Running Head: PAPER #2

Rolston 1

Paper #2
Tori Rolston
SW 4010
Professor Klein-Shapiro
Wayne State University

PAPER #2

Rolston 2

Abstract
This paper explores the interactions which occurred during the middle and ending group sessions
observed by the author. Within this paper, the author will evaluate these observed interactions
and assess the effectiveness of the group. The paper will explore group aspects such as group
culture, group cohesiveness, and group norms. The author will assess the development of these
aspects throughout the middle and ending sessions and how these changes contributed to the
development of the group as a whole. The author will also reference peer-reviewed articles that
provide support for the assessment of the group sessions being provided within this paper.

PAPER #2

Rolston 3

Group work is important to the field of social work as it gives clients additional social
interactions and allows them to unite with others who may be facing problems similar to their
own (Garvin, 1974). These interactions allow individuals to gain additional knowledge and
support from a variety of group members rather than just one worker. The collaboration
occurring within a group is likely to provide a greater range of ideas and possibly greater
avenues for change. In the particular scenario being discussed within this paper, group
collaboration proves to be incredibly beneficial to solving the groups problem during the final
group sessions.
The composition of this group is somewhat different than most others. This group was
not formed intentionally, but rather came to be when a cruise ship encountered a severe storm
and became shipwrecked. This shipwreck left only six survivors, who decided to unite as a group
and work towards the long-term goal of being rescued from the island. This unexpected
formation left the group without an official leader to facilitate group discussions and tasks. The
individuals within the group managed to work together to develop initial plans that they thought
would be beneficial in helping them to survive on the island until they could be rescued as they
hoped. The lack of a trained group facilitator proved to be a bit of an issue for this group as it
entered its middle stages. According to Coyle (1952), the group leader acts as an enabler, an
assistant, or a resource; only occasionally offering direct leadership. Coyle (1952) also discusses
how the leader attempts to encourage self-determination and promote relationships among group
members that will prove to be mutually beneficial to all. Because this group was not pre-planned
and does not have a trained and objective leader facilitating the group, the promotion of mutually
beneficial relationships amongst members is not always present.
The middle sessions of this groups meetings were beneficial to the groups development
as they allowed the group to continue its search for food sources and develop stronger plans

PAPER #2

Rolston 4

concerning how best to survive on the island and what actions may further the groups chance of
being rescued. The group meetings that occurred during the middle phases allowed the group to
speculate on what had and had not been working and what may be better solutions to try. This
also allowed each individual member to express his or her concerns and continue to share his or
her feelings about the situation as s/he had in beginning sessions. Therefore, the middle sessions
were significant to the development of the group as they allowed the group to continue to grow
and make progress towards the long-term goal of being rescued from the island. The middle
phases of this groups interaction also brought about increased hostility, hindering the
development of the group slightly. As the survivors began to spend more time on the island,
some became quite upset about the situation and began to lose hope about reaching the long-term
group goal. After two weeks, some of the group members began to question the decisions being
made by the leader, thus causing hostility between group members and less willingness to work
together. This was not beneficial to the groups development, but rather started to tear the group
apart. Some individuals stopped participating in group discussions and were considering going
off on their own. The groups development began to improve again during the ending phases
once hope had been restored.
The ending phases of this groups time together were unplanned and randomly occurring,
similar to the groups development. The group could not plan for termination as they were not
sure when would reach their goal, or if they would ever reach it and be able to terminate the
group. As long as this group was stranded on the island together, it was in the best interest of
everyone to attempt to work together in order to reach the groups goals. Based on this, the
termination of the group came quickly, and as a surprise to all group members. The termination
occurred as the group was working on settling the issues they had experienced during their
middle sessions. As the group was working to settle the issues that had occurred, one member

PAPER #2

Rolston 5

noticed a plane flying above the island. The group then worked together as they had during the
beginning group sessions and succeeded in signaling the plane, which then descended down to
the island and prepared to take the survivors back to civilization. This was the beginning of the
groups ending phase. The group finalized the ending of their sessions by reconciling with one
another and discussing the possibility of keeping in touch in the future. The group had
experienced much development by the ending phase of the group sessions, learning how to work
together with new individuals when faced with adverse conditions. Overall, the development of
this group was positively affected by the experiences encountered during the groups middle and
ending sessions.
As previously mentioned, the goals of this group were quite clear to get off the island
and survive until this could happen. This group was formed under unusual circumstances and
because of these circumstances the group members had a very clear goal in mind. It did not seem
that any members of this group had hidden agendas. Everyone worked together rather well,
attempting to contribute to the well-being of all members. When this group did encounter
problems, group members were clear about their concerns and still did not appear to be hiding
their true intentions. Overall, it appears that everyone was working faithfully on achieving the
group goal and considering the entire groups best interest rather than only their own.
There is evidence that this group began to encounter a decrease in group cohesion during
its middle phases. According to Toseland and Rivas (2012), group cohesion involves three
components: attraction of members and a liking for the group, a sense of unity that allows the
group to be seen as a single entity, and a sense of teamwork which allows the group to perform
as a coordinated unit. As the group entered the middle phases of its time on the island, these
components began to dwindle. The members began to lose their liking for the group, becoming
disappointed with the lack of progress the group had made and the group began to lose their

PAPER #2

Rolston 6

sense of unity and teamwork, hindering the group from working together as a functioning unit.
This decrease in cohesiveness almost broke the group apart; however, the members were able to
begin the process of talking things through, at which time the plane was spotted and the
cohesiveness of the group skyrocketed. Upon spotting the plane, the group seemed to fall right
back into its cohesive state, working together as a single unit once again and regaining its sense
of teamwork. This rapid increase in cohesiveness proved beneficial in helping the group to reach
its goal of getting off the island.
The group norms did not seem to change much throughout the middle and ending
sessions. Throughout their interactions, all group members were in agreement that each
individual would do his or her part to ensure the success of the group. It appears that the group
established norms early and worked hard to maintain them throughout the time spent on the
island. Toseland and Rivas (2012) mention that group norms often progress as the group
develops; however, it appears the because of the unusual circumstances leading to this groups
development, norms were established early to ensure that everyone was in agreement on how the
group would work to achieve its goal.
The group seems to develop more culture throughout the middle and ending sessions. As
described by Toseland and Rivas (2012), group culture can be viewed from three levels. At the
surface, symbols and rituals performed by the group may constitute culture (Toseland & Rivas,
2012). At a deeper level, culture involves the way that members interact with one another
(Toseland & Rivas, 2012). As this group progressed, it seems to have developed a stronger sense
of group culture. The members of this group engaged in ritual acts, meeting daily and working
on many of the same tasks each day. As the group progressed these activities became routine and
the group members began to expect certain actions from one another. In addition to this the
group culture seems to have developed on a deeper level as well, with group members becoming

PAPER #2

Rolston 7

more open and beginning to interact differently with one another. One example is how the group
members reacted after becoming disappointed in the groups progress. One group member
became angry and approached the situation with hostility, stating openly how disappointed she
was with the groups progress and how she felt that perhaps someone else should start making
decisions. The way that this conflict was handled changed with the development of the groups
culture. The group did not handle the conflict with a vote as originally agreed upon, but rather
acted out of impulse. The group members did eventually realize that they had acted irrationally
and tried to talk through the conflict and settle it in a more rational manner. Based on these
instances, it appears that the culture of the group did continue to develop through the middle
sessions, although this development did not always lead to improved group interactions.
During these middle and ending sessions, some group members seemed to be in denial
about the severity of the groups situation. While some group members became angry,
acknowledging that the group did not appear to be making progress, others kept reassuring the
group that they would be rescued soon. In addition to this, some members seemed to accept that
they may not be rescued any time soon; however, they remained calm and focused on the
importance of surviving while on the island. While there were conflicts present, and some
individuals became angry and discouraged about the groups situation, I believe that these
individuals worked well together and remained relatively positive considering the severity of the
situation at hand. This was a group of individuals who had never met and were suddenly forced
to work together in order to ensure their survival. Considering the stress and unfamiliarity that
these individuals were facing, I feel that they controlled their feelings rather well and worked
effectively as a group. While the conflict faced during the middle sessions was alarming, the
group came back well and managed to work together once again in order to achieve the goals of

PAPER #2

Rolston 8

the group. Overall, I feel these groups sessions transpired nicely, leading to the groups desired
goal and likely much growth for each group member.

PAPER #2

Rolston 9

Works Cited
Coyle, G.L. (1952). Social group work: An aspect of social work practice. Journal of Social
Issues, 8(2), 23-34. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1952.tb01601.x.
Garvin, C. (1974). Task-centered group work. Social Service Review, 48(4), 494-507. Retrieved
from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30015155.
Toseland, R.W. & Rivas, R.F. (2012). An introduction to group work practice. (7th ed.). Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.