The Underlying Rationale for Group Counselling
Some years ago I began focusing my research efforts on the emotional experience for people as they dealt with unemployment (Amundson & Borgen, 1987; Borgen & Amundson, 1987). Through this effort we determined that many people were experiencing an “emotional rollercoaster” as they tried to come to terms with losing work. We also looked at coping methods and were struck by the positive way in which unemployed clients were reporting their experiences in group counselling sessions. As we looked further into this phenomenon we realized that the groups that were having this positive effect were structured learning groups, groups that had 10-12 members and were focused on an integration of career exploration and action (Borgen, Pollard, Amundson & Westwood, 1989). These groups were structured in such a way that they were capable of addressing basic human needs. The groups provided community, a chance to meet other people and share experiences. They also offered an opportunity to be involved in meaningful activity in a structured format. In many ways, being in a group was like going to work, but without the financial incentive.

From a counselling perspective groups provided an opportunity for people to not only be helped but also to help one another. There is some theory and research about the importance of ensuring that people feel that they “matter”, that they have some significance (Amundson, 2009). We encourage mattering by paying attention to people, by listening to them, and by valuing their input. Within the group context, people have the opportunity to feel that they really matter.

Another rationale supporting the use of groups is an economic one. In a situation where there are limited resources it makes good economic sense to offer service in a group format. Rather than offering information and support to people one at a time, people can be informed and encouraged in small learning groups.

Resistance to the Use of Groups
Many counsellors have resisted being involved in leading groups, often because of a fear of having to speak in front of people. It is much safer to have clients one-on-one in an office where there is a clear power distinction between counsellor and client. There is vulnerability when one has to stand up at the front – maybe the people won’t listen, or perhaps they will even get angry. Dealing with mandated clients only serves to heighten these fears (Amundson & Borgen, 2000).

Running groups also requires a different configuration of space. Rather than a set number of standard offices there needs to be special rooms to accommodate the group. And then there are the extra resources that might be needed and the planning that needs to be done to ensure that the group is engaging as well as informative.

Resistance to groups also is centered in personal and cultural characteristics. While group counselling may work in a North American context comments are often made that in other cultural contexts people are reluctant to speak in front of others. Because of this groups may be an inappropriate method of service delivery.

Addressing the Barriers
I have had the opportunity to train counsellors in group counselling methods in many different countries (including those countries where a more reserved personal style is common). What I have observed is that much of the reluctance to group counselling starts with counsellors and their lack of facilitation skills. Group counselling does work in a wide range of cultures, but to make it work counsellors need to be trained how to communicate effectively with people in groups. There is some basic knowledge to be learned and some facilitation skills to be practiced.

In addition to the skill base, counsellors also need to address their own insecurities. Many of the insecurities that are ascribed to clients have their root in the needs of counsellors. In addressing this aspect of training, we found it helpful to use a type of feedback called “strength challenge” (Borgen & Amundson, 1996). Counsellors did not need to have all their faults pointed out to them, what they did need to hear were some of the things that they were doing well. They needed a secure training environment and the assurance that affirmation was the foundation of the feedback that they would be receiving. In many respects this is exactly the same set of needs as with clients. Communicating in groups can be stressful but it is something that can be achieved through encouragement and trust in others.

Training to be a group counsellor is something that requires more than just reading about it. There is a need for hands-on training where counsellors have the opportunity to experience and practice group facilitation skills (Amundson, 2006). Feedback for this training needs to be concrete and focused on natural communication strengths. With this foundation in strengths, most counsellors will grow in self-confidence and find the courage to try new strategies.

Next Steps
The concerns and strategies mentioned above are as relevant today for many counsellors as they were back some two decades ago. The same arguments emerge regarding the implementation of group counselling. I recently was working with a group of counsellors from Hong Kong. They talked about the challenges of their immense work loads and their inability to deliver effective career counselling. When the matter of group counselling came up, they indicated that it might work in North America and Europe, but not in Asia. The cultural barriers against sharing and being open with one another were just too much to overcome. I then pointed to some of the very successful group programs in Vancouver - with Chinese immigrants. The contradiction was obvious and in the end I think the visiting delegation was having to reconsider some of these myths.

Obviously I continue to be a strong believer in the power of structured learning groups, and I do have some other ideas about how to use some of these same dynamics in other ways. Within communities, for example, there may be innovative ways of offering unemployed people the opportunity to be meaningfully engaged and to be also building active social networks within the community.

The starting point is the principle that the basic needs of people need to be addressed with whatever intervention is implemented. Perhaps there are other ways of meeting these basic needs using a community based approach. In launching these other initiatives, I think that unemployed people need to be consulted and be actively involved in designing their own interventions (to be helpers as well as to be helped). Projects need to be organized so that unemployed people feel that they are making a meaningful contribution. Also, as part of these projects it is important to ensure that there are opportunities for learning and in some instances the development of computer and technological expertise. In Denmark I have been impressed by the potential of folk schools for personal development during periods of unemployment. In many respects the infrastructure seems to already be in place for some significant community based action.

References

• Amundson, N. E., & Borgen, W. A. (1987). Coping with unemployment: What helps and hinders. Journal of Employment Counseling, 24, 97-106.
• Amundson, N. E., & Borgen, W. A. (2000). Mandated clients in career or employment counseling. Journal of Employment Counseling, 37, 194, 203.
• Amundson, N.E. (2006). Challenges for career interventions in changing contexts. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 6, 3-14.
• Amundson, N.E. (2009). Active engagement: The being and doing of career counselling. Richmond, B.C.: Ergon Communications.
• Borgen, A. W., Pollard, D. E., Amundson, N. E., & Westwood, M. J. (1989). Employment groups: The counseling connection. Toronto: Lugus.
• Borgen, W. A., & Amundson, N. E. (1987). The dynamics of unemployment. Journal of Counseling and Development, 66, 180-184.
• Borgen, W. A., & Amundson, N. E. (1996). Strength challenge as a process for supervision. Counselor Education and Supervision, 36, 159-169.