I also think that reason why people change in groups is because they are relating to topics covered in groups and they are understanding why they need to make changes. For some people Group is like a therapy group where you can say you troubles without being judge and sometimes you get a sense of belonging since you realized that you’re not the only one struggling. Another factor that I found interesting that the article mention was the instillation of hope, this is a factor that I fully believe in and that 100 percent think that it should be within every patient is the hope of getting better . Hope is not a factor only patient have but the group leader and or therapist or a family member and supporter they all need to have hope that the patient is going to get
Once Corporation ABC receives clarity from storming the group can now move into the third stage of group development, known as the norming stage. The norming stage is the time where the group becomes a cohesive unit. Morale is high as group members actively acknowledge and appreciate the talents, skills and experience that colleagues brings to the group. A sense of unity is established and the group remains focused on the group's purpose and mission. Members are flexible, interdependent and trust each other. Leadership is shared, and members are willing to adapt to the needs of the group. Information flows seamlessly and is uninhibited due to the sense of security members feel in the norming stage (Hartzell, S. (n.d.). Stages of group development:
I really enjoyed some of the points you made in your post. They got me to think about how the demonstration in the video could play out in the real world, and what challenges could come up preventing the successful resolution of conflict in group counseling. Jean and Mary Anny had a heated debate during the group, which Dr. Carroll allowed to go on for some time. Jean had expressed to the group her lack of trust in the group members, and Mary Ann turned this around and implied that she could not trust Jean either (Association for Specialists in Group Work, n.d.). Mary Ann’s response appeared to indicate something about Mary Ann herself, and the way she reacts to direct challenges or questions related to what she considers her
Right before I got out ofthe Army I hired onto an oilfield service company. A couple days after my last day in the service, I was going to work. I had no idea what I was getting myself into. At first I thought it was gonna be an easy trasistion to civiian life. My new job consisted on being on a rather large crew that had similar structure as the Field Artllery units that I had been in during my 10 year sentence in the Army. I was mistaken. The transistion sucked. The first thing that fucked me up was working with civilians as a civilian. Not just any ol' Joe dipstick civilians, but the God Bless Em' Oilfield hands. Oilfield folks are a breed of their own. I thought that half of them were on drugs and the other half were completely fucking crazy.
I learned that first hand in Group Dynamic’s. To work not only together as a group but individually. Our group has built cohesion. We all get along well, speak to one another with empathy and respect. Because we work well together there is no conflict which makes our group a well working group. There were no conflicts and if there was, I believe we would be able to address it in a positive manner as a group or by person to fix the issue at hand. An example that comes to mind is after the election for President we met at our regular day and time. Politics is a sensitive and personal subject for most people. When the topic came up from Georgia, not only did I not like the topic, but thought there may be some conflicts today with that subject. To my surprise, our group really spoke with concern and nobody was judged for their opinion. If anything, I think some people, like myself learned from the group discussion. I learned a lot from that group and to me that is
Reflecting on chapter 4, the chapter gave a different way of viewing groups. Many of the types of groups discussed in the chapter I was unfamiliar with such as an education group. However, I found the topic of treatment groups interesting. I view group work and support groups as an awesome asset to have access to as group work brings many common interest individuals together to support one another. Two of the treatment groups I read about that I found intriguing are support groups(Pg.139) and growth groups(Pg.141). Support groups are comprised of individuals that have similar walls of life with struggles they face or issues they have experienced. The support group supports and encourages emotional stability for each other through discussion
I have observed this specific group for three weeks and have noticed the positive impact that their optimistic behavior, advice, attitude, and respect towards one another has had on each of the members. Because of this impact, each of the group members feels very comfortable and safe to talk freely about very personal topics without fear of judgment. It also has been very beneficial that each of the members can relate to one another on some note. Because of this environment, each member continues to have positive change and growth in one another and
While stereotyped gender role allocations and a certain notion of the family were reinforced, social arrangements which differ from that notion, including women-headed sole parent families and other “disadvantaged” or “vulnerable” families, have been exempted from the category of “deserving.” Especially since the 1980s, welfare dependency has been problematised as the Australian welfare state experienced a significant transformation from a unique model called the “wage earners’ welfare state” to a liberal regime taking what Gøsta Esping-Andersen (1996) called “the neo-liberal route,” and state support for marginal families has been rolled back, as well as becoming more conditional, through the techniques of contractual arrangements (typically labelled as “mutual obligation”), “place-based” welfare, and payment systems linked to specific personal behaviour.
In Australia, the need for “a national family policy” was first discussed in the 1970s and has continuously been part of political agendas. Since the very beginning of the 1980s, both major political parties have implemented the “family” as a key element of their political campaigns, announcing a set of broad programs as policy for families with (young) children. Through those steps, the family has been designated as a “fundamental social institution,” especially in the light of its caregiving. This logic has principally supported the development of family policy, including the whole process of family policy discussion and implementation.