Nicer words referring to the process of changing people are education, training, orientation, guidance, indoctrination, therapy. Why this emotional response?
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, acceptable within a currently held value system.
Words like education, training, or therapy, by the very fact that they are not so disturbing, may close our eyes to the fact that they too inevitably 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. What scientifically based principles are there for guiding programmes of social change: 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.
But on what does self-esteem depend? We also know that whether a person experiences success or failure as a result of some undertaking depends upon the level of aspiration which he has set for himself. The groups to which he belongs set standards for his behaviour which he must accept if he is to remain in the group.
If his capacities do not allow him to reach 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 why 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 solution 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 life?
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 carefully the amount of aggressive behaviour and the number of trouble-makers to be found in a large collection of groups, we find that these characteristics can vary tremendously from group to group even when the different groups are composed essentially of the same kinds of people.
In the now classic experiments of Lewin, Lippitt and White 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. Recognition of this fact rephrases the problem of how to change such behaviour. It directs us to a study of the sources of the influence 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 directed by Lewin, it was found that a method of group decision, in which the group as a whole made a decision to have its members change their behaviour, was from two to ten times more effective in producing actual change as was a lecture presenting exhortation to change Lewin, We have yet to learn precisely what produces these differences of effectiveness, 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: 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 organization through the commands of his boss, finds that he must create with his fellow 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 mechanically sanitary and routine operations, and from the impoverishment of his emotional and social life brought about by the frustration of his basic needs for social interaction, participation, and acceptance in a stable group.
It is points out future 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 few years ago the Research Center for Group Dynamics undertook to shed light on this problem by investigating the operation of a workshop for training leaders in intercultural relations Lippitt, In a project, directed 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 active 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.
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. 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 concerned with the dynamics of groups. The ideas and abilities of individual members are used for the overall good of the project or reaching the team goals.
In this class, I have learned and have the ability to use a combination of theses definitions to help me develop and maintain a high performance group. Groups are easier to create than teams because of the type of leadership involved with a group. Groups are committed to the group's leader; they are accountable to that leader and power is not shared.
Team building creates a climate that encourages and values the contributions of team members. Their energies are directed toward problem solving, task effectiveness, and maximizing the use of all members' resources to achieve the team's goal or purpose.
Teams are committed to each other with an equal distribution of power and accountability. A period of uncertainty in which members try to determine their place in the group and the procedures and rules of the group. Conflicts begin to arise during this stage as members resist the influence of the group and rebel against accomplishing the task.
The group established some consensus regarding a role structure and group norms for appropriate behavior. At the same time cohesion and commitment increase.
Art Psychotherapy: Group Dynamics - One of the many significant concepts of group dynamics that I found to be the most interesting is the idea of how any and all aspects of the group process has the natural ability to bring up all the past relatable experiences of each individual group member.
According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary online, "Group dynamics is the interacting forces within a small human group." (blogithebestnx.ga, ) It .
Group Dynamics Essay Examples. 7 total results. Some of the Disastrous Decisions in Characterization of Group Dynamics. 1, words. An Analysis of the Group Dynamics in 12 Angry Men, a Film Classic of 1, words. 3 pages. An Analysis of Group Dynamics in a Class Group . Essay on Group Dynamics Words | 5 Pages. Group therapy is an important aspect in the treatment process for many psychological disorders. Group therapy consists of two or more people engaged in a therapeutic session at the same time.
Group Dynamics. Introduction Group Dynamics The study of group dynamics is strongly influenced by the field of social psychology. Social psychologists try to understand human behavior in its broader social context, in contrast to most subfields of psychology which focus on the individual. Introduction Group Dynamics The study of group dynamics is strongly influenced by the field of social psychology. Social psychologists try to understand human behavior in its broader social context, in contrast to most subfields of psychology which focus on the individual.4/4(1).