Temination

Monday, March 19, 2006

Final Stage: Closure, loss, learning

Concept Addressed: Termination

Why do things end? Is it inevitable, tragic or even beneficial? While reasons abound for entering into therapy in a group setting, one reason persist as to why groups or therapy in general must end; that is the group has completed its function. Whether it was specific task-oriented goal or a more general therapeutic aim, the goal of all groups is to allow members a safe space to process and learn whatever maybe necessary to face the larger complex and sometimes chaotic outside group we call the” the world.”

Response

Eastern thinkers, specifically Buddhist are quick to point to the mortality of all things. They say that time is a universal solvent, that topples dynasties, creates both peace and war and note that all things come to and end at some point. So to with group therapy. Although there are many types of groups, therapeutic to task oriented, one thing they all have in common is that they eventually their members must disband. Corey & Corey refer to this as the termination or final stage. The most successful groups are those where leaders and members address termination head on. By addressing the future sense of loss and recording what has been learned, members are more apt to make deeper realizations in session and are more apt to create action plans to maintain practice independent of group. In contrast, counseling educators warn against abrupt endings noting that group members how simply arrive at the last day of group without ever expecting group to end , find themselves disturbed. They often feel abandoned and much of the work up to this point may loose some of its potency. Additionally some members will feel cheated as if things have ended suddenly.

One thing that was not addressed in my own group experience was this issue. Although everyone implicitly understood that we were in a time limited group for the semester, this fact never surfaced explicitly and perhaps we did not expect to feel a sense of loss during termination. I know that I did not, and was surprised to find myself missing group. The impact of what was processed and what I had come to understand about the other members and myself seemed lackluster. I found myself questioning “What was all that for? Or was that a real group experience.” Interestingly enough even contrived situations generate real emotions and the unique bonds established by this process still hold.

Reflections

What I learned this week was that although people often envision group work to be long and arduous, dynamics operate on groups equally on group that short and long termed. I learned about myself that I can be an effective group leader even when group members are gender and age different. Additionally understand that the care in preparation in content and sessions should also be applied to termination. Group members should be emotionally and practically equipped to handle what follows group as well as what happens during group therapy.

Working through Disclosure

Monday, March 6, 2006

Working Stage: Self-Disclosures

Concept Addressed: Disclosure

When members enter into a therapeutic group, one aim they have is being known. To be known in the group for their individuality, is beneficial to the person because it may allow them to address issues that have been repressed in relationships outside groups. Additionally being known through disclosing personal experiences, feelings and thoughts is of benefit to the group at large because members begin to accept their own true selves.

Response

Self disclosures within group can be one of the hardest behaviors to facilitate and to experience for leaders and members. Because of the personal nature of disclosures levels of trust and support are constantly being measured by members who reveal their personal experiences. When self-disclosures are met with support and trust by other group members, the revealer of this information is inclined to go deeper and broader in their feeling expressions with the group. However, if group members are not adequately prepared for these revelations or show ridicule or bias after members discloses something personal or painful, relations between all members can be injured. I remember that at the beginning of this class we were broken into smaller groups. There was a lot of apprehension by many within the small groups as to what level of disclosure would be expected, and what type of embarrassing topics we might be made to discuss. When we had our first group meeting it was interesting that while some group members remained superficial and held on to their fears, one member disclosed something very personal about her previous relationship with a women. Although I was personally surprised by the disclosure so early on in the formation of the group, others responded by stating how “courageous and brave” the member had been in letting us know her in this way. I think this situation illustrates how complex personal information is within group. My own understanding of what groups were and how the functioned, limited my imagination and kept my experience in a safe-zone. I feared rejection and reprisal by the group and basically limited my participation. Another interesting thing about this interaction is that other members did mention their shock at both idea of the lesbian relationship and at the disclosure stating “ Wow, that was brave , I didn’t know if I could do that, and I think that would be hard to talk about.” I interpreted her tone as almost sarcastic but also honest in that she was stating what many members might be feeling. When the group leader, asked the revealer “How was it for you to tell this group about that experience?” the member responded that she had met a lot of adversity and now was very open about telling things about herself.” Although I don’t think this experience was the model of self-disclosure it did illustrate to me how disclosure by members or leaders can complicate group interactions. When people do disclose information, how it delivered and how it is received can set the group up for further exploration or failure. In this situation, things might have gone better if the group had clearer goals and had outlined what type of disclosure would be typical. On the other hand , things could have been worse, had people in the group responded with “eww that’s gross” or “ I don’t think that’s relevant to this group” or other ridiculing comments, then group might have loss any sense of trust and the reveling member might withdraw emotionally or physically from group.

Reflections

What I found most interesting in learning about self-disclosure was the belief that some leaders think it is okay not to disclose to the groups they lead. I do understand the reasoning that leaders can act as mirrors for members and receive their projective experience , however I personally think that a group leader who isn’t willing to disclose may not be able to establish a trust bond with members. I do think it pertinent that self-disclosure by leaders adhere to a theoretical or conscious intervention. One shouldn’t just go on and on about their own problem monopolizing the members. I think that would as unbearable as not disclosing at all. Others seem to benefit from self disclosure because it allows them an opportunity to question if they link or not with this members experience. It allows them to see the edge of their own values and whether there is unresolved business. Groups in the working stage seem to experience more self disclosures and are better able to deal with personal and painful experiences revealed by members by effectively relying on trust and support.

Conflict at the edge.

Monday, February 27, 2006

Conflict at the edges of growth: Transitions in Group Work

Concept Addressed: Conflict

Conflict is the experience of tensions at the edges of growth. That is when we encounter an opportunity to grow, to know something or someone new, tension can occur between what is known( our previous notions) and what is unknown, sometimes felt as anxiety or discomfort, conflict in our society often goes unaddressed the cause of much distress.

Response

Corey and Corey tell us that conflict is a natural occurrence in all relationships, including those that form during group process. Although conflict is sometimes correlated with confrontation, it is a separate experience, which contrary to popular belief need not be negative. While confrontation can be seen as the active response to conflict, conflict itself is a noun, a feeling, usually one of tension between two or more people. In a group this tension is often “unsaid” or silent. Operating like the elephant in the room that know one wants to mention, conflict has the capacity to make people question the validity of the group, debilitate growth of group members and make participants fearful to speak up. Corey and Corey point out and I would agree in my own hypothesis that conflict is not only natural but inevitable in situations in which individuals are supposed to express their individuality and amongst strangers. I think about the conflicts I have experienced, rather as a student or coworker and in hindsight most of these tensions arose from a basic misunderstanding , namely self-perceived problem coming into contact with the perception of another person. Sometimes conflicts within the family and close nit friendship groups are dealt with in an easier manner because of the mutuality and trust established by these relationships, conflicts at work and school can be more difficult due to issues of power, distrust and non-commonality. In essence insensitivity to our sensibility is a most common factor in conflicts. In the group process these tension may arise out of distrust between racial, sexually oriented, or gender different group members. When one group member is black and the rest are white, the black member may have a preconceived notion of this experience such as “my needs will be ignored” or “I’m not going to be accepted.” I have heard these questions echoed in my own mind, as I participated as a student early in my college in a pre-medical program and also when working with a staff of all white social workers at my agency. When these conflicts are met by comments such as “you are the only that sees a problem here” or “you’re making a mountain out of a molehill” by group leaders or members, defensiveness and alienation are likely outcomes. I can speak from experience at the beginning of my last job working with a mostly urban population of mentally ill clientele and mostly suburban white female social workers, one tension I experienced was that the group leader and members of my team had an expectation that I would be able to translate the experience of the clientele in to terms they would understand. Whenever I would express the opinion that this was not an appropriate expectation, or even perhaps a biased expectation I was met with the comment that “Well you probably understand their situation better than we do”. Needless to say when the agency hired another African American female, we were put in the same office and then told “you guys kind of isolate yourselves from the rest of the group”. Looking back on these situations in light of the information covered in the text on transition phases in group process, a reason for so many of the conflicts that arose in the work environment. When the word diversity was used cavalierly to tell our clients that we appreciated racial , religious and gender influences but these same issues were never spoke of during staff meetings, trainings, and casual encounters a belief that the agency was simply employing “lip-service” or being in genuine was accepted by myself and other black staff. If any of the participant members simply spoke about the topic perhaps we would have had more cohesion, and been more productive.

Reflections

What I am learning about myself in terms of conflict is that letting things go unattended is likely only going to frustrate me later. In addition within the group process, to be an effective leader one has to let members feel that conflicts are normal and provide a pathway that is positive for confronting these conflicts. Some counselors and psychologist say nothing can be taboo in counseling, and I am beginning to believe this assessment. Although respect for individuals and group member differences in attitude an behavior are to be tolerated. Tolerance is not possible until individuals become sensitive to these differences and the tensions they may engender

Modeling a Technique in Group Work

Concept Addressed: Modeling

A technique employed by the group leader to counter reluctance of members to the group process. Group leaders model behaviors they wish to elicit from group participants, often effective in groups where attendance is non-voluntary.

Response

Corey & Corey view modeling as a technique that is useful to counter resistance to the group experience by members. Often this is very helpful in non-voluntary groups such as parole or abuser groups; however I think modeling can be useful in many settings. Modeling behaviors is not only the domain of the group leader but also can be done by participants within a group. I would suggest that when group members model behaviors that reinforce the group norms for example a member states “ I thought we wouldn’t be smoking in this group” as another member brings out a cigarette, may have more impact than if feedback had come from the leader. I also believe that modeling can be even more powerful in the realm of non-verbal communication and empathy. At times it is difficult for members of the group to pick up on subtle changes within the group. As a leader of a group it is important to notice the emotional status of the members. If a leader models empathy by perhaps looking concerned and intently at a member that is appears to be distressed, the non-verbal cues and behavior are modeled as appropriate behavior within the group. Likewise if the leader shows inadequate response to distress , members may get the messages such as “it is inappropriate to express distress here” or “My feelings don’t matter.” Thus modeling behavior is an important way to not only reinforce the established group norms but can be key in increasing sensitivity within a group to non-verbal communication and emotions.

Additionally my response to Modeling as a technique is that it is not always beneficial, that is, modeling does not always mean modeling appropriate behaviors. Sometimes , especially in response to conflict within a group negative models maybe used by both members and leaders of groups. I am thinking primarily of the leader who believes that silencing members who are arguing is a good example of de-escalation. Perhaps instead of quieting the argument, it would be healthy to lower ones voice and direct ones attention to both members and say “ It seems like you guys are disagreeing here, why don’t we let one of you talk and explore their side of the issue, and then the other and see what we might learn here.” This type of modeling encourages each person to recognize they have a valid voice, but that other points of view are equally valuable.

Reflections

What I am learning about myself in terms of modeling is that although it is easy to say “I am not a role-model” in reality children, peers and educators are aware of behaviors both verbal and non-verbal; learning to refine how I experience and express is an opportunity to educate others on what different styles exist. Secondly, I am also becoming aware of how behaviors and norms are connected. When we say someone is behaving abnormally we are also saying they are violating some rule of conduct. Sometimes these rules are widely known and accepted but often they are not. This I believe is why some people view a person as odd or dysfunctional and others show no concern. What behaviors we choose to model and adopt have a lot to do with what norms we accept. In terms of what I am learning about group is that conflicts can arise when leaders’ expectation of participation is not actually modeled by the leader. If group members are unsure of how to be in group, the leader is in a position to be a model, but often leaders are unaware of this opportunity and feel defeated when members idle.

Multiculturalism in Counseling

Concept Addressed:

Multiculturalism in Counseling

Response

The fact that Corey & Corey point out that multiculturalism is viewed as an important force in addition to psychodynamic, behavioral, and humanistic approaches, necessitates some further discussion on this concept. More than a theoretical approach , multiculturalism is a process counselors participate in an effort to better understand themselves and their clients. Becoming aware of social cultural values that emphasis education or family ties and how these evaluations differ not only from individual to individual but also group to group is an important part of creating authentic client-counselor relationships. Additionally multiculturalism is proper process for counselors in group settings because it parallels group process, emphasizing the notion that specific content is secondary to a broad sensitivity. That is to say, we cannot as counselors attempt to know how a specific group expresses itself in terms stereotypes or expectations that members of a certain group will use these words, actions or practices, but rather counselors may develop their sense of what members of a certain group might praise or find taboo, how this culture finds sources of strength in the face adversity.

Something interesting in the reading of Groups (Corey & Corey), in regard to multicultural counseling was the comparison of drop-out rates in counseling groups. According to the text non-Euro-Americans have higher drop out rates in counseling groups when compared to their Euro-American counterparts; linguistic difficulties as well as culture-bound issues that inhibited the counseling relationship were cited as factors for these rates. In the next page they underscore this difference between ethnic groups citing the work of DeLucia- Waack and Dongian (2004). Delucia-Waack et al. articulated the idea that the efficacy of group work over traditional individual therapy was Eurocentric, and not widely accepted on non-Western spheres. This claim struck me as dubious. If among Pendersen’s beliefs about culture is that it extends past the mere racial and ethnic backgrounds, pointing out differences in racial/ethnic backgrounds when looking at drop-out rates in group counseling simplifies and may produce false data in regard these groups. The fact that individualized psycho-therapy arose out of Eurocentric framework, points out that Euro-Western therapy has was not originally focused on the group. In fact one could argue that African and Asian cultures have placed emphasis on groups form the beginning, understanding that shamans, medicine men, and monks from these traditions work to provide healing and change that benefits tribe or clans, not single members. In other words, I question whether poor retention rates of non-Euro Americans in group therapy is more related to linguistic and social economic factors, ie class problems, than to cultural values, seeing as individualism is more representative of the Eurocentric rather than Asiatic or Afro centered cultures.

This type of contradiction within the research literature is mostly likely a primary reason why interest in multicultural perspectives has become such a spark word in therapeutic fields of psychology and counseling. The data suggest differences amongst and within groups, and in the same sentence, these data also support false stereotypes and connotations, this is perhaps that fault of some studies that create false binaries: males vs. females European vs. non-European. Contemporary researchers and counselors must attempt to look past these notions to broaden our concept of what constitutes a culture.

Reflections

I am beginning to understand that while I see myself as individuated, Will, society also defines me as a member of group(s). At times the membership in a group is voluntary, I am part of a learning group, a student and other times I am assigned a group. I am male and black, or am I?

In reading and thinking about groups and others, I am realizing that others thoughts and behaviors I might find deplorable are acceptable within their own cultural context. Also, what makes some one “other” is not defined by them, but me.

What I am learning about groups is that group process like cultural process is quite fluid. Group members and leaders are continually reassessing what is going on now. Just as cultural groups are in continual process of refining and defining themselves.

Groups seem to work best when both leaders and members maintain their agency, that is when leaders are able to provide boundaries , structure and respect, and members are able to access their options , whether they be limiting feedback to the group, choosing to reveal something personal or participating in the current exercise.