by Ann E. Hale, M.A., TEP
In your client group you occasionally come across a situation when you
suspect that a client is more interested in being the chosen
protagonist than in actually working on an issue. The drama is being
able to win the choice for protagonist over others who also have
expressed a need. What are ways you work with this dynamic? Are there
times when “sociometric choice” can be manipulated by group
members?
Group norms consist of overt and subtle agreements as group
members discover ways to function over time. These agreements may
not be entered into evenly by all group members and therefore come up
for renewal when established norms begin to conflict with changing
needs of the group. The process a group engages in to make
choices for extending the focus to individual members may become one of
the norms that requires discussion, and certainly in a case where one
suspects sociometric choice is beginning to be manipulated by an
individual or a clique.
“Three sets of polarities confront the group as it encounters and deals
with problems of system maintenance. The first has to do with the
different and sometimes conflicting demands upon behavior for
maintaining the social system of the group and those for maintaining
the self-system of the members. The second has to do with the
differential demands upon the group for group and member maintenance
(comfort) on the one hand , and for group and member change (growth) on
the other. The third has to do with the interrelations of
authority and freedom in the group” 1
All three of these polarities come into play as a group makes choices
for protagonist or for personal bids for group time and energy
(focus). A group may have the norm that all the group members
choose and prioritize on whom to focus at a given moment. (Some
examples of the criteria on which people are basing their choices
may include: (1) “whom in the group are you most focused
on?”; (2) “whom in the group do you wish to support for group focus as
their issue is similar to one you also share?” (3) “whom in the group
do you choose to have the focus of the group based on their extreme
need or sense of urgency?” (4) “whom do you choose to support at
this moment because they have been patiently waiting and allowing
others to go before them?” (5) “whom do you choose to support for the
focus of the group because the members of your sub-group are also
choosing that person?” (6) “whom in the group do you choose to support
as a way to avoid focus on an issue that causes anxiety in
you.” (7) “whom do you choose for the focus as a way to withhold
focus from someone you don’t like?”
The group members may need
to examine motivation and clarify criteria (system maintenance) before
moving into personal work (self-system). The group may need to
examine which issues cause anxiety (growth) rather than to choose based
on safety (comfort). The group leader(s) may want to intervene
during the choice process (use authority) rather than let the choice
process unfold without comment (freedom).
Conditions which may indicate a “suspicion of intent” in present
Group members will express difficulty in choosing, or having to choose
between two particular people. The issue of fairness over responding to
urgency will surface. The more introverted people in the group will
stop making a bid for focus. (It is hard enough to make the effort
without having to endure a prolonged choice process.) People will
begin to speak about not liking competition or conflict. The
level of sharing afterwards will more than likely vary widely in terms
of subject and depth and not include all group members.
Suggestions for an Intervention
It will be important for everyone to understand some of the dynamics
which prompts a person to seek group focus or the protagonist
position. As a facilitator I might support the group working on
individual needs in the here and now and have the group devote the very
next session to exploring the dynamics of choosing. It may be
approached as a straightforward look at ways to negotiate in the world
of group needs and be supportive to each person's desire for comfort and
growth.
A sentence completion exercise can be homework between sessions. For example:
1. When people put themselves out to work on an issues they need a response which is
__________________ and ___________________.
2. I like having a choice even though it causes me to feel ______________.
3. What I need when I have difficulty choosing is ________________.
4. I know I begin to feel anxious when someone mentions working on a issue(s) about
______________________
5. The persons who should decide when the group is stuck are _________________.
Use of the Diamond of Opposites 2
The beauty of the use of the Diamond of Opposites (Carlsen-Sabelli and
Sabelli) is it assists in exploring ambivalent response via a
“both/and” response rather than and “either/or” response. This helps
the questions remain active and not concluded before consensus can be
reached. Each group member learns the process of indicating the
pull to choose and the pull not to choose based on the agreed question.
For example, My pull to choose based on urgency of need and my pull not
to choose based on urgency of need. The two pulls intersect on
the diamond in one of five basic areas: positive dominance, negative
dominance, primarily neutral, primarily conflictual or equally
ambivalent. A statement may be made (soliloquy) which is a
reflection which fits
that particular position on the Diamond. This facilitates group
members speaking aloud an internal process. Once group members
are comfortable with the process and begin to rely on its ease of use
to clarify, the diamond may be used to plot “my pull to choose this
specific person” and “my pull not to choose this specific
person”. As the soliloquies are made the selection process
becomes revealed as statements from individual group members and not
about the
potential protagonists. This helps the communication stay in the
authentic range.
Opinion map 3
If you begin to hear a number of “shoulds” “the protagonists should be
people who are ___” or the “focus needs to be on people who are __”
these norm-formation statements can be plotted as opinions in the action space,
mapped as “cities” to visit. Once the various opinions are
placed, each group member moves to an opinion and begins to speak aloud
“as if” he or she holds that opinion. Everyone moves around to the
various places, speaking to whomever is also in that particular place,
acting in the role of that opinion holder. This helps people role
reverse with the various opinions which exist in the group. The
next step is to move to a place on the map which reflects your best
guess of where your own opinion here and now resides. Each person
makes a statement.
The issue of motivation
For some, not all, having the focus of the group to help you explore an
issue fills a need to be important, to be cherished, to be the
star. In some families a person is led to believe this is their
rightful place in a group. In other families the position was
permanently withheld. Seeking the position has a story which can
reveal more of these dynamics and foster both individual and group
development. Even though I as the facilitator may be exercising a
judgement when I suspect the intent of a potential protagonist I resist
being judgmental and choose instead to follow my curiosity.
I also see as part of my role tending to those persons whose issues have been deferred to a later time.
______________
1. Bradford, Leland P., Jack R. Gibbs and Kenneth D. Benne (1964), T-Group
Therapy and Laboratory Method. NY, John Wiley and Sons, 220-221.
2. Carlson-Sabelli, Linnea, Hector Sabelli and Ann E. Hale, “Sociometry
and sociodynamics” IN Psychodrama Since Moreno (1994) London,
Routledge, p. 150-154.
3. The opinion map is attributed to Colin Martin, Waiheke Island, New Zealand.
