CHAPTER ONE

"When I discover that I am accepted and loved as a person, with my strengths and weaknesses, when I discover that I carry within myself a secret, the secret of my uniqueness, then I can begin to open up to others and respect their secret" Vanier, 1998, p. 83).

This idea of Jean Vanier (1998)about being open, natural and in essence whole, accepting strengths and weakness is a good one.  For not only does it imply that all parts of the self are what make one unique, but it also has implications for the group. It implies that even the "weakest" in the group is what makes the group unique.  And that should be the goal in working with groups regardless of the task - accepting all and everything. It is not easy for people to be accepting of weaknesses, yet that is the way individuals, groups, and life is.  In the transpersonal group the whole person needs to be engaged. To be expressive means to utilize all of our modes - emotionally, intellectually, socially, and spiritually. In essence, it means operating in a holistic manner from the very first encounter. What happens in these first few moments of meeting?  For McClintock (1999) there is a making contact ritual: "As I greet them, I comment on something I see and like about them...it is my way of telling them I see you and welcome you" (p. 48). Interestingly, this first impression has a profound effect on how we interact with others.   This first encounter of the group reveals a great deal of who people are. This is particularly true for our defense patterns. Therefore, this first meeting is of particular importance.

First Impressions

When meeting others for the first time, considerable information can be gathered about them.  But how valuable is this information in terms of accuracy?  In part most of the information is superficial for people are more than just their surface.   Many people try and categorize people as types (e.g. friendly or hostile, flexible or structured, etc.).  Most groups in society are not homogeneous, but a "mixed bag" of different types of personalities, body shapes, variety of communication styles, and cultural backgrounds just to name a few. However, expressions have different meaning in different cultures. Generally, the following factors which influence first impressions are:

1. physical appearance: type of dress, the hair, teeth, weight, height, level of attractiveness;
2. facial expression: expressions can convey confidence, fear, happiness, or sadness, however, context is important too (e.g. a smiling face looking at a sad face can be viewed as gloating);
3. gestures: either positive (e.g. open body position, smiling, etc.) or negative (e.g. frowning, yawing, lack of eye contact);
4. Voice: the content, tone (e.g. loud or soft) and speech patterns (direct or circular).

In first encounters people will respond according to their experiences.  This is because they create a cognitive construct that is based on social group experience.  For example, people will see others in terms of the perceived role they think a person has that may be similar to someone they know (e.g. teacher, parent, occupational role, etc).  Thus, based on the category, people expect that this person will behave in a certain way (e.g. a person dressed as a police will be viewed as someone with power and strength).  Sometimes this first impression is "right on", but often times it is not.  So in the end, most often we will have to gather more information about the person and spend time interacting before knowing the person.  After all, each person is unique and always will be.

When meeting for the first time, most people are a little nervous, although most people try not to show outward manifestations of their discomfort. Everyone tries to look confident, natural, and relaxed. Even after all these years of facilitating groups, I too am a little nervous. I usually feel my nervousness in a queasiness of my stomach, a dryness in my throat, a hesitant manner of speaking and a redness of my face. After such a long time I am still coping with my shyness. Despite the "cool" expressions, I do see some signs of discomfort (e.g., the furtive glances around the room, the awkward physical gestures, and the frozen smiles). Many of the people have their arms and legs crossed as if for protection. Perhaps it is just comfort, but maybe that is an aspect of what protection is all about. Why is coming into a new group a scary situation for most people?

Most people entering a group will try to make eye contact with another person, but an effective group facilitator will try to make contact with every person in the group, if only for a fraction of a second. Interestingly, many avoid eye contact during a first meeting, while some look back in curiosity. One of my first impression about people is that if someone avoids eye contact, will he or she not want to be in the same group as me.  However, this is a superficial impression and I am often pleasantly surprised at the inaccuracy of this assumption. I have often wondered what goes through everyone's mind during this initial meeting of the group. Perhaps some are wondering what they are doing here. To others it may seem like groups they have been in before. There may be an excitement of getting to know other people more deeply. Whatever the reason, according to Napier and Gershenfeld (1999) "when individuals join a group, they change; they are no longer the same people they were before becoming group members (p. 5).  So, each time people enter a group their behaviors will differ from those behaviors they express outside the new group. And the most common emotion is one of anxiety.  A feeling of doubt about how they will be perceived by others in the group. In most cases, this feeling is a natural response to meeting "strangers" or being in new situations that are unfamiliar and thus pose a certain "danger." 

In the first encounter of a group that is process oriented, most people are expecting that the experience will be very different from any group they have been involved in. Goals and rules for interacting will have to be formulated and decided upon by the group members. They know that in most cases, the process will be experimental and that the facilitator will stress the affective rather than the cognitive. They probably feel the double bind of wanting to share and being open, but do not want to reveal too much of themselves. Perhaps they wonder how much they can trust others in the group. Carl Rogers (l973) said that if group members wish "...to remain on the sidelines psychologically they have my implicit permission to do so (p. 9)." Thus, people have total control over what activities they would like to participate in.

It is human nature for everyone to want to be respected and perceived in a positive manner. This is understandable, for there is nothing more important for people than a sense of dignity--dignity to self-respect and respect for others. If one takes away people's dignity one destroys their sense of self worth. Even for the most contained person, a group experience is going to be risky. None of the people have entered the group because they have to, but most have entered because they have a desire to become more knowledgeable about group dynamics and more effective communicators.

Marshall McLuhan's often quoted maxim, "The medium is the message" is a very appropriate adage when applied to how people respond in group situations regardless of the setting. It is the consequence of the message that matters more than the contours of the message. This is particularly relevant in communicating emotional material, because there is so little definition in what this may mean. While many of the people have an important and relevant message they want to communicate to others in the groups they work with, their medium of communication is sometimes poor; thus, their message is either not communicated or mis-communicated. So, for most people there is a feeling of obligation to explore in greater depth their mediums of communication. Some people are more committed to the process and more willing to take risks than others. Like many things, commitment and risk are on a continuum. It seems that commitment or risk to one person often means something different to another person. In the end, it is the group members' decision of what to risk and what not to risk. The hope of the facilitator is to embody in actions, and in the group, the Indian prayer: "The great spirit grant that I may not criticize my neighbor until I have walked in his [her] moccasins."

In most educational endeavors, disciplines are explored using the didactic approach, because it has shown itself to be the most efficient method of communicating information; however, it is an inefficient and ineffectual method for helping people learn about themselves. Why is this? People learn best by being actively involved in the learning process, while the didactic approach puts people in a passive situation. The facilitation has all the answers, but in a group devoted to process it is reversed, for the group members have all the answers. The group simply offers the structure where people can involve themselves in self-exploration and learning about group dynamics. The number and variety of methods in actively involving people in this process is the focus that this book utilizes.

Definition of Groups

Groups with a process focus have become increasingly popular for a wide body of people who have needs ranging from business to education to self-help.   This is not surprising since very few people function outside of groups, thus, learning more about groups should be an important aspect of everyone's training. The research on group processes has been extensive and enduring since the early research done by Allport (1959) on social facilitation. There is a variety of differing definitions, but Forsyth (1999) has one of the broadest definitions. A group is " . . .two or more interdependent individuals who influence one another through social interactions" (p. 5).  In other words, the size, conditions, or situation that the individuals are in is irrelevant.   What matters is that these individuals act interdependently.  And in this day of global communication, the members of the group do not even have to be face to face.   They just have to be aware of the others in the group and know they have to work together to achieve mutual goals.

Operationally, groups are characterized by pressures of uniformity, power and influence, leadership and performance in group activities, motivational processes, and structural changes. There are of course, different types of groups with differing objectives that put the pressure on different aspects of the group (e.g., self-help, encounter, T-groups, work groups, personal growth groups, group therapy, etc.). Yet, I believe that the group process needs to go beyond merely learning about the group process to the transcending of societal roles. The transpersonal approach, which incorporates many of the humanistic group processes, is described as "...an attempt to create conditions for learning about what it means to be a member of a group (whether that group be a personal growth group, a work team, a family, or a community), so that the polarities and dilemmas of separateness and unity can be experienced in the context of personal growth" (Kepner, 1980, p. 13).  In psychology and counselling in general, there are four operational theoretical perspective: Psychoanalytic (Freud, Jung, Adler), Behavioral (Skinner, Ellis), Humanistic (Perls, Rogers, Maslow), and Transpersonal (Wilber, Ram Dass). In many ways, the transpersonal approach incorporates many aspects of all the other approaches (mind, body, emotions), but it goes further by embracing the spiritual dimension. In that sense, the transpersonal approach:

...is not seen as successful adjustments to the prevailing culture, but rather the daily experience of that state called liberation, enlightenment, individuation, certainty or gnosis according to various traditions (Fadiman, In Sheikh & Sheikh, 1989, p. 227).

Believing is Seeing

Napier and Gershenfeld (l999) emphasize that ". . . in a group, individual stereotypes apparently feed on themselves, and we rapidly turn for support to those we believe share our own views" (p. 12). This phenomenon seems to occur as a natural habit of people who are always trying to make sense of things and people around them (e.g., "Who will be my allies in this group?"). It seems to be a kind of protection that creates "us" and "them." For example, people look at some older people who walk in a stiff manner and conclude that all older people are slow and not active. This also occurs with their views of different ethnic and racial types (e.g., black people are more rhythmic or Japanese are only adaptive). The figure-ground concept in Gestalt therapy offers an interesting way for examining the dynamics of relationships in groups (Perls, Hefferline, & Goodman, l951). When one object is in focus, everything around it recedes to form the background, but what is perceived depends on the needs of the viewer. For example, when one looks at a friend in a crowd of people, the friend stands out because the friend is familiar. When others look at the same crowd of people, they will not focus on the friend who is in the background for them. What is important for some, is not important for others. Another factor is the value people bring to what they observe. For example, one person may think that a particular person is attractive, while another person will think the exact opposite. More graphically, the illusions in Figures 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 demonstrate this. What can be seen? Different people may see different things.

Figure 1.1:

In Figure 1.1 some people may focus on the black, while others may focus on the white. Depending on a person's focus, a different object appears. Some people may see a musician, while others may see a woman.

Figure 1.2:

In Figure 1.2, depending on a person's perception, the viewer could be looking at either one person or two people.

Figure 1.3:

In Figure 1.3, depending what you focus on, the view could be looking at two different types of animals. 

At first it is difficult to see both objects simultaneously, but in time  the embedded objects becomes more easily recognizable.  Does this mean that the more an object or point of view is explored the easier it is to see diversity? Perception is relative. Perceptions are often colored by their context, if a person is to understand how others see things, one needs to look at the object in context from their perspective. In the same way, one can only understand more about one's behavior by examining it in the total pattern of that person's being. In a group, some people will become the focus (figure), while others will be in the background (ground). Still, if people are to make sense of the group experience, each must open themselves to others in the group. The crux of the matter is being open without expending energy and worrying about the expectations of others is a more secure way of being.

Group Member Goals

"If you don't know where you're going you will probably end up somewhere else," said the Rabbit to Alice in Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland. So one has to wonder, where does each group member want to go with the group? The place to start is by examining personal goals for being involved in the group experience. The motivation for entering a group is as varied as people, but primarily people are involved in the process to "grow." What makes the group such a powerful milieu is that it offers the opportunity to learn about the dynamics of community living. Therefore, there are two levels of goals to consider. On the first level are those goals around learning about the dynamics of group interaction, while on the second level are those goals for personal development.

As a member of the group, people might consider some of the following personal goals:

1.  

   to increase awareness of self in relationship to the group;

2.  

   to learn how to ask others clearly and directly for what they need or desire;

3.  

   to learn how to learn;

4.  

   to increase skills of intervention in groups;

5.  

   to increase understanding of how groups form, grow, and develop;

6.  

   to learn how to create a community or group based on trust;

7.  

   to learn how to challenge others to go beyond their boundaries of safety;

8.  

   to learn how to use resources within the group rather than relying on the facilitator.

To enhance an individual's perspective group members might consider some of the following personal goals by:

1. identifying personal polarities or different parts of self (e.g. child side and adult side);

2. integrating personal polarities so they work as a team rather than against each other;

3. achieving their desired level of contact with others;

4. gaining support from self rather than getting it from others;

5. being immediate and in the "here and now" as a choice;

6. developing a complete awareness using the five senses;

7. being able to identify the difference between feelings, thoughts, fantasies, and actions;

8. knowing and implementing personal boundaries;

9. being open to insights and actualizing them;

10. having a willingness to experiment with risk and with change.

Models of Human Nature

"Tell me what you find in human nature and I will tell you what sort of man [or woman] you are" (Maslow, l964). The way that people will develop relationships in groups is dependent on what assumptions they have about what people are like. These assumptions form the foundation of how people will relate to others. Some people interact with people in a suspicious manner, because they assume people are not "good", while others operate in an open manner because they assume people are "trustworthy." In observing people in groups I have noticed that people who risk and share more assume that no one will hurt them and they will be accepted. Perhaps the first question group members should ask themselves is: "What are my assumptions about human nature?"

Since the beginning of time philosophers have asked, "What is the true nature of people?" Hippocrates (430-377 B.C.) thought peoples' personalities were determined by the balance between four "humors": blood (courage), phlegm (listlessness), black bile (depression), and yellow bile (irritability). Since the beginning of the twentieth century there has been a shift from seeing the development of human nature, from the physical to the psychological. There has been extensive research done in this area, but no one has been more influential than Allport (l959). One of his contributions has been his work in developing a values topology. In his classic, Study of Values, he developed his theory that interest, values, and dispositions form distinct personality types.

Allport developed a framework in which human traits could be classified according to three psychological models. In addition, a fourth model has emerged since the second World War called existentialism. Since the 1960s another movement influenced by Eastern thought as emerged, called transpersonal.  An overview of the four models and the transpersonal, as they relate to groups, is as follows:

Humans are reactive: People react to the group in accordance to the stimuli present (e.g., someone says or does something and another person reacts to it). Group members respond to the explicit or implicit reward and punishment system of the group. For example, certain kinds of behaviors can be reinforced through praise or criticism. People develop strategies for getting along and living life based on experience (e.g. if a particular behavior gets the desired results, then they repeat the behavior). In essence, people learn to respond to different stimuli according to their everyday experiences. There is little reference paid to unconscious thought or defense mechanisms. According to Skinner (1976), the major theorist of this view, behavior is strongly determined by the environment and the social system people come from (e.g. people are the product of their environment). This approach follows the school of Behavioral thought.

Humans are reactive in depth: People react to the group according to how they have been influenced by their unconscious (e.g., no matter what people do, the reaction is based on an unconscious belief). While the person reacts to the environment, drives, will, instincts, and other aspects of their personality determine their behavior. According to Freud, who was one of the most influential thinkers in psychology, few people emerge from childhood un-scarred, which is ". . . the source of most mental, physical, and social suffering later on in life" (Poduska, 1980, p. 42). Therefore, if people are to remain healthy psychologically they should have a clearer image of themselves, which can only come about by exploring feelings and past experiences. Particular emphasis is placed on early experiences with parents and underlying sexual tensions. Essentially, behavior is just a surface manifestation of the inner workings of the mind. For people to understand themselves they must explore the symbolic meaning of their behavior. Freud put forth the notion of the pleasure principle or the meaning that people will seek pleasure and avoid pain. This approach follows the school of Psychodynamic and Jungian thought.

Humans are beings in process of becoming: People have a choice to react to situations either in a positive or negative manner. Basically, in this view there is a belief that people are interested in self-growth. People ". . . have an active will towards health, and impulse toward growth, or towards the actualization of human potentialities" (Maslow, l971, p. 25). People become dysfunctional when they are blocked from becoming who they are. For example, everyone in the group is in the process of becoming more open and nurturing. When angry or joyful feelings are aired, it is all in the process of growth. Rogers (1973), one of the major theorists of this view, stressed that the self has to be considered as a whole. However, many people develop an ideal self or the self they would like to be. The greater the discrepancy between the real and ideal self the more dysfunctional people will behave. Despite people's development everyone possesses a self-actualizing tendency. This approach follows the school of humanistic and Client-Centered thought.

Humans are what they are doing: In a fashion similar to Gertrude Stein's description of "a rose is a rose is a rose," people are what they perceive themselves to be (e.g., "I am what I am"). They are not destined to be a certain way, but possess the will to create, maintain, and change their being. It ". . . is the contact between the person and the environment that defines the person's identity" (Van de Riet, Korb, & Correll, l980, p. 12). This contact is called the ego boundary, which determines what is experienced as "me" in my world. People are a part of their environment, but they also possess a totally unique self that is self-determined. According to Frankl (l963), a major theorist of this view, what motivates people is a desire to find meaning in life. For example, people are a result of the relationship between themselves and the group. Neither determines the other, nor can each be considered without the other. This approach follows the Logotherapy and Gestalt school of thought.

Humans are more that what they are and what they are doing: Humankind have the potential to be more than what they have inherited or are.  In fact, their growth as beings is limitless and higher states of consciousness can be reach if they can only let go of the attachments that limit them. For example, obtaining material goods is a form of attachment that limit people, causing a great deal of suffering, and prevent them from achieving higher spiritual needs.   Other forms of attachment might be the obtaining of power, recognition, or any activity that focus exclusively on the self.  The goal of personhood is living in harmony and balance within the self, with the living community and with the environment. In that sense, transcending:

...all identification is believed to lead to the experience of a variety of states of consciousness in which perception is described as non-dualistic,; the individual feels himself or herself to be connected with, one with, or actually to be the whole universe (Walsh & Vaughan, In Sheikh & Sheikh, l989, p. 228).

The transpersonal model will be explored in greater depth later in subsequent chapters. It should be remembered that Allport's framework and the existential model are not based on any scientific data. However, these models do provide a simple way of categorizing how people approach relationships. As people explore human behavior and consider their view of human nature, they need to keep in mind the words of the English poet Oscar Wilde: ". . . the only thing that one really knows about human nature is that it changes and change is the one quality we can predict."

Benefits and Risks of Learning in Groups

What people can depend on as they embark on the group experience is that there will be many opportunities for learning, and equally as many opportunities to challenge the numerous things taken for granted in human relations. Perhaps this is because the group situation provides the ideal atmosphere for learning about the process of change and growth. Over a period of time as the group goes through changes, people can observe how their fears about the unknown are reduced. They may notice that the personal styles of others that brought on anxiety at the beginning of the group, are no longer a factor in determining how they behave. As a result, their awareness of themselves and others will be greatly enhanced. Perhaps they will learn how to respond in situations where there is a high degree of emotion. Essentially, the group is a laboratory where group members can add to their repertoire of communication skills.

Self-exploration is a common thread throughout the life of the group. As a result there will be uncertainty, but on the other hand all explorers experience uncertainty as a companion to discovery. In the group, members will be asked to share concerns and insights as well as provide feedback to others. It does not mean that group members have to reveal all. The facilitator should monitor what is shared and the participants may monitor what they share; thus, while risks are encouraged, people must be responsible for themselves. If group members are continually aware of what they gain or lose when they share "deep secrets" they will be more responsible. Will this increase self-exploration? (Perhaps yes and perhaps no.) Egan (l986) suggests that emotional disturbance loses its power when it loses its privacy. However, most facilitators are more interested in shared feelings rather than shared information or secrets. Secrets are just that, secrets. Some things are best kept secret!

Unlike many group learning situations, groups focusing on process create a much more supportive atmosphere. After groups have disbanded, sometimes friendships and mutual support remain and develop into much deeper relationships. This should not be a surprise, for with the increased sharing, there is increased understanding and an awareness of similarities between others. This invariably offers people the opportunity to expand their support network.

There are risks involved in participating in an intensive group situation. One of the major risks for people in groups is the possibility of "psychological harm" (i.e. buried feelings from the past may be brought into the open). Again, people have to take personal responsibility for what they share. There should never be any doubt that members can choose to do something or not to do something in the group. However, even in the most supportive groups, there can be "casualties" or people who feel alienated from the group and the process. In addition, some people may have so much on "their plate," in the form of stress at work or home that involvement in the group is distracting. Leiberman, Yalom, and Miles (l973) suggest that expectations about what will occur in the group and the type of leadership style are responsible for producing most "casualties." This happens when members are seeking "the answers" and facilitators feel they have the answers. Also, it is possible that some members will be rejected by the group because they do not meet the group's expectations or for some other reason. To rectify this, people need to have realistic expectations and group norms should support the diversity among the group members. Simply stated, all group members are entitled to their idiosyncrasies.

Misconceptions About the "Growth" Group Experience

As with many new modes of learning, there have been many misconceptions about what will happen in the group. These misconceptions have generated unnecessary fear and anxiety, thus when people enter a group experience, they need to reflect on their assumptions about the group process (Corey, l985). Perhaps if the participants are open and positive, the experience will be personally useful and growthful. Some common mis-conceptions are:

Groups are anti-intellectual: It is true that there is more emphasis on feelings, but there is value to the intellect that should not be overlooked. To understand the process of change in groups, the mind always has to be open. Too much thinking produces distance, but so does too much emphasis on emotion. In fact, the key is balance.

Groups foster impulsiveness: Group members are asked to be spontaneous and open in sharing, and sometimes impulsive actions do take place. Some will have value, while others will not. Some actions will be regretted, but the group can act as a sounding board for untried actions or behaviors. Impulsiveness is not a responsible behavior and group members are asked to be more responsible, not less.

A group is a place to get emotionally high: There will be moments of high emotional tension, but there will also be moments of pure "boredom" and "tedium." A group experience is like life, in which there are always highs and lows. In the end, the group is what the members make of it.

A Group is for "sick people" only: While the direction of the group is towards self exploration, the group experience is for those who are not psychologically damaged. The group experience is not for therapy, although there are therapeutic aspects of the group, but most importantly the group processes is for helping people learn about group dynamics and personal development. The group offers an arena for people to learn more about self in relationship to groups.

Groups are a "cure-all": Groups can be very beneficial, but they will not satisfy all the group members' problems. In fact, the truth is that there may never be a "cure-all" or final answer in any question. Groups are one of many approaches that have been successful in helping people grow.

Groups primarily foster closeness: As a result of the group experience many members feel closer to each other than they ever have, yet the opposite can occur. A group is like any other relationship, in which there is intimacy and distance. Intimacy is not a primary goal, but just a by-product of the experience.

Groups are destructive: The group, like some relationships, may be destructive, but is what the members make it. To view it as destructive is difficult if it builds relationships on respect and support. The group does foster change, which can sometimes be painful and sometimes be exhilarating. In addition, its heightening of unresolved feelings may encourage members to reevaluate some relationships. If, however, members act in a responsible manner, any experience of pain will occur in the most supportive atmosphere possible.

Group experience leads to a "Me" mentality: It is true that the group encourages members to be self-explorative and, through this process some members will be selfish. However, selfishness usually is a behavior that goes against the group norm. Group members who display selfishness soon learn that it is not tolerated, so in fact group members learn the opposite (e.g., to be a better listeners and more open to others).

Groups are artificial and unreal: Group behavior does reflect how people interact with people in other situations and groups. In a sense, the group reflects life in a microcosm. While members can be different from group to group, there will be consistent patterns. These similar patterns are the source that members can learn from.

Groups make people feel miserable: Many members do feel unhappy or frustrated--yes, even miserable--but there are also periods of pleasure. The point of the group experience is to learn about self and groups, so the process creates at times feelings of pure pleasure and misery. The group is an opportunity to learn the complete spectrum of life's emotions.

Individual Perception and Games in Groups

According to Eric Berne (1976), people become cultured and enter groups based on biological needs, psychological needs, drives, patterns of striving, past experiences, and the desire to experience. From the time of infancy to adulthood people have a strong desire to belong and be a part of a group. In fact, mental health is defined in terms of social participation. The more people participate in groups, the more socially positive they are regarded. You can probably recall that those who were most popular in school were members of many clubs. While being socially active is positively regarded, the most important mechanism for evaluating personal growth is the quality of the transactions (e.g., personal scripts).

In the development of transactional analysis, Berne proposed a novel and simple approach to viewing how people develop a position for living life. The first three types are unconsciously made during childhood, while the fourth type is developed as a conscious choice:

"I'm not OK, you're not OK": People are negative, give up, stop hoping and growing psychologically (e.g., "I'm not worth much and neither is anybody else in this group"). In the group, someone with this life script might view other group members in a suspicious or fearful manner, while at the same time feel insecure and anxious about themselves.

"I'm OK, you're not OK": People see all others in a negative and suspicious way and blame others for any difficulties or problems they have (e.g., "I might as well get what I want from others any way I can, because they will never give me what I ask for"). In the group, someone with this life script might view other group members in a  suspicious or fearful manner, while at the same time feel superior and confident about themselves.

"I'm not OK, you're OK": People work to get strokes, because that is the only way of overcoming their inferiority. People will develop "games" or strategies for gaining strokes from others (e.g., "The only way I can be any good or be accepted by others is to be competent"). In the group, someone with this life script might view other group members in a  positive manner, while at the same time feeling weak and insecure about themselves.

"I'm OK, you're OK": People see themselves as having the capacity to be or do anything they choose. Life is not seen as "game playing" or a series of strategies based on strokes, but a series of opportunities to develop relationships based on mutuality (e.g., "I feel good about myself and many of the people in my life"). In the group, someone with this life script might view other group members in a in a  positive manner, while at the same time feel good within themselves.

As people enter groups, they come with the biological need for stimulation, a psychological need for time structuring, a social need for belonging, affiliation, and autonomy; a nostalgic need for transaction, and a tentative sense of expectations based on past experiences. According to Kepner (l980), ". . . on an emotional level, these needs are experienced as issues around identity, power, and influence" (p. 16). How people involve themselves in groups follows a progression, which includes joining, involvement, engagement, and separation. Perhaps all experiences in life follow this progression in one form or another.

The group experience is an ideal environment for learning and growing compared to individual therapeutic experiences. The following are the important conclusions that reinforce the nature of the group experience (Corey & Corey, l987; Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Napier & Gershenfeld, l999; Rogers, l973):

Most group members want to be as objective as possible in their judgments, yet there are some aspects of human perception that are not as objective as is thought. One is the "halo effect." It is defined as ". . . the power of an overall feeling about an individual to influence evaluations of the person's individual attributes" (Napier & Gershenfeld, l999). This occurs when a person will allow one person to do something without censure, while not allowing it in another. For example, a group member viewed as attractive may not be criticized for habitual lateness by other members, because they may see the group as dull without her. While this may not seem fair, it is not so uncommon. So is everyday life.

Basically, there are four stages of adjustment in the group image. First, there are the tentative rituals of the group, how the group conducts itself. Second is how people develop a sense of adaptability based on past experiences. The third phase is the operational image for games, how people choose to participate in group interaction. The next is people's adjusted image for intimacy or how they wish to express their need for closeness to others. Finally, belonging occurs when people have met three conditions, which include eligibility, adjustment, and acceptance from the group.

Leadership: Autocratic Versus Democratic

In the leadership continuum, there are the extremely democratic and the extremely autocratic styles. The extremely democratic style can result in a blurring of the roles of facilitator and group members. While group members may feel positive about a facilitator who essentially joins the group, some goals may not be accomplished, because of the low level of direction or control exercised by the facilitator. It does not necessarily follow that a low level of control means little is achieved, but in most cases that is what happens. At the other extreme, the autocratic style, with a high level of control, may allow the group to stay on schedule and accomplish many of the group goals, yet may ignore individual differences and are insensitive to some of the group members. This style of directing and leading may go against the spirit of active learning and may not reinforce positive self-esteem.

A moderate style will incorporate some aspects inherent in both the democratic and the autocratic styles. Control is sometimes at a low level and sometimes at a high level. At times the facilitator may consult or even persuade members of the group, but does not join in or give orders. This does not mean that the facilitator using the moderate style is above participating in activities as a group member, but it means that the facilitator takes on the responsibility not to step out of the leadership role entirely. Sometimes the schedule will be maintained, while at other times the facilitator will take time out to concentrate on process. Despite the number of years of experience working in groups, facilitators have to evaluate their effectiveness. Perhaps, they need to answer these questions on a continual basis:

Essentially, facilitators need to have a high awareness of what the different dynamics are in each group, trust in group members' ability to take responsibility, be willing to take personal risks in actions by being a model, be authentic and not worry about being liked, loved, or admired, be honest and open with fears, needs, and fantasies, be approachable, be spontaneous, and willing to self-disclose personal information, history, feelings, thoughts, and fantasies. When people enter a group they are curious about the leadership style that will be used in the group. As a result, they will be cautious until they have a sense of what to expect from the facilitator. If the group is facilitated using a democratic style, the progress of the group is totally in the hands of the group members. The democratic facilitator puts stress on the establishment of a relationship with the group by sharing experiences, feelings, observations, perceptions, thoughts, and therapeutic methods. In a sense, the facilitator becomes a "screen" for the group's fears, defenses, and polarities. In the initial encounter, the facilitator comes into contact with the group on the outside of their boundary as shown in "A" of Figure 1.4. Some members of the group have already made contact, because of their mutual need for safety and belonging. Some individuals, are either on the fringes or outside the group system. As a budding system, the group is beginning to establish norms and rituals. With each new member, the boundaries of the group system will be disturbed, as in "B." Democratic facilitators want to enter the group and individual systems, because they want to see and feel what the group sees and feels. This process begins to focus their awareness of their boundaries and contact is now in process.

Examination of the extensive literature on what makes an effective facilitator clarifies only one thing for me: Effective leadership does not depend on a combination of leadership traits, but on the situation in which the facilitator is involved (Napier & Gershenfeld, 1999). Essentially, leadership is based on the goals of the group and the relationship of the facilitator to the group. It has less to do with active participation or any demonstration of the ability to carry out various tasks. Yet no matter what the variables, according to the Roman philosopher Tacitus, "...reason and judgment are the most important qualities of a leader."

Figure 1.4:

	formal membership where members perceive themselves as belonging, having common goals and a shared group image;
	marginal membership, where members appear to be in the group, but do not participate and are not influenced by what goes on in the group;
	aspiring membership, where there is no formal acceptance, but where aspiring members act as if they were part of the group;
	informal membership, where members appear to be involved in the organizational structure, but have no power in making decisions or solving problems;
	non-voluntary membership where members are forced to be involved by some requirement and thus tend to be distrustful.

	What is the problem?
	What is the goal?
	Is there any unfinished business?
	Is there a pattern?
	Is there introjecting, projecting, deflecting, retroflecting and/or "confluencing" in this pattern?
	What are the functions and consequences of change?
	What are the obstacles that stand in the way of accomplishing the goal?
	What are the circumstances of time and place surrounding the obstacles?
	What are the different alternatives and solutions?
	When are alternatives going to be implemented?
	How will the alternatives be evaluated?

	experience fully, vividly, and selflessly;
	let go of poses and defenses;
	view their choices as processes that are ongoing;
	allow their inner self to emerge through listening to their inner voice and acting at a "gut-level";
	are authentic, spontaneous, and honest;
	take risks to be different;
	work hard and utilize their common sense;
	work towards peak experiences;
	identify their defenses and then give them up;
	find out who they are, what they are, what they like and dislike, and work toward a satisfactory sense of personal meaning in life.

2. Fruit and Vegetables: Ask the group to pick a fruit or vegetable that they identify with. They may choose a fruit or vegetable for any reason. For example, they can make a choice based on a similarity with their name (e.g. "My name is Karen and I choose a carrot, because I like them . . . I feel rooted and it sounds similar to my name") or they can make a choice based on a meaning attributed to the choice (e.g. "My name is Paul and I choose a mango, because it has a mystical quality to it. . ."). Once everyone has made their choice, ask the group to sit in a circle and introduce themselves, their choice and the rationale for choosing it. At the end of the sharing ask if anyone could remember and repeat the names and choices of everyone in the group.