Covert Processes
Covert Processes in Corporate Church Life: A Tavistock Perspective
Michael L. Chase, Ph.D.
Quincy University
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association in Boston, MA (August, 1990).
Abstract
Tavistock group relations theory analyzes group processes at two levels of functioning, overt and covert. In the case of religious organizations, at the rational, overt level the group is viewed as engaged in tasks associated with providing for the religious needs of participants. On the unconscious, covert level the group may be operating on a set of assumptions about leadership, authority, and roles that have regressive origins and are dysfunctional or even destructive to the declared task. These include dependency, counter-dependency, fight, flight, pairing, and oneness. After examining the common sources of anxiety contributing to these unconscious group-as-a-whole phenomena, strategies to minimize their disruptive impact are discussed.
Covert Processes in Corporate Church Life:
A Tavistock Perspective
This paper will examine the origins and major concepts of the Tavistock Model of organizational behavior, particularly those dealing with unconscious or covert processes, explore the crucial role of anxiety in regressive unconscious covert processes, and discuss aspects of organizational behavior in the church from a Tavistock perspective. A description of the Tavistock group relations training program will be provided. Preventive and remedial interventions will be discussed within the Tavistock framework.
Unconscious Covert Group Processes
Group processes in organizational life can be either deliberate and consciously purposeful or unconscious and covert (Lau & Shani, 1988; Szilagyi & Wallace, 1990). When unconscious processes are regressive or dysfunctional they can divert energy away from the primary task and thus reduce organizational effectiveness, or even sabotage the formal or primary task of the group or organization. Group Think, popularized by Janis (1972), is an example of a covert process that occurs at an unconscious level which impairs a group’s decision-making and problem-solving capacity. Harvey’s (1988) Abilene Paradox describes the problem of collusion in which group members assure each other that they personally want a course of action because they assume that it is the preference of the other group members. Thoresen (1972) identifies a variety of unconscious group defensive behaviors under the categories of fight, flight, and group manipulation that reduce an organization’s effectiveness.
Because of the nature of their primary task, different kinds of organizations may tend to have a greater predisposition for certain kinds of covert, unconscious processes. For example, military units or unions might frequently exhibit “fight” phenomenon while social service agencies may experience “dependency” behavior. The intensity and frequency of unconscious forces will also vary from one kind of organization to another. Other variables such as leadership, membership, group size, and organizational culture will also affect the unconscious, covert behavior found in a specific organization at any given moment.
Religious groups have a particularly strong predisposition toward unconscious group-as-a-whole phenomena. This predisposition was noted by Freud (1921) when he selected the church as one of two organizations (the army was the other) to illustrate what he called the “group mind.” Bion (1961) makes frequent references to religious organizations in developing his concepts of group mental life, particularly dependency phenomenon. Since certain variables emphasized in the Tavistock model appear particularly relevant to several aspects of covert behavior in corporate church life, this paper will examine the usefulness of these formulations in the study of covert or unconscious dimensions of organizational behavior in religious organizations.
The Tavistock Model
“Tavistock” refers to a set of concepts and consulting practices in group and organizational behavior as well as to unique experiential training strategy developed by the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London. The institute has affiliates in several other countries, including the Washington D.C.-based A.K. Rice Institute with its various regional centers.
The foundational concepts for Tavistock group relations theory and training are based on the group psychoanalytical work of Bion (1961) and the open systems thinking of Miller and Rice (1967) which was derived from General Systems Theory. These two major contributions to Tavistock will be summarized to provide a structure for understanding the Tavistock conceptual framework. Theory and practice continue to evolve with experimentation and innovation by a variety of people employing the Tavistock framework in a diverse range of settings (Lawrence, 1979).
Psychoanalytical Contributions
The major features of the psychoanalytical contribution to Tavistock include taking a group-as-a-whole approach to analysis of behavior in groups and focusing on unconscious regressive group phenomena which stem from collective anxiety resulting from the group participation (Bion, 1961; Rice, 1965; Wells, 1985).
Gould (cited in Barber, 1977) provides a summary of the psychoanalytic premises about group life from a group-as-a-whole perspective as follows:
(1) The group has a life of its own, complete with wishes, fears, and defensive strategies.
(2) With skill and subtlety the group uses its members (most often at a covert level) to express these various needs and wishes, and to participate in its defense.
(3) Therefore, members of groups are usually not so much masters-of-their-fate as they like to think, but are to some extent used by the group.
(4) So the behavior of any group member at any moment is the sum of two forces, his own needs as well as pressures generated by the group.
(5) Whatever the group is talking about, the group is always talking about itself, and it is possible to decode the themes, symbols, and metaphors.
(6) The covert operations of a group are always present, and teaching the group to identify them can be of great value to the members. (p. 2)
Another aspect of the group-as-a-whole perspective is the acknowledgement that at any given moment the individual may experience any of several roles (Wells, 1985). For example, a person may have a differentiated sense of self and be a member of several groups. His role in each group has its own unique combination of obligations, authority, and constraints. These various groups also have their own unique relationships with each other. Thus, an understanding of oneself in the total organization depends not only on one’s constellation of roles within the various groups, but also the unique pattern of intergroup, and even interorganizational relationships. Covert and unconscious processes may be associated with any of the levels of involvement: intrapersonal, interpersonal, intragroup, intergroup, intraorganizational, or interorganizational.
Anxiety and Unconscious Processes
At the individual level, people deal with debilitating anxiety through a variety of unconscious defense mechanisms such as repression, projection, and denial (Hinsie & Campbell, 1969). The sources of anxiety will usually be themes of traumatic experiences, fears, or unacceptable impulses and desires.
At the group level, sources of anxiety include concerns about pressure for change and growth from internal and external sources; relationships between the individual and the group (e.g. inclusion, exclusiveness, roles, conformity, power, control, sexuality, aggression, abandonment, differences, etc.); scarcity (e.g. recognition, nurture, support, etc.); and performance of the task of the group (e.g. uncertainty surrounding decisions, planning, and problem solving).
Building on the earlier object relations contribution of Klien (1930, 1985) and the group dynamics work by Le Bon (1896), McDougall (1920), and Freud (1911; 1913; 1921), Bion (1961) identified three major group-as-a-whole expressions of unconscious attempts to reduce anxiety revolving primarily around authority, leadership, and participation issues. In effect, Bion postulates group-as-a-whole methods of anxiety management that parallel the anxiety-reducing defense mechanisms seen in individuals.
Bion (1961) also makes a distinction between the conscious, rational, goal-seeking behavior of groups which he calls the work group, and the unconscious, nonrational, dysfunctional group-as-whole phenomenon labeled the basic assumption group.
In work group mode, the group’s experience is of being called to a predetermined, clearly defined primary task that has been openly accepted with freedom of association, disassociation, and work group dissolution. They experience their leader as being in a role of “first among equals” and respond appropriately to the exercise of leadership and authority.
In basic assumption group mode, the group diverts its focus into nonrational, covert activity that is cohesive and full of energy. These defensive processes are viewed as group-as-a-whole defense mechanisms where the group behaves “as if” its task were to fight or flee from some enemy (fight/flight basic assumption), to be cared for and nurtured by someone (dependency basic assumption), or to experience the emergence of hope associated with alternate leadership by a pair (pairing basic assumption). The fight/flight basic assumption will be split into its two components for purposes of discussion in this paper.
In effect Bion is saying that a group can exist in one of two states: as a rational goal-seeking work group or as a basic assumption group attempting to diminish its collective anxiety about leadership and authority through various unconscious group-as-a-whole strategies. These basic assumptions are viewed as regressive (or going back to earlier ineffective and dysfunctional responses to authority in the family) and as moving away from the work group tasks.
These regressive tendencies are experienced at both the individual and group levels. Bion (1961) uses the term valencyto describe “the individual’s readiness to enter into combination with the group in making and acting on the basic assumptions” (p.103). Thus, a group may deal with its collective anxiety by “drafting” someone to provide leadership and focus. This person will have a valency for behavior associated with a particular basic assumption which the group is pursuing.
Babad and Amir (1978) added counter-dependency to Bion’s three basic assumption groups and separated the fight-flight category into two dimensions. They operationalized these emotional modalities and the work group orientation as follows:
Fight (F): Expressions of hostility and aggression.
Flight (F1): Expressions of avoidance of a problem or withdrawal from participation.
Pairing (P): Expressions of warmth, intimacy, and supportiveness.
Dependency (D): Expressions of reliance on the trainer.
Counter-dependency (CD): Expressions of rejection of authority and dependent behavior.
Work (W): Expressions of deliberate goal-seeking behavior. Attempts to understand and be aware of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and group processes; to learn from experience, and to gain insight. (pp. 514-515)
All in the above list except work are viewed as dysfunctional or counter productive to the primary task. They have, however, cast pairing in a more favorable light than Bion who saw pairing as the creation of an alternate informal authority displacing designated authority. They have also introduced counter-dependency as an additional basic assumption.
Turquot (1975) has suggested an additional dimension termed “oneness” which could be defined as expressions of fusion with one another and/or the leader and obliteration of differences in the pursuit of closeness.
As noted previously, the development and maintenance of the basic assumption group is an unconscious attempt to manage anxiety related to the group’s work and processes. There are a variety of sources of anxiety each with corresponding unconscious, covert themes. Those that relate to a modified list of Tavistock basic assumptions are presented in Table 1.
Table 1
Unconscious Covert Processes and Corresponding Sources of Anxiety.
| Unconscious Covert Process————————-Dependency: The group acts as though it is helpless, incompetent, and in need of nurturing and protection. | Source of Anxiety and Strategy———————–Anxiety about own adequacy and competence resolved by placing all ability in idealized leader. Scarcity dealt with by finding strong caring leader for nurturing. May express need for omnipotent and omniscient person to take responsibility for what happens, and to direct what is believed and done by the group. |
| Counter-dependency: The group acts as though its task is to resist authority as the only method of avoiding dependency.Fight: The group acts as though it is threatened and its task is survival through fight and aggression. | Anxiety about being dependent and controlled by designated authority. The perception is that resistance is the only strategy available.Anxiety about differences and opposition reduced by finding an enemy to focus on. Management of differences through mobilization and attack.Also anxiety/distortions of group boundaries, particularly relationship with what is “not group.”
|
| Flight: The group acts as though there is an enemy or threat that cannot be challenged but must be avoided. | Anxiety focuses on avoiding danger and enemies. Management of differences through mobilization and disengagement (passive response). May use diversionary activities to evade fearful tasks. |
| Pairing: The group acts as though its future depends on a new source of life for the group. Looks for the emergence of a new alternative created by the pairing of two of its members. | Anxiety about adequacy of formal leader to respond to need for growth and regeneration. Group pins hopes on a solution that could emerge from the collaboration of two members in the group. Bion views this process an expression of covert sexuality through leadership union regardless of the gender of the leaders. |
| Oneness: The group acts as though fusion with one another and/or the leader is the central task. Closeness is pursued at the expense of individuality (self-other boundary issue). | Anxiety about isolation, differences (belief, gender, age, competence, etc.), conformity to group rules and norms. Solution seems to be fusion with one another and the universe as a way of obliterating troublesome differences. Managing existential anxiety an issue here. |
Basic assumption groups, although disruptive to the group’s primary task, are often maintained because of reciprocal reinforcement. For example, a leader may struggle with the unrealistic demands and expectations of a group in basic assumption dependency and at the same time feel flattered by their idealization, feel needed and appreciated, and loved as a father. The basic assumption of fight sometimes results in the leader feeling like a decorated warrior who is admired and revered. The pair engaged in pairing on behalf of the group usually feel important and timely in their provision of hope through their alternative leadership.
Leaders, therefore, may often encourage and maintain dysfunctional basic assumptions rather than confront their irrational nature, particularly if their valency corresponds to the basic assumption group being pursued.
Before leaving the topic of the role of anxiety in individuals and groups it is worth noting that anxiety has also been viewed positively. Finch (1969) contends that it is an essential component of a “creative directive” that thrusts the individual forward toward growth and actualization. Dabrowski, Kawczak, and Piechowski (1970) note that anxiety is often attendant to growth in the actualization process they call positive disintegration. In the Gestalt framework, anxiety is viewed as a source of energy that can be channeled into constructive action and change (Nevis, 1987).
Open Systems Contribution
General Systems Theory (Bartalanffy, 1952) laid a foundation for a new way of thinking about complex systems and the differentiation and integration of units within those systems. Boulding (1956) has characterized General Systems Theory as the “skeleton of science.”
Open systems concepts are an application of General Systems Theory to organizations and represent a shift from the traditional machine-theory (closed system) notions of people interacting in human organizations. Harvey and Brown (1988) list the following characteristics of open systems:
1. Interdependence. A system is composed of interrelated parts or elements. Any element is dependent on the other elements, and change in any one means that some adjustment will occur in the others.
2. Holism. The system is a whole, not merely the sum of its parts, and its performance should be viewed as an integrated system.
3. Input/output model. All systems transform inputs into outputs. The system is viewed as a transformation process in dynamic interaction with its environment.
4. Goal seeking. Open systems exchange information, energy, or material with their environment. Interaction between elements results in some final state or goal.
5. Entropy. Every transformation process involves the degradation or use of energy and resources. The tendency toward entropy is a movement toward disorder and eventually termination of functioning. To keep a system operating there must be an infusion of energy and resources.
6. Steady state. The notion that systems are goal seeking implies that they are adaptive and self-regulating. The open system seeks a state of dynamic equilibrium.
7. Feedback. The feedback of information regarding performance is used to adjust and control performance. Feedback is informational input which indicates that the system is deviating from goals and needs to readjust.
8. Hierarchy. One system contains several other systems within it and is also a part of a larger suprasystem.
9. Differentiation. In complex systems, units perform specialized functions. Open systems tend to move toward increased differentiation.
10. Equifinality. In complex systems, an initial state may result in several possible final states, and a similar final state may be achieved from many different initial states. (pp. 30-31)
Kats and Kahn (1966) developed a comprehensive application of open systems for business and industry. Miller and Rice (1967) have provided a Tavistock open systems perspective that includes a comprehensive development of theory tracing an individual’s experience through intrapersonal, interpersonal, intragroup, intergroup, to intra- and inter-organizational levels. Their edited test includes contributors who applied open systems formulations to a wide variety of organizations including industrial, marketing, financial, retailing, health care, and education. More recently, organization development practitioners have applied open systems thinking to diagnosis and intervention (Lundberg, 1980).
These open systems principles are particularly important to the Tavistock Model in understanding intergroup phenomena and individual-in-group tensions that are responsible for aspects of the unconscious and covert behavior.
Tavistock Training Model
The Tavistock training model uses an educational strategy which combines the conceptual with the experiential. In a carefully designed temporary institution, participants study their own intrapersonal, intragroup, intergroup, and organization behavior as it occurs. Participants experience anxiety in a variety of group contexts which hopefully will produce various types of unconscious group-as-a-whole phenomena which can be brought into the realm of conscious observation and study. Open systems concepts can also be studied first-hand as members and staff engage in the creation and management of boundaries, coordinating transactions across those boundaries, taking up roles, exercising authority, coping with differentiation and integration challenges, managing input, transformation, and output processes, and dealing with other features of open systems.
Palmer (1979) identifies the following objectives of training at the Tavistock group relations conferences:
1. Developing a habit of attention to his own ongoing experience.
2. Learning to recognize fantasy as a mode of experience, and to distinguish between fantasy and reality.
3. Learning to recognize the influence of shared fantasy in groups and organizations.
4. Becoming alert to the influence of fantasy in relations between leaders and followers, between those who depend and those who are depended upon.
5. Gaining facility in the use of a number of key theoretical concepts for describing the unconscious structuring and conscious organization of working groups. (pp. 175-176)
The group trainers (known as “consultants” in the Tavistock training experience) direct their behaviors, insofar as possible, toward the explicitly stated and pursued task of the study of the group’s behavior in the “here and now.” Consultation, usually in the form of psychoanalytic interpretation directed at the group as a whole, is often experienced as punitive by the group, resulting in resistance and even verbal retaliation. Since the prescribed consultant role minimizes self-disclosure, participants also tend to engage in transference phenomena which can also be studied (Klein, 1979).
Rice (1965), the originator of this training model, and others (Rioch, 1970; Trist & Sofer, 1959; Palmer, 1979) have provided descriptions of this unique experiential training design. These are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2
Tavistock Training Events
| Conference Events————————-Conference OpeningSmall Groups
Large Group
Intergroup Exercise
Lectures
Application Groups
Conference Reviews
|
Learning Focus————————-Provides ritualistic beginning of the temporary institution of the training conference.Study interpersonal relationships in small face-to-face group in the “here and now.”
Study interpersonal relationships in a large group as they happen.
Study the relationships between groups as they develop.
Provide conceptual basis for understanding the experiential learning which is taking place.
Consider the relevance of conference learning to normal work situations in “back home” context.
Provide opportunity for all members (staff and participants) to discuss together the learning that is taking place and to learn about ending.
|
Tavistock Applications
Tavistock concepts have been applied to a variety of organizations, including manufacturing, resource extraction, service industries, government, architecture, marketing, financial services, health care, and psychiatric care. The Tavistock concepts and training model has also been applied to and the management of strife in Northern Ireland (Klein, 1985). Lawrence (1970) has used the conceptual framework to describe the dynamics of social change.
Although Reed and Palmer (1976) have outlined ways in which the Tavistock framework can be used to understand the relationship of the church to its larger environment, there has been little application of the Tavistock model to the internal processes of religious organizations.
Application to Religious Organizations
As noted earlier, inherent in most religions are teachings and practices that could tend to foster basic assumption phenomena. Freud (1921) observed that the task, structure, and membership of religious organizations all contribute to powerful group-as-a-whole forces. The Tavistock perspective can be useful in increasing our understanding of unconscious and covert processes in all types of religious organizations. However, in order to sharpen the focus, basic assumption phenomena will be applied only to Christian religious groups in this paper.
This section provides a description of common teaching and practice related to various organizational themes, identifies typical dysfunctional variations on that teaching, and suggests philosophies of prevention and remediation. Where possible, Christian teaching will be illustrated with quotations from the New International Version of the Bible to provide a flavor for the words and phrases influencing expectations and behavior in Christian organizations.
Relationship to God
Since dependency is such an important dimension of human experience and Tavistock thinking it might be useful to examine its role in religious life. There are situations where dependency is not only appropriate but necessary. As infants we are clearly dependent on care givers for survival and psychological well being. We remain relatively dependent until late adolescence when establishing independence is a major life task.
In the Old Testament there is the account of God caring directly for Israel especially in the deliverance under Moses which involved both protection and provision. The concepts of protection and provision are carried into New Testament teaching by the writer of Hebrews who reminds Christians that
” . . . God has said, ‘Never will I leave; never will I forsake you’” (Heb. 13:5). Jesus uses the imagery of being dependent in the same way the branches depend on vine and summarizes this discussion with the statement “Apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). Theological concepts related to redemption and salvation emphasize the dependency position of humankind on a loving God. This dependent posture need not be viewed negatively, but merely as a normal feature of religious experience (Raup, 1989).
This strong dependency thrust is balanced off with an emphasis on humankind’s response to God’s revelation and provision. In Genesis 3 humankind is instructed to exercise dominion over the creation. Christians are assigned roles of being “light” and “salt” as representatives of God in the world. Other New Testament roles include those of “ambassador” and “steward”. The dependency is not for the unconscious goal of providing a warm, tension-free cocoon. Rather, it is the vehicle for empowering humankind to actively take appropriate responsibility in the work, the empowering and authorization for humankind to fully engage with their environment even in the midst of struggle and adversity.
Relationship to Leadership
There is an intensity in the relationship between the leader and the led suggested in Christian teaching that is seen in few other organizations. The relationship contains powerful family and authority imagery. For example, in I Thessalonians 2:7-12 Paul tells the reader that he was ” . . .gentle among you, like a mother caring for her little children.” He goes on to say, “We loved you so much that we were delighted to share with you not only the gospel of God but our lives as well because you had become so dear to us.” In the same section he says “For you know that we dealt with each of you as a father deals with his own children, encouraging, comforting and urging you . . .”
Paul appeals to Philemon on behalf of “my child” Onesimus who is now a “brother Christian”. In the postoral epistles (I Tim 5:1‑2) Paul exhorts Timothy to regard younger women as sisters, old men as fathers, and old women as mothers. Elsewhere the church is described as “God’s household” and new converts are “babes in Christ”. Pastors are spoken of as “shepherds” with a role of defender, feeder, and provider.
The desired attitude toward leaders is given by Paul in I Thessalonians 5:12 where he says, “Respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord . . . Hold them in highest regard in love because of their work.” This idea is also found in Hebrews 13:17 where the writer admonishes, “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch for you as men who must give an account.”
What are some dysfunctional ways a group might act out in appropriately on their anxiety surrounding the authority and leadership issues? There may well be a progression through different basic assumptions as a group struggles with its relationship to the leader as he exercises his authority in his perceived role. Initially the leader may be engaged in a dependency struggle which may then move to fight-flight, and then on to pairing. All of these are inappropriate, dysfunctional ways of relating to leadership and interfere with the work of the group.
If a dependent posture becomes a major feature of a congregation’s culture, it may be difficult to get individuals to function in enlarged roles of ministry. When the leader calls on followers to move into using their abilities to do the work of the church they may
still feel dependent on the leader and view him as being the only person equipped for the work.
In the event the leader fails to fulfill dependency expectations of providing for the needs of the followers, the group can unconsciously engage in fighting the leader in order to force the leader to be a better nurturing father “truly tending the needs of the flock”. Embedded in this fight is the ultimatum “Measure up or we replace you.” The group surrenders its competencies and capacities and focuses only on the leader. Often there are “strawmen” issues are discussed such as the pastor’s schedule, a recent organizational change, his wife’s appearance, or his kids’ behavior. A leader with a valency for fight can often keep a group united by engaging them in fighting outside enemies. To the extent that he is mobilizing group anxieties and redirecting them unto fight patterns, he obstructs dealing with anxieties directly and weakens successful completion of the tasks that these anxieties are associated with.
If a group engages in flight, it can be observed in passive disengagement with church tasks. In active mode, the will support individuals as they exit the group, symbolic of everyone’s covert desire to deal with their own anxiety the same way.
Basic assumption pairing can also be mobilized to displace leadership as the group struggles to reduce their collective anxiety about responding to authoritarian leadership. This may be observed in groups as they pin unrealistic hopes on alternate ideas or alternate leaders as providing the “utopian” state they idealistic desire.
Deliberate intensification of these regressive basic assumption group tendencies is often seen in cults. Dependency may be systematically enhanced to increase the leader’s control over followers. When persons relate to authority or leadership by giving up autonomy in order to obtain the security, care, nurture, and certainty available from that leader, they are creating a dependency relationship rather than a work relationship. This leader-follower relationship can be very stable over a long period of time if the leader can continue to effectively provide the security and certainty desired. Fight and flight valencies are encouraged as ways of dealing with the external world and nonmembers.
Basic assumption phenomena can be fostered not only by the actions of the leader and the family/authority imagery of Christian teaching on leadership, but also by the attitudes and behaviors of the followers. When followers hold incomplete, exaggerated (usually in the form of extremes that the leader is all good, all bad, all powerful), or otherwise inaccurate perceptions of the leader they may be bringing past experiences to the present in the form of transference or projection. In order to diminish the possibility of the creation of and interaction with a “projected leader”, the group needs to accurately and realistically understand the leader’s strengths, weaknesses, leadership style, and personal preferences. As followers pursue an accurate perception of the leader, it will be much easier to join in work without interference from unconscious, covert processes.
Appropriate self-disclosure and increased reality testing can contribute greatly to a realistic and balanced perspective that leads to a productive leader-follower relationship.
Bion (1961) points out that organization and structure are crucial to individuals joining effectively in a task and remaining in work group mode. Organization includes such dimensions as goal clarity, time and place boundaries, agenda, and communication practices. Structure involves functional differentiation of roles, development and empowerment of individuals to fill those roles, and appropriate integration of functions. Brown (1979) notes that many dysfunctional struggles occur in what he calls the “underorganized” enterprise or group that has failed to develop the structures and processes necessary to work at a task effectively.
Rogers (1980) argues that sharing authority and responsibility across a broad base of mature believers increases organizational effectiveness and individual satisfaction. She notes that the vertically-developed church, where one person is pivotal to its functioning, both attracts and creates members whose dependency needs are such that they may not mature and consequently are slow in development.
Weisbord (1987) offers a similar prescription for transforming anxiety in organizations into energy for change and increased productivity. These include (1) clarifying the purpose or mission and the use of this vision for creating commitment and motivation, (2) enhancing relationships that are the connections with other group members across lines of hierarchy, function, class, race, gender, and age that enable us to experience wholes, and (3) designing structures to insure opportunities for self-esteem through the development and use of new competencies and skills.
Relationship to the Group
Some of the more commonly held individual and group-as-a-whole fantasies about the group include the following notions: it is weak and incompetent (even though there is ample evidence of many strong and competent individuals in the group) or invincible (equally irrational); it is excessively cohesive (“I must like everyone.” ”We are fused with one another.” ”We are fused with the leader.”); it is excessively controlling (“My behavior, thought, and feelings will be manipulated into conformity and uniformity.”); and it obliterates crucial internal-external boundaries (“These people intrude into my private life.” ”I am what my group is–if it’s great I am great.” “I will loose ‘self’ if I become a part of this group.”). Note that this type of fantasy about one’s relationship to the group, as in the case of one’s relationship to the leader, tends toward the extremes with little capacity for reality testing and the construction of an accurate and balanced picture of the trade-offs inherent in joining in work with others.
These thoughts and fantasies about one’s relationship to the group are as powerful as fantasies about leadership. Whereas dependency is the dominant dysfunctional theme in church groups in relationship to the leader, oneness, pairing, and fight/flight are probably the more common responses to anxiety/ambivalence about group membership.
These common anxieties may be intensified when the group emphasizes love and unity as is the case in Christian organizations. Although there is overlap between these two pivotal concepts dealing with the Christian’s expected relationship to the group, they focus on slightly different aspects of group life. Love will be examined as it relates to the management of conflict at the interpersonal, group, intergroup, organizational, and interorganizational levels. Under the topic of unity, issues of inclusion and acceptance of the fundamental differences of being such as gender, race, and social class will be examined.
Love/Conflict Management
Injunctions to love one another are fundamental to Christian teaching. The correct application of this teaching can lead to a very effective and personally satisfying pattern of interpersonal relationships around the tasks of the Christian organization, be it a church or Christian service organization. Incorrect application tends to truncate necessary steps in managing differences of perception and preferred course of action, resulting in decreased organizational health and effectiveness.
If anxiety about differences in thought or preferred action is high, then basic assumption flight can influence the group to avoid conflict at all costs. They explain this avoidance as their way of acting out the injunction to love one another. In the process, a failure to manage differences occurs. Those engaged in flight may simply “fade away” to another church, “too loving” to work out differences of opinion. It is also possible to remain in the same group, but to disengage, a more passive form of flight.
The other extreme in conflict management involves the escalation of a difference of perspective or action into a fight (religious crusade) for what is “right.” This type of conflict often goes underground because “loving” Christians are not encouraged to explore overt disagreement, and especially over such mundane issues as whether or not to recarpet the Christian Education Center. It is now stated in terms of right and wrong or truth and error. The decision about recarpeting may get reframed as a stewardship issue with moral judgments attached directly to budgeting decisions. Thus, differences are handled indirectly as “right” and “truth” issues. ”Right” and “truth” issues tend to mobilize the basic assumption fight and restrict a balanced examination of the different viewpoints on particular issues leading to increased acceptance of diversity.
Prevention and remediation include legitimizing diversity and viewing it as an asset rather than a liability. When group members define love as honoring diversity and feel confident about managing differences, it no longer becomes the focus of unconscious fight behaviors. Developing the group’s capacity to tolerate differences and work within a diverse context is one of leadership’s major tasks. This is particularly important as a church becomes more heterogeneous in its constituency. Several programs for helping people acknowledge differences and work constructively together are available through vendors serving the human resources management departments in business and industry. These can be easily adapted to churches and Christian service organization.
Unity/Differentiation
The Christian faith has placed considerable emphasis on the theme of unity. For example, Paul (Rom 15:5) prays for God to give the Roman believers “a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, so that with one heart and one mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” In another place (Col. 3:14) he says “And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.” Paul teaches similar concepts in Ephesians 4:3-6 where he encourages believers to be ” . . . eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all who is above all and through all and in all.” In Galatians 3:28 Paul teaches that there are not Jews or Greeks, slaves or free, male or female, “. . .for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” The corrective letter to the Corinthians has a early appeal to “. . . agree with one another so that there be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.” (I Cor. 1:10). Perhaps the strongest words concerning unity were spoken by Jesus (John 17:22-23) where he prays, ” . . . that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity . . .” Thus, a very high standard for unity is set for Christians.
Against the background of this kind of Christian teaching it is easy to see why there might be a propensity toward a dysfunctional oneness under conditions of anxiety in a group, even though the teaching’s intent is toward a practical unity as expressed in caring for one another’s needs. Acts 6 notes that deacons were appointed to care for the needs of minority Grecian women and I Corinthians 11 instructs the fellowship of believers to minimize the socioeconomic differences apparent at the observance of the Lord’s Supper at Corinth.
One of the dilemmas in pursuing unity is how to manage the envy and rivalry that often accompany the differentiation of function necessary in any healthy organization, as it becomes more complex. The imagery of the church as the body of Christ is found in Paul’s teaching in Romans 12, Ephesians 4, and 1 Corinthians 12-14. These passages give equal weight to unity (one body) and differentiation of function (distinct body parts) and deal with problems associated with differentiation.
Another potential distortion of the unity theme revolves around church-as-family imagery. Some of the more powerful metaphors for the church are contained in phrases such as the Christian being in “God’s household” (Eph. 2:19) and “. . . heirs according to the promise.”(Gal. 4:7). From the family we received our highest levels of nurture, support, warmth, security, and mutual respect. The family is able to give these things but also requires high levels of commitment and conformity to family rules and expectation. There is a coercive quality to the family relationship. You can’t easily get into a family or out of a family. Families do more than work at a task. They also engage in family rituals related to cohesiveness. Obviously there is warmth and support to be obtained from unity with other Christians in “God’s family”, but there is also the risk of either dysfunctional oneness or dependency if the group attempts to escape from anxiety instead of trying to make the family really function well.
Related to the intensity of the family-like relations in the church is the question of the voluntary/involuntary nature of these associations. If people feel “locked in” with others they did not choose, their anxiety level rises. There are few other voluntary organizations where people are “forced” into not only “liking” everyone, but also forced into cohesive rituals. To choose a church is to choose a family. But what if someone in that church family has attributes or status that one doesn’t like (e.g. race, doctrine, age, etc.)? An example of this is Peter’s strong resistance to the notion that Gentiles could be part of the church. Acts 10 records that Peter found it especially difficult to contemplate eating a meal with Gentile Christians. Acts 15 describes the challenge to unity faced by Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians as they attempted to work out an accommodation for the differences they confronted. It is easy to see that some of the anxiety about one’s relationship to the group may stem from feelings of loss of choice and autonomy through the unity emphasis. A third potential distortion of the unity theme involves the way in which a group deals with its diversity. The church growth movement has emphasized that faster growth is usually experienced in a homogenous group (Shenk, 1973). This is partly due to the fact that the more homogenous a group is, the greater the possibility for cohesion and shared distribution of influence. The greater the differences (gender, age, social class, economic class, competence, doctrine, experience, articulation, etc), the more difficult the process of integration of individuals into a functional unit because of the time required to manage the tensions created by differences. Often, instead of managing the diversity, there can be an anxiety-driven escape into oneness. However, the differences still exist and will eventually need to be managed.
The comments made earlier about the empowerment of all individuals and the emphasis on task-focused work teams are especially important in dealing with dysfunctional aspects of an individual’s relationship to the group.
Pursuit & Defense of Religious Truth
An integral part of religious leadership involves dealing with issues surrounding certainty and purity of belief and practice, and the propagation and defense of that religious truth. Christians are admonished to “contend for the faith” (Jude 3), “restore” the erring person (Gal.6:1‑2), and teach behavior congruent with “sound doctrine” (Titus 2:2). The church in Pergamum was commended for its purity of doctrine (Rev. 2:14‑15). In Ephesians 6 instructions are given on being good soldiers for the faith. That imagery is also used in Hebrews 12. Christian music also includes a good share of fighting songs like “Onward Christian Soldiers.”
The maintenance of purity in teaching may include labeling those who disagree as heretics and worthy of judgement. Thus, the fight basic assumption may be readily mobilized. When we talk about the world system’s attack on the church we bring up images that foster both fight and flight.
Basic assumption dependency can also come into play when group members have occasion to desire greater certainty that the group’s belief system is true. To reduce anxiety about truth/faith issues a group may want the leader to take responsibility for searching out the truth and telling members what it is. However, many areas of theology are not very clear cut. The level of certainty in a truth/faith area is sometimes tentative.
Groups will sometimes mobilize a member who has a particular valency toward fight to contend on their behalf with another group or external foe. The Dragon Slayer becomes an informal role that certain people tend to “fall into” as a result of unconscious group processes.
Dysfunctional fight/flight activities often involve confusion over who the enemy is (a political system, a particular personality, an unpopular teaching, etc.) or the appropriate response (fight, flee, hate, etc.).
Summary
Effective organizations are characterized by their capacity to learn through trial, error, give, take, and experimentation (Weisbord, 1987). Broad participation in this learning process produces an organization that can readily respond to both internal and external demands effectively. There is no requirement to be right the first time. Thus, work teams learn to become self-correcting, rather than always right. In church organizations there is a built-in emphasis on “being right” in doctrine and behavior that carries over into views of organizational functioning. The posture of needing to do it right makes it difficult to develop self-correcting work teams that learn from experience (i.e. failure).
The Tavistock model provides a framework for examining and managing certain unconscious and covert group processes. The special vulnerability of religious organizations to disruptive influence by covert processes was noted. It is probably impossible to completely prevent unconscious covert group processes or the various kinds of anxiety that foster them. However, it is possible to minimize their occurrence with systematic attention to process issues by the leadership. In the previous paragraph, Weisbord underscores the importance of vigorous examination of organizational processes and responsible experimentation to create increasingly effective work teams. The Tavistock model can be a useful tool in that pursuit.
References
Babad, E. Y., & Amir, L. (1978) Trainers’ liking,
Bion’s emotional modalities, and T-Group effect. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 14, 511-522.
Barber, W. H. (1977). What is Tavistock? Social
Change, 7(1), 1-3.
Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General systems theory:
Foundations, development, applications. New York: Braziller.
Bion, W. R. (1961). Experiences in groups. New York: Basic Books.
Boulding, K. E. (1956). General systems theory: The skeleton of science. Management Science, 2(3), 197-208.
Brown, L. D. (1980). Planned change in underorganized systems. In T. G. Cummings (Ed.), Systems theory for organization development (pp. 181-203). New York: Wiley.
Dabrowski, K., Kawczak, A., & Piechowski, M. M. (1970) Mental growth through positive disintegration. London: Gryf Publications.
Finch, J. G. (1969, May). The message of anxiety.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Ontoanalytic Association, Miami Beach, FL.
Freud, S. (1911). Formulations on the two principles
of mental functioning. Complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud. Vol 12. London: Hogarth Press. 1950.
Freud, S. (1913). Totem and taboo. Complete
psychological works of Sigmund Freud. Vol. 13. London: Hogarth Press. 1950.
Freud, S. (1921). Group psychology and the analysis of the ego. Complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud. Vol 18. London: Hogarth Press, 1950.
Harvey, D. F., & Brown, D. R. (1988) An experiential
approach to organizational development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hinsie, L. E., & Campbell, R. J. (1969). Psychiatric
dictionary. New York: Oxford University Press.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A
psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Atlanta: Houghton Mifflin.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
Klein, E. B. (1979). Manifestations of transference
in small training groups. In W. G. Lawrence (Ed.), Exploring individual and organizational boundaries: A Tavistock open systems approach (pp. 87-102). New York: Wiley.
Klein, E. B. (1985). Belfast communities
intervention. In A. D. Colman, & M. H. Geller (Eds.), Group relations reader 2 (pp 301- 306). Washington, DC: A. K. Rice Institute.
Klein, M. (1930). The importance of symbol-formation
in the development of the ego. In Contributions to psycho-analysis (pp. 236-250). London: Hogarth Press, 1948.
Klein, M. (1985). Our adult world and its roots in
infancy. In A. D. Colman, & M. H. Geller (Eds.), Group relations reader 2. Washington, DC: A. K. Rice Institute.
Lau, J. B., & Shani, A. B. (1988). Behavior in
organizations: An experiential approach. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Lawrence, W. G. (1979). A concept for today: The
management of oneself in role. In W. G. Lawrence (Ed.), Exploring individual and organizational boundaries: A Tavistock open systems approach (pp. 235-250). New York: Wiley.
Le Bon, G. (1896). The crowd: A study of the popular
mind. London: Benn.
Lundberg, C. C. (1980). On organization development
interventions: A general systems–cybernetic perspective. In T. G. Cummings (Ed.), Systems theory for organizational development (pp. 247-271). New York: Wiley.
Miller, E. J. (1976). Task and organization. New
York: Wiley.
Miller, E. J., & Rice, A. K. (1967). Systems of
organization: The control of task and sentient boundaries. London: Tavistock Publications.
McDougall, W. (1920). The group mind. New York: G.
P. Putnam’s Sons.
Nevis, E. C. (1987). Organizational consulting: A
gestalt approach. New York: Gardner Press.
Palmer, B. (1979). Learning and the group experience. In W. G. Lawrence (Ed.), Exploring individual and organizational boundaries: A Tavistock open systems approach (pp. 169-192). New York: Wiley.
Raup, C. W., Jr. (1989) An analysis of seven concepts related to pathology which are common to psychology and theology. Journal of Psychology and Christianity. 8(2), 5-12.
Reed, B., & Palmer, B. (1976) The local church and
its environment. In E. J. Miller (Ed.), Task and organization (pp. 261-282). New York: Wiley.
Rice, A. K. (1965). Learning for leadership. London: Tavistock Publications.
Rioch, M. J. (1970). Group relations: Rationale and
technique. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 20, 340-355.
Rogers, M. L. (1980, August). The life cycle of
churches as viewed through an ecological/community systems model. Presentation at Annual Faculty Workshop, Biola University,La Mirada, CA.
Shenk, W. R. (1973) The challenge of church growth. Vancouver: Herald Press.
Szilagyi, A. D., Jr., & Wallace M. J., Jr. (1990).
Organizational behavior and performance. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, and Company.
Thoresen, P. (1972). Defense mechanisms in groups. In 1972 Annual handbook for group facilitators. San Diego: University Associates.
Trist, E. L., & Sofer, C. (1959). Exploration in
group relations. London: Tavistock Publications.
Turquet, P. M. (1985). Leadership: The individual and the
group. In A. D. Colman, & W. H. Bexton (Eds.), Group
relations reader 1 (pp 71-88). Washington, DC: A. K. Rice
Institute.
Weisbord, M. R. (1987). Productive workplaces:
Organizing and managing for dignity, meaning, and community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wells Jr., L. The group-as-a-whole perspective and its theoretical roots. In A. D. Colman & W. H. Bexton (Eds.),Group relations reader 2 (109-126). Washington, DC: A. K. Rice Institute.
