Enhancing Group Effectiveness through creating and maintaining a ‘Reflective Space’

T. Martin Ringer

Socio-Analysis 3,2: 2001 (85-108)

1bis paper develops the view that groups, whether for education, therapy, decision making or organizational development will benefit when the leader focuses on building a climate of attentive reflectiveness.1bis reflectiveness provides participants with an unconsciously held ‘internal companion’ with whom conversations can be held at a ‘thought level’. The conscious or pre-conscious thoughts contribute to participants’ ability to participate in the effective functioning of decision making, learning, developmental or therapeutic groups. In short, the existence of a reflective space in the group facilitates the group’s effective functioning and hence likelihood that group members will achieve the outcomes or processes sought by the group. When the leader successfully facilitates secure containment and effective linking, groups are likely to support the development of reflective spaces. Leaders who themselves have a robust capacity for sustaining their own reflectiveness are likely to be able to effectively facilitate reflectiveness in their groups (Smith, 1995). 1bis personal reflectiveness can be built through psychotherapy, group experiences and professional supervision (DeLucia-Waack, 1999).
Key Words: Group leadership; Reflection; Organizations

Introduction

My best thinking is in conversations with other people, but sometimes these conversations occur when no-one else is present. As a result, I find it hard to have such conversations ‘out loud’ because people look at me in surprise, seeking to find the person with whom I’m taking. That’s because the other party to my conversations is someone in my mind, rather than what we might call a ‘real’ person. However, I don’t think I’m alone in this, in two ways. First, when I’m having these rich conversations with an imaginary person I’m operating in a benign kind of phantasy that there is an attentive friend with me. Second, I’m not alone because I think that many people do a lot of their thinking in imaginary conversations with other people, even if not at a conscious level. Whilst thinking may seem to be a solitary activity, it probably requires the presence of more than one real or imaginary person to create the place for the thinking to occur. (For a thorough exploration of this concept the reader should consult Wilfred Bion’s works on thinking including Bion (1962)). Perhaps, too, emotions can only be raised to awareness in the context of a real or an unconscious (phantasy 2) relationship (Segal, 1985).

Might it be that to move from pre-cognition to cognition, and to move affect into consciousness requires the presence in-the-mind of an ‘other’? That is, thinking in its broadest sense, and hence learning, may only occur in the context of a real or imagined relationship. The relationship with the ‘other’ in these real or imaginary conversations creates a ‘reflective space’ in which the thinking occurs. The idea that a reflective space is created in a one-to-one conversation with an imaginary other can be extended to the idea that groups develop reflective spaces in their midst and that these reflective spaces support effective learning and human change processes. Learning occurs best in groups when group members experience two components:

1. A psychological/emotional space in the group that will accept their ideas as a contribution to the collective thinking;
2. A corresponding ‘container’ for their anxiety (McCollom & Gillette, 1995).

For group members the equivalent to the solitary thinker’s ‘imaginary other’ is the ‘group-in-the-mind’. In other words, the group-in-the-mind may take the place of the other person in conversations in which ideas are conceived and developed (Karterud, 1998; Pines, 1998).

Creating a reflective space

The reflective space for the group participant is created by the idea in the mind that the group is receptive to his or her ideas and feelings; that there is a psychic space for his/her ideas and feelings. This reflective space supports not only talking about ideas and feelings, but also supports the participant actually having these ideas and experiencing the feelings. The internalized picture of a receptive group contrasts with the idea-in-the-mind that the group will attack or reject the participants’ thoughts or feelings. Generally speaking too, the phantasy in the mind of being in an ‘attacking’ group not only prevents the voicing of ideas, but also seriously inhibits the thinking of ideas and the experiencing of emotions. In an attempt to achieve simplicity, I have termed the imaginary space in which thinking and experiencing successfully occurs as the ‘reflective space’.

The remainder of the paper names and expands on a number of the characteristics of the reflective space and examines the way in which the existence of an image in the mind of a reflective space promotes the initiation, development and voicing of ideas and emotions in group members. Some attention is also paid to how the mental representation of a receptive ‘container’ for their thoughts and feelings provides a sound environment for learning and change in group members.

The characteristics of reflective space3 in groups

The nine key characteristics of group reflective space are shown in Table 1.

Table I Nine key characteristics of group reflective space

1.	Group reflective space is a mental construction and has no physical form
2.	Each group member’s internal emotional, cognitive and intellectual state contributes to the nature of the reflective space
3.	Different group members have varying degrees of ability to contribute to and support the reflective space
4.	The reflective space is simultaneously an individual and a collective phenomenon
5.	Group reflective space evolves over time and changes as the group develops
6.	The existence of group reflective space is reinforced when group members and group leaders act as if it exists
7.	Group reflective space is vulnerable to attack and can be destroyed or damaged
8.	Linking and containment of the group and attachment to the group are major factors in the creation of a reflective space (Ringer, 1999).
9.	Reflective space is demonstrated by associative chains of thinking and feeling (Neri, 1998).

Taking each of these nine points in turn enables a fuller picture to emerge.

Group reflective space is a mental construction and has no physical form

From the very first time the group becomes real in the mind of each member, he or she develops a mental picture of what the group will be like. Receiving an email to say that there will be a meeting of a project group in the work place creates a group-in-the-mind. Reading a flyer and deciding to attend a personal growth group creates a different group-in-the-mind. The ‘group-in­ the-mind’ may seem hostile, friendly or have other characteristics. Once the group starts to meet, each participant modifies this initial internal representation of the group to match their actual experience of the group. Curiously enough, the mental representation is not purely based on ‘reality.’ A key characteristic of group life is the presence of mental representations at both fantasy and at phantasy level. These phantasy/ fantasy level phenomena go by many names such as ‘group illusion’ (Anzieu, 1984) and ‘Genius Loci’ (Neri, 1989).

The mental representation of the reflective space will include visual imagining and remembering as well as other sensory imagining and remembering such as smells and sounds. The pre-group imagining will be replaced mostly by remembering once the group space, smells and sounds have been experienced. But the nature of the reflective space that is created in response to sensory data about the group will depend on level of anxiety that is evoked by those images, sounds etc. Low to medium level anxiety is likely to result in an intuitive sense of there being a functional reflective space.

Each participant, then, carries with them his or her own particular, durable but dynamic, representation of the quality of the reflective space that exists in the group. Some group participants have had numerous prior group experiences. The mental representation of the quality of the reflective space that they hold at any given time will be an amalgam of their long-term internal working models and the overlay of their experience of the particular group of which they are currently members. Similarly, the mental representation of each participant’s place in, and contribution to the reflective space will depend to a great degree of the quality of their mental and emotional functioning.

Each group member’s internal emotional, cognitive and intellectual state contributes to the nature of the reflective space

Each participant carries within him or herself internal working models of the world and his or her place in it (Parkes, 1975). These internal working/world models affect each participant’s experiences of the group and his or her experience of self in the context of the group. Similarly, different people have different levels of psychological maturity and hence different ways of participating in a group reflective space. We could consider each participant’s durable internal reflective capacity as either contributing to or detracting from the group reflective space.

People with a low trust of others will find it more difficult to experience the group as providing a safe, receptive reflective space than will those who are secure in themselves and implicitly trusting of others. Often therapy groups work with people whose internal working models are already quite dysfunctional and so many participants will already approach the therapeutic group with a great deal of mistrust. In the work place, the group participants’ overall mental models about the level of trust, generosity and safety in the organization will also influence their expectations about the nature of specific groups that are convened within the umbrella of that organization (Smith, 1997).

Similarly, the immediate emotional state of participants at the start of each group session will influence their perception of the group. For instance, a participant will be nervous and unsettled if he/she is suffering from shock because of a near collision with another car on the way to the group. Hence, the group itself may not provide for him or her the level of safety and containment at that particular moment that is necessary to provide an adequate reflective space. Conversely, even a noisy group with some elements of aggression may still be experienced as providing an adequate reflective space for a person who is robust and at peace with the world when the group session starts. Each person experiences the group differently and this experience depends to a great extent on processes such as projection, transference and identification, as described in many psychoanalytic texts. What emerges then, in the life of the group is an interactive ‘matrix’ where each individual’s reflective capacity influences the collective reflective capacity and vice versa.

Each group member’s internal emotional, cognitive and intellectual state contributes to the nature of the reflective space

Each participant carries within him or herself internal working models of the world and his or her place in it (Parkes, 1975). These internal working/world models affect each participant’s experiences of the group and his or her experience of self in the context of the group. Similarly, different people have different levels of psychological maturity and hence different ways of participating in a group reflective space. We could consider each participant’s durable internal reflective capacity as either contributing to or detracting from the group reflective space.

People with a low trust of others will find it more difficult to experience the group as providing a safe, receptive reflective space than will those who are secure in themselves and implicitly trusting of others. Often therapy groups work with people whose internal working models are already quite dysfunctional and so many participants will already approach the therapeutic group with a great deal of mistrust. In the work place, the group participants’ overall mental models about the level of trust, generosity and safety in the organization will also influence their expectations about the nature of specific groups that are convened within the umbrella of that organization (Smith, 1997).

Similarly, the immediate emotional state of participants at the start of each group session will influence their perception of the group. For instance, a participant will be nervous and unsettled if he/she is suffering from shock because of a near collision with another car on the way to the group. Hence, the group itself may not provide for him or her the level of safety and containment at that particular moment that is necessary to provide an adequate reflective space. Conversely, even a noisy group with some elements of aggression may still be experienced as providing an adequate reflective space for a person who is robust and at peace with the world when the group session starts. Each person experiences the group differently and this experience depends to a great extent on processes such as projection, transference and identification, as described in many psychoanalytic texts. What emerges then, in the life of the group is an interactive ‘matrix’ where each individual’s reflective capacity influences the collective reflective capacity and vice versa.

Different group members have varying degrees of ability to contribute to and support the reflective space

Each individual in the group has a different personality, different working models and a different capacity to tolerate anxiety, uncertainty and the ‘not­ knowing’ (Bion, 1961) that is an integral part of participation in any group. Uncertainty and ‘not-knowing’ exist for two reasons:

1. First, because each participant is aware that any other person can generate unexpected events at any time.
2. Second, because the complexity of any group exceeds the capacity of any person to fully comprehend what is occurring at all levels at all times.

The reflective space is supported by members tolerance and provision of space for ‘not-knowing’, inquiry and reflection. Consequently, exploration is often stifled when participants or the leader jump in with authoritative interpretations about what is going on in the group (Neri, 1998). When there appears to be only one answer to any question, no further space exists for curiosity or inquiry, with a consequent loss of the reflective space. Hence, any person who consistently makes definitive statements about what is true in the group will potentially close down the reflective space. In particular, leaders who respond to the group’s implicit request to define for them the meaning of what is happening, will reduce capacity for open reflection and inquiry. Thus, leaders who provide too much information or interpretation too soon will reduce the reflective space in the group (Anzieu, 1984; Neri, 1998). Furthermore, a leader’s compliance with the request to keep providing answers will support the evolution of what Bion (1961) described as a pervasive phantasy that the leader is all knowing and all powerful. The group that acts as if this unhelpful phantasy is true is said to be immersed in Basic Assumption Dependency (Bion, 1961).

This suggests that individual participants who are insecure in themselves are not usually able to tolerate fear of ‘death of knowledge’ that occurs at a phantasy level when inquiry and exploration dominate group process in contrast to the answers being provided by the leader. ‘Not-knowing’ creates a void that can be experienced as terrifying to the person whose own internal coherence is shaky; as is the case of those who are ‘borderline’ or ‘narcissistic’ as defined within the field of self-psychology4. One client in psychotherapy expressed a fear that if she told her story in full to the therapist, she would cease to exist because she would be emptied out (Meares, 1992). This client demonstrated a very frail (borderline) sense of self and if the same person were in a group she would probably work hard to ensure that people around her demonstrated a confidence that the world was known and predictable. A second type of person who does not fit well in a reflective space is one who has has ‘narcissistic’ tendencies and whose emotional survival depends on constant reassurance that he/she is competent, knowledgeable, likeable etc.

Narcissistic or borderline people may fill the (otherwise) reflective space with words that are intended to demonstrate without doubt to the group that he/she is knowledgeable, competent and likeable. Failure to create room for narcissistic or borderline group members can result in their attacking the group or the leader (Schermer & Pines, 1994; Yalom, 1985). This attack, in turn, reduces the reflective space in the group. Cline (1993) has written an excellent chapter on the issues involved in working with narcissistic and borderline patients in adventure therapy programs.

The reflective space is simultaneously an individual and a collective phenomenon

Both verbal and non-verbal contributions of group members help to shape the overall group experience and each group participant’s internal experience is influenced by the sum of actions and interactions of members in the group. Hence, the life of the group unfolds as an emerging tapestry, woven simultaneously as a series of individual experiences and as a collective experience. The reflective space, as an integral part of the group experience, also emerges in both the multiple threads of individual experience of all group members and in the collective fabric of the group. A significant change to any one thread will change the nature of the collective. Conversely, a significant change to the existence of or context for the group-as-a-whole will change the subjective experience for each group member. The concept of the group matrix, as described by Foulkes and Antony helps here:

The group matrix can be regarded as the operational basis of all mental processes in the group in the same way as the individual’s ‘mind’ is the operational basis of all mental processes in the individual. Its lines of force may be conceived as passing right through the individual members and may therefore be called a transpersonal network, comparable to magnetic field. The individual is thought of as a nodal point in this network, as suspended in it (Foulkes & Anthony, 1990, pp258-259).

This concept can be challenging to Western thinkers who have been strongly socialized to create clear differentiation between individual and group experience (Dalal, 1988). Emerging views indicate that the Western distinction between group and individual is in part an illusion (Pines, 1998).

Group reflective space evolves over time and changes as the group develops

Participants’ mental representations early in the group will occur mainly as the result of their durable working models about groups. These gradually evolving working models are taken from group to group throughout life. As any particular group evolves, participants’ experience of the current group will come to the foreground and start to dominate their mental representations of that particular group.

The first time group members are together they have no lived experience of being able to work together, to support each others’ thinking and to trust each others’ goodwill. As the group develops, the group-in-the-mind that each person initially brought with them is gradually modified. As a result, the nature of the reflective space changes along with the experience and expectations of each group member. Models of group development tend to agree on the principle that adequately conducted ‘healthy’ groups deal effectively with their developmental crises and hence become progressively more able to carry out the task for which they meet (McCollom, 1995). Among other things, effective leadership that deals with crises in the group can contribute to the growth of a generous reflective space.

Hence, the group-in-the-mind for each participant gradually evolves. A part of this mental representation is the degree of confidence that the member has that his or her contributions will fall on fertile ground. To what extent will other group members and the leader be responsive to his or her thoughts, feelings and ideas? A further change may occur in response to the way in which the group and leader act as if the reflective space is real and present.

The existence of group reflective space is reinforced when group members and group leaders act as if it exists

Group members’ experience of the group is built through the evolution of exchanges between the various perceptions of each group member (both phantasy and fantasy) and the consensually agreed observable events in the group. Primarily, though, what counts is the existence in the minds of group members of a pervasive belief or intuitive sense that there is an accepting space in the group for their thoughts, feelings and expressions. So a paradox is that the participants’ and leaders’ collective belief that the reflective space exists is in part what creates the reflective space: A self-fulfiling prophecy. The contrary also occurs. If the group is swept by a contagious shadow of doubt about the existence of reflective space, then it is reduced purely by the collective doubt in its continued existence. Hence, when leaders and participants act as if the reflective space exists, this can assist others in the group to build and retain a belief that the reflective space is present in that moment for them too. Particularly for leaders, the existence of strong destructive invitations to projective identification can make it very difficult to maintain the reflective space through continued belief in its existence.

Group reflective space is vulnerable to attack and can be destroyed or damaged.

The complex interweaving of phantasy, fantasy, and reality as the group­ in-the-mind is constructed means that even one powerful negating event can create a crisis of confidence with participants and leaders. ‘Attacks on the reflective space’ (Hinshelwood, 1994) can occur quickly, with devastating effects. Most major sources of anxiety in a group will severely reduce the quiet confidence that supports reflection. Similarly, anything that breaks the containment of the group will threaten its coherence. Changes to times, places, program events or leaders can do this. A reduction in the linking between key elements in the group also reduces reflective capacity in groups. For example, aggressive verbal or physical events, sudden departure of members, complete emotional collapse of a member and many other events can threaten the existence of this essential linking and hence can threaten the existence of the reflective space (Ringer, 1999).

There is another interesting twist in working with reflective space. The existence of a powerful reflective space in itself may be enough to stimulate attempts to destroy it. This is because a high level of reflectivity in a group can lead to deep levels of self-analysis and exploration. The quiet nature of the group favors verbalization rather than action. Hence, if uncomfortable psychological material emerges this can lead to impulsive activity in the group because action can be used as a means of avoiding anxiety. This acting-out then diminishes the reflective space (Bateman & Holmes, 1995).

Even during action-oriented groups such as in adventure therapy programs there are many potential threats to reflective space. Participants may be anxious about physical activities, accidents can occur or task oriented and directive leadership can lead participants to experience a sense of being emotionally abandoned. Participants easily feel alone and uncontained and this loss of either linking or containment reduces the reflective space. There is no panacea solution for recovering from the shattering of a group’s capacity to reflect, but effective leadership from a person who has a strong capacity to hold his or her own reflectivity is immensely helpful.

Linking and containment of the group and attachment to the group are major factors in the creation of a reflective space

Linking refers to the existence of links at both conscious and unconscious levels. These links involve each group member, the group-as-a-whole, the leader, and the primary task of the group. Adequate containment refers to group members having the conscious and unconscious sense of being firmly held in the group and its task, and yet not immobilized or held rigidly by the their participation in the group. Key aspects of the containment of a group are achieved through good boundary conditions. Boundaries include clarity about the primary task the group sets out to achieve, the time limits for group life, the physical space that the group will utilize and the roles taken respectively by group members and leaders (Ringer & O’Brien, 1997). Containment arises primarily from the quality of responsiveness of the leader and his or her ability to facilitate conscious and unconscious communication between group members (Bacal, 1998). The leader has a vital role in facilitating both linking and containment, but to do so requires a sound level of skills and a degree of emotional and psychological maturity (Ashbach & Schermer, 1994).

A related characteristic of groups that achieves the development of a successful reflective space is that participants experience a sense of ‘affiliative attachment’ to the collective, to the representation of the group that exists in their minds (Marrone, 1998; Stapley, 1996). This sense of attachment enables them to retain an internal phantasy that the group is intact, even at the time that they are experiencing difficulty in the group.

Reflective space is demonstrated by associative chains of thinking and feeling

The presence of a reflective space is demonstrated by the spontaneous flow of ideas expressed by group members which often appears as the emergence of a chain of associated thoughts that collectively move the group towards achieving its task (Neri, 1998). Because the reflective space is not a tangible object we are left with the challenge of knowing when it is present. There exist a number of indicators that the reflective space is operational in a group. One of these indicators is that the leader him/herself experiences an attentive alertness that welcomes input from the group, but this alone is not adequate evidence. Such attentive alertness could also indicate the leader joining what is described by Bion (1961) as Basic Assumption Pairing, where, beneath his/her awareness, he or she is awaiting the birth of some miraculous idea.

A second indicator of the presence of the reflective space is that the group conversation is likely to be relatively free-wheeling where not every idea expressed is deliberately linked with the one before it (Anzieu, 1984). In such situations an individual’s thinking and verbalization can enter ‘primary process’ or ‘free association’ which is a state where one unconscious association flows relatively freely to the next (Neri, 1998). The presence of a reflective space in groups enables one person’s speech or action to trigger associations for others who speak freely of that association. In this case, without any intervention on the part of the leader, we experience an ‘associative chain’ (Neri, 1998). This consists of a seemingly haphazard but deceptively progressive pattern of interaction where group participants stimulate each other in a flow of ideas that generally moves the group towards its purpose. This process lies on the boundary between conscious and unconscious and the pace of the group may vary rapidly from times of intense, excited and even confused talking, to relatively long periods of silence where most of the associations are occurring internally within participants. Only with experience can group leaders tell when an intensely active group is also reflective or when an active group is avoiding reflection. Similarly, it can be difficult to discern between a silent reflective group and a group that is paralyzed by survival anxiety (Nitsun, 1996) or the collective phantasy of being devoured or destroyed by the group (Anzieu, 1984).

An illustration of damage to the reflective space

I attended a five-day Gestalt therapy group that was advertised for professionals who wanted to enhance their ability to work with therapeutic groups. In fact, the group was simply a Gestalt psychotherapy event where we all sequentially received attention from the therapist and did our own therapeutic ‘work’. By day four the group had formed an intense mood of self­ reflection. The group felt well contained and most group members appeared quite strongly attached to the mental representation of a safe group. The leader/therapist was relatively gentle in his approach. He worked on the expectation that a reflective space existed and as a result some very significant personal issues had been worked through by participants.

Group members had developed confidence in the group boundaries, and had built a network of strong empathic links between members. When the group began on the morning of day four, I looked around the group of people sitting in various positions of recline on the cushions on the floor and noticed that two people were missing. One of them arrived fifteen minutes late, opened the door (which was directly behind where I was sitting) and moved slowly and quietly around the perimeter of the group to the place that she had taken the day before. Nobody spoke of the other missing member and the therapist began working with a person in the group.

I was completely immersed in this participant’s story (probably identifying strongly with him) when the door behind me opened abruptly. Hard shoes clattered across the floor and the latecomer rushed noisily, breathing heavily directly across the center of the group space in order to ‘plonk’ herself down in her place. I was shocked. My heart raced and I felt anger, verging on rage, rise in my belly. It seemed to me that the reflective space that we had built had been ripped apart. I looked around the room and saw most people looking at the floor. No longer was there any overt focus in the group. Each person had retreated into his or her inner world to recover from the shock and to re-gain a sense of composure. The therapist did not comment at all. He paused his work, looked at the intruder, who was still noisily scrabbling around in her bag, and then continued where he had left off with the participant who had been working when the interruption occurred. I recall feeling as though a part of me had been ripped open and left to bleed. I had completely lost my empathy for the intruder and to this day still find it difficult to wonder what her needs might have been.

What I now understand is that the individual psychological ‘skin’ that in everyday life we hold close to us had been gradually loosened during the four days of intensive group work. Each participant had opened their ‘skin’ to include the group-as-a-whole, and in doing so had made themselves vulnerable to experiencing intrusion on the group space as if it were an intrusion on their personal space (Anzieu, 1984). Before the intrusion, while the group was functioning well, the personal reflective space that we normally hold close to ourselves had, for most of us, been extended to include the whole group. This collectivizing of the psychic skin seems to accompany the existence of a group reflective space. The noisy late-comer had transgressed the very tender and vulnerable group space and hence had created an event that many of us experienced as an attack on our internal psychic space. No longer did we have an experience of a hard boundary around each of us, distinct from the psychic boundary around the group. Hence, the latecomer had walked across tender parts of our psychic intestines. I want to emphasize that this group had reached high levels of boundedness, linking, a significant subjective experience of the existence of a reflective space, and a strong attachment to the group. At this stage in the group’s development we were relatively often experiencing the free floating associative chain of thinking and feeling.

The leader’s lack of acknowledgement of the intrusion left us with no avenue to re-build the space. The container had been broken into, some of the linking had been broken and, as a result, the group felt stuck and lifeless for the remainder of that session. At the tea break there was intense angry talk about the intrusion. Almost all group members shunned the offender. No doubt we were projecting our own intrusiveness and lack of consideration onto her in that it was much easier for us to see inconsiderate and intrusive characteristics in another person (the intruder) than to acknowledge those characteristics in ourselves.

After the tea break the group slowly re-gained most of its sense of intimacy and reflectivity. I believe that the tea break had enabled most of us to begin processing the sense of trauma that had occurred in the group that morning. The leader’s failure to deal with the transgression soon after it happened, resulted in an arrest of the group’s ability to achieve its task, and in Bion’s (1961) terms had lead to a collective ‘flight’ through each of us psychologically tuning-out from being engaged with the group. Similarly, no group member acted in a way to assist the healing. Any one of us might have named our feelings and helped to re-form a reflective space in which we would ‘digest’ our feelings of hurt and intrusion.

Reflective space: Implications for group leaders

A reflective space in a group creates the potential for each group member to develop his or her own internal reflective space. A key component of this personal internal space is the presence of a phantasy of an ‘other’ with whom conversations can be held without fear of shaming or over-exposure. Hence, part of the task of the group leader is to assist both the group-as-a-whole to develop the collective reflective space and also to help each person internalize that space, using the phantasy of the group-as-a-whole as each person’s internal partner in conversation. A particular challenge emerges from the fact that very little of each participant’s building of the reflective space occurs consciously.

Most of the growth of a group reflective space is experienced by participants as an intuitive and emotional experience that is not accompanied by an intellectual understanding of the process. Hence, often the leader alone carries the conceptual knowledge of what is happening and can appeal to group members for assistance in creating the reflective space by indirect means only.

Early in the formation of the group the creation of clear boundaries, and in particular those of task, time, territory and role, helps to provide the group with a container in which the reflective space can be nurtured (Berg & Smith, 1995). However, even this may be done in a way that creates a sense of rigidity and hence reduces the reflective space. A commonly described experience of first­ time participants in ‘group relations’ conferences is that a rigidity in the way that task, time, territory and role boundaries are experienced as implemented by conference staff creates very high levels of anxiety. The abandonment of normal social interaction can be experienced as persecutory and hence as anxiety provoking. This anxiety is sometimes experienced as reducing the quality of the reflective space. So, depending on the purpose of the group, it can be useful to enlist the help of phantasy-level phenomena early on to build a sense of group coherence and reflectiveness (Neri, 1998). This might be done rather than enforcing structural limits such as rigid time boundaries to the extent that they contradict even basic social norms.

As the group develops, the building of links between the many parts of the group system, members, leader, group purpose, and group-as-a-whole, develops a resilient interconnectedness in the group. Provided that the nature of these connections is primarily benevolent, this complex matrix forms the basis of the reflective space at a phantasy level. This reflective space is at the same time ‘taken inside’ (introjected) by group members and nurtured by them. Once the reflective space has begun to form, it is accompanied by a growth of participant attachment to the group. A sense that ‘the group is working’ grows as thinking and feeling in and between group members takes the form of associative chains. Nonetheless, the reflective space sometimes needs to be protected by the leader’s actions and interventions. Attacks to linking and containment need to be deflected and any resultant damage to the reflective space need to be acknowledged and healed if it is to be retained.

Further development of the reflective space is facilitated by optimal responsiveness on the part of the group leader (Bacal, 1998). Overly enthusiastic facilitation or interpretation on the part of the leader intrudes on participants’ own contributions to building a group-as-a-whole reflective space (Neri, 1998). Filling the emerging space with the leader’s own knowledge or enthusiasm builds dependence on the leader and diminishes the collective phantasy of a multi-faceted group with rich and diverse components. However, the leader’s active support of the reflective space is seen as a cue that it ‘really’ exists. In some groups, participants themselves can contribute to leadership so that the group space is protected both from intrusions and attacks by other group members or by those outside the group. That is, with groups where most members have reasonable levels of psychological maturity, group members themselves can take a significant role in building and maintaining the reflective space in the group.

Conversely, therapy programmes sometimes work with participants whose pre-existing capacity for reflective feeling and thought is damaged and so groups in such programmes are likely to already be high-risk environments where attacks on the reflective space often occur. Healing of participants occurs in part through their successfully expanding their psychic boundaries and ‘taking in’ (introjecting) the lived experience of a group reflective space. Gradually, this experience can lead to participants’ building in themselves a more durable personal capacity for thinking, feeling and reflecting on their own place in the world. For these reasons, the ability of therapy group leaders to facilitate the growth and maintenance of group reflective space is vital.

In all of the complex choreography that is involved in calling forth the reflective space in a group, one key characteristic stands out for leaders. That is, the intrinsic capacity to hold inside oneself a durable reflective space that stands up to the inevitable challenges that occur in the life of most groups. Particularly early in the life of the group, the myriad of non-verbal and mostly unconscious cues that emanate from the group leader provides the essential backdrop to the more deliberate actions that are being carried out to create containment and linking. The management of counter transference onto the group and onto individual participants is the most significant competence for group leaders. If there is resulting congruence between the leader’s actions and his/her unconscious communication about the value and safety of reflection, then group members will willingly join in the building of a collective space as much as their personal make-up allows. In contrast, a group leader who lacks a personal sense of safety in a group will issue (unconscious) non-verbal signals that constantly warn participants that the group is not a safe place for openness and collective reflection. In such cases, the group will fail to build the collective reflective space that supports the kind of powerful learning that we usually seek within our groups (Maxwell, 1996).

A more subtle implication for group leaders is that they should not strive solely for the kind of reflective space in a group that resembles the glassy surface of a pool in calm weather. In contrast, the purpose of creating a reflective space is to enable thoughts to be thought and feelings to be felt. This environment is often not quiet, but nonetheless has a feeling of openness about it, and may appear noisy and active to the observer.

The leader’s own reflective capacity

If it is true that having an individual robust, internally held reflective capacity is a major contributor to our ability to facilitate the growth of reflective capacity in groups, then how do we build and nurture this in ourselves?

The basic process that enables leaders to build their reflective capacity is through internalization. What is internalized is a durable expectation that there are other people or other groups in the world that can provide the leader with a space in which to reflect. This provides a kind of portable, internally held reflective space for the leader. I said at the start of this paper that I often have good conversations with imaginary others. These phantasy figures have come to life in my mind as a sort of generalized memory of the numerous occasions during which I have been with others and experienced a high quality reflective space. Hence, any experience of working with any others where there are high degrees of reflectiveness will contribute to building our own internal reflective space. The building of such a phantasy space begins at birth and is associated with having experiences of secure attachment to care givers (Marrone, 1998). Later in life, positive relationships with significant others and positive experiences in groups strengthen the internalized reflective capacity.

As adults, we have at least four major opportunities to build or maintain our reflective capacity. Personal or group psychotherapy is one; professional supervision is another; successful intimate friendships provide yet further internalized secure connection with our reflectiveness; and successfully operating in groups where we assist to facilitate reflectivity is another potential contributor to internalized reflective capacity.

Unfortunately, with the exception of therapeutic organizations that are informed by psychodynamic or humanistic principles, most environments in which we work do not value reflection. Most work places in Australia and New Zealand are driven by outcomes that ignore quality of life and the emotional health and mental health of employees. A particular challenge that I have faced in building my own capacity for reflectiveness and my capacity to facilitate reflective spaces in groups has been the relatively low value that has been placed on responsible self-reflection in the culture of adventure-based learning organizations where action tends to be valued more than thinking, feeling or reflection. Similarly, most corporations are afraid to acknowledge the central role of reflective thinking and collaborative learning. It is difficult to fly in the face of the dominant culture, but my own experience is that having personal psychotherapy, professional clinical supervision, and a disciplined focus on my own process-in-relation-to-others has been very worth while.

Reflective spaces in organizations: A central issue

Whilst there seems to be an indisputable argument for reflective spaces in therapeutic and educational work, advocating for reflective spaces in corporate work is more challenging. I would argue that he corporate world has largely managed to perpetuate the myth that reflective, emotional and relational matters are either ‘fringe’ or at best peripheral to ‘core business.’ The cost is exceptionally high levels of splitting, projection, projective identification and consequent scapegoating in organizations.

Nonetheless, there is a strong theoretical basis in support of the development of reflective group process in organizations. For instance, Hutton (1997) is unequivocal about’…the centrality of reflective thinking as an activity of management’ (p.67).

A problem to be faced from the implications of writing a paper of this nature is the translation of ideas into action that will make sense in a rationalistic corporate environment. One exciting inroad into the psyche of an organization was achieved by working in collaboration with a talented team of employees in an oil and gas engineering consulting company in Western Australia. After two years of consulting within the organization during which time my colleague and I gradually built a tolerance for psychodynamic thinking, we were able to introduce an experiential learning program for consulting engineers that was based on the principle of reflective space, although it was couched in slightly different language. The main participants were engineers who were carrying out work for a large subsidiary of Shell Oil. The main issue was how to work in collaboration with the client, thinking together to create optimum solutions to engineering problems.

The conceptual schema for the program is presented in figure 1 Challenge process – Conceptual map: Relationship

The part of the diagram labelled “thinking together” represents the reflective space not just in one-to-one relationships but also in teams, project groups and meetings. Whilst many other concepts were involved in a total of four days of the experiential workshop, the idea of a thinking space was one of the three most significant contributions to making changes in the effectiveness of the organization.

For group leaders who work with organizations, including private corporations and government departments, one of the most difficult challenges faced is to maintain our own belief in the importance of and the need for developing and maintaining reflective spaces in work with client organizations.

Conclusion

Group leaders who have a robust capacity to remain reflective and curious, even in the midst of difficult events in the groups that they are leading, are likely to be able to facilitate in their groups the development and maintenance of a reflective space. The concept of reflective space sits uncomfortably with some disciplines of group based learning. In adventure therapy, for example, action tends to dominate reflection and acting out is sometimes sanctioned in the place of useful activities. In corporate settings impatience for decisions, action and outcomes reduces the tolerance for reflective space. In the Socio­ Analytic tradition, the small study group and the large study group are often perceived to be created within rigid boundaries that, where the perception, or at times the reality persists, do not serve the reflective space well. Nonetheless group reflective space is a vital part of the group’s learning and, when present, can be a powerful positive influence.

The existence of a good reflective space results in a climate that supports open and curious reflection, thinking and experiencing on the part of participants. Reflective space supports internal processes of cognition and processing of affect that enable participants to derive learning from their participation in the group. Leaders can, through their own personal efforts, build their own internal reflective capacity. The skills that are required to build containment and linking·in groups assist leaders to facilitate reflectiveness in groups. Other skills enable leaders to protect groups against attacks on the reflective space. The focus on reflectivity in groups may provide some practitioners with a previously underutilized addition to their effectiveness.⁵

References

Anzieu, D. (1984). The Group and the Unconscious (B. Kilborne, Trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Ashbach, C., & Schermer, V. L. (1994). Object Relations, the Self, and the Group.
London: Routledge.
Bacal, H. A. (1998). ‘Notes on Optimal Responsiveness in the Group Process.’ In N. H. Harwood & M. Pines (Eds.), Self Experiences in Group: Intersubjective and self psychological pathways to human understanding (pp. 175 – 180). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Bateman, A., & Holmes, J. (1995). Introduction to Psychoanalysis: Contemporary theory and practice. London: Routledge.
Berg, D. N., & Smith, K. K. (1995). ‘Paradox and Groups.’ In J. Gillette & M. McCollom (Eds.), Groups in Context: A new perspective on group dynamics (pp. 107 – 132). Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America.
Bion, W. (1962). A theory of thinking. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 43(306-310).
Bion, W.R. (1961). Experiences in Groups. London: Tavistock/Routledge.
Dalal, F. (1998). Taking the group seriously: Towards a post-Foulkesian group analytic theory. London: Jessica Kingsley.
DeLucia-Waack, J. L. (1999). What Makes an Effective Group Leader? Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 24(2), 131 – 132.
Foulkes, S. H., & Anthony, E. J. (1990). Group Psychotherapy: The psychoanalytic approach. (2nd ed.). London: Karnak.
Hinshelwood, R. D. (1994). ‘Attacks on the Reflective Space: containing primitive emotional states.’ In V. L. Schermer & M. Pines (Eds.), Ring of Fire: Primitive affects and object relations in group psychotherapy (pp. 86 – 106). London: Routledge.
Hutton, J. (1997). ‘Re-imagining the Organisation of an Institution.’ In E. Smith (Ed.), Integrity and Change (pp. 66-82). London: Routledge.
Karterud, S. W. (1998). ‘The Group self, Empathy, Intersubjectivity, and Hermeneutics.’ In N. H. Harwood & M. Pines (Eds.), Self Experiences in Group: Intersubjective and self psychological pathways to human understanding (pp. 83 – 98). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Marrone, M. (1998). Attachment and Interaction. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Maxwell,  P.  (1996).  Psychoanalytic  psychotherapy:  A  blank  screen?
Psychotherapy in Australia, 2(4), 42 – 46.
McCollom, M. (1995). ‘Group formation: Boundaries, Leadership, and Culture.’ In J. Gillette & M. McCollom (Eds.), Groups in context: A new perspective on group dynamics (pp. 34 – 48). Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America.
McCollom, M., & Gillette, J. (1995). ‘The Emergence of a New Experiential Tradition.’ In J. Gillette & M. McCollom (Eds.), Groups in Context: A new perspective on group dynamics (pp. 1 – 12). Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America.
Meares, R. (1992). The Metaphor of Play: on self, the secret and the borderline experience. Maryborough, Victoria, Australia: Hill of Content.
Neri, C. (1998). Group. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Nitsun, M. (1996). The Anti-group: Destructive forces in the group and their creative potential. London: Routledge.
Parkes, C. M. (1975). ‘What becomes of Redundant World Models? A contribution to the study of adaptation to change’. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 48, 131 – 137.
Pines, M. (1998). ‘The Self as a Group: The·group as self.’ In N. H. Harwood &
M. Pines (Eds.), Self Experiences in Group: Intersubjective and self psychological pathways to human understanding (pp. 24 – 29). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Ringer, T. M. (1999). ‘Two vital aspects in the facilitation of groups: Connections and containment.’ Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 4(1), 5-11.
Ringer, T. M., & O’Brien, M. (1997). Building Relationships with Participants in Department of Conservation Programmes: Effective management of experiential groups in the outdoors. Wellington: Department of Conservation.
Ringer, T. M. (In progress). Group action: The Dynamics of Groups in Therapeutic, Educational and Corporate Settings. Jessica Kingsley; London.
Schermer, V. L., & Pines, M. (Eds.). (1994). Ring of Fire; primitive affects and object relations in group psychotherapy. London: Routledge.
Segal, J. (1985). Phantasy in Everyday Life: A psychoanalytical approach to understanding ourselves. Harmondsworth: Pelican.
Smith, E. (Ed.). (1997). Integrity and Change: Mental health in the market place. London: Routledge.
Smith, K. K. (1995). ‘On Using the Self as Instrument: lessons from a facilitator’s experience.’ In J. Gillette & M. McCollom (Eds.), Groups in Context: A new perspective on group dynamics (pp. 276 – 294). Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America.
Stapley, L. F. (1996). The Personality of the Organisation: A psychodynamic explanation of culture and change. London: Free Association Books.
Yalom, I. D. (1985). The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy. (3rd ed.). USA: Basic Books.

Further reading on the reflective space

Neri (1998, pp 80-111) eloquently describes ‘group thought’ which has some clear parallels with the idea of group reflective space. That section of his book will provide the more interested reader with further ideas that relate to the group reflective space. Also relevant are Schlachet,
P. ‘The Concept of Group Space’ International J. of Group Psychotherapy 36,1. 1986, and Long,
S.D. ‘Early Integration in Groups: A group to join or a group to create’ Human Relations 1984 (7,4 pp.311-332).

Endnotes

1. I use the term ‘imaginary’ here to mean both creations in my mind of people (or groups) who do not exist in any real physical form, as well as memories of people (or groups) whom I do know or have known.
2. Phantasy: a kind of imagining of something that remains outside our awareness (unconscious) and in a generalized form. We might feel hopeful because of a background sense that there is someone bigger, wiser and stronger ‘out there’ who will prevent harm from befalling us. This is a phantasy. Fantasy: a consciously held imagining that has a tangible shape or form. For example, we might have a fantasy of inheriting a country estate with a Rolls Royce and servants to look after us. For further information see Segal, (1985).
3. Conventional thinking about groups and individuals creates a difficulty in describing the ‘reflective space’ or ‘group reflective space’. The reflective space that I describe is simultaneously ‘group’ and ‘individual’ and so depending on which aspect I wish to emphasize at any one time I will use both terms ‘group reflective space’ and ‘reflective space.’
4. For the purposes of this paper borderline participants demonstrate a pervasive absence of a coherent self and hence look for ‘self’ in others. Narcissistic participants depend on others for validation of their sense of self because their internal sense of self is so flimsy.
5. An earlier version of this article appears as chapter 11 of the book Ringer, T.M. (in press) The Dynamics of groups in therapeutic, educational and corporate settings. Jessica Kingsley, London.

Biographical Note

Martin Ringer is a trainer in group work leadership and a management consultant with over twenty-five years of experience in working with groups and experiential learning. He has presented keynote speeches and workshops extensively in the USA, Europe and Australia and his work has been widely published. Martin has a history as practitioner and director in adventure therapy programmes, and he has taught group work al universities for seven years. He has recently completed a book on the dynamics of groups in therapeutic, educational and corporate settings. For further information see www.martinringer.com