s past (hereafter referred to as the “Organization”), is what initially triggered my interest in nostalgia as a research topic; this later expanded to include postalgia, and the significance of both to the Organization’s understanding of itself. This interest intensified as the Organization came under new leadership in 2018 and found itself to be in a stage of transition. Its future direction was unclear, causing considerable confusion within the Organization, and had potential consequences for its larger mission.
Nostalgia—a bittersweet longing for things from the past—is a feeling
that exists in nearly all organizations. Its opposite, postalgia, a yearning for a bright future, is also widely evident in organizations as they discard the past in order to adapt to a changing world. Although they seem to relate to either the past or the future, both nostalgia and postalgia are actually responses to dissatisfactions with the present.
This chapter presents a case study that reveals the nature and effects of nostalgia and postalgia in the Organization. The research and findings are built on a series of socioanalytic interviews with individuals and focus groups. These interviewees consisted principally of a variety of employees of the Organization. I also interviewed several former employees who were identified as important “ghostly figures” whose influence within the organization continues to be felt. These former employees offered unique insights in reconciling the past and the future by respecting both: that is, appreciating and learning from the best of the past while recognizing that the future may require new approaches and attitudes.
The chapter begins with an overview of the key theoretical concepts of the case study and its methodology, followed by a description of 10 streams of nostalgic or postalgic feeling that emerged from the interviews. These streams carried the most fundamental concerns of organizational functioning and spirit. Nostalgic streams focused on vital matters such as the Organization’s purpose and role, its understanding of leadership, and its conception of itself as a community. Postalgic streams expressed the desire for greater inspiration and a sense of belonging. Strikingly, postalgia is not much in evidence in the Organization, and the study suggests reasons why this may be so.
Applying concepts from systems-psychodynamics, which maintain that the most significant organizational difficulties usually include important, unstated emotional conflicts, I then focus on identifying several key emotional currents that underpin the 10 streams and reveal the possible interplay between nostalgia and postalgia. The chapter closes with the lessons learned from the study that can inform the Organization’s decisions and actions as it seeks to move forward and the broader application of the study’s methods and findings to other organizations. I was thus able to show how paying close attention to nostalgia and postalgia can help reveal an organization’s existing and desired state, and may also be useful as an organization transitions to a new collective identity.
Nostalgia and Postalgia
Nostalgia is a universally experienced feeling, expressing an affection and longing for things from the past. It is felt by individuals and in organizations as they try to make sense of the world and construct their identities. Although it is commonly believed to relate to the past, nostalgia, in reality, is a reaction to the present. It expresses a discontent with current conditions or, more simply, a yearning for things that seem to have gone missing from life. The idealized memories of nostalgia are considered richer, more authentic, and meaningful than the present.1
Nostalgia is a mixed emotion, usually described as consisting of happy feelings of beauty, satisfaction, goodness, and love, yet also having a bittersweet quality. It almost never stems from experiences of upset, hate, or shame2 nor unresolved trauma or psychic injury. At the same time, nostalgia always includes a pronounced element of loss related to the past, the absence of something that feels out of reach.3 It is a joy tinged with sadness.
Although nostalgia always looks to the past, it is not actually a product of the past, but a reflection of present conditions. Nostalgia selectively takes memories and idealizes them, in effect creating fantasies of the past that are imbued with glowing emotion and symbolic meaning.4 It uses these pleasing images to highlight what’s missing or gone wrong in present times. It doesn’t matter if the past was not, in fact, experienced as nostalgia now purports;5 nostalgia has little to do with historical veracity. Rather, it is concerned with appealing, useful stories that are continuously revised “to match the mood of present times.”6 As University of Bath Professor Emeritus Yannis Gabriel maintains, nostalgia is not a way of coming to terms with the past, but an attempt to come to terms with the present. In this way, nostalgic recollections play a powerful role in how present-day events are felt and understood, both individually and in organizations.7 It is one lens through which to make sense of life at work.
For many individuals, nostalgia provides protection from, and a cure for, the injuries to our narcissism inflicted by organizations. By their nature, modern corporations are impersonal and unemotional. Nostalgia seeks to return us to an imagined time when the organization was less bureaucratic and more like an extension of our own family, with ourselves uniquely at the center of a caring world.8
For groups, organizational nostalgia appears to serve multiple purposes. One foundational study has proposed that nostalgia is central to understanding the construction and maintenance of collective identity.9 Groups come to define themselves through the creation and sharing of stories. Nostalgia significantly enriches the meaning of these narratives by helping the group to understand its present circumstances, preserve the self-esteem of group members, and provide a defense against perceived threats to group identity.
Nostalgia may not, however, always be experienced positively by individuals or organizations. If, for example, an organization faces unwelcome developments, nostalgia could prompt some of its members to react with psychodynamic defenses such as idealization, splitting, rationalization, and denial, in an attempt to shield themselves from the frightening possibilities or consequences of change.10
Organizational postalgia is a more recent concept, posited in 2004 by VU Amsterdam Professor Sierk Ybema. It can be defined as a longing for a bright, promising future. According to Ybema, this idealized future involves directive change and the abandonment of the past within the organization, and it is typically led by the managerial upper class responding to the demands of new operating environments, opportunities, and threats. Thus, like nostalgia, postalgia is primarily about dissatisfactions with the present, which, within organizations, animates the imperative to change.
Postalgia and nostalgia are alike in three key ways. Both compare the present with another time and find it unsatisfactory; both look to an idealized temporal realm as their lodestar; and both are attempts to come to terms with the present. But emotionally and functionally, postalgia and nostalgia seem to be very different. According to Ybema, managerial postalgia is an “activating force,” while nostalgia is a slower, reactive response. Postalgic dreams are usually presented as rational, purposive plans for change, whereas nostalgia is commonly expressed through tales about “the good old days.” They also differ in the underlying affective orientation they seem to generate. Despite its deliberate projections, postalgia can have a nervous, anticipatory quality, often swinging between extremes of pessimism and optimism.11 Postalgia lacks nostalgia’s settled consolation for fully realized life events. For, unlike an uncertain future, the past and its golden representations cannot be taken away.
The methodology for the research was that of a case study, with aspects of ethnographic research. As a case study, it explored a phenomenon within a bounded, real-life organization, through the collection of detailed information from multiple sources.12 As ethnography, it included qualitative description and interpretation of a group’s values, behaviors, and language, and sought to discern patterns of social organization and belief systems.13,14
Data were gathered through socioanalytic interviewing (the “Conversations”), which aims to assemble data from multiple interviews to arrive at a full picture of an organization. Interviewees are provided a “space” to express their views, while the interviewer listens carefully for content, feelings, and signals of unconscious phenomena. Identifying these latter phenomena may help illuminate shrouded impulses that could significantly impact an organization’s ability to do its work.15
The interviewees (the “Respondents”) were all current and past employees of the Organization, with varying seniority and tenure, and who experienced the organization over different periods of time. In selecting Respondents for the study, the goal was to compile a valid set of emotionally rich sources of memories, anecdotes, dreams, and desires that would reveal various streams of nostalgia and postalgia in the Organization. Overall, I sought a mixture of men and women, from all levels, and from a variety of different business and support areas. I also sought a combination of those who had joined the organization before a major global crisis in 2008 to which the Organization responded and those who had joined after the crisis: I hypothesized that this distinction might have implications for nostalgic and postalgic feelings.
The 35 respondents fell into four cohorts (the “Cohorts”), corresponding to their rank or status within the Organization: 13 senior officers (the “Seniors”), 5 junior officers (the “Juniors”), 13 staffers who are nonofficers (the “Staffers”), and 4 “ghosts” (the “Ghosts”)—former members of the organization, all of whom had been senior officers. The respondents’ length of service varied from 2 to over 40 years. In January 2019, I interviewed the Seniors and the Ghosts individually. In early February, I conducted one focus group of Juniors and two of Staffers.
All Respondents but the Ghosts were asked before the interviews to consider the following two open-ended questions about nostalgia and postalgia in the Organization:
1. Thinking about the time you have spent within the organization, what memories bring warm longings for past times?
2. Envisioning your future time within the organization, what needs to be changed or abandoned? What new or different qualities or feelings do you find yourself wishing for?
The two questions posed to the Ghosts prior to their interviews were slightly different:
1. Thinking about the time you spent within the organization, what memories bring warm longings for past times?
2. In leaving the organization, what was your postalgic dream? What new or different qualities or feelings do you find yourself wishingfor?
Asking about nostalgia and postalgia proved to be of unique value. The questions almost seemed to put people into a kind of dream state. This made their feelings much more accessible to them, and the resulting responses much richer than traditional data concerning organizational culture. Typical questions, such as directly asking, “What do you think of your organization?” can lead to discussions that are narrowly focused on immediate work issues and often devolve into gripe sessions. Asking instead, “What do you miss from the past and what do you fantasize for the future?” removed people from the present and had much more emotional resonance.
Streams of Nostalgia
The interviews revealed 10 primary streams of nostalgia and postalgia in the Organization. Seven streams of nostalgia related to purpose, role, leadership, community, rituals, intimacy, and anti-nostalgia. As already stated, the Organization finds it difficult to engage in postalgia, and the data indicated several reasons for this, including a lack of urgency, fear, pessimism, and avoidance. Three distinct streams of postalgia appeared in the data expressing a longing for inspiration, a desire for greater communal belonging, and one that conveyed an acute fear of future organizational irrelevance.
Stream 1: Purpose
The different streams of nostalgia in the Organization are intertwined, playing-off of, and reinforcing each other. But perhaps the deepest stream of nostalgia is a sense of purpose, which here ultimately means service to others. Respondents in all Cohorts spoke of purpose and service. A number of Staffers cited purpose as a motivating source of pride, and several stated that service to others was the reason they decided to join the Organization. But purpose and service were spoken of most ardently by the Seniors and Ghosts.
Purpose appears to be felt most powerfully during or in the wake of crises, creating a heightened “feeling of mission,” as one Ghost put it, “and that we’re all part of a team.” Several other Respondents expressed the same sentiment. On one occasion, in the most extreme circumstances, according to one of the Ghosts, purpose in the Organization went beyond service to others, and became “sacrifice” for others. Strikingly, this incident of sacrifice was not business related, but happened during the course of the nearby 9/11 terrorist attack, during which the Organization took in the injured and others in need. This, the Ghost said, was the most poignant moment of his long career.
There was no conflict among the Respondents as to the purpose of the Organization. However, there was a definite feeling that it was less certain than a decade ago, perhaps because there had been no crisis during that period. There is quite evidently a nostalgic longing throughout the Organization for a stronger, clearer sense of purpose.
Stream 2: Role
The Organization’s role is closely bound to its purpose. That role seems fundamentally to have changed since the turn of this century, provoking feelings of loss, bewilderment, and foreboding, especially among the Ghosts and Seniors. These changes and feelings were hardly mentioned by the Juniors and Staffers.
Historically, the issue of role has centered around the conviction that the Organization had a unique position within a system of similar, related organizations (the “System”). It was, one Ghost stated, “The first among equals.”
This sense of uniqueness was a defining feature of the Organization’s perception of its role until about 2005. According to the Ghosts and Seniors, its special qualities stemmed from two main elements—its unparalleled expertise and its drive to “do what was right.” Its expertise was a function of the high quality of its people and, as one Senior put it, knowing “how the world actually works.” “Doing what was right,” as explained by another Senior, meant developing strongly held, independent views and, if necessary, pushing back in decisional matters that involved other players in the System. The Organization felt strong, semi-autonomous, and active during this time, which, the Ghosts and Seniors believe, enabled its work to “make a difference” and have “real impact” within a System that was “prone to rest.”
During the last 15 years or so, a good deal of the perceived uniqueness of the Organization’s role seems to have dissipated. This has been due, apparently, to a combination of factors. The Ghosts, in particular, point to neglect and a lack of belief and will on the part of its CEOs (the “Chiefs”) that the Organization had, or should have, a unique role in the System. According to the nostalgic stories of the Ghosts and some of the Seniors, this has led the Organization to become weak, reactive, and preoccupied with “process” rather than, as before, its impact in the System and beyond.
Stream 3: Leadership
Surprisingly, nostalgia concerning leadership in the Organization focused almost exclusively on one former Chief, who left the Organization over 25 years ago. These feelings of admiration emanated from Ghosts and Seniors.
Uniquely, this Chief was described by Ghosts and Seniors as being deeply thoughtful, with a strategic vision that was able to “see around corners” and understand the external environment and oncoming trends. In terms of working style, the Chief was very “hands on,” and thus connected with staff across the Organization, who felt his “care.” The Chief “loved” the Organization, believed it was a “special place,” and fostered “a family environment of sorts.” This created what one Ghost called “a commitment chain” across the Organization. The Chief was also said to have had “courage.” Nevertheless, several Respondents noted that the Chief had significant personal flaws.
Some of the Seniors also nostalgically cited some of the Ghosts as great leaders of the Organization. These Ghosts were said to have “really cared” for their people, they “had your back,” and they were passionate.
However, one Senior warned against taking a nostalgic view of past leaders, saying that the Organization has a history of treating its leaders as “kind of royalty or heroic figures.” And while not denying their significance, this attitude “radically simplifies” complex people and their actions. This Senior also believed that encouraging the idea of mythical figures can lead to dysfunction, such as the creation of silos and cultures of loyalty to individuals or groups, rather than to the Organization as a whole.
Nonetheless, one Senior lamented that there didn’t seem to be any great figures in the Organization anymore. “They’re all gone.”
Stream 4: Community
Nostalgia for the Organization as a particular type of community—specifically, “being like a family”—and how that sense of community has changed and been lost over time, generated more discussion than any other topic. Respondents from every Cohort commented on it.
Since its inception, the Organization appears to have thought of itself as a kind of family. Seventy-five years ago, reported one Respondent, the employees even referred to it as “Mother Org.” One Junior stated that the feeling of family came from two sources—the shared commitment to the Organization’s mission, and the perception that it would “take care of you.” As one Ghost put it, “Consciously or unconsciously, management understood that if they cared for their people, then their people would be loyal and deliver.”
Many recalled the Organization’s caring included not only an expectation of job security, but also “how people related to each other.” One Ghost said that the “feeling of family” engendered trust, high morale, and an environment where people could “cohere and do their best work.”
Several Seniors, who fondly remembered the Organization as more of a family, also highlighted some considerable downsides. “When people talk about family,” said one, “it’s code for bad management”—adding that this often meant that poor performers were shuffled around and that this fed the perception that there was dead weight among the employees. Other Seniors also recalled the old environment as extremely hierarchical and formal, with something like a caste system dividing managers and employees, and men and women.
Respondents reported that the “family” sensibility continued roughly until the early 2000s, when there was a series of downsizings. The relationship between management and staff began to change. One Ghost explained that staff came to be viewed by some senior leaders as “not part of the core” of the Organization—“They’re not like us.”
One Ghost framed these changes within the Organization in different terms. He explained that in the old days, “psychic income” was the most important form of compensation in the Organization—that is, people were motivated by being part of and making a contribution to something greater than themselves. According to the Ghost, this feeling had been lost as more tangible forms of compensation began to take precedence, and “people whose primary motive was service gradually shifted more toward self-interest.”
Stream 5: Rituals
Connected to the community stream, but also to individual experiences, is nostalgia for rituals such as gatherings and observances—celebratory and serious. Notably, unlike most other streams of nostalgia, remembrances of rituals all included a prominent element of place.
Strong feelings about long-standing rituals were expressed by Respondents from all the Cohorts. Almost all of the discussions referred to recent attempts to create “more inclusive” rituals concerning the announcement of promotions, and the annual holiday party.
Many of the Seniors and Juniors regarded their elevations to officer rank as a signature event in their careers, describing it as “a really special experience,” “exciting, meaningful,” and a transition to becoming “an official representative of the Organization.” All of them recalled “the steps of the day,” culminating in being called over to the historic executive floor to be individually congratulated by the Chief. One Senior noted that, in comparison, all subsequent promotions fade into oblivion.
Many Seniors and Juniors also expressed nostalgia for the old holiday party, held in the Organization’s formal dining room following the promotion announcements, which in the past had not included Staffers. One Junior commented that the old style of party fostered “camaraderie” and created new “relationships and communities” that were like “branches of a family.” Still, their nostalgic feelings about it were more muted in comparison to the enthusiasm of the Staffers for now being included in a single, organizationwide event, marking promotions at every level. The old holiday party had been “really depressing and demoralizing,” said one Staffer, whereas the new party was described as “spectacular, great.” “Everyone was talking about it because it was so much more inclusive and jovial.”
Stream 6: Intimacy
A number of Respondents shared stories of personal nostalgia related to their time in the Organization, recalling experiences with others or places that created a special feeling. I collected these under the heading of “intimacy,” in the sense of close or affectionate relationships.
These experiences were almost exclusively the domain of the Seniors. For many of them, and in contrast to their current lives, their first few years in the Organization were characterized by feeling “more like a family,” socializing with colleagues, and deep friendships. All are missed, though many accept this loss as a function of aging.
Nonetheless, one Senior made the case for deeper personal relationships at work. She maintained that people appreciate “the whole person” and work better together when they have stronger relationships, as they used to. Now, in contrast, “it’s possible to work with people for years and literally know nothing about them.”
Another Senior spoke warmly about places in the Organization’s headquarters, some parts of which have been altered or lost over time. He missed the way the building used to look, with its “caverns and labyrinths,” and in particular, a narrow old hallway that was removed during a renovation 10 years ago. “It echoed differently when you walked down it because it had a cork floor,” this Senior recalled, “It felt intimate, like you were going somewhere different; that meant something.”
Stream 7: Anti-Nostalgia
Along with the six streams of nostalgia discussed so far, there runs a related stream of anti-nostalgia in the Organization. It broadly articulates the harmful consequences of nostalgia across a range of issues and activities. The anti-nostalgia stream emanates almost entirely from the Staffers, along with a few Seniors.
These Respondents felt that there is too much nostalgia in the Organization, clearly expressed by one who said, “We have a surfeit of it here.” One Senior went even further, positing that the Organization has “imagined nostalgia”—a yearning for something that never actually existed, but is believed to have gone away, and, if it could only return, would remedy some difficulty. This Senior cited the belief in the Organization’s “independence” within its larger System as an example.
Staffers described how nostalgia often shuts down debate or creates a false sense of security. One Staffer stated that the invocation of “the good old days” is sometimes used as a justification, without explanation, for how things “get done” in the Organization. This turns “the way we have always done it” into a kind of “gospel,” making it a “sin” to question it. Another Staffer recognized this scenario, adding that it is even worse if the process in question was implemented during the 2008 crisis; many ways of doing things, said this Staffer, have been held onto ever since. In addition, he said, while the response to that crisis demonstrated the dedication and passion of the employees, it also set unreasonable expectations for normal times—“anything under the Sun can get done in three days.” This, in turn, feeds undue confidence in the Organization’s ability to cope with a future crisis.
Stream 8: Inspiration
Members of all Cohorts concurred with a summary offered by a Senior that characterized the Organization as having “nostalgia for the past and muddling through the present.” Several Juniors added that the Organization lacks clarity about what its future role will be and, as mentioned earlier, appears to be reactive. Staffers indicated that this contrasts starkly with their experience in other organizations, where “if you weren’t moving forward, you were lagging behind” and that the Organization is missing “that ambition to get ahead of the next curve, before it’s upon you.” While some people genuinely pursue change, it is generally not encouraged, and overall “there’s not much in terms of futurism.” Instead, one Staffer recounted, the narrative is about the mission of the Organization and the pride and service of its employees—“end of story.”
Several Seniors and Juniors suggested some possible steps toward developing a postalgic vision for the Organization. These involve granting “permission” to engage in postalgia along with understanding what a postalgic vision is not. Its leadership, advised one Senior, needs to signal that “it’s okay to let go for a while and think about the future.” A Junior agreed, stating, “I’d like us to be less operational, get our heads out of the books, and look into the future.”
Numerous Respondents from all Cohorts called for a new, inspirational vision. The substance of this vision and how to arrive at it were described in various ways. One Senior suggested a collection of “four or five visionary strategic statements that would resonate and motivate.” Two others, recalling their past experiences in the Organization, recommended a big, bold, outward-facing agenda. “We don’t need a crisis,” one of them said, “we should be working on problems before they happen. There’s still plenty to do. How can we make the world a better place every five years?” She said that such an agenda must take the long view, be single-minded, and unafraid.
Most importantly, said several Respondents, the Organization would need to “paint a picture” of its vision. “The vision is the thing that makes me excited, is what invigorates me,” enthused one Senior. But without a full picture, warned another, the vision will “just get questioned, and questioned, and questioned.” Painting this picture is the primary job of the leadership of the Organization, maintained one Senior. “We have an absence of understanding of what a leader is: We don’t have to communicate. We don’t have to use colors. All we do is think. And we don’t think we have to inspire.”
Stream 9: Belonging
The postalgic stream of belonging addresses the kind of environment and rules of engagement that Respondents would like to see in the Organization. Four components—togetherness, acknowledgment, safety, and possibility—emerged from the interviews.
Togetherness, or the dream of unity, was mentioned in some form by Respondents from all of the Cohorts. Without characterizing the Organization as a family, there does continue to be a desire for a greater sense of togetherness, though its exact form and meaning remain unclear. For one Senior, it would mean “we’re all part of it” and, consequently, there would be much less “us vs. them” in the Organization. Specifically, there would be less “old Org vs. new Org” or divisions between longtime employees and those of newer vintage. “I wish all that would go away,” she said, “everybody has their stories.” The Juniors also voiced a desire for “a shared vision” and to feel “less atomized and disconnected” from each other, and from the higher mission of the Organization.
Acknowledgment is a component of belonging that refers to a variety of ways for individuals to be valued for their unique contributions to the Organization, and to be heard, appreciated, and accepted as their true selves. One Senior spoke about the importance of differentiating among people according to whether they were good managers, excellent specialists, change agents, or flourished within defined structures. This recognizes individuals’ strengths and makes them feel they have a place. Juniors and Staffers also weighed in, some expressing a desire for more outward recognition of their work and how it added to the overall mission of the Organization, and others endorsing the need to support the “whole authentic self” at work, so that everyone could “contribute and be their best.”
The anti-nostalgia stream indicated that Staffers sometimes felt “shutdown” if they tried to raise questions. This phenomenon is part of a larger concern about safety in the Organization in a number of related respects—safety to speak, to be wrong, to learn, to disagree, and to surface unspoken conflict. Several Seniors articulated a wider unease in this regard. One noted that learning itself requires some sort of disruption and a feeling of cognitive dissonance—“of being a little lost”—which is difficult to accept and process unless there is an atmosphere of safety. Moreover, this Senior maintained, the Organization needs to find ways to have “good, stressful conversations” about disagreements and to acknowledge that there is often a great deal that remains below the surface, unspoken—“What could we do to confront this a little more honestly?”
Respondents also expressed a desire for a greater feeling of possibility, wanting more openness and optimism. A number of Seniors and Juniors indicated that they routinely observe outsized negativity, skepticism, and a paralyzing doubt—which leaves them feeling alienated from their colleagues and the work of the Organization. Part of the problem stems, according to one Senior, from the academic rationalism that dominates the Organization’s mentality, with a culture that values experts, more than managers and facilitators. According to both Seniors and Juniors, this leads to the overanalysis of data and excessive faultfinding. One Junior noted, “Just once, I want to hear someone say: I’m sure we should do this. I have never heard anyone say, yes, I’m positive we should do this, this is the right thing to do.”
Stream 10: Fear of Irrelevance
The final stream of postalgia is not a dream for the future but a nightmare about the Organization’s possible future irrelevance. This concern was highlighted by a few Seniors, but it was expressed with particular alarm and emotional vehemence by the Juniors.
One Senior made the general case: “Dogmatic living in the past is profoundly unhealthy, and we must evolve over time. If we are not prepared to change, inevitably we’re going to find ourselves irrelevant.” In response to this threat, three Seniors proposed creating a special division devoted solely to looking to the future. “We have too many people who are enamored with blades of grass,” commented one Senior. Added another, “We need people who are busy looking out ahead and around the corner.” This unit would be a kind of SWAT team, identifying what is different in the environment, and asking questions about how new things work.
The Juniors identified the biggest threats to the Organization’s relevance as changes in external operating models and developments in technology. One Junior explained, “We’re a node in a larger financial system. And these days, something can just be like—boop!—the node is no longer needed. And no one is thinking about that.” One Junior cited attempts, last year, to try to get the Organization to consider such threats and its future relevance, but to no avail. Instead, immediate worries remained the highest priorities. “We take our existence for granted and don’t even want to see the risks that are out there, or be proactive.” Another said, “We are totally blinded by the risk of being disintermediated within 10–15 years.” And a third attributed this blindness to “the fragility we have about doing something wrong.” As a result, he said, “We just can’t get our heads around what issues might come to be. And the future is really close, if you think about time.”
Psychodynamic Forces at Work
As described earlier, although nostalgia and postalgia are usually thought of as being related, respectively, to the past and the future, both in fact compare the present with another time and find it unsatisfactory. They offer idealized versions of their respective temporal realms in an attempt to come to terms with the present. In psychological terms, such idealization can be employed as an anxiety coping mechanism in which a subject of ambivalence is viewed with overly admirable qualities.16 This involves the attribution of inordinately positive qualities to things—such as memories, future visions, situations, or people—which actually house hidden anxiety. Thus, idealization and its consequences are particularly relevant across this analysis, as manifested in several powerful psychodynamic forces evident in the Organization.
Splitting: The Idealization of Purpose and Role
Without question, the employees of the Organization are primarily, in my view, admirably motivated by service to others. They believe that the Organization has a meaningful impact on the world. As evident in both nostalgic and postalgic streams, they appear to long for a reaffirmation of this understanding of its purpose—service leading to external impact—and believe that this can be achieved through clarification of the Organization’s role, and the articulation of a compelling vision by its leaders. Without such a vision, many Respondents fear that the Organization will eventually become irrelevant.
It is striking how uniformly the employees believe in and hold a positive opinion of the purpose of the Organization; not a single contrary or cynical view was expressed in the Conversations. This strongly suggests a good measure of idealization, and that the Organization may be engaging in a related psychological defense mechanism, termed “splitting”—the suppression of unacceptable positive or negative qualities of self or others.17
Representing a failure to combine positive and negative qualities into a whole, splitting may be particularly germane to the process of clarifying the future role of the Organization, which would benefit from taking full account of both the positive and negative aspects of its own and others’ actions, present and past. This might include, for example, examining how its attitudes toward and relations with other parts of the System in which it operates—long a point of contention—contribute to productive or adverse outcomes. Likewise, the Organization could comprehensively review its conduct during times of crisis. An honest appraisal of both matters could lead it to a deeper, more complete understanding of its existing and possible future identity.
Chosen Glory: The Idealization of Crises
Dealing with crises, as suggested by many Respondents, represents the epitome of the Organization’s purpose and role. Particularly in the nostalgia streams, dealing with crises is seen as demonstrating its power and external impact. As noted previously, crises also seem to bring special unity to the Organization, providing moving examples of employee dedication and personal sacrifice. As one Respondent said, “In sacrificing, we’re going to contribute to the public good.” Having participated in five such crises over the last 30 years, I am absolutely convinced that they are examples of outstanding institutional and individual heroism.
However, such crises can generate a particular mode of idealization within organizations called “chosen glory.” This refers to a shared mental and emotional representation of an event perceived as a triumph over adversaries or a calamity, which is repeatedly cited to bolster a group’s self-esteem, becoming part of an organization’s identity, and passed onto succeeding generations of employees.18 The power of chosen glory in the Organization is strongly present throughout the Conversations. This is probably inevitable, because, in fundamental ways, it exists to respond to periods of external distress and urgency. Still, as with the unquestioned rectitude of its purpose, there appears to be little interest within the Organization in considering the entirety of its actions with respect to past crises—for instance, how it might have, in fact, contributed not only to their “glorious” resolutions but also to their creation.
Fault Lines: The Idealization of Leadership and Community
Both nostalgic and postalgic streams express a longing for inspirational leadership. Such leadership seems to have two main features, vision and personal connectedness. As described by Respondents, vision provides an energizing, expansive, concrete direction for the work of the Organization. And connectedness means personal engagement and commitment from leaders toward employees, extending, at most, to a “care” for colleagues that is reminiscent of a close family. The most surprising single finding in the study, for me, was the identification of the Chief from 25 years ago as a kind of ideal inspirational leader, with hardly a mention of any prior or subsequent Chiefs. As one Ghost put it, the Chief embodied “what we believed.” As nostalgia, this memory must have included aspects of idealization—though perhaps not excessively, as every Respondent who cited the Chief’s leadership qualities also mentioned his all-too-human flaws.
As demonstrated by this Chief, the character of its leadership is the most important factor in determining the kind of caring community that exists in the Organization. However, a divergence appears in the definition of what that “care” should entail. Some Respondents continue to nurture nostalgia for the “family” of the past. Others in the Organization call instead for greater “togetherness.” As revealed in the postalgic streams, there is a desire for increased group “unity,” along with greater acceptance of individuals and acknowledgment of the value of their work. In addition, many Respondents decried the persistent divisions among employees who are considered “in” and those who are viewed as “out.” Such “fault lines” can lead to conflict, impaired processes, and decreased performance.19,20 Most prominently, Respondents reported that it can take 5 to 7 years before a new employee is truly considered to be part of the Organization, for example, before their views receive more than polite “airtime” and are taken seriously. As one Respondent explained, “You have to earn your space, and even when you do, it’s brief.” Many Respondents also indicated that there is a continuing, though lessening, distinction made between those who experienced the “chosen glory” of the 2008 crisis, and those who did not. Another longstanding fault line, reviewed earlier, runs between official and nonofficial level employees in the Organization, as exemplified by the promotion and holiday party matters.
By-Products of Idealization: Resistance to Change and Lack of Psychological Safety
Idealization and its related psychodynamic forces lead to two aspects of the organization that could have a pervading impact on the fulfillment of its purpose and role, how it views crises, the nature of its leadership, and the type of community it ultimately becomes. Arising mostly in the postalgia streams, these aspects concern the resistance to change and the lack of psychological safety in the Organization.
Respondents suggested several causes for the resistance to change, including the lack of an animating crisis, a general fear of change stemming from risk aversion, discomfort with uncertainty, the threat of possible punishments, pessimism, and avoidance. As mentioned earlier, underlying many of these factors may be the idealization of the past, particularly that of the “chosen glory.” Such idealization could support a collective fantasy that, because the Organization successfully dealt with previous crises, it will be able to do so again. This fantasy could bolster social defenses in the organization against change. “Social defenses” serve the purpose of reinforcing a group’s defenses against fundamental anxieties in the workplace.21 Change, by its nature, creates anxiety. To assuage this anxiety, and as supported by Junior and Staffer accounts, social defenses in the organization may be operating to provide undue confidence in existing practices, downplay future risks, and so deny the need for change.
Many Respondents also feel a disturbing lack of psychological safety in the Organization. This broadly refers to the safety to speak, to be wrong, to disagree, to surface unacknowledged conflict, and, perhaps encapsulating them all, the safety to learn. The idealization of a successful past lays the foundation for this environment of fear. Learning necessarily involves anxiety, for individuals and groups.22 It is uncomfortable to replace what is well known and has worked in the past with something new. This inherent unease increases with the fear that the new learning may involve possible failure, asking for help, or admitting a mistake in front of others. Respondents from all Cohorts, especially those voicing postalgic desires, cited an underlying and ever-present anxiety around their freedom to speak up and learn in safety. Admitted one, “I spend a lot of time feeling afraid—it needs to be more OK to be wrong.” This anxiety can be reduced by an environment that supports interpersonal risk taking, where no one will embarrass, reject, or punish someone else for expressing their opinions.23 Respondents echoed this prescription, citing three specific shifts in attitude that are needed in the organization: an openness to seeing things anew; an assumption of good intent by all participants; and engagement with—not just tolerance of—differing views.
Theoretical Concepts Revisited
The definition of nostalgia as a warm longing for a former time when the organization was more like an extension of a caring family was clearly in evidence.24 The study also seems to corroborate many of the positive attributes of nostalgia, such as the preservation of group self-esteem, support for uniqueness claims, and shared feelings of pride and affiliation in the Organization.25,26 However, an important finding of my research is the role that nostalgia might play in creating and exacerbating in-group/out-group feelings within an organization, as described earlier.
For its part, postalgia is described as an activating force that is energizing, anticipatory, and hopeful, while simultaneously creating anxiety, doom, and foreboding. I found that postalgia in the Organization, when ignited, very much reflects this latter set of feelings, rather than a positive vision of rationalist, instrumental prowess. In addition, postalgic thinking—such as long-term or strategic thinking—is typically considered the natural domain of the senior managerial class.27 However, in my research, the Juniors, not the Seniors, exhibited the most intense postalgia in the Organization. It may be that the younger generation, with their future careers ahead of them, are more prone to postalgic thinking than their elders. Whatever the reason, it appears that postalgia can be strongly felt by a wide variety of organizational members.
Creating a Transitional Zone: The Interplay of Nostalgia and Postalgia
It is notable that past research on nostalgia and postalgia has failed to consider how the two interplay, how they can coexist in an organization, and, more importantly, how they might be understood and deployed together to advance organizations in times of change. For example, are nostalgia and postalgia naturally and fundamentally “at war” with each other? Or is there a way to combine their respective golden memories and shining desires into a welcome present and future?
As a mixed, shifting emotion, nostalgia provides license for a wide range of perceptions depending on its context and can enable individuals and groups to see themselves as adaptive over time.28 Might postalgia, as a similarly ambivalent, idealized feeling, in fact be well suited for a flexible, productive partnership with nostalgia?
Organizational transition theories provide a view into how this interplay might proceed. All-important in facilitating this process appears to be the creation of a “transitional zone” where the ramifications of possible endings and beginnings can be considered, fully felt, and processed.29 This transitional zone involves recognition that learning is painful, and that adaptation takes time and involves both a “letting go” and a building on the past. The question in this zone is not only “Of all that we care about, what must be given up to survive and thrive going forward?” but also “What must be preserved into the future, or we will lose precious values, core competencies, and lose who we are?”30
Living Through the Transitional Zone: Lessons From the Ghosts
Although none of the Respondents were specifically asked about the interplay of nostalgia and postalgia or transitions to a new identity, the Ghosts’ accounts seemed to provide insights into the experience of such profound change. In varying ways, the Ghosts appear to have reconciled their nostalgic pasts, the subsequent shifts in the organization, their individual postalgic desires, and their new pursuits in life. In the Conversations, each revealed a personal awareness that seemed to underlie or transcend whatever nostalgic or postalgic feelings they carried in relation to the Organization. Their stories may provide guideposts for current employees in how to acknowledge and work with the nostalgic and postalgic narratives in the organization as it seeks to further clarify its collective identity.
Ghost 1
One Ghost recounted feeling “out of joint” with the Organization prior to deciding to leave it. He thought that the Organization had changed significantly, leading him to repeatedly wonder, “Why are they all acting like this?” After greater introspection and consideration, this question gradually changed to, “Is it them—or is it me?” The Ghost explained, “It’s all too easy to say the Organization should always be the way it was, and they should all be like me. But that would be a very narcissistic view.” Instead, he said, “I realized I’m different now, and that feeling was a signal that it was time for me to move on.” Most strikingly, he was “no longer convinced that the old way is still the right way.”
Ghost 2
Another Ghost described his decision to leave the Organization as particularly painful because it was so integral to his identity—“it was who I was.” In addition, the Ghost’s contribution to the Organization may not have been widely appreciated, and many of those who did value it have now passed away. This has led to his awareness of what was truly important during his time in the Organization, and now: relationships. “People trusted me. Those relationships were all that mattered,” he said. “The most important thing to me continues to be the integrity of my relationships. Those are real.”
Ghost 3
After leaving the Organization, another Ghost reported “feeling like there was a weight lifted off my shoulders that I didn’t know I was carrying around.” This stemmed from “not being able to let go of the Organization’s old identity.” Since then, the Ghost has heard about changes in the Organization, including, most recently, the new holiday party. She was pleasantly surprised by what was reported, so much so that she feels sad not to be included in the new changes. “I want people to thrive,” said the Ghost, “and I feel like I missed an important moment in the life of the Organization.” Several weeks after the party, the Ghost even dreamt that she was an outsider, witnessing a positive new direction in the Organization. Afterward, the Ghost was stunned by the realization that “the things that may be good for the Organization now are completely different from what I was nostalgic for.”
Ghost 4
“I worked very hard on not missing this place,” said this Ghost. Over the years, the Organization had become part of his life and self—a kind of “second nature.” The Ghost tries not to get “emotionally involved” with the changes in it and aims to continue to live according to its values, albeit in other settings. These include “the idea of mission, purpose, service to others, and giving back.” This Ghost concluded by saying, “It’s about working toward the greater good—that’s where my heart lies.”
These stories of these four Ghosts do not provide a comprehensive strategy for moving through a transition that involves dealing with nostalgia and postalgia. They don’t set out a way to adjudicate competing claims about what should be given up and what should be conserved, nor delineate a singular path toward a final resolution. More than anything, they each describe a kind of “psychic posture” by which the Ghosts now understand and approach their lives.
None of them renounced the “rightness” of the Organization’s, nor their own pasts, and each expressed a fundamental realization that sustains and impels them through changing times. For Ghost 1, this involved a thorough acceptance of changes within the organization and himself—and the possibility that the old ways might no longer be the best. Similarly, Ghost 3 experienced the surprising insight that, although different from what had been nostalgically valued, change can in fact lead to new kinds of thriving. Ghosts 2 and 4 professed their abiding devotion to certain values that had always grounded and guided their lives, both in and outside of the Organization: trusted relationships and service to others.
The Ghosts’ psychic postures toward change seem highly relevant for the Organization and its future challenges. Without additional information from the Ghosts, it is impossible to know precisely how these postures came about—though, even from the little the Ghosts said, one can detect the painful learning, adaptation over time, and the “letting go” and “building upon” that are described in the transition theories. The Ghosts have remained true to their most cherished values, while also likely making use of the ambiguous, shifting aspects of both nostalgia and postalgia to understand their own identities. In effect, they seem to have each gone beyond nostalgia and postalgia to discover the feelings and values that lie deeper still. This discovery seems to have enabled them to change. Adopting the psychic postures of the Ghosts—reflecting on what truly matters and endures through past, present, and future—may prove to be a powerful way for members of the Organization to begin to approach each other and their differences as they come to understand their nostalgic memories and postalgic desires, and look to forge its new collective identity.
General Applications of Methodology and Findings
My research demonstrates the usefulness of paying close attention to nostalgia and postalgia as a method of understanding the existing state of an organization. Asking just two questions, one about nostalgia and the other about postalgia, provided a tremendous amount of data about employees’ perceptions and feelings about the current state of the Organization. While these data may not yield the entire story, it suggests that taking account of nostalgia and postalgia can be a very effective tool for those concerned with diagnosing organizational culture.
Perhaps most importantly, the study highlights the central importance of the past in organizations. The study reveals—for better or worse—the great significance that the past can have within an organization in defining its collective identity and in how it functions. This strongly suggests that, rather than ignoring or denying the past, leaders need to be more aware of the continuous power of the past within their organizations. The past itself may not be subject to “control,” but I believe that this study has shown the need for leaders to be far more conscious of and responsive to it.
The evocation of nostalgia and postalgia could also be helpful to leaders or practitioners as they try to assist organizations moving through transitions. Though not actually shown as such in the study, it seems plausible that raising nostalgic memories and postalgic desires could facilitate a dialogue about “what must be given up” and “what must be conserved” during times of transition in an organization’s collective identity.
In the case of the Organization, the identification and analysis of the streams of nostalgia and postalgia, along with the recognition of psychodynamic forces that appear to be present, revealed the key issues the organization should address to move forward. Fundamentally, it needs to courageously explore its enduring memories and evoke its future desires. Its leaders, in particular, must be unafraid to see the entirety of its being—both positive and negative—and to understand the resistance and fear that arises when its longings and dreams are not felt or accepted. Only then will the necessary inspiration and sense of community arise to recreate its collective identity.
Upon completion of the study, I confirmed the broad validity of my methodology and findings through individual discussions with 40 of the senior leaders and employees of the Organization. I also shared the study with a number of others—for example, the head of a public relations agency, the chief administrator of a synagogue, and the managing partner of a major investment firm—none of whom had any connection with the Organization. All these readers, both within the Organization and outside, reported that they immediately related to the study and that it set off their own organizational memories and desires; enabled them to understand others’ feelings and reflect on their own behaviors; and powerfully framed challenges related to collective identity in new and actionable ways.
To elicit similar results from studies on the influence of nostalgia and postalgia in other organizations, I recommend the following general guidelines:
• Interview a broad cross-section of employees and leaders in the organization. Seniors, Juniors, Staffers, and Ghosts all contributed different perspectives to the study.
• Ask a small number of open-ended questions—two is ideal—to avoid directing respondents toward certain immediate responses and encourage deep reflection.
• Once you have collected the open, wide-ranging responses to your questions, look for the major nostalgic or postalgic themes or “streams” that unite different responses.
• Seek out the psychodynamic forces that lie beneath the surface of the streams.
• Finally, look for the emotional currents that bring the streams together.
Final Thoughts
For me, researching and writing this study has been a true “journey from nearness to distance—and back.”31 I was well aware of the essential and profound dedication of the Organization and its people to serving others, especially in times of crisis. But seeing the organization from the new and further vantage points of the nostalgic and postalgic streams, and with the aid of psychodynamic lenses, has given me a much more complete and intimate picture of the emotional context in which this dedication to service exists, and the dilemmas it faces.
It could seem, to some readers, that I have overemphasized a collection of very harmful out-of-consciousness factors in the Organization, such as holding an idealized image of itself, hanging on to outdated tales of glory, engaging in social defenses against change, and propagating an environment which spawns anxiety and fear. But, at the same time, the organization maintains strong ideals, its past triumphs inspire and sustain its ongoing work and group cohesion, its steadfastness underpins its indispensable stability, and its deliberative practices ensure careful, thoughtful decision making.
Seeing, for the first time, the complexity of the Organization’s emotional drivers has given me a fresh appreciation of the fundamental need of its employees: to connect with others through a shared purpose. Throughout this study, by virtue of the acknowledgment and expression of their good and true memories and heartfelt desires, nothing radiated more warmly or ran more deeply and constantly than their longing for community and togetherness in fulfilling a vitally important public mission.