Tavistock
Generally in the Tavistock or English group relations model
a "temporary institution" is formed, often over a weekend, sometimes longer.
. . A clear structure is provided, within which there is a great deal of
freedom. It is the task of the members of the group
to study the group itself, attempting to learn about the group's own
process. Issues such as
authority, power, control,
leadership, intergroup activity, boundary management, etc. emerge in the
course of the group's life and it is possible
for hypotheses to be formulated and tested. Sometimes special issues are
examined; gender, interprofessional relationships,
communication difficulties, etc. . . The range of possible applications of
the method is very broad.
Maybe someone here knows, is there a Tavistock Model for
Dummies
My understanding is that Tavistock groups are by their nature
very anxiety-provoking for the participants
Usually Group Relations Conferences are temporary institutions
which are established: 1) over a specified period of time; 2) with a clear
structure, lines of authority, schedule, etc.; 3) with a clear
task. Well! We're already pretty different. No time
definitions, VERY unclear structure and lines of authority & no schedule
at all.
Say -- does this remind anyone else of a Tavistock
conference?
It substantially started the "Tavistock approach" and the Training
Group (T-Group) movement, and thus bears a good bit of the blame for encounter
groups.
...I'd never heard of Tavistock models before, perhaps they
were some type of plastic building kit popular in America, I thought
No one has posted a decent description of the Tavistock
model,
I wonder if this is one of those
"you-only-get-it-when-you-don't-get-it" kind of Zen therapy things where
we "touch the essence" of the group experience and then get to lord it over
others because we know something ineffable.
In traditional group relations work which has grown out of the
Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London (usually affiliated with
the A.K. Rice organization in the USA), there is a clear structure which
includes well defined roles for consultation. Maybe
some background will be helpful?
In the first place, this work is generally done pretty intensively,
in a specified period of time - a weekend wth people commuting usually, sometimes
10 days in a residential setting.
Roles are carefully defined. There are "members", small group
consultants, large group consultants, a director, a research team and a team
which takes care of household things (food, arrangements, space, etc.) --
I'm blocking on this team's proper name (a history to that).
There is a clear schedule and things begin and end on time.
Events generally alternate between activities which take place in the large
group -- 60-75 people; and in the small group -- usually 8-10 people.
The point of group relations conferences is generally something
like "We have come together to form a temporary institution in order to study
its process with special attention to issues of
power and authority."
Sometimes they are specialized with a focus on such things as
gender, medical care, race, etc.
I don't know about anyone else, but the stated purpose never
manages to stay in my head. It seems so simple, but it just doesn't stick.
I think other people have that trouble too -- that it's not just me. Anyone
else?
I've just looked for a group relations conference announcement
to quote but can't find one just now, will post this when one turns up. Maybe
someone else has one?
I think the reason it is hard to "hold onto" these ideas is
probably the same reason we find it hard to "hold onto" the basic assumption
and other Bion & Tavi ideas. It would be interesting
to try to understand what this is about.
With the background in place, what is the role of the consultants.?
Their job is to try to foster the learning of the members. There are particular
ways they make comments, usually not to individual members, but to the group
as a whole -- whether large or small. Large group consultants consult to
the large gatherings. Small group consultants consult to the smaller
ones.
There is a sort of formulaic response, not strictly adhered
to. . . .eg., "The group is concerned with boundary issues." Members usually
(at first) find it quite difficult to make use of what the consultants say,
though once you get the hang of it, there begins to be some sense and quite
a lot of usefulness.
This is one of those events where you walk into a room with
chairs in a circle and someone sitting there who doesn't make eye contact
and doesn't say anything. Eventually someone can't stand the silence and
breaks the ice and the group is off and running. Content isn't defined in
by the consultant, though the consultant will try to help the group keep
a focus on the "work."
For instance, the deadpan face of the ftf consultant in a Tavistock
conference generally is seen as being harsh and distant by some small group
members, while others discern warmth. As the conference progresses, it becomes
abundantly obvious that what is going on is
projection, based more on the speaker than
the observed consultant.
despite the explanation of Tavistock-type methodologies here
and available elsewhere, I, for one, don't yet comprehend why Tavistock is
holding our interest here.
By the way, Tavistock conferences aren't set up to allow/encourage
people to "go crazy" and then study that
process.
Well, when I win the lottery it's you and I--and Ron and
Marvin--hell everbody--off to the Tavistock Institute in Merry Ole England.
We'll learn to our heart's content, visit Bob and do silly tourist stuff
as well.
I originally thought it would be a gas to do Tavistock by email,
but fairly early on realized it was too _much_ like a gas: unbounded and
amorphous. I share your wish, and a modicum of your disappointment, that
we could have tried it here.
Is it possible that we have actually learned something here?
That we now know that in order to study group process on the internet (or
anywhere else ) it is necessary to have a STRUCTURE which takes into account
authority, boundary management, etc. and an authorized system of guidance
(eg. consultancy).
I think the label "Tavistock" was useful at first, but may be
confining now
Return to Index