Running head: GROUP SYSTEMS THEORY
A Review of Group Systems Theory
Joanie V. Connors
Fayetteville, Arkansas
Richard B. Caple
University of Missouri
Joanie V. Connors is a consultant in
private practice in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Richard B. Caple is a professor
emeritus from the Department of Counseling Psychology, University of Missouri,
in Columbia, Missouri.
Correspondence concerning the
article should be addressed to: Joanie V. Connors, 885 North Fritz Drive,
Fayetteville, AR 72701; Phone: 479-582-0074; Email: jconnors@highstream.net.
Abstract
The
ability to see interpersonal and group processes beyond the individual level is
an essential skill for group therapists (Crouch, Bloch & Wanlass, 1994;
Dies, 1994; Fuhriman & Burlingame, 1994). In addition to interpersonal
therapy models (e.g. Sullivan and Yalom), there are a number of systems theory
models which offer a broad array of possibilities for developing group
practitioner perspectives beyond individual dynamics. This paper will outline
the background and conceptual bases for a number of models which now comprise a
category called group systems theory. Group systems theory can provide a
variety of directions for innovations in group research and practice.
Keywords:
systems theory, group theories, group systems theory
A Review of Group Systems Theory
Systemic approaches to group work appear
to be gradually receiving more attention among group practitioners as reflected
in the scholarly literature on groups. There are now four group counseling and
therapy books that are systemic in focus (Agazarian, 1997; Donigian & Malnati, 1997; Durkin, J. E., 1981c;
McClure, 1998). There are also a growing number of academic fields considering
systems theory, including communication studies (Tubbs, 2003) and sociology
(Mingers, 1995). Three group counseling and therapy textbooks now have chapters
on systems theory or their applications (Donigian & Hulse-Killacky, 1999;
Kline, 2003; Napier & Gershenfeld, 2004), and three other group texts discuss
systems in their historical overviews (Forsyth, 1999; Gladding, 1995; Toseland
& Rivas, 2001). There have also been a number of scholarly articles on
groups as systems (e.g. Caple, 1985; 1987a; 1987b; Durkin, 1989; Hines, 1988b;
Matthews, 1992; Trotzer, 1988).
Systems thinking is an important way to
expand and strengthen the supra-individual theory base of group practitioners
beyond interpersonal theories. While interpersonal analysis enlightens us about
interpersonal exchanges in the past and present, systems analyses add a focus
on the whole group with its multileveled process and address how groups evolve
over time. In our therapeutic roles with groups, it is important to understand
group systems thinking because a systems perspective adds qualities such as
boundary conditions, communication inflow, outflow, and between-flow, and group
change management to our consideration. Understanding group systems qualities
such as these adds more depth and power to our work with groups.
While the majority of group specialists
are knowledgeable about interpersonal and systemic psychotherapy, many
counselors and therapists who work with groups are not, continuing to conduct
individual therapy in group settings. Greater awareness of group systems theory
models would give those practitioners a way to understand and work with groups
that allows them to move beyond theory and practice based solely upon
individual models.
This paper will present a summary of
systems theory and group systems theory models
by past and present authors. The basic concepts of group systems theory
will be explained and then applied to established group concepts.
Background
General System Theory (GST)
was first elaborated by a biologist, Ludwig von Bertalanffy in the 1940’s
(1968). Von Bertalanffy called his theory “a general science of wholeness” (p.
37) and his basic point was that there is a similarity of structure across
biological organisms that extends from the micro level to the macro level,
including cells, human beings, human social groups and organizations, and whole
societies (von Bertalanffy, 1951; 1968). His interdisciplinary theory also
included views of how systemic structures and boundaries function, as well as
the need to consider the whole as greater than the sum of its parts
(Holism). Von Bertalanffy proposed a
number of ideas about how systems work, including their dynamic, ever changing
nature, their evolution to greater complexity through a process known as self-organization,
and their self-stabilizing energy dynamics, similar to that which later became
known as homeostasis.
Kurt Lewin’s field theory of social
functioning was developed at the same time von Bertalanffy was working on
systems theory and appears to have had more influence on social and group
psychology literature (Hall & Lindsay, 1978; MacKenzie, 1994). Lewin’s
field theory emphasizes that an individual or group studied in isolation loses
the importance of its context and emphasized the idea of understanding an individual’s
‘life space’ (Hall & Lindsay). Lewin’s theory established a number of ideas
that are parallel to systems thinking, such as the holistic nature of group
functioning, boundaries, the interdependence of elements and the whole, and the
hierarchy of groups (Hall & Lindsay).
Von Bertalanffy’s General System
Theory (1951; 1968) created a stir in the sciences, leading to what has
become known as “Systems Theory”, an interdisciplinary approach which has
generated applications in a growing number of fields, including philosophy,
mathematics, engineering, ecological sciences, management and family therapy
(Heylighen & Joslyn, 2000). There are a number of systems theory
associations, including the International Society for the Systems Sciences (www.isss.org),
the International Institute for Advanced Studies in Systems Research &
Cybernetics (http://www.iias.edu/) and the System Dynamics Society (http://www.albany.edu/cpr/sds/index.html).
Among the many systemic journals are the International Journal of General
Systems (http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/03081079.asp), the
International Journal of Systems Science (http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/00207721.asp),
and the Journal of Systemic Therapies (http://www.guilford.com/periodicals/jnst.htm).
Systems
theory is now considered to be part of a third wave of scientific theories
which enlarge our view beyond linear, cause and effect thinking (Banathy, 2004;
McClure, 1998). Similar or parallel
theories that have also evolved since Systems Theory include Cybernetics (Heylighen & Joslyn, 2000), and Chaos
Theory (McClure). There have also been systems-offspring theories such as
Autopoiesis (Mingers, 1995), Living
Systems Theory, Systems Design, Critical Systems Thinking (Banathy), and a
number of theories which fit under the category of Family Systems Theory.
Gregory Bateson used many general
system theory concepts in developing his early theory of family systems (Cox
& Paley, 1997). Bateson saw the family group as greater than the sum of its
individual members, and posited that it was the family system that needed to
change, not the individual deemed ‘sick’ who is brought in for therapy. Family
systems theory has since been developed by a number of theorists over the last
50 years, including Salvador Minuchin, Jay Haley, and many others, and has
dominated the practice of family treatment throughout much of the developed
world (Cox & Paley).
Patterns that are often explored in
family systems therapy include alliances, rituals, enmeshment, disengagement,
the creation of the identified patient or scapegoat, and the leadership
patterns of parents or parentified children. Child development specialists
employ additional concepts from systems theory that are commonly examined and
worked on in family treatment, including positive attention, communication
skills and developmentally appropriate power dynamics (Nelsen, Lott, &
Glenn, 1999). Researchers Kantor and Lehr (1975) developed a highly systemic
method for analyzing family use of time, space, energy, affect, power and
meaning that is seldom cited but holds much value for systems thinkers.
Family systems theories were
promoted by strong personalities from their 1950’s beginning, and their early
proponents audaciously rejected individual theories of personality for family
treatment. Due in part to these pioneers’ persistence, family systems thinking
became the controversy of the therapy world, was read and talked about, and
gradually became accepted by academics and practitioners. This widespread
knowledge and acceptance in the therapeutic community led to the formation of
family therapy professional organizations and licensure processes that require
systemic knowledge and training.
In contrast, promoters of group
systems thinking have been generally less dogmatic, and more moderate, which
may account for the lack of awareness of it among the public and unfortunately,
many psychotherapists. Hopefully, the widespread understanding of families as
systems can become the groundwork for understanding groups as systems.
Group communications. In 1978, Tubbs published A Systems Approach to Small Group
Interactions for use as a textbook in communications classes in which he outlined
a systemic view of communication processes, internal influences, and conflict
resolution in groups and organizations. Tubbs notes that his book was the only
one to address general system theory in the communications field, although he
reports systems have been more influential in organizational psychology. It
appears that Tubbs’ approach to group communications has a steady place in that
field since his book was re-released in 2003 in its eighth edition.
Group therapy. In 1981, after ten years of work, the
American Group Psychotherapy Association’s General System Theory Committee
produced a book Living groups: Group Psychotherapy and General System Theory
that was the first major application of general system theory to therapy
groups (Durkin, J.E., 1981c; Durkin, H.E., 1981). The GST committee’s theory of
“living groups” is consistent with its roots in von Bertalanffy’s system
theory, Their book observed that groups are autonomous because their structure
creates the capacity to be self-defining, self-organizing, and self-regulating
by exchanging energy and information with the environment, and by making
choices. The GST committee wrote about group systems roles, boundarying, energy
and dynamics, and gave examples of therapeutic applications of general system
theory to groups.
The GST committee included a
glossary of terms to describe the basic concepts of GST used by the various
authors in the book (Durkin, J.E., 1981b). This undoubtedly was due at least in
part to anticipating that few in the field of group work would have knowledge
of these very technical terms, and knowing that adaptation of GST to human
behavior requires its own definitions.
In 1982, the Association for
Specialists in Group Work created a “Commission on Family Counseling” that worked
to promote family and systems theory awareness in the group counseling field
(Hines, 1988a). This committee’s work culminated in the 1988 special issue of
the Journal for Specialists in Group Work, called “The Interface of
Group and Family Therapy: Implications” which was guest edited by Max Hines.
Articles in that issue explored the process similarities and differences
between group and family therapy, and proposed a need for continuing dialogue
between the two perspectives (Hines, 1988b). One of the articles proposed some
family system based group techniques (Trotzer, 1988) for group therapists to
explore.
In the mid-1980’s, Caple took general system theory and
elaborated on the concept of self-organization as it applies to counseling
practices (1985, 1987a, 1987b). Caple discussed the need to make fundamental
structural changes and to evolve to higher levels of complexity over time in
order to avoid stagnation. He applies this need to change to both individual
and group counseling, as well as to student affairs.
In 1992, Mathews examined general
system theory and described his vision of systems thinking to group work,
including a method for applying systems thinking via Tuckman’s group
developmental stages. He viewed systemic group leadership as needing to
simultaneously attend to three levels of process: individual, interpersonal and
whole group, while also focusing on boundary dynamics and needs.
More recently, in 1997, Agazarian
wrote an intriguing application of general system theory to therapy groups, System-Centered
Therapy for Groups. Agazarian’s “system-centered” model applies GST to
therapy groups, with techniques that focus on subgroups, which she says are the
basic unit of the group. She credits the concept of subsystems as being “relatively
new to systems thinking and not central for most systems practitioners”
(Agazarian & Janoff, 1993, p. 33). Agazarian’s model of group systems
therapy employs an innovative method called ‘functional subgrouping’, the
forcing of subgroups around issues that arise in the course of group, making
members express their reactions explicitly so they can be processed. She also
brings in an element of analytic therapy by examining defense mechanisms
involved in subgrouping behaviors (1997).
Also in
1997, Donigian and Malnati published a systemic book on groups called Systemic Group Therapy (1997). Their
systemic group therapy model addresses group processes, communication systems,
stages and interventions in terms of the triad of member, group as a whole and
leader issues. Their brief book is rich in systemic thinking, bringing a
systems analysis to group history, anxiety, conflict, and blocks.
McClure’s
1998 book Putting
a New Spin on Groups: The Science of Chaos is a
fascinating description of the manner in which physical processes are reflected
in group and social processes. His book relates systems thinking to chaos
theory and presents insights about the systemic and chaotic nature of group
process. McClure describes a seven stage theory of group development which is
based on evolutionary process and forms an arc with descending forming stages
that turn on the point of the conflict stage and then ascends as members join
and work. While he notes that all systemic leadership interventions come down
to either containing or perturbing the group, he describes a wide variety of
systemic interventions, such as boundary management, pattern recognition,
process commentary, validation, and saying “enough”.
Group Systems Theory
As family systems theory is the
greater label applied to numerous applications of systemic thinking to
families, group systems theory can be seen as the umbrella term for several
models, past, present and future, which apply systems concepts to group work.
The scholarly works presented above with their diverse views of groups as
systems (Agazarian, 1997; Caple, 1987a; 1987b; Donigian
& Malnati, 1997; Durkin, J. E., 1981c; Matthews, 1992) continue to
expand in influence and attention. It appears that models of group systems
therapy have become a distinct category of their own, with the potential to
become an influential movement in the field of group work.
Group systems models use systems
concepts to clarify and enlighten group processes and to identify interventions
to move group dynamics in more healthy directions. Systems language adds a
number of dimensions to our ability to describe the states and processes seen
in group work. The following is a list and description of the most salient
group systems concepts.
Systems theory emphasizes the
holistic nature of organisms and their functioning: that no individual operates
in isolation, that members are dynamically interdependent, and that the whole
is greater than the sum of its parts (von Bertalanffy, 1951; 1968). In group systems thinking, a whole group
view is more important than the deepest understanding of individual members.
Group systems models would say that at any given moment, all groups are unique
phenomena depending on their membership, social and historical context, group history,
and other group properties both defined and undefined. A group can never be
replicated, nor can its environment.
Holism is a concept that gained
apparent acceptance among humanistic therapists in the past 5 decades, but many
practicing group therapists are still unaware of its power in the group room.
Most therapists are still embedded in Western culture’s idealization of the
individual and do not sufficiently focus on the needs, dynamics or development
of the whole group, organization, community, or society in psychosocial
analyses or psychotherapeutic interventions.
Group systems theory holds that the
first consideration in examining any group or organization is the good of the
whole group, while always bearing in mind the good of its members and the
environment, the larger system or systems which sustain it. In short, group
systems practitioners focus on ‘big picture’ thinking.
Group systems practitioners
routinely energize group members to think of the whole group atmosphere and
process through asking questions such as “How well is the group working in the
present interaction?” or “How does the group feel right now?”. Once activated
to think in terms of the whole group dynamic, group members can eventually
learn to question, probe, and respond to holistic conditions, and to play a
more active role in what the group does and becomes. Holism has now gained
significant consideration in the group therapy literature as a research
construct (Dies, 1994; Fuhriman & Burlingame, 1994).
Systems thinking holds that system
elements are interdependent and that systems at all levels are interdependent
on each other. A solid body of research establishes the critical connection
between the personality and functioning of individuals and their past and
present relationships (Cox & Paley, 1997). The importance of
interdependence is also born out by fifty years of group research which has
established the effectiveness of interpersonal group therapy for helping
individual members with mental health issues (Fuhriman & Burlingame, 1994;
Stockton, 2003). Also, decades of social and psychological research establish
the importance of family, group, and community membership to the well being of
individual members (Vander Zanden, 2003).
Interdependence in group systems
theory is the assumption that all members of a group are interdependent with
each other and that all groups are interdependent within and between system
levels (from the individual members to the greater world of concern). Each
member of a group plays an essential part in group dynamics and health, and
what happens with one member affects them all. There must be a balance of
energy, a relative equality, between members of a group for optimal
functioning. Group experts are keenly aware of the importance of every member
and how silent or nonparticipating members often affect the group as a whole.
Dominating members or unequal power dynamics must be addressed or groups will
tend to fall into destructive interpersonal patterns and create negative outcomes.
Complimentarity. Complimentarity means that the
differences in perspectives and goals that members have within a group will be
complementary and that all views provide important information about the system
and should be considered. These diverse perspectives will be neither completely
compatible nor completely different, and there will always be some common
ground and some conflict (Durkin, H.E., 1981). Joining perspectives together
will reveal more truths than any one perspective or any group perspective that
does not include the views of relevant members or systems.
Structure is defined in general
system theory as the arrangement of elements within an entity that directs its
functioning and boundarying from the environment. Systems theory maintains that
there is an “isomorphy” or similarity of structure across systems, from the
cell to the greater social organism of the world. This common structure
includes a boundary and a power structure which control or guide administrative
decisions about boundary conditions and the input and output of energy,
nutrients, and waste (von Bertalanffy, 1951; 1968).
Systemic structure is conceptualized
as every system being a member of another system, and every member of a system
as a system in itself. Systems characteristics apply at every level, from the
intracellular level to the individual, to groups, communities, nations and
ultimately to the universe.
Group inquiry has long studied
various aspects of group structure, and group system theory defines group
structure as it has become understood through those decades of group research
and practice. Group structure includes leader directiveness, pretreatment
screening and preparation, group rules and guidelines, and structured exercises
(Kaul & Bednar, 1994; McClure; 1998; Stockton, 2003). Structural elements
within groups includes norms, goals, and implicit or explicit decisions about
what may be talked about and what may be done or not done.
Boundaries. Boundaries are
the limits which define an entity or group, and they are dynamically opened or
closed to allow, or not allow, input from and export to the environment.
Systems theory describes the purpose of boundaries as maintaining integrity of
the group (Caple, 1985), and maintains that separation helps focus group energy
to ensure the survival of the group entity. GST maintains that boundaries of
living systems must be permeable and flexible to allow in new information,
which naturally leads to changes in the structure and dynamics.
Family systems theory describes
boundaries also as defining, focusing, and limiting members’ access and
relationship to the environment. This ideally includes limits which must be set
within families for safety and well-being, such as curfews and controls for
children’s safety, and money spending limits to control for resource attainment
and survival.
In group systems theory, group
boundaries include membership criteria, concepts and ideals which define the
group or draw members together, or whatever boundaries contain the group. Group
facilitators must be concerned with member safety and well-being, like family
practitioners, so they must establish limits and structure for protection
against harm.
Boundaries of a group may be very
loose, as in the membership criteria for open self-help groups, or they may be
strict and inflexible, like the membership screening for some advanced
psychoanalytic training groups. There has been much discussion of the merits of
open versus closed groups in the group literature, but even the most liberal
group boundaries are not totally open. For example, members of open 12-step
groups must not be self or other abusive on-site and must have some acceptance
of 12-step guidelines. Also, closed groups still inevitably suffer attrition
due to mobility and health changes, so they must have some mechanism for
admitting new members or their longevity will be limited.
Control and power structure. Systems theory defines control as the
process for making the many boundary decisions which influence the functioning
and survival of an entity such as when to be open, when to block and when to
expand or contract. Power structure is seen as the arrangement of elements that
exert that control.
Family systems theory assumes there
is a hierarchical power structure in which parents must be the locus of major
decisions for the family group, though consideration is made for how extended
family members can play powerful roles. Family and parenting research has found
that strict authoritarian power structures seldom work well to raise healthy,
functioning children, and that a more democratic style of power sharing, giving
votes, and earned freedom works better with children (Baumrind, 1994; Vander
Zanden, 2003). Also, family researchers have noted that parents must balance
their power with concern for empowering children through giving them the chance
to try out their own abilities and make their own mistakes in a developmentally
appropriate way (Cox & Paley, 1997).
In group systems theory, control and
the power structure of a group can be observed through discerning how, and by
whom, decisions are made and how group dynamics are directed or influenced.
Group power structures can include linear power hierarchies, unclear or
dishonest power figures, an organization of group roles, or some combination of
these. Research on group structure finds that some structural control is
needed, especially in the early stages of a group, but overall it appears that
less controlling leaders help facilitate more positive outcomes (Dies, 1994;
Stockton, 2003).
Systems theory maintains that
systems have dynamic interactions between their elements, that they must
interact with their environment in an open energy exchange, and that
communication is the process for transferring that energy (von Bertalanffy,
1968). Living organisms have open boundaries through which there is a
continuous flow of energy into the system and out to the environment, and this
energy flow creates fluctuations which must be dealt with (von Bertalanffy;
Caple, 1985). Every moment systems monitor internal and external environments
to make decisions about opening or closing to outside influences (Mathews,
1992). This energy flow is a circular process that feeds back and “re-creates
the system” (Caple, p. 175).
Patterned
interactions. Stable systems engage in a great deal of repetition of
patterns which provide safety and regularity. Stable systems tend to stay
relatively more closed in order to be able to avoid too much challenging
information that would destabilize their balance. Stability cannot be
maintained forever, however, because change is ongoing within group members and
in the environment that sustains the group, and either or both will eventually
change enough to demand that boundary choices be readjusted.
Systems
which are more creative and less pattern-oriented tend to receive more
challenges to their stability and are more vulnerable. In the long run though,
creative systems that survive benefit from the adaptability that they develop to
the complex demands of the environment around them, which helps them become
stronger against future disruptions.
Positive and negative feedback. The
system receives input from the environment which is both positive and negative
in character. Negative feedback is seen as energy or information which supports
the current system balance, or homeostasis, while positive feedback is that
which stresses or challenges the system, causing it to adapt and possibly
develop greater complexity, or change to a higher order (Caple, 1985).
Change stimulation. Many
systems practitioners have trouble with the language of positive and negative
feedback and focus only on first and second order change, and not on the
characteristics of the feedback and dynamics which induce change. This may be
because in systems language positive and negative are somewhat the opposite of
what is meant in general usage, which can be seen in the group literature.
Positive feedback means feedback that provokes change in the receiver in GST
but it means constructive and supportive language toward another in most
discussions of feedback, such as in the group field (Stockton, 2003). Negative
feedback means change resistant feedback in GST terms, while it means
destructive or hurtful feedback in general contexts.
The meanings of ‘positive’ and ‘negative’
are value laden and depend on their contexts. Systems theory is more value
neutral and focused on adaptation for survival, while general and therapeutic
discussions clearly value the connotations of nurturing and support. It appears
that new language is needed to bring understanding to these concepts so that
more may take advantage of the perspective that they bring to understanding
systems dynamics. Systems thinkers can then replace or augment positive and
negative feedback labels with change provoking and change resisting
feedback.
Change provoking feedback can be used to describe feedback which
intentionally or unintentionally challenges or pushes the recipient to move
toward change. The label, change provoking feedback, would be value
neutral, and would not imply that the sender had bad intentions, or positive
intentions. Change provoking feedback would not have to be verbal, and
would include behaviors and gestures that communicate the need to change, or
that show that the current situation does not work in some ways.
Change resisting feedback can describe any verbal or nonverbal
feedback which communicates that there is no need to change or that change
should be avoided. The message to avoid or resist change could be intentional
or unintentional on the part of the sender, and it could come from supportive
(Don’t change because you are perfect the way you are.”) or destructive sender
motives (“Don’t change because I need you to keep supporting my drug use.”).
Change resisting feedback could also include behaviors and nonverbal messages
which make the receiver more likely to avoid change; e.g. a third party
distracting attention from the issue.
Groups
can be hotbeds of feedback about change, and change provoking feedback seldom
occurs without bringing some controversy or conflict. Bringing group awareness
to examine attitudes about change and change messages could do much to raise
the level of discussion in these groups. Neither kind of feedback need be
devalued or universally accepted, since both have a valuable role in group
dynamics. Supportive feedback is also important in group discussions to provide
feelings of safety, but what is the effect of that support on the individual’s
need to change? Therapy groups must understand and demystify interpersonal
responses to promote growth, and they must have healthy feedback from within
and without in order to function well.
Group Growth Cycles and Stages
According
to systems thinking, systems are more dynamic and unstable early in development
and gradually become more stable as they develop patterns for efficiency.
Systems are believed to be unstable until they progress through a kind of
adolescence, in which power structures and boundaries are tested and accepted,
along with internal and external dynamics and connections. Over time, patterns
tend to dominate functioning, and these patterns often become ruts which lack
creative inquiry and become more rigid over time (von Bertalanffy, 1968).
Systems are seen as having a natural life span, and are believed to decline,
collapse, or dissipate when the environment or members no longer need them.
Group scholars have long believed that
groups progress through a series of stages of development and that practitioners
need to adapt their interventions to the stage dynamics of the moment
(Gladding, 1995; Stockton, 2003; Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977).
Stage models of groups are seen as either sequential (e.g. progressive) or
cyclical with repeating themes (Donigian & Malnati, 1997; Toseland &
Rivas, 2001).
Tuckman’s five stage sequential theory of
group development (Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977) appears to be the
most accepted sequential theory and has the strongest base in research,
resulting from a review of 20 years of small group research (McClure, 1998).
Although much of that research is now 50 years old, no subsequent research has
come close to challenging the relevance of Tuckman’s stages. Tuckman’s stages
are 1) forming (beginning); 2) storming (conflict); 3) norming (establishing
norms); 4) performing (work); and 5) adjourning (termination). Other sequential
or progressive stage models in the group literature have as few as three stages
(Toseland & Rivas, 2001) or as many as seven stages (McClure).
The cyclical theories of group
development maintain that there are themes which are raised and addressed
repeatedly within groups, and that each repetition leads to a new level of
development (Donigian & Malnati, 1997; Toseland & Rivas, 2001).
Examples of cyclical issues include belongingness, defensiveness, and task
investment (Toseland & Rivas, p. 89). McClure’s stage theory is both
cyclical and progressive, and it posits that there are the same set of stages
within each stage, substage and interaction (1998).
All the major models of group
development, from Tuckman’s to the cyclical theories, are consistent with
systemic notions of development. All the sequential theories include a
vulnerable and tentative beginning, a conflict stage, the establishment of
norms (structure and boundaries), a working stage, and an ending stage. Systems
theory views the establishment of norms as occurring through the process of
testing and conflict, but at least one group scholar has combined the conflict
and norming stages into the “transition stage” (Gladding, 1995, p. 103).
Fitting group stages with the systemic model may help group practitioners to
have a deeper understanding of the processes at work as groups progress through
their stages.
Perturbation. Perturbation
refers to the increase in energy fluctuations which occurs when a great deal of
new information is acquired, or when the information is challenging or
disturbing to the stability of the entity. Often this friction is the result of
the struggle between autonomy and dependency (Mathews, 1992). This surge of
energy is stressful and sometimes emotionally powerful, but it serves to push
the organism into chaos and towards structural change and growth, unless system
dynamics choose to dampen such challenges and are able to preserve the current
structure.
Chaos. According to Caple,
environments naturally contain dissipative structures which constantly “break
up and disorder the system” (1985, p. 175), leading to chaos, a state where
logical, linear order breaks down. Chaos places tremendous pressure on systems
to make decisions about how to control their boundaries, and groups are often
highly uncomfortable at this stage of development. It is at the point a system
approaches chaos but does not become fully chaotic that the most change is
possible.
When fearful of chaos and change, groups
can achieve such a state of rigidity and insularity that in time cause them to
dissolve from their own weight. Group facilitators can help groups to see their
own closedness and reconsider their opposition to change. Challenges to that
rigidity evolve out of the natural interactions of participants, so group
leaders can help members hear those challenges as they arise. Leaders should be
wary about attempting to force disequilibrium artificially, because they can
risk alienation and an overwhelming level of chaos. Groups that allow order to
emerge naturally after chaos, with a minimum of leader control, produce
stronger individuals and a stronger group structure guided by the process of
self-organization.
Bifurcation point. When
energy fluctuations and chaos become overwhelming to the organism and threaten
system balance and structure, they reach a point of change called a bifurcation
point (Caple, 1985). At that point, the boundary structure starts to loosen and
a surge of energy occurs. Systems make decisions about their boundaries at that
point, whether to retract them, expand them, or totally collapse under the
pressure. When systems expand their boundaries to cope with more complex
demands, through changing their structure to a higher order, that is evolution.
Unfortunately, change, innovation, and growth require risk, sometimes great
risk.
Self-Organizing. General
system theory holds that nature is self-organizing, that systems naturally
organize themselves to pursue goals in order to survive in their environment
(von Bertalanffy, 1951). According to von Bertalanffy, open systems organize in
the active, natural progression towards “higher order, heterogeneity and
organization” (1968, p. 41).
The greater environments upon which organisms depend also
are continually evolving and changing their demands, so there is a constant
need for development and change to deal with that increasingly complex
feedback. There is an inevitable struggle between independence and dependence,
connecting and boundarying, in the relationship between systems and their
elements that correlates with the struggle between group needs and individual
needs (Mathews, 1992). Each influences and modifies the other constantly.
Ideally there is enough balance between stability and change to maintain the
integrity of the system and keep it healthily connecting to the environment.
Four properties of system
organization have been proposed by von Bertalanffy; progressive mechanization,
differentiation, equifinality, and negative entropy (1968). Progressive
mechanization means that as they develop, systems establish structural patterns
to channel their dynamics and achieve greater stability. Differentiation means
that as entities evolve, they become more specialized, heterogeneous and
complex. Equifinality means that organisms can take many paths towards their
goals of survival, autonomy and growth; they will not be blocked. Negative
entropy means that systems borrow energy (e.g. eat, take in information) to
avoid becoming degraded over time (entropy) (von Bertalanffy; Durkin, J.E.,
1981b).
Self-Stabilizing. Systems are
affected by the other systems which exist internally and externally in its
environment, so as other systems change, their changes exert pressure on the
system to change also. The self-stabilizing nature of systems means that they
try to maintain equilibrium (homeostasis), by preventing change and making
information that systems receive fit within their present structure (von
Bertalanffy, 1968), as in first order change.
Family and parenting practitioners
added another interpersonal dynamic to family functioning that did not come
from general system theory, that of the degree of caring, support and warmth
present in the family. Other labels for this dynamic include love, acceptance,
engagement, emotional closeness and nurturance. Emotional nurturance is
especially necessary for helping vulnerable organisms like children deal with
the stresses and strains of growing. Absence of caring and support in a family,
whether with hostility or without it, has been linked to several negative
outcomes for children, especially aggression (Baumrind,
1994; Hemphill, & Sanson, 2001; Maccoby, 2000; Vander Zanden, 2003).
Group practitioners have long been
concerned with facilitating group cohesion, a supportive and a caring group
climate, because cohesion consistently emerges in group research as a condition
necessary for positive group outcome (Crouch, Bloch & Wanlass, 1994; Dies,
1994; Fuhriman & Burlingame, 1994; Lieberman, Yalom & Miles, 1973;
Yalom, 1995). Supportive feedback is seen as more necessary in early stages of
groups and is optimally paired with challenging feedback in the middle stages
(Stockton, 2003). Warmth of the leader has been found to be an important
predictor of cohesion in groups (Stockton).
A related concept is the dynamic of
positive attention. Attention is naturally reinforcing to human beings and, in
families, misapplied positive or negative attention is often the cause of child
misbehaviors. Such families are taught by behavior therapists to apply positive
attention to desired, prosocial behaviors and to withdraw attention from
children’s undesired behaviors. Group facilitators also have to learn how to
use their attention to reinforce member progress (Dies, 1994) and to direct
group discussions as they find that the issues to which leaders respond are
often the focus of group time.
The systems perspective helps us to
understand how change and growth are naturally interconnected. The stresses,
crises, conflicts, pain, and other perturbations that are part of the dynamic
between human beings are part of the developmental process that helps people
transition to higher levels of functioning.
The Durkin group, Donigian and Malnati, Agazarian, McClure, and others have applied
systems theory to groups in significant works that together comprise a category
of group systems theory. As the group practice world is growing more aware of
systems thinking, especially Agazarian’s model of it, it is important for group
workers to attend to this evolution of the systems perspectives in the field.
Our
greatest concern is the lack of current research testing systems theory with
ongoing groups. It is hoped that through more research and examination, group
systems theory can have a significant impact on the conceptualization and
practice of group work and group therapy (Schermer, 2000).
References
Agazarian, Y. (1997). Systems centered therapy for groups.
NY: The Guilford Press.
Agazarian, Y., & Janoff, S. (1993).
Systems theory and small groups. In I. Kaplan & B. Sadock (Eds.), Comprehensive
textbook of group psychotherapy (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Williams
& Wilkins.
Banathy, B. (n.d.). The evolution of
systems inquiry. Retrieved February 15, 2004 from the International Society for
the Systems Sciences Web site: http://www.isss.org/primer/data/003evsys.htm
Baumrind, D.
(1994). The social context of child maltreatment. Family
Relations, 43, 360-369.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1951). Theoretical
models in biology and psychology, Journal of Personality, 20, 24-38.
[Electronic version] http://www.blackwellpublishers.co.uk/asp/journal.asp?ref=0022-3506
von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General
system theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York: George
Braziller.
Caple, R. B. (1985). Counseling and the
self-organization paradigm, Journal of Counseling and Development, 46,
173-178.
Caple, R. B. (1987a). The change process
in developmental theory: A self-organization paradigm, Part 1, Journal of
College Student Personnel, 28, 4-11.
Caple, R. B. (1987b). The change process
in developmental theory: A self-organization paradigm, Part 2, Journal of
College Student Personnel, 28, 100-104.
Cox, M., & Paley, B. (1997). Families
as systems, Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 243-267. [Electronic version].
Crouch, E., Bloch, S., & Wanlass, J.
(1994) Therapeutic factors: Interpersonal and intrapersonal mechanisms. In, A.
Fuhriman & G. M. Burlingame (Eds.) Handbook
of group psychotherapy: An empirical and clinical synthesis. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Dies, R. R. (1994). Therapist variables
in group psychotherapy research. In, A. Fuhriman & G. M. Burlingame (Eds.) Handbook of group psychotherapy: An
empirical and clinical synthesis. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Donigian, J., & Hulse-Killacky, D.
(1999). Critical incidents in group therapy (2nd ed.). New
York: Wadsworth.
Donigian, J., & Malnati, R. (1997). Systemic group therapy: A triadic
model. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Durkin, H. E. (1981). The group therapies
and general system theory as an integrative structure. In, J. E. Durkin (Ed.) Living
groups: Group psychotherapy and general system theory. NY: Brunner/Mazel.
Durkin, J. E. (1981a). Foundations of
autonomous living structure. In, J. E. Durkin (Ed.) Living groups: Group
psychotherapy and general system theory. NY: Brunner/Mazel.
Durkin, J. E. (1981b). Glossary of living
structure terms. In, J. E. Durkin (Ed.) Living groups: Group psychotherapy
and general system theory. NY: Brunner/Mazel.
Durkin, J. E. (Ed.) (1981c). Living
groups: Group psychotherapy and general system theory. NY: Brunner/Mazel.
Durkin, J. E. (1989). Mothergroup as a
whole formation and systemic boundarying events, Group, 13, 198-211.
Forsyth, D. (1999). Group dynamics
(3rd ed.). New York: Brooks/Cole-Wadsworth.
Fuhriman, A., & Burlingame, G. M.
(1994). Group psychotherapy: Research and practice. In, A. Fuhriman & G. M.
Burlingame (Eds.) Handbook of group
psychotherapy: An empirical and clinical synthesis. New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
Gladding, S. (1995). Group work: A
counseling specialty (2nd ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.
Hall, C. & Lindsay, G. (1978). Theories
of personality. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hemphill, S., & Sanson, A. (2001).
Matching parenting to child temperament: Influences on early childhood
behavioural problems, Family Matters, 59, 42-47.
Heylighen, F., & Joslyn, C. (2000).
What is systems theory? In F. Heylighen, C. Joslyn and V. Turchin (Eds.): Principia
Cybernetica Web. Retrieved February
15, 2004, from http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/REFERPCP.html
Hines, M. (1988a). Editorial:
Introduction to the special issue, Journal for Specialists in Group Work,
13, 171-172.
Hines, M. (1988b). Similarities and
differences in group and family therapy, Journal for Specialists in Group
Work, 13, 173-179.
Kantor, D., & Lehr, W. (1975). Inside
the family: Toward a theory of family process. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kaul, T. J., & Bednar, R. L. (1994).
Pretraining and structure: Parallel lines yet to meet. In, A. Fuhriman & G.
M. Burlingame (Eds.) Handbook of group
psychotherapy: An empirical and clinical synthesis. New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
Kline, W. (2003). Interactive group
counseling and therapy. Columbus,
OH: Merrill.
Lieberman, M., Yalom, I., & Miles, M. (1973). Encounter
groups: First facts. New York: Basic Books.
Maccoby, E. E. (2000). Parenting and its
effect on children, Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 1-27. [Electronic
version]
MacKenzie, K. R. (1994). Group
development. In, A. Fuhriman & G. M. Burlingame (Eds.) Handbook of group psychotherapy: An empirical and clinical synthesis.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Mathews, C. (1992). An application of
general system theory to group therapy, Journal for Specialists in Group
Work, 17, 161-169.
McClure, B. (1998). Putting a new spin
on groups: The science of chaos. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mingers, J. (1995). Self-producing
systems: Implications and applications of autopoiesis. New York: Plenum.
Napier, R., & Gershenfeld, M. (2004).
Groups: Theory and experience. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Nelsen, J., Lott, L., &
Glenn, H.S. (1999). Positive discipline A-Z: From toddlers to teens, 1001
solutions to everyday parenting problems (2nd ed.). Rocklin, CA:
Prima.
Shermer, V. L. (2000). On the
future of group therapy theory, Group, 24,
13-21.
Stockton,
R. (2003). Group process and leadership. Paper presented at the Annual
Convention of the American Psychological Association, 2003, Toronto, Canada.
Toseland,
R., & Rivas, R. (2001). An introduction to group work practice (4th
ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Trotzer,
J. P. (1988). Family theory as a group resource, Journal for Specialists in
Group Work, 13, 180-185.
Tubbs, S. L. (1978). A
systems approach to small group interaction. New York: Random House.
Tubbs, S. L. (2003). A
systems approach to small group interaction (8th ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Tuckman, B. (1965).
Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384-399.
Tuckman, B., & Jensen, M.
(1977). Stages of small group development revisited. Group and
Organizational Studies, 2, 419-427.
Vander Zanden, J. W. (2003). Human
development (7th edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Yalom, I. (1995). The theory and
practice of group psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books.