Page 1 of 12
Group-as-a-whole as a context for studying individual
behaviour: A group diagnostic intervention
Dirk J. Geldenhuys1
Department of Industrial
Psychology, University of
South Africa, South Africa
Orientation: Traditionalists view group interventions from three perspectives: singletons, dyads and whole groups. The focus of this research was on interventions from the third perspective, that of the whole group, using a systems psychodynamic stance. Research purpose: The purpose of the research was to use group-as-a-whole to study individual behaviour in organisations.
Motivation for the study: Team research and practice is not on a par with the complexities that teams actually experience. Traditional group interventions use humanistic and functionalistic paradigms that do not consider the unconscious functioning of groups. Interventions that use the system psychodynamic paradigm could address these dynamics because they study behaviour of individual group members in the context of the group-as-a-whole.
PO Box 392, UNISA 0003,
Research design, approach and method: The researcher conducted action research in a publishing company. He used purposive sampling and analysed the data using qualitative content analysis.
Received: 22 Aug. 2011
Accepted: 30 Mar. 2012
Published: 13 June 2012
Main findings: The researcher found that the group-as-a-whole partly explains the behaviour of team members and that intervening from this perspective could improve negative relationships.
How to cite this article:
Geldenhuys, D. (2012).
a context for studying
individual behaviour: A group
SA Journal of Industrial
Psychology/SA Tydskrif vir
Bedryfsielkunde, 38(2), Art.
#1011, 12 pages. http://
Practical/managerial implications: Managers can use interventions that use the groupas-a-whole concept as a diagnostic intervention to study and possibly change the complex behavioural issues that team members experience.
Contribution/value-add: The findings give one an understanding of the behaviour of individual group members when one views it from a systems psychodynamic stance. Furthermore, the researcher proposes a group diagnostic intervention that will allow some of the root causes of poor interpersonal behaviour to surface and group members to diagnose and take ownership of their own behaviour.
Despite the emerging research about the complex nature of team interaction, team research and practice are not on par with the complexities that teams actually experience (Lingham, Richley & Serlavos, 2009). The purpose of this research was to contribute to the literature on, and practice of, team interventions by reporting on a group intervention from a systems psychodynamic paradigm to address these dynamics.
Background to the study
Traditionalists view group interventions in organisation development (OD) from three different perspectives. They are:
a focus on the individual members of the group, or an intrapersonal perspective (singletons), like organisations use in encounter groups
a focus on the relationship between two members (dyads), or and interpersonal perspective, like organisations use in T-groups
a focus on the whole group’s task performance and process, like organisations use in process consultations (Cummings & Worley, 2008; French & Bell, 1999). © 2012. The Authors.
OpenJournals. This work
is licensed under the
The focus of this research was on intervening from the third perspective, the whole group, and from a systems psychodynamic paradigm.
The importance of an open systems perspective in OD is not new and is a developmental stem of the...
References: Agazarian, Y., & Peters, R. (1981). The visible and invisible group. London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul.
Babbie, E., & Mouton, J. (2001). The practice of social research. Cape Town: Oxford
Banet, A.G., Jr., & Hayden, C. (1977). A Tavistock primer. In J.E. Jones & J.W. Pfeiffer
(Eds.), The annual handbook for group facilitators, (pp
Bazigos, M.N., & Burke, W.W. (1997). Theory orientations of organization development
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lawrence, W.G. (1979). Introductory Essay: Exploring boundaries. In W.G. Lawrence
(Ed.), Exploring individual and organizational boundaries, (pp
Bion, W.R. (1961). Experiences in groups. London: Tavistock. http://dx.doi.
Bion, W.R. (1982). Group dynamics: a review. In S. Scheidlinger (Ed.), Psychoanalytic
group dynamics, (pp
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row.
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Brewerton, P., & Millward, L. (2001). Organizational research methods. London: Sage.
Lingham, R., Richley, B.A., & Serlavos, R.S. (2009). Measuring and mapping team
interaction.Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 16(1), 5–27
Cassell, C., & Symon, G. (Eds.). (2004). Essential guide to qualitative methods in
Cilliers, F.v.N. (2000). Team building from a psychodynamic perspective. Journal of
Industrial Psychology, 26(1), 18–23.
Clarkson, P. (1997). Consulting in rapidly changing conditions of uncertainty. In J.E.
Cummings, T.G., & Worley, C.G. (2008). Organization development & change. Mason,
OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
De Jager, W., Cilliers, F., & Veldsman, T. (2003). Leadership development from a
systems psychodynamic consultancy stance
Linklater, J., & Kellner, K. (2008). Don’t just do something … stand there: using action
learning to help organisations work with anxiety
McCollom, M. (1995). Group formation: Boundaries, leadership and culture. In J.
Miller, E.J. (1989). The Leicester model: Experiential study of group and organizational
Myers, M.D. (2011). Qualitative research in Business Management. London: Sage.
Dimitrov, P.L. (2008). Organisational Psychodynamics: Ten introductionary lecturers
for students, managers and consultants
Diamond, M.A. (1993). The unconscious life of organizations: Interpreting
Diamond, M.A. (2008). Telling them what they know: Organizational change,
defensive resistance, and the unthought known
Eisold, K. (1985). Recovering Bion’s contributions to group analysis. In A.D. Colman &
Paul, J., Strbiak, C., & Landrum, N. (2002). Psychoanalytic diagnosis of top management
Rice, A.K. (1965). Learning for leadership. London: Tavistock.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document