ABSTRACT
Given that a primary lens of Tavistock learning groups is a focus on the irrational, unconscious, and covert barriers to group functioning, it is no surprise that there is extensive literature on the phenomena of “anti-work” leaders, subgroups and group cultures (Bion, 1959, 1961; Edelson, 1970; Ganzerain, 1989; Gould, 2006; Hazell, 2005; Hopper, 2003; Hill, 1965; LeBon, 2002; Lipgar & Pines, 2002; Obholzer & Roberts, 1994; Yalom, 2005). As a common working definition, anti-work is a broader term, more expansive then simply the opposite of “group work.” Anti-work can apply to any group activity that is not in the service of furthering the primary task of the group or system. Thus, a range of neutral actions or inactions, novel or banal contributions, convergent or divergent experiments or endeavors may qualify as anti-work. Indeed, the differentiation of such phenomena as work or anti-work is at the center of much of Tavistock theory and practice.
