Time-limited and brief personal growth groups: Just enough for now

Kraus, Kurt L

My fascination with group work extends well beyond the counseling office. I am drawn to the types of experiences where something clicks, something occurs, and the meaning matters. I have found that even the briefest encounters often are responsible for indelible images. New images about myself and other people-some of whom I know, many of whom I do not-continually reform and rejuvenate what I bring to the role of group leader or member. I find these images to be especially longlasting when time is purposefully limited.

Several years ago I visited the Hermitage in St. Petersburg, Russia (once the winter palace of the czars, now the State Cultural Museum of Russia). I had almost the whole day to bask in the wonders of the museum's unparalleled collection of the visual arts. While queuing-up (which Russians tend to do far more graciously than Americans), I met and spoke with a small group of Russian people near the entrance.

One gregarious man in the group asked me what I most looked forward to seeing. I launched into my ambitious list of "must sees": the works of Titian, Rembrandt, Matisse, Picasso; the Faberge collection, and Voltaire's Library. He looked incredulous. "I have only this one day to visit, so I've chosen to spend it in the Great Hall" he said-a gold gilded, architectural masterpiece indeed, but just one of literally hundreds of separate rooms available to him.

A woman in their group told me that she was most interested in viewing the wardrobes and jewels of the czarinas. One man hoped to see as much as he couldalthough, he added, he knew very little about art. Another spoke of her "bad feet" and not wanting to walk too much, so she would see what was close by on the first floor.

Their decisions, and mine, reminded me of one of the great lessons I have learned while studying, belonging to, and leading time-limited groups: People search for things to fulfill their hopes and needs in different ways, and we are all blessed with a variety of means by which to complete that search. A visit to the Hermitage affords a vastly different experience for those who enter the same door on the same day, even with the same overall intent. Likewise, the vast possibilities inherent in time-limited group work require choices, decisions, and personal responsibility for leaders and members.

My thought that day, at the risk of being obvious, was how to best catch a glimpse of everything I wanted to see. Other visitors chose to savor other things. Our time would be well spent, but very differently. Some had set ambitious goals and some modest, but every goal was to be played out under the same roof in the same time. The wealth of our opportunities was equally great.

"TIME-LIMITED" AS A CONTEXT FOR GROUP COUNSELING

"Time-limited" and "brief' often connote less. In many things, this undoubtedly is true. Consider a brief visit with cherished friends-all too often less than long enough. Even though this limited time spent with a loved one may be wonderful, it would be even better if it were longer. Brief has to do with time. And in today's time-starved culture, much has to be brief to compete successfully. Restaurants guarantee 5minute service. Novels are abridged and read aloud to you on your car stereo as you drive or via a Walkman while you sweat on an aerobic lifecycle. Otherwise you have no time to read them. Oil changes take 10 minutes or less. Commuter-like trips take place all over the globe, arriving somewhere you will not stay long enough to warrant resetting your watch.

Time-limited is becoming a way of living life-speeding break-neck through our allotted time to get the most out of the whole catastrophe. (See Kabat-Zinn, 1990 for a thorough accounting of the "whole catastrophe.")

Specifically, time-limited and brief are adjectives that appear frequently in the counseling literature (Budman, 1981 @ Koss & Shaing, 1994). Counselors practicing across a variety of settings likely are drawn to approaches that respond to or address the pressures and expectations created in our current social climate. It now seems appropriate to add to the perennial questions: What works with whom in what setting-in the least amount of time? School counselors, as an example, rarely are able to apply long-term or time-indeterminate counseling models (although they may be trained in those models during graduate education programs) with young people (see Gysbers & Henderson, 1994; LaFountain & Garner, 1996; Littrell et al., 1992; Littrell, Malia, & Vanderwood, 1995; Mostert, Johnson, & Mostert, 1997).

In agencies, hospitals, and a host of other practice settings, to ensure approval of reimbursable mental health services, time-limited methods now are a "given" (Bennett & Wisneski, 1979; Friedman & Fanger, 1991). For clients whose treatment is under the scrutiny and oversight of health maintenance organizations and insurance plans, timesensitive, time-restricted, or time-limited counseling approaches are favored (see Bennett & Wisneski, 1979; Cummings, 1977; Pardes & Pincus, 1981; Poey, 1985). Over the past 20 years a love/hate relationship between mental health professionals and time-limited and brief approaches has emerged. Gustafson (as cited in Budman, 1981), wrote:

Many speak with some disdain of the shrinking privilege of limitless sessions, and others often feel that a foreign malevolence named managed care is robbing the mental health profession of its lineage. Rather than argue or join in, I would offer that efficacious time-limited group methods are in the best interest of the member. Simply, shorter is often better in terms of commitment, schedules, and competitions for precious time. (p. 123)

In their now classic text on brief therapy, Budman and Gurman (1988) wrote, "We are most interested in the effective and efficient use of time in treatment" (p. 248, emphasis in the original). Brief or time-limited have become adjectives that may be misconstrued to mean second-rate or "less than" (Spitz, 1997). This terminology may even be viewed as passing fancies or counseling jargon currently but temporarily in vogue. To some people, they have become distasteful words. This reaction actually might have more to do with our wider dissatisfaction with the pace to which we have become accustomed.

In discussing the core of time-limited psychotherapy, Mann (1981) wrote, "If I were to choose a single element that seems to best mark the present era, I would say that it is the dizzingly swift pace of time" (p. 28). Perhaps a helpful reframe would be to pair time-limited and brief with effective and efficient so as not to evoke the hurried worry that otherwise might arise.

This article is about time-limited counseling groups. Much of what I have written is anecdotal. It is about some of what I have watched transpire while leading or supervising or observing brief counseling groups. Further, this is about how we counselors, and specifically group leaders, use the time we spend doing time-limited or brief group work. Less emphasized are issues about time per se (e.g., five group sessions versus eight, versus 20 or 5-hour-length sessions versus two 21/2-hour sessions). For a thorough discussion of these more technical and temporal issues, see Budman and Gutman (1988) and Sabin (1981).

Most important, I view time-limited and brief as wonderful methods of group counseling for working with a wide range of people across many settings. I have written this article for readers who lead brief groups in schools, outpatient mental health centers, and private practices-to name only a few. I purposely do not dwell on "deficit" connotations of brief and time-limited thoughts such as: the absence of . . . . or the lack of .... or what could, or should, or might have been if more time had been available .... This article is about the grand opportunities of limited time.

THE TERMS: BRIEF AND TIME-LIMITED

The adjectives brief and time-limited are used interchangeably throughout this article. Often I use both. My intent is to leave readers to wrestle with the myriad of issues that arise while simply coining either one or the other term, or differentiating a brief group from a not-brief one. The groups I write about here are based on the premise of limited time.

Readers are alerted that many authors specifically delineate between these two terms and often prescribe their own unique meaning for each (Davanloo, 1978; Malan, 1976; Mann, 1973, McCallum & Piper, 1988; Sells & Hays., 1997). I prefer that these two adjectives be thought of, each time they are encountered in this article, as descriptive of members' perception of the group experience as brief or time-limited rather than as adhering to some theorist's or practitioner's definition of his or her "brief group" or "timelimited group."

To illustrate: Eight or 12 sessions might seem anything but brief to an adolescent (or for that matter the leader of some adolescent groups), or a hurried business person, or a parent who must arrange child care in order to attend each session. In comparison, 20 sessions could be perceived as a mere "warm-up" to someone else. Budman and Gurman (1988), in fact, consider 60-70 sessions as being brief, provided that this is "the shortest feasible, most efficient, and parsimonious time frame" for "individuals with severely impaired modes of interpersonal interaction" (p. 248). Such a group, however arguably brief, is beyond the reach of this article.

Moreover, I intend that brief and time-limited group counseling be seen as an event, part of a larger life process, in the life of a client/member. As Bennett (1983) reminded us, psychotherapy "whether long or short in duration, whether aimed at problem resolution or character change, is not construed by the patient as a definitive and curative process, but one which has use and value at times of need" (p. 365). 1 envision the groups that I write about in the monograph as meeting such need for members, at this moment, at this point in time. This is in close keeping with Hoyt (1990) who wrote,

Time is of the essence in brief psychotherapy. The message, by definition, is brevity: Do it now, no time to waste, be efficient and parsimonious, seize the moment, be here now, get on with it. (p. 115)

I hold no illusion that any single counseling intervention is fully sufficient for the life course of an individual, nor that it should be.

The remainder of this article is divided into four independent sections:

1. A cursory overview of time-limited and brief approaches to individual and group counseling.

2. A chronological map to navigate the kind of brief and time-limited counseling groups I write about throughout this article. This provides readers with a view of the brief personal growth group as it develops-from pre-group planning to post-group reflection. The discussion addresses the entire time-limited group process with specific anticipation of what questions practicing counselors who lead time-limited groups might ask as the group unfolds beginning to end.

3. An exploration of beliefs and ultimately a synthesis of misconceptions that group members may bring to brief group counseling experiences. This discussion acts to alert brief and time-limited counseling group leaders to what might lie ahead; to recognize these beliefs and effectively navigate through them. This discussion is provided to stimulate thinking about these questions prior to launching into leading brief and time-limited groups. It provides no answers, just provocative voices.

4. Using practical analysis of member feedback received from participants in time-limited counseling groups over the past several years, a reflection on their wonderful comments and plausible and jargon-free possibilities. These member anecdotes are a means rather than an end; they provide welcomed, real voices to illustrate many facets of leading and belonging to time-limited group counseling experiences. My purpose is not to validate one approach of time-limited or brief group counseling or to rank one over another. Rather, it is to provide readers with an easily accessible, easily understood resource for their personal exploration of counseling people in small groups in effective, time-limited ways.

APPROACHES TO BRIEF AND TIME-LIMITED COUNSELING

Much of the literature written about brief or time-limited counseling pertains to one-on-one, counselor-client, and traditional doctor-patient methods. At first glance the traditional individual counseling paradigm simply appears shortened or abbreviated (see Klerman, Weissman, Rounsaville, & Chevron, 1984, for interpersonal psychotherapy of depression; Lehman & Salovey. 1990, for cognitive-behavioral therapy; and Sifneos, 1972, for emotional crisis). This conclusion is short-sighted. Koss and Shiang (1994) wrote, "Brief therapy has made significant contributions to the enhancement of general and scientific theory about the ways in which people change and adapt to contextual differences" (p. 664).

Brief and time-limited counseling and psychotherapy models are not merely miniature or abbreviated versions of these older, longer processes (Fisch, Weakland. & Segal, 1983, Mann, 1973; 1981). What is learned from traditional longer-term therapies and counseling approaches informs brief and time-limited models, but what is learned from the latter also informs the former. The underlying goal of the brief approaches to counseling and psychotherapy is efficacy and efficiency (Budman, 1981, Budman & Gurman, 1988).

Each "traditional" theoretical orientation that has developed a brief or time-limited approach maintains its original beliefs about human nature and the helping process (Koss & Shiang, 1994). Each modifies some elements of its approach to accommodate the less time available to the counseling process. There are fresh, emergent models that are fundamentally brief and time-limited-not adaptations of lengthier, more time-intensive counseling and psychotherapy models (e.g., Carroll & Wiggins, 1997; de Shazer, 1985, 1988; Ecker & Hulley, 1996; Friedman & Fanger. 1991; O'Hanlon & Wilk, 1987; Littrell, 1998; Talmon, 1990). Some newer models actually are often conceived from different beliefs about the process of change itself (Ecker & Hutley, 1996; Erickson, Rossi. & Rossi, 1976; Fisch, Weakland, & Segal, 1983; Watzlawick, Weakland, & Fisch, 1974; Wells & Phelps, 1990).

Koss and Shaing (1994) wrote, "The conceptual basis of the brief model is that adaptive coping is a lifelong process" (p. 669). Brief and time-limited group counseling approaches are presented here as a means toward achieving adaptive coping. They are couched in less deficit-centered language, enhancing lifelong aims of better self-understanding. interpersonal communication, and general wellness. Through their extensional model of group counseling, based on a "well" versus a psychopathology model, Carroll, Bates, and Johnson (1997) wrote, "The expression of feelings, the search for self-knowledge, the examination of self, the desire for interaction, and the commitment to self-growth are the substance of participation" (p. ix).

The impressive register of current models and theories that impose specific attention to time in dudes: depth oriented brief therapy (Ecker & Hulley, 1996), the interpersonaldevelopmental-existential approach (Budman & Gurman, 1988), single-session therapy (Huber & Backlund, 1991; Talmon, 1990), short-term anxiety-provoking psychotherapy (Sifneos, 1972), solution-focused counseling (de Shazer, 1985, 1988; Littrell, 1998; LaFountain & Gamer, 1998), time-limited dynamic psychotherapy (see Strupp & Binder, 1984), and time-limited psychotherapy (Mann, 1973). Though by no means exhaustive, this list reminds readers that time-sensitive models and methods of helping to bring about change in one person at a time are plentiful. (For a thorough review of brief psychotherapy theories see Koss & Shiang, 1994.) What we have learned from studying time-limited individual models informs our group counseling practice; however these methods are not group methods and, therefore, are in and of themselves insufficient.

TIME-LIMITED PERSONAL GROWTH GROUP: A MAP

What does the brief or time-limited counseling group look like? What follows is a narrative map, an agenda ordered chronologically for a 5- to 12-session brief or timelimited counseling group. Although ordered, I do not imply that the sequence is necessarily lockstep. To the contrary, each group experience presents leaders and members with unique nuances that often require flexibility for artful navigating. Readers, I believe, will focus their attention on aspects that best address their personal and professional curiosities, needs, and situations. Although no single map could guide anyone through all variations of time-limited group counseling, this is a running commentary for one: the brief or time-limited personal growth counseling group.

Planning, Preparing, and Pre-group

1. These brief or time-limited counseling groups are of the personal growth genre.

Budman, Bennett, and Wisneski (1981) wrote that shortterm group psychotherapy "capitalizes on the fact that people are constantly changing over the course of their lives, and that there is, within each of us, a thrust toward maturation and development" (p. 340). This echoes my belief as well. Imbedded in the title "personal growth group" is a host of leader and member expectations and qualifications. These groups best serve members who are self-aware, psychologically minded, reliable (absenteeism in an 8-session group is obviously problematic), able to communicate with others (a degree of interpersonal skill); can participate, share of themselves in an appropriate way, balance their needs and desires with those of the others, and will benefit from participating in a time-limited, group counseling experience (see Budman, Bennett, & Wisneski, 1981; Friedman & Fan er, 1991; Garvin, 1990; Poey, 1985).

In their generic model for short-term experiential group psychotherapy, Budman and Gutman (1988) emphasize "interpersonal factors (e.g.. cohesion, group development, feedback, self-disclosure, etc.) are believed to be pivotal elements of any experiential group treatment" (p. 247, parentheses in original). Members, therefore, must possess to a meaningful degree the capacity to engage with the group in such a way that these interpersonal factors can flourish.

Donavan, Bennett. and McElroy (1981) wrote, "Two specific curative factors-the cohesiveness of the group culture and the knowledge that others are in similar difficulties and want to help - seem the key to the treatment" (p. 297).

Leaders, however, must not overextend their control of what constitutes personal growth. Whether members are attempting through group participation to work through (a) a particularly challenging moment in their lives such as coping with a loss (Toth, 1997) (b) seeking to "enhance their learning ability and attain more enjoyment from living by increasing their spontaneity. creativity, autonomy, and productivity" (Carroll, Bates, & Johnson, 1997, p. 6), or (c) some existential, developmental, and interpersonal awareness (Budman & Gurman, 1988), the groups advocated here broadly encompasses such possibilities.

2. The focus of these groups is personal growth.

Mann (1973, 1981), Budman, Bennett, and Wisneski (1981), Andrews (1995), and numerous others assert that focus is imperative in time-limited counseling and psychotherapy. Deciding what the focus of the brief group will be is one of the leader's first tasks (Budman & Gurman, 1988, p. 250). The focus must be neither limiting nor restricting-meaning that the group's focus is not to be misconstrued with the individual members' reasons and goals for participating. The latter will be addressed through the group focus.

Therefore, a focus on personal growth provides members with a unifying, overarching connector through which members' individual goals and objectives can be addressed. This group focus establishes an environment wherein members' disparate "issues" can be addressed through belonging and working with others in the group.

Instructions often given to counselors who are doing brief or time-limited work include "establishing and maintaining focus in the brief group" (Budman & Gurman, 1988, p. 148), developing a "circumscribed chief complaint" (Sifneos, 1978, p. 46), and, for those dealing with similar life issues, to "maintain a focus on these and related concerns" (Budman, Bennett, & Wisnecki, 1981, p. 340). This can become a problem when leaders compel their members/ clients to select "one problem" over another or see that each member's problem is what will be their specific focus of counseling during the group.

Although individual goals and member foci are inevitable, the group focus must be broader--a meta-focus if you will. In this way, leaders help members to focus on the larger concept of personal growth with others. The emphasis of these personal growth groups rests upon the interpersonal factors of hope, universality, group cohesion, development of social skills, imitative behavior, and existential factors. Yalom (1995) explains each of these in detail, summarizing that therapeutic change is an enormously complex process that occurs through an intricate interplay of human experiences" (p. 1).

3. At the heart of these personal growth groups is a reliance on interpersonal communication and relationship, member to member and leader to members.

Here the leadership style "demystifies the helping healing process and enlists the members' shared participation in this endeavor" (Poey, 1985, p. 343). Each member plays an integral role in creating a group that is built upon interpersonal factors. Roles naturally differ. Some members are talkative, others quiet. Some struggle, and some seem at ease. The leader must believe that the brief or time-limited group counseling process that relies on these interpersonal factors is sufficient to instill hope and trust in that process by the members. As Sabin (1981) reminds us, Leiberman, Yalom, and Miles' (1973) research defined a constellation of leader behaviors that correlated with positive member outcome in encounter groups that I believe applies well to personal group groups. They included: "leaders who offer a great deal of warmth and positive support, who provide a rich cognitive framework within which group members can make sense of their experience, and who monitor the group process vigilantly." (p. 279).

4. These counseling groups are existentially grounded and focus on the here-and-now.

Although logically tempted by the limited time, these counseling groups are not lesson-based, in which members are instructed with the intent to improve some perceived deficit. Nor do members follow exercises in which repetition might remedy some present or perceived interpersonal weaknesses. In these groups, interpersonal skills are modeled, developed, practiced, and enhanced through the process of membership, through the process itself of belonging.

Carroll, Bates, and Johnson (1997) offer a superb philosophical underpinning upon which their extensional group model is constructed. They, like others (see Yalom, 1995, p. 88), look at the following existential issues and the implications that each brings to bear on the group counseling process: existence precedes essence, humankind is condemned to freedom, self is defined only through actions, and the "I-Thou" relationship defines group processes and content (pp. 17-34).

Yalom (1995) provides detailed meaning and instruction to the complex task of leading a group in the here-and-now. In sum, he wrote:

Thus, the effective use of the here-and-now requires two steps: the group lives in the here-and-now, and it also doubles back on itself; it performs a self-reflecting loop and examines the here-and-now behavior that has just occurred. (p. 130)

Reliance on these two concepts--the first a guiding philosophy and the second a means of functioning within the group--forms the base upon which these time-limited, personal growth groups operate.

5. Where do the members come from?

Ideally, the group is composed of members responding to an advertisement. Depending on the setting, appropriate advertisement allows the widest diversity to become aware of the forming group. If, for example, the group is for students in a public or a private school, members ideally would consist of interested individuals rather than of those "selected" or otherwise identified by faculty or administration.

Group composition is an important issue for consideration. In these time-limited groups, membership is thought of as ideally voluntary.

In my experience, mandated members (those who are required to attend) for example, school administrators, a judicial body, or parents--often have an enormously difficult time with this style of personal growth group work. A mandate for personal growth is indisputably based on someone else's critical perception of the member. That situation often sets up resistances that "participation" in a time-limited or brief group is not apt to be resolved. Conversely, if that same individual, rather than a mandated one, chooses to join a personal growth group, the potential for benefit often is regained.

In general, brief and time-limited groups seem best suited to members who are less disturbed (Strupp & Binder, 1984), fairly healthy (Poey. 1985), and functioning adequately (Carroll, Bates, & Johnson, 1997). These criteria fit well with Conyne (1989), and Conyne, Wilson, and Ward (1997) regarding membership in counseling groups in general.

6. The members are selected based on their expression of interest it? personal growth work.

This expression, I believe, is the most salient and relevant homogeneous factor that members selected for time-limited group counseling must exhibit. Otherwise, I believe the membership is best composed of a heterogeneous group that accurately reflects members' social world. This fosters the establishment of a relevant group culture in which the dynamics Yalom calls the "social microcosm" (1995, p. 37) emerge. In my experience (e.g., school, university, and private-practice counseling settings), the setting always has imposed a powerful "social" influence. Membership most often has been inherently a reflection of the members' world(s). Whether group members are middle-school students or first-year students at a university, they bring their setting as something shared and to some extent common ground to which members can relate.

Wonderful literature exists and numerous conclusions and interpretations have been made (empirically and anecdotally) addressing member characteristics and group-composition issues. These include age (developmental level) and gender of members (Carroll, Bates, & Johnson, 1997; Budman, Bennett, & Wisneski, 1981; Yalom, 1995), presenting problem (Kanas, 1990; Strupp & Binder, 1984), focus (Bennett, 1983; Budman, Bennett, & Wisneski, 1981), common theme (Andrews, 1995, Budman & Gurman, 1988), setting (Carroll & Wiggins, 1997; Spitz, 1997), and members' symptoms having an interpersonal dimension (Poey, 1985).

Like Donigian and Malnati (1997), I am not inclined to obsess to any great extent on composing the "ideal group" (p. 49), nor am I apt to strive for the myth of perfect membership. The overarching concern, rather, is for the selection of appropriate members who are likely to benefit from brief or time-limited groups. These groups have a clear, albeit somewhat idiosyncratic, theme-personal growth-that is made richer through appreciation of diversity and difference.

7. Interested individuals choose to join, agree to participate, and are aware that others commit to the group in a similar way.

Individuals arrive with varying interest for joining the group (e.g., curiosity, urgency) and by a wide variety of avenues (e.g., self-referred; referred by peers, teachers, or advisors in school and college settings). They must make an "informed decision" whether to join the group or not (Budman & Gurman, 1988, p. 256). As the group begins, members begin an experience that they know little about. For many, the group is just short enough to be tolerable, and just long enough to be beneficial. Members enter with hopes and expectations, anticipation and doubt. The earliest moments of invitation and screening, long before the actual group commences, set a tone that will follow long into the group experience itself.

8. Once a pool of potential group members is gathered, individuals are interviewed to assess their goodness-of-fit for this group.

A crucial step in orchestrating an effective group is to establish an appropriate group membership (Budman, 1981; Budman & Gurman, 1988; Poey, 1985, Yalom, 1995). As Budman and Gurman remind us, the brief group must "hit the ground running" (p. 253), and interviews afford the group leader an opportunity to select members that seem able to do that. Although Budman and Gurman (1988) question the effectiveness of an individual interview to assess a member's appropriateness for participating in group (p. 256), the pre-group, individual interview is the method cited most widely in the literature to ensure favorable group composition.

During these individual meetings, I attempt to complete five things: (a) assess the individual's ability to relate to others, (b) clarify each individual's presenting issues and/or reasons for participating in the group; (c) teach each potential group member what brief or time-limited counseling groups are and how they function; (d) answer questions that each member may have regarding the group process; and (e) screen out individuals who are unlikely to benefit from or contribute to the group.

All of this about selecting members being said, I agree with Carroll and Wiggins (1997) that the selection process be neither hit or miss nor overly deliberate (p. 22). If leaders are not vigilant, the selection process can become biased by the leader's own personal likes and dislikes (e.g., attraction, agreement). These errors in member selection ultimately create a kind of homogenous group, one based on the leader's selection biases.

Phases of the Group

The phases or stages that groups go through can be conceptualized in numerous ways. A popular means is to identify sequential stages (see Tuckman, 1965). In their group counseling texts Corey (1995) and Gladding (1995) organize the vast literature on what transpires during these periods of time in the life of a group as the beginning or initial stage, the transition stage, the working stage, and the final stage or termination. Another way to conceptualize groups is by naming phases that apply not only to the duration of the group over time but also to characterize what goes on during each meeting or group session.

For this discussion I chose to use the terms warm-up, action and closure, based on Moreno's psychodrama stages of warm-up, action, and integration (see Gladding, 1995, pp. 390-391). Over the 8 or 12 sessions, the time-limited group transitions through these three phases. In addition, each session can be conceived of as going through these three phases (see Hulse-Killacky, Kraus. & Schumacher. 1999).

During each phase, key questions guide the leader's behavior (Hulse-Killacky, Kraus, & Schumacher, 1999). These terms and their corresponding questions attempt to define the progression of the group, neither merely in a temporal sense (i.e.. stage 1, stage 2, stage 3) nor in a linear-- beginning to end-way but, instead, to clarify what likely is taking place among the members and the leader(s) during a given time during the group. Establishing a conceptual map of "what happens when" is of great help to the leader; imposed by the obvious brevity of the time-limited group, much happens in a brief span of time (Poey, 1985).

Warm-Up Phase

9. The first group meeting is crucial for many reasons.

The warm-up phase may be a time of apprehension for members. Initial questions of "What will be expected of me?" or "What can I hope to gain by belonging to this group?" have been addressed already in the individual, pregroup screening. Members who now sit together for the very first time often need to repeat much of what was discussed then and there. The focus the second time, though, is not one of selecting appropriate members which was primarily a leader behavior. Rather, it is paramount among members now who are themselves beginning to establish the way they will "be" in the group. This illustrates the process of bringing something from the outside into the group-into the here-and-now. Wondering what will happen when the group begins is a very different experience than actually talking with others in the group about what "I might be feeling right now." This is a concrete example of moving into the present.

10. The task of establishing the norms that will guide how the group will function is the leader's responsibility.

Members appropriately ask the group leader, "What will we do here?" and, more important, "How will we do it?" In this warm-up phase, members' questions guiding the leader's behavior include, "Who am I?" Who am I with you?" and "Is the purpose clear?" (Hulse-Killacky, Kraus, & Schumacher, 1999, p. 116). As leaders and members consider these questions, leaders have to be particularly sensitive to the developmental level or status of group members. Children and many young adolescents need more literal or explicit directions than a group of more abstract thinkers to satisfy these questions. How the group will operate includes the fundamental rules for the group (e.g., confidentiality, attendance, safety) and much more. For a general overview of group work practice guidelines, see the Association of Specialists in Group Work Best Practice Guidelines (1998).

This article does not address the leader behaviors that are prerequisite to general group leadership. That is far beyond the scope here. For a superb explication of group leader training, development, knowledge and skill, I refer readers to Conyne, Wilson and Ward, (1997). Also, Carroll and Wiggins (1997) offer a detailed explanation of the following leader tasks and member responsibilities: directing comments, questioning, members as interpreters, defining feelings, working with a "stuck" group, lack of feedback from another member, labeling, encountering silence, bringing the content to the here-and-now, assisting members to took inward, linking joining individuals together), personalizing group members' experiences, responding to leader's authority, and ending a group session (pp. 43-53).

Describing leader intervention strategies, especially in establishing norms, Carroll and Wiggins (1997) state, "The leader cannot simply announce a list of do's and don'ts to group members Cuse the first person,' 'always look at someone directly when you are speaking...'). Instead, the "rules" should be set forth as needed. . . as the process unfolds" (p. 42). As is the case for brief and time-limited groups. the looming of closure tends to shorten the time available for unfolding. The shorter the group, the less time is available for the process of developing trust and group cohesion and understanding the processes of working to speak in the here-and-now and using "I" language. Therefore, leaders must devote attention to this process from the first moment through the last. Poey (1985) characterizes this rapid movement toward the action/work phase@ "Hastening into a working group has therapeutic, ego-building ramifications in terms of successful risk taking, decision making, and autonomy" (p. 339).

Leading to the end of this phase, there often is a surge of energy, a jockeying for position among members. This transitional process into the action phase is characterized by "turbulence" (Gladding, 1995, p. 104). Once the stage is set for how the group will function through the warm-up phase and the members begin to experience cohesion, the group transitions into an action phase.

The Action Phase

11. Transition from the warm-up phase to the action phase is not necessarily recognized easily. There is a shift from talking about how the group will function to one of "really being in the group."

The leader is devoted to establishing and maintaining the group climate. Although establishing a"climate where members speak freely and are willing to take risks" (Garvin. 1990, p. 530) actually begins in the pre-group screening and the earliest norm setting sessions, this trusting climate is first tested now when the member's attention shifts to other members.

This shift is most evident as the group transitions into the action phase. Not unlike lengthier counseling groups, timelimited group members that weather the turbulence of the transition stage move forward (Gladding, 1995). Members begin to feel more at ease. They better understand and accept the leader's role as it has been defined. Some of the resentment that is commonly directed toward the leader during the transition from the warm-up to the action phase seems to have dissipated. Members no longer wait for the leader to answer, or advise, or cajole. Members often become more tolerant of silence. They are more apt to be engaged, present, and responsive to others. The exchange of feedback emerges as a central behavior of the group.

12. Members develop skills of giving and receiving feedback.

Paraphrasing Rogers' client-centered group therapy, Donigian and Hulse-Killacky (1999) wrote:

The process of feedback develops and becomes more evident. Members more openly share information regarding how they perceive each other. Feedback contributes to selfknowledge by learning how one appears to others and the impact one has in interpersonal relationships. (pp. 10 & 11, emphasis in the original)

Carroll, Bates, and Johnson (1997) refer to the giving and receiving of feedback as the "life stream of a group" (p. 54). The leader's task to teach members how to communicate this life stream is not easy. It is accomplished by group leaders' transmitting "this information through modeling in their own behavior and, perhaps, through direct instruction" (p. 54). In brief or time-limited personal growth groups, this is crucial. Here, speaking in the first person, being direct, and communicating to another member rather than to the group in general form the foundation for giving feedback. Initial attempts to offer feedback are often weak but with perseverance and modeling, members get more skilled and comfortable with it.

13. The group becomes more member-driven than leader-led.

An important task for the leader during the action phase is to fuel the group process. Inevitably, the actual content-- what is talked about-is bound to vary from group to group, member to member. The process, "defined as the interactions and dynamics between members" (Hulse-Killacky, Kraus, & Schumacher, 1999), remains relatively constant. In this way, "process facilitates content" (p. 114). During this phase, the group begins to function with greater ease in the here-and-now. "Content does not deal with life outside the group but with what is going on within the group" (Carroll, Bates, & Johnson, 1997, p. 45).

During the action phase the leader's task is one of staying present, attentive to the verbal and nonverbal communications of the members. It is a time when the leader focuses the group on how as well as what is being communicated between members. The leader, I have observed, has less to say during this phase, but no less to do.

14. Questions during the action phase are: Who are we together? Are all matters related to content represented? (Hulse-Killacky, Kraus, Schumacher, 1999).

Now members connect personal meaning to how this group experience differs from that of other social groups. The group members develop a sense of belonging to a cohesive group; this is different from the social groups to which many members compare the group. They may not feel competent or confident in those other settings. Yet, even as this group begins to make sense, members often resist "making it so." Some members develop a growing sense of vulnerability.

Members who retreat toward self-protection in defense of their perception are viewed at times as not performing well. Some members believe that others are not holding up the implicit contract toward personal growth. At the other extreme, members who rush to self-disclose risk being deemed attention seekers. All of these dynamics are at first underground currents. The leader is who helps them surface.

15. In my experience, members tend to take turns participating during the action phase, at least initiallY.

This process often is one of checking and testing to see how the group will "really" function following the normsetting process. Members seem to consistently assume roles in the group that they are most comfortable with outside of the group (Yalom's social microcosm). Those who "jump in," those who remain distant, those who want to be the focus of others' attention. and those who offer others the attention they desire-all emerge during the action phase of the group. During this phase members at first often seem interested in pleasing the leader by checking in with silent, nonverbal questions as if they are asking, "Am I doing this group thing right?"

From this process emerges challenges. Some challenges are directed toward the process, some toward the leader's authority. Challenges often elicit strong reactions that represent opportunities for valuable feedback. Whether members are or are not able to offer their feelings and reactions to challenges often seems linked inexorably to the leader's earlier behaviors.

16. Leaders must learn to deal effectively with challenging member behaviors in the group.

Conflict and challenges are naturally occurring phenomena in groups (Gladding, 1999; Yalom, 1995). Both can be viewed as a source of positive therapeutic energy in the group (DeEsch, Kraus, & Geroski, 1999). At this phase critical members demonstrate criticism, the angry members become angered, and the submissive submit. Attending to these reactions is overtly stressful to the group as a whole. Such conflict invariably is a source of internal stress, producing noticeable flight-or-fight reactions by some group members and unnoticeable reactions from others. Learning to remain present in the presence of this challenge is difficult.

17. Members must be reminded that their time in the group is limited.

Although attention to time is addressed adequately elsewhere in this article, this reminder bears repetition. Often, just as the group begins to be a welcome source of insight and relationship, members begin their transition into the closure phase. Two things occur rather predictably.

First, members recognize the impending loss. This evokes sadness from some, denial from others, and resentment from yet others. Even though the group has been brief, knowing that this group soon will end heightens members' attention to one another and their focus on levels of communication that they are not likely to experience elsewhere in their lives.

Second, members often take up new (and sometimes uncharacteristic) roles to make sure everything and everyone in the group is "fine." Recognition that the group is beginning to end prompts some members to coat their interactions with a disingenuous glaze in an attempt to be remembered as helpful and empathic. Others become unpleasant or mean to ensure that saying good-bye will not be difficult when the end does arrive. Some try to make sure that others "got their chance" by harping on those members' missed opportunities.

Closure and Termination

18. Ending adds rich finality to the brief or time-limited personal growth counseling group.

What has happened through this group? The leader has modeled, and often directly asked members to pay attention to, their realizations and feelings. Members' awareness often is shared through self-disclosure and as feedback in response to what other members said and did. Often these interpersonal skills markedly improve throughout the course of the group. Members are encouraged to wonder and to reflect about their experience in group as the experience draws closer and closer to an end. The leader might remind members habitually that time is running out, with the intent of fostering continued cohesion, disclosure, and feedback (Hoyt, 1990). The end, if you will, has always been in sight (or in mind) during the time-limited counseling group.

19. Making meaning, the pursuit of finding personal meaning as the events of the group unfold, has been practiced throughout the group.

In the closure phase, Hulse-Killacky, Kraus, and Schumacher (1999) ask, "What outcomes resulted from this group experience?" (p. 116). In the final sessions, each member is encouraged to describe what thoughts and feelings remain while the group itself ends. Often this seems structured in terms of members' offering other members specific feedback with a sense of finality. The process of ending a group is not easy. Garvin (1990) wrote about the wide range of feelings that members have at termination: "Expression of feelings helps members to deal fully with other aspects of the group experience as well as with other terminations they face" (p. 534).

The leader actively directs members to direct their comments to other specific members in the group, just as he or she did during the warm-up and action phases. This undoubtedly remains particularly challenging for some members, especially as the end nears. At this point the leader may be a target of members' feelings including frustration and anger. Members wrestle with their own evaluation of their participation throughout the group; some are proud and fulfilled, and others are not. Some who intended to speak up about something but never did now realize they have missed their chance. No extensions are granted, even though many members hold on to a hope that it will happen. As a leader, I resist my usual temptation to end the group on an up-note.

20. The ending of group affords members the opportunity to begin to use newly honed skills and insights in their out-ofgroup environs.

In the introduction to Garvin's Short-Term Group Therapy (1990), editors Wells and Giannetti wrote,

The operative assumption is that a good proportion of the work begins after termination .... The added advantage of brief therapy is that there is a clear and prearranged understanding that the group is not a substitute for coping with and managing conflicts and problems but rather a training ground for living effectively with present and future challenges. (p. 512)

Long-term group counseling might confound members by providing an escape rather than an opportunity to apply what is gained through the group as their knowledge that the group will continue to be there for them (Budman, 1981). With a circumscribed beginning and end, brief or time-limited personal growth groups attempt to remedy these potential problems.

The Post-Group Process

21. Learning from each leadership experience is heightened through active and purposeful post-group processing.

A leader's membership in peer supervision groups, his or her ongoing clinical supervision, or vigilant self-reflection provide wonderful means to build upon what one learns from leading. Although the practice of leading brief or timelimited groups is not for the novice (Budman & Gurman, 1988), everyone must begin somewhere. It seems best to begin under the direction and supervision of someone who is more experienced.

On the occasions when the group has allowed for videotaping, this post-group process enhances the leader's skills by being able to return, in a sense, to moments in the group that have special meaning for the leader or member. By reviewing, the leader is able to assess what seemed to work and what seemed to be lacking. Building leadership skills upon actual strengths is a powerful learning experience. Among these, Yalom (1995) includes observations of experienced clinicians, supervision, a group experience for trainees, and personal psychotherapy as training considerations for group therapists (Chapter 17). Conyne, Wilson, and Ward (1997) offer a thorough investigation of teaching and training programs and base their suggestions for training group workers on exemplar methods.

22. Formal and informal assessment of members throughout and following the group is invaluable.

To ask members to keep journals through their brief group experience is one way to draw upon valuable member insights. Also, I have learned much about the perceptions and experiences of members by asking that they write me letters during and or following a group. In these letters, members are encouraged to write freely their thoughts and feelings with regard to the group. This method is an offshoot of Yalom's written summaries technique (1995, pp. 429-434) and from his insights in Everyday Gets a Little Closure: A Twice-Told Therapy (1992). The letters allow me as a leader to gain a keen new-and often substantially different-than-expected-understanding of what is happening for members in the group. I have found that members offer an enormous resource of formative and summative feedback and evaluation with regard to the group in general, and my leadership specifically, if they are asked.

23. Starting again.

What have I learned about leading brief or time-limited personal growth groups this time? What have I learned about myself as a group leader? What feedback have I received, and how have I reacted to it? What would I like to try differently next time? What would I like to do the same? These questions and their answers, no matter how tentative, prove invaluable for me.

The time-limited group experience has lasting meaning and force in members' lives and leaders' lives as well. Marguerite (Peg) Carroll wrote:

Group experience can provide an electrifying insight into communication. The exchange of emotions, feelings, and even participation can become a catalyst for thinking and learning .... The experience truly belongs to the "here and now," and the process is actually one of probing the "here and now" (personal communication, August 1999).

Experiencing the here-and-now and growing personally and professionally as a result is an ongoing challenge and reward for group leaders. Leading the kind of brief and time-limited groups as I have discussed here presents fascinating professional opportunities. The benefits are not reserved for members only.

ADDRESSING GROUP MEMBER MISCONCEPTIONS

With the desire of ensuring a pragmatic, practical article relevant to practitioners, I imposed upon several group worker colleagues to tell me what they believed were typical member misconceptions. What "mistaken beliefs" do brief-counseling group members bring to the screening session, a pre-group interview, or to the unfolding group sessions? This builds upon Budman and Gurman's (1988) contention that time-limited counseling groups are more difficult for members to "know just how to use group therapy" than is the case for individual therapy" (p. 253, emphasis in the original). From colleagues' contributions, I condensed and modified and imagined what these misconceptions would sound like from group members themselves. The result: seven voices.

Seven misconceptions, as voiced in the cartoon, are considered with some detail in this section. Each belief, I believe, can easily appear in the group and, as a result, bears significant influence on the group. These misconceptions arise-come to light-as the process of membership actually unfolds during the time-limited group itself.

The misconception in this cartoon is meant to be actually less literal than it sounds. What belief arises here? The member is reluctant to reveal much for fear that such an investment will not be worthwhile, given the limited time available for this counseling process. What this individual believes might be possible in this time-limited group is juxtaposed with what he or she believes would be possible in a lengthier group. Unaddressed, the result likely would be dialogue among members that clings to the surface. Safe, guarded, social chatter-which I often refer to as "porch swing conversations"-abounds.

What will be "nonessentials" in this group? Because it is a brief group, something logically must be shortened or omitted. This is an important question for the group members. How members seek answers to this question is important. It is as if the member asks, "Will the group members, especially me, become essential here?"

What is to be accomplished in time-limited group counseling is an important question for members to answer. Answers to this question depend on two variables: (a) what the member believes he or she will accomplish in this group and (b) the leader's agenda. One way to prevent ill-conceived notions from setting up obstacles that will get in the way of members' progress is for the leader and members to mutually establish a clear agenda for the group-in this case one of personal growth. This character's voice hints of his or her belief that airing a list of personal "problems" is a prerequisite before the group can accomplish anything.

As mentioned earlier, brief and time-limited group counseling methods are prevalent in outpatient and community mental health centers for a variety of reasons including economic and financial (Spitz, 1997), consumer preferences (Klein & Carroll, 1986), preferred service delivery models (Cummings, 1977), and others. Although the costs associated with participation in a personal growth group are unlikely to be submitted for reimbursement, the possibility warrants mention. Managed mental health care governed by health maintenance organizations is a reality for many individuals and, therefore, exerts meaningful force on clients' perceptions regarding the treatment one can access through such an insurance plan (Pardes & Pincus, 1981; Spitz, 1997). This perception and the misconceptions that might accompany it is voiced by this character's voice.

Negative publicity through the popular media seem to have become associated with changes in delivery methods in mental health practices for many individuals. With the emergence of time-limited preferences (and expectations) by numerous health-care providing companies, client/members are more likely to view "brief' or "time-limited" as diminished, as less than the way it used to be. Indeed, the leader may have to ensure that time-limited group counseling is an effective "treatment." Here, too, the leader must remember the importance of instilling hope among members that the time in this brief group will be well spent.

No member belief exerts more force, in my experience, on leading a time-limited counseling group than this one. The task falls to the leader to help members understand, through modeling and direct instruction mentioned previously, how the here-and-now focus works. How, as this voice protests, can members of a group have any impact whatsoever in her or his life outside? Members who are intent on telling story after story can exclude other members, they were not present after all. So the leader must refocus from the story to the impact the story had on its teller. "if personal growth is to take place, the leader must help members focus on their feelings in the present (Carroll, Bates, & Johnson, 1997, pp. 110 & 111).

Expectations or disappointments probably will not be voiced in such clinical jargon, but my use of "corrective emotional experience" is to dramatize the importance of members' anticipation and beliefs about what constitutes the counseling process in brief group counseling, how insight and growth can result from this group membership.

Members bring to the group their expectations and most assuredly their beliefs about how their expectations can be met. The member in the time-limited group who is waiting patiently for his or her turn for the leader's attention is likely to be disappointed. This misconception-that each member will have his or her moment of cure-cannot participate fully in the interpersonal experience that is the benefiting force in a personal growth group. Already addressed, members must know how the group functions and what is expected of them.

As has been stated, members need to know what role they play in a time-limited counseling group. Responsibility for participation belongs to each member. This does not preclude members from attempting to take care of others. Members pushing other members, gently coaxing or outright coercing a member through guilt into some level of participation that he or she is not yet ready to tackle, is not apt to be helpful. These "helpful" members may believe incorrectly that the end of group signals the end of opportunity.

Members need instruction (and reminding) that the course of time-limited group counseling is a starting point. Change, in terms of insight or understanding, or resolve and commitment, is not likely to be immediate. Neither can change be complete. The group's end signals an exciting starting point for many members, a point of being out there on one's own to put into daily practice what was gained through the group experience.

Although this voice is a bit absurd, it spotlights how difficult endings can be. Closure is ever-present in time-limited group counseling. Sessions in brief groups, in my experience, always include a virtual countdown. The value of anticipating the group's ending is indisputable (Sells & Hays, 1997; Yalom, 1995). Members who wish for the group experience not to end, especially following a meaningful counseling experience, are understandable. These members likely do not want to lose what they have invested in so thoughtfully. Like any loss, they have a need to grieve. The time-limited personal growth group is no exception.

Moreover, the time limit is in place purposefully. The reality of an impending ending acts as a catalyst for members to maximize every moment of time remaining. I often say to members, during an extended period of silence or surface-talk during the session, "I wonder if you're getting what you need right now in this group today."

CONSIDERING FEEDBACK

For several years, at the conclusion of a variety of timelimited counseling groups that I have led or co-led, I have encouraged members to write what their experience in the group meant to them and to offer their thoughts about my role and responsibility in their experience. Although I have attempted not to overly structure their responses, I suggested that they consider plusses and minuses, strengths and weaknesses, positives and negatives, highlights, and the like.

I always preface my request for this evaluation and feedback with some variation of, "Your written feedback allows me to be more aware of what group members believe about the group. The feedback opens my eyes to your experiences as you see them. rather than relying solely on my perceptions. I have a commitment to becoming a better group leader and counselor in general, so be honest and write whatever you would like." (I also mention that members need not identify themselves, that they should not refer to other members of their group by name, and that their feedback is to be voluntary.)

Liberally edited excerpts from this informal collection of written feedback are offered here. My reflective commentary illuminates how each member's feedback has piqued my introspection and curiosity about leading time-limited personal growth groups. By becoming more aware of members' experiences in such groups, I work toward a better understanding of my leadership and its impact on members' satisfaction and goal achievement.

The group was good for me. But in one way I really felt it was too short. After getting to know one another the way we have ... we have worked so hard together, I know that if we had more time together I would have gotten more out of the group. I think that we all could have.

This person's words captures a sentiment that runs through much of the member feedback I have compiled. When the members share their awareness that their efforts during the group were valuable not only to themselves but for others as well, they seem to have an almost natural tendency not to want a good thing to end. As natural or logical as this may be, the group functions ever knowledgeable of the constraint of limited time. A meaningful outcome emerges that their time together as members of this group mattered.

One of the challenges in conducting brief group work, I believe, is for the leader to emphasize members' moments of value (e.g., learning, understanding, empathy, awareness) as they arise during the group-in the moment. Actually, the leader can help to foster a norm in group in which members readily share aloud these personal moments. I often use the metaphor of shining a spotlight on what is happening off to the side-not on the center stage, but off in the wings. Members as well as the leader have a responsibility to point the light. This process helps to establish member awareness instead of member expectation. (Later in this section, however, I include an example of when this recognition of value failed for one member to be effective.)

Significant moments sometimes are easily recognized, but often these moments go undetected. As basic as it may sound, I often ask members, "What are you feeling right now?" This seems to bring to light the process of benefiting from session-by-session participation in the group.

Group is not an event. Rather, it is a series of events unfolding throughout the entire experience. In turn, this formative, in-process acknowledgment seems to lessen the weight that some members place on the summative, final moment of the group experience to reflect on its value. Members have mentioned how this ongoing "meaning" is particularly important. For example:

I really was frustrated in the beginning of group by not knowing how I would reach the goals I had set. My goals were the reason for being in the group in the first place. Every time I made some attempt to talk about my goals, )to one really seemed to care. You told me once that it was okay to keep my goals in mind, but not to pay more attention to them than what was happening in the group. It didn't make sense then, but I get it now I think! By being in the group I learned to understand myself better, to communicate better, and those two things will help me reach the goals I set. I understand now how my personal goals, like those about mv family, can't really be met in the group.

This member captures what I believe is crucial for members to benefit from a time-limited group experience. Many members don't get it and express frustration that this group can't help them achieve their goals. Like the character in the cartoon, "My problem is not in the 'here-and-now'. . . so I can't understand how this will help," members need some idea of how their participation, their membership in this group will benefit them beyond the duration of the group. If members have little idea how they should function in the group, they are unlikely to take whatever benefits they achieve beyond the group.

This group didn't work out for me. I was really patient the whole time, hoping that we would get to my problems and I would learn what to do about them. But that never happened. Now I wish that I had said something but I didn't think it was up to me. Why didn't -You bring up all the stuff I mentioned to You at my first appointment (the screening session) ? I think I helped others, so I did get something out of the group.

Patiently waiting for someone to help (as was the case here), waiting for the leader to bring up the material that this member wanted to address during the group, speaks not only to issues the client might present but also speaks to my inaccurate perception that the member's patience was satisfaction. Although I regularly attempt to encourage active member participation, to engage members who cling to the periphery, to question prolonged periods of quiet or restlessness, to link different members' disclosures thematically or in some other way, I simply miss what is happening with some members. This is not self-admonishment, rather, it helps me to rely on the members' perceptiveness and their insight and connection to other members.

I feel bad for the two members in group who never really got into it. I mean, they didn't get a chance to work on their own issues the way the rest of us did. I think that they couldn't. I wish they were more assertive, I suppose. They didn't say, "Hey, I need to say something" or, "Listen to me now. " I feel bad for them.... Truthfully, I feel a little robbed, too. It's like I shared some really personal things with them and they didn't share anything with me. Like they couldn't trust the other group members or something.... I couldn't even listen very well when (they) did speak. It was like they weren't really in the group.

This member offers two important thoughts. First, quite often members who are unable or unwilling to engage in the group fully often are pitied (for lack of a better word) by other members. This notion of "got into it" is relative to the behaviors and tenor that other members establish. For example, some groups are characterized as emotional or affective, and others as more thoughtful and cerebral. Once a timelimited group unfolds as such, a momentum seems to carry the group down one stream or the other. If a member is perceived as "swimming against the current" of this momentum, he or she is apt to seem less engaged. The thoughts and feelings that arise among the others are often those of pity at first. Members devote time and energy to bring about a better result for those outliers-often to no avail.

Second, members' initial empathy often turns to resentment and anger. The distance between these subgroups grows and, although a split might develop, this can generate enormous energy for the group if the leader attends to it. If ignored, the erosion often proves detrimental.

I really didn't understand from the screening process most of what I learned about what was going to happen in group. I listened to everything you said, but I just didn't get what the group would be like from that. I guess it didn't matter though. I still learned a lot.

The screening interview far too often becomes solely for me rather than for the potential group member. I can become preoccupied with the screening function of the interview, determining if this individual is a good candidate for membership in the group I am composing. Although some attention to this end is vital, whether a potential member passes my criteria for inclusion is not the only function of that allimportant interview. Informing potential members what the group will be like and how they are likely to contribute to and benefit from participating in the process also is vital.

I didn't like when you reminded us that we had agreed to do this or that in our first meeting. You said things like we agreed to focus on what was happening in the group rather than turn our focus to what was happening outside the group. I never forgot that I had agreed to do that, I just didn't want to. There were lots of times when I didn't want to do what you wanted us to do.

As mentioned previously, a high degree of leader activity often is necessary in time-limited groups (Budman & Gurman, 1988). Whether the leader's task is to keep the group focused or to move the group along at a pace appropriate to the time allotted, the leader is busy. This member's comment reminds me that doing the work of leading risks being deemed authoritative. More important, however, I am reminded that this style of personal growth-group counseling is not always a comfortable fit for members. As the leader points out distractions, calls attention to themes or patterns, and challenges how members are using the group time, he or she is bound to create moments of discomfort. Through members' awareness of discomfort, the group moves to a deeper level of interaction and communication.

Authoritative is not authoritarian. Encouraging members to move forward by reminding them of how the group will work best is a far cry from making unwarranted demands of them. Left to their own devices, I firmly believe, members rarely would adopt a method of operating that would even slightly resemble this model of time-limited group counseling for their personal growth.

I'm really surprised at how sad I was when the group ended. I wasn't the only one either I thought at the beginning of group that this will be okay .... Nothing very serious can get done in twelve meetings. I was wrong. I really felt, here are people who know me better than even some of my family knows me. We all started as strangers and ended up being very important to each other, more than friends. I know I won't see them again. I guess that's why I was so sad.

Returning to a thought I wrote earlier in this paper, people might be generally dissatisfied at the pace to which their lives have become accustomed. Here I add that with a fast pace comes the potential injury of less time or opportunity in one's life for seeking, establishing, and maintaining meaningful interpersonal relationships. This member's comment reminds me of the power and value inherent in brief group work. Relationships form in a short period of time. Members are listened to, and listen to each other, throughout this counseling experience. I have no difficulty understanding how members often are saddened by saying goodbye. I often feel the same way myself. What members take from the group often is a resolve to work to improve interpersonal relationships that are not subject to the termination date the group leader sets.

I wish I could have been more courageous in group. Everybody, intimidated me. I felt I was not very good at doing what other members seemed really good at. They were able to get right in there and say what they had on their minds. I can't do that. There were so many times when I wanted to talk, but I usually couldn't. It's not like I didn't have a chance to or wasn't invited to. I didn't have the courage all of the time.

Recognizing that I am not as good as someone else at something is not necessarily a comforting thought. It is humbling and at times humiliating. Nevertheless, it is true. Here is a member who wanted to talk more but usually could not. "Usually" helps me to believe that this group experience afforded this member a chance to practice, to try, and to demonstrate courage rather than merely wish for it. Although this member might not have felt as courageous as she wished, she is aware that it is possible and, I would hope, next time in a group or in some other life space these skills will become stronger.

As I told you during our individual meeting (the screening session), I hate conflict. Part of why I joined the group was to see if could get used to disagreements and not pull away like I do in other settings. The whole thing comes up at work all of the time. At work, like I said, when an argument or disagreement comes up, I dont know what to say. I feel like I'm complaining even though I liked the group and got a lot out of it. I just didn't get any better at dealing with conflict.

Although similar to the previous excerpt, this raises for me a different awareness. This member (whom I remember clearly) was quite animated and expressive during our screening session. To my surprise, and despite members' verbal and nonverbal efforts to engage her within the group, she did not connect with other members. It seemed as if I interviewed a very different person during the screening. In the presence of the other group members, this client turned inward. What I missed initially while reading this excerpt was that she liked the group).

Each member uniquely perceives the very process of belonging, sharing, and ultimately gaining something through group membership. This woman helps me to remember that too much emphasis on stating and achieving a specific goal has the potential of limiting the possibilities of the group. If members and leaders are not cautious, we might accidentally overlook the growth one makes while we are searching for a sign that a goal, whatever that might have been, was attained.

POSTSCRIPT

The novel Tuesdays With Morrie (Albom, 1997) is a best selling memoir about the life-transcending relationship between a long-since-graduated college student who returns to the side of Morrie, his favorite professor, to learn "life's greatest lesson" in the months and hours preceding his professor's death. This is a poignant reminder of the richness of life available moment-by-moment to those who have little time left. We share Morrie's experience of the bittersweet, tangled final process. Throughout the novel, time is a recurrent theme: time the enemy, time the motivator, time the victor, time the constant that richly flavors everything for Morrie as he learns how to live while he dies.

The brief or time-limited counseling group experience, although thankfully less finite, has much in common with this story's theme of time. The inexorable constraint of limited time is what compels the brief personal growth group to become a moment in life where much can happen quickly and with lasting effect.

REFERENCES

Andrews, H. B. (1995). Group design anti leadership: Strategies for creating successful common-theme groups. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Albom. M. (1997). Tuesdays with Morrie. New York: Doubleday. Association for Specialists in Group Work (1998). Best practice guidelines. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 23, 237-244.

Bennett, M. J. (1983). Focal psychotherapy-termin able and interminable. American Journal of Psychotherapy. 37, 365-375.

Bennett, M. J., & Wisneski, M. J. (1979). Continuous psychotherapy within an HMO. American Journal of Psychiatry. 136, 1238-1287.

Budman, S. H. (1981). Looking toward the future. In S. H. Budman (Ed.), Forms of brief therapy. New York: Guilford Press. pp. 461-467. Budman. S. H., Bennett, M. J., & Wisneski, M. J. (1981) An adult devel

opmental model of short-term group psychotherapy. In S. H. Budman (Ed.), Forms of brief therapy. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 305-342.

Budman, S. H., & Gutman, A.S. (1988). Theory and practice of brief therapy New York: Guilford Press.

Carroll. M. R., Bates, M., Johnson, C. D. (1997). Group leadership: Strategies for group counseling leaders (3d ed.). Denver: Love Publishing. Carroll. M. R.. & Wiggins, J. D. (1997). Elements of group counseling:

Back to the basics (2d ed.). Denver: Love Publishing.

Conyne. R. K. (1989). How personal growth and task groups work. Newbury Park. CA: Sage.

Conyne. R. K., Wilson. F. R., & Ward, D. E. (1997). Comprehensive group Work: What it means and how to teach it. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Corey. G. (1995). TheorY and practice of group counseling (4th ed.). Pacific Grove. CA: Brooks/Cole.

Cummings, N. A. ( 1977). Prolonged (ideal) versus short-term (realistic) psychotherapy. Professional Psychologist, 8, 491-501.

Davanloo, H. (1978). Basic principles and techniques in short-tenn dynamic psychotherapy. New York: Spectrum Publications.

DeEsch, J. B., Kraus, K. L.. & Geroski, A. M. (1999). Attending to challenging situations in counseling groups. Manuscript submitted for publication.

de Shazer. S. (1985). Keys to solutions in brief therapy. New York: W. W. Norton.

de Shazer, S. (1988). Clues: Investigating solutions in brief therapy. New York: Norton.

Donigian, J., & Hulse-Killacky, D. (1999). Critical incidents in group therapy (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Brooks/Cole.

Donigian, J., & Malnati, R. (1997). Systemic group therapy: A triadic model. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Donovan, J. M., Bennett, M. J., & McElroy, C. M. (1981). The crisis group: Its rationale. format. and outcome. In S. H. Budman (Ed.), Forms of brief therapy (pp. 283-303). New York: Guilford Press.

Ecker, B., & Hulley, L. (1996). Depth oriented brief therapy: How to be brief when you were trained to be deep-- and vice versa. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Erickson, M. H., Rossi, E. L.. & Rossi, S. I. (1976). Hypnotic realities. New York: Irvington.

Fisch, R., Weakland, J.. & Segal. L. (1983). The tactics of change: Doing therapy briefly. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Friedman, S., & Fanger, M. T. ( 1991 ). Expanding therapeutic possibilities: Getting results in brief psychotherapy. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Garvin. C. D. (1990). Short term group therapy. In R. A. Wells, and V. J. Giannetti. Handbook of the brief psychotherapies (pp. 513-535). New York: Plenum Press.

Gladding. S. T (1995). Group work :A counseling specialty (2d ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Gysbers. N. C., & Henderson, P. (1994). Developing and managing vour school guidance program (2d ed.). Alexandria. VA: American Counseling Association.

Hoyt (1990). On time in brief therapy. In R. A. Wells, & V. J. Giannetti. Handbook of the brief psychotherapies (pp. 115-144). New York: Plenum Press.

Huber. C. H., & Backlund. B.A. (1991) The twenty minute counselor. New York: Continuum.

Hulse-Killacky, D.. Kraus, K. L., & Schumacher R. (1999). Visual conceptualizations of meetings: A group work design. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 24. 113-124.

Kabat-Zinn. J. (1990). Fall catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to face stress, pain, and illness. New York: Dell. Kanas, N. (1990). Short-term therapy groups for schizophrenics. In R. A.

Wells and V. J. Giannetti. Handbook of the brief psychotherapies, pp. 551-564. New York: Plenum Press.

Klein. R. H- & Carroll. R. ( 1986). Patient characteristics and attendance patterns in outpatient group psychotherapy. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 36, 115-132.

Klerman, G. L.. Weissman. M. M.. Rounsaville, B. J., & Chevron, E. S. (1984). Interpersonal psychotherapy of depression. New York: Basic Books.

Koss. M. P., & Shaing, J. (1994). Research on brief psychotherapy. In A. E. Bergin and S. L. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (4th ed). New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 664-700.

LaFountain, R. M.. & Garner, N. E. (1996). Solution-focused counseling groups: The results are in. Journal for Specialists in Group Work. 21, 128-143.

LaFountain, R. M., & Garner, N. E. (1998). A school with solutions. Alexandria, VA: American School Counseling Association.

Lehman, A. K., & Sallovey. P. (1990). An introduction to cognitive-behavioral therapy. In R. A. Wells & V. J. Giannetti. Handbook of the brief psychotherapies. pp. 239-260. New York: Plenum Press.

Lieberman, M. A., Yalom, I. D., & Miles, M. D. (1973). Encounter groups: First facts. New York: Basic Books.

Littrell, J. M. (1998). Brief counseling in action. New York: Norton. Littrell, I M.. Malia. I A., Nichols, R., Olson, J., Nesselhuf, D.. & Crandel, P. (1992). Brief counseling: Helping counselors adopt an innovative counseling approach. School Counselor 39, 171-175.

Littrell, J. M.. Malia, J. A., Vanderwood. M. (1995). Single-session brief counseling in a high school. Journal of Counseling & Development, 73,451-458.

Malan, D. H. (1976). The frontier of brief psychotherapy. New York: Plenum Press.

Mann, J. (1973). Time-limited psychotherapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mann. J. (1981). The core of time-limited psychotherapy: Time and the central issue. In S. H. Budman, Forms of brief therapy. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 25-43.

McCallum, M.. & Piper, W. E. (1988). Psychoanalytically oriented shortterm groups for outpatients: Unsettled issues. Group, 12, 21-32. Mostert, D. L., Johnson, E., Mostert, M. R (1997). The utility of solutionfocused, brief counseling in schools: Potential for and initial study. Professional School Counseling, 1. 21-24.

O'Hanlon, B., & Wilk, J. (1987). Shifting contexts: The generation of effective psychotherapy. New York: Guilford Press.

Pardes. H., & Pincus, H. A. (1981). Brief therapy in the context of national mental health issues. In S. H. Budinan (Ed.), Forms of brief therapy. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 7-22.

Poey, K. (1985). Guidelines for the practice of brief. dynamic group therapy. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 35. 33 1-353. Sabin, J. E. (1981). Short-term group psychotherapy: Historical antecedents.

In S. H. Budman (Ed.), Forms of brief therapy. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 271-2821.

Sells, J. N.. &Hays, K. A. (1997). A comparison of time-limited and brief time-limited group therapy at termination. Journal of College Student Development, 38. 136-142.

Sifneos. P. E. (1972). Short-term therapy and emotional crises. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Spitz, H. I. ( 1997). Brief group therapy. In S. R. Sauber (Ed.), Managed mental health care: Major diagnostic and treatment approaches. Bristol, PA: Brunner/Mazel, pp. 103-132.

Strupp, H. H., & Binder, J. L. (1984). Psychotherapy in a new key: A guide to time-limited dynamic psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books.

Talmon, A (1990). Single session therapy: Maximizing the effect of the first (and often only) therapeutis encounter. San Francisco: JosseyBass.

Toth. P. L. (1997). A short-term grief and loss therapy group: Group members' experiences. Journal of Personal & Interpersonal Loss, 2, 83-103.

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384-399.

Watzlawick. P, Weakland, J. H., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change: Principles qf problem formation and problem resolution. New York: Norton.

Wells. R. A., & Phelps. P.A. (1990). The brief psychotherapies: A selective overview. In R. A. Wells & V. J. Giannetti. Handbook of the brief psychotherapies (pp. 3-26). New York: Plenum Press.

Yalom, I. D. (1986). Every day gets a little closer: A tale of twice told therapy. New York: Basic Books.

Yalom, I. D. (1995). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (4thed.). New York: Basic Books.

Kurt L. Kraus is an assistant professor in the Department of Counseling, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania. An avid group worker, Kurt most enjoys teaching and supervising people who are learning to lead task, psychoeducation, counseling, and therapy groups.

Copyright Love Publishing Company Dec 1999
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved