Group Dynamics Essay Example for Free

Group Dynamics EssayWhat is group dynamics? Perhaps it entrust be most(prenominal) useful to start by looking at the derivation of the word dynamics. It comes from a Greek word meaning mash. In careful usage the phraseology, group dynamics refers to the forces operational in groups. The investigation of group dynamics, then, consists of a study of these forces what gives rise to them, what conditions modify them, what consequences they subscribe, etc. The practical use of group dynamics (or the technology of group dynamics) consists of the utilization of knowledge about these forces for the achievement of some purpose. In keeping with this definition, is not cave inicularly novel, nor is it the exclusive property of any person or institution. It goes back at least to the outstanding work of men like Simmel, Freud, and Cooley. Although interest in groups has a long and hefty history, the past fifteen years waste witnessed a bleak flowering of activity in this field. Toda y, look centers in several countries are carrying out substantial programmes of research designed to reveal the nature of groups and of their functioning.The phrase group dynamics had come into common usage during this time and intense efforts pack been devoted to the information of the field, both as a branch of cordial science and as a form of sociable technology. In this development the name of Kurt Lewin had been outstanding. As a consequence of his work in the field of man-to-man psychology and from his analysis of the nature of pressing problems of the contemporary world, Lewin became convinced of societys urgent extremity for a scientific approach to the understanding of the dynamics of groups.In 1945 he established the Research touch for Group Dynamics to meet this need. Since that date the Centre has been devoting its efforts to improving our scientific understanding of groups through science laboratory experimentation, field studies, and the use of techniques of ac tion research. It has also attempted in various shipway to help thrum the findings of social science much widely used by social management. Much of what I have to say in this study is drawn from the experiences of this Center in its brief existence of a runty more(prenominal) than five years.We hear tout ensemble around us today the assertion that the problems of the twentieth hundred are problems of human relations. The survival of civilization, it is said, lead depend upon mans ability to create social interventions capable of harnessing, for societys constructive use, the vast physical energies now at mans disposal. Or, to put the matter more simply, we must learn how to salmagundi the way in which people endure toward unrivaled an different.In broad outline, the specifications for a exhaustively society are tidy up, but a serious technical problem remains How washstand we mixture people so that they neither restrict the exemption nor limit the potentialities for exploitation of others so that they accept and respect people of different religion, nationality, colour, or political t superstar so that nations butt joint exist in a world without war, and s that the fruits of our technological advances jackpot realise sparing well-being and freedom from disease to all told people of the world?Although few people would disaccord with these objectives when stated abstractly, when we become more specific, differences of opinion quickly arise. These questions permit no ready answers. How is change to be produced? Who is to do it? Who is to be changed? Before we consider in detail these questions of social technology, let us clear away some semantic obstacles. The word change produces emotional reactions. It is not a neutral word. To many an(prenominal) people it is threatening. It conjures up visions of a revolutionary, a dissatisfied idealist, a trouble- reach outr, a malcontent.Nicer words referring to the process of changing people ar e education, training, orientation, guidance, indoctrination, therapy. We are more ready to have others educate us than have them change us. We, ourselves feel less guilty in training others than in changing them. Why this emotional reaction? What makes the two kinds of words have such different meanings? I believe that a large part of the difference lies in the fact that the safer words (like education and therapy) carry implicit assurance that the only changes produced will be good ones, accep carry everywhere within a currently held value system.The cold, unmodified word change, on the contrary, promises no respect for value it might even tamper with values themselves. perhaps for this in truth reason it will foster straight thinking if we use the word change and thus force ourselves to struggle directly and self-consciously with the problems of value that are involved. Words like education, training, or therapy, by the rattling fact that they are not so disturbing, may close o ur eyes to the fact that they too necessarily involve values.How can we change people so that they neither restrict the freedom nor limit the potentialities for growth of others so that they accept and respect people of different religion, nationality, colour, or political opinion so that nations can exist in a world without war, and so that the fruits of our technological advances can bring economic wellbeing and freedom from disease to all people of the world? The proposal that social technology may be employed to solve the problems of society suggests that social science may be applied in ways not different from those used in the physical sciences.Does social science, in fact, have any a lot useful knowledge which may be brought to bear significantly on societys most urgent problems? What scientifically based principles are there for guiding programmes of social change In this paper we shall restrict our considerations to certain parts of a relatively new branch of social scie nce know as group dynamics. We shall examine some of the implications for social action which stem from research in this field of scientific investigation. Consider first some matters having to do with the mental health of an individual.We can all agree, I believe, that an important mark of a healthy personality is that the individuals self-esteem has not been undermined. But on what does self-esteem depend? From research on this problem we have discovered that, among other things, repeated experiences of failure or traumatic failures on matters of central importance serve to undermine ones self-esteem. We also know that whether a person experiences success or failure as a result of some undertaking depends upon the direct of aspiration which he has set for himself.Now, if we try to discover how the level of aspiration gets set, we are immediately involved in the persons relationships to groups. The groups to which he belongs set standards for his doings which he must accept if he is to remain in the group. If his capacities do not allow him to ca-ca these standards, he experiences failure, he withdraws or is rejected by the group and his self-esteem suffers a shock. Consider a second example. A teacher finds that in her class she has a number of trouble-makers, full of aggression.She wants to know wherefore these children are so aggressive and what can be done about it. A foreman in a factory has the same kind of problem with some of his workers. He wants the same kind of help. The resultant most tempting to both the teacher and the foreman often is to transfer the worst trouble-makers to someone else, or if facilities are available, to refer them for counselling. But is the problem really of such a nature that it can be solved by removing the trouble-maker from the situation or by working on his individual motivations and emotional career?What leads does research give us? The evidence indicates, of course, that there are many causes of aggressiveness in people, but one aspect of the problem has become increasingly clear in recent years. If we observe conservatively the amount of aggressive behaviour and the number of trouble-makers to be rig in a large assemblage of groups, we find that these characteristics can vary tremendously from group to group even when the different groups are constitute essentially of the same kinds of people.In the now classic experiments of Lewin, Lippitt and White (1939) on the effects of different styles of leadership, it was found that the same group of children displayed markedly different levels of aggressive behaviour when under different styles of leadership. Moreover, when individual children were transferred from one group to another, their levels of aggressiveness shifted to conform to the atmosphere of the new group. Efforts to account for one childs aggressiveness under one style of leadership merely in terms of his personality traits could hardly break through under these conditions.T his is not to say that a persons behaviour is entirely to be accounted for by the atmosphere and structure of the immediate group, but it is remarkable to what an extent a strong, cohesive group can control aspects of a members behaviour traditionally thought to be expressive of digest personality traits. Recognition of this fact rephrases the problem of how to change such behaviour. It directs us to a study of the ascendants of the forge of the group on its members. Within very recent years some research data have been accumulating which may give us a clue to the solution of our problem.In one series of experiments direct by Lewin, it was found that a method of group decision, in which the group as a alone made a decision to have its members change their behaviour, was from two to ten times more useful in producing actual change as was a lecture presenting exhortation to change (Lewin, 1951). We have nonetheless to learn precisely what produces these differences of effectiven ess, but it is clear that by introducing group forces into the situation a whole new level of influence has been achieved. The experience has been essentially the same when people have attempted to increase the productivity of individuals in work settings.Traditional conceptions of how to increase the output of workers have stressed the individual * Select the full man for the job * Simplify the job for him * Train him in the skills required * Motivate him by economic incentives * Make it clear to whom he reports * Keep the lines of authority and responsibility simple and straight. But even when all of these conditions are fully met we find that productivity is far below full potential. There is even good reason to conclude that this individualistic conception of the determinants of productivity actually fosters negative consequences.The individual, now isolated and subjected to the demands of the presidency through the commands of his boss, finds that he must create with his fel low employees informal groups, not shown on any table of organization, in order to protect himself from arbitrary control of his life, from the boredom produced by the endless repetition of automatically sanitary and routine operations, and from the impoverishment of his emotional and social life brought about by the frustration of his elementary needs for social interaction, participation, and acceptance in a stable group.Recent experiments have demonstrated clearly that the productivity of work groups can be greatly increased by methods of work organization and care which give more responsibility to work groups, which allow for fuller participation in important decisions, and which make stable groups the firm basis for support of the individuals social needs (Coch French, 1948). It is points out hereafter research will also demonstrate that people working under such conditions become more mature and creative individuals in their homes, in community life, and as citizens.A fe w years agone the Research Center for Group Dynamics undertook to shed light on this problem by investigate the operation of a workshop for training leaders in intercultural relations (Lippitt, 1949). In a project, say by Lippitt, they set out to compare systemically the different effects of the workshop upon trainees who came as isolated individuals in contrast to those who came as teams. Six months after the workshop, however, those who had been trained as isolates were only slightly more energetic than before the workshop whereas those who had been members of strong training teams were now much more active.They do not have clear evidence on the point, but they are quite certain that the maintenance of heightened activity over a long period of time would also be much better for members of teams. For the isolates the effect of the workshop had the characteristic of a shot in the arm while for the team member it produced a more enduring change because the team provided continuou s support and reinforcement for its members. What conclusions may we draw from these examples? What principles of achieving change in people can we see emerging?To begin with the most general position, we may state that the behaviour, attitudes, beliefs, and values of the individual are all firmly grounded in the groups to which he belongs. How aggressive or cooperative a person is, how much self-respect and self-confidence he has, how energetic and productive his work is, what he aspires to, what he believes to be true and good, whom he loves or hates, and what beliefs and prejudices he holdsall these characteristics are highly determined by the individuals group memberships.In a real sense, they are properties of groups and of the relationships between people. Whether they change or resist change will, therefore, be greatly influenced by the nature of these groups. Attempts to change them must be implicated with the dynamics of groups. In examining more specifically how groups en ter into the process of change, we find it useful to view groups in at least three different ways. In the first view, the group is seen as a source of influence over its members.Efforts to change behaviour can be supported or blocked by pressures on members stemming from the group. To make constructive use of these pressures the group must be used as a medium of change. In the second view, the group itself becomes the target of change. To change the behaviour of individuals it may be requirement to change the standards of the group, its style of leadership, its emotional atmosphere, or its stratification into cliques and hierarchies. Even though the goal may be to change the behaviour of individuals, the target of change becomes the group.In the third view, it is recognized that many changes of behaviour can be brought about only by the organization efforts of groups as agents of change. A committee to combat intolerance, a labour union, and employers association, a citizens group to increase the pay of teachersany action group will be more or less effective depending upon the way it is organized, the satisfactions it provides to its members, the degree to which its goals are clear, and a host of other properties of the group.