Way of Facilitating a Group
R. Rogers. Ph.D
[For authority to reproduce see here]
a long time I thought that I would like to write a paper on "The
Facilitation of Encounter Groups". But the more I thought of the differing
styles of the many leaders I have known, and of the co-leaders with whom I have
worked, the more I despaired. Any such article would be so homogenised that its
every truth would also be a falsehood. Knowing that there are many effective
leaders, utilising vastly different styles, I was blocked.
I realised if I narrowed my sights, and wrote simply about the way in which I
work with an encounter group, this might have a far more releasing effect upon
the workers in this field. It might stimulate others to write about the style of
facilitation which suits them. Even more importantly, it might give the younger
worker more freedom to believe that he can ultimately develop a style which is
truly his own, and hence is most effective for him. So with no sense of apology
or egotism, I am going to write as honestly as I am able, about what I see as my
strengths and weaknesses in facilitating encounter groups, and those areas in
which I am unsure.
of Philosophy and Attitudes
trust the group, given a reasonably facilitating climate, to develop its own
potential and the potential of its members. For me, this capacity of the group
is an awesome thing. It is perhaps a corollary of this that I have gradually
developed a great deal of trust in the group process. This is undoubtedly
similar to the trust |I came to have in the process of therapy in the
individual, when the process was facilitated rather than directed. To me the
group seems like an organism, having a sense of its own direction even though
could not define that direction intellectually. I am reminded of a medical
motion picture which made a deep impression on me. It was a photo micrographic
movie which showed the white blood corpuscles moving, in a fashion which could
only be described as purposeful towards a disease bacterium. As they approached
it they surrounded it and gradually engulfed and destroyed it and then moved on
about their business. In the same way, it seems to me a group recognises the
unhealthy aspects of its process focuses on these, clears them up or eliminates
them, and moves on toward becoming a healthier group. This is my way of saying
that I have seen the "wisdom of the organism" exhibited at every level
from cell to group.
have no specific goal for a particular group and I sincerely want it to develop
its own directions. There are times when, because of some personal bias or
anxiety. I have had a specific goal for a group. When this has happened, either
the group has carefully defeated that goal or has spent enough time dealing with
me that I have truly regretted having had a specific goal in mind. I have
stressed the negative aspects of specific goals because, at the same time I hope
to avoid these, I also hope that there will be some sort of process movement in
the group and I even think that I can predict some of the probable generalised
directions, but not any specific direction. For me this is a very important
difference. The group will move, of this I am confident, but it is presumptuous
of me to think that I can or should direct that movement toward a specific goal.
believe that in no basic way does my approach differ from that which I have
adopted for years in individual therapy. However, as will be clear in the pages
which follow, my behaviour is often quite different in a group than it would be
in a one to one relationship.
am not ordinarily concerned with how my style of facilitation looks to another
person. In that sense I feel simply competent and comfortable. On the other
hand, I know from experience that I can be at least temporarily jealous of a
co-leader who seem to be more facilitative than I am.
hope gradually to become as much a participant in the group as a facilitator of
the group. I want to move back and forth easily between these two functions in a
way which is comfortable to me. It does sometimes create a certain amount of
conflict at as to whether I should be listening to others or listening more
intently to what is going on within myself.
believe that the way I serve as facilitator has importance and significance in
the life of the group but I believe the group process is much more important
than my statements or my behaviour and will take place if I do not get in the
way of it.
any group to some degree, but especially in a so-called "academic
course" which I am conducting in an encounter group type of fashion, I want
very much to have the whole person present, both in his affective and cognitive
modes. I have not found this an easy thing to achieve since I believe that most
of us chose one mode rather than the other at any given moment. Yet it still
remains a way of being which has much value for me. I hope to make progress in
myself, and in groups I facilitate, in permitting the whole person, with his
ideas, and ideas permeated with feelings, to be fully present.
I do in a Group
tend to open a group in an extremely unstructured way, perhaps with no more than
a simple comment: "I suspect we will know each other a great deal better at
the end of these group sessions than we do now," or "Here we are. We
can make of this group experience exactly what we wish." In a recorded
group session with a group of other facilitators I think I stated this view
because I do trust the group, I can usually be quite loose and relaxed in a
group even from the first. That's overstating it somewhat, for I always feel a
little anxiety, perhaps, when a group starts, but, by and large, I feel, 'I
don't have any ideas what's going to happen, but I think what's going to happen
will be all right,' and I think I tend to communicate non-verbally that, 'Well,
none of us seems to know what's going to happen, but it doesn't seem to be
something to worry about.'" I believe that my relaxation and lack of any
desire to guide may have a freeing influence on others.
listen as carefully, accurately, and sensitively as I am able, to each
individual in the group who expresses himself. Whether the utterances are
superficial or significant, I listen. I want to make the individual who speaks
feel that what he has said is, to me, worthwhile, worth understanding, and that
consequently he is worthwhile for having said it. Colleagues who have observed
this say that in this sense I "validate" the person.
is no doubt that I am selective in my listening, and hence
"directive," if people wish to accuse me of this. I am centred on the
group member who is speaking, and I am unquestionably much less interested in
the details of his quarrel with his wife, or the details of his difficulties on
the job, or his disagreement with what has just been said, than in the meaning
these experiences have for him now, and the feelings which they arouse in him.
It is these meanings and feelings to which I try to respond.
wish very much to make the climate psychologically safe for the individual. I
want him to feel from the first that if he risks saying something highly
personal, or absurd, or hostile, or cynical, that there will be at least one
person in the circle who respects him enough to hear him clearly, and to listen
to that statement as an authentic expression of himself.
is a slightly different way in which I wish to make the climate safe for the
member. I am well aware that I cannot make the experience safe from the pain of
new insight or growth, or the pain of honest feedback from others. I would like,
however, for the individual to feel that whatever happens to him or within him,
I will be psychologically very much with him, in moments of pain or joy, or the
combination of the two which is such a frequent mark of growth. I think I can
usually sense when a participant is hurting, and it is at those moments that I
give him some sign, verbal or non-verbal, that I perceive this and that I am a
companion to him as he lives in that hurt.
special Role of Acceptance of the Group
have a great deal of patience with a group and with an individual in the group.
I believe that if there is one thing I have learned and relearned in recent
years, it is that it is ultimately very rewarding to accept the group exactly
where it is. So if a group wishes to intellectualise, or discuss very
superficial problems, or is emotionally very closed, or is very frightened of
personal communication, these tendencies rarely bug me as much as they do some
other leaders. I am well aware that certain exercises, certain tasks set up by
the facilitator, can practically force the group to more of a here and now
communication, or more of a feeling level. I have observed leaders who have done
these things very skilfully, and with very good effect at the time. However, I
am enough of a scientist-clinician to have made many casual as well as organised
follow-up studies and I know that frequently the lasting effect of such
procedures is not nearly as satisfying as the immediate effect. At its best it
may lead to discipleship (which I happen not to like): "What a marvellous
leader he is to have made me open up when I had no intention of doing so. "
It can also lead to a rejection of the whole experience. "Why did I do
those silly things he asked me to?" At its worst, it can make the person
feel that his private self has in someway been violated, and he will be careful
never to expose himself to such a possibility again.
for me, I have found that it "pays off" to live with the group exactly
where it is. Thus I have worked with a group of very inhibited scientists,
mostly in the physical sciences, where feelings were rarely expressed openly,
and personal encounter at a deep level was simply not seen. Yet this group
became much more free and innovative, and showed many positive results of our
have worked with high-level educational administrators probably the most rigid
and well defended group in our culture, with similar results. I am not saying it
is always easy for me. In this group of educators there had been much
superficial and intellectual talk, but gradually they had moved to a deeper
level. Then in an evening session the talk became much more trivial. One person
asked, "are we doing what we want to do?" And the group answer was an
almost unanimous "No." But almost immediately the talk again became
luncheon table chatter about matters in which I had no interest. I was in a
quandary. In order to allay a considerable early anxiety in the group, I had
stressed in the first session that they could make of this group exactly what
they wished, and operationally they seemed to be saying very loudly, "We
wish to spend expensive, hard-won, weekend time talking of trivia."
Consequently, to express my feelings of boredom and annoyance seemed
contradictory to the permission I had given them. After wrestling within myself
for a few moments, I decided that they had a perfect right to talk trivia, and I
had a perfect right not to endure that trivia. So I simply walked quietly out of
the room, and went to bed. After I left, and the next morning, the reactions
were as varied as the members of the group. One felt rebuked and punished, one
felt I had played a trick on them, one felt ashamed of their time-wasting,
others felt as disgusted as I at their trivial interchanges. I told them that to
the best of my awareness, I was simply trying to make my behaviour match my
contradictory feelings, but that they were each entitled to their own
perceptions. At any rate, after that, the interactions were far more meaningful.
of the Individual
am willing for a participant to commit or not commit himself to the group. If a
person wishes to remain psychologically on the sidelines, he has my implicit
permission to do so. The group may or may not be willing for him to remain in
this stance but personally I am willing. One sceptical college administrator in
a recent group said that the main thing, he had learned was that he could
withdraw from personal participation, be comfortable about it, and realise that
he would not be coerced. To me, this seems a valuable learning, and one which
will make it much more possible that he will actually participate at the next
am willing to accept silence and muteness in the individual, providing I am
quite certain it is not unexpressed pain or unexpressed resistance.
tend to accept statements at their face value. As a facilitator (just as in my
function as therapist) I definitely prefer to be a gullible person. I will
believe that you are telling me the way it is in you. If you are not doing this
you are entirely free to correct your message at a later point, and you are
likely to do so. I do not want to waste my time being suspicious, or wondering,
"What does he really mean?"
respond more to present feelings than to statements about past experiences but I
am willing for both to be present in the communication. I not like the rule:
"We will only talk about the here and now."
try to make clear that whatever will happen from the choices of the group,
whether those choices are clear and conscious, gropingly uncertain, or
unconscious. As I become increasingly a member of the group, I carry my share of
influence, but I do not control what happens within the group.
am usually able to feel comfortable with the fact that in eight hours we can
accomplish eight hours' worth and in forty hours we can accomplish forty hours'
worth, and in a one-hour microlab or demonstration session we can accomplish one
attempt to understand the exact meaning of what the person is communicating is
the most important and most frequent of my behaviours in a group.
me, it is a part of this understanding that I try to delve through complications
and get the communication back onto the track of the meaning that it has to the
person. For example, after a very complicated and somewhat incoherent statement
by a husband I respond, "And so, little by little, you may hold back things
that previously you would have communicated to your wife. Is that it?"
"Yes." I believe this is facilitative, since otherwise some of the
group members might ask questions about, or respond to, some of the complicated
details he has presented.
talk is generalised or intellectualising, I tend to select the self-referent
meanings to respond to out of this total context. Thus I might say, "Though
you are speaking of all this in general terms of what people do in certain
situations, I suspect you are speaking very much for yourself in saying that. Is
that right?" Or, "You say we all do and feel thus and so. Do you mean
that you do and feel these things?"
the beginning of a recent group, Al said some rather meaningful things. John,
another member, started questioning him about what he had said, but I heard more
than questions. I finally said, to John: "0.K.: you keep trying to get at
what he said and what he meant, but I think you're trying to say something to
him and I'm not sure what that is." "John thought for a moment and
then began to speak for himself. Up to that moment, I think he was trying to get
Al to voice his (that is John's) feelings for him, so he wouldn't have to voice
them as coming from himself. I find this quite a common pattern.
very much want my understanding to extend to both sides of a difference in
feeling which is being expressed. Thus, in one group which was discussing
marriage, two people held very different views. I responded, "This is a
real difference between the two of you because you, Jerry, are saying, 'I like
smoothness in a relationship. I like it to be nice and tranquil,' and Winnie is
saying, "To hell with that, I like communication'." This helps to
sharpen and clarify the significance of differences.
in Terms of my Feelings
have learned to be more and more free in utilising my own feelings as they exist
in the moment, whether in relation to the group as a whole, or in respect to one
nearly always feel a genuine and present concern for each member of the group
and the group as a whole. I can't give the reason for this. I just know that I
do. I values each person, but this valuing carries no guarantee of a permanent
relationship. It is concern and feeling which exists now. I think I can feel it
more clearly, because I am not saying it is or will be permanent.
think I am quite sensitive to those moments when an individual is feeling a
readiness to speak or a closeness to pain or anger. Thus I might say,
"Let's give Carlene a chance," or "Your face looks as though you
are really troubled about something. Do you wish to let us in on that?"
is probably particularly to hurt that I respond with empathic understanding, as
I tried to describe above. This desire to understand, and psychologically stand
with the person in pain, probably grows in part out of my therapeutic
endeavour to voice any persisting feelings which I am experiencing toward an
individual or toward the group. Obviously such expression would not come at the
very beginning, because my feelings are not yet persistent ones. I might, for
example, take a dislike to someone during the first ten minutes the group is
together. It is unlikely that I would voice such a feeling at that time. If the
feeling persists, however, I would voice it.
trust the feelings, words, impulses, fantasies, which, emerge in me. I feel that
in this way I am using more than my conscious self and I am using some of the
capacities of my whole organism. For example, "It suddenly came to me that
you are a princess, or would like to be a princess, and that you would love it
if we were all your subjects." Or, "I sense that you are the judge as
well as the accused, and that you are saying sternly to yourself, 'You are
guilty on every count."
wish to be as expressive of positive and loving feelings as of negative or
frustrated or angry ones. There may be a certain risk in this. I recall one
group where I think I hurt the group process by being too expressive, early in
the sessions, of the very warm feelings I felt toward a number of members of the
group. Because I was still perceived as the facilitator, I think this made it
more difficult for others to express some of their negative and angry feelings.
find it difficult to be easily or quickly aware of angry feelings in me. I
deplore this. I am slowing learning in this respect.
like my functioning best in a group when my "owned" feelings, positive
or negative, are in immediate interaction with the feelings of a participant. To
me this means that we are communicating on a deep level of personal meaning. It
is the closest I get to an I-thou relationship.
I am asked a question, I try to consult my own feelings. If I sense the question
as being real and containing no other message than the question, then I will try
my best to answer it. I feel no social compunction, however, to answer a
question simply because it is a question. There may be other messages in it far
more important than the question.
colleague of mine has told me that "I peel my own onion." That is,
that I express continuously deeper layers of feeling as I become aware of them
in a group. I can only hope this is true.
tend to confront individuals on specifics of their behaviour. "I don't like
the way you chatter on. I wish you would stop when you've completed your
message." "To me you seem sort of like putty. Someone seems to reach
you, to make a dent in you, but then it all springs back into place as though
you hadn't been touched."
would like to confront another person only with feelings which I am willing to
own as my own. Such feelings may at times be very strong. "Never in my life
have I been so pissed off at a group as I am at this one." Or, to one man
in the group , "I woke up this morning feeling, 'I never want to see you
do not want to attack a person's defences because that seems to me to be
judgmental. If, however, what I perceive as his coldness frustrates me or what I
perceive as his intellectualising irritates me or if his brutality to another
person angers m, then I would like to face him with the frustration or the
irritation or the anger. To me this is very important. If I say, "You're
hiding a lot of hostility," or "You are being highly intellectual
probably because you are afraid of your own feelings. I believe such judgements
and diagnoses are the opposite of facilitative.
when I confront someone I use very specific material, given previously by the
participant. "Now you're being the 'pore lil old country boy' once
more." "Now it seems to me you you are doing it again, the very thing
you described, being the child who wants approval at any cost."
a person seems distressed by my confrontation or by that of others, I am quite
willing to help him "get off the hook" if he so desires. "You
look as though you have had about all you want to take. Would you like us to let
you alone for the time being?" I am guided by his response, learning that
sometimes he wants the feedback and confrontation to continue, even though it is
painful to him.
of Own Problems
I am currently distressed by something in my own life, I am willing to express
this in the group. I do have some sort of professional conscience about this,
however, because if I am being paid to be a facilitator, then if my problem is
severe I feel that I should work it out in a staff group or with some therapist
rather than taking the time of the group. I believe I am probably too cautious
about this. I think of one group, a slow moving group meeting once a week, where
I feel I really cheated them. I was very much upset about a personal problem,
but I felt the problem did not concern the group and I refrained from talking
about it. As I look back on it, I think nothing would have facilitated the group
more than to express my upsetness. I believe it would have helped them to be
of Planning and "Gimmicks"
try to avoid utilising in a group any procedure that is planned. I have a real
"thing" about artificiality. If we are going to try any planned
procedure I think the group members should be in on it as fully as I am and
should make the choice themselves as to whether they want to utilise the
rare occasions when frustrated or when a group has seemed to reach a plateau, I
have tried to use what I think are gimmicks but they rarely work. Probably this
is because I lack faith myself that they are really useful.
am sometimes willing to suggest a procedure to a group but what happens is up to
them. In one apathetic group I suggested that we might try to get out of our
doldrums by forming one inner circle and one outer circle with the person in the
outer circle prepared to speak up for the real feelings of the individual in
front of him. The group paid absolutely no attention to my suggestion and went
on as though it had never been expressed. However, within an hour, one man
picked up the central aspect of the device and used it saying, "I want to
speak for John and say what I believe he is actually feeling." At least a
dozen times in the next day or two others used it, in their own spontaneous way,
not as a device.
me nothing is a gimmick if it occurs with real spontaneity. Thus, I have used
role playing, bodily contact, various other procedures when they seemed to
express what I am actually feeling at the time.
of Interpretive or Process Comments
make comments on the group process very sparingly. It seems to me such comments
make the group self conscious. I think they slow the group, make the members
feel that they are under scrutiny. I prefer to have such process comments come
naturally from members of the group, if at all. To me, the experience of feeling
competitive, for example, and experiencing that feeling openly, is more
important than to have the facilitator put an intellectual label on his
behaviour. For some reason, I have no objection when a participant does
something of this sort. For example, a faculty member was complaining about the
students who always want their questions answered and who keep continuously
asking questions. He felt they just weren't adequately self reliant. He was
insistently asking me what to do about such behaviour. A group member finally
said, "You seem to be giving us a good example of just what you are
complaining about." This seemed very helpful.
tend not to probe into nor to comment on what might be behind a person's
behaviour. To me, an interpretation as to the cause of an individual's behaviour
can never be anything but a high level guess. The only way it can carry weight
is when an authority puts the weight of his expertise behind it. I do not want
to get involved in this kind of authoritative behaviour. "I think it's
because you feel inadequate as a man that you engage in this blustering
behaviour," is not the kind of statement I would ever make.
Movement and Contact
express myself in physical movement as spontaneously as I am able. I think my
background is not such as to make me particularly spontaneous in this respect.
If I am restless I get up and stretch and move around. If I want to change
places with another person I ask him if he is willing to do so. I may sit or lie
on the floor if that meets my physical needs. I do not particularly attempt,
however, to promote physical movement in others. I have observed facilitators
who can do this beautifully and effectively.
have slowly learned to respond spontaneously with physical contact when this
seems real and spontaneous and appropriate. When a young woman was weeping
because she had had a dream that no one in the group lover her I embraced her,
kissed her, and comforted her. When a person is suffering, and I feel like going
over and putting my arm around him, I do just that. Again, I do not try
consciously to promote this kind of behaviour.
in the Therapeutic Potentiality of the Group
very serious situations which arise in a group, when an individual seems to be
exhibiting psychotic behaviour, or is behaving in a bizarre way, I have learned
to rely on the members of the group to be as therapeutic or more therapeutic
than I am myself. I think that sometimes as a professional I get caught up in
labels and feel, for example, "This is straight paranoid behaviour!"
As a consequence of this, I tend to withdraw somewhat and deal with the person
more as an object. The more naive group member continues to relate to the
troubled person as a person and this in my experience is far more therapeutic.
So in situations in which a member is showing behaviour which is clearly
"pathological," I rely on the wisdom of the group more than on my own,
and am often deeply astonished at the therapeutic ability of the group members.
Faults of Which I am Aware
am much better in a group in which feelings are being expressed, any kind of
feelings, than in an apathetic group. I am not particularly good in provoking a
relationship. I have real admiration for some facilitators I know who can very
readily provoke a real and meaningful relationship which then continues to
am often slow to sense and express my anger. As a consequence, I may only become
aware of it and express it later.
I am a product of my generation in finding it somewhat difficult to be loose and
expressive in physical ways. I admire the younger people I know who are much
freer in this respect.
recent years I have had to deal with the problem which is special to anyone who
has become rather widely known through writings and through having been taught
about in classrooms. This means that people often come into a group with me with
all kinds of expectations, ranging from the expectation of finding a halo over
my head to the expectation of finding me sprouting horns. I endeavour to
dissociate myself as rapidly as possible from these expectations. In my dress,
in my manner, and by expressing my wish that they get to know me as a person,
not simply as a name or a book or a theory, I endeavour to become a person to
the members of the group. It is always very refreshing to me to find myself in a
group, for example a group of high school girls, or sometimes a group of
businessmen, for whom I am not a "name," and where I have to
"make it" all over again simply as the person I am. I could have
kissed the high school girl who said challengingly at the start of a group,
"I think this is kind of a risky thing. What are your qualifications for
doing this ?" I replied that I had had some experience in working with
groups,and that I hoped they would find me to be qualified, but that I could
certainly understand their concern.
Which I Believe to be Non-Facilitative
writing this section I have profited by discussion with many individuals, but
particularly Ann Dreyfuss and William R. Coulson.
I stressed at the outset of this paper that there are many effective styles of
working with a group, I also know that there are a number of people who conduct
groups whom I do not recommend, because some of their behaviour seems to me to
be non-facilitative, or even damaging, to a group and its members. I cannot
conclude this discussion in an honest way without listing some of these
behaviours. Research is in such an infant stage in this field that I do not
pretend that the opinions expressed in this section are factually based, or
supported by research findings. They are opinions and conclusions which have
grown out of my experience:
believe a facilitator is ineffective when he pushes a group, manipulates it,
makes rules for it, endeavours to direct it toward his own unspoken goals. Even
a slight flavour of this type of behaviour can diminish or destroy the trust of
the group in the facilitator, or even worse, make the members his worshipful
followers. If he has specific goals, he had best make them explicit.
do not like a facilitator who judges the success or failure of a group by its
dramatics, who counts the number of people who have wept, or those who have been
"turned on." To me this leads toward a highly spurious evaluation.
do not recommend a facilitator who believes in "attack" as the sine
qua non of a successful group. I have a great deal of respect for Synanon, and
the effectiveness of their work with drug addicts, but I am repelled by their
hastily formed dogma that unrelenting attack, whether based on real or spurious
feelings, is the criterion by which a group is to be judged. I want hostility to
be expressed when it is present, and I want to express it myself when it is
present for me, but there are many other feelings which exist, and they have
equal importance in living, and in the group.
do not recommend as facilitator a person whose own problems are so great and so
pressing that he needs to centre the group on himself, and is not available to,
nor deeply aware of, others. Such a person might well be a participant in a
group, but it is most unfortunate when he carries the label of facilitator.
do not wish as facilitator a person who is frequently giving interpretations of
motives or causes of behaviour in members of the group. If these are inaccurate
they are of no help, if deeply accurate, they may arouse extreme defensiveness,
or even worse, strip the person of his defences, leaving him damaged and
vulnerable as a person, particularly after the group sessions are over.
do not like it when a facilitator introduces exercises or activities with the
attitude that, "Now we will all ......" This is simply a special form
of manipulation, but it is one which is very difficult for the individual to
resist. If exercises are introduced, I think any member should have the
opportunity, clearly stated by the facilitator, to opt out of the activity.
do not like the facilitator who withholds himself from personal emotional
participation in the group, who holds himself aloof as the expert, able to
analyse the group process and the members' reactions through his superior
knowledge. To me, this shows both a defensiveness in himself, and a deep lack of
respect for the the participants. Such a person denies his own spontaneous
feelings and provides a model for the group which is the complete antithesis of
what I believe in. The model he provides is that of the coolly analytical person
who never gets involved. This is what each participant will naturally aim to
achieve, and this, as I say, is the opposite of what I hope for. It is
non-defensiveness and spontaneity, not the defensiveness of aloofness, which I
personally hope will emerge in the group.
me make it clear that I do not object at all to the characteristics I have
mentioned in any participant in the group. The individual who is
overinterpretative, or totally attacking, or emotionally aloof, will be very
adequately handled by the group members themselves. They will simply not permit
such behaviours to persistently continue. But when it is the facilitator who
exhibits these behaviours, he tends to set a norm for the group before the
members have learned that they can confront and deal with him, as well as with
have tried to describe the manner in which I would like to facilitate a group. I
do not always succeed in following my own personal aims when I am with a group,
and then the experience tends to be less satisfying to the members and to me. I
have also described some of the behaviours which I regard as non-facilitative. I
sincerely hope that this presentation will encourage others to speak for their
own styles of group facilitation.
Ransom Rogers, an American psychologist, lived from 1902 to 1987. He trained at Teachers College,
Columbia University (Ph.D., 1931), and directed a children's agency in New York
before taking teaching positions at various universities. In 1963 he helped
found an institute for the study of the person in La Jolla, California. He is
known as the originator of client-centred
psychotherapy, and he helped establish humanistic
psychology. His writings include Counseling and Psychotherapy (1942),
Client-Centered Therapy (1951), Psychotherapy and Personality Change
(1954), and On Becoming a Person (1961).
for the Centre for Studies of the Person at La Jolla, California, as a draft for
private circulation only, and made available thanks to the free resources of the
Elements U.K. website. http://www.elementsuk.com/freeres.htm