Groups Problems in Functioning, Initial Stages of the Group Development - Coursework Example

Group Work Theory Student Name: Institution: Date: Introduction Group-work related to counseling and psycho-educational can achieve sustainable and improved outcomes only if the initial stage development incorporates the conventional needs assessment and the competent-based assessment. In addition, a high level of flexibility is required on the side of the leader to enable him or her carry out the necessary adjustments on the course content so as to meet the dynamic needs of the involved group members. Therefore, the group leader plays an integral role of providing information, lecturing the team, facilitating and coordinating various outdoor activities (Yalom & Leszcz, 2005). Group’s problems in functioning Keeping communication open as well as monitoring the regular progress of groups is important to avoid group dysfunction. This means that for the group to function properly, mutual and warm relationships must be enhanced amongst the group members and between their leaders. In addition, a favorable working environment must be created to enable the group members feel settled, engage and secure for the group to function as expected (Lencioni, 2005). In the psycho-educational group led by John, certain problems have emerged that require careful and immediate intervention. It can be noted that the group has developed some uneasiness among them when John begins to give the members relevant information on the appropriate strategies that can be used to manage their lives. Based on complaints posed by the two members, it can be argued that John seems to have used lectures more than listening to the needs of the group members. As a result, group members feel unsettled and annoyed with John as their leader who seems to pay no attention to their uneasiness. This clearly indicates that John’s leadership style is poor because he has failed to value the concerns of his members and continued to demonstrate his power without responding to group and providing them with feedback on their progress. Therefore, the group members have become more annoyed and frustrated to the extent that they do not want to cooperate with John their leader by also not listening to his conversation. In this case, it becomes necessary to conclude that through process where the leader has failed to listen to the concerns of the group members the functioning the group is chaotic (Brown, 1999). Suggested probable causes of the group dysfunction Generally, groups can create a reassuring space to enhance social participation and exchange of virtues, but they can also cause exclusion and psychological brutality. In order to foster good relationships among the members as well as internal group cohesion, norms play a crucial role because they reflect the kind of attitudes that group members are required to adopt at different levels of the group’s functioning. This implies that norms can help groups to settle their conflicts and misunderstandings. Effective leaders should have the ability to forge relationships with their group members so as to ensure that they create emotional ties with their group members and promote favorable interpersonal relationships. In doing so, the group leaders ensure smooth internal functioning of their groups (Brown, 1999). It seems that the leadership style of John is rigid and autocratic in nature because has proved to be non-responsive to his group members and this has caused the dysfunction of the psycho-educational group. Lack of mutuality and integration also seems to be a major problem because inputs are only from John the leader and his group members are not allowed to contribute fully to the group. It is apparent that the group members and their leader do not agree on the manner they should work. This is probably because of poor engagement and lack of trust where the group members do not trust John as their leader, and thus not motivated to work towards the achievement of the group’s objectives. An evaluation of the initial stages of the group development The use of evaluation methods to assess significance of the group has become critical to a number of organizations. However, the main reasons for conducting evaluation are to enhance the overall functioning of the group and to assess whether if the group has achieved the intended objectives and goals (Maples, 1998). Bruce, Tuckman’s model provides a clear developmental sequence within small groups. The model offers the best approach of thinking about groups that people commonly encounter and participate in (Tuckman, 1998). Basically, group development pass through four major stages, the forming, storming, norming and performing stages as illustrated below. Forming is the initial stage in which a great involvement of uncertainty is experienced in the group’s main objective, structure as well as leadership ability. At this stage, members of the group are keen to determine the most sensitive behaviors for the group. However, this stage can only be considered successful if members of are able to view themselves as part of that particular group. In the case for the Psycho-educational group headed by John, it can be concluded that the stage is complete because groups recognize themselves as a group team. It is only that John their leader has failed to pay attention to their needs or complains raised. Storming is the second stage commonly considered as one of the intra-group conflict. At this stage, the group members are able to acknowledge the existence of the group regardless of their resistance to the constraints set in place by the group on individuality. As a result, conflicts may arise in connection to who should control the group. It is important to note that this stage can be considered complete only if there is a clear hierarchy in the group. For the case study in discussion, it can be assumed that the stage is complete. In the norming stage, close relationships are developed which also demonstrates the group’s cohesiveness. This means that the group members show a strong sense of their identity. Thus, the stage can be considered complete if the structure of the group solidifies and its members have developed a shared set of expectations that defines the right member behavior (Prichard, 2006). In the case for Psycho-educational group, this is seems not be successfully completed because of the uneasiness among the group member over the poor leadership style of John who does not listen to their needs. This suggests that group’s common set of expectations is not the main focus. Performing which is the fourth and last stage, the structure of the group is expected to be fully functional and accepted by the group members. At this stage, the group shifts its focus from getting to known to understanding the practical performance of each member on a given task. Since the norming stage was not successfully completed for the Psycho-educational group, it becomes necessary to argue that even this performing stage was not completed given the dysfunction state of the group. It is also quite from the case study that group energy has not fully directed towards the achievement of good performance. However, the group leader should communicate with the group members on the really matters about what can be achieved at every session. This involves responding carefully to all the positive self-expressions demonstrated by other members (Tuckman, 1998). The significance of contracting and group structure It is the role of the group leader to provide adequate structure to minimize anxiety among the group members whilst maintaining a high level of flexibility allows the team to have a sense of ownership particularly at the onset of the group development. Brandler and Roman (1999, p.20) examined that it is the responsibility of the group leader to utilize the initial state of the group develop by providing the necessary guidelines, structures that can be used to achieve the group’s goals and purposes. Normally, in group development the leader is entrusted with the role of contracting tasks where work is simulated to the group and clear structures clarified for the group. In doing so, the group leader assures a better working environment for the members at an earlier stage so as to nurture a performing team and increase growth. On the other hand, group structure involves creating membership in which enrollment is set be voluntary. However, limitation is allowed on those members with negative intentions of threatening the group goals (Foley & Smith, 1999). This could be applicable particularly for Psycho-educational group and not a counseling group. The main goal of Psycho-educational group is to promote education advancement and prevention measures among group members. For example, the group setting can be used to promote individual learning through therapeutic factors and encouraging group interactions. For the case of Psycho-educational group, therapeutic factors such as universality, giving hope and providing the relevant information would play a great role as far as contracting and group structure is concerned. The leadership role of John should be to provide the group members with appropriate ways and skills to manage their lives because the main goals of the group are psycho-educational in nature. Tasks and maintenance balance for the group During the operation of the group, it is crucial for the leader to balance the tasks and maintenance needs of that particular group. In case of playful approach to conversation by the group members, it is worthy noting that the leader should not ignore it. Monitoring various types of behaviors is a major step to ensuring a successful functioning group. This involves looking at different task behaviors that ensure the overall achievement of tasks set for the group. Furthermore, maintenance behaviors that keep the smooth working of the team have to be monitored thoroughly (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). This implies that there must be a balance between the two categories, tasks and maintenance behaviors. For example, it is important to make a summary discussion of the task or group’s progress bearing in mind that each person has own feelings about their assigned work, and thus calls for maintenance of the group. Provision of relevant information and opinion on task achievement and positive feedback in regard to such feelings and opinions is also important in tasks and maintenance for the group. It is fundamental to acknowledge other people’s ideas and encourage them through a warmly and friendly manner based on their proposals (Kaufman & Fuller, 2000). For Psycho-educational group, contesting suggestions which seem not to be clear or working against the realization of successful tasks as well as compromising with what other members intends to accomplish should be encouraged. Issues of power management within the group The group leader has the power to influence different situations that occur in the group. However, it is important for the leader to be cautious whilst exercising his or her power particularly on issues pertaining expulsion (Proctor, 2002). Whitaker (2001, p.373) argued that when expulsion is considered, the behavior of the leader is will be assessed by others to determine his or her ability to put into action the final decision on member rejection. In this case, the group leader retains power over making decisions related to structure and recruiting new members for the group. This is simply because he is held of all the responsibilities for the group, albeit the need for the leader to match the tasks with power in order to influences changes that are truly in the best interest of the group. Therefore, it can be assumed that without matching power with responsibility it means that even though the leader recognizes the duties, but he or she lacks the power to execute the assigned duties in a manner that best suits him. It is relevant to point out that the group leader is expected to be helpful only if he or she remains in touch with own feelings and make efforts to control them in regard to their expression within the behavior (James, 2011). Suggested leader interventions and potential outcomes Group leaders apply various interventions to cause changes within the group’s process. Although most of these of interventions are selected immediately in order to address the dynamic behaviors of the group, they can as well be planned prior to the commencement of every session or stage of group development (Schulman, 1999). The group leader should provide his or her group members with a cognitive framework and be more communicative to them. It would be important for the leader to cease from only giving informative lectures that creates uneasiness among the group members. In doing so, the group will grow into more dynamic, interactive team because members will have a proper understanding of the leader’s directions. This will result into higher levels of performance because of the group’s cognitive development. Effective leaders focus on adequate simulation and show caring attitude towards his or her group members. For example, the leader needs to be supportive to the ideas raised by the group members and respond to them with positive feedback. This implies that higher levels of caring contributes more to positive outcome or improved teamwork performance (Asgari & Dall'Alba, 2011). The group leader should work closely with the members to determine the way forward for the group. Fundamental questions such as, what does our group needs to focus now? This is an important way of giving positive feedback to the group as well as develops its awareness of individual member interactions, building a high level of cohesion to shift the focus from maintenance to task (Oakley & Elhajj, 2004). References Asgari, S & Dall'Alba, G. (2011).Improving group functioning by solving pragmatic problems. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(1), 1-14. Brandler, S. & Roman, Camille P. (1999). Group Work: Skills and Strategies for Effective Intervention (2nd ed.). New York. (NY). Library of Congress. Brown, R. (1999). Group Processes 2e. Oxford. Blackwell. De Dreu, C. & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741-749. Foley, P. F., & Smith, J. E. (1999). A model to enable Psycho-educational Group to survive of Organizational Downsizing. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 24(4), 354-368. James, K. (2011). Understanding the background of power in a group. Retrieved April 16, 2013 from, Kaufman, D. B & Fuller, H. (2000). Accounting for individual effort in cooperative learning teams. Journal of Engineering Education, 89, 133-140. Lencioni, P. (2005). Overcoming the major Dysfunctions of a Team: A practical guide for Leaders, Managers, and Facilitators. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass. Maples, M. F. (1998), ‘Group development: Developing from Tuckman’s theory’, Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 13, 17-23. Oakley, B & Elhajj, I. (2004). Turning groups into effective teams. Journal of Centered Learning, 2, 9-34. Prichard, J. S. (2006). Team-skills training leads to collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction, 16, 256-265. Proctor, G. (2002). The Dynamics of Power within Counseling and Psychotherapy. Ross-on Wye, Herefordshire: PCCS Books. Schulman, L. (1999). The Skills of Helping Individuals and Groups. 2e. Itasca, Ill. Peacock. Tuckman, W.B., (1998). Forming, storming, norming and performing in groups, the encyclopaedia of informal education. Retrieved April 19, 2013 from, Whitaker, D. S. (2001). The conductor of the group: Power, responsibility, stance and style. Use of groups to help people (2nd ed.), pp. 372-386). Yalom, I. D., & Leszcz, M. (2005). The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy (5th ed.).New York: Basic Books. Read More