group dynamics

[Adam Blatner]

Dear Jarmo, thank you for thinking along with me. I had almost forgotten this question to the group.
    Your points are interesting. About role rigidity, well, tendencies are worth noting, but not as a definte expectation. Perhaps the implication here is one of the points in working with groups, to remind them of these tendencies and invite them not to give in. Edward de Bono, who writes about creativity, talks about 6 thinking hats, which I can re-frame as roles, such as the one who
, faced with a problem, 
    -- sees the advantages,   sunny yellow
    -- sees the disadvantages   black
    -- comments on the group process     green
    -- just analyzes the elements dispassionately, thinking, blue
           and I forget the other two right now, one, maybe red, emotional, gut reaction... 

   Anyway, the implication is to know these different perspectives and cultivate the capacity to role shift. So that's a good point.

  Your second point, somewhere around 8 people .. for certain kinds of group work, a certain type of intimacy is lost at 9... and a it more at 12-15. 
    Working with these larger numbers, you need more time to do more warm-ups.
           Possibly, one-person-protagonist-centered work needs less than 12 within a weekend, and less than 20.. if everyone is to obtain optimal participation...    
       At what point does the leader shift over and emphasize smaller group exercises, dyadic experiences, etc., in order to maximize participation and personal learning?   So you raise a good point.

     Warmly, Adam
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Carpe Diem 
  To: 'Adam Blatner' ; list at grouptalkweb.org 
  Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 9:33 AM
  Subject: VS: group dynamics


  Dear Colleagues,
  thanks for Adam for though provoking suggestions. I could think adding two viewpoints. When the groups size grows over seven or eight, role rigidity may emergence. When the group is smaller, it's easier for an individual to take multiple roles, when the size grows, it's easier to be locked into one permanent role. What do you think.

  Another transforming point might be 12. One professor of social psychologdy claimed, that we get a cognitive overflow here and in large groups. We are not any more able to comprehend all the social relations in these large groups. This means that we really begin to feel losing our identity to the group and in some cases start struggling to keep it. This means, that we'll see escalating group processes to emerge and negative behaviours to emerge.

  So, I'll add to hunches:

  at 8 role rigidity
  at 12 social overflow and the struggle for identity

  Cheers,
  Jarmo 



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Lähettäjä: list-bounces at grouptalkweb.org [mailto:list-bounces at grouptalkweb.org] Puolesta Adam Blatner
  Lähetetty: 28. tammikuuta 2007 21:59
  Vastaanottaja: list at grouptalkweb.org
  Aihe: group dynamics



  Dear Colleagues,

      I've been contemplating group dynamics and warming up to an idea. Would any of you who were interested in thinking about what different size groups offer or can provide be willing to discuss the following contemplation with me, adding your own hunches and suggestions?



  Different properties emerge as systems become more complex. Molecules are different from atoms, cells from molecules, etc. When one is alone, the variable is to be more or less awake and engaged, or curious. When two are present, a host of interactive possibilities, fighting/competing, supporting helping.

  When three are present, the possibility of alliances or inclusion, jealousy. (This is the basis for the Oedipal complex, I think---that is, this is the dynamic that is universal. The sexualization of the Oedipal triangle occasionally occurs, and it generates certain complicating fixations. But I don't agree with Freudians who think that this sexualized triangle is almost ubiquitous.)

  In the next section I could use your help. The following are only preliminary brainstormings:

   When four are present, teams emerge. (The seeds for these potentials may emerge at simpler levels, but at each level, it is almost difficult for certain properties not to be operating.)

  When five are present, leadership happens

  When six are present, drama happens, or taking turns, focus on one, and the dynamic of shyness versus self-presentation, of taking a stand, taking a risk, standing up to be counted, and also in drama, one person becomes for a moment the spokesperson or mythic questor for all. 

  When seven are present the potential of schism becomes more manifest, the subtle tension for unity, to avoid breaking into sub-groups, and to work with the subtle subgroupings that almost can't help occurring.

  And so forth. I haven't figured out the others, and the above ideas are still nascent, tentative, and open to your suggestions.

  Adam Blatner, M.D.
  (please reply to adam at blatner.com)
  website: www.blatner.com/adam/   


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.21/665 - Release Date: 2/2/2007 11:39 PM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20070203/d171e493/attachment.html