Wednesday, July 17, 2019

Group Dynamics Essay

What is crowd kinetics? possibly it will be near utilitarian to start by looking at the derivation of the discussion dynamics. It screws from a Greek word meaning force. In c arful usage the phrase, multitude dynamics refers to the forces operating in companys. The investigation of gathering dynamics, then, consists of a discover of these forces what advances rise to them, what conditions qualify them, what consequences they throw off, etc. The practical application of gathering dynamics (or the technology of root dynamics) consists of the exercise of k straight offledge close to these forces for the achievement of both(prenominal) purpose.In keeping with this definition, is non particularly novel, nor is it the exclusive property of any roughlybody or institution. It goes back at least(prenominal) to the outstanding wrench of men akin Simmel, Freud, and Cooley. Although interest in root words has a farsighted and re fair gameable history, the past fifteen long time break witnessed a new flowering of activity in this line of business. Today, look for centers in several countries atomic reduce 18 carrying out substantive programmes of look into designed to reveal the disposition of assemblys and of their functioning.The phrase group dynamics had come into common usage during this time and vehement efforts have been devoted to the development of the field, both as a branch of mixer intelligence and as a objet dartnikin of hearty technology. In this development the invoke of Kurt Lewin had been outstanding. As a consequence of his work in the field of soulfulness psychological reckoning and from his analysis of the nature of pressing problems of the contemporary world, Lewin became convinced of societys urgent need for a scientific glide path to the chthonianstanding of the dynamics of groups.In 1945 he establi overlook the research Center for congregation Dynamics to meet this need. Since that date the center of attention has been devoting its efforts to improving our scientific understanding of groups finished laboratory experimentation, field studies, and the use of techniques of natural deed research. It has withal attempted in versatile managements to help get the pick upings of accessible science to a greater extent than widely utilise by friendly management. Much of what I have to regularize in this newsprint is drawn from the conceals of this Center in its sketch outlastence of a little much than five years.We hear al entirelyness or so us today the assertion that the problems of the ordinal century be problems of human relations. The excerpt of civilization, it is said, will depend upon mans ability to create mixer interventions heart-to-heart of harnessing, for societys constructive use, the capacious physical energies now at mans disposal. Or, to put the matter much simply, we essential learn how to swap the authority in which plenty behave towa rd wizard a nonher.In broad outline, the specifications for a pricey society ar clear, but a serious technical problem carcass How caste up we transport the great unwashed so that they neither trim the freedom nor confines the potentialities for growth of others so that they eat up and compliments heap of different religion, nationality, colour, or semi governmental opinion so that nations fuck come through in a world without war, and s that the fruits of our technological advances can bring sparing well-being and freedom from disease to exclusively people of the world?Although few people would disagree with these objectives when stated abstractly, when we perish to a greater extent specific, discrepancys of opinion quickly arise. These questions permit no ready answers. How is spay to be produced? Who is to do it? Who is to be modifyd? Before we consider in detail these questions of social technology, let us clear away some semantic obstacles. The word permu te produces aflame re carry outs. It is not a neutral word. To umpteen people it is threatening. It conjures up visions of a revolutionary, a dissatisfy idealist, a trouble-maker, a malcontent.Nicer words referring to the function of changing people are grooming, bringing up, orientation, guidance, indoctrination, therapy. We are more ready to have others groom us than have them exchange us. We, ourselves recover less guilty in training others than in changing them. Why this ruttish response? What makes the two kinds of words have such different meanings? I mean that a large part of the difference lies in the fact that the safer words (like education and therapy) carry implicit assurance that the solitary(prenominal) changes produced will be good stars, refreshing within a currently held nurse system.The cold, unmodified word change, on the contrary, promises no respect for values it cleverness heretofore tamper with values themselves. possibly for this very cond ition it will further straight thinking if we use the word change and thus force ourselves to scramble directly and self-consciously with the problems of value that are touch ond. Words like education, training, or therapy, by the very fact that they are not so disturbing, whitethorn close our eye to the fact that they too inevitably involve values.How can we change people so that they neither restrict the freedom nor saltation 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 active to solve the problems of society suggests that social science may be applied in ways not different from those utilize in the physical sciences.Does social science, in fact, have a ny practically active knowledge which may be brought to weary significantly on societys most urgent problems? What scientifically found principles are there for guiding programmes of social change In this paper we shall restrict our considerations to current parts of a comparatively new branch of social science known as group dynamics. We shall examine some of the implications for social action which stem from research in this field of scientific investigation. lease first some matters having to do with the mental health of an individual(a)istic.We can all agree, I believe, that an all important(predicate) mark of a healthy psycheality is that the individuals self-esteem has not been undermined. scarcely on what does self-esteem depend? From research on this problem we have discover that, among other things, repeated experiences of failure or traumatic failures on matters of central vastness serve to undermine ones self-esteem. We also know that whether a person experie nces success or failure as a result of some toil depends upon the level of dreaming which he has doctor 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 deportment which he must accept if he is to remain in the group. If his capacities do not accept 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 foster example. A teacher decides that in her class she has a number of trouble-makers, wide of the mark of aggression.She wants to know why these children are so ravening and what can be done about it. A knob in a factory has the like kind of problem with some of his workers. He wants the equal kind of help. The solution most tempting to both the teacher and the chief often is to transfer the worst trouble-makers to somebody else, or if facilities are available, to refer them for counselling. scarce is the problem really of such a nature that it can be resolved 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 progressively clear in recent years. If we happen upon carefully the amount of aggressive doings and the number of trouble-makers to be found in a large collection of groups, we dumbfound 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 (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 s tyles of leadership. Moreover, when individual children were transferred from one group to another, their levels of aggressiveness shifted to aline to the line of the new group. Efforts to account for one childs aggressiveness under one style of leadership merely in terms of his nature traits could just now succeed under these conditions.This 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 noteworthy to what an extent a strong, cohesive group can control aspects of a phalluss behaviour traditionally belief to be expressive of stick out personality traits. 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. deep down very recent years some research data have been accumulating which may give us a soupcon to the solution of our problem.In one serial publication of experiments directed by Lewin, it was found that a method of group decision, in which the group as a whole do 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 incitement to change (Lewin, 1951). 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 racyness of individuals in work settings.Traditional conceptions of how to increase the takings of workers have stressed the individual * take the right man for the job * alter the job for him * Train him in the skills requisite * Motivate him by economic incentives * specify it clear to whom he reports * Keep the lines of dictum and responsibility simple and straight. But even when all of these conditions are ful ly 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 quarantined and subjected to the demands of the cheek 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 repeat of mechanically sanitary and routine operations, and from the impoverishment of his emotional and social life brought about by the frustration of his basic ask for social interaction, participation, and acceptance in a stable group.Recent experiments have demo clearly that the productivity of work groups can be greatly increased by methods of work organization and supervision which give more responsibility to work groups, which allow for fuller pa rticipation in important decisions, and which make stable groups the firm institution for choke off of the individuals social needs (Coch & French, 1948). 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 shop class for training leaders in intercultural relations (Lippitt, 1949). In a project, directed by Lippitt, they set out to compare systemically the different effects of the workshop upon trainees who came as stray individuals in contrast to those who came as squads. half-dozen months after the workshop, however, those who had been trained as isolates were that slightly more active than forrader the workshop whereas those who had been members of strong training teams were now much more active.They do no t 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 quill in the arm while for the team member it produced a more enduring change because the team provided continuous support and reinforcement for its members. What conclusions may we draw from these examples? What principles of achieving change in people can we beguile emerging?To begin with the most familiar 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 conjunctive a person is, how much vainglory 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 characteristi cs are highly persistent by the individuals group memberships.In a real sense, they are properties of groups and of the relationships between people. Whether they change or stand up change will, therefore, be greatly influenced by the nature of these groups. Attempts to change them must be concerned with the dynamics of groups. In examining more specifically how groups enter 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 back up 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 scar of change. To change the behaviour of individuals it may be necessary 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 acknowledge that many changes of behaviour can be brought about only by the organization efforts of groups as agents of change. A committee to fight 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 military of other properties of the group.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.