Requests for copies should beaddressed to:TGroenewald,Technikon SA, Private Bag X6,
Florida,1710

THE ROLE OF SENSE OF COHERENCE
IN GROUP RELATIONS TRAINING

FRANS CILLIERS
Department of Industrial Psychology,

Unisa

ABSTRACT
This research measured the role that sense of coherence (SOC) plays on an individual and group level during
group relations training, presented to ¢fty-eight managers, using Antonovsky’s scale and an semi-structured in-
terview.The individual measuring high on SOC showed more understandingof group dynamics, made more use
of own existing resources to cope with anxiety and found the experience challenging and meaningful, than the
low measuring individual. On the group level, the split between high and low led to projective identi¢cation: the
high SOC individuals contain competence and the low, incompetence. Recommendations for future group rela-
tions training are formulated.

OPSOMMING
Hierdie navorsing meet die rol wat sin vir koherensie (SOC) op individuele en groepvlak tydens groepverhou-
dinge opleiding speel soos aangebied vir agt-en-vyftig bestuurders, en gemeet met Antonovsky se skaal en ’n
semi-gestruktureerde onderhoud. Die individu wat hoog meet op SOC toon’n beter begrip van groepdinamika,
maak meer gebruik van eie bestaande hulpbronne om met angs te cope, en vind die ervaring meer uitdagend en
betekenisvol, as die individu wat laag meet. Op groepsvlak lei die verdeling tussen hoog en laag na projektiewe
identi¢kasie: die hoe« SOC individue‘‘behou’’ bevoegdheid en die lae, onbevoegdheid. Aanbevelings vir toekom-
stige groepsverhoudinge opleiding word geformuleer.

Group relations training originated about 60 years ago (Miller,
1989) and has its philosophical and theoretical roots in psycho-
dynamics. It is based upon Freud’s writings as the father of psy-
choanalysis (Czander, 1993), and incorporates the work of
Melanie Klein on child and family psychology (De Board,
1978), Ferenczi on object relations (De Board,1978) and Berta-
lan¡y on systems thinking (Czander, 1993; De Board, 1978;
Hirshhorn,1993).

As a therapeutic stance it is well known and used in Psychiatry
in Europe and the USA (Menzies,1993; Miller,1976; Obholzer
& Roberts, 1994; Rioch, 1970), has been applied in working
conferences by theTavistock Institute (Miller,1989), developed
into an organisational theory (Bion, 1961; 1970; Miller, 1976;
1983;1993) as well as an organisational consultancy stance (Ga-
belnick & Carr,1989; Neumann et al,1997). Internationally, its
application in organisational psychology is growing amongst
Industrial/Organisational psychologists, applying the stance to
team building (Cilliers, 2000; Cytrynbaum & Lee,1993; Gabe-
lnick & Carr,1989; Kets deVries,1991) as well as organisational
consultation (Cilliers & Koortzen, 2000a).

True to its psychodynamic nature, group relations training fo-
cuses on anxiety as the driving force of individual and group
behaviour, and the unconscious defences against unwanted an-
xiety. As such, the model o¡ers no clear view on psychological
well-being ^ what Wissing and van Eeden (1994, 1997a,1997b)
refer to as the challenge presently being presented in Industrial
Psychology in the training of managers and employees.This re-
search endeavours to introduce sense of coherence as one such
model of psychological well-being (Cilliers, 1988) into group
relations training in order to understand its e¡ect on individual
and group behaviour.

Group relations training
This training model accepts group behaviour to be both con-
scious and unconscious (Miller, 1993). Conscious behaviour is
clear and explicit, for example the group’s set rules and obser-
vable behaviour. On the other hand, the unconscious is ¢lled
with unknown, unwanted and sometimes threatening needs
and feelings, for example, about relationships of power, autho-
rity and leadership, developed collectively by the group.When
this disguised and unexamined material surfaces into con-
sciousness, the group defends against it, for example in resis-
ting change (Coleman & Bexton, 1975; Czander, 1993;

Gabelnick & Carr, 1989; Hircshhorn, 1993; Kets de Vries, 1991;
Miller,1993; Obholzer & Roberts,1994).

The basic assumptions of grouprelations training
Bion’s (1961) three assumptions are seen as the cornerstones of
group relations training (Kets deVries,1991; Miller,1993; Rice,
1965; Rioch,1970).

1. Dependency. Group members unconsciously project their
dependency upon (imaginative) parental ¢gures or sy-
stems, representing authority. If these authority ¢gures do
not respond the way the group wants them to, anger deve-
lops manifesting in counter dependence. Later the group
develops to independence and interdependence.

2. Fight / £ight. These are defence mechanisms the group un-
consciously uses in trying to cope with discomfort. Fight
reactions manifest in aggression against the self, colleagues
(with envy, jealousy, competition, elimination, boycotting,
rivalry, ¢ghting foraposition inthe group and for privileged
relationships) or the authority ¢gure. Flight reactions mani-
fest in the avoidance of others, threatening situations or fee-
lings, or in rationalisation and intellectualisation.

3. Pairing. In order to cope with the anxiety of alienation and
loneliness, group members try to pair with perceived po-
werful others or subgroups.The unconscious need is to feel
secure and to create. Pairing also implies splitting up, which
may happen because of experienced anxiety in a diverse
work place.Typical examples of splits are black /white, ma-
le / female, senior / junior and competent / incompetent.
Unconsciously the group tries to split up the whole and
build a smaller system, to which the individual can belong
safely and securely.

Concepts in grouprelations training
During group relations training, the following concepts and
its behavioural dynamics are studied and learned about
(Cilliers & Koortzen, 2000b).

* Anxiety is accepted as the basis of all group behaviour
(Menzies, 1993). In order to cope with its discomfort, the
group unconsciously needs something or someone to con-
tain the anxiety on its behalf, especially initially in the
group’s life.

* Defence mechanisms against anxiety are used in order to
gain a sense of safety, security and acceptance. Rationalisa-
tion and intellectualisation may be used to stay emotionally
uninvolved and in control (Gabelnick & Carr, 1989; Neu-
mann et al, 1997). Projection refers to the intra-system

Journal of Industrial Psychology, 2001, 27(3),13-18
Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 2001, 27(3),13-18

13



defensive process, where one part of the system denies
and rejects feelings inherent in the unconscious image
(fantasy) of the situation. It then tries to alter the un-
comfortable experience by imagining that part of it be-
longs to another part of the system rather than to the self.
It then puts good or bad (unwanted) material onto the
other, thus distancing itself from the discomfort. This
has no e¡ect or in£uence on the target. Projection may
be used to blame management for what goes wrong wit-
hout management being in£uenced.

* Projective identi¢cation as an anxiety reducing process
(Coleman & Geller, 1985; Czander, 1993; Kets de Vries,
1991; Obholzer & Roberts,1994), is one of the most elusive
and complicated concepts in group relations training. It re-
fers to an inter-system, object relational interaction and
process, where one part of the system (as subject) projects
material into the other part (as object), who identi¢es with
the projection (taking it on).This results in changes in both
parts. The dynamics of projective identi¢cation are as fol-
lows. The subject experiences anxiety either because of its
primitive envy of the object’s idealised qualities and its
consequent urge to destroy, spoil, dominate, devalue and
control, or its wish to re-fuse with the object, or as a form
of parasitism to be part of the object. It tries to relieve itself
of this anxiety by externalising it, splitting o¡ parts and
internal objects of the self, leaving the self less aware of its
whole and diminished by the projective loss of important
aspects of itself. It requires or assigns the object to receive,
identify with and contain these aspects of the self, as if it
belongs to the object, but still keeps a closeness to the ob-
ject. Depending on how subtle the projection is, the object
may experience being manipulated into a particular role.
When this behaviour predominates in the group, it beco-
mes di⁄cult to ¢nd other ways of coping, because it is al-
most impossible to think clearly, to locate sources of
problems and to ¢nd appropriate and creative solutions.

* Boundaries refer to the physical and psychological borders
around the group in order to contain its anxiety, thus ma-
king the group controllable, safe and contained (Cytryn-
baum & Lee,1993; Czander,1993; Hirschhorn,1993; Kets de
Vries,1991; Miller,1993; Neumann et al,1997).

* Representation refers to when a member consciously or un-
consciously negotiates a boundary, acting on behalf of the
group (for example in crossing, resisting or erecting a bounda-
ry). If the individual’s authority boundaries are unclear, the
high level of anxiety tends to immobilise and disempower
him/her.The group leans ¢rstlyhow it normallydisempowers
its representatives and secondly, new ways of empowering
them in order towork more e¡ectivelyon behalf of the group
(Kets deVries,1991; Obholzer & Roberts,1994).

* Authorisation refers to empowering a group member to act
on behalf of the group in the role of observer, delegate or
plenipotentiary (Czander,1993; Obholzer & Roberts,1994).

* Leadership is described as managing what is inside the bou-
ndary in relation to what is outside. This can happen inside
the individual (without followers) or by one group member
on behalf of the followership (Gabelnick & Carr,1989; Ob-
holzer & Roberts,1994).

* Relationship between group members, refers to any type of
face-to-face interaction, as it happens in the here-and-now.
Unconsciously, the group member is always in relatedness to
the group, also called ‘‘the group in the mind’’ (Gabelnick &
Carr,1989; Neumann et al,1997; Shapiro & Carr,1991).

* Group as a whole refers to collectivism ^ one part of the sys-
tem acting, or containing emotional energy, on behalf of
another.This implies that no event happens in isolation and
that there is no co-incidence but rather synchronicity in the
behaviour of the group (Wells,1980).

The grouprelations training event
TheTavistock (also called Leicester) model (Miller,1989,1993)
is used in structuring the group relations training event. The
primary task of the event is to provide opportunities for the
group to study its own behaviour in the here-and-now. This
is an educational task consisting of experiential learning sub-
events, namely (for example in this research) plenaries, small,

discussion, review and application groups, each with its own
task, described as follows.
* Plenary ^ to provide the opportunity for all members to
share information about the learning within the group ex-
perience.

* Small group ^ to provide opportunities for the group to
learn about its own behaviour in the here-and-now.

* Discussion group ^ to provide opportunities for the group
to learn about the concepts in the group relations training
model and to relate theory to practice.

* Review / application group ^ to provide opportunities for
the group to review their learning during the total event
and then to ork towards the application of the learning to
their roles in their everyday working life.

The group relations training consultant is actively involved in
the event, formulating working hypothesis and interpreting
behaviour processes and dynamics in the here-and-now, on
the basis of his/her own observations, experience and experti-
se. He/she also takes responsibility and authority to provide
the boundary conditions of task, space (also called territory)
nd time, in such a way that all participants can engage with
the primary task (Miller,1989,1993).

Sense of coherence (SOC)
The salutogenic paradigm (Antonovsky, 1979, 1984) focuses on
the origins of health and well-ness, the locating and developing
of personal and social resources and adaptive tendencies which
relate to the individual’s disposition, allowing him/her to select
appropriate strategies to deal with confronting stressors and an-
xieties. Sense of coherence is de¢ned (Antonovsky,1984,1987) as
a global orientation that expresses the extent to which the indi-
vidual has a pervasive, enduring, though dynamic feeling of co-
herence, that (1) the stimuli deriving from his/her internal and
external environments inthe course of livingare structured, pre-
dictable, and explicable, (2) the resources are available to meet the
demands posed by these stimuli, and (3) these demands are chal-
lenges worthy of investment and engagement.

The strength of the SOC is connected to a variety of coping
mechanisms, called generalised resistance resources (GRR’s)
(Antonovsky, 1979), de¢ned as any characteristic of the indivi-
dual, a group, or the environment that can facilitate e¡ective
tension management.This enhances the disposition to select ap-
propriate strategies in dealing with and confronting stress and
anxiety. A high SOC indicates a readiness andwillingness to tap
into these resources at his/her potential disposal, leading to a
cognitive and emotional appraisal of the world, again leading
to e¡ective coping, health enhancement and social adjustment.

SOC consists of the following three dimensions (Antonovsky,
1987).
1. Comprehensibility refers to the extent to which the indivi-

dual perceives confronting stimuli deriving from the inter-
nal and external environments, as making cognitive sense,
as information that is ordered, consistent, structured and
clear, rather than as noisy, chaotic, disordered, random,
accidental and inexplicable.

2. Manageability refers to the extent to which the individual
perceives that resources at his/her disposal are adequate to
meet the demands posed by the bombarding stimuli,
events are perceived as bearable that can be coped with and
that challenges can be met.

3. Meaningfulness refers to the extent to which the individual
feels that life makes emotional sense. In terms of motivation,
problems and anxieties posed by life are seen as challenges,
providing stimulationto invest energyand inturn elicit com-
mitment and engagement. The individual sees life as mea-
ningful, and problems / events are viewed as challenges
worthy of emotional investment and commitment.

Integration
Working in and learning about groups is often confusing and
stressful (Rugel & Meyer,1984) particularly in unstructured si-
tuations when sometimes, seemingly no one knows what is
going on. Central to this learning process is the repeated dis-

CILLIERS14



TABLE 1
THE GROUP RELATIONS TRAINING EVENT PROGRAMME

TIME DAY 1 DAY 2 DAY 3

08:30-10:00 Opening plenary Small group 5 Small group 8
Small group 1

10:00-10:30 Tea Tea Tea
10:30-12:00 Small group 2 Discussion 2 Review group 2
12:00-13:00 Lunch Lunch Lunch
13:00-14:30 Small group 3 Small group 6 Application group
14:30-15:00 Tea Tea Tea
15:00-16:30 Small group 4 Small group 7 Discussion 2
16:30-17:00 Discussion 1 Review group 1 Closing plenary

covery of the presence of irrational and unconscious processes
that interfere with attempts to manage oneself, the group, tasks
and roles in a conscious and rational way (Obholzer & Ro-
berts,1994). Uncomfortable and threatening feelings are pain-
ful to acknowledge and stirs up a high level of anxiety which
the group defends against (forexample byavoiding), exacerba-
ting stress rather than alleviating it.

For the individual, this can be an overwhelmingas well as an em-
powering experience.The mental pains experienced in working
from a group relations stance have to be dealt with by the indivi-
dual, eachwith his/herownpersonal historyof havingdeveloped
ways of managing or evading situations of anxiety, pain, fear,
confusionand depression(Obholzer & Roberts,1994).The ability
to contain a spectrum of painful emotions generated in this way
is psychologically di⁄cult. Conversely, this experience facilitates
an opportunity to understand the deep and complex group dy-
namics in terms of authority and leadership, which is essential to
the understandingoforganisational functioningand dynamics. It
illuminates some of the di⁄culties in managing oneself, manag-
ing the self at work, as well as in being managed and managing
others (Obholzer & Roberts,1994).

Although there are certain stress situations that are likely to in-
duce anxiety no matter what coping mechanisms an indivi-
dual has at his/her disposal or to what extent he/she has a
disposition to respond with anxiety (Antonovsky & Sagy,
1986), evidence exist within the salutogenic paradigm, that a
high level of SOC facilitates the individual’s psychological
and/or physiological coping responses to a controlled stressful
situation (McSherry & Holm, 1994). Antonovsky (1987) adds
that it is the strength of the SOC of the person experiencing
such events that will determine whether the outcomes will be
noxious, neutral, or salutary. He emphasises that the strength
of an individual’s SOC is central to the regulation of emotional
tension generated by confrontation with stressors.

No research ¢ndings could be traced linking group relationstrai-
ning to salutogenic functioning or SOC. From the above it can
be expected that an individual with a high SOC will cope di¡e-
rently, hopefully ‘‘better’’ with the stress and anxiety of a group
relations training event, than an individual with a low SOC.
Proof about this expectation can contribute towards an under-
standingof howemployeescope in stressfulrelationalwork situa-
tions (see Obholzer & Roberts,1994).

Research question, aim, research design and hypothesis
The research question can be stated as, what role does SOC play
in coping with the demands of a group relations training event?
The aim of the research is to ascertain the extent of this role in an
actual group relations training event and to formulate recom-
mendations from the ¢ndings for application in the ¢elds of
group and interpersonal training and development.

Action research will be done in the presentation of a group re-
lations training event, quantitative research in the measure-
ment of SOC and qualitative research in the form of an
interview with the participants. The independent variable is
the group relations training event and the dependent variable
is SOC. The research hypothesis is that there is a relationship
between a low SOC score and experienced non-coping with
the demands of group relations training, or between a high
SOC score and experienced coping.

METHOD

The sample
Convenient sampling was used (Anastasi & Urbina,1997). A ge-
neral invitation to managers to participate in a group relations
training event was addressed to the Human Resources Depart-
ments of 12 large semi-government and private organisations in
Gauteng. Of the 82 who responded, 58 could attend the event.
The mean age was 33 years. The gender ratio was 25 (male ^
43%) / 33 (female ^ 57%). Blacks, coloureds, Indians and whites
were included, although not representative of the total South
African demographic scenario.

The group relations training event
The event was structured and presented as discussed above.
This took place over three working days, each consisting of
four sessions of 90 minutes each and a 30 minute end-of-day
integration session, totalling19,5 hours as set out inTable1.The
author (having had extensive training and experience in the
Tavistock stance) acted in the role of consultant.

Measurement
(1) SOC was measured by means of Antonovsky’s (1987) 29-
item Sense of Coherence Scale. This provides a total as well as
sub-scores for the three dimensions. The scale has satisfactory
levels of reliability and validity (Antonovsky, 1987). (2) After-
wards, a 30 minute tape recorded and unstructured interview
was conducted by the author.The aim of the interview was to
ascertain the training experience of the individual by asking a
single question, namely: ‘‘What was your experience of the
group relations training event?’’.The interview was transcribed
and a content analysis (Strauss & Corbin,1990) and open coding
(breaking down, examining, comparing, conceptualising and
categorising of data) were done.The manifesting main and sub
themes were determined (Jones, 1996, Kerlinger, 1986) for each
individual, distinguishing between the absence and presence of
SOC characteristics.Validity and reliability was ensured by ha-
ving the results examined by a psychologist, towhom this tech-
nique is well known. It was declared correct.

Procedure
The sample of 58 was divided (1) randomly and (2) to ¢t their
work schedules, into ¢ve groups. Thus, the group relations
training event was presented ¢ve times with groups ranging
between nine and 12 members. The SOC scale was admi-
nistered to each participant beforehand and then the group re-
lations training event was presented. The day after, the
interview was conducted with each participant. Next, the
SOC scales were marked (this was done after the training
event, to ensure that the outcome did not in£uence the expe-
rience of participants or consultants during the event). Indivi-
dual participant’s total SOC scores were ranked from low to
high (resulting in a fairly normal distribution).The ten indivi-
dual scores on the lower end of the continuumwere sub-grou-
ped and called the‘‘low SOC subgroup’’and the ten individual
scores on the high end of the continuum were sub-grouped
and called the ‘‘high SOC subgroup’’.The rest is referred to as
the ‘‘middle group’’. Then, t-tests were done by means of the
SAS programme (SAS, 1985) to ascertain the signi¢cance of
di¡erence between the low and the high subgroups. Lastly,
each individual participant’s total as well as dimension SOC
scores were matched with his/her interview themes and inter-
preted.

RESULTS

The qualitative interpretation of the middle group’s experience
and learning is that low SOC is associated with confusion and
di⁄culty in learning and high SOC with meaningfulness and
insight into group dynamics and personal learning.Table 2 con-
tains the t-test results, indicating a signi¢cant di¡erence betwe-
en the low and high subgroups. This meant that the low and
high interview results could be interpreted with validity.

15ROLE OF SENSE OF COHERENCE



TABLE 2
T-TEST RESUTS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN

THE LOWAND HIGH SOC SUBGROUPS

Subgroup N T DF Probability

Low SOC 10 -16,89 7,8 0,00
High SOC 10 -16,89 8,1 0,00

The interviews elicited the themes of anxiety, defence
mechanisms, feelings, making sense out of the experience and
learning outcomes.

Individuals in the low SOC subgroup reported the following
experiences.

1. Anxiety.They described the event as ¢lled with confusion
and di⁄culty (anxiety). It was as if the total group had put
themwithin a boundary and made them contain the anxie-
ty on its behalf. Thus, they became powerless to move out
of the boundary.

2. Defence mechanisms.They used ¢ght and £ight reactions.
During the event, they projected their anger onto the con-
sultant ^ this behaviour continued during the interviews
afterwards.They projected their fear of punishment, being
rejected, judged and not being trusted, onto the group and
its members.Their communication was cognitive, focused
on the self and presented in there-and-then terms.This de-
fence took up a lot of energy which resulted in further dif-
¢culty to focus on and learn about what was happening in
the group.They became the representation of passive resis-
tance for the group.

3. Feelings. They experienced uncomfortable feelings of con-
fusion, fear, being lost, con£ict, suspicion, jealousy, guilt, irri-
tation, frustration, reluctance, powerlessness, paralysis, they
were drained of energy and had a lack of con¢dence. They
were preoccupied with their own individual needs and strug-
gles, which made it di⁄cult to see‘‘the bigger group picture’’.
They reported a sense of being pushed by outside (of their
control) forces into doing and even saying things on the
group’s behalf.

4. Making sense out of the experience. They reported di⁄-
culty in making sense, describing the event as unful¢lled,
a waste of time, and not meeting their expectations. As in-
dividuals in this subgroup, they got stuck in dependance
which bonded them together and gave them some identity
and boundary. It may be that they became the dumping
ground for the group’s ine¡ectiveness.

5. Learning outcomes. They mentioned their learning in va-
gue and general terms, for example ‘‘to listen more care-
fully’’ (which could indicate heightened suspicion),‘‘to try
to get more in contact with myself’’ (indicating a lack of
coherence), ‘‘to learn more about boundaries’’ (indicating
not being able to manage their own learning during the
event), and‘‘di¡erent things mean di¡erent things to di¡er-
ent people’’ (indicating anxiety, confusion and di⁄culty to
become part of the event, struggling to integrate the expe-
rience). It is as if theygot stuck in the role of follower as well
as in the splits manifesting in the group.

Individuals in the high SOC subgroup reported the following
experiences.

1. Anxiety. Initially a high level of anxiety was experienced,
but di¡erently form the previous subgroup, these indivi-
duals started to show insight into the group’s behaviour
and dynamics as well as the own life it was creating ^ this
started happening about halfway through the event. They
managed to work with the concept of ‘‘group as whole’’,
thus understanding the object relations in the group. After
they have started to own and verbalise their anxiety in the
group experience, they could start listening to themselves
and to other group members.

2. Defence mechanisms.They were inclined to intellectualise
(more than project) and their ¢ght and £ight reactions de-
creased as the event progressed.

3. Feelings. They mentioned uncomfortable feelings such as
anxiety, anger, frustration, insecurity and stress, and at the
same time tried to stay positive, being intrigued by what is
happening in the group, and feeling adventurous. Thus,
they could own their feelings and start taking personal re-
sponsibility for their learning.

4. Making sense out of the experience. They focused on the
behavioural processes which facilitated their understanding
of the dynamic nature of the group’s behaviour. They aut-
horised themselves to shift their boundaries and to work
with the consultant (instead of against him) towards inter-
dependence. Thus they could start attending to other ob-
jects and splits in the group, such as the talking versus the
silent members, and the learning versus the ‘’not under-
standing’’members.

5. Learning outcomes.They reported an increased awareness of
how to build relationships within the group boundary, ¢n-
ding their own role in the group as well as in groups they
belong to outside of the event.They referred to having more
insight into theirownworking groups and feeling more em-
powered to work more e¡ectively in them. They reported
their awareness about having to make important career deci-
sions with less fear and dis-empowerment.

The following integration in terms of the SOC dimensions
can be made.

1. Comprehensibility
* The low SOC subgroup had di⁄culty in coping with the
event ^ it did not make cognitive sense to them, it was wit-
hout direction, disordered, chaotic, unpredictable and a wa-
ste of time.They focussed on the content and rejected many
of the consultant’s interpretations of symbols, metaphors
and the manifesting group dynamics ^ for them it was coin-
cidental, accidental, irrelevant and it had nothing to dowith
the group’s unconscious.

* The high SOC subgroup expressed surprise and intrigue at
the group’s dynamics. Initially they found it di⁄cult to un-
derstand, but focussing on their own authority issues increa-
sed their ability to work with (instead of against) the
interpretations of the consultant as an authority ¢gure.This
facilitated an understanding of the dynamics and an expe-
rience of the event as clear, ordered and meaningful. They
reported more con¢dence in venturing their own interpre-
tations of the dynamics towards the end of the event, inclu-
ding working with complex terminology such as the splits,
defences, boundaries, relatedness, group as a whole as well as
the manifesting object relationships.

2. Manageability
* The low SOC subgroup experienced a high level of anxiety
which led to the immobilisation of their resistance re-
sources.They felt powerless to in£uence the course of events
and their own learning.This ¢nding is consistent with An-
tonovsky’s (1987) view that a low sense of manageability
will lead to feelings of victimisation (vexed and irritable)
and a sense that life is treating one unfairly.

* The high SOC subgroup started to make use of their own
and the group’s resistance resources, helping them to meet
the demands of this di⁄cult kind of training with its focus
on the unconscious.Their framing of the event as a challen-
ge and the trusting of their own resources, turned the event
into a manageable learning experience.

3. Meaningfulness
* The low SOC subgroup could not make a lot of emotional
sense out of the experience. It is as if their emotional energy
was consumed and they were immobilised by the high level
of anxiety. Therefore they did not show a commitment or
strong engagement in the group’s activities and found the
event not to be meaningful.

* The high SOC subgroup saw the initial di⁄culty and un-
comfortable feelings as a challenge. Because they invested
emotional energy into the event, their commitment and
engagement increased. They reported that the training
event was meaningful on a personal, a group, as well as on

CILLIERS16



an organisational learning level. The experience of emo-
tional sensibility lead to a sense of empowerment to shape
their own experiences as well as their destiny.

DISCUSSION

The results indicate a qualitative di¡erence between the indi-
vidual with low and high SOC. The latter reports more lear-
ning from the group relations training in terms of an
understandingof the group’s behaviour and dynamics, the em-
ployment of his/her own existing resources and the ¢nding of
meaning in the nature of group dynamics, than the ¢rst men-
tioned.Therefore, the research hypothesis is accepted.

On the group level the results indicate that projective identi-
¢cation as a group dynamic phenomenon, had a strong in£uence
on the experience and learning of both the extremely low and
high SOC individuals as designated subgroups.The total group’s
anxiety around performance and competitiveness in the training
situation was externalised, splitting o¡ parts of the total and lea-
ding to a loss of synergy and integrative learning for the whole
group.The less the low SOC subgroup copes and learns, the mo-
re the high SOC subgroup does. According to Knapp (1989), the
part of the system most susceptible to projections will be most
dependent, needy, or the least di¡erentiated.This means that the
learning about group relations during this event was probably
equally di⁄cult for both extremes of low and high SOC and re-
latively easier for the middle group.
* In the collective unconscious, the low SOC subgroup’s lack

of comprehensibility, manageability and meaningfulness
upon entrance into the event, became an object of non-co-
ping, receiving projections of what was unacceptable in the
competition, and was then manipulated into containing
powerlessness, stuck-ness, resistance and eventually incom-
petence. The resulting discomfort in representing the dark
side of the system lead to envy towards the opposite pos-
ition, and a consequent urge to re-unite with the high
SOC subgroup as an object of competence in order to learn
from it. But this was resisted by the object of competence,
increasing the frustration about not learning.

* In the collective unconscious, the high SOC subgroup’s
comprehensibility, manageability and meaningfulness
upon entrance into the event, became an object of coping,
receiving projections of what was acceptable in the compe-
tition, and was then manipulated into containing power
and competence.This privileged, envious, powerful and he-
roic position lead to a resistance to fuse with the incompe-
tent object and resulted in becoming even more competent.
This defence against the pain of identifying with the in-
competence in the self, restricts one’s own learning. It can
be interpreted as ‘‘feeling on a high’’about one’s own lear-
ning, but because it was projected (not earned) it cannot be
fully owned, internalised or valued.

The above mutual projected and emotional dependance of the
low and the high SOC subgroups, indicate that both carried a
burden on behalf of the other. This may result in restricted
learning for both, although clearly more restricted and even
prohibitive for the low SOC subgroup. The middle group
seem to have played a pivotal role in the incompetence / com-
petence split. These individuals reported an expected variety
of learning about themselves and group behaviour, congruent
to their level of SOC. They probably learned most of all the
participants in the group relations training event.

This research illustrates that the individual’s SOC acts as a faci-
litating condition in learning within group relations training.
At the same time the individual’s learning is in£uenced by
group dynamic factors beyond his/her control. These pro-
jections need to be discussed and processed during the event
in order for the individual to optimise his/her own learning.
The individual needs to become aware of what characteristics
(needs, expectations, personality traits) he/she came into the
training event with, and that he/she can distinguish between
what his/her own and personal learning experience is, and
what is projected (‘‘dumped’’) onto and into him/her by the

group’s unconscious (to carry as a container). In terms of group
behaviour as applied to team building for example, it illustra-
tes that a training group may split itself between low and high
functioning and performance, leading to the impression that
one subgroup is not working, while others are star performers.
In reality, both may have di⁄culty in performing their tasks.
Consultants should be aware of this dynamic behaviour and
ensure that the group addresses its polarisations, relating to
competence and contribution. Only when these projections
are owned, taken back and processed, the group can work to-
wards synergy, ¢nding new ways of coping, clear thinking,
problem solving leading to clear and creative solutions and
work performance.

It is recommended that future research includes the role of ot-
her salutogenic constructs (as mentioned by Strˇmpfer,
1990;1995) as well as psychological optimality constructs (as
mentioned by Cilliers,1988).

REFERENCES

Anastasi, A. & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing. Upper
Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.

Antonovsky, A. (1979). Health, stress and coping. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Antonovsky, A. (1984). Acall for a new question ^ salutogenesis
^ and a proposed answer ^ The sense of coherence. Journal of
Preventive Psychiatry, 2,1-13.

Antonovsky, A. (1987). Unraveling the mystery of health: How peo-
ple manage stress and stay well. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Antonovsky, H. & Sagy, S. (1986).The development of a sense
of coherence and its impact on responses to stress situa-
tions. Journal of Social Psychology,126(2), 213-225.

Bion,W.R. (1961). Experiences in groups. London:Tavistock Pu-
blications.

Bion, W.R. (1970). Attention and interpretation. London: Tavis-
tock Publications.

Cilliers, F. (1988).The concept psychological optimality in ma-
nagement. IPM Journal, 7(5),15-18.

Cilliers, F. (2000). Team building from a psychodynamic ap-
proach. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 26(1),18-23.

Cilliers, F. & Koortzen, P. (2000a). Consulting form a psychody-
namic stance. Paper presented at the national congress of
the Society for Industrial Psychology, Pretoria.

Cilliers, F. & Koortzen, P. (2000b). The psychodynamic view
on organisational behaviour. The Industrial-Organiza-
tional Psychologist, 38(1), 59-67.

Colman, A.D. & Bexton,W.H. (1975). Groups Relations Reader1.
Jupiter: A.K. Rice Institute.

Colman, A.D. & Geller, M.H. (1985). Group relations reader 2.
Jupiter:The A.K. Rice Institute.

Cytrynbaum, S. & Lee, S.A. (1993).Transformations in global and
organizational systems. Jupiter: A.K. Rice Institute.

Czander, W.M. (1993). The psychodynamics of work and organisa-
tions. NewYork: Guilford Press.

De Board, R. (1978).The psychoanalysis of organisations. London:
Routledge.

Gabelnick, F. & Carr, A.W. (1989). Contributions tosocial and poli-
tical science. Jupiter: A.K. Rice Institute.

Hirschhorn, L. (1993).The workplace within: Psychodynamics of or-
ganizational life. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Jones, R.A. (1996). Researchmethodsinthesocialand behaviouralscien-
ces. Sunderland: Sinauer.

Kerlinger, F.N. (1986). Foundations of behavioural research. Hong
Kong: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Kets De Vries, F.R. (1991). Organizations on the couch: Handbook of
psychoanalysis and management. NewYork: Jossey-Bass.

Knapp, H. (1989). Projective identi¢cation:Whose projection ^
whose identity. Psychoanalytic Psychology,6(1), 47-59.

McSherry,W.C. & Holm, J. (1994). Sense of coherence: Its ef-
fects on psychological and physiological processes prior to,
during, after a stressful situation. Journal of Clinical Psycholo-
gy, 50(4), 476-487.

Menzies, I.E.P. (1993).The functioning of social systems as a defence
against anxiety. London:Tavistock Institute of Human Re-
lations.

17ROLE OF SENSE OF COHERENCE



Miller, E.J. (1976).Task and organisation. NewYork:Wiley.
Miller, E.J. (1983).Workand creativity. Occasional PaperNo 6. Lon-

don:Tavistock Institute of Human Relations.
Miller, E.J. (1989).The‘‘Leicester’’Model:Experientialstudyofgroup

and organisational processes. Occasional Paper No. 10. London:
Tavistock Institute of Human Relations.

Miller, E.J. (1993). From dependencytoautonomy: Studies inorganiza-
tion and change. London: Free Association Books.

Neumann, J.E., Kellner, K. & Dawson-Shepherd, A. (1997). Deve-
loping organisational consultancy. London: Routledge.

Obholzer, A. & Roberts, V.Z. (1994). The unconscious at work.
London: Routledge.

Rice, A.K. (1965). Learning forleadership. London:Tavistock Pu-
blications.

Rioch, M.J. (1970). Group relations: Rationale and technique.
InternationalJournal of Group Psychotherapy, 20, 340-355.

Rugel, R.P. & Meyer, D.J. (1984). The Tavistock group expe-
rience, ¢ndings and implications for group therapy. Small
Group Behaviour,15(3), 361-374.

SAS Institute. (1985). SAS user’s guide: statistics, version 5 edition.
Cary: SAS Institute.

Shapiro, E.R. & Carr, A.W. (1991). Lost infamiliarplaces: Creating
newconnections between the individual andsociety. London:Yale
University Press.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research:
Grounded theory. Procedures and techniques. Newbury Park:
Sage.

Strˇmpfer, D.J.W. (1990). Salutogenesis: A new paradigm.
South AfricanJournal of Psychology, 20 (4), 265-276.

Strˇmpfer, D.J.W. (1995). The origins of health and strength:
From‘salutogenesis’ to ‘fortigenesis’. South AfricanJournal of
Psychology, 25 (2), 81-89.

Wells, L. (1980).The group-as-a-whole: A systemic socio-ana-
lytical perspective on interpersonal and group relations. In
Alderfer, C.P. & Cooper, C.L. (Eds). Advances in experiential
social processes, 2,165-198.

Wissing, M.P. & Van Eeden, C. (1994). Psychological wellbeing:
Measurement and construct clari¢cation. Paper presented at the
23rd international congress of Applied Psychology, Ma-
drid.

Wissing, M.P. & Van Eeden, E. (1997a). Facing the challenge to ex-
plicate mental health salutogenically: Sense of coherence and psycho-
logical well-being. Paper presented at the 55th annual
convention of the International Council of Psychology,
Graz.

Wissing, M.P. & Van Eeden, E. (1997b). Psychological well-being:
A fortigenic conceptualisation and empirical clari¢cation. Paper
presented at the congress of the Psychological Sociery of
South Africa, Durban.

CILLIERS18