Help Needed

Please see attached

Week 1

Respond to the following in a minimum of 175 words:

Your readings (especially Chapter Two) and the
What to Look For in Groups
handout) this week discuss group “process” versus “content.” Based on your readings, answer the following questions:

· In your own words, define process and content.

· Throughout the class you will be required to comment on the process and content that you see in your interpersonal group. What are some general areas to focus on for the first group?

· How do you believe process and content are different between the different types of groups (task, psychoeducation, counseling, and psychotherapy)?

Cite: A minimum of one scholarly citation according to APA standards.

2 Group

Emotions ricochet around the room fired by an act of self-disclosure in an atmosphere of trust. I, struck by the process, watch as feelings penetrate the minds of members and touch off new reactions. Change comes from many directions triggered by simple words.

Chapter Overview

From reading this chapter, you will learn about Group content, process, and the importance of balancing them Group dynamics The differences and similarities between working with groups, individuals, and families As you read, consider How much group structure is related to the group’s success How positive and negative internal and external variables can affect a group The importance of preplanning a group

In William Golding’s book Lord of the Flies, the reader is taken through a process of events that depicts how young English boys gradually decline from proper to savage behavior. The boys are marooned on an island in the middle of the ocean after a plane crash, without any link to the world. They initially start to help one another just as adults would do. However, the group deteriorates, and violence and bloodshed result. In contrast, B. F. Skinner’s Walden Two starts and ends differently. A thousand inhabitants of a planned utopian community live happy and healthy lives thanks to adhering to the principles of behaviorism. Both novels represent different aspects of group dynamics and their effect on a group.Regardless of what groups people may be a part of, they need to be aware that groups are dynamic entities that have a direct and indirect impact on their members (Bion, 1959; Forsyth, 2019; Yalom & Leszcz, 2005). “In any group, it is a mistake to ever conclude that nothing is happening within or between its members” (Conyne, Wilson, & Ward, 1997, p. 32). The presence of others may improve or impair the performance and development of individuals, depending on their background and preparation (Zajonc, 1965). When individuals are accustomed to working with others and well prepared for a group experience, the group enhances their performances, and they add to the group. In contrast, when individuals are used to working alone and are not well prepared for a group experience, their behavior may be detrimentally affected by being in the group, and they may detract from the group as a whole. Thus, a social influence emerges in a group that manifests itself by altering actions, attitudes, and feelings (Asch, 1951; Festinger, 1954; Sherif, 1937).Research taken from three separate disciplines—individual psychology, social psychology, and sociology—focuses on explaining these and other interactions that occur in groups and how groups influence their members (Munich & Astrachan, 1983). People act differently in groups than they do by themselves. As a rule, primary affiliation groups (those with which people most identify, such as a family or peers) exert greater pressure on individuals than secondary affiliation groups (those with which people least identify, such as a city or a confederation).Brief CaseAlberto Wreaks HavocWhen he is with his family, 13-year-old Alberto is polite and well behaved. So it was a shock when Mrs. Hernando received a call from the director of the camp Alberto was attending during the summer asking that she and her husband come and get him. When the Hernandos arrived at the camp, the director informed them that Alberto had broken into the kitchen with several other boys and dumped flour all over the tables and chairs. When questioned, Alberto could not give a rational explanation. He said he simply thought it was funny and that the camp staff would not care. He was having a good time with his new friends. His behavior at camp was far from what he displayed at home with his family and peers.QuestionsWhat do you think happened to Alberto? Based on what you have read, why might it have occurred?The influence of groups on members, and what has grown to be known as group dynamics, was first studied as a phenomenon in work environments. Indeed, “the origins of group dynamics are largely in social and industrial psychology and stem from the efforts of experts in these fields to understand group influence on individual behavior and on productivity in the workplace and in other human groups” (Friedman, 1989, p. 46). Elton Mayo and associates at the Hawthorne Plant of the Western Electric Company conducted the initial landmark study on the influence of groups (Mayo, 1945). This research group investigated the effects of manipulating physical features in the work setting. It was discovered that physical aspects of the work environment were not as important as social factors within the work group. Changes in behavior because of observation and manipulation of conditions in an environment became known as the Hawthorne effect. Although Mayo’s work involved group dynamics, he did not describe it in that way. Rather, the term came from Kurt Lewin (1948), who was the first to use it. Lewin believed group dynamics includes everything that goes on in a small group. He was especially interested in how the climate of a group and its processes influence the interactions of group members and ultimately outcomes. He thought many factors contributed to the overall concept of group dynamics, including the group’s purpose, communication patterns, power, control issues, and member roles. For instance, a psychotherapy group for survivors of natural disasters, such as a forest fire or earthquake, has a purpose and intensity quite different from those of a research group formed to study the Internet’s effects on community values. Member roles and interactions are not the same, either. The intensity or temperature of these types of groups differs dramatically. By understanding forces operating within a group and their interplay, group specialists are able to discern the nature of groups. How interactions occur among participants affect a group’s development.

Reflection

What role(s) do you play in your primary groups, such as in your family or on your athletic or artistic team? How does your behavior differ in these circumstances compared to when you are in a secondary group setting, such as riding on a train or plane?

Group Content and Group Process

Included in the term group dynamics (forces within a group) are two powerful elements that have a major bearing on a group’s development and productivity: group content (information within and purpose of the group) and group process (interactions and relationships among members of the group). The amount and mixture of group content and group process ultimately determine the dynamics within a group. Group Content Group content involves the actual words, ideas, and information exchanged in a group as well as the purpose of the group. For example, in a psychoeducational group, participants may talk about the facts surrounding the purpose of the group, such as how to prevent the spread of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) or whooping cough. However, groups do not run well on facts and information alone. After some time in most groups, members have enough basic knowledge to accomplish their goals. This point does not mean that new and pertinent information should not be added to the group over time—quite the contrary, because groups absorb and deal with information developmentally. Rather, it means more information is not necessarily better. Large quantities of information in short periods are not useful because they cannot be adequately digested. For instance, in a group for victims of a disaster, information on recovery is given in pieces over time because otherwise group members become overwhelmed, confused, or discouraged. People in groups, just like people individually, do not make most of the important decisions of their lives based on cognitive knowledge alone. Instead, good decision-making involves interaction with others in pursuit of a purpose. It is based on members having pertinent information, an opportunity to understand their options, and a chance to assess what they are thinking and feeling with other people they trust and value. That is where group process comes in. Brief Case Professor Drone Goes On and On Despite his sincerity and sense of caring, Professor Drone gets terrible student evaluations. He complains to his colleagues and tries harder each semester without making any substantial progress. He is knowledgeable and amicable, but his students do not like being in his class and do not learn a lot. The reason: He drones on with lecture notes from the minute he starts class until the bell rings. Students do not interact except to occasionally squirm and roll their eyes. Questions What would you advise Professor Drone to do besides “try harder”? Be specific. Group Process Group process is the interaction of group members with one another, often in some meaningful way. For example, Joe may feel he cannot speak up in a group because another group member criticized one of the first things he said in the group. His lack of trust and inhibition detracts from the group because he remains silent. If Joe is an especially astute observer of people or has insight that would really help the group, his nonparticipation hurts that much more. Regardless, other members will eventually notice Joe’s withdrawal. Then either the group will spend time attending to Joe—trying to coax him into contributing when they could be focusing on other goals—or they will criticize him even more, thereby alienating him significantly. Thus, attending to process within the group is vital to the group’s well-being. As groups develop, less time generally is spent on content material, and more is focused on process functions. There is often a relational paradox. Individuals, especially those who have been in non mutual relationships, want to become connected with others. Out of a sense of fear or hurt, however, as with Joe in the preceding illustration, they simultaneously 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). Donigian and Malnati (1997) have outlined seven types of group processes that most frequently occur in groups related to this paradox and the dynamics surrounding it: Contagion—In this process, member behavior elicits group interaction. For instance, if Bette talks to others in a group about her emptiness and loneliness, then she may elicit an emotional and physical reaction from other group members as some cry and some lean forward to listen more intensely. Conflict—Matters involving conflict usually revolve around significant issues in people’s lives, such as authority, intimacy, growth, change, autonomy, power, and loss. All group members and leaders experience conflict during their lives and the life of a group. It is inevitable. How a group leader handles conflict makes a difference. If handled properly, conflict can be a healthy aspect of group development. However, if handled poorly, it can be ugly and unhealthy (Okech, Pimpleton-Gray, Vannatta, & Champe, 2016). An example of the latter is when, in a group counseling session, Rex, the group leader, pushes Stu to have a fight with Keith instead of exploring how to encourage the two to examine why there is tension between them. Rex may be vicariously meeting needs he never satisfied in adolescence, but his actions do not help Stu or Keith resolve their differences. Anxiety—The tension involved in anxiety and the uneasy feelings that go with it are universal. To cope with the discomfort of some emotions in a group, members typically employ one of two strategies. The first is a restrictive 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, she may flippantly say, “But my situation is just like everyone else’s. ”A second, healthier strategy for dealing with anxiety is to employ enabling solutions (Whitaker & Lieberman, 1964). These types of solutions revolve around open listening and discussion about the anxiety that is present. In such a situation, Roosevelt might say to Regina, “Tell me more 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 involves checking your behaviors with a group of others. In this interaction, people are questioned, confronted, or affirmed either individually or within the group. Thus, in a group for overeaters, members might question one another about their interactions involving food to find out how unusual or common their behaviors are. Universality—It is comforting to know that others in a group have similar experiences and feelings. Such insight helps people feel they are in the same ballpark as the rest of the group members. In the universality process, this discovery enables group participants to identify and unify with one another. For instance, in a psychoeducational group involving families with adolescents, families may be relieved to know they are not the only ones having difficulties with parent–teen communications. If a group is going to be productive, it is essential for universality to occur early in its development. Family reenactment—Families of origin continue to influence people throughout their lives (Kerr & Bowen, 1988). Because groups resemble families in many ways, it is natural that some behaviors by group members are connected to issues they never resolved in childhood. The group is either helped or hindered by such actions, depending on whether group members are assisted in focusing on the present or allowed to lapse into the past. In the first case, the group member and the group work through issues. Thus, Pedro may say to Veronica, “I need you to help me hear what you are saying. Your actions are a lot like those of my mother, with whom I was constantly arguing.” In the second scenario, group interactions become distorted or toxic. An example of this type of behavior is when Sally repeatedly tells David, “I’m not listening to you. You sound just like my 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 they will never be different or change. It is, therefore, vital that these group members be helped to come to terms with their own issues. Through such a process, all group members can come to realize their issues are resolvable. In such a situation, Kathy may begin to believe she can be different because William has gotten better, and his problems were similar to hers when the group began. Balance Between Content and Process Process must be balanced with content regardless of the type of group being conducted (Kraus & Hulse-Killacky, 1996). Process, along with content, is at the heart of decision making. Leaders can use two sets of questions to guide the interplay between content and process (Hulse-Killacky, Killacky, & Donigian, 2001).Content questions include: What do we have to do? What do we need to do to accomplish our goals? Process questions center on: Who am I? [intrapersonal]Who am I with you? [interpersonal]Who are we together? [the whole group] (p. 9)One way to think about process is to liken it to a river, whereas content is like a boat on the river (Geroski & Kraus, 2002). Regardless, interpersonal dimensions of a group take on increased importance as the group moves toward its objectives (Armstrong & Berg, 2005; Luke, 2014). The ideal balance between content and process can be seen in a bell-shaped curve (see Figure 2.1) in which content and process look like a single thread even though they are two separate fibers (Hulse-Killacky, Schumacher, & Kraus, 1999). However, achieving such a balance is not easy (Champe & Rubel, 2012).Figure 2.1Balanced process and content. Source: From “Leadership in Groups: Balancing Process and Content,” presentation at the annual convention of the American Counseling Association, April 1994. Reprinted with permission of Diana Hulse-Killacky, Becky Schmacher, and Kurt Kraus. Figure 2.1 Full Alternative Text When process and content are out of balance, there may be too much of one, or the two may not be intertwined. For example, a group can begin with an over focus on process (see Figure 2.2). In such a group, an experiential activity that does not tie in with the rest of the group session is used to get members emotionally involved. For example, a leader may take one of the energizer exercises from Keene and Erford (2007), such as “It’s Snowing” (p. 26), where everyone represents himself or herself as a snowflake in the introduction segment of the group and highlights unique personal qualities. However, in this unbalanced scenario, the activity is then never connected to the work of the group. Another such scenario may occur if Peggy, the group leader, has group members talk to one another initially about the most important event that shaped their lives and then moves onto having the group solve a problem concerning the selling of tickets to an upcoming play, without connecting the group experience to the work activity. Figure 2.2Process first, content after. Source: From “Leadership in Groups: Balancing Process and Content,” presentation at the annual convention of the American Counseling Association, April 1994. Reprinted with permission of Diana Hulse-Killacky, Becky Schmacher, and Kurt Kraus. Figure 2.2 Full Alternative TextThe opposite of such a scenario is for a group to stay focused on content (Figure 2.3). This type of arrangement occurs frequently in task/work groups in which members may not even be introduced to one another before the group leader states what the group will do for the day. In a content-dominated group, process is inhibited, and members often withdraw from the group mentally or physically because they never felt a part of it to begin with. Figure 2.3Content-inhibiting process. Source: From “Leadership in Groups: Balancing Process and Content,” presentation at the annual convention of the American Counseling Association, April 1994. Reprinted with permission of Diana Hulse-Killacky, Becky Schmacher, and Kurt Kraus. Figure 2.3 Full Alternative Text Therefore, groups that work well, regardless of their emphasis, are those in which members and leaders are aware of the need to have content and process balanced. In such groups, everyone works continuously to make sure neither gets out of line. Champe and Rubel (2012) suggest using focal conflict theory, a theory with psychoanalytic roots, as one way of balancing these two entities, especially in psychoeducational groups. The keys to balancing content and process in psychoeducational groups using this theory are, “1) creating a safe learning environment; 2) engaging group members in each other’s learning; 3) exploring group members’ relationship to psychoeducational content; and 4) returning promptly to agreed upon content and content-related activities” (p. 87).Reflection What is the best-run group you have ever experienced? What made it so? What was the worst? What made that a bad experience? In your evaluation of these groups, think how content and process were handled.

The Group as a System: A Way of Explaining Group Dynamics

Because content and process must be balanced to have productive group dynamics, a question that arises is “How?” One answer is to think of the group as a system, a set of elements standing in interaction with one another (Agazarian, 1997; Connors & Caple, 2005). Each element in the system is affected by whatever happens to any other element. Thus, the system is only as strong as its weakest part. Likewise, the system is greater than the sum of its parts (Gladding, 2019). An example of a system is a living organism, such as a plant or an animal. However, a group can be conceptualized as a system, too. As such it is made up of three crucial parts: the group leader, the group members, and the group as a whole (Donigian & Malnati, 1997).For the system to be healthy and productive, each of these parts must function in an interactive and harmonious way as a unit and with the other two parts of the system. Thus, if group members are constantly in conflict with one another, then the group will not work well as a whole regardless of how talented the leader might be. Likewise, if group members work well together but are led by a leader who is unable to use this strength, then the group as a whole will under function. Finally, if group members and the group leader are both healthy, but no one in the group knows anything about how a group functions over its life span or the group has no goals, then the group as a whole will suffer. Systems theory goes a long way in explaining how groups work and group dynamics (O’Connor, 1980). In a systems context, group members are always deciding between their needs for differentiating themselves (taking care of their needs to do things by themselves) and integrating with others (doing things with others) (Matthews, 1992). From a systems perspective, group leaders must orchestrate their efforts in helping members and the group as a whole to achieve a balance of individual and collective needs as the group develops. Multiple factors—such as interpersonal relationships, the mental health of the individuals involved, and the skill of the group leader—affect the group. The dynamics within the group are complex and connected. Although some factors influence others directly (in a linear or cause-and-effect way), most factors influence each other systemically (in a circular manner) (von Bertalanffy, 1968; Donigian & Malnati, 1997; Matthews, 1992).From a systems perspective, even small or seemingly insignificant events make a difference in the group. For instance, the presence or absence of a group member affects how a group operates. Similarly, the withholding or divulging of feelings has an impact. Even inevitable events, such as the passage of time, influence both the lives of group members and the life of the group as a whole. Consider, for example, The Beatles. During the 1960s, each member of this band—Paul McCartney, John Lennon, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr—changed not only himself but also the outward appearance, musical style, and performance of the others and the group as a whole. The Beatles of 1969 were not the same group in the way they operated (or even looked) as The Beatles of 1964 (Forsyth, 2019). The point is that groups as systems with many parts are constantly in a state of flux. In a more mundane illustration, if Bill feels uncomfortable in the presence of Norm and Nancy, then their absences from the group will most likely result in Bill being more active, which in turn will lead to new information being added to the group and a new interactive group process. The complexity of working with groups as distinct types of entities must be properly understood to promote healthy atmospheres within them (Korda & Pancrazio, 1989). People who are uninformed or ignore how groups function usually become frustrated and bewildered. They may act out, act up, and generally do not help the group grow. They may even behave inappropriately or encourage behavior that group members are not ready to handle yet. Brief Case Retro Rick Rick is 50, married, and the father of three children. He works in information technology. Because he wants to expand his circle of male friends, he joins a local “growth group” of men who are at various life stages. Instead of talking about his own situation, Rick tries to be “cool.” He talks about himself in singular terms and as if he were single and still in his 20s. He seeks out the younger men in the group to “hang with.” Everyone is confused as to what Rick is doing. As one of the men his age says to him: “You are not ‘you thing,’ you are aging. ‘Time Passages’ is more than a song by Al Stewart. ”Questions What do you think is happening with Rick? What is happening in the group? What aspects of health and dysfunction are present? How is the group working as a system? One method of assessing which types of factors most influence certain group situations is by studying the research on groups as systems in such journals as Small Group Behavior, the Journal for Specialists in Group Work, Group Dynamics, and the International Journal of Group Psychotherapy. Good research that is well written can convey a considerable amount of information. Direct group observation or participation is a second means of comprehending the evolving nature of groups and how members are influenced by one another as well as external forces (e.g., cultural surroundings). This method gives firsthand knowledge about how a group is operating. A third way of assessing group influences is feedback from outside objective observers or a critique of group videos. This last means of obtaining data, especially if outside observers use video, allows a thorough examination of the group as a system and enables viewers to both see and hear what is occurring within.

Influencing Group DynamicsGiven that group dynamics can be explained from a systems perspective, it behoves group workers to take advantage of this knowledge. They can do so by setting up conditions and structures that will help the group potentially run better and more smoothly in both the long and the short run. Although veteran group leaders, “develop skills to assess the dynamics of group members and use their skills to anticipate and react to group movement” (Gerrity, 1998, p. 202), most group workers are wise to spend time and energy attending to the preplanning part of a group, the group structure, group exercises, group interaction, and members’ roles.PreplanningThe dynamics of a group begin before the group convenes. In the pregroup stage, the leaders plan what type of group to conduct, in what setting it should be held, how long it will last, who should be included, and how it will be evaluated. All of these considerations are an essential part of facilitating a successful group (Glaser, Webster, & Horne, 1992). If leaders are not sure of the type of experiences they wish to set up and for whom, the group will most likely fail.The first factor that must be considered in preplanning is clarity of purpose—what the group is to accomplish. For a group to be successful, it must be relevant and meaningful for all of its members. Otherwise, they are likely to withdraw or disengage. For instance, a psychoeducational group focusing on careers may have an appeal to senior high school students but not be relevant to primary school children unless it is modified to their level and presented so that they see a connection between themselves and future careers.In addition to clarity of purpose, a group setting (its environment) will influence how well it runs. Settings should be rooms that are quiet, comfortable, and off the beaten track. This type of environment, one that promotes positive group dynamics, is not accidental. It must be carefully selected because the group’s functioning ultimately depends on it. Members who feel secure in an environment are more willing to take risks and use themselves and the group to the fullest.A third factor that must be considered in preplanning a group is time. A group session should not be too long or too short. Sessions running more than 2 hours may cause members to become tired and lose interest. Likewise, with the exception of some children’s groups, most groups need about 15 minutes to “warm up” before they start working. Therefore, groups that meet for less than half an hour, except for children’s groups, do not have time to accomplish much. The ideal period for most groups is between an hour and an hour and a half. A few groups, such as marathons, use extended periods to help lower defenses through the effects of fatigue. In this way, they promote identity and change. Most groups, however, meet weekly within the period just described. Such a schedule allows group members and the group as a whole to obtain a comfortable pace or rhythm.Even in a small group, size makes a difference in group dynamics. Research indicates that increasing the size of a group (beyond 6 to 14 members) decreases its cohesiveness and member satisfaction (Munich & Astrachan, 1983). One study indicated a significant reduction in interaction among group members when the group size reached 9, and another marked reduction when the group size reached 17 or more (Castore, 1962). In such cases, subgrouping (in which two or more members develop a group within the group) tends to occur. The result of subgrouping is that some members become silent while others dominate. Competition for airtime, focus, and inclusion becomes intense (Shepherd, 1964), and the atmosphere of the group changes. Groups with fewer than 5 members (except those composed of elementary school children) tend not to function well, either. In such groups, too much pressure is placed on each group member to perform or contribute. There is virtually no opportunity in a group of 5 or fewer to choose not to participate.Another component of a group that affects its dynamics is membership, both the mixture and the number of people in it. Heterogeneous groups (those composed of people with dissimilar backgrounds) can broaden members’ horizons and enliven interpersonal interactions. Such groups may be helpful in problem solving, such as in psychotherapy and counseling groups. Yet homogeneous groups (those centered on a presenting problem or similarity in gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or sociocultural background) are extremely beneficial in working through specific issues. They normalize “one’s experience and the sense of shared struggle in a common area” (Perrone & Sedlacek, 2000, p. 244). Task/work groups, as well as some counseling and therapy groups, are often homogeneous for this reason. A potential drawback to homogeneous groups, however, is “when group members gain the belief that only others who are similar (adult children of alcoholics, abuse survivors) can fully understand or help” them (MacNair-Semands, 1998, p. 209). That aside, it is the nature and purpose of the group that usually determines what its member composition will be.Other factors affecting group dynamics that must be preplanned are:The fit between members’ goals and group goals (expected or planned outcomes);The level of membership commitment (whether members are joining the group voluntarily or because of external pressures),The openness of members to self and others, a commitment to take or support risksMembers’ attitudes toward leadership and authority,The leader’s attitude toward certain member characteristics.The point is that group dynamics are a result of interaction patterns that develop because of careful or careless preplanning (see Table 2.1).Table 2.1 Factors Involved in Preplanning a Group.Clarity of purposeWhat the group is to accomplishSettingThe environmentTimeThe length of the group meetingSizeHow many people will be involvedMembershipHeterogeneous or homogeneousGoalsExpected or planned outcomesCommitmentVoluntary or mandated attendanceOpennessConsideration of novel ideas and actionsRisk takingEngaging in new thoughts and behaviorsAttitudesHow members and leaders perceive tasks and othersGroup StructureGroup structure refers both to the physical setup of a group and to the interaction of each group member in relation to the group as a whole. Both types of structure influence how successful or harmonious the group will be and whether individual or group objectives will be met. Leaders and members have the ability to structure a group for better or worse. In this section, the physical structure of a group is examined; the essence of group interaction will follow in a later section.The physical structure (the arrangement of group members) is one of the first factors to consider in setting up a group. Physical structure has a strong influence on how a group operates. If members feel they are physically distant from the group, then they will act accordingly, that is, they will not become very involved.The seating arrangement in a group is, therefore, important. Many groups, regardless of purpose, use a circle format. In this configuration, all members have direct access to one another (Yalom & Leszcz, 2005). Equality in status and power is implied as in the famous Knights of the Round Table stories from the legends of King Arthur. The disadvantage of a circle arrangement is the lack of a perceived leader in the structure unless the identified leader is active and direct. Overall, the circle lends itself to being a democratic structure for conducting group work and is probably the best structure for ensuring equal airtime for all group members (see Figure 2.4).Figure 2.4Optimal group structure/interaction.Source: Based on “Some Effects of Certain Communication Problems on Group Performance” by H. J. Leavitt, 1951, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, pp. 38–50.Figure 2.4 Full Alternative TextHowever, the circle is not the only way to set up a group. Other formats yield different types of interactions. In an experiment to determine the effects of various structures on group performance, Leavitt (1951) devised three communication networks in addition to the circle (see Figure 2.5): the “chain,” the “Y,” and the “wheel.”Figure 2.5Effects of group structure on group performance.Source: Based on “Some Effects of Certain Communication Problems on Group Performance” by H. J. Leavitt, 1951, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, pp. 38–50.Figure 2.5 Full Alternative TextIn the chain arrangement, people are positioned or seated along a line, often according to their rank in the group. Communication is passed through others from an individual at one end of the configuration to an individual at the other end. The chain is a popular way to run some group organizations. For example, the military conceptualizes its command structure as “the chain of command.” However, a chain is seldom used outside a hierarchical association because of the indirectness of communication, the lack of direct contact with others, and the frustration of relaying messages through others. In a group, for instance, Janet will probably become exasperated if she has to communicate her wishes and thoughts through Georgia, who in turn has to relay them to Penny, who then conveys them to the leader.In contrast, the wheel arrangement has a “center spoke,” the leader, through whom all messages go. Although members have the advantage of face-to-face interaction with the leader in this structure, they may become frustrated by the inability to communicate with another group member directly. In the wheel configuration, some members are not informed about what their colleagues are doing. For example, supervisors in a factory may work as the center spokes in a wheel formation and have different personnel report to them. If they do not give as well as receive information, then their workers will not know how the plant is operating or which issues need to be addressed.The final type of group structure Leavitt (1951) experimented with was the Y, which combines the structural elements of the wheel and the chain. In this arrangement, there is a perceived leader. The efficiency of the unit is second only to that of the wheel in performance. Like a chain, however, the Y may frustrate group members who wish to have direct contact and communication with one another. Information is not equally shared or distributed.In most cases, the importance of structure will vary according to the type of group being led. For instance, in a psychoeducational group, members may be arranged in yet another structure—theater style—in which they are seated in lines and rows. Because of the emphasis in psychoeducational groups on obtaining cognitive information, this arrangement may be useful. However, group members are cut off from interaction with one another in a theater-style arrangement because they are all facing the same way. In contrast, if psychotherapy groups are to work well, they should be structured so that members can easily interact with one another verbally and physically, such as in a circle. Similarly, positive dynamics are crucial to the success of most task/work groups. Some of these groups will employ a more hierarchical structure, such as a “chain of command,” to operate efficiently. However, many organizations are moving to flatten hierarchies by using group circle formats. This trend is prevalent in businesses and associations that operate according to a quality management style (Walton, 1991).ReflectionIn my mid-20s, I was a first lieutenant in the United States Army. There I became used to the “chain of command” where orders were given by higher-ranking officers and were carried out by lower-ranking personnel. I found the chain to be both efficient and frustrating. What has your experience been with group structures? When do you think working in a circle is best? When should it be avoided and another structure used? Be as specific as you can.Group Exercises and ActivitiesThe outcome of a group is dependent not only on the variables present at the beginning of the experience but also on the number and kind of structured exercises and activities used during the group. Group activities can be categorized into 14 types, according to Jacobs, Schimmel, Masson, and Harvill (2016):Written exercisesMovement exercisesCreative props exercisesArts and crafts exercisesFantasy exercisesCommon reading exercisesFeedback exercisesTrust exercisesExperiential exercisesMoral dilemma exercisesGroup-decision exercisesTouching exercisesRoundsDyads and triadsThe question of whether prepackaged activities have a place in groups is one that group leaders and members must deal with constantly. There are certain advantages and disadvantages to employing exercises in a group setting (Carroll, Bates, & Johnson, 2004; Jacobs, 1992). For example, if the leader knows that a particular game or exercise is likely to result in a positive outcome, then it may be used as a catalyst, especially early in the group’s life, to bring people together. In such a capacity, games and exercises can play a vital part in promoting group dynamics. However, group leaders should always ask themselves why they are doing a particular activity at a specific time and what they hope to achieve as a result.An example of a purposeful activity a leader might use to begin a group is the exercise “Adverbs” (Gladding, 2016). In this activity, group members pass around a pencil to one another in a circle saying and demonstrating any word that ends in “-ly” in the process. Thus, Juanita might say to Charlene, who is seated on her right, “I am passing this pencil to you quickly” and in the process give the pencil to her quite fast. Charlene, in turn, would then turn to the individual on her right and use another “adverb” and motion such as “slowly,” “clumsily,” or “hesitantly.” The process is repeated until the pencil has gone around the group several times. At that point, the leader and members talk about ways of doing things and behaving in the group that the exercise demonstrated.Overall, group exercises can be beneficial if they promote a positive atmosphere in a group. Jacobs et al. (2016) state that exercises have the following benefits:They may generate discussion and participation, thus stimulating members’ energy levels and interaction.Exercises may help the group focus on a particular topic or issue. This is especially true in task groups.Group games help shift the focus from one area to another. Although effective group leaders should be able to redirect the focus without employing games, some exercises provide a natural bridge to important group topics.Games and exercises promote experiential learning, which means members will probably go beyond their thoughts in self-exploration. Furthermore, exercises such as rounds provide the group leader with useful information about the group and what needs to be done to move forward.They increase the comfort level of participants and help them to relax and have fun. Learning is best when it is enjoyable.Group exercises and activities, “are commonly used in groups to activate the group, encourage members to take risks, and provide a learning experience that moves the group members” (Riva, 2004, p. 63). These ways of working with a group are, “either intrapersonal or interpersonal, and the type of communication is either verbal or nonverbal” (Trotzer, 2004, p. 77). “Interpersonal activities involve interacting with other group members in dialogue—for example, introducing oneself to the group and answering questions. If the activity is nonverbal, words are not used, such as the exercise ‘changing seats’” (asking select members or an entire group to change seats). “Intrapersonal activities are those in which an exercise is done alone at first” (such as drawing a line that represents a present feeling) “and then shared and explored with others at a later time. . . . Nonverbal activities include private, personal experiences” (Carroll et al., 2004, pp. 116–117). Overall, when combined, four possible categories emerge that are of low, medium, or high intensity in the four following types:Verbal intrapersonal—A low-intensity verbal intrapersonal exercise would be having group members draw pictures of how they perceive the world and using these pictures to introduce themselves verbally to the group.Verbal interpersonal—An example of a low-intensity verbal interpersonal activity would be having group members divide into small groups and discuss their sibling positions. Then the group as a whole would reassemble, and members would talk about how they view the world based on past perceptions.Nonverbal intrapersonal—A low-intensity nonverbal intrapersonal exercise would be what is known as “body relaxation,” where the leader would talk members through relaxing parts of their body starting with the feet and ending with the head. Members’ eyes would be closed the whole time.Nonverbal interpersonal—In a nonverbal interpersonal activity, members might line up from most to least about any concern that is relevant for the group at the moment, such as anxiety. Members would then get a chance to compare where they stand in regard to others in the group.In summary, exercises and activities take multiple forms and can be used almost any time in the group process, as long as they do not become gimmicks and are processed afterward so that members gain insight into themselves personally, become more aware of themselves as members of the group, and understand group dynamics more fully.Processing usually lasts twice as long as activities themselves. The important point to remember in using exercises and techniques in groups is that timing and instructions are crucial. A poorly timed event with unclear instructions may damage the group instead of promoting cohesion, insight, and movement. If employed too frequently, group activities can negatively influence the group by taking the focus off its purpose. There are also some ethically questionable exercises that promote anxiety and do harm. Group leaders who use them should do so cautiously.Group InteractionGroup interaction is the way members relate to one another. It consists of nonverbal and verbal behaviors and the attitudes that go with them. Group interaction exists on a continuum, from extremely nondirective to highly directive. For example, in some psychotherapy groups, members may be quite reserved and nondirect in their interactions with others, at least initially. In many task groups, however, members may be direct and verbal. The type of group interaction (e.g., nonverbal, verbal communication) as well as its frequency makes a difference in how or whether the group develops. Each factor is examined separately here, even though none of these components operates in isolation from the others.Nonverbal behaviors make up “more than 50 percent of the messages communicated in social relationships” and are usually perceived as more honest and less subject to manipulation than verbal behaviors (Vander Kolk, 1985, p. 171). Nonverbal behavior, according to Vander Kolk, are body behaviors, interaction with the environment, speech, and physical appearance. Group leaders and members have many nonverbals to watch. For example, when Sue wraps her arms around herself, does it mean: (a) she is physically cold; (b) she is imitating Heather; or (c) she is psychologically withdrawing from the group? The meaning of nonverbal behaviors cannot be assumed. In addition, the same nonverbal behavior from two different people may not convey the same message. Walters (1989) has charted behaviors frequently associated with various group members’ emotions. Nonverbal behavioral expressions should always be noted (see Table 2.2).Table 2.2 Behaviors Frequently Associated with Various Group Member States.  HeadFaceMouthEye ContactHandsPostureDespair/DepressionDownSad frown (eyebrows down at outer ends)TightnessLittle or none; may cover eyes with handAutistic behaviors; body-focused self-stimulating movementsApproaches fetal positionExcitement/EuphoriaMobile movementMobility of expressionSmiling; laughingTries to capture and to hold eye contact of all other individuals (“Look at me.”)Sweeping, expansive movementsFrequent change; seductiveFear/AnxietyStiff movement; chin downFlushingTightness; clenching teethDarting glances to others; wants to keep watch on others by not meeting their gazes (“I’ll watch you.”)Tightness; gripping; sweaty palms (“clenched and drenched”)Frequent movement; crouching; hunching shouldersHostility/Rejection of another individual Active/OvertHead, and often chin, thrust forward and/or tilted upwardAngry frown (eyebrows down at center)Lips tensed and pushed forward slightlyDefiantClenching; fist; thumping (symbolic hitting)Poised on edge of chairPassive/CovertDown; turned away slightlySquinting of eyesClosed; normalAversion; blank staringBody-focused movements; self-inflicting behaviorsInfrequent changeDependency/Attraction toward anotherHead slightly down while making eye contact (“Poor me.”)Mirrors expression of otherFrequent smilingFrequentReaching motionsQuasi-courtshipResistance to LearningTurned; rolled backRigidity of expressionTightnessAvoidanceClenched; looking at watch; body-focused movementsHeld in; stiffness of limbsSource: Gazda, George M.; Walters, Richard P.; Group Counselling: A Developmental Approach, 4th ed. © 1989. Reprinted and Electronically produced by permission of Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.Verbal behavior is also crucial in group dynamics. One of the most important variables in group work is to track who speaks to whom and how often each member speaks. On a formal basis, there are ways to chart such interactions, such as sociometry, a phenomenological methodology for investigating interpersonal relationships (Treadwell, Kumar, Stein, & Prosnick, 1997). For example, by using a sociogram (a tool of sociometry that plots group interactions), a group leader might learn that Melissa addresses most of her comments in the group to one of three people. Such data might be helpful to the leader and the group in examining or modifying their interactions (see Figure 2.6).Figure 2.6 Sociogram depicting choices and rejections of classmates.Figure 2.6 Full Alternative TextHowever, most leaders operate informally and map in their minds awareness of how group members speak and to whom. They also pay attention to silence and how it is observed and respected. It is difficult for some groups to deal with silence but less likely to be bothersome in certain psychoeducational and task groups in which members are not especially attuned to it.Group discussion is usually important to the functioning of a group. In task, psychoeducational, counseling, and psychotherapy groups, discussion allows members to process information relevant to making decisions (Forsyth, 2019). Alternative courses of action can be considered more thoughtfully when the group as a whole discusses them. The amount of time spent in an active discussion of issues influences the quality of the group’s decision (Laughlin, 1988).Sometimes groups will use their time unwisely and collectively engage in what is known as the Law of Triviality (Parkinson, 1957). According to this law, the time a group spends discussing any issue is in inverse proportion to its consequences. For example, in an hour-long task group, 50 minutes might be spent talking about whether a group celebration should be held on a Thursday or a Friday, and 10 minutes might be spent in planning the activities and considering a budget for the event.Brief CaseDebra the DiligentDebra decided to form a work group for student leaders at her university. She wanted the group to go well and was determined to give group members all the help she could. Therefore, when the group met, Debra had an outside observer make notes on how often people spoke, who spoke, what was discussed and for how long, and what decisions were made. At the end of the semester, Debra had the outside observer give this information to the group as a whole in the way of feedback. The response was mixed. Most of the group members who had been most active liked it. However, when Debra tried to reform the group at the beginning of the next semester, she found several members were not interested in being a part of it.QuestionsWhat do you think of Debra’s method for helping the group? What could she have done better? What might you have done from the start if you had been Debra?Members’ RolesA role is, “a dynamic structure within an individual (based on needs, cognitions, and values), which usually comes to life under the influence of social stimuli or defined positions” (Munich & Astrachan, 1983, p. 20). The manifestation of a role is based on the individual’s expectation of self and others and the interaction he or she has in particular groups and situations. For example, Mabel, a reflective and introverted individual, might take the role of a “group observer” in an active counseling group. By so doing, she could give feedback to the group as a whole without exposing personal feelings. Every individual has multiple roles he or she can fulfil. When groups change or when people change groups, roles are frequently altered.Roles are usually different from the overall identity of individuals. For example, people may play certain roles in their vocational lives, such as being a sales clerk or a computer operator, but not envision themselves exclusively as their occupations. Therefore, although Terri sells shoes, she does not consider herself as a shoe salesperson. Nevertheless, roles strongly influence how individuals act in a group (Shepherd, 1964). For instance, entrepreneurs may want to push their point of view regardless of how it affects their acceptance into the group. Sometimes roles become so strong that people have a difficult time separating themselves from the roles they play. Such a situation is enacted if people mainly see themselves in terms of a role they played in childhood. For example, adult children of alcoholics (ACoAs) often play one of four roles to adapt to their environments: hero, scapegoat, lost child, or mascot (Harris & MacQuiddy, 1991; Wegscheider, 1981). In such circumstances, the individuals may become trapped in dysfunctional ways of relating that will detrimentally affect them in all but psychotherapeutic groups.When group leaders become aware of roles and behaviors that are detrimental to the group as a whole, they have an obligation to act. Their behavior can take a number of forms, such as having a one-on-one conversation with the individual about their behavior, asking the individual to assess his or her behavior in the group and note how it affects the group, or, in extreme cases, removing the individual from the group (Goodrich & Luke, 2012). These basic forms of addressing a problematic group member hold true regardless of the type of group being run.

Types of RolesOne way to conceptualize most roles in groups is to view them as primarily functioning in one of three ways: facilitative/building, maintenance, and blocking (Capuzzi & Stauffer, 2019).A facilitative/building role is one that adds to the functioning of a group in a positive and constructive way. Members who take on such a role may serve as initiators of actions and ideas, information seekers, opinion seekers, coordinators, orienters, evaluators, or recorders. Group facilitating and building focuses on helping everyone feel like a part of the group. Members who function in this way help the group develop while keeping conflict to a minimum. Group facilitators and builders do their best work during the initial formation of a group. For instance, in a task group, Dot may take the role of being an opinion seeker. Before the group moves on its decisions, she makes sure all views are heard by asking more quiet members for their input.A maintenance role is one that contributes to the social-emotional bonding of members and the group’s overall well-being. When interpersonal communication in the group is strained, there is a need to focus on relationships (Wilson & Hanna, 1986). People who take on such roles are social and emotionally oriented. They express themselves by being encouragers, harmonizers, compromisers, commentators, and followers. For example, in a counseling group, Ned may help by serving in the role of a harmonizer as he assists members in seeing the differences they have and pointing out how these differences can give each group member a new perspective on the world. In maintenance, group members are encouraged to openly express “both positive and negative feelings, supportive responses to member concerns and contributions, and acceptance of differences” (Shaffer & Galinsky, 1989, p. 25).A blocking role is essentially an antigroup role. Individuals who take this role act as aggressors, blockers, dominators, recognition seekers, and self-righteous moralists. For instance, individuals who perceive themselves as outsiders—such as Lucy, who has been placed in a psychoeducational group for punishment—may attempt to keep the group from discussing a proposed topic. Such a member may also seek to divert attention away from the group’s goal by being negative and preventing the group from accomplishing anything. Fortunately, few members act out a pure role.

Problems in Carrying Out Roles

Sometimes problems arise in the fulfillment of roles (Hare, Blumberg, Davies, & Kent, 1994). Both internal and external factors contribute to these problems, and there is seldom a simple cause. Four major forms of role difficulties are role collision, role incompatibility, role confusion, and role transition. In role collision, a conflict exists between the role an individual plays in the outside world (e.g., being a passive observer) and the role expected within the group (e.g., being an active participant). In role incompatibility, an individual is given a role within the group (e.g., being the leader) that he or she neither wants nor is comfortable exercising. Role confusion, sometimes known as role ambiguity, occurs when a group member simply does not know what role to perform. This may happen at the beginning of groups or in leaderless groups where members do not know whether they are to be assertive in helping establish an agenda or passive and just let the leadership emerge. Finally, in role transition, an individual is expected to assume a different role as the group progresses but does not feel comfortable doing so. For example, 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 attention to socioemotional functioning can cause the group to wander and lose sight of its goals; in similar 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” (Shaffer & Galinsky, 1989, pp. 25–26).Reflection When have you been placed in a role where you felt uncomfortable? What did you do? Looking back at the time and circumstance, what else could you have done or wish you had done?

The Effect of Positive and Negative Variables on Group DynamicsMany group specialists (e.g., Corey, 2016; Jacobs et al., 2016) 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. 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 collectively conceptualized as positive group variables. For example, if group members speak from an “I” position, everyone in the group is clear about what they are saying. Thus, they 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 (Yalom & Leszcz, 2005) was among the first to delineate positive primary group variables based on research he conducted with others on therapy groups. He has called these positive forces curative (therapeutic) factors within groups. These variables are expressed in successful 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 psychotherapy groups, these therapeutic factors are as follows:Instillation of hope—Assurance that treatment will work. For example, the leader might say at the beginning of a group: “I think we will be able to accomplish most of your goals through our work in this group.”Universality—What seems unique is often a similar or identical experience of another group member. For example, the leader might say: “Isaiah, it seems that you and Austin share a similar concern about how you can find balance in your lives.”Imparting of information—Instruction about mental health, mental disorders, and how to deal with life problems through group discussion. For example, a member might share that she has read that to stay mentally healthy, an individual needs 8 hours of sleep at night.Altruism—Sharing experiences and thoughts with others, helping them by giving, and working for the common good. For example, Jessica might inform the group she is going to work a night at the homeless shelter and invite them to work there, too.Corrective recapitulation of the primary family group—Reliving early familial conflicts correctly and resolving them. For example, Louise may find that through her interactions with Roscoe, she is able to find ways of disagreeing with a man who is slightly older, like her brother Taylor, without becoming emotionally upset.Development of socializing techniques—Learning basic social skills. For example, Aiden may come to realize through the group experience that people like to be invited to do activities rather than carped at to do them.Imitative behavior—Modeling positive actions of other group members. For example, Jayden may learn ways of requesting what he wants by imitating the behavior of Colin.Interpersonal learning—Gaining insight and correctively working through past experiences. For example, Virginia may see through talking with members of the group 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, after everyone in the group shares their thoughts about racism, they may feel closer together.Catharsis—Experiencing and expressing feelings. For example, Julia may cry softly when she realizes how much hurt she has been carrying around for so long.Existential factors—Accepting responsibility for your life in basic isolation from others, recognizing your own mortality and the capriciousness of existence. For example, 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 on improving himself if he is ever going to live his dreams.Yalom (Yalom & Leszcz, 2005) contends that these variables constitute both the actual mechanisms of change and the conditions for change. The interplay of the factors varies widely from group to group. However, these factors help members gain insight into themselves and their relationships with others. “For instance, altruism, catharsis, and group cohesiveness enable . . . members to feel supported, emotionally connected, and as though they belong” (Marmarosh, Dunton, & Amendola, 2014, p. 8).To this list, Bemak and Epp (1996) have added what they consider to be a 12th factor—love. They believe that although love may contain aspects of some of Yalom’s other factors, it stands alone as a contributor to the healing process in group psychotherapy. “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 unmasking of transference and the fostering of open expressions of giving and receiving love are essential healing factors in the group therapy process and in the development of healthier human beings” (p. 125).Yalom’s (Yalom & Leszcz, 2005) conceptualization of group dynamics, with the addition of Bemak and Epps’s (1996) contribution, is extremely useful for conducting group counseling and psychotherapeutic sessions. It gives group leaders and members ideas and experience-based realities on which they need to focus. Such variables are like a map that can guide the group process. For instance, if a group member, Sarah, refuses to work through past family impasses and treats another group member, Charles, as if he were a rejecting parent, then the leader and other members can take steps to correct this behavior. In this case, the group might confront Sarah with how she is acting and role-play situations to help her recognize and resolve previous dysfunctional patterns that are interfering with her present functioning.In addition to positive variables and therapeutic forces, negative group variables operate. These variables include, but are not limited to, avoiding conflict, abdicating group responsibilities, anesthetizing to contradictions within the group, and becoming narcissistic. If most or all of these variables are present, then a group will become regressive and possibly destructive (McClure, 1990, 1994). In such cases, the whole group and the individuals within it lose.Avoiding conflict involves the silencing of members who expose the group’s shortcomings or disagree with the majority’s opinions. Silencing is often done through coercion or acts of domination. For example, whenever Dee tries to tell the group she does not feel understood by the other members; she is belittled through comments such as “That’s touchy/feely stuff, Dee, get real” or “You are being oversensitive.” As time passes, Dee learns not to speak. A destructive dynamic is set in motion by avoiding conflict and silencing dissent. If it remains unchallenged and unchanged, then the group becomes unhealthy. One of the most destructive behaviors for groups to take is to become narcissistic. “Narcissistic groups develop cohesiveness by encouraging hatred of an out-group or by creating an enemy. . . . As a result, regressive group members are able to overlook their own deficiencies by focusing on the deficiencies of the out-group” (McClure, 1994, p. 81). The leaders of North Korea are sometimes cited as a national group that is narcissistic, as in their reaction to the motion picture The Interview. In the process of projecting their feelings onto others, group members create an illusion of harmony that binds them together. In a more mundane example, a student newspaper is launched with the intent of attacking the president of a university. Within the group, members focus on “digging up dirt” and disregard any positives they find. A bunker mentality develops in which the president becomes the enemy, and the student newspaper the source of all truth. Member disagreement is handled by dismissing anyone from the paper who does not agree with the party line. Cohesiveness is developed through rewarding member writers who can find the most damaging material to print. Occurring in regressive groups, along with the avoidance of conflict and the development of group narcissism, is psychic numbing, in which members anesthetize themselves to contradictions in the group. In the student newspaper example, writers may break into an office to get information they want and not feel guilty about breaking an ethical or legal code. Overall, a regressive group expresses an abdication of responsibility for the group and a dependency on its leader. Members do not take on the role of being leaders or facilitators of the group but rather become obedient followers. They do not take risks and, in effect, give their power away to influence the group. In such cases, the group is left without means to correct itself and will continue to be destructive unless a crisis occurs that influences its members to behave differently (Peck, 1983).Brief Case Philip Puts the Positives Before the Group Philip has had mixed results with the groups he has run. After reading about Yalom’s positive factors, Philip decided he would make a copy for all group members of a task group he was running. He asked each member to study the factors carefully. He also told the group about negative factors that could affect the group. To his delight, Philip’s group ran well. He thought it must be because of the materials he distributed and the way he asked members to pay attention to them. However, the next time Philip tried the same procedure, the group did not run as well. Questions Why do you think Philip’s method worked the first time but failed on his second try? How important is it for group members to have the kind of information Philip provided?

Learning Group Dynamics Knowledge of group dynamics that is both experiential and cognitive can help a group worker either lead or be in a group. Such learning may take place in multiple ways. One model is based on interdisciplinary education and involves five activities that help participants gain greater insight into the ways their group is functioning (Marrotta, Peters, & Paliokas, 2000).Video recording—Through observing their personal and collective interactions in a group, participants may note verbal and nonverbal behaviors of members and how these actions affected the group and its development. They may also note group roles, if any, that stand out. Journaling—A journal is a weekly log of the content and process that occurred in a group and your reactions to particular activities, exchanges, or the group as a whole. By writing immediately after a group is completed, participants capture present thoughts and feelings related to what happened in the group. By reading their logs later, they may gain insight into patterns occurring within the group. Outdoor experiences—Participating in an outdoor exercise can help individuals explore their cooperative and competitive styles and how these mesh with the group as a whole. The group can be seen more fully as a dynamic entity in events such as rope courses, where if the group is to be successful, everyone must participate and negotiate in regard to overcoming an obstacle or completing a task. Simulation games for team building—“Problem-based learning situations in the classroom are isomorphic to issues that professionals will encounter in the workplace” (Marrotta et al., 2000, p. 21). A task such as having a group, along with the teacher, design a logo for a class can bring out or highlight behaviors that either help or hurt the group in reaching a goal. By having the group analyze what happened in the process, members can see more clearly the dynamics involved in what happened and how they contributed. Sociometrics and learning integration—A final way to help facilitate the learning of group dynamics is to employ sociometric techniques. These activities can provide perspective on each member’s learning style and on various aspects of group dynamics, such as leadership, boundaries, and subgroups. All of these can be depicted through visual models. For example, individual students might be given Tinker toys to create a visual model of their understanding of the development of cohesion. The crucial component in this activity, as with the others, is debriefing, discussion, reflection, and the fostering of insight.

Group, Individual, and Family DynamicsWorking with groups is both similar to and different from working with individuals or families. Individual, group, and family approaches to helping have some parallels in history, theory, technique, and process. However, because of the unique composition of each, the dynamics of these ways of working are distinct (Gladding, 2019). The numbers of variables and interactions differ, as does the focus. A skilled group worker who has knowledge of individual and family helping dynamics is able to compare and contrast what is occurring in the group with what might be happening in another setting and, more importantly, to assess what may be needed. Awareness of individual and family helping dynamics assists a group worker in realizing whether referral of a member is in order. The complexity of working with others is a process that involves knowing what to do, when to do it, and what the probable outcomes may be. In this section, the dynamics of individual, group, and family work are discussed in regard to individuals, processing, and consequences.IndividualsIn examining the entities of groups, individuals, and families, one immediate common denominator is apparent. All are bodies, singularly or collectively, with defined boundaries and interrelated parts. An intervention cannot be made at any level without affecting other aspects of the body. For example, even on the individual counseling level, a counselor cannot work from a strictly behavioral perspective without influencing the cognitive and affective aspects of the client. However, in working with individuals, only one person is the focus of attention. The influence of others may be discussed, but they are not a part of any direct form of helping. In addition, single individuals may or may not be behaviorally or emotionally connected with others. Therefore, attention is usually centered on intrapersonal issues.With groups and families, the focus is on more than one individual. It is often simultaneously intrapersonal and interpersonal. Trotzer (1988) and Vinson (1995) point out that groups share many similarities with families. For instance, both have hierarchies (power structures), roles, rules, and norms. In addition, groups and families move through phases and stages during the counseling process, with group leaders being more active in the initial sessions of any therapeutic interventions. In groups and families, a tension also is manifest overtly and covertly that must be resolved or managed if members are going to work well together. A final similarity between groups and families is that all members in their units affect both. Thus, if a member of a group or family is dysfunctional, then the entire group or family will work in a dysfunctional way.Groups are distinct from families in that the members come together initially as strangers for a common purpose (Becvar, 1982; Hines, 1988). They have no experience of working together. Families, in contrast, have members with a shared history of interactions. This history may hinder or facilitate any actions taken in trying to offer assistance, but interventions made in family work usually occur faster and with more impact because of the family’s common background. Another difference in working with groups and families is the purpose for the treatment. In groups, intra-personal change may be just as important as interpersonal change, whereas in families the focus is usually on changing the family system. Although groups may resemble families at times in how they work, groups dissolve after a set time, whereas families continue. Overall, as Becvar (1982) states, the group is not a family, and the family is not a group.ProcessingIn group work, processing refers to an activity that helps group members and the group identify, examine, and reflect on their behaviors and what occurred in a group in order to increase understanding, extract meaning, integrate knowledge, and improve their functioning and outcomes. Processing activities and events in the group helps group members better understand their experiences in the group and relate these to their personal lives (Ward, 2014).Processing with individuals, groups, and families is similar in several ways. One important similarity involves an examination of what is involved. In essence, all effective processing can be thought of as following the PARS model (Processing: Activity, Relationship, Self), even though this model was originated for group work (Glass & Benshoff, 1999). Processing following this model includes three stages: reflecting, understanding, and applying (see Figure 2.7).Figure 2.7The PARS Model.ReflectingUnderstandingApplyingIn reflecting, individuals retrace the steps of a particular activity and essentially ask, “What did we do?” An individual may reflect with a counselor, group members may reflect with one another and the leader, and family members may reflect with one another and the therapist. “Reflection allows participants the opportunity to recreate the experience by describing actions the group [or the individual] went through to complete the exercise” (Glass & Benshoff, 1999, p. 18).In the understanding stage, the focus is on participants discussing specific interactions as well as offering explanations and interpretations of what occurred, especially in relationship to others. On the group and family level, this stage is more complete because of the others immediately involved. Finally, in the third stage of PARS, the emphasis is on applying what has been learned through experience and interaction in the session to your own life. Without this last stage, which involves a transfer of insight and learning, processing is not complete.In addition to the PARS model, some common counseling and psychotherapy theories are used as guides in individual, group, and family work (Horne, 2001; Patterson, 1986). For instance, Bowen and Adlerian theory may be employed in helping adolescents differentiate themselves from their families in a counseling group format and thereby become less anxious personally and within their family context (Nims, 1998). Likewise, person-centered and behavioral theories have been translated to working with people in individual, group, and family environments. However, an individual theory of helping may not be appropriate for use in some group and family situations, just as some approaches created by group workers and family therapists are not geared for individually oriented helpers.ConsequencesIn addition to both subtle and obvious differences in processing and employing theories, a major difference in working with individuals, groups, and families is what happens after helping ends. Success and failure have different consequences. If the individual or the group work does not go well, then those involved may be disappointed. However, with few exceptions, they leave the experience and those involved with it behind them. Families, however, live together through any attempts at helping, and change may promote tension both during and after the process.Overall, individual, group, and family approaches overlap and yet are distinct from one another. The participants, their involvement, and how they relate to clinician and the others outside of treatment sessions must be taken into consideration in any comparison. Likewise, a crucial aspect of the process of working with these populations in different phases and stages of their development is which theories of helping are used and how. The leader’s role in each differs in what is highlighted in inducing change.ReflectionHow do you think your family-of-origin background has influenced you in your interpersonal relationships with others? What strengths and liabilities do you carry from your family of origin that could help or hurt you as you work with groups?

Summary and ConclusionThis chapter has focused on group dynamics. In most groups, it is crucial that group leaders and members be aware of these dynamics because such forces influence group development. Several key areas of group dynamics have been discussed. For instance, the content and process in a group must be recognized for what they are and what they contribute. It is also crucial that content and process be balanced. Furthermore, in fostering change, it helps to perceive the group as a living system with interacting parts that affect one another.In influencing the dynamics of groups, leaders must preplan and clarify the purpose of their groups. This type of action before the group begins can be instrumental in positively affecting the way the group functions. In addition to a clear purpose, leaders should plan for a quiet, conducive environment for their groups. Planning groups with regard to time, size, mixture of people, and goals is crucial, too. Group structure in terms of member positioning and group interactions, especially verbal and nonverbal behaviors, must be taken into account. If groups are to prosper, they must spend their time wisely and be as inclusive of all their members as possible.Members’ roles must also be considered. In healthy groups, members may switch roles and be facilitative or supportive. Antigroup roles, such as being aggressive, must be dealt with to prevent groups from being regressive and destructive. At the same time, positive group variables, such as clear communication and acceptance, must be promoted. Ways of helping groups include the limited use of group exercises and employing basic helping skills. Learning activities that promote insight into how groups operate are helpful, as are teaching devices that highlight group dynamics. In working with groups, leaders are best able to understand and make appropriate interventions if they are aware of the differences and similarities in group dynamics compared with those of individuals and families in helping situations.In summary, groups are a unique way to work with individuals in resolving past problems, accomplishing present tasks, and undertaking future goals. Individuals who wish to participate or specialize in them are wise to realize that groups are dynamic entities with lives of their own that differ from those of their members. Individuals who are knowledgeable about how groups operate know what to expect and can help facilitate positive action in themselves and others.