For a long
time I thought that I would like to write a paper on "The
Facilitation of Encounter Groups". But the more I thought
of the differing styles of the many leaders I have known, and
of the co-leaders with whom I have worked, the more I despaired.
Any such article would be so homogenised that its every truth
would also be a falsehood. Knowing that there are many effective
leaders, utilising vastly different styles, I was blocked.
Then I realised
if I narrowed my sights, and wrote simply about the way in which
I work with an encounter group, this might have a far more releasing
effect upon the workers in this field. It might stimulate others
to write about the style of facilitation which suits them. Even
more importantly, it might give the younger worker more freedom
to believe that he can ultimately develop a style which is truly
his own, and hence is most effective for him. So with no sense
of apology or egotism, I am going to write as honestly as I am
able, about what I see as my strengths and weaknesses in facilitating
encounter groups, and those areas in which I am unsure.
Background
of Philosophy and Attitudes
I trust the
group, given a reasonably facilitating climate, to develop its
own potential and the potential of its members. For me, this capacity
of the group is an awesome thing. It is perhaps a corollary of
this that I have gradually developed a great deal of trust in
the group process. This is undoubtedly similar to the trust |I
came to have in the process of therapy in the individual, when
the process was facilitated rather than directed. To me the group
seems like an organism, having a sense of its own direction even
though
it could not
define that direction intellectually. I am reminded of a medical
motion picture which made a deep impression on me. It was a photo
micrographic movie which showed the white blood corpuscles moving,
in a fashion which could only be described as purposeful towards
a disease bacterium. As they approached it they surrounded it
and gradually engulfed and destroyed it and then moved on about
their business. In the same way, it seems to me a group recognises
the unhealthy aspects of its process focuses on these, clears
them up or eliminates them, and moves on toward becoming a healthier
group. This is my way of saying that I have seen the "wisdom
of the organism" exhibited at every level from cell to group.
I have no
specific goal for a particular group and I sincerely want it to
develop its own directions. There are times when, because of some
personal bias or anxiety. I have had a specific goal for a group.
When this has happened, either the group has carefully defeated
that goal or has spent enough time dealing with me that I have
truly regretted having had a specific goal in mind. I have stressed
the negative aspects of specific goals because, at the same time
I hope to avoid these, I also hope that there will be some sort
of process movement in the group and I even think that I can predict
some of the probable generalised directions, but not any specific
direction. For me this is a very important difference. The group
will move, of this I am confident, but it is presumptuous of me
to think that I can or should direct that movement toward a specific
goal.
I believe
that in no basic way does my approach differ from that which I
have adopted for years in individual therapy. However, as will
be clear in the pages which follow, my behaviour is often quite
different in a group than it would be in a one to one relationship.
I am not ordinarily
concerned with how my style of facilitation looks to another person.
In that sense I feel simply competent and comfortable. On the
other hand, I know from experience that I can be at least temporarily
jealous of a co-leader who seem to be more facilitative than I
am.
I hope gradually
to become as much a participant in the group as a facilitator
of the group. I want to move back and forth easily between these
two functions in a way which is comfortable to me. It does sometimes
create a certain amount of conflict at as to whether I should
be listening to others or listening more intently to what is going
on within myself.
I believe
that the way I serve as facilitator has importance and significance
in the life of the group but I believe the group process is much
more important than my statements or my behaviour and will take
place if I do not get in the way of it.
In any group
to some degree, but especially in a so-called "academic course"
which I am conducting in an encounter group type of fashion, I
want very much to have the whole person present, both in his affective
and cognitive modes. I have not found this an easy thing to achieve
since I believe that most of us chose one mode rather than the
other at any given moment. Yet it still remains a way of being
which has much value for me. I hope to make progress in myself,
and in groups I facilitate, in permitting the whole person, with
his ideas, and ideas permeated with feelings, to be fully present.
What I
do in a Group
Climate
Setting Function
I tend to
open a group in an extremely unstructured way, perhaps with no
more than a simple comment: "I suspect we will know each
other a great deal better at the end of these group sessions than
we do now," or "Here we are. We can make of this group
experience exactly what we wish." In a recorded group session
with a group of other facilitators I think I stated this view
rather clearly:
"Partly
because I do trust the group, I can usually be quite loose and
relaxed in a group even from the first. That's overstating it
somewhat, for I always feel a little anxiety, perhaps, when a
group starts, but, by and large, I feel, 'I don't have any ideas
what's going to happen, but I think what's going to happen will
be all right,' and I think I tend to communicate non-verbally
that, 'Well, none of us seems to know what's going to happen,
but it doesn't seem to be something to worry about.'" I believe
that my relaxation and lack of any desire to guide may have a
freeing influence on others.
I listen as
carefully, accurately, and sensitively as I am able, to each individual
in the group who expresses himself. Whether the utterances are
superficial or significant, I listen. I want to make the individual
who speaks feel that what he has said is, to me, worthwhile, worth
understanding, and that consequently he is worthwhile for having
said it. Colleagues who have observed this say that in this sense
I "validate" the person.
There is no
doubt that I am selective in my listening, and hence "directive,"
if people wish to accuse me of this. I am centred on the group
member who is speaking, and I am unquestionably much less interested
in the details of his quarrel with his wife, or the details of
his difficulties on the job, or his disagreement with what has
just been said, than in the meaning these experiences have for
him now, and the feelings which they arouse in him. It is these
meanings and feelings to which I try to respond.
I wish very
much to make the climate psychologically safe for the individual.
I want him to feel from the first that if he risks saying something
highly personal, or absurd, or hostile, or cynical, that there
will be at least one person in the circle who respects him enough
to hear him clearly, and to listen to that statement as an authentic
expression of himself.
There is a
slightly different way in which I wish to make the climate safe
for the member. I am well aware that I cannot make the experience
safe from the pain of new insight or growth, or the pain of honest
feedback from others. I would like, however, for the individual
to feel that whatever happens to him or within him, I will be
psychologically very much with him, in moments of pain or joy,
or the combination of the two which is such a frequent mark of
growth. I think I can usually sense when a participant is hurting,
and it is at those moments that I give him some sign, verbal or
non-verbal, that I perceive this and that I am a companion to
him as he lives in that hurt.
The special
Role of Acceptance of the Group
I have a great
deal of patience with a group and with an individual in the group.
I believe that if there is one thing I have learned and relearned
in recent years, it is that it is ultimately very rewarding to
accept the group exactly where it is. So if a group wishes to
intellectualise, or discuss very superficial problems, or is emotionally
very closed, or is very frightened of personal communication,
these tendencies rarely bug me as much as they do some other leaders.
I am well aware that certain exercises, certain tasks set up by
the facilitator, can practically force the group to more of a
here and now communication, or more of a feeling level. I have
observed leaders who have done these things very skilfully, and
with very good effect at the time. However, I am enough of a scientist-clinician
to have made many casual as well as organised follow-up studies
and I know that frequently the lasting effect of such procedures
is not nearly as satisfying as the immediate effect. At its best
it may lead to discipleship (which I happen not to like): "What
a marvellous leader he is to have made me open up when I had no
intention of doing so. " It can also lead to a rejection
of the whole experience. "Why did I do those silly things
he asked me to?" At its worst, it can make the person feel
that his private self has in someway been violated, and he will
be careful never to expose himself to such a possibility again.
So for me,
I have found that it "pays off" to live with the group
exactly where it is. Thus I have worked with a group of very inhibited
scientists, mostly in the physical sciences, where feelings were
rarely expressed openly, and personal encounter at a deep level
was simply not seen. Yet this group became much more free and
innovative, and showed many positive results of our meetings.
I have worked
with high-level educational administrators probably the most rigid
and well defended group in our culture, with similar results.
I am not saying it is always easy for me. In this group of educators
there had been much superficial and intellectual talk, but gradually
they had moved to a deeper level. Then in an evening session the
talk became much more trivial. One person asked, "are we
doing what we want to do?" And the group answer was an almost
unanimous "No." But almost immediately the talk again
became luncheon table chatter about matters in which I had no
interest. I was in a quandary. In order to allay a considerable
early anxiety in the group, I had stressed in the first session
that they could make of this group exactly what they wished, and
operationally they seemed to be saying very loudly, "We wish
to spend expensive, hard-won, weekend time talking of trivia."
Consequently, to express my feelings of boredom and annoyance
seemed contradictory to the permission I had given them. After
wrestling within myself for a few moments, I decided that they
had a perfect right to talk trivia, and I had a perfect right
not to endure that trivia. So I simply walked quietly out of the
room, and went to bed. After I left, and the next morning, the
reactions were as varied as the members of the group. One felt
rebuked and punished, one felt I had played a trick on them, one
felt ashamed of their time-wasting, others felt as disgusted as
I at their trivial interchanges. I told them that to the best
of my awareness, I was simply trying to make my behaviour match
my contradictory feelings, but that they were each entitled to
their own perceptions. At any rate, after that, the interactions
were far more meaningful.
Acceptance
of the Individual
I am willing
for a participant to commit or not commit himself to the group.
If a person wishes to remain psychologically on the sidelines,
he has my implicit permission to do so. The group may or may not
be willing for him to remain in this stance but personally I am
willing. One sceptical college administrator in a recent group
said that the main thing, he had learned was that he could withdraw
from personal participation, be comfortable about it, and realise
that he would not be coerced. To me, this seems a valuable learning,
and one which will make it much more possible that he will actually
participate at the next opportunity.
I am willing
to accept silence and muteness in the individual, providing I
am quite certain it is not unexpressed pain or unexpressed resistance.
I tend to
accept statements at their face value. As a facilitator (just
as in my function as therapist) I definitely prefer to be a gullible
person. I will believe that you are telling me the way it is in
you. If you are not doing this you are entirely free to correct
your message at a later point, and you are likely to do so. I
do not want to waste my time being suspicious, or wondering, "What
does he really mean?"
I respond
more to present feelings than to statements about past experiences
but I am willing for both to be present in the communication.
I not like the rule: "We will only talk about the here and
now."
I try to make
clear that whatever will happen from the choices of the group,
whether those choices are clear and conscious, gropingly uncertain,
or unconscious. As I become increasingly a member of the group,
I carry my share of influence, but I do not control what happens
within the group.
I am usually
able to feel comfortable with the fact that in eight hours we
can accomplish eight hours' worth and in forty hours we can accomplish
forty hours' worth, and in a one-hour microlab or demonstration
session we can accomplish one hour's worth.
Empathic
Understanding
My attempt
to understand the exact meaning of what the person is communicating
is the most important and most frequent of my behaviours in a
group.
To me, it
is a part of this understanding that I try to delve through complications
and get the communication back onto the track of the meaning that
it has to the person. For example, after a very complicated and
somewhat incoherent statement by a husband I respond, "And
so, little by little, you may hold back things that previously
you would have communicated to your wife. Is that it?" "Yes."
I believe this is facilitative, since otherwise some of the group
members might ask questions about, or respond to, some of the
complicated details he has presented.
When talk
is generalised or intellectualising, I tend to select the self-referent
meanings to respond to out of this total context. Thus I might
say, "Though you are speaking of all this in general terms
of what people do in certain situations, I suspect you are speaking
very much for yourself in saying that. Is that right?" Or,
"You say we all do and feel thus and so. Do you mean that
you do and feel these things?"
At the beginning
of a recent group, Al said some rather meaningful things. John,
another member, started questioning him about what he had said,
but I heard more than questions. I finally said, to John: "0.K.:
you keep trying to get at what he said and what he meant, but
I think you're trying to say something to him and I'm not sure
what that is." "John thought for a moment and then began
to speak for himself. Up to that moment, I think he was trying
to get Al to voice his (that is John's) feelings for him, so he
wouldn't have to voice them as coming from himself. I find this
quite a common pattern.
I very much
want my understanding to extend to both sides of a difference
in feeling which is being expressed. Thus, in one group which
was discussing marriage, two people held very different views.
I responded, "This is a real difference between the two of
you because you, Jerry, are saying, 'I like smoothness in a relationship.
I like it to be nice and tranquil,' and Winnie is saying, "To
hell with that, I like communication'." This helps to sharpen
and clarify the significance of differences.
Operating
in Terms of my Feelings
I have learned
to be more and more free in utilising my own feelings as they
exist in the moment, whether in relation to the group as a whole,
or in respect to one individual.
I nearly always
feel a genuine and present concern for each member of the group
and the group as a whole. I can't give the reason for this. I
just know that I do. I values each person, but this valuing carries
no guarantee of a permanent relationship. It is concern and feeling
which exists now. I think I can feel it more clearly, because
I am not saying it is or will be permanent.
I think I
am quite sensitive to those moments when an individual is feeling
a readiness to speak or a closeness to pain or anger. Thus I might
say, "Let's give Carlene a chance," or "Your face
looks as though you are really troubled about something. Do you
wish to let us in on that?"
It is probably
particularly to hurt that I respond with empathic understanding,
as I tried to describe above. This desire to understand, and psychologically
stand with the person in pain, probably grows in part out of my
therapeutic experience.
I endeavour
to voice any persisting feelings which I am experiencing toward
an individual or toward the group. Obviously such expression would
not come at the very beginning, because my feelings are not yet
persistent ones. I might, for example, take a dislike to someone
during the first ten minutes the group is together. It is unlikely
that I would voice such a feeling at that time. If the feeling
persists, however, I would voice it.
I trust the
feelings, words, impulses, fantasies, which, emerge in me. I feel
that in this way I am using more than my conscious self and I
am using some of the capacities of my whole organism. For example,
"It suddenly came to me that you are a princess, or would
like to be a princess, and that you would love it if we were all
your subjects." Or, "I sense that you are the judge
as well as the accused, and that you are saying sternly to yourself,
'You are guilty on every count."
I wish to
be as expressive of positive and loving feelings as of negative
or frustrated or angry ones. There may be a certain risk in this.
I recall one group where I think I hurt the group process by being
too expressive, early in the sessions, of the very warm feelings
I felt toward a number of members of the group. Because I was
still perceived as the facilitator, I think this made it more
difficult for others to express some of their negative and angry
feelings.
I find it
difficult to be easily or quickly aware of angry feelings in me.
I deplore this. I am slowing learning in this respect.
I like my
functioning best in a group when my "owned" feelings,
positive or negative, are in immediate interaction with the feelings
of a participant. To me this means that we are communicating on
a deep level of personal meaning. It is the closest I get to an
I-thou relationship.
If I am asked
a question, I try to consult my own feelings. If I sense the question
as being real and containing no other message than the question,
then I will try my best to answer it. I feel no social compunction,
however, to answer a question simply because it is a question.
There may be other messages in it far more important than the
question.
A colleague
of mine has told me that "I peel my own onion." That
is, that I express continuously deeper layers of feeling as I
become aware of them in a group. I can only hope this is true.
Confrontation
and Feedback
I tend to
confront individuals on specifics of their behaviour. "I
don't like the way you chatter on. I wish you would stop when
you've completed your message." "To me you seem sort
of like putty. Someone seems to reach you, to make a dent in you,
but then it all springs back into place as though you hadn't been
touched."
I would like
to confront another person only with feelings which I am willing
to own as my own. Such feelings may at times be very strong. "Never
in my life have I been so pissed off at a group as I am at this
one." Or, to one man in the group , "I woke up this
morning feeling, 'I never want to see you again'."
I do not want
to attack a person's defences because that seems to me to be judgmental.
If, however, what I perceive as his coldness frustrates me or
what I perceive as his intellectualising irritates me or if his
brutality to another person angers m, then I would like to face
him with the frustration or the irritation or the anger. To me
this is very important. If I say, "You're hiding a lot of
hostility," or "You are being highly intellectual probably
because you are afraid of your own feelings. I believe such judgements
and diagnoses are the opposite of facilitative.
Often when
I confront someone I use very specific material, given previously
by the participant. "Now you're being the 'pore lil old country
boy' once more." "Now it seems to me you you are doing
it again, the very thing you described, being the child who wants
approval at any cost."
If a person
seems distressed by my confrontation or by that of others, I am
quite willing to help him "get off the hook" if he so
desires. "You look as though you have had about all you want
to take. Would you like us to let you alone for the time being?"
I am guided by his response, learning that sometimes he wants
the feedback and confrontation to continue, even though it is
painful to him.
Expression
of Own Problems
If I am currently
distressed by something in my own life, I am willing to express
this in the group. I do have some sort of professional conscience
about this, however, because if I am being paid to be a facilitator,
then if my problem is severe I feel that I should work it out
in a staff group or with some therapist rather than taking the
time of the group. I believe I am probably too cautious about
this. I think of one group, a slow moving group meeting once a
week, where I feel I really cheated them. I was very much upset
about a personal problem, but I felt the problem did not concern
the group and I refrained from talking about it. As I look back
on it, I think nothing would have facilitated the group more than
to express my upsetness. I believe it would have helped them to
be more expressive.
Avoidance
of Planning and "Gimmicks"
I try to avoid
utilising in a group any procedure that is planned. I have a real
"thing" about artificiality. If we are going to try
any planned procedure I think the group members should be in on
it as fully as I am and should make the choice themselves as to
whether they want to utilise the procedure.
On rare occasions
when frustrated or when a group has seemed to reach a plateau,
I have tried to use what I think are gimmicks but they rarely
work. Probably this is because I lack faith myself that they are
really useful.
I am sometimes
willing to suggest a procedure to a group but what happens is
up to them. In one apathetic group I suggested that we might try
to get out of our doldrums by forming one inner circle and one
outer circle with the person in the outer circle prepared to speak
up for the real feelings of the individual in front of him. The
group paid absolutely no attention to my suggestion and went on
as though it had never been expressed. However, within an hour,
one man picked up the central aspect of the device and used it
saying, "I want to speak for John and say what I believe
he is actually feeling." At least a dozen times in the next
day or two others used it, in their own spontaneous way, not as
a device.
To me nothing
is a gimmick if it occurs with real spontaneity. Thus, I have
used role playing, bodily contact, various other procedures when
they seemed to express what I am actually feeling at the time.
Avoidance
of Interpretive or Process Comments
I make comments
on the group process very sparingly. It seems to me such comments
make the group self conscious. I think they slow the group, make
the members feel that they are under scrutiny. I prefer to have
such process comments come naturally from members of the group,
if at all. To me, the experience of feeling competitive, for example,
and experiencing that feeling openly, is more important than to
have the facilitator put an intellectual label on his behaviour.
For some reason, I have no objection when a participant does something
of this sort. For example, a faculty member was complaining about
the students who always want their questions answered and who
keep continuously asking questions. He felt they just weren't
adequately self reliant. He was insistently asking me what to
do about such behaviour. A group member finally said, "You
seem to be giving us a good example of just what you are complaining
about." This seemed very helpful.
I tend not
to probe into nor to comment on what might be behind a person's
behaviour. To me, an interpretation as to the cause of an individual's
behaviour can never be anything but a high level guess. The only
way it can carry weight is when an authority puts the weight of
his expertise behind it. I do not want to get involved in this
kind of authoritative behaviour. "I think it's because you
feel inadequate as a man that you engage in this blustering behaviour,"
is not the kind of statement I would ever make.
Physical
Movement and Contact
I express
myself in physical movement as spontaneously as I am able. I think
my background is not such as to make me particularly spontaneous
in this respect. If I am restless I get up and stretch and move
around. If I want to change places with another person I ask him
if he is willing to do so. I may sit or lie on the floor if that
meets my physical needs. I do not particularly attempt, however,
to promote physical movement in others. I have observed facilitators
who can do this beautifully and effectively.
I have slowly
learned to respond spontaneously with physical contact when this
seems real and spontaneous and appropriate. When a young woman
was weeping because she had had a dream that no one in the group
lover her I embraced her, kissed her, and comforted her. When
a person is suffering, and I feel like going over and putting
my arm around him, I do just that. Again, I do not try consciously
to promote this kind of behaviour.
Trust in
the Therapeutic Potentiality of the Group
In very serious
situations which arise in a group, when an individual seems to
be exhibiting psychotic behaviour, or is behaving in a bizarre
way, I have learned to rely on the members of the group to be
as therapeutic or more therapeutic than I am myself. I think that
sometimes as a professional I get caught up in labels and feel,
for example, "This is straight paranoid behaviour!"
As a consequence of this, I tend to withdraw somewhat and deal
with the person more as an object. The more naive group member
continues to relate to the troubled person as a person and this
in my experience is far more therapeutic. So in situations in
which a member is showing behaviour which is clearly "pathological,"
I rely on the wisdom of the group more than on my own, and am
often deeply astonished at the therapeutic ability of the group
members.
Some Faults
of Which I am Aware
I am much
better in a group in which feelings are being expressed, any kind
of feelings, than in an apathetic group. I am not particularly
good in provoking a relationship. I have real admiration for some
facilitators I know who can very readily provoke a real and meaningful
relationship which then continues to develop.
I am often
slow to sense and express my anger. As a consequence, I may only
become aware of it and express it later.
Probably I
am a product of my generation in finding it somewhat difficult
to be loose and expressive in physical ways. I admire the younger
people I know who are much freer in this respect.
A Special
Problem
In recent
years I have had to deal with the problem which is special to
anyone who has become rather widely known through writings and
through having been taught about in classrooms. This means that
people often come into a group with me with all kinds of expectations,
ranging from the expectation of finding a halo over my head to
the expectation of finding me sprouting horns. I endeavour to
dissociate myself as rapidly as possible from these expectations.
In my dress, in my manner, and by expressing my wish that they
get to know me as a person, not simply as a name or a book or
a theory, I endeavour to become a person to the members of the
group. It is always very refreshing to me to find myself in a
group, for example a group of high school girls, or sometimes
a group of businessmen, for whom I am not a "name,"
and where I have to "make it" all over again simply
as the person I am. I could have kissed the high school girl who
said challengingly at the start of a group, "I think this
is kind of a risky thing. What are your qualifications for doing
this ?" I replied that I had had some experience in working
with groups,and that I hoped they would find me to be qualified,
but that I could certainly understand their concern.
Behaviour
Which I Believe to be Non-Facilitative
In writing
this section I have profited by discussion with many individuals,
but particularly Ann Dreyfuss and William R. Coulson.
Though I stressed
at the outset of this paper that there are many effective styles
of working with a group, I also know that there are a number of
people who conduct groups whom I do not recommend, because some
of their behaviour seems to me to be non-facilitative, or even
damaging, to a group and its members. I cannot conclude this discussion
in an honest way without listing some of these behaviours. Research
is in such an infant stage in this field that I do not pretend
that the opinions expressed in this section are factually based,
or supported by research findings. They are opinions and conclusions
which have grown out of my experience:
I believe
a facilitator is ineffective when he pushes a group, manipulates
it, makes rules for it, endeavours to direct it toward his own
unspoken goals. Even a slight flavour of this type of behaviour
can diminish or destroy the trust of the group in the facilitator,
or even worse, make the members his worshipful followers. If he
has specific goals, he had best make them explicit.
I do not like
a facilitator who judges the success or failure of a group by
its dramatics, who counts the number of people who have wept,
or those who have been "turned on." To me this leads
toward a highly spurious evaluation.
I do not recommend
a facilitator who believes in "attack" as the sine qua
non of a successful group. I have a great deal of respect for
Synanon, and the effectiveness of their work with drug addicts,
but I am repelled by their hastily formed dogma that unrelenting
attack, whether based on real or spurious feelings, is the criterion
by which a group is to be judged. I want hostility to be expressed
when it is present, and I want to express it myself when it is
present for me, but there are many other feelings which exist,
and they have equal importance in living, and in the group.
I do not recommend
as facilitator a person whose own problems are so great and so
pressing that he needs to centre the group on himself, and is
not available to, nor deeply aware of, others. Such a person might
well be a participant in a group, but it is most unfortunate when
he carries the label of facilitator.
I do not wish
as facilitator a person who is frequently giving interpretations
of motives or causes of behaviour in members of the group. If
these are inaccurate they are of no help, if deeply accurate,
they may arouse extreme defensiveness, or even worse, strip the
person of his defences, leaving him damaged and vulnerable as
a person, particularly after the group sessions are over.
I do not like
it when a facilitator introduces exercises or activities with
the attitude that, "Now we will all ......" This is
simply a special form of manipulation, but it is one which is
very difficult for the individual to resist. If exercises are
introduced, I think any member should have the opportunity, clearly
stated by the facilitator, to opt out of the activity.
I do not like
the facilitator who withholds himself from personal emotional
participation in the group, who holds himself aloof as the expert,
able to analyse the group process and the members' reactions through
his superior knowledge. To me, this shows both a defensiveness
in himself, and a deep lack of respect for the the participants.
Such a person denies his own spontaneous feelings and provides
a model for the group which is the complete antithesis of what
I believe in. The model he provides is that of the coolly analytical
person who never gets involved. This is what each participant
will naturally aim to achieve, and this, as I say, is the opposite
of what I hope for. It is non-defensiveness and spontaneity, not
the defensiveness of aloofness, which I personally hope will emerge
in the group.
Let me make
it clear that I do not object at all to the characteristics I
have mentioned in any participant in the group. The individual
who is overinterpretative, or totally attacking, or emotionally
aloof, will be very adequately handled by the group members themselves.
They will simply not permit such behaviours to persistently continue.
But when it is the facilitator who exhibits these behaviours,
he tends to set a norm for the group before the members have learned
that they can confront and deal with him, as well as with each
other.
Conclusion
I have tried
to describe the manner in which I would like to facilitate a group.
I do not always succeed in following my own personal aims when
I am with a group, and then the experience tends to be less satisfying
to the members and to me. I have also described some of the behaviours
which I regard as non-facilitative. I sincerely hope that this
presentation will encourage others to speak for their own styles
of group facilitation.
