Navigating Teen Anxiety: Fostering Healthy Group Dynamics

Abstract

Institutional affiliations: Date: Question 1 Since anxiety is normal for almost everybody, it would be good for me to introduce the teens to the group so that they ought to know that anxiety is just feeling and not personality (Koydemir and Essau 2018). It would be necessary for teens to learn that it is perfectly normal to be anxious at one time or the other. In this respect, it would be good to let the teens know that they are not up for the group therapy because they are unwell but to let them know that they are present at the group because they are normal enough to feel as they do and therefore the need to learn on how to deal with those feelings (Khesht-Masjedi et al., 2019). This kind of introduction is to ease the tension and make them feel normal instead of making them feel as if they have a terminal illness. The essence of letting the teens know that there is nothing wrong with them is to incorporate those that believe their anxiety disorder is not a problem since, from a professional point of view, it means that the teens are in denial. Therefore, I would start the discussion by narrating how I felt as a teenager and how sometimes I feel like an adult. I would also let them know what my younger daughter does and what my teenage son does things, and through this, a mental picture would be formed of how sometimes stressful situations could be and how to deal with them. This would make them understand that anxiety is a feeling that comes and goes, and having it is humanly possible, just like having a heartbeat (Koydemir and Essau 2018). Taking note of a teenager who is so quiet, I may interpret that as indifference or a troubled one, and by letting them all know that a bit of worry is just as normal, I believe that it would be a good starting point. Additionally, since the topic for the day would b mindfulness, I would try to focus the teens on the things that teens do on day one. I would, for instance, try to find out which individual sports the teens like, the best kind of indoor games they enjoyed, and to create a good rapport, I would try to engage them in their favorite sporting activities, either physically or mentally, to have them break the rigid teenage bonds (Khesht-Masjedi et al., 2019). Besides sports, we would discuss the value of good feeding habits and the importance of quality and sleep quantity. We would openly discuss the differences and achieve the desired quality and quantity of sleep for relaxation proposes. I would also make sure that emotion is addressed, whereby I would let it known that emotional expression is very significant. The essence of expressing emotions would be to let them know that besides the feelings of anxiety that they feel, it is good for them to acknowledge other emotions like happiness, sadness, and even elation and euphoria that may sometimes be experienced, especially when with friends (Carlton et al., 2020). Apparently, I would also ensure that I would have a session with their parents and guardians to know how they understand them. By this, the teenagers would feel that their needs are being taken care of, and since professionally, we would understand them as they are, it could be that their parents are not. In most cases, parents and guardians tend to be hard on teenagers, and it happens that judgments are on the higher side as opposed to understanding. By assuring them that a word with immediate family members would make them feel welcome to talk about bothering them and openness is one of the keys to unlocking anxiety and depression (Koydemir and Essau 2018). The best leadership style that I would incorporate would be both democratic and authoritative, whereby engagements amongst the teens would be upheld by all means. Still, negative behavior would be strictly restricted (Schrobsdorff, 2016). This is because teens tend to be rebellious by nature, and therefore, in this case, it is dealing with teens with anxiety disorders. Therefore, they may tend to be moody, irrational, and even to some extent, rowdy, and abusive. Through this, positive behavior would be highly rewarded, and negative behavior would be thoroughly reprimanded. The involvement of each group member would first entail a brief history of each hobby and activity. I would first start with those who are willing to talk first, like, for instance, those that feel they do not have an issue. This would set the tone for the group members, and by the time the quietest is reached, the mood could be lighter due to interactions. Further, we would discuss how individual feeding habits and what they think about their diet (Carlton et al., 2020). I would ensure that each group member tells how they relieve their emotions and how they feel afterward. Finally, we could discuss the real issue of anxiety and how each group member feels about anxiety as a topic, what they think about it in terms of medication, therapy, and treatment (Schrobsdorff, 2016). With all those topics covered, I believe that day one would be a success, and the following session would not be a pain but a look forward to kind of group meeting. References Carlton, C. N., Sullivan-Toole, H., Strege, M. V., Ollendick, T. H., & Richey, J. A. (2020). Mindfulness-based interventions for adolescent social anxiety: a unique convergence of factors. Frontiers in psychology, 11, 1783. Khesht-Masjedi, M. F., Shokrgozar, S., Abdollahi, E., Habibi, B., Asghari, T., Ofoghi, R. S., & Pazhooman, S. (2019). The relationship between gender, age, anxiety, depression, and academic achievement among teenagers. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 8(3), 799. Koydemir, S., & Essau, C. A. (2018). Anxiety and Anxiety Disorders in Young People: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. In Understanding Uniqueness and Diversity in Child and Adolescent Mental Health (pp. 115-134). Academic Press. Schrobsdorff, S. (2016). Teen depression and anxiety: Why the kids are not alright. Time Magazine, 188(19), 188-195. Question 2 Leadership is basically how one uses directions, uses implementation plans, and strategies used to motivate individuals or groups of people. There are different leadership styles, but this article aims to address authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire. Authoritarian is a leadership style that lets the leader have the advantage of imposing expectations on the subject and, at the same time, defining outcomes. It, therefore, means that the leader has absolute control over all decisions. The leadership type is best applicable when the leader is knowledgeable and where the team members are inexperienced and need clear guidelines (Fiaz, Su, and Saqib, 2017). The good thing about this particular type of leadership style is that it helps in time reduction as far as crucial decision-making processes are involved since, in most cases, consultations and deliberations are limited. Simultaneously, the chain of command can be clearly emphasized, making it easier to reduce mistakes as far as implementation plans are concerned. Therefore, it is due to this that the authoritarian leadership style tends to create many consistent results (Fiaz, Su, and Saqib, 2017). On the flip side, this kind of leadership tends to be strict and is usually focused on the leader. Therefore, other team members are usually barred from contributing, and therefore, employee creativity and innovation die, reducing group synergy and collaboration (Khan and Nawaz, 2016). At the same time, authoritarian leadership is quite strict, and in some cases, the strictness results in employee rebellion, which results in a reduction in group input. Regardless of all, authoritarian leadership would be best for the support group because one should ensure that the group focuses and fulfills its aim to the best of its abilities. When other leadership styles are employed, derailment may occur, and the group may dissolve, and the final purpose may not be met. In the support group, a leader must exhibit the necessary skills and ability to enable the members to understands the importance and the aims of the groups. The leader must ensure that the meetings are on time, promote and ensure attendance, and implement the set ground rules (Chen and Rybak, 2017). With this, the group would stay focused and at the same time ensure that all members participate fully for their own benefits and those of others. As far as the development stages are concerned, the forming group stage and storming would best be suited for the authoritarian. The forming stage usually involves orientation and acquittals, which come with uncertainties (Srivastava, 2019). During the forming stage, it is obvious that members are usually unsure of the groups’ purpose, how well they fit in, and whether they would work. Hereby, members try their best to outsmart each other looking for leadership and authority since they would be looking for a team leader for directions. Due to this, a leader who asserts authority and possesses the necessary knowledge and skills will automatically put the group in check. The realization of group dynamics would be realized (Chen and Rybak, 2017). At the storming stage, people would be pushing against the established boundaries, and conflicts could arise between the team members by defining their own ways of working (Pfutzenreuter, de Lima, and Frega, 2020). Therefore, at this stage, members may challenge authority, management style, or even the team's mission set. With this realization, it would best for the leader to use the authoritative leadership style to counter any confrontations (Srivastava, 2019). There is a democratic leadership style, which is basically the opposite of autocratic leadership. It is also referred to as participative leadership. Democratic leadership uses the basics of all team members' involvement in the decision-making process, which makes everyone feel included, engaged, and upholds motivation in contributions (Fiaz, Su and Saqib, 2017). In this leadership style, the leader will normally have the last word in the decision-making process based on the team members' input. Democratic leadership usually increases the employees' motivation, which further yields to job satisfaction. Additionally, it tends to encourage the employee's creativity, and team members are, in most cases, likely to develop a high level of productivity. Productivity is fostered by a strong team formed during the members' participation. This type of leadership is advantageous to the employees because they tend to diverse ideas (Khan and Nawaz, 2016). Unfortunately, democratic leadership is time-consuming since the decision-making process is tedious. Further, it would be possible to have poor decisions when the team members are inexperienced or unskilled. Democratic leadership is best applicable for a smaller team or a team comprising similarly skilled members (Pfutzenreuter, de Lima, and Frega, 2020). Democratic leadership style would fit in the didactic group set up because this kind of group tends to encourage growth and social interactions through workgroups. In most cases, the didactic groups work best when guided by a knowledgeable, skilled leader (Srivastava, 2019). In the didactic group, the main aim is to enhance problem-solving skills while fostering healthy coping mechanisms in any situation. Since the democratic leadership style entails team members' involvement, the didactic group encourages teamwork and encourages rational thought processes (Chen and Rybak, 2017). Democratic leadership would be best applied in the norming stage. People would automatically start resolving their differences at the norming stage, start appreciating fellow members' strengths, and giving due respect to their leader (Pfutzenreuter, de Lima and Frega, 2020). It is at this stage that people will have already settled differences and become friends again. Since they would have already known each other, they would be able to feel more comfortable asking for help and offering one as well. Therefore, democracy would be best used at this stage, whereby the team members' would come together and work to achieve the team's goals. Democracy would work best since the members already share a stronger commitment and feel obliged to progress toward achieving the goals. Laissez-faire, on the other hand, is commonly referred to as delegative leadership. It is a leadership style that focuses on delegating initiatives to the team members, which defines the lack of a clear leader role (Fiaz, Su, and Saqib, 2017). In other words, this leadership style defines that everybody is an equal decision-maker, and each member's contribution or inputs is all considered equal. In laissez-faire, the decision-making process is left to the team members instead of the democratic. Team members are gathered to give their inputs, then considering or filtering the best decisions from them. To this effect, everybody in the organization or a particular set up feels important as far as delegation and the decision making process is concerned (Gillam, 2018). The good thing about this type of leadership is that experienced employees can act to the advantage of an independent decision-making process and prove their competence and experience. This leadership style promotes innovation and creativity, and in most cases, a positive work environment is usually achieved (Khan and Nawaz, 2016). Unfortunately, command and responsibility are not well defined in laissez-faire, and it creates a hard time for changes and adjustments. Additionally, in areas in which strategic processes are involved, this leadership style may bring about confusion and bottlenecks. The good thing about laissez-faire is that it is an effective style to lead a team composed of highly-skilled, highly...