Answer

1. • Group Work in Social Work

     Human beings are social creatures that tend to spend significant portions of their lives in groups. In his insightful book, Group Dynamics, Forsyth (2014) comments on the extraordinary rarity of people who have zero connections to other individuals. Inasmuch as people pursue personal goals, they tend to exist in groups that influence their lives with respect to guidance, sustenance, and constraint. A social worker ought to be familiar with vital group dynamics such as their nature, characteristics, types, significance, and purpose so as to deliver high-end services to their clientele (Barsky & Nothern 2017). The preceding claim is grounded on the notion that social work involves dealing with people; hence, the most effective way of enhancing these interactions is a critical exploration of the role groups play in individual lives (Lee 2018). It suffices to add that groups affect both one-on-one and group sessions between social workers and their clients. Given such a scenario, rational anticipation of ethical issues during such interactions is not far-fetched. When dealing with groups, social workers are bound to experience dilemmatic ethical challenges since each person in a group, including the social worker, has personal attributes and goals which tend to diverge from the general group purpose. For this reason, the Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW) developed a code of ethics to guide practitioners during such times. Ethical standards and principles presented by AASW are instrumental in mitigating and resolving retrogressive ethical issues that tend to emerge in social work group practice. In the wake of such a realization, the present essay offers an in-depth introduction into group practice in social work. Sufficient emphasis is placed on ethical practice in the same.

      

     Understanding Group Dynamics

     On the surface, the term ‘group’ is used to describe a human gathering involving two or more people. While this definition remains true, it disregards a broad range of factors that shed light on this matter. Forsyth (2014) acknowledges the needed levels of sophistication when it comes to groups in social work when he highlights a number of central features which define a group. According to him, a group is determined by social categorization, communication, influence, interaction, interdependence, interrelations, psychological value, need satisfaction, shared identity/tasks/goals, size, structure, unity, systems, and relations. McDermott (2003) affirms Forsyth’s argument by asserting that human gatherings, physical or online, cannot be categorized as groups until they have common goals, interaction, interdependence, structure, and cohesion. All of these features are present in groups across the globe since members seek affiliation for the sake of personal gain. This sentiment is quite true since most if not all interesting, entertaining, value-driven and influential human activities occur when people operate in groups. For a social worker, such an interesting reality implies that a person’s groupings play pivotal roles in shaping his or her personal characteristics and culture.

     Types of Groups

     There are four key types of groups that define interpersonal relationships between two or more people. The first type is ‘primary’, and it is characterized by a small size, and long-term, high-frequency interactions between/among members. Such groups often include couples, families, close friends, military squads, and gangs. It is important to note that such groups often have a high sense of loyalty. Meanwhile, ‘social’ groups are also small, but, unlike the primary type, they exist in moderation. This implies that both their duration of existence and the levels of interaction among the members are quite moderate. Brandler and Roman (2015) remark that they are usually goal-oriented. Common social groups include crews, fraternities, task forces, expeditions, study groups, and sports teams. Another fundamental type of groups is known as ‘collectives’. Here, people unite for brief periods, with little to no bonds. Forsyth (2014) lists audiences, crowds, queues, mobs, and bystanders as examples of this type of group. Last but not least, ‘categories’ is also considered a type of group. Noteworthy is the fact that this aggregation of individuals often involves people with similarities in matters pertaining to gender, religion, ethnicity, profession, nationality, or political affiliation among others. Common examples of these groups include African Americans, men, women, children, Americans, physicians, engineers, and artists such as the impressionist group. Social workers need to understand the types of groups in which their clients are affiliated to enhance their service delivery. Evidently, people in different groups have different needs, so, clarity at this point allows social workers to fine tune their service with regards to the same. This approach is in line with the fourth principle of social work practice as it mandates workers to adjust their behavior to their understanding of the group’s attributes/behavior. For instance, a broken family in need of therapy sessions is categorized under the ‘primary type’. Since the practitioner knows that individuals in such a setting need strong bonds characterized by affection and loyalty, he/she is in a better position to diagnose their problem, then emerge with a convenient intervention.

     Group Purpose

     As mentioned in the preceding section, each group has unique needs. For instance, a study group is united by the need to learn and enhance its members’ academic outcomes on an individual level. This shared need is often instrumental in defining the purpose of a group. Lee (2017) partakes in this discourse by claiming that success in group work necessitates clarity of purpose. He goes ahead to define purpose as the end goals pursued by each member collectively. This definition is further enhanced by Kelly (2017) when he terms it as the targets and destination of an initiative. The Alcoholics Anonymous offers an illustrious case of a social group formed with the aim of resolving alcohol addiction among its members for the betterment of their lifestyles. Noteworthy is the clarity of purpose in AA, and how it has allowed the initiative to establish its footprints in the lives of addicts for almost a century now. This kind of success is largely attributable to the clear purpose which is denoted in its famous mission statement “stay sober and help other alcoholics achieve sobriety” (Kelly 2017). Social workers often seek explicit objectives when dealing with such groups since the purpose serves as a cornerstone for commitment and investment. It is fair to add that clarity in this regard enhances conflict resolution processes given the fact that people tend to differ at some point when operating in groups.

     Stages of Group Development

     Regardless of the difference in types and purpose of groups, the stages of development are believed to be somewhat similar across the scope. Forsyth (2014) defines give primary stages of group development based on Tuckman’s theory. According to the theorist, this process involves orientation, conflict, structure, performance, and dissolution (Forsyth 2014). During orientation, members of a group exchange personal information regarding their backgrounds. These members engage in a process where they form a group despite high levels of uncertainty. Communication at this level is highly tentative following the lack of trust among members. The second stage is often characterized by conflict since each member is compelled to embrace a new reality which might differ from his or her perceptions (Gitterman & Schulman 2005). For this reason, the group records a lot of disagreements and dissatisfaction among members: individuals with similar opinions tend to form cliques. As the members continue to interact, the desired structure begins to emerge. At this point, members understand that persistent conflict will curtail their progress, so they agree on procedures, roles, and standards. This phase is usually characterized by cohesiveness and improved communication. The social worker’s role as a facilitator should not get in the way of structure formation. Once the structure is in place, the group members focus on their performance. Now that each member has agreed to the standards, procedures, and rules, they are in a convenient position to utilize collective effort in the implementation of both individual and group tasks. As soon as tasks are complete, the group is dissolved. This stage of dissolution involves a decline in inter-personal dependence, withdrawal, and departures. It appears wise to highlight that primary groups tend to continue existing beyond the social work intervention since the members have strong bonds that transcend across time and distance.

     Ethical Social Work in the Group Context

     By now, it is obvious that group dynamics are useful in defining a social worker’s approach to a group. Such a strong postulation is deeply ingrained in the facts that different groups have unique needs, and the worker’s role is to utilize the knowledge to transform his/her practice. Karl Marx’s conflict theory acknowledges the differences between human beings and societies at large (Lee 2018). These differences often make it hard for people to get along, even when operating in groups. As a social worker, one ought to realize that all groups are distinct inasmuch as they share certain attributes. Such a scenario serves as a hotbed of conflict when interpersonal interactions are in play. 

     In the wake of such a realization, social workers are expected to adhere to a set of professional guidelines that help them avoid or resolve such conflict in an ethical manner. The Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW) presented a set of principles in its 2008 constitution to guide practitioners within the country. These values advocated for equality when dealing with different people, commitment to democracy, respect for others, collaboration, responsibility, diversity, human rights promotion, and high quality service provision. When taken into perspective, it is obvious that social workers are expected to demonstrate utmost professionalism and ethical soundness in group work. 

     In their informative work, Corey, Corey, and Callanan (2007) urge practitioners to implement a recommended set of techniques during group work. According to the authors, group activity must be in line with its mission. This recommendation explains why it is crucial to define a clear purpose prior to any group operations. The purpose is designed to guide practitioners when setting activities. Also, the social worker should facilitate understanding and self-exploration. The ninth principle of AASW Code of Ethics advocates for autonomy; thus, social workers should encourage all participants to voice their concerns and operate voluntarily. This approach allows members to feel connected to the group. 

     Corey, Corey, and Callanan (2007) also advice practitioners to create activities that are unique to the situation. This recommendation is in line with the fifth principle of the AASW Code of Ethics, which holds that everyone is unique (AASW 2010). The case of a probation officer engaging his group members in community service appears illustrious. Such a move is unique to the members’ situation since they need to be busy doing meaningful activities to avoid temptations and social pressures that will drive them back to their past actions (Doel 2019). Cultural relevance is another crucial aspect of social work group activities. Practitioners are expected to engage their members in a manner that incorporates their unique differences. The seventh and tenth principles of AASW Code of Ethics advocate for diversity and community-centered efforts. When viewed from this point, Corey, Corey, and Callanan’s (2007) recommendation employs social workers to maintain cultural sensitivity in their practice to avoid unwarranted conflict. Clearly, professional ethical practice is fundamental in effective social work. A competent practitioner understands that each person/group has unique differences that ought to be taken into account to allow free expression in pursuit of collective goals.

     Conclusion

     Social workers dealing with groups face immense challenges given the fact that groups are as different as they are similar. Such a paradoxical scenario is inspired by a broad range of factors including the types of groups, their purpose, stages of development, and characteristics of the members. The Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW) offers a set of guidelines to ensure that clients are treated with respect, fairness and equality regardless of the differences. Such a professional approach by social workers is crucial in preventing and resolving unwarranted conflicts. Karl Marx’s conflict theory plays an instrumental role in this discourse as it acknowledges the inherent differences that define individuals and societies. Social workers who understand these differences are in a better position to utilize them in the enhancement of client experience.