Social work theory · Volume H: Integrative & Practice-Oriented
Group work models
Group work is a method of social work practice in which a worker helps a small group of people meet individual and collective goals through their interaction with one another.
1. What it is
Group work is a method of social work practice in which a worker helps a small group of people meet individual and collective goals through their interaction with one another. Groups are used for therapy, education, support, skill development, social action and organisational tasks (Toseland & Rivas, 2017). Group work theory explains why groups help, how groups change over time, and what role the worker should take. Its distinctive premise is that group members are a resource for each other, so the group itself becomes the main vehicle of change (Gitterman & Shulman, 2005). Social workers run groups in mental health, family violence, alcohol and other drug, youth, ageing, disability and community settings.
Yalom’s therapeutic factors. Irvin Yalom identified the mechanisms through which therapy groups help people (Yalom & Leszcz, 2020). The therapeutic factors are: instillation of hope; universality (discovering that others share similar problems); imparting information; altruism; the corrective recapitulation of the primary family group; development of socialising techniques; imitative behaviour; interpersonal learning; group cohesiveness; catharsis; and existential factors. Yalom regarded interpersonal learning and cohesiveness as especially powerful. Meta-analytic evidence links group cohesion to better outcomes across many types of groups (Burlingame et al., 2018).
Tuckman’s stages of group development. Bruce Tuckman (1965) reviewed studies of small groups and proposed four stages. In forming, members orient themselves and depend on the leader. In storming, conflict arises over control and direction. In norming, the group develops cohesion and shared rules. In performing, it works effectively on its task. Tuckman and Jensen (1977) added adjourning, the ending phase. Social work also uses the Boston model of Garland et al. (1965), which describes preaffiliation, power and control, intimacy, differentiation and separation. Both models remind workers that conflict and ambivalence are normal parts of group life.
Mutual aid (Schwartz, Gitterman and Shulman). William Schwartz (1971) described the group as an enterprise in mutual aid, a system in which people help one another with common concerns. The worker’s role is to mediate between the needs of members and the demands of the group and wider society. Lawrence Shulman and Alex Gitterman developed this into a practice model (Gitterman & Shulman, 2005). Shulman identified mutual aid processes such as sharing data, discussing taboo subjects, the “all in the same boat” phenomenon, mutual support, mutual demand, rehearsal and strength in numbers. The worker’s task is to help members reach each other, and to address obstacles that block mutual aid (Steinberg, 2014).
Papell and Rothman’s models. Catherine Papell and Beulah Rothman (1966) organised the field into three historical models of social group work. Each model reflected a different view of the purpose of groups and the worker’s role.
Social goals model. The social goals model grew from settlement houses, adult education and youth organisations. It aims to develop democratic participation, social responsibility and social consciousness (Papell & Rothman, 1966). Grace Coyle was a key figure. The worker acts as an enabler and role model for citizenship, and the group may undertake social action. This model connects group work to community development.
Remedial model. The remedial model uses the group as a means to treat individual dysfunction and achieve behavioural change. Associated with Robert Vinter at the University of Michigan, it gives the worker a central role in assessing members, setting individual goals and structuring group activities (Papell & Rothman, 1966; Toseland & Rivas, 2017). Many contemporary structured and cognitive-behavioural groups follow this model.
Reciprocal model. The reciprocal, or mediating, model derives from Schwartz’s work. It views the individual and society as mutually dependent and the group as a system of mutual aid (Papell & Rothman, 1966). Goals emerge from the members, and the worker mediates, helping the group find common ground between members’ needs and the group’s tasks. This model is the foundation of the mutual aid approach.
2. Historical development
| Period | Development |
|---|---|
| Late 1800s–1930s | Group work develops in settlement houses, youth clubs and adult education |
| 1935–1946 | Group work section formed at the National Conference of Social Work (1935); American Association of Group Workers (1946) |
| 1955 | Group work becomes part of the newly formed National Association of Social Workers in the United States |
| 1961–1971 | Schwartz develops the mediating model and the concept of mutual aid |
| 1965 | Tuckman’s stages; Garland, Jones and Kolodny’s Boston model |
| 1966 | Papell and Rothman classify social goals, remedial and reciprocal models |
| 1970 | First edition of Yalom’s The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy |
| 1980s–2000s | Mutual aid model developed by Shulman and Gitterman; evidence-based structured groups expand |
Group work began in the settlement houses, recreation and youth movements of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These roots in democratic education and social reform shaped the social goals model. Group work became a distinct social work method in the 1930s and 1940s, with its own literature, training and professional associations.
Within social work, group work drew on social psychology, psychoanalysis and later small-group research. Its integration into generic social work in the 1960s and 1970s led to a decline in specialist training, and later writers argued for its renewal (Doel, 2006). In Australia, groups are widely used in fields such as family violence, where men’s behaviour change programs are delivered in group format, and in peer support for carers and people with lived experience.
3. Practical guidance
The following points apply group work theory to planning and running groups.
- Plan with purpose. Clarify the group’s aims, membership, size, duration and format, and decide whether it is remedial, educational, supportive or action-focused (Toseland & Rivas, 2017).
- Prepare members. Pre-group meetings explain the purpose, address concerns and help members decide whether to join.
- Expect developmental stages. Treat conflict and testing of the worker as normal stages of development, and help the group work through them (Tuckman, 1965; Garland et al., 1965).
- Foster mutual aid. Direct questions back to the group, link members’ experiences and invite them to support and challenge one another (Gitterman & Shulman, 2005).
- Build cohesion and hope. Highlight universality and early successes to strengthen cohesion, which predicts better outcomes (Burlingame et al., 2018).
- Agree group norms early. Negotiate confidentiality, respect and participation, especially in mandated or high-risk groups.
- Plan for endings. Prepare members for termination, review gains and support connections that will continue after the group ends.
4. Critical evaluation
Strengths. Group work is efficient and allows practitioners to reach more people. It also offers benefits specific to groups, such as universality, peer feedback and the chance to help others. Mutual aid reduces isolation and stigma and supports the development of collective voice (Steinberg, 2014). Group therapy has good evidence for a wide range of conditions, and cohesion is a reliable predictor of outcome (Burlingame et al., 2018).
Limitations. Stage models are generalisations, and many groups, especially open-membership groups, do not follow a linear sequence. Groups may expose members to conflict, scapegoating or pressure to conform if poorly facilitated. Confidentiality is harder to protect. Remedial models can reproduce the individualising tendencies of casework, and structured programs can limit mutual aid. Cultural assumptions about self-disclosure and group participation may not fit all communities without adaptation.
Overall importance. Group work is one of social work’s three traditional methods and remains a core practice skill. Its models give workers a clear way to understand group processes and choose their role. The mutual aid tradition, in particular, expresses social work’s belief in people’s capacity to help one another.
5. References
- Burlingame, G. M., McClendon, D. T., & Yang, C. (2018). Cohesion in group therapy: A meta-analysis. Psychotherapy, 55(4), 384–398. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000173
- Doel, M. (2006). Using groupwork. Routledge.
- Garland, J. A., Jones, H. E., & Kolodny, R. L. (1965). A model for stages of development in social work groups. In S. Bernstein (Ed.), Explorations in group work: Essays in theory and practice (pp. 17–71). Boston University School of Social Work.
- Gitterman, A., & Shulman, L. (Eds.). (2005). Mutual aid groups, vulnerable and resilient populations, and the life cycle (3rd ed.). Columbia University Press.
- Papell, C. P., & Rothman, B. (1966). Social group work models: Possession and heritage. Journal of Education for Social Work, 2(2), 66–77.
- Schwartz, W. (1971). On the use of groups in social work practice. In W. Schwartz & S. R. Zalba (Eds.), The practice of group work (pp. 3–24). Columbia University Press.
- Steinberg, D. M. (2014). A mutual-aid model for social work with groups (3rd ed.). Routledge.
- Toseland, R. W., & Rivas, R. F. (2017). An introduction to group work practice (8th ed.). Pearson.
- Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100
- Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960117700200404
- Yalom, I. D., & Leszcz, M. (2020). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (6th ed.). Basic Books.