Working Stage—Cohesion and Productivity

Member Functions and Possible Problems A central role of members at this time is to recognize and deal with the many forms of defensiveness. These

Stage 4: Working Stage—Cohesion and Productivity

There are no arbitrary dividing lines between the phases of a group, and con- siderable overlapping of stages is common in all groups. This is especially true of movement from the transition stage to the working stage, which is charac- terized by a more in-depth exploration of signifi cant problems and by effec- tive action to bring about the desired behavioral changes. The working stage is characterized by the commitment of members to explore signifi cant problems they bring to the sessions and by their attention to the dynamics within the group. At this time in a group’s evolution, I fi nd that my degree of structuring and intervention is much less than during the initial and transition stages. By now the participants have learned how to involve themselves in group interac- tions in more spontaneous ways.

To be sure, work and learning also occur during the initial and transition stages. However, a higher degree of cohesion, a clearer notion of what mem- bers want from their group, and a more intensive level of interaction among the members are characteristic of the working stage. This is the time when participants tend to realize that they are responsible for their lives. Thus they must be encouraged to decide what concerns to explore in the group and to learn how to become an integral part of the group and yet retain their indi- viduality. Group members must fi lter the feedback they receive and decide what they will do about it. Consequently, it is very important at this stage that neither the group leader nor other members attempt to decide on a course of action or make prescriptions for another member.

LATER STAGES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A GROUP

97 DEVELOPMENT OF GROUP COHESION

Nature of Group Cohesion

Group cohesion involves a sense of belonging, in- clusion, solidarity, and an attractiveness of a group for its members. Cohe- siveness is the result of all the forces acting on the members that make them want to remain in the group. Members experience a sense of belonging and of having a connection with one another. In a group, the therapeutic alliance that develops from this feeling of being accepted involves multiple relation- ships: member-to-group, member-to-member, member-to-leader, and leader- to-members.

Although cohesion may begin to develop in the early stages of a group, at the working stage it becomes a key facilitative element of the group pro- cess. Establishing cohesion in the early stages may be related to the ability of members to deal with confl ict that often comes during the working stage (Burlingame et al., 2002). The group becomes a cohesive unit once trust has been established and confl ict and negative feelings have been expressed and worked through. Groups do not have to experience confl ict to become cohe- sive, but if confl ict is present in the group and is smoothed over or somehow ignored, it will get in the way of building cohesion. If the group has success- fully navigated a testing period, members will conclude, “If it’s OK to express negative reactions and confl ict, then maybe it’s OK to get close.” Cohesion is not fi xed, however; it fl uctuates throughout the life of the group in response to the interactions of group members.

When cohesion occurs, people open up on a deeper level and are will- ing to reveal painful experiences and take other risks. Often, the route to this increased level of interaction within the group is due to a willingness of members to stay in the here-and-now, especially their willingness to express persistent reactions they are having to one another. The honest sharing of deeply signifi cant personal experiences and struggles binds the group to- gether because the process of sharing allows members to identify with oth- ers by seeing themselves in others. Cohesion provides the group with the impetus to move forward. Groups do not become cohesive automatically. Co- hesion is the result of a commitment by the participants and the leader to take the steps that lead to a group-as-a-whole feeling. Group leaders play a critical role in the development of cohesion; they should establish clarity about how the group works in early sessions because higher levels of struc- ture often lead to higher levels of self-disclosure and cohesion in later ses- sions (Burlingame et al., 2002).

Yalom (2005) believes that cohesion is a strong determinant of a positive group outcome. He contends that group cohesion by itself is not a suffi cient condition for effective group work, but cohesiveness is necessary for other group therapeutic factors to operate. Cohesion fosters action-oriented behav- iors such as immediacy, mutuality, confrontation, risk-taking, and translation of insight into action. Also, without group cohesion the participants will not feel secure enough to maintain a high level of trust and engage in meaning- ful self-disclosure. If members experience little sense of belonging or attrac- tion to the group, there is little likelihood that they will benefi t, and they may well experience negative outcomes. According to Yalom, groups with a here- and-now focus are almost invariably vital and cohesive. In contrast, groups in which members merely talk about issues with a “there-and-then” focus rarely develop much cohesiveness.

98

CHAPTER FIVE

Another Perspective on Cohesion

Although cohesiveness helps build rela- tionships that provide the groundwork for effective group work, it can poten- tially hinder the group’s development. When cohesiveness is not accompa- nied by a challenge to move forward by both the members and the leader, the group may reach a plateau. Group members may settle for feeling secure and comfortable rather than being open to taking the risks necessary for growth.

Furthermore, to the extent that cohesiveness is associated with the pressure to conform and to the degree that unity may overshadow individual expression, cohesiveness might have negative implications for the members of a therapy group (Hornsey, Dwyer, Oei, & Dingle, 2009).

Some researchers suggest that linking cohesiveness to positive outcomes in a therapy group is not supported by empirical evidence. Joyce, Piper, and Ogrodniczuk (2007) examined whether therapeutic alliance and group cohe- sion predict positive outcomes for members in short-term group psychother- apy. Although they found evidence that the quality of the therapeutic alliance predicted positive outcomes, the benefi ts of cohesion were not clearly estab- lished. Hornsey, Dwyer, Oei, and Dingle (2009) add that “social psychological theory and research cast doubt over the extent to which cohesiveness neces- sarily leads to positive outcomes” (p. 276). They believe the term cohesiveness is too amorphous to serve as an adequate organizing principle for theory and research in group psychotherapy and that the concept should be replaced with more cogent and specifi c alternatives.

Cohesion as a Unifying Force

Despite recent challenges from researchers, my experience in facilitating groups continues to convince me that cohesion is a valuable concept and that it can be a unifying force for group members.

In many of the adult groups that I lead, common human themes arise that most of the members can relate to personally, regardless of their age, sociocul- tural background, or occupation. In the earlier stages of the group, members are likely to be aware of the differences that separate them, but as the group reaches a level of cohesion, it is quite common for members to comment on how alike they are in the feelings that connect them. These commonalties can be expressed in a variety of ways:

• I’m not alone in my pain and with my problems.

• I’m more lovable than I thought I was.

• I used to think I was too old to change and that I’d just have to settle for what I have in life. Now I see that what I feel is no different from what the younger people in here feel.

• I’m hopeful about my future, even though I know I have a long way to go and that the road will be rough.

• There are a lot of people in here I feel close to, and I see that we earned this closeness by letting others know who we are.

• I learned that the loneliness I felt was shared by most of the people in this group.

As a group becomes cohesive, it is not uncommon for a woman in her early 20s to discover that she shares many struggles with a man in his late 50s. Both of them may still be searching for parental approval, and they may both be learning how futile it is to look outside of themselves for confi rmation of their

LATER STAGES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A GROUP

99 worth. A woman learns that her struggles with femininity have much in com-

mon with a man’s struggles with his masculinity. A man learns that he is not alone when he discovers that he feels resentment over the many demands his family makes on him. An older man sees in a younger male member “his son”

and allows himself to feel tenderness and compassion that he did not let him- self experience earlier.

Other common themes evolving in this stage lead to an increase of cohe- sion: remembering painful experiences of childhood and adolescence, becom- ing aware of the need for and fear of love, learning to express feelings that have been repressed, struggling to fi nd a meaning in life, recognizing com- monalties that link us together as humans, coming to an increased apprecia- tion of our differences and the ways we are unique, feeling guilt over what we have done or failed to do, longing for meaningful connections with signifi cant people, and beginning a process of fi nding our identity. The leader can foster the development of cohesion by pointing out the common themes that link members of the group.

CHARACTERISTICS OF AN EFFECTIVE WORKING GROUP

Stage 4 is characterized by productiveness that builds on the effective work