Counselling Training Personal Development Groups - Only As Effective As Their Leaders

I am therapist, supervisor and trainer, trained in group psychotherapy with 20 years’ experience
working with a diverse range of individuals and groups. My initial training was as an addictions
group therapist working with alcoholics and addicts serving their sentences at Bullingdon Prison.
That was where I first witnessed healing in group therapy. As a rookie counsellor, going into the
group as a facilitator was terrifying, and perhaps the prison arena was even more intimidating due
to the harsh environment and extreme level of defensiveness of the client group. I recognise that
I had a baptism of fire. But I was very fortunate to have some wonderful mentors, including Terry
Bogg and Nicky Adams.
Terry was a giant of a man, with a massive heart and awesome skills. He made it look so easy, but
his eagle eye picked up every physical cue and he tracked the dynamic in a group like nobody I
have worked with since. He died 18 months ago and is a sad loss to the profession. Nicky
encouraged me to continuously hone my professional skills and not get complacent. Her loving
and supremely boundaried approach demonstrated how to build safety and mutual trust before
moving to the therapeutic work. She continues to support and train counsellors working with
addicted clients in group contexts. Both these leaders were empathic and collaborative, using
their skills to create a therapeutic relationship within the group context with a view to enabling
the group members to develop individual and autonomous growth. They introduced me to the
writings of Irvin Yalom and Molyn Leszcz, in particular, The Theory and Practice of Group
Psychotherapy1 (Yalom and Leszcz 2005), which has become my bible.
I watched and learned as, through the process of group therapy, isolated, disconnected and
fractured individuals with multiple mental health diagnoses and social disfunctions, discovered
themselves and their peers, developed mutual understanding and forged bonds of mutual respect
and compassion. I witnessed group members weaving relationships by working with their peers,
healing past traumas, resolving interpersonal behavioural problems and creating new healthy ways
of relating to themselves and to others. It seemed magical to me.
With the essential support of Terry, Nicky and others I developed my craft and went on to train at
more depth in Gestalt Group Therapy at the Gestalt Centre in London. I was convinced by my
experience at the prison that working with groups is the way forward in many, if not most areas of
mental health treatment.
Following my training and over the years, I have found myself donning a variety of hats;
counsellor, manager, supervisor, and the one that fits most comfortably for me (at present) tutor.
I, with my tutor team, teach all levels of counselling training up to level 4 and 5 Diplomas. I run a
Counselling Academy which this year will see over 120 students coming through the doors every
week, and we proudly celebrate 20 graduations to the counselling profession each year.
It is absolutely non-negotiable for me that our graduates emerge from the training process
resourced with appropriate and robust academic skills and deep emotional learning. This
combination allows them to enter into the very demanding profession of counselling with the
ability to support their clients to grow in awareness, sustain their own emotional and mental
health and continuously hone their craft. Regular Group Process (GP) or Personal Development
(PD) sessions, in my opinion, are a central part of the training.

th
1
Yalom, I. & Leszcz, M. (2005). The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy (5 ed.)
New York: Basic Books.
I read an article in Therapy Today in November 2018[ CITATION Ano18 \l 2057 ]2 that saddened
me enormously. It was written by an anonymous recent graduate who expressed concerns that
the group process element of their training had a negative impact on them and their peers’ mental
health. The author described a system that felt unsafe and which drove group members away
from each other rather than creating a cohesive learning space.
I say I was sad to read this piece. I also felt frustrated because, as trainee counsellors, my Diploma
students all received this article in their monthly copy of Therapy Today, and those students who
were at that stage storming against the Group Process element of the course grasped at it as
supporting evidence that we were putting them at risk of emotional harm! Just what I did not
need at that time! Of course, as professionals, our tutor team understand that our role as group
leaders is multifaceted and complex, and we met this challenge by inviting an open discussion of
the article, responding to our student’s concerns regarding how we conduct the Group Process
element of the course. We used the event as an opportunity explore the concerns and fears of
our students and model our transparency and openness to challenge.
The author states in their piece:
“Despite all my misgivings, I am not here to argue that group process is all bad. In fact, I don’t believe it’s
really to do with the process itself at all; it’s everything to do with who is running it.” 3
Here, I feel, the author has put their finger on the button. Facilitation of group process needs to
be taken seriously by counselling education organisations. After reading the article I did a little
straw poll of the counsellors and tutors I know. I found that a large number of them came away
from their training with an experience of the PD group which ranged from ‘poor’ to ‘traumatic’. I
was in a minority of students who had a positive experience (not always comfortable, but
supportive and developmental). It occurred to me that if my little community is representative of
the profession as a whole, counsellors who are having poor experiences of PD groups are, in time
becoming PD group facilitators themselves, mostly without any focussed training in group work.
Another quote from the same article:
“One student told me, ‘Whenever I asked what group process was, people would just smile knowingly
and tell me I would soon see.’ Whisper the words ‘group process’ to any counselling student or recently-
qualified counsellor and watch the fear appear in their eyes.” 4
This is how systemic dysfunction takes hold, and before we know it, we find that, instead of being
a supportive and nurturing environment for counsellors to develop their skills, the PD group has
become a rite of passage, a secret arena open to abuse and bullying, an experience to be endured
rather than celebrated.
Reading this article got me thinking about why the group process or personal development group
experience might be so problematic? My own experiences of groups had been mixed and I had
experienced poor group facilitation in my training before I got to the Gestalt Centre. Reflecting on
them and starting to read up around the subject I have concluded that there are 3 aspects to
consider when examining training PD group function.
1. Facilitators who have not done their own emotional work
2. Facilitators who have not been trained in group work.
3. Students who are not educated about what group process is or prepared for tolerating
discomfort in the service of personal growth.

2
Anon. Do No Harm. Therapy Today, November 2018 Volume 29 Issue 9

3 4
And
Anon. Do No Harm. Therapy Today, November 2018 Volume 29 Issue 9
4
Robust Emotional Work
I have to confess that this is a soapbox I get up on quite often. My original reason for starting
our own Counselling Academy was to offer a robust training. Before I became a tutor, I
witnessed so many trainees graduate into the counselling profession lacking sufficient
awareness of their own attachment styles, patterns of relating, defences or contact styles. I
have known counsellors graduate without a requirement of personal therapy at all, or only a
handful of sessions. I find this very disturbing. There is much discussion around how much
therapy is needed in the training. My own feeling is that a good training organisation will
closely monitor the student’s emotional development during the training and will only allow a
person who has demonstrated sufficient self-reflection and awareness to progress onto the
next stage of the training. The number of personal therapy sessions that a trainee does must
be sufficient to achieve this reflection and self-awareness, rather than a specific number. It is
essential that a trainee thoroughly investigate themselves and work through their own
personal wounds –to heal and be free themselves to be sure, but more importantly, as
practitioners, so that they are clear about how they relate with their clients. Without self-
awareness they will unconsciously repeat patterns, collude with avoidance, potentially trigger
traumas, and enter into powerplay with clients which will exacerbate dysfunction rather than
support healing. M. Leszcz (2004), writes about the potential for abuse in the therapy room:
`’….the stage is set in therapy either for potential re-traumatization or potential repair. The
outcome depends on the therapist’s capacity to engage in a mutually reciprocal process, mindful of
how the therapeutic relationship is jointly created. This arrangement stands in contrast to a
treatment marked by clinical hypocrisy, in which therapy is aimed primarily at maintaining the
therapist’s sense of self rather than fostering the development of the patient. In this latter
relationship the patient, and never the therapist, is blamed or faulted for any problem in the
relationship or failure in the treatment. `’ 5
If a group leader does not have sufficient awareness of and recovery from their own relational
wounds, the same issues will manifest in the training group. A facilitator with a fragile sense of
self and no support to be open to change, will impose a rigid structure on a group, or will fail to
hold a safe space allowing the group members, themselves reacting without awareness, to take
control in their own panic and fear. By contrast, a facilitator who has done their fundamental
emotional work and has ongoing supervisory support will be prepared to examine their own
process and so will be able to create a collaborative and therapeutic atmosphere with the
students. The group will have a chance of becoming a healthy environment for examination,
growth and development.
Group Process Training
The next essential element to avoid dysfunctional group facilitation is, I believe, robust,
experiential group facilitation training for tutors. For most counselling courses, although there are
usually stipulations that tutors have an educator’s qualification as well as their counselling
qualifications and sometimes also that they have a supervision qualification, there are no
requirements that tutors have any theoretical or practical grounding in working with groups.
I identified this absence in our own organisation some years back, in spite of our tutors otherwise
impressive range of qualifications. This manifested in group process sessions that felt stuck and
lacklustre, or alternatively, volatile and unsafe. I witnessed, when I observed these groups, a lack
of skills in the trainees to use the space to explore and support each other’s growth and
development, although the same trainees were demonstrating accomplished skills in the one to
one practice sessions they were doing. A common phenomenon of the PD groups at that time in
5
Leszcz, M. (2004). Reflections on the abuse of power, control, and status in group therapy
and group therapy training. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 54, 389-400.
our organisation was that the participants were either passive and looked to the facilitator for
leadership or were rebellious and took that rebellion outside the group process itself, leading to
splitting and cliquing. There were some members who shared in an incontinent way and others
who remained silent throughout.
My diagnosis of this phenomenon was that the facilitator was unconsciously holding control of the
leadership of the group (most likely fearful of an unsafe dynamic emerging) rather than supporting
the group to become autonomous and for group members to step forward to meet the group
needs as I would expect in a mature group of trainees. And who can blame a group leader who
themselves experienced poor group facilitation for trying to keep the lid on the scary bubbling of
conflict?
We responded by creating an in-house two-day group facilitation training workshop. In addition,
some of our tutors have also chosen to attend more in-depth group facilitation training courses as
part of their CPD. Our training covered the basics of group facilitation, an understanding of group
development and a range of group skills. The result has been more thoughtful, mature and
dynamic PD groups. Students feel safer to take risks, pose challenges, be vulnerable and open up
to changing.
Basics of Group Process Training
Boundaries
For me the greatest learning in my counselling and psychotherapy journey has been about
boundaries. I was taught about the importance of boundaries right from the start – and working in
a prison, the boundaries are stark. A colleague from Grendon Prison – where prisoners with
severe mental health diagnoses are held – told me that the physical boundaries of walls and locked
gates, add to the therapeutic boundaries that the mental health professionals provide, creating
many layers of safety so that the therapeutic work can be even more challenging and effective.
On the outside we have to create our own layers of safety. We must not stint on this part of the
process when working with trainees. Seasoned practitioners understand that boundaries are
flexible and that our experience can invite more give and take to enhance our connection and
learning, but with students we must keep firm boundaries. That is the starting point. The
boundaries in a PD group are the same as any therapeutic relationship. Same participants, time,
duration, location, no abusive or violent behaviour and so on.
Each group will explore their own ‘rules’ or ‘guidelines’ and regularly revisit and revise them as
time goes on. The boundary of confidentiality is a complicated one in a group of trainees and
needs careful negotiation. How do they keep confidentiality? Is it that everything in the PD
group stays in the PD group? Does this include their written assignments? Can they discuss
things that happen in the group between a sub-group of 2 or 3 people? What happens when a
person is absent for a week? Does the group fill them in, or is that confidential between the
people who were there? This can be an absolute minefield, and unless the topic is thoroughly
explored and negotiated between them there will be the potential for splitting and the container
will be leaky. This will result in a feeling of unsafety and lopsided development of trust. Most
groups I have led this negotiation with have wanted some freedom to talk to their colleagues
about what happens in the group outside the PD session and feel I am being unnecessarily rule-
bound to insist on no discussion outside the group. However, when they appreciate the
complicated dynamic that can result in a leaky container, they are willing to at least try the
experiment of having a discipline of only discussing PD group matters within the group. In this
way they can avoid the damaging effects of sub-groups emerging where individuals can vent their
feelings without bringing them to the main group to explore and take risks. A well boundaried
group will be vibrant and energetic and able to contain a broad range of emotional experiences.
Size
My experience of working with groups leads me to conclude that the ideal size of a PD group is 8
– 12 people. Any fewer and the group does not have sufficient diversity or energy to create a
sustained mutually supportive community. The facilitator has to provide much of the impetus, and
this discourages autonomy in the group. More than 12 and the level of risk becomes too high to
allow all participants to share freely and feel safe. This is why it is my opinion that training groups
of 15-20+ people, not unusual in counselling courses, run aground and can become stagnant and
abusive. Some courses have enough resource to have more than one facilitator, in which case the
groups can be larger, as one facilitator takes the lead while the other tracks the emotional energies
of the group members. Even with two facilitators, however, it is my experience that a group will
diminish in effectiveness with more than 15 participants.
Models of Group Development
Training Organisations and Tutors must be familiar with basic group development theory even at
the foundation stages of listening and counselling skills training. Without this they are working in
the dark, often with a difficult and negative experience from their own training days which may
make them frightened and defensive when faced with a group of eager students.
By contrast, if tutors are familiar with stages of group development (albeit not expecting them to
manifest in any mechanistic way), they can put their energies into developing a safe container and
fostering trust during the initial life of the group and will be less likely to be destabilised by conflict
and challenge as the group grows in confidence. They will know when to be very involved in the
dynamic to offer support and challenge, and when to step back to encourage autonomy.
There are a number of theoretical models describing how groups work. While it is important that
the facilitator not be hidebound by expecting any stages to manifest like clockwork, models are
useful to provide an appreciation of what might be happening in a group. Group development
models vary in levels of complexity, but they tend to follow the same themes - an initial stage of
accepting the status quo while rules are figured out and members make out the lay of the land,
followed by a time of competition and conflict, between group members, with the facilitator or
both, where attempts are made at establishing a hierarchy. Once some stability has been achieved
in terms of personal relationships, and trust has been established, a time of cohesion emerges
featuring deeper relationships, mutual support and expression of vulnerability where
developmental and therapeutic work can take place.
Many will be familiar with Tuckman’s (1965) Model of Forming, Storming, Performing and
Adjourning6. This model still holds a measure of validity today. Tuckman said that in the Forming
stage, group dynamics are characterised by dependence. Group members look to the group leader
for guidance and direction. They have a desire for acceptance by the other members and a need
for safety. Serious topics and feelings are avoided. The group’s task at this stage is orientation.
Once the group has established itself, it may move on to the storming stage which is characterised
by competition and conflict. Questions arise about leadership, structure, power, and authority.
Because of the discomfort generated during this stage, some members may remain completely
silent while others attempt to take control and dominate. (Both behaviours can indicate anxiety
and insecurity)
When the bid for a hierarchy has settled down, a group can enter the norming stage where
interpersonal relations are characterised by cohesion. Leadership is shared, and cliques dissolve.
People begin to experience a sense of belonging. An issue with the norming stage can be that
members may fear destabilisation or a return to the conflict of the past and supress further
6
Tuckman, B.W. (1965). Development sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63,
384- 399.
development which can result in a stagnant group. This is why not all groups will reach the
performing stage.
If, however, a group bypasses or moves through stagnation and evolves to stage four (performing),
the capacity, range, and depth of personal relations expand to true interdependence. In the
performing stage, people’s roles and leadership of the group dynamically flow in response to the
changing needs of the group and individuals. Members are self-confident. The group is united,
morale is high, and members feel loyalty and love for their fellows. Conflict is not avoided but is
accepted as part of the process and there is support for exploration and experimentation.
Tuckman’s final stage, adjourning, involves a conscious review of the achievements of the group, a
planned ending and disengagement of group relationships.
Another way to understand how groups develop is using the metaphor of human growth. The
initial stage is childlike – the group looks to the caretaker (facilitator) to provide safety and
nourishment. As the group grows in experience and resource it moves on to an adolescent stage
of pushing boundaries, exploring identity, testing the ground, reacting to vulnerability with
defences including anger and withdrawal. Then as the group moves into adulthood, more
autonomous ways of relating emerge, with different group members taking a leadership role at
different times, offering support and allowing themselves to be vulnerable without looking to the
facilitator for direction. A good facilitator will recognise this stage and withdraw to be in the
background, an adult amongst adults.
If they understand group development theory, facilitators can observe the event of a group within
the context of a structure, and with that framework, appreciate the ebb and flow of group process
rather than be dictated to by it. Of course, no human behaviour follows a model precisely and
each group will create its own dance of these stages depending on the individual members,
circumstances and level of facilitation. It is important that facilitators appreciate that each group,
as with each individual, is unique and will come with its own unique dynamic. A facilitator who
does not appreciate this may consciously or unconsciously apply pressure for a group to comply
with the ‘rules’, follow the expected pattern and thereby corrupt the natural dynamic. A
competent facilitator, however, will observe a helicopter perspective while holding a safe space,
and not be overwhelmed by their own feelings and/or sucked into trying to control the group.
Group Facilitation Skills
Facilitating a group involves applying a similar skillset to counselling individuals. The difference is
that they must be applied to each group member in their own right, and the group as a whole (I
often say that the group has its own identity and power – an example of the whole being more
than a sum of its parts.) Here is a list of some of the necessary skills.
Creating a holding framework
One of the most regular complaints about group process is that it does not feel safe. I have a bit
of an issue with the word ‘safe’ which I will expand on further into this article but for the time
being I acknowledge that creating a trustworthy container for group process is essential before
any meaningful work can take place. As discussed above, the facilitator is responsible for initiating
the structure of the group. This will involve contracting the group rules or guidelines in a
collaborative way. Holding consistent boundaries, for example keeping accurate and precise time,
giving clear instructions, just as a counsellor would in the contracting stage of the therapeutic
relationship.
Exploring meaning of the group
Supporting group members to gain clarity of purpose - what are we here to do? For PD training
groups this will involve transparency about why and how we include group process into our
curriculum.
Operating the Core Conditions:
An effective way of describing how to work in a group is to encourage members to make a
commitment to apply the use of Carl Roger’s (1951) Core Conditions of Empathy, Congruence and
Unconditional Positive Regard7 to their peers when they are negotiating their initial contracting
with each other. As well as the core conditions, other basic counselling skills or attitudes are also
helpful, such as immediacy, appropriate disclosure and transparency.
Even with a contract in place, it is remarkable how quickly the attitudes of empathy, congruence
and unconditional positive regard are pushed into the background when difficult feelings emerge
in group process. I suggest this is because facilitators and students alike are subject to the primal
responses evoked by participating in groups - fear of abandonment and banishment which are
fundamental to the human condition. However, the group environment is an excellent training
ground for developing skills of tolerating discomfort at the same time as offering the core
conditions, a situation which will also manifest in 1:1 therapy.
Modelling
This is one of the essential skills of group facilitation. In the initial stages the facilitator, in parental
role must provide a template of group behaviour for the new group members to learn from. They
will model such behaviours as:
 Speaking out own feelings and sensations. Noticing own body, emotions, awarenesses.
 Supporting group members to express themselves. Bringing individuals in, offering
affirmations and encouragement.
 Tracking themes and speaking them out. Recap and summarise both during session and at
the end.
 Notice what is not being said by self and expressing curiosity about what is not being said
by others. This can be expressed as making visible what is invisible, the unconscious,
conscious, and naming the ‘elephant in the room’.
 Noticing and speaking out connections that are forming. (Subgrouping) Connections can
be differences as well as similarities, wherever people are on a continuum – they are
always in relationship.
 Notice power/energy directions. Where does it travel? How does it manifest? Who holds
the baton? This is not necessarily something that the facilitator will comment on as it may
stymie the dynamic but paying attention to the flow is very helpful in noticing patterns.
 Encouraging direct communication amongst group members. Group members will often
direct their comments to the floor in the middle of the group or to the facilitator rather
than directly to another group members.
 Encouraging Here and Now relating. Not getting too involved in story-telling – process
rather than content. Related to this is encouraging people to look at each other. Many
group members will resort to examining shoe wear to avoid contact.
 Slowing down the action when necessary. This might be to examine process or to address
spiralling emotions.
 Noticing and when appropriate challenging defensive behaviours. (intellectualisation,
deflection, humour, withdrawal etc.)
 Working reflexively. Bringing theoretical concepts in to describe the process as it unfolds.
This must be done skilfully to avoid shutting down the dynamic.
These skills are modelled because as a group matures and individuals assert their own autonomy,
they will increasingly share the facilitator role between them. I am a big believer in working
transparently. When students have an understanding of group development and group skills, they

7
Rogers, C. R. Client-Centered Therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1951
will have the capacity to take the reins from the facilitator and assert their autonomy and
authority. The aim is that a group of counselling students all be co-leaders in the group
experience by the end of their training and that they have full awareness of the process they are
going through. A group facilitator must always be acutely aware of the role their own ego plays
and be prepared to relinquish the tiller when it is safe and appropriate for a group member to take
control. In fact, the main aim of a facilitator within a group is, in time, to make themselves
redundant.
Unsafe or Uncomfortable?
This is an important area of concern for counselling training. Of course, we must provide a safe
space. As counsellors we uphold our ethical framework, whichever one we subscribe to, and
commit to do no harm. Furthermore, without safety there can be no trust and without trust there
will be no learning. We must pay close attention to ensuring that the boundaries are firm and
always adhered to, that respect and care is always in evidence.
However, I have observed the cry of ‘unsafe!’ is frequently used as a way of closing down a
fruitful, if difficult avenue of exploration. When working with groups it is not just one person
whose inner victim might be activated by an area of exploration, but any of the group might feel
threatened by the work and shout ‘unsafe!’. Without awareness of this we run the risk that our
fear of being accused of ‘damaging’ our clients/trainees may lead to collusion with defense
mechanisms rather than developing awareness of them. This in turn can lead to a stuck group
where the unspoken rule is “don’t challenge”.
It is essential to have the conversation within the group of what they can expect from group
process, exactly as a counsellor would do with a client. It needs to be overtly acknowledged and
accepted that feeling uncomfortable is part of the deal. There is a big difference between feeling
discomfort and psychological damage. There will be times when students may feel angry, anxious,
upset, attacked, misunderstood, misinterpreted, shamed, confused, stuck, as well as calm, bored,
united, supported, euphoric, excited, enlightened joyful and all shades in between. Feelings is the
name of the game and getting in touch with difficult emotions is what we are training students to
do. If students are not able to tolerate difficult emotions in themselves, or their peers, they will
unconsciously avoid difficult feelings with their own clients. One of the most important lessons
for the trainee counsellor is to manage spiralling emotions in themselves and others – to be a safe
container.
There is a concept in Gestalt Psychotherapy which is called the ‘safe emergency’.
“the point is for the patient to feel the behaviour in its very emergency use and at the same time to feel
that he is safe because he can cope with the situation” 8(Perls, Hefferline and Goodman 1952)
This is what we are aiming for - a loving process of recreating a situation where a trainee’s
defences are activated while simultaneously supporting their awareness of sufficiency and
competence. There must be an understanding that this process will be emotionally hard but that
the reward is freedom from knee jerk emotional reactions and a sustained emotional maturity.
Facilitators who collude with trainee’s fear of activating their defences will stymie the
development of the PD group and the individual participants.
Conclusion
Counselling and psychotherapy training is tough. As well as the academic study, students must
practice their skills with real clients, attend supervision, personal therapy and participate in PD
group. Most trainees do all of this while working, looking after family and living life in all it’s

8
Perls, F.S., Hefferline, R.E. and Goodman, P. (1951) Gestalt Therapy: Excitement and Growth
in the Human Personality. Dell, New York. Pg. 288
complexity. But the hardest part of the journey is the internal one. Trainees negotiate their
history and past relationships, their ways of contacting the world, their assumptions and
judgements and become curious about everything. What hopefully emerges from this exploration
are therapists with awareness and enlightenment and the ability to be honest with themselves.
The primary purpose of the training is to produce therapists who support clients in turn to do their
own journey of discovery. Unless the student’s training is rigorous, they will not be up to the task.
As educators, it is our responsibility to support their learning and not evade the difficulty of our
own process or collude with our own fears of addressing difficult and dysfunctional behaviours.
The PD group is an essential and potent tool in the training as long as the tutors have done their
own emotional work, have basic appreciation of how group process works and are prepared to
give their students the tools to become experts in group process themselves.

Rachel Young
Director and Tutor, Banbury Counselling Academy
October 2019
References

Anon. Do No Harm. Therapy Today, November 2018 Volume 29 Issue 9

Leszcz, M. and Kobos, J Heading up the American Group Psychotherapy ‘Association Science
to Service Task Force (2007). Practice Guidelines for Group Psychotherapy.
Leszcz, M. (2004). Reflections on the abuse of power, control, and status in group therapy
and group therapy training. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 54, 389-400.
Perls, F.S., Hefferline, R.E. and Goodman, P. (1951) Gestalt Therapy: Excitement and Growth
in the Human Personality. Dell, New York.
Rogers, C. R. Client-Centered Therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1951
Tuckman, B.W. (1965). Development sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63,
384- 399.
th
Yalom, I. & Leszcz, M. (2005). The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy (5 ed.) New
York: Basic Books.