Group B observations: There were a lot of power-plays in group B, and the ESFP was very revenge-impact oriented. Similarly, the ESTJ deftly sat between, strategically agreed with, and had suggestive body language with the 2 males in the group, in an attempt to hold on to a power-position. The INTJ tried her best to explain to the group her interpretations of the material vis-a-vis their group, but she was also the youngest member of the group, and sometimes things got turned into African American issues instead of group issues, although there was not really any hostility. Only 1 member, the ISTP female, was largely non-participative, although it was clear she was paying attention since the comments she did give were succinct and insightful. This group did a number of things to 'get at' the professor: deliberate attempts to make us laugh, surprise absenteeism, selecting out a member to act as an observer (like us) while we were observing, and so on. Their presentation had each person doing a different part, was lively for the most part, with many 'get at the teacher' undertones - clear lingering issues.

Group A observations: They were a strong group by week 7, needing no help, and gave a presentation as a group that compressed the 8 weeks into 1 hour. Few separate parts; everyone working and commenting together. Had the ENTP male not dropped out of the class, their group might have been quite different, although the ESTP and INFJ together might have been able to counteract his over-confident social engineering. He existed as part of the group's history, however, as a mythical person, and his ghost and his inputs acted as something in the background, which probably greatly assisted the group.

Groups A and B had much more diversity in terms of type. And the effective leader in these two groups had as their counter-point someone of the opposite type. Group C had low type diversity with no one to act as a real counter-point.

• The more temperaments present, the healthier the group
• The presence of opposite types is important to group success. One type (the extrovert) acts as the effective leader, while the other type acts as a counter-point.
• In a group of almost all women, men will become pieces to secure power.
• There are behaviors common to group development:

Initial contact and get to know you

Attempt to solidify group through group activity

Attempt to understand assignment

Attempt various ways to get input from professor

Revenge tactics on professor

Pairing into subgroups

Ways like self-disclosure to "freeze" group

Power-maintenance tactics

Open sharing (self-report on current thoughts and feelings)

Discussion of group process dynamics (intellectual)

Ability to see (or not see) some dynamics as they happen (where and how people sit, who talks to whom, etc.)

Desire to succeed as a group over problems (treat each other with respect and not afraid of the group.)

Find numerous ways to over-simply, over-complicate and obscure information given to them about group dynamics

Picking out group members as scapegoats

Dropping out of the group (making oneself a black sheep)

Use presence of ghost members (dropped class) in positive way

Etc.

One thing the professor did that had interesting results was getting the groups together twice during the 8 week period. She would have 3 tables with chairs, or 3 sets of chairs arranged physically to reflect the groups. Student would wait outside in the hallway until called in one group at a time. When one group was seated another would be let in. In some cases students moved their chairs around to send 'ambassadors' to another group, but other times people were quite finicky about where they sat. The first inter-group meeting took place in a very large room, with lots of space between each group, so they really had to move to get to be seated close to another group, which they did not really do (group A did the most visiting to other groups.) the second time was in a small room, and the chairs for each group were really packed close together, but in odd ways. For example, one group (group C) had all their chairs in a circle but facing AWAY from each other, another all their chairs facing in the same direction, and the third around in a circle facing each other. One group (group C) was missing a chair, so one person would be unable to sit. The idea was to present the group and its members with not only a reflection of themselves but of how the other groups are doing. The effect of the missing chair, for example, was shocking. A student, an older women, (the non-lead female ENFJ in group C) had no place to sit - she had waited until others were seated assuming she would have a place, then realized there were only 7 chairs, but no one else in the group would move or give her a seat. She ended up running out of the room in tears. All this happened very fast, within say 10 seconds, as another group was already being let in and no one had no idea what was going on. It turned out later it took the two INFPs in the woman's group, outside of class, to convince her not the drop the course.

Thinking Back: I have mixed feelings about doing inter-group stuff like the social work class. The professor, as many socially aware INFJ females are, had as her dominant frame gender and power issues. She did things like this, as well as wearing a formal outfit and having us where formal clothes too, to reinforce our nature. I think doing things like this made the participants too afraid to do some of the things students later tried with me (like taking pictures, feeding my a cookie, etc.) She stated that she found that participants did not take her seriously when she tried it the first time on her own, after attending a powerful workshop where a middle-aged male ran the whole thing. She believed it had something to do with status and being female, which I suspect is true. It was interesting to watch in the inter-group sessions and later stuff how the 4 men in the class basically had no voice at all. Even if they tried to raise a subject, or the subject of not having a voice, they were completely deflected by the professor and by female students in the class (20 women, 4 men.) This was hard to handle from my point of view, and I saw how alienating this must be for women in the opposite situation. How many men would it take to suddenly change the dynamic in the class? If the ratio were reversed, would women have a special place, etc? Some of these questions were later answered.

The summer following the social work class, I taught an engineering artificial intelligence class to 18 students (17 males, mostly juniors going into their senior year in engineering or computer science, all but 3 age 20-22.) This was a very different demographic than the social work class, and a lot less diversity type wise (the only Idealist was the INFJ female.)

Nonetheless, I went ahead and formed 3 groups of 6 students, with little knowledge of their types, and followed the social work professor's example. I intervened little except using cartoons and computer-related metaphors. The computer related metaphors differed from the social work metaphors, which emphasized parents, children, etc. I also did the opening fish-bowl exercise and asked them to keep and hand in a journal.

The class was 5 weeks, so they meet twice a week for 4 weeks. Part of the time they meet was class time, and part was time they would spend after class. For some reason, I had a difficult time getting at true type with some of students.

One thing I did differently than my experience as a TA was to have each group do a 2nd 5-minute presentation after their planned one. They had 2 or 3 minutes to prepare, and same to present, on their process in doing the presentation they just gave. This would tell me two things:

• Could they do it? Did their main presentation succeed because they were a real dynamical group or because they had done a lot of planning?
• Were they sufficiently self-aware of what had been going on in the presentation?

For example, group C had a weak presentation - their group had become rigid somewhere along the way and several members were disenfranchised from the group. Definite fear of intimacy - the other groups appeared to have at least one feeling-preference person. However, in their post-presentation presentation, the group leader (INTJ) successfully named everything that had gone on indicative of the group's dysfunction as it played out in the presentation. They (or at least the INTJ) knew what was wrong, they just didn't know how to solve it.

Another thing I did differently was meeting informally outside of class with 1 member of each group and made minor comments in response to their questions, to build a sense of trust that I knew what I was doing. Otherwise, the groups had few resources except a single sheet of paper on group dynamics.

• It's not so important the diversity be numerically equal, just that a view is present and expressed - one person IS capable of representing his or her own temperament.
• INFJ is a good type to have in a group, because they naturally understand the nature of the assignment and the paradox that entails.
• Just because one understands what's going on with the group doesn't mean one knows how to interact with other members in such a way as to effect the group's basic nature.
• One female by herself can play a powerful role.

I considered the following grading criteria for their presentations:

1. What is the energy level of the group?
2. Is the presentation in parts, individually, or done as a single group?
3. Is the group still entangled with the professor, or independent?
4. Are they able to really pull off the post-presentation presentation?

I taught this class a year later, with many more groups and students (56) and a lot less information about individual group members or time to observe and think about the groups. Nonetheless, 4 of the 7 groups were quite successful, 2 were mediocre, and 1 was borderline failure. The other difference was that the largest group in the class was Asian, a handful of whom had poor language skills, and several groups consisted of all Asian students, or only 1 white student. The diversity of majors and gender was better than the engineering class, however, since PIC is for any non-engineering student who wants computer skills.

In the 10 weeks of the course, groups met once a week for 1 hour for 8 weeks. I interacted in the same way I had done with the engineering groups, with metaphor, cartoons, and also using a notepad to jot down notes (the group members could not see.) Larger groups (7 to 11 members) meant a better chance at type diversity.

There was a lot of interesting unexpected behavior. Groups spying on other groups, group fieldtrips and simply meeting in different locations (often outside in the nice weather), writing notes on my office hour, sending me e-mails as if I were a group member, running after me and calling my name when I left the room, etc.

Although I had students fill out an on-line psychological inventory to get at true type, there was no way to verify the results - the 16 types booklet was not yet out at the time. The types of the group leaders and students I frequently met with were obviously for the most part, but that might have been 20 students at best. Therefore I focused my attention on other factors in group development. I told all the students at the beginning what some common pitfalls were, including the trap of the false project, the desire to get revenge on me, confusion about purpose, etc.

This was the first time that I encountered a group where 3 out of 7 members essentially refused to participate at all, whether to speak, do activities, or whatever. All three was from Asia, and while their language skills were not tops, it was hard to understand why they did not participate at all, except that I assumed they had either a preference for introversion, or were Guardians. Three of the remaining 4 members were much more active, tried to get the other 3 to communicate, and so on - which probably further silenced them. The forth member, an INTP male, often sat between the two groups, in an observer position. About 3/4 of the way through, I tried intervention (something the INFJ professor in the social work class) had strictly warned against.) I did not speak to them directly, but gave them more metaphors, and even repeated metaphors when I perceived they weren't getting them. This was the most note-worthy of the groups.

Quite a number of groups took pictures or shot video, often trying to include me. I hadn't faced this at all in being a TA in the social work class, but I kept with the non-participant stance I learned - the group was simply trying to draw me in as a member and that could not be allowed to happen. Some people also tried to make me laugh - hard to resist! But I discovered that resisting and then laughing later made them lose interest in me and move on with their group.

I asked the students to write up a review of their process, and told them to include a copy of their journal that they'd keep through out the 8 weeks. In reading the journals, I discovered that 3 people in particular, in different groups, were really hated. All three were ENTP males with a more directive (social engineering) style. Fortunately, one of these 3 dropped out of the class early on, but acted as a ghost member to rally against.

I also assigned groups in pairs of 2 to meet with each other about 5 or 6 weeks into the process. The groups generally disliked each other, and made fun of each other in the presentations. One student later commented that it was 'too late' in the process - group identities had already formed - for groups to learn from each other (plus, there may have been grade-paranoia.)

I wrote up a checklist of things to pay attention to:

• Cohesiveness (smooth or awkward presentation)
• Energy level (higher or lower)
• Self-reflectivity (group makes comments about itself as it presents)
• On task: did the group, in fact, present on its process of preparing?
• Full participation: Did all members participate?
• Group process: where all major group development themes touched on?
• Outside Influence: Was my role as professor talked about in some way?
• Applications: Were connections made to concepts in class?
• Uniqueness: Did the group stand out from the other groups?
• 2nd Impromptu Presentation: Pull it off?

How did the 7 groups do? There was a wide variety in their presentations. One group went several days before the others - this gave the other groups a chance to see what it would be like. I had to do this because of time conflicts; I do not suggest this. Fortunately, it appears that most of the groups ignored what they saw and continued with their own thing.

Group A- strong leader, each person playing an assigned role, thorough presentation on process with overheads, posters, etc. Not a lot of energy. Nine members. Typical presentation. The leader, who was the de-facto official leader, was an ENTP male. B. The ENTJ in the group later said he deliberately chose not to lead.

Group B- strong use of overhead, individual parts, low energy level, talk a lot about group processes in general, less about their group. This was the bifurcated group with 3 non-talking members. Clearly the weakest group. Grade=C.

Group C- this group was very large (11 people), and I give them kudos for making it as a group. One person after the next, but clearly they had enjoyed and liked their group. I believe the group leader was an ENTP male (the soft kind.) Grade=B.

Group D- video presentation pulled off at the last minute (no de-facto leader, but ESFP female played strong role.) Video based on the "real world" concept. Separate non-video part of presentation was enjoyable. High energy level. A

Group E- live, compacted simulation of their entire group process, sat in a circle around a table, brought up all the issues and showed all the interactions. Claimed they did not have a leader, but the INTP female clearly lead the way in terms of understanding about group processes. She was the only person ever to answer the question at the end out how 'something like the group process, but every day.' An A presentation.

Group F- extemporaneous presentation simulating their process, with missing member handed up tape recorder. Some division of labor, but equal with group stuff. Strong ESFP male leader; but his informative and open style left room for others. An A group (also, an all male group.)

Group G- the group that was always arguing but loving it. Their video, based on Jerry Springer, high-lighted many of their group process issues in an interesting way. The INTJ member did a great imitation of me in the post-presentation presentation. Another A group.

In retrospect it is easier to assign these ABC grades. At the time, I made finer distinctions and gave grades that hardly differed from each other. I expected the use of video to mean a weak presentation, but actually, making a video seems to be very hard work that brings the group together at the end.

Finally, I have at least one question about group behavior on each of the 3 tests in the class. I would ask about a situation and have them classify it according to the type of dysfunctional behavior.

• My previous conclusions are generally correct
• Having a set leader or a strong leader is a dysfunctional behavior
• Strong groups do things I don't expect, or do a lot of their own initiative (spy on other groups, follow me around, send creative e-mails, etc.)
• More than 1 (or maybe 2) non-participating group members is deadly.
• More than 8 people in a group can work, but there is something off that doesn't quite work. Smaller groups (8 or fewer) do better.
• I should provide more resources for the groups independent of interventions on my part - more readings, better readings, etc.
• Too much intervention is deadly - minimize!
• There are definitely certain kinds of presentations- the linear, individual parts with overheads presentation is deadly.
• A good presentation by a well-developed group doesn't really need any props or really any extensive preparation.
• Video is an effective medium and a catalyst for group development.
• The un-leader (one who leads without leading) is the best leader.
• Most people cannot correctly identify their group behaviors, or even other group's behaviors, much less seem them while they are happening (which corresponds to the theory of group behavior.)
• People do not think about what will happen to their group after the presentation
• Larger groups do not appear to compensate when no info on type distribution.

Kinds of presentations, in order of their power and success in representing a healthy group:

• Unprepared and essentially no presentation. I've only seen this once.
• The linear, individual parts presentation. Often with static props, overheads, and theory oriented.

• Use of a LIVE medium like film to document and illustrate the process.
• Extemporaneous simulation as a group, highly positive and successful - compression of group process into allotted time period.

Like the engineering class, I ended with a Q&A about what the group process means, how it works, why I did certain things and so on. Alas, some students STILL did not see the connection between the group projects and the class.

I returned to doing this in a small class, with 3 groups of 6 students each. I was very clear about their types and gave them more materials than other classes had received on their cognitive processes, personality preferences, and so on. I also had them doing a self-report on there process in going through the booklets, to get them more aware of process in general, which may have helped. Only toward the end did it occur to me to explicitly directly them to Chap 11 in the Mind text so they would be up on how the group process related to the class; I moved closer to talking about the systems perspective as well. They still hand the 1-page handouts on group process do's and don'ts. These students were 18-22, from a wide variety of backgrounds. 14 of 16 types were represented! This allowed for a lot of diversity. The other bonus was that almost everyone was highly intelligent and were able to work with the uncertainty of the process there in the background.

I was determined to give meaningful grades. The individual reports on the process would still be worth a lot, but the presentation should be worth something substantial too. This is in contrast to the original social work class, where the presentation wasn't worth anything, and the final individual paper was 100% of the grade in the class! Whether or not I continue with this approach, of giving a grade is something to think about - is it fair? I could tell by the second to last week that group C was stuck, but since I had learned my lesson about intervention, I decided to be very subtle - this was noticed, but the wrong conclusions were drawn.

Fairness has become an issue. I'm thinking the following model is accurate:

• 33% of the presentation is determined by the nature of the group make up at the start, by virtue of the members assigned to the group.
• 33% of the presentation is determined by what goes on in the first 2 weeks. By the end of week 2, minor behaviors have become amplified or interpreted and the fundamental interactions are set.
• 33% of the presentation is determined afterwards, primarily by the choices conscious group members make to point out and counter unconscious behaviors, bring out indirectly the positive contributions of other members, and so on.

This means that an individual has 33% of their grade determined by the role of the dice, so to speak, and another 33% determined before they are fully able to grasp what is going on! Unfortunately, I am not sure what constitutes the 'genetic' part of the group versus the other parts.

Thus, in the social work group, group A had all 3 going for it, group B succeeded in 2 of these (probably 1 and 2, since there were only 2 or 3 conscious members in the group - the INTJ, the ESFJ and the ISTP.) And group C totally missed the mark.

In the engineering class, I believe all 3 had a chance given their membership, although group C had more to overcome because of lack of diversity. However, the INFJ in group worked very hard, and their success cannot be downplayed. Group B also did well; they did better than the social work group B, because they acted a group, but they were still entangled with the professor, as that other group B was.

Some other conclusions:

• Type/temperament diversity by itself does not assure success.
• ENTP males are generally not good for groups, unless there is another ENTP male to check them.
• Someone of the same type can act as a counter-point, as opposed to just people of opposite types.
• My original conclusions about how to evaluate groups continue to hold.
• All groups have leaders, even if they don't admit it. The question is how the leader acts.
• The fuzzy cognitive map and emphasis on Chap 11 material seems important for students being able to digest the process in their individual papers.
• I should assign Chap 11 right up front, as a resource.
• Groups that don't succeed usually don't understand the group process even after the fact (they don't have the 'aha' experience.)
• For groups that are failing (becoming frozen), the people are too afraid the over-throw and confront the leader - it is better for me to confront the leader than it is to confront the non-participants, who take their cue from the leader.

Groups B and C encountered each other early on, and all three groups meet with each other for brief episodes on their own. After a while, they seem to find this a waste of time, or did not like the effect of the other group, or felt the need to get to their own issues.

I am considering, in a broad way, that INFP, INTP and INFJ are critical types to have in groups. They are not direct-causal agents, but their presence is generally positive. Conversely, I believe that ENTP, ESTJ and ENFJ are generally not conducive to group success in this kind of open-ended process - all other things being equal. ENTPs tend to do social engineering, ESTJs seem very uncomfortable with the assignment, and ENFJs may do inappropriate self-disclosure or try to force others to disclose. In contrast, INFP and INTP are both naturally attuned to process (extraverted intuiting), and other will maintain checks on whether the group is kidding itself about where it is in that process; and INFJ is very comfortable with paradox and group dynamics. Of course, there are other factors; however, if I were to build an FCM of group dynamics, then that would be a factor.

Finally, these 3 groups were far more creative and did many more unexpected things that most previous groups - trying to feed me food, bring in outsiders to talk to me, test me by sitting outside their classroom and then going inside, using cell-phones to do cross-group communication (about me) and so on. Fortunately, the two groups that did this the most (A and B) eventually were able to leave me behind and give excellent presentations.

Resources for facilitating the group process:

I do not believe that knowledge of type is needed in the short time frame of the class, and may lead to simply assigning labels, since the students don't have the time to really figure out and understand what they mean. Temperament is a simpler model to apply in a short period of time. Also, if I taught an additional class in the future, on systems, I would include additional readings on dynamics and dynamical systems, not group process. There are a number of models on group process, but they mainly pigeonhole stages as opposed to talking about inter-dynamic processes and patterns.