Short Summary of Sessions
Part 1: Group Engagement
During the seminar, the key focus was on four key areas that dictated the group engagement in the group dynamic. The sectors represented fundamental characteristics that dictated the level of commitment that group members had within the group. The four levels showed the ability of the group to communicate with each other and accomplish group objectives. The four areas included proxemics, group culture, non-verbal cues, and silence, or communication.
Proxemics refers to the distance that individuals keep from one another during communication. The distance between individuals signifies the level of relationship that the two people have (Sikorski, 2018). Sitting or standing too close to someone shows that you are comfortable and have established an excellent rapport or friendship. Assessing the proximity between the groups showed the level of relationship that the individuals in the group had. Some individuals sat and spoke when too close to each other, while others seemed afraid of each other.
Moreover, group culture refers to the particular habit that individuals in a group have. The culture developed is usually because of the edification of the various views that group members hold as important. The different members come together to create distinct cultures. For example, some group dynamics would prefer the use of dreams to express their thoughts or ideas, while others prefer open dialogue (Forsyth, 2018). Consequently, the group’s overall behavior is dictated by the culture that the different group members have. The group
Additionally, non-verbal cues refer to the various communication methods that group members use without actually using words. Group members communicate through eye and finger signals. Some group members even yawn or sleep during actual therapy sessions. Non-verbal cues help a facilitator understand the level of engagement that participants have. The use of non-verbal cues helps the facilitator know whether the group enjoys the sessions or is utterly disinterested in group activities (Forsyth, 2018). The information is used as feedback for actual engagement and helps the facilitator develop an excellent program.
Lastly, silence or the level of communication indicates the level of engagement of members. Many facilitators use this facet as an invaluable tool for assessment of group dynamics. Members that communicate show that they are fully engaged in group engagement (Levenson & Macgowan, 2004). Silent group members are an indication of non-participatory behavior. Silence also indicates a lack of understanding or indifference created by the facilitator.
The facilitator should specifically focus on communication and non-verbal cues to understand the general group engagement—essential communication influences other types of factors (McHale, Hayward, & Jones, 2018). The proximity between individuals reduces once a culture of communication is created among individuals. The facilitator should improve on communication among group members., Group engagement seemed off since the group members did not communicate with the facilitator. Most of the group members opted to keep silent when the facilitator conduct ed the group therapy session. Furthermore, some of the members had developed a culture of a negative attitude. Some of the members purposefully decided not to participate in the group dynamics. They had a negative attitude towards therapy and viewed the activity as worthless.
The facilitators tried to engage all the group members by developing activities that involved the whole group. The facilitators wished to fight all the individuals on a personal level and also promoted diversity in the group by accepting the thoughts and ideas of the group members. The group members even went to the extent of referring to all the individuals by their nicknames to establish a friendly atmosphere n the dynamic. The facilitator went to great lengths to ensure that the members promoted group engagement among their members. Although the group members sometimes kept quiet, the group member chose members to contribute, forcing them to speak. The facilitator ensured that everyone contributed, and not every answer or opinion was criticized.
The facilitator practiced empathy and respect for all the members. The facilitator asked questions about the members and described their situations from a first-person [perspective. The use of first-person made the members feel as if the facilitator understood their situation and experienced what they felt. The facilitator also asked questions about the feelings that members felt in particular instances. He wanted to understand the emotions and feelings that the members experienced in different cases. The facilitator also respected the members’ privacy and did not force them to share if they were not comfortable with sharing with the whole group. The facilitator made the members enjoy the group dynamic since they felt that they were understood despite the different problems they had.\
The facilitator spent a small amount of time talking about his issues but instead dedicated most of the session time to the members. The facilitator also limited the number of personal views or commented that he had for various individuals. Instead, he maintained a friendly but strictly professional attitude with the group members. The facilitator also used everyday language to describe activities and situations in the group. Collective language limited the individualistic mindset in the group. Moreover, the facilitator allowed the group members to participate in the co-facilitation of the meeting. The facilitator asked the members to decide on different tasks that they wished to perform in the group dynamic. Lastly, the facilitator avoided focusing examples and illustrations on one race. He wanted everyone to feel included in the process of the group dynamic.
Part Two: Group Authority
The supervision explicitly focused on three aspects that highlighted the authority r leadership of the facilitators. The three parameters focused n the various elements that group leaders had to uphold during the dynamic group meetings. The three parameters included linear and circular casualty, interpersonal issues, and group coalitions. The authority needs to have complete control over the three points since they influence the overall outcome of group dynamics.
Linear and circular casualty refer to the impact of the group’s activities. Do the group’s activities promote personal objectives or universal objectives? Facilitators have to ensure that the group’s actions do not support personal gains. The group activities have to treat everyone as part of a collective system (Gantt & Agazarian, 2017). The leadership of the group promotes such a culture by use of universal language that fosters teamwork. The facilitator avoided linear casualty by engaging the whole group in activities that required the input of every member.
Second, the authority has to ensure that all interpersonal issues are addressed so everyone can actively take part in group therapy. Personal issues affect general correspondence among members (Gantt & Agazarian, 2017). Interpersonal problems also make it hard to establish communication channels that benefit everyone. The individualistic mentality in group therapy significantly reduces the chances of success. The facilitator is required to engage every member and understand some of the issues that trigger specific behavior. Understanding personal issues hasten the process of communication in groups.
Lastly, group coalitions refer to specific sub-groups that develop among group members. Sub-groups create enmity against established communication systems. Authority has to learn how to deal with the various groups. All objectives should uphold the interests of all subgroups to create a circular casualty of activities. The facilitator ensured that not all the goals oppressed on any developed sub-groups.
The facilitator showed great authority by using collective terms when talking with eth members. He made the members feel like part of a universal group that had mutual objectives. The facilitator also took the time to learn about the personal lives of the members to make it easier to develop goals. The facilitator also promoted confidentiality in the group by urging everyone that group therapy was a safe space. The facilitator also established a chain of communication, making it easy for all members to understand those with authority in the group.
Overall, group therapy has s[specific parameters that need to be addressed. Group engagements require an assessment of group culture, non-verbal cues, and silence or communication. On the other hand, group authority requires linear and circular casualty, interpersonal issues, and group coalitions. The facilitator appeared as a strong communicator that used his interpersonal skills to create an excellent impression among group members. The facilitator also interacted with all members and applied circular casualty in objective setting and general group proceedings. However, the facilitator should try to embrace the need to develop a chain of communication in the group and develop means of creating a good rapport with every member.
References
Forsyth, D. R. (2018). Group dynamics. Cengage Learning.
Gantt, S. P., & Agazarian, Y. M. (2017). Systems-centered group therapy. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 67(sup1), S60-S70.
Levenson, J. S., & Macgowan, M. J. (2004). Engagement, denial, and treatment progress among sex offenders in group therapy. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 16(1), 49-63.
McHale, C., Hayward, M., & Jones, F. W. (2018). Building a grounded theory of engagement in mindfulness-based group therapy for distressing voices. Qualitative health research, 28(14), 2169-2182.
Sikorski, W. (2018). The importance of the proxemic environment in psychotherapy. Neurobiological premises. Psychoterapia, (2), 89-105.