System dynamics and group facilitation: contributions from communication theory

In this paper a theoretical approach to group facilitation is introduced, based on the work of the so-called Palo Alto school in communication and psychotherapy. This approach permits an analysis of group facilitation processes on the basis of several important principles that also inform system dynamics model building and simulation. On the basis of this analysis existing lists of appropriate facilitation skills and attitudes may be supplemented with three guidelines, leading to greater insight into the quality of the process of group model building and possible ways to evaluate that process. Ultimately, the growth and proliferation of system dynamics models and simulations depend on improvement of both process and content of modeling and simulation. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  Solomon E. Asch,et al.  Opinions and Social Pressure , 1955 .

[2]  P. Watzlawick,et al.  Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies and Paradoxes , 1964 .

[3]  Carmine Bianchi,et al.  Introducing SD modelling into planning and control systems to manage SMEs' growth: a learning-oriented perspective , 2002 .

[4]  George P. Richardson,et al.  Feedback Thought in Social Science and Systems Theory , 1991 .

[5]  Jac A. M. Vennix,et al.  Group model-building: tackling messy problems , 1999 .

[6]  Scott F. Rockart,et al.  Overcoming the improvement paradox , 1999 .

[7]  George P. Richardson,et al.  Scripts for group model building , 1997 .

[8]  Etiënne A. J. A. Rouwette,et al.  Group model building as mutual persuasion , 2003 .

[9]  J. Haley,et al.  Strategies of Psychotherapy , 1963 .

[10]  Henk Akkermans,et al.  Renga: A systems approach to facilitating inter-organizational network development , 2001 .

[11]  Andreas Größler,et al.  Don't let history repeat itself—methodological issues concerning the use of simulators in teaching and experimentation , 2004 .

[12]  Max Visser,et al.  Gregory Bateson on deutero-learning and double bind: a brief conceptual history. , 2003, Journal of the history of the behavioral sciences.

[13]  Max Visser,et al.  Deutero-Learning in Organizations: A Review and a Reformulation , 2007 .

[14]  S. Milgram.  Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View , 1975 .

[15]  Simon Peck,et al.  Group Model Building: Facilitating Team Learning Using System Dynamics , 1996, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[16]  Jac A. M. Vennix,et al.  Exploring influencing factors on rationality: A literature review of dynamic decision making studies in system dynamics , 2004 .

[17]  Erik R. Larsen,et al.  System Dynamics and the `New Technology' for Organizational Decisions: From Mapping and , 1999 .

[18]  Henk Akkermans,et al.  Clients' opinions on group model-building : an exploratory study , 1997 .

[19]  No Arthur,et al.  New technology , 1989, CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology.

[20]  A. Tarnopolsky,et al.  Transactional disqualification. Research on the double bind. , 1967, Archives of general psychiatry.

[21]  Peter M. Senge,et al.  Overcoming limits to learning in computer-based learning environments , 1992 .

[22]  David A. Bednar,et al.  The Theory of Logical Types: A Tool for Understanding Levels and Types of Change in Organizations , 1997 .

[23]  S. Kraemer.  Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Gregory Bateson , 1993, British Journal of Psychiatry.

[24]  John D. Sterman,et al.  Learning in and about complex systems , 1994 .

[25]  Paul Watzlawick,et al.  How real is real?: confusion, desinformation, communication , 1977 .

[26]  P. Senge.  The fifth discipline : the art and practice of the learning organization/ Peter M. Senge , 1991 .