Theory and practice of group work

Front matter

a, ro OF Fane Ry ae Nov 23 1933 | a evo send ur a i, iv

Theory and Practice of Group Work

By JOSEPH C. McCASKILL

Contents

V. Tue PRoBLEM OF ORGANIZING THE ASSO- AY DT EERO ED lod aA ee en COTE DN aE RA Ea NTA VI. Tue ProBLEM OF THE GROUP PROGRAM . VII. Group LEADERSHIP VIII. THe Wiper IMPLICATIONS OF GROUPING

NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS DoING GrRoUP WorkK ° e e e . e e e e =

PAGE

Preface

Several years ago the Harlem Branch of the Young Men’s Christian Association of the City of New York undertook to put into practice in its work with boys the principle of using the small group as the unit of organization. Clubs were formed and substituted for the gymnasium classes, and hobby clubs were superseded by groups which maintained their identity throughout the entire Association program. It was the author’s privilege to observe the operation of the plan for one year and personally to lead six of these groups during the second year of its operation. He also had opportunity to watch the operation of a similar plan in the Young Men’s Division in which he had a share in the training of leaders.

Transferring from Harlem to the suburban Association at Montclair, N. J., the author was eager to see this principle of work established there and to observe what form it might take in this totally different situation. While this volume makes no pretense of reporting the findings of this experimentation, the theory and philosophy of Y.M.C.A. work presented here finds its base in the results of the work with small groups carried on by these two Associations during the past four years.

Inasmuch as the work at the Harlem Association merely furnished the beginning, having stopped with

v vi Preface the closing of that Association, the description of actual procedures in organization have been limited to the Montclair Association. ‘The author has, however, felt free to use as illustrative material certain case group records that came from the Harlem Association.

It has been rather difficult at times to distinguish between what has actually been accomplished to date and what remains as the next step just ahead. Where this next step has been indicated clearly by what has gone before little attempt has been made to differentiate between the two. It is, of course, always dangerous to draw conclusions from evidence that is not all in. However, the generalizations here set forth pretend to be a great deal more than imaginative, disinterested guesses about the social behavior of groups of boys and men. It is not the author’s purpose to attempt a reconstruction of the Young Men’s Christian Associations in the light of his particular guesses about certain values in life and how they may be realized. As a “participant observer” in the experiment here described as well as in the continuous experiment of living in society, the author is suggesting certain generalizations, most of which are capable of objective verification in the activities of social groups about us.

It is hoped that the secretary will use this monograph as something of a laboratory manual, testing out its generalizations, adding to the data already collected, improving upon its technique, and revealing new horizons of work with boys and young men.

The reader will discover that there is little here that is original, but that materials have been drawn from many sources. ‘The author’s dependence upon former

Preface Vil teachers and progressive thinkers, who are blazing new trails in religious education, finds a partial expression in the footnotes and bibliography references.

The author has had in mind as the monograph was worked out the fine cooperation of his colleagues in the Young Men’s Christian Association, whose efforts and understanding made possible the experimentation here described. If he were making a dedication it would be to them. His thanks are due especially to A. J. Gregg, for help in revising the manuscript and preparing it for the publishers, and to Marie McArdle, upon whom devolved the laborious task of copying, verifying, and indexing, to which task she brought so keen a sense of understanding and participation.

JcCeM:

Montclair, N. J.

April, 1930.

Chapter I Introduction: Why The Problem Of Grouping

The past decade has witnessed a pronounced breaking away from the traditional departmental plan of organization in the Young Men’s Christian Association in favor of an emphasis upon varieties of small groups. The growing dissatisfaction with the separation of life programs into segments which was back of the departmental organization has resulted in attempts to build a total program around a given group of individuals and its leader. An increasing number of Associations are experimenting in this field and their findings seem destined to open up new vistas of work.

In some of these places the church group has been used as the unit of organization; in others the school group has been the dominant one; while in still others attempts have been made to use a variety of such groups. Which is proving most successful is difficult to tell, partly because there have been so few reports of these experiments, and partly because success in this field is a rather difficult item to measure.

The Association, whose experience in the transition from the departmental plan of organization to the group plan is the basis of this study, has attempted to work with a variety of groups. Primarily the play

I group has been the one to which most attention has been given, although there are interest groups, church groups, work groups, and school groups to be found in the program as it has been carried on.

The constructive side of this transition will be dealt with fully. Its statement and explanation are the main theme. In order to put such a statement in its proper setting, it is necessary to show what changes the newer convictions about methods of character development and religious education have brought about within the Association’s attitudes toward departmental organization.

DISSATISFACTION WITH THE DEPARTMENTALIZED PROGRAMS

The questions which one would naturally ask first, if he were seeking to understand the steps taken by this Association, would be: Why was there dissatisfaction with the departmentalization scheme and program? What considerations led to the adoption of a different scheme of doing work with boys?

Probably one of the first objections to the traditional scheme was that it did not easily lend itself to modern educational methods. When the boys’ work secretary attempted to build up a program from the interests of boys, he encountered difficulty in that these interests must be divided between two departments—the Boys’ and the Physical. When a club leader attempted to work on the interest basis, he of necessity had to seek for interests other than physical upon which to work, or else persistently thrust himself into the work of the Physical Department, compelling it to shift its program

The Problem of Grouping 3 to conform to the interests of his group. On the other hand when the physical director worked on the interest basis he suddenly found himself, due to growth of interests, thrust into the work of the Boys’ Department, until the distinction between the two, when there was close cooperation, became one of name only. To enable this cooperation to become more effective was one of the first considerations upon which the change was made.

A second and major charge leveled against the departmentalized program by the staff members giving thought to the matter was that it failed to give due recognition to the life of the individual boy member as he lived in his home, church, school, and community. It made little difference in the program whether the boy was finding satisfaction in a normal play group relationship. It mattered not whether the club set up at the Association building competed with another group for the boy’s first loyalty. The boy was urged to bring in his friends, but the thought back of this was to increase the membership and the class attendance rather than to furnish a group which might be more effective in the Association’s program as then conducted. As a whole the multiplicity of life, its complexity, its many interests and activities, made little difference in the program, which was planned for boys as individuals, not social creatures.

Another dissatisfaction growing out of this lack of recognition that boys are already members of existing groups was the feeling that the “carry-over” to daily life of what was being learned at the building or in the Association’s activities was not as great as it might be. Boys were discovered who behaved one way at the Association and another way at school. Dave, for instance, was a diligent and faithful member of the Boys’ Department. He attended the gymnasium classes regularly, loafed and played games in the boys’ lobby, and behaved himself with the dignity becoming a Y.M.C.A. boy. But when the visiting teacher of the school called on the secretary to inquire as to Dave’s well-being, it was discovered that the Y.M.C.A. Dave was quite a different chap from the school Dave, who was the despair of all his teachers. Somehow there hadn’t been the carry-over from “Y” to school. As this lack of carry-over was being discussed it was suggested that one of four things might happen to a boy who, being a member of some other group, joined the association :

First, he might learn nothing new or different in the way of attitudes or behavior, in which case there would be no problem.

Second, he might convert the members of his other group with whom he shares a part of life, to the new ideas and attitudes learned at the “Y”. The extent to which this happens might be measured roughly by the number of times a boy brings in the remainder of his group and has them join the “Y”.

Third, the group might convince him that the new ways of behaving are not so desirable and so the boy would discontinue his attendance at the “Y”’.

Fourth, he might do as Dave did and live a double life; when with the gang do as the gang does, when at the “Y” do as the “Y” boys do. Religious programs divorced from life have singularly encouraged this sort of living.

It was therefore evident that if a program was to be built which would insure more “carry-over” it

The Problem of Grouping 5 must take into account the various interests, existing groups, and behavior patterns of the members themselves, and must be built as nearly like life itself as it could possibly be made. Hence stereotyped physical programs would have to give way to natural and recreational programs. Highly artificial mass groups must be supplanted by small natural groups just as nearly like those in which the fellows lived as the combined intelligence of those directing the work could make them.

A fourth dissatisfaction with the existing situation was somewhat akin to the first, a feeling that the departmentalized organization made democracy and self-government for boys a very difficult procedure. The growth of the Young Men’s Christian Associations, from a small homogeneous group banded together in a movement to do a specific task to a large institution with membership figures in the thousands, had made democracy well-nigh impossible without some change in organization. “Too often,” says McKim, “a very small group of men, most of whom are over fifty years of age, have captured the Movement and conducted it as a benevolent oligarchy in which the members have little or no voice.’ * In rethinking their plans for work with boys the secretaries all felt that any scheme of organization ought to provide for an increasing participation by boys themselves in the conduct of the Association in order that they might learn-by-doing the rudiments of democratic government.

And finally, there was a general dissatisfaction with

* McKim, J. J. The Operation and Management of the Local Young Men’s Christian Association, p. 56.

the whole notion of departmentalization. Not only did it make self-government a difficult task, not only did it fail to insure a large amount of carry-over of what was learned, but it seemed to be building up in the minds of boys a compartmentalized conception of life. There seemed to be a gap between what was physical, for instance, and what was devotional; between what was interesting, and what was good for one. It seemed to be building up the notion that one grows by exercising individually and separately the muscles of the body, the muscles of the mind, and the muscles of the spirit.

The more the matter was considered the more it was felt that leaders ought not to have to persuade, urge, and entice boys to participate in programs that were concerned with religious growth; that it ought not to be necessary to search high and low for devices, such as awards, points and social approval, with which to interest boys; that somehow the good life ought to be able to live itself without being bolstered up by all this impedimenta designed to make it attractive. While not placing all of the blame for this state of affairs upon the scheme of organization, there was the definite feeling that it aggravated the illness by widening the gap between the thoughts imbedded in a worth while program and the spontaneous thinking of live red-— blooded boys.

Hence, the secretaries and physical directors interested in the work with boys set about, under the guidance of A. J. Gregg and G. O. Draper of the National Council, to build up an organization which would permit secretaries and leaders to view a boy’s life as a

The Problem of Grouping a whole, to build general and specific objectives in terms of the types of experience desirable, attainable and appropriate to the growing boy’s interests; which would substitute for the traditional program of gymnasium classes, hobby clubs, and mass stunts, groups of boys living and experimenting with life, with a program developed from their actual life situations and the problems arising therein.

PROBLEMS IN THE USE OF THE SMALL GROUP

Any one at all acquainted with the practices of the Young Men’s Christian Associations will realize that a decision by a local Association to adopt the small group as the unit of organization was not at that time a very radical procedure nor something entirely new in Association history. For some time there had been a trend toward the use of these small units. Clubs of various kinds had been in existence practically from the founding of the Movement. Within recent years there has been and still is a definite trend away from the mass idea that came to be part of the growing institution, and a more serious emphasis upon work with small groups. Among those activities that had been styled distinctly religious, discussion groups, forums, and supper clubs had supplanted large meetings. In the physical field special interest groups, such as basketball groups, handball groups, etc., had been consuming an increasing portion of the program heretofore devoted to calisthenics and other mass gymnasium activities. In the work with boys and young men club work had become recognized as an integral part of the whole program. As early as 1910 a direct effort was made to replace the spectacular stunts and large meetings of boys with more intensive work with small groups. The Christian Citizenship Program was seemingly a direct outgrowth of this emphasis.

The problem of how to organize these small groups and provide for their functioning within the total program of the Association had been a constant companion of the growing trend to usethem. At first they seemed only to supplement the real organization and program, but eventually they began to inject themselves into the whole framework of the Association. As a result it was felt necessary to face as a major problem this question of organization and how these groups might be incorporated into the whole scheme of work.

It was at once evident that if the small group were to be made the basic unit in organization and the entire program of the Boys’ Division built upon it there would have to be a better understanding of the group itself. Not all of those which had been organized in the past had turned out to be unqualified successes. As a matter of fact, a great many of these groups had not lasted very long. The survey of the New York Y.M.C.A. discovered that sixty per cent of all the clubs of boys in the Association had been in existence for less than one year, that twenty-seven per cent had been in existence for a period between one and two years, and that only thirteen per cent had maintained an existence of three years and over." Was there something about these last mentioned which was different from those in the sixty per cent division? What was it,

*Cf A. L. Swift, Jr., Survey of New York City Y. M. C. A. Chap. VII.

The Problem of Grouping 9 after all, that made for the survival of a group? Which of these factors were inherent in the group itself and which were external, or only indirectly related? Which of them could be controlled by the Association?

Not only did certain of the groups conducted by the Association fail to survive, while others continued indefinitely, but certain of them failed to live up to what was expected of them by the secretaries. Some went far toward imbibing the spirit of the Movement, while others were the proverbial privilege users. Some learned attitudes in the “Y” building only to forget them when they came in contact with the people with whom they associated every day. Some of these groups exerted powerful influences for good in the community, while others exerted no influence at all and were never heard of outside the Association building.

What differences then in the make-up of the groups affected the returns in character yielded by the program?

What groups promised the greatest yields in character returns? Did the Hi-Y Club mean more than the Employed Boys Club? Did the gymnasium class build as much character as the school group? What group out of all the complexity of group life both within and without the Association promised to be the best unit with which to work and which promised the greatest returns in character for the effort put into the work?

Chapter II The Group Principle

One of the first principles laid down in the new plan was that the boy and not the program was to be the starting point of the work. It was felt that so long as a certain kind of program was held to be indispensable just so long would the Association be held back from vitally aiding boys to make adjustment to and live richly in this modern changing civilization. It was the boy and his welfare that should be of concern and not the perpetuating of any particular kind of program.

Hence it was necessary to know something about the lives of boys; to know something about the laws of association ; to understand how men and boys behave in situations where they come in contact with one another. The first step was a recognition of the law that no man lives unto himself; he is a part of all that he has met. An individual is always thought of in relation to some specific group: Mr. Jones, a member of the Board, Mr. Smith, of the Rotary Club, Jack Brown on the football team, or Bill Henry, the president of the Hi-Y Club. One’s happiness in life depends very largely upon his having pleasant relations with his fellows. There is no such thing, strictly speaking, as a separate individual. He, the individual, is a reality, but he is a social indi-

The Group Principle 15 vidual. He is, as it were, the point of focus of the various forces of group life playing upon him. He is the creation of the reciprocal interplay and interaction of the group. He is the group-unit, the social individual. His relations to the world are to be found through his group; they (the groups) are the vital factors affecting his life. The group is as truly a reality as is the individual.

“A” isa member of an unorganized group of farmers who live near each other. Every Sunday morning for an hour before the church service this group meets in an informal session, the members sitting on their heels in a small circle exchanging ideas, sharing experiences, etc. “A” has a certain idea regarding the solution of the agricultural question which at that moment is occupying the attention of the political leaders of the country; “B” has a slightly different idea; ‘“C’’ has none at all. Through a discussion of the question “A”’ is led to modify his idea slightly, incorporating something of B’s; “C” becomes interested, begins to take part in the discussion and suggests something that has not been mentioned before. The resultant ideas and attitudes which each farmer takes away from the meeting represent not a composite of all the ideas presented, but a composite of these ideas plus his reaction to the expressed or implied reactions of all the others in the group. His own idea of agricultural relief is a product of the interaction of the group.

Similarly, everywhere men and boys are molding their ideas, their attitudes, their motives, and purposes from the interaction of groups that deal with many significant phases of life.

A Board of Directors’ meeting may serve also to illustrate the group principle. Suppose the object of the meeting be to work out a plan of action or policy representing the best thinking of the entire Board. We do not wish merely to have Mr. Jones give his idea concerning the year’s program. If this were the case it would be much easier for Mr. Jones to dictate to his stenographer what he thinks about the matter and send it to the general secretary. Nor is the purpose to inform Mr. Jones of the year’s program. A meeting would not be necessary for that. What is desired is that Mr. Jones be present to give his ideas where they may be commented upon and modified as they stimulate new and different ideas in the minds of other Board members, until the final plan of action is an intermingling of all the ideas, and constitutes a group idea.

Of course, there are many Board meetings which do not work in the manner mentioned above. In one the secretary may outline his program and call for the approval of the Board members. He sells them his ideas. In the vernacular, they are a bunch of ‘‘yes” men. Or there may be a difference between two factions of the group. The dispute is settled by taking a vote. The majority decision is never a really democratic decision and the majority idea is not a group idea.

For the Young Men’s Christian Associations to deal with men and boys purely as individuals entirely apart from their social settings 1s to deal with abstractions. Individuals cannot be separated; the fringes of each man’s personality overlap with those of many others. Man is truly a social animal. Individuality cannot be

The Group Principle 13 construed without reference to human interrelatedness.

Does this mean then that social action is mass conduct? Is a gymnasium class which contains fifty boys necessarily a socializing force? Not at all. The group principle at work disengages the individual from the mass, creates a respect for every other individual, and a reciprocal respect of the individual for his group and the group for him, and a respect of one group for another.

The group principle at work in the gymnasium causes play to grow from unorganized, planless, free play into cooperative, well-planned games. It involves making and observing rules which multiply the regard for other individuals. It involves a choice of what is wholesome, what is fun, what is best for all.

The intimate functioning group, more than any other association or other force in life, acts as a socializing influence upon the native desires and impulses of the individual. “If the basic impulses were permitted to dominate human behavior without any guidance or training or restriction, organized society such as we now have it would be impossible.” * Every association, whether it be with people of one’s own intimate group or with comparative strangers, acts as an educator of the native impulses with which men are endowed. The process begins immediately after birth when the desire for food begins to be gratified according to schedule instead of according to the volume of crying. It is continued daily as the native reflexes that have to do

_ * Groves, Ernest R. Personality and Social Adjustment, Quoted in Christian Citizenship, March, 1928.

with manipulation, defecation, voiding of urine, crying, smiling, and hundreds of other responses are conditioned by the adults who have control of the child. It is continued as the native tendencies which have to do with food getting, sex, self-preservation, and whatever other tendencies may exist, are conditioned, changed, and made over into desirable conduct patterns by one’s associates.

It is here that the group, and particularly the intimate, face-to-face group, operates in molding the lives of its members. Each member feels the presence of the group from every quarter, and only as he yields to this pressure and recognizes the authority of the group is he tolerated. Thus his native equipment, his impulses, his inherited desires and tendencies, his instincts, begin to be whipped into line so that the individual’s behavior may be in keeping with the group policy.

Psychologists, although differing widely as to the exact nature and classification of one’s original nature, are pretty largely in agreement on this one proposition: man’s impulses must be schooled, educated, redirected, rather than given free rein. However, it is not within the province of the psychologist to decide this. Whether we like it or not man’s associations demand that he act in a way pleasing to the group. Man’s native equipment is not all perfect, but possesses within itself the power to reshape itself, and consequently in his contact with the group man is constantly having his impulses and basic desires schooled and educated for happier and more efficient living within the group.

* This process of socializing the individual, however, is

The Group Principle 15 not one that the individual constantly resents. It is not as though the group were some outside police force exercising a certain authority, compelling a certain conformity on the part of the members of the group. Group life is a necessity in our modern civilization. It is at times a perfectly unconscious, spontaneous growth of our functioning selves. At other times it is a deliberate, carefully planned, and sought-after phase of life. In either instance it must provide for the expression of the individual in ways that conform to social needs.

We are simply saying that people live in association, that they behave in response to many social stimuli, that they group themselves for the attainment of various ends. The Young Men’s Christian Associations must take into account in their program this collective life. It may help secretaries and interested laymen in their attempts to establish groups to know what it is that holds men together in functioning groups, to know what it is that causes men to have feelings of belonging to certain groups. With this knowledge we may select groups that have their life built upon solid foundations, or we may build groups that shall be enduring in their effects upon the lives of their members.

Sociologists are not agreed exactly as to the specific band of cohesiveness which draws people together. One of the schools of sociology contends that a “consciousness of kind” * groups people, that a feeling of kindred spirit draws one to another. Yet another contends that the “core of the social process is not likeness; but

* See Giddings, F. H. The Principles of Sociology, Studies in the Theory of Human Society, and Descriptive and Historical Sociology, pp. 304-312, the harmonizing of difference through interpenetration.” *

Still another social psychologist * suggests that it is the pursuit of a common, vital interest that forms the basis of grouping. An interest in the marketing of tobacco may cause to spring up and serve to hold together a hundred “tobacco cooperatives.”’

A fourth suggestion as to the basis of grouping, or of intentional membership in a group, is to be found in the idea of the satisfaction of wishes. Thomas * gives four wishes as social forces:

The wish for “new experience”

The wish for “security”

The wish for “personal recognition” or personal response

The wish for “public recognition’ or dominance.

When authorities differ, the Y.M.C.A. secretary would better try to select something from all. Usually they all are right but have simply approached the mountain from different directions and are describing the scenery as they see it. Experience has shown that groups within the Association composed of individuals widely removed from one another in interests, in factors of likeness, and similarity of background have difficulty in enduring. However, a group of people who act alike, think alike, and look alike, present so little real stimulation to one another that the group is handicapped. Surely the sharing of vital interests adds ae Follett, M. P., The New State, for a development of this 1dea.

7 See Lindeman, E. C., Social Discovery. * Thomas, W. I., The Unadjusted Girl, pp. 1-40,

The Group Principle 17 to the cohesiveness of a group. Dewey had set as the criterion for the worthwhileness of an association, the number, variety, and degree of shared interests." A study of the wishes which are predominantly satisfied in any group will yield to the secretary a further understanding of the foundation upon which to build enduring and worth while groups of men and boys.