Week 6 - Analysis Of Interpersonal Groups During Weeks 2-7 ✓ Solved

Wk 6 - Analysis of Interpersonal Groups: During weeks 2-7 yo

Wk 6 - Analysis of Interpersonal Groups: During weeks 2-7 you will participate in an interpersonal group and write an analysis after each session. The purpose is to foster awareness and integration of group theory and leadership skills. Remain objective about your group. The analysis should clearly communicate how your group developed over time. Focus on: 1) changes in relationships; 2) interactions with the facilitator; 3) interactions among members; 4) power issues; 5) how conflict is addressed or avoided; 6) leader roles; 7) member roles; 8) therapeutic factors. Include discussion of your Conflict Management Styles Assessment results and how they influenced group process. Summarize key elements of the transition and working stages of group development, and answer session process questions: which conflict-style animal best describes the group, how conflict strategies impact group process, and what stage of development the group is in. Include at least 2 scholarly sources and format according to APA.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction

This analysis summarizes a six-week interpersonal group experience, integrating group theory and leadership concepts. It documents developmental changes over time, interactions with the facilitator and among members, power dynamics, conflict handling, leader and member roles, and therapeutic factors. The analysis also discusses the Conflict Management Styles Assessment results and locates the group in stages of development (Tuckman, 1965; Yalom & Leszcz, 2005).

Changes in Relationships Over Time

During the initial sessions members were tentative and primarily engaged in polite, surface-level exchanges (forming/transition phase). As sessions progressed, trust increased and interactions deepened: members disclosed more personal material, gave feedback, and offered constructive support. This movement from guarded interaction toward greater cohesion is consistent with research on group development where increased self-disclosure and mutual support mark the transition into a working stage (Tuckman, 1965; Forsyth, 2018). Observationally, several dyadic relationships strengthened; members who initially sat on the periphery became more vocal contributors, indicating shifting affiliative bonds and enhanced group cohesion (Yalom & Leszcz, 2005).

Interactions with the Facilitator

The facilitator adopted a primarily facilitative leadership style that balanced structure with encouragement for member-led segments (Northouse, 2021). The facilitator called on members to read and present material, encouraged sharing of assessment results, and intervened to maintain time and process focus. This supportive-directive approach promoted skill development and allowed members to practice leadership roles while keeping the group objectives clear (Corey & Corey, 2016). At points of emerging conflict, the facilitator modeled open inquiry and reframing, which reduced defensiveness and kept conversations productive (Yalom & Leszcz, 2005).

Interactions Among Members

Member-to-member interaction evolved from polite, task-oriented exchanges to authentic emotional engagement. Early sessions featured more informational exchanges; later sessions included peer feedback, encouragement, and gentle challenge. Members tended to validate others’ experiences and used active listening, which increased perceived safety and promoted risk-taking in sharing (Forsyth, 2018). There were informal leadership moments where members spontaneously supported one another’s reflections, demonstrating distributed leadership and peer influence.

Power Issues

Power dynamics were minimal and generally functional. The facilitator retained formal authority to structure sessions, but members shared influence through volunteer roles (e.g., summarizing sessions, leading readings). No overt power struggles occurred; however, subtle influence accrued to members who spoke more frequently and offered direction, creating an informal hierarchy of participation (Hackman, 2002). This pattern aligns with findings that groups often develop emergent leaders even when formal roles are assigned (Forsyth, 2018).

Conflict: Addressed or Avoided

Conflict in this group tended to be low-intensity and usually avoided direct confrontation. The most consistent tension involved time management and sessions running over time limits; members acknowledged this as a recurring logistical issue. When interpersonal friction surfaced, the facilitator and several members used collaborative problem-solving to negotiate solutions (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974). Overall, the group exhibited a preference for accommodating and compromising styles in emotional or time-related disagreements, with occasional collaborating when resolving process issues (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974).

Leader Roles

The facilitator implemented roles including agenda-setter, timekeeper, and process monitor. They prompted reflective discussion, invited quieter members to contribute, and maintained boundaries to keep the group on task. At times, the facilitator deliberately transferred responsibility for portions of the session (reading assignments, summarizing) to members as a developmental strategy, promoting member ownership and leadership skills (Northouse, 2021; Corey & Corey, 2016).

Member Roles

Members assumed roles such as active contributors, supporters, skeptics, and occasional observers. Some members frequently took on organizer roles (summarizing sessions, facilitating exercises), while others served as reflective listeners. Role flexibility was notable; members shifted roles depending on topic, comfort level, and session needs. This flexibility supported group resilience and task completion (Forsyth, 2018).

Therapeutic Factors

Several of Yalom’s curative factors were evident: cohesion (group bonding and mutual support), universality (recognition of shared experiences), altruism (members helping each other), and catharsis (expressive disclosure leading to relief) (Yalom & Leszcz, 2005). The group also provided corrective interpersonal experiences: members practiced assertiveness and received corrective feedback in a supportive environment. Psychoeducation and modeling by the facilitator and peers contributed to imparting information and instillation of hope (Yalom & Leszcz, 2005).

Conflict Management Styles Assessment and Influence

My Conflict Management Styles Assessment results indicated a primary preference for collaborating and a secondary preference for compromising. This predisposition encouraged open dialogue and solution-focused discussions in the group, fostering inclusive problem-solving and reducing escalation (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974). Members with accommodating tendencies helped preserve relational harmony, while those with competing tendencies sometimes expedited decision-making when needed. Awareness of these styles allowed the facilitator to tailor interventions—encouraging collaborating when complex relational issues emerged and using compromising to resolve time conflicts quickly (Johnson & Johnson, 2005).

Stage of Development and Session Process Reflections

By week six, the group was predominantly in the transition-to-working phase, moving toward stable working behaviors: increased trust, deeper emotional exploration, and coordinated problem-solving (Tuckman, 1965; Forsyth, 2018). If the group were described as an animal from the Conflict Management Styles Assessment, it would resemble the "Fox" (compromising) with elements of the "Owl" (collaborating), reflecting moderate concern for both relationships and goals (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974). This hybrid style supported progress while maintaining cohesion.

Conclusion

The interpersonal group matured over six weeks through increasing cohesion, role sharing, and constructive conflict handling. Facilitator practices that balanced structure and member empowerment proved effective in moving the group into productive working processes. Continued attention to time management, explicit negotiation of roles, and intentional use of collaborating strategies will help the group sustain working-stage behaviors and deepen therapeutic gains (Corey & Corey, 2016; Yalom & Leszcz, 2005).

References

• Adkins, R. (n.d.). Elemental Truths. (Source referenced in assignment materials.)
• Corey, M. S., & Corey, G. (2016). Groups: Process and practice (10th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Forsyth, D. R. (2018). Group dynamics (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Harvard Business Review Press.
• Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Creative controversy: Intellectual challenge in the classroom. Interaction Book Company.
• Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and practice (8th ed.). Sage Publications.
• Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. Xicom.
• Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399.
• Yalom, I. D. (1995). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (4th ed.). Basic Books.
• Bion, W. R. (1961). Experiences in groups. Tavistock Publications.