IN THE BEGINNING
An article published in the February 2005 edition of "Counselling and Psychotherapy Journal"
In the beginning lies the success of the group, says John Gloster-Smith. Here he describes the process
of attending to initial delicate dynamics.
I am starting the first session of a new training group in the classic way by introducing myself and explaining
what I thought the sessions would be about. As I talk, I become aware that what I am saying does not somehow fit
with the atmosphere in the room, which has become rather tense. I become aware that I’m feeling nervous and tight
in my stomach. I am also aware of a “stickiness”, an awkwardness that is not simply that of people new to a group;
rather “it” feels resistant, as though what I am saying is jarring with some people’s expectations or desires.
Things seem to be “dragging”. There are perhaps sceptical expressions on some people’s faces. Some seem to be
tense; there is a sigh, a drumming of fingers or twitching of feet, an impatient or an irritated look; people avoid
eye contact with me. Then comes a question about what we are going to do that seems to challenge the rationale, the
group’s purpose or my role. “Somehow this just isn’t gelling”, I think. I like to start group work in such a way
that a space is “co-created”, both by me and by others who are joining the group, a space in which people’s needs
are respected. In this case, I need to both respect the challenge and find a way to give a voice to the energy that
is so palpably there in the room: what’s in the room is the work.
As people introduce themselves, it becomes clear that several have a similar concern which is really bugging
them. As the introductions progress, it all comes out into the open. One person has come who is known to several in
the group, and they say they distrust her motives for being there because of the work she does. Once the issue is
out in the open, I work to get each “voice” fully and clearly expressed - both the woman’s reasons for coming and
those who are objecting. One who objects acknowledges that his levels of trust in people at the moment is generally
low as he’s just been made redundant and feels that this was in part due to people undermining him at work. Once
the concerns are answered, the objection is withdrawn. However, it becomes plain that the objection has a wider
significance for those who raised it, and the airing of such feelings creates resonances with others in the room
around the issue of trust and feeling undervalued. As more than one unloads pent-up feeling, the atmosphere becomes
more fluid and alive. Others feel involved in what is being expressed and feel connections with their own lives.
People look more relaxed and involved.
I am beginning the first, careful, albeit stormy steps in the building of what I want to be a safe, supportive,
facilitative space in which people can learn and grow. To ignore these early signs of people’s feelings can put a
group facilitator seriously out of step with where people in the group want to go. This can in turn undermine trust
and safety and the levels of openness which are needed if the group is to do the work it is there to do.
My choice of the word “co-created” is very deliberate and relates to field theory. As facilitator, I bring my
own experiences, awarenesses and understandings. I have my own life history and I have my ideas about, among other
things, group work and how I think it is best done. The others in the group also have their own perspectives and
perceptions, which won’t be mine. Like me, these will be influenced by their own history and learnings.
Particularly relevant for group work, their “field” may include what has happened to them recently, what is going
on in their lives at the moment, what happened the night before or just before they left to come to the group. They
may be carrying a memory from when they were last in a group. They will, very likely also be having reactions right
now to their encounters with others in the group. Maybe they like some people, and dislike or are afraid or
distrustful of others. They are also very likely to be reacting in some way to the facilitator, who is often the
focus of attention at the start of group work. According to field theory, there are therefore both the ‘individual’
fields of awareness, including that of the facilitator, and there is the ‘group’ field, which is being created by
this group in the here-and-now, moment by moment.
The facilitator therefore needs to be aware of context. Such context may include: how this group came into
being, who organised it and why, the backgrounds and histories of those attending, what issues might be going on,
any particular health and safety concerns, what’s just happened, what’s going on for people right now and what do
they do occupationally. In the opening stages, it is helpful to draw some of these aspects out, and therefore
careful building at the start creates space for people to express something about these areas. In the process a
group field will emerge, one that will re-configure itself as each new sharing introduces a new story, perspective
or insight.
A facilitator will usually therefore give time to agreements about confidentiality and other ground rules
crucial to the group’s working. She or he may give each member an opportunity to introduce themselves in some way
and to say something about themselves, what brought them to this group and what they want from the group sessions.
If people do not speak at the start, they will often not feel fully involved, not “part of the group”, as if they
don’t “have a voice” in this group. These beginning processes, which can seem a bit like a ritual, give people a
vital opportunity to express something of themselves. It might be related to their experience of that particular
moment, or what is happening in their lives, or some problem or situation that is relevant to the whole reason for
being there. They will often give the subtlest of clues, or others may provide clues by their reactions, and then
it is a matter of finding a way to address them.
Many may lack experience in group work and may find this difficult. Some will be very timid or even stay silent
and not want to take part. Others may be overly talkative, even dominating the session. People worry about how they
will be in groups. Will what they have to say be respected? Will they be heard? Will they be valued? Will they be
liked? Maybe they felt embarrassed or shamed in a previous group. They may not know why they are even there: what
purpose will this event serve? Are they even committed to this group? They might have nearly ducked out of it
before it started, or are thinking of not coming again.
The facilitator will therefore work to bring each person into the group, to attend to their needs and to explore
ways that the group’s work may be helpful to them. This will include looking at what each can do to contribute to
that helping. Part of this is often done by some facilitative intervention that brings members into contact with
one another. This also shifts the emphasis away from a focus primarily on the leader and instead on to one another
as well. As this occurs, the group seems to relax and become more fluent in its interactions. Members begin to feel
they have a place here and start to make connections with others. Part of the power of group work lies in the
discovery of what Yalom calls the universality of experience - for example, that “her pain is also my pain”. We
start to see our own past experiences mapped out through hearing one another’s lives. We therefore start to find a
personal investment in the group’s work. Somehow, the work becomes less conditional on what the leader “does” and
more influenced by what happens in the group and in each person’s experiencing. There is a building of a collective
responsibility for what the group does.
And there will still be those who do not “feel part of the group”, for whom the work does not seem to help. They
may say this, and then they may just stay silent and vote with their feet. The overriding concern of the leader is
the physical survival of the group. A person leaving prematurely leaves a gap and others start to wonder about the
group’s future or their future in it. However, when a group has come together effectively, if asked, most people
will say such things as that they feel interested, relaxed, involved, curious, and safe. That is not to deny that
there is still a lot of work to be done and that there will be other disturbing dynamics to deal with. The
facilitator is certainly likely to be faced with fresh challenges. However, the key difference is that the group
has started to work together.
Coming in, finding a voice and a purpose, connecting, coming together, all these make for powerful
possibilities. I would go further and say that in the beginning of a group can be contained all of the work of that
group, if it is observed and responded to. That is another very good reason for listening very carefully to each
person at the start. In many groups I have even compiled lists of people’s objectives: reading these later often
feels like a statement of the group’s actual work and outcome. This requires a delicate process of construction.
How it starts will have a major bearing on its effectiveness. Crucial to this is attending to the early signs of
people’s needs and resistances and drawing them out.
John Gloster-Smith, MAHPP.
Reference:
Yalom, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy (Basic Books, 1985)
| 