5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

1/39

Group CounselingClass Handout

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

2/39

Therapeutic Factors: Group Yalom,1995,p.l)1 Instillation o hope2 Universality3 Imparting information4 Altruism5 The corrective recapitulation of the primary family group6 Development o socializing techniques7 Imitative behavior8 Interpersonal learning9 Group cohesiveness10 Catharsis11 Existential FactorsYalom, L D. 1995). he theory andpractice o group psychotherapy 4th. Ed.). New York: BasicBooks.

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

3/39

DurationType of roup Emphasis Setting Size Number of sessionsTask/Work Promote effi- Almost any Work best with Time depends on taskciencyand environment- 12 or fewer but most task/workeffective work school members groups last from a halfaccomplish- religious set- because other- hour to 2 hours.ment of group tings commu wise subgroups Meetings may be regular

goals nity organiza may form or spontaneous dependtions civic ing on objective andgroups whether setting is formalor informalPsychoedu- Acquire infor- Hospitals men 2 to 40 is aver 50 minutes to 2 hours.cational mation and tal health and age Regular meetings usuallydevelop related social service w e e k l y ~ v e r g e nummeaning and agencies edu ber of sessions 8 to 10skills cational and although many may berellgious set- just for one sessiontings workenvironmentsCounseling Prevention Schools uni 8 to 12 adults 20 to 90 minutes on aver-growth remedi versifies mental smaller size for age with longer lengthsation interper health agen children may for adults. Regular meet

sonaland cies employee vary depending ings usually weeklygroup dynamics assistance pro- on whethergrams etc. open or closedendedPsychotherapy Personal and Hospitals Depends on 60 to 120 minutes.interpersonal clinics mental whether open Regular meetings oftenproblems of health and or closed last over a number of

l i v i n g ~ s o m esevere; reme social servicesagencies ended months or yearsdial reconstructive: y . ~~ :

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

4/39

PROCESS the type of interaction characteristic of the working stage of the groupTask/Work Facilitation: Guidance: Counseling: Therapy:Discussion. Applying Psychoeducation. Interpersonal Support. Eliciting. Evokingprinciples of group Transmitting, discussing, Using interactive feedback emotional responsedynamics and employing and integrating and support with a here- and in-depthmethods such as factual information and-now focus exploration of concernscollaborative group and buildingproblem solving, team skills through the usebuilding, program of planned skill-development consultation, building exercisesetc.

Task Periormance:to complete a TYPICAL LIK LY UNLIKELY V RY UNLIKELYtask or to improve e.g., faculty meeting) e.g., customerperformance on relations personnela task training)Development: topromote growth UNLIKELY TYPICAL LIK LY UNLIKELY

GOAL and enhanceindividual life e.g., careerdevelopment workshop) e.g., personal growthgroup)competenciespurposethat guides Remediation: todirection of overcome or LIK LY LIK LY TYPICAL TYPICALgroup correct existing e.g., Boy/Girl Scout e.g., spouse abusers e.g., interactional e.g., group forproblems meetings) group) support group for couples havingforeign students) severe conflicts)

Coping: to manageand contend LIK LY TYPICAL LIK LY UNLIKELYeffectively with e.g., sheltered e.g., living skills - e.g., support r o u p ~unalterable workshop) schizophrenia) diabetes)

J igure 2 5The revised goals nd process GAP) matrix for groups.s lurce: From "The Revised Goals nd Process GAP) Matrix for groups" by S. Bauman nd M. Waldo,journal forilpecialists in Group Work 23(2), p. 222. Reprinted with permission of Sage Publications.

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

5/39

Format Arrangement ReasonCalled Sug gested for Using Method0Round Table To promote equality of Group discussion offeelings; maximize problems and solutions forparticipation of all members; the purpose of making aensure as much spontaneity good decision or sharing:() as possible. information.0

Symposium To present a variety of Moderator introduces the panel;views in the form of short provides history of the issues atspeeches or reports for the hand; presents each speaker inbenefit of the audience. turn; monitors time; thanks the00000000000 participants; ends the meeting with00000000000a brief charge to the audience or00000000000 a summary of the issue.O O O O O ) O O O O O

0Panel To conduct a Moderator introduces the panelDiscussion ~ semistructured discussion and problem and keeps theof issues on a topic for the discussion flowing; restates often;0 r ; benefit of an audience. controls (somewhat) equal and fairtime allocation. Members are

00000000000 responsible for developing points00000000000 of view and have some control of00000000000 agenda.00000000000

Forum To encourage audience Moderator introduces the programparticipation on issues and speaker, who presents a briefZit surrounding a topic. statement and interacts with theaudience. Moderator participates00000000000 to encourage audience0000000000000000000000 involvement. A variety of00000000000 discussion formats can be used.

0Colloquy To inform an audience Moderator introduces thethrough the use of planned speaker and panel of

questions designed to get qUestioners, then regUlatesGiJ r ; unprepared responses rotation and time. Sometimesfrom partiCipants for the summarizing, sometimes00000000000 benefit of the audience. clarifying, moderator does not00000000000 participate as a panelist.00000000000

00000000000

Whole-House 0 To debate issues as a Moderator regulates the discussionDecision Making ]] body, then decide, using and debate, attempting to getappropriate voting maximum input from both sides in00000000000 methods. order that members of the house00000000000 may cast informed votes.00000000000 Parliamentary procedure is00000000000 commonly used to govern the eventand facilitate orderly progress.

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

6/39

C SE EXAM PLE Professor Drone Goes On and OnDespite his sincerity and sense of caring, Professor with lecture notes from the minute he starts classDrone gets terrible student evaluations. He com- until the bell rings. Students do not interact exceptplains to his colleagues and tries harder each to occasionally squirm and roll their eyes.semester without making any substantial progress. What would you advise Professor Drone to doHe is knowledgeable and amicable but his stu- besides try harder ? e specific.dents do not learn a lot. The reason: He drones on

Group ProcessGroup process is the interaction of group members with one another, often in somemeaningful way For example, Joe may feel he cannot speak up in a group because anothergroup member criticized one of the first things he said in the group. His lack of trust andinhibition detracts from the group because he remains silent. fJoe is an especially astuteobserver of people or has insight that would really help the group, his nonparticipation inthe group hurts that much more. Regardless, other members will eventually notice Joe swithdrawal. Then either the group will spend time attending to Joe-trying to coax himinto contributing when they could be focusing on otber goals--or they will criticize himeven more, thus alienating him significantly from the group. Therefore, attending toprocess within the group is vital to the group s well-being.

As groups develop, less time generally is spent on content material, and more isfocused on process functions. There is often a relational paradox. Individuals, especiallythose who have been in nonmutual relationships, want to become connected with others.Out of a sense of fear or hurt, however, as with Joe in the preceding illustration, theysimultaneously employ strategies that restrict or limit their ability to become close to others (Comstock, Duffey, & St. George, 2002). Therefore, they disconnect. They may reconnect (when trust is built) and enhance their connection (when they feel safer yet).Seven types ofgroup processes that most frequently occur in groups related to this paradox and the dynamics surrounding it have been outlined by Donigian and Malnati (1997):

Contagion In this process, member behavior elicits group interaction. Forinstance, if Bette talks to others in a group about her emptiness and loneliness, then she may elicit an emotional and physical reaction from othergroup members as some cry and some lean forward to listen more intensely. Conflict-Matters involving conflict usually revolve around significantissues in people s lives, such as authority, intimac.y, growth, change, autonomy, power, and loss. All group members and leaders experience conflictduring the life of a group. How a group leader handles conflict makes a difference. For example, if in a group counseling session Rex, the groupleader, pushes Stu to have a fight with Keith, Rex may be vicariously meeting needs he never satisfied in adolescence, but he may not be helping Stu

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

7/39

group, members typically employ one of two strategies. The first is arestrictive solution such as changing the subject, attacking a group member, intellectualizing, detaching from the group, or ignoring a group member. Thus, if Karen feels uncomfortable discussing her personal life, shemay flippantly say, "But my situation is just like everyone else 's."

A second, healthier strategy for dealing with aILxiety is to employen bling solutions (Whitaker Lieberman, 1964). These types of solutions revolve around open listening and discussion about the anxiety thatis present. In such a situation, Roosevelt might say to Regina, "Tell memore about how you felt when your mother criticized you." Overall, "anxiety is a mobilizer of group process," especially if it is faced openly and honestly (Donigian Malnati, 1997, p. 62). Consensual validation-The process of consensual validation involveschecking one's behaviors with a group of others. In this interaction, people are questioned, confronted, or affirmed either individually or withinthe group. Thus, in a group for overeaters, members might question oneanother about their interactions involving food to find out how unusual orcommon their behaviors are.

Universality-It is comforting to know that others within a group have similarexperiences and feelings. Such insight helps people feel they are in the sameballpark as the rest of the group members. In the universality process, this discovery enables group participants to identify and unify with one another. Forinstance, in a psychoeducational group involving families with adolescents,families in the group may be relieved to know they are not the only ones having difficulties with paren t-teen communications. If a group is going to be productive, it is essential for universality to occur early in its development.

amily reenactment-Families of origin continue to influence peoplethroughout their lives (Kerr Bowen, 1988). Because groups resemblefamilies in many ways, it is natural that some behaviors by group membersare connected to issues they never resolved in childhood. The group iseither helped or hindered by such actions, depending on whether groupmembers are assisted in fOCUSing on the present or allowed to lapse intothe past. In the first case, the group member and the group work throughissues. Thus, Pedro may say to Veronica, I need you to help me hear whatyou are saying. Your actions are a lot like those of my mother, with whom Iwas constantly arguing. In the second scenariO, group interactionsbecome distorted or toxic. An example of this type of behavior is whenSally repeatedly tells David, "I'm not listening to you. You sound just likemy father, and he never had anything worthwhile to say.

Instillation of hope-In some groups, especially those involVing counseling and therapy, many members may feel hopeless. They believe their environment controls them and thus they will never be different or change. t

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

8/39

able3.2Cf\0 Behaviors frequently assodated with various group mem er states.

Despair/Depression

Excitement!Euphoria

Fear/Anxiety

Hostility/Rejectionof another personActive/OvertPassive/Covert

Dependency/Attraction towardanotherResistance toLearning

HeadDown

Mobilemovement

Stiff movement;chin down

Head, and oftenchin, thrust forward and/or tiltedupwardDown; turnedaway slightlyHead slightlydown while making eye contact("Poor me.")Turned; rolledback

FaceSad frown(eyebrowsdown at outerends)Mobility ofexpression

Flushing

Angry frown (eyebrows down atcenter)Squinting of eyes

Mirrors expression of other

Rigidity ofexpression

MouthTightness

Smiling; laughing

Tightness;clenching teeth

Lips tensed andpushed forwardslightlyClosed; normal

Frequent smiling

Tightness

Eye ontactLittle or none;may cover eyeswith hand

Tries to captureand to hold eyecontact of allother persons("Look at me.")Darting glancesto others; wantsto keep watch onothers by notmeeting theirgazes (''I'll watchyou.")Defiant

Aversion; blankstaringFrequent

Avoidance

HandsAutistic behaviors; body-focused self-stimulatingmovementsSweeping,expansive movements

Tightness;gripping; sweatypalms ("clenchedand drenched")

Clenching; fist;thumping(symbolicBody-focusedmovements; selfinflicting behaviorsReachingmotions

Clenched;looking at watch;body-focusedmovements

PostureApproaches fetalposition

Frequent change;seductive

Frequent movement; crouching;hunchingshoulders

Poised on edgeof chair

InfrequentchangeQuasi-courtship

Held in; stiffnessof limbs

Source: From Richard P Walters, Nonverbal Communication in Group Counseling from Group Counseling: A Developmental Approach th ed. Copyright 1989. Adapted by permission by Allyn & Bacon.---J

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

9/39

Group Building and Maintenance RolesPositive SocialEmotional Roles)Facilitator or Encourager In this position, individuals play the role of a counselor shelper. They make sure everyone feels comfortable. Their motive often is to keep thefocus off themselves.Gatekeeper or Expediter-Individuals in this role make sure the group operates withinits proposed norms. They act like a counselor assistant and may generate hostilityfrom others if they become too active.Standard or Goal Setter This role is similar to that of gatekeeper, and individualswho take it push for establishing group norms and lofty goals. They are often unsureof themselves.Harmonizer or Con ciliat r These are group mediators who seek to keep conflictdown and emotionally control the group. They are afraid of the group getting out ofhand emotionally. Compromiser or Neutralizer-Persons who assume this role suggest cognitive solutions/alternatives for group member differences. The same internal dynamics areprobably occurring within them s with harmonizers; that is, they are afraid of toomuch emotion.

Group Observer -These people provide feedback to the group by summarizing content or process within the group. They rarely participate directly in the group, though,because of the risk of exposing their thoughts and feelings. Follower or u t r ~ ~ The individuals who assume this role express a lot of agreementwith the group but are so unsure of themselves that they rarely offer their ownopinions.

Group Task Roles Instrumental or Task Roles)The tasks undertaken by group members at this time help the group move towardaccomplishing its goals.

Initiator-Energizer-Individuals who assume this role prod the group to move andtake action. They may be seen s hasslers.Information or Opinion Seekers This role involves gathering more data, both affectively and cognitive/y, so the group may act. Persons who assume this role may pushother group members to disclose before they are ready.Information or Opinion Giver Persons in this role seek to give information, advice,or opinions to others in the group. They assume they have correct facts and properattitudes. They are often annoying but can act as a catalyst to spur the group on.

igure 3.7A classification ofgroup membership roles.

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

10/39

Elaborator and/or Coordinator Group members in this position are realityoriented, and they make sure that the group is, too. Their logic often gets in theway of creativity. Orientor-Evaluator-The individual who assumes this role acts as the group's judge

in evaluating how well it is doing in achieving its tasks, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Procedural Technician One or more followers in the group may take this role,which involves concentration on the achievement of group goals. As such, this roleis similar to the gatekeeper role previously discussed in the group-building section.

Individual Roles Negative Social-Emotional Roles)Individuals who assume these roles are self-serving rather than group oriented. Theylack solid interpersonal relationship skills and can benefit a great deal from a group.Yet their presence within the group makes it difficult for the group to operate. Severalof the most prominent of these antigroup roles as described y Vander Kolk (1985) areas follows: Aggressor This person disagrees with most group members' ideas and behaviors.He or she may try to impose his or her ways on others. Blocker These individuals are very rigid about what should be discussed, andoften they resist the wishes of the total group and impede its progress. Recognition Seeker The role consists of bragging and calling attention to self at

the expense of others and the group in general. Playboy/Playgirl-The behavior of this person, for example, nonchalant or cynical,lets other group members know he or she is not invested in the group. Help-seeker/Rescuer-People who assume the help seeker role elicit sympathyfrom the group and are dependent. Rescuers meet their own needs but do not reallyhelp members function better. Monopolist These individuals talk incessantly (because of their anxiety) aboutissues only tangentially related to the group. They alienate other group members

and must be controlled.Do gooder/lntormer The do-gooder wants to do what is right for others, whereasthe informer wants to share information about someone in the group outside thegroup session. Both seek to enhance their image. Withdrawn/Hostile Members These individuals seek to avoid group interaction andparticipation by being silent or intimidating. Both behaviors result in greater selfprotection.

igure 3.7, continuedSource: Adapted from Group Counseling Theory nd Practice 2nd ed., pp. 442-446) JamesC. Hansen, Richard W Warner, and Elsie J. Smith. Copyright 1980 by Houghton-Mifflin Company.Used with permission.

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

11/39

Problems in arrying Out RolesSometimes problems arise in the fulfillment of roles (Hare, 1962). Both internal and externalfactors contribute to these problems, and there is seldom a simple cause. Four major forms ofrole difficulties are role collision, role incompatibility, role confusion, and role transition. Inrole collision, a conflict exists between the role an individual plays in the outside world

being a passive observer) and the role expected within the group (e.g., being an activeparticipant). In role incompatibility, a person is given a role within the group (e.g., beingthe leader) that he or she neither wants nor is comfortable exercising. Role confusion,sometimes known as role runbiguity, occurs when a group member simply does not knowwhat role to perform. This often happens at the beginning of groups or in leaderless groupswhere members do not know whether they are to be assertive in helping establish an agendaor passive and just let the leadership emerge. Finally; in role transition, a person is expectedto assume a different role as the group progresses but does not feel comfortable doing so. Forexample, in self-help groups, experienced members are expected to take on leadership,rather than follower, roles. Yet some group members do not feel comfortable doing so.

In most groups, maintenance and task roles need to be balanced. Too much attentionto socioemotional functioning can cause the group to wander and lose sight of its goals; insimilar fashion, overemphasis on task can result in disruption and dissatisfaction if members have no outlet for their grievances and no way to resolve their conflicts (ShafferGalinsky, 1989, pp. 25-26).

THE EFFECT OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE VARIABLESON GROUP DYNAMICSMany group specialists (e.g., Corey, 2004; Jacobs et al., 2006) have listed a number of variables within groups essential to group life and functioning. Psychotherapeutic and counseling groups seem to have been especially targeted by experts in this regard. Yet, the factors generally noted are applicable to most psychoeducational and task/work groups, too.These variables include member commitment; readiness of members for the group experience; the attractiveness of the group for its members; a feeling of belonging, acceptance,and security; and clear communication. These factors are often collectively conceptualizedas positive group variables. For example, if group members speak from an I pOSition,everyone in the group becomes clear about what they are saying and can respond appropriately. Positive forces within the group, when expressed to the fullest extent possible,can lead to a group that is both cooperative and altruistic (McClure, 1990).

Yalom (2005) was among the first to delineate positive primary group variables basedon research he conducted with others on therapy groups. He has called these positiveforces curative therapeutic) factors within groups. These variables are expressed insuccessful groups through a variety of means. They often affect the interactions of members and the group as a whole in complex ways. For counseling and psychotherapygroups, these therapeutic factors are a

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

12/39

Universality-what seems unique is often a similar or identical experience ofanother group member. For example, the leader might say "Isaiah, it seems that y uand Austin share a similar concern about how you can find balance in your lives."

Imparting of information-instruction about mental health, mental illness, andhow to deal with life problems usually through group discussion. For example, amember might share that she has read that to stay mentally healthy, a person needs8 hours of sleep at night. Altruism--sharing experiences and thoughts with others, helping them by givingof one's self, working for the common good. For example, Jessica might inform thegroup that she is going to work a night at the homeless shelter and invite them towork there too.

orrective recapitulation of the primary family group--reliving early familialconflicts correctly and resolving them. For example, Louise may find that throughher interactions with Roscoe she is able to find ways of disagreeing with a maleslightly older than her, like her brother Taylor, without becoming emotionally upsetif he does not accept her argument.

Development of soci.;'llizing techniques-learning basic social skills. For exam-ple, Aiden may come to realize through the group experience that people like to beinvited to do activities rather than carped at to do them. Imitative behavior-modeling positive actions of other group members. Fore.xample, Jayden may learn ways of requesting what he wants by imitating thebehavior of Colin. Interpersonallearnmg-gaining insight and correctively working through past

experiences. For example, Virginia may see through talking with members of thegroup that her bossy behavior in the past has gotten her nowhere. Cohesiveness-the proper therapeutic relationship among group members,

group members and the group leader, and the group as a whole. For example, aftereveryone in the group shares their thoughts about raCism, they may feel closertogether.

Catharsis--cxperiencing and expressing feelings. For example, Julia may cry softlywhen she realizes how much hurt she has been carrying around for so long.

Existential factors-accepting responsibility for one's life in basic isolation fromothers, recognizing one's own mortality and the capriciousness of existence. Forexample, Sebastian may come to the realization through talking with older members of the group that his life is half over and that he needs to work hard onimproving himself if he is ever going to live his dreams.

Yalom (2005) contends that these variables constitute both the "actual mechanisms ofchange" and "conditions for change" (p. 4). The interplay of the factors varies widely fromgroup to group.

To Yalom's (2005) list, Bemak and Epp (1996) have added what they consider to be a12th factor-love. They believe that although love may contain aspects of some ofYalom'sother factors, it stands alone as a contributor to the healing process in group psychother-apy "Love's nature and dynamics in groups can have many variations -for instance,transference as well as genuineness p. 119). According to Bemak and Epp, "the unmask-ing of transference and the fostering of open expressions of giving and receiving love are

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

13/39

Table 4.2Overview of group leadership skills.

SkillsActive Listening

Restating

Clarifying

Summarizing

Questioning

Interpreting

Confronting

Reflecting Feelings

Supporting

Empathizing

DescriptionAttending to verbal and nonverbalaspects of communication withoutjudging or evaluating.Saying in slightly different words whata participant has said to clarify itsmeaning.Grasping the essence of a message atboth the feeling and the thinking levels; simplifying client statements byfocusing on the core of the message.Pulling together the important elements of an interaction or session.Asking open-ended questions thatlead to self-exploration of the whatand how of behavior.Offering possible explanations for certain behaviors, feelings, and thoughts.

Challenging participants to look at discrepancies between their words andactions or body messages and verbalcommunication; pointing to conflictinginformation or messages.Communicating understanding of thecontent of feelings.Providing encouragement and reinforcement.

Identifying with clients by assumingtheir frames of references.

ims and Desired Outcomeso encourage trust and client selfdisclosure and exploration.o determine whether the leader hasunderstood correctly the client'sstatement; to provide support andclarification.o help clients sort out conflicting andconfused feelings and thoughts; to

arrive at a meaningful understandingof what is being communicated.o avoid fragmentation and give direction to a session; to provide for continuity and meaning.o elicit further discussion; to getinformation; to stimulate thinking; toincrease clarity and focus; to providefor further self-exploration.o encourage deeper self-exploration;

to provide a new perspective for considering and understanding one'sbehavior.o encourage honest self-investigation; to promote full use of potentials;to bring about awareness of selfcontradictions.o let members know that they areheard and understood beyond thelevel of words.o create an atmosphere that encourages members to continue desiredbehaviors; to provide help whenclients are facing difficult struggles;to create trust.o foster trust in the therapeutic relationship; to communicate understanding; to encourage deeper levels ofself-exploration.

Note: The format of this chart is based on Edwin J. Nolan's article "Leadership Interventions for Promoting Personal

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

14/39

SkillsFacilitating

Initiating

Goal Setting

Evaluating

Giving Feedback

SuggestingProtecting

DisclosingOneself

Modeling

Dealing withSilence

BlockingTerminating

DescriptionOpening up clear and direct communication within the group; helping members assume increasing responsibilityfor the group's direction.Taking action to bring about groupparticipation and to introduce newdirections in the group.Planning specific goals for the groupprocess and helping participantsdefine concrete and meaningful goals.Appraising the ongoing group processand the individual and group dynamics.Expressing concrete and honest reactions based on observation of members' behaviors.Offering advice and information, direction, and ideas for new behavior.Safeguarding members from unnecessary psychological risks in the group.Revealing one's reactions to here-andnow events in the group.

Demonstrating desired behaviorthrough actions.Refraining from verbal and nonverbalcommunication.

Intervening to stop counterproductivebehavior in the group.Preparing the group to end a sessionor finalize its history.

Aims and Desired Outcomeso promote effective communicationamong members; to help members

reach their own goals in the group.o prevent needless group floundering; to increase the pace of groupprocess.o give direction to the group's activities; to help members select andclarify their goals.o promote deeper self-awarenessand better understanding of groupmovement and direction.o offer an external view of how theperson appears to others; to increasethe client's self-awareness.o help members develop alternativecourses of thinking and action.o warn members of possible risks in

group participation; to reduce theserisks.o facilitate deeper levels of interactionin the group; to create trust; to modelways of making oneself known toothers.o provide examples of desirablebehavior; to inspire members to fullydevelop their potential.o allow for reflection and assimilation;to sharpen focus; to integrate emotionally intense material; to help thegroup use its own resources.o protect members; to enhance theflow of group process.o prepare members to assimilate,integrate, and apply in-group learning

to everyday life.Source; From Theoryand Practice a Group ounseling 4th cd., pp. 71-72) by Gerald Corey, 2000, Pacific Grove,CA Brooks/Cole. Copyright 1995, 1990, 1985, 1981 Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Pacific Grove, CA 93950, adivision of International homson Publishing Inc. By permission of the publisher.

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

15/39

Educational Psychology Special Services

Group Process Developmental StagesInitial Stage: Build Trust, Modeling, Deal w Hidden Agenda and ConflictsTransition Stage: Deal w Anxiety fear, Establish Trust, Deal w ResistanceWorking Stage: Deepen Trust, Build Cohesiveness Universality, ChangeFinal Stage: Unfinished Business, Process Group Experiences Emotions, Change*Group Process: Balance Process Content, Begin-Process-Close*Ethical Legal Issues in Group, Multicultural Issues

- ~l ~ ' ,

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

16/39

History and Trends o Group Work

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

17/39

W e live in a world of groups. Crowds, committees, congregations, delegations,commissions, team, boards, bands, squads, throngs, and mobs are just a few ofthe words we use to describe the groups we are aware of or interact with on aneveryday basis. We even name our college and pro team mascots for groups of animalssuch as packs (wolves), prides (lions), herds (buffalo), and even horned frogs (Le., TexasChristian University). There is power and potentiaJ in groups, and as people we seem torecognize that almost instinctively. Indeed, just as with our ~ n c e s t o r s our well-being orour demise depends on the groups we are in whether by choice or circumstance.

The history of groups is as old as the history of people. From the beginning ofhumankind, individuals have gathered together to create, achieve, and resolve matters notpossible otherwise. The legacy of group actions carries over generations and eitherinspires or suppresses behaviors. Groups are a natural way for people to communicateand interrelate with one another. No written history indicates when or where the firstgroups were formed, but all cultures have made use of groups in their growth and development. Since ancient times people have speculated about how certain groups such ascommunities and social systems shape human behavior (e.g., Plato's epublic or ThomasMore's Utopia and have experimented to see how they can devise groups to changehuman behavior and thus the social system (Luchins, 1964, p. 5).

Groups are defined in many ways, but the following definition adapted from Johnsonand Johnson (2006) encompasses the main qualities of most forms of groups. A roupis a collection of two or more individuals, who meet in face-to-face interaction, interdependently, with the awareness that each belongs to the group and for the purpose ofachieving mutually agreed-on goals. From family councils to town meetings, groups arean important component of everyday life. Healthy groups are contextually unique,complex in regard to their multiple transactions, and open systems as well (ConyneBemak, 2004).

Group work encompasses all types of activities performed by organized groups-forexample, the accomplishment of ta

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

18/39

what they are capable of doing. As Claiborn (1987) contends The past has a nice way ofgetting us to think about the present (p. 286). It guides us, as people and professionals,in assessing where we are, as well as where we want to be .

.USES OF GROUPS BEFORE 19Before 1900, organized groups were generally formed for functional and pragmatic reasons. Most were large, and their primary emphasis was in distributing information. Instruction or correction of behaviors was accomplished mainly through educational means.Immigrants, the poor, and the mentally ill were among those populations receiving specialattention in large groups. Social workers and physicians used group structure to helpthese individuals gain knowledge about themselves and others.

n example of how groups were used at the time can be found in the work of JaneAddams at Hull House in Chicago. Addams formed groups of new immigrants and thepoor to help them understand their environments better and to assist each other in breaking down barriers that impeded them. What she did would be classified now as the beginnings of social group work (PoWck, 1988). She organized individuals into purposefuland enriching groups that engaged in reading, craft..

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

19/39

encouragement in a common setting; that is, messages did not have to be repeated toeach patient one at a time. Furthermore, Pratt noticed that the people in the group notonly became more concerned with one another over time but also had a positive influenceon one another. It is to Pratt's credit that he recognized the therapeutic power of groups.

At about the same time Pratt was forming his hospital groups, effort') were being madeto establish groups in the public schools. In 1907, Jesse B. Davis, principal of Grand RapidsHigh School in Michigan, directed that one English class per.week would be devoted toVocational and Moral Guidance (Glanz Hayes, 1967). Unlike Pratt, Davis did not emphasize the dynamics of the group process. Rather, he stressed the functionality of a group asan environment in which to learn life skills, values, and the importance of citizenship.

After the death in 1908 of Frank Parsons (who is credited as being the founder ofmodern-day counseling), counselors in many guidance settings, such as the VocationalBureau of Boston, began to see vocationally undecided individuals in small groups as well(Brewer, 1942). The emphasis at such agencies, as in the schools, was to use groups as away of dispensing information and providing educational and vocational guidance.191 to 1919The initial progress in group work slowed from 1910 to 1919, although educational andtask/work groups were used to a considerable extent. For instance, soldiers wereinstructed in groups during World War I and teamwork was emphasized during the warfor both civilians and military personnel. During this conflict, psychological group tests,such as the Army Alpha and Beta intelligence tests, were developed and administered.Groups were also used in a limited way to treat combat-fatigued soldiers.

Except for the period from 1916 to 1918, the focus in the United States during this timewas on the individual and individual achievement. There was, however, growth in selectAmerican schools and organizations in studying group educational approaches to learning.Also, in Europe, Jacob L Moreno published a significant, philosophical paper on groupmethods, written under the name of J M. Levy (Milman Goldman, 1974). t stressed thepsychoanalytic and social psychological perspectives of individuals working together.192 to 1929Several important events in the development of groups occurred in the 1920s. First, in 1922,Alfred Adler initiated a new and systematic form of group guidance and counseling thatbecame known as eollective counseling (Dreikurs Corsini, 1954). Adler employed histreatment method with both prison and child gUidance populations. In the child guidance clinics, he established a team of helping specialists, such as psychiatrists, psychologists, and socialworkers, to interview children. Parents and children were helped by the team to realize thatproblems with children usually are related to problems in the family. Families, especially parents, became more motivated to find solutions to problems by employing this principle. Adler

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

20/39

Gestalt technology and William Schutz in his formation of encounter techniques (ShafferGalinsky, 1989, p. 9). Some of the ideas stemming from psychodrama, such as role playing, the taking of stage center, the emphasis on here-and-now interaction, the promo-tion of catharsis, the focus on empathy, and the encouragement of group members helpingone another, are incorporated in many forms of groups today. Moreno's innovations in thefield of group psychotherapy challenged old methods of working with individuals whowere experiencing mental turmoil.Related to Moreno's work, although entirely independent from it, was Trigant Burrow's(1928) focus on the interpersonal relationships of individuals. Burrow thought that interpersonal relationships playa crucial role in the formation and enactment of psychotherapy.He believed isolation was detrimental to mental health.A final significant occurrence during the 1920s was the investigation of small groups.Researchers began to learn which types of interactions were the norm in small-group settings and how groups influence individuals (Allport, 1924). Individual versus group performances were also evaluated (Gordon, 1924; Watson, 1928). These studies grew in numberand importance during the 1930s and 1940s. Because of this sCientific approach, the concept of groups gained respect, and the power of groups became more recognized.

1930 to 1939The 1930s are noted in group work history for five major events. First, group guidance andeducational publications and practices increased (e.g., Allen, 1931; McKown, 1934). Second,Jacob Moreno continued to write and make creative presentations. Third, there was anincrease in the number and quality of fieldwork studies by sociologists, such as MuzaferSherif (1936), Theodore Newcomb (1943), and W F Whyte (1943). A fourth event duringthe decade was the founding of the first major self-help group in America, AlcoholicsAnonymous (AA). A final noteworthy phenomenon of the 1930s was the movement ofpsychoanalytic t reatment into the group domain and the discovery of several dynamics thatoperate in group psychotherapy (Kline, 2003). Each of these events will now be examined.

Group guidance and education in schools centered on vocational and personalthemes. Initially, these activities were the responsibility of homeroom teachers. Someschools even referred to homeroom as the guidance hour or 'guidance room' (McKown,1934, p. 53). In this arrangement, the teacher's responsibilities were to establish friendlyrelationships, to discover the abilities and needs, and to develop right attitudes towardschool, home, and the community (Strange, 1935, p. 116). Group guidance continuedthis way until the 1950s.Jacob Moreno's most productive writings and presentations started in the 1930s andcontinued for several decades. He introduced the terms group therapy and group psy-chotherapy into the vocabulary of helping professionals in 1931 and 1932 (Corsini, 1957;Moreno, 1966). He also devised one of the earliest forms of group treatment: psychodrama

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

21/39

The third major event of the decade-studies of groups in natural settings-used various investigative methods to gather data. Sherif (1936), for instance, studied the influenceof groups on the establishment of social norms by charting the response of individualsinside and outside a group setting to a particular stimulus called the utokinetic move-ment He found that individuals who had been a part of a group tended to view this lightphenomenon within the range established by their group. Likewise, Newcomb (1943)found that students from politically conservative homes t e n e ~ to become more liberalbecause of the prevailing norms of their peer groups. Finally, \X hyte (1943) studied largersocial systems by moving into the slums of Boston in 1937 for 3Y years. He found thatgangs, clubs, and political organizations had a dramatic impact on individuals' lives.

In the late 1930s AA was established by founders who came to realize the potency ofindividuals meeting together and interacting in a supportive way to produce change(posthuma, 2002, p. 3). t evolved into an organization that continues to help alcoholicsgain and maintain control of their lives by remaining sober. Many of the techniques usedin AA are similar to those found in other self-help groups-for example, listening,empathizing, supporting, and teaching.Psychoanalytic group analysis also emerged in the 1930s (Kline, 2003). One of theleaders of this movement was Trigant Burrow, who studied how social forces affect behavior and stressed the biological a

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

22/39

collaborative research that group discussions are superior to individual instruction inchanging people's ideas and behaviors. His emphasis on a here-and-now orientation to theenvironment and his point that changes in a group s behavior depend on an unfreezingand freezing process of human behavior were major contributions t understandinggroups. Lewin first applied the concept of eedback t group work.Wilfred Bion (1948), a member of the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations inGreat Britain, also stressed the importance of group dynamics. Bioh was psychoanalyticallytrained but broke away from Freudian concepts, such as the idea that the family is thebasic group model. Instead, Bion stated that group phenomena may be radically differentfrom those within a family (Mackler Strauss, 1981). His focus was on group cohesivenessand forces that foster the progression or regression of the group. Bion found that hecould characterize the emotional pattern of a group as either a w work group) or aBA basic assumption) activity, which was an antiwork group. BA groups could be

broken down further into three subpatterns: BA Dependency (where members areoverdependent on the group leader), BA Pairing (where members are more interested inbeing with one another than in working on a goal), and BA Fight Flight (where membersbecome preoccupied with either engaging in or avoiding hostile conflict).

During the 1940s, two major group organizations and publications were founded. Thefirst organization w ~ the American Society o Group Psychotherapy and Psy-chodrama ASGPP), which Moreno established between 94 and 1942. The second wasthe American Group Psychotherapy Association (AGPA), a psychoanalytically oriented organization established by Samuel R Slavson in 1943. Two pertinent journals startedduring the 1940s were Sociatry in 1947, which was retitled Group Psychotherapy in 1949,and the InternationalJournal o Group Psychotherapy in 1949. Each journal reflected thephilosophy of its founder, Moreno and Slavson, respectively. With the inception of theseprofessional societies and their journals, group work was recognized as a legitimate specialtywith its own standards and research base (Kottler Forester-Miller, 1998, p. 340).

1950 to 1959The 1950s were characterized by a greater refinement in group work and more emphasison research. For example, in regard to group behavior, Bales (1950) noted that, in mostgroups, stereotyped roles tend to emerge over time. He listed 2 broad categories, frompositive reactions (e.g., shows solidarity) to negative reactions (e.g., shows antagonism).

Group procedures also began to be applied to the practice of family counseling at thistime. Among the pioneers in this area was Rudolph Dreikurs, who began working withparent groups (Dreikurs, Corsini, Lowe, Sonstegard, 1959). Dreikurs employed Adler'stheory and ideas in setting up these groups, which were primarily educational in nature.Another clinician, John Bell (1961), also started using groups in his work in family therapy.Beginning as early as 1951, he conducted family therapy sessions like group counselingsessions. Bell treated families as if they were strangers in a group. He relied on stimulating

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

23/39

oriented and developed techniques for treating dysfunctions in families. Bateson concentrated more on research, especially group dynamics within families.The last major development in groups during the 1950s was the implementation ofnew group concepts. A group vocabulary was developed to describe phenomena withingroup sessions. For example, Richard Blake and Jane Mouton initially used the termdevelopmentalgroup during this decade. The first textbook in group work was publishedin 1958: Counseling nd Learning Through Small-Group Discussion by Helen L Driver.Terminology for working with groups mushroomed in the 1950s.

As language and terms for groups increased, a shift occurred in the type of groups thatwere created. Group guidance began to wane in the late 1950s and was replaced by groupcounseling as a major way to bring about behavioral changes, especially in educational settings (Gazda, 1989). Group psychotherapy increased in popularity as tranquilizing drugsmade working with groups in mental health settings viable. The Japanese implemented anew type of group called the total quality group under the direction of work group master W Edwards Deming (Hillkirk, 1993). This type of group, whicb focused on problemsolving related to consumer satisfaction and quality issues in business, would later influenceAmerican industry.

1960 t 1969Group work, especially group counseling and psychotherapy, was popular in the 1960s.Part of the reason for the flourishing of groups during this time was the result of eventsoccurring in society. The Vietnam War hippie movement, racial strife, and social activismincreased public awareness of the power that groups can have to promote communitychange (Kottler Forester-Miller, 1998, p. 341).

Some of the most creative leaders in tbe history of group work came into prominenceduring this time. Group practice became so popular that the New York Times designated1968 as the year of the group. Many forms of group work were initiated or refined during the 1960s, including encounter groups, sensory awareness groups, growtb groups,marathons, and minithons. It seemed t be a decade in which there was a group for everyone and everyone was in a group. The increased interest in and respect for group coun-seling and psychotherapy marked the beginning of the reversal of the negative attitudetoward the efficacy of group work that was strongly adhered to by most of the psychoanalytic community at the time (Ward Litchy, 2004, p. 105).

Two of the most popular groups were encounter groups and marathon groups. CarlRogers (1970) coined the term basic encounter group which was later sbortened toencounter group to describe bis approach to group work, an extension of his theory of individual counseling (Rogers, 1967). Encounter groups are often known as personal growthgroups because the emphasis in these groups is on personal development. Encountergroups are sometimes also referred to as sensitivity groups a term that focuses on individuals' awareness of their own emotional experiences and the behaviors of others. In

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

24/39

held for extended periods, such as 24 or 48 hours, and group members are required tostay together. Fatigue is an important factor in these groups, as members become tiredand experience a breakdown in their defenses and an increase in their truthfulness resulting in self-growth. Bach (1967), especially; devised creative ways to help people in thesegroups (and later marriages) resolve interpersonal conflict by learning how to fight fairly.

With the popularity of groups came abuses (Stanger & Harris, 2005). Many wellintentioned individuals and some charlatans established groups with no clear ideas abouthow to run them. A< a result, some individuals became casualties of the group movement.They were instructed to do such things as yell at others, physically attack those they disliked, or simply disrobe and lay all their defenses aside. The publicity seekers and entrepreneurs who set up these groups received reams of publicity, most of which was bad. Bythe end of the 1960s, the group movement was under attack, and the field had been setback considerably. Many individuals made cults out of groups and impaired the functioning of those who participated in their activities (Landreth, 1984).However, positive and important events also occurred during this period, especiallyin the development of group theory and practice. Among the most popular theoristspractitioners of this decade were those who took a humanistic-existential olientation. Inaddition to Rogers and Bach, four were important:

Fritz Perls (1967), who conducted numerous work (1972) book of this period reflects the turmoil and concern surrounding the use of groups that had begun in the 1960s. He cites Jane Howard's (1970) book

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

25/39

almost uncontrolled, growth in the late 19605 and the fact that guidelines for leading andconducting group experiences themselves were not well defined.In partial answer to this need for more professionalism in the conducting of groups,the Association for Specialists in Group Work (ASGW) was formed in 1973 byGeorge Gazda and Jack Duncan as a divisional affiliate within the American Personnel andGuidance Association (now the American Counseling Association). The association grewrapidly during the 19705 and was active throughout the decade in promoting responsiblegroup leadership and setting up standards under which group leaders should operate(Carroll Levo, 1985).

Group research also came into prominence during the 1970s, with the percentage ofresearch articles on groups rising to 20 as compared to only 5 in the 1950s (KottlerForester-Miller, 1998). Irvin Yalom and George Gazda conducted particularly importantwork. Yalom (1970), in a marker event, published the first edition of his classic book, TheTheory nd Practice of Group Psychotherapy. In it he analyzed group methods andprocesses and described 11 curative (therapeutic) factors wit in groups, the mostcentral and necessary of which are group cohesiveness and interpersonal learning (WardLitchy, 2004, p. 106). In addition, Yalom and Lieberman (1971) found that leadershipstyle in groups influences how individuals fare in such settings. Aggressive, authoritarian,and confrontational leaders and those who are most distant and cool produce the mostgroup casualties. Gazda was largely responsible for collecting primary accounts of how different group workers, especially psychotherapists and counselors, conceptualized and'practiced their approaches (Elliott, 1989). He helped link group leaders together.

1980 to 1989In the 1980s the popularity of group work for the masses increased, as did the continued profeSSionalism of the group movement itself. The AGPA was one of the associations that continued to refine group theory and practice. For instance, the AGPA pub-lished a collection of articles edited by James Durkin (1981) that examined how generalsystems theory, which emphasizes circular causality as opposed to linear causality,could be utilized in groups.

In addition to the expansion of theory, the number of different types of groups grew.Self-help groups, in particular, mushroomed. It was estimated in 198&that between 2,000and 3,000 self-help groups operated in the United States. These mutually supportivegroups usually did not include professional leaders but were led by paraprofessionals orgroup members. Examples of such groups then and now are Alcoholics Anonymous, NarcoticsAnonymous, Weight Watchers, and Compassionate Friends. Educational groups alsoreceived increased attention during this decade. Noted leaders in the group work area,such as George Gazda (1989), proposed the use of developmental group counseling'with multiple populations for teaching basic life skills.

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

26/39

In summary, by the end of the 1980s, group work was recognized as a viable means ofhelping individuals in a variety of settings. More types of groups were available than everbefore, with a new emphasis on self-help, social skills, development and ethics. More carewas being focused on evaluating the effects of group experiences and the number ofresearch articles on group work was increasing.

1990 to 1999In the 1990s, group work continued to flourish. In 1991;the Group Psychology and GroupPsychotherapy division of the American Psychological Association was established. It beganpublishing its own journal, Group Dynamics in 1997 and attracted a number of psychologists to its ranks.More mature group organizations continued to prosper, too. For example, the AGPAcelebrated its 50th anniversary in 1992 and set up a certification for group psychotherapists, the Clinical Registry of Certified Group Psychotherapists, in 1994. A number of newbooks and a plethora of scholarly articles were also published in the decade. Group workwas increasingly utilized in school settings, especially as a way of influencing educationalendeavors and social skills (Hudson, Doyle, & Venezia, 1991). However, group work alsofocused on groups for special populations, such as those in the midst of divorce, adultoffenders, people from different cultures, and people with disabilities. A particularly innovative specialized type of group for the treatment of Borderline Personality Disorders,dialectic behavior therapy was developed in the early 1990s by Marsha Linehan (1993)and her research team. The approach, based on cognitive behavior therapy, uses a psychOSOCial method that teaches coping skills to group members during a weekly 2.5-hoursession. Such skills as interpersonal effectiveness, distress tolerance, reality acceptanceskills, emotion regulation, and mindfulness are taught. The clinical effectiveness of DBThas empirical support.

The number of individuals interested in working with groups also increased in the1990s for almost all group associations. More emphasis was also placed on specialtygroups, for example, depreSSion, bulimia, and sexual abuse. In 1991, the ASGW approvedand published professional standards for the training of group workers in four main areas:psychoeducational, task/work, counseling, and psychotherapy groups. A distinction inthese standards was made between core group competencies and group work specialties,with specialists already having mastered core skills ASGW, 1991, 2000). Furthermoreresearch from a variety of sources on different types of groups supported their effectiveness and cost effiCiency (Kline, 2003).In addition to these activities, more training and educational opportunities wereoffered in groups by almost all professional associations. For example, the ASGW and theAGPA held annua national conferences on group work and sponsored continuing education courses at various sites around the United States.

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

27/39

settings, In these environments, the use of tasklwork groups grew dramatically as organizational hierarchies began flattening out and workers became more collaborative inachieving goals (Hulse-Killacky, Killacky Donigian, 2001),

URRENT TRENDS IN GROUP WORKIn the early years of the 21st century, groups continue to be popular in multiple settings,Generally, groups work for an ever-increasing number of dient complaints and con-cerns (Barlow, Fuhrman, Burlingame, 2004, p, 10), Counselors, coaches, teachers,politicians, and corporate researchers have made groups more a part of their personaland professional lives than ever before. Books on the therapeutic aspects of groups, suchas Paul Solotaroff's roup (1999), sell well. Small groups are now well accepted as amethod of providing support, as well as promoting change, effective decision making,problem solving, team building, and social skill building (Kottler Forester-Miller, 1998,pp. 341-342). Specialty group practice and research into specialty areas of group workflourish. In addition, there is an emphasis on the refinement of standards needed toconduct groups. Other trends affecting group work are in training and education, technology, research, the development of brief solution-focused ways of delivering group services, and the use of dialectical behavior group therapy to treat individuals who tend toharm themselves.TraininglEducating Leaders and Members in roup WorkThe training and educating of group leaders has become more sophisticated recently asthe dynamics within groups have become better understood (Ward, 2004a), For instance,Riva and Korinek (2004) have found that group work instructors can intentionally modeleffective group leader behaviors and use these behaviors and the students responses tothem as powerful ways to augment the didactic material being taught about group dynamics and theory (p. 55). They suggest activities instructors can use during the initial, middle, and final stages of a group, such as providing a high degree of structure in early groupmeetings to increase cohesion and reduce anxiety.

In addition to modeling, group training now focuses on presenting skills in steps. Nolonger are novice group leaders told that they must observe the dynamics in a group andhelp group members understand what is going on within themselves and their interpersonal relationships. Instead, Stockton, Morran, and Nitza (2000) have developed a conceptual map for leaders to follow. Processing, according to t h s ~ researchers, can be conceptualized as four in terrelated steps: identifying critical incidents of importance to group members, examining the event and member reactions,

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

28/39

Finally; in the communication facilitator role, group leaders reflect the content andfeeling of members and teach them how to do likewise. For instance, leaders may notethat when someone is conveying that they are depressed they do not smile or have a lilt intheir words. Therefore this process focuses on both the expression of words and theemotion behind the communications. In addition, the importance of speaking congru-ently is stressed-that is, using I messages to state what one wants or what one thinks.

Leaders and Group ConflictIn addition to the four tasks just described, a primary function of group leaders is dealing con-structively with conflict. The display of conflict is normal within a group and is especially preva-lent in certain group stages, such as "storming" (ruckman, 1965). Conflict and challenges ingroups, if managed properly; offer opportunities for growth within the group. However, "oneof the most difficult aspects of group leadership is the ability of the group leader to respond toconflict or challenging incidents in the group" (Kraus, DeRsch, & Geroski, 2001, p. 31).

Five specific techniques for managing conflict in groups have been proposed bySimpson (1977) and elaborated on by Kormanski (1982): withdrawal from the conflict,suppressing the conflict, integrating conflicting ideas to form new solutions, working out a. compromise, and using power to resolve the conflict.

Withdrawal from the conflict--This strategy involves leaders distancing them-selves from conflict and postponing interventions. It has the advantage of lettingleaders gather more data and observe longer without becoming excessivelyinvolved. t also allows leaders to consult and use resolution strategies later if issuesare not settled. The disadvantages of this approach are that conflict may escalate,and withdrawal is completely ineffective in dealing with a crisis.

Suppressing conflict-As a strategy; suppression consists of playing down conflict.It is often used when issues are minor. It keeps emotions under control and helpsgroup leaders build a support ive climate. Suppression is most effective when conflictissues are unimportant or when fOCUSing on a relationship is more important thanconcentrating on an issue. The disadvantages of suppression are that it fails to resolveconflict and allows feelings to smolder and possibly erupt later. In addition, leadersmay be perceived as weak or insensitive when they use this strategy. Integrating conflicting ideas to form new solutions--Consensus s the ideabehind integration. In using this strategy; group leaders try to get all parties to reex-amine a situation and identity points of agreement. The goals are to develop newalternatives, learn how to open up lines of communication better, and build cohe-sive unity and commitment. One example of integration is mediation: haVing athird party hear arguments about a situation and then render a decision. The disad-

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

29/39

group members are flexible-for example, in a work group in which little money isavailable to spend on research and salaries. Compromising is a good strategy to usein avoiding win-lose situations. Negotiation is a good example of compromise. Thedisadvantages of compromise are that some parties may inflate their wants to getmore, and the eventual action taken may be ineffective or less than desirable.

Using power to resolve the conflict-The power strategy involves the imposition of someone's will on someone else" (Kormanski; 1982, p. 116). The source ofpower may be derived from either a person's status or personality. Positionpower is most often used when immature relationships between individuals exist(Hersey, Blanchard, & Natemeyer, 1979). It is derived from the status of people'stitles, such as "group leader" or "group facilitator." Personal power is employedmore frequently in mature relationship situations. The source of power in such asituation is from the individual and his or her ability to persuade others to follow aselected course of action.

By using power, a leader is able to resolve a crisis quickly. However, the use of powercreates a win-lose atmosphere in which the losers may harbor feelings of resentment orpowerlessness and may seek subtle or blatant revenge on those who have won. Arbitrationis an example of a typical use of power. Table 4.3 shows which techniques are most preferred under certain group circumstances

Questions from Experience.Which of the leadership strategies for managing conflict do you most prefer? When haveyou used this strategy? \X hich of the strategies do you least prefer? What makes it unattractive for you?

Table 4.3Contingency assessment guidelines.

PreferredTechniqueWithdrawalSuppression

IntegrationCompromisePower

ontingency FactorImportant information is lacking.Choosing sides is to be avoided.An important relationship is involved.The issue is unimportant.Group commitment is needed.The group will put group goals first.Resources are limited.A win-win set is desired.Time is limited (crisis situations).A continued deadlock persists.

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

30/39

Overall, a prerequisite to becoming an effective leader is learning which strategiesand roles to employ in conflict situations and when. Kraus et al. (2001) encourage leadersto approach such situations first by attending to and valuing them. Leaders must internally process challenges in part by asking themselves supervision-like questions beforeeffective interventions can follow (p. 32). They suggest a menu of six nonexhaustiveand nonexclusive questions that cover such important topics as member selection, systems theory, group dynamics and stages, individual m e m b ~ r s group issues, emergingthemes, and leader introspection (see Table 4.4). By leaders carefully considering whichperspective-which cuisine-may offer the best opportunity to harness the positiveenergy present in the group at that moment, an appropriate approach will follow

able 4.4The Menu.1. Were group members appropriately selected?

Does each member o the group present a concern that is related to the purpose of thegroup? Is the member safe in the group and the group safe with the member? Is each member at an appropriate level of functioning for this group (cognitive and psychological)?2. Is the challenging incident related to the group system?

How are all members contributing to this moment? What does this incident tell me about the functioning o the group? How is this incident affecting the group? Its members? The whole group? The subgroups?3. Is the incident a function of the stage or of the dynamiCS o this group?

How much of this is a function of normal group development? How can I facilitate a process with the group so those members can try new behaviors? To which therapeutic forces do I need to attend to help the group in this stage o groupdevelopment?

4. Is this incident a symptom of an individual member's style of functioning? How does this exemplify this individual member's presenting problem? How can I intervene to promote insight? How can I respond in a way that keeps all members invested in the group? How can I include other group members?

5. Is this incident related to issues raised in the group? How does this incident exemplify underlying core issues? How can I intervene to facilitate inSight related to the content and themes of this group? How can I help members make intra- and interpersonal meaning of this incident?

6. Is this incident an artifact of my own responses to the group or to individual members? How am I responding personally to this incident? How is my response related to my own personal style?

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

31/39

(p. 44). Other experiences, such as observing or co-leading actual groups, can also beenlightening in learning how to handle conflict and not become defensive when challenges occur.

CO-LEADERS IN GROUPSA co-leader is a professional or a professional-In-training who undertakes the responsibility of sharing tbe leadersbip of a group with another leader in a mutually determinedmanner in order to facilitate counseling, therapy, or group member interaction. The useof co-leaders in groups occurs often, especially in groups with a membersbip of 12 ormore. The efficacy of using co-leaders depends on many factors, induding economicconsiderations, advantages to the group, and the compatibility of the leaders. Groupco-leaders' concerns about their competence [are] among the most significant factors influencing the development and enactment of their co-leader relationship" (Okech

Kline, 2006, p. 166).

AdvantagesThe advantages associated with co-leading a group, according to experts such as Carroll etal. (2004), Corey and Corey (2006), and Jacobs, Masson, and Harvill (2006), include the following:

Ease o handling the group n difficult situations-When two leaders arepresent, they may help each other facilitate the movement of the group. Forexample, one leader can shift the topic or the focus of the group if the otherleader gets bogged down. Before and after group sessions, co-leaders can planstrategies and discuss problems that tbey, members, or the group as a whole areexperiencing.

Uses of modeling-With co-leaders, group members are exposed to two modelsof human interaction. They see how individuals can relate to each other in positiveways and how they can disagree and still cooperate. When co-leaders are of theopposite gender, members may grow by more fully realizing and reliving earlierfamily dynamics and working on any unresolved issues that are brought up (Alfred,1992; DeLucia-Waack Gerrity, 2001),

Feedback-Regardless of the issues members discuss, they usually receivetwice the leader feedback when the group is co-led. This input helps membersrealize more fully how others perceive them and gives them a different perspective than they would receive otherwise, For example, one co-leader maycomment on intrapersonal aspects of a group member's behaVior, whereas the

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

32/39

Shared specialized knowledge-In groups with co-leaders, there is a primaryadvantage for all concerned when the leaders share specialized training with eachother and the group. This type of sharing can come in response to a situation inthe group, such as dealing with anger, and can be done privately or publicly. Inthese cases, everyone benefits because information is presented and discussed ina more dynamic and expanded manner than is possible in a one-leader group.

Pragmatic considerations-In a co-led group, it i? possible for one leader tocover for the other if a group session must be missed because of illness or professional considerations. Coverage allows the group to continue and evolve.

imitationsThe limitations of co-leading a group are also important to conSider. The disadvantagesthis effort entails have the potential to be very destructive. "Unless partners can work as acomplementary team, much group time can be wasted in power plays, bickering, andmutual sabotage" (Kottler, 1983, p 178). Among the potential liabilities of co-leading arethe following:

Lack of coordinated efforts (Okech Kline, 2006; Posthuma, 2002; StocktonMorran, 1982)-The degree to which a group grows depends on the coordination of its leaders. When leaders do not meet to process what has occurred in the

group or to agree on where they want to lead the group, destructive conflictwithin the group may occur, and the outcome of the group may be less thandesirable. In such situations, the leaders may work, knowingly or not, at crosspurposes. Too leader focused-The old saying that too many cooks spoil the broth" mayapply to some groups with two leaders. In these cases, the presence of two leaders,especially if both are strong personalities and leader centered, will work against thegood of group members because too much attention is concentrated on the leaders.One leader may also dominate another and call attention to the leadership roleinstead of the goals of members. In such cases, the impact of both group leaders iseventually diminished (Alfred, 1992). Competition (Posthuma, 2002; Trotzer, 2007)-Competition may be manifest inseveral ways-for example, through trying to gain the attention of the group orthrough using opposing theories. The point is that competition between groupleaders will cost the group part of its efficiency and productivity. Leaders may alsolose respect for each other in such an atmosphere. Collusion-In the collusion process, a co-leader establishes an informal alliancewith a group member to address disliked qualities of the other co-leader. The resultis an unloading of unexpected emotion onto the nonaligned leader and a splittingof the group into factions.

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

33/39

and of one another (Fall Wejnert, 2005, p. 315). Likewise, co-leader relationshipsdevelop over time and co-leaders experience storming, norming, performing, andadjourning in a parallel manner to that of group members. Okech and Kline (2005) foundthat co-leaders believe that their effectiveness as co-leaders depends on the quality of theirrelationships. Thus, co-leading is a double-edged sword in that it can both relieve and promote stress depending on how well the leaders relate to one another. Gazda (1989) statesthat supportive feedback, mutual trust and respect, and a liking for each other appear tbe at least minimal requirements for co-leaders to work well together and be of benefit tothe group (p. 64).In addition to developing a strong relationship, co-leading requires that both leadersbe competent to begin with and that they be able to express a wide range of facilitativeskills (e.g., self-disclosure, timing) in an appropriate manner. It also demands that coleaders be consistent and noncompetitive (Stockton Morran, 1982). The three mainmodels of co-led groups are those in which the lead is (a) ltern ted (Le., one leadertakes responsibility for a specific period or a session, and the other leader providessupport); (b) sh red (Le., each leader takes charge momentarily as he or she sees fit); or(c) pprenticed (i.e., a more experienced leader takes charge of the group to show anovice how to work with groups).Overall, co-leading can be either a bonus or a bust to group members and to groupleaders. When co-leaders develop a positive relationship in their group approach, theyhave a greater capacity for helping individuals and the group than does a single leader(Trotzer, 2007). It is the development of the right condi tions that either makes or breaksco-led groups.

Questionsfrom ExperienceWhen have you co-led a group or been in a group that was co-led? How was it, and whydo you think it functioned in the way it did?

GROUP LE DERSHIP TR INING

Training in group counseling typically includes four essential components: academic,observation, experiential, and supervision (Riva Korinek, 2004, p. 55). Yet one of theweakest areas of the group work movement throughout the decades has been the lack ofattention paid to the training of group leaders (Shapiro Bernadett-Shapiro, 1985, p. 86).Until recently, little was published about training group leaders (Dye, 1997). Indeed, in theearly days of group work (the 195 s and 1960s) before training standards were estab

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

34/39

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

35/39

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

36/39

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

37/39

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

38/39

able

pproachPremise

Practice

Role ofleader

\ j j~ ~

ontinuedREBT

One s thinking about eventsproduces feelings rather thansituations themselves; ABCmod el of human interaction;four types of thought: negative,positive, neutral, and mixed;stress on the dual nature ofhumans; philosophy of life aswell as treatment.

Groups vary between open andclosed ended; tend to be didactic, philosophical, and skills oriented; REBT theory introducedby leader; members shareproblems or concerns; members and leader give feedbackand suggestions; little attentionto past-focus on here andnow; role play and modeling.Leader-centered groups; leaderencourages rational thinking;encourages members to act asauxiliary counselors for othermembers; serves as model forgroup; helps members give uptheir demands for perfection,

BehavioralEmphasis on learning andmodification of behaviors; nofocus on treatment of underlying problems; two majorgroups-radical and cognitivebehaviorists; learning processin which helpers use specific,planned techniques to accomplish behavioral change;groups are either interpersonalor transactional.Seven specific stages apply toall types of behavioral groups;frequently used techniquesinclude reinforcement, extinction, shaping, contingencycontracts, modeling, behaviorrehearsal, coaching, andcognitive restructuring,

Screening group members;teaching about group process;assessing members progress;evaluating techniques; reinforcing member achievements; systematic planner who identifiesproblems in behavioral terms;overall a participant-observer;more active and directive atbeginning of group and laterdelegates responsibility.

5/26/2018 5338_handout2010

39/39

Desiredoutcomes

Strengths

Limitations

f:A,

To learn to think rationally; toachieve a particular goal connected with overcoming anirrational belief; increasedknowledge of how REST can beemployed in new experiences;to gain the experience of personally understanding theprocess of change.Focus on the importance ofcognition and behavior in influencing emotions and actions;can be quickly taught to everyone involved; may be perfectfor persons phasing out of individual therapy; versatility;emphasizes remediation andprevention; emphasis on actionas well as discussion.Traditional focus on individualrather than entire group; maybe too confrontive and directiveat times; borderline-disturbedindividuals may become worsein REST; lack of reliable groupresearch.

Awareness of specific behaviorsthat need changing and how toaccomplish that; ability to assessbehavioral changes; increasescognizance of new models forachieving desired goals; torealize the power of groupreinforcement; may becomemore behaviorally oriented inresolving other difficulties.Focus on helping memberslearn new ways of functioning;impressive research in the field;short term and very focused;versatility can be used toteach specific skills work onproblem areas and addressholistic issues; emphasis onpromoting self-control aftertermination; can be combinedwith other approaches.Members may become overdependent on group for support;too much emphasis on techniques; tendency to ignore thepast and unconscious; lack offocus on broad life issues;emphasis only Oil behavior -lack of CO lCern about feelings;not theoretically unified; worksbest with well motivated.