Racial and Cultural Dynamics in Group and Organizational Life

Crossing Boundaries

Mary B. McRae, Ellen L. Short

• Publisher: SAGE Publications, Inc
• Year: 2009
• Print ISBN: 9781412939867
• eBook ISBN: 9781483317083
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Psychotherapy
• Index: Psychology

"The field has been waiting for a masterpiece like Racial and Cultural Dynamics in Group and Organizational Life for a long time. It provides a thoughtful account of the subtle, barely visible, and sometimes unspeakable influences of racial and cultural dynamics that occur in groups."
—Leo Wilton, Binghamton University, State University of New York

"I believe that by focusing on group diversity, this book aligns with a major trend that has not received enough attention."
— Christopher J. McCarthy, University of Texas at Austin

This book presents a theoretical framework for understanding leadership and authority in group and organizational life. Using relational psychoanalytic and systems theory, the authors examine conscious and unconscious processes as they relate to racial and cultural issues in the formation and maintenance of groups. Unique among group dynamics texts, the book explores aspects of racial and cultural influences in every chapter. Readers will enhance their analytic and practice skills in addressing factors that impact diverse groups and organizations, including ethical considerations, social roles, strategies for leadership, dynamics of entering and joining, and termination.

Key Features

• Case examples help readers integrate theory and practice, as illustrated in transcripts of interactions from group sessions.
• A group work competencies list ensures that readers master concepts as they progress through the book.
• An assessment form allows the student or practitioner to evaluate concrete dynamics of groups, such as size, and gendered and racial composition.

This text is appropriate for graduate-level courses incorporating group dynamics and multicultural topics in departments of psychology, education, counseling, and social work. It is also a valuable resource for counselors, psychologists, and other mental health professionals in preparation for group work.

1

Understanding Groups as Psychodynamic Systems in the Context of Racial and Cultural Factors

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework that we work from in this text can broadly be called group relations theory, as a model for working with groups. The model was developed at the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations in the United Kingdom, expanded on in conference settings by A. Kenneth Rice, and later brought to the United States by Margaret Rioch, who started the national organization called A. K. Rice Institute for the Study of Social Systems (Hayden & Molenkamp, 2004). The theoretical roots of the group relations model can be traced to Wilfred Bion (1961), Melanie Klein (1946), and Kurt Lewin (1951). There are two components in group relations theory, psychoanalytic and systems theory. Psychoanalytic theory helps us understand the conscious and unconscious processes that affect individual and group functioning. Psychoanalytic theory has been linked to race-cultural dynamics, specifically the phenomenon of racism, by a variety of theorists, including Dalal (2002), who has used the theories of Freud, Klein, Fairbairn, and Winnicott to examine racism. Earlier attempts to link psychoanalytic theory to racism have also been made by Fanon (1967) and Kovel (1984). In more recent years, self-psychology, relational theory, and positive psychology have been incorporated in the thinking of many psychoanalytically oriented psychologists such as Kohut (1980), Mitchell (1988), and Seligman (2002). The work on relational cultural theory by Jordan (2001) exploring the connections and disconnections in relationships has been particularly important to our work (McRae, Kwong, & Short, 2007).

Open Systems Theory and Experiential Learning

Applications of systems theory facilitate the understanding of the context in which a behavior occurs and the sociopolitical factors that may influence an individual’s behavior. In this book, we use Alderfer’s (1977) definition of a group, as follows:

A collection of individuals 1) who have significantly interdependent relations with each other; 2) who perceive themselves as a group by reliably distinguishing members from non-members; 3) whose group identity is recognized by non-members; 4) who have differentiated roles in the group as a function of expectations from themselves, other members and non-group members; and 5) who as group members acting alone or in concert have significantly interdependent relations with other groups. (p. 230)

Groups, therefore, function as subsystems in larger systems, such as an organization, a community, a society, and the world. Thus, groups are embedded in larger groups and systems and in a social, economic, and political context.

Conceptually, the group relations model encompasses open systems and psychoanalytic theory to explore its premise that the individual acts on behalf of the group, given the group norms and the cultural context in which the group exists. “Within each group or system, there are boundaries, authority issues, roles, and tasks (BART) to be considered that will vary according to the culture of the group” (Green & Molenkamp, 2005; Hayden & Molenkamp, 2004). The concept of BART (boundaries, authority, roles, and tasks) is derived from open systems theory, which focuses on group boundaries, which are observable and subjective measures used to distinguish group members from outsiders. Boundaries in groups can be physical (observable) or psychological (subjective). Group boundaries can also be permeable or impenetrable, enmeshed or disengaged (McCollom, 1990). Management of group boundaries within systems encompasses aspects of time, space, task, territory, and role. Authority, which is the second aspect of BART, is defined as a group’s right to perform tasks, use resources, and make decisions that may be binding on others (Obholzer, 1994). Authority can occur (a) from above (e.g., within organizational hierarchies); (b) from below, when given formally or informally by peers; and (c) from within, which refers to individuals’ capacity to take up their own authority, to behave in certain ways within the group, based on their personality, their personal and racial-cultural history, and representations of authority within their own mind. Role, the third aspect of BART, refers to an individual’s position or function in relation to the formal task and his or her own personal characteristics, which creates a valence for enacting certain behaviors. Finally, task in open systems theory is related to the primary task that the group needs to perform to survive. The group’s task may be defined in multiple ways within the system and may therefore be implemented, impeded, avoided, and/or rebelled against by the group-as-a-whole.

There are five levels at which the group functions during its life: intrapersonal, interpersonal, group (group-as-a-whole), intergroup, and interorganizational (Wells, 1990). It is important, systemically, to consider the individual’s personality characteristics, interpersonal relations and intergroup relationships between subgroups, and group-as-a-whole dynamics. Kurt Lewin’s (1951) work on field theory and the notion of psychosociological influences over group behavior lead to a focus on examining the group-as-a-whole in a social context (Fraher, 2004). In addition, Lewin’s discovery in 1946 that adults learn more effectively through interactive experiences shared in experiential learning environments (Fraher, 2004) has had a profound effect on how group relations theory is used in the field. Practitioners, educators, and group workers who use group relations theory often use experiential learning activities that help students and participants understand theory and concepts. Application of the group relations theory to didactic and experiential learning helps students and participants gain insight into the complex defense mechanisms of splitting, projection, and projective identification. Moreover, these concepts can be experienced in the “here and now” of the experiential setting and discussed, which enhances learning and application of theory.

Group Relations Theory

From a psychoanalytic perspective, groups engage in unconscious and conscious behaviors that are attributed to the anxiety that most people experience in groups and organizations. Using Klein’s (1946) object relations theory, Bion (1961) noted that groups trigger primitive fantasies, such as the infantile desire to join others in an undifferentiated entity, while simultaneously creating fears of being rejected or abandoned by the group or of losing one’s identity and sense of self. The tension between wanting to join the group and be independent from it often generates anxiety in its members and can lead them to defend against this anxiety through the mechanisms of splitting, projection, and projective identification. These defenses are unconscious processes and will be explained in more detail in later chapters. It is important to note that these unconscious processes distort reality, impede optimal functioning, and promote behaviors that can create a variety of both negative and positive feelings among group members. Bion (1961) hypothesized that groups had two modes of functioning: work and basic assumption. The work group attends to its primary task of group survival. Basic assumption group functioning represents an unconscious mode of group behavior that is focused on management of anxiety that surfaces related to the group’s work. Thus, when the group members are engaging in basic assumption behavior, they are no longer attending to the primary focus of their task at hand. Originally, there were three basic assumption modes: dependency, fight-flight, and pairing, all of which serve as unconscious defense mechanisms against the anxiety created by the group in the service of accomplishing its primary task. A fourth mode, basic assumption oneness, was developed by Turquet (1985); the fifth basic assumption, or basic assumption me-ness, was developed by Lawrence, Bain, and Gould (1996). Both of these modes are also unconsciously used by group members to defend against anxiety created by their experience in the group. From a positive-psychology perspective, basic assumptions can be viewed as a way of managing anxiety. In groups, we look for ways of containing and channeling those emotions in a more productive manner.

Group relations as a theoretical model focuses on factors that have proven most successful in group counseling and psychotherapy training programs: didactic, observation, and experiential learning. The didactic component includes lectures about theory, as well as a collective sharing of reactions to readings and lectures about theory. Observations provide an opportunity to see and hear how others manage the role of consultant, leader, and facilitator, as well as client member. The experiential component allows for reflection on the here-and-now experience, as well as an understanding of the relationship between theoretical and experiential learning and the application of what has been learned. The experiential component also provides an opportunity to learn about aspects of anxiety as it relates to group membership in the here and now, for example, the tension caused by fears of identity fragmentation and engulfment by the group. While the current focus of the group relations model is on experiential learning, earlier conceptualizations of the model included a didactic component. In our group dynamics classes, we have found that readings, lectures, and discussions further enhance students’ understanding and application of group dynamics.

From a systems perspective, groups are confronted with racial-cultural issues that are related to the power differentials, authority, and class hierarchies that exist in society. Thus, racial-cultural dynamics are phenomena that are an integral part of the group experience. Demographic variables such as race, ethnicity, culture, class, sexual identity, gender, disability, and age often represent differences between group members that may evoke negative stereotypes and stimulate feelings about inclusion and exclusion (McRae & Short, 2005). Differences that are visible or invisible may foster conflicts characterized by inclusion or exclusion; differences may also serve as a catalyst for feelings about membership to emerge. Membership may be affected by stereotyped assumptions about difference, which may influence group members’ perceptions of themselves and the group-as-a-whole. For example, members who belong to the dominant racial-cultural group may perceive themselves or be perceived as powerful and privileged. Likewise, members who externally represent nondominant groups may have self-perceptions of having less or more power given the particular context of the group (McRae & Short, 2005). Using systems theory allows a more direct examination of the intersection between racial-cultural factors and systemic factors such as power, authority, leadership, boundaries, roles, task, and interpersonal relations in the group experience.

From a psychoanalytic perspective, group processes involve paying attention to what occurs in the here-and-now experience of the group. Frequently, unconscious processes can occur that polarize racial-cultural groups. This polarity can be indicative of defense mechanisms, such as resistance, intellectualization, splitting, projection, and projective identification (Fenster, 1996). Group members may use intellectualization as a defense by the majority to focus on superficial cultural or racial attributes of those members in the minority (Fenster, 1996). Splitting and projective identification, while adaptive defenses in group life, can also be characterized, when used in diverse racial-cultural groups, as major defenses that are used to protect members against feelings of inadequacy and vulnerability (Cheng, Chase, & Gunn, 1998). One of the tasks of the group is to help make the unconscious conscious by speaking authentically to behaviors that occur in the group and attending to the nuances of speech and language and the nonverbal behaviors of members. When this type of processing can be done with racial-cultural group issues, it provides invaluable opportunities for learning. For example, many students who attend predominantly white institutions throughout their academic lives may never have had an African American professor. According to bell hooks (2003), in predominately white institutions, African American professors, particularly those who are female, may have their authority challenged by white students, who may not have had any relations with black people and thus may never have been in situations in which they have had to listen to a black person or a black woman speak to them for any length of time.

From a systems perspective, being a professor is a role with the authority to determine course content, method of teaching, and grading. If students are encountering an African American professor for the first time, what is the experience of these students? In our experience as African American female professors, students have questioned us in subtle and not so subtle ways about our credentials and work experience. It has become clear to us that in addition to the more traditional aspects of the role, being an academic professor also encompasses taking a role that is perceived by the students as incongruent for someone of our race and gender. Thus, a key question is “What are their perceptions of us in terms of personal characteristics such as race, gender, and our professorial role of authority and leadership?” The question then becomes “Do students from diverse backgrounds feel that they will be treated fairly by a professor of color, and, moreover, why is this even a question for consideration?”

Distrust of a black professor does not exist only in white students. Depending on their level of racial identity development, some black students may perceive a black professor as too black identified or not black identified enough, based on their own identification with this racial reference group. For example, one of the coauthors’ (M.B.M.) students, who is biracial and has a white mother, wondered if she could be accepted by the coauthor as the loving daughter of a white woman who had been treated badly by some black women who are adamantly against interracial marriages. Another example of this phenomenon in a larger, societal context is the critique that was leveled against President Obama, when he was a nominee and presidential candidate of the Democratic Party, by some members of the black communities in the United States as not being “black enough.” This critique was based, in part, on his biracial and multicultural identities, as well as his political stance on issues of race. The election of President Obama create...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Dedication
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Introduction: Basic Conceptual Framework of the Book
• Acknowledgments
• 1. Understanding Groups as Psychodynamic Systems in the Context of Racial and Cultural Factors: Theoretical Framework
• 2. Working With Differences in Groups: Ethical Considerations
• 3. Group Formation: Racial and Cultural Dynamics of Entering and Joining
• 4. Group Development: The Impact of Racial and Cultural Factors
• 5. Group Dynamics in Racially and Culturally Mixed Groups
• 6. Social Roles in Groups
• 7. Leadership, Authority, and Power in Racially and Culturally Mixed Groups
• 8. Strategies for Leadership in Multicultural Groups
• 9. The Mature Work Group
• 10. Termination
• References
• Index
• About the Authors