The (Training group) is a training model where 6 to 8 people meetaimed at creating a miniature society where the group members have aplatform to enquire, explore, and experiment behavior in what is apsychologically safe group laboratory. The group in teachingemotional intelligence (EQ) provides a promising methodology toraising self and social awareness in practicing authenticcommunication among the group participants aiding in the enhancementof emotionally intelligent behaviors. has been in use forover 50 years, seeing myriad changes in the intended use and itsapplication procedures over this period. This paper presents abreakdown of the , showing its adaptability to short-termtraining interventions.
The has now been in use for over 50 years, it bares it roots inthe National Training Laboratories (NTL) in Bethel, Maine, datingback to 1947. Those who led the way in the creation of sinclude Kurt Lewin who happened to pass on before the couldbe established. The approach is a vehicle for aidingindividuals to learn about themselves, the impact our behaviors asindividuals have on others, and assisting members to adopt behaviorsenhancing effectiveness to use in group interactions andinterpersonal encounters. s are able to accomplish this bybringing together a group of about 6 to 8 individuals providing aplatform from which they can explore their own behaviors duringinteractions with each other. Personal exploration and evaluation areaugmented via a feedback from the second group of individualsmandated to observe the first group during their interaction.Additionally, a trainer will offer a structure to the group,to stir key factions critical to the success of learningexperience, which is, emotional stimulation, caring, meaningattribution, and executive functions (Weis and Hanson, 2008, p.4).
Accordingto Weis and Hanson (2008, p.7),prime objectives are to teach emotional intelligence, in addition tothis, s strive to increase the awareness of our own feelingduring this moment it looks at increasing an awareness of the impactindividual behaviors bear on others, and enhances an individual’sskills in giving and receiving feedback. Still enhance anindividual’s skills to manage and learn from conflicts, gainingknowledge of group dynamics and team developments, and instill skillsin an individual to allow facilitation of group processes. salso see to it that they heighten an individual’s awareness andsensitivity to feelings, thoughts, feelings of others and actions,and finally, allowing individuals to develop an ability to makeconscious choices, in moments that reflect an individual’sauthenticity. Thus, persons in the are trained and coached onhow to be mindful and authentic, this is attained by exposing them toground rules that are simple though frustrating.
Accordingto Crosby (2013, p.3), s are old though relevant modelswhenever they are applied in the right way in the modern dayorganization. For instance, the results of a conflict managementinstrument at a telecommunication company showed a huge aversion onthe part of almost all members in collaborating or compromise. Forsuch partnerships to thrive at the work place, the organization needsthe kind of in-depth training offered by a , enabling membersto become more versatile in how they approach conflicts at work andin their personal lives.
Today,T-groups offer new approaches to conflict resolutions offering theextensional exploration on an individual’s values and emotions asthey are manifested in a unique interaction offered by T-group.Participants are given the opportunity to experiment with new ways tocarry themselves in moments of tension and associated conflicts.Thus, the provides real situations of tensions and not roleplays, though in a safe setting. By the use of these encounters,participants are made more aware of existing positive values thatthey previously found as being distasteful, and in the processdevelop new skills to do what is deemed wise in moments of tension.
sInnovations, the Tough Stuff Model
TheUnique innovations are interwoven throughout each Tough Stuffevent. The event is covered in a week 10 different sessions. At theend of every tough stuff event, the participants rate on a ten pointscale with 10 being the highest possible rating score. The uniqueinnovations in the Tough Stuff features include, where possible thesession use interactive workgroups, different groups are given achance to clarify the roles, and measurable goals before thecommencement of the five day session. After the session, more time isallocated on a follow through basis of about 2-3 weeks including moretime in the or a skill group, offering additional conflictmanagement training to the participants. The training also hasrotational sessions that enable members to have directed access teach other, including their trainer (Crosby 2013. p. 17).
Integrationwith Task Work
“ForOrganizational development (OD) and T-group training to besuccessful, it has to been incorporated amid the real problem andchallenges that are taking place within the work environment”(Crosby, 2013, p.10). Skills and training have to be accomplished bytruly implementing a data-based project cooperatively. This isaccomplished by making the participants understand that the is not a standalone intervention. When decision making is presented,attendants are required to identify decisions that are not being madein a timely manner, and on which individuals need to have singlepoint accountability for each decision. The goal of this move is tohave employees in the identify conflicts that are delayingeffective work. This is because most the interpersonal conflicts arejust system issues that are stemming from misalignment of bosses highin the chain of command, away from where the conflict is actuallyhappening. Therefore, the integration of the innovation makesit cutting age because of integrates with business goals andconstantly helping to make implications of their work.
Froma lab progress, the first intervention is called for in organizingintolerance for ambiguity (Guliver, 1976, p.5). Whenever a groupfirst meets, there is usually the traditional silence. A member candistinguish himself/herself from the other members by asking aboutthe learning goals of the group and asking about the plans of thegroup for the week ahead, this suggestion can either be welcomed ormet with hostility. The trainer can now come in and explain theleaning value for the opening stance towards life, explaining theanxiety that may exist whenever with are faced with moments when weneed to fill our life with structure.
Froman interaction from a T-group interactions meeting by Guliver (1976,p.6), he illustrates learning technologies placing great value onfeelings, self-esteem and empathy, can create pain and reduceself-esteem through lack of empathy by some type of individuals.According to experience, dissatisfaction with a humanrelations group experience is specifically related to two personalitydimensions, which is a participant’s reliance on concrete sensationversus intuition, and upon thinking verse feelings.Ballester-Bolinches et al (2007, p.23) state that the articulateindividual is viewed as a deviant due to the strong reliance uponthinking while the behavior created can be deemed immature. Thus,s and similar learning technologies can be destructive, hencethey need to be used selectively and administered with caution asproven by the Mathematical tests.
Changein Interpersonal Perceptions in T-groups
Accordingto Lewis, Lissitz, and Jones (1975, p.17), the task of makingsimilarity ratings after group sessions is meaningful as it wasrealized from sample s carried out two groups of participants.The group members’ similarity ratings cannot be accounted for byonly one or two demission of interpersonal judgment to suggest thatthe group members’ perceptions are relatively complex. A threedimensions solution there is an increased number of valiancesuggesting that group members came to share a common set ofdimensions in viewing one another. From the analysis, it hasestablished the importance of first looking at nature and developmentof interpersonal perceptions in a , free from any form of biasthat are usually forced on subjects. These can be avoided by derivinginformation about interpersonal perceptions by asking group membersfor similarity ratings of one another and help deal with theinterchanging perceptions, interpersonal behaviors, and behaviorsexperienced in s.
Accordingto Weis and Hanson (2008, p.8), a does encourage participantsto share their emotional reactions with the fellow participants,encouraging use of words and gestures and encouraged to give truthfulfeedback. Nevertheless, s do not encourage participants toshare opinions, any judgment of fellow members, or give conclusions,which are not offer an evaluation or subjective feedback. Inaddition, s will encourage participants to show up asthemselves, that is, encouraging authentic selves, however, they donot encourage participants to show phony behaviors that are showingup in roles rather than as themselves.
methods are modeled to encourage self-disclosure and openness, whichin an organizational setting may be inappropriate or even punishable.T-groups consist of complete strangers allowing focusing on here andnow behavior. However, lessons from the have been used todevelop organization development (OD) and team building. However, onnegative aspect, the experience can open up a web ofquestioning for the participants, calling into question the way ofbehaving that an individual has used for many years by members of thegroup or the individual himself. Despite the fact that this can be auseful process in the renewal of workplace relations, it has in someinstances lead to the breakdown of relationships.
Inconclusion, s have had significant impacts in assistingorganizations attain their goals, through the cutting edge advancesin T-groups it has seen the development of such important aspects asorganizational developments (OD) helping make direct positive impactsto work. Provision of emotional intelligence and maturity, systemunderstanding, and an awareness of behavioral descriptive feedbackand judgments by s have had direct relevance to the success oforganizations that have utilized the model.
Ballester-Bolinches,A., Heineken, H. & Pedraza, T. (2007). On a class of locallyfinite T- groups. ForumMathematicum19. 297-306.
Crosby,R. P. (2013). T-group as Cutting Edge: Today? Really?ODPractinioner45(4), 55-60.
Guliver,A. (1976). Asatire: The phenomenology of the confirmed thinker, or “catch-22 ina T- Group.” California: University of California.
Lewis,P., Lissitz, R.W., & Jones, C.L. (1975). Assessment of Change inInterpersonal perception in a T-group using individual differencesmultidimensional scaling. Journalof counseling psychology 22(1). 44-48.
Weis,W. L., & Hanson, L. (2008). The use of training groups (t-groups)in raising self and social awareness and enhancing emotionallyintelligent behaviors. AlliedAcademies International Conference: Proceedings of The Academy OfOrganizational Culture, Communications & Conflict (AOCCC)13(2),26-29.