Practice & Communication In Social Work - Essay Example

Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their toil. For if they fall, one will lift up his fellow; but woe to him who is alone when he falls and has not another to lift him up. Again, if two lie together, they are warm; but how can one be warm alone? And though a man might prevail against one who is alone, two will withstand him. -Ecclesiastes 4:9-12 Introduction Groups are a part of social life. Each of us is a member of many different groups (Bennis & Shepherd, 1956). Before my social work course I had not really thought about all the different types of groups that exist as having a similar structure, and as going through similar processes, whether it be a group of professionals conferencing on a topic, a study group, a committee determining policy changes, or sporting group discussing next weeks strategy of play (Forsythe, 1990, 1998). Many of the groups that a person is a member of can impact greatly on their lives – either positively or negatively. Throughout the ages writers and researchers have been interested in the dynamics of groups. How a group forms, how it changes over time, how it comes to an end, and how a group structures itself, has been investigated by numerous researchers (Adams, 1990). What I have come to learn from this course is that to understand others, I need to understand group processes. Summary For this semester’s social work course, a reflective journal assignment was set, focusing on my working within a group. I was in group D and our task was to raise money or provide Service User support for a local charity of our choice. I was at this stage of the course aware that our group would go through a process of stages, and so I chose Tuckman’s model (1965), that he later revised in 1977. The aim of this report is to evaluate the effectiveness of the group, and my contribution within the group over the semester. Forming Tuckman’s (1951) model of group dynamics states that all groups go through four stages: forming, storming, norming and performing. Tuckman contends that groups usually form when people test the boundaries of others. We had ample opportunity to do this, I think to our advantage, as we all knew each other from this class. I was fortunate to have mostly teamed up with people who had similar motivation levels to me. However, on reflection I can see how being placed into a group, instead of choosing one myself to be in, would represent many group formations in the professional world. In the workforce people are often put into teams without having a choice. So it seems that becoming a member of a group without actively participating in the formation has some real world practicalities. In the initial stages most of the group members were diffident to others, and appeared interested in the assignment and of making the group work. Overall, most group members were considerate and motivated. My first reaction was I thought the size of the group was rather large but overall the atmosphere of the group was calm. I think my group is rather large with 16 members. If I had a choice I would rather have around 7-8 people therefore we would have an increase equal opportunity to speak. At our first meeting it was decided unanimously, after much deliberation, to focus on organisations that could offer us valuable learning experiences, or where we could support the Service User, as well as being able to raise funds for resources. There was no leader/ facilitator for the first couple of meetings and so I felt that the group had no direction. Two members in particular I labelled as powerful members, as they dominate the group (with positive energy!) by being very vocal during discussions. However, there were other group members who showed signs of boredom, or disinterest, as evident by their lack of eye contact and verbal contribution. Also, no member was producing any information for our task, although some were suggesting ground rules and ideas. The group was contributing in coming up with ideas, but we did not expand on these ideas. Storming The storming stage of Tuckman’s model is about conflict and polarization of group members. I found this stage to be the hardest within my group (week 3). Personally, I thought I handled the inter-group conflict well. I tried to be patient and considerate, to let others finish what they were saying and to justify why they wanted to do things in the way they did. Sometimes I found it difficult to be cordial. However, throughout my social worker course a key concept was “anti-oppressive” practices (Brewer & Brown, 1998; Houston, 1990). I have come to realise that my bias towards a couple of the group members was a form of anti-oppression. I appreciate becoming aware of this, of the whole experience itself, because I had always believed that I wasn’t a person that was prejudiced. Now, I can really relate to how such biases can be “unconscious”, and so productive interrelationship particular group members occurred. As the meeting progressed it became apparent that some team members were feeling uncomfortable with some of the fund raising ideas, mainly centred on personal feeling and anxieties of realistic time management owing to outside commitments. As we all felt we were approaching a stumbling block it was agreed that we should take a break. I felt that some of the members of the group were not active in the discussion, leaving all the thinking and speaking for the more vocal members of the group. I think today’s behaviour could fit into Bale’s ‘(date) number of categories for interaction’ because there were: Positive and mixed actions – certain group members did not contribute to the discussion however they seems friendly and agrees along with our aims and outcomes. But they may be disagree with the outcomes but do not want to voice their feelings. Attempted answers – L----- lead the suggestions, opinions and information along with the most vocal members. We also did ‘Fear In The Hat’, and it was evident that most of the group members were concerned that there were ‘Task Obstacles’ (General Organizing Model, date?); such as planning what organisation we are going to choose. A short-list was created and the Blind Institute chosen as our charity to assist. Norming The third stage of Tuckman’s model is norming: when the resistance of inter-group relations is overcome, and there is a sense of cohesiveness within the group. It is during this stage that new roles are taken on, people are more likely to express their opinions and a sort of intimacy between members is established. For our group, norming did not occur until around week 4. Most group members made it to meetings, had done their set task for the week, and contributed to group discussion. A couple of members remained on the margins of the group. They rarely contributed to discussions, or were absent at meetings. However, there were three or four members who were outstanding in their contribution, both academically and at an inter-personal level. I think that our group had begun to normalise because we had settled on group roles that were comfortable for us: Challenging, Gate keeping, Monopolising, Difference (including myself), Joking, Scapegoat, and Absence / Avoidance. As roles were adopted by members, I observed how other members supported the roles chosen by others, however I did not observe role fixation, apart from the three members who seemed at constant odds with the rest of the group. Also, ground rules were established at this time: each week there would be a different chair person, there would be a scribe/recorder at each meeting, and any decisions made would be discussed at the next meeting with those who missed the previous one. Importantly, we reinforced the need to respect the opinions of other members, to encourage and support each other, and to resolve conflicts. We felt it important to have a tem leader/chair person, as power balance within the group is evidently an important factor. Many variables influence power within the group, including social norms, group’s structure, and expectations of future interactions (Ellmers & Barreto, 2001). We needed a person to coordinate the group, as effective groups have leadership (Brown, 1998; Wright, 2000). As leadership is relationship about the transaction of power (Harwood & Pnes, 1998), and requires fellowship (Ellmers & Barreto, 2001), it was necessary that everyone agreed to who would facilitate. We felt that having a clear group leader would help keep us on target. Until this time of normalising, although there was sharing of information and work being done, we did not appear to be a strong coherent group with a clear direction. However, at this normalising stage, for most members a high degree of trust had developed. Intimacy was clearly evident in the jokes and stories shared, and in the openness of much of our feedback to each other. Due to the intimacy members were more comfortable with voicing issues of conflict or confusion, and as a group we were able to talk through the issues, and most often times resolve the issue. There was definitely more of a feeling of belongingness for myself at this time, I really felt I was part of something. Performing The fourth stage of Tuckman’s initial model is performing. This is when the interpersonal structure of the group is strong enough to achieve task goals. Member roles are also now much more flexible and the group are focused on the task at hand. Each member of my group, mostly, was a lot more self-directed and was taking on more personal responsibility for tasks at hand. Through the sharing of information and resources smaller groups were established depending on the task. It was evident that the group was now very focused, coherent and productive. However, we still had a couple of members who were fixated on being non-contributors. Other group members pulled together to pick up the slack from our “sloths”, and this was a fine example of teamwork, and keeping focused on the bigger picture – completing our task! Ultimately, we really bonded on the day of our “fete” at the Blind Institute on November 3rd, 2005. In Tuckman and Jensen’s (1977) fifth stage of group processes, is adjourning: the ending of the group. This may be abrupt, or occur over a period of time. Ideally the task has been completed before the group adjourns. At this time roles within the group are dissolved and it can be a stressful time for members, particularly if the ending is abrupt. There may also be a sense of mourning for the ending of the group (Forsythe, 1990, 1998). Our group dissolution occurred over a period of time. Some of the members had become good friends, so it was like the group was continuing in some way. I did feel a sense of mourning, after all the stress and hard work I was left with a sense of emptiness too. Quite a few of the members stayed to chat about what we had achieved, and to share how we felt about the whole experience. Not surprisingly a couple of members had disappeared as soon as the task was complete. Although, overall I do not think our group has ended, as we are classmates for the rest of the year! My Personal Experience As a social worker (potentially!) I have come see how advancing technology has not replaced the need for people to meet face-to-face as a group. Particularly, each person’s presence, contact with other members and sharing of an activity within a group cannot be replaced by the Internet, telephone or teleconference (Houston, 1990). I was not really aware of this until I came to this course. Now I understand the importance of doing group work at uni, of the need to understand groups, how they work, the different types that exist, and how to work through group issues. And how the group influences personal change of the individual – in this case, me! Throughout my course work I have come to appreciate the importance of knowing more about group processes, especially as my career will involve working in groups, and making use of group work as an intervention for others who have serious issues in their lives (e.g. gambling, domestic violence). I see the relevance and practicality in contributing to the effectiveness of a group, by way of enhancing inter-group functioning. Overall Evaluation It was necessary that the group have an inter-group evaluation to establish the effectiveness of the group. We took into consideration the responsibilities taken on by each group member, their contribution to discussions, presence at meetings, listening ability and communication style, to name a few. Inter-group evaluation is an important part of group work, as it can provide support for why a group was effective or not. In the workforce, particularly in 21st century industries, it is not unusual for a group to be multidisciplinary. As such, it is not unusual for inter-group relations to be conflicted at times, due to different viewpoints. However, knowledge of group processes can help members understand what is going on when conflict arises, and optimal ways of handling that conflict. I think that overall our group worked well together. We had become a cohesive and focused force, and were sharing information and intimacies with each other. For many of us there was a deep sense of trust. As such, I value the experience of being part of this group, and look forward to putting into practice the inter-group skills I have learnt through this assignment. References Adams, R 1990 Self-help, social work & empowerment, Macmillan, Basingstoke Hampshire. Bennis, WG & Shepherd, HA 1956 ‘A theory of group development’, Human Relations, vol 9, pp. 415-437. Brewer, MB & Brown R J 1998 ‘Intergroup relations’, in DT Gilbert, ST Fiske, & G Lindzey (eds), The handbook of social psychology, McGrawHill, Boston, pp. 554-594. Brown, R 1998 Group processes, Blackwell, Oxford. Ellemers, N & Barreto, E 2001 ‘The impact of relative group status: Affective, perceptual, and behavioural consequences’, in R Brown & S Gaertner, (eds), The Blackwell handbook of social psychology, vol 4, pp. 324-343. Forsyth, DR 1990, 1998 Group dynamics, Brooks/Cole Publishing, Pacific Grove. Harwood, I & Pnes, M 1998 Self experiences in group: Intersubjective and self psychological pathways to human understanding, Jessica Kingsley Publishing, Edinburgh. Houston, G 1990 The red book of groups. Rochester Foundation, Michigan. Mullender, A & Payne, M 1991 Self-directed group work. Whiting and Birch, New York. Tuckman, BW 1965 ‘Developmental sequence in small groups’, Psychological Bulletin, vol. 63, pp. 384-399. Tuckman, BW & Jensen, MAC 1977 ‘Stages of small group development revisited’, Group and Organizational Studies, vol. 2, pp. 419-427. Wright, F 2000 ’The use of self in group leadership: a relational perspective’, International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 181-98. Read More