Training Groups: A Path towards Professional and Personal Growth
Francis Kaklauskas & Elizabeth Olson.
While psychology training continues to emphasize the academic study of group and external forces that impact individual and group behavior, experiential learning is rarely prioritized (Falgares et al., 2017). As a result, many scholars and clinicians seek opportunities for continued learning and growth through experiential training groups. These groups provide psychotherapists and psychologists with structured opportunities for personal development, skill enhancement, and peer support. Despite strong enthusiasm for training groups, they remain underrepresented in the group therapy literature.
History
In 1902, the Vienna Wednesday Night Psychoanalytic Group, organized by Freud, marked the beginning of mental health professionals gathering to discuss ideas and learn from one another. Initially harmonious, the group eventually experienced therapeutic disagreements that became personal. Members frequently shared personal experiences and feelings, and unsolicited interpretations became common. The structure of the meetings became inconsistent, group dynamics became challenging, and many members eventually left to form their own groups. Both theoretical disagreements and interpersonal conflicts within these meetings may have influenced the development of competing theories (Broner, 2018; Colby, 1951).
This psychoanalytic tradition emphasized the necessity of clinicians understanding themselves—what today might be called “doing their own work.” While Joseph Pratt in the United States and Jacob Moreno in Europe pioneered group psychotherapy, the idea of clinicians developing personally and professionally through group experiences initially focused on cognitive and theoretical aspects. Relational dynamics were generally understood more as individual psychological repression rather than from a group or societal perspective.
A significant increase in group therapy and clinician participation in training groups occurred after World War II due to the growing need for mental health services. At the Northfield Clinic and beyond, Foulkes, Bion, Richman, and others began training professionals and paraprofessionals in groups that integrated educational and personal development processes. The Tavistock Clinic in London became a prominent destination for clinicians seeking to explore themselves, different views of the psyche, and group dynamics. When Kurt Lewin immigrated to the United States and founded the National Training Laboratory in Bethel, Maine, waves of mental health professionals and others began engaging in group processes for both professional and personal growth.
As various theoretical schools of therapy developed, participation in training groups became more frequent and was embraced by humanistic, existential, and psychodrama traditions. Each school, and potentially each leader, had unique perspectives, methods, structures, and recommended participation guidelines for clinician development. Today, training groups continue to be a common practice for mental health professionals seeking experiential learning, as Bion would advocate.
Goals and Outcomes
While there is no universal agreement on the goals of training groups, the central objective remains clinical development, often accompanied by personal growth. The personal goals are not aimed at symptom reduction or characterological change but are more aligned with process or interpersonal learning groups (Kaklauskas et al., 2021; Chang et al., 2017). Members process their professional and personal experiences, gain insights into their emotional and relational patterns, experience empathy and support, and practice giving and receiving feedback (Bhatt-Mackin & Denduluri, 2023). This reflective process enhances self-awareness and can improve a practitioner’s effectiveness as both a therapist and a group leader (Di Stefano, Ruvolo, & Lo Mauro, 2019).
Continuous learning and support may also reduce burnout (Kaklauskas & Greene, 2019). Hearing about others’ personal and professional experiences expands not only therapeutic approaches but also perspectives on life. Training groups offer a range of therapeutic factors, such as universality and personal acceptance, by allowing participants to hear about others’ struggles and journeys. Members may also experience personal and socio-cultural enactments, gaining opportunities for new experiences and insights into group leadership (Miles et al., 2021).
Some training groups focus on core principles of group dynamics and psychotherapy, such as cohesion, group norms, subgroup interactions, and stages of group development. Others draw upon psychoanalytic models to explore concepts like projection, transference, unconscious drives, and defensive mechanisms. Group Relations and Tavistock approaches emphasize relationships with authority, present-moment awareness, and group-as-a-whole dynamics. Additionally, some training groups center on specific topics, such as boundaries or burnout, integrating psychoeducational and cognitive-behavioral practices.
Recently, many training groups have prioritized diversity and equity, helping members recognize and develop skills to address socio-cultural biases, microaggressions, power dynamics, and broaching. These groups offer an opportunity to learn specific orientations while gaining a deeper understanding of how theory and research manifest in group leadership. Training group leaders serve as models, allowing members to integrate certain behaviors while disregarding others. This experiential learning fosters a deeper integration of theory into both professional and personal life.
Structure and Process
The structure of training groups varies, ranging from one or two-day intensives to ongoing weekly formats. Some groups resemble therapy groups but incorporate didactic elements at the end of sessions or workshops. When leading training groups at the University of Colorado with interns and fellows, sessions often began with theoretical discussions, followed by group process work, a break, and then reflection on the process before concluding with consultation on members’ current groups. Today, there is a greater emphasis on integrating didactic learning and consultation into the unfolding group process. While various structures are empirically supported, training group leaders must clarify the structure and processes as part of group agreements.
Challenges
Training groups present unique challenges (Jakubkaitė & Kočiūnas, 2014). Members often share career goals, necessitating the acknowledgment and management of competition and the potential for mutual support. Given their overlapping professional circles, members may engage in impression management or feel ambivalent about acknowledging struggles. Often, the members may have some previous or current relationship with one another that needs to be understood. While training group leaders handle this situation differently, we avoid having someone enter who could potentially impact any of the existing members. Members are also expected to bring in for discussion any outside contact with other members and to completely avoid talking about the group in external communications. The ambiguous nature of training groups—which are neither strictly psychotherapy, supervision, nor didactic learning—can leave members uncertain about their participation. Some may become overwhelmed by the complexity of the process.
Members may also question their approach in the group. Should they allow themselves to regress for insight or maintain a professional demeanor? What is the right balance between personal sharing and an academic mindset? Leaders help shape the process by setting expectations, defining structure, and illustrating how group dynamics enhance learning. Each group will develop its own culture. The more vulnerable and willing to reveal historical connections to the present each member is, the more opportunity might exist to explore countertransferential experiences and emotional inductions amongst group members.
Occasionally, some members may not be a good fit for the group and may benefit more from psychotherapy or structured learning. Just as in psychotherapy groups, training groups may encounter breaches of agreements regarding confidentiality, attendance, fees, or boundaries, as well as personal and socio-cultural enactments that need to be addressed for both sustaining group functioning as well as being a potential learning opportunity for the members (Greene & Kaklauskas, 2019). These challenges provide opportunities for modeling effective rupture repair in professional and personal contexts.
Suggestions for Leaders
- Clarify the group’s purpose. Participation in a training group does not replace psychotherapy. While therapeutic moments may occur, the group’s goal is not to treat specific mental health challenges.
- Establish clear agreements. These should include confidentiality, outside group contact, the leader’s role, and member expectations. Leaders should prepare members for the depth of vulnerability, the possibility of difficult feedback, and the experience of challenging emotions such as shame, guilt, confusion, or exclusion. Group members are encouraged to decide for themselves how vulnerable they want to be and how much to reveal regarding their historical experiences.
- Set realistic expectations. Developing psychotherapy and group leadership skills is a complex process requiring time and patience. Training groups support growth, but they are only one component of professional and interpersonal skill development.
- Socio-Cultural flexibility and responsiveness. Contextual accommodations are necessary for meaningful engagement. Leaders may need to adapt the structure, processes and leadership approaches to fit group members’ unique contexts.
Participation in a training group can be an invaluable experience for psychologists and other mental health professionals. We have benefited, professionally and personally, from the variety of these experiences we have continually engaged in throughout our careers. We found that there is often something to learn about the field and ourselves and assist in clarifying our perspectives. Even non-clinically oriented professionals can expand their understanding in ways that may inform research, teaching, program development, and personal growth. In this article, rather than suggesting a strict modernist definition and procedures, we hoped to provide some information and ideas. We advocate for diversity and differences across the field and have great respect for other training group leaders across a variety of approaches. Ideally, the practice of training groups will remain dynamic and responsive to the shifting cultural, social, and political landscapes we inhabit. Even in our work together, we hold distinct perspectives and engage with the leadership role differently. We have appreciated the models and ideas that the format has provided us, even when we choose a different path. If you have not participated in a training group experience, perhaps this practice may hold some benefit for you.
References
Bronner, A. (2018). “The three histories of the Vienna Psychoanalytic
Society”. In Peter Loewenberg; Nellie L Thompson (eds.). 100 Years of the IPA: The Centenary History of the International Psychoanalytical Association 1910-2010: Evolution and Change. Routledge. 15–36.
Chang, C. R., Ciliberti, A. A., & Kaklauskas, F. J. (2017). Mindfulness
Approaches to Groups in College Counseling Centers. In Gross, J. M., Ribero, M. D., and Turner, M (Eds.), The college counselor’s guide to group psychotherapy (pp. 218-238). New York: New York: Routledge.
Colby, K. M. (1951). On The Disagreement Between Freud and
Adler. American Imago, 8(3), 229–238.
Di Stefano, G., Ruvolo, G., & Lo Mauro, V. (2019). Developing
professional identity through group experiential learning: A Group-Analytic experiential training approach for use with postgraduate clinical psychology students. Psychodynamic Practice, 25(2), 133–143.
Falgares, G., Venza, G., & Guarnaccia, C. (2017). Learning psychology
and becoming psychologists: Developing professional identity through group experiential learning. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 16(2), 232-247.
Jakubkaitė, B., & Kočiūnas, R. (2014). Experiential groups in the
training of group counselors and therapists: a view from trainees’ perspective. Problems of Psychology in the 21st Century, 8(1), 36-46.
KaklauskasF. J & Greene, L. S. (2019). Finding the leader in you. In
F. J. Kaklauskas, & L. S. (Eds.) Core principles of group psychotherapy: A training manual for theory, research, and practice. (pp. 182-197). Allyn & Francis: New York.
Kaklauskas, F. J., Olson, E. A. & Bustemante, K. L. (2021). A
contemplative practice of large group process: Interdisciplinary contextual perspectives. In F. Kaklauskas, S. Nimanheminda, L. Hoffman, M Jack, & J. Perlstein, J.( Eds.). Brilliant sanity: Buddhist approaches to psychotherapy and Counseling, Revised and Expanded, Volume 1. (pp 57-82). University Professors Press.
Miles, J. R., Anders, C., Kivlighan III, D. M., & Belcher Platt, A. A.
(2021). Cultural ruptures: Addressing microaggressions in group therapy. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 25(1), 74.