Change
Dynamics
Groups are filled, as mentioned, with many hard to locate
and understand intrapersonal and interpersonal dynamics as well as influences
from outside the group or organization. Three of these influences that are
especially pertinent to understanding the theory’s dynamic nature are
fight/flight, leadership and group sentience.
Fight/flight group experiences are something that everyone has
experienced. These are primitive responses to problems and threats to oneself
and to groups. A fundamental example of these dynamics lies within the animal
kingdom where an animal may stand its ground and fight another animal that is
attacking it or flee to fight or flee another day. These responses to what is
happening around us are equally present within each of us. Fight and flight are
two often unthinking responses to a stressful situation that are hardwired into
our brains.
We have all had the occasion to have to choose between standing
our ground in a stressful situation or giving up and retreating. Groups also
exhibit the same behavior, which is often facilitated by the location of a
leader and the development of a sufficiently shared group experience (sentience)
that provides the emotional fuel to either fight back or flee the situation.
Within dynamic workplace theory, these tendencies provide the psychological and
group energy that is tapped to create change. Crudely speaking, when individual,
group and organizational survival is on the line, almost anything is possible as
a result of the release of these fight/flight tendencies that may occur on a
battlefield or in a corporate boardroom.
In Sum
Group and organizational change is many times fueled by
primitive individual, interpersonal, group and organizational dynamics. In the
case of the dynamic workplace theory the deeply ingrained genetically based
fight/flight response provides the raw energy that is harnessed for group and
organizational change.
Leadership, as noted, is one of the key ingredients for changing
group direction. In this case the leader need not be the formal group leader and
many times is not. Initially the leadership shown is subtle and basically tests
the situation as to whether a change in a direction might be entertained by
group members. This testing is frequently a response to an awareness of the
presence of a threat, feelings of distress and the emergence of a fight/flight
dynamic and its accompanying energy that create a tension that destabilizes the
prevailing group or organization experiential context. As a result, the
potential for a transitional state arises in the minds of group members.
Equally important is that the potential leader develops his or her
unique experience of the situation. The person may, for example, feel that the
chaos of group experience needs order and strict discipline applied to it in the
form of following rules of order and adopting more predictable methods—the
bureaucratic response. Similarly, the experience of the group as unable to get
anything done because of “red tape” may support the notion that what is needed
is an effective leader who will lead the group out of its current situation—the
charismatic response. It is also certainly the case that sentiment may arise for
a more balanced, open and trusting work group setting where everyone feels
valued. There may, as mentioned, be individuals within a group that speak to
several of these directions for change at different times or in competition
relative to each other.
The sentiment of the group is tested on occasion by these
potential leaders articulating a point of view consistent with a direction for
change. Perhaps the person might say, “Wouldn’t we be more likely to get on with
the work if we had more structure and developed a system for decision making?”
Or another might say, “Don’t we need to have a clear direction set for us and
someone located to get us there?” Regardless of what is said, the underlying
dynamic is whether what is said resonates with a sufficiently pervasive
underlying group sentiment that is distressed with the current state of affairs
and identifies the direction spoken to as a way out of the current distressing
state of affairs. It is also noteworthy that the direction offered by these
leaders is also in many ways consistent with their personality or character.
Some individuals consistently and even compulsively choose to try to lead in a
charismatic manner. Others prefer the control provided by a more bureaucratic
approach to worklife. There is then a convergence between personality variables,
the situation, the leader’s experience and the group’s experience of the moment.
Sections
Syndication
