HOW TO MANAGE THE DYNAMICS OF THE GROUP'S DEVELOPMENT

2024 Author: Harry Day | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-17 15:43

For those who lead groups, work with collectives.

I kept thinking how I could continue to describe the topic of group dynamics. It is boring to simply list the phases and their signs in a classical way. And then the other day in one of my correspondence flew in: "What are you going to do if the group will not accept the topic? To rape her?" Now, this is what I want to expand into a multi-letter text. I will leave aside the author and his psychological state in which he wrote this, there is a lot of aggression in the word "rape". Is it possible in another way? Necessary! Let's start from the very beginning. What is it that the leader of the group process should do so that the group does not accept the topic? How should you try? This is how you need to oppose yourself to the group? For me, managing a group is a delicate, multifaceted process. Ideally, this is when, together with the group, you go through all the stages of the group dynamics, then the result is a tremendous experience for both yours and each participant and the group as a whole. There is a topic of distribution of roles in the group. So, these are all leadership roles, all are on the same plane. And the leader of the group is among them. There are no towering over the rest, otherwise a hierarchy is created. And where there is a hierarchy, there is an aggressor and a victim looming on the horizon. There is such a role as "Scapegoat" or in another translation of "The White Sheep", and when a hierarchy arises, there is a great chance, a great temptation not only to allow this role, but also to actively exploit it. And then the group becomes completely different. There is fear and obedience in it. And where there is fear, there is no development and creativity. And the role of the "Scapegoat" is very difficult and interesting. Usually people who are rejected by the group get there. But the fact is that the group, no matter how good it is and no matter how useful it may be for the joint achievement of goals, the group is limited and seeks to average its members - this is the law. So, otherness is a huge resource for a group. To be able to notice, to unfold the process in such a way as to integrate this otherness - it is necessary to try. No, not to abolish the role of the "Scapegoat", but to notice this potential and reveal it both for the member who possesses it and for the whole group as a whole. Now about the leader of the group. The role in the group is not equal to the person taking it! People can replace each other in these roles. Some are more suitable, some less. Roles are needed by the group - this is its base. But people are richer and more interesting than these roles. Merging with a role, outgrowing a role, parting with a role, taking on a different role, conflict with a rival claiming the same role - this is one of the components of the dynamic process of group development. The life of the group is multifaceted and multi-component, and there everyone is in his place and in the place where he is now, he is more important, more useful, he is comfortable there, this is his space. A live group has the potential to meet the change needs of its members. To clarify, I'm not writing about the psychotherapy group, but about the group in general. Two or more people united by a common goal, tasks, activities, communication - I am writing about such a group. The quintessence of managing group processes migrated from psychotherapy and psychology to the psychology of management, and from there into simple management. Knowledge disperses in related disciplines like circles on water and this process cannot be stopped, it is foolish to hinder it, it will simply blow away. And this process can and should be managed. In management, of course, everything is tougher, but there is also a gap for the life of the group / collective. Moreover, in such a team there is both creativity and independence, and development. And here the question of the leaders of the group process arises with renewed vigor. So what should be with him that he would find the first thing in his vocabulary - to "rape" the group? There is something to think about and something to understand. But as a rule, this is an elementary fear. Fear that there is no man. Fear that the group will get out of control and then he is nobody. He must be the main one in order to understand what he is. And then the inner context of such a person spreads outward. Psychotherapists would talk about transference. I will talk about a group / collective / organization - almost an exact copy of the psyche of its authoritarian leader. There are many restrictions for all participants in the process. The opposite state is when freedom, freedom for oneself, for everyone and for the group as a whole.