The theory of individualism/collectivism developed by Harry Triandis (1990, 1995) emphasizes individual differences and cross-cultural differences in many of the same tendencies discussed by social identity theory. The theory of individualism/collectivism describes cross-cultural differences in the extent to which emphasis is placed on the goals and needs of the in group rather than on individual rights and interests. For individuals highly predisposed to collectivism, ingroup norms and the duty to cooperate and subordinate individual goals to the needs of the group are paramount. Collectivist cultures are characterized by social embeddedness in a network of extended kinship relationships.
Such cultures develop an “unquestioned attachment” to the ingroup, including “the perception that ingroup norms are universally valid (a form of ethnocentrism), automatic obedience to ingroup authorities [i.e., authoritarianism], and willingness to fight and die for the ingroup. These characteristics are usually associated with distrust of and unwillingness to cooperate with outgroups” (Triandis, 1990:55); collectivist cultures are more prone to ingroup bias (Heine and Lehman, 1997; Triandis and Trafimow, 2001). Like social identity processes, tendencies toward collectivism are exacerbated in times of external threat, again suggesting that the tendency toward collectivism is a facultative response that evolved as a mechanism of between-group conflict.

Groups: Process & Practice was built on a rich base of knowledge and years of professional experience on the part of the two authors in leading groups themselves. It is filled with an invaluable summary of the stages that groups go through, the role of the leader through each of these stages and a detailed description of the member's roles and challenges at the different stages.
In reading this book, I was most interested in focusing in on the key aspects of a leader's role and what is essential for the development of an effective group leader. My work as team leader of the Outward Bound Global Facilitation Network and the completion of Phase 1 of our project this winter had me keenly interested in what this book had to share. For Phase 2 of our project, this book will be invaluable. I will now quote several passages that I highlighted and comment on those by sharing some stories from a Summer School I attended in August 2002 on Group Work.
"Particularly important is your willingness to examine how your personality and behavior either hinder or facilitate your work as a group leader...It is also essential that you be willing to take an honest look at your own life to determine if you are willing to do for yourself what you challenge group members to do." (Corey, M.S. & Corey, G. 1997, 8)

This passage brings to mind one of the most powerful exercises I participated in during a five-day residential workshop for leaders of experiential training and therapeutic groups in Southern France this past August 2002. There were 10 participants. On Day 2, we were told that we would be forming 3 digestion groups (3, 3, & 4 members). The leaders explained that these digestion groups would be meeting for about 2 hours each day without a facilitator to integrate or "digest" amongst ourselves the meaning of the day's events. The purpose was for us to use our knowledge and skills to coach and educate each other as well as taking the opportunity to reflect on our own patterns of perceiving, believing and behaving that unfolded each day. We would also have a chance to reflect on and analyze the whole-group patterns and the functioning of the group leaders.
We were sitting around in a circle at this point. As our digestion groups would be a core and very important component of this workshop, they asked us to take a few moments to look around the group and think for a few moments about whom we would like to spend that digestion time with and whom we wouldn't like to spend that time with. They also challenged us to think about taking risks and maximizing our learning and planted a seed that perhaps recognizing discomfort in being with someone might be an opportunity for learning as well. After a few minutes, they then instructed us to get up, move about and approach those we wanted to be with. And the leaders moved their chairs back to observe the process.
It won’t come as a surprise that clear communication is vital to building relationship with project team members. But what does that mean? It encompasses a myriad of things when bringing people together to work on a project. * It’s not assuming that the members of the project team want to be communicated with in the same way that you like to receive or deliver information. It’s important to find out each team member’s communication preferences, especially in this world of various communication devices and methods, and to be flexible enough, when possible, to accommodate those differences. And to trust that the information will flow when, and as, needed. * It’s anticipating client and internal team member needs and asking great questions with sincerity and without ulterior motives, then proactively engaging in dialogue that leads to meeting those needs or searching for alternative solutions that can be agreed upon. * It’s also about identifying and interpreting non-verbal cues. Doing a literature review will net varying statistics regarding percentages of non-verbal vs. verbal communication, but for the purposes of this discussion, that’s really not important. What’s important is that we know that non-verbal communication is a very significant part of communication, and we need to pay attention to and acknowledge what we observe…and act accordingly. It makes an impression when we notice the little things about others and helps to build the relationship * Building trust through communication means deciding to communicate even when the message isn’t pleasant. I find that sometimes team members want to shield sharing a message that may be unpleasant or that there may be hesitancy to deal with something that is messy. In my experience, THIS NEVER WORKS! I have found that in the long run, hitting situations head on and dealing with them leads to trusting relationships — a lot better than pretending that a problem doesn’t exist. What a great way to build trust by acknowledging with the team that yes, what’s facing us is difficult/not what we expected/will take us some time and effort to figure out, but that we have the tools to do it and we’ll do it together.
Communication is important to building trust because it’s how we stay in the reality of the situation we’re working in – it’s how we gather information about how we’re doing and what we need to start, stop, or continue — as we work together throughout the project. It’s the way we course correct as, and when needed, and it’s one way each team member knows that they matter.

As Corey and Corey say, "Group process provides a sample of reality, with the struggles that people experience in the group resembling their conflicts in daily life. (13) I remember my first feeling was I hated the leaders. How dare they as leaders put us in such an uncomfortable psychologically sensitive challenge- my memory bank flew back to my childhood days, when in physical education, two captains were chosen and then had to choose players. I was usually always chosen last or next to last and remembered how rejected and how much of a loser I felt like. I decided to verbalize to the leaders these thoughts and feelings that I was having. They responded by reminding many of us who were experiential educators that we often present our participants with such scenarios without being consciously aware of the dynamics-when we ask them to divide into groups with no structure or guidelines. And they left us again to deal with that reality.
Over the next two hours, a rich, and painful process unfolded as we struggled to form the three digestion groups. My personal experience was mixed. Three people who said they wanted to be with me approached me immediately. That felt very affirming-much different than my baseball memories. Two of those three I had also silently chosen and the third woman, I thought would be a great member to share time with. Moments later two more approached and a group of four was quickly acknowledged as being formed. Suddenly I realized that the third woman was now outside this chosen foursome. I looked at her and didn't know what to do. I wanted to be with the three others, yet didn't want to reject her outright and in fact really liked her as well, but we could only be 4 maximum. I felt selfish, not wanting to sacrifice participating in what I sensed would be a very rich digestion group so as not to reject the woman. Yet, if I went with her, who would be the third? There were two people I definitely did not want to end up with. My final choice was to remain with the three others. I felt really great and awful all at the same time about this. The woman who ended up in another group and I were able to process this together later that day and the following morning, during the reflection time we had each morning following a 10 minute silent period about the struggle and pain. For many of us that exercise was a very deep exploration into ourselves on many levels and into the dynamics of group work.
According to the authors, "Genuine cohesion typically comes after groups have struggled with conflict, have shared pain, and have committed themselves to significant risks. Genuine cohesion... is an ongoing process of solidarity that members earn through the risks they take with one another." (Corey, M.S. & Corey, G. 1997, 157) Our experience in having to form our own digestion groups certainly epitomized struggle with conflict, shared pain, and committing to risks! The result was the beginning of genuine cohesion but not the end.
The other most powerful component to this summer school were the "scenarios" we did everyday. Scenarios are semi-structured socio-dramatic re-enactment of a situation that the facilitator introduces to the group. The whole event is ‘directed' by one of the group leaders. Some group participants take roles in the socio-drama and a facilitator acts as a trained actor in a key role. Participants take turns as ‘group leader' in the scenario; others are observers watching the process. The whole group discusses the learning that be derived from each scene. Putting oneself into the chair of the ‘group leader' was a great risk, one that some eagerly wanted to take, and that others avoided. No matter what choice you made, the mirror was always there for you to look at if you chose to. One of the other points Corey and Corey say is so important is for each of us to "...become aware of your own reactions to resistance. One of the most powerful ways to intervene when you are experiencing strong feelings over what you perceive to be resistance is to deal with your own feelings and possible defensive reactions to the situation... by giving the members your reactions, you are modeling a direct style of dealing with conflict and resistance, rather than by bypassing it. Your own thoughts, feelings, and observations can be the most powerful resource you have in dealing with defensive behavior. (Corey, M.S. & Corey, G. 1997, 186-7)
As I read this book, I was taken back to this France course and was reminded how powerful the learning was for me and how much of what the authors say in this book, I had a chance to learn experientially on a very deep level! I hope to return to France next summer to join this program again. I will use Corey and Corey's book as a valuable resource for my Capstone and as we move into Phase 2 of the Outward Bound Global Facilitation Project.
My own guidelines for governing group process are first to create a container of safety for participants so that trust and openness is established early on, and an atmosphere where taking risks and making mistakes is welcomed as an opportunity to push one's limits and step outside our comfort zone. When conflicts arise, my way to deal directly and authentically about what I see and feel and open a space to allow others to express their thoughts and feelings. I refuse to avoid or sweep uncomfortable issues under the carpet. Rather I strongly support creating an atmosphere where un discussables can be discussed and forward movement made. It is my strong belief that if we as leaders are not willing to look in the mirror often and tell the truth, then we cannot be effective leaders.
Theories based on phenotypic similarity, such as genetic similarity theory, do not address the crucial importance of cultural manipulation of segregative mechanisms as a fundamental characteristic of ethnocentric groups. It is common for groups to develop segregative cultural practices with the result that ingroup membership becomes of critical importance for all relationships. For example, there are large cultural barriers between Anabaptist groups (Amish and Hutterites) and the surrounding society, including modes of dressing, familiarity with the wider culture of themass media, religious beliefs, and associational patterns (MacDonald, 1994/2002). As a result, phenotypic and genetic similarity between individual Anabaptists and non- Anabaptists on a wide range of traits was effectively precluded as a mechanism for promoting friendship, business alliances, and marriage with outsiders, and there was a corresponding hypertrophy of the importance of religious/ ethnic affiliation (i.e., group membership) as a criterion of assortment
Loyalty to the group, sacrifice for it, hatred and contempt for outsiders, brotherhood within, warlikeness without—all grow together, common products of the same situation. It is sanctified by connection with religion. Men of an others-group are outsiders with whose ancestors the ancestors of the we-group waged war. . . . Each group nourishes its own pride and vanity, boasts itself superior, exalts its own divinities, and looks with contempt on outsiders. Each group thinks its own folkways the only right ones, and if it observes that other groups have other folkways, these excite its scorn.
The powerful emotional components of social identity processes are very difficult to explain except as an aspect of the evolved machinery of the human mind. The ingroup develops a positive distinctness, a positive social identity, and increased self-esteem as a result of this process (Aberson, Healy, and Romero, 2000; Rubin and Hewstone, 1998). Within the group there is a great deal of cohesiveness, positive emotional regard, and camaraderie, while relationships outside the group can be hostile and distrustful. As Hogg and Abrams (1987:73) note, the emotional consequences of ingroup identification cannot be explained in terms of purely cognitive processes, and a learning theory seems hopelessly ad hoc and gratuitous. The tendencies for humans to place themselves in social categories and for these categories to assume powerful emotional and evaluative overtones (involving guilt, empathy, self-esteem, relief at securing a group identity, and distress at losing it) are the best candidates for the biological underpinnings of social identity processes. Clearly, categorization of humans into groups is far more than simply an example of the general process of human categorization. Shared fate in human groups is likely to occur during situations such as military conflicts and other examples of intense between-group competition in which defection is not individually advantageous, or is not an option at all. Warfare is the most likely candidate to meet these conditions.
Warfare appears to have been a recurrent phenomenon among pre-state societies. Surveys indicate over 90% of societies engage in warfare, the great majority engaging in military activities at least once per year Moreover, “whenever modern humans appear on the scene, definitive evidence of homicidal violence becomes more common, given a sufficient number of burials” (Keeley, 1996:37). Because of its frequency and the seriousness of its consequences, primitive warfare was more deadly than civilized warfare. Most adult males in primitive and pre-historic societies engaged in warfare and “saw combat repeatedly in a lifetime
I do not suppose that such an extreme level of self-sacrifice is a pan-human psychological adaptation. As is the case for many other psychological adaptations, there are important individual differences (MacDonald, 1991, 1995; Wilson, 1994). Conceptually, this range of individual differences in personality systems and mechanisms related to social identity and individualism/collectivism may be seen as representing a continuous distribution of phenotypes that matches a continuous distribution of viable strategies. At one extreme end of this variation, it appears that there are a significant number of humans who are so highly prone to developing a sense of shared fate that they do not calculate individual payoffs of group membership and readily suffer martyrdom rather than defect from the group. It should also be noted that the existence of significant numbers of people for whom desertion of the group is not a psychologically available option shows that between-group selection must be presumed to have occurred among humans. However, the existence of such people is not a necessary condition for groups being a vehicle of selection. Even if all humans were entirely opportunistic and fickle in their group affiliations, so that group membership was always contingent on individual self-interest, groups as a vehicle of selection would still be required in order to understand the behavior of coordinated groups (Wilson and Sober, 1998). It is likely that enduring, bounded, discrete gatherings of people have been a common feature of the social environment for many humans (Levine and Campbell, 1972). The phenomenon is important because it would imply that a great many humans have in fact lived in group-structured populations where the status of ingroup and outgroup was highly salient psychologically (see Palmer, Fredrickson, and Tilley, 1997 for a contrary perspective). Examples include Gypsies, Anabaptist religious groups (Amish, Hutterites), the seventeenth- century Calvinists and Puritans, and overseas Chinese groups occurring in several parts of the world
Humans possess rational choice mechanisms that make cost/ benefit calculations aimed at adaptively attaining evolutionary goals in novel environments. In psychological terminology, these are domain-general mechanisms, such as the g-factor of intelligence tests, classical conditioning, and social learning, that enable humans to make rational, adaptive choices in novel, complex, and relatively unpredictable environments (MacDonald, 1991; Chiappe and MacDonald, in press). Applied to the issue of group membership, such mechanisms enable individuals to opportunistically join or leave groups depending on immediate cost/ benefit calculations (see Goetze, 1998), to efficiently monitor group boundaries to prevent free-riding, and to regulate relationships with outgroups
The general model is that human evolved motive dispositions may be attained by a variety of mechanisms. It is often noted by evolutionary psychologists that humans are not designed as generalized fitness maximizers—that our adaptations are geared to solve specific problems in specific past environments (e.g., Tooby and Cosmides, 1992). However, the model adopted here—the model of domaingeneral mechanisms aimed at attaining evolutionary goals in novel, unpredictable environments—has quite different implications. That is, humans are conceptualized as potentially flexible strategizers (Alexander, 1979) in pursuit of evolutionary goals. From this perspective, individuals are members of ethnic groups as rational egoists (Tullberg and Tullberg, 1997), and the ethnic groups themselves behave as rational egoists.