Sociograms: The Group as System

3.5 Sociograms: The Group as System

In Chapters 2.5.2 and 2.5.3 we described methods with which we can observe and record the social dynamics of systems – in residential juvenile groups, in groups of children in homes, at school or in nursery schools. In this chapter we introduce the methods used to organize and document these observations. The symbols suggested by Minuchin for maps (see Chapter 3.2) generally describe, organize and document the social dynamics found in families. But this language of symbols, with some additions and supplements, can also be used to describe other systems, such as groups, teams or whole neighborhoods.

We understand the social dynamics of a group to be the relationship structures, the social roles and the subgroups that emerge during interactions and enable a group to function and act as a group.

Whenever we create sociograms with the help of Minuchin’s symbols we use circles and squares for girls and boys, entering their age and symbolizing their emotional proximity or distance by putting them closer or further apart. Also, we can depict the quality of the relationships by employing symbols for closeness (choice of joint actions and games) and conflict (rejection).

We construct social dynamics from our observations – how individuals in the group react to each other, who wants to be with whom, who rejects whom. But Figure 17: Example of a timeline

there are also other observations we can make in a group (see the questions given in Chapter 2.5.3):

– What are the values, interests and needs that link the subgroup together and which of them are associated with the individual members?

– What are the common group activities? Are there common interests? What do the subgroups do together to have fun and what do the individual members prefer to do alone?

We suggest adding the observations from these questions to the subsystems. Nor-mally, the results of our synopsis of the social dynamics of these aspects provide a better understanding of what lies behind the social dynamics of the group. The interests, desires, needs and values

– weld the group together if they are similar or identical,

– drive the group apart if they preclude each other, or if they are felt to be some-how threatening or dangerous,

– can prevent some individuals from gaining access to the group.

With this information we can, as the person responsible, develop hypotheses about what motivates and drives the group members. This in turn provides us with inspirations for particular interventions, activities, work structures and ideas Figure 18: Typical patterns for recording social structures and roles in a group (on the symbols see Figure 6 above)

on how to design our interactions with the individual members or subgroups (see Chapter 4.5).

Methodologically speaking, we suggest proceeding stepwise as follows:

– First, chart the social dynamics observed in the interactions in a sociogram.

– Second, add the actions, interests and values of both the subgroups and the individual members.

– Third, draw up hypotheses based on these results and plan the respective inter-ventions.

Background Text: Sociometry and Group Dynamics Were the Earliest Approaches to Systemic Thought

The methods described here did not emerge solely from systemic work, but can also be found in older traditions present long before systemic observa-tions of social systems led to the conclusion that social contexts play a major role in the development of human beings, their well-being and their produc-tivity. Part of this tradition was the work of Jakob Lewis Moreno (e.g., 2001, 2008), Kurt Lewin (1951) and Bradford, Gibb and Benne (1964). Many of their methods for recording the interactions and dynamics of social systems are useful when working systemically with groups. In some of these ap-proaches the behavior of the individual is not causally related directly to his or her personality, but is rather seen as part of a reciprocal relationship with the particularities of the group and the personalities present in that group.

This sort of interaction between the characteristics of the group and those of the individual can be understood as a circular process. How closely systemic methods resemble these traditions from group-oriented psychotherapy be-comes clear when we compare Minuchin’s family maps and the sociograms Moreno (1953) drew of groups. Below, we concentrate on two particular research approaches to groups that have proved extremely useful for the study of groups as social systems.

The first approach is that of J. L. Moreno, who early on recognized how dependent a person’s well-being is on the respective context. His book enti-tled “Who Shall Survive?” (1953) describes his experiences after World War I as a young doctor treating dislocated farmers in South Tirol, who had been driven from their farms and were now living in a refugee camp. All the res-idents of the camp were living under the same (very poor) conditions, yet it was his observation that those patients who came to him with extreme veg-etative afflictions were living in barracks full of stress, anger and tension among the dwellers. The “healthier” camp residents, it turned out, were living in family barracks together with family members as well as old and new friends. Moreno’s conclusion was that the well-being and health of humans greatly depends on whether or not they live within a network of well-meaning others or whether their life is full of adversity. He studied workgroups and

3

other systems as to how much choice (sympathy or positive energy) or rejec-tion (antipathy or negative energy) the individual members enjoyed, depict-ing the results in the form of sociograms and tables (sociometric tests). These sketches and sociograms were generally based on real enquiries and directed toward measuring social relationships. We use this instrument to depict ob-servations made by the team leader or an outsider. The roles described in Figure 18 (p. 89), such as “star,” “unseen,” “excluded,” “subgroups” and

“couples” are borrowed from Moreno.

The second model is that of Raoul Schindler, who in 1957 described rank-ing orders in groups. He focuses on social roles that occur in all types of groups and guarantee group existence. This approach was also an attempt to understand what went on in the social system of Germany during the so-called Third Reich. His approach was a fruitful one for systems theorists be-cause he was able to depict the dynamic reciprocity of various functions (what Schindler called ranking group positions) and their interactions in a social system. Figure 19 shows the ranking group positions. The double line between Alpha and Gamma expresses the closeness of their positions; the dotted line between Beta and Alpha as well as Gamma symbolizes the greater distance between these elements. Beta takes part in the actions that Alpha suggests (which the participants at the Gamma position are also part of), but Beta is more dissociated, has doubts or wants modifications to the plan. The

Figure 19: Schindler’s ranking group model

line connecting Omega and Alpha as well as Gamma represents conflict.

Omega’s connection to Beta is not necessarily one of conflict, but it is in any case less intensive. In Chapter 4.5 we describe group situations that can be well understood and graphically represented with this model.

One major advantage of this model is that it makes clear to all that Alpha actually supplies the participants at the Gamma position with something:

Alpha clearly expresses the interests, values and needs that appeal to them;

Alpha also has the ability to translate these expressions in the form of attrac-tive actions and to communicate them in an engaging way to those at the Gamma position. In our opinion, this model is not capable of properly de-picting processes in large groups or, say, the developments in fascist Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. But in smaller groups of up to 25 members it can offer a useful perspective for describing system dynamics.

A further advantage of this model lies in its creating a connection between social dynamics (closeness, distance, partialities, attraction, hostility, rejec-tion, subgroups, etc.), on the one hand, and psychological dynamics (the val-ues, needs, issues and interests of the participants in a particular context), on the other hand. This allows insight into group processes and reveals that the junction of the individual and the context determines what happens in the system.

A rather weak and awkward, reserved young boy who is interested in logic puzzles and reads a lot will hardly be able to assume the Alpha position in the local soccer team – he may even (depending on the conditions) be con-demned to assume the Omega position (much to his own chagrin). In the local chess club, on the other hand, he might advance to the Alpha position, whereas the boy in the Alpha position of the soccer team could easily land in the Omega position of the chess club.

Let’s look more closely at the first boy: At school he might be stuck in the Omega position up to age 13, since athleticism, strength and male boasting are dominant values in his class. At age 17, however, he could switch to the Alpha position when the previously dominating factors of physical prowess have changed to intellectual and political interests. This move from Omega to Alpha position is a very real possibility when the group changes its orien-tation, interests or values. This scenario also shows that there is no “Alpha type” as such; rather, whoever assumes this position does so because of cer-tain contextual conditions that fit that person’s personal skills and willingness to assume the role.

Raoul Schindler assumes that all of these positions must be occupied to ensure group stability and viability. The objective is thus not to prevent the positions from being occupied; if we want to assume a position of responsi-bility for a group, then we have to endure there being some people who end up in the Omega position, certainly not always a very thankful position. We must also accept that some group members consciously choose and accept

.5 Sociograms:TheGroupasSystem3.6 Reports

3.6 Reports

Sometimes reports have to be written for external employers or for internal rea-sons. A report can also serve as the basis for further planning and decisions. The courts demand expert opinions; health insurers need reasons to continue care;

final reports are sent to experts who in turn become actively involved. Further, case reports as well as therapies and their effects have to be documented. In practice we see many solid, informative and succinct reports – as well as pages upon pages of information with no orientation whatsoever.

Most institutions have templates to be used for such reports, which correspond to the legal and practical necessities and are developed as part of quality-man-agement systems. For that reason, we will provide only a few indications about what makes a good report, a concrete suggestion to serve as motivation, and a case report. Finally, we would like to give a few pointers on choosing useful ele-ments for a proper system-oriented report.

3.6.1 Criteria for a Good Report

– Write the report together with the clients and give them a copy of it. This method guarantees use of clear and simple language.

– Within the report, separate sections should be devoted to what was actually undertaken with the client, what was observed and learned in the process, and to one’s professional judgments and assessments.

– A report is easier to understand and use if it describes the most important as-pects shortly and succinctly. Anything longer than 2–3 pages serves only to water down the meaning. If this cannot be avoided for strategic reasons (e.g., a court demands extensive descriptions), keep the structure as lean as possible, breaking down the text into central statements and accompanying descriptions, so that the reader can quickly grasp the gist and later be concerned with the details.

being in the Gamma position, or that the persons in the Alpha position do not always act democratically and sometimes push others aside. For those of us who work in psychosocial professions this can be a very trying experience indeed! Our ideas of harmony, our own values (“liberté, egalité, fraternité”), our ethical imperatives, our conception of “right and wrong,” our belief sys-tem – these sometimes just get in the way. If one’s goal is to further the well-being of humans and the viability of a group, then a certain measure of flex-ibility and tolerance toward changes in the positions within the group – and especially respect for all positions taken – is necessary.

– Graphic and concrete descriptions garner a greater understanding and accep-tance of what is being described. Instead of stereotypical abstract generaliza-tions (“Peter has pronounced dissocial characteristics, particular in performance requirements at school”) use concrete descriptions of what actually happened (“Peter was rude to the teacher and runs out of the room if he is called on in class and doesn’t know the answer”).

– Consequently, use more verbs and less adjectives and nouns. Write “Petra helps her mother several times a week with the dishes” instead of “Petra is coopera-tive.” Or “Simon fails to come home several nights a week. He pays little atten-tion to his clothing and personal hygiene” and not “Simon may already be con-sidered a runaway with clear signs of neglect.”

– Many reports consist solely of a list of deficits. In systemic-oriented reports, however, it is of utmost importance to include the resources present in the sys-tem, any positive results achieved at solving the problems and the context of the problematic behavior.

– Reports tend to be more vivid and readable if they contain at least some of the visualizations mentioned above.

If the contractee and the situation allow it, we like to employ a graphically orient-ed template that puts the most important pieces of information in a clear and neat order. The advantage is that the most important information is consolidated on one page, which in turn forces one to be selective and succinct. On the other hand, using shorthand descriptions bears the risk of leaving out all the shades and nuances when selecting what is deemed important or unimportant.

3.6.2 What Dimensions to Include in the Report

The answer to this question depends on the field of study, the goal and who is contracting the report. But it is worthwhile to use a theme grid as a checklist.

We enter into the list all areas of information we may need to develop our hy-potheses. Obviously, everyone has their own favorite topics, depending on the respective professional focus – we have areas we explore in detail and others we tend to ignore. A theme grid, however, demands precision of us by forcing us to look at every single area, even those heretofore neglected. Of course, it would be nonsense to go through every single area during the first phase of contact with the client; we don’t want to torture the client for the sake of com-pleteness, which would inevitably cause the clients’ trust to wane. We necessar-ily have to choose which information to deem important and valuable to our goals. Using the theme grid as a sort of self-inspection helps us to make such decisions based not on subconscious inclinations, but consciously and according to professional and replicable criteria. In practice, we also find the following advantages of this method:

– When planning an intervention, I go through all the relevant areas and carefully

put the information I have received in order. I look at the risks and problematic areas with an eye toward their interaction with the symptoms or syndrome in question. I compile the possible foci of intervention based on the “findings”

(“finding” derives from “to find,” and as constructivists we know that in every finding resides an opinion; see Chapter 4.4).

– Resources are often overlooked. That is perhaps the greatest benefit of such a list since its rigor forces us to look closely at those areas where things are going well, where coping is actually working. It requires us to denote all those every-day tasks that are successfully being mastered and that are often taken for grant-Table 4: Theme grids for exploring aspects of family situations

Family situation Risks Resources Notes

1. Familial status

Family structure Parental care Place of residence 2. Economic situation

Income/support Debt

3. Work situation

School/vocational training Employment

Working hours 4. Living arrangements

Living space

Residential environment Social network 5. Parental background

Parents’ childhood Stressful events Earlier relationships 6. Present stressful life events

In the family

External circumstances Traumatic experiences Coping strategies

ed. We need to register these strengths, put a name to them (De Jong & Berg, 2012) and utilize them (Durrant, 1993).

– Such a list also serves to point out all the empty spaces on our own map. One can then plan further contacts to collect the relevant data. Or one can ask: Why don’t I know anything about this yet? Why didn’t I ask about it earlier? Did I overlook it? Or did I not have the courage to ask? Did the client hide the infor-mation from me or sidestep its mention? Should I leave it be or would that be a major sin of omission?

– Finally, the list proves useful when preparing the information for a report. One can complement one’s own observations and define the most important areas to include in the report. It is thus a good preparation for conversations about set-ting up counseling or other help schemes.

For the area of youth welfare services, the Bavarian State Youth Ministry (2005) issued materials to help in preparing diagnoses in social services interventions.

The materials have the advantages described above. We have modified them for our own purposes and present the reader with parts of them as inspiration for own creations (Table 4, p. 95).

3.6.3 Progress Reports for Evaluation Purposes and Planning of Interventions

The following example illustrates how one can apply the report grid to evaluate an intervention and to simultaneously prepare for the next intervention (Table 5). It was prepared with the help of colleagues from an emergency-care group who determined the content of the cells based on their own experiences. The information gathered is entered in shorthand, as is any information on previous interventions based on the perceived effectiveness thereof. In case studies this point is often very important: Particularly in the most desperate cases it is worth searching for those interventions to which the clients reacted positively – if only minimally. They can provide important clues on how to continue. In the next step one formulates the main hypotheses and writes them down along with the activ-ities deduced from them. The main hypotheses are those that are behavior-driven (see Chapter 4.2).

Table 5: Report grid from youth services. The case is of a 13-year-old named David who has been living in an emergency-care facility for 2 weeks. A genogram and a relationship map were also available.

Present state Problems Resources

Family Parents divorced for 4 years, both now have new partners

Friends Others interact with him Dominates weaker kids Supports others,

Friends Others interact with him Dominates weaker kids Supports others,