Sean Harte
“With extensive reference to appropriate theoretical literature,
and supported by examples from your own experience, describe in
detail how a group focused around either a youth centre or community
centre develops from its inception. Consider the effect of group
size on the requirements for group leadership style. Consider the
effect formal (appointed) and informal (personality-related) roles
can have on a group. Consider possible explanations for oppressive
behaviour by individual group members at different stages in the
life of a group."
Introduction
In this essay we will examine how certain theories of group work and
group dynamics may be applied within a youth work setting. We will
first briefly describe what may be understood by the terms ‘group’,
and ‘group work’ with specific regard to groupwork theory. We will
then look at Tuckman’s theory of group stage development, describing
each stage and relating this theory to practical examples from my
own experience and look briefly at the potential for oppressive
behaviour in each stage and how this can be minimized. Next we will
look at what is understood by group leadership, looking at three
broad styles of leadership and how these may be applied effectively
within a youth work setting. We will then look at how individual
roles can develop and inhibit group development.
This essay is illustrated throughout with examples from my own
practice experience. These examples are drawn from two particular
groups with which I have been involved in a leadership capacity.
The first group was a very small group of ten and eleven year olds
from Youth Action Middlesbrough (YAM). The group never consisted of
more than eight and was often as low as four or five. This evenly
split mixed sex group was set up for long term activity based work
one evening each week, which would encourage social interaction and
thus help to develop positive social and interpersonal skills. This
was a long-term group and was only terminated after four years of
activities, planned and delivered by two female co-workers and
myself.
The second group I have made reference to in my examples, is that of
a group of ten Prince’s Trust Volunteers (PTV). A distinction which
may be made between a group and a team is that ‘Teams are
co-operative groups in that they are called into being to perform a
task or tasks that cannot be attempted by an individual’ (Douglas,
1983, p. 123). The all male team of sixteen to twenty three year old
unemployed volunteers was set up to deliver a sixteen week full-time
personal development programme. This was the first team that had
been run by Cleveland Youth Association and ran to a set PTV
skeleton programme that was fleshed out by a co-worker and myself.
What is a group: defining groupwork
Groups may be defined in many ways, indeed providing an absolute
definition of a group, as with much of the theory around group work,
is highly problematic and contestable. However for the purposes of
discussing groupwork within a context of working with young people
we may define a group as a small gathering of young people. Group
work may simplistically be described as the study and application of
the processes and outcomes experienced when a small group comes
together.
Konopka (1963) defines groupwork as a method of social work that is
utilised in order to ‘help individuals to enhance their social
functioning through purposeful group experiences, and to cope more
effectively with their personal, group or community problems’. This
definition shows a tradition within groupwork of helping individuals
with problems. Brown provides a modernised and more comprehensive
definition of group work (1994, p.8). He states that ‘groupwork
provides a context in which individuals help each other; it is a
method of helping groups as well as helping individuals; and it can
enable individuals and groups to influence and change personal,
group, organisational and community problems’ (original emphasis).
He goes on to distinguish between ‘relatively small and
neighbourhood centred’ work and ‘macro, societal and political
approaches’ within community work, explaining that only the former
may be properly classified as groupwork.
Thus the role of groupwork can be seen as one which places emphasis
on sharing of thoughts, ideas, problems and activities.
Stages of group development
Groups, like individuals are each unique with their own experiences
and expectations. However many commentators studying group
development and dynamics have recognised that group development, as
a generalisation, is more predictable than individual behaviour.
Thus many theories of group stage development have been cultivated,
some linear, others more cyclical, and it must be stressed that no
definitive model of group stage development exists.
Two of the most useful theories of group stage development are those
discussed by Tuckman (1965), and Rogers paper on encounter groups
(1967). These models, like others (for example Heap, 1977) propose
that as groups develop and change they pass through stages which may
be conceptualised. Tuckman’s model has been used extensively within
youth work theory and practice and is an excellent model for
attempting to analyse individual and group behaviour. A brief
synopsis of each stage is outlined below, with examples from
personal practice.
Stage 1: Forming
The first stage of this group process is joining, referred to as
engagement by Rogers. This phase involves significant testing, and
trial and error. Initial concerns about openness and support within
the group are manifested by a lack of cohesion and a difficulty in
sharing thoughts, feelings and experiences with each other. An
internal appraisal of group value and how each individual belongs to
the group are key features of this stage. Anxiety, isolation,
inadequacy and frustration are common emotions felt by group members
at this early stage in the life of a group, as well as being
emotionally threatened by members of the group who are perceived to
be stronger or better. Thus the group seeks to create a comfort zone
in which individuals are not keen to upset the status quo for fear
of alienation.
Oppressive behaviour is least likely within the formation stage of a
group as individuals generally look to create a comfort zone and do
not wish to rock the boat. Often frustrations will be built upon
between individuals who disagree strongly, but this will generally
not surface until storming begins.
A knowledge and understanding of the feelings and emotions felt by
group members in this stage is helpful, if not essential, to the
effective structuring of a programme to work towards the desired
outcome for the group. For example both the YAM and PTV groups I had
experience with were set up to encourage social interaction and
personal development. Having an awareness of group stage theory
enabled my colleagues and myself to structure the early encounters
for the groups to be;
a) fun and enjoyable – to encourage continued attendance;
b) relaxed - offering the promotion of effective communication and
allowing members to get to know each other a little whilst gaining
in confidence and trust.
To this end ice breakers, introduction and communication exercisers
such as those provided by Brandes and Phillips (1979), Bond (1986),
Leech and Wooster (1986) and Dearling and Armstrong (1994) were
used. As Dynes describes ‘[games] stimulate the imagination, make
people resourceful and help develop social ability and co-operation’
(Dynes, 1990).
Stage 2: Storming
This stage sees group members begin to confront each other as they
begin to vie for roles within the group that will help them to
belong and to feel valued. Thus as members begin to assert their
individual personalities, the comfort of the forming stage begins to
come under siege. Members experience personal, intra and inter group
conflicts. Aggression and resentment may manifest in this stage and
thus if strong personalities emerge and leadership is unresponsive
to group and individual needs, the situation may become destructive
to the group’ s development. Indeed there is a high potential for
individuals to abandon the group during this stage, as for some the
pressures created by the group may become too much of a strain.
The potential for oppressive behaviour is strong within the storming
phase as group members vie for preferred roles and release
frustrations built within the forming period. This personal
oppression should be discouraged whilst it is understood that a
degree of conflict is necessary if the group is to further develop.
In the YAM group this stage was represented by a rebellious streak
within the young people and much of the storming was directed
towards the adult leaders. Boundaries within the group were tested
as the group explored how far they would be allowed to go and what
they could get away with. One or two individuals in turn challenged
this behaviour as they felt it was unfair and could jeopardize
future activities.
The PTV group’s storming phase was altogether different. Two of the
group with strong personalities began to vie for intra-group
leadership. Each used their own abilities to strengthen their claim
to lead the group, whilst also sabotaging and undermining the
other’s efforts in an attempt to usurp the leadership role. This
situation caused a degree of infighting and at one point created two
sub-groups, one following each of the ‘pretender’ leaders.
It is important to be aware that conflict will take place within all
groups, and if handled well this conflict can produce benefits for
the group in terms of development, objective and task setting, and
ultimate outcome. Thus conflict is not inherently something to be
feared or avoided.
Stage 3: Norming
During this stage the group begin to work more constructively
together towards formal identified or informal tasks. Roles begin to
develop and be allocated within the group and although these may be
accepted, some members may not be comfortable with the role or roles
which the have been allocated. During this stage sub-groups are
likely to form in order that a supportive environment is once more
created. Acceptable and unacceptable behaviours within the group are
created and reinforced and thus the ‘norms’ for this group become
fabricated.
The storming and norming phases of group development are
inextricably linked, as it is often through the storming and
challenging that acceptable group norms become set.
It is important that a youth worker works hard during this stage to
ensure oppression against individuals within the group do not become
the acceptable norm, as then all group members will oppress these
individuals. Thus, individual oppressions must be challenged and
emphasis placed on challenging attitudes and opinions but not group
members.
The YAM group settled into group norms quite quickly, however some
of the roles that were adopted were challenged by the co-leaders as
they were seen to be obstructive to the group and individual’s
objectives. One young person (J.) who was often badly behaved at
school, was previously known to other group members. As these young
people expected poor behaviour from J. this was the role which he
adopted. This was challenged within the group context and it was
pointed out that alternatives to this behaviour were available.
Stage 4: Performing
This stage sees the group performing effectively with defined roles,
in fact at this stage it could be said that the group has
transformed into a team. It is now that decisions may be positively
challenged or reinforced by the group as a whole. The discomfort of
the storming and norming phases has been overcome and the group has
a general feeling of unity. This is the best stage for a group to
complete tasks, assuming that task, rather than process and
individuals, are the focus of the group.
An excellent example of performing within the PTV group came during
a residential week. One of the group (A.) admitted to a fear of
heights and thus did not want to take part in an abseiling exercise.
The whole group supported this decision but offered encouragement
and support in order to promote participation. One individual (M.)
spent time and energy showing leadership and helped A. to overcome
his fears. A. took part in the abseil, being assisted by M. and
encouraged by the whole group.
Potential exists within this stage for oppression to begin if one or
more group members does not appear to fit in with the group’s view
of its task, or is not performing as effectively as expected. Again
it is important to challenge this if it occurs and to show how each
member can benefit the group, through achievement of task,
leadership, reviewing, moving on, or by monitoring the groups
process.
Stage 5: Mourning
The final stage in the life of a group ultimately is its
termination. Though often overlooked, this stage in group
development is equally important to positive outcomes. The ending of
a group can be a very unhappy and distressing time for some members,
as they may feel some extent of dependency on the group. Garland et
al. describe some of the typical responses to the ending phase as:
-
Denial – 'forgetting' the time of the groups
termination.
-
Regression – reverting to a less independent
state of functioning.
-
Need expression – in the hope the group will
continue.
-
Recapitulation – detailed recall of past
experiences within the group.
-
Evaluation – detailed discussion on the value
of the group experience.
-
Flight – destructive denial of any positive
benefit of the group, or a positive disengagement towards other
interests.
Potential exists within this stage for members to be
oppressed as scapegoats, that is blamed or at fault for the ending
of the group. This can be minimised by constant focusing and
refocusing on group end points and staged celebrations of group
achievements.
With the PTV group it was relatively easy to develop strategies to
minimise the effects of the groups termination. The group’s life
span was structured to a tight time-scale and end point from the
outset. This was reinforced by getting the group to maintain a
counting down chart which was marked off each day. The end of the
group was marked by a large presentation to which friends and
relatives were invited. The presentation marked a clear ending for
the group from day one, whilst also serving as a celebration of all
the groups achievements during its existence. Thus the end did not
come as a ‘surprise’, and was something to look forward to.
As we have seen the value of a theoretical understanding of
conceptualising this group stage theory in youth work and other
helping professions, lies in enabling group workers to ‘tune into
the group’s processes and respond appropriately’ (Preston-Shoot,
1987).
Group Leadership
Effective groups should promote the value of all of its constituent
members. One of the keys to establishing this end is competent
leadership.
Leadership can be and has been defined in many ways. It is seen as ‘
the act of commanding and directing, the actions of leaders, the
process by which groups achieve their goals, the antithesis of followership’ (Sessoms and Stevenson, 1981, p. 5). Leadership can be
seen as the act of ‘moving people towards goal achievement’, and may
be viewed as an interaction between leaders, followers and goals
(see Fig. 1, above), thus it may be described as a process (Sessoms
and Stevenson, ibid). Fig. 1. - Source: Sessoms and Stevenson (1981)
So ‘In a broad sense, leadership may be described as influence’
(Barker et al, 1979, p. 224), thus the individual who will often be
seen as the leader of a youth group, that is the adult, often may in
fact not be the most influential member of the group.
Effective leadership depends on the balancing of the three variables
in diagram Fig. 2. thus the groups task, individual needs
and group maintenance must all be considered. [Fig. 2. - Source: Adapted from John Adair (1988) Effective
Leadership]
Fundamentally within youth work we must recognise the ‘possibility
of all members contributing to the process by which groups seek and
achieve goals’ (Barker et al, 1979, p. 226-229). Thus leadership is
a dynamic variable and any ‘person who performs actions which move a
group toward its goal and/or maintain the group more frequently and
more effectively than other group members’ may be identified as
group leaders (Barker et al, 1979, ibid.).
Leadership is often described within a context of three differing
styles, laissez faire, democratic and autocratic (or authoritarian).
Simplistically the three styles can be described as;
Laissez faire – letting members do pretty much as they please
without the leader offering judgement on other members decisions.
This works best when a well functioning group, i.e. one than may be
in a performing phase, is working towards a well defined task. This
method is exceptionally difficult if more than a handful of group
members are present and is often used within sub-groups developed to
perform specific sub-tasks. For example the PTV team would use this
style for brainstorming specific ideas for projects, as the
non-judgemental attitude facilitated more group responses.
Democratic – consultation and discussion takes place before
decisions are made. This allows group members to have their say but
does not guarantee that these feelings will be acted upon. This
style is an ideal method of leadership within youth work as the
group is more likely to contribute to the decision making process
and also the group is more likely to buy-in to decisions which are
made. Again this style works best with smaller groups, the larger
the group the longer the decision making processes will tend to
become. It is often preferable to separate a very large group into
sub-groups to ensure all have a chance to input into decision making
and then reconvene all group members into a plenary session where
all ideas can be fed back and shared, resulting in an ultimate group
decision. This style was used within the PTV group in order to
achieve a shared sense of belonging within the group and to get all
the members to ‘buy-in’ to completing the tasks in hand.
Autocratic or authoritarian – one leader is the sole person involved
in making decisions within the group, the information is passed on
to the group rather than options being discussed openly. This is a
style that I have personally seldom used as it is not ideal for
achieving the educational aims of youth work. However I am aware
that very large groups may find an autocratic leader can speed up a
decision making process. This can be important when issues such as
the group’s physical safety are involved, for example if a group is
on expedition on the side of a mountain and the weather becomes
rough, it may become necessary to enforce a quick decision to
retreat, to ensure group safety. The process of this decision making
can then be evaluated and debated once the group is in a safe
setting.
Roles within Groups
Each individual within a group has a role to play in the development
of that group to a greater or lesser extent. Through observation,
understanding of difference, awareness of personal resources and
effective communication (Douglas, 1995), each member may affect
group processes and individual emotions. Roles develop within groups
both through formal appointment and because of the personal
characteristics and interpersonal relationships that develop between
members. Roles which develop can be constructive and support the
group and its members in achieving its goals, or can be destructive
and work against the overall group aims. Individuals within the
group can develop several roles and at times these may conflict. For
example a PTV member who was designated as leader for a specific
task, also played a clown and was fond of practical jokes. The
fooling around led to a lack of trust from other group members
creating a conflict with the leadership role.
As the group begins to develop an understanding of four things can
be observed:
Observation: the way we behave is based upon what we observe of
ourselves, and what we make of others and their reactions to us.
Differences: personally and socially generated; the effects they
have on behaviour and understanding.
Resources: frequently stemming from difference but are the source of
potential power for a group and an individual.
Communication: considered to be natural but subject to many barriers
that remain largely unknown unless a conscious effort is made to
find them:
(Douglas, 1995, p. 80-97)
Through supportive roles, groups may play a part in reducing
oppression generated externally to the group. Groupwork can be used
as a medium for oppressed groups to ‘help these groups adjust in
society’, and moreover to help society to adjust towards these
groups. This can be achieved by ‘individual rehabilitation’ in which
we can ‘help individuals to adjust to social life and manage …
tension … gain confidence, high self esteem’, and in ‘getting and
keeping employment etc.’. ‘Societal or community rehabilitation’
involves ‘helping the society to have meaningful contact’ with
individuals and groups which are discriminated against and oppressed
(Osei-Hwedie, Mwansa, and Mufune, 1990, p. 188).
Preston-Shoot describes groupwork creating a ‘sense of belonging and
mutual identity’ encouraging ‘the formation of relationships which
foster mutual identification and influence’, thus feelings of
isolation and singularity with issues of difference and oppression
may be reduced. Also, the group may be encouraged to use its
internal resources to move towards individual or group
‘problem-resolution’, reducing feelings of helplessness, building
self worth, and discouraging worker dependency (Preston-Shoot, 1987,
p. 6-28). Smith concurs with this view of the suitability of groupwork, stating
‘Groups are obvious sites of interaction and
within them a sense of connectedness or community with others can be
fostered’ (Smith, 1994, p.111). This ‘connectedness’ is a valuable
tool with which to challenge discrimination and oppression, for as Piven and Cloward argue, it is only when we act collectively that
change can begin (Piven and Cloward, 1993).
Conclusion: Groupwork – double edged sword?
To state that group work is not an exact science is something of an
understatement. As we have seen, it is problematic to even define
what is meant by a group as no absolute definition exists. Similarly
most, if not all, concepts within group work theory can be, and are,
contested.
Groups are extremely important in the lives of all individuals.
Johnson and Johnson (1975, p1-2) state ‘many of our goals can be
achieved only with the cooperation and coordination of others’.
However ‘the success of any group depends on the ability of its
members to exchange ideas freely and to feel involved in the life
and decisions of the group’ (Massallay, 1990). All groups within
youth work have goals, i.e. a future state of affairs. It is
important that short term and long term goals are set realistically
if the group is to develop and function effectively. These functions
are achieved through the direction of leadership and the development
of individual roles within each group.
A group is said to be successful if it:
1. accomplishes group tasks
2. maintains the group internally, and;
3. develops and adapts to improve effectiveness.
(Massallay, 1990)
Groupwork can be used as an effective tool for many youth work
situations, not least of which is as a medium for challenging
oppression both within groups and individuals. Thus, we have seen
the emergence and development of girls issue groups and black young
people’s projects that offer mutual support as well as working to
challenge oppression. Yet we have seen that through the development
stages of a groups life there are many opportunities for individuals
to develop and focus oppressive behaviour internally within a group.
A grasp of theoretical understanding of group behaviour and
functioning can help to explain individual and group behaviour, and
help us to achieve our ultimate aim as youth workers, that of
informal education. It is important not to treat group work as an
exact science with definitive answers. Indeed many of the questions
we must ask ourselves are unclear, thus the answers are a best
guess, or a benchmark that we can develop on and work around.
Finally, let us consider briefly the historical context of group
work development and the purpose it has not only within youth work,
but society at large. As Taylor reminds us ‘A moment’s reflection
shows that the social groupwork beloved of liberalism is the product
of the American capitalist concern to develop more sophisticated
management techniques’ (Taylor, 1987, p. 140). Let us be careful to
use group work to promote democracy and not fall into the trap of
using group work as yet another tool for promoting social control in
a capitalistic state.
References & Recommended Reading
Adair, J. (1988) Effective Leadership, London: Pan
Barker, L. L., Cegala, D. J., Kibler, R. J. and Wahlers, K. J.
Groups In Process. New Jersey, USA: Prentice-Hall
Bond, T. (1986) Games for Social and Life Skills. London: Hutchinson
Brandes, D. and Phillips, H (1977) Gamesters’ Handbook Great
Britain. Stanley Thornes
Brown, A. (1994) Groupwork 3rd Edition. Great Yarmouth: Ashgate
Publishing
Dearling, A. and Armstrong, H. (1994) The New Youth Games Book.
Great
Britain: Russell House Publishing
Douglas, T. (1983) Groups: Understanding People Gathered Together.
London: Routledge
Douglas, T. (1995) Survival In Groups: The Basics of Group
Membership. Buckingham: Open University Press
Dynes, R. (1990) Creative Games in Groupwork. Great Britain: Winslow
Press
Garland, J. Jones, H. and Kolody, R. (1968) ‘A model for stages of
development in social work groups’ in Bernstein, S. (Ed.)
Explorations in Groupwork. Boston: Boston University School of Social
Work
Heap, K. (1977) Group Theory for Social Workers. Great Britain: Pergamon Press
Konopka, G. (1963) Social Group Work : a Helping Process. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice Hall
Leech, N. and Wooster, A. D. (1986) Personal and Social Skills – A
Practical Approach for the Classroom. Great Britain: RMEP
Massallay, J. L. (1990) ‘Methods, Techniques and Skills of Youth and
Community Work: Community Action and Group Work’ Chapter 4. In Osei-Hwedie, K., Mwansa, L-K. and Mufune, P. (Eds.)
Youth and
Community Work Practice. Zambia: Mission Press
Osei-Hwedie, K., Mwansa, L-K. and Mufune, P. (1990) Youth and
Community Work Practice: Methods, Techniques and Skills. Zambia:
Mission Press
Piven, F. F. and Cloward, R. A. (1993) Regulating the Poor : The
Functions of Public Welfare. USA: Vintage Books
Preston-Shoot, M. (1987) Effective Groupwork. Hampshire: Macmillan
Rogers, C. R. (1967) ‘The process of basic encounter group’ In Bugental, J. F. T. (Ed.)
The Challenges of Human Psychology. New
York: McGraw-Hill
Sessoms, H. Massachusetts, D. and Stevenson, J. L. (1981) Leadership
and Group Dynamics in Recreation Services. USA: Allyn and Bacon
Smith, M. K. (1994) Local Education: Community, Conversation, Praxis.
Great Britain: Open University Press
Taylor, T. (1987) ‘Youth Workers as Character Builders’ Chapter 9.
In Jeffs, T and Smith, M. (Eds.) Youth Work. Basingstoke: MacMillan
Tuckman, B. W. (1965) ‘Developmental Sequences in Small Groups’ in
Psychological Bulletin No. 63 p. 384-399
http://youthworkcentral.tripod.com/sean3.htm
