The Group as a System: Constructing Hypotheses

In Chapter 2.5.3 we provided some suggestions on how to observe interactions in groups. In Chapter 3.5 we suggested a method for describing the social dy-namics of groups and for subsequently preparing hypotheses about those dynam-ics. In this chapter we turn to the topic of constructing working hypotheses and planning interventions in groups. First we describe the contexts we postulate.

4.5.1 Different Group Contexts, Different Demands on Counselors We differentiate here between two contexts and contracts of group work, each of which demands a different procedure. In the first case, the head of the group has the task of working on the relationships, the sensitivities and the overall psycho-logical situation of the individual group members – for example, in therapy groups, in work teams that have come together to work on their team structure and cooperation, or in groups situated in inpatient or outpatient facilities. The work there is very similar to that found in counseling or therapy work with fam-ilies: The counselor forms hypotheses concerning the relationship structures and the communication processes in the group. He then checks them by means of circular questioning or sculptures together with the group, exploring solution fan-Table 10: Evaluating goals (0: no progress, +1, +2, +3: little, good, very good progress, –1: regression)

Goal –1 0 +1 +2 +3 Achieved how? Why not? Consequences Get information

from job agency and from employ-ers with training positions

x Once I had started it was a lot of fun and in-teresting. I noticed that people like it when you approach them on your own and ask. I’m proud of myself that I could do that.

Go to Youth Services

x Didn’t have the time – and didn’t have the courage. I was afraid they would ask whether I would be neglecting my daughter by getting some training. The guardian doesn’t have to come along, but it would be helpful to talk with them on the phone beforehand so that I know where to go and whom to talk to.

tasies and focusing on available resources. One can also use the interventions described in Chapter 5.

In the second case, the goals and tasks are not concerned directly with rela-tionships and sensibilities. This is particularly the case with groups of children and adolescents:

– who share common learning and developmental tasks within an educational setting,

– who live together in assisted-living facilities and need to overcome deficits, – who spend leisure time together and want to have fun together, make some new

experiences and build competencies.

But it can also be with groups of adults, such as – long-term teams carrying out common tasks,

– work and project groups that must produce a certain output within a set time-frame,

– groups that want to develop new professional, cognitive, social or emotional competencies.

In these contexts, too, group members may want to temporarily concern them-selves with the relationships and sensibilities present in the group. A contract is made accordingly, with the group using the tools described in Chapter 5. In the following, we describe how one can help such groups to solve the tasks at hand or produce the performance desired without such a contract but using our sys-temic perspective. When searching for appropriate working hypotheses, the lead-er of such a group should keep the most important critlead-erion in mind: What can I do to put the group in the position to reach their goal?

A number of hypotheses and interventions will lie within the specific context and discipline. We concentrate here on aspects that lie beyond such special con-text circumstances:

– What social and psychological dynamics are necessary for such a group to reach certain learning, performance and developmental goals?

– Which relationship structures might prevent the group from actually reaching its goals?

– Which interventions can the counselor offer to support the conditions and struc-tures conducive to success?

In the following, we introduce some working hypotheses and possible interven-tions that have proved advantageous in practice.

4.5.2 Hypothesis: Too Little or Too Much Cohesion

It is difficult for groups to reach their goals when there is little cohesion, i.e., when the interconnections between the individual group members or between subgroups are insufficient.

Case example: The group is lifeless – few members spontaneously take part in the discus-sions. Some seem to be very reserved or even anxious. Many look expectantly at the leader whenever the conversation falters or difficulties arise. The leader has the feeling that ev-erything depends on her, that she must carry the entire responsibility for the quality of group discussions.

This situation is characteristic for the outset of a new group. The leader must ensure that enough interventions are being offered to allow the members to warm up to the group and to each other. There must be sufficient interaction among the members to lead to a complete network of relationships. It is worth one’s while as a leader to take the time to create a strong network. In the future, this will positively influence the actual group work, its results and the overall satis-faction of the individual members.

Within groups that have been together longer, too, the cohesion – i.e., the sol-idarity among the individual members and the resulting network – may be suf-fering. Here, it is paramount to offer methods that lead to more positive interac-tions in the group. Depending on the situation, this could mean

– furthering the interactions of all members among themselves, – ensuring stronger interconnections between the subgroups,

– better integrating the “rejected” or “unseen” members with existing subgroups, – intervening with more adequate moderation techniques to forge connections

between the participants and thus to support the overall group structure.

Of course, the opposite can also happen: that there are too many or too close network connections in the group. Here, the members are concerned more with the personal contacts emerging from the group and neglect the true task at hand:

The relationship level dominates over the work or objective level.

Case example: In a group of trainees the breaks keep getting longer. The group leader always has to prod them to get working again. The members stand around in small groups, talking and laughing, apparently getting along quite well, but the overall work results are meager.

Presentations of their work results are accompanied by blasé remarks: “Well, we had a weak start and it went downhill from there!” The group is amused and doesn’t seem to be bothered by the situation. The mood is upbeat, and the group fails to notice the poor state of affairs.

In this case, the moderation structures must be changed in order to – re-center the group to the task,

– allow the individual members to return to their original attitude toward the leader,

– confront members with their respective performance level, – enable a debate within the group about the group situation.

The goals may have to be recontracted with the group as a whole.

4.5.3 Hypothesis: Destructive Group Dynamics

The group is continually caught up in negative communication:

– The same deprecative comments, actions and behaviors are repeated over and again, both between the subgroups and between individual members.

– These disparaging remarks lead to individuals or subgroups failing to work properly or even considering leaving the group altogether.

– Insults and attacks are observed and must be addressed.

Case example: In a group of children the verbal insults and put-downs cause one boy to withdraw completely; he doesn’t even want to be in the group anymore. The group leader repeatedly has to intervene and clarify what happened and why and set new limits.

Case example: In team conferences, two fractions repeatedly exchange derogatory remarks.

Whenever the tasks are handed out, the two fractions never mix but stay among themselves.

They work out in painstaking detail whether one fraction has worked than the other, who is responsible for mistakes, who didn’t clean up the kitchen again, etc.

Social systems are not “teachable”; we cannot pick and choose the dynamics of a particular group! And yet we have to work with each and every group. In the group situations described, it makes sense to use interventions that are capable of providing solutions and clarification on the metalevel, i.e., that address the relationships in the group and any conflicts present. To this end, however, an agreement with the group members is necessary – which is not always possible.

Another type of intervention in situations of destructive group dynamics lies in stronger and stricter group leadership with a more definitive structure. Experi-ence tells us that in groups with little structure, spontaneous group dynamics tend to dominate and override everything else; in groups with greater structure, on the other hand, there is little room for spontaneous group dynamics.²Such groups can be supported by

– pointing out that drawing lines is sensible and justified,

– emphasizing the importance of the objective level and the results of group work, – making sure formal rules are adhered to,

– formulating the contracts as binding and attending to their strict fulfillment.

2 Here again we can learn from research on group dynamics: In the 1950s, Bradford et al. (1964) conducted studies in group-dynamics laboratories, provoking a high level of group dynamics by having the group leaders be completely passive. They then ob-served the resulting situations with their sometimes extreme spontaneous group dy-namics. This approach was later used in Europe, too, where such situations were used within group-dynamics seminars as learning arenas for personal growth and for work-ing through one’s personal history and problems. Today, these methods have become outdated and are seldom used.

4.5.4 Hypothesis: Too Few or Too Many External Limitations

As in families, groups, too, can have too few external limitations, which hinders their overall functioning.

Case example: A team has the task of preparing an assisted-living program within a larger organization. The team has to cooperate with other units both within the responsible or-ganization (management, home for the mentally ill, daycare facility for the mentally ill) and with external partners (psychiatrists in private practice, state authorities, local psychosocial groups). The team members maintain these external contacts autonomously and quite in-tensively, whereas the internal contacts tend to be neglected. Cases are preferably discussed with the responsible physician and other helpers (such as legal guardians) rather than directly within the team. The team leader thus often learns about the activities of the col-leagues when their applications have already been approved by management. The team members in turn wonder about their team leader who is so poorly informed about what is going on in the group.

Case example: In a children’s home, there is often great turmoil among a group of 8 children aged 6 to 16 years. Children from other groups wander in and out. Some children in the group prefer being in other groups in the home; it’s “nicer” there, they say. The group doesn’t do much together. More and more often, children say they don’t want to take part in the group’s activities because they prefer other programs. In the past, this has always led to discussions and the caretakers ended up giving in to such requests because they didn’t want to force the children to take part in activities against their will. Quarrels also arise between the “guests” and the group members. The caretakers tend not to intervene because they want the children to learn to solve their conflicts on their own. The children complain about this and say they can’t assert themselves toward the “guests.”

In these situations defining and setting limits and establishing rules as well as controlling their fulfillment would help the group. Yet separating the group from its surroundings is not an easy task since not all members accept such boundaries.

The absence of such boundaries carried with it great freedom for the group mem-bers – despite all the disadvantages. A clearer delimitation of the group is bound to be met with resistance, at least in the beginning.

In the first example of the team in the assisted-living facility, it is recommended that clear rules about internal information processing be set up before information goes out – even against internal group resistance. One could, for example, agree that case reports first be presented in the group and further action be agreed upon there, before the case is discussed with anyone outside the group.

In the children’s group it may be necessary to limit the bringing of guests into the group.

Or one could set up a rule that a guest who causes problems with other children in the group has to leave the group.

Another sort of intervention in such systems is to work on rebuilding the identity of the system such that the members regain a positive attitude toward the system.

Of course, this cannot be dictated. One can, however, encourage activities that foster and cultivate a sense of belonging.

In the assisted-living team these might consist of regular case meetings that convey the importance of the work the group is doing. One could have advanced training together, have two colleagues work on a case together, praise successful work or go on excursions together. Sometimes, the best thing is simply to work together and develop common pro-fessional practices.

Boundaries that are too rigid or impermeable can have a similarly paralyzing ef-fect. In Chapter 2.2 (What Is a System?, see Background Text) we talked about the idea of a half-open system as a model for social systems. Social systems need sufficient exchange with their environment to ensure functionality.

Case example: A self-help group of former alcoholics has been meeting for years. At one time, the group was very important to everyone. They engaged in an intense exchange of ideas and feelings. Group members provided each other with mutual support for many years, seeing each other through many difficult personal and substance abuse-related crises.

The group members bonded, and some were even spending their free time together. Over the years new members were added, but they never stayed in the group for very long: The chemistry just wasn’t right. It was fun being together and all, but the conversations weren’t all that exciting. Exchanging the same old stories in the same old ways was no longer solving any problems.

Case example: The local brass band is a truly traditional club. The director and the musi-cians have all been there for a long time. The listeners at the spring, summer and Christmas concerts also seem to always be the same people. A few new pieces are worked in now and then, but the style and atmosphere remain the same. The musical development seems to have reached its pinnacle a long time ago. A friendly, committed group – but without a real future since there are no new recruits.

When the boundaries of a social system lose their permeability, there can be no more confrontation with the environment, inevitably ending in paralysis. The ef-ficiency and the potential of any social system will always suffer after a certain period of time. If there is to be more traffic at the border, so to speak, then the leadership should be prepared to be met with resistance. Actions provoking more exchanges with the surroundings – introducing new things and new people – are absolutely necessary. They may, however, be sabotaged from within, since they also mean a loss of protection, security and intimacy for the group members. Fear of everything new and foreign, however, inevitably leads to seclusion.

4.5.5 Hypothesis: Different, Contradictory Values and Interests This is not another case of entirely negative dynamics within a group. There are some functioning subgroups whose members still like each other and get along quite well. Yet, between these subgroups and other members (who tend to be unseen or excluded) much rejection and disparagement is going on. A look at the social and psychological dynamics shows that the values and interests are very different, in part even diametrically so.

Case example: In a group of long-term unemployed persons training to reenter the work force (at a catering company), two subgroups have emerged. One group consists of four women, the other of three men. A further man remains an outsider to both groups. The members of the subgroups all have histories of failed personal relationships. Some of the women have been abused in the past, and male macho behavior puts them off and provokes them. The men tend to be very macho and feel cheated and financially exploited by the women in their lives, most of whom they no longer see. The one excluded man is younger than the others, is homosexual and a member of the alternative scene. He’s a red flag for everyone else, whether male or female. The mood in the subgroups is irritable. There is much bickering and aggressive exchanges of words.

With this kind of working hypothesis, the group leader has a number of possible interventions that would support these groups:

– Within the group as a whole, the leader could loudly and firmly declare that differences must not be met with a go/no-go stance but rather be accepted as existing side by side. In this vein, the leader must provide positive feedback for the value systems of both the subgroups and the outsider.

– It is recommended that the structure-free sequences of group work be kept very short. Otherwise, too much space is left for spontaneous group dynamics, which may lead to escalations which endanger the fragile group cohesion.

– The leader uses forms of moderation that provide each subgroup with the op-portunity to develop activities that reflect their respective interests and values in order to stabilize the group. The group as a whole can then once again come together after such phases.

– The leader makes theme-based offers, requests or work tasks that are not clearly oriented toward any specific interests, competences and value systems of any one of the subgroups or outsiders. This provides a way to nurture new social constellations.

– The leader can positively address the interests and value systems of any outsiders – as long as it remains authentic.

4.5.6 Hypothesis: “Alpha” Stands for the “Wrong” Values and Interests

The following group situation exemplifies a further form of impediment to group functioning. It is best explained using the model by Raoul Schindler (1957; see also Background Text on Chapter 3.5, Figure 19). In this model, the rank position of the “leader” (Alpha) has a special meaning to the group. This person is best able to organize and transform, into word and action, the needs that are present in the “tag-alongs” (Gamma). Those in the Gamma position are followers who support and sustain Alpha’s actions since they correspond to their own needs.

Yet sometimes Alpha’s norms, values and actions contradict and thus impede the

Yet sometimes Alpha’s norms, values and actions contradict and thus impede the