InstructionsClients come to MFTs because they want to change, .docxpauline234567
Â
Instructions
Clients come to MFTs because they want to change, whether the change is in cognitions, structure, insight, or something else. Therefore, it is important for you to understanding why, when, and how people change. This week, you will continue the exploration of core concepts related to systems theory and its application to MFT field concepts. You will review several concepts associated with change including homeostasis, first-order change, second-order change, continuous change, and discontinuous change.
Complete the provided worksheet template located in this weekâs resources. Note: You will use the worksheet you complete this week as part of your work in Week 4.
For each item, be sure to address the following:
¡ Record a direct quotation that defines the concept or describes the assumption.
¡ Paraphrase the definition or description by explaining the information in your own words. As you are paraphrasing, keep in mind that concepts often involve several interrelated ideas. When you are paraphrasing, be sure to not oversimplify the concept.
¡ Provide an original example (not one you read about in the course resources) of the concept or assumption.
¡ Explain how your example reflects the definition. Refer to your paraphrased definition in order to compare the example to the concept.
Should you have questions or need clarification on any items, please contact your professor to discuss it.Â
Length: 1-2 pages (completed template). Additional resources/reference page is not required.
Your cheat sheet should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts presented in the course by providing new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Be sure to adhere to Northcentral University's Academic Integrity Policy.
Upload your document, and then click theÂ
Submit to Dropbox button.
Building Blocks to Conceptualizing Family: A Family Systemâs Perspective Valerie Q. Glass, PhD, LMFT
Background of Systemic Thinking
Systemic thinking, for some, means trying on a new and unique lens when considering âpresenting problemsâ that arise in therapeutic settings. Most mental and emotional health backgrounds study individual cognitive and emotional processes, systemic thinking means a shift in looking at one person to looking at a whole system. Keeney (1983) calls this change in professional theory an epistemological shift. Epistemology, most basically, is the way one understands what is in front of them, and the root with which decisions are made. Helping fields all develop from different epistemologies. Psychiatry views medicine and biology as their epistemological construct of how or why people act the way they do. Much of the epistemological focus of social work fields embraces the necessity or connecting to resources and social support as a catalyst for change. Psychology explores the make-up of the individualâs mind and develops steps for change. Family systems, and.
Copyright Information (bibliographic) Document Type Book Ch.docxmelvinjrobinson2199
Â
Copyright Information (bibliographic)
Document Type: Book Chapter
Title of book: Family Therapy: An Overview (9th Edition)
Author of book: Irene Goldenberg, Mark Stanton, Herbert Goldenberg
Chapter Title: Chapter 4 Systems Theory and Systemic Thinking
Author of Chapter: Irene Goldenberg, Mark Stanton, Herbert Goldenberg
Year: 2017
Publisher: Cengage Learning
Place of Publishing: United States of America
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted materials. Under certain conditions
specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other
reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not
to be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research. If a user makes
a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of fair use
that user may be liable for copyright infringement.
LO 1 Describe potential problems with
using only the scientific method to
explain family functioning
LO 2 Explain systemic functioning using
a paradigm or descriptive model
LO 3 Discuss some characteristics of a
family system
LO 4 Apply systemic thinking to family
therapy
84
Family therapy is informed by systems theory and systemic
thinking in order to fully understand and provide psychoÂ
therapy to couples and families (Stanton & Welsh, 2012).
A systemic approach stands in contrast to the individualisÂ
tic thinking typical of most people raised in Western society
who were educated in the context of the Cartesian scientific
method espoused by Rene Descartes in 1738 (Capra, 2002).
1 Extending Beyond the
Scientific Method
The scientific method begins with a questioning mind that
does not accept anything as true unless there is clear evidence
of its truth and proceeds to break any problem under invesÂ
tigation into pieces in order to understand the components
of the problem and tries to solve it. The reconnection of the
pieces proceeds from those easiest to understand to those most
complex without considering any natural connection between
the parts and concludes when thorough questioning ensures
nothing was left out of the solution. This method led to maÂ
jor scientific discoveries and the solution of many problems in
medicine, food production, and industry. Most of us in the
western hemisphere were educated to think according to this
method, and we now do so without even realizing we are doÂ
ing so. However, as this method became the standard way of
thinking in Western societies, it resulted in extreme individÂ
ualism (loss of the natural relationship between parts of the
whole), reductionism (trying to understand complex problems
by looking at parts of them apart from the context around
SYSTEMS THEORY AND SYSTEMIC THINKING
them,.
Copyright Information (bibliographic) Document Type Book Ch.docxdickonsondorris
Â
Copyright Information (bibliographic)
Document Type: Book Chapter
Title of book: Family Therapy: An Overview (9th Edition)
Author of book: Irene Goldenberg, Mark Stanton, Herbert Goldenberg
Chapter Title: Chapter 4 Systems Theory and Systemic Thinking
Author of Chapter: Irene Goldenberg, Mark Stanton, Herbert Goldenberg
Year: 2017
Publisher: Cengage Learning
Place of Publishing: United States of America
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted materials. Under certain conditions
specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other
reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not
to be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research. If a user makes
a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of fair use
that user may be liable for copyright infringement.
LO 1 Describe potential problems with
using only the scientific method to
explain family functioning
LO 2 Explain systemic functioning using
a paradigm or descriptive model
LO 3 Discuss some characteristics of a
family system
LO 4 Apply systemic thinking to family
therapy
84
Family therapy is informed by systems theory and systemic
thinking in order to fully understand and provide psychoÂ
therapy to couples and families (Stanton & Welsh, 2012).
A systemic approach stands in contrast to the individualisÂ
tic thinking typical of most people raised in Western society
who were educated in the context of the Cartesian scientific
method espoused by Rene Descartes in 1738 (Capra, 2002).
1 Extending Beyond the
Scientific Method
The scientific method begins with a questioning mind that
does not accept anything as true unless there is clear evidence
of its truth and proceeds to break any problem under invesÂ
tigation into pieces in order to understand the components
of the problem and tries to solve it. The reconnection of the
pieces proceeds from those easiest to understand to those most
complex without considering any natural connection between
the parts and concludes when thorough questioning ensures
nothing was left out of the solution. This method led to maÂ
jor scientific discoveries and the solution of many problems in
medicine, food production, and industry. Most of us in the
western hemisphere were educated to think according to this
method, and we now do so without even realizing we are doÂ
ing so. However, as this method became the standard way of
thinking in Western societies, it resulted in extreme individÂ
ualism (loss of the natural relationship between parts of the
whole), reductionism (trying to understand complex problems
by looking at parts of them apart from the context around
SYSTEMS THEORY AND SYSTEMIC THINKING
them,.
Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 25132â144, 2014Copyright Š.docxcroysierkathey
Â
Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 25:132â144, 2014
Copyright Š Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0897-5353 print/1540-4080 online
DOI: 10.1080/08975353.2014.910023
A Cognitive Behavioral Systems Approach
to Family Therapy
TERENCE PATTERSON
Department of Counseling Psychology, University of San Francisco, San Francisco,
California, USA
Family therapy, including conjoint approaches to couples, families,
and parent-child dyads, is infused with concepts adapted from gen-
eral systems theory. Many of the most popular models during the
period when family therapy flourished in the 1960s and 1970s
directly incorporated systems theory. As modifications and new
approaches came into vogue in the 1980s and 1990s, the contribu-
tions of systems concepts were eclipsed and theorists, researchers,
and practitioners often failed to acknowledge their contribution.
In an attempt to re-integrate these developments in state-of-the-art
family therapy, this article will explore systems theory, its com-
plementary characteristics with cognitive behavioral therapy, and
how these 2 approaches can be simultaneously applied to family
therapy in a comprehensive, integrative manner. The distinctions
between cognitive therapy, behavioral therapy, and (combined)
cognitive behavioral therapy will be delineated; after which cog-
nitive behavioral therapy interventions and their relationship to
systems concepts will be described. An illustrative model will be
presented with recommendations for future research.
KEYWORDS behavior therapy, cognitive therapy, family therapy,
systemic therapy, systems theory
Address correspondence to Terence Patterson, Department of Counseling Psychology,
School of Education, 2130 Fulton Street, San Francisco, CA 94117-1071, USA. E-mail:
[email protected]
132
mailto:[email protected]
Cognitive Behavioral Systems Family Therapy 133
INTRODUCTION
An open system is a set of objects with attributes that interrelate in an
environment. The system possesses qualities of wholeness, interdepen-
dence, hierarchy, self-regulation, environmental interchange, equilibrium,
adaptability, and equifinality. (Littlejohn, 1983, p. 32)
EVOLUTION OF FAMILY SYSTEMS AND COGNTIVE
BEHAVIORAL CONCEPTS
General systems theory (GST) involves a set of analogous descriptors that
were originally applied to biology and later ascribed to physical and social
systems. GST was all the rage in the intellectual world in the 1920s, with
worldwide conferences held to laud its avant-garde approach to understand-
ing phenomena (von Bertalanffy, 1968). Systems theory1 as applied to family
therapy/psychology entails a number of principles including, for example
(Phipps, 2004; Phipps & Vorster, 2011; von Bertalanffy, 1968):
â Organization and wholeness: That a family behaves as a whole, that is, the
change in each member depends on all others.
â Non-summativity: That the whole is greater than the sum of its parts
suggests that: (1) the family behavior as a whole cannot be reduced ...
InstructionsClients come to MFTs because they want to change, .docxpauline234567
Â
Instructions
Clients come to MFTs because they want to change, whether the change is in cognitions, structure, insight, or something else. Therefore, it is important for you to understanding why, when, and how people change. This week, you will continue the exploration of core concepts related to systems theory and its application to MFT field concepts. You will review several concepts associated with change including homeostasis, first-order change, second-order change, continuous change, and discontinuous change.
Complete the provided worksheet template located in this weekâs resources. Note: You will use the worksheet you complete this week as part of your work in Week 4.
For each item, be sure to address the following:
¡ Record a direct quotation that defines the concept or describes the assumption.
¡ Paraphrase the definition or description by explaining the information in your own words. As you are paraphrasing, keep in mind that concepts often involve several interrelated ideas. When you are paraphrasing, be sure to not oversimplify the concept.
¡ Provide an original example (not one you read about in the course resources) of the concept or assumption.
¡ Explain how your example reflects the definition. Refer to your paraphrased definition in order to compare the example to the concept.
Should you have questions or need clarification on any items, please contact your professor to discuss it.Â
Length: 1-2 pages (completed template). Additional resources/reference page is not required.
Your cheat sheet should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts presented in the course by providing new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Be sure to adhere to Northcentral University's Academic Integrity Policy.
Upload your document, and then click theÂ
Submit to Dropbox button.
Building Blocks to Conceptualizing Family: A Family Systemâs Perspective Valerie Q. Glass, PhD, LMFT
Background of Systemic Thinking
Systemic thinking, for some, means trying on a new and unique lens when considering âpresenting problemsâ that arise in therapeutic settings. Most mental and emotional health backgrounds study individual cognitive and emotional processes, systemic thinking means a shift in looking at one person to looking at a whole system. Keeney (1983) calls this change in professional theory an epistemological shift. Epistemology, most basically, is the way one understands what is in front of them, and the root with which decisions are made. Helping fields all develop from different epistemologies. Psychiatry views medicine and biology as their epistemological construct of how or why people act the way they do. Much of the epistemological focus of social work fields embraces the necessity or connecting to resources and social support as a catalyst for change. Psychology explores the make-up of the individualâs mind and develops steps for change. Family systems, and.
Copyright Information (bibliographic) Document Type Book Ch.docxmelvinjrobinson2199
Â
Copyright Information (bibliographic)
Document Type: Book Chapter
Title of book: Family Therapy: An Overview (9th Edition)
Author of book: Irene Goldenberg, Mark Stanton, Herbert Goldenberg
Chapter Title: Chapter 4 Systems Theory and Systemic Thinking
Author of Chapter: Irene Goldenberg, Mark Stanton, Herbert Goldenberg
Year: 2017
Publisher: Cengage Learning
Place of Publishing: United States of America
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted materials. Under certain conditions
specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other
reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not
to be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research. If a user makes
a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of fair use
that user may be liable for copyright infringement.
LO 1 Describe potential problems with
using only the scientific method to
explain family functioning
LO 2 Explain systemic functioning using
a paradigm or descriptive model
LO 3 Discuss some characteristics of a
family system
LO 4 Apply systemic thinking to family
therapy
84
Family therapy is informed by systems theory and systemic
thinking in order to fully understand and provide psychoÂ
therapy to couples and families (Stanton & Welsh, 2012).
A systemic approach stands in contrast to the individualisÂ
tic thinking typical of most people raised in Western society
who were educated in the context of the Cartesian scientific
method espoused by Rene Descartes in 1738 (Capra, 2002).
1 Extending Beyond the
Scientific Method
The scientific method begins with a questioning mind that
does not accept anything as true unless there is clear evidence
of its truth and proceeds to break any problem under invesÂ
tigation into pieces in order to understand the components
of the problem and tries to solve it. The reconnection of the
pieces proceeds from those easiest to understand to those most
complex without considering any natural connection between
the parts and concludes when thorough questioning ensures
nothing was left out of the solution. This method led to maÂ
jor scientific discoveries and the solution of many problems in
medicine, food production, and industry. Most of us in the
western hemisphere were educated to think according to this
method, and we now do so without even realizing we are doÂ
ing so. However, as this method became the standard way of
thinking in Western societies, it resulted in extreme individÂ
ualism (loss of the natural relationship between parts of the
whole), reductionism (trying to understand complex problems
by looking at parts of them apart from the context around
SYSTEMS THEORY AND SYSTEMIC THINKING
them,.
Copyright Information (bibliographic) Document Type Book Ch.docxdickonsondorris
Â
Copyright Information (bibliographic)
Document Type: Book Chapter
Title of book: Family Therapy: An Overview (9th Edition)
Author of book: Irene Goldenberg, Mark Stanton, Herbert Goldenberg
Chapter Title: Chapter 4 Systems Theory and Systemic Thinking
Author of Chapter: Irene Goldenberg, Mark Stanton, Herbert Goldenberg
Year: 2017
Publisher: Cengage Learning
Place of Publishing: United States of America
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted materials. Under certain conditions
specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other
reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not
to be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research. If a user makes
a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of fair use
that user may be liable for copyright infringement.
LO 1 Describe potential problems with
using only the scientific method to
explain family functioning
LO 2 Explain systemic functioning using
a paradigm or descriptive model
LO 3 Discuss some characteristics of a
family system
LO 4 Apply systemic thinking to family
therapy
84
Family therapy is informed by systems theory and systemic
thinking in order to fully understand and provide psychoÂ
therapy to couples and families (Stanton & Welsh, 2012).
A systemic approach stands in contrast to the individualisÂ
tic thinking typical of most people raised in Western society
who were educated in the context of the Cartesian scientific
method espoused by Rene Descartes in 1738 (Capra, 2002).
1 Extending Beyond the
Scientific Method
The scientific method begins with a questioning mind that
does not accept anything as true unless there is clear evidence
of its truth and proceeds to break any problem under invesÂ
tigation into pieces in order to understand the components
of the problem and tries to solve it. The reconnection of the
pieces proceeds from those easiest to understand to those most
complex without considering any natural connection between
the parts and concludes when thorough questioning ensures
nothing was left out of the solution. This method led to maÂ
jor scientific discoveries and the solution of many problems in
medicine, food production, and industry. Most of us in the
western hemisphere were educated to think according to this
method, and we now do so without even realizing we are doÂ
ing so. However, as this method became the standard way of
thinking in Western societies, it resulted in extreme individÂ
ualism (loss of the natural relationship between parts of the
whole), reductionism (trying to understand complex problems
by looking at parts of them apart from the context around
SYSTEMS THEORY AND SYSTEMIC THINKING
them,.
Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 25132â144, 2014Copyright Š.docxcroysierkathey
Â
Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 25:132â144, 2014
Copyright Š Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0897-5353 print/1540-4080 online
DOI: 10.1080/08975353.2014.910023
A Cognitive Behavioral Systems Approach
to Family Therapy
TERENCE PATTERSON
Department of Counseling Psychology, University of San Francisco, San Francisco,
California, USA
Family therapy, including conjoint approaches to couples, families,
and parent-child dyads, is infused with concepts adapted from gen-
eral systems theory. Many of the most popular models during the
period when family therapy flourished in the 1960s and 1970s
directly incorporated systems theory. As modifications and new
approaches came into vogue in the 1980s and 1990s, the contribu-
tions of systems concepts were eclipsed and theorists, researchers,
and practitioners often failed to acknowledge their contribution.
In an attempt to re-integrate these developments in state-of-the-art
family therapy, this article will explore systems theory, its com-
plementary characteristics with cognitive behavioral therapy, and
how these 2 approaches can be simultaneously applied to family
therapy in a comprehensive, integrative manner. The distinctions
between cognitive therapy, behavioral therapy, and (combined)
cognitive behavioral therapy will be delineated; after which cog-
nitive behavioral therapy interventions and their relationship to
systems concepts will be described. An illustrative model will be
presented with recommendations for future research.
KEYWORDS behavior therapy, cognitive therapy, family therapy,
systemic therapy, systems theory
Address correspondence to Terence Patterson, Department of Counseling Psychology,
School of Education, 2130 Fulton Street, San Francisco, CA 94117-1071, USA. E-mail:
[email protected]
132
mailto:[email protected]
Cognitive Behavioral Systems Family Therapy 133
INTRODUCTION
An open system is a set of objects with attributes that interrelate in an
environment. The system possesses qualities of wholeness, interdepen-
dence, hierarchy, self-regulation, environmental interchange, equilibrium,
adaptability, and equifinality. (Littlejohn, 1983, p. 32)
EVOLUTION OF FAMILY SYSTEMS AND COGNTIVE
BEHAVIORAL CONCEPTS
General systems theory (GST) involves a set of analogous descriptors that
were originally applied to biology and later ascribed to physical and social
systems. GST was all the rage in the intellectual world in the 1920s, with
worldwide conferences held to laud its avant-garde approach to understand-
ing phenomena (von Bertalanffy, 1968). Systems theory1 as applied to family
therapy/psychology entails a number of principles including, for example
(Phipps, 2004; Phipps & Vorster, 2011; von Bertalanffy, 1968):
â Organization and wholeness: That a family behaves as a whole, that is, the
change in each member depends on all others.
â Non-summativity: That the whole is greater than the sum of its parts
suggests that: (1) the family behavior as a whole cannot be reduced ...
______________ Suzanne Taylor Sutphin, Ph.D., is a Research .docxodiliagilby
Â
______________
Suzanne Taylor Sutphin, Ph.D., is a Research Assistant Professor at The Center for Child and Family Studies in the
College of Social Work at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, SC; Shannon McDonough, MA, is an Instructor
of Social Sciences at Allen University in Columbia, SC; and Amber Schrenkel is a 2013 MSW graduate of the College of
Social Work at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, SC.
Copyright Š 2013 Advances in Social Work Vol. 14 No. 2 (Fall 2013), 501-517
The Role of Formal Theory in Social Work Research: Formalizing Family
Systems Theory
Suzanne Taylor Sutphin
Shannon McDonough
Amber Schrenkel
Abstract: Formal theories are critical to accumulating knowledge through scientific
research to advance the discipline and practice. The use of formal theory in social work
research is currently absent. Family Systems Theory (FST) is commonly used in social
work; however, it currently lacks the criteria to be considered a formal theory. We use
FST to demonstrate the formalization process and its potential effect on social work
research and practice. Currently, FST is being used as a perspective, to develop theories
and models used in marriage and family therapy, and to develop assessment tools. We
identify the components of a formal theory while presenting a formal version of FST.
Directions for future research are suggested including the benefits of using formal theory
to direct scientific research and guide the development of evidence-based practice.
Keywords: Family systems theory, formal theory, social work research
âThe fact that human beings create theories testifies to their genius and
uniqueness as the only known organisms who are able to conceptualize their own
experienceâ (Becvar & Becvar, 1982, p. 55).
Social science theories, especially theories of the family, are frequently used by
social work researchers and practitioners. However, like many theories applied in social
work, the critical components that make the theory scientifically testable are not
forthcoming. Therefore, much of the practice in social work related to family theories
does not have a solid scientific base. Formalizing theory involves developing the critical
components to increase its scientific testability with a focus on adding to cumulative
knowledge in the field. This is accomplished by ensuring the deductive logical
consistency of the theory, the clear definition of terms, and the explicit designation of the
scope conditions under which the theory applies. We focus on a commonly used
perspective in social work research, Family Systems Theory (FST), as an example of
formalizing a theory. This article briefly reviews the current state of theory in social
work, defines FST and how it is currently used in social work practice, and presents the
essential components of formal theories along with a formalized version of FST. Finally,
we suggest directions for future research relevant ...
Thomas Jefferson UniversityJefferson Digital CommonsScho.docxjuliennehar
Â
Thomas Jefferson University
Jefferson Digital Commons
School of Nursing Faculty Papers & Presentations Jefferson College of Nursing
2-10-2011
Defining and Assessing Organizational Culture
Jennifer Bellot PhD, RN, MHSA
Thomas Jefferson University, [email protected]
Let us know how access to this document benefits you
Follow this and additional works at: http://jdc.jefferson.edu/nursfp
Part of the Nursing Commons
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Jefferson Digital Commons. The Jefferson Digital Commons is a service of Thomas
Jefferson University 's Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL). The Commons is a showcase for Jefferson books and journals, peer-reviewed scholarly
publications, unique historical collections from the University archives, and teaching tools. The Jefferson Digital Commons allows researchers and
interested readers anywhere in the world to learn about and keep up to date with Jefferson scholarship. This article has been accepted for inclusion in
School of Nursing Faculty Papers & Presentations by an authorized administrator of the Jefferson Digital Commons. For more information, please
contact: [email protected]
Recommended Citation
Bellot PhD, RN, MHSA, Jennifer, "Defining and Assessing Organizational Culture" (2011). School of
Nursing Faculty Papers & Presentations. Paper 34.
http://jdc.jefferson.edu/nursfp/34
http://jdc.jefferson.edu?utm_source=jdc.jefferson.edu%2Fnursfp%2F34&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://jdc.jefferson.edu/nursfp?utm_source=jdc.jefferson.edu%2Fnursfp%2F34&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://jdc.jefferson.edu/nurs?utm_source=jdc.jefferson.edu%2Fnursfp%2F34&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://jeffline.jefferson.edu/Education/surveys/jdc.cfm
http://jdc.jefferson.edu/nursfp?utm_source=jdc.jefferson.edu%2Fnursfp%2F34&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/718?utm_source=jdc.jefferson.edu%2Fnursfp%2F34&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://www.jefferson.edu/university/teaching-learning.html/
Organizational Culture 1
As submitted to:
Nursing Forum
And later published as:
Defining and Assessing Organizational Culture
Volume 46, Issue 1, pages 29â37, January-March 2011
DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6198.2010.00207.x
The target of much debate, organizational culture has occupied a prominent
position in multidisciplinary publications since the early 1980s. Fraught with
inconsistencies, the early research and literature addressing organizational culture was
often conflicting and recursive. As one researcher stated, culture is âone of the two or
three most complicated words in the English languageâ (Williams, 1983). Years of
conceptualization, comparison and assessment have led to an emerging consensus on the
appropriate definition and role for organizational culture. This manuscript documents the
h ...
163Š Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021R. P. Dealey, M. R. KiyokoSlagleis
Â
163Š Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
R. P. Dealey, M. R. Evans (eds.), Discovering Theory in Clinical Practice,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57310-2_12
Chapter 12
Systems Theory: The Case of Esperanza
Madeline PĂŠrez De JesĂşs, Enitzaida RodrĂguez, and Gladis Anaya
Introduction to Systems Theory
Systems theory calls practitioners to examine the relational dynamics between
individuals, and between and within groups, organizations, or communities, as well
as mutually influencing factors in the environment (Leighninger, 1977). While
systems theory is commonly used in social work, the authors argue that the profes-
sion would benefit from expanding its scope to intentionally explore issues of
diversity and the impact of trauma. This chapter demonstrates how systems theory
supports culturally informed clinical practice by highlighting the case of
âEsperanza,â a 16-year-old ninth-grade student who, with thousands of others,
migrated from Puerto Rico to urban cities in the Northeast and other areas in the
United States after being displaced by Hurricane Maria in 2017. Two Latinx social
workers enter Esperanzaâs life in her new high school setting in Hartford,
Connecticut.
The authorsâ overview of systems theory includes a perspective on how problems
arise, how systems theory facilitates understandings of the change process, and
implications regarding complementary interventions that are can be used based on
this theory. The case study of Esperanza details her demographics, family dynamics,
and various ecological factors that influence her situation. Theoretical integration
M. P. De JesĂşs (*)
Department of Social Work and Equitable Community Practice, University of Saint Joseph,
West Hartford, CT, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
E. RodrĂguez
School Social Worker, University of Saint Joseph, West Hartford, CT, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
G. Anaya
University of Saint Joseph, West Hartford, CT, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
164
follows the case example, with the authors demonstrating how systems theory
informed social workers approach to treating the client and understanding the
clientâs response. Important considerations regarding intracultural and intercultural
factors that influenced clinical intervention effectiveness are described. The authors
note that systems theory also served as a tool for resolving a practice conflict for the
social workers. In the concluding section, the authors pose discussion questions to
support readers in thinking critically about the usefulness of systems theory and the
process of integrating theory into clinical practice.
The overarching premise in systems theory is that there is reciprocity in the inter-
locking relationships between people, families, social networks, neighborhoods,
and other related systems (Leighninger, 1977). This reciprocity includes elements in
the environment such as nature, encompassing physics, chemistry, biology, and
social relationships. Wh ...
163Š Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021R. P. Dealey, M. R. AnastaciaShadelb
Â
163Š Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
R. P. Dealey, M. R. Evans (eds.), Discovering Theory in Clinical Practice,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57310-2_12
Chapter 12
Systems Theory: The Case of Esperanza
Madeline PĂŠrez De JesĂşs, Enitzaida RodrĂguez, and Gladis Anaya
Introduction to Systems Theory
Systems theory calls practitioners to examine the relational dynamics between
individuals, and between and within groups, organizations, or communities, as well
as mutually influencing factors in the environment (Leighninger, 1977). While
systems theory is commonly used in social work, the authors argue that the profes-
sion would benefit from expanding its scope to intentionally explore issues of
diversity and the impact of trauma. This chapter demonstrates how systems theory
supports culturally informed clinical practice by highlighting the case of
âEsperanza,â a 16-year-old ninth-grade student who, with thousands of others,
migrated from Puerto Rico to urban cities in the Northeast and other areas in the
United States after being displaced by Hurricane Maria in 2017. Two Latinx social
workers enter Esperanzaâs life in her new high school setting in Hartford,
Connecticut.
The authorsâ overview of systems theory includes a perspective on how problems
arise, how systems theory facilitates understandings of the change process, and
implications regarding complementary interventions that are can be used based on
this theory. The case study of Esperanza details her demographics, family dynamics,
and various ecological factors that influence her situation. Theoretical integration
M. P. De JesĂşs (*)
Department of Social Work and Equitable Community Practice, University of Saint Joseph,
West Hartford, CT, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
E. RodrĂguez
School Social Worker, University of Saint Joseph, West Hartford, CT, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
G. Anaya
University of Saint Joseph, West Hartford, CT, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
164
follows the case example, with the authors demonstrating how systems theory
informed social workers approach to treating the client and understanding the
clientâs response. Important considerations regarding intracultural and intercultural
factors that influenced clinical intervention effectiveness are described. The authors
note that systems theory also served as a tool for resolving a practice conflict for the
social workers. In the concluding section, the authors pose discussion questions to
support readers in thinking critically about the usefulness of systems theory and the
process of integrating theory into clinical practice.
The overarching premise in systems theory is that there is reciprocity in the inter-
locking relationships between people, families, social networks, neighborhoods,
and other related systems (Leighninger, 1977). This reciprocity includes elements in
the environment such as nature, encompassing physics, chemistry, biology, and
social relationships. Wh ...
Student ID No. 1619853Contemporary Issues in International.docxcpatriciarpatricia
Â
Student ID No. 1619853
Contemporary Issues in International Management (MOD004160)
List (A) - The Population Ecology of Organisations
Introduction
The journal paper of Hannan and Freeman (1977) looks at the relationship between organisations and the environment and how organisations emerge, grow and die over a long period of time. They apply the population ecology theories to the population of organisations, which they use as their level of analysis, as opposed to the organisation or community level.
Their research is debating that the selection model is favoured over the adaption model, which at the time of their research, the majority of literature was focussed on the adaption model. They favour the selection model due to the structural inertia limiting the organisations ability to adapt to changing environments. They mention the inertial pressures that arise from both internal structural arrangements and environmental constraints and argue that in order to deal with the various inertial pressures the adaption perspective must be supplemented with a selection orientation (pp. 933).
Two broad issues are considered, the first regarding the unit of analyses where they argue for an explicit focus on populations of organisations, rather than the view of a single organisation and the environment. The second is the application of population ecology models to the study of human social organisations.
All the above they hope to answer their research question âwhy are there so many kinds of organisations?â
Literature Review
The fundamental part of their research started with Hawleyâs (1950, 1968) statement on human ecology, they state that Hawleyâs perspective serves a useful starting point for population ecology theories when extended to include competition models and niche theory.
When reviewing competition theory they continue to focus on the process of selection, in that isomorphism happens because nonoptimal forms are selected out of a community of organisations (pp.939) and that competition is a mechanism for producing isomorphism (pp.940). They use the literature of Hummon, Dorian, and Teuter (1975) and Blau and Scott (1962) to construct their ecological model of competition by stating the nature of the population growth process and to support their view that the rate of growth or decline in populations of organisations is due to environmental changes.
They represent this environmental change by using Hutchinsonâs (1957) formulation model to show Levins (1962, 1968) theory of niche width.
Methodology
The paper is a conceptual paper and does not include any empirical research to support their theories. Throughout the paper there are several references to empirical research and at one point the authors expressed their frustration at the lack of empirical research available on rates of selection in populations of organisations (pp.959).
Rather than start from the beginning, Hannan and Freeman (1977) chose to adopt the methodology of Hawley.
Running head: EXECUTIVE 1
EXECUTIVE 6
Executive Summary
Kelly Player
Azusa Pacific University
UNRS 306: Writing 2: Theoretical Frameworks in Nursing
Renee Marquez, RN, MSN, DNP, PMHNP
July 16, 2018
Executive Summary
General systems theory was originally proposed by biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy in 1928. Systems theory reviews the organization and properties of systems regarding relationships, from which new properties of wholes emerge. A system could be broken down into its individual components so that each component could be analyzed as an independent entity, and the components could be added in a linear fashion to describe the totality of the system. Von Bertalanffy proposed, a system is characterized by the interactions of its components and the nonlinearity of those interactions.
History of Theory
The general system theory was introduced by Ludwig von Bertalanffy in the 1920s. General System Theory (GST) started out as result of a number of disciplines such as biology, mathematics, social science and philosophy. As many disciplines emerged the goal and role of general system theory started to change to. Even though von Bertalanffy started to think about GST in the 1930s, he didn't articulate the vision until 1954 at the AAAS conference. According to Ray (2000) the vision of von Bertalanffy was to obtain biologically minded scientists to consider their work from a holistic perspective. His thought was to include the goal of constructing a mechanism which can be used to reduce duplication of theoretical effort in the sciences. The proposal was to have GST serve as unifying for philosophers to become committed to building a serious theory (Ray, 2000).
Major Precepts of Theory
Disease and health should be looked at as a graduated scale, or health grid. The health grid is broken in three parts: the health axis (peak-wellness to death), the environmental axis (biological, physical, and socioeconomic factors), and the resulting health and wellness quadrants. Those quadrants are: poor health in an unfavorable environment, protected poor health in a favorable environment, emergent high-level wellness in an unfavorable environment, and high-level wellness in a favorable environment (Dunn, 1959). Man is a spiritual being and it cannot be ignored when trying to achieve high-level wellness. The mind, body, and spirit must be taken care of as once unit, instead of compartmentally.
Current Applications of Theory
There are steps to quantify positive health:
1) Effect refinements in incidence and prevalence rates to demarcate more clearly the area of positive health from that of illness and disability. 2) Develop susceptibility indexes through the use of biochemical and functional tests to differentiate groups of persons most susceptible to specific diseases and conditions. 3) Establish precursors-of-disease indexes, closely related to the foregoing and designed to show variations from the normal. 4)Select groups of peop.
Why have the artists created these works and what are they.docxphilipnelson29183
Â
Why have the artists created these works and what are they saying about their culture?
Explain how each artist has used the following to make that statement.visual elements (shape or form, line texture, light, value, color, space and movement) principles of design
(unity and variety, balance, focal point, scale, proportion, and rhythm) subject mattermaterials and techniques
Sample Essay 1 (25 points) Compare and contrast these works in terms of:
High Renaissance
Raphael, School of Athens, 1509-10. Fresco, 200 x 300 â.
Photorealism
Chuck Close, Big Self-Portrait, 1967-68.
Acrylic on canvas. 107 ½âx 83 1/2â.
*
Why have the artists created these works and what are they saying about their culture?
Explain how each artist has used the following to make that statement.visual elements (shape or form, line texture, light, value, color, space and movement) principles of design
(unity and variety, balance, focal point, scale, proportion, and rhythm) subject mattermaterials and techniques
Sample Essay 2 (25 points) Compare and contrast these works in terms of:
Boticelli
Birth of Venus, 1486. Tempera on canvas, 67.9Â ĂÂ 109.6Â â
Kees Van Dongen
Femme Fatale. Oil on canvas, 32 X 24â.
German Expressionism, 1905
*
Integrative and Biopsychosocial Approaches in Contemporary Clinical Psychology
Chapter Objective
¡ To highlight and outline how contemporary clinical psychology integrates the major theoretical models using a biopsychosocial approach.
Chapter Outline
¡ The Call to Integration
¡ Biopsychosocial Integration
¡ Synthesizing Biological, Psychological, and Social Factors in Contemporary Integration
¡ Highlight of a Contemporary Clinical Psychologist: Stephanie Pinder-Amaker, PhD
¡ Application of the Biopsychosocial Perspective to Contemporary Clinical Psychology Problems
¡ Conclusion
Having now reviewed the four major theoretical and historical models in psychology in Chapter 5, this chapter illustrates how integration is achieved in the actual science and practice of clinical psychology. In addition to psychological perspectives per se, a full integration of human functioning demands a synthesis of psychological factors with both biological and social elements. This combination of biological, psychological, and social factors comprises an example of contemporary integration in the form of the biopsychosocial perspective. This chapter describes the evolution of individual psychological perspectives into a more comprehensive biopsychosocial synthesis, perhaps first touched upon 2,500 years ago by the Greeks.
The Call to Integration
While there are over 400 different types of approaches to psychotherapy and other professional services offered by clinical psychologists (Karasu, 1986), the major schools of thought reviewed and illustrated in Chapter 5 have emerged during the past century as the primary perspectives in clinical psychology. As mentioned, these include the psychodynamic, cognitive-behavioral, humanistic, and family s.
Integrative and Biopsychosocial Approaches in Contemporary Clinica.docxnormanibarber20063
Â
Integrative and Biopsychosocial Approaches in Contemporary Clinical Psychology
Chapter Objective
¡ To highlight and outline how contemporary clinical psychology integrates the major theoretical models using a biopsychosocial approach.
Chapter Outline
¡ The Call to Integration
¡ Biopsychosocial Integration
¡ Synthesizing Biological, Psychological, and Social Factors in Contemporary Integration
¡ Highlight of a Contemporary Clinical Psychologist: Stephanie Pinder-Amaker, PhD
¡ Application of the Biopsychosocial Perspective to Contemporary Clinical Psychology Problems
¡ Conclusion
Having now reviewed the four major theoretical and historical models in psychology in Chapter 5, this chapter illustrates how integration is achieved in the actual science and practice of clinical psychology. In addition to psychological perspectives per se, a full integration of human functioning demands a synthesis of psychological factors with both biological and social elements. This combination of biological, psychological, and social factors comprises an example of contemporary integration in the form of the biopsychosocial perspective. This chapter describes the evolution of individual psychological perspectives into a more comprehensive biopsychosocial synthesis, perhaps first touched upon 2,500 years ago by the Greeks.
The Call to Integration
While there are over 400 different types of approaches to psychotherapy and other professional services offered by clinical psychologists (Karasu, 1986), the major schools of thought reviewed and illustrated in Chapter 5 have emerged during the past century as the primary perspectives in clinical psychology. As mentioned, these include the psychodynamic, cognitive-behavioral, humanistic, and family systems approaches. Prior to the 1980s, most psychologists tended to adhere to one of these theoretical approaches in their research, psychotherapy, assessment, and consultation. Numerous institutes, centers, and professional journals were (and still are) devoted to the advancement, research, and practice of individual perspectives (e.g., Behavior Therapy and International Journal of Psychoanalysis). Professionals typically affiliate themselves with one perspective and the professional journals and organizations represented by that perspective (e.g., Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies), and have little interaction or experience with the other perspectives or organizations. Opinions are often dogmatic and other perspectives and organizations viewed with skepticism or even disdain. Surprisingly, psychologists with research and science training sometimes choose not to use their objective and critical thinking skills when discussing the merits and limitations of theoretical frameworks different from their own. Choice of theoretical orientation is typically a by-product of graduate and postgraduate training, the personality of the professional, and the general worldview held of human nature. Even geographical regions.
Redmon, W. K. (2001). Handbook of organizational performance. [Vit.docxsodhi3
Â
Redmon, W. K. (2001). Handbook of organizational performance. [VitalSource Bookshelf Online]. Retrieved fromhttps://kaplan.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781136389993/
In-text citation: (Redmon, 2001)
Chapter 16
Ethics and Behavior Analysis in Management
Ethical issues seem to dominate the news these days, and they extend to all areas of human endeavor including, of course, business and psychology. This chapter explores the topic of ethical issues when behavioral methods are applied to industrial/organizational (I/O) settings. The goal is not to create ethical guidelines. Rather, it is to provide an overview of the types of ethical guidelines already available as well as the nature, relevance, and importance of ethical issues that underlie such guidelines.
WHAT ARE ETHICAL PRINCIPLES?
Philosophers have long debated ethical issues. Numerous competing schools each adhere to tenets that not only are different, but sometimes opposite (Macklin, 1982). Part of this debate concerns the basic issue of how to define an ethical principle.
Philosophers sometimes quibble over whether our perceptions are reliable indicators of reality, but this issue seems to be of less concern to scientists. Scientists start with the observable, or what can be defined in terms of the observable (operational definitions). In most cases, there is a strong consensus about what is really âout there,â a consensus that is in large part based upon the consistency among observations. Scientists then attempt to find relationships between these observable entities or events, an activity that produces factual statements called laws. Factual statements deal with what might be called objective reality, descriptions about how things are.
In addition to factual statements, there are statements of value. Value statements are assertions about what is âgood,â âright,â or âwrong,â and how entities and events in the world should be, not the way they necessarily are. Value statements are a cornerstone of ethics. Ethical principles look beyond what is, and ask what should be.
Other chapters in this book describe principles that can be used in organizational settings to modify behavior. In effect, the authors are presenting laws describing relationships between antecedent conditions, behaviors, and consequences. The process of discovering and describing these laws is identical to the process of discovering and describing laws in all other sciences, and as such, is grounded in objective reality and statements of fact. This chapter goes beyond such objective considerations and deals with ethical issues associated with the discovery and use of such laws.
WHY WOULD ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT RAISE ETHICAL CONCERNS?
Organizational behavior management (OBM) utilizes information derived from the field of behavior analysis (Mawhinney, 1984). Behavior analysis attempts to find universal laws of behavior. As a scientist, the behavior analyst believes that human behavior is lawful in the same sense th ...
11Systems TheoryBRUCE D. FRIEDMAN AND KAREN NEUMAN ALL.docxmoggdede
Â
11
Systems Theory
BRUCE D. FRIEDMAN AND KAREN NEUMAN ALLEN
3
Biopsychosocial assessment and the develop-ment of appropriate intervention strategies for
a particular client require consideration of the indi-
vidual in relation to a larger social context. To
accomplish this, we use principles and concepts
derived from systems theory. Systems theory is a
way of elaborating increasingly complex systems
across a continuum that encompasses the person-in-
environment (Anderson, Carter, & Lowe, 1999).
Systems theory also enables us to understand the
components and dynamics of client systems in order
to interpret problems and develop balanced inter-
vention strategies, with the goal of enhancing the
âgoodness of fitâ between individuals and their
environments. Systems theory does not specify par-
ticular theoretical frameworks for understanding
problems, and it does not direct the social worker to
specific intervention strategies. Rather, it serves as
an organizing conceptual framework or metatheory
for understanding (Meyer, 1983).
As a profession, social work has struggled to
identify an organizing framework for practice that
captures the nature of what we do. Many have iden-
tified systems theory as that organizing framework
(Goldstein, 1990; Hearn, 1958; Meyer, 1976, 1983;
Siporin, 1980). However, because of the complex
nature of the clinical enterprise, others have chal-
lenged the suitability of systems theory as an orga-
nizing framework for clinical practice (Fook, Ryan,
& Hawkins, 1997; Wakefield, 1996a, 1996b).
The term system emerged from Ămile Durkheimâs
early study of social systems (Robbins, Chatterjee,
& Canda, 2006), as well as from the work of
Talcott Parsons. However, within social work, sys-
tems thinking has been more heavily influenced by
the work of the biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy
and later adaptations by the social psychologist Uri
Bronfenbrenner, who examined human biological
systems within an ecological environment. With
its roots in von Bertalanffyâs systems theory and
Bronfenbrennerâs ecological environment, the
ecosys tems perspective provides a framework that
permits users to draw on theories from different dis-
ciplines in order to analyze the complex nature of
human interactions within a social environment.
RELEVANT HISTORY
Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1901â1972), as mentioned
above, is credited with being the originator of the
form of systems theory used in social work. Von
Bertalanffy, a theoretical biologist born and educated
in Austria, became dis satisfied with the way linear,
cause-and-effect theories explained growth and
change in living organisms. He felt that change might
occur because of the interac tions between the parts
of an organism, a point of view that represented a
dramatic change from the theories of his day.
Existing theories had tended to be reductionis t,
understanding the whole by breaking it into its parts.
Von Bertalanffyâs introduction of systems theory
changed that framework by looki ...
Evolutionary Psychologyand Business Ethics ResearchDavid.docxgitagrimston
Â
Evolutionary Psychology
and Business Ethics Research
David M. Wasieleski and Sefa Hayibor
ABSTRACT: In this article, we describe evolutionary psychology and its potential con-
tribution to business ethics research. After summarizing evolutionary theory and natural
selection, we specifically address the use of evolutionary concepts in psychology in order
to offer alternative explanations of behavior relevant to business ethics, such as social
exchange, cooperation, altruism, and reciprocity. Our position is that individuals, groups,
and organizations all are affected by similar natural, evolutionary processes, such that
evolutionary psychology is applicable at multiple levels of analysis (e.g., individual and
group). We introduce a variety of experiments and instruments employed by evolutionary
psychologists to illustrate how ethics-relevant cultural norms and practices evolve and are
regulated, and to raise the prospect that these experiments and instruments can be useful in
future business ethics research.
INTRODUCTION
DESPITE EXTENSIVE EEFORTS BY SCHOLARS m various fields to un-derstand moral behavior, Reynolds and Ceranic recently observed that "the
quantity and quality of knowledge that we have acquired about why individuals act
ethically and unethically is incredibly low," and they argued that empirical ethics
researchers must make "significant changes in our overall approach to our research"
(Reynolds & Ceranic, 2007: 1610). Some researchers have looked to the neurosci-
ences for advances in the explanation of ethical behavior (e.g., Reynolds, 2006;
Salvador & Folger, 2009). In this article, we review the potential contribution to the
social scientific study of organizational ethics from a different (though not entirely
unrelated) approach to understanding ethical behavior: the evolutionary approach.
Specifically, we review theories and insights from evolutionary psychology, and
then consider how an evolutionary approach might inform business ethics research
at different levels of analysis. In essence, we rely on an evolutionary approach to
provide some underlying assumptions concerning human behavior that in turn can
be utilized in business ethics research. Our approach is in keeping with other recent
efforts to incorporate biological evolution into the organizational sciences (Hies,
Arvey, & Bouchard, 2006; Nicholson & White, 2006; Pierce & White, 1999; Saad,
2006). If human nature is profoundly affected by the evolutionary history of our
species (Nicholson, 1998), it is reasonable to expect that evolutionary theories can
provide clues into behavior within organizations.
Some biologists have suggested that evolutionary theories provide opportunity
for business ethicists to understand and thus "fortify the other-oriented tendencies
Š2009 Business Ethics Quarterly 19:4 (October 2009); ISSN 1052-150X pp. 587-616
588 BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY
of human beingsâour tendencies toward sympathy, reciprocity, and loyaltyâand
to counter ...
______________ Suzanne Taylor Sutphin, Ph.D., is a Research .docxodiliagilby
Â
______________
Suzanne Taylor Sutphin, Ph.D., is a Research Assistant Professor at The Center for Child and Family Studies in the
College of Social Work at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, SC; Shannon McDonough, MA, is an Instructor
of Social Sciences at Allen University in Columbia, SC; and Amber Schrenkel is a 2013 MSW graduate of the College of
Social Work at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, SC.
Copyright Š 2013 Advances in Social Work Vol. 14 No. 2 (Fall 2013), 501-517
The Role of Formal Theory in Social Work Research: Formalizing Family
Systems Theory
Suzanne Taylor Sutphin
Shannon McDonough
Amber Schrenkel
Abstract: Formal theories are critical to accumulating knowledge through scientific
research to advance the discipline and practice. The use of formal theory in social work
research is currently absent. Family Systems Theory (FST) is commonly used in social
work; however, it currently lacks the criteria to be considered a formal theory. We use
FST to demonstrate the formalization process and its potential effect on social work
research and practice. Currently, FST is being used as a perspective, to develop theories
and models used in marriage and family therapy, and to develop assessment tools. We
identify the components of a formal theory while presenting a formal version of FST.
Directions for future research are suggested including the benefits of using formal theory
to direct scientific research and guide the development of evidence-based practice.
Keywords: Family systems theory, formal theory, social work research
âThe fact that human beings create theories testifies to their genius and
uniqueness as the only known organisms who are able to conceptualize their own
experienceâ (Becvar & Becvar, 1982, p. 55).
Social science theories, especially theories of the family, are frequently used by
social work researchers and practitioners. However, like many theories applied in social
work, the critical components that make the theory scientifically testable are not
forthcoming. Therefore, much of the practice in social work related to family theories
does not have a solid scientific base. Formalizing theory involves developing the critical
components to increase its scientific testability with a focus on adding to cumulative
knowledge in the field. This is accomplished by ensuring the deductive logical
consistency of the theory, the clear definition of terms, and the explicit designation of the
scope conditions under which the theory applies. We focus on a commonly used
perspective in social work research, Family Systems Theory (FST), as an example of
formalizing a theory. This article briefly reviews the current state of theory in social
work, defines FST and how it is currently used in social work practice, and presents the
essential components of formal theories along with a formalized version of FST. Finally,
we suggest directions for future research relevant ...
Thomas Jefferson UniversityJefferson Digital CommonsScho.docxjuliennehar
Â
Thomas Jefferson University
Jefferson Digital Commons
School of Nursing Faculty Papers & Presentations Jefferson College of Nursing
2-10-2011
Defining and Assessing Organizational Culture
Jennifer Bellot PhD, RN, MHSA
Thomas Jefferson University, [email protected]
Let us know how access to this document benefits you
Follow this and additional works at: http://jdc.jefferson.edu/nursfp
Part of the Nursing Commons
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Jefferson Digital Commons. The Jefferson Digital Commons is a service of Thomas
Jefferson University 's Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL). The Commons is a showcase for Jefferson books and journals, peer-reviewed scholarly
publications, unique historical collections from the University archives, and teaching tools. The Jefferson Digital Commons allows researchers and
interested readers anywhere in the world to learn about and keep up to date with Jefferson scholarship. This article has been accepted for inclusion in
School of Nursing Faculty Papers & Presentations by an authorized administrator of the Jefferson Digital Commons. For more information, please
contact: [email protected]
Recommended Citation
Bellot PhD, RN, MHSA, Jennifer, "Defining and Assessing Organizational Culture" (2011). School of
Nursing Faculty Papers & Presentations. Paper 34.
http://jdc.jefferson.edu/nursfp/34
http://jdc.jefferson.edu?utm_source=jdc.jefferson.edu%2Fnursfp%2F34&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://jdc.jefferson.edu/nursfp?utm_source=jdc.jefferson.edu%2Fnursfp%2F34&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://jdc.jefferson.edu/nurs?utm_source=jdc.jefferson.edu%2Fnursfp%2F34&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://jeffline.jefferson.edu/Education/surveys/jdc.cfm
http://jdc.jefferson.edu/nursfp?utm_source=jdc.jefferson.edu%2Fnursfp%2F34&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/718?utm_source=jdc.jefferson.edu%2Fnursfp%2F34&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://www.jefferson.edu/university/teaching-learning.html/
Organizational Culture 1
As submitted to:
Nursing Forum
And later published as:
Defining and Assessing Organizational Culture
Volume 46, Issue 1, pages 29â37, January-March 2011
DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6198.2010.00207.x
The target of much debate, organizational culture has occupied a prominent
position in multidisciplinary publications since the early 1980s. Fraught with
inconsistencies, the early research and literature addressing organizational culture was
often conflicting and recursive. As one researcher stated, culture is âone of the two or
three most complicated words in the English languageâ (Williams, 1983). Years of
conceptualization, comparison and assessment have led to an emerging consensus on the
appropriate definition and role for organizational culture. This manuscript documents the
h ...
163Š Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021R. P. Dealey, M. R. KiyokoSlagleis
Â
163Š Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
R. P. Dealey, M. R. Evans (eds.), Discovering Theory in Clinical Practice,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57310-2_12
Chapter 12
Systems Theory: The Case of Esperanza
Madeline PĂŠrez De JesĂşs, Enitzaida RodrĂguez, and Gladis Anaya
Introduction to Systems Theory
Systems theory calls practitioners to examine the relational dynamics between
individuals, and between and within groups, organizations, or communities, as well
as mutually influencing factors in the environment (Leighninger, 1977). While
systems theory is commonly used in social work, the authors argue that the profes-
sion would benefit from expanding its scope to intentionally explore issues of
diversity and the impact of trauma. This chapter demonstrates how systems theory
supports culturally informed clinical practice by highlighting the case of
âEsperanza,â a 16-year-old ninth-grade student who, with thousands of others,
migrated from Puerto Rico to urban cities in the Northeast and other areas in the
United States after being displaced by Hurricane Maria in 2017. Two Latinx social
workers enter Esperanzaâs life in her new high school setting in Hartford,
Connecticut.
The authorsâ overview of systems theory includes a perspective on how problems
arise, how systems theory facilitates understandings of the change process, and
implications regarding complementary interventions that are can be used based on
this theory. The case study of Esperanza details her demographics, family dynamics,
and various ecological factors that influence her situation. Theoretical integration
M. P. De JesĂşs (*)
Department of Social Work and Equitable Community Practice, University of Saint Joseph,
West Hartford, CT, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
E. RodrĂguez
School Social Worker, University of Saint Joseph, West Hartford, CT, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
G. Anaya
University of Saint Joseph, West Hartford, CT, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
164
follows the case example, with the authors demonstrating how systems theory
informed social workers approach to treating the client and understanding the
clientâs response. Important considerations regarding intracultural and intercultural
factors that influenced clinical intervention effectiveness are described. The authors
note that systems theory also served as a tool for resolving a practice conflict for the
social workers. In the concluding section, the authors pose discussion questions to
support readers in thinking critically about the usefulness of systems theory and the
process of integrating theory into clinical practice.
The overarching premise in systems theory is that there is reciprocity in the inter-
locking relationships between people, families, social networks, neighborhoods,
and other related systems (Leighninger, 1977). This reciprocity includes elements in
the environment such as nature, encompassing physics, chemistry, biology, and
social relationships. Wh ...
163Š Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021R. P. Dealey, M. R. AnastaciaShadelb
Â
163Š Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
R. P. Dealey, M. R. Evans (eds.), Discovering Theory in Clinical Practice,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57310-2_12
Chapter 12
Systems Theory: The Case of Esperanza
Madeline PĂŠrez De JesĂşs, Enitzaida RodrĂguez, and Gladis Anaya
Introduction to Systems Theory
Systems theory calls practitioners to examine the relational dynamics between
individuals, and between and within groups, organizations, or communities, as well
as mutually influencing factors in the environment (Leighninger, 1977). While
systems theory is commonly used in social work, the authors argue that the profes-
sion would benefit from expanding its scope to intentionally explore issues of
diversity and the impact of trauma. This chapter demonstrates how systems theory
supports culturally informed clinical practice by highlighting the case of
âEsperanza,â a 16-year-old ninth-grade student who, with thousands of others,
migrated from Puerto Rico to urban cities in the Northeast and other areas in the
United States after being displaced by Hurricane Maria in 2017. Two Latinx social
workers enter Esperanzaâs life in her new high school setting in Hartford,
Connecticut.
The authorsâ overview of systems theory includes a perspective on how problems
arise, how systems theory facilitates understandings of the change process, and
implications regarding complementary interventions that are can be used based on
this theory. The case study of Esperanza details her demographics, family dynamics,
and various ecological factors that influence her situation. Theoretical integration
M. P. De JesĂşs (*)
Department of Social Work and Equitable Community Practice, University of Saint Joseph,
West Hartford, CT, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
E. RodrĂguez
School Social Worker, University of Saint Joseph, West Hartford, CT, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
G. Anaya
University of Saint Joseph, West Hartford, CT, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
164
follows the case example, with the authors demonstrating how systems theory
informed social workers approach to treating the client and understanding the
clientâs response. Important considerations regarding intracultural and intercultural
factors that influenced clinical intervention effectiveness are described. The authors
note that systems theory also served as a tool for resolving a practice conflict for the
social workers. In the concluding section, the authors pose discussion questions to
support readers in thinking critically about the usefulness of systems theory and the
process of integrating theory into clinical practice.
The overarching premise in systems theory is that there is reciprocity in the inter-
locking relationships between people, families, social networks, neighborhoods,
and other related systems (Leighninger, 1977). This reciprocity includes elements in
the environment such as nature, encompassing physics, chemistry, biology, and
social relationships. Wh ...
Student ID No. 1619853Contemporary Issues in International.docxcpatriciarpatricia
Â
Student ID No. 1619853
Contemporary Issues in International Management (MOD004160)
List (A) - The Population Ecology of Organisations
Introduction
The journal paper of Hannan and Freeman (1977) looks at the relationship between organisations and the environment and how organisations emerge, grow and die over a long period of time. They apply the population ecology theories to the population of organisations, which they use as their level of analysis, as opposed to the organisation or community level.
Their research is debating that the selection model is favoured over the adaption model, which at the time of their research, the majority of literature was focussed on the adaption model. They favour the selection model due to the structural inertia limiting the organisations ability to adapt to changing environments. They mention the inertial pressures that arise from both internal structural arrangements and environmental constraints and argue that in order to deal with the various inertial pressures the adaption perspective must be supplemented with a selection orientation (pp. 933).
Two broad issues are considered, the first regarding the unit of analyses where they argue for an explicit focus on populations of organisations, rather than the view of a single organisation and the environment. The second is the application of population ecology models to the study of human social organisations.
All the above they hope to answer their research question âwhy are there so many kinds of organisations?â
Literature Review
The fundamental part of their research started with Hawleyâs (1950, 1968) statement on human ecology, they state that Hawleyâs perspective serves a useful starting point for population ecology theories when extended to include competition models and niche theory.
When reviewing competition theory they continue to focus on the process of selection, in that isomorphism happens because nonoptimal forms are selected out of a community of organisations (pp.939) and that competition is a mechanism for producing isomorphism (pp.940). They use the literature of Hummon, Dorian, and Teuter (1975) and Blau and Scott (1962) to construct their ecological model of competition by stating the nature of the population growth process and to support their view that the rate of growth or decline in populations of organisations is due to environmental changes.
They represent this environmental change by using Hutchinsonâs (1957) formulation model to show Levins (1962, 1968) theory of niche width.
Methodology
The paper is a conceptual paper and does not include any empirical research to support their theories. Throughout the paper there are several references to empirical research and at one point the authors expressed their frustration at the lack of empirical research available on rates of selection in populations of organisations (pp.959).
Rather than start from the beginning, Hannan and Freeman (1977) chose to adopt the methodology of Hawley.
Running head: EXECUTIVE 1
EXECUTIVE 6
Executive Summary
Kelly Player
Azusa Pacific University
UNRS 306: Writing 2: Theoretical Frameworks in Nursing
Renee Marquez, RN, MSN, DNP, PMHNP
July 16, 2018
Executive Summary
General systems theory was originally proposed by biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy in 1928. Systems theory reviews the organization and properties of systems regarding relationships, from which new properties of wholes emerge. A system could be broken down into its individual components so that each component could be analyzed as an independent entity, and the components could be added in a linear fashion to describe the totality of the system. Von Bertalanffy proposed, a system is characterized by the interactions of its components and the nonlinearity of those interactions.
History of Theory
The general system theory was introduced by Ludwig von Bertalanffy in the 1920s. General System Theory (GST) started out as result of a number of disciplines such as biology, mathematics, social science and philosophy. As many disciplines emerged the goal and role of general system theory started to change to. Even though von Bertalanffy started to think about GST in the 1930s, he didn't articulate the vision until 1954 at the AAAS conference. According to Ray (2000) the vision of von Bertalanffy was to obtain biologically minded scientists to consider their work from a holistic perspective. His thought was to include the goal of constructing a mechanism which can be used to reduce duplication of theoretical effort in the sciences. The proposal was to have GST serve as unifying for philosophers to become committed to building a serious theory (Ray, 2000).
Major Precepts of Theory
Disease and health should be looked at as a graduated scale, or health grid. The health grid is broken in three parts: the health axis (peak-wellness to death), the environmental axis (biological, physical, and socioeconomic factors), and the resulting health and wellness quadrants. Those quadrants are: poor health in an unfavorable environment, protected poor health in a favorable environment, emergent high-level wellness in an unfavorable environment, and high-level wellness in a favorable environment (Dunn, 1959). Man is a spiritual being and it cannot be ignored when trying to achieve high-level wellness. The mind, body, and spirit must be taken care of as once unit, instead of compartmentally.
Current Applications of Theory
There are steps to quantify positive health:
1) Effect refinements in incidence and prevalence rates to demarcate more clearly the area of positive health from that of illness and disability. 2) Develop susceptibility indexes through the use of biochemical and functional tests to differentiate groups of persons most susceptible to specific diseases and conditions. 3) Establish precursors-of-disease indexes, closely related to the foregoing and designed to show variations from the normal. 4)Select groups of peop.
Why have the artists created these works and what are they.docxphilipnelson29183
Â
Why have the artists created these works and what are they saying about their culture?
Explain how each artist has used the following to make that statement.visual elements (shape or form, line texture, light, value, color, space and movement) principles of design
(unity and variety, balance, focal point, scale, proportion, and rhythm) subject mattermaterials and techniques
Sample Essay 1 (25 points) Compare and contrast these works in terms of:
High Renaissance
Raphael, School of Athens, 1509-10. Fresco, 200 x 300 â.
Photorealism
Chuck Close, Big Self-Portrait, 1967-68.
Acrylic on canvas. 107 ½âx 83 1/2â.
*
Why have the artists created these works and what are they saying about their culture?
Explain how each artist has used the following to make that statement.visual elements (shape or form, line texture, light, value, color, space and movement) principles of design
(unity and variety, balance, focal point, scale, proportion, and rhythm) subject mattermaterials and techniques
Sample Essay 2 (25 points) Compare and contrast these works in terms of:
Boticelli
Birth of Venus, 1486. Tempera on canvas, 67.9Â ĂÂ 109.6Â â
Kees Van Dongen
Femme Fatale. Oil on canvas, 32 X 24â.
German Expressionism, 1905
*
Integrative and Biopsychosocial Approaches in Contemporary Clinical Psychology
Chapter Objective
¡ To highlight and outline how contemporary clinical psychology integrates the major theoretical models using a biopsychosocial approach.
Chapter Outline
¡ The Call to Integration
¡ Biopsychosocial Integration
¡ Synthesizing Biological, Psychological, and Social Factors in Contemporary Integration
¡ Highlight of a Contemporary Clinical Psychologist: Stephanie Pinder-Amaker, PhD
¡ Application of the Biopsychosocial Perspective to Contemporary Clinical Psychology Problems
¡ Conclusion
Having now reviewed the four major theoretical and historical models in psychology in Chapter 5, this chapter illustrates how integration is achieved in the actual science and practice of clinical psychology. In addition to psychological perspectives per se, a full integration of human functioning demands a synthesis of psychological factors with both biological and social elements. This combination of biological, psychological, and social factors comprises an example of contemporary integration in the form of the biopsychosocial perspective. This chapter describes the evolution of individual psychological perspectives into a more comprehensive biopsychosocial synthesis, perhaps first touched upon 2,500 years ago by the Greeks.
The Call to Integration
While there are over 400 different types of approaches to psychotherapy and other professional services offered by clinical psychologists (Karasu, 1986), the major schools of thought reviewed and illustrated in Chapter 5 have emerged during the past century as the primary perspectives in clinical psychology. As mentioned, these include the psychodynamic, cognitive-behavioral, humanistic, and family s.
Integrative and Biopsychosocial Approaches in Contemporary Clinica.docxnormanibarber20063
Â
Integrative and Biopsychosocial Approaches in Contemporary Clinical Psychology
Chapter Objective
¡ To highlight and outline how contemporary clinical psychology integrates the major theoretical models using a biopsychosocial approach.
Chapter Outline
¡ The Call to Integration
¡ Biopsychosocial Integration
¡ Synthesizing Biological, Psychological, and Social Factors in Contemporary Integration
¡ Highlight of a Contemporary Clinical Psychologist: Stephanie Pinder-Amaker, PhD
¡ Application of the Biopsychosocial Perspective to Contemporary Clinical Psychology Problems
¡ Conclusion
Having now reviewed the four major theoretical and historical models in psychology in Chapter 5, this chapter illustrates how integration is achieved in the actual science and practice of clinical psychology. In addition to psychological perspectives per se, a full integration of human functioning demands a synthesis of psychological factors with both biological and social elements. This combination of biological, psychological, and social factors comprises an example of contemporary integration in the form of the biopsychosocial perspective. This chapter describes the evolution of individual psychological perspectives into a more comprehensive biopsychosocial synthesis, perhaps first touched upon 2,500 years ago by the Greeks.
The Call to Integration
While there are over 400 different types of approaches to psychotherapy and other professional services offered by clinical psychologists (Karasu, 1986), the major schools of thought reviewed and illustrated in Chapter 5 have emerged during the past century as the primary perspectives in clinical psychology. As mentioned, these include the psychodynamic, cognitive-behavioral, humanistic, and family systems approaches. Prior to the 1980s, most psychologists tended to adhere to one of these theoretical approaches in their research, psychotherapy, assessment, and consultation. Numerous institutes, centers, and professional journals were (and still are) devoted to the advancement, research, and practice of individual perspectives (e.g., Behavior Therapy and International Journal of Psychoanalysis). Professionals typically affiliate themselves with one perspective and the professional journals and organizations represented by that perspective (e.g., Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies), and have little interaction or experience with the other perspectives or organizations. Opinions are often dogmatic and other perspectives and organizations viewed with skepticism or even disdain. Surprisingly, psychologists with research and science training sometimes choose not to use their objective and critical thinking skills when discussing the merits and limitations of theoretical frameworks different from their own. Choice of theoretical orientation is typically a by-product of graduate and postgraduate training, the personality of the professional, and the general worldview held of human nature. Even geographical regions.
Redmon, W. K. (2001). Handbook of organizational performance. [Vit.docxsodhi3
Â
Redmon, W. K. (2001). Handbook of organizational performance. [VitalSource Bookshelf Online]. Retrieved fromhttps://kaplan.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781136389993/
In-text citation: (Redmon, 2001)
Chapter 16
Ethics and Behavior Analysis in Management
Ethical issues seem to dominate the news these days, and they extend to all areas of human endeavor including, of course, business and psychology. This chapter explores the topic of ethical issues when behavioral methods are applied to industrial/organizational (I/O) settings. The goal is not to create ethical guidelines. Rather, it is to provide an overview of the types of ethical guidelines already available as well as the nature, relevance, and importance of ethical issues that underlie such guidelines.
WHAT ARE ETHICAL PRINCIPLES?
Philosophers have long debated ethical issues. Numerous competing schools each adhere to tenets that not only are different, but sometimes opposite (Macklin, 1982). Part of this debate concerns the basic issue of how to define an ethical principle.
Philosophers sometimes quibble over whether our perceptions are reliable indicators of reality, but this issue seems to be of less concern to scientists. Scientists start with the observable, or what can be defined in terms of the observable (operational definitions). In most cases, there is a strong consensus about what is really âout there,â a consensus that is in large part based upon the consistency among observations. Scientists then attempt to find relationships between these observable entities or events, an activity that produces factual statements called laws. Factual statements deal with what might be called objective reality, descriptions about how things are.
In addition to factual statements, there are statements of value. Value statements are assertions about what is âgood,â âright,â or âwrong,â and how entities and events in the world should be, not the way they necessarily are. Value statements are a cornerstone of ethics. Ethical principles look beyond what is, and ask what should be.
Other chapters in this book describe principles that can be used in organizational settings to modify behavior. In effect, the authors are presenting laws describing relationships between antecedent conditions, behaviors, and consequences. The process of discovering and describing these laws is identical to the process of discovering and describing laws in all other sciences, and as such, is grounded in objective reality and statements of fact. This chapter goes beyond such objective considerations and deals with ethical issues associated with the discovery and use of such laws.
WHY WOULD ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT RAISE ETHICAL CONCERNS?
Organizational behavior management (OBM) utilizes information derived from the field of behavior analysis (Mawhinney, 1984). Behavior analysis attempts to find universal laws of behavior. As a scientist, the behavior analyst believes that human behavior is lawful in the same sense th ...
11Systems TheoryBRUCE D. FRIEDMAN AND KAREN NEUMAN ALL.docxmoggdede
Â
11
Systems Theory
BRUCE D. FRIEDMAN AND KAREN NEUMAN ALLEN
3
Biopsychosocial assessment and the develop-ment of appropriate intervention strategies for
a particular client require consideration of the indi-
vidual in relation to a larger social context. To
accomplish this, we use principles and concepts
derived from systems theory. Systems theory is a
way of elaborating increasingly complex systems
across a continuum that encompasses the person-in-
environment (Anderson, Carter, & Lowe, 1999).
Systems theory also enables us to understand the
components and dynamics of client systems in order
to interpret problems and develop balanced inter-
vention strategies, with the goal of enhancing the
âgoodness of fitâ between individuals and their
environments. Systems theory does not specify par-
ticular theoretical frameworks for understanding
problems, and it does not direct the social worker to
specific intervention strategies. Rather, it serves as
an organizing conceptual framework or metatheory
for understanding (Meyer, 1983).
As a profession, social work has struggled to
identify an organizing framework for practice that
captures the nature of what we do. Many have iden-
tified systems theory as that organizing framework
(Goldstein, 1990; Hearn, 1958; Meyer, 1976, 1983;
Siporin, 1980). However, because of the complex
nature of the clinical enterprise, others have chal-
lenged the suitability of systems theory as an orga-
nizing framework for clinical practice (Fook, Ryan,
& Hawkins, 1997; Wakefield, 1996a, 1996b).
The term system emerged from Ămile Durkheimâs
early study of social systems (Robbins, Chatterjee,
& Canda, 2006), as well as from the work of
Talcott Parsons. However, within social work, sys-
tems thinking has been more heavily influenced by
the work of the biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy
and later adaptations by the social psychologist Uri
Bronfenbrenner, who examined human biological
systems within an ecological environment. With
its roots in von Bertalanffyâs systems theory and
Bronfenbrennerâs ecological environment, the
ecosys tems perspective provides a framework that
permits users to draw on theories from different dis-
ciplines in order to analyze the complex nature of
human interactions within a social environment.
RELEVANT HISTORY
Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1901â1972), as mentioned
above, is credited with being the originator of the
form of systems theory used in social work. Von
Bertalanffy, a theoretical biologist born and educated
in Austria, became dis satisfied with the way linear,
cause-and-effect theories explained growth and
change in living organisms. He felt that change might
occur because of the interac tions between the parts
of an organism, a point of view that represented a
dramatic change from the theories of his day.
Existing theories had tended to be reductionis t,
understanding the whole by breaking it into its parts.
Von Bertalanffyâs introduction of systems theory
changed that framework by looki ...
Evolutionary Psychologyand Business Ethics ResearchDavid.docxgitagrimston
Â
Evolutionary Psychology
and Business Ethics Research
David M. Wasieleski and Sefa Hayibor
ABSTRACT: In this article, we describe evolutionary psychology and its potential con-
tribution to business ethics research. After summarizing evolutionary theory and natural
selection, we specifically address the use of evolutionary concepts in psychology in order
to offer alternative explanations of behavior relevant to business ethics, such as social
exchange, cooperation, altruism, and reciprocity. Our position is that individuals, groups,
and organizations all are affected by similar natural, evolutionary processes, such that
evolutionary psychology is applicable at multiple levels of analysis (e.g., individual and
group). We introduce a variety of experiments and instruments employed by evolutionary
psychologists to illustrate how ethics-relevant cultural norms and practices evolve and are
regulated, and to raise the prospect that these experiments and instruments can be useful in
future business ethics research.
INTRODUCTION
DESPITE EXTENSIVE EEFORTS BY SCHOLARS m various fields to un-derstand moral behavior, Reynolds and Ceranic recently observed that "the
quantity and quality of knowledge that we have acquired about why individuals act
ethically and unethically is incredibly low," and they argued that empirical ethics
researchers must make "significant changes in our overall approach to our research"
(Reynolds & Ceranic, 2007: 1610). Some researchers have looked to the neurosci-
ences for advances in the explanation of ethical behavior (e.g., Reynolds, 2006;
Salvador & Folger, 2009). In this article, we review the potential contribution to the
social scientific study of organizational ethics from a different (though not entirely
unrelated) approach to understanding ethical behavior: the evolutionary approach.
Specifically, we review theories and insights from evolutionary psychology, and
then consider how an evolutionary approach might inform business ethics research
at different levels of analysis. In essence, we rely on an evolutionary approach to
provide some underlying assumptions concerning human behavior that in turn can
be utilized in business ethics research. Our approach is in keeping with other recent
efforts to incorporate biological evolution into the organizational sciences (Hies,
Arvey, & Bouchard, 2006; Nicholson & White, 2006; Pierce & White, 1999; Saad,
2006). If human nature is profoundly affected by the evolutionary history of our
species (Nicholson, 1998), it is reasonable to expect that evolutionary theories can
provide clues into behavior within organizations.
Some biologists have suggested that evolutionary theories provide opportunity
for business ethicists to understand and thus "fortify the other-oriented tendencies
Š2009 Business Ethics Quarterly 19:4 (October 2009); ISSN 1052-150X pp. 587-616
588 BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY
of human beingsâour tendencies toward sympathy, reciprocity, and loyaltyâand
to counter ...
Synthetic Fiber Construction in lab .pptxPavel ( NSTU)
Â
Synthetic fiber production is a fascinating and complex field that blends chemistry, engineering, and environmental science. By understanding these aspects, students can gain a comprehensive view of synthetic fiber production, its impact on society and the environment, and the potential for future innovations. Synthetic fibers play a crucial role in modern society, impacting various aspects of daily life, industry, and the environment. ynthetic fibers are integral to modern life, offering a range of benefits from cost-effectiveness and versatility to innovative applications and performance characteristics. While they pose environmental challenges, ongoing research and development aim to create more sustainable and eco-friendly alternatives. Understanding the importance of synthetic fibers helps in appreciating their role in the economy, industry, and daily life, while also emphasizing the need for sustainable practices and innovation.
Students, digital devices and success - Andreas Schleicher - 27 May 2024..pptxEduSkills OECD
Â
Andreas Schleicher presents at the OECD webinar âDigital devices in schools: detrimental distraction or secret to success?â on 27 May 2024. The presentation was based on findings from PISA 2022 results and the webinar helped launch the PISA in Focus âManaging screen time: How to protect and equip students against distractionâ https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/managing-screen-time_7c225af4-en and the OECD Education Policy Perspective âStudents, digital devices and successâ can be found here - https://oe.cd/il/5yV
The Roman Empire A Historical Colossus.pdfkaushalkr1407
Â
The Roman Empire, a vast and enduring power, stands as one of history's most remarkable civilizations, leaving an indelible imprint on the world. It emerged from the Roman Republic, transitioning into an imperial powerhouse under the leadership of Augustus Caesar in 27 BCE. This transformation marked the beginning of an era defined by unprecedented territorial expansion, architectural marvels, and profound cultural influence.
The empire's roots lie in the city of Rome, founded, according to legend, by Romulus in 753 BCE. Over centuries, Rome evolved from a small settlement to a formidable republic, characterized by a complex political system with elected officials and checks on power. However, internal strife, class conflicts, and military ambitions paved the way for the end of the Republic. Julius Caesarâs dictatorship and subsequent assassination in 44 BCE created a power vacuum, leading to a civil war. Octavian, later Augustus, emerged victorious, heralding the Roman Empireâs birth.
Under Augustus, the empire experienced the Pax Romana, a 200-year period of relative peace and stability. Augustus reformed the military, established efficient administrative systems, and initiated grand construction projects. The empire's borders expanded, encompassing territories from Britain to Egypt and from Spain to the Euphrates. Roman legions, renowned for their discipline and engineering prowess, secured and maintained these vast territories, building roads, fortifications, and cities that facilitated control and integration.
The Roman Empireâs society was hierarchical, with a rigid class system. At the top were the patricians, wealthy elites who held significant political power. Below them were the plebeians, free citizens with limited political influence, and the vast numbers of slaves who formed the backbone of the economy. The family unit was central, governed by the paterfamilias, the male head who held absolute authority.
Culturally, the Romans were eclectic, absorbing and adapting elements from the civilizations they encountered, particularly the Greeks. Roman art, literature, and philosophy reflected this synthesis, creating a rich cultural tapestry. Latin, the Roman language, became the lingua franca of the Western world, influencing numerous modern languages.
Roman architecture and engineering achievements were monumental. They perfected the arch, vault, and dome, constructing enduring structures like the Colosseum, Pantheon, and aqueducts. These engineering marvels not only showcased Roman ingenuity but also served practical purposes, from public entertainment to water supply.
Operation âBlue Starâ is the only event in the history of Independent India where the state went into war with its own people. Even after about 40 years it is not clear if it was culmination of states anger over people of the region, a political game of power or start of dictatorial chapter in the democratic setup.
The people of Punjab felt alienated from main stream due to denial of their just demands during a long democratic struggle since independence. As it happen all over the word, it led to militant struggle with great loss of lives of military, police and civilian personnel. Killing of Indira Gandhi and massacre of innocent Sikhs in Delhi and other India cities was also associated with this movement.
How to Make a Field invisible in Odoo 17Celine George
Â
It is possible to hide or invisible some fields in odoo. Commonly using âinvisibleâ attribute in the field definition to invisible the fields. This slide will show how to make a field invisible in odoo 17.
How to Create Map Views in the Odoo 17 ERPCeline George
Â
The map views are useful for providing a geographical representation of data. They allow users to visualize and analyze the data in a more intuitive manner.
The Art Pastor's Guide to Sabbath | Steve ThomasonSteve Thomason
Â
What is the purpose of the Sabbath Law in the Torah. It is interesting to compare how the context of the law shifts from Exodus to Deuteronomy. Who gets to rest, and why?
Unit 8 - Information and Communication Technology (Paper I).pdfThiyagu K
Â
This slides describes the basic concepts of ICT, basics of Email, Emerging Technology and Digital Initiatives in Education. This presentations aligns with the UGC Paper I syllabus.
The Indian economy is classified into different sectors to simplify the analysis and understanding of economic activities. For Class 10, it's essential to grasp the sectors of the Indian economy, understand their characteristics, and recognize their importance. This guide will provide detailed notes on the Sectors of the Indian Economy Class 10, using specific long-tail keywords to enhance comprehension.
For more information, visit-www.vavaclasses.com
1. Group Systems Theory 1
Running head: GROUP SYSTEMS THEORY
A Review of Group Systems Theory
Joanie V. Connors
Fayetteville, Arkansas
Richard B. Caple
University of Missouri
Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 2005
Joanie V. Connors is a consultant in private practice in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Richard B.
Caple is a professor emeritus from the Department of Counseling Psychology, University of
Missouri, in Columbia, Missouri.
Correspondence concerning the article should be addressed to: Joanie V. Connors, 885
North Fritz Drive, Fayetteville, AR 72701; Phone: 479-582-0074; Email:
jconnors@highstream.net.
2. Group Systems Theories 2
Abstract
The ability to see interpersonal and group processes beyond the individual level is an essential
skill for group therapists (Crouch, Bloch & Wanlass, 1994; Dies, 1994; Fuhriman & Burlingame,
1994). In addition to interpersonal therapy models (e.g. Sullivan and Yalom), there are a number
of systems theory models which offer a broad array of possibilities for developing group
practitioner perspectives beyond individual dynamics. This paper will outline the background
and conceptual bases for a number of models which now comprise a category called group
systems theory. Group systems theory can provide a variety of directions for innovations in
group research and practice.
Keywords: systems theory, group theories, group systems theory
3. Group Systems Theories 3
A Review of Group Systems Theory
Systemic approaches to group work appear to be gradually receiving more attention
among group practitioners as reflected in the scholarly literature on groups. There are now four
group counseling and therapy books that are systemic in focus (Agazarian, 1997; Donigian &
Malnati, 1997; Durkin, J. E., 1981c; McClure, 1998). There are also a growing number of
academic fields considering systems theory, including communication studies (Tubbs, 2003) and
sociology (Mingers, 1995). Three group counseling and therapy textbooks now have chapters on
systems theory or their applications (Donigian & Hulse-Killacky, 1999; Kline, 2003; Napier &
Gershenfeld, 2004), and three other group texts discuss systems in their historical overviews
(Forsyth, 1999; Gladding, 1995; Toseland & Rivas, 2001). There have also been a number of
scholarly articles on groups as systems (e.g. Caple, 1985; 1987a; 1987b; Durkin, 1989; Hines,
1988b; Matthews, 1992; Trotzer, 1988).
Systems thinking is an important way to expand and strengthen the supra-individual
theory base of group practitioners beyond interpersonal theories. While interpersonal analysis
enlightens us about interpersonal exchanges in the past and present, systems analyses add a focus
on the whole group with its multileveled process and address how groups evolve over time. In
our therapeutic roles with groups, it is important to understand group systems thinking because a
systems perspective adds qualities such as boundary conditions, communication inflow, outflow,
and between-flow, and group change management to our consideration. Understanding group
systems qualities such as these adds more depth and power to our work with groups.
While the majority of group specialists are knowledgeable about interpersonal and
systemic psychotherapy, many counselors and therapists who work with groups are not,
4. Group Systems Theories 4
continuing to conduct individual therapy in group settings. Greater awareness of group systems
theory models would give those practitioners a way to understand and work with groups that
allows them to move beyond theory and practice based solely upon individual models.
This paper will present a summary of systems theory and group systems theory models
by past and present authors. The basic concepts of group systems theory will be explained and
then applied to established group concepts.
Background
General System Theory
General System Theory (GST) was first elaborated by a biologist, Ludwig von
Bertalanffy in the 1940âs (1968). Von Bertalanffy called his theory âa general science of
wholenessâ (p. 37) and his basic point was that there is a similarity of structure across biological
organisms that extends from the micro level to the macro level, including cells, human beings,
human social groups and organizations, and whole societies (von Bertalanffy, 1951; 1968). His
interdisciplinary theory also included views of how systemic structures and boundaries function,
as well as the need to consider the whole as greater than the sum of its parts (Holism). Von
Bertalanffy proposed a number of ideas about how systems work, including their dynamic, ever
changing nature, their evolution to greater complexity through a process known as self-
organization, and their self-stabilizing energy dynamics, similar to that which later became
known as homeostasis.
Field Theory
Kurt Lewinâs field theory of social functioning was developed at the same time von
Bertalanffy was working on systems theory and appears to have had more influence on social
and group psychology literature (Hall & Lindsay, 1978; MacKenzie, 1994). Lewinâs field theory
5. Group Systems Theories 5
emphasizes that an individual or group studied in isolation loses the importance of its context
and emphasized the idea of understanding an individualâs âlife spaceâ (Hall & Lindsay). Lewinâs
theory established a number of ideas that are parallel to systems thinking, such as the holistic
nature of group functioning, boundaries, the interdependence of elements and the whole, and the
hierarchy of groups (Hall & Lindsay).
Systems Theory in the Twenty First Century
Von Bertalanffyâs General System Theory (1951; 1968) created a stir in the sciences,
leading to what has become known as âSystems Theoryâ, an interdisciplinary approach which
has generated applications in a growing number of fields, including philosophy, mathematics,
engineering, ecological sciences, management and family therapy (Heylighen & Joslyn, 2000).
There are a number of systems theory associations, including the International Society for the
Systems Sciences (www.isss.org), the International Institute for Advanced Studies in Systems
Research & Cybernetics (http://www.iias.edu/) and the System Dynamics Society
(http://www.albany.edu/cpr/sds/index.html). Among the many systemic journals are the
International Journal of General Systems (http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/03081079.asp),
the International Journal of Systems Science
(http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/00207721.aspa), and the Journal of Systemic Therapies
(http://www.guilford.com/periodicals/jnst.htm).
Systems theory is now considered to be part of a third wave of scientific theories which
enlarge our view beyond linear, cause and effect thinking (Banathy, 2004; McClure, 1998).
Similar or parallel theories that have also evolved since Systems Theory include Cybernetics
(Heylighen & Joslyn, 2000), and Chaos Theory (McClure). There have also been systems-
offspring theories such as Autopoiesis (Mingers, 1995), Living Systems Theory, Systems
6. Group Systems Theories 6
Design, Critical Systems Thinking (Banathy), and a number of theories which fit under the
category of Family Systems Theory.
Family Systems Theory
Gregory Bateson used many general system theory concepts in developing his early
theory of family systems (Cox & Paley, 1997). Bateson saw the family group as greater than the
sum of its individual members, and posited that it was the family system that needed to change,
not the individual deemed âsickâ who is brought in for therapy. Family systems theory has since
been developed by a number of theorists over the last 50 years, including Salvador Minuchin,
Jay Haley, and many others, and has dominated the practice of family treatment throughout
much of the developed world (Cox & Paley).
Patterns that are often explored in family systems therapy include alliances, rituals,
enmeshment, disengagement, the creation of the identified patient or scapegoat, and the
leadership patterns of parents or parentified children. Child development specialists employ
additional concepts from systems theory that are commonly examined and worked on in family
treatment, including positive attention, communication skills and developmentally appropriate
power dynamics (Nelsen, Lott, & Glenn, 1999). Researchers Kantor and Lehr (1975) developed
a highly systemic method for analyzing family use of time, space, energy, affect, power and
meaning that is seldom cited but holds much value for systems thinkers.
Family systems theories were promoted by strong personalities from their 1950âs
beginning, and their early proponents audaciously rejected individual theories of personality for
family treatment. Due in part to these pioneersâ persistence, family systems thinking became the
controversy of the therapy world, was read and talked about, and gradually became accepted by
academics and practitioners. This widespread knowledge and acceptance in the therapeutic
7. Group Systems Theories 7
community led to the formation of family therapy professional organizations and licensure
processes that require systemic knowledge and training.
In contrast, promoters of group systems thinking have been generally less dogmatic, and
more moderate, which may account for the lack of awareness of it among the public and
unfortunately, many psychotherapists. Hopefully, the widespread understanding of families as
systems can become the groundwork for understanding groups as systems.
Applications of Systems Theory to Groups
Group communications. In 1978, Tubbs published ASystems Approach to Small Group
Interactions for use as a textbook in communications classes in which he outlined a systemic
view of communication processes, internal influences, and conflict resolution in groups and
organizations. Tubbs notes that his book was the only one to address general system theory in the
communications field, although he reports systems have been more influential in organizational
psychology. It appears that Tubbsâ approach to group communications has a steady place in that
field since his book was re-released in 2003 in its eighth edition.
Group therapy. In 1981, after ten years of work, the American Group Psychotherapy
Associationâs General System Theory Committee produced a book Living groups: Group
Psychotherapy and General System Theory that was the first major application of general system
theory to therapy groups (Durkin, J.E., 1981c; Durkin, H.E., 1981). The GST committeeâs theory
of âliving groupsâ is consistent with its roots in von Bertalanffyâs system theory, Their book
observed that groups are autonomous because their structure creates the capacity to be self-
defining, self-organizing, and self-regulating by exchanging energy and information with the
environment, and by making choices. The GST committee wrote about group systems roles,
8. Group Systems Theories 8
boundarying, energy and dynamics, and gave examples of therapeutic applications of general
system theory to groups.
The GST committee included a glossary of terms to describe the basic concepts of GST
used by the various authors in the book (Durkin, J.E., 1981b). This undoubtedly was due at least
in part to anticipating that few in the field of group work would have knowledge of these very
technical terms, and knowing that adaptation of GST to human behavior requires its own
definitions.
In 1982, the Association for Specialists in Group Work created a âCommission on Family
Counselingâ that worked to promote family and systems theory awareness in the group
counseling field (Hines, 1988a). This committeeâs work culminated in the 1988 special issue of
the Journal for Specialists in Group Work, called âThe Interface of Group and Family Therapy:
Implicationsâ which was guest edited by Max Hines. Articles in that issue explored the process
similarities and differences between group and family therapy, and proposed a need for
continuing dialogue between the two perspectives (Hines, 1988b). One of the articles proposed
some family system based group techniques (Trotzer, 1988) for group therapists to explore.
In the mid-1980âs, Caple took general system theory and elaborated on the concept of
self-organization as it applies to counseling practices (1985, 1987a, 1987b). Caple discussed the
need to make fundamental structural changes and to evolve to higher levels of complexity over
time in order to avoid stagnation. He applies this need to change to both individual and group
counseling, as well as to student affairs.
In 1992, Mathews examined general system theory and described his vision of systems
thinking to group work, including a method for applying systems thinking via Tuckmanâs group
developmental stages. He viewed systemic group leadership as needing to simultaneously attend
9. Group Systems Theories 9
to three levels of process: individual, interpersonal and whole group, while also focusing on
boundary dynamics and needs.
More recently, in 1997, Agazarian wrote an intriguing application of general system
theory to therapy groups, System-Centered Therapy for Groups. Agazarianâs âsystem-centeredâ
model applies GST to therapy groups, with techniques that focus on subgroups, which she says
are the basic unit of the group. She credits the concept of subsystems as being ârelatively new to
systems thinking and not central for most systems practitionersâ (Agazarian & Janoff, 1993, p.
33). Agazarianâs model of group systems therapy employs an innovative method called
âfunctional subgroupingâ, the forcing of subgroups around issues that arise in the course of
group, making members express their reactions explicitly so they can be processed. She also
brings in an element of analytic therapy by examining defense mechanisms involved in
subgrouping behaviors (1997).
Also in 1997, Donigian and Malnati published a systemic book on groups called
Systemic Group Therapy (1997). Their systemic group therapy model addresses group processes,
communication systems, stages and interventions in terms of the triad of member, group as a
whole and leader issues. Their brief book is rich in systemic thinking, bringing a systems
analysis to group history, anxiety, conflict, and blocks.
McClureâs 1998 book Putting a New Spin on Groups: The Science of Chaos is a
fascinating description of the manner in which physical processes are reflected in group and
social processes. His book relates systems thinking to chaos theory and presents insights about
the systemic and chaotic nature of group process. McClure describes a seven stage theory of
group development which is based on evolutionary process and forms an arc with descending
forming stages that turn on the point of the conflict stage and then ascends as members join and
10. Group Systems Theories 10
work. While he notes that all systemic leadership interventions come down to either containing
or perturbing the group, he describes a wide variety of systemic interventions, such as boundary
management, pattern recognition, process commentary, validation, and saying âenoughâ.
Group Systems Theory
As family systems theory is the greater label applied to numerous applications of
systemic thinking to families, group systems theory can be seen as the umbrella term for several
models, past, present and future, which apply systems concepts to group work. The scholarly
works presented above with their diverse views of groups as systems (Agazarian, 1997; Caple,
1987a; 1987b; Donigian & Malnati, 1997; Durkin, J. E., 1981c; Matthews, 1992) continue to
expand in influence and attention. It appears that models of group systems therapy have become
a distinct category of their own, with the potential to become an influential movement in the field
of group work.
Group systems models use systems concepts to clarify and enlighten group processes and
to identify interventions to move group dynamics in more healthy directions. Systems language
adds a number of dimensions to our ability to describe the states and processes seen in group
work. The following is a list and description of the most salient group systems concepts.
Holism
Systems theory emphasizes the holistic nature of organisms and their functioning: that no
individual operates in isolation, that members are dynamically interdependent, and that the whole
is greater than the sum of its parts (von Bertalanffy, 1951; 1968). In group systems thinking, a
whole group view is more important than the deepest understanding of individual members.
Group systems models would say that at any given moment, all groups are unique phenomena
11. Group Systems Theories 11
depending on their membership, social and historical context, group history, and other group
properties both defined and undefined. A group can never be replicated, nor can its environment.
Holism is a concept that gained apparent acceptance among humanistic therapists in the
past 5 decades, but many practicing group therapists are still unaware of its power in the group
room. Most therapists are still embedded in Western cultureâs idealization of the individual and
do not sufficiently focus on the needs, dynamics or development of the whole group,
organization, community, or society in psychosocial analyses or psychotherapeutic interventions.
Group systems theory holds that the first consideration in examining any group or
organization is the good of the whole group, while always bearing in mind the good of its
members and the environment, the larger system or systems which sustain it. In short, group
systems practitioners focus on âbig pictureâ thinking.
Group systems practitioners routinely energize group members to think of the whole
group atmosphere and process through asking questions such as âHow well is the group working
in the present interaction?â or âHow does the group feel right now?â. Once activated to think in
terms of the whole group dynamic, group members can eventually learn to question, probe, and
respond to holistic conditions, and to play a more active role in what the group does and
becomes. Holism has now gained significant consideration in the group therapy literature as a
research construct (Dies, 1994; Fuhriman & Burlingame, 1994).
Interdependence
Systems thinking holds that system elements are interdependent and that systems at all
levels are interdependent on each other. A solid body of research establishes the critical
connection between the personality and functioning of individuals and their past and present
relationships (Cox & Paley, 1997). The importance of interdependence is also born out by fifty
12. Group Systems Theories 12
years of group research which has established the effectiveness of interpersonal group therapy
for helping individual members with mental health issues (Fuhriman & Burlingame, 1994;
Stockton, 2003). Also, decades of social and psychological research establish the importance of
family, group, and community membership to the well being of individual members (Vander
Zanden, 2003).
Interdependence in group systems theory is the assumption that all members of a group
are interdependent with each other and that all groups are interdependent within and between
system levels (from the individual members to the greater world of concern). Each member of a
group plays an essential part in group dynamics and health, and what happens with one member
affects them all. There must be a balance of energy, a relative equality, between members of a
group for optimal functioning. Group experts are keenly aware of the importance of every
member and how silent or nonparticipating members often affect the group as a whole.
Dominating members or unequal power dynamics must be addressed or groups will tend to fall
into destructive interpersonal patterns and create negative outcomes.
Complimentarity. Complimentarity means that the differences in perspectives and goals
that members have within a group will be complementary and that all views provide important
information about the system and should be considered. These diverse perspectives will be
neither completely compatible nor completely different, and there will always be some common
ground and some conflict (Durkin, H.E., 1981). Joining perspectives together will reveal more
truths than any one perspective or any group perspective that does not include the views of
relevant members or systems.
13. Group Systems Theories 13
Structure
Structure is defined in general system theory as the arrangement of elements within an
entity that directs its functioning and boundarying from the environment. Systems theory
maintains that there is an âisomorphyâ or similarity of structure across systems, from the cell to
the greater social organism of the world. This common structure includes a boundary and a
power structure which control or guide administrative decisions about boundary conditions and
the input and output of energy, nutrients, and waste (von Bertalanffy, 1951; 1968).
Systemic structure is conceptualized as every system being a member of another system,
and every member of a system as a system in itself. Systems characteristics apply at every level,
from the intracellular level to the individual, to groups, communities, nations and ultimately to
the universe.
Group inquiry has long studied various aspects of group structure, and group system
theory defines group structure as it has become understood through those decades of group
research and practice. Group structure includes leader directiveness, pretreatment screening and
preparation, group rules and guidelines, and structured exercises (Kaul & Bednar, 1994;
McClure; 1998; Stockton, 2003). Structural elements within groups includes norms, goals, and
implicit or explicit decisions about what may be talked about and what may be done or not done.
Boundaries. Boundaries are the limits which define an entity or group, and they are
dynamically opened or closed to allow, or not allow, input from and export to the environment.
Systems theory describes the purpose of boundaries as maintaining integrity of the group (Caple,
1985), and maintains that separation helps focus group energy to ensure the survival of the group
entity. GST maintains that boundaries of living systems must be permeable and flexible to allow
in new information, which naturally leads to changes in the structure and dynamics.
14. Group Systems Theories 14
Family systems theory describes boundaries also as defining, focusing, and limiting
membersâ access and relationship to the environment. This ideally includes limits which must be
set within families for safety and well-being, such as curfews and controls for childrenâs safety,
and money spending limits to control for resource attainment and survival.
In group systems theory, group boundaries include membership criteria, concepts and
ideals which define the group or draw members together, or whatever boundaries contain the
group. Group facilitators must be concerned with member safety and well-being, like family
practitioners, so they must establish limits and structure for protection against harm.
Boundaries of a group may be very loose, as in the membership criteria for open self-help
groups, or they may be strict and inflexible, like the membership screening for some advanced
psychoanalytic training groups. There has been much discussion of the merits of open versus
closed groups in the group literature, but even the most liberal group boundaries are not totally
open. For example, members of open 12-step groups must not be self or other abusive on-site
and must have some acceptance of 12-step guidelines. Also, closed groups still inevitably suffer
attrition due to mobility and health changes, so they must have some mechanism for admitting
new members or their longevity will be limited.
Control and power structure. Systems theory defines control as the process for making
the many boundary decisions which influence the functioning and survival of an entity such as
when to be open, when to block and when to expand or contract. Power structure is seen as the
arrangement of elements that exert that control.
Family systems theory assumes there is a hierarchical power structure in which parents
must be the locus of major decisions for the family group, though consideration is made for how
extended family members can play powerful roles. Family and parenting research has found that
15. Group Systems Theories 15
strict authoritarian power structures seldom work well to raise healthy, functioning children, and
that a more democratic style of power sharing, giving votes, and earned freedom works better
with children (Baumrind, 1994; Vander Zanden, 2003). Also, family researchers have noted that
parents must balance their power with concern for empowering children through giving them the
chance to try out their own abilities and make their own mistakes in a developmentally
appropriate way (Cox & Paley, 1997).
In group systems theory, control and the power structure of a group can be observed
through discerning how, and by whom, decisions are made and how group dynamics are directed
or influenced. Group power structures can include linear power hierarchies, unclear or dishonest
power figures, an organization of group roles, or some combination of these. Research on group
structure finds that some structural control is needed, especially in the early stages of a group,
but overall it appears that less controlling leaders help facilitate more positive outcomes (Dies,
1994; Stockton, 2003).
Group Interactions
Systems theory maintains that systems have dynamic interactions between their elements,
that they must interact with their environment in an open energy exchange, and that
communication is the process for transferring that energy (von Bertalanffy, 1968). Living
organisms have open boundaries through which there is a continuous flow of energy into the
system and out to the environment, and this energy flow creates fluctuations which must be dealt
with (von Bertalanffy; Caple, 1985). Every moment systems monitor internal and external
environments to make decisions about opening or closing to outside influences (Mathews, 1992).
This energy flow is a circular process that feeds back and âre-creates the systemâ (Caple, p. 175).
16. Group Systems Theories 16
Patterned interactions. Stable systems engage in a great deal of repetition of patterns
which provide safety and regularity. Stable systems tend to stay relatively more closed in order
to be able to avoid too much challenging information that would destabilize their balance.
Stability cannot be maintained forever, however, because change is ongoing within group
members and in the environment that sustains the group, and either or both will eventually
change enough to demand that boundary choices be readjusted.
Systems which are more creative and less pattern-oriented tend to receive more
challenges to their stability and are more vulnerable. In the long run though, creative systems
that survive benefit from the adaptability that they develop to the complex demands of the
environment around them, which helps them become stronger against future disruptions.
Positive and negative feedback. The system receives input from the environment which is
both positive and negative in character. Negative feedback is seen as energy or information
which supports the current system balance, or homeostasis, while positive feedback is that which
stresses or challenges the system, causing it to adapt and possibly develop greater complexity, or
change to a higher order (Caple, 1985).
Change stimulation. Many systems practitioners have trouble with the language of
positive and negative feedback and focus only on first and second order change, and not on the
characteristics of the feedback and dynamics which induce change. This may be because in
systems language positive and negative are somewhat the opposite of what is meant in general
usage, which can be seen in the group literature. Positive feedback means feedback that provokes
change in the receiver in GST but it means constructive and supportive language toward another
in most discussions of feedback, such as in the group field (Stockton, 2003). Negative feedback
17. Group Systems Theories 17
means change resistant feedback in GST terms, while it means destructive or hurtful feedback in
general contexts.
The meanings of âpositiveâ and ânegativeâ are value laden and depend on their contexts.
Systems theory is more value neutral and focused on adaptation for survival, while general and
therapeutic discussions clearly value the connotations of nurturing and support. It appears that
new language is needed to bring understanding to these concepts so that more may take
advantage of the perspective that they bring to understanding systems dynamics. Systems
thinkers can then replace or augment positive and negative feedback labels with change
provoking and change resisting feedback.
Change provoking feedback can be used to describe feedback which intentionally or
unintentionally challenges or pushes the recipient to move toward change. The label, change
provoking feedback, would be value neutral, and would not imply that the sender had bad
intentions, or positive intentions. Change provoking feedback would not have to be verbal, and
would include behaviors and gestures that communicate the need to change, or that show that the
current situation does not work in some ways.
Change resisting feedback can describe any verbal or nonverbal feedback which
communicates that there is no need to change or that change should be avoided. The message to
avoid or resist change could be intentional or unintentional on the part of the sender, and it could
come from supportive (Donât change because you are perfect the way you are.â) or destructive
sender motives (âDonât change because I need you to keep supporting my drug use.â). Change
resisting feedback could also include behaviors and nonverbal messages which make the receiver
more likely to avoid change; e.g. a third party distracting attention from the issue.
18. Group Systems Theories 18
Groups can be hotbeds of feedback about change, and change provoking feedback
seldom occurs without bringing some controversy or conflict. Bringing group awareness to
examine attitudes about change and change messages could do much to raise the level of
discussion in these groups. Neither kind of feedback need be devalued or universally accepted,
since both have a valuable role in group dynamics. Supportive feedback is also important in
group discussions to provide feelings of safety, but what is the effect of that support on the
individualâs need to change? Therapy groups must understand and demystify interpersonal
responses to promote growth, and they must have healthy feedback from within and without in
order to function well.
Group Growth Cycles and Stages
According to systems thinking, systems are more dynamic and unstable early in
development and gradually become more stable as they develop patterns for efficiency. Systems
are believed to be unstable until they progress through a kind of adolescence, in which power
structures and boundaries are tested and accepted, along with internal and external dynamics and
connections. Over time, patterns tend to dominate functioning, and these patterns often become
ruts which lack creative inquiry and become more rigid over time (von Bertalanffy, 1968).
Systems are seen as having a natural life span, and are believed to decline, collapse, or dissipate
when the environment or members no longer need them.
Group scholars have long believed that groups progress through a series of stages of
development and that practitioners need to adapt their interventions to the stage dynamics of the
moment (Gladding, 1995; Stockton, 2003; Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). Stage
models of groups are seen as either sequential (e.g. progressive) or cyclical with repeating
themes (Donigian & Malnati, 1997; Toseland & Rivas, 2001).
19. Group Systems Theories 19
Tuckmanâs five stage sequential theory of group development (Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman
& Jensen, 1977) appears to be the most accepted sequential theory and has the strongest base in
research, resulting from a review of 20 years of small group research (McClure, 1998). Although
much of that research is now 50 years old, no subsequent research has come close to challenging
the relevance of Tuckmanâs stages. Tuckmanâs stages are 1) forming (beginning); 2) storming
(conflict); 3) norming (establishing norms); 4) performing (work); and 5) adjourning
(termination). Other sequential or progressive stage models in the group literature have as few as
three stages (Toseland & Rivas, 2001) or as many as seven stages (McClure).
The cyclical theories of group development maintain that there are themes which are
raised and addressed repeatedly within groups, and that each repetition leads to a new level of
development (Donigian & Malnati, 1997; Toseland & Rivas, 2001). Examples of cyclical issues
include belongingness, defensiveness, and task investment (Toseland & Rivas, p. 89). McClureâs
stage theory is both cyclical and progressive, and it posits that there are the same set of stages
within each stage, substage and interaction (1998).
All the major models of group development, from Tuckmanâs to the cyclical theories, are
consistent with systemic notions of development. All the sequential theories include a vulnerable
and tentative beginning, a conflict stage, the establishment of norms (structure and boundaries), a
working stage, and an ending stage. Systems theory views the establishment of norms as
occurring through the process of testing and conflict, but at least one group scholar has combined
the conflict and norming stages into the âtransition stageâ (Gladding, 1995, p. 103). Fitting group
stages with the systemic model may help group practitioners to have a deeper understanding of
the processes at work as groups progress through their stages.
20. Group Systems Theories 20
Perturbation. Perturbation refers to the increase in energy fluctuations which occurs
when a great deal of new information is acquired, or when the information is challenging or
disturbing to the stability of the entity. Often this friction is the result of the struggle between
autonomy and dependency (Mathews, 1992). This surge of energy is stressful and sometimes
emotionally powerful, but it serves to push the organism into chaos and towards structural
change and growth, unless system dynamics choose to dampen such challenges and are able to
preserve the current structure.
Chaos. According to Caple, environments naturally contain dissipative structures which
constantly âbreak up and disorder the systemâ (1985, p. 175), leading to chaos, a state where
logical, linear order breaks down. Chaos places tremendous pressure on systems to make
decisions about how to control their boundaries, and groups are often highly uncomfortable at
this stage of development. It is at the point a system approaches chaos but does not become fully
chaotic that the most change is possible.
When fearful of chaos and change, groups can achieve such a state of rigidity and
insularity that in time cause them to dissolve from their own weight. Group facilitators can help
groups to see their own closedness and reconsider their opposition to change. Challenges to that
rigidity evolve out of the natural interactions of participants, so group leaders can help members
hear those challenges as they arise. Leaders should be wary about attempting to force
disequilibrium artificially, because they can risk alienation and an overwhelming level of chaos.
Groups that allow order to emerge naturally after chaos, with a minimum of leader control,
produce stronger individuals and a stronger group structure guided by the process of self-
organization.
21. Group Systems Theories 21
One of the most rewarding insights from working with groups is seeing how much chaos
a group can create and still remain intact, creating âorder out of chaosâ and making positive
change in the process. Without chaos, there would be little progress.
Bifurcation point. When energy fluctuations and chaos become overwhelming to the
organism and threaten system balance and structure, they reach a point of change called a
bifurcation point (Caple, 1985). At that point, the boundary structure starts to loosen and a surge
of energy occurs. Systems make decisions about their boundaries at that point, whether to retract
them, expand them, or totally collapse under the pressure. When systems expand their
boundaries to cope with more complex demands, through changing their structure to a higher
order, that is evolution. Unfortunately, change, innovation, and growth require risk, sometimes
great risk.
Self-Organizing. General system theory holds that nature is self-organizing, that systems
naturally organize themselves to pursue goals in order to survive in their environment (von
Bertalanffy, 1951). According to von Bertalanffy, open systems organize in the active, natural
progression towards âhigher order, heterogeneity and organizationâ (1968, p. 41).
The greater environments upon which organisms depend also are continually evolving
and changing their demands, so there is a constant need for development and change to deal with
that increasingly complex feedback. There is an inevitable struggle between independence and
dependence, connecting and boundarying, in the relationship between systems and their elements
that correlates with the struggle between group needs and individual needs (Mathews, 1992).
Each influences and modifies the other constantly. Ideally there is enough balance between
stability and change to maintain the integrity of the system and keep it healthily connecting to the
environment.
22. Group Systems Theories 22
Four properties of system organization have been proposed by von Bertalanffy;
progressive mechanization, differentiation, equifinality, and negative entropy (1968). Progressive
mechanization means that as they develop, systems establish structural patterns to channel their
dynamics and achieve greater stability. Differentiation means that as entities evolve, they
become more specialized, heterogeneous and complex. Equifinality means that organisms can
take many paths towards their goals of survival, autonomy and growth; they will not be blocked.
Negative entropy means that systems borrow energy (e.g. eat, take in information) to avoid
becoming degraded over time (entropy) (von Bertalanffy; Durkin, J.E., 1981b).
Self-Stabilizing. Systems are affected by the other systems which exist internally and
externally in its environment, so as other systems change, their changes exert pressure on the
system to change also. The self-stabilizing nature of systems means that they try to maintain
equilibrium (homeostasis), by preventing change and making information that systems receive fit
within their present structure (von Bertalanffy, 1968), as in first order change.
Caring, Warmth & Positive Attention
Family and parenting practitioners added another interpersonal dynamic to family
functioning that did not come from general system theory, that of the degree of caring, support
and warmth present in the family. Other labels for this dynamic include love, acceptance,
engagement, emotional closeness and nurturance. Emotional nurturance is especially necessary
for helping vulnerable organisms like children deal with the stresses and strains of growing.
Absence of caring and support in a family, whether with hostility or without it, has been linked
to several negative outcomes for children, especially aggression (Baumrind, 1994; Hemphill, &
Sanson, 2001; Maccoby, 2000; Vander Zanden, 2003).
23. Group Systems Theories 23
Group practitioners have long been concerned with facilitating group cohesion, a
supportive and a caring group climate, because cohesion consistently emerges in group research
as a condition necessary for positive group outcome (Crouch, Bloch & Wanlass, 1994; Dies,
1994; Fuhriman & Burlingame, 1994; Lieberman, Yalom & Miles, 1973; Yalom, 1995).
Supportive feedback is seen as more necessary in early stages of groups and is optimally paired
with challenging feedback in the middle stages (Stockton, 2003). Warmth of the leader has been
found to be an important predictor of cohesion in groups (Stockton).
A related concept is the dynamic of positive attention. Attention is naturally reinforcing
to human beings and, in families, misapplied positive or negative attention is often the cause of
child misbehaviors. Such families are taught by behavior therapists to apply positive attention to
desired, prosocial behaviors and to withdraw attention from childrenâs undesired behaviors.
Group facilitators also have to learn how to use their attention to reinforce member progress
(Dies, 1994) and to direct group discussions as they find that the issues to which leaders respond
are often the focus of group time.
The systems perspective helps us to understand how change and growth are naturally
interconnected. The stresses, crises, conflicts, pain, and other perturbations that are part of the
dynamic between human beings are part of the developmental process that helps people
transition to higher levels of functioning.
Conclusion
The Durkin group, Donigian and Malnati, Agazarian, McClure, and others have applied
systems theory to groups in significant works that together comprise a category of group systems
theory. As the group practice world is growing more aware of systems thinking, especially
24. Group Systems Theories 24
Agazarianâs model of it, it is important for group workers to attend to this evolution of the
systems perspectives in the field.
Our greatest concern is the lack of current research testing systems theory with ongoing
groups. It is hoped that through more research and examination, group systems theory can have a
significant impact on the conceptualization and practice of group work and group therapy
(Schermer, 2000).
25. Group Systems Theories 25
References
Agazarian, Y. (1997). Systems centered therapy for groups. NY: The Guilford Press.
Agazarian, Y., & Janoff, S. (1993). Systems theory and small groups. In I. Kaplan & B. Sadock
(Eds.), Comprehensive textbook of group psychotherapy (3rd
ed.). Baltimore: Williams &
Wilkins.
Banathy, B. (n.d.). The evolution of systems inquiry. Retrieved February 15, 2004 from the
International Society for the Systems Sciences Web site:
http://www.isss.org/primer/data/003evsys.htm
Baumrind, D. (1994). The social context of child maltreatment. Family Relations, 43, 360-369.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1951). Theoretical models in biology and psychology, Journal of
Personality, 20, 24-38. [Electronic version]
http://www.blackwellpublishers.co.uk/asp/journal.asp?ref=0022-3506
von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications.
New York: George Braziller.
Caple, R. B. (1985). Counseling and the self-organization paradigm, Journal of Counseling and
Development, 46, 173-178.
Caple, R. B. (1987a). The change process in developmental theory: A self-organization
paradigm, Part 1, Journal of College Student Personnel, 28, 4-11.
Caple, R. B. (1987b). The change process in developmental theory: A self-organization
paradigm, Part 2, Journal of College Student Personnel, 28, 100-104.
Cox, M., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems, Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 243-267.
[Electronic version].
26. Group Systems Theories 26
Crouch, E., Bloch, S., & Wanlass, J. (1994) Therapeutic factors: Interpersonal and intrapersonal
mechanisms. In, A. Fuhriman & G. M. Burlingame (Eds.) Handbook of group
psychotherapy: An empirical and clinical synthesis. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Dies, R. R. (1994). Therapist variables in group psychotherapy research. In, A. Fuhriman & G.
M. Burlingame (Eds.) Handbook of group psychotherapy: An empirical and clinical
synthesis. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Donigian, J., & Hulse-Killacky, D. (1999). Critical incidents in group therapy (2nd
ed.). New
York: Wadsworth.
Donigian, J., & Malnati, R. (1997). Systemic group therapy: Atriadic model. Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Durkin, H. E. (1981). The group therapies and general system theory as an integrative structure.
In, J. E. Durkin (Ed.) Living groups: Group psychotherapy and general system theory.
NY: Brunner/Mazel.
Durkin, J. E. (1981a). Foundations of autonomous living structure. In, J. E. Durkin (Ed.) Living
groups: Group psychotherapy and general system theory. NY: Brunner/Mazel.
Durkin, J. E. (1981b). Glossary of living structure terms. In, J. E. Durkin (Ed.) Living groups:
Group psychotherapy and general system theory. NY: Brunner/Mazel.
Durkin, J. E. (Ed.) (1981c). Living groups: Group psychotherapy and general system theory.
NY: Brunner/Mazel.
Durkin, J. E. (1989). Mothergroup as a whole formation and systemic boundarying events,
Group, 13, 198-211.
Forsyth, D. (1999). Group dynamics (3rd
ed.). New York: Brooks/Cole-Wadsworth.
27. Group Systems Theories 27
Fuhriman, A., & Burlingame, G. M. (1994). Group psychotherapy: Research and practice. In, A.
Fuhriman & G. M. Burlingame (Eds.) Handbook of group psychotherapy: An empirical
and clinical synthesis. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Gladding, S. (1995). Group work: Acounseling specialty (2nd
ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.
Hall, C. & Lindsay, G. (1978). Theories of personality. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hemphill, S., & Sanson, A. (2001). Matching parenting to child temperament: Influences on
early childhood behavioural problems, Family Matters, 59, 42-47.
Heylighen, F., & Joslyn, C. (2000). What is systems theory? In F. Heylighen, C. Joslyn and V.
Turchin (Eds.): Principia Cybernetica Web. Retrieved February 15, 2004, from
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/REFERPCP.html
Hines, M. (1988a). Editorial: Introduction to the special issue, Journal for Specialists in Group
Work, 13, 171-172.
Hines, M. (1988b). Similarities and differences in group and family therapy, Journal for
Specialists in Group Work, 13, 173-179.
Kantor, D., & Lehr, W. (1975). Inside the family: Toward a theory of family process. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kaul, T. J., & Bednar, R. L. (1994). Pretraining and structure: Parallel lines yet to meet. In, A.
Fuhriman & G. M. Burlingame (Eds.) Handbook of group psychotherapy: An empirical
and clinical synthesis. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Kline, W. (2003). Interactive group counseling and therapy. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Lieberman, M., Yalom, I., & Miles, M. (1973). Encounter groups: First facts. New York: Basic
Books.
28. Group Systems Theories 28
Maccoby, E. E. (2000). Parenting and its effect on children, Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 1-
27. [Electronic version]
MacKenzie, K. R. (1994). Group development. In, A. Fuhriman & G. M. Burlingame (Eds.)
Handbook of group psychotherapy: An empirical and clinical synthesis. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Mathews, C. (1992). An application of general system theory to group therapy, Journal for
Specialists in Group Work, 17, 161-169.
McClure, B. (1998). Putting a new spin on groups: The science of chaos. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mingers, J. (1995). Self-producing systems: Implications and applications of autopoiesis. New
York: Plenum.
Napier, R., & Gershenfeld, M. (2004). Groups: Theory and experience. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Nelsen, J., Lott, L., & Glenn, H.S. (1999). Positive discipline A-Z: From toddlers to teens, 1001
solutions to everyday parenting problems (2nd
ed.). Rocklin, CA: Prima.
Shermer, V. L. (2000). On the future of group therapy theory, Group, 24, 13-21.
Stockton, R. (2003). Group process and leadership. Paper presented at the Annual Convention
of the American Psychological Association, 2003, Toronto, Canada.
Toseland, R., & Rivas, R. (2001). An introduction to group work practice (4th
ed.). Boston: Allyn
& Bacon.
Trotzer, J. P. (1988). Family theory as a group resource, Journal for Specialists in Group Work,
13, 180-185.
Tubbs, S. L. (1978). Asystems approach to small group interaction. New York: Random House.
29. Group Systems Theories 29
Tubbs, S. L. (2003). Asystems approach to small group interaction (8th
ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Tuckman, B. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384-
399.
Tuckman, B., & Jensen, M. (1977). Stages of small group development revisited. Group and
Organizational Studies, 2, 419-427.
Vander Zanden, J. W. (2003). Human development (7th
edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Yalom, I. (1995). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books.