Introduction
The benefits of psychoeducational groups as a method of modelling cannot be overestimated. Psychoeducational groups have many distinguishing characteristics differentiate those groups, the most important of which its preventive nature and skill building directivity (DeLucia-Waack, 2006, p. 10). Psychoeducational groups can be defined as those groups which are “theme-focused, time-limited, structured group work providing a supportive, experiential environment with education, empowerment, role modelling and skill building” (Lynn Turner, n.d.). Working in such groups cannot be free from conflicts, dysfunctions, and engagement all of which can be explained in light of the group work theory and group work dynamics.
An example of the latter can be seen through the case of psychoeducational group led by John, who took the role of the leader providing the group with information on strategies to manage their lives. The group is on its third week of its planned eight-week period. The third week started with an unsettlement that was initiated with a rejection of John’s authority as a group leader. In that regard, the present essay will attempt to analyse the situation in the case in light of the group work theory, focusing on such aspect as the probable root cause of the dysfunction, the stages of group development, and possible interventions.
The Problem
Although the main purpose and the task are not indicated, psychoeducational groups generally aim at using the modality of the group for educative and preventive purposes. Thus, providing information and educating group members can be seen as one of the objectives of the group, while the ultimate goal is assisting group’s members from developing debilitating dysfunctions, while developing coping skills and strengthening their self-esteem (Trotzer, 2006, p. 41). The main problem in group functioning can be seen through roles assigned to group members and the refusal of group members to accept their roles, and the resistive behaviour group members develop. Focusing on the members of the group other than the leader, it can be stated that their roles can be characterised as non-participating or non-client (Trotzer, 2006, p. 241). Roles can be defined as “the expectations defining the appropriate behaviour of an occupant of a position toward other positions” (Johnson & Johnson, 2009, p. 15). Considering, the nature of the of the psychoeducational group, the roles of team members can be defined as learners. Roles allow acknowledging the issues of function, expectation and inter-dependency in a group, with all members, making certain contributions according to such expectations (Eve, n.d.). When team members in the case indicated that they are unhappy being lectured each week, they “refuse to explore their concerns in the group deny the most vital component of their group membership and thus obstruct any efforts made to help them” (Trotzer, 2006, p. 241). Such role can be also denoted as cautionary, where team members might maintain psychological distance. The problem being related to the roles the members might take or refuse to take at the beginning of counselling. In members constantly refuse to participate they might inappropriate group counselling.
The problem can be related to some of the team members, while for the rest of the group it can be assumed that the main problem in functioning can be seen in the resisting behaviours of team members. The support for resisting behaviour as a contributing factor can be seen through its blatant manifestation, specifically at the early stage of counselling, which can be seen in the case. The first resisting behaviour occurred at the third week of counselling which can be considered an early stage for an eight week period. Resisting behaviour in that regard can be defined as “the failure to cooperate in the therapeutic process or the blocking of another client’s treatment in the group” (Trotzer, 2006, p. 244). Resistance is an inevitable process in the group, and thus, it is expected to occur, but nevertheless, it can be recognised and explored as it can be interfere with the group process (Corey, 2008, p. 87). Accordingly, it can be seen in the case that resisting behaviour spread to other members. In that regard, Ohlsen (1970), cited in Trotzer (2006), identified four liabilities of resistance, which are as follows:
- Increasing the possibility of breaking confidentiality.
- Increasing the amount of acting out behaviour.
- Encouragement of depending on each other.
- Helping members escape responsibility (Trotzer, 2006, p. 245).
It can be seen that in this case, the encouragement of each other and the acting out behaviour are the most obvious liabilities which are apparent in this case. For the acting out behaviour, resisting behaviour is characteristic of those who do not have ties to the group and thus, they have less risk engaging in disruptive behaviour. The factor of increasing the dependence on each other is more characteristic of those who want to turn the group into a permanent social gang, rather than “temporary therapeutic milieu it is supposed to be” (Trotzer, 2006, p. 245). The formulation of the statements of a member of a group, who states, “if you can’t listen to us, maybe we should not listen to you!” support the social gang liability. The use of “we” in the statement might be seen as a way for differentiating the group, as a separate “social gang”, from the leader, who reminds them that such initiative is temporary.
The Causes
The causes of the problem in the group are numerous, but in this case it can be stated that they are most likely to be connected with the leader and his authority. Taking the example of psychoeducational that was conducted in a conference on correction and probation, the role of the leader of the group, the style of intervention and the relationship all play a critical role in the expected change as well as the resistance faced (Webster, 2010). In learning groups such as psychoeducational the foundation of effectiveness is based on the relationship, where the absence of safe social atmosphere and the hostility in the environment might hinder effective group work. Other factors that can be considered as well in this case, as causes of resistance might be seen through the qualificaiot5n of the leaders, a co-leader and a conflict between the co-leader and the leader, lack of trust by the leader, authoritarian style of the leader, and others (Corey, 2008, pp. 87-88). In that regard, it can be stated that all of those factors are related to the leader and the leading style. Another potential explanation of the source of resisting behaviour can be seen through reactance theory. According to such theory, the resistance is viewed in a defence mechanism for freedom protection, rather than a pathological manifestation. Such position can be also linked to the leader, where the view of attempts that are persuasive, or viewed as coercive or biased might lead to intensification and an increase of commitment to the original position – psychological reactance (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). It should be noted that such process is considered normal, specifically if viewed in the light of the stage of group’s development.
Stages of Group’s Development
There are several models describing the development of the group, some of them might vary in the name, but agree on common characteristics. One of the most popular and recognised models is the model developed by Tuckman, who identified five stages for group development using dynamic descriptors. The stages consist of forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. Tuckman’s model describes the stages of the group’s development through focusing on the development of the internal relations between group members (Levi, 2007). Although the model is criticised, the stage through which the group is going through in the case can be vividly identified. In that regard, the stage in the case can be categorised as norming, which is a stage that can be characterised by cohesion between group members (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). The selection of such stage, rather than storming, which is characterised by conflicts in personal relations, can be explained by the exact cohesion, in which group members united in their resisting behaviour against the leader. Accordingly, the identification of such stage can be seen through the resisting behaviour the group members inhibited, as it is at this stage that members might feel the inevitable future breakup and might resist change. Another model for group’s stages of development can be seen through the one developed by Corey (1995), in which the stages are described as the initial, transition, working, and termination (Corey, 2008). In that regard, the stage most characteristic to the one the group in the case is going through is transition stage. Transition stage is characterised by resistance, where during such stage members usually “deal with their anxiety, defensiveness, conflict, and ambivalence about participating in the group” (Corey, 2008, p. 84). Additionally, one of the most distinctive characteristics of such stage, which is exactly replicated in the case, is conflicts and issues related to challenging the leader (Corey, 2008, p. 86). The reasons for challenging the leader might be different, including professional and personal level. Challenges to authority of the leader and the way the leader will deal with such challenges will be determinant in the effectiveness of leading the group. Additionally, the identification of the stage at which the group is currently residing might providing an additional insight into the root causes of the resisting behaviour of group’s members, where members might experience a struggle of dependence versus independence (Corey, 2008, p. 87). The latter, if applied to the case, can be interpreted as the dependence on the instructions and the information provided by John, and the independence in providing one’s own opinion.
Structure Role, Balance, and Power Issues
It can be stated that the group lacked structure in the way it was functioning, which might be seen as a contributing factor in it dysfunctions. For members of people to be called a group role definitions, norms, tasks, and activities, should structure the interactions between the groups (Johnson & Johnson, 2009, p. 7). The fact that the John, at the third week of the psychoeducational stage was still setting the stage, it can be stated that the group was not structured. The latter is certainly the role of the leader, who should acknowledge that structure is essential to providing safety and continuity to group members (DeLucia-Waack, 2006, p. 194). Moreover, it is stated that the lack of structure at the early stages of the group might impeded group’s process development (Johnson & Johnson, 2009).
The aforementioned factor might contribute to that the group lacked a balance between the tasks and social-emotional needs, and the involvement of group‘s members and the interaction between them. The latter can be also seen as the responsibility of the leader. In that regard, the way the information is given in a group and the feedback is received can be seen as a factor that identifies the types of behaviour within a group. The lack of a structure, in that regard, hinders the acknowledgement of the role s of the members as their structure was not defined yet. The power and the way it is exercised by the leader in the group have a significant role in the group and the problems spotted in the case. As the struggle for power can be witnessed in every group, although with different manifestations, its distribution is the responsibility of the leader (Alle-Corliss & Alle-Corliss, 2009; Gitterman & Salmon, 2008). The power and the expertise of the leader should be embraced by group’s member, which is obviously not the case, according to the way John is leading the group. All of the latter indicate that the group is largely ineffective (Johnson & Johnson, 2009, p. 26).
Interventions
The interventions that can be seen in this case can be seen on many dimensions. First of all, the group should be appropriately structured, with members acknowledging the purpose of the group, their tasks, and their roles within the group. Psychoeducational groups have many strategies for incorporating learning principles, the most important of which in this context is the development of goals and objectives that are specific, realistic, and clearly articulated (Furr, Pratt, Worthington, & Drinkard, 2010).
The strategy for dealing with resisting behaviour is another aspect that the leader should focus on. Considering the nature of the problem, giving responsibility can be seen as suitable intervention in this case, where resister responsibility will be assigned to provide assistance to other group members. In that regard, such strategy might be implemented in the form of co-leadership, where the most resisting group member might be given more responsibilities, and will act as a mediator for other group members. Co-leadership might be rotated in the group, which might be implemented when there are difficulties in assigning one leader, or to avoid conflicts between group members. Finally, changing the leadership style might be considered as a solution, specifically, if authoritative style was one of the reasons the resisting behaviour occurred in the first place.
Conclusion
The present paper analysed the situation that occurred leading a psychoeducational group. The problem and the causes of the dysfunction the group were analysed in the light of group work theory. The analysis revealed several problems related to the role of the team members, the lack of structure, characteristic aspects of the stage of group development, and the leadership style of the leader. All of the latter led to the formation of an effective group. Several interventions were recommended for the leader to adopt. It can be concluded that group work theory provided a beneficial insight into the situation described in the case as well as the way it can be solved.
References
Alle-Corliss, L., & Alle-Corliss, R. (2009). Group Work: A Practical Guide to Developing Groups in Agency Settings: Wiley.
Corey, G. (2008). Theory and practice of group counseling (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Brooks/Cole.
DeLucia-Waack, J. L. (2006). Leading psychoeducational groups for children and adolescents. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Eve, N. (n.d.). Groupwork Theory. Elements UK.
Furr, S., Pratt, J., Worthington, E., & Drinkard, D. (2010). Guidance/Psychoeducational Groups. Love Publishing Company.
Gitterman, A., & Salmon, R. (2008). Encyclopedia of social work with groups: Routledge.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (2009). Joining together : group theory and group skills (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Education.
Levi, D. (2007). Group dynamics for teams (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Lynn Turner. (n.d.). Psychoeducational Groups. Encyclopedia of Social Work with Groups. Web.
Trotzer, J. P. (2006). The counselor and the group : integrating theory, training, and practice (4th ed.). New York: Routledge.
Webster, C. (2010). Groupwork – Integrating Theory and Practise. Probation and Community Corrections Officers Association. Web.