Meetings, Brenda, a Pakistani Woman, Calls You

¶ … meetings, Brenda, a Pakistani woman, calls you and requests a private session. When you ask her why she wants an individual session, she tells you that she is having trouble trusting most of the members of the group, and it is keeping her from participating. You suggest that she bring up this matter first in the group, and she tells you that she simply is not willing to take that risk.

Would you be willing to see Brenda individually?

Yes, I would be willing to see Brenda for one session because that would give me the opportunity to get a feel of where her trusting issues may have stemmed from, and gauge further her suitability for the group (Spitz, 2013). The session would, however, not be geared at counseling, but on obtaining first-hand information from her on what she expected of the group and the rest of the participants, why she thinks her expectations are not being met, and what she thinks could be done to improve the situation. Based on the information obtained from this individual session, I would devise appropriate measures to address the raised concerns.

Well, there are a multiple factors that could be responsible for Brenda's lack of trust. To begin with, inclined to the Islamic culture, there is the risk that Brenda may not be contented with the American-style of leadership, where the group leader and the followers interact freely as equals, and the latter have the discretion to challenge the leader's directions. Islamic culture, like we know it, seems to attach great importance to the separation of leadership and followership aspects, and followers are, therefore, expected to treat their leaders with utmost respect and not to challenge their views. Brenda could, therefore, be failing to identify with the rest of the group because she considers them disrespectful towards the group leader. Moreover, it is also possible that Brenda does not trust the group members because they do not recognize or appreciate her culture -- for instance, it is possible that Brenda feels out-of-place because her culture or religion is never mentioned during group activity, making it difficult for her to establish an identity. A third possible reason for Brenda's lack of trust is the fear of being judged -- Islamic culture, for instance, requires women to be submissive, and it thus discourages women from pursuing education and careers or taking up positions of leadership. Brenda's participation could, therefore, be inhibited by the fear that the rest of the group members would unfairly judge her as uneducated or unable to think for herself. Meeting Brenda for one informal session would help me obtain information on her specific areas of dissatisfaction; then, I would know what corrective action to take.

Advantages and disadvantages of agreeing to meet Brenda for this session

There are a number of advantages that I stand to derive from organizing such a meeting with Brenda. The first and most obvious advantage is that I get an opportunity to obtain first-hand information from her on what her expectations of the group are, why she feels that the same are not being satisfied, and what she thinks ought to be done to correct the same. This would essentially allow the group leader to know exactly what needs to be done in the group to address Brenda's specific needs. Moreover, the group leader stands to learn about the Islamic culture, its values and expectations from Brenda, and this boosts their multicultural sensitivity, allowing them to better cater for the psychological needs and expectations of other Muslim participants in the same group, or in other groups that they may oversee in the future. In other words, such a meeting contributes effectively to the process of continuous leaning. However, the decision to meet Brenda individually is not without its share of disadvantages. The primary limitation is that other members could take this as their primary mode of conflict-resolution, resulting in unnecessary work breakdowns and delays that could easily have been avoided if members chose to resolve the same by alternative means, say consulting with each other privately. All the same, the benefits (in terms of valuable knowledge gained) far outweigh the limitations.

What interventions could the group leader make if Brenda agreed to bring her lack of trust in the next group session?

One can expect the rest of the group to get defensive once Brenda makes known her lack of trust issues. Some members could get infuriated and out-of-control, especially if they feel that Brenda is only trying to win the group's attention and sympathy for being a member of a rather 'sidelined' minority. The group leader can, therefore, expect scapegoating tendencies, where the rest of the group gang up against Brenda and try to make themselves appear like the victims and her like the villain (Moreno, 2007). Scapegoating could be detrimental to Brenda's self-esteem, hurting her ability to participate even further (Moreno, 2007). To prevent this, the group leader could make use of a number of interventions. At the beginning of the said session, for instance, the leader needs to notify the group members of an impending issue, and then lay out the ground rules that would govern the discussion that would ensue (Moreno, 2007). For instance, he/she could clearly specify at the start of the meeting that no form of hitting or cussing would be allowed on Brenda throughout the session (Moreno, 2007). They could then block any individual or collective attempt by members to hit on or belittle Brenda. Additionally, they could assume the gate-keeping role, where they manage the conversation flow to ensure that the victim and the rest of the members have a balanced exchange of ideas, and neither side appears to be overshadowed or belittled.

Assisting members deal with the trust issue

In a therapeutic group setting, trust is built through positive communication (Spitz, 2013). When members are able to engage positively and constructively with each other, without fear of being unfairly judged or stereotyped, a climate of trust is established (Spitz, 2013). Members then feel free discussing what is troubling them with their colleagues without having to fear that their views will be invalidated. To increase the level of trust in the group, the group leader needs to encourage members to support their colleagues, give constructive feedback, and strive to see things from a wider perspective (maintain an open mind). Then, they will be able to make positive use of the diverse responses and reactions of other members, and will not be inclined to invalidate them (Spitz, 2013). This way, all members will feel like part of the team, and would be free to establish their own identity therein. Besides diversity-appreciation, I would encourage constructive problem-solving within the group, which would ensure that conflicts are resolved before they escalate, and members regard each other as being equally important to group success (Spitz, 2013).

Case 2: Rodney, an African-American man has a pattern of asking others in the group very probing and personal questions. You have attempted to formulate a norm that people avoid asking questions and make statements instead. In spite of your best intentions, Rodney persists in interrogating people and succeeds in interrupting their work. He finally says, "I don't see what the big deal is about me asking questions. I only ask questions because I'm curious. It's my way of finding out about people. I don't see why you all make such a big deal of my questioning people."

In what ways would you intervene with Rodney?

The group leader has a duty to establish and maintain a positive environment, where members feel safe giving their views, with no fear of being judged or intimidated by others. Failure to do this gives rise to a situation where members are reluctant to participate, and consequently, trust issues develop. Through his constantly inappropriate questioning, Rodney creates an unsafe environment for other participants, and intimidates them, even if he does not realize it. In this case, the leader could intervene by appealing to empathy and trying to place Rodney (the antagonist) in the shoes of the member at whom the intrusive question is directed. For instance, he/she could intervene with a statement such as, "Rodney, how do you suppose XXX might be feeling about the question you just asked? If the same question was asked to you, how do you suppose you would feel?" This would drive Rodney to develop a culture of taking into consideration the feelings of others before posing questions to his colleagues. Additionally, the leader could intervene by reframing the question so that it does not seem so intrusive as to push the member away. However, even as he/she does so, she needs to be keen to ensure that she does not push Rodney away and make him subject to scapegoating by the rest of the group. For instance, after rephrasing the question, she could use statements such as 'did I get it right?', just so Rodney feels like he still owns the question. Alternatively, the leader could intervene by modulating the environment once Rodney asks an intrusive question, just to encourage him to pay attention to the effect of the same on group. For instance, he/she could intervene through statements like 'Rodney, could you just stop for a while and observe how the question you just asked is affecting your colleagues?' Or 'Rodney, have you noticed what that question is doing to the group?' This would cultivate in the antagonist a tendency to bring the rest of the group in and to consider the possible effect that any question he may be intending to ask could have on them.

If the group confronts Rodney in his questioning, how would you intervene for them?

At some point, the other group members may rise up against Rodney's inappropriate questioning, causing tempers to rise. The group leader then may want to cool temperatures and return the group to normalcy. The best intervention in this case would be to mute the line of discussion. he/she could express discomfort with the enraging confrontation and try to mute the same by giving the group an opportunity to pause, just to get their minds off things and cool down. For instance, he/she could intervene through statements such as 'let us just pause for a moment? What are your feeling right now? Kindly let me know when you feel that you are okay to continue the session.' This would help the group members regulate their emotional expressions and take some time to cool down. However, the leader ought to be keen not to appear like they are taking Rodney's side. For instance, they need to constantly reassure members that they are not refusing to hear or listen to them; rather, they are just trying to prevent them from saying things that they shouldn't have said or that could hurt the overall purpose of the group.

Alternatives that Rodney could use besides asking questions

Rodney's intrusive questioning could hurt the group's unity in the long-term. To avoid this, the leader could encourage him to use alternative strategies that are less intrusive when trying to obtain information about his colleagues. Rodney could, for instance, be encouraged to make keen observations on how members' behave, speak, and conduct themselves during therapeutic sessions so as to obtain valuable information on their personality, feelings, behavior, and thoughts. Additionally, he could be encouraged to make use of storytelling as a strategy, where he tells a relevant story to their colleagues, and then deduces, from their reactions, insight on their personality, worldviews, and general behavior. Both of these techniques would be less intrusive than direct questioning and would go a long way in enhancing the unity and cohesiveness of the group.

Part Three: Essay Question

Counseling groups generally go through four major stages of development -- the initial stage, the transition stage, the working stage, and the final stage (Bieling, McCabe & Anthony, 2013). The initial stage involves the formulation of group rules, the setting of norms, and the discussion of the specific roles and functions of the group (Bieling et al., 2013). At this stage, participants are mainly concerned with knowing and establishing trust with each other. As the group members build trust, and get more comfortable sharing information with each other, the group moves into the transition stage (Bieling et al., 2013). At this stage, members are still bringing themselves to accept the group's routines, rules and norms; and the leader finds himself/herself having to deal with issues of intrusive questioning, internal conflict, resistance, monopolization, and defensiveness (Bieling et al., 2013). With time, however, the group gets over these challenges, and the members settle down and collaborate towards the achievement of the overall goal (Bieling et al., 2013). This stage is referred to as the working stage, and is characterized by genuine caring, trust, group cohesion, feedback, acceptance, honesty, disclosure and commitment on the part of members (Bieling et al., 2013). This cohesiveness among members then paves the way for the final stage, when the members are now prepared to leave the group and practice the skills learnt in the context of their own lives.

The group leader has a responsibility to establish a safe and healthy environment for members in all the four stages (Bieling et al., 2013). The interventions that they use to achieve this will differ based on the specific stage of the group and the situation in hand then. The subsequent subsections are focused on showing some of the complex situations/comments that group leaders could face, and the possible interventions that they could take to deal with the same.

When a member asserts that they do not trust the group leader

The primary reason why a member would fail to trust the group leader is if they do not meet their expectations of how a leader ought to conduct themselves, and how they ought to behave. When such a comment is made at the initial stage of the group, the leader could intervene by organizing a private session with the member, just to obtain information on what their expectations of the leader are. This intervention would be quite different from that employed if the same comment was made at the transition stage -- here, the group members know each other and members are familiar with the leader's way of doing things. In this case, the best intervention would be to request the aggrieved member to explain to the whole group what they expected of the leader, and how the leader's actual behavior deviates from the expected. The member could also be given an opportunity to explain what he/she thinks the leader needs to do to improve their standing. At the working stage, when members are well-versed with the norms and processes of the group, such a comment would best be intervened through role-play, allowing the member to take up a position of leadership so as to see exactly how they would perform as a leader. If such a comment is made in the final stage, however, it would mean that the member, owing to their lack of trust, perhaps never benefited from the group session. The best intervention, therefore, would be to consider them for extra individual session just to ensure that they stay at par with the other participants.

When a member mentions that they fail to participate in the group sessions because they are afraid that they will look foolish

At the initial stage, the leader could intervene for the member by clearly establishing and emphasizing group norms, rules, and regulations. For instance, they could make it clear to members that no form of cussing or judging would be allowed because all members have a right to speak their minds. Such a comment at the transition stage would, however, mean that despite there being norms, members still judge or hit at each other for having opinions that differ from theirs. In this case, the best way to intervene would be to encourage the group to appreciate diversity. This could be done by teaching some positive uses of diversity, and how members could positively use the same to improve their own knowledge. This would make members less inclined to judge others who hold different views, paving way for the working stage. At the working stage, members are comfortable with each other, and this being the most constructive stage, participation is key. The leader could, therefore, intervene by giving the member more time to talk and air out their views, as well as to counter the views of others. This would make them more comfortable participating in the group. Moreover, the leader could attempt to bridge the gap between the member and other members using such remarks as 'it sounds as if you two XXX and YYY have something in common…' This would help the member feel that their views align with those of other members. At the final stage, the best intervention for such a comment would be to engage the member in an extra individual session to assess whether or not their lack of participation had an effect on their health outcomes.