The decision-making process in a group can affect the creativity within the group as well as the ability to make effective decisions in line with the group’s objectives. In this group, initial decisions were made on the general rules that would be used to govern all activities. For example, the choice of the topic the group would deal with had to be made during these initial stages. To begin with, there was a clear understanding on the importance of a connection between all group members. This connection would ensure that the members work towards common objectives with full knowledge of the requirements for their contributions to the topic (Banks, 2005). When stress in graduate school was picked as a topic for the group, all members were excited to take part in the discussions because of possibilities to draw from the experiences and perspectives of each one of them.
Groups make tasks more enjoyable for the members, hence improving their effectiveness and ability to achieve better results than they could have done by themselves. However, for such levels of success to be achieved in a group, certain decisions have to be made concerning the guidelines for engagements within the group (Alsever, Hempel, Taylor III & Roberts, 2014). To that end, this group incorporated various rules of engagement in the sessional contract.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Fidelity, for example, to begin and end the group in time was highlighted as an important factor in the group’s engagements. Members were obligated to respect each other’s time by arriving to class on time and not ending the group sessions late. If a member was late, for any reason, he or she was required to enter the sessions quietly and save the explanations for later so that the flow of activities within the group is not disrupted. The group’s meeting time was set at fifty minutes while the co-facilitator role was set on a rotational basis.
Interactions in a group can be fun and also serve as the task of teambuilding. However, there is a need for these interactions to have guidelines to ensure that the contributions of all members are taken into account (Capps, Fiori, Mullin & Hilsenroth, 2015). The requirement to be respectful to one another was one of the decisions that guided this group. There was a need for members to assume good intentions in their engagements and avoid interrupting or cutting off one another. When there was a need to advise or give feedback, members were required to ask permission first.
The fact that the group members were at different levels of schooling did not affect the group in any way. The purpose of the group, which was set out in the sessional contract, resonated with the expectations of the members because it did not limit them from sharing their ideas and experiences in the group. Activities such as the use of the chatbox and turning on of the camera were ruled out to ensure that there were maximum concentration and participation without any distractions.
The popcorn style of choosing speakers, which was used during group sessions, should be discouraged because of the obligatory burden that this method puts on participants. People should be able to feel comfortable in a group setting without being mandatory turns to share. Group members should not feel any pressure if they are not chosen to share or contribute in a session or face the anxiety of thinking about who will or might choose them. Group contracts that involve the popcorn style can make people feel less important than others or feel completely left out in the group’s activities (Clark, 2014). One of these scenarios played out in one of the group sessions when one of the members mentioned that she felt left out. Another member also highlighted the dissatisfaction with this method because some people might not be ready to be called out to share.
Moments I Would Intervene Differently
There are some changes that, if I could go back to the specific moments, I would make to enhance the impact and effectiveness of the group. One of those moments was the beginning of the group sessions when some members were speaking out through the sessions. Interestingly, no one was calling out for order, and hence the quiet members ended up not sharing much during those sessions. Although it is good for members to have the liberty to share their experiences and ideas at any time during the sessions, the contribution of all members is more critical because it captures a diversity of ideas (Flores, 2013). If I had been the worker, then I would have ensured that I captured contributions from all members to get their points of view and perceptions about issues discussed during the sessions.
As a worker, I would ensure that members understand that they have an obligation to contribute to the discussion by speaking out and sharing. Therefore, at least every member would need to contribute in the course of a group session through sharing of their views, ideas, or experiences. Although it is not wrong for people to listen during group sessions, listening should be coupled with active contributions through sharing (Shechtman, 2007). This is the reason why I did not make it optional for members to speak out in our group. Had the option of sharing or not sharing been available, then the discussions would have been dominated by the members who do not mind speaking all the time at the expense of those who are usually quiet. Although this structure might not have been popular with some of the group members, it made the sessions more interactive, and hence productive.
Impact of Organizational Policies
The requirement for the formation of psycho-educational groups in schools is crucial because it prepares learners to examine the effectiveness of intervention techniques. These programs expose students to practical situations where they can have the first-hand experience with methods such as cognitive behavioral therapy, narrative, and psychoeducation (Weiss, Jaffee, Menil & Cogley, 2004). The experimental group benefited from this program, especially the environment of support and understanding. The strategies used in the forming of the group and the intervention techniques were effectively applied to achieve the desired results among the experimental group. In addition, the virtual classroom setting allowed for quick decision-making processes as well as immediate feedback from members. The resultant cohesion within the group enhanced its efficiency and effectiveness in line with the objectives. However, the fifty-minute allocation for group sessions was often not enough to exhaust the arising issues during the sessions. In this group, the members benefited from the processes and discussions on the early recovery skills for the treatment of addiction as a result of the impact of mezzo policies.
Diversity
The members in this group came from a diversity of backgrounds such as Caucasian, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Middle Eastern and Chinese. It was an interesting experience to see these individuals from diverse backgrounds interacts with one another over common issues. The differences in diversity were evident from the initial stages of the group activities. To begin with, it was common for individual members to share experiences that were unique to them, and that would be easily relatable to other individuals of similar demographics.
By sharing the experiences that were unique to them, members encouraged each other to find ways to relate to those experiences. This ability of members to relate with the experiences of other members from diverse backgrounds brought about a sense of connection whereby all members realized that they face more or less similar challenges irrespective of their differences. The discussion about individual differences did not start right away. In the initial weeks, people shared their life situations and experiences with stress. However, the failure to address the issue of diversity and differences led to bottling up of opinions, emotions, and feelings that were all related to the apparent differences.
Impact of Addressing Differences
Although the issue of differences took too long to be discussed in the group, the uncomfortable state of affairs that resulted from boiling over of individual differences and diversity led to the inevitable handling of the matter. However, the tense and uncomfortable moments seemed to have helped the group members understand one another and move forward as a unit. From this experience, it is clear that failure to address differences in groups that are composed of individuals from diverse backgrounds has adverse effects on cohesion within the group. Cohesion in a group is directly related to its productivity.
A group that works as a unit has more rewarding experiences for its members than that which fails to deal with differences in diversity. There are numerous benefits of cohesion that are associated with the development of a group. Cohesiveness within a group makes members feel like they belong, hence boosting their self-esteem and self-confidence. Therefore, a group that has dealt with the issues of diversity and other individual differences gives freedom to its members to engage one another with the understanding of the different perspectives and experiences associated with the backgrounds (Wendt & Gone, 2017). In this situation, members are likely to take more responsibility in the functioning of the group by actively participating in the sessions.
Ethical Concerns
There were no ethical concerns. However, one ethical concern that is specific to group work practice is the issue of confidentiality. In group sessions, members are encouraged to disclose and share personal issues with openness and honesty. The atmosphere that is created for these members is one of trust and acceptance, which encourages the members to support one another (Pedersen, 2013). However, the situation can arise in the group settings where some members fail to subscribe to the values of trust and support to one another.
Some group members, for example, might have problems with sharing their personal experiences if they realize that other members have relationships outside the group. When some members contact each other outside the group, then the other members might feel that their information is being leaked or discussed out there. This ethical issue is related to the NASW for social workers state 1.07 privacy and confidentiality F- (f) and the IASWG standards section three A-tasks and skills c (NASW., 2017). These Codes defines the rights and limits for the issue of confidentiality.
Reflections
The experience of this experimental group was interesting and educational. To begin with, I was able to experience and practice some of the processes and functions that take place during the running of a psycho-educational group. In the formation of the group, I understood the need for inclusivity, as well as the benefits of achieving cohesiveness in a group composed of individuals from diverse backgrounds. The major lesson that I learnt at this step is the importance of addressing diversity and differences in the early weeks of the group to foster cohesion. When these differences are dealt with early on, the group is able to move forward as a unit. Furthermore, group members have more willingness to actively participate in group activities during sessions, hence leading to the effectiveness and productivity of the group.
In addition, I realized the importance of encouraging active participation by all members during classes. It is common for groups to be composed of members with different traits such as the talkative ones as well as the silent ones. If such situations are not properly handled, the talkative group members might end, making most of the contributions as the silent ones just sit and listen. Active contribution by all members is important because it ensures that there is a diversity of ideas, opinions, and experiences within the group. To this end, I was initially stressed by the manner in which the groups were running because there was an established order of participation.
I wanted to make sure that every classmate gets a chance to contribute to the sessions so that they all get the chance to talk about themselves and share their ideas and deep feelings. Therefore, I had to find a way to encourage the quiet members to trust the group setting, be vulnerable, and share those experiences that are unique to themselves. To do so, I had to expose my own vulnerability and share my challenging personal experiences. After my show of openness and honesty, the members’ trust of the atmosphere improved and, as a consequence, they felt more comfortable sharing their own experiences. I also liked the fact that other members would comment on the shared experiences of a member as a show of support and understanding.
The breathing exercises that we did after the end of the group sessions ensured that we left in a state of calm and tranquillity. Other than learning to help the clients to support one another in different ways, this group exercise gave me experience on how to speak before and after the group sessions. I understood the power and influence that a support system has on group members, especially when other people who are going through similar experiences express their confidence on the ability of a member to change. I noticed that members take suggestions from each other very seriously because of the common understanding established within the group. After the entire experience, I feel like I understand the situations of different individuals better than before. In addition, these experiences molded me into a better group facilitator or a better worker.
References
Alsever, J., Hempel, J., Taylor III, A., & Roberts, D. (2014). The Five Stages of Team Development . OER services, Principles of management . Retrieved from https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-principlesmanagement/chapter/reading-the-five-stages-of-team-development/
Banks, R. (2005). Solution-focused group therapy. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 16 (1/2), 17–21. doi: https://doi-org.ezproxy.simmons.edu/10.1300/J085v16n01_05
Capps, K. L., Fiori, K. L., Mullin, A. S., & Hilsenroth, M. J. (2015). Patient crying in psychotherapy: Who cries and why? Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 22 (3), 208-220. Retrieved from https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24339383
Clark, A. A. (2014). Narrative Therapy Integration Within Substance Abuse Groups. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 9 (4), 511-522. Retrieved from https://tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15401383.2014.914457
Flores, P. J. (2013). Groups in the treatment of addictions . Retrieved from https://eds-b-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.simmons.edu/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=8c4b50c4-4968-41ce-8f05-f55d9f563ef3%40sdc-v-sessmgr01&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=edsjsr.10.13186.group.37.4.0295&db=edsjsr
NASW. (2017). National Association of Social Workers . Code of Ethics . Retrieved from https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English.aspx
Pedersen, D. (2013). In PsychNotes: Clinical Pocket Guide, 4th ed (p. 123). Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: F.A. Davis Company. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nup&AN=2013035335&site=eds-live&scope=site
Shechtman, Z. (2007). Group counseling and psychotherapy with children and adolescents : theory, research, and practice . L. Erlbaum Associates . Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat01806a&AN=sim.b1622178&site=eds-live&scope=site
Weiss, R. D., Jaffee, W. B., Menil, V. d., & Cogley, C. B. (2004). Group Therapy for Substance Use Disorders: What Do We Know? Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 12 (6), 339-350. Retrieved from https://tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10673220490905723
Wendt, D. C., & Gone, J. P. (2017). Group therapy for substance use disorders: A survey of clinician practices . Journal of Groups in Addiction & Recovery, 12 (4), 243–259. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1556035X.2017.1348280
