While I blog away, WordPress counts things. I don’t exactly understand how it works, but apparently my little blog just passed the 1.0 million visitor and 1.5 million views thresholds. Wow.
You may be wondering, what does passing that million-visitor pinnacle mean, and why is JSF sharing about his blogging achievements?
The answer to that important question is: All this means it’s time to celebrate!
In honor of this blogging achievement, I’m doing what bloggers are supposed to do. I’m honoring my million visitors by giving out five free books.
To “win” a book, all you have to do is post here, a nice, supportive, celebratory comment of at least 20 words about this blog. If you’re one of the first five to post a comment in response to this historic blog celebration, you should also email me your best mailing address. Then, if you’re quick at the blog commenting draw, in the next couple weeks, you will receive one shiny new copy of the exciting thriller titled, “Suicide Assessment and Treatment Planning: A Strengths-Based Approach” by John and Rita Sommers-Flanagan.
Thanks for following and reading my blog. Today’s news means, quite literally, that “You are one in a million!”
I very much appreciate your support. I hope you’ve enjoyed, or appreciated, or at least not hated my idiosyncratic and sometimes irreverent posts.
In my Group Counseling class, I’ve experienced predictable questioning of or resistance to evidence-based happiness ideas from positive psychology. . . and so I wrote out some of my thoughts . . . which went on and on and ended with a video clip.
Hello Group Class,
I’m writing my group takeaway to your all this week. Feel free to read at your leisure . . . or not at all . . . because I’m a writer and obviously, sometimes I get carried away and write too much.
When I responded to a question last week expressing reservations about the use of positive psychology—perhaps generally and perhaps more specifically with oppressed populations—I launched into a psychoeducational lecture. Upon reflection, I wish I had been more receptive to the concerns and encouraged the class as a group chew on the pros and cons of positive psychology in general and positive psychology with oppressed populations, in particular. I suspect this would have been an excellent discussion.
Given that we have limited time for discussion in class, I’ll share more reflections on this topic here.
1. The concerns that were expressed (and others have expressed in your takeaways) are absolutely legitimate. I’m glad you all spoke up. Some people have used positive psychology as a bludgeon (claiming things like “happiness is a choice”) in ways that make people feel worse about themselves. Never do that!
2. Positive psychology is poorly named (even the great positive psych researcher, Sonja Lyubomirsky, hates the name). Among its many naming problems, the word positive implies that it’s better, preferable, and the opposite of negative—which must then be the correct descriptor for all other psychology. None of this is true; positive psychology is not “better” and, in fact, it’s not even exclusively positive.
3. The point of positive psychology is not to “take over” psychology, but to balance our focus from being nearly always on psychopathology, to being equally about strengths, joy, happiness, etc., and psychopathology. If you think of it as an effort to balance how we work with individuals, it makes more sense. The point isn’t, and never has been, that we should only focus on positive mental health regardless of how our clients and students are feeling. That would be silly and insensitive.
4. As someone reminded me in the takeaways, the sort of happiness we focus on in positive psych is called eudaimonic happiness. This term comes from Aristotle. It refers to a longer form of happiness that emphasizes meaning, interpersonal connection, and finding the sweet spot where our own virtues intersect with the needs of the community. The other side of happiness is referred to as “hedonic” happiness. Hedonic happiness is more about hedonism, which involves immediate pleasure and material acquisitions. Nearly everyone in positive psychology advocates primarily for eudaimonic happiness, but also recognizes that we all usually need some pleasure as well.
5. Individuals and groups who have been historically (and currently) oppressed are naturally sensitive to coercion, judgment, and possibility of repeated oppression. What this means for counselors (among many things) is that we need to careful, sensitive, and responsive to their needs and not our assumptions of their needs. They may appreciate us being positive and supportive. Or they may appreciate us explicitly acknowledging their pain and affirming the legitimacy of the reasons for their pain. There’s substantial research indicating that certain ethnic group expect counselors to be experts and offer guidance. If that’s the case, should we avoid offering guidance because a particular theorist (or supervisor) said not to offer guidance? I think not. Many clients benefit from going deep and processing their disturbing emotions and sensations. There are probably just as many who don’t really want to go deep and would prefer a surface-focused problem-solving approach. Either way, my point is that we respond to them, rather than forcing them to try to benefit from a narrow approach we learned in grad school.
6. Good counselors . . . and you will all become good counselors . . . can use virtually any approach to make connection, begin collaborating, remain sensitive to what clients and students are saying (verbally and non-verbally), and work constructively with them on their emotions, thoughts, sensations/somatics, behaviors, and the current and/or historical conditions contributing to their distress.
7. We should not blame clients for their symptoms or distress, because often their symptoms and distress are a product of an oppressive, traumatic, or invalidating environment. This is why reflections of feeling can fall flat or be resisted. Feeling reflections are tools for having clients sit with and own their feelings. While that can be incredibly important, if you do a feeling reflection and you don’t have rapport or a rationale, feeling reflections will often create defensiveness. Instead, it can be important to do what the narrative and behavioral folks do, and externalize the problem. When it comes to issues like historical trauma, often clients or students have internalized negative messages from a historically oppressive society, and so it makes perfect sense to NOT contribute to their further internalization of limits, judgments, discrimination, and trauma that has already unjustly taken hold in their psyche. The problem is often not in the person.
8. I know I said this in class, but it bears repeating that many people practice simple, superficial, and educational positive psychology using bludgeon-like strategies. Obviously, I’m not in support of that. That said, many people practice simplistic implementation of technical interventions in counseling (think: syncretism from theories class), and many counselors do bad CBT, bad ACT, bad DBT, bad behaviorism, bad existentialist therapy, and bad versions of every form of counseling out there. No matter which approach you embrace, you should do so using your excellent fundamental listening skills . . . so that if your client or student doesn’t like or isn’t benefiting from your approach, you can change it!
I want to end this little 1K word writing project with a video. In the linked clip, I’m doing about a 3 1/2 minute opening demonstrating a “Strengths-based approach” to suicide assessment and treatment planning with a 15-year-old. As you watch, ask yourself, “Is this strengths-based?” Can you identify anything that makes this approach strengths-based or as including even a whiff of positive psychology. [Again, you’re not required to watch this, I’m just rambling.]
Group this week was chaotic, great, and disconcerting. As the leader-instructor, I felt perhaps I didn’t get the students prepared enough to run their in-class discussion and color groups. I worried that now we’ve got too much experiencing and not enough educational content.
These feelings and thoughts are familiar; maybe they’re familiar to other educators. To learn, students need experiences, but they also need knowledge, information, and educational content to put experiences in context. They also need external feedback, to go along with the internal feedback process in which they naturally engage. How hard is it to hit the sweet spot? Very hard!
While observing one group, I noticed conflict emerging between co-leaders. I didn’t intervene. During their self-evaluation process, the leaders acknowledged their tension. My response? I normalized their experience of co-leader conflict and the challenges of co-leader conflict management.
Later, while debriefing the various group experiences with the whole class, I spontaneously began speaking about group leader conflict. Words came out of my mouth in advance of a clear mental formulation of what I wanted to say.
“Group co-leader conflict will occur. Sometimes your co-leader will go a different direction. You’ll be watching and wondering, ‘What’s going on here?’ You may have a negative reaction. You may feel critical and annoyed. When this happens, we need to give each other grace.”
Another theme bubbling up this week involved vulnerability. The group leaders feel vulnerable and on-the-spot for obvious reasons; I expected that. What I’ve been less prepared for is the vulnerability students felt as group members who were prompted to share “happy” and “meaningful” songs. Here’s their group leadership assignment:
Some students seemed sensitive to perceived coercion, and the related expectation that they were obligated to be vulnerable. I got enough takeaway emails about vulnerability that I’m sharing a few of my responses (I’m not sharing the emails from the students; I’m sharing my email responses)
Emails on Vulnerability
I’m glad to hear the music activity felt connecting for you with your group. It’s interesting how music might seem like a “light” topic, but it certainly can get emotional and vulnerable, sometimes very quickly.
Thanks for sharing your reactions from your color group experience. I’ve heard similar reactions from others. I too, found myself surprised that some members felt the activity involved vulnerability . . . but then I remembered several things, not the least of which is the emotional power of music and the fact that talking about happiness nearly always, at some point, elicits sadness and vulnerability.
Your comments about the diverse reactions to the music assignment reminds me of a point I want to make in class tomorrow. The point being: When we talk about happiness, the emotional reaction is often the opposite! Initially, I felt surprised that some groups felt the assignment was pretty vulnerable, but then I thought, of course! Sharing anything feels vulnerable. . . and music is a powerful emotional activator.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts/reactions from your Color Group. Noticing and appreciating others’ discomfort is so important, partly because it involves empathy, but also because what causes some people discomfort may not even be a blip for others, including you. It IS a great thing to be mindful about.
Reading and responding to student emails is helping me be more thoughtful and accepting of their experiences. Although their experiences naturally activate my memories about my grad school group experiences, more importantly, reading about their experiences helps me move past my own memories and my own narrow lived experiences. My students are giving me a chance to have greater appreciation for the wide range of simple and complex factors that activate their vulnerabilities. For me, that’s one (of many) lessons from this week: My surprise regarding students’ feeling vulnerable is countertransference. As countertransference, it’s a good thing to notice. But the point is to give myself grace around my countertransference, while nurturing and growing my ability to move around my surprise and seek deeper understanding of my students’ experiences . . . just as I hope they will do with their clients.
Spring is coming: it’s a good time to try something new.
In collaboration with the MOLLI program on campus at the University of Montana, I’m offering a unique “Happiness” class that combines an initial lecture with 5 small group experiential discussions. The course begins in about 1 month (April 2, 2024). Here’s the course description:
Evidence-Based Happiness: An Experiential Approach
In this course, participants will learn about and experience seven different research-based approaches to achieving greater happiness. Using a unique format, participants will have one week of traditional lecture, followed by five weeks of small-group experiential learning sessions. Each small group (aka happiness lab) will meet to practice, experience, and discuss specific happiness interventions. Before each lab group, participants will be provided with a short reading and a short video to guide their weekly happiness practice. Specific positive psychology interventions to be covered include (a) three good things, (b) savoring, (c) gratitude, (d) cognitive behavior therapy, (e) forgiveness, (f) acts of kindness, (g) and the best possible self. Labs will be facilitated by graduate students in counseling and supervised by John Sommers-Flanagan.
The course is live and offered simultaneously in virtual and in-person formats. To enroll, you need to become a MOLLI member, which costs $0. The cost of the course is $70. If you do the math, you’ll see that’s about $12 per educational hour . . . which is a fantastic deal. The other fantastic part is that research indicates your participation may contribute to you feeling greater meaning and happiness.
For remote users, there are no borders. You can take it from anywhere: To enroll in the VIRTUAL (remote) course, click here, and if you’re not a MOLLI member, start by clicking on sign-in to become a member and then register: https://www.campusce.net/umtmolli/course/course.aspx?C=844&pc=38&mc=42&sc=0
In group class, we’re covering content related to group stage called “Storming.” The Coreys’, who’ve written about and led many groups, call this the “Transition” stage. During the storming or transition stage, group members start to push against or question group norms and/or the group leader’s authority. Not to be trite, but like roses, no matter what name it, the smell and tension of storming feels the same.
I’ve been waiting and watching for storming to emerge within my class. I know group process unfolds during class groups, just as it unfolds in psychoeducational, counseling, and psychotherapy groups. I thought I might ignite storming, by asking my counseling graduate students to focus on positive psychology. I did get a little push-back from students who emailed me about their “mixed” feelings about positive psychology. My response was to share that I also hold mixed feelings about positive psychology, along with mixed feelings about psychoanalytic theory, behavioral theory, CBT, feminist theory, acceptance and commitment therapy, and every other theory or approach I can think of.
This past week an ever-so-minor edge of a storm found its way into class. After class started, one student expressed negative feelings about a reading I’d assigned, noting that she thought the article was “shaming” to mandated clients. As often occurs with storming, I had an immediate and complex emotional and impulse-ridden response. Rather than acting on my emotions or defending the reading, I managed to welcome the critique. When I say “managed” I mean to communicate that IMHO, welcoming critiques is not easy, and maybe not natural. A few minutes later, I acknowledged that although I wished everyone would love all the class readings, I also wanted people to feel they had permission to not love the readings and speak openly about their opinions. Later that evening, I received an email takeaway from the student who didn’t like the reading. As you may recall, one of my group class assignments is for students to email me two takeaways in the days following class. Because she expressed what I want to communicate better than I can, here’s her email (shared with her permission).
Hey John,
My biggest takeaway from today was watching your modeling of working with storming, both with myself and [with another student]. The way that you allowed for expression of our feelings, were vulnerable with your own, and then used the material to create more conversations, norms, etc., was really helpful to see. I also want to share on this topic that when my oldest kiddo and I were talking this morning about what our days were looking like, I was talking to her about my feelings about an article we read for class that I didn’t agree with, and that I was going to bring it up in class. And her response was, “You’re going to tell your professor that?!?!” She was shocked that I felt like I could say that in class, and I wanted to thank you for creating a space where I felt like that was alright.
My other takeaway is your quote from class today, “We want to give people the chance to be interesting.” I think there are so few opportunities that people have to be seen and heard by others in a way that is meaningful. Coupled with the big, sort of inherent opportunity as a group leader to take up ‘too much space,’ your advice feels like a really important nugget that I want to take with me into leading groups in the future.
What I love best about this email (and I love a lot of it) is my student’s anecdote about her daughter’s reaction: “You’re going to tell your professor that?!?!” And what I love best about that is—consistent with other conversations we’ve been having in class—we should not run groups like cults. As leaders, professors, administrators, clergy, and politicians, we need to be open to independence of thought and listen to unique perspectives. What I think is not the truth and what I value is not necessarily the correct moral philosophy for everyone.
Today. . . I am very happy to have handled a little storming with acceptance and openness. Tomorrow may be different. But for today, I get to feel the good feelings of being able to live my best group leader values—even if it didn’t involve me being right about anything.
Lately, when presenting, I find myself naturally saying, “I’m a university professor. That means I can talk all day long.”
But because I know that me talking too much is a bad idea, I complement my university professor disclosure with, “I’d rather have a conversation, so please interrupt me with comments, questions, and reactions.” I also try to offer an experiential learning or reflection activity.
In group class, I have so many stories to tell that I can feel my already prodigious talking urges escalate. I could unleash my breathless wordy-self for three straight hours. The students would leave having been entertained (I am funny), and with a bit of knowledge, but without skills for running counseling groups.
All this circles back to my plan to make the course as experiential as possible. I want students to feel the feelings of being in the group facilitator chair. Some of those feelings will be nerves, but it’s better for students to feel more nerves in group class, and fewer nerves when they’re leading real groups.
We recently hit Day 1 of the transformative experiential chaos.
I know from the takeaways that students write me every week that there were nerves. In a fishbowl group, I asked members to share one positive interpersonal quality. As a second and optional prompt, I suggested they could also share one less positive interpersonal quality.
My goal was for us to briefly look at and talk about Yalom’s concept of interpersonal learning.
I shared first (to demo leader self-disclosure and modeling); I intentionally described a positive and less positive interpersonal quality. The first student to disclose felt instant awareness of the past, present, and future. Afterward, she described feeling a burden to follow my lead, anxiety in the moment, along with instant recognition that she was about to become a role model. She shared both (a positive and less positive interpersonal quality). Everyone followed her lead. Some members felt more anxiety when sharing the positive qualities; for others, it was the opposite.
One takeaway involved the speed and power of norm-setting. I’m reminded of the social psych compliance research. More or less, people consciously or less consciously feel the “norm” and comply. The corollary takeaway is that when leaders set the norm, we need to do so carefully so as to not imply everyone needs to fall in line.
Jumping ahead, the next week I discussed Kelman’s theory of group cohesion. Although I absolutely love Yalom’s definition (“Cohesion is the attraction of the group for its members”), Kelman’s theory is complementary, and was introduced to my be my 1975 Mount Hood Community College football coach. Kelman (and my coach) identified three phases: Compliance, Identification, and Internalization. After talking about Kelman’s theory, several students reflected in their email takeaways about the nature of cult groups. . . and how compliance can become leader-driven. Wow. So good.
In response to one student’s takeaway, part of my email included the following:
“For groups to be safe, IMHO, that also means freedom; freedom to have dissenting beliefs and different experiences and different values. The “internalization” shouldn’t be too tight, or it does feel like a cult. I’m not sure I have great answers about safeguards to the abuse of group processes, and so you’ve given me things to chew on as well.”
Maybe the right recipe is for there to be leader-guided modeling, combined with clear rules and norms that support independent thinking and personal freedom. This is a VERY tricky balance. It’s easy for leaders (including me) to get too enamored with the sound of our own voices and the rightness of our own values.
This brings me back to reflecting on how much leaders should talk and how much leaders should listen. Of course, this depends on the type of group: psychoeducational groups involve more group leader talking. In contrast, counseling groups—even discussion-based groups or support groups—benefit from the group talking more and the leader talking less. This has been a repeated epiphany for students and for me: being aware of the need to balance leader-talk and leader modeling with group member talk and group member modeling.
For the next class, I gave everyone an electronic copy of a long list of 23 group counseling skills to integrate into one of their experiential groups. Here’s the list:
Group class is rolling downstream so fast that I feel I’m riding down Niagara Falls in a barrel. Well, that might be me being dramatic. My personal drama partly explains why I’m so late blogging about week 2 of group class.
Much of the focus of week 2 was on Yalom’s 11 therapeutic factors. I think they’re subtle, powerful, and sneaky insightful. When I teach the 11 factors, I try to give as many concrete examples as possible. Here’s one:
I got asked to run two in-school groups for 5th graders. I had twins in group (one in each group). These were difficult groups. I had let the principal assign the members. I know, bad idea, especially because I knew better; pre-group screening was both optimal and ethical. I share this story because it’s a good one, but also because I can acknowledge that I make mistakes and am still a work in progress.
The twins identified themselves as evil and good. They seemed to be living up to their self-proclaimed identities. The evil twin (let’s call her Zoey) got “removed” from the first three group meetings. My rule was to remove students and send them back to class if they violated the group rules. Zoey was intermittently making aggressive physical contact. She ripped up some “Disney cards” I had given all the students, and threw them at me. In each case, I just said, “Zoey, you’ve broken a rule and you need to go back to your class.” There were small protests, but she would eventually stand up, leave group and go back to class.
The other part of the rule was to let anyone who had been removed from group back in group if they presented me with an apology note. Zoey became an efficient apology note writer.
Dear Mr. Jhon,
I am sorry I pushed Amber. I won’t push Amber again. Can I come back to group?
Zoey
At the beginning of session 4, as Zoey walking into group, I impulsively said something like, “Zoey! You are in so much trouble. You are in so much trouble that you have to serve our group treats today.” Zoey stared at me, sat down, and began her new journey to becoming a very nice, polite, and wonderful group member.
I repeated my “You’re in so much trouble Zoey” opening the next week. And the next. Zoey never again pushed anyone, she didn’t argue, she became shockingly pleasant and cooperative.
At the end of group, Zoey wrote me a “Good bye” note. It read:
Dr. Mr. Jhon,
I had fun in group. Thank you for coming to our school. I will miss you.
Zoey
With this story (and many others), we get a chance to glimpse the complexities of human behavior. Zoey’s story also gives us a chance to apply counseling theory to group dynamics. The theory that comes to mind for Zoey is related to Dreikurs’ and Adler’s ideas about the 4 psychological goals of children’s misbehavior. You can read about why children (and adults) misbehave here: https://johnsommersflanagan.com/2017/06/10/why-children-misbehave-the-adlerian-perspective/. But in group, the focus is less on the 4 goals, and more on the two overarching factors that will, most of the time, mitigate and sometimes eliminate the misbehavior. What are these overarching factors?
A sense of belonging
Feeling useful
With Zoey, I think she suddenly felt useful. She also got proactive attention in a sort of sarcastic message of her being in trouble. I thought the “You’re in big trouble” part was pretty clever. But the more important part was to give her a job. . . to help her feel useful . . . and along with that came belonging.
In some ways, the Zoey intervention was an individual intervention that helped her function in a group. That was important because Zoey had never been successful in any group. She hadn’t been on a team, in a choir, and she rarely succeeded in making it through the school day without an interpersonal incident. “Graduating” from our group, was a big deal for Zoey.
Beyond the Adlerian principles, the evil twin scenario includes glimpses of Yalom’s therapeutic factors. Can you identify which ones? Here’s the list:
Instillation of hope
Universality
Imparting information
Altruism
The corrective recapitulation of the family group
Development of socializing techniques
Imitative behavior
Interpersonal learning
Group cohesiveness
Catharsis
Existential factors
I’m heading into class momentarily, and so I’ll add the following observation quickly.
At this point, my group students still think I know what I’m doing. We’ve engaged in several whole group and subgroup (fishbowl) group activities where I’m the leader. One student referred to me as “smooth.” As much as I like that compliment, I also recognize that me being smooth is completely related to the students being engaged and cooperative. Maybe we’re still in the honeymoon phase of our group class. Maybe the storming is yet to come? Maybe everyone feels they belong, and that they’re useful. I do work at helping everyone feel belonging and usefulness.
As the instructor, I know that referencing that storming can happen and articulating, in advance, how I usually address storming, can make storming less likely. None of the students are especially keen to be the first stormers. Everyone (probably) knows that no matter the nature and content of the storming, I will try to meet it with acceptance and an opportunity for the stormer to “tell us more” while taking responsibility for their feelings. Nevertheless, sooner or later, I will want to prompt them to storm, rather than hold in feelings of discontent.
One last thought. I am not always smooth. I am not always competent. I am not always emotionally centered and ready to be a good group counselor. Given those realities, I’m also aware that it will be even more important (than being smooth) for me to acknowledge my mistakes and be vulnerable enough for students to accept me as a role model who isn’t just interested in being smooth, but is also interested in being vulnerable.
Thanks for reading! More to come soon. Here are the Week 2 powerpoints:
Last summer, when I taught our Happiness for Teachers course along with Lillian Martz, one of the most powerful assignments involved forgiveness. Even though we emphasized that the teachers taking our class didn’t need to actually engage in a forgiveness process, they shared incredibly deep and profound stories of betrayal, forgiveness, and the struggles in between. Here’s the assignment. Again, we’re not saying you need to engage in a forgiveness process. All we’re suggesting is for you to read this and think about forgiveness. Here’s the assignment:
Whether we’re talking self-forgiveness, forgiving others, or spiritual forgiveness, forgiveness is a big deal and a big ask.
For this learning activity, we don’t expect you to purge yourself of all personal guilt or become free from all resentments. Nevertheless, for this assignment, your job is to explore what forgiving yourself, forgiving others, and being forgiven might look like AND how forgiving yourself, forgiving others, and being forgiven might feel to you.
To do this activity, you’re not expected to actually do the forgiveness work; instead, you get to think about doing the forgiveness work and speculate on its effects. . . FOR YOU. Although forgiveness is probably the biggest issue we’ve tackled in this Happiness Challenge, the plan is for you to just take a small sip from the very large cup of potential forgiveness issues that we all have. If you want to go deeper and take a bigger drink, that’s perfectly fine, but that’s all up to you.
To get yourself oriented toward forgiveness you could (if you want) consider and access some of the following ideas and online resources:
Consider that forgiving others can improve your physical health. As Anne Lamott wrote in Traveling Mercies: “Not forgiving is like drinking rat poison and then waiting for the rat to die.” Is there anyone other there toward whom you might offer forgiveness? You don’t even have to talk with them (although you can, if that works for you). You can just bring yourself to a place where you’ve let go of any lingering anger or resentment that you’re holding.
I feel sorry for Mick Jagger. In that one song he lamented over and over about not getting no satisfaction. If he would just have asked me, I could have helped. I would have told him exactly how to get satisfaction. I’d have said, “Hey Mick. All you have to do to get satisfaction is to teach a course on group counseling to about 34 fantastic counseling students from the University of Montana, along with having a couple of teaching assistants.”
That’s it, Mick. Even you can achieve satisfaction. Getting satisfaction from teaching group counseling might even inspire you to write a new song titled “So Much Satisfaction.” Here are some lyrics for you to consider (no need to thank me Mick):
I can’t stop getting, satisfaction,
cause I tried, and I tried, and I tried, and I tried
I keep getting so, much satisfaction. . . satisfaction. . . satisfaction.
No doubt all you readers are now on the edges of your seats and experiencing bated breath while waiting to hear how group class #1 went. Well, here’s the answer. Great. Awesome. Exciting. Fun. And satisfying. . . so satisfying.
During our introduction activities, everyone was engaged, funny, profound, humble, and always interesting. During my lecture time, I talked about group types and made my “we need to stretch ourselves to listen with acceptance to everyone” speech. One response to my little speech was genuine concern about being able to be accepting with clients who, in their presentation, are harsh, judgmental, and politically and socially extreme in their values. This was a challenging comment/question, because of how incredibly hard it is to listen with compassion and empathy when someone is expressing extremely unkind and judgmental thoughts and beliefs.
Had I been a better group counselor in the moment, what I might have done was to push the question/comment out to the group. On the other hand, I knew that I was probably the one in the room with the most experiences of this type. I was immediately (in Class #1) thrown into an Irv Yalom-esque group leader dilemma. Should I respond with my thoughts. . . or should I deflect the question/scenario to the group.
Yalom also emphasizes that group leaders are, by default, the group role-models and norm-setters. That being the case (and given that this is a graduate course with 36 “group participants”), I chose to throw myself and a couple stories into my response.
The stories—working with parents who insisted on not accepting their child’s sexuality/gender and working with fathers who, not infrequently, would call me variations on the theme of “pansy-ass”—emphasized the strategy of listening first, of thanking parents, clients, students, for their openness, and then highlighting the truth that we cannot lead with education (no matter how much we think it’s needed). Instead, we listen with acceptance and empathy until there’s an opportunity to “broaden” the parent/client/student’s perspective.
I’ve put the word “broaden” in quotations because it’s related to what I want to share next: The Weekly Class Takeaway Email Assignment.
The Takeaway Assignment
This past year, I’ve been using the weekly takeaways assignment to give me a clearer sense of what the students are experiencing in our classes together. For this assignment, students send me, within 5 days of the lecture/class time, an email describing their top two class takeaways. The takeaways assignment also allows me to evade the possibility of an AI generated response.
Typically, and this was the case with week one of the group class, student responses are consistent with what I thought they would takeaway. However, the most exciting part of reading the takeaways is when students weave their own personalized perceptions into their responses; this gives me a glimpse not only of what they’re thinking, but how the content I’m presenting on is being received and interpreted by students. I especially like it when students have reflections that surprise me, or include content that I had not expected, because . . . that’s when the learning goes both directions.
In their takeaways, a couple students used the word “broaden” to discuss their perceptions of my response to the “How can we handle very judgmental clients?” question. I hadn’t remembered using the word, but it felt perfect—especially in the context of group counseling. One of the big goals of group counseling—again, I’m channeling Yalom—is to hear, see, feel, and experience the reflected appraisals of ourselves that come from other group members. Because we cannot always (or maybe ever) see ourselves as others see us, experiencing how other group members experience us is gold. When it’s working, the group offers us other perspectives that can broaden or expand our own narrow views of ourselves and the world.
Among many of my takeaways is that I loved the use of the word “broaden” to describe what good group counseling can give us. With broadened perspectives we can grow the depth, breadth, and accuracy of our perceptions of ourselves and others.
For the first time in seven years, I’m teaching group counseling this semester. This forces me to think about, “What’s the latest scoop on teaching group counseling?” I’ve been reading and talking and gaining information, but if anyone out there has particular insights to share with me, please do.
In my prep, I’ve decided that there’s tons of content out there, in professional journals, books, book chapters, and everywhere else I look. Nevertheless, to break free from the oppression of content, one of my first decisions is to go experiential. This isn’t much different from seven years ago, but my plan is to be even MORE experiential.
Based on previous experiences teaching group, talking with faculty, and talking with students, the Group course is a place with a complex mix of anxiety, vulnerability, and potential conflict. To manage this exciting and challenging mix, I’ve got several plans.
After my infamous “Group is open” anecdote, I will share my philosophy on brain development and counselor skill development. In the Moodle shell, I wrote: “Hey Everybody, Welcome to our group counseling course at U of M. I love group counseling and I love teaching group counseling. More than any other approach, group work requires that we maintain an attitude of acceptance and hold the statements and disclosures that others make with sensitivity and grace. One big goal in this class is for all of us to continue to grow those parts of our brain that makes us excellent listeners. Mostly, we need to let go of other parts of our brain that wants to debate, argue, and express our opinions. I look forward to this adventure and journey with you. See you Tuesday, John SF”
TBH, I’m not sure how my philosophy will fly with students . . . but sharing it fits with Irvin Yalom’s mantra that the group leader is instantly the primary norm setter and role model. Along with my philosophy, I will also disclose some of my anxieties and insecurities. Yes . . . even after 40+ years as a mental health professional, I still feel the creep of imposter anxiety.
Then we’ll circle up and jump into two rounds of experiential introductions. I do two rounds of experiential introductions to give students a chance to “feel” the difference between more structured and less structured group process. I’ve done this before; it feels like a relatively safe, fun, and process-oriented opening.
Then, in the spirit of Yalom’s “self-reflective loop,” we will debrief and debrief some more.
After exiting the experiential introductions, we’ll stay in the circle, review the course syllabus (assignments), and then talk about our planned feedback process. Once, when I asked Allen Ivey for his best advice on learning counseling skills, he said he could summarize his advice in six words: “Practice, practice, practice, feedback, feedback, feedback.” I thought that was a pretty cool answer. You can check out my ideas about feedback on a previous blog post: https://johnsommersflanagan.com/2020/08/18/guidelines-for-giving-and-receiving-feedback/
The last part of class #1 (time permitting) will be me reviewing a few group counseling basics (e.g., group types, group stages, cultural humility, under-confidence, overconfidence, and the wonder and narrowness of the dialectic of lived experience. Should be a blast.
I’m hoping to blog every week about my Group Counseling class and the teaching and learning experience. Of course, that will depend on my time management skills. I’m thinking maybe I’ll coax one of my students into running a psychoeducational group on time management—and then maybe I’ll actually achieve my weekly Group Counseling goals.
Here’s a screenshot of my feedback prompt (aka ppt slide).
The place to click if you want to learn about psychotherapy, counseling, or whatever John SF is thinking about.
John Sommers-Flanagan 