Balanced Group Experience

The balanced group experience, in contrast to the three psychologically defensive group experiences, is relatively free of the regressive need for its members to defend themselves from the experience of excessive anxiety and potential aggression within the group. Group members are less anxious about themselves, each other and group process and performance. Group members are reflective since they are less preoccupied with personal survival and coping with their fears and anxieties. They are able to examine their own thoughts, feelings and behavior and participate in the group’s work with intentionality.

An observer of this group discerns that group members have a variety of feelings that are accepted by others and the group as a whole. Others who also share the same experience of the group and accompanying feelings frequently validate these feelings. Additionally, the group is thoughtful and flexible in its thinking. Divergent ideas are explored for their merit and applicability. Balanced group experience is, therefore, one where thinking and feeling are accepted in a non-defensive manner and used by the group to its best advantage.

The distinguishing characteristic of this group is its ability to deal openly with group fantasies, unconscious motivations, personal needs and psychologically defensive behavior. One of the central elements to achieving these outcomes is the ability to acknowledge conflicts when they develop. In this regard the only “bad” conflict is the conflict that is not open to discussion and resolution. Conflicts and similar group dynamics most often have embedded within them fantasies about group process, unconscious motivations regarding group participation and unacknowledged personal needs that members are trying to fulfill through group participation. All of these individual, interpersonal and group dynamics represent potentially disruptive hidden agendas when worked by some group members relative to others. For example, a group member who constantly seeks approval from others to shore up low self-esteem may consistently act in ways to receive the approval even though this behavior does not contribute to group success. Others may come to feel that they are being used to shore up the person’s self-esteem. Similarly an individual who invariably and usually out of immediate awareness feels that he or she must triumph over others in order to secure self-esteem is equally dysfunctional to group dynamics. His or her excessively competitive nature tends to drive away the contributions others can make to the group’s performance. Instances such as these are open to inspection by group members who feel that it is safe enough to speak to individual, interpersonal and group dynamics. As a result, there is little reason for the members of this group to flee from participation or resort to the sanctuary of psychological defenses. The more open and trusting group culture provides for a much greater degree of interpersonal connectedness. Undiscussible hidden interpersonal agendas do not exist to any great extent and when thought to exist, they are open to meaningful discussion.

The balanced group experience may, however, not be able to sustain its balanced culture and become drawn into change toward one or more of the three psychologically defensive groups. This is especially likely when the right combination of leadership and group stress occurs. The reader is reminded that contained within the balanced group are all the potentially regressive and psychologically defensive tendencies of the other groups. Chapters 3 and 4 discuss the nature of this potentiality in detail. It suffices at this point to note the obvious about group dynamics. Groups can spontaneously embark on a course of thinking, feeling and action that is inconsistent with being open with each other. As discussed below, there always exists the potential for a retreat from this hard-earned sense of organizational balance. It is this potential within each of the four types of groups that makes the theory dynamic.

In Sum

Members of the balanced group experience will feel:

(1) eager to comment on the group’s work and offer different points of view,

(2) considerable self-worth and efficacy rather than helplessness,

(3) safe and secure within the group and relative to each other,

(4) that they have a real sense of purpose in their work where their efforts are acknowledged by other group members and

(5) any sense of frustration with the group’s work is open to discussion.

Experience within this group context is for the most part positive and exciting. Group cohesion and spirit hold the group together as it works on its tasks. At the same time the other three psychologically defensive groups continue to exist as a latent potential that may become a force within the group should it encounter stressful operating conditions. A potential leader who advocates change may speak to this distress and promise a way out. These considerations underscore the dynamic nature of workplace theory.