The Benefits of Working in a Group - Case Study Example

Case study Group work Name Institution Course Instructor Date Group formation One of the major strategies is in achieving objectives in working in groups of teams. A number of academic experts recommend that groups should be formed by peers. Kurt Lewin however, warns that people with personal issues should be wary of joining groups because they have very weak support structures though they are powerful learning tools (cited in Rutan & Stone, 2001). Membership to such groups should also be voluntary in order to set the right mood and attitude towards such groups. Forming groups comprising of friends or peers alone has its benefits and detriments. One key benefit is that members do not waste time familiarising with one another as opposed to groups comprised of unfamiliar people. On the other hand, groups comprising of friends only may fail to maintain the necessary level of seriousness required to meet the group’s objectives. The success of groups is basically determined by the formation process and not the function of groups. The “how” of group formation is more important than the “why” (Johnson & Johnson, 2008). In the current case, the “why” part of forming the group is clear though the process is not. For groups to be formed, people need to interact, adjust their behaviour in response to one another and be well coordinated to work as collective entity (Ormont, 1996). This implies that personal attributes and compatibility must be considered in choosing the members of the group. Again, Napier and Gershenfeld (1999) advise that coordination of attitudes is important in choosing the group members. There are a number of models suggested by various scholars of group formation processes. One of theme is the Tuckman group framework. The Tuckman (1965) group framework model recognises five stages of team formation as forming, storming, norming performing and adjourning. Each of this stage has its unique characteristics from which the names have been derived. Forming: In this stage, the members seek each other out. In some cases, instructors form the groups and impose them on students. In this stage, members may question the team composition and conflict is common. Where members have the freedom to choose team mates, conflict can be averted. Storming: The storming stage practically translates to the introductory cum brainstorming sessions aimed at gathering ideas on how to handle the task at hand and where roles and positions within the team are questioned. At this stage, different personalities come out. Chen and Rybak (2004) say that it is common for the team leader’s suitability to be questioned at this stage and conflict is common. Norming: In this stage, team members get used to one another and assign roles and tasks to each member. The role of the team leader becomes more pronounced as he/she assigns the role. At this stage, group members should inform the team leaders about their strength and weaknesses. Group members should be assigned roles and tasks that best utilize their strengths and talents. This stage is characterized by increased cohesion, more collaboration, trust, open communication and appreciation of differences. Performing: This stage is characterized by the actual accomplishment of the task. Adjourning: this involves winding up the group’s activities after it has accomplished it purpose. Of all the major group formation models suggested by various scholars, the four major stages are: pre group-preparation for participants to work in groups; initial stage-contracting; working stage-assessment of therapeutic factors affecting group; and final stage- termination of group. Discussion of the role of contracting and group structure It is important for groups leaders to have contracting skills and establish a structure for work in the initial stages. Schulman (2008) discusses this issue of contracting and groups structure in depth I her book. She says working contract notes the overlap between benefits accrued from membership in the group and individual needs. The members should in the first stage identify a non-jeopardized statement of the group’s core objectives. In the current case, the psycho-educational group might for instance comprise of foreign students struggling to adapt to a new life in a new country. Such a group should not adapt a purpose statement that does not identify them with their problem but rather one that identifies them with their desired outcome. Furthermore, group leader should clarify his role in the group with the approval of the members. A platform for giving feedback to the leader should be established. It is apparent that tall these steps were ignored in the current group. The working contract should also address matters of authority and identifying common ground e.g. voting on decisions and dealing with issues of authority. On authority, the leader must clarify his position and role within the group. This sense of authority is closely connected to matters of power balance. Power balance It is imperative that in negotiating for power distribution among individual members, it must be recognised that a role cannot exist as a function of an individual alone. Members should only unction in certain roles if other members approve such. As such, democracy must prevail at all times. Furthermore, members should be assigned roles that optimize their skills. For instance, leaders should always be persons with strong leadership skills such as good communication skills, tolerance, understanding and patient among others. The group should also be flexible enough so as not to limit its potential or gag creativity that emerges from strong inter personal relationships (King and Kiely 2008). Suggestion of probable causes of the dysfunction (i) Poor Communication Benson (2001) indicates that communication in a setting where more than two people are involved in accomplishing a task is guided by the relationships of the members. There are two main relationships, teams and groups. A team is defined as an assemblage of people about 2-10 or more working together to attain common objectives. The same definition may be applied to a group. However, in a group members are individually accountable for specific tasks or goals and there is no joint effort or mutual accountability. On the other hand, a team comprises of members ideally 5-10 who work together and take a common approach in attaining specific goals whereby they hold themselves individually and mutually accountable for the end result (Yalom, 1995). Therefore, it applies that in a team, cohesiveness among members is given relatively more weight than in groups (Steinberg, 2004). As such, the definition of a group marks the foundation and style of communication within a group. Interactions and relationships among group members prior to group formation are important as they determine the efficiency of groups. The length of the period of interaction has a positive correlation with efficiency of groups according to Rutan and Stone (2001) in their assessment of patients working in groups. The authors further indicate that “through repeated experiences in the group setting, ‘patients’ learn about their maladaptive interpersonal transactions and their perceptual distortions that elicit negative or undesirable responses from others” (as cited in p. 21). The current case where John’s group is experiencing one-sided dysfunctional communication could be attributed to failed relationships among members. The psychodynamic approach views a group as a microcosm of society where there are different actors with different roles connected by different relationships. Therefore, in such a situation, each group member has unique role to play in the groups to ensure that the group functions well and that it achieves it objectives. It is therefore proper to ask whether the individual members of John’s group have played their role adequately. The two members who raised concerns over the group leader’s functions did so inappropriately. While they had the obligation to check the groups’ leadership, they should communicate their issues in a respectful manner. ii) None existent relations Communication in small groups is based on the interaction levels and structure of group members. The interaction structures are dependent on the interaction levels of the members before the group is formed. In fact, in existing groups, the utterances of group members tend to follow each other in predictable patterns such that it is often possible to anticipate what a group member will say if it is known what another has said previously (Johnson & Johnson, 2008). the authors further expound on the structuration theory in small group communication to say that there are three dimensions in group structures that guide communication namely; interpretation (how we should understand), morality (what should be done) and power (how to do it). Each structure can produce another structure though it is common to see one structure opposing the other. In analysing communication aspect in the current case, there are indications of opposition and complementarity in some of the structures. The members are united in opposing John’s leadership method. An analysis of task and maintenance balance The “why” of group formation is best captured through the group’s program development. Ralph Tyler’s four stage model posits that a group’s program is realized through four stages namely: needs assessment (deciding on the education outcomes); choosing learning experiences; organizing the learning experiences; and evaluation of the effectiveness of the learning experiences (Newman, 2000, p. 61). In the current case of John’s group, there is no evidence of the group’s evaluation activities. It is indicated that the group uses an information giving methodology where the group leader, John, lectures group members. The members have been quiet with no responses for three weeks. On the fourth week, it is evident that the given methodology has not achieved much as two f the members are opposed to it. In fact, it is assumed that it is John who does the talking alone during group meetings. Benson (2001) notes that there are numerous advantages of group meeting evaluations namely: to improve the overall functioning of the group; to determine whether the objectives and goals have been achieved; to assess whether the group is tackling priority needs and has relevant goals; to ensure that the group is using resources effectively or identifying necessary skills and facilities; to improve workers’ practice in groups; to provide material for supervision ; to influence policy making; and to validate the group and ensure its survival and funding. Dynamics The current group dynamics as per the case are wanting. These dynamics involved the feelings and motional reactions that influence individual behaviour in group. In the current group, the members have resulted to defence mechanisms to cope with the situation as the Freud’s defence mechanism concept. For instance the members have for some time resulted to repression in an attempt to avoid conflict with the group leader who seems to have taken a patronising and dictatorial attitude towards his position. The current case also resonates with the Basic assumption mode (King and Kiely 2008, p.111). This dynamics mode posits that groups function through one person’s direction. John as the group leader in the current group acts as “a powerful, loving and giving” leader. In every meeting, John ensures that he has gathered enough information on which to share with his group members. He assumes that he is wise and thus does not take it kindly when his authority and wisdom are questioned by the members because he ignores the issues raised at first. This points to the need to overhaul this mode. Recommendations 1. From the case, John’s groups should have re assess the type of needs that the group needs to fulfil. There are two basic types of needs, deficit needs and development needs. As a psycho-educational group, the group was based development needs where members were in needs of new skills to manage their lives. The methodologies on how they can plan their programs largely depend of the objectives of the groups. The objectives can be achieved mainly through discussions, questions and answers, information giving and interactive sessions (King and Kiely 2008). This way, the groups will be clearer in articulating their agenda that will enable participation by others. 2. The groups should adapt more evaluative activities which enhances the learning process (Newman, 2000). This will assess the effectiveness of every activity undertaken in enabling members reach the set objectives. 3. The group should rotate the leadership position through elections. This type of flexibility as suggested by (King & Kiely 2008) necessary allow the group does not limit its potential through domination of leadership by an individual 4. Establishment of better communication structures. The group must be willing to commit that feedback is necessary in evaluating the group’s efficacy. Further to that, communication structures must provide practical ways of providing feedback. References Benson, J. F. (2001). How to plan the group. In Working more creatively with groups (2nd ed., pp. 12–37). London: Routledge Chen, M., & Rybak, C. (2004). Group leadership skills: Interpersonal process in group counselling and therapy. Pacific Grove, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole IGL. The Institute of Group Leaders (IGL) ethical standards for group leaders. http://www.igl.org.au/Default.aspx?PageID=1152785&A=SearchResult&SearchID=1213366&ObjectID Johnson, D., & Johnson, F. (2008). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (10th ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. King, A., & Kiely, P. (2008). Effective group leadership training manual. Sydney: UnitingCare Burnside. Napier, R., & Gershenfeld, M. (1999). Groups: Theory and experience (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Newman, M. (2000). Program development in adult education and training. In G. Foley (Ed.), Understanding adult education and training (2nd ed.). Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Ormont, L. (1996). Bringing life into the group experience: The power of immediacy. New York: Eastern Group Psychotherapy Society. Rutan, J., & Stone, W. (2001). Psychodynamic group psychotherapy (3rd ed.). London: The Guildford Press. Shulman, L. (2008). The skills of helping individuals, families, groups and communities (6th ed.). Chicago, IL: F. E. Peacock. Steinberg, D. (2004). The mutual aid approach to working with groups: Helping people to help people (2nd ed.). New York: The Haworth Press. Yalom, I. (1995). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (4th ed.). New York: Basic Books. Read More