Mindhunter Conflict Analysis
I recently finished watching Mindhunter on Netflix. Loosely
based on the crime transformation of the late 70s, the show stars FBI agent
Holden Ford and his partner Bill Tench. Both men are passionate detectives who
want to evolve the methodology of their field by incorporating psychology in
crime solving. To accomplish this, they first need to convince their colleagues
of the power of behavioral analysis. Traveling across the country to interview
some of the most gruesome murderers behind bars, Holden and Tench compile data
which leads them to discover traits many of these criminals share. Ford and
Tench’s hope is that this information might be used to identify perpetrators
and ideally to flag potential deviants before they have the chance to become
criminals.
Because the two detectives threaten the status quo, they
encounter their fair share of cynics throughout the season. The head of the
Quantico branch of the FBI doubts the applicability of their research but
concedes them a private workspace in the basement after their preliminary
efforts gain national media attention and afford them a substantial grant. With
the grant comes additional scrutiny. On one such audit of their research
progress, recordings of Holden’s interview with one of his serial killer subjects
reveal some concerning behavior when he is heard making degrading comments
about women.
This conflict is interesting because there are multiple
opinions on Holden’s revealed behavior from the recording. Holden claims he was
attempting to relate to the killer to start a rapport so that the criminal,
whose been indoctrinated not to trust law enforcement, might let his guard down.
Tench, who was present for the conversation, advised Holden to erase that part
of the tape after the interview so that it never got out, but didn’t take offense
to his comments in the moment. Now that word is out, he is switching allegiances
to side with the boss, likely as a self-preservation strategy. It’s interesting
to consider how adding parties to a negotiation can shift people’s incentives
and subsequently their behavior as they consider which coalitions might benefit
their own outcome most.
Holden’s boss is concerned his research success is
over-inflating his ego and he is becoming careless. Ultimately, he seems more
worried about the FBI’s reputation, and his personal reputation, if the
recording were to ever get out rather than about what was said. Since the boss has
always been skeptical of Holden’s research, it’s likely that some of those
feelings are being projecting onto this issue, further inflating the problem. Those
associated with the grant can’t see how conversations like this could possibly
be a necessary part of the research, and they threaten to pull their funding if
Holden and Tench won’t agree to stick to a protocol in their interviews.
In chapter 8 of B&D, they discuss four informal group
roles as defined by Parker (2008). Based on these descriptions, Holden is certainly
the challenger in the show. He’s pushing the group to take risks by challenging
law-enforcement to embrace new methods. In the disagreement discussed above, he
may even be pushing the FBI to expand their thinking on proper interview
technique and the possibility of going with your intuition over a scripted interaction.
None of the roles fully encompass the authority of someone like the FBI boss,
but the best fit seems to be collaborator since he is focused on the bigger
picture, the future of the FBI. He is also concerned with clarifying the
direction of Holden’s study and protecting their reputation. As Holden’s
partner, Tench seems to fit the contributor role.
Reflecting on the altercation between Holden, Tench, their
boss and the grant sponsors, I’m not sure it could have been avoided. Sure, it
might have been delayed had Holden not made those remarks, or if the tape
hadn’t gotten out, but his hysterics had been building since they received the
grant. Eventually he would have blown his top; it may have happened in a
different circumstance, or with a slightly varied cause, but the outcome would
have been similar. The only case I can make for where the outburst might have
been avoided is if Tench had confronted Holden and voiced his concerns.
In the episodes leading up to the conflict, we could feel
Tench’s apprehension toward Holden’s behavior. Perhaps he could have mitigated
the conflict, or at least lessened the repercussions, if he had just had a
candid conversation with his partner, reminding him of their goal and bringing
him back in line. Additionally, if Holden’s boss had separated his personal
issues with Holden from the situation at hand, it likely would have facilitated
their efforts to create an integrative solution. These tactics can easily be
expanded to any group scenario in which conflict has arisen, or is imminent.
Many of the issues endured in the fictitious narrative from
Mindhunter stemmed from a lack of established group norms and poor communication.
As an emerging field of study, the relationship between Holden’s team and the
FBI was newly established. B&D discuss the importance of agreeing on the
basics in their tactics for dealing with interpersonal conflict, and this seems
to offer the best solution for this group. Without well-established rules, it’s
hard for everyone to be on the same page and disagreements are sure to arise.
The parties in the Mindhunter group obviously shared a common interest for
improving the field of criminology, and Holden and his team brought a clear
skillset to the group which they were further developing through their
research. By having a boss and grants sponsors to check up on their progress,
the roll of doubter was also being fulfilled.
So that I don’t leave you in suspense, I will try to wrap up
the conflict without giving away the end of the show (as I’m sure you’re dying
to watch it after my brief overview). Although no hard and fast rules are
placed in writing, Holden and Tench do make up, and together with their boss
and grant sponsors they agree to follow a more consistent set of questions when
interviewing their subjects. Holden’s way around this turns out to be leaving
the tape recorder off until after he feels he’s gotten into the subject’s mind,
but he does alter his behavior to take a less hostile approach, so it seems he
has partially learned his lesson. As there is only one season of the show
released thus far, we will have to await season two to see if Holden’s
innovative methods of behavioral analysis catch on nationally, or if his
arrogance kills the research before it gets the chance to make an impact.
This post was bizarre to me for a few reasons. First, I will admit to my own weird delight in holiday reading from not quite 20 years ago, where I really enjoyed The Silence of the Lambs and other books by the same author, Thomas Harris. In the ones that revolve around Hannibal Lecter, there is a character at the FBI named Jack Crawford who runs the Behavioral Sciences division. I can't really remember the time setting for those stories, but let's say the are from the mid to late 1980s. So it occurred to me that Manhunter might be capitalizing on that prior interest (in additional to the movies there was a TV series about Hannibal Lecter) by doing a prequel of sorts - explaining the origins of psychological sciences in crime investigation. I have no idea whether that is true or not. I did go so far as read the IMDB page on Manhunter, but it didn't say anything about this. On the other hand, the way TV and Movies seem to go these days, rather than pursue a novel story line, they seem to want to exploit known themes that already have an audience. So it seems possible.
ReplyDeleteThen, segueing to something else, there is that the centerpiece of the story seems to be Holden making degrading comments about women that have been recorded. Since the outburst about Harvey Weinstein, which is pretty recent, and the subsequent Me Too campaign, I have read many pieces about how are society is out of wack because it has allowed these abuses to continue unchecked for so long, and how the man gets away with it while the woman bears the burden. So here you are watching a show, I assume for recreation, that has this as a theme, and you write about it in such an arm's length way (which I will admit is your normal style) that I'm kind of amazed you continued to watch the show. Because these issues are making so many people very angry, I wanted to know what's really ticking with you here. On the other hand, that is quite private and none of my business. But I don't get how such a story can be entertainment for you.
Now on the tension between sticking to research protocols and establishing a rapport with a serial killer, in Silence of the Lambs before Jack Crawford has Clarice Starling interview Hannibal Lecter for the first time, Crawford tells Clarice to not let Lecter get into her head. Lecter is a master at manipulation and Crawford doesn't want to empower him. But he also is a highly educated doctor in his own right and thus has direct insight into how other serial killers think and operate. In Manhunter, there is no character like Lecter (or so I infer), so the researchers have to figure out the patterns themselves. The research protocols, as I understand them, are meant to protect human subjects. (If you've seen The Stanford Prison Experiment, that may have provided the experience of things getting so out of hand that there needed to be strict rules imposed to prevent further abuse of that sort.) But if the only human subjects are the serial killers themselves who are already locked up for life, it is harder to understand the purpose of the research protocols as protection. Maybe there is some need to regulate the data collection so it is replicable and hence scientific, but the rights of the subjects shouldn't be an issue. So what seems like a core tension doesn't make much sense to me.
Another comment where I exceeded the capacity of the comment box. Here is the rest.
ReplyDeleteFinally there is the conflict itself, which I gather is mainly between Holden and his boss, with Tench a participant as well. Since the purpose of the post is a look at conflict, this is what you should have led with. I have read your second paragraph three times. It is there, in a veiled form, but it really needed to be better explained. What did the boss get from having that research team under him? Did some of the grant money flow to him? Did some of the publicity cover him? If this was a Faustian deal, can you explain the bargain? I didn't get it.
Let me close on a different note. It is unclear to me whether we can learn lessons about how to manage well from watching TV drama. It may be we can learn more about things we definitely should not do. If you take the position of Holden's boss, as a manager, how should he have played it out? Did he make any errors or not? That's worth considering - not for the show, but for our course.