Posted: April 24th, 2025
Group Issues and Conflict
300 WORDS, APA FORMAT 2 SCHOLARY SOURCES THATS ALSO ATTACHED INCLUDING BIBLICAL REFERENCE
please SEE THE ATTACHED INSTRUCTIONS AND REQUEIRED READING AND REFERENCES.
Group Issues and Conflict
Must be 300 words 2 scholarly sources that will be attached to this assignment y
In chapter 16, Jacobs et al. address problem situations that may cause conflict in a group and get it off track. Choose
one of these and shed further light on why this is a common issue and why/how it may lead to conflict by drawing upon Forsyth, chapter 13. In your replies, add insights to your classmates’ posts, both from your personal experience and from the course materials.
Transcript
Group Counseling: Strategies and Skills Chapter 15
>> Closing a group session may serve one or more purposes including summarizing and highlighting the main points. Reinforcing commitments made by individual members. And checking for unfinished business from the session. In this first example, the leader demonstrates the use of rounds to close the session. Note leader ties things together for the members.
>> So I really think we covered a lot today. I mean I know this topic of test anxiety has really been a big deal for all of you and I think, you know, I hope you’ve learned a lot about your test anxiety. But I tell you what, since we’re getting ready to sort of bring things to a close for today, I want to start with Eric and come around this way. Just briefly what is one thing that you learned today or that stood out to you about dealing with test anxiety?
>> I think one of the things that definitely stood out to me was I got to stop telling myself that my work is on the line with every test. I think that right there is going to help me a lot.
>> Okay great. Yeah that whole idea about how it’s coming from what you tell yourself about the test. You know, I mentioned to you all earlier that I learned that idea when I was in my 20s. And it really helped me with a lot of different things. It can certainly help you with test anxiety. So good. Jen, how about you?
>> That’s what I’m taking away.
>> Is that —
>> Is that ability to shut it down. To stop all of that that’s going on in my head —
>> Okay.
>> — before I go into the test.
>> Good. Good. Morgan, how about for you?
>> Mine is stay in the big girl seat and not being over there —
>> And out of that little chair. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That helps me a lot thinking especially when I’m getting ready to take a test. Get in the adult seat. Don’t be in your child about it. You know that you’re going to get the better result. The result that you want if you stay in that thinking seat.
>> Just what you were talking about and I agree with those guys about that negative self talk. And I think I’m going to try to start paying more attention to it. And even how you said like writing it down like I think I’m going to try that, you know, for the next test.
>> Yeah really giving thought to what you’re telling yourself about that test or about that situation.
>> Yeah.
>> Good and Jane, how about for you?
>> I’m like Fran. I want to work on my negative self talk and get out of that chair too.
>> Okay. Good. Good. Okay. Well I appreciate you all sharing and I hope that’s been helpful. You know everything, your self talk, standing out of the small chair, and hopefully the next test you take will go a lot more smoothly.
>> Thanks.
>> Thank you.
>> Next we see the closing of a third session of a divorce group. The leader uses appreciations and wishes since the session has been very productive and the members seem to be really care about each other.
>> Okay it’s about time to start closing and to wrapping group up for the day. And you know we’ve had such a good group today. It just seems supportive and cohesive and connected. I just wondered if maybe we could close and add something to our close today. I’d like you to, of course, share what stood out to you but I’d like you to add an appreciation that you’d like to share to other group members or if there’s a group or a wish for group members. Jen, you good with that? Okay.
>> That’s perfect. That’s perfect for me because I have so much appreciation today that I was able to share about dating a married man. First off, I thought that was going to be a huge issue for everyone and then he’s so much older than I am. I thought you guys would really judge me about that. And you guys didn’t and that just — that made my day. I feel like I can be more open now in group and I really like that. And thank you Morgan especially. Yeah.
>> No problem.
>> And again, that’s real important. Group is a safe, supportive environment. So that’s a lot to be appreciative for. Anybody else have any wishes or appreciations they’d like to share?
>> I do want to wish Jen that you will stop beating up on yourself and the divorce was not your fault.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. Yeah, someone else.
>> My wish for you is —
>> Mine’s appreciation but I just really appreciate how supportive, you know, the [inaudible] everybody’s been. I really look forward to coming to group because of that and just knowing that this is going to be such a safe, supportive environment.
>> I got a wish for J.P.
>> Go Fran, shoot.
>> My wish would just be that you’d be able to get out more and just you know, have fun and just kind of enjoy yourself.
>> Thanks and that just builds on that kindness and supportiveness. It’s not that you — maybe even if you can’t get out today or tomorrow, you just have that support here, that’s a wish for the group and other group members — is that a wish you can have for J.P. as well?
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah that’s great. Okay. Well I know my wish for you is that you just continue to grow and learn and heal and we all just participate and support each other through this process. And that’s — how about what stood out to you today? What stood out from group today that you’re going to take out of here with you when you leave? What stood out to you today, J.P.?
>> Just being able to like share everything and especially basically the wish that you guys gave me. That’s probably what’s going to stand out the most.
>> Okay.
>> Sometimes members wait until the very end of the session to bring up their issue. Watch how the leader deals with this. The leader is clear that the group is entering the closing phase of the session.
>> I think we need to close. So what I want to do is get a round of sort of what stood out to you? What are you going to be thinking about between now and next week? Something like that. So —
>> I’ll go. I really want to work on like reducing my worry. Talking about that was really helpful to me and —
>> Yeah, I thought we did a lot of good work on that. And you do not have to worry. You do not have to. So I want you all to hear me say that. I see you smiling, Jen.
>> I got a lot of being able to talk about mom and some of the issues that were going on there. So —
>> Yeah okay. That’s good.
>> And can I bring up something? Well —
>> Is it a long something?
>> Kind of sitting here it’s been in the back of my head and like now I think I want to talk about it.
>> Is it something pretty heavy? The reason why I say that is we only have about 2 or 3 more minutes.
>> It has to do with my past like —
>> Okay it’s — I’d say we can’t do it now. I’ll talk to you a little bit afterwards if you want to.
>> Yeah.
>> And will you — I hope you’ll bring it up. I know you got the courage but I know you all– we got to stop.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. How about others of you real quick?
>> I think the one thing that stood out to me is the thing about self talk. Like what I tell myself.
>> Okay that’s good.
>> That’s my feeling.
>> What has stood out to you if you had to capture it?
>> I guess just like hearing everyone else share and so it kind of helped me want to share.
>> Let me get you, Jen, and then we’ll be done.
>> It’s that whole thought you don’t have to worry. It’s pretty big.
>> Okay. Okay. We’ll see you all next week. Okay and let’s you and I talk. Okay.
>> The closing phase is a very important part of any group session. Unfortunately many leaders don’t watch the time well. And they let members bring up new material during the closing phase and then have to end the group abruptly or without a closing at all. It’s very important that you make sure that you have adequate time to close your sessions.
Group Dynamics
Donelson Forsyth
Forsyth, D. (2018).
Group Dynamics (7th ed.). Cengage Learning US.
https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/books/9798214344799
Forsyth: Chapter 13
Chapter 13. Conflict
Rare is the group—whether team, committee, club, or even best friends—that avoids, at all times, conflict. Conflicts arise from many sources, as disagreements over minor and major issues, personality conflicts, and power struggles cause once close collaborators to become hostile adversaries. Because conflict is a ubiquitous aspect of group life, it must be managed to minimize its negative effects.
What is conflict and its causes?
Why does conflict escalate?
How can group members manage their conflict?
Is conflict an unavoidable evil or a necessary good?
Chapter Outline
The Roots of Conflict
Winning: Conflict and Competition
Sharing: Conflict over
Resources
Controlling: Conflict over Power
Working: Task and
Process Conflict
Liking and Disliking: Relationship Conflicts
Confrontation and Escalation
Uncertainty → Commitment
Perception → Misperception
Soft Tactics → Hard Tactics
Reciprocity → Retaliation
Irritation → Anger
Few → Many
Conflict Resolution
Commitment → Negotiation
Misperception → Understanding
Hard Tactics → Cooperative Tactics
Retaliation →
Forgiveness
Anger → Composure
Many → Few
The Value of Conflict: Redux
Chapter Review
Resources
Jobs versus Sculley: When Group Members Turn against Each Other
It was a time before the iPad, iPhone, and iMac. Apple Inc. had started strong under the leadership of Steve Jobs, but now it was struggling to hold its own during a downturn in sales of technology and software. Jobs and the executive board decided they needed a more traditional chief executive officer (CEO) with a background in business. They picked John Sculley, president of PepsiCo, hoping that he would stabilize Apple, improve efficiency, and increase sales.
All worked well, for a time. Jobs and Sculley admired each other’s strengths as leaders and visionaries, and they conferred constantly on all matters of production and policy. But they did not see eye-to-eye on key issues of corporate goals. Their working relationship dissolved into a series of disagreements, each one more problematic than the last. Both men played central roles as leaders in the company, but their differences in direction, vision, and style were disruptive. As the conflict over Jobs’ pet project, the Macintosh (predecessor of the iMac), reached a peak, Sculley asked the executive board to strip Jobs of much of his authority. The group did so, reluctantly (Linzmayer, 2004).
Jobs did not go quietly into the night. He met with each board member individually, to win approval for his plan to fire Sculley in a corporate coup. He waited to spring his plan when Sculley was traveling in China, but Sculley was tipped off by one of the board members. Sculley cancelled his trip, called a board meeting, and confronted Jobs:
“It’s come to my attention that you’d like to throw me out of the company, and I’d like to ask if that’s true.”
Jobs’ answer: “I think you’re bad for Apple, and I think you’re the wrong person to run this company…. You really should leave this company…. You don’t know how manufacturing works. You’re not close to the company. The middle managers don’t respect you.”
Sculley, his voice rising in anger, replied, “I made a mistake in treating you with high esteem.… I don’t trust you, and I won’t tolerate a lack of trust.”
Sculley then polled the board members. Did they support Sculley or Jobs? All of them declared great admiration for Jobs, but they felt that the company needed Sculley’s experience and leadership. Jobs then rose from the table and said, “I guess I know where things stand,” before bolting from the room (Sculley, 1987, pp. 251–252). Jobs later resigned from the company he had founded. He would return, eventually, but not until Sculley had resigned.
Jobs versus Sculley was one of corporate America’s most spectacular conflicts, but it was no anomaly. Groups of all kinds experience periods of disagreement, discord, and friction. Good friends disagree about their weekend plans and end up exchanging harsh words. Families argue over finances, rules, and responsibilities. Struggling work teams search for a person who can be blamed for their inefficiency. College classes, angered by their professors’ methods of teaching, lodge formal complaints with the dean. Rock bands split up due to artistic differences. When conflict occurs in a group, the actions or beliefs of one or more members of the group are unacceptable to and resisted by one or more of the other group members. Members stand against each other rather than in support of each other (see Dreu, Aaldering, & Saygi, 2015; Greer & Dannals, 2017, for reviews).
Why do allies sometimes turn into adversaries? The process begins when the group’s routine interactions are disrupted by some sort of initial disagreement, aggravation, or irritation (see Figure 13.1). Many disagreements are so minor that the group resolves them easily, but others create a lack of alignment in the group that triggers the conflict cycle. The conflict intensifies as discussion gives way to arguing, emotions take the place of logic, and the once unified group splits into factions (conflict escalation). Eventually, the conflict peaks and begins to dissipate (conflict de-escalation) and the members seek and implement a way to resolve their differences (conflict resolution). The board of directors at Apple, for example, decided to support Sculley and so they demoted Jobs—a rather severe means of dealing with the dispute. This chapter focuses on conflict inside a group—between two or more members—or intragroup conflict. A second form of conflict—conflict between groups or intergroup conflict—is examined in the next chapter.
13-1. The Roots of Conflict
Conflict is everywhere. When the members of 71 groups were asked, “Did your group experience any conflict?” they identified 424 instances of interpersonal irritation (Wall & Nolan, 1987). When Robert Freed Bales and his colleagues used the interaction process analysis (IPA) to record group interactions, some of the groups they observed spent as much as 20% of their time making hostile or negative comments (Bales & Hare, 1965). A researcher who arranged for groups to work on a frustrating, impossible-to-solve task was startled by the intensity of the conflict that overtook the groups. In one particularly hostile group, members averaged 13.5 antagonistic comments per minute (French, 1941).
Most people, if given the choice, avoid situations that are rife with conflict (Roloff & Wright, 2009). Yet conflict seems to be an unavoidable consequence of life in groups. When individuals are sequestered away from other people, their ambitions, goals, and perspectives are their own concern. But a group, by its very nature, brings individuals into contact with other people—people who have their own idiosyncratic interests, motivations, outlooks, and preferences. As these individuals interact with one another, their diverse interests and preferences can pull them in different directions. Instead of working together, they compete against one another. Instead of sharing resources and power, members selfishly claim more than their fair share. Instead of accepting each other for who they are, members treat those they like better than those they dislike.
13-1a. Winning: Conflict and Competition
Before Sculley joined Apple, his success or failure in manufacturing and marketing did nothing to influence Jobs and vice versa. But when they both worked at Apple, they became interdependent, for they could influence each other’s outcomes through individual and coordinated action (Schelling, 1960). At first, their relationship was based on cooperation: if Jobs succeeded Sculley succeeded, and vice versa. But eventually this cooperative relationship gave way to competition: The success of one meant the other would fail. Social psychologist Morton Deutsch (1949b) calls these two types of relationships promotive and contrient interdependence.
Competition versus Cooperation
Competition can be a positive experience. When, for example, we choose to compete in athletic events and contests we often experience elevated motivation and positive emotions such as excitement and the thrill of victory (Franken & Brown, 1995). However, when a situation calls for cooperation and teamwork but devolves into competition, then the positive benefits of competition are few. Instead of collaborating, we become rivals, striving to outperform each other. We no longer take pride in others’ accomplishments; in fact, we sometimes try to block their progress and disrupt their work. When we compete we seek rewards and protect our resources—we become greedy—but we also become wary, even fearful, of others (Kelley et al., 2003). Competition even changes how we talk to others in our group. When competing we make fewer positive but more negative remarks, and we are less likely to discuss shared priorities (Scheia, Rognes, & Shapiro, 2011).
Cooperation and competition trigger different motivational systems: one promotes sharing, trust, and collaboration, and the other promotes selfishness, suspicion, and sequestration. The two orientations are evident when social neuroscientists study individuals who are cooperating and competing (Decety et al., 2004). Both forms of interaction recruited areas of the brain that have been implicated in the production of behavioral choices, particularly in uncertain circumstances. The cooperating brain, however, shows more activity in regions associated with the processing of social rewards and overall psychological satisfaction (the orbitofrontal cortex). In contrast, the competing brain is busy intuiting the motivations of other people (medial prefrontal cortex) and distinguishing between the self and others (right inferior parietal cortex). Other research even suggests that individuals who are competing with others show, in some cases, elevated activity in the amygdala, an area of the brain thought to be responsible for feelings of fear (Bhatt et al., 2012; Fermin et al., 2016; Tsoi et al., 2016).
Mixed-Motive Situations
Few situations involve pure cooperation or pure competition; the motive to compete is often mixed with the motive to cooperate. Sculley wanted to gain control over the Mac division but he needed Jobs’ help with product development. Jobs valued Sculley’s organizational expertise but he felt that Sculley misunderstood the company’s goals. The men found themselves in a mixed-motive situation—they were tempted to compete and cooperate at the same time.
Researchers use a specialized technique known as the prisoner’s dilemma game (PDG) to study mixed-motive situations. Imagine you and your friend Steve have been arrested and the police are questioning you both—but in separate rooms. The police give you a choice: You can remain silent or you can confess and implicate Steve. But they also explain that if you and Steve remain silent, then you will both go free. If both of you confess, you and Steve will receive moderate sentences. But if you confess and Steve does not, then you receive a minimal sentence and Steve will receive the maximum sentence. And vice versa. If Steve confesses and you do not, you get the long sentence. Should you confess or remain silent (Luce & Raiffa, 1957; Poundstone, 1992)?
The dilemma turns into an experimental test of conflict and cooperation when jail time is converted into points or money (see Figure 13.2). If you were playing this experimental game with a partner named Steve, you would both be asked to pick one of two options, labeled C and D. Option C is the cooperative choice. If you both pick C, then you both will earn money. Option D is the competitive choice (defection). If only one of you defects by picking D, that player will make money and the other will lose money. But if you both pick D, both will lose money. Figure 13.2 shows the payoff matrix that summarizes how much money the two of you will win or lose in each of the four possible situations:
You choose C and Steve chooses C, both earn 50¢.
You choose C and Steve chooses D, you lose 50¢ and Steve earns $1.
You choose D and Steve chooses C, you earn $1 and Steve loses 50¢.
You choose D and Steve chooses D, both lose 25¢.
So you are drawn to cooperate (option C), but fear that Steve may defect (option D). You and Steve usually cannot communicate with each other, and so you face an uncertain situation. In the single-trial version, you only make your choice once. In the iterated version, you play multiple rounds. Each pair of choices is termed a trial or round.
Which option do most people pick in the PDG? Some cooperate and some compete, with the proportion of cooperators to competitors varying depending on the relationships between members, their expectations, personalities, and a variety of other factors (Weber & Messick, 2004). If, for example, the gains for competing relative to cooperating are increased (e.g., people would earn $2 instead of only $1 by competing in the game shown in Figure 13.2), people compete more. When people are told they are playing the “Wall Street Game,” they compete more than if the simulation is called the “Community Game” (Gilovich & Ross, 2015). If the instructions refer to the other person as the “opponent,” then competition increases, but the label “partner” shrinks competitiveness (Burnham, McCabe, & Smith, 2000). And, if people know they will be playing multiple trials against the same person, then cooperation increases (Van Lange, Klapwijk, & Van Munster, 2011). In one study, for example, people played the PDG in large groups of 30 to 50 people. The game randomly paired people together on each trial, but the odds of being paired with the same person repeatedly were varied experimentally from low to high. The greater the chances of playing with a person in the future, the more cooperative players became (Bó, 2005).
Behavioral Assimilation
When people play the iterated PDG, their choices are usually influenced by their partner’s prior choices. When playing with someone who consistently makes cooperative choices, people tend to cooperate themselves. Those who encounter competitors, however, soon adopt this strategy, and they, too, begin to compete. Gradually, then behavioral assimilation occurs as group members’ choices become synchronized over time.
The norm of reciprocity is to blame (or credit) for this assimilative process. As noted in Chapter 3, the norm of reciprocity sustains mutuality in exchange: When people who help you later need help, the norm of reciprocity urges you to help them in return. However, the norm of reciprocity also implies that people who harm you are deserving of harm themselves. The converse of “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” is “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” If one group member criticizes the ideas, opinions, or characteristics of another, the victim of the attack will feel justified in counterattacking unless some situational factor legitimizes the aggression of the former (Falk & Fischbacher, 2006).
Unfortunately, negative reciprocity tends to be stronger than positive reciprocity. Although people consistently return kindness with kindness and thereby maintain equity in their relationship and reward positive behavior, they are even more likely to punish an unkindness with hostility. A cooperative person who runs into a competitive partner is more likely to begin to compete before the competitive person begins to cooperate, so as a result a partner turns into an opponent faster than an opponent turns into an ally (Kelley & Stahelski, 1970a, 1970b, 1970c). This asymmetry in reciprocity is even greater when members believe others’ acted deliberately. A person who intentionally treats another person in a positive way may receive a positive response back, but when a person deliberately mistreats another person, a negative payback is assured (Offerman, 2002).
Social Value Orientation
When situational factors align to create competition between people, conflict becomes more likely. But competition does not result only from situational causes, for some people are quicker to compete than others. Jobs and Sculley, for example, differed in many ways. Jobs was born in 1955 in San Francisco, California. He never finished college, and he was a practicing Zen Buddhist. John Sculley was born in 1939, but as a child lived in Bermuda, Brazil, and Europe. He attended Brown University and received an MBA from the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. But the two were alike in one respect: They were both highly competitive.
Are You Proself or Prosocial?
Each of us differs in our orientation to cooperation and competition. Paul Van Lange and his colleagues (1997) developed the social value orientation scale to measure these differences between people. It uses a “decomposed” version of the PDG that asks respondents to choose between three options that yield different consequences for themselves and for another person—labeled the other.
Instructions. Imagine that you have been randomly paired with another person, the other. Both you and other will be picking between three options labeled A, B, and C. These different options produce different amounts of points for you and for other. For example:
Choice A Choice B Choice C
You get 500 500 550
Other gets 100 500 300
In this example, when you pick A, you receive 500 points and the other gets 100. Picking B yields 500 points for both of you. If you select C, you receive 550 points, and the other receives 300. Before you begin making choices, remember there are no right or wrong answers. Just circle the choice (A, B, or C) you most prefer.
Problem 1 Choice A Choice B Choice C
You get 480 480 540
Other gets 480 80 280
Problem 2 Choice A Choice B Choice C
You get 500 500 560
Other gets 500 100 300
Problem 3 Choice A Choice B Choice C
You get 520 520 580
Other gets 520 120 320
Problem 4 Choice A Choice B Choice C
You get 490 500 560
Other gets 490 100 300
Scoring. The complete SVO scale includes 12 of these choices; only a subset of the items were presented here. However, if you consistently picked option A, then you can be considered prosocial. If you consistently picked B, then you are proself. And if you picked C: you are individualistic. Do your choices match your own intuitions about how you respond in mixed-motive situations?
What makes one person more competitive than another? According to social values orientation (SVO) theory, our willingness to cooperate or compete is determined by two sets of values: our concern for our own outcomes and our concern for other people’s outcomes. Proself individuals seek to maximize personal gains; when they play the PDG, they want to earn as many points as they can. Prosocials, in contrast, are also concerned with others’ gains and losses; they want to maximize others’ outcomes (Van Lange et al., 2007). When both orientations are taken into account, SVO theory identifies four distinct orientations:
Individualists are proself and concerned only with their own outcomes. They neither interfere with nor assist other group members, for they focus only on their own outcomes. Their actions may indirectly impact other group members, but such influence is not their goal.
Competitors are proself and strive to maximize their own outcomes, but they also seek to minimize others’ outcomes (their prosocial value is low). They view disagreements as win–lose situations and find satisfaction in forcing their ideas on others.
Cooperators are both prosocial and proself, so they strive to maximize their own outcomes and others’ outcomes as well. They value accommodative interpersonal strategies that generate win–win situations.
Altruists are prosocial but not proself, so they are motivated to help others who are in need. They willingly sacrifice their own outcomes in the hopes of helping others achieve some gain.
Proselfs are more likely to find themselves in conflicts. Their style is abrasive, spurring cooperative members to react with criticism and requests for fairer treatment. Competitors, however, rarely modify their behavior in response to these complaints, because they are relatively unconcerned with maintaining smooth interpersonal relations (Bogaert, Boone, & Declerck, 2008). Hence, competitors try to overwhelm cooperators who sometimes respond by becoming competitive themselves. For cooperators, the perception of others’ cooperativeness is positively correlated with their own cooperativeness. If they think that others will cooperate, they cooperate. For competitors, perceptions of others’ cooperativeness are negatively correlated with their own cooperativeness. If they think that others will cooperate, they compete (Smeesters et al., 2003). When two competitors meet, the result is an intense conflict like that seen at Apple. When competitors lose, they often withdraw from the group altogether (Shure & Meeker, 1967).
Competitors (and altruists, for that matter) are relatively rare; most people are either cooperators or individualists. However, individualists seek their own outcomes without regard for others, so more individualists usually means more conflict (Balliet, Parks, & Joireman, 2009). In one study, researchers first measured peoples’ SVOs and then created four-person groups with varying mixtures of individualists and cooperators. The groups were then set to work on a task that required considerable negotiation and compromise. As expected, the groups composed entirely of cooperators were more likely to use more diplomatic negotiation tactics than were groups of individualists. This effect, however, was the result of cooperators adapting their styles to match the composition of the group. Finding themselves in a group with all cooperators, they cooperated. But if they were members of groups with individualists, they became less cooperative. Individualists, however, did not make adjustments—they maintained their confrontational style of interaction when interacting with other cooperators and with other individualists (Weingart et al., 2007).
Men, Women, and Competition
What if John Sculley were Joanna Sculley—a woman rather than a man? Would she and Jobs have battled as fiercely? Or would Joanna have used less competitive methods for settling the dispute?
Common sex role stereotypes generally assume that men are more competitive than women. Stories of executives conjure up images of individuals who are driven, ruthless, self-seeking, and male. But some versions of evolutionary theory suggest that men are more cooperative than women—at least when interacting with other men (Thayer & Hudson, 2010). But the data are mixed. Some studies find men to be more competitive, but others suggest women are. For example, men are somewhat more competitive than women when competition is a riskier alternative or will yield a greater payoff (Simpson, 2003). Women are more likely to endorse prosocial SVOs relative to men (Knight & Dubro, 1984). Women’s reactions during conflicts are also more nuanced than men’s. If, for example, their partner is attractive, women make more cooperative choices. If they do not like their partner, they are more likely to compete (Kahn, Hottes, & Davis, 1971). Men do tend to cooperate more in all-male groups than do women in all-female groups, but women are more likely to cooperate in situations that involve sharing rather than competing (Balliet, Li et al., 2011). Men displayed heightened physiological reactions—primarily positive ones—when playing a competitive game, whereas women did not (Kivikangas et al., 2014). Given these various findings, when researchers used meta-analytic methods to combine the results of 272 studies of the responses of over 30,000 participants, they concluded men are no more competitive than women (Balliet, Li et al., 2011).
Competition in High-Stakes Situations
Many popular game shows let viewers watch groups overtaken by conflict. On Survivor, for example, only one contestant can win the grand prize, and members must vote a person out of the group each time their team loses. On Weakest Link, members cooperate by answering strings of questions, but after each round they vote to identify and eliminate the weakest player from their teams. The competition among players invariably introduces tension, conflict, and hostility.
Researchers, to determine if people become more competitive when the stakes are high, systematically analyzed the results of one particular game show, Friend or Foe. On this show the teams play a variant of the prisoner’s dilemma game after each round. If both pick Friend, they split their earnings. If one picks Friend but one picks Foe, Foe keeps everything. And if both players pick Foe, they lose all their earnings. Unlike choices made in experimental studies, their choice to cooperate or compete is a very public one, and they are also negotiating for serious amounts of money; on average, $3,705.
When researchers examined teams’ choices, they discovered that players defected, trying to take all the money, 50% of the time. Men tended to compete more than women (55% vs. 46%), and younger players were much more competitive than older ones (59% vs. 37%). Hence, competitive men who were paired with older women tended to take home much more money than all other players. Competitiveness, however, was unrelated to the size of the stake. People playing for substantial amounts were as likely to compete as they were to cooperate. This competitive urge ended up saving the game show a considerable amount of money. Contestants left nearly $100,000 behind as a result of two players making the fatal Foe–Foe choice (List, 2006; Oberholzer-Gee, Waldfogel, & White, 2010; see, too, a replication of this sex difference in Van den Assem, Van Dolder, & Thaler, 2012).
Do Students Learn Best in Cooperative or Competitive Classrooms?
Most educational settings are competitive places—students compete for grades, honors, and class rank. Competition prompts many students to expend greater effort, but sometimes it shifts the focus to grades and away from learning. Students in competitive settings have two options open to them. First, they can improve their own work in the hopes that they rise above the others. Second, they can undermine, sabotage, disrupt, or interfere with others’ work so that their own becomes better by comparison (Amegashie & Runkel, 2007). Students in cooperative classes, in contrast, can help one another reach their learning goals.
Deutsch studied the dark side of competition by creating two different grading systems in his college classes. In competitive classes, students’ grades were relative: The individual who did the best in the group would get the highest grade, whereas the individual who did the worst would get the lowest grade. Deutsch created cooperative groups as well. These students worked together in groups to learn the material, and everyone in the group received the same grade. As Deutsch predicted, conflict was much more pronounced in the competitive groups. Members reported less dependency on others, less desire to win the respect of others, and greater interpersonal animosity. Members of cooperative groups, in contrast, acted friendlier during the meetings, were more encouraging and supportive, and communicated more frequently (Deutsch, 1949a, 1949b, 1973, 1980).
Deutsch is not the only educator and researcher who questions the benefits of competitive classroom goals (Meece, Anderman, & Anderman, 2006). Educational psychologists David Johnson and Roger Johnson (2009), in a meta-analytic review, identified 1,200 studies that examined cooperation, competition, and learning. Their analysis indicated that students in classrooms that stress cooperation rather than individualism or competition work harder, display better psychological adjustment, and have higher self-esteem. Students in cooperative classes also outperformed those in competitive ones: They displayed better reasoning skills, perspective-taking ability, and higher levels of achievement overall. Given these robust results, Johnson and Johnson strongly encourage educators to reevaluate their reliance on competitive goal structures and shift to more group-centered, cooperative methods of instruction.
13-1b. Sharing: Conflict Over Resources
Steve Jobs faced a dilemma. The board of directors of Apple had hired John Sculley to be the CEO, and they expected all the company’s employees to support Sculley’s initiatives. But Sculley called for sacrifices, for he wanted to shift personnel and financial resources away from Jobs’ division. Jobs could have accepted this decision and gone along with the group’s choice, but instead he followed his own path.
Group life, by its very nature, is sometimes a social dilemma. As individuals, members try to extract resources from the group and minimize the amount of time and energy the group takes from them. Yet, as group members, they also wish to contribute to the group, for they realize that their selfishness can destroy the group. Conflicts arise when individualistic motives trump group-oriented motives, and the collective intervenes to redress the imbalance (Parks, 2015).
Commons Dilemmas
The “tragedy of the commons” epitomizes the commons dilemma (also known as a social trap). Shepherds with adjoining farms all share a common grazing field. The common can support many sheep, so the shepherds grow prosperous. Then, one or two shepherds decide to add a few sheep to their flock so that they can make more profit. Others notice the extra sheep, so they, too, add to their flocks. Soon, the commons is overgrazed, and all the sheep die of starvation (Hardin, 1968). The members, tempted by short-term gains, acted selfishly and in so doing brought about long-term losses to the collective (Kramer, 2011).
Any group whose members must share a finite resource faces this social trap. Members may be tempted to take as much as possible of the resource, but if they take too much, the resource will be destroyed. Can groups escape this dilemma? Experience in dealing with the situation, communication, and social pressures that encourage conservation are all critical factors. People who are given two chances to harvest a pool are much more cooperative the second time, for they have learned what can happen if they act selfishly (Allison & Messick, 1985a). Communication, so long as it focuses on strategy, also increases prosocial resource conservation (Brechner, 1977). The commons dilemma can also be partially remedied by developing, within the group, normative standards that stress efficient consumption of the resource rather than greedy exploitation. When members are aware of others’ choices, they tend to conform to those choices so long as the group is harvesting very little from a small pool but is taking more from a larger one (Brucks, Reips, & Ryf, 2007).
Public Goods Dilemmas
The commons is a “take some” dilemma: Members can draw on the resource, but they must not take too much. A public goods dilemma, in contrast, is a “give some” dilemma: Members are asked to contribute to the group, but members often don’t fulfill this obligation. For example, some residents who use their community’s resources, such as public parks, highways, and libraries, may not contribute to the community by paying taxes. Similarly, when students work on class projects as teams, one member may miss meetings and leave assignments undone, but still get a good grade because the group scores well on the final project. When everyone is asked to bring a covered dish to a reception, a few attendees will show up empty-handed. We met these people in Chapter 10’s analysis of social loafing: These individuals are free riders.
Free riding can spark group conflict. When group members in a college class described the sources of conflicts in their project groups, more than 35% of their comments targeted disputes over workload. People had much to say about the dedication of their comembers to the group’s goals, for some members of the group did not put in as much time, effort, and resources as the others expected (Wall & Nolan, 1987). Free riding can also be contagious, for some group members, seeing that others are free riding, may reduce their own contributions or withdraw from the group altogether (Komorita & Parks, 1994). Fortunately, the opposite of free riding—consistent contributing—is also contagious: Free riding decreases in groups where one or more of the members consistently contributes at a high level even though others in the group do not (Weber & Murnighan, 2008). A note of warning, however, for those who pride themselves on doing more than their fair share: Paradoxically, members who are too self-sacrificing—they give much to the common good but take nothing for themselves—are sometimes excluded from the group. They set a standard that others in the group cannot reach (Parks & Stone, 2010).
Free riding poses a significant threat to effective group functioning. As an evolutionary perspective suggests, humans’ ancestral groups could not survive if too many of their members failed to do their share of their group’s work. In consequence, humans are equipped with the mental apparatus needed to detect free riders. Groups can tell the difference, for example, between a person whose lack of contribution is unintentional—someone, for example, who is incompetent, ill, or just confused about the group’s requirements—and a person who is intentionally avoiding work (Delton et al., 2012). But once the group identifies a shirker in their midst, they intervene in various ways. Some groups remind those who contribute too little of their obligations and extract promises of improved performance. Others publically reward those who do their share. Groups also impose costs on the free riders—criticism, public humiliation, physical punishment, and fines are all ways to punish free riders. People are even willing to impose costs on themselves if it means that free riders can be punished in some way (Balliet, Mulder, & Van Lange, 2011).
Fairness Dilemmas
Jobs and Sculley, even many years after their conflagration, disagreed not only about the causes but also about the essential facts. Sculley (2011) denied ever firing Jobs. He admits that he reassigned Jobs, but it was Jobs’ decision to resign. Jobs, in contrast, remembers being fired. In a commencement address given at Stanford University in 2005, he asked, “How can you get fired from a company you started?” (quoted in Ong, 2012). Jobs did not consider the board’s decision to be a fair one, but Sculley did.
Fairness judgments are determined by two forms of social justice: procedural and distributive. As discussed in Chapter 11, procedural justice is based on the methods used to make decisions about the allocation of resources, whereas distributive justice concerns how rewards and costs are shared by (distributed across) the group members. In the case of Jobs versus Sculley, the fairness of firing Jobs depends in part on how the board of directors made their decision. If they weighed the decision carefully, sought all the data they needed, and discussed the problem with all concerned parties, then the decision would be a fair one—at least in terms of procedural justice. Distributive justice, however, asks, “Did Jobs get what he deserved?” When one’s piece of cake seems smaller than it should be, when others get the best seats right up near the front of the bus, when workers who do the same job are paid different salaries, when the person who started the company is fired by the person he hired to help him run the company, some may feel that distributive justice has not been done (Tyler, 2013).
Distributive justice depends, in part, on the norms the group uses to allocate rewards. In some groups, such as Apple, rewards are given for productivity and performance—and individuals who contribute little can expect little in return. Other groups, in contrast, base the distribution of rewards on other factors, such as status, duration of membership, or need. Some common distributive norms follow:
Equity: The group gives more to members who have done more for the group. Someone who has invested a good deal of time, energy, money, or other type of input in the group receives more than individuals who have contributed little.
Equality: The group treats all members equally, no matter what their contribution to the group. For example, a person who contributes 20% of the group’s resources receives as much as the person who contributes 40%.
Power: The group allocates more of its resources to those with more authority, status, or control over the group and less to those in lower-level positions (“to the victor go the spoils”).
Need: The group takes into consideration the level of need of each of its members and allocates more of its resources to those with the greatest needs and less to those who need less, irrespective of how much these individuals contributed to the group. This norm is sometimes termed the social responsibility norm since those who have more are expected to share with those who have less.
Equity versus Equality
Money (and other resources) may not be the root of all evil, but its distribution often causes conflicts within groups (Allison & Messick, 1990; Samuelson & Allison, 1994). Members who contribute less to the group often argue in favor of the equality norm, whereas those who contribute more tend to favor the equity norm. Women prefer equality over equity even when they outperform their coworkers (Wagner, 1995). Members of larger groups prefer to base allocations on equity, whereas members of smaller groups stress equality (Allison, McQueen, & Schaerfl, 1992). Some countries stress equality and need more than equity, as do different organizations and groups within each country (Fischer et al., 2007). Members of groups working on tasks when one individual’s contributions are critically important for success prefer equitable distributions over egalitarian ones.
Group members who feel that they are receiving too little for what they are giving—negative inequity—sometimes withdraw from the group, reduce their effort, or turn in work of lower quality. Receiving too much for what one has given—positive inequity—sometimes causes people to increase their efforts so they deserve what they get, but it is negative inequity that causes conflict (Fortin & Fellenz, 2008; Rivera & Tedeschi, 1976). These reactions are driven, in part, by self-interest. Most people strive to maximize their personal rewards, so they react negatively when they are denied what they feel they deserve. But people also react to negative inequity because they recognize that the rewards the group gives them are an indication of their status and prestige within the group—if the group gives more to Sculley than to Jobs, then the group must think Sculley is better than Jobs. In general, however, members’ reactions are shaped more by procedural justice than distributive justice. Members who believe that their group has acted with integrity while allocating rewards feel a sense of pride in their group (Blader & Tyler, 2003, 2009).
Are Humans the Only Species That Understands Fairness?
Humans are not the only species with a highly evolved sense of distributive justice, at least according to research conducted by primatologists Sarah Brosnan, Frans de Waal, and their colleagues. They trained capuchin monkeys to work for food rewards. The monkeys, when given a token, would be rewarded with a small portion of food when they handed the token back. These monkeys would work for a bit of cucumber (low-value reward), but they preferred a grape above all else (high-value reward).
Once trained, Brosnan and de Waal set up different payment conditions to see how the monkeys would respond. In the equity condition, two monkeys worked side by side for the same low-value reward; and work they did, diligently exchanging a coin for food. In the inequity condition, one of the monkeys received the high-value reward and the other was given the low-value reward. The latter monkeys were none too pleased. In addition to vocalized complaints and gestures of defiance, they refused to continue exchanging the tokens for food, and, when given their food reward, they would indicate their displeasure by returning it—aiming for the researchers. These reactions were worse still in a third, “free food” condition. Conflict reached its peak when the one monkey was given grapes without even having to trade coins back and forth (Brosnan, 2011; Brosnan & de Waal, 2003).
Brosnan and De Waal conclude that these monkeys’ reactions were guided by their instinctive sense of fairness, for they appeared to recognize the inequity of the situation. But not all primate species react so negatively. Rhesus monkeys, for example, do not seem to be sensitive to distributive justice, perhaps because they live in small groups with very differentiated chains of authority that create great inequalities in the distribution of rewards. They also note that the monkeys that prospered under the inequitable arrangement showed no sign of concern over getting more than their fair share. They were not so altruistic that they shared their ill-gotten gains with their unrewarded partner.
Responsibility Dilemmas
When a group completes its work, members often dispute who deserves credit and who deserves blame. The board of directors at Apple blamed Jobs for the company’s economic misfortunes. Sculley credited his skilled marketing interventions for Apple’s prosperity in the years following Jobs’ dismissal. Jobs blamed Sculley for ruining the company.
Just as individuals carry out extensive appraisals of their own successes and failures, so do group members devote significant cognitive resources to the analysis and comprehension of their collective endeavors. This appraisal, however, is complicated by the collaborative nature of group activities. Group members must identify the factors that contributed to each member’s performance, assign credit and blame, and make decisions regarding rewards, power, and status. Each group member, however, generally sees himself or herself as somewhat more worthy of credit than others in the group. This tendency, termed egocentrism, can be easily documented just by asking people to indicate how responsible they feel they are for any group activity, where 0% means they are not responsible at all and 100% that they alone are responsible for what the group has achieved. These scores, when summed across group members, invariably exceed 100% (Burnette & Forsyth, 2008; Ross & Sicoly, 1979).
This bias occurs, in part, because people are far more aware of their own contributions than those of others—they literally see themselves busily contributing to the group effort and overlook the work of others. Thus, egocentrism can be reduced by asking group members to think about their collaborators’ contributions, a process termed unpacking. When, for example, the authors of multiauthored research articles were asked to estimate their responsibility for the joint project, they were less egocentric if they were also asked to estimate how much the other coauthors had contributed (Caruso, Epley, & Bazerman, 2006; Savitsky et al., 2005).
Group members’ claims of responsibility can be either group-serving (sociocentric) or self-serving (egocentric). After success, members may praise the entire group for its good work with such comments as “We all did well” or “Our hard work really paid off.” Likewise, after failure, members may join together in blaming outside forces and absolving one another of blame. Because these types of responsibility claims protect and enhance the group, they lower the levels of relationship conflict within the group (Peterson & Behfar, 2003). Frequently, however, self-serving members blame one another for the group’s misfortunes or take the lion’s share of the credit after a success (Forsyth, Zyzniewski, & Giammanco, 2002).
These self-serving attributions result in conflict and a loss of cohesion (Gibson & Schroeder, 2003). In one study, members of successful and unsuccessful groups were asked to complete a confidential report of their responsibility and others’ responsibilities for the outcome. Then, to their surprise, this report was shared with other group members. Unbeknown to the group members, the actual reports were switched with standard ones indicating that another group member either took high, moderate, or low responsibility for the outcome. Group members who blamed others for failure or tried to claim the lion’s share of responsibility after success were not well liked (Forsyth, Berger, & Mitchell, 1981). Other studies confirmed that those who engage in self-serving attributions in groups are often viewed as braggarts, narcissists, or even untrustworthy liars, but that those who share responsibility appropriately are considered trustworthy teammates (Dattner, 2011).
13-1c. Controlling: Conflict Over Power
Jobs thought that he would be content to allow another person to make key decisions about Apple’s future, but when those decisions did not mesh with his own vision, he sought to regain control. Sculley believed that Jobs was undermining his authority. Both Jobs and Sculley sought the power they needed to control the company, and their power struggle caused turmoil within the group.
As noted in earlier chapters, the differentiation of members in terms of status, prestige, and power is a ubiquitous feature of groups. As the group strives to coordinate its members’ task-directed activities, some individuals will begin to assert more authority over the others. Those who occupy positions of authority have the right to issue orders to others who are expected to follow those directives. Once individuals gain power over others, they tend to defend their sources of power through manipulation, the formation of coalitions, information control, and favoritism. These power processes occur with great regularity in groups, but they nonetheless cause waves of tension, conflict, and anger to ripple through the group (Greer, 2014).
Infighting, power struggles, and disputes are particularly common in business and corporate settings. Sociologist Calvin Morrill (1995) spent several years collecting ethnographic data on the sources and consequences of conflict between executives in corporations. His analysis confirmed the image of companies as arenas for power struggles, when group members compete with each other for power, promotions, and prominence, often by using manipulative, illicit tactics. Contests of authority and power were so commonplace in one company that the executives developed an elaborate set of terms and expressions pertaining to company politics, which Morrill recorded much like an anthropologist would record the rituals of the members of an isolated tribe. An ambush was a “covert action to inconvenience an adversary” (synonyms: bushwhack and cheap shot); blindsiding was “an intentional and surprising public embarrassment by one executive at another’s expense”; an outlaw was “an executive who handles conflict in unpredictable ways but who is regarded as especially task competent.” In some cases, this maneuvering would result in a meltdown—a “physical fight between executives” (1995, pp. 263–265).
13-1d. Working: Task and Process Conflict
When Sculley first went to work at Apple, he and Jobs disagreed about such things as marketing, research and development, and long-term strategy, but they worked through these disagreements. They also disagreed about the way the company should operate and how decisions should be made. These disagreements, in the end, were their undoing.
Task Conflict
As the group goes about its work on shared tasks and activities, members sometimes disagree with one another. This type of conflict is termed task conflict, or content conflict or substantive conflict, because it stems from disagreements about issues that are relevant to the group’s goals and objectives. No group of people is so well coordinated that its members’ actions mesh perfectly, so conflicts over group tasks are inevitable. Groups and organizations use such conflicts to make plans, increase efficiency and creativity, solve problems, decide issues, and resolve misunderstandings. Periods of tension and disunity are so typical in groups that a “storming stage” or “fight-and-flight” stage is included in most theories of group development (see Chapter 5). Sculley and Jobs, as the leaders of Apple, were supposed to argue and debate over substantive issues having to do with making and selling computers (Jehn, 2014).
Process Conflict
Task conflict occurs when ideas, opinions, and interpretations clash. process conflict, or procedural conflict, occurs when strategies, policies, and methods clash. Group members may find themselves uncertain about how to resolve a problem, with some championing continued discussion and others favoring a vote. The leader of the group may make decisions and initiate actions without consulting the group; but the group may become irritated if denied an opportunity to participate in decision making. Members dislike the way roles have been allocated within the group, and they try to change their positions and responsibilities. Members who are assigned particular tasks do not do them or they do them very poorly. Members disagree about how they are supposed to be working together (Behfar et al., 2011).
The Benefits of Task and Process Conflict
Both task and process conflict have been implicated as causes of dissatisfaction and inefficiency in groups, but they do not necessarily lead to full-blown, table–pounding, harsh words shouted, and relationship rending conflict. When groups disagree about issues of substance and about process, as they often do, resolving these disagreements eliminates problems that may undermine their performance in the future. Group members must understand one another’s perspectives, and such understanding sometimes deepens when conflict has surfaced, been confronted, and been resolved. If groups never confront their differences and disagreements and resolve them, they may find that cohesiveness, and efficiency, always elude them (Bradley et al., 2015; Maltarich et al., 2016).
But both content and process conflict, if not skillfully managed by the group’s members, will destabilize the group and undermine its performance (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). People who disagree with the group, even when their position is a reasonable one, often provoke considerable animosity. The dissenter who refuses to accept others’ views is liked less, assigned low-status tasks, and sometimes ostracized. As the group struggles to reach consensus on the substantive issues at hand, it responds negatively to those group members who slow down this process (Kruglanski & Webster, 1991). Researchers studied this process by planting a confederate in discussion groups. The confederate deliberately slowed down the group with such interruptions as “What do you mean?” “Do you think that’s important?” or “I don’t understand.” In some groups, the confederate had an excuse: He told the group that his hearing aid was not working that day. Other groups, in contrast, received no exculpating explanation. At the end of the session, members were asked to identify one person to exclude from the group. Everyone (100%) picked the disruptive confederate if there was no excuse for his actions (Burnstein & Worchel, 1962).
13-1e. Liking and Disliking: Relationship Conflict
When school psychologists studied children playing together during recess, they discovered this period of relatively unsupervised interaction was rife with conflict: arguments about a game’s rules, disputes about what is fair and what is not, and who gets to make decisions. But the most intense conflicts were personal. Children who disliked each other got into fights. Children who had irritating personal habits were routinely excluded by others. Children in one clique were mean to children in other cliques and to those who were excluded from all cliques. When children who said they had a rotten time at recess were asked why, in most cases they explained, “I had to play alone” and “Other kids would not let me join in” (Doll, Murphy, & Song, 2003).
Adults do not always play well together either. Relationship conflict, or personal conflict, is rooted in individuals’ antipathies for other group members. Personal likes and dislikes do not always translate into group conflict, but people often mention their disaffection for another group member when they air their complaints about their groups (Alicke et al., 1992). Morrill’s (1995) study of high-level corporate executives, for example, revealed both task and power conflicts, but more than 40% of their disputes were rooted in “individual enmity between the principals without specific reference to other issues.” Disputants questioned each other’s moral values, the way they treated their spouses, and their politics. They complained about the way their adversaries acted at meetings, the way they dressed at work and at social gatherings, their hobbies and recreational pursuits, and their personality traits. They just did not like each other very much (Morrill, 1995, p. 69).
Sources of Relationship Conflict
Just as any factor that creates a positive bond between people can increase a group’s cohesion, so any factor that creates disaffection can increase conflict. In many cases, people explain their conflicts by blaming the other person’s negative personal qualities, such as moodiness, compulsivity, incompetence, communication difficulties, and sloppiness. People usually dislike others who evaluate them negatively, so criticism—even when deserved—can generate conflict. Group members who treat others unfairly or are quarrelsome engender more conflict than those who behave politely (Albert & Moskowitz, 2014).
People who have agreeable personalities are usually better liked by others, and they also exert a calming influence on their groups. In a study of dyads that included people who were either high or low in agreeableness, dyads with two highly agreeable individuals displayed the least conflict, whereas dyads that contained two individuals with low agreeableness displayed the most (Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, & Hair, 1996). Agreeable people also responded more negatively to conflict overall. When people described their day-to-day activities and their daily moods, they reported feeling unhappy, tense, irritated, and anxious on days when they experienced conflicts—especially if they were by nature agreeable people (Suls, Martin, & David, 1998).
Conflict and Balance in Groups
Mature adults who do not like each other can usually manage to overlook their personal differences and work well with one another. Until, that is, they find themselves on different sides of a substantive issue. Once Sculley and Jobs’ personal liking for each other deteriorated, each time they discussed matters of substance their personal hostility spilled over into task and process conflict.
Sociologist Howard Taylor examined task and relationship conflict by arranging for male college students to discuss an issue with another student whom they liked or disliked. This student was Taylor’s confederate who he trained to deliberately agree or disagree on key issues. Taylor then watched the groups for evidence of conflict, including tension (nervousness, stammering, blushing, expressions of frustration, and withdrawal), tension release (giggling, joking, cheerfulness, and silliness), and antagonism (anger, hostility, taunting, and defensiveness).
Taylor, drawing on balance theory, predicted that conflicts between friends would elevate levels of tension, but that conflicts with enemies would generate more open hostility. As noted in Chapter 6, disagreeing with someone who is liked is an imbalanced state that will create psychological discomfort. Disagreeing with someone you dislike, in contrast, is cognitively “harmonious”—the elements of the situation all “fit together without stress” (Heider, 1958, p. 180). Such a situation may not cause psychological tension, but it will likely cause conflict, for it combines both task conflict with personal conflict.
Figure 13.3 partly summarizes the findings. As balance theory suggests, tension was highest in the unbalanced pairs—when disagreeing people liked each other or when people who disliked each other agreed. People did not like disagreeing with friends or agreeing with their foes. The greatest amount of antagonism, however, occurred when discussants both disagreed and disliked each other. So, the predictions of balance theory were only partially confirmed. The most harmonious groups were those whose members liked each other and found themselves in agreement. However, the least harmonious groups were balanced, but by negative rather than positive forces: Members disliked each other and they disagreed. Taylor (1970) concluded that such groups would likely not long endure outside the confines of the laboratory.
13-2. Confrontation and Escalation
Early in 1985, Sculley and Jobs began moving toward a showdown, pushed into conflict by their incompatibilities, their marked differences of opinion about the company, the competitive nature of their interdependence, and their refusal to take less than they felt was their due. They tried to quell the tension, but by spring, the men were trapped in an upward spiral of hostility.
Conflicts escalate. Although the parties to the conflict may hope to reach a solution to their dispute quickly, a host of psychological and interpersonal factors can frustrate their attempts to control the conflict. As Sculley continued to argue with Jobs, he became more committed to his own position, and his view of Jobs and his position became biased. Sculley used stronger influence tactics, and soon other members of Apple were drawn into the fray. All these factors fed the conflict, changing it from a disagreement to a full-fledged corporate war.
13-2a. Uncertainty → Commitment
As conflicts escalate, group members’ doubts and uncertainties are replaced by a firm commitment to their position. Sculley, for example, became more certain that his insights were correct, and his disagreement with Jobs only increased his commitment to them. When people try to persuade others, they search out supporting arguments. If this elaboration process yields further consistent information, they become even more committed to their initial position. People rationalize their choices once they have made them: They seek out information that supports their views, they reject information that conflicts with their stance, and they become entrenched in their original position. Moreover, people feel that once they commit to a position publicly, they must stick with it. They may realize that they are wrong, but to save face, they continue to argue against their opponents (Tavris & Aronson, 2007).
The dollar auction illustrates the impact of conflict on commitment. Members bid for $1, but one special rule is added. The highest bidder gets to keep the dollar bill, but the second highest bidder gets no money and must pay the amount he or she bid. Bids flow slowly at first, but soon the offers climb over 50 cents toward the $1 mark. As the stakes increase, however, quitting becomes costly. If a bidder who offers 50 cents for the $1 is bested by someone offering 60 cents, the 50-cent bidder will lose 50 cents. So he or she is tempted to beat the 60-cent bid. This cycle continues upward—well beyond the value of the dollar bill in some cases. On occasion, players have spent as much as $20 for the $1 (Teger, 1980).
Reactance can also cause a person to become overly committed to their position and resistant to compromise. When reactance occurs, individuals strive to reassert their sense of freedom by affirming their autonomy. In one study in which teammates had to make a choice between two alternatives marked 1-A and 1-B, 73% chose 1-A if their partner said, “I prefer 1-A,” but only 40% chose 1-A if the partner demanded, “I think we should both do 1-A” (Brehm & Sensenig, 1966). In another study, 83% of the group members refused to go along with a group participant who said, “I think it’s pretty obvious all of us are going to work on Task A” (Worchel & Brehm, 1971, p. 299).
13-2b. Perception → Misperception
Individuals’ reactions during conflict are shaped in fundamental ways by their perception of the situation and the people in that situation. Group members’ inferences about each other’s strengths, attitudes, values, and other personal qualities provide the basis for mutual understanding, but during conflict these perceptions tend to be so distorted that they inflame rather than smooth conflict (Thompson, Nadler, & Lount, 2006).
Misattribution
Sometimes group members settle on explanations that sustain and enhance members’ interpersonal relations. Jobs, in trying to explain Sculley’s actions, may have assumed Sculley was under pressure from the board, was unaccustomed to the demands of running a high-tech firm, or was dealing with the stress of his relocation. But frequently, people explain their conflicts in ways that make the problem worse. For example, Jobs would think that Sculley’s actions were caused by his personal qualities, such as incompetence, belligerence, argumentativeness, greed, or selfishness. Jobs might also believe that Sculley was deliberately trying to harm him and that Sculley therefore deserved to be blamed and punished (Fincham & Bradbury, 1992, 1993). In short, Jobs would fall prey to the fundamental attribution error (FAE) and assume that Sculley’s behavior was caused by personal (dispositional) rather than situational (environmental) factors (Ross, 1977). If the conflict continued, he may have eventually decided it was an intractable one. People expect intractable conflicts to be prolonged, intense, and very hard to resolve (Bar-Tal, 2007).
Misperceiving Motivations
When conflict occurs in a group, members begin to wonder about one another’s motivations. “Why,” Steve Jobs may have wondered, “is Sculley not supporting my work with the Mac? He must know how important this project is to the company, so why is he not giving it the attention it deserves?”
During conflict, members often become distrustful of one another. This loss of trust is one of the primary reasons why people, when they begin to compete with one another, have difficulty returning to a cooperative relationship. Researchers examined this process by pairing people playing a PDG-like game with partners who used one of four possible strategies described earlier: competition, cooperation, individualism, and altruism. When later asked to describe their partners’ motives, the players recognized when they were playing with an individualist or a competitor, but they had more trouble accurately perceiving cooperation and altruism (Maki, Thorngate, & McClintock, 1979).
People with competitive SVOs are the most inaccurate in their perceptions of cooperation. When cooperators play the PDG with other cooperators, their perceptions of their partner’s strategy are inaccurate only 6% of the time. When competitors play the PDG with cooperators, however, they misinterpret their partner’s strategy 47% of the time, mistakenly believing that the cooperators are competing (Kelley & Stahelski, 1970a, 1970b, 1970c; Sattler & Kerr, 1991). Competitors are also biased in their search for information, for they are more likely to seek out information that confirms their suspicions—”I am dealing with a competitive person”—rather than information that might indicate the others are attempting to cooperate (Van Kleef & De Dreu, 2002). Competitors also tend to deliberately misrepresent their intentions, sometimes claiming to be more cooperative than they actually are (Steinel & De Dreu, 2004).
13-2c. Soft Tactics → Hard Tactics
People can influence other people in dozens of different ways; they can promise, reward, threaten, punish, bully, discuss, instruct, negotiate, manipulate, supplicate, ingratiate, and so on. Some of these tactics are harsher than others. Threats, punishment, and bullying are all hard, contentious tactics because they are direct, nonrational, and unilateral. People use softer tactics at the outset of a conflict, but as the conflict escalates, they shift to stronger and stronger tactics. Sculley gradually shifted from relatively mild methods of influence (discussion, negotiation) to stronger tactics (threats). Eventually, he demoted Jobs (Lindsley, Brass, & Thomas, 1995).
But as Chapter 8’s analysis of power explained, harsh, coercive, and unilateral influence tactics often trigger reactance, negative emotions, and the use of hard tactics of influence in return. When members express their ideas as questions, soften their claims with tag phrases such as “Do you see what I mean?” or “What do you think?” and explicitly underscore their uncertainty, disagreements are less likely to turn into conflicts (Weingart et al., 2015). Stronger tactics may gain initial compliance, but people generally “fight fire with fire:” When John threatened Steve, Steve answered with threats of his own.
What Should You Say to Someone Who Refuses to Cooperate?
Social psychologist Dean Pruitt and his colleagues (1997) studied conflict by creating a simulated birthday card factory. They paid participants, who worked individually or in groups, for each card they made. The sessions went well until one person (or group, in the group condition) began acting selfishly by hoarding materials that the other members needed. The hoarder, as you might suspect, was part of the research team. As the hour wore on, it became clear that this person or group was going to make far more money than everyone else, and the real participants became more and more frustrated. If they couldn’t get the supplies they needed, they would never reach their goal.
The subjects, to coax the hoarder into sharing, began gently—with polite requests and statements, such as “May I use the glue?” or “We need the glue.” But when those methods failed, most shifted to demands and complaints. When those methods failed, they tried problem solving and appeals to a third party: nearly half complained to the experimenters, asking them to intervene. In the most extreme cases, they used threats, abuse, and anger to influence the irritating confederate: “Please may I use the glue” eventually became “Give me the glue, you pig, or else.”
Pruitt and his research team discovered that groups used harsher influence tactics than individuals, and that harsh tactics were coupled with more negative evaluations of the noncooperator(s). In fact, only groups used the more negative types of influence methods, such as verbal abuse and threats. Pruitt and his colleagues also found that the women in the study tended to use more threats than did the men, but the men were more likely to be the targets of stronger rather than weaker influence tactics (Mikolic, Parker, & Pruitt, 1997). These findings confirmed the advice of our grade school teachers: Play nice and share your toys.
The Trucking Game Experiment
People who use hard tactics often overwhelm their antagonists, and such methods intensify conflicts. Social psychologists Morton Deutsch and Robert Krauss (1960) examined this intensification process in their classic trucking game experiment. In their simulation pairs of women role-played the owners of two trucking companies, Acme and Bolt, carrying merchandise over the roads mapped in Figure 13.4. Acme and Bolt each earned 60 cents after each completed run, minus 1 cent for each second taken up by the trip.
The truck route set the stage for competition and conflict between Acme and Bolt. The shortest path from start to finish for Acme was Route 216 and for Bolt was Route 106, but these routes merged into a one-lane highway. When trucks encountered each other along this route, one player had to back up to her starting position to let the other through. Acme and Bolt could avoid this confrontation by taking the winding alternate route, but this path took longer.
All the pairs played the same basic game, but some were provided with the power to threaten their opponents and others were not. In the unilateral threat condition, Acme was told that a gate, which only she could open and close, was located at the fork in Route 216. When the gate was closed, neither truck could pass this point in the road, making control of the gate a considerable benefit to Acme. If Bolt attempted to use the main route, all Acme had to do was close the gate, forcing Bolt to back up and enabling Acme to reopen the gate and proceed quickly to her destination. Thus, when only Acme possessed the gate, Bolt’s profits were greatly threatened. In the bilateral threat condition, both sides had the use of gates located at the ends of the one-lane section of Route 216, and, in the control condition, no gates were given to the players.
Deutsch and Krauss’s control participants soon learned to resolve the conflict over the one-lane road. Most of these pairs took turns using the main route, and, on average, each participant made a $1 profit. Winnings dwindled, however, when one of the players was given a gate. Participants in the unilateral threat condition lost an average of $2.03. Bolt’s losses were twice as great as Acme’s, but even Acme lost more than $1 at the game. Conflict was even worse when both Acme and Bolt had gates. In the bilateral threat condition, both players usually took the longer route because the gates on the main route were kept closed, and their losses in this condition averaged $4.38.
Power and Conflict
These findings convinced Deutsch and Krauss that the capacity to threaten others intensifies conflict. They also noted that establishing a communication link between adversaries does not necessarily help them to solve their dispute (Krauss & Morsella, 2006). If one party can or does threaten the other party, the threatened party sometimes fares best if he or she cannot respond with a counterthreat. Equally powerful opponents often, but not always, learn to avoid the use of their power if the fear of retaliation is high (Coleman et al., 2013).
13-2d. Reciprocity → Retaliation
Conflict-ridden groups may seem normless with hostility and dissatisfaction spinning out of control. Yet upward conflict spirals are in many cases sustained by the norm of reciprocity. If one group member criticizes the ideas, opinions, or characteristics of another, the victim of the attack will feel justified in counterattacking unless some situational factor legitimizes the hostility of the former (Osgood, 2017).
If members comply exactly with the norm of reciprocity, a mild threat would elicit a mild threat in return, and an attack would lead to a counterattack. But most people apply the rule of rough reciprocity—they give too much (overmatching) or too little (undermatching) in return. Those who retaliate tend to overmatch: They feel that their response is a fair one, whereas the punished transgressor thinks the level of retaliation is excessive (Stillwell, Baumeister, & Del Priore, 2008).
Rough reciprocity causes conflicts to escalate. One researcher studied this process by arranging for women to play a PDG-like game, but modified it so they could send messages back and forth and penalize each other. When a woman received a note from her partner threatening her with a penalty, she sent back a threat in return. When one woman sent multiple threats, her partner did as well. This reciprocity, however, was rough rather than exact. At low levels of conflict, the participants’ threats were somewhat stronger, and the penalties they warned of were somewhat greater. At higher levels of conflict, most of the participants undermatched their partner’s threats. The overmatching that occurs initially may serve as a strong warning, whereas the undermatching at high levels of conflict may be used to send a conciliatory message (Youngs, 1986).
13-2e. Irritation → Anger
When disputes arise, tempers flare, and this increase in negative emotions exacerbates the initial conflict. Most people, when asked to talk about a time when they became angry, said that they usually lost their temper when arguing with people they knew rather than with strangers. They admitted that their anger increased the negativity of the conflict; 49% became verbally abusive when they were angry and 10% said they became physically aggressive (Averill, 1983). Participants in another study reported physically attacking someone or something, losing emotional control, or imagining violence against someone else when they were angry (Shaver et al., 1987). Even when group members began by discussing their points calmly and dispassionately, as they became locked into their positions, emotional expression begins to replace logical discussion (De Dreu et al., 2007). Individuals who endorse the principle of negative reciprocity—they agree with such statements as “If someone treats me badly, I feel I should treat them even worse”—tend to become angry when they feel they have been treated badly (Eisenberger et al., 2004, p. 791).
Emotions serve important functions in groups, and anger is no exception. Anger is a way to communicate one’s displeasure to others in the group and, in some contexts, is considered appropriate and justified. Anger can be an effective means of influencing others, for individuals who express anger during one meeting tend to be treated more circumspectly in the next, and their demands are more likely to be met. Anger, however, can trigger all manner of negative interpersonal behaviors, including the rejection of concessions, the tendering of unworkable initial offers, and the use of contentious influence strategies. When people express their anger, it redefines the situation, changing it from a cooperative one into one of conflict (Van Kleef, 2016). Others often interpret a display of anger as an expression of contempt, and expressing contempt for fellow group members is rarely a good thing (Fischer & Roseman, 2007). Anger is also a contagious emotion in groups. Group members, when interacting with someone who has become angry, tend to become angry themselves (van Kleef & Fischer, 2016). Even when people are physically separated from each other and interacting via the Internet, they still manage to communicate their displeasure to one another, and the result is often increased rather than decreased conflict.
How Do Group Members Yell at Each Other Online?
People use the Internet for all kinds of constructive purposes, such as accessing and exchanging information, discussing important issues, and strengthening interpersonal connections, but just because people are communicating at a distance does not mean that they will be immune from conflict. People in online groups can’t raise their voices, shake their fists, or stare each other down, but they can include profanities in their emails, type their posts in capital letters, and write insulting, degrading things in their messages (Turnage, 2007).
Online conflict is triggered by the same factors that cause conflict in offline groups: competitiveness, personality differences, concerns about fairness and distribution of workload and resources, struggles for power, disagreement over the group’s tasks and processes, and personal likes and dislikes. But the online context adds a few unique and influential elements to the conflict mix. Working online can lead to disinhibition, so people express sentiments and opinions that they would never say aloud in face-to-face conversations where they are inhibited by norms of civility or by self-control mechanisms. Online groups, too, allow members to express themselves immediately, so there is no opportunity for members to regain their composure after something or someone irritates them. In consequence, “members are prone to immediate articulation of negative emotions in response to a conflict” (Ayoko, Konrad, & Boyle, 2012, p. 169). The technology itself can also be a source of process conflict—a group sitting in a room conversing does not encounter the irksome technical problems that online groups often do.
The discourse of online groups, however, is regulated by social norms; individuals are not free to express themselves in ways that are openly contemptuous of others’ preferences or the group’s standards. In some Internet groups, a post that is hostile, rude, or contains profanity will generate a strong reproach from the community, warning the individual to refrain from such behaviors. Some groups, too, have established rules about how disputants should communicate. The contents of Wikipedia, for example, are created, reviewed, and revised by a community of volunteers, and the community’s norms, termed the five pillars, include “interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars). However, Wikipedians (as the editors of pages are called) do not always agree about either the content of a given entry (task conflict) or the way in which another editor went about making a change (process conflict). Wikipedia therefore offers an area for every entry where editors can discuss their issues and resolve their disputes in a “respectful and civil manner.” In many cases, however, the Wikipedians cannot meet this high standard, and an edit war breaks out. “An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other’s contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion” (http://en.wikipedia.org/). Even though the community spends considerable time editing its policies, when researchers examined the communication of editors working behind the scenes at Wikipedia, they found little evidence of the application of basic principles of civil discourse (Black et al., 2011). Even in the member-friendly world of Wikipedia, disagreements, disputes, and debates often escalated into conflict.
13-2f. Few → Many
During the Jobs versus Sculley conflict, Jobs tried to persuade each member of the board to side with him in the dispute. His goal was to form a powerful coalition that would block Sculley’s plans and swing the vote of the board in his favor.
Coalitions exist in most groups, but when conflict erupts, group members use coalitions to shift the balance of power in their favor. The initial disagreement may involve only two group members, but as conflicts intensify, previously neutral members often join with one faction. Similarly, even when members initially express many different views, with time, these multiparty conflicts are reduced to two-party blocs through coalition formation. Coalitions can even link rivals who decide to join forces temporarily to achieve a specific outcome (a mixed-motive situation). Although allies may wish to compete with one another, no single individual has enough power to succeed alone. Hence, while the coalition exists, the competitive motive must be stifled (Komorita & Parks, 1994).
Coalitions draw more members of the group into the fray. Coalitions are often viewed as contentious, heavy-handed influence tactics because individuals in the coalition work not only to ensure their own outcomes but also to worsen the outcomes of noncoalition members. Coalitions form with people and against other people. In business settings, for example, the dominant coalition can control the organization, yet it works outside the bounds of the formal group structure. Those who are excluded from a coalition react with hostility to the coalition members and seek to regain power by forming their own coalitions. Thus, coalitions must be constantly maintained through strategic bargaining and negotiation (Jehn et al., 2013).
13-3. Conflict Resolution
In one way or another, conflicts subside. Even when members are committed to their own viewpoints, high levels of tension cannot be maintained indefinitely. Disputants may regain control of their tempers and break the upward conflict spiral. The group may fissure, splitting into two or more subgroups whose members are more compatible. One member may leave the group, as was the result in the Jobs versus Sculley dispute. In time, group hostility abates.
13-3a. Commitment → Negotiation
Just as conflicts escalate when group members become firmly committed to a position and will not budge, conflicts de-escalate when group members are willing to negotiate with others to reach a solution that benefits all parties. Negotiation is a reciprocal communication process whereby two or more parties to a dispute examine specific issues, explain their positions, and exchange offers and counteroffers.
Distributive and Integrative Negotiations
Negotiation sometimes amounts to little more than simple bargaining or mutual compromise. In such distributive negotiation, both parties retain their competitive orientation and take turns making small concessions until some equally dissatisfying middle ground is reached. Haggling and bartering (“I’ll give you $20 for it, and not a penny more!”) illustrate this form of negotiation. Integrative negotiation, in contrast, is a collaborative conflict resolution method. Rather than trying to only maximize one’s own outcomes, integrative negotiators search for solutions that will benefit both sides. Bargainers need not be motivated by a concern for the other’s well-being, but they recognize that a solution that benefits everyone will be one that will likely be more readily adopted and implemented (Pruitt, 2012; Thompson, Wang, & Gunia, 2013).
Negotiation Styles
Individuals differ in their approach to negotiations. The Harvard Negotiation Project, for example, identified three basic types of negotiators—soft, hard, and principled (see Table 13.1). Soft bargainers see negotiation as too close to competition, so they choose a gentle style of negotiation. They make offers that are not in their best interests, they yield to others’ demands, they avoid any confrontation, and they maintain good relations with fellow negotiators. Hard bargainers, in contrast, use tough, competitive tactics during negotiations. They begin by taking an extreme position on the issue, and then they make small concessions only grudgingly. The hard bargainer uses contentious strategies of influence and says such things as “Take it or leave it,” “This is my final offer,” “This point is not open to negotiation,” “My hands are tied,” and “I’ll see you in court.”
Table 13.1 Comparisons between the Three Approaches to Negotiation
Element Soft Negotiation Hard Negotiation Principled Negotiation
Perception of others Friends Adversaries Problem solvers
Goals Agreement Victory A wise outcome reached efficiently and amicably
Concessions Make concessions to cultivate the relationship Demand concessions as a condition of the relationship Separate the people from the problem
People versus problems Be soft on the people and the problem Be hard on the problem and the people Be soft on the people, hard on the problem
Trust Trust others Distrust others Proceed independently of trust
Positions Change your position easily Dig into your position Focus on interests, not positions
Negotiation Make offers Make threats Explore interests
Bottom line Disclose your bottom line Mislead as to your bottom line Avoid having a bottom line
Losses and gains Accept one-sided losses to reach agreement Demand one-sided gains as a price of agreement Invent options for mutual gains
Search Search for a single answer—the one they will accept Search for a single answer—the one you will accept Develop multiple options to choose from; decide later
Criteria Insist on agreement Insist on your position Insist on using objective criteria
Contest of wills Avoid a contest of wills Win the contest of wills Reach a result based on standards, independent of wills
Pressure Yield to pressure Apply pressure Reason and be open to reason; yield to principle, not pressure
Principled negotiators, meanwhile, seek integrative solutions by sidestepping a commitment to specific positions. Instead of risking entrapment, principled negotiators focus on the problem rather than the intentions, motives, and needs of the people involved. Positional bargaining, they conclude, is too dangerous:
When negotiators bargain over positions, they tend to lock themselves into those positions. The more you clarify your position and defend it against attack, the more committed you become to it. The more you try to convince the other side of the impossibility of changing your opening position, the more difficult it becomes to do so. Your ego becomes identified with your position. (Fisher & Ury, 1981, p. 5)
The Harvard Negotiation Project recommends that negotiators explore a number of alternatives to the problems they face. During this phase, the negotiation is transformed into a group problem-solving session with the different parties working together in search of creative solutions and new information that the group can use to evaluate these alternatives. Principled negotiators base their choice on objective criteria rather than on power, pressure, self-interest, or an arbitrary decisional procedure. Such criteria can be drawn from moral standards, principles of fairness, objective indexes of market value, professional standards, tradition, and so on, but they should be recognized as fair by all parties (Kolb & Williams, 2003).
13-3b. Misperception → Understanding
Many conflicts are based on misperceptions. Group members often assume that others are competing with them, when in fact those other people only wish to cooperate. Members think that people who criticize their ideas are criticizing them personally. Members do not trust other people because they are convinced that others’ motives are selfish ones. Group members assume that they have incompatible goals when they do not (Simpson, 2007).
Group members must undo these perceptual misunderstandings by actively communicating information about their motives and goals through discussion. In one study, group members were given the opportunity to exchange information about their interests and goals, yet only about 20% did. Those who did, however, were more likely to discover shared goals and were able to reach solutions that benefited both parties to the conflict (Thompson, 1991). Other studies have suggested that conflict declines when group members communicate their intentions in specific terms, make explicit references to trust, cooperation, and fairness, and build a shared ingroup identity (Costa & Anderson, 2017).
Communication is no cure-all for conflict, however. Group members can exchange information by communicating, but they can also create gross misunderstandings and deceptions. Communication offers group members the means to establish trust and commitment, but it can also exacerbate conflict if members verbalize feelings of hatred, disgust, or annoyance. For example, when Deutsch and Krauss (1960) let participants in their trucking game experiment communicate with each other, messages typically emphasized threats and did little to reduce conflict (Deutsch, 1973). Communication is detrimental if these initial messages are inconsistent, hostile, and contentious (McClintock, Stech, & Keil, 1983). Communication can be beneficial, however, if interactants use it to create cooperative norms, if it increases trust among participants, and if it generates increased cohesion and unity in the group (Messick & Brewer, 1983).
What Is Your Preferred Conflict Style?
People respond to conflict in many different ways, but the dual-process model of conflict resolution styles suggests each one of us has a preferred way of dealing with the conflicts that overtake our groups.
Instructions: Select your preferred way of dealing with each one of these problems.
During a group meeting one of the other group members disagrees with many of the points you make. He speaks very critically of you and your ideas. You will
try to skip meetings he attends.
just go along with him, no sense in fighting over it.
plan out a strategy so that you can take advantage of his anger.
meet with him so that you can find a way to work together more effectively.
offer him something he wants in return for his cooperation.
After discussing the matter for several hours, the group decides on a course of action that you think is a mistake. You will
let the others do what they want and keep a low profile.
lend your support to the group’s decision, even though you don’t agree with it.
dig in and continue to argue until you can win them over.
try to identify new solutions that satisfy you and the others.
find a compromise between what you favor and what they favor.
During a meeting the group disagrees on an important issue, with one side arguing in favor of a proposal and one against it. You will
stop going to the meetings until the problem blows over.
urge the faction with fewer members to just go along with the others.
join the side that you agree with and try to help them overcome the other side.
work out a solution that benefits everyone.
act as the peacemaker who tries to make both sides happy.
If the group starts to argue over an issue, you will
keep quiet and don’t get involved.
go along with whatever the group decides.
argue your position; you don’t give up.
carefully discuss ideas and solutions.
keep everyone calm by finding a middle ground that everyone can accept.
Scoring. For each item, response A indicates avoiding, B is the yielding style, C is the fighting style, D is cooperation, and E is conciliatory. If you picked one letter more frequently than the others, then that is the style of conflict resolution you think you prefer.
13-3c. Hard Tactics → Cooperative Tactics
Group members cope with conflict in different ways. Some ignore the problem. Others discuss the problem, sometimes dispassionately and rationally, sometimes angrily and loudly. Still others push their solution onto others, no matter what the others may want. Some actually resort to physical violence (Sternberg & Dobson, 1987). Some of these tactics escalate conflicts, but others are reliably associated with reduced hostility.
Dual Concerns
As with social values orientations, variations in methods of dealing with conflict can be organized in terms of two essential themes: concern for self and concern for the other person. According to the dual concern model of conflict resolution, some strategies aim to maximize one’s own outcomes; others—such as overlooking a problem until it subsides—de-emphasize proself goals. Some conflict resolution strategies are also more other-focused. Yielding, for example, is prosocial, whereas contending and forcing are less prosocial (Thomas, 1992; Tjosvold, Wong, & Chen, 2014).
When both concern for self and concern for the other person are taken into account, the dual concern model identifies the five core conflict resolution modes shown in Figure 13.5.
Avoidance: Inaction is a passive means of dealing with disputes. Those who avoid conflicts adopt a “wait and see” attitude, hoping that problems will solve themselves. Avoiders often tolerate conflicts, allowing them to simmer without doing anything to minimize them. Rather than openly discussing disagreements, people who rely on avoidance change the subject, skip meetings, or even leave the group altogether. Sometimes, they simply agree to disagree (a modus vivendi).
Yielding: Accommodation is a passive but prosocial approach to conflict. People solve both large and small conflicts by giving in to the demands of others. Sometimes, they yield because they realize that their position is in error, so they agree with the viewpoint adopted by others. In other cases, however, they may withdraw their demands without really being convinced that the other side is correct, but—for the sake of group unity or in the interest of time—they withdraw all complaints. Thus, yielding can reflect either genuine conversion or superficial compliance.
Fighting: Contending is an active, proself means of dealing with conflict that involves forcing others to accept one’s view. Those who use this strategy tend to see conflict as a win–lose situation and so use competitive, powerful tactics to intimidate others. Fighting (forcing, dominating, or contending) can take many forms, including authoritative mandate, challenges, arguing, insults, accusations, complaining, vengeance, and even physical violence (Morrill, 1995). These conflict resolution methods are all contentious ones because they involve imposing one’s solution on the other party.
Cooperation: Cooperation is an active, prosocial, and proself approach to conflict resolution. Cooperating people identify the issues underlying the dispute and then work together to identify a solution that is satisfying to both sides. This orientation, which is also described as collaboration, problem-solving, or a win–win orientation, entreats both sides in the dispute to consider their opponent’s outcomes as well as their own.
Conciliation: Some theorists consider conciliation to be a fifth distinct way to resolve conflicts—a middle ground between yielding and fighting (Euwema & Van Emmerik, 2007). Conciliation, however, is often difficult to distinguish from the other modes of conflict resolution (van de Vliert & Euwema, 1994).
Cooperation and Conflict
When conflict erupts, group members can use any or all of the basic modes of conflict resolution shown in Figure 13.5, but most conflict management experts recommend cooperation above all others: “work things out,” “put your cards on the table,” and “air out differences,” they suggest. This advice assumes that avoidance, fighting, and yielding are only temporary solutions, for they quell conflicts at the surface without considering the source. Avoiding and fighting are generally considered to be negative methods, for they tend to intensify conflicts, and they are viewed as disagreeable. The more positive, prosocial methods, yielding and cooperation, mitigate conflict and are viewed as more agreeable. They are more likely to involve more of the members in the solution, and hence they tend to increase unity (Tjosvold et al., 2014).
Groups may respond well to cooperation when it is used to deal with task conflicts, but what if the problems stem from personal conflicts—differences in personalities, values, lifestyles, likes, and dislikes? Research conducted by organizational psychologists Carsten De Dreu, Laurie Weingart, and their colleagues suggests that, in such cases, collaborative approaches may aggravate the group conflict more than they mollify it (see De Dreu, 2010; De Dreu & Van Vianen, 2001; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). In one field study, members of semiautonomous teams working on complex, nonroutine tasks were asked about the ways they handled conflicts in their teams. All these teams included both men and women, and they ranged in size from 4 to 13 members. Members of these teams typically interacted with each other in face-to-face settings at least once a week in planning sessions, and they reported interacting with each other informally nearly every day. As expected, negative methods of dealing with conflicts, such as arguing and forcing one’s views onto others, were associated with negative team functioning. In these groups, however, collaborative methods of conflict resolution (e.g., “discussing the issues,” “cooperating to better understand others’ views,” and “settling problems through give and take”) were also negatively correlated with team functioning. Only passive responses, such as “avoiding the issues,” “acting as if nothing has happened,” and “hushing up the quarrel,” were associated with increases in group adjustment to the conflict. Apparently, the consistent use of collaboration to deal with intractable differences or petty disagreements distracted the groups from the achievement of their task-related goals (De Dreu & Van Vianen, 2001).
These findings suggest that groups may wish to heed the advice of one member of a successful musical quartet who, when asked how his group managed conflicts, explained, “We have a little saying in quartets—either we play or we fight” (Murnighan & Conlon, 1991, pp. 177–178). Cooperative, prosocial solutions work in many cases, but sometimes groups must ignore the conflict and focus, instead, on the work to be done.
13-3d. Retaliation → Forgiveness
Consistent cooperation among people over a long period generally increases mutual trust. But when group members continually compete with each other, mutual trust becomes much more elusive. When people cannot trust one another, they compete simply to defend their own best interests (Peterson & Ferguson, 2014).
Reversing the Conflict Spiral
How can the upward spiral of competition and distrust, once initiated, be reversed? Political scientist Robert Axelrod (1984) explored this question by comparing a number of strategies in simulated competitions. After studying dozens of different strategies, ranging from always competing with a competitor to always cooperating with one, the most effective competition reverser to emerge was a strategy called tit for tat (TFT, or “this for that”). TFT begins with cooperation. If the other party cooperates, too, then cooperation continues. But if the other party competes, then TFT competes as well. Each action by the other person is countered with the matching response—cooperation for cooperation, competition for competition.
The TFT stratagem is said to be nice, provocable, clear, and forgiving. It is nice because it begins with cooperation and only defects following competition. It is provocable in the sense that it immediately retaliates against individuals who compete. It is clear because people playing against someone using this strategy quickly recognize its contingencies. It is forgiving because it immediately reciprocates cooperation should the competitor respond cooperatively.
TFT is also a reciprocal strategy, for it fights fire with fire and rewards kindness in kind. Individuals who follow a tit-for-tat strategy are viewed as “tough but fair”; those who cooperate with a competitor are viewed as weak, and those who consistently compete are considered unfair (McGillicuddy, Pruitt, & Syna, 1984). Because the effectiveness of TFT as a conflict reduction method is based on its provocability, any delay in responding to competition reduces the effectiveness of TFT. If a group member competes and this defection is not countered quickly with competition, TFT is less effective. TFT also loses some of its strength in “noisy” interactions, when behaviors cannot be clearly classified as either competitive or cooperative. It is less effective in larger groups, although this decline is minimized if individual members believe that a substantial subgroup within the total group is basing its choices on the TFT strategy (Kerr, 2013; Komorita & Parks, 1994; Parks, 2015).
Forgiveness
Greek scholars used the word aphiemi, or forgiveness, to describe letting go or voluntarily setting aside an obligation to punish. Viewed from an evolutionary perspective, forgiveness undoes the damaging effects of conflict by reversing the upward spiraling cycle of repeated retaliation following real or perceived injury. Retaliation requires one party to impose sanctions on another, but revenge is risky: It can destroy the social relationship between the wrongdoer and the retaliator and can also provoke counter-retaliatory actions. Forgiveness, in contrast, reduces the likelihood of vengeful behavior and also strengthens the positive relational bonds in the group (McCullough, Kurzban, & Tabak, 2011). Forgiveness may increase both the forgiver’s and the forgiven’s sense of connectedness to the group (Burnette et al., 2012).
13-3e. Anger → Composure
Just as negative emotions encourage conflicts, positive affective responses increase concession making, creative problem solving, cooperation, and the use of noncontentious bargaining strategies (Forgas, 1998). Hence, when tempers flare, the group should encourage members to regain control over their emotions. “Count to ten,” calling a “timeout,” or expressing concerns in a written, carefully edited, letter or email are simple but effective recommendations for controlling conflict, as is the introduction of humor into the group discussion (Mischel, DeSmet, & Kross, 2006). Apologies, too, are effective means of reducing anger. When people are informed about mitigating causes—background factors that indicate that the insult is unintentional or unimportant—conflict is reduced (Betancourt & Blair, 1992). Groups can also control anger by developing norms that explicitly or implicitly prohibit shows of strong, negative emotion or by holding meetings on controversial topics online (Yang & Mossholder, 2004).
13-3f. Many → Few
Conflicts intensify when others take sides, but they shrink when third-party mediator help group members reach a mutually agreeable solution to their dispute (Moore, 2014). Although uninvolved group members may wish to stand back and let the disputants “battle it out,” impasses, unflagging conflict escalation, or the combatants’ entreaties may cause other group members or outside parties to help by the following:
Creating opportunities for both sides to express themselves while controlling contentiousness.
Improving communication between the disputants by summarizing points, asking for clarification, and so on.
Helping disputants save face by framing the acceptance of concessions in positive ways and by taking the blame for these concessions.
Formulating and offering proposals for alternative solutions that both parties find acceptable.
Manipulating aspects of the meeting, including its location, seating, formality of communication, time constraints, attendees, and agenda.
Guiding the disputants through a process of integrative problem-solving.
However, if the disputants want to resolve the conflict on their own terms, third-party interventions are considered an unwanted intrusion (Carnevale, 2008).
Go-betweens, facilitators, diplomats, advisers, judges, and other kinds of mediators vary considerably in terms of their power to control others’ outcomes (LaTour, 1978; LaTour et al., 1976). In an inquisitorial procedure, the mediator questions the two parties and then hands down a verdict that the two parties must accept. In arbitration, the disputants present their arguments to the mediator, who then bases his or her decision on the information they provide. In a moot, the disputants and the mediator openly and informally discuss problems and solutions, but the mediator can make no binding decisions. Satisfaction with a mediator depends on how well the intermediary fulfills these functions and also on the intensity of the conflict. Mediational techniques, such as arbitration, are effective when the conflict is subdued, but they may not work when conflict intensity is high. Overall, most people prefer arbitration, followed by moot, mediation, and inquisitorial procedures (LaTour et al., 1976; Shestowsky, 2004).
Is Cooperation Universally Valued?
No two cultures deal with conflict in exactly the same way. In some societies, rather than letting disagreements threaten the quality and stability of relationships, people maneuver around their disagreements to stop them from escalating into full-fledged disputes. In other cultures, in contrast, conflict is considered more of a test between competitors and is framed as a win–lose situation. Many Western societies, for example, openly value competition (Gibson & McDaniel, 2010).
The differences across societies are linked to variations in cultural values pertaining to individualism/collectivism and power hierarchy. For example, in China, a collectivistic culture, members are more likely to adopt harmony-enhancing strategies that minimize conflict, including following the rules that will yield a fair resolution to the disagreement. In a more individualistic country, such as America, a more direct, confrontational approach may be preferred (Gelfand, Leslie, & Keller, 2008).
Most of the world’s peoples, however, recognize the value of one particular conflict resolution method: cooperation. This approach satisfies both individuals who are seeking their own best outcomes, but also those who are concerned with the overall well-being of the group (Cai & Fink, 2002). But in individualistic cultures, conflict is generally viewed as something that should be confronted directly: A person should “directly express what you believe,” “verbally defend your views,” and “get straight to the point” (Hammer, 2005, p. 685). In more collectivistic cultures, in contrast, people prefer to handle conflict indirectly, with more subtlety: A person should “offer indirect suggestions,” “express complaints indirectly,” and “talk around disagreements” when possible (Hammer, 2005, p. 685). Individuals in these cultures prefer avoidance, but avoidance does not indicate a low concern for others’ outcomes as the dual-process model suggests. In collectivistic countries, avoidance is a more active strategy; a positively valued means of dealing with conflict that sustains, rather than threatens, the group.
These findings offer a warning to people who work in multicultural groups. Even though well-meaning group members may hope to quell a conflict with a deft intervention, they may only make matters worse by using a method that is considered contentious in other cultures (Brew et al., 2011). The collectivist who seeks to deflect the group’s attention away from the conflict may irritate the individualist who wants to solve the problem, not dodge it. Conversely, the individualist, believing that the conflict can be cleared up if people just speak their minds, pushes everyone to deal with the issues in open discussion. The collectivists in the group will wonder why anyone who seems so intelligent in other ways would use such a clumsy method of dealing with conflict. The culturally competent group will, instead, use a variety of methods to deal with conflict, shifting from one approach to the other depending on the strength of the relations among members, the level of harm the conflict can cause, and the extent to which others in the group have expressed a public commitment to their position.
13-3g. The Value of Conflict: Redux
Did Apple gain from the Jobs versus Sculley conflict, or did it suffer a setback as its top executives fought for power and control? The group resolved the dispute, but not without a considerable investment of time, resources, and energy. Two men who were once friends parted as enemies. A company that once profited from the leadership of two visionary thinkers lost one of them to a competitor.
Is conflict always harmful—a pernicious process that should be avoided? When Carsten De Dreu and Laurie Weingart (2003) conducted a meta-analysis of dozens of studies of conflict in groups, they discovered that, in study after study, conflict undermined satisfaction and lowered performance. Subsequent work confirmed their findings, but also identified factors that moderate the strength of the conflict–performance relationship. Organizational behavior researcher Karen Jehn and her colleagues, for example, suggest that some groups—such as top-level management teams and strategy groups—may even perform more effectively in the long run if they have experienced a modicum of task conflict. So long as task conflict is not too high in intensity, prolonged, and the catalyst for other forms of conflict, then its negative effects are restrained (de Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012; Jehn, 2014).
So maybe the problem is not conflict, but mismanaged conflict. As noted in Chapter 5, many groups pass through a period of conflict as they mature. This conflict phase, so long as it is managed well, expands the range of options, generates new alternatives, and enhances the group’s unity by making explicit any latent hostilities and tensions. Conflict can make a group’s goals more explicit and help members understand their role in the group. It may force the members to examine, more carefully, their assumptions and expectations and may help the group focus on its strengths and diagnose its weaknesses. A group without conflict may be working so perfectly that no one can identify any improvements, but more likely it is a group that is boring and uninvolving for its members. Conflict, then, is not the culprit. It is poor management of the conflicts that inevitably arise in groups that leads to problems (DeChurch, Mesmer-Magnus, & Doty, 2013; Jehn, 1997, 2014).
Organizational and business administration researcher Kristin Behfar and her colleagues (2008) examined the consequences of poorly managed conflict in their detailed quantitative analysis of 57 autonomous work teams. These groups all worked with the same resources, on the same types of projects, and with the same time constraints. Over time, some of the groups became more capable in the task realm, but others did not. Some, too, enjoyed increasingly positive relations among members, whereas others exhibited declines in the quality of their cohesion.
Behfar’s group discovered that these changes in task success and interpersonal bonds were related to the group’s methods of dealing with conflict. All of the groups experienced conflicts as their work progressed, but they dealt with these problems in different ways. The 21 best teams proactively forecasted possible problems before they happened. They developed schedules and assigned responsibilities carefully, in unemotional, fact-driven discussions, to reach consensus. They did not report dealing with relationship conflict, because they did not have any. A second set of 11 high-performance groups had little cohesiveness, but these groups all expressly discussed their lukewarm interpersonal relations and dismissed the importance of social connections. These groups resolved task and process conflicts by voting. The 14 worst teams, who exhibited both declining performance and interpersonal dysfunction, also used discussion, but the discussion never resolved their problems. These groups reported trying to deal with their problems openly, but members would just give in to more dominant members because they grew tired of arguing. They dealt with their performance problems by rotating duties from one member to another, but they never analyzed the effectiveness of this technique.
These findings suggest that the impact of conflict on a group cannot be predicted until the group’s capacity for managing its conflict is known. Groups that take proactive steps to prevent conflict from arising in the first place tend to be more satisfying to members than those that only respond—and respond poorly at that—to conflicts when they arise. Successful groups also tended to adopt pluralistic strategies for dealing with conflict, rather than particularistic ones. They resolved conflicts using methods that applied to the group as a whole, such as developing rules, standardizing procedures, and assigning tasks to members based on skill and expertise rather than status. Less successful groups, in contrast, used strategies that focused on specific individual complaints or the group’s concerns about one or two members. In these groups, the “squeaky wheel would get the grease,” but the repair was not sufficient to restore the group to health.
Resources
Chapter Case: Jobs versus Sculley
Apple Confidential 2.0: The Definitive History of the World’s Most Colorful Company by Owen W. Linzmayer (2004) provides a well-researched history of the many conflict-laden episodes in the life of Apple, Inc.
Causes of Conflict
“A History of Social Conflict and Negotiation Research” by Dean G. Pruitt (2012) reviews the history of conflict studies from the perspective of a leading theorist and researcher in the field.
The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice, edited by Morton Deutsch, Peter T. Coleman, and Eric C. Marcus (2006), is the definitive sourcebook for general analyses of conflict’s causes as well as empirically based recommendations for resolving conflicts.
The Handbook of Conflict Management Research, edited by Oluremi B. Ayoko, Neal M. Ashkanasy, and Karen A. Jehn (2014), provides a broad overview of all major topics related to conflict in groups, including negotiation, conflict in teams, and culture’s effects on conflict processes.
“Collaboration and Conflict in Work Teams” by Eduardo Salas, Maritza R. Salazar, Jennifer Feitosa, and William S. Kramer (2014) examines definitions and forms of collaboration and conflict in groups before examining the organizational climate, practices, and procedures that help group members manage conflicts and promote collaboration.
Conflict Resolution
Getting to YES: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In (2nd ed.) by Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton (1991) describes a step-by-step strategy for resolving conflicts to the mutual benefit of both parties.
Conflict Management in Organizations, edited by William K. Roche, Paul Teague, and Alexander J. S. Colvin (2014) offers practical advice for dealing with conflict in groups and organizations through mediation, negotiation, and other forms of dispute resolution; the final section includes recommendations for dealing with conflicts in international contexts.
Friend and Foe: When to Cooperate, When to Compete, and How to Succeed at Both by Adam Galinsky and Maurice Schweitzer (2015) searches for the social psychological foundations of conflict and suggests ways to balance cooperation with competition to achieve positive outcomes for all parties.
Making Conflict Work: Harnessing the Power of Disagreement by Peter T. Coleman and Robert Ferguson (2014) draws on case studies, empirical studies, and the authors’ unique practical expertise to offer clear advice on ways to work through conflicts successfully.
Read: Jacobs, Schimmel, Masson, & Harvill: Chapter 15
Chapter 15: Closing a Session or Group
Chapter Introduction
Two kinds of closing are discussed in this chapter: the closing of a session and the closing of the entire series of sessions. The
closing phase
is the period of a session when the leader wraps things up. The
closing stage
may be the last session of the group or the last few sessions, depending on the kind of group and the total number of sessions involved.
15-1The Closing Phase
Every session should have a closing phase. The length of the closing phase will depend on both the length of the session and the kind of group being led. For a longer session, more time is usually required. For a 1-hour session, the leader may find 3 to 5 minutes sufficient; a 2- to 3-hour session may require 5 to 10 minutes for the closing phase. The closing phase of a discussion or task group may simply be summarizing the main ideas or decisions made. Because this is fairly straightforward, less time is required. In a support or therapy group where members share a range of thoughts and feelings, more time is required to pull together key points, clarify goals, check for unfinished business, and encourage reactions. With experience, the leader learns to judge the amount of time needed to bring closure to the session.
During the closing phase, the leader has the opportunity to encourage members to share their thoughts and feelings about the session. Members may share how they benefited from activities or discussion that occurred during the session. It is especially important for the leader to hear from those members who were less verbal in the session. The leader can benefit from hearing how they feel about what is taking place and whether they are feeling comfortable. Also, less active members may be perceived negatively, and their sharing can help link them to the group, causing other members to gain some better understanding of who they are and how they are experiencing the group.
It is important to inform the members that the session is entering the closing phase. This can be done by saying any of the following:
· We need to start winding down, so I want you to think about the session today, and what it has meant to you.
· Because there are only a few minutes left in today’s session, let’s review what we have gone over today.
· I think we are at a good stopping point, so let’s spend the next few minutes summarizing the session today, and then we’ll talk briefly about next week’s session.
· Let’s begin the closing phase of the session, because we need to stop in about 10 minutes.
Purposes and Goals of the Closing Phase
The closing phase may serve one or more of the following purposes:
· (1)
summarizing and highlighting the main points,
· (2)
reinforcing commitments made by individual members, and
· (3)
checking for unfinished business from the session.
Summarizing and Highlighting the Main Points
One
purpose of the closing phase
is to pull the session together by highlighting and summarizing important points. Pulling together salient points or experiences helps members remember them after the session has ended; the impact of the session can thus be increased. Having the group focus on key points also gives members a chance to hear what was important to others. This sharing often tends to build greater trust and cohesiveness among members.
Reinforcing Commitments
In many groups, members may commit to some task or change in their behavior. Reviewing such commitments in the closing phase is valuable. The following two examples show how a leader might clarify goals and strengthen commitments.
Examples
It is the end of the second session of a task group made up of members who work at a mental health agency. Their task is to develop a new residential program for adolescents.
Leader:
Let’s review who is to do what. Joe, what are you going to do before the next meeting?
Joe:
I am going to call those two agencies that have residential programs and find out what problems they have had.
Leader:
Good. See if they’ll send you any material, too.
Pablo:
I am going to draw up a tentative list of rules for the unit residents to live by.
Leader:
Be sure to get input from us, especially from Cindy.
Cindy:
I am going to devise a list of personnel that would be needed to staff such a unit.
Bill:
I’m going to try to get funding for the unit.
Leader:
Bill, I think we decided that you were to look into possible sources for funding and bring that list to the group next session.
It is the third session of a therapy group. Members have shared a variety of concerns during the session, and the leader
wishes
to clarify members’ goals and reinforce their commitments to those goals.
Leader:
Each of you in today’s session has expressed a desire to change an aspect of your life. Three or four of you worked on specific goals you want to follow through on before our next meeting. As we close today, let’s take a few minutes to briefly hear from each of you about your goals.
Chang:
I want to go home this weekend and not fight with my mother.
Leader:
You sound pretty committed to that, Chang. I’d like to suggest you keep notes and report back to us on how that works.
(Chang nods.) Who else feels they might try something different this week?
(Looks around at the group)
John:
Well, I know I’ve got to do something about staying out so late.
Leader:
What did you decide as a result of discussing it here today?
John:
I am going to ask my wife which days are better for me to stay out late.
Leader:
Didn’t you also say that first you have to see if she will agree to let you stay out at least two nights and that you are going to ask her if she would like to come with you?
John:
That’s right! I forgot that part, and it’s important. I’ll talk to her and really try to be open with her.
In both of these examples, the leader increases the likelihood that the members will follow through on their commitments. A good closing phase is necessary to review and clarify decisions made during the working phase of the session. As in the preceding and following examples, the interaction may often be leader–member–leader–member in the closing phase, which is fine. You would not want to do this during the middle phase of a session, but it is appropriate during the closing phase. Sometimes members make commitments and plans that are unrealistic. Reviewing various members’ commitments and plans during the closing phase allows unrealistic goals to be clarified. The following are two examples of a leader helping a member modify an unrealistic goal.
Examples
It is the third session of a personal growth group in a college counseling center. During the closing phase of the session, the leader asks various members about their goals.
Leader:
I think we’ve summarized what we covered today pretty well. In the next few minutes, it might be helpful if people share specific goals that they are shooting for this week. Betty, I know you decided to try a different approach with your boyfriend when he’s late.
Betty:
Today I learned that yelling only gets us into a fight. When he is late, I’m going to calmly tell him that I’m disappointed and that I’m willing to wait for only 20 minutes. I feel better knowing I can be in control.
Leader:
Frieda, how about you? You said you wanted to set up a study schedule. Have you come up with any thoughts about how you might do that?
Frieda:
I decided I’m going to study 6 hours every night. That should really help me catch up.
Leader:
(Turning to the other members) What do you think about Frieda’s plan?
Will:
That seems like a lot. I’d get burned out in one day.
(Other members nod agreement.)
Leader:
What do you think, Frieda?
Frieda:
Well, maybe that is a lot. I guess I’ll start with 2 hours and see how that goes. Anything will be an improvement.
By helping the member develop a realistic goal, the leader has increased the likelihood of the member experiencing success.
During the session, Al discussed his desire for a salary increase. With the help of the group, he role-played strategies for talking with his employer about the raise. Although he made progress, Al needed further assistance in increasing his assertiveness and in exploring ways to handle potential rebuffs and excuses from his boss. The group is now in the closing phase.
Leader:
Who else learned something from today’s session?
Al:
Boy, I did. That role-playing about asking for a raise really helped. Even though you don’t think I am ready, I do. I think I’ll go in tomorrow and ask for the raise!
Leader:
Al, if he says no, what are you going to say? We didn’t get a chance to practice that.
Al:
Oh, I didn’t even think of that. All I was thinking about was how I now know what to say. I’m not prepared for a negative answer. Maybe I should wait until we talk about it next week in group.
If the leader had not clarified the member’s goal during the closing phase, Al would probably have asked for a raise even though he had not developed the resources to cope with the situation. By reviewing Al’s reaction to the session, the leader was able to discover his unrealistic plan and caution him about moving ahead prematurely.
Checking for Unresolved Issues (Unfinished Business)
The closing phase is also the time to check with members for any issues that are not fully resolved during the session. Sometimes issues are brought up that may need some additional closure as the session comes to an end. The leader may find it unproductive to focus for too long on a particular member or issue and thus bring temporary closure to the discussion. The closing phase may be used to refocus on that previous issue or concern, providing an opportunity for a member to express new thoughts or for the leader to help members agree to continue to work on the issue in the next session. This would be especially important if there was some tension between members regarding something that happened during the session. Occasionally, a member may have unfinished business that cannot wait until the following session, either because a decision is imminent or because the issue is causing considerable discomfort for the member. The leader could ask the members if they would be willing to extend the session to work on the issue. If this cannot be done, the leader may see the member individually as soon after the session as possible.
To find out if members have unfinished business from the session, the leader can say something like the following:
· Does anyone have something that was “stirred up” during the session that they want to mention? We’ll either deal with it now, if it won’t take too long, or we will deal with it at the next session.
· Is there any unfinished business from the session that you think needs to be discussed for a few minutes?
· I want to come back to what happened earlier and make sure everyone is in a reasonably good place before we finished the session.
Because there are time constraints during the closing phase, the leader may need to carry unfinished business into the next session. However, by having members mention their unfinished business, the leader is able to either help them finish the issue or assure them that they will be able to discuss the matter at the next session.
Examples
During a counseling group at a rehabilitation center, Troy expressed some angry feelings regarding his parents’ not visiting him often enough, but he was not able to see how he was upsetting himself by blaming his parents. After working with Troy for about 20 minutes, the leader chose to focus on another member. Now, during the closing phase, the leader wants to see if Troy has had any additional thoughts about his anger toward his parents.
Leader:
We’ll spend the next few minutes bringing things to a close for today. I’d like each of you to think about what stood out for you.
(Pauses and scans the group. After a short silence, the leader makes eye contact with Troy.) Troy, I felt there were more feelings you had to express about your parents. While we don’t have time to work a lot more with those feelings today, do you have additional thoughts you would like to share with the group?
Troy:
I feel better after talking about it, but I still think they should visit more. I don’t seem as angry.
Leader:
I guess I’d like you to keep thinking about this between now and our next session. I hope you’ll bring it up at the next session.
(Troy nods in agreement.)
Here the leader contracts with the member to work on the issue during the next session. He wants to make it clear to the member and the entire group that he is not forgetting the issue and plans to come back to it. He also wants to make sure that if there are any pressing feelings, they are handled before the session ends.
A group of divorced men and women are meeting for the fourth session in a support/therapy group. One member, Ann, worked on guilt feelings about giving the custody of her two children to her husband. During the session, Ann concluded that she did not have to feel guilty about her actions. However, when the focus of the group shifted to another topic, Ann continued to think about her decision. Now the leader is bringing the group to a close.
Leader:
Several of you worked on some pretty important issues today. It might be useful to review our session and see if you have additional thoughts about anything you discussed.
Sue:
It was really helpful for me to see that even though my parents don’t believe in divorce, that’s their value and it’s okay for me to have a different value.
Leader:
I’m glad that helped, Sue. What about other people?
Ann:
(Looking down and speaking in a weak voice) I’ve been sitting here thinking about my kids. I know being without them right now is best for me. Yet, to be a good mother, I still feel I should be with them. I guess I’m confused all over again.
Leader:
Ann, it is apparent there is more we need to do to help clear up your concerns. Can this wait until our next session?
Ann:
I think it can wait. I have to get this straight in my mind.
Had the leader not checked for unfinished business, Ann might have felt stranded with those feelings when she left the group. Also, the leader could have finished the session thinking that Ann had worked through a personal issue when, in fact, she was still struggling with it.
15-1bFormats for Closing a Session
Formats for Closing a Session
There are several formats that can be used for closing a session. The choice of format for a particular session should depend on the kind of group, the purpose of the particular session, and what occurred during the session. To close a session, leaders can use rounds, dyads,
written reactions
, or have the
members summarize
. The leader may want to vary the closings of different sessions. In a discussion, education, or task group, it may not be important for each member to speak during the closing phase, because members have shared ideas and thoughts rather than personal feelings. In support, personal growth, counseling, and therapy groups, it is usually valuable for members to share their reactions and feelings about the session.
Rounds
Eliciting brief comments from members about what they learned or what stood out as they think back on the session is an excellent way to close a session. We most frequently use a round or series of rounds. The round encourages those who have talked less during the session to share their reactions. When setting up a round, the leader should instruct the members to limit their comments to a sentence or two. Longer responses defeat the purpose of the closing round, which is to highlight important points for each member.
Example
Leader:
In a sentence or two, what will you take away from the session today?
(Pause) Tim, let’s start with you.
Tim:
I learned that I am more non-assertive than assertive.
Guillermo:
I learned that it is hard for me to be assertive. I guess I’m chicken.
Leader:
I wouldn’t say chicken. You simply have not learned to be assertive.
Bill:
I learned that my parents are the cause of my being so aggressive.
Leader:
Bill, let me clarify that for you and everyone here. We learn things from what our parents do and say. Often we tend to act like them unless we pay attention to our behavior.
(Turns to Bill) In your case, from what you described, your parents are very aggressive. However, this does not mean you have to be aggressive, but you probably will be unless you monitor yourself. I hope the group will be a big help to you.
Group Counseling Skills
Closing a Group–Use of Rounds
Go to video 15.1 and watch the segment where the leader uses a round to close the group.
Dyads Followed by Comments to the Group
Starting the closing phase with dyads is a good way to involve all the members. Dyads are beneficial during the closing phase when much has happened in the group and the leader wants members to get a chance to share but does not have the time to hear all that each member has to say. In dyads, members can say out loud to another their thoughts and feelings. Dyads can also be used to energize members, especially if the energy level is low toward the end of a session.
Examples
Leader:
Let’s take the next few minutes to close. I’d like to form pairs composed of Phil and Pat; Roger and Paula; Ted and Ramón; Mike and Kay. What I’d like you to do is share with your partner one or two things that were particularly important to you about today’s session. Then we’ll come back to the large group and share any thoughts and feelings.
In this example, the leader decided to pair the members, but she could have allowed the members to select partners. If the leader decides to do the pairing, she should give special thought to anything that occurred during the session that might make it especially valuable for certain members to be together; for example, two members who expressed similar concerns or worked on similar problems could be paired. In the following example, the leader decides to participate in a dyad to encourage a member to share during the closing phase.
It is the second session of a support group made up of spouses of alcoholics. One member, Sally, has spoken only a couple of times during these first two sessions.
Leader:
As we’re closing tonight, I’d like to take a few minutes to see how each of you is feeling about the group so far, what you think has been helpful, and what other topics or issues you’d like to discuss. To do this, I’d like people to pair up for about 2 minutes and then come back to share your thoughts.
(The leader pairs up the members, pairing herself with Sally. She learns that Sally is worried about how other members might view her because she has continued to live with her abusive, alcoholic husband. The leader reassures Sally that she will not let the members attack her and that it might be helpful if Sally shared some of her concerns before the session ended. Sally agrees. The leader ends the dyads and brings the group together again.) I’d like each of us to share our thoughts about the group.
Carme:
The group has been good for me to just get things off my mind.
Bill:
Jack and I talked about what it was like to have alcoholic wives. I feel relieved just knowing other people are in the same boat.
Leader:
Sally shared some of her fear about talking about her family situation in the group. We both agreed it would be helpful for her to talk a little about that before we stop.
Sally:
It’s real scary for me to be here. I feel I contributed to my husband’s drinking by trying to cover it up.
Carme:
I feel the same way—I hope we can talk about this at the next meeting.
The leader knew it was important for this quiet member to “break the ice” with the group before the end of this session so that she and the other members would begin to feel comfortable with one another.
Members Summarize
A simple way to close the session is to have one or more members summarize what has transpired. The leader can ask for a volunteer to summarize or may select a member who would do a good job. If one member summarizes, other members may also be given the opportunity to add what they feel is important. The leader may also want to add any important events that were overlooked by the members. During the closing phase, a summary should not be long or boring. The purpose is to give the members a brief review. Following the summary, members may wish to comment on particular points that were especially important to them.
Leader Summarizes
The leader may choose to summarize the session. By doing this, the leader can emphasize certain points and focus on certain members’ comments. The disadvantage is that the leader may forget something that was important to one or two members; this may result in those members feeling hurt or resentful. To prevent this, the leader may find it helpful to let members contribute additional summaries following the leader’s summary.
Written Reactions
There are several ways the leader can use written reactions during the closing phase (Riordan & White, 1996). The leader can begin the closing phase of a session by asking members to write their reactions to the session.
Leader:
It’s about 8:45. Let’s summarize and close the group. First, I’d like you to spend a few minutes jotting down any reactions, thoughts, or feelings regarding the session tonight. We’ll then share some of those thoughts and stop by 9:00.
Writing can be helpful for those members who respond more comfortably after having had a chance to put their ideas on paper. Members can also write for 5 to 10 minutes at the very end, when the group has completed the closing. The journal can be left with the leader, who then has an opportunity to read the members’ reactions. The leader may choose to write encouraging or clarifying comments in the journals and then return them to the members at the next session.
The journal also provides each member with a lasting chronicle of the entire group experience from the first to the final session.
15-1cHelpful Closing Skills and Techniques
Clarity of Purpose
The leader needs to be very clear as to the purpose of the closing phase. A variety of issues and concerns may be raised by members during the closing phase that can take the group in unproductive or new directions. When members bring up new topics, the leader needs to explain the purpose of the closing phase and offer the option of bringing the topics up at the beginning of the next session. The important thing to remember during the closing phase of a group session is that the session is ending.
Cutting Off
To maintain the necessary focus on closing, the leader must be ready to use cutting-off skills. Members not only bring up new material during the closing phase but they often get into rehashing the session rather than highlighting or summarizing.
Example
Leader:
What else did you learn from the session today?
Linda:
I’d like to know from the other girls if they have to go to church every Sunday. I do, and I hate it!
Leader:
(In a warm, caring voice) Linda, that seems like an important issue for you, but we really do not have time to get into a new topic right now. If you will bring that up at the next session, we’ll certainly talk about it.
In this example, the leader stops other members from answering by speaking first. She does so to make sure that a new topic does not get started during the closing phase.
Group Counseling Skills
Closing a Group—Preventing a New Topic
Go to video 15.3 and watch the segment where the leader uses cutting off in order to prevent a new topic from being introduced during the closing phase.
Tying Together
The skill of
tying together
is especially beneficial during the closing phase of a session. By using this skill, the leader can create a sense of interrelatedness of themes, issues, and personal experiences. It is important for the leader to identify those points that relate to one another and then share them in such a way that the members see how patterns, issues, and people are connected. This is something the members are often unable to do themselves.
Drawing Out
Drawing out is also an important skill to use during the closing phase of a session because the leader usually wants to hear from as many members as possible. Several of the techniques for closing mentioned earlier—especially the use of writing, dyads, and rounds—facilitate the drawing-out process. It is especially important for the leader to draw out members who are less active during the session, both to help them feel involved and to get their reactions to the session.
Wishes
A useful technique for closing certain kinds of growth, support, and therapy sessions is the use of “wishes.” This activity helps build positive and supportive feelings among members.
Example
Leader:
I think that pretty much summarizes the session. Any comments?
(Pause—no one seems ready to comment.) Let’s do this.
(Speaking slowly) Look around the room and see if there is anyone you have a wish for. If there is someone, identify the person and then say, “My wish for you is….” For example, Joe, my wish for you is that you will call your parents and say those things that you want to say. No one has to offer a wish and many may not receive a wish but I do think some of you will have wishes for other members.
Max:
Don, my wish for you is that you get out at least twice this week.
Joe:
Cherry, my wish for you is that you will stop blaming yourself.
Group Counseling Skills
Closing a Group—Use of Wishes
Go to video 15.2 and watch the segment where the leader uses the technique of “My Wish for You.”
Acknowledging a New Member
The leader may want to vary the closing slightly when a member is present for the first time. The leader might want to allow some extra time during the closing phase to focus on the new member if the member seems to feel comfortable enough but has been relatively quiet. Focusing on the new member gives that member a chance to share, which can help her feel even more comfortable. It also gives members a chance to know a little more about her. By hearing from the new member, the leader also has a better idea of how that person is feeling about being in the group.
Example
Two members have finished summarizing the session, and others have commented.
Leader:
Connie (
the new member), I hope this has been interesting and maybe even helpful.
Connie:
Well, I was really nervous for the first 10 minutes, but I did relax. I am sorry that I didn’t say more, but I really don’t like talking in front of groups. I hope it will get easier for me.
Leader:
Was the session helpful?
Connie:
Oh, yes. I already realize that others have feelings similar to mine.
Leader:
I hope that during the next session you will feel free to share. Anyone else have any closing thoughts before we stop?
Acknowledging a Member Who Is Leaving
There are occasions when a member leaves a group even though the group continues. In a closed group, members may drop out for any variety of reasons. More often, the departure of one member occurs in an ongoing, open-membership group, such as residential treatment programs in substance abuse or physical rehabilitation centers. Members leave the group because they are going home or somewhere else.
When a member is leaving, it is important that the leader allows some time during the closing to focus on that member. The leader may get the member to review his goals upon entrance to the group and the progress he has made, have the members provide encouragement and feedback, and say good-bye. Although the exiting member is the major focal point, the leader may wish to use this experience to help other members think about when they will be leaving the group and what they still need to do to get themselves ready for leaving.
The amount of time that should be given to a member who is exiting depends on the length of time of the session, the purpose of the group, and the kind of member he has been. In open-ended groups, members may be exiting fairly often, so the time devoted to a leaving member must be monitored. It is important not to devote most of the session to the departing member because this could mean that every session or two would be focused on departing members rather than those who are in the group. To say goodbye to the exiting member, 5 to 10 minutes is usually sufficient.
Examples
Leader:
We have about 20 minutes left in the session, so I would like to begin to summarize the session. Also, I want to leave the last few minutes free to focus on Walt, who will be leaving the group after today. I want each of you to think of the one thing that stood out for you today.
(Pause) Mike, you seem ready.
Mike:
The discussion about the importance of not keeping our feelings inside was really helpful.
Andy:
The thing that stood out for me was …
Leader:
(After spending time completing the round and processing the session) Okay, let’s spend a few minutes saying goodbye to Walt. Most of you have known Walt for a while now. I want you to think of how you see Walt now compared to when he first entered the group. We’ll share that and then we’ll share any wishes that we have for him. How is Walt different?
Mario:
He is really different.
(To Walt) When you first came into the group, you didn’t talk or even look up. I really do think the program has helped you.
Leader:
I agree. You really have changed. I see you as a lot more open and that chip on your shoulder seems to be gone.
Carl:
That’s right! You did have a chip on your shoulder those first two meetings. It’s gone.
Leader:
(After others have shared) If you had a wish for Walt, what would that be?
Jeff:
My wish is that you have that conversation with your wife that you practiced in here.
Bruno:
My wish is that you don’t let that chip come back. The soft, gentle side is much nicer.
Leader:
(After two other members have shared wishes) Walt, what thoughts or reactions or closing comments do you have for the group?
Walt:
Well, I appreciate all your support. I also want to say …
In this example, the exiting member got a chance to hear some good and encouraging feedback.
There are times when a departing member has not really used the group or the treatment program that much. In this case, the leader may want to focus on feedback and wishes, in the hope that something might be said that will help.
Leader:
In saying goodbye to Sharon, I want each of you to think of what you believe will be the roughest thing for Sharon to handle when she goes home.
Paul:
I really think that Sharon is going to have trouble.
Leader:
Instead of talking to me, could you address Sharon?
Paul:
Sure. Sharon, I think you are going to have trouble with a lot of things, because you still seem angry at your parents.
Biff:
Sharon, I think you are fooling yourself when you say that you can make it without going to AA meetings. I hope your pride will not keep you from calling someone for help.
In this example, the leader wants to make sure that the member is not attacked, because she is leaving that afternoon. At the same time, he is hoping that someone says something that will be helpful, because Sharon really does not seem ready to leave the program.
15-1dAlerting Members to Reactions Outside of Group
Although the group experience can generate strong feelings among members, the leader should explain to the members that they will probably not experience the same kind of sharing with people outside of group (such as at work, home or with family), and this is normal. During the session, members often share at a very personal level, take risks, and experience warm, caring acceptance. They may go home and want to experience the same thing with their spouse, parents, friends, or coworkers. When this does not occur, some members become angry, frustrated, or resentful at the people in their lives or the leader of the group. Leaders should be aware that members may actually feel closer to other members of the group than a spouse, children, or long-term friends. The leader should always be sensitive to this occurrence and bring it up in group if it seems to be a problem.
Leader:
I want to say something now, and I will probably say it again in our last session. Many of you are really opening up and sharing with the group, and I think it is great. Also, the way you are responding to what is being said is terrific. I think nearly everyone is experiencing good feelings as a result of being here. For many of you, these feelings are unique, and I want to caution you about going home and trying to share like this with your spouse and friends. Remember, they have not been in this group and have not had this experience. If you want this kind of sharing, give them time. Don’t expect them to be able to do this immediately. Also, realize that they may never be able to do exactly what we are doing here.
15-1eHandling Criticism of the Session
The leader should be prepared for criticism about the session or the group during the closing of the session. The leader must not be defensive. In most cases, the leader will not want the closing to be spent entirely on criticism unless he senses that the majority of the members are having the same feelings. The way the leader handles the criticism will depend on the kind of criticism, the merit of the criticism, and the amount of time needed for the actual closing. The following are several ways the leader can handle criticism during the closing phase.
Examples
Melvin is a member who has tried to dominate the group, and the leader has had to cut him off on numerous occasions. The leader has a strong sense from the members’ nonverbal responses that they appreciate the fact that Melvin is not allowed to dominate.
Melvin:
(In a hostile voice) I have something I want to say. I feel you control too much. In other groups, the leader hardly said anything—this is more your group than our group!
Leader:
(To Melvin and the entire group) I do hope you feel that this is your group. There are times when I direct what is happening simply because I am trained as a counselor and a group leader. And, as I said earlier, there will be times when I may cut you off to hold the focus on another issue or when it seems like you have gotten a little long-winded. Certainly, I do not want you to feel that I am dominating the group. Does anyone else feel that way?
(No one responds.) Let’s go back to summarizing the session. Other thoughts or reactions?
In this example, the leader briefly responded, got support from the members, and then went back to closing the group.
Leader:
Who else wants to comment on what stood out to them?
James:
I feel like the group gets too personal. When Pete was talking, I felt you really pushed him too hard!
Leader:
James, let me answer that.
(Looking at the entire group) The group is personal, and I do push members hard because all of you have problems that need to be dealt with on more than a superficial level. Certainly, I try not to push you
too hard, but do realize that not dealing with your problems is what got you into the hospital.
Pete:
I’m glad you pushed. I think I understand why I get so angry.
The leader has been feeling that the group has not gone well the last couple of sessions.
José:
I don’t mean to be critical, but the group has not been very valuable for me lately.
Leader:
How do others of you feel? I, too, think something is missing.
Rusty:
I would like us to be more personal rather than just discussing things. Does anyone else feel that way?
Pam:
I do. The discussions about legal issues, custody, and so on are all good, but there are personal things that I think I am ready to share.
Paul:
I would like that better.
Leader:
So what you are saying is that you would like this to be more of a sharing group than a discussion/education group. How about the rest of you, how do you feel?
In this example, the leader decided to focus on the criticism because she felt that the group did perhaps need a new emphasis.
15-1fFinal Thoughts on Closing a Session
The leader who successfully closes a group session enhances the value of the session considerably. Without an effective closing, many important issues discussed during the session may become blurred or lost. The closing phase requires thought and planning. If done well, members come away with a sense of completeness. Effective session closing can also help build cohesiveness, because members get to hear others’ reactions.
15-2The Closing Stage
Perhaps the most important point to remember when preparing for the closing stage of a group is that the group is not an entity in itself, but a collection of individuals. When the group is over, the individuals go away, taking with them new information, insights, decisions, or beliefs that make everyday living happier and more productive. The leader’s task during the closing stage is to focus on these benefits.
15-2aTime Allowed for the Closing Stage
The amount of time allowed to complete the closing stage of a group depends on the kind of group, its purpose, the number of sessions, and the members’ needs. As a general rule, the greater the number of sessions and the more personal the sharing, the longer the closing stage. For example, in a therapy group meeting for 2 hours weekly for 15 sessions, the leader might begin the closing stage toward the middle of the fourteenth session, because there will be a considerable amount to cover. In contrast, a task group working on improving a residential treatment program for drug abusers and meeting an hour each week for four sessions may require only 15 minutes of the last session for the closing stage. The closing stage of education and discussion groups would usually not take more than 10 to 20 minutes of the last session. Similarly, a children’s self-concept group meeting for 40 minutes a week for five sessions may take only 10 to 15 minutes of the last session for closing. Although it is possible that the closing stage could take two or more sessions, part of the last session is usually enough time for closing.
15-2bPurpose and Goals of the Closing Stage
The purpose of the closing stage is to pull together the significant ideas, decisions, and personal changes experienced by the members during the group. This is a time for members to look at their progress in the group and to compare their goals at the start of the group with their accomplishments at the end. While the leader may focus to some extent on the dynamics of the group itself (such as how the members have interacted or how they have helped each other), the main focus for most groups will be on each member’s growth and development. The following are the several tasks of the closing stage.
1. Reviewing and summarizing the group experience
2. Assessing members’ growth and change
3.
Finishing business
4. Applying change to everyday life (implementing decisions)
5.
Providing feedback
6. Handling goodbyes
7. Planning for continued problem resolution
Reviewing and Summarizing the Group Experience
One of the first tasks during the closing stage of most groups is to review and summarize the significant developments of the group. The leader can accomplish the task of review and summary by:
· (1)
summarizing the entire group,
· (2)
getting members to summarize their experience, or
· (3)
facilitating interaction that focuses on summarizing and reviewing.
The first option can be used if there have not been many sessions and the leader remembers most of the significant events. If the group has met for a number of sessions, this might not be the best option because the leader may not remember some important topics or discussions. The second option, having the members summarize their experiences, can be valuable if the group is small and the summaries can be kept to 2 to 3 minutes each. If the group is large (10 or more), this is not usually a good option, because it would probably take too much time and become repetitious. The third option, which allows members to share what has stood out to them, is usually best.
Example
It is the final session of a high school growth group.
Leader:
Because this is the last session, I want to spend the remainder of our time reviewing the group experience and how it has affected you. First, I want you to think of three things that stood out to you during the sessions. What discussions, exercises, or comments do you remember the most?
(Pause) Sandi, you seem ready.
Sandi:
The discussion about my mom and how I can deal with her better than I do. Focusing on the difference between being assertive and being aggressive was helpful. A third thing would be the discussion about taking risks to get more out of life.
Philippe:
The discussion concerning risk taking was the highlight for me. I think about that every day.
Leader:
Let me ask—was that a major insight for some others of you?
Armand:
It was number one on my list, too. Whenever I am bored or afraid, I think over what risks I can take or remember that it is okay to be afraid when I am trying something new.
In this example, having members share what was important and periodically holding the focus on various topics is an excellent way to bring the group to a close.
Assessing Members’ Growth and Change
This task applies to groups such as therapy groups, where the primary purpose is personal growth or change. By the time the closing stage rolls around, members should have experienced the implementation of some changes in their lives. One problem that members face when the group meetings end is that members may return to their former, less effective ways of living. It is important for the leader to highlight this potential problem for members and to reinforce their efforts to maintain positive change. This can be done, in part, by getting members to evaluate their success in making changes. This assessment reinforces the changes and encourages members to pursue further growth and development.
Example
The group is in the closing stage of a personal growth experience in a university counseling center.
Leader:
Since this is our last session, I think it might be helpful if each of you spent a few minutes looking at the changes you have brought about in your lives during these past 10 weeks. Some of you are more aware of your values and what you want to get from your life; others of you brought problems or concerns that you resolved through the group, and so forth. Take a minute and think about the important changes you’ve experienced in the group. When you are ready, I’m going to ask you to share those thoughts with the group.
This sharing can lead to feedback from other members, encouragement, and plans for continued work on issues following the end of the group.
Finishing Business
During the closing stage, it is common to have a few loose ends that still need to be tied up before the members can comfortably leave the group. It is important for the leader to allow time for this because unfinished business can interfere with the sense of closure and may leave one or more members with
unresolved issues
. Following are some examples of unfinished business that might come up during the closing stage:
· An issue or question that was brought up in a previous session but never dealt with
· Negative feelings about how the leader handled a particular situation during a session
· A question a member has for another member or for the leader
· A member needing to work on some unresolved personal issue
Although it is important to assess and handle unfinished business, the leader must be careful not to generate new business. For example, if a member expresses some dissatisfaction with how the leader handled a particular situation during an earlier session, the leader may simply want to accept the statement rather than get into a lengthy explanation or discussion. If a member wants or needs therapy on an unresolved issue, the leader may choose to refer the member for counseling or see the member after the session. Delving into new issues is seldom appropriate for the closing stage.
The following is an example of how a leader might introduce the topic of unfinished business.
Leader:
One thing that is important to do during this closing is to allow some time for any unfinished group business that needs to be dealt with. I am not asking for personal work issues because we are trying to close the group. If there is something that you want to say or ask, please do so. I urge you not to leave thinking, “I wish I had said this or that.”
15-2cApplying Changes to Everyday Life (Implementing Decisions)
Discussing how the members are going to continue to implement the changes that they have made is valuable. By talking about applying the changes in the group to their everyday lives, members can be reminded of how far they have come and what they still need to do to become the person they want to be. This applies especially to in-patient groups or treatment centers where they don’t get to apply the changes to their “real” lives.
Providing Feedback
During the closing stage, some final feedback to members is often helpful. Members should be given a chance to comment to one another about the changes each has made. Such reinforcement should be sincere and as specific as possible. The leader should monitor the type of feedback given to make sure it is on target.
Leader:
Let’s spend a few minutes thinking of positive changes that you have seen in other members. I’d like you to pick three people who you feel have made some positive changes. I’ll ask you to tell each person what the change is and how you think the change is helpful for the person. For example, Alan, I feel that you are much friendlier, and it is now much easier to talk with you.
Leader:
I want you to think about feedback that you feel would be helpful to give other members. You may want to think about changes that you have seen in members or thank them for something they said or did during a session.
Feedback can also be given to confront members who are still denying problems or who have not taken responsibility for their behavior. Such feedback, when given honestly and without anger or disappointment, can have an impact on a member who seems unwilling to face certain unresolved issues. Feedback may be given by the leader, the members, or both.
Example
In a drug treatment group, a member who is still denying that his continued use of drugs is having a negative effect on his family life may benefit greatly from feedback sincerely given by the other members of the group.
Sam:
Dave, even though you are fooling your family, your therapist, and even yourself by your continued use of drugs, you are not fooling us, because we’ve been there.
Ann:
I agree, Dave, you really have to stop thinking that you don’t have a problem. Face it, you have a drug problem! Even though this group is ending, I do hope you will decide to really get help.
In this example, the members can probably have more impact than the leader, because they are seen as peers who have struggled and dealt with a similar problem. In other situations, the leader is better able to give confrontive or negative feedback because he sees aspects of a member’s behavior that the members do not see or because he knows the member better from having worked with him on an individual basis.
Handling Goodbyes
It is important for the leader to remember that for many members, the ending of a group is the end of a very special event in their lives. The relationships formed in the group may be the closest relationships some members have ever experienced. For most members, this will go smoothly. However, for some, the ending of the group will elicit anxiety over separating from the others. The positive effect of the group may be lessened if the leader does not identify and deal with those feelings. Clues to such feelings might be found in statements from members like these:
· I couldn’t sleep last night because I knew today would be our last meeting.
· I feel like this is my second family, and I don’t want to leave it.
· I don’t think I can make it without this group.
When the leader hears these comments, the first task is to help members realize that these feelings are normal and allow them to express their feelings of sadness or loss. Second, the leader might want to point out that the kind of sharing and closeness members feel toward one another need not be unique, although the positive sharing may have been a new experience. Also, if the leader knows that some members are going to have a tough time with the ending of the group, he may allow additional time during the closing stage to work with those members. Members sometimes wish to exchange telephone numbers and addresses if they have not done so already.
Planning for Follow-Up Care
Follow-Up Care
During the closing stage, it is the leader’s responsibility to provide guidance, information, and the names and phone numbers of referral sources for any member who needs to continue working on personal concerns. Members must learn to employ their new information and knowledge about themselves with people in their daily lives. This is especially important for group members who have been clients in a residential treatment program for a period of time. Some members, such as those who have had addiction problems, need continued support and monitoring in the community. Many communities have a variety of support groups available either as independent organizations or through mental health centers, hospitals, or rehabilitation programs. The leader should include a discussion of the value of these groups during the closing stage.
In some types of groups, members may form support networks of their own to ensure continued reinforcement of one another, and they may plan “booster” meetings periodically to report on their progress. The need for this type of follow-up should be assessed by the leader in conjunction with the members. The entire group may be involved in the network, or members may choose one or more persons with whom to network. For members who ordinarily have difficulty developing and maintaining relationships, networking is very beneficial. Networking may also be a temporary measure for members who are new to a community or who have simply lost social contacts because of addictions or other problems. In some groups, time may be provided during the closing stage to develop individual plans for each member.
15-2dExercises to Use during the Closing Stage
Rounds
Rounds can be especially helpful during the closing stage. The round can be used to summarize key points, get overall reactions to the group or a particular experience, or check the degree to which members feel they accomplished personal goals. The leader might introduce closing rounds with one of the following questions:
· On a 1–10 scale, with 10 being very satisfied, how satisfied are you with your progress during this group?
· If you had to capture how you feel about your group experience in a sentence or two, what would you say? We’ll do a round and hear from everyone.
· Because this is the last session, what is a word or phrase that expresses how you are feeling about the group ending?
Wishes
The wishes exercise provides a special type of feedback for members during the closing stage. We gave an example of this earlier for the closing phase, but it is also an excellent activity for the closing stage.
Example
It is the last session of a support group for recently divorced persons.
Leader:
Let’s take the next few minutes and see if there are any wishes you might have for one another. You may or may not have a wish. It’s okay either way. I have a wish for Darlene. My wish for you is that you will be able to let go of your angry feelings toward your husband and get on with your life.
Darlene:
Thank you.
Bill:
My wish for you, Jane, is that you realize your teenagers are old enough to help out around the house and that you can stop being their slave.
Josefa:
I have a wish for you too, Jane. My wish for you is that you take a chance. You won’t know whether you can build a new relationship if you don’t try.
Reunion Fantasy
An excellent exercise to use in closing certain personal growth, support, counseling, and therapy groups is the
reunion fantasy
. The purpose of this exercise is to get members to project their lives into the future. Many members are startled to find that in their fantasies, they have the power to bring about significant changes. They are encouraged by this imagining process and gain confidence that their lives can change for the better. Conversely, members are also surprised to find that they are unable to imagine some of the changes they have worked for in the group. They realize the need for a greater commitment to change and that they must take more responsibility for their lives if change is to come about.
Leader:
I’d like you to relax. Close your eyes if that is comfortable for you. I want you to imagine that the time is 5 years from now; you have just gone to the mailbox and have received a letter from me inviting you back for a group reunion. In the letter, I explain that I have received a grant to cover all expenses. Now that you have decided to attend, I want you to think of what you will tell the other members about your life and any changes. Think about where you are living, with whom you are living, what you are doing, and any significant events that have occurred.
(The leader pauses to allow the members to experience the fantasy.) What do you most want to say to the other members about your life now? In a minute, I am going to ask you to stand up and act like you are just seeing these people for the first time in 5 years, unless you remained in contact with some of them. Try to get into the role of having been apart for 5 years.
(Pause) Okay, everyone open your eyes, stand, and start milling and sharing.
This exercise can be very thought-provoking for members who have come to know each other very well. As with all exercises, this one must be tailored to the kind of group, its purpose, and the needs of the members as they experience the group coming to an end. This exercise would be good to use during the beginning part of the closing stage, because it would get members to think about the group ending and the issues and changes they have talked about in the group. (It can also be used during the middle stage of a group if the leader wants to get members to focus on the future and possible changes.)
Members Writing about Their Experience
The leader may provide a chance for members to write about some aspect of the group, either in their journals (if journals were used) or on paper provided. The members may write on a variety of topics: four or five things they learned, the most helpful experience for them during the group, personal goals at the beginning of the group and the extent to which each was achieved, and how decisions they made in the group will be applied outside the group. The leader may then have members share their written thoughts in pairs, small groups, or with the entire group. If the topic the members write about is lengthy or complex, the leader may ask each member to underline two or three key passages to share with the entire group to save time and maintain the focus. When using journals, members may also review their journal entries from all the previous sessions and write a summary paragraph that pulls together the key points of the group for them.
Using the Flipchart or Handouts
An excellent tool for reviewing, summarizing, and consolidating information is a
flipchart
or whiteboard. The flipchart can be used to list points during the review and can be referred to as those points are discussed. It also serves as an excellent focal point for the members, as they continually gaze at the flipchart and thus stay focused on the review. Writing on the flipchart also gives members a chance to have direct input into the review and summarizing process.
Handouts are a variation on the flipchart technique. They differ primarily in that the leader has already summarized the key points. The advantage of the handout is that it saves time and gets the members focused on the discussion immediately. A handout may be particularly useful with discussion, education, and task groups, because the leader can often easily summarize the various key points.
15-2eAdditional Considerations for the Closing Stage
As the leader plans the closing stage of the group, there are a number of points to think about. Not every kind of group requires consideration of all these factors. It is the leader’s responsibility to determine which of these considerations are relevant.
1.
Guarding against ending with strong emotions
2. Conducting exit interviews
3. Holding follow-up sessions
4. Evaluating the group
5. Ending with a party
Guarding against Ending with Strong Emotions
When closing a group where members have gotten very close, the leader will want to pay close attention to the emotional tone. The members may experience the ending as a very sad, intense, or extra-special event. If possible, these kinds of feelings should be avoided. Members should ideally see the ending as a new beginning, feeling positive about the group experience and excited about their future. The first example that follows depicts a leader talking about sad feelings regarding the ending of the group. The second example depicts a leader talking about the possibilities of ending on a “high.”
Examples
Leader:
When we stop today, I know you might feel sad since this is the last group session. I hope you will realize that you can continue with the things you have learned in this group. I purposely will try to have us end with good feelings and not sadness, because I feel the group really has been a good experience for all of us. It has helped members to share and care, and I hope you have already started to create the same kind of sharing with significant others in your life.
The leader can prevent the false high phenomenon by presenting a positive yet calm attitude. To avoid ending on the “high,” with much hugging and joyous crying, you might try to end groups that have been very close and personal by saying something like this:
Leader:
(In a soft, rather neutral voice) We are going to stop now. I do think the whole experience has been good, and the closing has been very good. I think you have had enough time to say what you wanted and to start a new beginning for yourself. If I can ever be of help, please feel free to contact me. I certainly have found the experience to be a good one. I think it is time to end.
Conducting Exit Interviews
Earlier in this book, we discussed the value of interviewing potential group members before a group begins to establish rapport and exchange expectations about the group experience. There is also value in conducting exit interviews with members as the group enters the closing stage. Exit interviews are not needed in all groups; the leader must consider the value of such interviews with regard to the kind of group and the needs of individual members. If exit interviews are conducted, they should last from 10 to 20 minutes. We suggest that they take place either before the final session of the group or very soon after the last session. The reason for meeting before the last session is that the leader can suggest how the member might use the closing stage to her benefit, such as requesting additional feedback from other members. The exit interview can also be a time for the leader to reinforce the gains a member has made, as well as to focus more individual attention on ways the member can apply those gains to everyday living. The interview further gives the leader a chance to ask for feedback about the group and various aspects of his leadership. Depending on the kind of group, some members may feel more comfortable giving the leader feedback on a one-to-one basis.
Holding Follow-Up Sessions
The leader may consider holding a follow-up session of the group several weeks or months after the final regular session. The decision to have one or more follow-up meetings depends on the kind of group and the members’ needs. For example, members of a task group who work together in the same organization may wish to have a follow-up session to assess how things are going. With some support or counseling groups, follow-up sessions give members a chance to share how they are doing and lessen the anxiety of separation. The leader may set up a formal follow-up program where members are notified and encouraged to return for a meeting. Occasionally, members decide they want to plan for a reunion in 6 months. This decision usually arises from the good feelings members have toward one another during the closing stage.
Experience suggests that these reunions are usually not very successful, because the feelings fade as time passes and members become involved in their own lives. If a reunion is planned, the leader should not feel disappointed by a small turnout, and members should be prepared for the experience to be very different from when they were meeting regularly.
One unique follow-up procedure that we use is to have members write themselves letters in which they assess their goals, give themselves feedback, and list plans for the future. The letters are given to the leader in a self-addressed, stamped envelope and are then mailed several weeks or months after the group has ended. Members have reported that this technique is powerful.
They say that writing the letter is thought-provoking, and knowing that it will come in the mail someday causes them to keep working even after the group has ended. Others have said that often their letter arrived at a good time, because they needed a “booster shot.” The letter exercise is designed for use in a personal growth, counseling, or therapy group, but it could also be used with a task group as a way for members to check on the degree to which they have followed through on their decisions.
Evaluating the Group
When any group ends, the leader must decide how she will evaluate the experience. Groups can be evaluated formally, with a questionnaire, or informally, with the leader asking specific questions during the closing stage. No matter how the evaluation is done, the leader should seek answers to the following questions:
· How valuable was the experience? (The leader could use a 1–10 scale.)
· What did members like about the group?
· What did members dislike about the group?
· What did members like about the way the leader led the group?
· What did members dislike about the way the leader led the group?
· How could the group have been better?
These are just the basic questions that should be asked. Certainly a more elaborate questionnaire could be devised that asked about specific topics, exercises, and events that occurred during the group. We encourage leaders, especially beginning leaders, to evaluate any group they lead. The responses and comments from their members can be very helpful in leading future groups.
Ending with a Party
Often members want to end the group with a party. They may suggest meeting at someone’s house or meeting for pizza. The leader should give a good deal of thought to such a request; often, when the group meets in another setting, a group session never really takes place and thus no real closing occurs. If the leader and the group decide to meet in a setting like this, the leader will want to tell members ahead of time that the first hour or so will be devoted to closing the group.
A variation of this is for the group to plan a party to be held after the group has officially ended. Sometimes this type of party works fine, and other times it does not work out very well. We suggest that the leader at least prepare members for the possibility that the party may not go well.
15-3aConcluding Comments
The
closing phase is a very important phase of a session and is often mishandled because the leader has not managed the time of the session very well. The closing phase serves the purpose of reviewing a session and ensuring that members leave feeling reasonably “finished.” When a leader fails to plan for the closing phase, closing is either hurried or skipped, causing the members to leave with no closure. It is very important to have a closing phase to each session.
The
closing stage of a group is the last stage—it is when the group is winding down and preparing to stop meeting. The closing stage is usually a portion of the last session, the entire last session, or perhaps, the last two sessions. Its purpose is to bring closure to the experience.
The closing phase and the closing stage are each very important aspects of a group because they allow members to review what has happened and to commit to what they are going to do in the future. Also, closing is an important time for reflecting on the group, and giving and receiving feedback. During the closing stage, it is important for the members to assess their progress, evaluate the experience, and discuss follow-up support.
There are a number of skills, techniques, and exercises that are useful during closing. Rounds are very helpful because they tend to get everyone to speak, and it is important to hear reactions from the quieter members. Writing as a part of closing has proved to be quite valuable for many different kinds of groups. Cutting off is essential because members tend to tell stories or bring up new topics.
Activities
1. Think back to group experiences or classes that you had where there was no time for closing. What did it feel like to have the experience just end? What would have made the ending better for you?
2. List the skills and techniques you plan to use in the closing phase and stage of groups that you will be leading in the future.
Group Counseling Skills
View again the three videos (15.1, 15.2, 15.3) showing closing in a group, and think about different directions the group could have gone if the leader had not had closing skills. Also think of some other ways these groups could have been closed.
Read: Jacobs, Schimmel, Masson, & Harvill: Chapter 16
Chapter Introduction
When leading groups, a leader must be prepared to deal with any number of situations. In this chapter, we identify many of the most common problems that arise and provide examples to illustrate some skills and techniques for handling these situations. We have identified the following 13 common problems:
1.
The chronic talker
2.
The dominator
3.
The distracter
4.
The rescuing member
5.
The negative member
6.
The resistant member
7. The member who tries to
“get the leader”
8.
Dealing with silence
9.
Dealing with sexual feelings
10. Dealing with crying
11. Dealing with
mutually hostile members
12. Asking a member to leave
13. Dealing with prejudiced, narrow-minded, or insensitive members
16-1The Chronic Talker
It is not difficult to spot the chronic talker. He is often characterized by persistent rambling and repetition. When a chronic talker is present, other members who have concerns that they would like to discuss are prevented from doing so. Soon the group members either tune out the chronic talker and lose interest in the proceedings or get frustrated and angry with both the talkative member and the leader. Depending on the reason underlying his talkativeness, the chronic talker falls into three different types: the nervous member, the rambler, and the show-off.
1.
The nervous member talks to hide his feelings of nervousness or as a means of self-control. Easily recognized, the nervous member is often the first one to answer questions posed by the leader and the first to volunteer for some task. Because the nervous member is talking to alleviate anxiety, he will talk frequently and for as long as the leader lets him.
2.
The rambler dominates discussions because she is simply a talkative person and is unaware of the effect her rambling has on others. She is also easily recognized because she tells long, drawn-out stories and sometimes repeats herself. The stories are often trivial and are not usually meaningful to others.
3.
The show-off is a talkative person because he is insecure and wants to impress the group leader, other members, or both. The show-off seems to be attempting to show others what he knows. In doing so, he answers all questions, asks irrelevant questions in an effort to grab the leader’s attention, and may offer unsolicited advice to other group members. The other members often resent this and grow to dislike this type of member. The problem with the show-off is that he can quickly divert the group from its intended purpose.
6-1aHandling the Talkative Member
To determine whether or not a member should be seen as a chronic talker, the leader should consider the following questions:
· For how long has the member been talking?
· How many comments has the member made compared with other group members?
· Are the member’s comments in line with the intended purpose of the group?
· Is this member preventing others from talking?
· Are others becoming bored or irritated with the member’s comments?
· Does the member seem to be talking because of nervousness or a desire to impress others?
There are several ways to handle a talkative member. For example, upon recognizing such a member, the leader could have members form dyads, making sure she pairs herself with the talkative member. In the dyad, the leader could attempt to speak to the member about his talkativeness. The advantage of this strategy is that the talkative member receives the message about his talkativeness from only one person, thus causing less embarrassment.
There are a couple of strategies that involve the whole group. One is to address the group with the hope that the talkative member hears the message. The other strategy involves seeking feedback from the members.
Examples
It is early in the life of the group, and the leader wants to curb the rambler’s talking but at the same time not seem critical of the member. Therefore, the leader decides to deliver the message to the entire group by looking at everyone as she speaks.
Leader:
It is important to keep in mind that the purpose of the group is for
everyone to share thoughts and feelings. If any one member gets too long-winded, the focus of the group changes from sharing to listening to one member. Please be aware of how much you are talking, and whether or not you are dominating the discussion.
In this example, the leader introduces a feedback exercise because she believes members want to confront the talkative member.
Leader:
As I stated in the beginning of this group, one of the most potentially helpful aspects of a group such as this is for members to receive feedback about themselves from other members of the group. In effect, this feedback acts as a mirror, letting you know how others in the group see and react to you. Is there anyone here who would like to give another member some feedback?
The leader would use this kind of opening to a feedback exercise only if she were confident that members wanted to share their feelings about a member’s excessive talking. If the leader felt that members would not speak up unless the leader did, a feedback exercise could be devised in which the leader could also give feedback to the rambling member. Sometimes members will offer feedback without being prompted to do so. When this happens, the leader merely needs to make sure that the member receiving the feedback doesn’t feel attacked.
If the leader is about to ask the group a question and is sure that a talkative member will again speak up and attempt to dominate the discussion, the leader might say something like, “I’m going to ask a question, and I would like to hear from some of you who haven’t talked yet.” The leader should say this while avoiding eye contact with the talkative member. These techniques may stop the dominating member and draw out comments from members who have been silent. At times the leader unknowingly perpetuates a particular member’s talking by maintaining eye contact with him and nodding her head as that member speaks. Maintaining eye contact usually reinforces the member’s talking.
One direct way of intervening with the talkative member is to speak to the member immediately after the session or sometime before the next session about his excessive talking.
Example
Leader:
(Talking to a member after the session has ended) Wanda, tell me if I’m wrong, but you seemed a bit nervous during the group tonight. You were repeating yourself a lot as you talked, and you talked very rapidly.
Wanda:
Yes, you’re right. I was hoping that no one would notice. I just get uptight every time I’m around a new group of people. It is something that I definitely want to work on.
Another strategy that could be used if the leader were having the members turn in any kind of written reactions to the group would be to give the member feedback in writing. (In therapy and growth groups, members often write a brief reaction at the end of each session.) For example, the leader might write the following feedback at the bottom of the member’s reaction:
Tom, I sense that you are uncomfortable because you talked quite a bit and at a very rapid pace. I am hoping that you will be a little more comfortable and thus talk a little less. Let me know if there is anything that we can do to help you feel more comfortable.
Members usually receive this message very well and become more cognizant of their talkative behavior. In addition, a note such as this often helps members feel more comfortable about talking to the leader outside the group. This is a nonthreatening way to offer feedback; however, there is no guarantee that the member receiving the feedback will respond favorably to it, and if the member reads it somewhere outside the group, no one will be there to help process the feedback.
Group Counseling Skills
Dealing with a Talkative Member
Review video 8.2 and watch how the leader has to twice deal with the very talkative member.
16-2The Dominator
The dominator is a member who tries to rule the group. This member is different from the chronic talker because this person wants to run things and be in control. This kind of member is fairly common in residential treatment settings and in school groups. In education, discussion, or task groups, a dominator is often present. The leader should try some of the different techniques suggested for dealing with the chronic talker; however, the leader quite often needs to meet with this kind of member privately to discuss his behavior in the group. Sometimes this kind of member can be used as a helper or be given a role that makes him feel special. Other times, the behavior is such that he has to be asked to leave the group because he is not willing to give control to the leader.
16-3The Distracter
The distracter is a member who is either seeking attention or is avoiding looking at herself. To accomplish this, she tries to get the group off task by bringing up unrelated subjects or asking questions that are not relevant. Some distracters make noises or move around as a way to distract members. This person is often found in school or residential groups and in groups that are not voluntary. Sometimes this member is very difficult to deal with because she is not intentionally trying to distract the group. Talking with the member and then ignoring her comments or behaviors often helps to minimize the effects of the distracter.
16-4The Rescuing Member
Rescuing is the attempt of a member to smooth over negative feelings experienced by another member of the group. When a member becomes upset, often other group members attempt to soothe the member with such statements as, “Now, don’t worry, it will be all right” or “Everything has a way of working itself out if you just give it time.” This is usually not helpful, and such comments often sound patronizing. Rescuing can prevent the member in pain from problem solving.
Examples
One of the members, Judy, cries as she tells the group about her upcoming divorce. As she does so, another member, Karen, attempts to rescue her.
Karen:
Don’t worry Judy, everything will be okay. I went through a divorce myself, and you just have to make the best of it. I think …
Leader:
(Interrupting Karen in mid-sentence) Judy, you are in a lot of pain right now, and if you would like, we can listen and try to be of help. By sharing, I think you will at least get some of your thoughts out, and I think that you will feel our support.
(Judy nods that she would like to.)
Leader:
(After Judy has discussed her divorce and using a kind voice) I’d like to say something to all of you here. Usually when a member is struggling with some issue like a divorce, she doesn’t need our sympathy or advice as much as she needs to be listened to and supported.
Members often think they are being supportive when, in fact, they are trying to rescue the member. Teaching members how helping and sharing differ from rescuing is important as the group progresses. In the early life of the group, the leader may need to intervene quite often, because group members are not aware of their rescuing behaviors. In the preceding example, the leader decides to convey the message about sympathy being unhelpful to the entire group so that they could observe her modeling the correct method of being therapeutic in the group.
This group is a stress management group composed of first-year teachers. One of the members, Vivian, is upset with her husband. Another member hears this and gives her sympathy and pity.
Vivian:
It is so stressful being a first-year teacher and juggling all the things with the kids and the house. My husband is always on me about the house and the kids, but it is hard to get it all done. I am trying but sometimes I just can’t get to the laundry or the cleaning, and then he doesn’t have a shirt to wear. I feel so bad. I feel so lucky to have met such a good person who doesn’t drink or yell that often. I just feel like a failure on all fronts—I am not pleasing him, and I am not being a good mom or a good teacher.
(Starts to tear up)
Rose:
Vivian, things will get better. The school year is nearly half over and we all will know so much more about teaching next year. I think you’re doing a good job. I like teaching with you when we have those joint classes. Don’t the rest of you think Vivian is a good teacher?
Leader:
(With a slow, kind voice) Wait just a second. I don’t think this is really about whether Vivian is a good teacher, but more about the self-talk that is going on in her head. Vivian, would you like to understand more about where your stress is coming from?
16-5The Negative Member
A negative member is one who constantly complains about the group or disagrees with other members of the group. Negative members are particularly troublesome because their attitude and behavior counter the leader’s goal of maintaining a positive working tone. If one or two members are negative and begin to complain, other members will sometimes join in and also become negative. The group sessions may become gripe sessions, and very little is accomplished.
There are three possible strategies for dealing with the negative member:
1. Talk to the person outside the group and attempt to establish why he is so negative. The leader can even ask for the member’s cooperation in making the group productive. Sometimes such members simply want the leader’s attention or a role to play in the group. By talking to the member, the leader can offer a positive role to the negative member.
2. Identify the allies (positive group members) in the group and direct questions and comments to them. Getting these members to talk more than the negative members can help to establish a more positive tone in the group.
3. When asking the group a question, avoid eye contact with the negative person so that you do not draw her out.
Leaders should usually avoid confronting a negative member in front of the other group members. This confrontation can turn into an argument between the leader and the negative member, which would not be productive for the other group members. If the leader finds herself in any kind of argumentative situation, she should shift the focus to another person or topic and then talk to the negative member at the end of the group.
It is important to understand that groups will at times have one or two negative members. This is especially true at the beginning of a group and particularly so if the group is a mandatory one. Many times negativism diminishes as the group becomes more interesting. However, there will be times when, no matter what the leader does, a member will remain negative. In extreme cases, it may be necessary to ask the member to leave the group or to sit quietly. Leaders often devote far too much time trying to work with a negative member while ignoring those members who are interested in the group.
Group Counseling Skills
Dealing with Negative Members
Review video 1.1 and watch how the leader dealt poorly with negative members. Then watch 1.2 and see how the leader better handled negative members.
16-6The Resistant Member
Some members are resistant because they are forced to be in the group. Sometimes these members will work through their resistance if they are given a chance to express their anger. This situation is difficult for the leader, because he does not know whether allowing the member to express anger will be of benefit or if the member will merely complain and set a negative tone for the group. However, it is essential for the leader to pay attention when a member is seemingly working through her resistance.
Four examples of resistant members would be:
1. The member who, during the first meeting, says he does not know why he has to be at the meeting and does not see how the group can be helpful
2. The member who comes and sits with her arms crossed and does not contribute unless forced to—and then says as little as possible
3. The member who always tries to focus the group on topics not relevant to the group, such as movies, sports, or the latest fashions
4. The member who is not resisting the group but is resistant to changing something about himself
Some members have negative expectations about the effectiveness of a group. These members believe that the group will not be helpful, and therefore, they refuse to participate cooperatively. If the leader is faced with a resistant member, her two primary strategies are to let the member share his feelings in the group, or to talk to him in a dyad, or after the session, and try to help him work through his resistance. If neither of these works and the member has to remain in the group because of the setting (such as a residential treatment center), the leader will want to be sure
not to focus on that member. A common mistake of leaders is to devote as much as half of each session trying to break down members’ resistance.
Sometimes a resistant member appears to be opposed to the leader’s attempt to be helpful but not to the members’ attempts. If this seems to be the case, the leader may want to set up situations in which the member can share with other members of the group. This can be done through the use of dyads, triads, and small-group discussions without the direct participation of the leader. Or if the member is the focus of the group, the leader lets the members do the majority of the helping.
Conversely, the resistant member may oppose the attempts of the members to be helpful but not the leader’s attempts. If this is the case, individual counseling within the group or privately may be the best way to help the member.
It is important that the leader distinguish between the member who is resisting the group process and the member who is resistant because she does not want to change something about herself or her situation.
Example
Angela has been discussing being a mother and having a career. She has stated that she wants to continue her career but doesn’t know what to do with her children during the day.
Jackie:
Could you leave them at a day care center?
Angela:
Yes, but I’m not so sure that is a good place for them.
Todd:
Does your company have a program for taking care of employees’ children?
Angela:
Yes, but I don’t like some of the children and workers there.
Frances:
Do you have relatives nearby who would be willing to care for them?
Angela:
Yes, but I hate to impose.
In a case like this, the leader should realize that the member is resistant to or hesitant about hearing suggestions. One way to deal with this resistance would be to say something like the following:
Leader:
Angela, I think we understand the concern, but I am not sure how we can be of help here in the group. What would be helpful to you?
Another way to handle resistance in many groups is to focus on the resistant member in an indirect manner, as described in
Chapter 14
. That is, the leader may work with a more willing member with the intent of helping the resistant member learn something by watching. Conducting therapy in this manner takes the direct focus off the resistant member. The important thing to remember is not to spend too much time with the resistant member if it takes productive time away from the other group members.
16-7The Member Who Tries to “Get the Leader”
When leading a group, a leader needs to be prepared for what we call “get the leader.” This occurs when a member attempts to sabotage what the leader is saying or doing in the group. Get the leader can take the form of disagreeing with the leader, not following through with instructions given by the leader, asking unanswerable questions to make the leader look bad, or talking to others while the leader is talking. This member is different from the negative member in that the member is truly after the leader.
There are a variety of reasons for members to want to get the leader. Often the reasons can be traced to something said or done by the leader that caused the member to become irritated or embarrassed. The following is a list of some leader behaviors that might cause members to want to get the leader:
· Putting a member on the spot in front of the other members
· Cutting off a member inappropriately (or even appropriately)
· Not giving a member the chance to talk or failing to recognize when a member wants to speak
· Telling a member that the group will come back to his issue or concern, and then failing to do so
· Allowing the group members to offer too much negative feedback to a particular member
· Not being skilled enough to control the group
· Allowing the group to be boring because of the leader’s lack of skill
Although the leader is often the cause of get-the-leader behavior in the group, there are other possible causes.
· Members who are not self-referred sometimes take out their frustrations and anger on the leader.
· Members sometimes project their fears about being in the group onto the leader.
· Members who have struggled in their relationships with authority figures might attempt to spoil the leader’s efforts.
· Members sometimes want to be the leader’s “favorite” and react angrily when they don’t feel that they are.
Probably the first thing a leader should do when she realizes that a member is trying to get her is to shift the focus away from any power struggle between the member and herself.
Examples
Leader:
I’d like us to begin today’s session by talking about how drinking has affected your family life.
Joe:
Why do you always pick the topics? I thought this was
our group. Tell me!
Leader:
(Speaking in a calm voice while making eye contact with all the members, using no extra eye contact with Joe in order to try to discourage Joe from additional comments) Let me explain to all of you how I decide on the topics. Also, be aware that if there is a topic or something that you would like to discuss, you can let me know. There are a number of topics that I feel we should cover.…
Leader:
I would like each of you to close your eyes and try to imagine that…
Lynn:
(Interrupting) Are you going to do another one of those stupid fantasy exercises? What good are they?
Leader:
Lynn, feel free to sit quietly.
(To the other members) I want you to close your eyes and imagine that you are an animal.…
Once the leader has sidestepped the member’s attempt to get him, he should try to understand why the member has targeted him. Often, the leader knows why it happened, and if the problem can be corrected by such techniques as paying more attention to the member, going back to the member’s issue, or making sure not to put the member on the spot, then the leader should make the correction. If the leader does not understand why the member has targeted him, he might choose to pair up in a dyad with the member or talk to the member at the end of the session to see if he can gain some information. He might say something like, “Something seems to be going on between you and me. Is it anything I said or did that upset you?”
If the member does not want to share his thoughts, the leader might be able to gain some insight from talking to other members. Often a member will share disgruntled thoughts with a fellow member but not with the leader. If the leader seeks information from other members, he must be very careful to ensure that the members do not feel any pressure to share something they feel they should not share. This may happen in school or residential settings where the counselor interacts with the members on a regular basis.
If a member persists in trying to sabotage the leader and the leader has talked to the member, the leader may get help from the group by asking for feedback about the member’s complaints or behavior. The leader would do this only if he knew he had the support and understanding of all, or nearly all, the other members. The leader could ask the entire group, “Do you like the way the group is going and the activities I ask you to do?” Or he could be more specific: “I would like some feedback. Whenever I suggest anything, Cleve always wants to argue with or question me. How do the rest of you feel about Cleve’s doing that?” Assuming the leader receives a favorable response from either of these feedback questions, the member should see that he is alone in his attacks or that the other members are annoyed with his behavior.
We hope this discussion has alerted you to the existence of this phenomenon and has given you some ways of dealing with it. Too many beginning leaders fail to recognize “get the leader” and misread it as resistance or negativism, when in fact it is something that they either caused or can change with a slight adjustment. However, there are times when there is almost nothing the leader can do to stop the member other than removing that member from the group.
16-8Dealing with Silence
There are both productive and nonproductive silences in a group. Productive silence occurs when members are internally processing something that was said or done in the group. Nonproductive silence occurs when members are quiet because they are confused about what to say, fearful of talking, or bored. When the group is silent, the leader should ask herself if the silence is productive. The leader can usually tell by observing the members’ reactions as they are sitting there and also by considering what has just occurred in the group. If the members seem deep in thought as a result of someone’s intense work, the silence should be allowed. Sometimes the leader may allow the silence to last for 1 or 2 minutes if it appears to be productive. The leader may choose to wait until someone else breaks the silence, or she may choose to break the silence by saying something like, “Many of you seem to really be thinking about what just happened. I’d like you to briefly share your thoughts.” However, if the members are silent because they are not interested, then the silence should signal the leader to change the focus or address the group about their lack of interest.
Sometimes members are silent at the beginning of a session because they are not yet warmed up to the session. It can be a mistake to let silence occur at the beginning of the session, because what the members really need is some discussion or activity to get them started. This goes back to what we have said about the importance of leading the group rather than waiting for the members to take charge. Sometimes the wait is very long and not productive.
If the members have nervous or blank looks on their faces, wondering who will start, we suggest that the leader break the silence after 15 or 20 seconds to get the group started. Some experts feel very differently about this and let a group sit in silence for 5 to 10 minutes in the belief that the members should be responsible for what happens in the group. For the most part, we have found this to be counterproductive. In groups where this has occurred, many members have reported that they were confused about what was going on and were bored sitting there waiting for something to happen. It can also promote verbal attacks among members. We feel that in situations where the members are not really thinking, the group time usually can be better spent when the leader breaks the silence with a question, a round, or an exercise that is relevant and productive.
When the leader feels the silence is being very productive and a member starts to speak, the leader can say to the member, “Let’s wait just a few more seconds. People seem to really be thinking.”
16-9Dealing with Sexual Feelings
Sometimes group members are sexually attracted to other members, especially in therapy, growth, and support groups where members share on a personal level. Certain group dynamics may emerge when this occurs. Members may try to impress each other; they may hold back sharing because of another; or they may become jealous, hurt, or angry at what another member is sharing. These kinds of dynamics can be detrimental to the group process, but a leader must keep in mind that sexual attraction can and will occur. There is nothing the leader can do about it, and, in fact, leaders will not want to act as moral legislators. Some leaders set a rule that members cannot relate to one another outside the group. Our observation is that members are going to do this regardless of the rule, so a better strategy is to talk about how this can become a problem.
At times members form relationships that do not interfere with the group; other times outside relationships do cause problems. If a situation has arisen that is hindering the group (such as two people dating or one person being interested in another member who is not reciprocating), the leader may choose to talk privately to the person or persons involved about possible solutions to the problem. Other times, the issue can be brought up in the group, especially if other members feel that the relationship is disrupting the group in some way. This may not be easy to handle, but the leader should not ignore these situations. Sometimes, having one of the members drop out of the group is the best solution.
16-10Dealing with Crying
Members may cry at any time during the group. They may cry when they or someone else talks about topics such as low self-esteem, abuse, the death of a loved one, a divorce of their own or of their parents, the loss of a job, an illness, or moving from one place to another. The tears may range from moisture in the eyes (tearing up) to uncontrollable sobbing and may indicate a range of emotions from sadness to fear, anger, depression, emptiness, confusion, anxiety, and even happiness.
Some leaders who notice that a member is starting to cry immediately try to help the member with the pain before getting a contract to do so. Often, members are not ready to discuss what they are feeling, so when the leader tries to help those not ready to share, the member feels pressure, which may lead to resentment. The leader should always be sure the member wants to work on the problem and that there is enough time to adequately deal with the emotions of the member. A common mistake that beginning leaders make when they notice a member tearing up is to focus on that member without considering how much time is left in the session. They then find themselves having to cut short the work with that person in order to end the session at the designated stopping time. Naturally, if someone is in pain, the leader will want to be sensitive to that person, but he also needs to be aware of the time.
If time is not a factor, the leader may pair up with the member in pain to find out more about the pain. To occupy the other members, the leader would have them get into dyads and process what they were just discussing or some other topic that the leader thinks is relevant. The leader could also acknowledge the pain and suggest to the member that they talk after the group.
Another important consideration when a member is crying is whether the crying is a result of some struggle or painful event or is an attempt to gain sympathy. Some group members naturally feel sorry for the person and reach out and touch the person who is crying. Members can usually not distinguish who is genuinely struggling with some painful issue and who wants to be rescued. Often, it is appropriate to ask a member not to touch or hug another member who is feeling sorry for himself or playing a “poor-me” game. Hugging or touching that member would not be therapeutic.
In some groups, such as educational or discussion groups or even some experiential groups, dealing for any length of time with a member in psychological pain is not appropriate. If the leader observes that someone is beginning to cry, he may want to shift the focus away from that member and then seek her out after the group. Or the leader may want to say something like, “Martina, I can see that you are in some pain. Let’s talk after the group.” When leading education, discussion, or task groups, beginning leaders often make the mistake of holding the focus on the person in pain, thus creating confusion in the members who are expecting a different kind of group. In a therapy group where crying is appropriate, the leader may say something like: “I notice you are tearing up/crying; is there something you would like to work on in group today?”
Examples
This group is composed of cancer patients. One of the members, Wanda, is discussing her failing health.
Wanda:
Some days are better than others. I try to keep a positive attitude about the whole thing, and I succeed if I feel good that day. Today, I’ve felt bad.
(She begins to cry.) It’s on these days that I wonder if I’m gonna make it.
Jerry:
(Sitting next to her, he puts his arm around her shoulders and attempts to comfort her.) Wanda, let it out if you need to. I don’t think it helps to always try to keep up a positive image.
In this example, Wanda was genuinely struggling with a life-and-death issue. It is perfectly acceptable for Jerry to touch her.
Leslie:
(In a little girl voice) They just never let me grow up. Just like this past Christmas. I wanted to go to the mountains to ski, but my mother said that I should come home because my grandparents were going to be there. They make me so mad.
(Starts to cry) And they also hurt my feelings. My dad said that I was selfish and that I only think of myself. I just wish they would learn to accept me and stop trying to make me a clone of them.
(Carey starts to put her arm around Leslie.)
Leader:
(In a calm, soft voice) Carey, don’t do that. Leslie, I am wondering if we can get the thinking part of you to deal with this issue? Right now, I sense that you are coming more from the hurt, angry part.
One of the biggest mistakes that leaders make when a member begins to cry over some painful issue is to allow the other group members to ask a series of irrelevant questions. In the last example, some members might have responded to Leslie’s statement in the following ways:
· Where do your parents live?
· How many grandchildren do your grandparents have?
· How often do you visit?
Group members can divert the central focus of the group by asking such irrelevant and untimely questions, often out of discomfort and a desire to stop the crying. When this occurs, the leader must step in and cut off the questions.
A member may also start to cry during the first or second session, before the group is ready to deal with an intense emotional concern. Many times a member will be ready to delve into his concern. However, the leader needs to be careful in this situation, because sometimes members become frightened by the emotional intensity and do not return. During the first and second sessions, a leader should be cautious about how much pain and emotion she lets members express. If the majority of the group seems ready, then it can be valuable to let a member get into his intense pain.
16-11Dealing with Mutually Hostile Members
In any kind of group, there is the possibility of a member disliking another member. This dislike may manifest itself in arguments, disagreements, and silence between members. Sometimes members begin the group disliking each other because of something that happened before the group began. If possible, this should be checked out by the leader during the screening interview by asking, “Is there anyone whom you dislike and would not want to be in the group with you?” However, this is not a foolproof method for preventing members from disliking each other because even members who do not know each other at the beginning of the group can quickly grow to dislike each other as the group progresses. When this occurs, the leader may want to address the issue in the group if she feels that such a discussion would be beneficial. Often members’ behavior within the group is indicative of their behavior outside the group. Thus, focusing on the process of how members came to dislike each other can be one of the most beneficial discussions for them in terms of helping them become more accepting of others in their daily lives. Helping members come to terms with each other can also potentially be one of the most productive processes for solidifying the group and building group cohesion. However, there will be times when, no matter what happens in the group, members will not overcome their personal dislike for each other. Rather than getting members to like each other, the goal is to get the members not to let their dislike for another completely interfere with their benefiting from the group experience.
If the leader decides to focus on a major conflict between two members during a group session, we suggest that the leader meet privately with each of the conflicting members to identify the issues clearly and explain the reason for wishing to deal with it in the group. This individual contact between the leader and each member should also be used to build additional rapport and enlist the cooperation of the members. Without getting a commitment from each member to work toward a resolution of the issue, the leader is setting the stage for a potential disaster. If the leader confronts the members unexpectedly, either or both members may use the group as a major battleground.
Example
Two members of a group in a residential treatment center for adolescents are in a power struggle over control issues in the center. The leader has the option of switching either member into another therapy group but decides to try to help them work on their issues. The leader meets with each member individually and then opens the session as follows:
Leader:
Today I’m hoping we can spend some time dealing with an issue that’s important to all of us. As you know, Jack and Phillip have had some problems with each other. I talked to each of them and got them to agree to try and work some things out in the group.
(The leader then turns to the two members to get confirmation.)
Jack:
Yeah, I agree to try.
Phillip:
It’s okay with me.
Leader:
Okay, I guess I’d like to start by asking the rest of you what you see as the cause of the problems between Jack and Phillip.
Moe:
They each think they are right and can’t stand it if the other is right.
Pete:
They are always trying to one-up each other. Jack is a pretty good listener when anyone but Phillip is talking. When Phillip talks, Jack, you don’t listen to him at all.
Jack:
He doesn’t listen to me. When I was talking about my dad, he said I was stupid!
Leader:
So wait a minute. Some of your anger, Jack, is over the thing Phillip did when you were talking about your dad? How do others of you deal with someone who has done something upsetting to you?
In this example, the leader chooses to allow the other members to provide feedback and will gradually involve these two members as the discussion continues. Instead of focusing on specific complaints, focusing on the general topic of conflict resolution and ways of dealing with anger may be the most productive direction. Later in the session, examples provided by the two members in conflict may be used to demonstrate how differences can be handled. The leader is not avoiding the conflict between these members by this approach. On the contrary, the leader is assuming they lack good techniques for resolving their power struggle and must be taught such techniques before their efforts can be successful.
When members don’t like each other, the leader may be able to prevent any further growth of animosity by using dyads and exercises. Placing members who dislike each other in pairs or having them complete an exercise together may only serve as a battleground for their dislike toward one another. On the other hand, forcing antagonistic members to work together may help them bridge their differences. Sometimes leaders find it effective to pair the two members who dislike each other and then join the dyad to help them talk through their dislikes.
If the dislike is so great that it is interfering with the group, one or both members should be removed from the group if possible and placed in a different group. In addition, if this type of behavior seems to be a pattern for a particular member, perhaps the member is not ready for a group and would benefit more from individual counseling.
16-12Asking a Member to Leave
Although asking a member to leave the group is not a regular occurrence, it is an option that leaders need to understand and be willing to implement. There are several reasons a leader would ask a member to leave, such as being very negative, hostile, or resistant. A leader may also ask a member to leave the group because her needs may be so contrary to the purpose of the group that she would receive no benefit from it. For example, if a member of a parent education group kept bringing up personal problems dealing with her self-concept, marriage, and weight, it would be best if that member were not a part of that group. After determining that a member should not be a part of the group, the leader must next consider how and when to tell that member. Sometimes the task can be quite easy. For example, the leader could meet with the member after the group and say something like the following:
Leader:
Teresa, it seems that the things you really need from a group are not what this group is about. Maybe you have even wondered whether or not this group could be helpful to you. Given that your needs will not be served by this group, I think it might be best if we found you another alternative. Perhaps we could locate a more appropriate group for you or refer you to someone whom you could see on an individual basis. What do you think?
Another reason for asking a member to leave is that he has been very disruptive. Certainly there must be attempts to bring the disruptive member under control before asking the member to leave. However, if the member continues to disrupt and intrude on the rights of the other members, the leader should ask that member to leave the group. Ideally, it is best to do so at the end of a session or during a dyad. This prevents a power struggle from occurring in front of the other members. For example, at the end of a session, the leader could say, in private, something like:
Leader:
(Calmly) Patty, I must speak to you very frankly for a moment. Whether or not you are aware of it, you are disrupting the group to the point that I’m afraid the other members are not receiving any benefit. All attempts to halt your disruption have been to no avail. I think it would be best if you did not return. It is my responsibility to refer you to another group or to an individual therapist, and I will be glad to do so.
If the disruption is so severe that waiting until a break or the end of the group is not possible, the leader must act immediately so that the session may resume and be of benefit to the other members. In this case, the leader must explain the action to the entire group and then say something like, “Steve, I must ask you to leave,” or “Steve, you have disrupted the group too much; please leave.”
Of course, the strategies mentioned here apply to group situations where the members can be removed; that is, they are volunteers in the group or the setting, which gives the leader the freedom to remove a member if necessary. In a setting where the members must attend and there is no freedom to remove a member, the leader may ask that the member sit in silence or sit outside the circle of working members.
16-13Dealing with Prejudiced, Narrow-Minded, or Insensitive Members
Occasionally, a leader will have to deal with a member with a very narrow or prejudiced view of the world, one who tries to act as a moralist or preacher. This is a difficult situation, because one purpose of most groups is to hear different points of view and learn to be tolerant of others. However, there is a point when a member who cannot refrain from preaching and judging others may need to be removed from the group. It is not good leadership to always let members have their say. For instance, if a woman is talking about having an affair and another member starts in about how evil and wrong it is, the leader should quickly cut off that member. In a case like this, the leader must politely ask the member to try to understand that others have different views. If this does not work and the member insists on being heard, the leader may need to ask the member to leave the group. The leadership rule is to be tolerant of members’ differences and intervene only when a member’s comments are so prejudiced that they could be harmful. In the following example, the leader did not hesitate to quickly cut off the member who was not being sensitive.
Example
Susan:
I know I am young and all, but for the last year or so, I have been really questioning if there is a God. I am not sure how others of you feel, but I don’t think I believe in God. This has me worried and I end up often fighting with my mom about this.
Donna:
(Angrily and with a condescending voice) How can you not believe in God!
Susan:
I am confused, and it does not feel good because all my life I have thought of God as an important part of my life, and now, I don’t know what to think. It just doesn’t make sense to me, especially when I talk with these friends of my brother who are in college and studying world religions.
Donna:
That’s crazy. What do they know compared to what older people know! Where do you think we came from?
Leader:
(In a calm, caring voice) Donna, try to be helpful to Susan. Tune in to her.
Donna:
Maybe you are just going to the wrong church. You should come to my church! I just can’t believe you are questioning if there is a God. My father says that anyone who doesn’t believe in God is …
Leader:
(Firmly) Wait a minute. Donna, if you cannot tune in to her pain, then you need to not talk. Your comments are not helpful. Susan, I want you to look at other members and realize that we do understand how hard this is for you.
(She looks around and sees very concerned faces; Donna is now looking down. The leader stays with Susan.) I feel that we can help you. Are you willing to talk about it some more?
Susan:
Yes.
In this example, the leader had to intervene quickly because the member was being insensitive to the situation. If the member persists, the leader may have to talk with the member or even ask her to leave the group if she is not open to viewpoints different from hers.
Chapter Review
16-14aConcluding Comments
As a group leader, you will be faced with many difficult members and many difficult situations, such as the chronic talker, the dominator, the distracter, the negative member, the resistant member, the crying member, or the member who is out to get the leader. For each of these situations, there are different skills and techniques that can be helpful. For resistant clients, it is important to distinguish whether the member is resistant to being in the group or to changing.
For crying members, the leader has to know when the tears should be supported and when they should be ignored. A very important thing to understand is that there will be times when you will have to ask a member to leave the group because of the dynamics that he is creating. When faced with these situations (and you will be faced with them if you lead groups), we suggest you refer back to this chapter. And remember, these problems are not unique to your group or a reflection on your leadership.
Activities
1. Think of at least three different situations you have been in where there was a problem member or student. What would you have done if you had been in charge of dealing with that person?
2. Consider the problem situations of a crying member, a dominator, or a member who is out to get the leader. Which one of these will be hardest for you to handle? Why? Talk with your fellow students or colleagues about this, and hear which one would be hardest for them.
Group Counseling Skills
View again videos 3.2 and 8.2, and watch how the leader deals with these difficult members. Try to picture what would happen if the leader did not intervene.
image1
Expert paper writers are just a few clicks away
Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.