Reflection On Residential Workshop And Positive Interrelationships Nursing Essay

Reflection On Residential shop And Positive Interrelationships Nursing EssayRecently I attended a 7 day residential workshop at Findhorn Foundation in Scotland. The two middle aged co- attractors were very experienced in running p go under this workshop, exactly had never worked together before. Ineka was Dutch and Annis was from the UK. The twelve participants from varying schoolmaster backgrounds were of various ages from mid twenties to mid 60s, from all over the gentlemans gentleman and with several using English as their guerilla language. Although clearly decl atomic number 18d in the application form, this was NOT a therapy root word however troika people had slipped through the screening process and arrived with diagnosed mental illnesses. Two were on medication just now the third, Barbara, was non. The higher the level of an individuals psychological pathology e.g. depression, anger, anxiety the slight commensurate he or she is to develop and maintain caring and e nriching relationships (Johnson Johnson 2009). This was my blurb visit to Findhorn, the earlier visit creation 34 years ago.The get of the workshop was to introduce the members to the work of the Community, a World Heritage Eco colonisation and a spiritual community which runs many human development courses in its college every year. there was a second figure of which I was unconscious(predicate) to experience and work through a wide range of emotions to change magnitude positive(p) interrelations. I was strangely obt accustom about this second purpose and concentrated only on the first.Entitativity is the perception that a multitude is sticking with members bonded together. The stronger the joint finishings, plowshargond outcomes, interpsersonal bonds, the greater the apparent entitativity of a congregation (Welbourne, 1999). Our chemical group had incomplete entitativity, I for one touching detached passim. The leading appeared unsuspecting of the dislike many participants had for Annis, who frequently exhibited unnecessary gibeling deportments. Her autocratic mouthion of leadership was rejected, while Inekas equally autocratic style was makeable because she was a more agreeable, more authentic someone. This conflict was non brought into the open, instead being discussed within subgroups, during recreational times. Anniss controlling behaviour impacted on the groups glueyness in that location was entitativity amongst the group AGAINST Annis. We found a bond in our vulgar rejection of her though that bond, for me, was not sufficient to make me feel part of the group for many reasons.Socializing impertinent the group slew increase the groups ropiness only we divided along age lines. I couldnt get concerned in the younger ones, their beliefs, interests and stories. Counterproductive socializing did not hazard, nobody feeling excluded from cliques. One detrimental aspect of our group was our refusing to challenge one some ot her for fear of jeopardizing newly forming friendships, and relying on the group as the source of our flow social life. We were a long fashion from situation, in an unkn protest setting, and unavoidable each other for wound up security.Communication was autonomous rather than allonomous in its style of interaction. We talked directly to each other, rather than via the leaders. There was much praising, load-bearing(a) and edit outing of help from us all. We all took care to understand and be understood by those who did not speak English well nevertheless when this required considerable effort. Gibb, 1961, established that paygrade, superiority, certainty and control produce protective communication. There was a defensive reaction to Anniss control and certainty. There was evaluation and superiority expressed by participants, but or soly the leaders, a realizest the non-Findhorn world. We were enlightened insiders educating and influencing the unspiritual outer world. The se attitudes I rejected, which impacted on my commitment to the group.Much esteem for each other and each others contributions to the group efforts were articulated. The more accepting and corroboratory participants were of each other, the more likely they were to reveal ideas, feelings and reactions. The more trustworthy our groups response to such(prenominal) disclosures, the deeper and more personal the mentations a participant will share (Johnson et al, 2009). We had revelations of bisexuality, of partnering with a paedophile, of terror at failing to cope with motherhood, of being overwhelmed with the film of self revelation. Clearly the group was achieving its goals for some of us, but not for me. I revealed more than I ever put one across before, but my core emotional wounds I kept hidden. I was astonished by such revelations and cherished to rescue those in distress, lacking any other response to such pain.Corey, Corey Corey, (2010) explains that if someone finds it too difficult to witness anothers pain, the supportive individual attempts to offer pseudo support rather than a genuine expression of concern, and empathy. I felt helpless the first time Barbara howled with pain.I postulate that there whitethorn withal be pseudo pain. The second time Barbara lay in foetal position and screamed in agony, I was astonished to date her sit back on her chair calmly, well satisfied with the attending she authoritative. The third time she performed I felt a little exploited. thus I remained an outside observer, wondering if I should feel guilty for not being more empathetic.Power may be directly or indirectly expressed through group averages and values. Norms are agreed modes of cope and belief that guide the behaviour of group members (Johnson et al, 2009). Our group obeyed the direct strength exercised by the leaders. We were also systematically educated in the norms expected of us by the Findhorn Community. This was done in discussion and by th e leaders manakin expected behaviours. At one point Annis gave us a shell on the rules of group sharing academic sessions, the only time I thought she was directly criticising us and I didnt agree with those rules, wanting to split up feedback to the person who had just shared but this was not allowed. Sharing was to be received in silence. The first time Barbara broken into howls of anguish, and shared a nighttimemarish experience she had had while on a group nature walk, she reason out with Now I feel foolish. I commitd she should have been reassured that we had not found her behaviour foolish. I too felt ridiculous subsequently completing a task to show a side of me that others havent feeln yet and I demonstrated my three year old self having a tantrum. I assumeed feedback.I was aware that energy is tied up in withholding feeling. When released, people typically reported terrific animal(prenominal) and emotional relief called catharsis. Barbara appeared not to. While expressing emotions may be culturally in portion in some situations it was not at Findhorn but after I questioned whether she actually was experiencing the healing of catharsis. Catharsis alone is limited in regard to producing long-term change. Barbara needed to understand her experience by putt into words those intense emotions but this was forbidden by our group norm which made discussion taboo (Corey et al, 2010).Every individual and group uses a mixture of learning styles, namely experience, reflection, conceptualisation and active experimentation (King Kiely, 2004). Our class utilise all these adult learning styles in its varied tasks. We contend games, danced, walked in Nature, meditated, minded to lectures, drew, made collages, sang, watched films plus much more. However the programme used mainly structured rather than unstructured exercises, which King Kiely (2004) claim is predominantly used for psycho-educational groups. As our leaders were very experienced they h ad develop their own toolkit of creative exercises though one participant began to cry during the first mornings session of encounter games designed to bond the group and I felt uncomfortable, and kinda disgruntled, at having to take part in these single-valued function plays as they were outside my expectations. They were too physical, too unpredictable, for me to feel safe in the group at this stage.Our group had no procedures to seek out dissenting opinions. Group theorise is the collective striving for unanimity so that there is no approximation of alternatives. There is lack of reality testing, a weakening of rationality, judgemental thinking and the ignoring of incompatible external information. Groupthink censors discussion of disagreements or arguments (Quinn Schlenker, 2002). Our group felt strong air pressure to agree with one another, and failed to engage in telling discussion.If the leaders believe in members capacities to make important personal changes partici pants may consequently see the group as a valuable conduit to personal growth. If the leaders listen non-defensively and communicate that they value members subjective experience, members are likely to see the authority in active listing. If the leaders are genuinely able to accept others for who they are, participants will learn to accept peoples rights be themselves and be different. Modelling behaviour in groups is one of the most effective ship canal to teach members how to relate to one another constructively and deeply (Corey et al, 2010). These were our leaders successes, with the exception of Anniss need for too much control. If members feel that they are deeply understood they are more likely to trust that others care about them.A mistake of invulnerability, indicated by unjustifiable optimism and too much risk taking was pre human face (Keyton, 2006). The norms of the group meant we were above attack and reproach. One participant, Elka, learned that her lover move su icide while she was with us, and as a diagnosed depressive herself who had attempted suicide 6 months before, was vulnerable after hearing such news. The leaders offered her no feedback, as per their norms, and welcomed the fact that she opened herself up to this challenge They stressed that they were not a therapy group but I claimed Findhorn attracted damaged people and its leaders should be trained in crisis management. But there were no contingency plans gettable for when participants became unstable.Absence of disagreement is the primary cause of groupthink (Courright, 1978). I kept my criticisms to myself in group time but talked about them privately to some participants as similarly did others about Anniss controlling behaviour.Members learn how they function as a person in the world by looking at the patterns they use in the group session (Corey et al, 2010). I protected myself from vulnerability by taking on the role of critical assessor, probing for information, attemptin g to give advice and nonrecreational attention to the dynamics of individuals and the group. Instead of paying attention to how I may be affected in the group, I shifted the focus to others, thus I was left behind as the group developed (Corey et al, 2010). The leaders did not sensitively block this defensive behaviour. They could have pointed out to that I was depriving myself of the uttermost profit from the group by paying more attention to others.Schutz (1958) identifies 4 stages in group development. The first, inclusion, assesses individuals as pondering where they fit in, feeling vulnerable, turned on(p) and often fearful. The second stage, control, is the jockeying for leadership, control and power. Who is marginalised, who is threatened, who frustrated with authority problems, who projecting onto the leader? This is where I fitted in, as I became frustrated with the groups unwillingness to express detrimental thoughts or give personal feedback as per the censoring dema nds of the leaders. My defensive role of critical observer anchored me to this stage. The third stage, affection, is a time when participants feel a sense of belonging, bliss, love and harmony with each other. The others in the group were able to feel this with each other, but not with Annis. The last stage is termination.Creating an effective group requires an appropriate balance between support and challenge but our group lacked appropriate challenge. Our norms were supportive and several participants used that to take risks but that in-itself was not sufficient. Groups that use confrontation to strip away the defensive behaviour of members often consequently have increasingly defensive interaction. Leaders are best to refrain from highly confrontational involvement until they have developed a trusting relationship with participants. Once interpersonal trust is achieved group members are usually more accepting of challenge (Corey et al, 2010).Theasaurus to here ie done above.I ne ver gave up the safety of my defensive backdown nor did others in the older sub-group. Resistance is a normal process that can lead to productive exploration in the group. The defensive style may take various forms such as conflict, detachment, distrust or comic but the underlying fear is of getting close and the vulnerability this implies. The most successful way to bunch with difficult behaviours is for the leaders to simply bring up to members what they are observing and let the members know how they are affected by what they see and hear. Showing a willingness to understand the members behaviour is the gentlest form of confrontation. utilise such a strategy in our group would have been cooperative (Corey et al, 2010). When feedback is given honestly and sensitively, members are able to understand the impact they have on others and decide, what, if anything, they want to change about their interpersonal style. Feedback has been associated with increased pauperism for chang e too (Morran Wilson, 1997).Group leaders need to teach participants how to give and receive feedback. Members are more likely to consider feedback that may be difficult to hear when there is a balance between positive or supportive feedback and tonic or challenging feedback. Members can benefit from both if the feedback is given in a clear, caring and personal way (Morran et al, 1997).Positive feedback should be emphasised during the early stages of the group. However positive and corrective feedback should be balanced during the middle and later stages (Moran et al, 1997). However this did not happen for us. Corrective feedback is more credible, useful and increasingly more accepted by members during the working and ending sages. Leaders need to assist in establishing appropriate norms that encourage the giving and receiving of corrective feedback. (Morran et al, 1997). Our leaders modelled positive feedback but not corrective feedback and the groups success was inhibited accord ingly.Our final session involved tasks to put what has occurred in the group into a meaningful perspective and to plan ways to continue applying changes to situations in our daily lives. At this time members need to express what the group experience has meant to them and to state where they intend to go from here. Members need to face the reality of termination and learn how to say good-bye. The potential for learning unceasing lessons may be lost if the leader does not provide a structure that helps members review and integrate what they have learned but our leaders did this (Corey et al, 2010).We exchanged email addresses and these emails became a valuable support system, particularly for Elka who returned home to find her lover had killed himself the day before. We all emailed her with our empathy and, in my case, good advice as to seeking help for herself. I remained a rescuer Assisting members in creating a support system is a good way to help them deal with setbacks and keep focused on what they need to do to accomplish their goals (Corey et al, 2010).There was an evaluation sheet that allowed participants to say what was helpful and what was difficult about the group and ways that the sessions could have been improved. It asked for feedback on the leadership which I didnt give even off at the very end I remained uncommitted to the group processes. This require for post workshop evaluation was a valid request but not sufficient. Evaluation should have been more frequent, with assessment of the groups needs occurring throughout the programme.Keyton (2006) explains that some members enjoy the group experience so much that they do not want it to end. This was particularly true of our younger members. They felt happiness and pleasure at having had a good group experience, but they also felt sadness and loss that the group was over (Rose, 1989). The final night saw us enjoying a celebratory dinner. Keyton, (2006) claims that celebrating success solidifies individuals connections to the group and helps members gain closure.I found such expressions of sorrow irrelevant, never having moved from the control stage of the group so for me, overall, the group did not achieve its second goal. It was, however, successful in regard to this goal for the younger ones. For us all, the goal of being introduced to aspects of living at Findhorn was achieved.2726 words.