This article is © Copyright 2000 Pilgrims Ltd.  The copyright owners reserve all rights to its reproduction

Insecurity and the negative leader

                            Polarisation and Projection in a high-level Course

by Janet Braithwaite

Menu

Projection and polarisation begin with the splitting off of a sub-group
                Structural and material factors affecting the group 
                Personality
                Course content and teaching material
                The masculine - feminine axis
                The pro-military versus pacifist debate
                Attempts to defuse the tension and change the group dynamic
                Expression of negative feeling
                Communication 
                Opening up the space
                Summing up

        During the last few years I have from time to time worked with groups of students who, although highly capable linguistically, have been so problematic in terms of group dynamics and subconscious undercurrents that teaching them has become forcibly secondary to finding some way of influencing the undertow.

        The most extreme example of this happened during a four-week, summer course I ran for European scout leaders with twenty-nine students from thirteen countries and three teaching staff.  The age range was from sixteen to forty-two with the majority of the students being in their early twenties, and the ability range was very wide - from complete beginners to very advanced students.  The course took place in a large and isolated country house, which meant that to a great extent the students had to create their own entertainment.  I have now taken part in four of these annual courses, and in my experience they have been outstanding for the high degree of group integration achieved, the warmth of personal feeling and the mutually supportive atmosphere created, and the high quality of motivation and positive participation in both work and leisure activities.  And in many ways that year’s course was the same  -  with the singular exception of the advanced teaching group.

       On the results of a diagnostic test the participants were divided into three teaching groups:-   

      1.    an elementary group with eight mid and southern Europeans with a majority of  
             people in their thirties                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

2.	a middle group with eleven students again from mid and southern Europe with an age range from sixteen to thirty-two

3.   an advanced group with ten students, eight of whom were Scandinavian, and with the majority in their early twenties.

There was therefore from the beginning an imbalance in terms of nationality in the advanced group, which was rapidly increased when one of the two non-Scandinavians asked to change into the middle group because she felt unable to cope with the language level.  She was obviously so unhappy about her placing that I complied, although I felt that she would be marking time in the lower group.  I suppose this was the first indication of something being amiss in the advanced group.

       Towards the end of the first week there were clear signs that all was not well.  The first thing I noticed was the uneasy atmosphere in the room  -  too vague to articulate, but strong enough to make one feel uncomfortable.  There was also the fact that in spite of the high linguistic level of all the students, most of them seemed unable or reluctant to contribute in class to a degree that bore no relation whatever to their obvious ability.  There were times when it felt like being with a class of sullen fourteen-year-olds in a really negative mood.  One of my colleagues commented on occasional childish behaviour in the class, and all three of us were sensing the same tension to varying degrees

Projection and polarisation begin with the splitting off of a sub-group.

          During the early part of the second week it became apparent that certain subtle divisions were taking place.  A sub-group began to emerge consisting of two young men  -  both aged nineteen, one from Denmark and the other from Sweden, both having just finished school and technical college respectively  -    and three young women  -  a twenty-two-year-old Swedish secretary and two Finns aged twenty-one and twenty-two, all of whom were in some way unsure of themselves beneath, in several cases, a superficial sophistication.  Out of this sub-group the slightly older Finn  -  a student in training to become a speech therapist but with aspirations to become an actress, with very high linguistic ability and plenty of ideas, but also with a certain insecurity which made her unable to fulfil her potential constructively in this particular group  -  emerged as the negative leader, closely supported by the other Finn, a nurse, with a very good level in spoken English but a less intellectual approach to the language.

          Of the remaining four students, the only non-Scandinavian, a young man from Liechtenstein, aged twenty-one and studying for a degree in English in his own country, seemed confident and talkative enough to cope very well in this group.  There were then two independents  -  a forty-two-year-old woman from Iceland, a secretary and member of a mountain-rescue team, who was very much her own woman but also a rather quiet person, and a twenty-two-year-old mechanical engineer from Sweden with a quiet confidence and original ideas.  Both these students were very fluent and linguistically able, but in a sense quite private people, especially the Icelander.

          Finally there was a twenty-five-year-old Dane, a D.R.A.F. officer, with a clear, analytical mind and an air of calm about him, who was highly fluent, articulate and unusually at ease in a foreign language, perhaps partly as a result of using English, albeit technical English, for his job. In the overall group he rapidly established himself as a positive leader and took an energetic and resourceful part in the organisation of various activities, and usually one would have expected someone of his calibre to exert the same constructive influence within the teaching group.  However, in this particular situation, he was unable to do this because of the prevailing attitude and, in fact, he had the opposite effect.  As time went on, he became more and more the focus for the negative projections and stereotypes of the sub-group, and the group became more and more polarised, with the independents having insufficient social muscle to hold a central balance.

Structural and material factors affecting the group dynamic.   

         It is not particularly unusual to have sub-groups forming within a class : what was 
unusual about this situation was the extreme quality of the polarisation and the degree of tension it produced.  It seems to me there were three main reasons for this:-

1.	the particular personalities involved

2.	the course content and the type of teaching material used

3.	the fact that the course seemed to mirror two main areas of public conflict

a)	the masculine - feminine axis and
b)	the pro-military  -  pro-nuclear power versus the pacifist  -  anti-nuclear power debate.

The first factor was responsible for the faulty circuit, and the second and third for the fact that it became overcharged with a massive amount of energy, which the teaching group could not cope with on account of its lack of integration.  

1.  Personality
         
        The first factor, personality, went into play within the first few hours of the course.  My colleagues and I all reacted similarly to the sheer ability of the Danish officer, coupled with his rather cool self-assurance :  we got the impression he was likely to be an arrogant pest, felt slightly threatened, and expected there might be problems.  In fact, we got over this rather negative feeling very quickly as his behaviour belied our first impressions, proving generally helpful and constructive, and it was rapidly clear he was going to be an asset to the course, certainly from our point of view.  Given our reactions, I suppose it should not have been surprising that some of the students in the same teaching group should have been unnerved by his presence in the way they were, but in fact it was unexpected because the high degree of linguistic ability throughout the class obscured the anxieties of the less secure members, and their reaction remained underground because of the difficulty of admitting to this kind of reaction even to oneself, let alone in public.

        Because of the projection of these anxieties on to the positive leader, the sub-group then related to him in terms of a stereotype and not in the light of his actual behaviour.  In fact, the more constructive he was and the more he contributed in class, the greater their general negativity became.  Although nothing was ever said openly, all three of us teachers found ourselves feeling forced to almost ignore him sometimes during lessons, so tangible were the negative vibrations coming at us.  Whereas he related well to us and         was quite forthright with suggestions and criticism, the negative leader showed a tendency to complain covertly to members of the sub-group, thus producing a sullen mood, which it was very difficult to do anything about, because the reasons for it were never openly voiced.

2.  Course content and teaching material

       Their insecurity was probably also to some extent activated by the content of the course in general and that of my classes in particular.  I had asked them each to bring in a newspaper article to act as a basis for discussion in consecutive classes.  I thought that this would encourage them to do some general reading of the news and give them control over the choice of subject matter and the degree of difficulty.  In fact, this didn’t work well at all because,  presumably in response to very high expectations they had of themselves or which they thought I had of them, they brought in articles which were very long and, in most cases, much more complex in terms of content, style and vocabulary than I would have chosen for them.

       As for the course in general, in response to suggestions by students and our own ideas, the content has developed over the last two years away from conventional material towards more and more use of the language as much as possible in real situations.  We therefore make very high demands on students particularly in terms of public speaking and in taking responsibility for the organisation of some activities within the course as well as in their leisure time, and we are able to do this because of the common background and shared experience of the participants as scouts, the mutually supportive     atmosphere within the group, and the fact that they are all to a greater or lesser extent leaders and likely to respond well to challenging situations.                     

        In this teaching group, however, there was a certain regression away from work which made demands on the imagination  and risk-taking in the use of language towards a desire for drills and repetitive work, which to my mind is a waste of time for students at such an advanced stage.  Members of the sub-group tended to see tasks, which were intended as challenges and opportunities, as onerous burdens, even to the extent of feeling on occasions that they were being used, although they did admit once or twice to being pleased with the successful results of tasks which, in spite of their initial reluctance, they had worked very hard on.  This attitude further differentiated them from the positive leader who thrived on challenges and made the best possible use of all opportunities.

3a. The masculine - feminine axis

        The masculine - feminine axis was carried mainly by the two leaders.  In the case of the man, this was partly the result of the stereotype which the others projected on to him,  but the stereotype was reinforced by certain aspects of his behaviour.  It is very easy for civilians to see members of the armed forces in a stereotyped manner, particularly as often, as a result of the closed circles which occur in all professions, one does not have the opportunity to meet people involved in that kind of work.  In his case the stereotype of the macho, military man with little sensitivity or emotion was inaccurate,  but to someone seeing him through already prejudiced eyes, it was almost certainly reinforced by his intellectual approach to argument, which I consider to be a masculine trait, in that his arguments were always presented with the kind of clarity which arises out of the ability to analyse and deal with abstractions and with an absence of surface emotion so complete as to suggest an underlying distrust of the place of emotion in argument altogether.  He was also skilled at debate and at making statements which drew out other people’s prejudices without revealing what he actually felt himself, and, while this made for intellectually stimulating debate, it probably did little to endear him to the already insecure members of the teaching group.

           In complete contrast to him stood the woman leader whose approach to argument was dramatically and tempestuously emotional.  I do not want to suggest by that that her approach was either inferior or invalid  -  simply that it was very different.  She was very intelligent and perfectly capable of marshalling information and evidence, but her approach was through feeling and her delivery was emotional  -  traits which I consider to be feminine.  She could sometimes be quite aggressive, and she certainly reacted to the content and style of the man’s arguments with considerable anger and frustration on occasions.   In fact, she seemed to have a lot of anger in her, which made itself felt with a force not always in proportion to the present stimulus.  There were thus elements in her behaviour which also apparently conformed to a stereotype  -  that of the aggressive feminist.

          The contrast between their ways of thinking and their style was particularly highlighted by one lesson for which she had brought in an article as a basis for discussion.   The article was interesting and intelligently chosen, with at least three controversial subjects, which were of general interest and should have been easy for people to discuss.  In the event the class turned into a virtual dialogue between the two leaders  -  cool and reasoned on his side and increasingly emotional and angry on hers,  -   with the rest of the class apparently struck dumb by the underlying tension, in spite of my efforts to draw them into participation.

3b. The pro-military   -  pro-nuclear power versus the pacifist  -  anti-nuclear power debate.

          This area of conflict came into the open during the third week.  However, it erupted with such violence that it is difficult to believe that it wasn’t rumbling below the surface well before that, especially as the positive leader, the D.R.A.F. officer, had briefly described his work in a missile unit during the first introductory lesson, and the negative leader was so passionately against the use and development  of nuclear power in any form.  The event which brought it out into the open was a debate on whether nuclear power should be banned, which was organised by the elementary group, which supplied the four main speakers.  The opening speeches were fairly light-hearted and provoked no very strong reaction, and it was not until the debate was opened to the floor that sparks began to fly.  An extremely heated argument then developed, with the positive leader, the Liechtensteinian and some of the French students from the other two teaching groups arguing in favour of nuclear power for both military and domestic use, and the negative leader, the other Finn, the Icelander and several of the other women arguing against any form of nuclear power and in favour of alternative forms of energy.  This venting of feeling, which some people felt had gone too far, did nothing to improve the tension in the advanced teaching group.

Attempts to defuse the tension and change the group dynamic

          After discussion with my colleagues we decided to take action in three general areas, as follows, to defuse the tension and change the underlying dynamic of the teaching group :-

1.	to encourage the expression of negative feeling

2.	to build up communication between teachers and students

3.	to open up the situation spatially in the advanced teaching group.

1.  Expression of negative feeling 

          Initially I encouraged the expression of negative feeling towards myself, because I was too unsure of what was happening to encourage it in any other way, and also because I thought it might be something to do with my subject matter or the way I was teaching.  I talked to the students in ones and twos outside class and asked them what they felt.  I received a criticism from the positive leader that my classes were not organised so as to give them sufficient time for preparation.  I considered this was justified and made an immediate effort to put it right.  Apart from that I got little definite reaction and certainly no feeling of hostility directed towards me.

          I then set up a simple role-play combining the advanced and middle teaching groups.  It consisted of dividing the students into small groups, each of which represented the members of a communal house who were interviewing applicants to join the house.  I put the four women from the advanced teaching group together in one house and all the men were the applicants for interview.  This put the men in a more vulnerable position and gave the women the chance to reject them in a light-hearted manner.  This worked quite well.  There was a good deal of laughter and the atmosphere was certainly much lighter at the end of it, at least temporarily.

2.  Communication

          On this occasion  I decided not to force a confrontation in the teaching group because I felt that, given the degree of tension, it would be too threatening  for some of them and therefore possibly quite destructive, especially if it deteriorated into a dialogue between the two leaders with the rest of the class members virtually excluded.

         I also had doubts about my own ability to handle a confrontational situation constructively in this polarised group.  I feel extremely vulnerable in situations where there is a polarisation between a positive and a negative leader, because of two factors which dominated the earlier part of my life  -  my extreme shyness in group situations which became almost pathological for several years during adolescence and my early twenties, and the dominating presence and sometimes destructive effect in my family of two women relatives who for me personify the qualities of the ‘negative’ leader  -   high intelligence, passionate emotionality and emotional insecurity, combined with a complete inability or unconscious refusal to allow rationality and emotion to interact on each other, resulting in a ruthless manipulation of other people in order to gain their own dominance.  Even now when I meet people who appear to have these character traits in a group situation, I instinctively recoil at some level in terror, impotence and recognition, and it requires a huge effort of conscious awareness to rally my courage and belief that I can take some effective action to pull the situation round and enable some constructive and reconciliatory way forward  in the outside world, and that in my inner world I can bring understanding to bear on my recognition of the presence in myself of traces of the once feared and hated manipulative qualities of ‘negative leadership’  -  an understanding which mirrors outwards in active compassion rather than the projection of fearful hostility on to the actual person of the ‘negative leader’   -  the other with whom I am confronted.

         On these courses I was extremely fortunate in working with colleagues who were widely experienced and very supportive.  It was therefore possible to talk with them about my personal difficulties with this group situation as well as about the more general problems of the group dynamic, and, most importantly, to test my perception of the situation against theirs, which is most helpful whenever one is in danger of projecting inner fear outwards.  It was thus much easier to come to decisions and take concerted action. After discussion we decided to spend as much time as possible talking individually to the students concerned outside class time.  We do this in any case, but we all felt that this situation demanded a special effort.  This gave us a chance to get to know them better and to give them more individual attention.  Our communication with the negative leader was improved by the fact that both my colleagues were involved in the theatre, which was her particular interest, and she responded well to their attention and interest.

3.  Opening up the space

          When the above attempts failed to effect any significant, lasting improvement within the advanced teaching group, although they did improve both general communication and one-to-one relationships throughout the overall group, we finally decided to open the advanced teaching group right out.  We had already noticed that its members acted differently in the overall group, where they all participated effectively in various ways.  They also seemed to get on socially in the more relaxed ambience of the larger group, so it seemed sensible to capitalise on this fact. 

            Had I been able to change the spatial organisation of the room, I would probably have tried that first.  The room is rather isolated at the end of a corridor and it has the air of a boardroom with a long, rectangular table.  I don’t like the shape of the room or the table because the students at the far end are so far away, and because of the size of the table there is no space to create a more informal and flexible group structure.  The combination of room shape and type of furniture thus make it difficult to adapt, although I must say one year a group of particularly innovative and physically robust Spaniards and Greeks did manage to get a bed into the room on the last day for me to lounge on  - I was never sure whether this was intended as a comment on my teaching!

           We decided the best solution was to move the students out of the room and to combine them with the elementary group, which in many ways had evolved in exactly the opposite direction.  They had formed a highly integrated group with a very good level of equal participation and an excellent exchange of ideas, in spite of their limited knowledge of the language.  We divided them into small groups with two people from each teaching group in each one.  We made sure that the positive leader was paired with an independent student from the advanced group as well as two elementary students, and that the nationalities were well mixed up.  Their task was to discuss how they would react as scout leaders in a situation where a member of their troop was on the verge of getting into serious trouble and to what extent they would involve outside agencies, and to note down the main points of their discussion.  In this changed situation the members of the sub-group were all able to come into their own as positive leaders and to fulfil their potential which had seemed to be totally repressed in the tense atmosphere of their own teaching group.  The following day we integrated members of the middle group into the discussion groups, and the previous day’s ideas were then reported to them.  The discussions were then continued with additions by the new members until a final summing up by representatives from each group.  This pattern worked extremely well, and we used different adaptations of it successfully during the rest of the course.

           On the final day the overall group took part in a complex role-play game, which had been devised by the advanced teaching group and which lasted most of the day.  The whole teaching group had worked on this game and contributed ideas, but much of the writing out and planning of the game had been done by the two leaders, and they organised the game in action.  This cooperation proved very successful on the broader stage of the overall group, and created a lively game in which everyone participated with energy and enjoyment.  So we did finally reach a kind of reconciliation between philosophical and stylistic opposites.

Summing up
 
       In schools where I have taught in the past it would have been quite impossible to try out these different approaches because of the rigidity of the timetable and of attitudes.  There is a deep reluctance, in my experience, to move out of the accustomed formality of the individual class in its separate classroom and to experiment with different formations and uses of the space available.  All too often problems with a particular group dynamic are swept under the carpet and a deep sigh of relief heaved when ‘difficult’ students leave.  I think this is quite inadequate.  In the public domain we are, after all, teaching and using language as a means to improve and extend our range of communication, and when the most urgent subject matter for communication happens to be difficulties within the group, it seems absurd to attempt to ignore it in favour of blander and less risky material which is totally irrelevant to the situation.

        In the private domain personality and language are inseparable:  we all use language as the medium through which we sift our experience, dissemble or reveal ourselves, and structure our inner understanding of what we are.  The manner in which we acquire language and use it is constantly influenced by the way we feel about ourselves, and our learning to use the medium is always enhanced when we feel confident enough to tackle material, which makes us reach out beyond our present limits.  It seems inevitable then that when this process is blocked by some difficulty in personality, leading to insecurity, part of the teacher’s function should be to intervene constructively and act as enabler.  This presupposes an effort towards self-awareness on the part of the teacher:  it is impossible to be compassionate towards students’ difficulties while at the same time refusing to look at one’s own insecurities, whether still present or remembered.  It also presupposes a decision to remain vulnerable  -  a willingness to take an equal risk in being acted on within the group as well as acting on it.  In this way teaching-learning becomes a two-way, creative process of the imagination rather than simply a passing-on of information.

Further reading

‘The power of Negative Thinking’  by  Tony Humphreys, published by Newleaf

for Humphreys’ ideas on negativity:-

“I believe there is no such thing as negative thinking.  Rather I believe that people creatively develop patterns of thinking to reduce the possibility of further hurt, humiliation and rejection.”