group dynamics and role effectiveness

Sat Feb 3 14:22:09 CST 2007

I'm really not sure I get it. Perhaps I am missing the points being made here.

I have run PD's of an evening with over 50 people and the group coalesced into a community that nearly to a person did not want to leave at the end of the evening. They actually asked to arrange for another day that they could meet to pursue other protagonists issues which they had voted on and which I was unable to get to in that evening. There were multiple roles played by folks who were strangers to eachother at the beginning of the evening. The sharing led into mini dramas and brief highly charged empty chairs as everyone was super warmed up at the end of both the first and second psychodrama.  While there were a few of my regulars there who were more in tune with how I worked as well as Bonnie Weisss who was and is a superb auxilliary and one of the best doubles I have ever seen, the vast majority of the people in the session were new to psychodrama let alone new to the Moreno Theater there in New York City. 

Community building ala Peck is done over 2 and a half days and at the end of the time, there is such an incredible feeling of openess and dropping of judgement and just being with one another that is really impossible to describe; you literally have to be in one to get it.

In the work that I am participating in around Family Constellations, there are often so many roles that you need a group of around 18 to 20 to adequately represent all that comes up and when you do, everyone is taking roles on without direction going into the roles very deeply to the extent that they are crying, or vicious at first or drop to the floor feeling so devestated by something that becomes clear as they go along. All this without any direction from the facilitator other being asked from time to time what is going on with them now.  To begin the constellation, the protagonist who mainly watches the constellation from the sidelines until near the end, simply begins by placing people in a scene very little if any story and no role reversal to show them or correct them in the protagonists "Story."  Then when that scene is over, another begins and over the weekend of approximately 20 hours spent together, doing upwards of 15 constellations, people have assumed many
 different roles deeply with often profound changes and growth occuring both in the protagonists and in the people who assume the roles.
So, I guess I am missing something here based on the discussion so far. I think it is the way the work is done rather than any particular individual limitations. 
My 2 cents. Blessings, Bud

Adam Blatner <adam at blatner.com> wrote:       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
Grouptalk mailing list
List at grouptalkweb.org
http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org

Barnett J. Weiss, MA, LCSW
7410 Ridge Blvd 2D
Brooklyn, NY 11209
PREFERRED Contact Budweiss at verizon.net or Cell (917)-751-3395
Home/office: 718-680-4919
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20070203/2efcd689/attachment.html 