I have done a lot of growing up in groups. The compelling mix of discomfort, challenge, and nurture found in group life seems to provide ripe territory for human development and the struggle toward maturity. I have spent many hours learning in groups of all kinds: women’s groups, political groups, large hui (Maori social gathering or assembly), training groups, and small peer supervision groups. Group work has also been an integral part of my practice as a transactional analyst. My first training in transactional analysis was through a course in group work, and one of my most rewarding professional experiences was working with a weekly therapy group for over a decade. The large number of submissions we received for this theme issue suggests that many others share my enthusiasm for the transformative power of groups, and it has taken a group effort to pull these articles together to create this hefty volume. I am grateful to Dr. Frances Bonds-White, William Cornell, and Dr. N. Michel Landaiche for contributing to the editing process and also to the large number of authors and reviewers involved. This 2013 theme issue is intended as a review and update on the state of group work in transactional analysis since the last theme issue on groups 10 years ago. Richard Erskine’s article leads the issue, followed by an exciting dialogue with three discussant authors: William Cornell, Helena Hargaden, and Diana Deaconu. I deeply appreciate Erskine’s willingness to make his work available for this process. His article provides an excellent overview of various approaches to group work and expands on his own model, which he calls relational group psychotherapy. His approach negotiates a dialectic between feedback and person-centered tensions in group work, with a strong focus on phenomenological inquiry and empathy. This dialectic, which might be considered a tension between a Dr. Feelgood approach focused on good feelings, safety, and validation versus a Dr. Strangelove approach aimed at developing a capacity for thinking and bearing pain (O’Neill-Dean, 2000) is drawn out further by the discussants. Cornell views Erskine’s model through the lens of Berne’s (1963, 1966) group theory. His reading of Berne locates the latter firmly in the Dr. Strangelove camp of group work, with little time for ‘‘succor and comfort’’ (Cornell, 2013, p. 277). Cornell questions the role of shame in a group and explores the limits of empathy and phenomenological inquiry. Whereas Erskine stresses the quality of relationships in a group, Cornell argues that it is the analysis of such relationships that generates change. Discussants Helena Hargaden and Diana Deaconu both agree with Erskine’s focus on the importance of empathy, safety, and attunement, but they each explore alternative routes to these ends. They argue that for a group to be safe, primitive feelings such as aggression and hate must