Overcoming fear of conflict in group work: reflections from practice and teaching

ABSTRACT

Groupwork is a core method of social work intervention, yet in our experience, social work students and early graduates rarely embrace the idea of facilitating groups, nor foresee that as a role they would like to fill. Through our years of experience in practising and teaching groupwork, we have learned that one of the reasons for this reluctance is the fear of conflict. This paper focuses on our journey of understanding the role of conflict in groups viewed through the lens of Tuckman’s 5 stages of groupwork. Through a series of examples from practice, we provide readers with strategies we have used for managing conflict in a groupwork practice setting. The aim of this paper is to provide social work educators, students and graduates with an understanding of why conflict occurs in groups and to provide a toolbox of strategies to respond to conflict.

KEYWORDS:

• Managing conflict
• group dynamics
• Tuckman’s 5 stages of groupwork

Introduction

Over three years, we co-taught a topic titled Working with Groups and Communities (WWG&C) in a large Master of Social Work program at an Australian university. WWG&C was one of four topics across the degree chosen to be transformed into a five-day, on-campus intensive preceded by four weeks of online small-group groupwork where students worked together to engage in discussion and theory. The face-to-face intensive week was made up of a combination of facilitated workshops, group activities, discussion-based lectures and groupwork role plays. Because we delivered the course four times a year, we had the capacity and momentum to test and implement new strategies for teaching and learning promptly.

One of the first design ideas we used to shape the intensive was to frame daily learning activities through the use of Tuckman’s model of group development (Berman-Rossi, 1993; Tuckman, 1965). Tuckman’s model describes the way groups evolve over five stages, typically described as forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning. Using Tuckman’s model was convenient given the five-day structure of the course and helped us provide an experiential and immersive learning experience for students. We began the week with a focus on mandated groupwork. Although facilitating mandated groups requires well developed group facilitation skills, attending to mandated groupwork on the first day was helpful in recreating the sense of awkwardness felt by service users mandated to attend a group intervention. Across the week the content and activities and shifted from mandated groups to shared issue groupwork, working within communities, until the final day when students worked together to create social action activities. We loved seeing the change in students’ mind-sets about the value of working together and were energized by their creativity. The topic was a joy to teach because the subject matter played to our own practice experiences. We measured our success if, during the intensive, we successfully created a community of students (Eaton, 2017) and if students completed the intensive with loving the idea of group work as a mode of social work practice (Wright, 2003).

Student feedback using a “democratic pedagogy” approach

Research consistently demonstrates that anonymous student evaluations of teaching are unlikely to improve teaching given that is provided retrospectively, have a low response rate and tend to be about the “likability” of the instructor (Clayson, 2022). Keeping this in mind, one of the approaches we deployed was to seek constructive feedback from students using a “democratic pedagogy” approach (Freire, 1970) through the interactive adjourning session we ran at the end of the intensive. Here, the relationships we built with students during the intensive gave them the confidence to participate in an open and honest dialogue about their learning experience. Without a doubt, these sessions improved our teaching and the quality of the course, none more so than the request for more directive teaching on how group facilitators can respond to group conflict. Students told us that fear of conflict between group members, followed closely by fear of conflict between an individual or the entire group and the facilitator were the most significant fears they held about facilitating groups. We were surprised at the dearth of publications providing practical advice on this topic, hence we set out to write this paper.

The idea that dislike, reluctance and fear of groupwork, for students and practitioners alike can be attributed to the fear of conflict is supported by the groupwork literature (Northern, 2003). Although we had subtly embedded conflict in our role-play activities, our teaching needed to focus more specifically on the role of conflict in groups and provide useful strategies to respond (Schmid, 2023; Sweifach, 2015). In the next iteration of the intensive, we embedded situations of conflict into the roleplay activities and discussed ways facilitators might respond. Each time we taught the course we nuanced the conflict content to develop a toolbox of strategies to mitigate and respond appropriately to conflict. The aim of this paper is to share what we learned and to provide social work graduates, educators and students with practical knowledge about conflict when facilitating groups.

Understanding our own responses to conflict

In writing about her experiences as a groupworker, Kendler (2003, p. 25) proposed that:

No amount of professional experience will ever fully banish the group worker’s fear of addressing conflict in groups. Nevertheless, the distinctive potential and power of a group to foster personal growth and to allow mutual aid to thrive among its members absolutely relies upon the worker’s comfort and skill in doing precisely that.

This quote has the potential to raise concerns for aspiring groupwork facilitators. If, after years of groupwork practice social workers still fear conflict in groups, is it even possible to manage conflict? Our practice experiences tell us that fear of conflict is greater in a group setting than it is for one-on-one interventions, and that often this fear is established before one has facilitated their first group. For most people, their immediate and internal reactions to conflict are shaped by their first group experience within their family unit (Barker et al., 2000, p. 476). If disagreements disproportionately escalated into conflict in our family as children, or perhaps later, in our own interpersonal relationships, we are likely to expect this to happen at the first hint of disagreement between group members, or between a group member/members and the facilitator.

As facilitators, having self-awareness of our own feelings about conflict can positively affect the group dynamic, process and outcomes. When conflict arises while facilitating a group, we tend to opt for the ways we feel about conflict, and how we manage conflict in our personal lives. Being able to identify what most concerns you about conflict and your feelings and thoughts about managing conflict will help you develop the appropriate conflict resolution skills for group work. However, every member of a group brings with them their life history of interactions with groups of people, not just the facilitator. For some, these past group interactions will not hold positive memories. We must also be mindful that our own fears of conflict can be in stark contrast to the feelings of participants, especially in mandated settings, where their fears are more likely that your group will be boring, excruciating or embarrassing.

Difficult or challenging behavior in groups

One of the goals of group facilitators is to guide group members to the point where groups are “norming” and “performing” (Tuckman, 1965), a time where risk-taking, self-disclosure and trust in the group are developing. However, along with a sense of growing “comfort” among group members where frank and open conversations become more common, so does the likelihood of conflict. Even low-level conflict can trigger emotions and responses by some group members that others see as inappropriate, but, if managed well, conflict in a group can be a source of growth for the group and for group members. Doel (2005) proposes that making a shift to focusing on difficult behaviors, rather than difficult individuals, is a useful strategy while reminding group facilitators of the inevitability of conflict, writing, “Tuckman’s (1965) classic ‘storming’ stage does, after all, envisage difficult behavior as part and parcel of a group’s development” (Doel, 2005, p. 7). A key strategy is for critical self-reflection to understand our own responses to conflict, and to recognize the basis of those fears can be framed within the following four areas; 1) being afraid of losing control; 2) being unable to manage a disorderly group; 3) that the group will perceive you as incompetent; 4) the group will be unable to function and not meet its goals.

Unpacking these concerns and fears underpins the development of skills needed to respond to conflict in groups. Returning to the idea that the family unit is our first group experience, it is understandable that some people will have the capacity to work with others using compromise, fairness and a sense of collective purpose, whereas other group members’ family experiences may have been steeped in arguments, trauma, violence or neglect. This can impact how people engage with others throughout the rest of their lives. Taking past negative experiences or traumatic backgrounds into consideration of group functioning is necessary and, while challenging, supporting participants to work through conflict when it arises is a core skill of a group facilitator. Just as challenging as working with participants who have previous experiences of trauma, some participants may seem determined to “test the boundaries” in a group. They might ask inappropriate questions of the facilitator or other group members, make insensitive comments, or they may behave in a way that seems to only be about getting a reaction. While this might make a facilitator feel frustrated, anxious or even inadequate, ultimately, a facilitator cannot control the actions and words of others. What we can control is our own responses to these words and actions.

The most ineffective response to conflict is to “up the ante” by, for example, raising one’s voice or resorting to a war of words. Rather than diffuse the situation, responding like this can often escalate conflict, while, if this approach de-escalates conflict, it fails to model conflict resolution techniques we would want to see reproduced in group members’ own families, friendship networks or communities. Other typical responses to conflict are; 1) avoidance (Folger et al., 2021; Roloff & Ifert, 2000), where, at the first sign of conflict we retreat, do nothing and hope it will go away. Sometimes this will work, but most of the time avoidance leads to escalation; 2) accommodation (Bradley et al., 2015), where the response is to be a peacemaker, however while this may diffuse conflict, this approach can be at the expense of the well-being of other group members and detrimental to the purpose of the group; 3) compromise (Folger et al., 2021), while compromise is useful within interpersonal relationships, by definition, compromise requires letting go of your position. In a group, there is a risk that an acceptable compromise for the facilitator and/or some members, is experienced as a loss of rights by other group members; 4) collaboration (Nishii, 2013), where a resolution to the conflict is arrived at via dialogue and action, by listening to and validating experience, implementing new group norms and through negotiation and cooperation. Needless to say, collaboration is our preferred response. We now turn to share examples from our teaching and practice experiences and offer skills, strategies and tactics to mitigate, manage and resolve conflict.

Groupwork facilitation and social workers ‘soft skills’

Supporting a group to constructively work through conflict together requires what Bajjaly and Saunders (2023) describe as soft skills, skills that are essential for social workers. The potential for conflict to escalate depends a lot on the facilitator’s response and management of the situation. As group facilitators, rather than just deliver content, it is important to observe the behaviors of group members at the same time- are they engaging in the activity or discussion or are they choosing not to? Has someone deliberately moved away from particular individuals? Has someone’s tone or body language changed? Being able to notice and respond to these non-verbal and verbal behaviors and how they affect the overall group dynamic is an important aspect of managing conflict and can de-escalate the potential for conflict to develop. To observe a group and the dynamics operating within it means that the worker must not make themselves the center of a group. The adage, “the group is for the group” resonates here, as having this mind-set means that as a group becomes more cohesive, the worker can step back, observe and reflect on the stage and the progress of the group, enabling the worker to adjust activities, roles and resources appropriate for a particular group stage. Effectively managing conflict in a group is a balancing act – trying to shut down conflict too early can do the group a dis-service, but left unchecked, conflict can damage or completely dismantle group cohesion and purpose. Group facilitators must become skilled in observing and recognizing the subtle signs or behaviors which precede conflict. Facilitators must be capable of having empathy for all sides involved in the conflict, including the aggressor, and especially for those group members who appear unperturbed as it is possible that they have learned to suppress their visible reactions to conflict, while on the inside are experiencing a heightened emotional and/or physical responses.

Common conflict behaviors

Conflict can arise at any stage of group development and, rather than being overtly physical, tends to first present as challenging behaviors. Prendiville (2008) proposes that these behaviors include resistance to groupwork, the facilitator, or group members; challenging other group members; not listening; repeated questioning; silence; refusing to participate; domination by one person or a few people; judging others and testing or pushing boundaries. We should clarify that physical conflict, while likely to generate a significant level of fear, is perhaps the easiest behavior to respond to as physical conflict would be a significant breach of any group agreements or rules, including conditions of the organization hosting the group. If physical conflict arises, it is essential the group worker address this immediately for the safety of the group members and themselves. This is one of the many times where the co-facilitation of groups is advantageous. In this case, one worker would escort group members to safety, while the other calls for support. Organisations should have policies and procedures in place to support workers who are group work facilitators, including how threats of physical conflict are managed.

Managed conflict can be beneficial

While conflict is usually seen only in a negative light, conflict, can, in fact, be positive and healthy for a group’s development – depending on how it is managed. Responding appropriately and confidently to conflict within the group can be helpful in clarifying group aims or objectives. Helene Kendler (2003, p. 26) makes five recommendations for the groupworker; 1) do not cut off conflict too early because that can leave the underlying reason causing the conflict to remain unresolved; 2) do not let conflict escalate to the point where group members either argue or find the group intolerable; 3) the facilitator should acknowledge and validate every group member’s concerns around the issue creating conflict – and the presence of conflict itself; 4) your role as facilitator is to remind the group what unites them; 5) returning the group back to reflect upon their shared aims. While avoiding or denying conflict in a group is potentially destructive to the group’s cohesion and purpose, addressing the conflict as a group can effectively improve the group’s ability to work together and build their own skills in managing conflict in their personal lives. Incorporating a discussion about conflict as part of establishing group norms is therefore a valuable and effective part of the group work process.

Underlying causes of challenging behaviors

Understanding the underlying causes of challenging behavior – which can lead to group conflict – can mitigate escalation and can assist the facilitator in shaping their responses to conflict when it does occur. An individual’s mental health, social context and personal values, along with their experience from within their own family unit can ultimately impact their engagement in a group. Some examples include low self-awareness, low self-esteem, limited literacy skills, level of interest and self-agency, resistance to attending the group, an individual’s feelings on any particular day- positive or negative, substance use – including prescribed medication, has (or is currently) experiencing trauma, learned behavior of interactions within groups, and their own level of experience in groups.

Having an awareness of the underlying causes of behavior can assist a facilitator to provide support to group members (within or outside of the group space). Developing strategies to support engagement (for example, having participants work in pairs) can be extremely useful. Alternatively, it could be that the facilitator needs to adapt their strategies of engagement, such as avoiding activities that require writing, or tailoring our facilitation style to meet the needs of group members where they are, for example using trauma-informed practice (see for example, Rosenwald & Baird, 2019). Acknowledging these causes of conflict provides the facilitator with an opportunity to discuss and review group norms and agreements, which generally focus on respect for each other and encouraging equal contribution from all group members while remaining mindful that contribution and participation will mean different things to different people. It can be useful to imagine group development as a series of loops, capable of being repeated multiple times rather than in a linear way. There is often a protracted or repeated overlap between storming and other stages, because, when engaging with new tasks the group may return to storming stage behaviors. Four typical examples where group frustration and confusion can arise and escalate into conflict, and strategies to prevent this are as follows:

The group process

Group members are given an activity but are not provided with any context as to why they are doing it. Perhaps the purpose of an activity was not explained, or the task instructions are unclear. An example is if a facilitator has group members break up into smaller groups to work on a task without providing direction as to how they should form these groups, thus causing confusion. Our recommended strategy is to be clear in providing instruction and ensure the group understand the instructions before acting.

The method of facilitation

A group member may disagree with how you are facilitating the group. This could be because of what you are saying, how you are directing group tasks or interacting with the group. For example, you might ask the group to work individually on a task before coming back together but a group member does not see the point of working individually, especially as this is a group session. Our recommended strategy is to check in for any opposition when explaining the task and if necessary, offer an alternative, or seek input from the group members for their suggestions.

Differences of opinion

Sometimes, one or more group members will disagree with the information presented to them by a facilitator. We should not expect group members automatically agree with us, so responding respectfully, opening up discussion and acknowledging differing opinions can reduce potential escalation or conflict.

Withdrawing participation

A real challenge for group dynamics is when a group member demonstrates their discomfort in the group by retreating or withdrawing from the activity or discussion. Alternatively, they may become argumentative, bombard the facilitator with questions or openly disagree with everything the facilitator says. When done purposely as an act of withholding participation, this behavior is disruptive to the group process and dynamic. We suggest speaking privately with the group member to understand their behavior. In the next section, we have used Tuckman’s (1965), p. 5 stages of group formation to focus on potential sources of conflict at each stage, using examples from our practice.

Conflict in group stages

Forming

Through the forming stage, individuals are typically quiet and polite toward each other, especially where members have no preexisting relationship. These behaviors tend to be a participant strategy to mask feelings of uncertainty. While there may be a desire to be accepted, individuals will often avoid sharing any personal opinions and can therefore be seen as non-participatory or aloof. Alternatively, in a group where members already know each other – such as in a school setting or in a prison – conflict can arise due to preexisting tensions between group members or because of their comfort in each other’s presence. At the forming stage, dependency on the facilitator to lead is high as group members try to gain an understanding of the group’s purpose and activities.

Throughout the forming stage, there are many emotions at play. Most group members will be positive, polite and reserved. Some may feel anxious, especially if they haven’t been fully informed about the group purpose. They may feel uncomfortable when meeting new people, while others may be excited at the opportunity. While all groups need participants to have some level of interest, vigorous enthusiasm from one group member will not always be experienced by others in a positive way. A facilitator must play a leading role here because members’ roles and responsibilities are likely to be unclear. Typically, the forming stage should include the creation of positive group norms (Wolff-Newmann, 2003). However, conflict can arise even when developing group norms because group members are likely to have differing views of what is important and acceptable. Furthermore, differences in gender, race, culture, sexuality, ability, beliefs and upbringing can all influence an individual’s perspective and contribute to potential conflict (Toseland, 2017). It is important for the group worker to demonstrate respect for the diversity of group members when creating group norms. In our experience, having the group create their own group norms leads to greater cohesion through “ownership” of the norms. It is the facilitator’s role to support the group to establish clear expectations of each other, rather than dictate what those norms should be.

During the forming stage, conflict and controversy tend to be avoided by group members, although there can still be situations requiring strategies to de-escalate the potential for conflict. The presence of cautious or quiet individuals may create group tension, where for example, if a group member chooses not to contribute to the discussion, it may leave other group members feeling frustrated. As a facilitator, silence from participants can feel like conflict and result in feelings of inadequacy. Yet, group facilitators cannot force contribution and must respect a group member’s choice not to. It is worth recognizing that if people are not speaking, it is likely that they are listening. Conflict can also occur in the forming stage if participants are unsure about the purpose of the group, their role or other group members’ roles. This uncertainty can raise levels of anxiety, which in turn can raise an individual’s defenses which then increases the likelihood of conflict. In the forming stage, members need structure and clear instructions. Activities must be appropriate for the group cohort and the group stage – facilitators must be equipped with a toolbox of alternative activities in case the current activity is not well received.

Practice example

I was working with a group of young men. Their understanding of “respectful” language varied significantly from mine; I kept on having to challenge one group member who consistently used coarse language. I told him that I found one particular word he was using most offensive. He responded by saying that word was not offensive to him or his mates and that he used that word all the time. Immediately after this conversation ended, he continued to use the word. Demonstrating the power of a group, his peers challenged him the next time he used it, saying, “hey, tone it down, Michelle finds that word offensive.” It was then that another participant asked why we had not created any group norms. At that point, we stopped what we were doing and set about creating our group norms, with one of those norms being to “use language that does not cause discomfort to anyone in the group.” This example shows how the group reinforced expectations about how to treat each other, and how creating group norms resulted in a de-escalation of behavior. Group norms should not be a static document – a group can, and should, return to their group norms regularly as required. Hence the creation of norms should not be thought of as a tick-box affair, they are an essential tool for group cohesion.

Storming

As group members become more familiar with each other and the facilitator, that sense of comfort may provide them with the confidence to challenge the facilitator, each other or the tasks and purpose of the group – and sometimes all of the above! As the name suggests, when a group is in its storming stage, some level of conflict is to be expected. Although conflict can happen at any group stage, when conflict occurs in a group that had been operating smoothly, we can be caught off-guard. This can elicit a response from a facilitator which outweighs the level necessary. While a facilitator cannot always foresee conflict, knowing that conflict is always possible can prevent exaggerated responses. During this stage, conflict can arise due to varying levels of commitment to the goals and purpose of the group, particularly between group members who are eager to start work and those questioning the group’s purpose. At this stage, individual differences take on more significance than what the members have in common. Group members are likely to be confident in airing their own views and opinions, even if they are in conflict with those of other group members. This can impact the group in several ways; frustration, anger, non-cooperation, resistance to agreed aims or allocated tasks, or purposeful attempts to sabotage the group. Individuals may “push” established group boundaries and ways of working, as it becomes obvious that other group members “work” differently than they do.

Practice example

I was employed as a Community Health Worker with one key role being to support a youth advisory group. This group was already formed, had regular members and was cohesive and high functioning when I began my role. It was evident the group had a positive experience with their previous facilitator. Perhaps for these reasons, I did not seek to establish or even discuss group agreements around the politics of making decisions. An external advocacy opportunity arose which could only accommodate around half of the group members. Some of the longest-serving group members expected that they should be chosen because of their longevity of service, while others proposed it would be fairer to draw the names out of a hat – the choice we followed. This resulted in one group member being vocally disgruntled with the outcome, leading some group members who were chosen to become upset. Although a lengthy discussion resolved the conflict and confirmed the group’s decision to randomly select people, conversations were integrated into future group meetings to help members understand the importance of sharing roles and opportunities, which helped the group move forward and maintain cohesion. This example shows how a change in group membership – in this case, a new facilitator – has the potential to cause conflict and is, therefore, something to be mindful of when commencing new roles within established groups.

Norming

At this stage, the group can be viewed as a safe space by participants, people are resolving their differences if they had any, and are starting to appreciate each other’s strengths. Members tend to understand their own group roles, are likely to have developed a stronger commitment to the group goals and are becoming less reliant on the facilitator. Along with this increased group cohesion and sense of comfort comes an increase in risk-taking and self-disclosure through a group member inappropriately “oversharing” their personal experiences. This can impact the entire group if the self-disclosure seems out of context with the group purpose, or if the participant is taking up too much group time on their issue leaving little or no time for other members to be heard. Unchecked oversharing has the potential to impact group members by making them feel uncomfortable or even triggering traumatic memories. In this situation, a facilitator needs to actively encourage equal and appropriate participation from all group members.

Practice example

In a group for young women aimed at developing self-esteem and creating social connections, one participant “Maggie” was always the first to respond to any questions posed. Initially, her eagerness was well received by all group members; she would often start the discussion, thus relieving others of the pressure to do so. However, as the weeks progressed, “Maggie” continued to be the first to speak, but also began over-sharing personal information rather than responding to the discussion point. I saw that other group members started rolling their eyes or looking away when “Maggie” began talking. While I would remind the group that general responses were preferred, “Maggie” insisted that she was happy to share her personal experiences and seemed oblivious to the tension she was creating. In the next session, we revisited our group norms which enabled the group to raise the issue of wanting the discussion to be shared more equally and to focus on the topic. The group decided that a time limit would be posed for each person to talk, and their responses had to be clearly linked to the topic. Although “Maggie” still shared some personal stories, they were reduced significantly, resulting in a more positive group atmosphere.

Performing

Once a group reaches the performing stage, group members tend to become more focussed on working toward the agreed aims and objectives. One of the commonly seen “performing” group behaviors is the formation of cliques. Cliques can create a challenging dynamic within the group, having the potential to cause inter-group conflict and a sense of exclusion or isolation for members not part of that clique. Increased competition among group members may also increase the potential for conflict, especially if there is a group member who is particularly dominating or appears to be the constant focus of attention. Our recommended strategy is to use activities that mix up group members, so they are not always in their cliques. However, sometimes it may be appropriate to keep these small cliques together as it contributes to the overall effectiveness of the group and supports the achievement of tasks.

Practice example

When teaching classes at university, we have noticed that over the course of a semester, students will sit next to the same people – often they have existing relationships with them formed across their studies – they tend to form a clique. While developing a sense of belonging at university through relationships with others is a protective factor for success, the purpose of small group discussions is to broaden understanding of content through diverse perspectives. When students only work within their clique, they have a greater chance of going off-topic, not completing the task and importantly are not exposed to opinions outside of their own. Cliques also have the potential to reduce students’ ability to form a cohesive larger group. One way to address this is for the facilitator to spend time with each small group during the activity actively listening to their discussion. Another strategy we often use is to decide how many small groups we want and then use some creative strategies to break students away from those they usually sit with (see for example Gaston, 2017). Especially during our WWG&C intensives, we found that this strategy helped to create a sense of community as students connected with others they may not have otherwise done so.

Adjourning

One might assume that the end or “adjourning” stage of a group would be conflict-free. However, conflict can occur when the group has not met the goals it set out to achieve and can lead members to react with “anger, frustration, disappointment, despair, guilt, scapegoating, blaming and apathy” (Zastrow, 2001, p. 530). This is especially the case if some members feel that other members’ contributions – or lack of them – have been the cause. As Ferdous and Karim (2019) explain this can stem from group dynamics left unaddressed during earlier group stages. For example, if in earlier stages one group member takes the role of what they describe as “monolithic supremacy” (Ferdous & Karim, 2019, p. 346), this can lead to other group members feeling like their contributions have been trivialized, or that the presence of the domineering personality left other group members to rely on that person to do most of the work. This points to the importance of the facilitator addressing these dynamics in the group forming stages. Commonly, however, the adjourning stage of a group that met the outcomes it hoped to achieve is unlikely to experience conflict, rather, members are most likely to experience what Zastrow (2001, p. 529) describes as “sweet sorro,w” where group members are pleased with what they have achieved and because of this have raised self-confidence but are saddened that the group has come to an end.

Practice example

I was facilitating a peer support program led by youth volunteers (aged 18–25). The group had worked closely together for months before delivering a program to younger peers (aged 14–18). The program parameters stated that volunteers could only be involved in the delivery of two programs to allow other young people to have the experience. Conflict arose when one participant became increasingly vocal and aggressive about being unable to continue what they had come to enjoy. They then encouraged others to complain about this program rule. It was clear the participant had gained a lot from their involvement in the program. They had received support, felt a sense of belonging and had made strong social connections. It made sense that they were reluctant to end this role. To respond, I met with the group to discuss their feelings and concerns, and to learn what needs the program had met for them. I validated their feelings and acknowledged how much they had contributed to the two programs they had been involved. I was then able to offer a range of referrals to alternative programs and other avenues that could meet these needs while suggesting the ways they could maintain the connections they had made in the program. This example shows the importance of planning for endings in groups.

Conclusion

In this paper, we have shown, based on our practice that conflict in groups is almost inevitable, no matter how experienced you are as a group facilitator. Conflict can be beneficial in that when it is managed well. By deploying some of the simple strategies we have described in this paper, facilitators can provide group members with a safe space to increase their capacity for connecting and engaging with others. When implemented at the right time, these strategies can mitigate the potential of conflict which is damaging to group cohesion and purpose. Without a doubt, the students of WWG&C’s honest and open feedback and suggestions strengthened our teaching and encouraged us to explore and develop content on managing conflict in groups. Practice wisdom in social work is both an art and a science (Samson, 2015), a combination of theory and experience. So, while we can read about theory in papers like this, practice wisdom is honed through practice, requiring a willingness of students, new graduates, and experienced group facilitators to explore their own feelings and discomforts about working with groups, and to work with groups whenever the opportunity arises.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to our colleague, Dr Cate Hudson, for her feedback on an earlier draft of this work and to the WWG&C students who grew to love groupwork in our classroom.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).