Stages of Group Therapy - Essay Example

? Stages of Group Therapy inserts his/her s The concept of group therapy and counseling entails emotional stimulation and demonstrating support, managing time and setting norms of the group. This takes place as the group progresses through the stages of group development outlined by Tuckman. This paper reviews Tuckman’s stages of group development with respect to the movie “12 Angry Men” and explores the role of group counselor at each stage. Next, the evolution of group cohesion is discussed with respect to the movie along with suggestions of how this cohesion may be harnessed. Finally, the leadership portrayed in the movie is highlighted along with a description of how leadership changes as the group progresses. Keywords: Group cohesion; 12 Angry Men; Tuckman; Leadership; Counseling Group therapy has evolved as a dynamic way of increasing group cohesion and developing social skills required for collaboration of ideas and problem solving. More often than not, groups address a task or an issue that is resolved through mutual cooperation and strong interpersonal skills. Although conflicts are a commonplace in the group development process, they are often overcome through successful leadership as well as events during the group development process that bond the members together. Nevertheless, the role of group counselors may somewhat remain necessary in bridging the gap between members and providing key information for keeping the group focused on the task at hand. 12 Angry Men has been considered for the purpose of reflecting upon Tuckman’s stages of group development, leadership and group cohesion in this paper. 12 Angry Men is a movie that has demonstrated group dynamics and the stages of Tuckman’s group development at various points. Tuckman suggested that groups go through the stages of forming, storming, norming and performing (Tuckman, 1965). The first stage surfaced in the movie when the jurors interacted with each other through a brief conversation related to the hot weather, sports and business when the fan that was supposed to ‘cool’ the room did not work. At this stage, the members appear to be polite and obedient as they are not sure of how the fellow members would react (known as primary tension). Theory suggests that ambiguity in roles leads members to rely on the group leader for direction and purpose at this stage (Tuckman, 1965). Once the members settle down in the movie, the roles of team members are explained by the foreman as well as a brief depiction of how to proceed with the discussion. If group therapy was conducted at this stage, then I would have drawn connections between members by arranging a formal introduction of each member. Tuckman suggests that once members become acquainted, the group moves on to the second stage known as storming (Tuckman, 1965). During the storming stage, the members experience power struggles and conflicts (Tuckman, 1965). Although the purpose becomes clearer, members begin evaluating their comfort level with each other. With respect to the movie, it is assumed by the jury that everyone agrees that the boy is guilty (the verdict) until one of the members votes for the boy as innocent (and so disagrees with the rest). This clearly results in conflict with one of the members claiming that someone is always responsible in these cases. In another instance, the person makes a discriminatory statement by labeling all people from the “slums” as being the same type. However, when one of the members says that he is also from the slums but not the same, the tension between the jury members intensifies. Leading the group counseling at this stage, I would have cut any unproductive discussions by redirecting the group’s attention to the task and correcting the irrational approach of the racist who was passing derogatory remarks. This is followed by Tuckman’s third stage of norming whereby the group members begin emerging as one with conflicts being reduced and a common point of view emerging (Tuckman, 1965). At this stage there is presence of some conflict. For example, the vote count with 50% of the members on either side of the decision shows how the members begins to question whether the boy is guilty. The same members who were previously adamant at assuming that the boy is guilty now began to think objectively by bringing in evidence and witnesses of the incident. At the same time, however, one of the jury members who had previously made extreme remarks emerged with an even stronger confrontation which is followed by the entire group getting against him. Leading the counseling group at this stage, I would have provided greater structure to the discussion by allotting time for discussion of evidence and other aspects of the case. Finally, the group of 12 Angry Men move into what is known as the performing stage. Tuckman believes that, at this stage, the group’s efforts are focused on the task to be done because of this they cooperate to arrive at unanimous decisions (Tuckman, 1965). In 12 Angry Men, the group seems to be paying attention to the task completion right from the start as there is great anxiety in the members to get the task done. Furthermore, the jurors go beyond presenting evidences and witnesses by testing the same and showing critical thinking. For example, the old man is reminded of the marks of spectacles on the nose of the female witness. This leads to doubts regarding her ability to have seen the murder across the road. Other jurors show agreement with this observation of the old man and view the evidence in a different light. This is followed by a debate regarding the manner in which the murder took place including a reenactment of the same. There is thorough discussion with the windows shut due to the downpour outside which reflects a deep commitment to get the issue resolved. All jury members reflect upon their personal thoughts regarding the murder in addition to their votes. This finally leads them to pass the verdict that the boy was not guilty after all. If I were to lead the group counseling at this stage, I would have reinforced the positive contributions by summarizing them prior to the decision as well as closing topics and contributions that were not constructive. As far as the subject of leadership is concerned, theory suggests that a leader ought to have strong communication skills and be a visionary to lead people from various departments in the group. Most mature groups will often witness the emergence of more than one leader (Benne & Sheats, 1948). For instance, two jury members namely Henry and Martin share the leadership in 12 Angry Men. Martin was the foreman of the jury who facilitated the proceedings of the case and also set guidelines for his junior jury member, Henry. The foreman assembles everyone in the room where they are told to be seated and assigns a unique number to each of the twelve jury members. The rules of the game are set by the Foreman along with the setting up of preliminary voting. As the movie progresses a shift in leadership is seen from the foreman to the 8th member who shows leadership behavior by giving important information and evidence while at the same time involving other jury members in his discussion. By standing up and assertively presenting his arguments he is able to persuade the jury members one after the other. Even though Henry did not seem to agree with his fellow jury who were of the opinion that the boy was guilty, he did not retaliate and rather listened quietly to his fellow members, showing respect towards their opinions. Since he was the only one who had voted for the boy as innocent, he was charismatic and steered the majority in the opposite direction. Although Cobb tried his best to emerge as the leader, the jury members seemed unimpressed by the punishment tactics he used (when he belittled his fellow members). This inadvertently diverted the attention to Henry. Group cohesiveness is necessary for group members to resolve their conflicts based on emotional attachments and favorable social relationships (Carron & Brawley, 2000). Group cohesion was conceived in this movie by the cooperation that ensued between Henry and the old man who respected each other and began working with each other. As discussed, the hostility that developed during the storming stage later dampened as each member became more focused on solving the task at hand. Another major development of group cohesion was seen at the point where the 11 jury members stood up against the racist who was passing humiliating comments. Although there was resistance during the early phases ( as demonstrated by the racist juror who humiliated people from the slums), the discussion eventually evolved to a stage where the jurors became active listeners and heavily involved in the case even though some preferred to remain silent. Theory suggests that leadership is a critical factor in determining group cohesiveness apart from the personal, environmental and team factors (Carron & Brawley, 2000). If I were the group leader I would have further strengthened the bond by encouraging the silent members of the jury to speak up and voice their opinions rather than being dominated by a few prominent voices. This is line with the theory that suggests that leaders must avoid group cliques from being formed for cohesion to develop (lsc.edu). As theory suggests, it is important for group members to ‘like’ each other for cohesiveness to take place (Levine, 2013). Clearly, no one supported or liked the racist who made insulting remarks. As a leader I would have excluded that person from the final decision or warned him about strict action. References Benne, K. D., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues. Carron, A. V., & Brawley, L. R. (2000). Conceptual and Measurement Issues. Small Group Research, 89-106 . Levine, J. M. (2013). Group Processes. New York: Routledge. lsc.edu. (n.d.). Group Cohesion. Retrieved from lsc.edu: http://www.lcsc.edu/mcollins/groupcohesion.htm Tuckman, B. (1965). Developmental Sequence in Small Groups. Psychological Bulletin, 384-399. Read More