This article was downloaded by: [Stony Brook University]On: 03 November 2014, At: 02:30Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Social Work with GroupsPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wswg20

RETURNING GROUPPROCESS TO GROUP WORKRuth R. Middleman Edd, MSW aa Professor, Kent School of Social Work,University of LouisvillePublished online: 18 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Ruth R. Middleman Edd, MSW (1978) RETURNING GROUPPROCESS TO GROUP WORK, Social Work with Groups, 1:1, 15-26, DOI: 10.1300/J009v01n01_03

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J009v01n01_03

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information.Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities

whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:30

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

RETURNING GROUP PROCESS TO GROUP WORK

Ruth R. Middleman, EdD

ABSTRACT. This disuussion deals with the need to put concern for group process back into work will1 groups-a heritage from early socialgroup work ri~ethodolog~v that has been abandoned. Issues contributing to the lock of aftenti011 to maxinlizing tlw group process and group parlicipanr involve~nent in decision ~nakir~g are described: the co-leadership format for teaching group leadership, the lack of training in group-specific kr~owledge and skills, and the do~nination of the leader as central helping force in group work. A description o f group-related knowledge and skills is offered.

In order to make it in today's world, one needs to know the subtleties of ~nanaging one's self in group situations, for most experience occurs within group contexts. Mainly, we do what we do in concert with others. Precious little formal instruction is devoted to learning how to manage self/other relaiion- ships. However, sometimes these beliaviors (e.g., initiating vs. listening, influencing vs. being affected) that supposedly are learned naturally as one grows up are found lacking or dysfunctional. Then one is urged to seek therapy or some other psycho- logically focused help for those everyday social obligations and/or problems of living.

The major focus for social group work, at least through the 1950s (and its peculiar legacy and heritage to social work), was its experience and achievement in dealing with the coininon I~urnan needs of all persons, pursued mainly through problem-solving and special interest groups. Psychologists and other mental health professionals are now offering problem-solving and special interest groups (although their common interest group is more likely to be something like assertiveness than crafts) (Drum & Knott, 1977; Kurtz, 1975; Schwartz, 1975). Meanwhile, the group work done by social workers today bears increased resemblance to remedial and rehabilitative counseling and therapy. It has a heavily traditional psychiatric flavor and leadership that is either observant/analytic or central/dominant. 11 seems as

Dr. Middleman i s Prolessor, Raymond A. Kent School of Social Work, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky 40208. A portion o f this payer was read a t the Third National Conference about the Teaching of Group Psychology: Theory and Practice, Philadelphia, February 1977.

Social Work with Groups. Vol. I ( / ) , Spring 19 78 O 19 78 11)) The lfaworrh t'reds: All rights reserved.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:30

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS

if psychologists are more interested in utilizing groups for developmental, preven- tive, and enhancement purposes than social workers-a curious turn of events since this "territory" was the domain of social group work.

A key predicament for group work is the erosion of concern for and attention to the group process, most particularly by those inside and outside social work who did not specialize in the social group work method. This general abandonment o r helping via a group process which places high value upon between-member commun. ication is occurring at the same time as a renewed valuation of the group both as context and as means for dealing with the common problems of everyday living.

Three issues will be discussed that contribute to the lack of attention by prac- titioners to a stance that maximizes the group process: (1) a self-limiting induction system for helping new workers learn how to "do groups"; (2) a lack of explicit knowledge about and training in the particular group-specific skills that can stimu- late between-member communication; and (3) the continuing dominant position of the central helping person. This stance is closely associated with a therapy orienta- tion and a behavioral perspective that values personality more than group theoreti- cal constructs. The emphasis in such groups is upon intrapsychic issues and wlrat I would term "group casework."

1 should state at the outset of this paper that I am less concerned with the survi- val of the social group work method per se as a distinct specialization within social work than with the abandonnient of its historic concern for the common develop mental struggles of living through participant involvement in a group process. 1 miss social group work's focus on shared responsibility in decision making and out- comes, on learning the "rules" of living, and experimenting with the roles for future social relatiomhips from one's experience with others in a group. I see group work as a fundamental skill for all social workers. 1 would like to convey to all social workers the beliefs, con~for t , special knowledge, and skills, so that they are as ready to work with groups as with individuals, according to the needs of the situation.

To emphasize my "mission"-that group work is for all social workers to use according to what needs to be done rather than what they feel comfortable doing- I shall try to demystify the complexities of working with groups. First, I shall expose some myths.

Myth I : That there is a personality variable distinguishing the "happy groupies" from the more reflective, serious social workers (caseworkers). That some persons are "naturals" with groups and others are never comfortable in such contexts.

Reality: The skills of group work are teachablellearnable behaviors. All indi- viduals have some anxiety and fear in being in a group. But with practice, experi- ence, and knowledge all can gain some basic comfort in such contexts (as member and/or as worker) and some competence in requisite role behaviors.

Mylh 2: That individual services or that group services are the best kind of help (each has such advocates)!

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:30

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Ruth R. Middleman 17

Reality: There has been no empirical demonstration that group or individual services are more effective with respect to the problem, sex, age, or developmental needs of clients. There is somc evidence that groups might be a preferred approach for adolescents or populations whose main needs are in the area of social competence. No criteria for service choices presently exist. The choice o f a preferred context for service for particular individuals should be negotiated client by client according to what seems preferrcd/faniiliar to the client.

Myth 3: That students within scl~ools of social work are offered equal opportun- ity l o explore/learn individual and group nlethods of helping.

Reality: While social work education has "officially" abandoned a method emphasis, there are powerful informal preferences operative among faculty depend- ing upon their own educational experiences, which are more biased than open. One can only teach others what one knows. However, if preferences are only openly faced by faculty as dogma stemming more from one's own education and experi- ence than from reality, then students may be more fairly exposed to learning each approach. Fieldwork experience and agency administration are also apt to favor individual services more froin tradition and familiarity than actual necessity.

Myth 4: That confidentiality demands that individuals prefer private attention to their personal proble~ns and do not want others to know about their situations.

Reality: In the informal helping network, there is widespread experience with talking over one's difficulties with others, especially friends and peers, even more than with formal, professionally trained helpers. The fear attending problem slvaring resides more in the practitioner than in the client.

Myth 5: That group approaches are cheaper and time saving as cokpared with individual services.

Reality: If the practitioner takes the necessary time to individualize the group services, the group might be more time consuming. Perhaps groups may more quickly focus on central issues, but processing these issues is time consuming. Per- haps they may be a more fainiliar medium to the public for getting help or learning due to other experiences in clubs, social groups, school, etc.

Myth 6: That groups are easier and thus appeal to more people. They are more superficial in focus and less frightening.

Reality: Perhaps they may be viewed as more ordinary and less stigmatizing than individual conferences. Perhaps some feel they are less intense and possess greater possibility for support from others. For some persons groups are supportive, for others frightening.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:30

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS

SHARED COMMON PROBLEMS

To the extent that problems are not so unique and different from person to person, then the viability of approaching them in groups assumes considerable programmatic importance for human service professionals. There is renewed interest currently in the common, everyday problems of living that con- nect individuals will1 each other as sharers of a comparable.altliougli not identical human condition. The sweeping popularity of Passages (Sheehy, 1976), for example, rests with its explication of regular, expected growth and development dilemmas. Erikson (1959) first callcd attention to the special challenges of psycllosocial life crises and the patterns of developmental needs, growth tasks, and predictable criti- cal life events, and others have subsequently studied adult challenges and devclop- mental tasks more explicitly (Could, 1972; Levinson, 1974; Neugarten, 1968). It is apparcnt that crises and life transitions are not so idiosyncratic as might be assumed a t first glance. In fact, they face everyone.

The Encounter and Human Potential movemenfs use a group approach to help adults confront various common issues and struggles of evcryday living, e.g., intim- acy, authority, risk taking, autonomy, authenticity, and loneliness. More recently, newer and more focused group approaclics, the structured group (Drum & Knott, 1977) and the skills development group (Carkhuff Sr Berenson, 1976; Egan, 1976), secm to be gaining in popularity especially among counseling psychologisls in con. trast to the more diffuse "growth" groups.

These groups are viewed as cducatio~~al/cxperiential enterprises that focus on specific coping and adaptational skills and needs rather than more global personal- ity reorganization. They emphasize slrared problem solving. Their focus is upon common developmental nccds pursued within a time-limited structure. They stress the advantages of deliberate use of a "being in it togethcr" mentality (Drum& Knott, 1977, pp. 24-25), an ambience wllicli I have called "being in the same boat (Middle- man, 1977). Onc description ~Tstructured groups differentiates three distinct types: life skills groups, life theme groups, and life transition groups (Drum & Knott, 1977).

The bulk of group work done by social workers is performed by practitioners who did not specialize in social gl-oup work. It is done by caseworkers with little or no special formal education in group theory, possibly graduates who studied a generalist-oriented practice with a bit of each m c h o d , or graduates of a micro- practice (code term for casework, mainly). Social group work never was f ~ ~ l l y em- braced by thc caseworkers and never bccame integrated within mainstream social work practice for a variety of reasons wlucli hindsight now illumines:

(1) For some caseworkers the fun and games connotation predominated and was siniply too alien to try to get with.

(2) The central theoretical constlucts for cascwork practice were personality perspectives (e.g., psychoanalytic thcory, ego psycl~ology); for group wol-k practice

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:30

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Ruth R. Middlema11 19

and theory, group processes and dynamics, social interactional theory, communi. cation and systems perspectives, and existential and humanistic philosophy held more utility (Roberts & Northen, 1976, pp. 378-381).

(3) Caseworkers tended to seek theoretical guidance, training in group approa- ches, and consultation from experts in psychiatry and psychology rather than fellow social workers-group workers. Perhaps this preference occurred because of group work's priority interest in the enhancement of normal growth (primary and second- ary prevention) more than rehabilitation a t a time when the caseworkers' main interest was t o "make it" with the other mental health professionals, those wlio held the power in that arena.

(4) Those trained in social group work represented only a tiny minority witlun the profession(6% in the late 1960s) and only about 1% witlun the work force actually used group interventions as their primary service method (Stamm, 1968a, 1968b).

(5) The flight of this tiny minority-the social group workers-was into other work arenas rather than direct practice: teaching, training/staff development, co~ntnunity work, cleaning, administering. Education in group work provided a wide perspective for viewing social problems and interventions which propelled many into leadership positions within the profession at large.

THE DISAPPEARANCE O F FOCUS ON GROUP PROCESS

The contradiction we face today is between increased knowl- edge about common life crises and transitions, increased reliance upon group modes for dealing with common problems, and decreascd utilization of the group process. In large part this is a leadership problem. Most group leaders have not seriously studied the group aspects of group service and use the group mainly as context wherein certain preferred personality theories are pursued with individuals who luppen to be sitting next to each other.

There is heightened enthusiasm for intentional, deliberate group approaches that have reached to the normals as well as the sick or deviant, Lo the bureaucratized, de- personalized, and turned-off-whether students in public schools or universities, or workers in business and industry. But thc means Tor attending t o the leadership factor, or the skill of the person wlio is the consultant, therapist, counselor, teacher, or chairperson is left more to chance or informal learning processes than seems de- sirable, and perpetuates group-oblivious leadership.

CROUP-OBLIVLOUS LEADERSHIP 1NDOCTKlNATlON

"Doing groups" suunds better to me than "running groups" or "leading groups." "Doing" implies that therc is so~nelhing to be done, but not

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:30

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

20 SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS

necessarily done to group participants . . . perhaps done upon one's self. Exactly what one might be doing in "doing groups" has little consensus among social group work theorists. Roberts and Northcn (1976) report that most group tl~eorists focus on services to individuals rather than to the group, and only one-half of the theorists subscribed to the notion of the worker directing and influencing the interaction (Roberts & Northen, 1976, chap. 12). Despite the many different theoretical em- phases in group work, most approaches suffer from a (raining process that continues to ignore how one should deal with the groupness of the group.

If one wants to learn how to do groups, thcre are five major approaches that have been used:

(1) Involving one's self in group experiences-encounters, marathons, etc.-and counting on these impactful learnings to enable one to lead groups when the time for doing this comes. What mainly results from such an approach is a committed idealoguc, eager t o impose the benefits of group experiences upon the uninitiated with a "Hcre Comes Everybody" mentality that may frighten others away-especial- ly those who aren't sure that trust and openness are so great.

(2) Pursuing a field practicum or internship in a cooperating organization that offers an array of experiential learning opportunities, supervised in varying degrees of intensity.

(3) Moonlighting in part-time jobs, summer work, and so forth, picking experi- ence up through trial and error, and watching others to learn whatever "practice wisdom" one can without any systematic attention to group leadership knowlcdge and skill.

(4) Attending skills labs, i.e., classes which focus on the job-specific technical and interpersonal skills needed for group leadership. Tlus approach derives from Allen's technology of instruction, "micro~eaching" (Allen & Ryan, 1969), and assumes that skills are best learned within the safety of a class which systematically identifies, illustrates, and provides practice opportunities plus feedback on the attempted trials apart from the hurly-burly of an actual teaching or helping situa- tion.

(5) Co-leading with a more experienced group leader-the most prevalent means for teaching the how-to-do-its-which relies upon role modeling by the more experi- enced and copying (identification) by the learner. The new group leader (therapist, facilitator, counselor, etc.) co-leads, usually adopting a passive role at first, and watches the senior cohort in action. Sometimes thc process is discussed after (de- briefing or processing, as it may be termed), but this depends upon the interest, security, or need for approval on the part of the senior worker. Sometimes the differences between what the new learner has learned in school and would like t o try t o apply in actual working situations is merely compromised away under the de- mand of "making it" with his senior co-leader who in all probability also holds power over the learner in the organization, power to define him as a cooperative, "good" leader, or a cantankerous one.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:30

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Ruth R. Middleman 21

I believe the co-leadership modality of group leadership training imposes serious Limitations upon the potential variability of group leadership processes for a given practitioner, curtails innovation and creativity upon service patterns, and perpetu- ates a lack of concern for group process. Pertinent questions that confront the novice leader no matter whether one is doing group psychotherapy, T.A., encount- ers, Gestalt therapy, or what have you, might be: How d o I learn what 1 should do with a group once in the practitioner role? How active should I be? How central to the process? What structures should be utilized, etc.?

Although there are certain advantages in having opportunitics to observe the expert at work, in co-leadership the majoi advantage is economy of time-not a trivial thing! There is no faster way of plunging the learner into the fray. The qual- ity of the group work and the learning suffer, however, for some of the following reasons (I detail these mainly because co-leadership is such an emphasized mcans for teaching skills-to the disservice of group practice):

(1) The learncr is deprived of experiencing the consequences of what he does or does not know how to do, deprived of facing the terrors of his own awkwardness, ignorance, naivete, and goofs. He can sit back when things get rough and let his partner carry the group. ,

(2) The training function (inducting the new practitioner) is often given more attention than the service function, at the expense of the experience of the group participants.

(3) What is assimilated into the repertoire of the learner may as likely be the style rather than the skill of the role model. Skill includes, in addition t o style, the elements of knowledge, values and intentions, and action (method and techniques) (Lewis, 1976). Learning via observation of the model focuses upon the action or behavior and the style (individual particular manner), not the knowledge or valua- tion/intention components. Thus, we risk developing miniproteges committed t o gurus who will eventually become gurus t o future proteges.

(4) The fuzzy or problematic interventions as well as the useful, effective ones may be blanketed in and incorporated without due process.

(5) For co-leadership to be effective, the two practitioners must be closer to each other than t o any of the group participants. The "chemistry must be right" between them for the group to benefit from the duo in interaction. Such a syn- chrony of role relatedness seems, at least t o me, more probable when one of the partners is not a learner. All too often partners work together to model male/female or other qualities borrowed from a family paradigm which may or may not be appro- priate to a given group's needs.

My essential point is that co-leadership tends t o perpetuate group leadership styles, leaving little room for creative elaboration of a leader-group interrelationship learned in response to one's own leadership effort. The learning accomplished through identification and modeling is of a different order than learning evolved from efforts in connecting intention with action, observing the consequences of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:30

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

22 SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS

action, raising the insight to co~lscious awarencss, and repeating the learning cycle again.

LEARNING GROW-SPECIFIC SKILLS

1 am convinced that more group leaders would want to attend to group process issues if only they had the pertinent knowledge and skills. There is always a group process at work in any group, whether onc acknowledges and deals with it or not. And since this is the ~mique potentiality of groups, the practitioner in a group context needs to learn how to be aware of it and lnaxiniize the betwecn- member communication rather than regard himself as the central or the only helper.

Those practitioners who have studied group dynamics are probably aware of some linear tlieory of group development which views group process as progressing through beginning, middle, and ending time phases described in one of at least a hundred different formulations. Linear theories have been extensively described and are useful in conceptualizing progress toward some future goal, especially in groups where the participants work with each other: T-groups, problem-solving groups, task groups, and so forth (Hare, 1973).

However, the linear tlieorics are only one way of conceptualizing group develop- ment over time, not necessarily the most useful way for a given group. Banet (1976) describcs three major ways which can help the group practitioner fit some frame of reference to what is actually happening in the group. A helical conceptual orienta- tion toward the group process, with its historical perspcctive and timc focus on past events, would illuminate tllinking about the processes operativc in psycliotherapy groups. A cyclical model of group process, with its focus upon tlie present and empliasis on intrapersonal dynamics, lends an orienting clarification toward under- standing process issues in Gestalt and personal growth groups. And tlie linear model can lend a focus upon such group elements as the interactional system, the norma- tive system, tlie culture, and the role system.

Further, it is useful to distinguish among different patterns of comniunication. Until tlie practitioner understands at least four different interactional processes, he cannot take the leadership pack off his back.

(1) There is the maypole pattern with the leadcr talking to individuals one by one.

(2) There is the round-robin type of interaction, e.g., each member speaking in turn in relation to a given point.

(3) There is tlie hot sear pattern with the leader engaging in an extended back- and-forth discussion with one member while tlie others watch (group cascwork).

(4) Finally, there is the free-floating pattern with persons taking responsibility to speak with any other person in the group according to what is being said and who is contributing or silent. In this pattern a large dcgree of responsibility for thc flow of the discussion resides within the group.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:30

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Ruth R. Middleman

Beyond the orienting tlieorctical constructs that deal specifically with group processes and patterns of comniunication that can clarify possibilities for differen- tial group-related leader actions, there are specific skills that can be isolated for examination, practiced, and intentionally used by the practitioner who wants to maximize tlie communication process among the group members. It seems fortu- nate, indeed, that the intentional teacling of skills is now recognized and practiced extensively in tlie training of human service professionals. Mainly, the skills-train- ing approaches deal with communication skills, problem-solving skills, creative thinking, team building, and so forth.

Skill training, as a systematic means of conveying technical and interpersonal skills to teachers, was elaborated as early as 1963 by Allen as an alternative t o practice teaching, and later applied to counseling (microcounseling) by Ivey (1971). Argyle (1967, 1969) also was enormously influential in developing a conceptual approach and teclniology for teaclung social skills and "professional social skills." Within tlie social work literature Shulman (1968) identified a number of "inter- actional techniques" which were a unique and innovative co~iceptual scheme, and Middleman and Goldberg (1974) specified and described 27 skill components organ- ized into 6 areas of skill as follows: stage setting, attending, engaging feelings, engag- ing information, managing interaction, and engaging barriers.

Attempts to specify group skills in contrast to other skills, however, have been limited. Egan (1976) described a n ~ ~ m b e r of "group-specific skills" meant for group members t o use in interaction witli each other and outlined an approach to leaching them t o group members. His overall1 formulation includes skills of self-presentation, responding, cl~allenging, and groupspecific skills: responding actively, taking initia- tive in the group by usiiig empathy, using self-disclosure, using the interactions of others, using cliallenging skills, and calling for feedback. I have found no typology or instructional ~nethodology devoted exclusively to specifying group leadership skills and I am hopeful that the following description will be a contribution toward this end.

I shall describe and illustrate six skill 'components wliicli are especially useful for stimulating between-metnber commu~~ica t ion i n groups. Other skill coniponents that are elaborated elsewhere (Middleman 8; Coldberg, 1974, pp. 90-150) as inter- actional and technical skills for working with individuals and groups would also be important for group work (e.g., summarizing, giving feedback, referring to purpose). But the following skills are crucial for group work, and sliould be used in addition to the other skills:

Scanniilg: Taking in the whole group witli your eyes. Letting your contact be with all persons, not getting locked in witli one or two evcn when these are talking (whenever interacting with otlicr persons).

Reaching fora feeling link: Asking others to connect with a feeling being ex- pressed (when a feeling has been expressed and more than two persons are present);

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:30

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

24 SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS

e.g., Jerry said he was scared about applying for a job again, he had been turned down so many times before. Iasked i f anvone else could imagine what Jerrji was feeling.

Reaching for an information link: Asking others to connect with an idea, opinion, or belief that one person has expressed (when the information has been expressed and more than two persons are present); c.g., Mr. J said he thought this group should continue to meet every Wednesday evening. Iasked who else agreed or disagreed with this suggestion.

Amplifying subtle messages: Calling attention t o unnoticed communicative be- havior by verbalizing it (when one person's bchavior is incongruent with the situa- tion and others present do not seem to notice the behavior); e.g., Mr. C was talking to the group and telling them they should be cooperative and not act like ostriches. I noticed Miss R, sitting next to me, shuffling her feet and twisting her handkerchief for some minutes. I amounced to the group. "Miss R looks as f she has something to say." All eyes turned to her. Miss R then said that she agrecd with Mr. C's point, smiled, and pulled her chair closer to the table.

Toning down strong messages.. Verbalizing the essence of a highly affective message so that the strength of thc affect is reduced and the message can be "heard" (when the others cannot deal with the messagcs at the intensity or pitch expressed); e.g., the meeting started with its usual prayer and Mrs. S began t o laugll. The prayer stopped and all looked angrily at Mrs. S, who stopped laughing. Silence for about 15 seconds and Miss A, looking icily at Mrs. S, siad, "You laugh once more and you will no longer be a member of this group." The others nodded in approval. I said, "Mrs. S, the group is pretty angry at you."

Redirecting a message; Asking an individual whose message is intended for another t o direct his statement of feeling to that person (when the other person is there bearing the message meant for him being directed t o another and/or the mes- sage is directed to you about one who is not present); e.g., I was sitting between Mrs. R a n d Mrs. H who had had an argument last week. Mrs. R said that Mrs. H had really hurt her feelings. I said, "Why don't you tellMrs. Habout it. "

My own experience in teaching these group-related skill components has been highly encouraging. It seems possible to label and define these components of interaction that can stimulate between-membcr communication, establish per- formance criteria, and measure their achievement.

REDUCING THE DOMINANT POSITION OF THE GROUP LEADER

A review of the literature on groups published in social work journals over a 15-year period revealed a 90% orientation toward treatment of indi- viduals and a consistent neglect of the potentials of group process (Levinson, 1973). Even when group members expressed other needs and had interest in task-oriented

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:30

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Ruth R. Middleman 25

activities rather than therapeutic goals, the workers tended to impose their agendas on client groups. Moreover, 27 of the 61 group examples ignored discussion of group structure and process entirely and only 7 utilized the group process. In 26 instances the group was worker-centered, i.e., the primary interaction took place between the worker and individual members. The study highlighted the dominating influence of the leader and his subtle determination of group purpose.

Data from research on encounter groups also reveal pitfalls associated with leadership style and dominance (Lieberman, Yalom, &Miles, 1973). Leadership style seemed to have most to do with whether the groups were highly productive, hinocuous, or destructive. Four of the leaders ("aggressive stimulators") had 7 of the 16 recorded casualties and were described as intrusive, confrontive, challenging, demonstrating high positive caring, and were in other ways impactful and domi- neering rather than encouraging of member-determined needs and potentials.

These studies raise questions about the impact of differential styles of leader- ship. Not only may the orientation and objective of the practitione;be intrusive and commandeering of the group's purpose, but leadership style may even foster destructive group experiences for so'me individuals. It appears that more attention to the group process and the group's desired purpose might help put the leadership differential in its place.

CONCLUSION

The main modus oprrandi of early social group workers was a use of the group process in ways that accented members' participation in the destiny of the group. Members learned to take responsibility for decisions, outcomes, and the group experience itself. This part of social group work (perhaps its best, at least its most unique, emphasis) has disappeared form much of the current work with groups. What has appeared is an overly idiosyncratic and obtrusive leadership style that dominates the group experience.

A basic issue confronting helping professions, it has been suggested (Kagan, 1973), is not whether the helping works but whether it works consistently-reliability as much as validity. I believe practitioners can become more intentional about their special group-related knowledge and skills so that most practitioners, when worlung with groups, can be as effective as some presently are. I believe such a leadership style needs to include intense awareness of one's own leadership behavior, a per- spective that views the group as an important element in its own right rather than backdrop for individual development, and a commitment to putting the group back into group work. 1 am concerned about putting the group back into group work and then putting group work back into social work, i.e., helping all social workers t o use the group context deliberately whenever they are in it-probably a huge amount of their working time!

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:30

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

SOClAL WORK WITH GROUPS

REFERENCES

Allen, D., & Ryan, K. Microreoching. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969. Argyle, M. The psychology of inlerpersonol behavior. Middleses, England: Penguin, 1967. Argyle, M. Social i~rreraction. New Y o r k Atherton, 1969. Uanet, A. G. Yinlyang: A perspective on thcories of group development. In W. Pfeiffer &

1. Jones (Eds.), The 1976 handbook for group facililators. Li JoUa, Calif.: University Associates, 1976.

Chrkhuff, R. R., & Bercnson, B. G. Teacltingos treatme~it. Amherst, Mass.: Human Resources Press, 1976.

Drum, D. I., & Knott, I. E. Slrucruredgrorrps for facilitating developri~errr. New York: Human Sciences Press, 1977.

Egan, G. Irmrpersot~al living: A skills conrracr approadr to hun~an relotiom traini~tg in groups. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1976.

Erikson. E. H. Identity and the lifc cycle. Psj~chologicolIssrres, 1959, 1 , 50-99, Could, R. The phases o f adult life: A study in developmental psychology. Americon .lournal

ofPsyclriarrj~, 1972,129, 521-531. Hare, A. P. Theories of group dcvclopment and categories for interaction analysis. Stnall Croup

Behavior. 1973,4 , 259-304. Ivey, A. E. Microcou!rseling. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C Thomas, 1971. Kagan, N. Can technology help us toward reliability in influencing human interaction? Educa-

lio~ial Techolugy, 1973, 13,44-5 1. Kurtz, R. R. Structured experiences in groups: A theoretical and reseerch discussion. In W.

Pfeiffer & 1. Jones (Bds.), The 1975 ontrtral 11andDook for group facilirarors. La Jolla, C:~lif.: University Associates, 1975.

Lcvinson, D. J . The psychologicul development o f men in early adulthood and the mid-life transition. In D. F. Ricks, A. Thomas, & M. RofT (Eds.), Life histor.v researe11 LI psvcl~o- porhology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesot~ Press, 1974.

Levinson, H. M. Use and misuse oigroups. Social Work, 1973, I S . 66-73. Lewis, H. The structure of professional skill. In National Association of Social Workers (ed.),

Social Work it1 Pracrice. Washington, D.C.: N.A.S.W., 1976. Lieberman, M. A., Yalom, I.D., & Miles, M. Etrcou~~rer groups: First facts. New York: Basic

Books, 1973. Middleman, R. R. Teaching and practicing group skills. ProceedDrgs of /lie ~Varionol Cotrfernice

about rhe Teaclring o f Crorrp Tlleorj~. Philadelphia, February, 1977. Middleman, R. R., & Goldberg, G. Sociol service de l i~x~ j , : A rrrucrural approach ro social work

practice. Ncw York: Columbia University Press, 1974. Ncugarten, B. L. (Ed.). Middle age and aging. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968. Roberts, R. W., & Northen, H. (Eds.). Tltcories ofsociol work with groups. New York:

Columbia University Press, 1976. Schwartz, M. D. The situatianl~r:~nsition group: A conceprualiz;~tion and review. Anwricoti

J o n r ~ ~ l o f Orrhopsj~chiarrj,, 1975,45 , 744-755. Shcehy, G. Passages. New York: Dutton, 1976. Shulman, L. A mschook o/socia/ work witkyo~rps. New York: Council on Social Work Edu-

a t i o n , 1968. Stdmm, A. M. NASW membership: Characteristics, deployment, and salaries. Persot~trel Infor.

tnorion, 1968, 11, l l . ( a ) Srenim, A. M. 1967 social work gradualcs: S;~larics and chsracteristics. Person~ielIr~forr?wrio~r,

1 9 6 8 , J l . 27.f.b)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:30

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14