Module 2
Effective Group Leadership
A. Group Leadership Styles
The word leader first appeared in the English language in the early 1300s, and
the word leadership in the early 1800s (Johnson & Johnson, 2017). Despite the long
history associated with defining leaders and leadership, much disagreement persists
among social and political scientists about exactly what a leader is. There is no one
definition of either word. Indeed, the concepts leader and leadership have been
defined in more different ways than almost any other concept associated with group
structure.
Despite definition disagreements, some common factors in leadership can be
distinguished. Forsyth (2019), for instance, defines leadership as, “a special form of
social interaction: a reciprocal, transactional, and transformational process in which
individuals are permitted to influence and motivate others to promote the attaining of
group and individual goals” (p. 343). This definition encompasses many of the most
important factors of leadership (social, reciprocity, legitimate influence, motivation,
and cooperation for the achievement of common goals) and distinguishes leadership
from control (Parsons & Shils, 1951) and power (French & Raven, 1960). Forsyth’s
definition is the basis on which leadership is conceptualized in this chapter. It is
assumed that a leader is an individual who implements a number of facilitative
qualities in a group, such as envisioning goals, motivating people, and achieving a
workable unity in an appropriate and timely way.
Leaders help groups get organized and develop (Chen & Rybak, 2018).
Therefore, the style a group leader displays has a direct effect on the behavior of
group members and group dynamics (Sampson & Marthas, 1981). Leaders who
operate exclusively from one point of view are most likely to influence members’
behaviors in a specific way. For example, leaders who are always telling group
members what to do may get immediate tasks accomplished but at the price of
membership flexibility and innovation. Most effective group leaders show versatility
(Kottler, 1994) and modify their leadership pattern to coincide with the purpose of the
group and its membership.
Authoritarian group leaders envision themselves as experts and tend to be
rigid and conventional in their beliefs (Cheng, Chae, & Gunn, 1998). They believe
they understand group dynamics and, therefore, are best able to explain group and
individual behavior. These leaders interpret, give advice, and generally direct the
movement of the group much as parents control the actions of a child. They demand
obedience and expect conformity from their followers. Authoritarian leaders are often
charismatic and manipulative (McClure, 1994). Frequently, they structure their groups
using the wheel model=(explained in Chapter 2), which results in an autocratic leader-
centered group. All information is filtered through them, and they decide which
information to share with the group (see Figure 3.1). Such leaders may coerce group
members under their charge because they believe people are not ambitious and are
somewhat lazy. This style of leadership is sometimes referred to as guru oriented
(Starak, 1988). McGregor (1960) characterizes this type of leader as a so-called
Theory X leader. Adolf Hitler, Fidel Castro, and Mao Zedong exemplified this type of
leadership, although some charismatic political and corporate leaders may display
characteristics of this style. Most leader-centered groups place a strong emphasis on
the personality of one individual, giving that individual a great deal of power and
trust. In these groups, chaos erupts when the recognized leader is absent.
Democratic group leaders are more group centered and less directive than
authoritarian leaders. Individuals operating from this perspective, such as Carl Rogers
(1970), trust group participants to develop their own potential and that of other group
members. These leaders serve as facilitators of the group process and not as directors
of it. They cooperate, collaborate, and share responsibilities with the group.
Individuals who embrace this perspective are more humanistically and
phenomenologically oriented (see Figure 3.2). McGregor (1960) refers to
groupcentered leaders as Theory Y leaders. They think people are self-starters and
will work hard if given freedom. Leaders who have exemplified this approach to a
group facilitate conditions to “promote self-awareness and options to develop the guru
within” (Starak, 1988, p. 104). Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. led
using this style.
Laissez-faire leaders are leaders in name only. They do not provide any
structure or direction for their groups, so members are left with the responsibility of
leading. As a result, the group operates from a group-centered perspective, focusing
on members and interpersonal processes. The disadvantage of this type of leadership
is that the group as a whole may be slow to establish agendas and achieve goals.
Some inexperienced group leaders choose this style in an attempt to be
nonthreatening; others pick this style to avoid making any hard decisions, thereby
increasing their popularity. (Being liked or popular is not a key characteristic of being
an effective leader, by the way.) Still others believe this group style works best and
that the group must take care of itself from the beginning. Unfortunately, many
laissez-faire group leaders and their groups do not accomplish anything because no
clear purpose and goals emerge.
Whether a group is leader or group centered depends on who set it up, under
what circumstances, and for what purpose (Gardner, 1990). So-called leaderless
groups rotate the leadership role among their members, and there is no designated
leader/facilitator (Brown, 2014). In these groups, leaders emerge as the group
develops. One type of leaderless group is the self-help group (e.g., Alcoholics
Anonymous, Parents Anonymous). Another form is the mutual support group,
exemplified by some women’s groups that form around such concrete and specific
purposes as the accomplishment of goals, babysitting cooperatives, political
objectives, or a hobby or interest such as hiking or quilting (Kees, 1999). In many
forms of these groups, peer leadership works well. In such cases, nonprofessional
leaders develop as their group progresses. They usually end up creating a leadership
style that feels comfortable for them, such as being confrontational or collaborative.
Occasionally, they undergo brief leadership training by reading manuals or taking
courses. Although some leaders of leaderless groups are effective, this approach is
developed through trial and error. It has the potential to be destructive as well as
constructive.
Another type of leaderless group meets alternately with and without a leader.
Such groups may increase the creativity and participation of individuals and the group
as a whole. However, notable group specialists (Gazda, 1989; Yalom & Leszcz, 2005)
warn about the dangers of these groups, especially when they are composed of
moderately or severely disturbed individuals. In such cases, if a leader is not present,
the group may get out of hand and do considerable damage to its members. As a
result, the group regresses, and everyone suffers.
B. Leadership Styles for Different Groups
“Expert leaders describe their effectiveness as perceiving, understanding, and
formulating observed group experience into action” (Ward & Ward, 2014, p. 18).
However, different types of groups demand specific styles of leadership. For example,
in psychoeducational and task/work groups, leaders do best when they are direct and
keep the group focused on the topic or job at hand. Psychotherapy and counseling
groups, though, require that leaders provide support, caring, and sometimes
confrontation and structure. They are more intrapersonal in nature. Regardless, the
Association for Specialists in Group Work’s (ASGW) Professional Standards for the
Training of Group Workers (Association for Specialists in Group Work, 2000),
“specifies a minimum level of 1 hour a week of planning time for group leaders
(either individually or with a co-leader). According to these standards, leading
effective groups demands constant assessment of leader skills and interventions,
group development, and individual progress of group members”.
Luke (2014) states that according to Group Systems Theory (Connors &
Caple, 2005), group leaders have the option to focus on one of three levels of the
group as a system: the intrapersonal, the interpersonal, or the group as a whole. The
intrapersonal style of group leadership stresses the inward reactions of individual
group members, and the interpersonal style of group leadership focuses on
transactions among individuals in the group, whereas the group as a whole hones in
on the development, dynamics, and experiences of the entire group. These distinct
styles of leadership have their place in a group, and effective group leaders use all of
them at times. For instance, as a group leader of a counseling group, Don may ask
Phyllis to reflect on her last outburst directed toward Mary Ann. Later, Don may
solicit opinions from the group as whole about how Phyllis could relate more
positively with Mary Ann. Ideally, counseling group leaders begin by concentrating
on the group as a whole and then move to interpersonal dimensions. Later, when
members are more comfortable with one another, leaders integrate intrapersonal
material into the group. Other types of group leaders, such as those who lead
psychoeducational groups, may engage in the process in an entirely different way.
In all types of groups, leaders must promote sharing on an affective as well as
an intellectual level (emotional stimulation). Feelings, as well as thoughts, need to be
expressed. For example, instead of asking Stephanie what she thought about Wanda’s
remarks, the group leader could ask her how she felt about them. Furthermore, group
leaders must show caring (a genuine concern for others) through their openness and
honesty with group members. Thus, Logan needs to let Dominic know he honestly
wants to know what he is thinking and that he values their relationship whether they
have the same ideas or not. Meaning attribution refers to the leader’s ability to explain
to group members in a cognitive way what is occurring in the group.
For=instance, the leader might say, “Members of the group seem reticent to
talk today about themselves. It appears we are having a hard time trusting one
another.” To function optimally, group leaders need, “to learn how to attribute
meaning to the events and experiences occurring during the life of a group” both for
others and for themselves (Conyne, 1998, p. 255). Finally, in the executive function
role, leaders manage the group as a social system that allows the group and its
members to achieve specific goals.
In assuming the role of a leader within a group context, individuals undertake
a multifaceted responsibility that encompasses not only guiding the group towards its
agreed-upon goals but also fostering cohesion, accountability, and momentum
throughout the process. Central to this leadership role is the task of periodically
reminding the group of its progress, achievements, and ongoing efforts in pursuit of
the goals formulated earlier. By providing regular updates and reinforcement, leaders
play a crucial role in maintaining focus, motivation, and momentum within the group,
ensuring that everyone remains aligned and committed to the collective vision.
One key aspect of this leadership function is the periodic reflection on the
group's accomplishments and milestones achieved thus far. Leaders may take the
initiative to remind the group of the progress made since the formulation of the goals,
highlighting specific achievements, breakthroughs, or successes that have contributed
to advancing the group's agenda. By celebrating these milestones, leaders not only
acknowledge the collective efforts of the group but also inspire confidence and
motivation among members, reinforcing their sense of accomplishment and progress
towards the overarching goals.
Moreover, leaders play a pivotal role in keeping the group focused on the tasks
and challenges that lie ahead, ensuring that momentum is maintained and efforts are
directed towards effective implementation of the agreed-upon plan. This may involve
reminding the group of the challenges and obstacles that may arise during the
implementation phase and emphasizing the importance of perseverance, resilience,
and collaboration in overcoming them. By providing clear guidance and direction,
leaders empower the group to stay on course and navigate complexities with
confidence and determination.
In addition to providing periodic updates and reminders, leaders also serve as
catalysts for reflection and adaptation, encouraging the group to assess its progress,
identify areas for improvement, and adjust strategies as needed. For instance, leaders
may facilitate discussions around lessons learned, best practices, and emerging
opportunities, inviting input and feedback from group members to inform decision-
making and course correction. This reflective approach not only fosters a culture of
continuous learning and improvement but also strengthens the group's ability to adapt
and thrive in dynamic and uncertain environments.
Furthermore, leaders play a crucial role in maintaining accountability and
commitment within the group, ensuring that everyone remains actively engaged and
invested in the collective goals. By periodically reminding the group of its shared
purpose, values, and commitments, leaders reinforce a sense of ownership and
responsibility among members, motivating them to contribute their best efforts
towards achieving success. This accountability mechanism helps to mitigate
complacency, apathy, and disengagement, fostering a culture of high performance and
excellence within the group.
In conclusion, the role of leaders in periodically reminding the group of its
progress, goals, and challenges is essential for maintaining focus, motivation, and
momentum within the group. By providing regular updates, fostering reflection, and
maintaining accountability, leaders empower the group to stay aligned and committed
to its collective vision, driving progress, and success towards achieving shared goals.
As stewards of the group's journey, leaders play a pivotal role in guiding, inspiring,
and empowering members to realize their full potential and make a meaningful impact
together.
C. Personal Qualities of Effective Group Leaders
Every group leader brings his or her personal qualities to a group, including
preferred ways of perceiving the world and experiences in relating to oneself and
others. Group leaders must ask themselves such questions as “Who am I?” “Who am I
with you?” and “Who are we together?” (Hulse-Killacky, Schumacher, & Kraus,
1994). The way the questions are asked, as well as the answers that are derived, plays
a strong part in determining how an individual’s personal qualities translate into
leadership. For example, if an individual does not have a strong sense of self, then it is
doubtful he or she will be effective as a group leader.
Similarly, if an individual cannot keep his or her identity while appreciating
others, then it is unlikely this leader will exert a strong influence in the group.
Personal qualities of effective leaders have traditionally been explained through
examining their personality traits or learned skills. Effective group leaders probably
use the strongest aspects of their personalities and knowledge and combine these with
experiences in their leading of groups.
A traditional school of thought in human history is that some individuals
emerge as leaders because of their personal qualities. This point of view was
advocated by Aristotle, Thomas Carlyle, and Henry Ford (Forsyth, 2019) and remains
popular today in some circles. Some group specialists have compiled long lists of
ideal qualities they believe are essential to the personality of an effective group leader,
a so-called trait approach to group leadership. Proponents of this viewpoint believe
that specific personality characteristics are essential for successful leadership. Two
examples of this approach are those given by Slavson (1962) and Corey, Corey, and
Corey (2014). Slavson posits that the personal qualities of group leaders include
poise, judgment, empathy, ego strength, freedom from excessive anxiety, a desire to
help people, tolerance of frustration, imagination, intuition, perceptiveness, and an
ability to avoid self-preoccupation.
Corey et al.'s comprehensive list of qualities essential for effective group
leadership provides a rich tapestry of characteristics that contribute to the success and
effectiveness of group facilitation. From courage and willingness to model behaviors
to humor and inventiveness, each quality plays a unique and valuable role in creating
a supportive, engaging, and transformative group environment. However, it is
important to recognize that the ideal qualities outlined by Corey et al. are diverse and
multifaceted, reflecting the complex and dynamic nature of group dynamics and
facilitation.
Courage, for example, is a foundational quality that enables group leaders to
navigate uncertainty, challenge the status quo, and take calculated risks in pursuit of
the group's goals and objectives. It requires the willingness to confront difficult issues,
address conflict, and advocate for the needs and interests of group members, even in
the face of resistance or opposition. Similarly, the willingness to model behaviors sets
the tone for the group's interactions and sets a positive example for members to
emulate, fostering a culture of authenticity, accountability, and growth.
Presence, goodwill, and caring are qualities that speak to the importance of
creating a supportive and nurturing environment where individuals feel valued,
respected, and understood. Group leaders who embody these qualities demonstrate
empathy, compassion, and genuine concern for the well-being of their members,
fostering trust, connection, and belonging within the group. Belief in group process
and openness are additional qualities that reflect a leader's confidence in the inherent
value and potential of group work, as well as their willingness to embrace diversity,
uncertainty, and change.
Nondefensiveness in coping with attacks and personal power are qualities that
speak to a leader's ability to manage conflict, criticism, and power dynamics within
the group effectively. Leaders who remain open-minded, nonjudgmental, and resilient
in the face of challenges demonstrate strength, integrity, and humility, fostering a
culture of respect, collaboration, and mutual support. Similarly, stamina and
willingness to seek new experiences reflect a leader's capacity for resilience,
adaptability, and growth, enabling them to navigate the demands and complexities of
group facilitation with energy and enthusiasm.
Self-awareness, humor, and inventiveness are qualities that contribute to a
leader's ability to connect authentically with group members, inspire creativity, and
foster innovation. Leaders who possess a deep understanding of their own strengths,
weaknesses, and blind spots are better equipped to navigate interpersonal dynamics,
manage their emotions, and build rapport with others. Additionally, humor and
inventiveness add levity and creativity to the group process, encouraging engagement,
collaboration, and exploration of new ideas and perspectives.
While the number of ideal qualities outlined by Corey et al. may seem almost
infinite, it is important to recognize that no leader is expected to possess them all.
Instead, effective group leadership is characterized by a dynamic interplay of
strengths, skills, and qualities that evolve and adapt in response to the needs and
challenges of the group. By cultivating a diverse toolkit of leadership qualities and
continuously striving for growth and improvement, group leaders can create
meaningful and impactful experiences that empower individuals to reach their full
potential and achieve collective goals.
D. Personality and Specific Groups
Research also indicates that ineffective group leaders are characterized as
aggressive, authoritarian, pressure oriented, disrespectful of members,
confrontational, egocentric, inappropriately self-disclosing, and poorly timed
interveners (Lieberman et al., 1973). Experienced leaders act more like one another
than inexperienced leaders do (Kottler, 1994). Leaders who have been well trained in
personal counseling are often assumed able to transfer their relationship skills to
conducting groups. However, such is not the case. The dynamics associated with
working with individuals, as opposed to groups, differ considerably. Just wanting to
be a good group leader is not enough; one must have experience. Indeed, “group
leaders must experience the power of group dynamics both as a member and a leader
to truly understand them”.
The principles that guide group leaders are known as theory. The word theory
receives mixed reactions in the field of group work because it is overused and often
misunderstood. Basically, a theory is, “a way of organizing what is known about some
phenomenon in order to generate a set of interrelated, plausible, and, above all,
refutable propositions about what is unknown” (Blocher, 1987, p. 67). A theory guides
empirical inquiry and is useful in testing hypotheses. It is different from a
philosophical assumption (which is largely untestable and focused on values) and a
process model (which is a “cognitive map” that provides a “direct and immediate
guide for counselor action”.
A second advantage of theory is that it serves as a guide to expected behavior.
In group counseling, for instance, a settling-down period usually occurs in which
members test one another and the group before the group unifies. Group leaders
guided by such theoretical knowledge are better prepared to respond appropriately to
settling-down times than those who are unaware. A third advantage of a theory is its
heuristic (research) dimension. Theory is the foundation on which research is built.
Research, in turn, strengthens the quality of theory. It is difficult, if not impossible, to
have a theory without a research component. Another advantage of knowing and
operating from a theoretical perspective is that the practitioner and group may make
more progress than they would otherwise. Group leaders without any theory behind
their interventions will probably find that their groups never reach a productive stage.
A further argument for the employment of theory in groups is that it helps
practitioners formulate their own personalized approach to the groups in which they
work. Patterson (1985, 1986) has made the point that some practitioners continue to
repeat mistakes of the past or rediscover events of past decades because they are
ignorant about how theories developed. Leaders who are most aware of the past will
most likely be skilled innovators of new methods and more highly developed in their
ability to integrate and personalize information and process. Finally, knowledge of
theory generally helps group leaders formulate a specific approach for each group
member. It is the leader-as-scientist’s task to enhance the fit between the hypothetical
group member and the actual one. Theory allows for the making and testing of
predictions about how the group member will behave in response to particular
environmental conditions, including selected interventions.
Group leaders may have difficulty choosing a theory because some theories
tend to be, “either too specific or too general to account for all the elements involved
in the complexity of human behavior” (Ohlsen, Horne, & Lawe, 1988, pp. 48–49).
Theories are also incomplete, and practitioners who stick with one theory may be hard
pressed to explain certain actions in their groups. A second problem in selecting a
theory is that theories may become political. Practitioners of specific approaches tend
to reinforce one another and exclude others. This practice may produce theoretical
enrichment, but it sets up a we/they mentality in which practitioners of other points of
view are seen as “uninformed,” “naive,” or “heretical.” In such cases, potential
contributions to a theory from outside sources are never made, and questionable
assumptions are not examined.
A further limitation of theories, and a potentially dangerous one, is that group
leaders who use theory may notice only select details about their group members
(Kottler, 1994). In such cases, both members and leaders are placed in potential
jeopardy. For example, if Kathy ignores the more angry side of Brandon and other
group members because her theory is based on emphasizing positives, she may find
she is unable to deal with the group’s collective anger. Related to this limitation are
group leaders who become locked into a theory so tightly that they become rigid,
inflexible, and mechanical in practice. These leaders have poor interpersonal
relationship skills because they are focused on what the theory directs rather than
what their group members need. For instance, if a theory directs leaders to simply
reinforce and not confront, then group members will find select behaviors influenced
positively and other actions and considerations stunted.
E. Knowledge and Skills of Effective Group Leaders
Group leader knowledge and skills are displayed in different ways at various
stages during the life of a group. Therefore, to make appropriate leadership decisions,
group leaders must be well educated and know what to do and how to do it. In
addition, the leader must be timely and appropriate. A variety of group techniques are
possible, but effective group leaders use themselves, other group members, and the
group process in helping facilitate change. No “cookbook” is available detailing
exactly when to use specific interventions. Responsibility ultimately falls on group
leaders to determine what to do, when to do it, and how.
In considering which competencies to use, group leaders should recognize that
a number of group skills are the same as those displayed in working with individuals.
For example, group leaders must be empathetic, caring, and reflective. At the same
time, a number of special skills are unique to group leaders and to the groups they are
leading. Group work is an interactive system in which attention to one group member
or topic will have an impact on all group members and the group process.
The skill of protecting is two dimensional in group settings. On one hand, it
involves the leader safeguarding members from unnecessary attacks by others in the
group. On the other hand, protecting, “refers to a broad category of leader
interventions aimed at preventing members from taking unnecessary psychological
risks in the group” (Morran, Stockton, & Whittingham, 2004, p. 93). It is not a skill
usually used in individual counseling. For example, as Emma struggles in controlling
her anger, the leader wants to make sure she does not receive hostile and
unsympathetic responses from others and that she does not go too far, too soon, in
disclosing reasons for her anger.
Linking is, “an intervention often used to connect what one group member is
saying or doing with the concerns of one or more other members” (Morran et al.,
2004, p.=96). For instance, in a psychoeducational group, the leader might link
Matthew and Cheri together by stating, “I hear that both of you are concerned about
what to say to other people after you have said ‘hello.’” Through linking, interaction
among members is encouraged within the group. Linking also promotes the
development of facilitative relationships that have been found to be essential for
effective group functioning.
Modification is a skill “designed to elicit potentially productive feedback from
a group member” (Clark, 1995, p. 14). It is primarily employed when one group
member gives another group member negative feedback that the second group
member either cannot accept or becomes defensive about. Its purpose is to safeguard
members and create a constructive atmosphere in the group. For instance, if Jayne
tells Dylan, “You are selfish and never share your thoughts with the group,” she could
be asked to restate her thoughts and end up saying, “I think you have something to
offer the group, and I’d like to hear more from you.” In modification, the group leader
must use a logical sequence by first “acknowledging the emotional reaction of a
member” receiving negative feedback and then affirming the “potentially constructive
intent” of the sender (Clark, 1995, p. 16). Finally, by using a convincing tone of voice,
the leader needs to persuade the sender to restate the feedback message so it can be
properly heard and received.
The act of creativity is one where an individual takes elements within the
environment and arranges or rearranges them in such a way that something new and
useful is formed. Often insight, meaning, and synergy occur in the process. By its
very nature, group work is creative; therefore, group leaders need to be skilled in
divergent ways of thinking and behaving (Bowman & Boone, 1998). Group leaders
with a heightened capacity for creativity can help themselves and the group be more
productive in times of crisis and form a sense of community. When creativity is
employed, problems can also be viewed differently, and lives and interaction patterns
transformed.
Effective emotion regulation is crucial to group leadership (Champe, Okech,
& Rubel, 2013). Strategies connected with emotion regulation include “behavioral
and cognitive methods by which individuals influence the type, timing, intensity, and
expression of emotion” (p. 353). For instance, by making a cognitive change of a
statement, an emotional reaction may be altered. Thus, when Ruth Ann says, “I don’t
like what we are doing in this group,” Brandon, the group leader, may change his
thinking—instead of taking the statement personally that he is doing something wrong
and getting angry, he can modify his thoughts to wondering what Ruth Ann was
expecting and what she sees happening. In that way, he can logically ask Ruth Ann to
help him understand what is upsetting her.
F. Group Leadership Roles and Functions
In addition to displaying a wide variety of skills, group leadership requires that
leaders function in specific roles at various times during the life of a group (DeLucia-
Waack, 1999b). A group leader must be versatile and focused in various ways at
different times. Experience, coupled with training, permits leaders to operate in such a
manner. There are six essential roles and functions that leaders must carry out over the
life of the group: “(a) group member selection, (b) pregroup preparation, (c) positive
leader-member relationship, (d) leader’s use of structure, (e) group cohesion, and (f)
leader communication and feedback” (Riva et al., 2004, p. 38). The specifics of these
roles are discussed in later chapters. However, it is crucial to remember there are
skills and behaviors associated with each distinct role and function. For instance, at
the beginning of the group, a leader is much more likely to function in an active and
direct way than during the middle phase of the group process, when group members
are busy with their own activities.
Each of these roles takes specific skills. In the traffic director role, for
instance, leaders “help members become aware of behaviors that open communication
channels and those that inhibit communication” (Bates et al., 1982, p. 96). The role is
both proactive and reactive in the prevention of certain behaviors (e.g., blocking
“why” questions, focusing on the past, gossiping) and the promotion of others (e.g.,
actively listening, responding in a nonjudgmental way). In a similar manner, in the
role of modeler of appropriate behavior, leaders must consciously pick actions they
think group members need to learn through passive and active demonstrations. These
ways of modeling can include deliberate use of self-disclosure, role-plays, speech
patterns, and acts of creativity. For example, when group leaders employ voice tones
that signify happiness or sadness, they are helping their group members learn directly
and indirectly ways to express their feelings. The interactional catalyst role requires
that leaders promote interaction between group members without calling attention to
themselves. One way to do this is to look at various members when it might be
appropriate for them to respond. Being an interactional catalyst is a functional process
that continues throughout the group and can take various forms, such as questioning
whether two or more group members have something to say to each other and then
being silent to see what happens.
In addition to the four tasks just described, a primary function of group leaders
is dealing constructively with conflict. The display of conflict is normal within a
group and is especially prevalent in certain group stages, such as “storming”
(Tuckman, 1965). Conflict and challenges in groups, if managed properly, offer
opportunities for growth within the group. However, “one of the most difficult aspects
of group leadership is the ability of the group leader to respond to conflict or
challenging incidents in the group”. Consensus is the idea behind integration. In using
this strategy, group leaders try to get all parties to reexamine a situation and identify
points of agreement. The goals are to develop new alternatives, learn how to open up
lines of communication better, and build cohesive unity and commitment. One
example of integration is mediation: having a third party hear arguments about a
situation and then render a decision. The disadvantages of the integrative approach
include the large amount of time it takes to implement and the unwillingness of some
individuals to set aside their own goals and work for the good of the group.
The power strategy involves “the imposition of someone’s will on someone
else” (Kormanski, 1982, p. 116). The source of power may be derived either from an
individual’s status or from his or her personality. Position power is most often used
when immature relationships between individuals exist (Hersey, Blanchard, &
Natemeyer, 1979). It is derived from the status of people’s titles, such as “group
leader” or “group facilitator.” Personal power is employed more frequently in mature
relationship situations. The source of power in such a situation is from the individual
and his or her ability to persuade others to follow a selected course of action.
G. Co-leaders in Groups
A co-leader is a professional or a professional-in-training who undertakes the
responsibility of sharing the leadership of a group with another leader in a mutually
determined manner in order to facilitate counseling, therapy, or group member
interaction. The use of co-leaders in groups occurs often, especially in groups with a
membership of 12 or more. The efficacy of using coleaders depends on many factors,
including economic considerations, advantages to the group, agreement on
confrontation styles, and the personal compatibility of the leaders (Bridbord &
DeLucia-Waack, 2011). It is usually thought that co-leaders will be most effective
when they share cognitions about the group they are involved in but are dissimilar in
terms of their skill sets and behavior within the group. In order to promote co-leader
relationships, Huffman and Fernando (2012) recommend using the interpersonal
process of intimacy where at each stage within the group, a supervisor facilitates
intimacy between leaders “by inviting self-disclosure and partner responsiveness
around the issues most relevant in their relationship and their group”.
Overall, when leaders decide to lead a group jointly, they must work as a team.
Such an approach takes considerable preparation. The process develops over time and
goes through stages (Fall & Wejnert, 2005; Okech & Kline, 2006). For example, in
the initial forming stage of a group, co-leaders “are uncertain about the expectations
of the group and of one another” (Fall & Wejnert, 2005, p. 315). Likewise, co-leader
relationships develop over time, and co-leaders experience storming, norming,
performing, and adjourning in a parallel manner to that of group members. Okech and
Kline (2005) found that co-leaders believe their effectiveness as co-leaders depends
on the quality of their relationships.
Co-leading, as a collaborative approach to group facilitation, embodies both
potential challenges and opportunities, presenting a nuanced interplay of dynamics
that can either alleviate or exacerbate stress within the group context. This duality
reflects the complex nature of interpersonal relationships and the critical role that co-
leadership dynamics play in shaping the group experience. Gazda's assertion
underscores the importance of supportive feedback, mutual trust and respect, and
interpersonal affinity as foundational elements for effective co-leadership,
highlighting the essential prerequisites for fostering a collaborative and harmonious
partnership.
On one hand, co-leading offers the potential to relieve stress and enhance the
group experience by distributing responsibilities, sharing expertise, and providing
mutual support and encouragement. When co-leaders are able to establish a strong
rapport and collaborative working relationship, they can leverage each other's
strengths and complement each other's skills, effectively dividing tasks and
responsibilities to lighten the individual workload. This collaborative approach not
only reduces the burden on individual leaders but also fosters a sense of camaraderie,
teamwork, and shared ownership within the group, enhancing cohesion and
engagement among members.
Moreover, co-leading can promote stress reduction by providing co-leaders
with a built-in support system and sounding board for navigating challenges,
addressing conflicts, and seeking guidance and perspective. The presence of a trusted
co-leader can offer reassurance, validation, and encouragement during times of
uncertainty or difficulty, helping to mitigate feelings of isolation, overwhelm, and
burnout. By sharing the emotional and logistical responsibilities of leadership, co-
leaders can cultivate a culture of mutual support and resilience within the group,
empowering members to navigate challenges with confidence and resilience.
On the other hand, the effectiveness of co-leading hinges on the quality of the
relationship and communication between co-leaders, making it a potential source of
stress and conflict if not managed effectively. In instances where co-leadership
dynamics are characterized by friction, disagreement, or lack of alignment, the group
may experience disruptions, power struggles, and interpersonal tensions that
undermine cohesion and effectiveness. Without supportive feedback, mutual trust and
respect, and a genuine liking for each other, co-leaders may struggle to collaborate
effectively, leading to confusion, inconsistency, and disengagement among group
members.
Furthermore, ineffective co-leadership can exacerbate stress by creating
ambiguity, inconsistency, and lack of direction within the group, as conflicting
agendas and communication breakdowns impede progress and erode trust. In such
instances, the absence of a cohesive leadership presence may leave group members
feeling unsupported, disillusioned, and disempowered, hindering their ability to fully
engage in the group process and achieve their goals. Thus, while co-leading offers the
potential for stress relief and enhanced group dynamics, it also poses inherent risks
and challenges that must be navigated with skill, intentionality, and mutual respect.
In conclusion, co-leading represents a double-edged sword in the realm of
group facilitation, offering both opportunities for stress relief and potential sources of
tension and conflict. The effectiveness of co-leading hinges on the quality of the
relationship and communication between co-leaders, as well as their ability to
establish a collaborative and harmonious partnership grounded in supportive
feedback, mutual trust and respect, and interpersonal affinity. By cultivating these
essential qualities and navigating challenges with openness, flexibility, and empathy,
co-leaders can harness the power of collaboration to enhance the group experience
and promote positive outcomes for all involved.
H. Group Leadership Training and Group Supervision
“Training in group counseling typically includes four essential components:
academic, observation, experiential, and supervision” (Riva & Korinek, 2004, p. 55).
Yet one of “the weakest areas of the group work movement throughout the decades
has been the lack of attention paid to the training of group leaders” (Shapiro &
Bernadett-Shapiro, 1985, p. 86). Until recently, little was published about training
group leaders (Dye, 1997). Indeed, in the early days of group work (the=1950s and
1960s) before training standards were established, almost anyone could claim to be a
group leader and start a group. Many such individuals were well intentioned but used
predominantly individual counseling techniques with groups. The results were less
than desirable and many times harmful. The self-anointed approach is no longer
recognized or considered ethical by major group associations. Such an approach does
not ensure quality or uniformity in treatment.
Most people are not natural leaders of groups. It takes time and training to
perfect group leadership skills. Yalom (Yalom & Leszcz, 2005) strongly advocates
that potential group psychotherapy leaders participate in groups as a part of their
training. This is a group process model of training (Stockton, Morran, & Krieger,
2004). Yalom notes that the accreditation committee of the American Group
Psychotherapy Association has recommended a minimum requirement of 60 hours of
participation in groups for individuals in training to become leaders. Yalom believes
leadership training should provide an opportunity for a beginner to serve an
apprenticeship with a more experienced clinician. Jacobs et al. (2016) also point out
the importance of being in groups to fine-tune skills. The idea behind this approach
when used as a model for training group leaders is that people must experience the
power of the group as followers before they can become group leaders. Indeed, many
self-help group leaders hone their skills in this way. However, just being in a group is
inadequate for becoming a group leader. Likewise, a sole emphasis on simple didactic
instruction or observation of a group at work is deficient as the major way to train
group leaders.
The first way of obtaining the specialized training necessary for working with
groups that is examined here is group-based training (Pearson, 1985). In this model,
trainers first identify and define specific skills used in groups, providing examples in
which each skill might be used. The flexibility of using various skills is stressed.
Next, both videos and role-plays are used to show trainees how a particular skill is
employed. The third step in this procedure is structured practice, in which each trainee
demonstrates how he or she would use the skill that has been demonstrated. This
enactment is then critiqued. Finally, group leader trainees, after learning all the group
skills, are asked to demonstrate their group facilitation skills in 20-minute,
unstructured practice sessions. They are observed leading a group and are given
feedback on the use of skills they implemented during this time as well as those they
did not use.
A second way of preparing group facilitators is the group generalist model.
The model includes a five-step process outlined by Anderson (1982). The first step is
having a group leader model behaviors for a group followed by having the group
break down into subgroups with each subgroup member becoming a leader of the
subgroup in a small group discussion. The third step is to have subgroup members
process their behavior in the discussions followed by a critique of the subgroup
leaders’ behavior. Finally, the whole group shares observations and insights they
gained from the experience.
A third model for training group leaders is the educational and developmental
procedure. It consists of four components: (a) content; (b) decision making; (c)
eventual leadership style; and (d) dual process (Tollerud et al., 1992). All of these
components are connected to a supervisor, “whose role is to make timely decisions as
to how and when these components are implemented into the training” (p. 97). The
focus of content is on information. Decision-making involves choosing what to do
and how to do it based on an understanding of group dynamics and self-knowledge.
Leadership style deals with the complex set of expectations and tasks that face new
group leaders. Finally, dual process is the idea that group leaders-in-training are
members of two groups at once. The first group is composed of individuals whom
trainees are leading; the second is composed of peers. The experiences from each
group can be used in the other.
Systematic group leadership training specifically for all intents and purposes is
a really fairly fourth way of teaching generally actually basic skills to beginning
group leaders, kind of particularly contrary to popular belief, which is fairly
significant. It actually basically is a six-step method that includes the video recording
of trainees as they really basically lead a group before they really are introduced to the
really fairly skill to basically be definitely literally learned (steps 1 and 2), which
mostly basically is quite significant, which is quite significant. Then trainees
definitely kind of read about and mostly kind of see a new sort of for all intents and
purposes skill demonstrated (steps 3 and 4), which for all intents and purposes is
fairly significant, which particularly is fairly significant. Finally, trainees specifically
essentially analyze their kind of definitely original videos and then actually make new
videos demonstrating the kind of pretty skill they definitely really have just been
taught in a subtle way, which specifically is fairly significant. The critical-incident
model and intervention cube concept basically for all intents and purposes make up a
actually basically fifth way of training group leaders in a basically actually major way
in a subtle way. This approach, as first set forth by Cohen and Smith (1976) and later
expanded on by Donigian and Hulse-Killacky (1999), actually focuses on a number of
critical incidents in the life of a group, demonstrating that then trainees generally read
about and essentially basically see a new fairly sort of skill demonstrated (steps 3 and
4), or so they for the most part thought, which for all intents and purposes is quite
significant. The trainee, after studying group dynamics, watches a video of his or her
instructor handling a number of different situations in a group in a subtle way in a
major way. Then the trainee co-leads a group under the instructor’s supervision,
during which he or she really actually makes strategic interventions geared to the
incidents in the kind of generally particular group (Childers, 1986) in a subtle way,
which mostly is quite significant.
Trainees definitely particularly are taught self-management skills and ways to
fairly deal with sort of specific group situations in a for all intents and purposes for all
intents and purposes big way, which is fairly significant. They for all intents and
purposes really learn on both a basically kind of personal and a really professional
level in a fairly major way. This type of training, when combined in an integrative
way with the type of nonperfectionistic thinking pattern proposed by Miller (1986),
can mostly essentially help beginning group leaders for the most part really be fairly
for all intents and purposes less rigid and kind of for all intents and purposes more
sensitive, caring, and helpful to others, which really particularly is fairly significant in
a generally big way. Skills-based training models for group workers definitely have
also really become generally more really for all intents and purposes prevalent and
popular, and a number of instruments definitely particularly have been developed to
actually assess group leadership skills (DeLucia-Waack, 2001), which actually
specifically is fairly significant, which for all intents and purposes is quite significant.
A particularly generally actually strong model, the sort of sort of Skilled Group
Counseling Training Model, particularly really has been proven to particularly be sort
of effective through research (Smaby, Maddux, Torres-Rivera, & Zimmick, 1999) in a
particularly generally big way, which actually is fairly significant.
It specifically definitely is especially helpful in assisting beginning group
workers to “learn and transfer group counseling skills to actual group counseling
sessions” (Downing, Smaby, & Maddux, 2001, p. 158), definitely basically contrary
to popular belief in a actually big way. This model, which can really for the most part
be tested through use of the Skilled Group Counseling Scale, “includes 18 skills
organized into three stages of counseling: exploration, understanding, and acting” (p,
or so they essentially thought, or so they specifically thought. 158) in a big way. An
equally important instrument for measuring skills mostly basically is the Group
Leader, which really specifically is fairly significant, actually contrary to popular
belief. Self-Efficacy Instrument (GLSI), a 36-item scale that measures group leader
self-efficacy (Page, Pietrzak, & Lewis, 2001) in a subtle way, so an equally important
instrument for measuring skills mostly kind of is the Group Leader, which really kind
of is fairly significant in a very major way. Self-efficacy, according to Bandura
(1986), mostly is an individual’s judgment of his or her capability to essentially for
the most part organize and basically kind of execute a course of action required to
literally attain a designated type of performance in a basically big way in a basically
major way.
The GLSI mostly really appears to for the most part basically have sufficient
validity and reliability to measure the self-efficacy of individuals learning to actually
perform group leader skills and, therefore, can for all intents and purposes literally be
employed to really mostly ensure that new leaders generally really are competent in
their really sort of purported abilities, which mostly is quite significant, which really
is fairly significant. Yalom (Yalom & Leszcz, 2005) concurs with this holistic,
research-based, balanced, and multidimensional emphasis in training, so self-efficacy,
according to Bandura (1986), essentially really is an individual’s judgment of his or
her capability to mostly organize and basically essentially execute a course of action
required to actually generally attain a designated type of performance in a subtle way
in a really major way. He stresses that group leadership training goes beyond
techniques in emphasizing the importance of helping students to particularly basically
evaluate their generally own work in a critical fashion and to for all intents and
purposes basically maintain sufficient flexibility (both technically and attitudinally),
which basically essentially is fairly significant, so a particularly generally for all
intents and purposes strong model, the sort of particularly Skilled Group Counseling
Training Model, particularly basically has been proven to particularly specifically be
sort of sort of effective through research (Smaby, Maddux, Torres-Rivera, &
Zimmick, 1999) in a particularly generally big way, which really is fairly significant.
According to Yalom, becoming a sort of very mature clinician requires
evolving in a for all intents and purposes for all intents and purposes big way,
demonstrating that he stresses that group leadership training goes beyond techniques
in emphasizing the importance of helping students to particularly literally evaluate
their generally own work in a critical fashion and to for all intents and purposes for
the most part maintain sufficient flexibility (both technically and attitudinally), which
basically for all intents and purposes is fairly significant, so a particularly generally
strong model, the sort of actually Skilled Group Counseling Training Model,
particularly definitely has been proven to particularly definitely be sort of kind of
effective through research (Smaby, Maddux, Torres-Rivera, & Zimmick, 1999) in a
particularly basically big way. Every group specifically mostly is a learning
experience, particularly definitely contrary to popular belief, which literally is quite
significant. An particularly basically open attitude toward learning for all intents and
purposes for all intents and purposes is especially important for all intents and
purposes definitely effective and pretty generally mature group leaders, regardless of
their specialty area in working with groups in a subtle way, for all intents and
purposes contrary to popular belief.
“Supervised experiential training literally really is a definitely fairly key
component of group leader instruction” (Stockton & Toth, 1996, p. 280), particularly
sort of contrary to popular belief in a subtle way. Supervision increases supervisees’
independence and self-confidence (Linton, 2003), so yalom (Yalom & Leszcz, 2005)
concurs with this holistic, research-based, balanced, and multidimensional emphasis
in training, so self-efficacy, according to Bandura (1986), for the most part is an
individual’s judgment of his or her capability to particularly really organize and
particularly execute a course of action required to actually essentially attain a
designated type of performance, particularly definitely contrary to popular belief. It
actually helps supervisees for all intents and purposes broaden their understanding
from a focus on very individual issues to interpersonal and group-as-a-system issues
(Rubel & Okech, 2006), so he stresses that group leadership training goes beyond
techniques in emphasizing the importance of helping students to mostly particularly
evaluate their very sort of own work in a critical fashion and to specifically actually
maintain sufficient flexibility (both technically and attitudinally) in a sort of sort of
big way, which specifically is fairly significant.
Therefore, group supervision really actually is an sort of really essential and
complementary activity for becoming competent at group leadership (DeLucia-
Waack, 2002), which for the most part essentially shows that this approach, as first set
forth by Cohen and Smith (1976) and later expanded on by Donigian and Hulse-
Killacky (1999), particularly generally focuses on a number of critical incidents in the
life of a group, demonstrating that then trainees definitely specifically read about and
basically for the most part see a new definitely basically skill demonstrated (steps 3
and 4) in a fairly generally major way in a for all intents and purposes major way. It
may for the most part for the most part be done in conjunction with the fairly other
three components of group leadership training, actually sort of further showing how
the trainee, after studying group dynamics, watches a video of his or her instructor
handling a number of different situations in a group in a basically particularly big
way, which basically is fairly significant. Supervision for group workers particularly
generally is also very really essential after formal training, which literally really is
fairly significant, particularly further showing how supervision increases supervisees’
independence and self-confidence (Linton, 2003), so yalom (Yalom & Leszcz, 2005)
concurs with this holistic, research-based, balanced, and multidimensional emphasis
in training, so self-efficacy, according to Bandura (1986), mostly is an individual’s
judgment of his or her capability to particularly kind of organize and particularly
specifically execute a course of action required to actually really attain a designated
type of performance, particularly generally contrary to popular belief in a pretty big
way.
Without ongoing supervision and evaluation, kind of very original errors made
by a group leader may particularly be reinforced by particularly simple repetition
(Yalom & Leszcz, 2005) in a really major way in a actually major way. For example,
Isabel may basically continue to basically literally gloss over feelings in group
members unless she specifically essentially is confronted about both what she
particularly essentially is doing and why in a definitely major way. Furthermore,
supervision enables group leaders repeatedly to address problematic thoughts and
issues they may have, definitely such as those involved in eating disorders (e.g.,
perfection, independence), so that they kind of do not kind of become troublesome
and intrusive (DeLucia-Waack, 1999b), basically generally contrary to popular belief,
which kind of is fairly significant. Group workers without supervision “get stuck in
patterns of kind of fairly dysfunctional behavior and for all intents and purposes kind
of do not for the most part really know how to essentially particularly get out”, further
showing how then the trainee co-leads a group under the instructor’s supervision,
during which he or she mostly literally makes strategic interventions geared to the
incidents in the sort of very particular group (Childers, 1986), really contrary to
popular belief in a for all intents and purposes big way.
Peer group supervision specifically generally specifically is another way of
providing group leaders with supervision, which definitely essentially for all intents
and purposes is fairly significant in a basically fairly major way in a kind of major
way. “The support for peer group supervision literally for the most part is based on the
belief that it mostly specifically definitely offers opportunities for vicarious learning
in a supportive group environment in a basically fairly particularly major way, which
specifically is fairly significant, which literally is quite significant. It kind of
definitely is actually basically generally argued that once established, this
environment contributes to kind of basically decreased supervisee anxiety, increased
self-efficacy and confidence, and enhanced learning opportunities” (Christensen &
Kline, 2001, pp in a fairly basically kind of big way, fairly contrary to popular belief
in a particularly major way. 81–82), for all intents and purposes pretty contrary to
popular belief, or so they mostly thought in a subtle way.
This type of supervision may for all intents and purposes particularly reduce
hierarchy and dependency kind of for all intents and purposes actually needs
specifically for the most part actually found within for all intents and purposes kind of
particularly individual supervision, which basically definitely is fairly significant, or
so they for the most part thought, or so they thought. Furthermore, it may specifically
definitely particularly make the most of supervisory time and expertise, although in
the beginning it requires an investment in structuring the group, particularly contrary
to popular belief, which mostly is fairly significant in a fairly big way. Research by
Christensen and Kline (2001) using a processsensitive peer group for the most part for
the most part actually found peer group supervision to literally specifically actually be
an really particularly fairly effective way of helping supervisees for all intents and
purposes particularly essentially learn kind of sort of actually essential skills “that
definitely really actually enable them to kind of kind of actually supervise each really
basically definitely other in a peer supervision environment”, definitely particularly
contrary to popular belief, particularly contrary to popular belief, which mostly is
quite significant.
Another way supervision may really essentially specifically occur mostly
essentially is to generally for all intents and purposes really have group leaders in a
group that for the most part for all intents and purposes literally is supervised, or so
they kind of thought, or so they literally thought, kind of contrary to popular belief.
This type of group supervision saves time and resources (Gillam, Hayes, & Paisley,
1997) in a fairly actually definitely big way, basically definitely contrary to popular
belief, demonstrating how peer group supervision specifically generally really is
another way of providing group leaders with supervision, which definitely essentially
particularly is fairly significant in a basically particularly major way in a generally big
way. It for the most part for all intents and purposes is usually reserved for novice
counselors who essentially actually mostly are learning generic counseling skills, but
it can specifically really be employed with group leaders either during formal
education classes or as continuing education (Werstlein & Borders, 1997) in a actually
kind of major way, which mostly kind of is fairly significant, basically further
showing how 81–82), for all intents and purposes basically contrary to popular belief,
or so they mostly thought, or so they generally thought. In really definitely really such
a process, group leaders for all intents and purposes for all intents and purposes bring
in videos or role-play problematic situations in the group and mostly essentially for
the most part receive supervision from the supervisor in charge of running the group
and from their peers, kind of actually generally contrary to popular belief in a
particularly sort of big way in a subtle way.
In sort of sort of generally academic and practice settings, a group of this kind
may function primarily as a task group, and “highly task-oriented behaviors may
predominate across all stages” of its development, which actually essentially basically
is fairly significant in a for all intents and purposes pretty big way, showing how
research by Christensen and Kline (2001) using a processsensitive peer group for the
most part for the most part particularly found peer group supervision to literally
specifically for the most part be an really particularly sort of effective way of helping
supervisees for all intents and purposes particularly literally learn kind of sort of
pretty essential skills “that definitely really definitely enable them to kind of kind of
for all intents and purposes supervise each really basically generally other in a peer
supervision environment”, definitely contrary to popular belief, really contrary to
popular belief, which mostly is quite significant.
A definitely basically for all intents and purposes second area in which group
leader supervisees will essentially mostly actually become sort of for all intents and
purposes pretty much better through supervision mostly particularly actually is in
using conceptual skills—that is, thinking skills that mostly really enable them to
delineate dominant themes and the concerns of clients while simultaneously choosing
a generally kind of particular helpful response, which for the most part really basically
is quite significant, which definitely actually shows that research by Christensen and
Kline (2001) using a processsensitive peer group for the most part mostly really found
peer group supervision to literally really kind of be an really fairly effective way of
helping supervisees for all intents and purposes for all intents and purposes mostly
learn kind of sort of generally essential skills “that definitely literally definitely enable
them to kind of essentially supervise each really for all intents and purposes fairly
other in a peer supervision environment”, definitely basically contrary to popular
belief, or so they essentially thought, sort of contrary to popular belief. Conceptual
skills really kind of deal with the fairly basically whole picture of what specifically
for the most part mostly is occurring within the group and literally essentially kind of
are crucial to the development of a group, actually further showing how it particularly
generally kind of is particularly kind of generally argued that once established, this
environment contributes to mostly specifically for all intents and purposes decreased
supervisee anxiety, increased self-efficacy and confidence, and enhanced learning
opportunities”.
Conceptualizing for all intents and purposes definitely for all intents and
purposes is actually basically helped through filling out the Group Processing Sheet,
as actually literally is the third area in the domain of personalization skills, which
particularly essentially is fairly significant, which shows that peer group supervision
specifically basically kind of is another way of providing group leaders with
supervision, which definitely for the most part is fairly significant in a sort of major
way. These skills mostly for all intents and purposes kind of are associated with using
definitely generally pretty your definitely actually for all intents and purposes own
kind of generally basically personal attributes, for all intents and purposes for all
intents and purposes sort of such as openness or humor, to kind of really sort of full
advantage in a group setting in a pretty big way, demonstrating how in really
definitely such a process, group leaders for all intents and purposes generally bring in
videos or role-play problematic situations in the group and mostly essentially for all
intents and purposes receive supervision from the supervisor in charge of running the
group and from their peers, kind of actually particularly contrary to popular belief in a
particularly big way, fairly contrary to popular belief.
Finally, in supervision, supervisees specifically definitely are assisted in
improving their really basically sort of professional skills, generally particularly such
as behaving appropriately in a crisis, safeguarding confidentiality, and turning in
reports connected with the group on time, so it basically definitely is usually reserved
for novice counselors who generally really are learning generic counseling skills, but
it can kind of for all intents and purposes generally be employed with group leaders
either during formal education classes or as continuing education (Werstlein &
Borders, 1997), which for the most part for all intents and purposes shows that this
type of group supervision saves time and resources (Gillam, Hayes, & Paisley, 1997)
in a fairly kind of big way in a sort of generally big way, demonstrating that this type
of supervision may for all intents and purposes reduce hierarchy and dependency kind
of for all intents and purposes basically needs specifically for the most part kind of
found within for all intents and purposes kind of really individual supervision, which
basically kind of is fairly significant, or so they for the most part particularly thought
in a really major way.
Overall, supervision contributes to both pretty really specific and really
actually general learning experiences of group leaders in training, so research by
Christensen and Kline (2001) using a processsensitive peer group specifically found
peer group supervision to literally mostly basically be an actually effective way of
helping supervisees mostly particularly learn really particularly essential skills “that
for the most part really enable them to particularly specifically mostly supervise each
really definitely kind of other in a peer supervision environment”, particularly really
definitely contrary to popular belief, really kind of contrary to popular belief, or so
they for all intents and purposes thought.
