Group Work Theories and Practices - Term Paper Example

Group Work Theories and Practices To start with the study of different group work theories and models, it is important to know what is meant by a group and group work. A group can be defined in different ways, and giving an absolute meaning of a group in relation with the theory around group work, is quite complicated and debatable. In general a group is simply a small gathering of people. Group work may be traditionally defined as a type of social work that is employed with the intention of helping individuals to develop their social functioning by means of focused group experiences and to deal with their private, group or society problems more efficiently (Konopkar, 1963). A more modern conceptualization of group work is where individuals help each other and also help groups so that it is capable of influencing both the individuals and groups to change or tackle personal, group, organizational and community problems (Brown, 1994). Group work may plainly be defined as the study and use of the processes and results undergone when a group comes together. Thus the function of group work can be described as one that puts importance to sharing of views, ideas, problems, and actions. Like individuals, groups are also unique in their own experiences and expectations. However many researchers surveying group development and dynamics have acknowledged that group development, in general, is more foreseeable than individual behavior. Thus a number of theories of phases of group development have been developed, which are either linear or cyclical, and it must be emphasized that there is nothing like a perfect model for group stage development. There are a number of group work theories and models in practice. These are mainly Tuckman’s Model, Fisher’s Theory, Tubbs’s Theory, Johari Window model and Poole’s Model. The models and theories of Tuckman and Johari are discussed below listing the stages of their progress and formation. The Tuckman’s model is a five-stage model comprising of Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, and Adjourning. The first stage is Forming in which the group takes the initial step of coming together. This phase entails considerable testing, and trial and error. Initial problems regarding candidness and support within the group happen due to a deficiency of cohesion and a problem in sharing views, thoughts and experience with each other. An internal assessment of group value and the ways by which an individual places oneself in the group are chief characteristics of this stage. Apprehension, isolation, failure, and frustration are regular emotions experienced by group members in this initial stage of a group. It also includes the emotional threat suffered by the members of the group who are supposed to be powerful or better. Thus the group looks for to create a placate zone in which the people are not eager to disrupt the status quo for fear of isolation and alienation. Hence, this stage is mainly characterized by shyness, hesitation, uncertainty, and reticence among the members, although extrovert members may quickly take up some sort of leadership. A knowledge and comprehension of the feelings and sentiments felt by members of the group in this phase is useful, if not indispensable, to the effective framing of am agenda to work towards the preferred result for the group. The next stage is termed as Storming in which, after establishing a group to some extent, there is a phase of jockeying for importance, authority, and power among the members. In classrooms, this is the stage of testing- the teacher’s efficiency. Disagreements appear or are put on and roles are allocated in due course. Thus as members start to affirm their individual personalities, the security of the forming stage starts to come under siege. Members undergo personal, intra-group and/or inter-group conflicts. Aggression and bitterness can be noticed in this stage and therefore if strong personalities come forward and headship is indifferent to group and individual requirements, the situation may have a negative effect on the group’s development. In fact there is a high possibility for individuals to quit the group during this phase, because for them the pressures pumped by the group may turn out too give excessive strain. The prospective for oppressive behavior is high within the storming stage as group members compete for preferred roles and emit frustrations that had developed within the forming phase. This personal oppression need to be discouraged even as it is recognized that a degree of clash is essential for the group develop further. It is important to be conscious about the fact that conflict will occur within all groups, and if tackled properly this conflict can produce benefits for the group in terms of development, objective and task setting, and ultimate outcome. Thus conflict does not essentially imply that it is to be feared or evaded. Norming is the third phase where after sorting out the internal framework, the issue that crops up is for what actually does the group stands for. That is, it probes into the questions like what sort of conduct or contribution is tolerable, and what is not acceptable. Members investigate behind the power procedures of storming and start to shape some idea about the groups identity. This is seldom done explicitly and at any time it can revert into the chaotic conditions of Storming. After the conflicts faced in forming and structuring the groups, the stage comes when the group thinks of doing some work on the basis of a comparatively stable framework. This is the stage of Performing. In this stage the group is seen to work effectively with definite roles, and at this stage it could be assumed that the group has shaped into a team. It is here that resolutions can be positively challenged or strengthened by the group as one. The uneasiness of the storming and norming stages is overcome here and the group bears a common feeling of unity. Adjourning is the last phase of the model where there is achievement and disentanglement, both from the responsibilities and the group members. Here, the individuals are proud of having accomplished much and happy to have been a member of such a pleasurable group. They need to be aware of what they have done, and knowingly move on. This stage is also describes as Deforming and Mourning, because of the sense of loss suffered by group members (Atherton, 2003). Another model that describes group work is the Johari Window Model. It is a simple model and a useful instrument for demonstrating and improving self-awareness and mutual understanding between people within a group. This model can also be utilized to evaluate and improve a single groups relationship with different other groups. These days the Johari Window model is particularly relevant because of present importance on, and effect of, soft skills, behavior, understanding, teamwork, inter-group and interpersonal development. The Johari Window model is also termed as a Disclosure / Feedback model of Self Awareness’ and sometimes also an Information Processing Tool (Johari Window, n.d). The Johari Window in reality provides information about thoughts, experience, feelings, attitudes, skills, objectives and motivation within or about an individual with respect to their group, from four points of view. The Johari Window model may be applied to stand for the same information about a group with respect to other groups. Johari Window terminology addresses to self and others (Johari Window, n.d) where self means the person himself/ herself, that is, the individual subject to the Johari Window study while Others refers to the other people in the individual’s group or team. When the Johari Window model is applied to evaluate and develop groups with regard to other groups, the self refers to the group, and others refer to the other groups. The four Johari Window perspectives are known as areas, regions, or quadrants. Each of these areas includes and characterizes the information of views, thoughts et cetera known about the individual as to whether the information is familiar or unfamiliar to the individual and whether the information is familiar or unfamiliar to other members in the group. The four areas/ quadrants/ regions of the model are open area, open self, free area, free self, or the arena which represents what is known by the individual about oneself and which is also known by other individual; blind area, blind self, or blind spot which shows what is not known by the individual about him/herself but known by other individuals; hidden area, hidden self, avoided area, avoided self or façade which represents what the individual knows about him/herself that other members are unfamiliar with and; unknown area or unknown self which shows what is unfamiliar to the individual about oneself as well as unknown by other persons. With time alternative Johari Window terms has come up and used by other people which has particularly led to different depictions of the four quadrants.The group work theories have a vast implication and are particularly important in some sensitive issues like challenges of mental health, homelessness, and people suffering from learning disabilities. An example of group work in the case of people suffering from mental health problems is the West Lothian (Scotland) health service Hospital that conducted a group programme for the patients admitted with mental health problems as well as outpatients. A major factor that leads to mental problems is homelessness. The number of homeless persons suffering from mental illness ranges from 30 to 90 percent across different studies (Weil, Chau and Southerland, 1991, p. 138). It was a two- stage project initiated in 1999 and then in 2002 that yielded a total of sixteen individual projects. This programme targeted to enhance self-awareness, grow confidence, and develop communication and coping skills. The project has been a success in its endeavor and also led to identification of and ways to tackle lifestyle issues concerning patients’ health. The outcomes were greater self-awareness, better coping mechanisms, improvement of interpersonal skills, decline in isolation, facilities of training opportunities with voluntary groups, development of association with promotion, regular services and community education groups (Group Work in Mental Health, 2004, p. 2). In case of group work with people having learning disabilities active methods are apt since they promote participation by each group member and help in the development of self-expression. Further, through the exercise of play-acting, gaming and creativeness, fresh and previous encounters can be understood and practiced and lessons could be learnt. Use of active techniques in group work raises the opportunities for persons suffering from a learning disability to reflect in the abstract and solve the problem if possible and at the same time allowing the participation of those individuals who behave on a more real level or have crucial neurological deficits like parietal and frontal lobe dysfunction. The ranges of techniques that are used for group work helps in the development of self-expression and give rise to new learning by means of experience and rehearsal (Salmon and Abell, 1996, p. 221-223). References 1. Atherton, J. S., 2003, “Learning and Teaching: Group Development”, Available from: http://www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/teaching/group_development.htm (Accessed on Jan 10, 2010) 2. Brown, A, 1994, Group Work, Ashgate Publishing 3. Johari Window, n.d., “Self/ Personal Development’, Available from: http://www.businessballs.com/johariwindowmodel.htm (Accessed on Jan 10, 2010) 4. Konopka, G.1963, Social Group Work : a Helping Process Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall 5. Group Work in Mental Health, 2004, “ Health Promoting Health Service”, Available from: http://www.healthscotland.com/uploads/documents/11228-HPHSCasestudy6GroupWorkinMentaHealth.pdf (Accessed on Jan 10, 2010) 6. Weil, M, Chau, K and Southerland, D, 1991, “Theory and practice in social group work: creative connections: selected proceedings, Eighth Annual Symposium on the Advancement of Social Work with Groups”, Routledge. 7. Salmon, G and Abell, S, 1996, “Group therapy for adults with a learning disability: use of active techniques” Psychiatric Bulletin Vol. 20, p. 221-223 Read More