31/01/2014 97:14 +49-221-4705053 USEKOELN Ss. 02/09 Understanding Group Dynamics and Systems WwW is going on? Meghan has been so open and responsive in the past but now she seems shut down. Folded arms. She hasn't said a word today. Should I say something to her or would that just push her deeper into with- rawal? Wait a minute. I'm missing something. Dana is staring at her, frown- ing. So is Chet. Something going on between them. It seems like Meghan’s ‘quietness is reflecting some hesitance on the part of others, almost as if she is “speaking” for them. If so I'd be better off not focusing on Meghan but instead encouraging others to draw her out In this chapter, you lear to thinkin new ways about human behevior attend ‘ng not only to the individual but also to the larger systemic and interactive dynamics between people, Working in groups requires a whole different set of perceptual filters by which to make sense of what is going oa. Rather than focus- ing on one person, you must be aware of multiple people, various interactions, and all the process events happening in-between, just as illustrated in the reflec- tions of the group leader above. It is enough to make your head spin. If all you did as a group leader was constantly follow the main speaker or interaction, group sessions would be rather ting, and potentially boring. Worse Yet is that you would also be missing out on all the potential collective energy and interactions that group work can offer. Even though you use many of your individual therapeutic skills, they are applied quite differently. tt is for this 731/01/2014 Q7:14 — +49-221-4705053 USBKOELN Ss. 93/09 38 PARTE FOUNDATIONS OF GROU? WORK ee reason that experienced group leaders leave linear thinking behind and learn to think recursively (circular) and systemically. This means learning to lock at the Digger picture of bow each person's actions fit within a larger context of bis or hee world, as well as that of the group. You will nt only diagnose individual dif- ficulties but also assess interpersonal patterns, group stages, systemic function ing, coaltional alliances, and other dynamics that are important to understand. Ina sense, effective group leaders learn to see the forest and the trees. Many of the models and theories about group are focused on interpersonal imezaction and are drawn from interpersonal theory, social psychology, and research on collective behavior The interpersonal focus is useful since it draws attention not only to exchanges and behavior in the present but also from the past. Te focus on systems allows group leaders to expand ther vision of a group and see how it evolves overtime, Furthermore it brings attention to the com- ‘munication patterns and interpersonal patterns that emerge. Essentially, it deep- ‘ens the understanding of group dynamics and reminds group leaders that group work is not individual counseling in 2 group setting, but rather group counsel- ing in a systemic setting (Connors & Caple, 2005) Linear and Circular Causality ‘The strange thing about leading groups is that you are attending not only 10 roup membersas individuals but also to the interactive effects of how each per- son's behavior influences, and isin turn affected by, everyone else's actions. Look at your own classroom as one example. The instructor does and says things that have a huge impact oa what happens in the room. It would appear as if you and ‘your classmates react in a linear way to the stimulus of a statement such as “Okay. count off by fives and organize yourselves into small groups.” Some students ook annoyed, and others seem bored. Others eagerly agree, excited that they do not have to sit quietly for the period and hear @ lecture. You might feel both apprehensive and interested about what is about to occur next, According to one model, favored by traditional behavioral theorists over the Years, human reactions occur either as a stimulus-response, classical condit (@la Ivan Pavlov) process ot as a response-stimulus, operant (3 la B. Skinner) mode. In the former, the instructor's directions elicit an automatic response in class members that has been conditioned over time; in the latter case, a particu- lar response—the instructor's observation that the energy level is low in the rooms conditioned by a stimulus designed to alter current conditions. In both ee is Viewed as linear in nature: One action affects the31/1/2014 07:14 +49-221-4705053 USBKOELN Ss. 9a/ea (Chapter 3: Understanding Group Dynamics and Systems 39 Even contemporary behaviorists now see this asa gross simplification of what happens during complex human imeractions (Spiegler & Gurvremont, 2003). ‘There are not only internal, cognitive, and affective processes going on within cach person that influence haw the world is perceived, but behavior in groups follows a much more circular rather than a linear path. In eircular causality, group members’ behavior is simultaneously moving in all directions at once, “a continuous series of circular loops or recurring chains of influence” Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 2007, p. 16). In a sense, this speaks to different forces moving in multiple directions—not influenced by one action but rather by ongoing mutually influencing processes. Building on the example above, the instructor asking the class to break into small groups is really just one of many processes happening at that moment. In groups of three, identify one critical incident or dramatic moment that recently occurred in class in which many people were affected by what transpired. Go back and try to re-create what might have led up tothe culminating event as well as its after ‘math. Rather than relying on linear causaity, employ a model of circular causality rec jrocal influences, causes, and effect) in which you examine how each person's behavior was both a trigger and an effect on others’ actions. ‘As one example, linea causality might lead one to say that a student asked a “dumb” ‘question at the end of clas, eliciting groans from clasates, fusration in the instruc: tot, and then shame and regret in that student for cpenng his mouth. if you lock at that same incident from a circular perspective, you identfy that many more complex processes were occurring, The student asked the question in the fst place because he ‘ead a look in the insructo’s eye that seemed to invite such an inquiry. The instructor was actualy trying to encourage more student participation because he interpreted that this particular student was bored when he was realy confused, and so the student checked out fora while. The groans from the class mey have to do with some students wanting 10 leave early, arcther being annoyed by the question, and yet another who is ‘ot even paying atetion in cass but is rather looking at his iPhone and just sav tha his favonte team lost. Once you bring inthe contributory influences and efecs of others in the room, you have quite 2 complex situation, far more so than you ever imagined. ‘Whether in trying to make sense of what is going on in a classroom or what started a fight among a group of people, it is virtually impossible to identify ‘who caused what. All group behavior occurs within a context that includes the individuals perception of reality, as well asthe interactions taking place, both, ‘consciously and unconsciously, between all people present.3a/e1/2014 a7:14 443-221-4705 USBKOELN s. PART I: FOUNDATIONS OF GROUP WORK ‘Systems Theory “The concept of circular causality is only one of many ideas spawned from what has becorne known as “systems theory” Developed by biologist Ladwig von ‘ertalanffy (1968), this approach to understanding behavior was designed to amake sense ofthe way that al living creetures organize themselves and actin pre- dictable parerns. Furthermore he was instrumental in getting others to consider the whole as greater than the sum of its parts, which is called holism. Being a biologist, and also fond of physics metaphors, many of the terms he introduced to describe the way groups of people behave sound more appropriate for a sci- ‘ence class: homeostasis, morphogenesis, and feedback loops. Until group leaders hada framework in which to Jook at systemic behavior, ‘that is, the interactive patterns and subsystems of a group, there was a tendency to treat group work like doing individual counseling or therapy, but with an audience present. There are still some group structures that operate thas way, just 85 there are some group leaders who are essentially doing individual ther- apy in a group setting with witnesses, Obviously, this does not capitalize on many of the powerful therapeutic ingredients that are present in a community healing environment. In the helping professions, the family therapy movement (figures such as Murray Bowen, Jay Haley, Virginia Satis, to mention a few) has been instrumen- tal in introducing systemic thinking as a means by which to assess the ways that groups of relatives organize themselves over time, creating stable patterns (homeostasis) that are inclined to return to familiar states (equilibrium). In this sense, one of the belief is that systems tend to be self-correcting based on feed back either positive or negative, and that systems maintain stability Think of aime in your family when someone created a problem or conic to “help” {everyone else resume a familar, stable patern. For instance, your parents were having 8 disagreement and you oF your siblings distracted them by acting out. Consider the ways that your family of origin organized itself consistently into the same, familiar ‘ordered system. Whenever things became destabilized or chaotic, what roles did yOu and others play to bring things back to equilibrium? eT Most family therapists, who are also group specialists, favor a whole glossary of tecms that are used to describe the way family systems tend to operate. Many of these ideas are quite useful in understanding behavior in all groups, not ust 25/0931/01/2014 07:14 449-221 -4785053 USEKOELN Ss. 06/03 Chapter 3: Understanding Group Dynamics and ystems a family systems. As an example of this, imagine that « group member claims thet another participant hurt him desply by confronting him about his tendency to ramble, The confronting group member defends herself by saying thatthe ram- ‘ler drives her crazy with his tendency to talk al the time, Each believes thatthe other is causing them to act the way they did (e.g, A -> B, or B~> A), even though each is actually both the cause and the effect ofthe other's behavior (e.g. AeoB), We simplified this interaction considerably, of course, Remember that they are both part of a larger group in which there are also other members covertly involved in this interaction, rooting for one person or the other depend ing on their loyalties. Group coalitions, or subsystems, ate also important phenomena to observe and identify. All groups organize themselves into smaller units, each with its own set of rules or norms that regulate bebavior (remeraber that homeostasis is the key in this model). Each of these smaller coaltional groups has certain bound~ aries between them that control who can say what to whom. In a family, this phenomenon might be readily observed as a father-mother subsystem; another between two of the three siblings; and another composed of the mother, her ‘mother, and the third child. In a group, you might see this when there is a popular and powerful group—a couple members who have become close compared with those who are shy and not too confident. You can therefore appreciate that these coalitions are organized around mutual needs, loyalties, and control of power, When these subsystems are dysfunctional and destructive, sich as when a parent is aligned with a child against his spouse or a chil isi coalition with a grandparent against her parents, the counselors job is to initi- ate realignments in the structure and power, creating a new set of subsystems that are more functional In groups, as well, you will observe thet members will align themselves with allies according to shared values and what is in their best interest. Different group members find ways to stick together. For example, we have seen male group members align together, Muslim or fandamental Christian group mem- bets form coalitions, and gay and lesbian group members pull together in a sub- group against other group members that may appear threatening or aligned ‘against them. Of course, people do tend to be drawn to those who are like them, so it is quite normal for these coalitions to form. You will notice this most dra- ‘matically when members form a codlition against you as the leader, a common ynamic that can be therapeutic if handled constructively. This recently hap- pened to Mett in a group he was leading, ‘A group member, lian, who was usualy active and emotionally available, alluded toa troubling event, but then said, “I don’t want to get into it right now.” After saying that, she looked directly at me (Matt) and I followed up by asking, “What makes it herd to talk about it right now?”31/01/2814 a7: 14 +43-221-4705053 USEKOELN i PART: FOUNDATIONS OF GROUP WORK Photo 3.1. Rather: than functioning as:a: cohesive teany working fogether for'common goals, Braup hiembets sontétimes' become cornpettve téward one another, They vie for Sttertioh, compete for. leader approval, Sabotage one: another—-as if each is tying ‘owin a race. This dynamic can begin easily: enough, apparently as a form of linear causality in which -oné persor’s behavior appears’ to trigger someone else 10 respond. Yet each member's behavior becomes both a'cause and an effec. sparking 8 form of circular causality in which things can spin outof control. Jilidn paused, explained: «little bit; ‘acid then: ‘spent thé text 5 minutes ‘revealing the event to the group; She.was tearful and sad throughout. When she Giished, Inoticed that a few grein mienibess began:to make eyes at me ke:they- weed upiee.1 about this, ond thrée group: :members talked ‘shouthew. ideppropriate:t had ‘bear pushing Jillian 16: talk when she e7/0831/01/2814 07:14 +49-221-4725053 USBKOELN s. eaves (Chapter 3: Understanding Group Dynamics and Systems 8 them. They had created a coalition around the issue of remaining hidden since it seemed they all feared revealing their own inner world. They added ‘thet they did not feel safe in the group and that I ought to apologize to the ‘group member, Jillian. | attempted to validate their observations and concerns, and noted that it may have appeared like I was pushing or bullying jillian to speak. At this point, I asked the three members if they might be willing to explore their reactions with the group, and why they had such a strong reaction (when the other group members did not). ilian noted that she did not feel pushed to speak but that she often wanted to push these three group members to open up more about their lives. For the rest of the group, we explored hesitancy and safety in the group with these three members and found that by the end of the night, the group had grown closer to these three and they indicated less anxiety. Not only can you apply family systems ideas to look atthe structure of a group but also its patterns of communication. A mumber of group theorists (Agazarian, 2004; Connors & Caple, 2005; Donigian & Malnati, 2005; Gantt & Agazarian, 2006) have adapted systems thinking to all group settings in which you can obierve and label the characteristic ways that members relate to one another, Group systems theory helps clarify group processes that are occurring and pro- vides interventions to move the group dysiamics in more productive directions (Connors & Caple, 2005). In fact, you can step back from any group you are part of and ask yourself a number of questions about the systemic functioning and see many group systems concepts come to life: ‘What roles are various individuals playing in the group? Who is placating whom? Who has the power in the group? These questions speak to the notion of each group having a control and power structure. This is also indicated by the following questions: How do decisions get made in the group? Who gets time and how is that negotiated among memberst Other than the leader's direction, how is it decided who talks and wht is discussed? + Which coalitions have formed? Who is aligned with whom? Which alliances have formed temporarily and permanently? Which members are in conflict with one another? * Are the boundaries within a group open encugh 9 allow new information to ‘enter the group? Boundaries can be tight or loose, depending on the needs of the group. An example of boundaries is the admission criteria for a group setting. Who gets into your group? What are the criteria? A 12-step31/01/2014 07:14 449-221 -4725053 USEKOELN s. PART I: FOUNDATIONS OF GROUP WORK ‘open group may have a loose set of criteria whereas an intensive psy- chotherapy group for depression may have a strict set of entrance criter ‘+ How do members communicate with one another? Are the lines of commu- nication clear and direct? Where do members direct their attention when they speak? '» Do group interactions tend to move in patterns that move toward keeping the system stable? Repetitive patterns tend to maintain safety and regularity. ‘What norms have developed in the group that regulates behavior? Which rules were established by the leader versus which ones ernerged covertly by members! What are the metarales (the rules about rules) in the group’— These are the ones such as “Make sare you don't say anything about bald ‘people or it wil piss the leader oft” ‘+ How is information exchanged among group members? How did people share what they know with one another? Who was exchided or ignored? Which data were accepted and rejected? What critical information was neglected? How was the information synthesized? * Did change in a system occur via the use of postive and negative feedback? Rather than a value judgment, positive feedback tends to create change, ‘whereas negative feedback tends to support the carrent system, Conflict ‘can be an example of positive feedback that is change provoking, How ate conflicts resolved? Who doesn't like whom? What are the ways that mem- bers try to sabotage or undermine one another or the leader? How do ‘members show their disagrocment with what is going on? At the same time, dering conflict there will be group members who try to downplay oF Squash the conflict. This can be viewed as negative or change resistant feed- ‘back. So who tres to make things better? Who squelches the conflict? Who iwies to create distractions? ‘+ What was the holistic outcome ofthe group? Rather than group members Acting as solitary agents, each is interdependent on one. other, meaning that the Whole greater than the sum of ts parts (von Bertalanly 1968), While ew group leaders may evaluate a group based on how some of the mem- bess did, holism instructs group leaders to ask “How did the group do today?” [This is jus sample of questions that could emerge from systemic thinking ‘ppled to groups. So far, we have been looking at group stems a they are con fained within a closed unit. OF course each individual, and each group syst e9/es