Imagemap, 22k

Group Process-- Sample Sessions

(Spring, 1999)


I've decided to work with a target population of people who are trying to wrestle with issues regarding their own sexual orientation. The group would be primarily for people who are bisexual or questioning whether or not they might be bisexual. The group would meet bi-weekly, for ten sessions and have no more than eight people as members. Below are two examples of how I might function as a facilitator in different group sessions.

Session 1

In the very first session, I'd lay down some general guidelines and ground rules for the membership, and try to introduce the membership to notion of self-focus, vs. focus on others. Corey and Corey (p. 139) mention that we often "observe... a tendency to talk about others and focus on people and situations outside the group."

I'd start out with something simple, such as going around the room and doing introductions, but also asking everybody to contribute something very basic about themselves. I'd probably begin with something abstract, such as to have members mention their favorite animal or what they had for breakfast. There would be two important reasons behind this. First, it would give the members something slightly silly to do or say, hopefully putting them more at ease with one another. The second reason would be to humanize everybody to one another. I.e., they would not only be doing something silly to bring themselves into the group, they'd be silly in front of one another, something which makes everyone a little bit more vulnerable. However, this vulnerability wouldn't be serious enough at this stage to push anybody's boundaries in an uncomfortable or inappropriate fashion.

So back to focusing on self as opposed to outside the group-- while the introduction would be a quick start to get people into the notion of interacting in a fashion which might be fun or entertaining, it doesn't do much to establish guidlines (except for the notion that having fun is acceptable). However, the notion of fun is a very important one, and I'd use some props to facilitate that as well; Corey and Corey (p. 67) note that "the ability to laugh at yourself and to see the humor in your... frailties can be extremely useful in helping members keep a proper perspective." One of the first things I'd do after introductions is to hand out some percussion devices. I wouldn't use loud noisemakers, such as a tambourine, but instead small, quiet sounds which won't interfere with conversation as much as accentuate it. A good idea might be a bunch of egg-shakers, which are small, egg-shaped instruments, which you can shake to make a quiet morocca type sound.

When handing them out, I'd explain that they're for the group to use to suggest agreement with what one another are saying. I.e., if someone says something they like, they can chime in with the egg-shaker to suggest agreement or approval. This will allow people who have difficulty speaking in groups to still give opinion and commentary without feeling a need to use their voice at the time. It's a much more quiet and simple way to bring yourself into the group.

This is important. As Corey & Corey (p. 137) note, there are a lot of initial fears involved in joining a group, such as fear of judgement, looking stupid, being attacked, etc.

The other aspect of this is that it makes it diffuclt to drown one's self out with distracting noise while commenting. I.e., if you're merely expressing disagreement or agreement, you can't go into elaborate stories which pull yourself out of the here and now. You can't start commenting as easily on how it reminds you of a story you heard ten years ago. You can't start explaining how what someone said reminds you of something your father did five days ago.

So, what else would I do with the egg shakers? I have a specific excercise in mind, similar to one we did in class. In class, we did an excercise which involved the group leader reading a series of statements, and the class standing to affirm personal agreement with the statement. While I think that was an interesting idea, I personally found the sitting and standing over and over again a bit exposing and exerting. What I thought might work better, especially in an initial session, would be a similar exercise, but with the egg shakers. Instead of getting up and sitting down over and over again, I'd read a series of statements, and the members could use the shakers to affirm whether or not the agreed with each statement. I'd also make sure that they know they're allowed to answer internally, without using the shaker, if that's what feels appropriate and comfortable to them.

The statements would begin in a relatively generic sense, not targeting any specific population, but move more into the group membership's specific issues. I'd also start them in a realtively benign fashion, about more trivial things, and move into more personal issues down the line (i.e, I might try the exercise again in the fourth or fifth meeting of the group, designed to focus more in on specific issues that have come up). I'd also make sure to remind the group to attend to themselves while responding to the questions. I.e., they should think about what it evokes within themselves to respond or not respond and whether responding and not responding when they want to do the opposite has an effect on them. They should consider what it says to themselves to be alone in responding, or to hear the whole group responding.

As far as specific questions, I might use some of the following statements (I'd have to play with this some to decide how many to use, and how long to make this specific exercise, but for now I'll just include ten questions to demonstrate the sort of progression I'd use), designed not so much to address issues of biseuxality but instead to help people realize that a lot of their fears of participating with the group are relatively common; several of these statements were derived directlty from Corey & Corey's list of fears (p. 137) common to initial participation in groups:
  1. I worry sometimes that people won't like me.
  2. I'm concerned that if I answer a question the wrong way, I'll look stupid.
  3. I'm worried that I might become dependent upon the group.
  4. I don't know how much I should be disclosing about myself.
  5. I think I might have to take care in how I express myself to avoid offending anybody.
  6. I'm afraid I might be asked to do something here that I don't want to do.
  7. I'm too different from everybody else to be helped by this.
  8. I don't want to be here.
  9. I want to be here.
  10. I don't know if I want to be here.


The next step would be to do a follow-up/check-in with the group. I.e., I'd move past the non-verbal stage and bring people back into discussion again, and probably do some self-disclosure as an introduction. For example, I might mention the first time the sitting/standing exercise was introduced to me in class, and how uncomfortable certain parts of it felt for me, such as being the lone Jew in the class. This sort of self-disclosure is important. As Corey & Corey note (p. 145), "as a leader you can invite members to make themselves known by letting others in the group know you... if you are authentic and appropriately self-disclosing and if you avoid hiding behind defenses, you will encourage the rest of the group to be open..."

In fact, a valid option might be to even do this self-disclosure before starting the exercise. However, I think there's something valuable in the purity of the first-time of an exercise with little-to-no influence on the part of the group leader, so I'd probably reserve such disclosure until after the group's gone through the process at least once.

I wouldn't want to go too deeply in the initial session. I'd probably be busy observing the various members for signs common to initial stages of the group-- Corey & Corey (p. 137-139) discuss initial resistance & hidden agendas as common issues which come up. Mostly I'd see my focus being to model proper and appropraite group behavior and interaction, only intervening if it felt absolutely necessary to do so. I'd allow group members to be themselves in whatever way they feel appropriate, and try my best to validate their fears and concerns without reinforcing them.

Session 5

By the fifth session, I'm assuming that a lot has probably happened. The group has gone through several hurdles, and is hopefully at some point of mutual understanding, yet still with a lot of work remaining to do. Possibly, some sort of conflict has come up between some of the group members, and the group is attempting to resolve how best to resolve the conflict. Let's assume that two of the members have managed to seriously offend one another, and that much of the rest of the group has been trying to sort out what to do about it-- some torn between the two members, both of whom they like, others taking specific sides, but most just feeling trapped and uncomfortable by the situation, and much of the conflict has been expressed outside the group.

Corey and Corey (pp. 182-185) talk about conflict to some extent. Specifically they note that "a primary task of leaders is to teach members the value of working through conflict in a constructive way." (p. 183).

As with most sessions, I'd want to begin with something primarily non-verbal, and possibly maintain it for much of the group. At this point, I won't have as of yet moved into any sort of movement therapy, except that for one session I might have begun by having members introduce themselves with a gesture, which is imitated and responded to by the rest of the group. This time I'd probably choose an expressive arts exercise, led by a guided meditation. What I have in mind is a little complicated, and involves three or four drawings, with a corresponding meditation to each one. I'd only do this if I'd done at least two prior sketching-type exercises.

The importance of this is primarily to bring people directly into the here and now, accessing their emotions about the situation on a more direct level, and to get the group members to sort out for themselves what they want.

I'd begin by leading them into a guided meditation in which they are asked to picture themselves in relationship to others within the group, and to develop some sort of visualization of the group and their role within it, in relation to the other members. As with most guided visualizations (and the two which follow from this one), I'd have them focus on how their body reacts to the various relationships, and what changes they feel as they think of these relationships. I.e., does their breathing shift? Does a specific muscle relax or contract? Do they feel better or worse physically when thinking about it? I might have them ask that part of their body that's being affected a specific question, such as "what can you tell me about my relationship with X?"

When the meditation is done, I'd have them actively draw out a map of the group membership and their role in it. This will be of different value for every member, and some will feel silly doing it, wheras others will be quite enthusiastic. It will be important before the meditation to give them permission to resist the activity, not to let them feel bullied into doing it in a specific fashion, and to remind them that aesthetics are not necessarily as important as content.

Then I'd split them into groups of two and three and have them process their drawings with one another, roaming from group to group to assist if necessary. Since they'd have gone through this sort of exercise before, they'd all be familiar with the notion of looking for content, etc., and the use of a one-on-one dialogue would help facilitate openness and trust. However, I'd tell them to look for specific things, such as patterns which recur with specific group members, and problems which they see reflected in their relationships in other places outside the group.

After they've done this for a short while (10-15 minutes, maximum), I'd do another meditation, this time focusing entirely on family and interpersonal issues outside the group, asking them to do a similar map to the one they'd done before. I'd then ask them to split into smaller groups again (the same groups they were in before) and this time to focus on similarities between the two drawings and exercises. I.e., is there a relationship issue they have with a specific group member which is reflected in relationships outside the group? This provides a very good link from the external to the internal workings of group vs. world-at-large and brings everybody into the here and now, as discussed both in Corey & Corey as well as Yolom.

I might give them a little more time to process this, but instead I could also call everybody back into the larger group, and process it all more directly within the context of the group as a whole. Since this all deals with group conflicts and interrelations, it's important to remember what Corey and Corey (pp. 187-188) mention about how group leaders manage conflict: that they "do not dismiss the clients but demonstrate acceptance... express their annoyance... without denigrating the character of the person; avoid responding to a sarcastic remark with sarcasm" and "educate the members about how the group works."

So in processing these issues I wouldn't for a moment dream of taking a specific side in them or introducing myself into the fray. Instead, the whole process would be about raising awareness of what issues are taking place for the clients and to help them see for themselves what their roles are in the current conflicts.

The next stage of the meditation/exercise, after some discussion would probably be the final one. This time I'd guide them through another meditation, but the focus on this meditation would be to look on transforming what they've done. The previous two drawings were drawings of what their relationships were inside and outside the group. This final meditation would be to focus on just one or two relationships they depicted in their previous drawings (thus brining the focus back into something less general and into something very specific) and instead drawing on an image of what they want the relationships to be.

I'd give them the choice of either changing their prior drawings to reflect the desires (as opposed to the reality) for the relationships, or making new drawings which are designed to reflect those desires.

I'd then bring everybody back into the larger group and start processing everybody's new drawing within the group, possibly going around in a circle, asking each of them in turn to describe what sort of changes they'd wish took place in one of their relationships, and what they learned from the process of drawing out these changes. This is a place where I'd have to be careful-- I don't want to end up coercing anybody to participate, yet it would be very important at this stage that we do bring the issues into the group as a whole. I'm not entirely certain as to how I'd maintain that balance, and I can only learn how to do this through direct experience.

I'm also wondering if discussing conflicts which I've had in previous groups as a means of self-disclosure to give others permission to address their own conflicts would be of help. I'd probably have to make sure that if I do this, it would involve discussion of conflicts about which I'm not particularly bitter.

I have to spend some time looking into my own issues about conflict before addressing this fully. In many prior experiences, my instinct has been to cut and run rather than address a conflict head-on, and sometimes when I have tried to address a conflict head-on it's blown up in my face. Do I mention this to the group? I think it would be fair, but I'd have to be sure I'm doing it for the right reason-- i.e., to bring honesty and authenticity into the group (as opposed to dealing with my own history of frustration with groups, which would be inappropriate for me as a counselor or facilitator).

There's no guarantee that this exercise will resolve any conflicts. Indeed, that's not even the point of it. It's to address the conflicts more directly (yet leading to them in a very subtle fashion) within the context of the group so the group can move into the level in which it can decide more actively and openly what to do with the various conflicts that are going on.

It's also important to remember that while this excercise is in response to tension and friction within the group, it also has potential to bring out other elements too-- often group members don't know when others regard them highly or positively, and it could be helpful for them to see from one another the instances in which they're viewed with praise or delight.

I'd probably close this session specifically by thanking the group for their willingness to participate in an excercise, and their trust in bearing with me until the relevance of it becomes more clear and reminding them that whatever they drew or developed as part of the excercise is something of value, even if it led to some discomfort or frustration, and that our frustrations are often points of growth, which tell us where we need to do our own work.

Writing this paper has been one of my more difficult experiences. It's complicated to just postulate about what might happen in a group and talk about how one might respond-- I feel as though my learning regarding group processes is still just beginning, and the vast majority of my learning will come from actually trying to implement these exercises within the context of a group and seeing how well they work or not, and taking it from there.