This case study examines a psycho-educational group therapy session in which the group leader's lecture-based approach triggers open hostility from group members during the third week of an eight-week program. The paper analyzes the breakdown in group functioning, the role of cohesion and validation in group counseling, the importance of behavioral contracting, and the task-maintenance balance disrupted by power imbalances. Drawing on foundational group therapy literature, including Yalom's theory of group cohesion and Berg, Fall, and Landreth's work on behavioral contracting, the paper identifies ineffective leadership behaviors and proposes intervention strategies that can restore trust, open communication, and productive group dynamics.
The paper demonstrates applied case analysis: theoretical concepts such as group cohesion (Yalom), behavioral contracting (Berg, Fall, and Landreth), and scapegoating dynamics (Clark) are not merely defined but are mapped directly onto the specific events of the case. This technique — selecting a relevant framework, explaining the concept, then applying it to observed behavior — is the standard method for academic case studies in counseling and therapy courses.
The paper opens with a narrative case description, then organizes its analysis into five thematic sections: group functioning problems, developmental stage considerations, behavioral contracting, power and task-maintenance balance, and leader intervention options. A brief conclusion synthesizes the implications. Each section is self-contained yet builds on the preceding one, following a classic problem-diagnosis-recommendation structure common in graduate-level counseling case studies.
The group leader is facilitating week three of an eight-week psycho-educational group. Until now, the group has been quiet, while the leader has been setting the scene by providing members with relevant information. The leader has been told that his role is to inform group members of strategies and skills that can be used to manage their lives. At the beginning of this week's session, there is a palpable sense of unease. The group members seem highly unsettled, and eventually one of them states: "We are not happy being lectured each week." This outburst surprises the leader, but he continues with little acknowledgment of the event. Several minutes pass before another group member states: "Well, if you can't listen to us, maybe we shouldn't listen to you!"
Upon this second outburst, it is clear that the situation can no longer be ignored. The atmosphere within the group has taken a negative turn, and the present dysfunction must be addressed in order to correct the problem and move forward in a productive manner.
In the situation at hand, the group process — and therefore its functioning — has been disrupted by a disagreement over how sessions should proceed in terms of communication and content delivery. The facilitator must now work in a manner that assists the group in accomplishing its objective by diagnosing the problem areas in terms of productive functioning, and utilize his skills as a problem-solving entity, intervening to alter the group's operational behavior (Ogrodniczuk and Steinberg 2005, p. 45).
A group like the one described in this case study can only achieve its purpose if each member feels that they have the open and unhindered capacity to communicate within the group as a whole. When unrest or distrust of the process is presented openly, as seen in this context, the functionality of the group ceases to exist. One of the main attributes of a functioning group counseling session is the presence of cohesiveness among group members, which has long been considered the primary therapeutic factor from which all others flow (Piper 2007, p. 269). Yalom (2005) notes that all humans are essentially herd animals with an instinctive need to belong to groups, which is especially relevant in gauging personal development through the interpersonal context of group counseling (Yalom 2005, p. 10).
However, true cohesion in a group — which is necessary for prime functioning — is only possible when all members feel a sense of belonging, acceptance, and validation. In this scenario, validation has been removed to the extent that group members feel "dictated to" rather than part of an actual conversation. By shifting from open communication to a teacher-student classroom dynamic, group members have closed themselves off from the functionality of the group and from each other. A group in which such dynamics remain present will not and cannot function appropriately.
In the initial period of group development and counseling, the group counselor generally attempts to support the open expression of feelings among clients (Bonney and Ginter 1993, p. 150). During these stages, it is imperative that the group counselor strike a balance between allowing clients to openly express their feelings and providing protection to individuals from undue pressure and intimidation (Clark 2002, p. 271). Generally, clients who are given opportunities to assess their own readiness for group counseling, to define and evaluate their personal goals, and to develop group norms are less likely to feel hostile, as seen in the present case (Ohlsen, Horne, and Lawe 1988, p. 32).
In this case, the initial stages of group development appear to have been handled correctly, as for the first two weeks the session ran smoothly and without incident. Until the third week, group members had acted in a manner that aided the overall productivity of the group and its mission. However, the incidents of the third week reveal a shift in attitudes that may be attributed to the leader's approach. It is worth noting that this incident, appearing in the third week of an eight-week course, can still be considered part of the initial stages of the group, as dynamics have not been fully established. The introduction of a new leader and his new style in the third week may further have been viewed by group members as an intrusion upon the dynamic that had been established in the two prior sessions.
While group members lash out at the leader for what they deem a dictatorial style of leadership, the question remains as to whether the group's frustrations are actually directed at him or are the result of pent-up frustrations from the previous two weeks. While it is noted that the first two sessions ran smoothly — suggesting the basis for productive initial group development — the leadership styles of the two previous group leaders are never mentioned. This raises the further question of whether group members accepted and actively participated in those sessions, or whether they were similarly dictated to and chose to remain complacent during the initial adjustment period.
Gallon, S. 2004. "Group skills: leadership and group intervention," in Addiction Technology Transfer Center Network Ideas for Treatment Improvement, 7(6): pp. 1–5. Retrieved from on 10 October 2011.
Ogrodniczuk, J. and Steinberg, P. 2005. "A renewed interest in day treatment," in The Canadian Journal of Psychology, 50(1): pp. 40–55. Retrieved from LexisNexis Database.
Ohlsen, M., Horne, A. and Lawe, C. 1988. Group Counseling, 3rd ed. Rinehart and Wilson, New York, NY.
Piper, J. 2006. "Therapeutic alliance and cohesion variables as predictors of outcome in short-term group psychotherapy," in International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 57(3): pp. 269–297. Retrieved from ProQuest Database.
Yalom, I. 2005. The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy, 5th ed. Basic Books, New York, NY.
You’re 41% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.