Structured and nonstructured human relations training.

Abstract

Participant perceptions following structured and nonstructured human relations training were investigated. The design included three structured and three nonstructured groups and three leader teams with each team conducting one group under each of the two formats. The Group Opinion Questionnaire was administered to participants at the twelfth (final) session. Participants in structured groups reported greater ego involvement in their groups, more self-perceived personality change since joining the group, and greater group unity than did participants in nonstructured groups. The evidence suggests that greater leader experience is associated with more favorable participant perceptions.1 This article was based on the first author's doctoral dissertation at the University of Iowa under the direction of Robert R. Kurtz.Requests for reprints should be sent to Ellen M. Levin,

The process in psychological debriefings

“…How well debriefers are trained in the structure and process of a debriefing will determine their ability to lead the group. Greater experience in group leaders is associated with more favorable participant perceptions (Levin & Kurtz, 1974). From the presentation so far, it is apparent that the background, training and personal qualities of the leader are extremely important variables in making successful debriefings.…”

Structured group supervision: Theory into practice

“…Gormally (1975). Levin and Kurtz (1974). and Wilbur et al ( 198 I), group effectiveness may be improved through increased structure.…”

Group Structure and Group Process

“…In extended human relations training groups that were either structured (that is, utilized structured exercises) or nonstructured (that is, traditional sensitivity training with no exercises), Levin and Kurtz (1974) found that structure did result in more ego involvement, perceived personality change and group unity (cohesion). While it is difficult to compare Lee and Bednar (1977) and Levin and Kurtz (1974), two points can be made.…”

“…While it is difficult to compare Lee and Bednar (1977) and Levin and Kurtz (1974), two points can be made. First, the positive impact of structure in Levin and Kurtz may be a function of the flexibility in the implementation group structure.…”

“…First, the positive impact of structure in Levin and Kurtz may be a function of the flexibility in the implementation group structure. That is, unlike Lee and Bednar (1977), the exercises in Levin and Kurtz (1974) allowed for &dquo;free interac-tion&dquo; or processing time to reflect upon the information generated by the exercises. While relevant information may be generated by initial group structure, optimal group functioning may be actualized by a subsequent reduction in structure, during which the group can utilize the information and develop a voluntary sense of cohesion.…”