KLINE06.

0130121002 4/12/02 1:22 PM Page 85

CHAPTER

6
General Systems Theory

OBJECTIVES
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
Discuss general systems theory concepts relevant to interactive groups.
Describe how general systems theory can be used as a framework for under-
standing group interaction.
Explain how leaders use their understanding of boundary functioning to
understand and modify group interaction.
Describe the assumptions and therapeutic process that derive from general
systems theory.
Discuss the implications for practice presented by general systems theory.

INTRODUCTION
In 1971, the American Group Psychotherapy Association charged a committee led
by Helen Durkin to investigate the applications of general systems theory for
group therapy (H. Durkin, 1981). This committee developed models for group
therapy that departed from the prevailing theories and conceptualizations of the
leaders role. This chapter describes applications of general systems theory for
group counseling and therapy along with some of the ideas presented by Durkin
and her associates. In addition, the work of family therapy theorists provides a
more in-depth discussion of a number of concepts.
General systems theory and focal conflict theory are similar in several ways.
Both share the assumption that members share common concerns. In addition,
85
KLINE06.0130121002 4/12/02 1:22 PM Page 86

86 Section One Understanding Group Interaction

both describe how members interact to determine acceptable communication con-

tent (e.g., emotions or honest reactions are acceptable or unacceptable). General
systems theory is more global in its conceptualization of interaction than focal con-
flict theory, as general systems theory focuses primarily on communication and not
on members conflicts or anxiety.

ESSENTIAL CONCEPTS

Systems, Subsystems, and Suprasystems

General systems theory describes how the constituent parts of a group interact. The
group system is a collection of individuals who stand in dynamic relationship with
each other. These dynamic relationships involve members interacting with and hav-
ing a mutual influence on each other. The interaction of members develops a pat-
tern and thus becomes a system. Systems are the product of the interaction of their
parts (H. Durkin, 1981, p. 8). Within the group system, each members interaction
performs a function that maintains the group as a system.
Systems are not isolated; rather, they are parts of larger systems and are com-
posed of smaller systems, or subsystems. Subsystems are subgroups of two or more
members who share common characteristics. Individual members also constitute in-
dividual subsystems. Individual subsystems characterize information about the indi-
vidual that is known to others. It represents the individuals sense of self
(MacKenzie, 1990, p. 37). Counseling and therapy groups also exist within the con-
text of larger systems. These larger suprasystems include the setting in which the
group is convened (e.g., the agency, hospital, school, and so on) and even larger
systems (e.g., the immediate community, city, county, and so on).

Isomorphy
Although systems are different, they all share common characteristics, or isomor-
phies. In a group setting, understanding the concerns of a member sheds light on
the related concerns of all other members. Conversely, conceptualizing the concerns
that characterize group interaction allows leaders to understand the concerns of each
member. Thus, a member who describes difficulty with intimacy somewhat describes
the intimacy concerns of other members. From the perspective of the group as a sys-
tem, a group that avoids intimacy has members who have intimacy concerns.
More broadly, isomorphy implies that counseling and therapy groups reflect the
social conditions of their suprasystems. Thus, all groups demonstrate the issues
prevalent in their social contexts. This isomorphy has an important implication for
group leadership in that leaders must confront issues of racism, sexism, ageism, and
culture that invariably emerge in group interaction.

Homeostasis
All groups attempt to maintain homeostasis through interaction that regulates be-
havior. For example, members interactions often involve establishing norms that pre-
KLINE06.0130121002 4/12/02 1:22 PM Page 87

Chapter Six General Systems Theory 87

vent excessive anxiety. The resulting norms include negative feedback loops that limit
behaviors that produce anxiety and positive feedback loops that encourage behav-
iors that manage anxiety. Whenever group norms have changed, as in the process of
group development, the group will attempt to regain homeostasis. The homeostatic
process involves times of change followed by times of consolidation to accommo-
date the change (MacKenzie, 1990, p. 37). Homeostasis explains why groups avoid
issues after periods of intense, emotionally charged interaction and why they tend to
avoid implementing norms that increase intimacy.

Boundaries
In attempting to understand how families function, family therapy theorists have uti-
lized the concept of boundaries. Boundary concepts are especially relevant for
understanding counseling and therapy groups. All subsystems and individual sub-
systems within groups have boundaries that differentiate them from other subsys-
tems. Groups as systems have external boundaries that separate them from other
systems. External boundaries define behaviors that are acceptable in a group, define
the groups purpose, and differentiate the group from other groups.
Boundaries define the amount and kind of contact allowable between mem-
bers (Becvar & Becvar, 1996, p. 191). Because boundaries define how much con-
tact members can have, they also define the information members can share. These
interpersonal communication boundaries thus regulate interaction. Groups that have
ill-defined boundaries are not likely to have committed members. The lack of com-
mitment occurs in these groups because members are uncertain about their rela-
tionships and what they should share. Groups that have rigidly defined boundaries
are likely to become stale and boring because members are not likely to share or re-
ceive beneficial information about their relationships.
Subsystems or subgroups have boundaries that separate their members from
others. Subgroup members usually share a common perspective, have a common
function in the group, or have some common characteristic that defines subgroup
membership. Occasionally, subgroups form in response to a particular group issue
because of a shared point of view and disband once the issue is no longer relevant.
As long as subgroups exist, they have a divisive effect on the group because sub-
group boundaries exclude other members. For this reason, subgroups require ener-
getic leader intervention.
In effective counseling or therapy groups, members have psychological bound-
aries that differentiate them from each other. Boundaries in effective groups allow
members to interact meaningfully. When members reciprocally express opinions,
emotions, and perceptions, they learn from, influence, and connect with each other
and establish their uniqueness.

BOUNDARY FUNCTIONING
The development of members depends on how effectively they open and close their
boundaries to define themselves and receive and share information. The process of
KLINE06.0130121002 4/12/02 1:22 PM Page 88

88 Section One Understanding Group Interaction

members opening and closing their boundaries is called boundarying (J. Durkin,
1981). Boundarying implies that individual members have the necessary resources
to open their boundaries to receive information and close them to consolidate their
learning or protect themselves. Boundary functioning depends on the choices mem-
bers make to open or close their boundaries.
Ineffective boundarying poses problems for members, subgroups, and the group
as a system. These problems are related to boundary permeability, or how easily
[boundaries] permit information to flow to and from the environment (Goldenberg
& Goldenberg, 1991, p. 46). Permeability problems occur when boundaries do not
allow information input or output or do not limit information to be input or output.

Impermeable Boundaries
When members do not consider the input of others or do not share personal infor-
mation, they have impermeable boundaries. Members with such boundaries become
disengaged from the social contexts in which they live and appear unaffected by oth-
ers concerns (Barker, 1992). Because these members are disengaged, they are au-
tonomous. This autonomy, however, comes at the cost of not having the capacity to
ask for or receive support or to establish emotional connections with others (Min-
uchin, 1974; Nichols & Schwartz, 1995). Consequently, these individuals do not ap-
pear sensitive to others needs for support (Becvar & Becvar, 1996). These members
are not likely to develop meaningful relationships with other members because of
their reluctance to share emotion or be psychologically intimate. Disengaged mem-
bers do not benefit from feedback and have the tendency to perseverate over par-
ticular issues.
Jim is unemotional in his interactions with others and does not share
enough personal information to allow others to know him. Occasionally,
other members have a strong reaction to Jim and offer him feedback. Jim,
however, ignores this feedback or states that he is not interested in hear-
ing it. Whenever Jim struggles, he does not verbalize his concerns and
clearly does not know how to ask for help. During a session, Jim repeat-
edly complained about not having many friends. He was then offered the
following feedback: Jim, when I ask you how you feel about me, you
dont share your feelings and dont even say what you think about me.
When you do that, I feel shut out and sad, and I assume you dont want
to have a relationship with me. After this feedback, Jim stated, I heard
what you said, but I dont know why I dont have many friends.

Diffuse Boundaries
Members who are overly dependent on others have highly permeable or diffuse
boundaries (Nichols & Schwartz, 1995). Members with diffuse boundaries develop
enmeshed relationships with other members. These relationships are displayed by
members who respond immediately to the emotional reactions of others (Minuchin,
1974) as if they cannot tell whether the expressed emotions belong to them or to
KLINE06.0130121002 4/12/02 1:22 PM Page 89

Chapter Six General Systems Theory 89

other members (Becvar & Becvar, 1996). Members with diffuse boundaries are re-
luctant to state their opinions and avoid confrontation. They are vulnerable, overly
concerned about the feelings of others, and tend to be very compliant. In effect, they
do not seem able to close their boundaries to define themselves or to protect them-
selves from criticism or unhealthy influence.
Members with diffuse boundaries are depicted by Bowens concept of fusion
(Kerr, 1981). Members who are emotionally fused with others are extremely sus-
ceptible to being influenced by the emotions of other members and behave as if their
well-being is dependent on others experiencing positive emotions. Emotionally
fused members tirelessly pursue others approval. In addition, fused members be-
lieve and act as if people cause others emotions, are reluctant to take responsibility
for their own emotions, and blame others for the emotions they experience.
Over the last several weeks it has become apparent that Karen is investing
most of her energy in trying to keep others happy. She seemed vulnerable
and overly reactive to others emotions and often came to tears over trivial
comments. Other members often commented that she was taking it too
seriously. When confronted by another member for being wishy-washy,
Karen responded, Im sorry. Please tell me I havent offended you. I
know I shouldnt do that; tell me what you want me to do.

Effective Boundarying
Effective boundarying occurs when members intentionally open and close their
boundaries when beneficial. Minuchin (1974) would characterize these members as
having clear boundaries. These members are capable of balancing nurturing with re-
ceiving nurturing, giving support with receiving support, and belonging with auton-
omy (Becvar & Becvar, 1996). They open their boundaries to receive feedback,
self-disclose, and experiment with new behaviors. They also open their boundaries
to connect with others without becoming enmeshed. When it is time to reflect on
what they have experienced and consolidate their learning, these members close
their boundaries. Members who use their boundaries effectively can close them to
protect themselves when necessary or open them to engage with others.
Susie had received feedback from four other group members over a
25-minute period. She responded by verifying that she understood the
feedback accurately and checked out the feedback with other members.
Susie took some of the feedback to heart, tried on new behaviors, and
openly shared emotions and perceptions related to the feedback. When
she believed that she needed to reflect on the feedback she had received
and had experienced enough intense emotion, she stated, I need to stop
now and reflect on what just happened.
Just as the permeability of individual boundaries affects interpersonal function-
ing, the permeability of system and subsystem boundaries affects group functioning.
Groups operating with clear boundaries demonstrate fluid communication. These
groups effectively negotiate and renegotiate boundaries so that members can learn
KLINE06.0130121002 4/12/02 1:22 PM Page 90

90 Section One Understanding Group Interaction

and change. Change is less threatening when a group has effective boundarying.
Members feel free to experiment with new behaviors and express opinions, emo-
tions, and perceptions.
Groups with impermeable boundaries often have a disengaged membership.
Members avoid contact with each other by withholding their emotions, opinions, and
perceptions. The overall tone in these groups is cognitive and somewhat disinter-
ested. Members in these groups are unlikely to profit from interaction, test out new
behaviors, or develop satisfactory relationships with other group members. These
groups can be highly cohesive, but this comes at the cost of being disengaged from
the environment and potentially productive input.
Members of groups with highly diffuse boundaries are extremely sensitive to
others reactions. These members are intensely involved with each other and pro-
vide a smothering blanket of support. Maintaining comfort and the status quo are
highly valued. These members also are overly concerned about others negative
emotional reactions and attempt to stifle the expression of these emotions. Members
of these groups depend on leaders for direction and often seek leaders approval.
They have little success developing relationships with each other because they are
unlikely to risk revealing themselves to others. The learning potential in groups with
diffuse boundaries is minimal because members are unlikely to share honest reac-
tions or risk experimentation with new behaviors. These groups are also so open to
external input that they often become unproductive, focusing on external concerns
as opposed to their own development (see Figure 6.1).

Autonomy
An important goal for group members is autonomy. Autonomy means that members
have the capacity to act intentionally in their boundarying. Leaders thus have an ob-
jective of helping members make choices to open and close their interpersonal
boundaries in a way that is self- and relationship enhancing.
Boundarying, as an autonomous system, opens up the possibility for personal
development and allows members the freedom to change within the limitations of
larger systems (J. Durkin, 1981). Individuals, however, have the freedom to be au-
tonomous in terms of their personal boundaries, what they share, and what they
choose to experience. The function of autonomy is wholing. Wholing means
achieving function through self-organization. Functioning in living structure involves
maintaining and developing oneself in the face of environmental forces which work
passively or actively against such adaptation (J. Durkin, 1981, p. 37).
Autonomous members decide independently when to participate or not partic-
ipate and how deeply involved they will be in any interaction. These members can
self-disclose to develop intimate relationships and set appropriate limits on how in-
timate they become with others. The boundaries of autonomous members allow
them to become involved but not enmeshed.
However, autonomy can lead to isolation if individuals close their boundaries
excessively. Although members should strive for autonomous functioning, they need
to learn to keep their boundaries open enough to form relationships. Autonomy
KLINE06.0130121002 4/12/02 1:22 PM Page 91

Chapter Six General Systems Theory 91

Suprasystem

Subsystem
Leader Subsystem Boundary
Boundary

Interpersonal
Communication
External
Boundaries
Boundary

Individual Subsystem Individual

Boundaries Subsystems

Figure 6.1
Systems Diagram

should be coupled with sufficient permeability to allow members to be open to feed-

back and be sensitive to others experiences. Openness to others experiences,
knowing how and when to offer support or share emotions, is essential for mem-
bers growth and relationship development.

Hierarchy
Systems exist within suprasystems, and subsystems exist within systems. The activi-
ties of a system are organized by the system in which they exist (MacKenzie, 1990),
and so the group organizes the behavior of group members. Therefore, in order to
understand the behaviors of a member, the leader should consider how the mem-
bers behaviors fit how the group is functioning. For example, a person receiving
feedback and experimenting with making requests for support may not make sense
unless this persons behaviors are viewed in the context of a counseling or therapy
group.
KLINE06.0130121002 4/12/02 1:22 PM Page 92

92 Section One Understanding Group Interaction

THERAPEUTIC PROCESS

Basic Assumptions
Helen Durkin (1981), in explaining the application of general systems theory to
group therapy, described groups and their members as living systems. Effective liv-
ing systems can open their boundaries to acquire energy and information and use
this energy to change. By changing, these systems have the capacity to adapt to en-
vironmental circumstances to allow growth and development. In closing their
boundaries, these systems are capable of maintaining a desired inner state and fil-
tering out environmental events that can threaten this inner state. Closing boundaries
also allows systems to preserve their identity and not become fused with other sys-
tems. In this context, relationships involve the reciprocal opening and closing of
boundariesopening for input and connection and closing for identity and integrity.
Living systems open and close their boundaries most effectively when they op-
erate autonomously. The goal of therapy, to help the group members restore or en-
hance their own autonomy, is concretized into the more practical goal of helping
group members more effectively open and close their own boundaries (H. Durkin,
1981, p. 6). By focusing on boundaries, leaders can simplify their work. Focusing
on system boundaries gives the therapist a single uniform approach to all levels
which permit him, at times, to cut through the diversity of content to the underlying
structure (H. Durkin, 1981, pp. 1112). In essence, the desired outcome for group
counseling and therapy is members who can open their boundaries to receive and
utilize necessary input and close their boundaries when needed to maintain identity
and integrity.
Seeing the group, its members, and its leaders as living systems simplifies the
understanding of interaction and development of interventions. Because groups op-
erate as hierarchies, interaction observed at one level shows how a system functions
at the next lower level. This also means that interventions directed at one level of
the group system affect the subsystems of that level. Thus, when leaders intervene
to improve group communication, leaders can assume that group subsystems and
individual subsystems will be affected.
Isomorphism is a highly significant concept in general systems theory for group
counseling and therapy. Because all levels of the group system share characteristics,
leaders can learn about the issues of each member by identifying the issues en-
countered by the group as a system. The assumption of isomorphy also allows lead-
ers to identify group issues by understanding the concerns of individual members.

Implications for Group Counseling and Therapy

The use of general systems theory in group counseling and therapy is all about
boundarying. Leaders have the essential tasks of assessing boundary functioning and
intervening to alter boundaries that limit members capacity for adaptation and
growth. The concept of autonomy serves as the criterion for assessing members
boundaries and as the objective for leaders interventions. Once boundaries are as-
sessed, interventions attempt to modify excessively closed or open boundaries at all
KLINE06.0130121002 4/12/02 1:22 PM Page 93

Chapter Six General Systems Theory 93

levels of the group system. Additional concepts, such as isomorphism and hierarchy,
are useful aids to comprehending boundary functioning, understanding the issues
present at all system levels, and developing and implementing interventions.
Change involves modifying the inner structure of members internal systems. In
order to change the inner structure of a system, its boundaries must be penetrated
(Gray, 1981, p. 204). Thus, the essential objective of group counseling and therapy
is to help members develop the ability to restructure themselves by regulating the
permeability of their intra- and interpersonal boundaries (H. Durkin, 1981, p. 19).

Process
The application of general systems theory to group counseling and psychotherapy
involves a therapeutic process that focuses on the boundarying occurring at multi-
ple levels of the group system. The primary role of leaders is to identify ineffective
boundary structures and intervene to alter them (H. Durkin, 1981; MacKenzie, 1990).
More specifically, leaders have the objective of optimizing the groups external
boundaries, interpersonal communication boundaries, subsystem boundaries, and
individual boundaries. Autonomy is the goal.
To assess boundary functioning, leaders select one level of the system to ob-
serve, be it individuals, subsystems, or the group as a system. When interaction
indicates diffuse or impermeable boundaries, leaders can intervene. These interven-
tions have the goal of helping members develop autonomous boundary functioning.
When boundary functioning indicates diffuse boundaries, interventions focus on
helping to firm up boundaries. Leaders should help members with diffuse bound-
aries become more independent in their actions and thinking. These members can
benefit from numerous interventions, including experimenting with sharing inde-
pendent opinions, stating what they want as opposed to asking, and experimenting
with anger and disagreeing.
When a group has diffuse external boundaries, it spends excessive time con-
versing about outside events and effort in smothering communication that could in-
crease anxiety. Diffuse external boundaries are commonly seen in groups where
members have safety first or less permeable interpersonal boundaries. These
boundaries often occur in groups that incorporate new members on too regular a
basis. Leaders of these groups are clearly challenged in their work to develop suffi-
ciently closed boundaries and trust. Their only resort is to emphasize interventions
that keep interaction focused on the here and now, to develop norms that contrast
with outside systems (e.g., open sharing of emotions), and to use language that
stresses the group as separate from external systems.
When boundary functioning indicates impermeable boundaries, interventions
focus on opening boundaries. Impermeable boundaries require opening to allow the
exchange of necessary information. One way individuals can be helped to open their
boundaries is by leaders encouraging them to share emotions (MacKenzie, 1990).
Other procedures such as feedback exchange that encourage effective communica-
tion and experimentation with new behaviors can also be effective.
Groups that have impermeable external boundaries can have the advantages of
cohesiveness, trust, and intense here-and-now interaction. However, a group with
KLINE06.0130121002 4/12/02 1:22 PM Page 94

94 Section One Understanding Group Interaction

impermeable boundaries that remains intact for long periods can become stale with-
out occasional new members and suffers from being detached from the environ-
ment. Leaders can use the boundary-opening intervention of asking members to
connect their in-group experiences with similar experiences outside the group. This
intervention must be timed well and used carefully so as not to create norms that
open the groups external boundary excessively (e.g., talk about outside material).
Groups are effective when boundaries allow communication to flow freely. In
these groups, members exchange feedback and experiment with new behaviors that
lead to change. Ineffective groups suffer from external boundaries that are too dif-
fuse and internal communication boundaries that are impermeable. Such groups
demonstrate an atmosphere of defensiveness that involves constant introduction of
topics that have little impact on members to maintain safety and homeostasis. Inef-
fective groups rarely have meaningful feedback exchange or members who experi-
ment with interpersonal behaviors.

CONCLUSION
General systems theory is a useful framework for understanding group interaction.
The theorys principles define the characteristics of a productive group environ-
ment and help leaders conceptualize interventions. The concepts of isomorphy
and hierarchy are especially helpful for understanding the shared aspects of mem-
bers concerns and the potential effects of interventions. Leaders who stress a sys-
tems approach have the primary role of boundary regulator. Leaders who focus on
boundarying and who have autonomy as their primary goal can be very effective.
General systems theory greatly simplifies group interaction, so it is a useful
framework for understanding the complexities of members interactions. By itself,
however, it lacks sufficient depth to explain the dynamics of group interactions or
to provide a detailed description of the leaders role. Authors who utilize general
systems theory, such as Donigian and Malnati (1997) and Agazarian (1997), add
their own conceptualizations of the leaders role and borrow from other theoretical
perspectives to deepen the understanding of members interactive dynamics. Sys-
tems theory concepts will be incorporated in the discussion of leader interventions
in the second section of this text.