BLOG INDEX

05/23/2025

Nine rules of group dynamics
that will ensure cohesion and group success.

Never speak of one to others.

I always remember that when somebody is talking to me about someone else, more than likely when I leave, the conversation starts to revolve around me. The most surefire way to ostracize people in your group is to talk with other group members about that person in your role as a leader. If you have nothing good to say then say nothing at all.

Eliminate cross talk.

Every person in your group has the right to speak his or her opinion. Every person has the right to express his or her emotions. It is not for other people in the group to talk across to that person and elaborate on what that person is saying. Rather, the best approach is to add your own experience and feelings and emotions about the topic. Cross talk is also when someone else in the group intends to give advice to the person speaking. No advice for members to each other should be given. Rather, lead them to the road and guide them on their path.

Don’t upstage members.

As a leader, your members will be well aware that you have more experience and skills than they do. It is not necessary to compete with your group members or to “one up” them. An example of this is when you ask one of your group members to present something. You present shortly after —something that’s a little bit more complicated and impressive. Group members will see that you have demoted the previous presenter’s material as being less relevant than your own more sophisticated presentation.

Avoid the “Prodigal Son” syndrome. 

Joseph Addison writes,  “Admiration is a very short-lived passion, which immediately decay upon growing familiar with its object.” Each time you accept a new member into the group, more than likely you will be fascinated with them. As time passes and you get to know them, your familiarity will lead you to see them as just an average person. Occasionally, you may find that one person stands out in terms of their knowledge and experience. It is not appropriate to constantly compare other people in the group to that person. It is less cohesive to express how you would like that person to be your second in command. No one needs to see anyone else as a prodigal son. It causes division and stress on group dynamics.

Keep the trust by adhering to your set precedents.

More than likely, as a leader, you will set ground rules for your group. The ground rules may apply to anything related to attendance, privacy, confidentiality, or the inclusion or exclusion of visitors, who are not part of the group. Before changing, bending or stretching the rules, come to a group consensus and respect all the members.

Show the same face to those above you and to those below you.

The only people you have to impress are the ones that you lead. Leaders that try to impress other leaders are traversing a dangerous path. The success of a group depends on how your members and whether you have their support. Without your members, you cannot be a leader. Leaders who change their personalities in the context of others are not genuine.

Avoid codependency and enabling  group members.

Treat everyone with equity, but not necessarily equally. Equity means you respect the personal challenges and preferences without letting them impinge upon the needs of others. If you have an issue with one person, it is unfair to impose changes on the entire group. Use the tenet of reasonable accommodation.

Approach members with an open mind and with compassion. 

Your group members may have challenges they don’t want to reveal. They may have challenges that are personal to them and need to take time away from the group. It’s inappropriate for you to pressure them to tell you the reason why. Rather, support them and ask them if there’s anything you can do. “How can I help?” —is probably one of the most powerful statements in a group setting.

Never under any circumstances reveal information.

Never speak of your group, or gossip in any way to other groups. Always laugh with your group members, not at them—especially not in conversations with other groups. Avoid making jokes at a group member’s expense unless it’s within your group, they’re present, and it’s clearly in good spirit. If you have something to say, make sure it’s positive. If it isn’t, it’s better to say nothing at all—just the facts. Anyone speaking about their group members to other groups should be reminded to respect confidentiality and keep discussions within the group. When members leave your group, the information they have shared must remain within the group and “die there.” Poking fun at members who have contributed and then chosen another path is a characteristic of a person with no integrity.

Summary

‍ Group leadership is not about control—it's about cultivating trust, respect, and authenticity. The nine rules outlined here aren’t just guidelines for managing group dynamics—they're foundational principles for building a culture of safety, empathy, and cohesion. When leaders uphold confidentiality, avoid favoritism, resist ego-driven behavior, and lead with consistency and compassion, they set the tone for the entire group. 

 

Remember, successful groups aren’t built on charisma or authority—they’re built on trust. And trust is earned through integrity, emotional intelligence, and a deep respect for each member’s journey. When each person feels heard, protected, and valued, the group becomes more than just a collection of individuals—it becomes a space where real growth, connection, and transformation can happen.

 

Lead well. Lead wisely. And always, lead with heart.

 

04/28/2025

Dante once wrote, “The mind is its own place and in itself can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven.” Though often attributed to Milton's Paradise Lost, the sentiment reflects an enduring philosophical idea: heaven and hell are states of consciousness, not merely locations. This challenges the traditional religious paradigm, where binary realms of reward and punishment were constructed by religious authorities to enforce moral conformity and obedience.

 

This dualistic system—heaven as eternal bliss, hell as endless torment—has, for centuries, suppressed dissent and labeled intellectual or moral deviation as heresy. In this sense, it operates like the totalitarian thought policing of Orwell’s 1984, where even private contemplation becomes criminal. The idea of a “thought crime” becomes eerily analogous to theological transgression.

 

At this point, you might expect reassurance—that reality is somehow more comforting than religious dogma. In truth, it may be more unsettling. The universe, as we observe it through the lens of modern physics, operates not on morality but on binaries of a different sort: order and chaos, existence and nonexistence.

 

Physicists have shown that the universe is in a constant state of expansion, an ever-unfolding drama of creation and destruction. Supernovae obliterate stars, scattering stardust that may eventually coalesce into new planets—and possibly, new life. This cycle is neither good nor evil; it simply is. Energy, after all, does not carry moral attributes.

 

From this perspective, the true binary of the universe is not heaven versus hell, but being versus non-being. On or off. Zero or one. This echoes the deterministic foundations of information theory and quantum mechanics. Existence, as matter and energy, eventually decays, giving way to entropy—a process described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that all systems move from order to disorder unless energy is applied to sustain structure.

 

Religions throughout history have captured this inevitability in poetic terms—“dust to dust.” Every living thing returns to the Earth, its elements recycled. We are born, we exist, and eventually we cease to exist. Despite centuries of striving, humanity has not found a way to escape this truth.

 

So what, then, of divine order? Of moral law? Must we discard the notion of higher meaning entirely?

 

C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, posits that the presence of a universal moral sense among humans—a shared understanding of right and wrong—points toward a moral lawgiver, what he calls God. His argument suggests that morality is not a social construct, but a reflection of a deeper, perhaps divine, structure to the universe.

 

Still, the divine has been reinterpreted endlessly. Each religion offers a different narrative, shaped by culture, language, and time. Are you Muslim? Christian? Wiccan? Something else entirely? Each faith seeks to answer the same question in its own way. To truly engage with these questions, we must momentarily suspend belief and ask: What if all these stories are simply metaphors, clumsy attempts to explain the inexplicable?

 

In the daily struggle to maintain order in our lives—to be “good”—we are perhaps resisting entropy, not evil. Our darker thoughts may be less about moral failure and more about the natural mental turbulence of conscious beings navigating chaos.

 

Some give in to the chaos. Others fight. Some are forgiven; others are not. Some create meaning, and others succumb to meaninglessness.

 

What are the odds that random atoms coalesce into life, into consciousness, into a species capable of morality? Are we truly accidental? Or does the very presence of a moral compass indicate something greater—something intentional?

 

In creating heaven and hell, perhaps humanity wasn’t describing reality but constructing a map—an intuitive guide to navigate the abstract terrain of right and wrong, being and non-being. Maybe these concepts serve not to reveal divine judgment, but to externalize our deepest hopes and fears.

 

Ultimately, the question remains:

Is there divine justice? Or is there simply existence for those who choose order—and nonexistence for those who choose chaos?