Group Counseling Reflection Session

The group facilitator understood the significance of setting the rules of engagement that facilitate team interaction. The group facilitator encountered an incident where the team players did not like his action of interrupting a domineering member. For me, I could have asked the team members about the ground rules of group conversation. In this case, how could we split the period to allow equal participation for each? With this understanding, it could be manageable to request a domineering member to allow others a chance to communicate their ideas.

Group dynamics played a critical role in the problem solving and teamwork processes for the team. They engulfed group development that commenced with the forming stage. Everyone was cautious of their behavior, as we did not know each other vastly. I realized that two team members did not speak unless prompted to do so. As a leader, I worked to help the two members understand that their contributions were necessary and could feel free to make their contributions.

C. Various therapeutic factors played a critical role in aiding different stress levels that members encountered throughout the semester. Installation of hope was essential for stress recovery among group members. The graduate school presented various pressures ranging from the amount of work that required completion to the need to meet individual and group expectations.

D. Group cohesiveness and universality extended to the sharing of similar goals and challenges by team members. As a result, this brought forth a sense of belonging and validation from the rest. In particular, graduate school stress remained a derailing factor for team members. In this case, personal and group expectations meant that we had to work hard to reach these targets. I shared different interpersonal experiences with the rest of the team. As a leader and team player, I understand the significance of imparting wisdom on others. Wisdom underscores the recognition of the unique potential that teams possess that facilitates the delivery of results. The group exchanged ideas on disagreeing the right way. I learned that members appreciated reserving tone and attitude while communicating disagreements.

Session 2

A. The facilitator conducted an excellent job in getting the group function cohesively through strong communication and increased interpersonal relations. I learned that the two members who could only speak before being prompted to do so were aligning to their cultural views. I encouraged them to speak up by helping them understand that their input was significant to the team. I could have set ground rules that dictated specific timelines when team members were giving their contributions. In doing so, members would have their fair share of time.

B. Group dynamics extended to the behavioral and physiological processes that transpired within the group throughout the semester. The group characterized cautious behavior that is part of the forming stage. The desire for acceptance drove cautious behavior. No one wanted to feel an outsider. On the right side, prudent behavior helped the team avoid controversies and conflicts. On the other hand, it could have impeded the exploration of creative ideas necessary in the problem-solving process.

C. Universality emerged from sharing of personal experiences by team members. We developed social techniques through constant conversations with one another. Speaking up was critical in sharing traumatic experiences that we experienced as a team on an individual basis. In doing so, we build on cohesion and altruism as we understood we shared common challenges that demanded the engagement of cooperation in countering them.

D. As a leader, I understand that demonstrating empathy towards others encompassed effective leadership. I realize that individual contributions require appreciation and acknowledgment. In doing so, I would motivate the group in exploring their potential.

Session 3

A. The group facilitator was ineffective in designing a plan for group meetings. Additionally, he failed to engage others in this process. The emptiness created confusion as the team leader seemed invisible from the group. As a result, another active member almost assumed the facilitator's role. As the facilitator, I could have engaged questions for the group members. This would guide the team in staying in line with the topic.

B. The group is in the forming stage. Members...

Uncertainty and anxiety remain prevalent in the group as members strive to understand the others. With time, we would increase confidence and the level of trust bestowed on others. Additionally, learning about the personalities of others helps in quelling anxiety fears. Increased levels of confidence foster the solidification of understanding the strengths and weakness of each member that encourages social tolerance.
C. Group members aired their traumatic experiences in graduate school. They extended to different stress levels emerging from work and study pressures. The expectations to succeed also added to the trauma they experienced. Speaking up created an environment of sharing and understanding that the group faced personal challenges. As a result, collaborative working would be the way forward in countering these problems. In doing so, the group fostered cohesion, altruism, and universality through having similar mindsets on our objectives.

D. Finding the right balance between enough and not too much was an invaluable experience for me as a group facilitator. Many a time, leaders find themselves in either doing more than necessary or underperforming. Striking a balance arises from the engagement of collaborative approach through working with team members to realize group goals. Empowering members to perform their tasks would help have the leader spearhead a success team without doing too much or less.

Session 4

A. During this group session, two group facilitators operated smoothly. The first one emerged effectively as compared to the second one. His approach was more engaging to group members that included a nice shake up. In contrast, the second one did not envisage the level of activeness like the first facilitator. However, he still proved useful in steering the group and enabling us to maintain the topic under discussion.

B. The team was entering the storming stage. We realized that the tasks before us were challenging than we had earlier thought. As a result, members engaged in challenging the reasoning of others and alluding to the proposals that they made. The facilitators encouraged proper confrontation as times arguments went into disarray. Additionally, inactive members were urged to bring forth their arguments since their contributions were equally important.

C. Sharing our traumatic experiences extended to increasing group cohesion. These exchanges left us feeling better than we were before. Team members realized a sense of connection with others as our challenges were emerging from closely related elements particularly graduate school stress. The group developed a sense of selflessness in sharing ideas on dealing with the problems. Universality echoed the appreciation of togetherness and cooperation.

D. As a group leader, I work to eliminate the tension between team members and myself. This would allow the trust to flourish and consequently enabling team members to feel comfortable in sharing their life challenges that include traumatic experiences. Adhering to a desirable work ethic will facilitate the realization of this objective. I would work to ensure that I conform to desirable attributes such as respect, professionalism, and open-mindedness.

Session 5

A. The facilitators delivered a splendid job. The pair managed to ensure that every group member had a chance in airing out their views on different issues. In doing so, we felt satisfied that the team was moving in the right direction. Access to equal opportunity to speak translated to increased understanding amongst us. As a leader, I would encourage feedback from group members on how they felt about the issue of having each member speak.

B. The group entered the storming stage that encompasses members challenging the thoughts and reasoning of others. In this phase, members aired their opinions on the topics using proper argumentative tone. Unlike in session four, members appeared mature in articulating their views. In doing so, we realized an informative discussion on various issues without entangling into war-like debates. This remained critical in developing solutions and not creating problems.

C. Group members aired their perceptions on personal traumatic experiences. Listening to others alluded to a sense of belonging as we shared problems. We encouraged one another in moving in solidarity in dealing with individual challenges. Personal differences stemming from culture, religion, and personality…