T-Groups T-Groups

T-Groups

T-Groups

Crosby,P.R. (2013). T-Group as cutting edge: Today? Really? ODPractitioner,45(4).

Theauthor describes T-group as an old and relevant model, especially,when it is applied in the right way. Similarly, he asserts thatOrganizational Development (OD) originated from T-groups. T-groupstresses on group processes that result from bigger systemic andorganizational development. The source also describes T-group asparadigm for many initial participants making valuable alterations intheir group and relationship dynamics. Furthermore, it asserts thatKurt Lewin led Ronald Lippitt, Leland Bradford, and Kenne Bennebetween 1946 and 1947 to invent the T-Group. The inventors originallycalled the organization “Basic Skills”, but they soon rebrandedto Training (T) Group. The group’s fame developed widely in the1950s as diverse popular media such as “Life Magazine” coveredits accomplishments. The magazine associated it with group“Sensitivity Training” as participants often developed moreawareness towards group dynamics and processes. According to thesource, T-Group is unique in that it uses the traditional theoriesand concepts to deliver education to the intended population. Theauthor asserts that many people are either scared by their past oranxious of the future, but the T-Group encourages participants tofocus on the present moment and events. The source proves that theT-group is cutting-edge as it focuses on current issues affectingemployees in both outside and at the workplace. In addition, theorganization does provide topics, as well as guide discussions duringbusiness training. The source states T-group objective is providing aplatform for the employees to communicate critical issues that areaffecting them. First, they encourage the staff to address theimmediate issues affecting them. Second, the talk from anindividual’s perspective. Third, target clients should treat theircolleagues directly instead of talking to them in third personperspective. Lastly, target trainees are encouraged to paraphrasestatements in case they cause differences. Finally, the author claimsthat T-group integrates training with a problem in an organization toensure it is solved completely. The author concludes that the T-Groupis innovative as it combines business goals and assist individuals inidentifying daily work values. Other high-end benefits the T-groupoffers include systems understandings and EQ maturation.

Guliver,A. (1976). Asatire: The phenomenology of the confirmed thinker, or “catch-22 ina T-Group”.University of California, Los Angeles.

Guliver(1976) is a recount of a personal experience of a T-Group usingunstructured learning groups, which include therapy groups,laboratories, encounter groups and experiential courses. Theobjective of the source is capturing an essential irony of theT-group that emphasizes the significance of empathy, feelings andself-esteem can make some individual lose self-esteem andunderstanding. The author intentionally chose to utilize satire toconvey to convey the irony that some human relations’ groupparticipants were victims of self-esteem. Similarly, the sourceillustrates dissatisfaction among human relations through Kilmann andTaylor. According to the author, human dimension depends on anindividual’s thinking depends on whether a person is mainlyinfluenced by feelings or consciousness. The literature portraysarticulate and competent persons as deviants as they mainly depend onthinking. The trainers disregard his reasoning and term it as onethat portrays immaturity. After the individual bars the intellectualperson’s effort for a week, the character is converted into achildlike state, which the trainer views as development. The sourcehas some form of caricature, as the information is based on acollection of clinical evaluation, insensitivity and jargoncompression into one laboratory. Some critics of the article describeit as “literature for changing thinkers.” He or she then suggeststhat the article would be suitable if it would be published intwo-group oriented journals because they do not depend much onmethodology. In summary, the purpose of the literature is portrayingthe risk of trainers who fail to use their motives and feelings, butinstead use other motives and feelings that may obstruct trainerempathy. In summary, the source concludes learning technologies suchas T-groups can be detrimental hence are supposed to be administeredcarefully and selectively.

Ballester-Bolinches,A., Heineken, H. &amp Pedraza, T. (2007). On a class of locallyfinite T-groups. ForumMathematicum,19. 297-306.

Inthis article, the authors summarize a theory based on a group theycall G, and denoted as w(G). Since the w(G) is a T-group, all itssubgroups are normal. The mathematical theory has gained a lot ofattention in the recent past from curious group theorists interestedin understanding how the formula functions. Wielandt have proven thatw(G) has all the cyclic subnormal groups the basic conditions fornormal subgroups. The initial result of the theory hypothesisindicates that G represents a radical of a locally present limitedgroup bearing min p in each prime P. the authors illustratescredibility of the theory of radicals using five different practicaland mathematical approach that peer-reviewers can successfully testits credibility. In all the theorems that are used to illustrate thetheory, the authors have then provided comprehensive proof forsupporting the ideology.

Lewis,P., Lissitz, R.W., &amp Jones, C.L. (1975). Assessment of Change inInterpersonal perception in a T-group using individual differencesmultidimensional scaling. Journalof counselling psychology.22 (1). 44-48.

Thepurpose of this source is determining the development and naturesimilarities from the point of view of thirteen students’ groups.The source asserts that the similarity ratings are crucial because asthe group members could establish three-dimensional testing andindependence where individuals are attempting to establishparticipation and leadership norms. According to the author, theindividuals in the study have a gradual variance because all of themhad attended the event with a single objective of viewing thedifferences of each other. The current study results can be dividedinto two categories, where one option was intended to help inidentifying the implication of the dimensions while the otherrepresented interpersonal perceptions of the group members. Theauthor claims that normal T-groups are characterized by interchangingperception, interpersonal behaviors, and feelings. Each component isautonomous from the other. The author claims that the change varianceincreases gradually since the perceptions of the participatingmembers change once they spend some time with the members. This iscommon because the characters get to know each other better, therebyacquiring capacity for determining a person’s personal perception.According to the author, dimension 3 represents a group of women thatinclude passively anxious to actively comfortable. Making decisionsearly in the group is more valuable at the beginning than duringlater phases. Furthermore, the source notes that the findings of thestudy complements Tuckman’s framework theory, which had reportedthat the initial phases of a T-group requires significant testing anddependence as the group leaders struggle to learn the anxiety levelof other participants.

References

Crosby,P.R. (2013). T-Group as cutting edge: Today? Really? ODPractitioner,45(4).

Guliver,A. (1976). Asatire: The phenomenology of the confirmed thinker, or “catch-22 ina T-Group”.University of California, Los Angeles.

Ballester-Bolinches,A., Heineken, H. &amp Pedraza, T. (2007). On a class of locallyfinite T-groups. ForumMathematicum,19. 297-306.

Lewis,P., Lissitz, R.W., &amp Jones, C.L. (1975). Assessment of Change inInterpersonal perception in a T-group using individual differencesmultidimensional scaling. Journalof counselling psychology.22 (1). 44-48.