Abstract
This qualitative study examines the challenges faced by group leaders during mass trauma following the October 7, 2023 massacre in Israel. Twenty-five seasoned leaders who led 43 groups participated in semi-structured interviews. Employing an interpretative phenomenological approach, the analysis revealed four principal dilemmas emerging from participants’ accounts: setting boundaries versus flexibility; adhering to structure versus focusing on the “here and now”; maintaining harmony versus allowing conflict; and discussing the war versus everyday concerns. The findings highlight the significant impact of mass trauma on group dynamics and emphasize the need for flexible and sensitive leadership strategies.
Introduction
On October 7, 2023, the terror organization Hamas, launched an attack against the State of Israel. Following a massive rocket barrage, thousands of terrorists infiltrated Israel, murdering approximately 1,200 individuals and kidnapping 252 men, women, and children (United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, 2024). Both Jewish and non-Jewish victims were maimed, tortured, and raped without discrimination (Amnesty International, 2024). As a result, the State of Israel evacuated over 200,000 people living near the Gaza border in the south, as well as people living near the northern border, who were threatened by Hizballah, a terrorist organization operating from Lebanon (UN Watch, 2024). Most of the displaced were housed in hotels in safer regions of the country (Institute for National Security Studies, 2024). Based on the number of victims per capita, it was the deadliest terrorist attack worldwide in recent decades (Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2023). The October 7 events exposed a significant failing in the national leadership’s obligation to safeguard civilian security and protect the populace (Levi-Belz et al., 2024). Hence, this massacre was a national mass trauma that affected nearly every Israeli citizen.
Mass trauma refers to large-scale events that overwhelm individuals and communities through widespread exposure to harm, often marked by a gap between the severity of the damage and the capacity to respond. It may involve unexpected events that induce fear and disrupt social functioning, regardless of their direct physical impact (Shalev et al., 2004).
For the first few weeks after October 7, the education system and nonessential services ceased operating. Despite the ongoing missile attacks, most systems subsequently resumed functioning under safety instructions issued periodically by Israel’s Home Front command. Sirens installed across the nation alerted citizens to missile launches targeting a specific area, and once activated, depending on proximity to the danger, civilians had 15 to 90 s to enter a bomb shelter. The frequent missile attacks led group leaders to temporarily suspend activities or hastily shift from face-to-face (FTF) to online settings. In addition, ad-hoc, short-term groups were formed to serve those in need of urgent psycho-social support.
Studies on leading groups in the context of mass trauma are limited and usually focus on coping with the aftermath of traumatic events (e.g., Knight & Gitterman, 2022; Knight & Greif, 2024). Only a few have explored the experiences of group leaders at the initial stages of encountering mass trauma (e.g., Lysnyk, 2024; Roszik-Volovik et al., 2023). Articles exploring leadership during mass trauma have focused on the COVID-19 pandemic, which may differ from a human-made trauma (e.g., Icekson et al., 2024; Kaye-Tzadok, 2021). Additionally, studies on group leadership experiences have focused on novice leaders or on trainees (e.g., Dolcini-Catania et al., 2023) or failed to distinguish between novice and experienced leaders (e.g., Tcholakian et al., 2019). Our study’s focus on experienced group leaders is warranted given the distinct expertise they bring to group facilitation (Hahn et al., 2022) and given that research has demonstrated that the knowledge structures of trainees differ significantly from those of expert practitioners (Kivlighan & Kivlighan, 2009).
Leading groups in the face of mass trauma or in “normal” circumstances may share both similarities and differences, yet limited systematic research on the subject exists. To fill this gap, our study focuses on the work of experienced group leaders, mapping and conceptualizing their dilemmas in leading groups during the acute stage of mass trauma.
Intervening Amid Crisis: Contextual Challenges of Mass Trauma Response
Mass trauma refers to large-scale events that can be quantified by the number of affected individuals or understood more broadly as prolonged and pervasive exposure to traumatic conditions. It often involves a novel or unexpected disruption that generates widespread panic, regardless of direct destructive impact. A defining feature is the significant imbalance created between external demands and available resources, and between magnitude of harm and capacity for individual and collective recovery (Shalev et al., 2004).
Terrorism is a form of mass trauma characterized by unlawful or threatened use of force intended to intimidate societies or governments by instilling fear and mistrust within civilian populations. It is a deliberate psychological assault targeting both individuals and the collective will of a people. Rooted primarily in ideological or political motivations, terrorism undermines fundamental human needs by eroding the sense of safety and security (B. J. Pfefferbaum et al., 2007).
Although resilience is the most common reaction after mass trauma (Lai et al., 2021), many individuals develop mental health distress symptoms (Neria et al., 2008). A systematic review of the psychological effects of disasters and pandemics across geographically diverse samples of children and adults reported that, 6 months following the event, 28% of individuals exhibited clinically significant depressive symptoms, 23% anxiety symptoms, and 24% symptoms of post-traumatic stress (Newnham et al., 2022). A national prospective study of mental health implications carried out in Israel among a representative sample of adults post October 7 (Levi-Belz et al., 2024) showed that 29.8% met the criterion for probable PTSD diagnosis 5 to 6 weeks after the massacre (compared to 16.2% at T1, prior to the attack) and the prevalence of probable depression was 44.8% (compared to 31.3% at T1). These rates underscore the critical importance of initiating interventions during mass trauma.
Intervention during mass trauma requires consideration of its time-line and how it unfolds (Hobfoll et al., 2007; Olff et al., 2025). Large scale traumatic events are phase-specific, and interventions must address different needs at different time points. The stages of mass trauma include: acute (usually from the time of impact through the first 4 weeks); post-acute (one to several months post event); and long-term, 6 months or more post event (Phillips & Klein, 2011). Few studies have examined group leaders’ experiences during the acute stage of response to mass trauma (e.g., Lysnyk, 2024; Roszik-Volovik et al., 2023).
Small groups can be defined as consisting of two or more people sharing mutual representations of one another (Lewin, 1948; McGrath, 1984) and identifying the shared space of the group as exclusive and unique (MacKenzie & Livesley, 1983). Small groups can provide powerful and efficient assistance to their members in coping with adversity (Maheshwari et al., 2010) through therapeutic factors such as universality, altruism, interpersonal learning, and instilling of hope (Gitterman et al., 2021; Yalom & Leszcz, 2020).
Such groups can also offer social support, a prominent factor in fostering resilience after trauma (e.g., Knight & Greif, 2024; Pressley & Smith, 2017). Social support encompasses access to resources both during and long after the traumatic event/s, their recognition and validation, and responses of acceptance and understanding from close individuals (Pressley & Smith, 2017). Social support is predictive of mental health outcomes in the months and years after a disaster (Cruwys et al., 2024; Evans & Oehler-Stinnett, 2006; Pham et al., 2023). Group social support is pivotal since mass trauma is “a blow to tissues of social life that damage the bonds linking people together and impair the prevailing sense of communality” (Erikson, 1976, p. 154). As Herman (1997) stated concisely, “Trauma isolates” (p. 214). Individuals may lose the capacity to make use of community support. A question posed by trauma specialists is how to restore a sense of human interdependence and community, important because no established traditions or widely practiced rituals exist that acknowledge the mourning associated with traumatic life events (Malekoff, 2008). It has been suggested that “recovery from trauma must involve restoring a sense of community, which is also one of the key functions of group work” (Malekoff, 2008, p. 36).
A growing body of literature highlights the value of utilizing pre-existing or “natural” groups, such as friends, family members, school classrooms, workplace teams, or voluntary community associations, as effective platforms for psychosocial support in the aftermath of mass trauma. These groups, by virtue of their availability, familiarity, cohesion, and embedded trust, provide a context in which individuals can engage in supportive processes (B. Pfefferbaum et al., 2012; James et al., 2020; Kaniasty, 2012).
The employment of group-based approaches is indeed widespread during mass trauma (Berger et al., 2016; Felsen, 2021; Miller & Pescaroli, 2018; Phillips & Klein, 2011; Weiss, 2005). Participants in group-based programs following mass trauma have highlighted benefits, such as enhanced sense of social connectedness, strengthened family relationships, and provision of a safe environment for sharing emotions (Dickson & Bangpan, 2018). During mass trauma, group-based interventions may also be more cost-effective and scalable than individualized services (Pedersen et al., 2021).
While groups hold great potential to help individuals and communities struggling with mass trauma, they pose distinct challenges for their leaders (Knight & Gitterman, 2022). One challenge is regulating external and internal group boundaries. External group boundaries include group membership, locale, and session length; internal group boundaries refer to aspects of ongoing group life such as norms, roles, and orientation to task (Cohn, 2014).
There is wide agreement that any group intervention should be consistent, private, and within a professional setting, framed by agreed time and session length (Yalom & Leszcz, 2020). When there are healthy boundaries, participants and the group as-a-whole can express emotions and feelings freely and authentically and achieve better goals (Cohn, 2014). Clarity and consistency are of utmost importance (Rutan et al., 2014). The turmoil caused by mass trauma can disrupt even initially well-defined boundaries (Lysnyk, 2024).
In times of crisis (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic), many groups transition from face-to-face (FTF) to virtual meetings (Marmarosh et al., 2020; Parks, 2020). While virtual space has benefits, it also presents significant difficulties. Virtual settings create a permeable context in which both group members and leaders operate in multiple positions of time and space, challenging leaders’ ability to set clear and consistent settings (Ben-David et al., 2021; Weinberg, 2018). To effectively promote active presence, stability, continuity, and intimacy in the group, leaders must deal with fragmented information, inconsistent participation, and tension between structure and spontaneity (Ben-David et al., 2021; Gullo et al., 2022).
Group leaders face obstacles related to common reactions of participants to traumatic events, such as avoidance, arousal, heightened anxiety, negative emotions, and heightened aggression (Baird & Alaggia, 2021). Unconscious dissociative symptoms and enactments may occur frequently and consistently, as group members experience unresolved trauma in their environments (Weinberg et al., 2005). Loss and complicated grief may also trigger post-traumatic symptoms and feelings of insecurity and isolation (Leiderman & Klein, 2022). Responses to group leaders may include idealization as saviors or conversely, feelings of betrayal and mistrust, provoking rage and attacks on their authority (Weinberg et al., 2005).
The interpersonal dynamics of groups can be complicated by the effects of human-made mass trauma and terrorism. According to Assumptive World theory (Janoff-Bulman, 1992), trauma often disrupts survivors’ core beliefs about themselves and others, fostering a worldview marked by insecurity and powerlessness. Interpersonal trauma particularly undermines these beliefs (Janoff-Bulman, 1992; Lilly et al., 2011). Restoring trust becomes difficult when trauma is inflicted by others (Janoff-Bulman, 1992). While group interactions hold potential benefits, the profound distrust in humanity and the disruption of fundamental worldviews can create persistent relational challenges (Nickerson et al., 2014).
These challenges are significant as group leaders are rarely trained to deal with the sequelae of mass trauma (Everly et al., 2014). Indeed, sources examining group counseling specialty competencies (Barlow, 2012, 2013), education and training guidelines for group specialty (APA Division 49: Group Specialty Council, n.d.), as well as expert group therapists’ perceptions of main competencies (Hahn et al., 2022) do not mention leading groups in the context of mass trauma. Each disaster generates distinct impacts and challenges, necessitating the adaptation of psychosocial responses to the specific community, existing service systems, and the particular context (Reifels et al., 2013). Given the challenges encountered by group leaders in contexts of mass trauma, gaining a deeper understanding of their experiences is essential.
Method
Our study adopted an interpretative-phenomenological approach (IPA) to investigate how individuals make sense of complex and emotionally charged experiences within their sociocultural contexts (Smith et al., 2009). Rather than seeking objective truths or generalizable patterns, IPA offers an in-depth, nuanced understanding of participants’ lived experiences through a double hermeneutic process, whereby researchers interpret the meaning-making of participants themselves. IPA aims “to produce an analysis that speaks to both convergence and distinctiveness in participants’ experience” (Smith & Fieldsend, 2021, p. 149). This approach permitted us to illuminate the dilemmas of leaders during a time of heightened uncertainty and mass trauma, without imposing predetermined theoretical constructs. Moreover, since there are relatively few studies on group facilitation during mass trauma, IPA offered us a rigorous yet flexible structure to conduct a preliminary mapping of the field (Smith & Fieldsend, 2021) and to address our research question: What are the professional dilemmas experienced by seasoned group leaders facilitating groups during the acute phase of an ongoing mass trauma, specifically in the immediate aftermath of the October 7, 2023 massacre in Israel?
Participants
Mass trauma encompasses large-scale, often unexpected events that overwhelm communities and individuals alike, inducing fear and disrupting social functioning, with the potential to affect anyone, regardless of proximity to physical harm (Shalev et al., 2004). The literature stresses utilizing pre-existing or “natural” groups as accessible, familiar, and trusted contexts for psychosocial support. Accordingly, the present study examined the experiences of seasoned group leaders of various types of such small groups.
Our inclusion criteria for participants were: (a) academic degree (minimum a Bachelor’s), (b) group facilitator certification, (c) at least 1 year of experience leading groups, (d) identified group facilitation as central to their professional identity, (e) had facilitated at least one small group since October 7, 2023, and (f) currently residing in the State of Israel. Based on the aforementioned literature, inclusion criteria did not address specific group type or target populations.
Participants in the study were 25 professional group leaders (22 women, 3 men; age range: 32 to 79 years, M = 50.52 years) who led 43 groups. Demographic characteristics are presented in Table 1. Their group facilitation experience ranged between 1 and 37 years with a mean of 14.6 years. Pseudonyms are used to ensure participants’ anonymity.
Demographic Characteristics of Participants.
One participant was both social worker and an organizational counselor.
The 43 groups led by the 25 participants addressed a wide spectrum of populations impacted by mass trauma (see Table 2). Approximately one-third of the group members (n = 16) were professionals and trainees (social workers, psychotherapists, educators, humanitarian aid workers, and police officers—many within supervision or support frameworks). Approximately one-fifth of the group members (n = 8) were individuals with direct or relational exposure to trauma (bereaved parents of soldiers, war widows, spouses of veterans with PTSD, and mothers of combat soldiers). A third (n = 16) included vulnerable or high-risk populations, such as internally displaced persons, adolescents (including those in frontline zones), elderly individuals, persons in support groups, individuals coping with chronic pain or social anxiety, and justice-involved youth. Lastly, there was a small number (n = 3) of groups held in various other contexts (high-tech companies, gap year volunteers and managers).
Participants’ Group Members/Main Target Audience.
The study was approved by the Human Subjects Research Committee (IRB no. 494) at the second author’s institution. Given the urgent and unpredictable circumstances under which the study was conducted, we employed a combination of non-probability sampling methods. These are widely recognized as appropriate in qualitative research, particularly in exploratory studies where depth, contextual richness, and access to lived experience are prioritized over statistical representativeness (Etikan et al., 2016; Stratton, 2021).
Of the 25 participants, 18 were recruited through convenience sampling via various institutions, social media, group leadership organizations, and the researchers’ professional networks. One participant was referred through snowball sampling. Efforts were made to enrich the sample’s diversity with respect to gender and religion (i.e., more male participants and more non-Jewish participants) by purposeful selection, including the researchers directly approaching six group leaders. The recruitment approaches were selected in light of the practical and ethical constraints of conducting research during wartime, such as limited mobility, emotional distress, and disrupted access to professional networks.
Participants completed a demographic questionnaire and an informed consent form. Semi-structured, 1.5-hr group interviews were conducted by the authors, who are seasoned and certified group facilitators. Interviews took place between November 22 and December 27, 2023, and due to safety concerns related to ongoing missile attacks, were via Zoom.
Ethical guidelines for consent, confidentiality, and harm prevention were followed (Sim & Waterfield, 2019). Participants were informed of the research purpose and recording, assured of confidentiality, and given the option to withdraw at any time. Data collection concluded after eight group interviews, upon reaching theoretical saturation (Hennink & Kaiser, 2022; Staller, 2021). Interviews were audio recorded and professionally transcribed verbatim by the authors.
Group interviews were employed to facilitate open discussion and generate diverse perspectives (Stewart & Shamdasani, 2014). The interview protocol was developed using the IPA, in which participants are invited to share openly their lived experiences, followed by broad questions focusing on the meaning-making that occurs in relation to those experiences (Smith & Fieldsend, 2021; Smith et al., 2009).
In each group interview, participants introduced themselves and were asked to share a significant moment or dilemma from a group they facilitated post October 7. To deepen the understanding of participants’ experiences within the specific context, we followed each shared narrative with open-ended prompts encouraging elaboration and reflection (e.g., “How did you feel?”; “What did you say or do in the group?”; “How did the group respond?”; “How do you make sense of what happened?”). These questions aimed to explore participants’ meaning-making processes and subjective interpretations.
Subsequently, we invited discussion of professional and personal dilemmas, including those raised by others in the group, to foster multiple perspectives and co-construction of meaning. In the final stage of the interview, participants were asked to reflect on changes in their facilitation experiences by comparing the current war context with their pre-war experiences. The session concluded with participants sharing their insights, followed by a summary and closing remarks (see Supplemental Appendix A—interview protocol).
Data Analysis
The data were analyzed using IPA (Smith & Fieldsend, 2021; Smith et al., 2009), a method designed for in depth exploration of how individuals make sense of their lived experiences. Consistent with IPA’s idiographic and inductive orientation, the analysis began with multiple readings of each group interview transcript to ensure deep familiarization with the data.
A detailed, line-by-line examination was then conducted, during which exploratory notes were recorded that captured descriptive content, linguistic features, and emerging conceptual insights. The notes were subsequently transformed into experiential statements that integrated participants’ expressions with psychological and conceptual interpretations grounded in their language and meaning-making (Smith & Fieldsend, 2021).
Patterns of similarity, difference, and connection among experiential statements were identified and clustered into experiential themes and subthemes (Smith & Fieldsend, 2021). Open coding was used without reliance on a priori categories, allowing themes to emerge inductively (i.e., data driven) while maintaining alignment with the research focus—namely, the dilemmas experienced by group leaders in the context of mass trauma.
To ensure analytic rigor, the research team met regularly throughout the coding process. Each unit of general meaning was carefully reviewed to determine whether a participant’s statement shed light on dilemmas encountered in group leadership following October 7. In cases of discrepancy, the team returned to the original interview transcripts to recontextualize the excerpts and discussed potential interpretations until reaching a shared resolution. The authors cross-checked each other’s coding iteratively to verify relevance and clarity of identified meaning units. This reciprocal validation process strengthened the credibility of theme development and ensured that interpretations remained grounded in the participants’ lived experiences within the context of mass trauma (Kornbluh, 2015).
Following Levitt et al. (2017), reflexive practices were integrated throughout the analysis to enhance transparency and rigor. Both researchers identify as Jewish Israeli Women with professional expertise and extensive experience in conducting, researching and teaching group leadership, particularly in contexts involving trauma and psychosocial support. As their cultural and professional backgrounds were similar to those of most of the study participants, this shared identity informed the interpretative engagement with the data. To ensure credibility and minimize interpretative bias, reflexive practices were employed to consider how researchers’ positionality may have influenced the analysis. Caution was taken when interpreting the group interviews with non-Jewish leaders, contributing to the trustworthiness and ethical integrity of the findings. Interpretations were continuously revisited to ensure grounding in the participants’ perspectives and sensitivity to contextual and relational nuances. Code and theme development were reviewed collaboratively for internal coherence and consistency with IPA principles (Smith & Fieldsend, 2021; Smith et al., 2009).
Results
Analysis of the data pointed to four main dilemmas that leaders experienced regarding their work in group settings in the acute phase after the October 7 massacre: to set and maintain clear boundaries or allow flexibility, to structure sessions or focus on the “here and now,” to maintain harmony or allow conflict, and to discuss the war or focus on everyday group problems. In some of the dilemmas, subthemes emerged, as will be described.
To Set and Maintain Clear Boundaries or Allow Flexibility in the Group Setting
This dilemma was shared by many group facilitators, who are trained to uphold the group setting, a notion that was challenged in online as well as FTF groups. After October 7, 2023, frequent missile attacks disrupted group activities or forced FTF groups to transition to online formats. With time, leaders faced a dilemma regarding how the group should meet. Sylvia, a social worker with 37 years of experience, had planned to meet her group of supervisees in a relatively safe area. While both Sylvia and most participants wanted to meet in-person, one was extremely fearful about the situation and requested that meetings be held online. Sylvia shared: “It’s an issue. . . Whose needs do we consider. . . . And everyone pays a price and it’s hard. . ., the heart is torn, there is no solution that is good, this is the least bad one. . .” Other facilitators faced a similar dilemma, with their decisions influenced by several factors, including the pre-war setting, the frequency of attacks in the specific area, the group’s developmental stage, and the preferences of the participants themselves.
A challenge described by leaders in online settings was interruption by sirens blaring, challenging the group space’s stability. Participants connecting from different locations did not always experience sirens simultaneously. When sirens sounded, some participants, and occasionally the leaders themselves, had to leave the online meeting to seek shelter, returning approximately 10 min later. In one group, a participant was so frightened by a loud siren, she wanted to leave the group meeting but was convinced to stay by her peers.
Leaders deliberated how to respond to these interruptions. Some made an effort to continue the session from the point where they left off; others chose to ask participants about their feelings upon their return. Kevin, a clinical psychologist who provides group supervision for humanitarian aid workers, described the challenges leading online groups when participants’ physical presence is unstable and potentially unsafe:
People joined sessions from very strange places during the first weeks [after October 7], I mean, someone. . . was sitting under the table and joined the zoom. Someone else logged in from the oncology department at a hospital, accompanying someone in line. . . . someone was waiting [outside of] her three-year-old daughter’s kindergarten because in case of a siren, there’s. . . [not enough staff] to take the children [to a bomb shelter quickly enough], so she sits with her laptop on some bench. . .
Under the circumstances, Kevin found himself being more permissive as a leader. During regular times he would comment about such behaviors, and discuss them in the group. However, in the current situation, he chose not to do so:
In different circumstances I’d be much more hesitant to allow, like, group conduct in that regard. I mean, this [the group] is not a safe space, but, but we don’t have a safe space, this is the situation. . . But also, not to indicate that they should not join. To live, to live, to live in this intermediate space, I am constantly in this dilemma.
Robin, a social worker, facilitating a group for women coping with chronic pain, said:
Is it possible in a situation of war to maintain the group setting?. . . It is as if we were supposed to demonstrate infinite flexibility. . . There were things we did that were unusual, in terms of absences, etc., and we allowed it, but let’s say a participant is late and wants to join [the zoom] in the middle of a session, and there’s a war and it is like, “No,” and we said, it is OK not to join, but we. . . we also have responsibility for the group. . . So, it felt like it was also about “how much do you see me,” how much do you see the group. . . Which are all questions that may come up in any situation, in any group. . . Things that used to be very clear suddenly were not. . . everything became such a dilemma and we also carried so much guilt. . . everything was challenged. . .
Over time, an increasing number of groups began meeting in person. Some shifted back from the online setting; others were newly formed. With intermittent missile attacks, creating a safe space for FTF groups was a challenge, physically as well as psychologically.
Olivia, a psycho-dramatist who works with school-age children experiencing social difficulties, recorded and sent to parents a video demonstrating there was time to reach the shelter from the group’s meeting room in the event of a siren. Addison, a social worker, with group members aged 50 to 70, was preparing to lead a session 2 weeks after the October 7 massacre. She thought it safer to transition the group from their regular room to a bomb shelter close by, in case of a siren:
I. . . waited for them at the entrance and we were about to enter together. . . I see their steps becoming shorter and slower. . . they said, “no, no, no, let’s go back to our room, it’ll be fine, if there’s a siren we’ll get to the shelter, it’s close.” Suddenly, I understood so powerfully the need to stick to the familiar, to the familiar setting, to the familiar room, to the familiar togetherness, not feeling like strangers or guests. . .There was this craving, yes? For being in a place that is stable and familiar.
Despite the greater physical safety of the new location, Addison’s participants felt more secure in their usual one.
After October 7, the State of Israel temporarily housed tens of thousands of displaced people in hotels in safer regions of the country. While a hotel stay may seem pleasurable, these facilities are unsuitable as a long-term housing solution, especially for families with children. Helping professionals rushed to these hotels to provide individual as well as group psycho-social support. Many challenges to the stability of the group setting arose in such locations, as Amelia, a bibliotherapist, shared:
We had a meeting that was supposed to start at half past six with adolescent girls, so they didn’t arrive at half past six, yes? It was basically like a train station until they arrived at seven. At seven they said that dinner is served, because. . . it’s not a home, if it is seven o’clock, you go and have dinner. They’re hungry. . . at home you can pop in the kitchen for a snack, [at the hotel] you have to eat when it’s mealtime. So, we said, okay, then bring the food and eat here. So, they came back with plates of food. . . Then everyone sat and ate, the main thing is that they arrived, . . . , and you, you accept everything, you don’t say: “Wait, it’s not acceptable,” you, you can’t say anything. . . and there were phones, it was impossible to silence the phones because it was very important for them to remain available, I mean, everything works differently, like, everything changes, everything I knew about setting was not in the setting, . . . , and little by little you realize that you have to be very spontaneous, very flexible, accept everything, whatever happens is fine.
While some leaders stressed flexibility, others discussed the anchoring role of the group in these times. Olivia, a psycho-dramatist who works with school-age children experiencing social difficulties, expressed this powerfully: “. . . the absence of a group meeting, it’s life and death, it’s simply life and death.” Gabrielle, a social psychologist working with adults coping with social anxiety, stated:
These events. . .it’s like experiencing an earthquake and. . . I saw the role of the group is to remind everyone of themselves, that we had dreams before, and we have more dreams to fulfill during and after. . . And in that context. . . I think that the very fact that people know that they have this time of the week on Sunday at six o’clock, the group. It seems to me in days of so much uncertainty, some kind of anchor which is more significant than regular times. . . They are relieved that Sunday has arrived. . ., it’s a very, very, very big thing.
In summary, leaders navigated between the stabilizing role of the group and its environment, and the need for flexibility. This flexibility was evident in how leaders addressed the dilemma of regulating boundaries, time, and space. It appeared that flexibility was seen as essential for maintaining group work, and paradoxically, it was this adaptability—rather than strictly adhering to the traditional setting—that fostered a sense of safety in uncertain times.
To Structure Sessions or Focus on the “Here and Now” of the Group
The second dilemma raised by group leaders relates to the way and degree in which the discussion should be structured. One determining factor appeared to be the temporal proximity of the group to the traumatic events. Regardless of the leadership style they were accustomed to, recent events led group leaders to question its suitability. Robin, for example, facilitates a psycho-educational group for women with a chronic pain, which includes delivery of content. Describing the group’s online meeting a day after October 7 she said: “It was clear that it was not the time to deliver content, you cannot be detached from the situation. . . .” Evelyn, a psychodynamic group facilitator, was accustomed to facilitating a non-structured, free-flowing discussion in a support group for educators but felt that this leadership style caused participants to feel threatened during the period immediately following October 7:
It was very, very difficult to share, they were reluctant to address certain topics and then I realized that we are actually in the midst of the trauma, and things are still very close, and it is very, very difficult to share and touch it. . . . So [when preparing for the next session] I actually collected all kinds of texts, which will help to connect, that are not directly related to the events. I brought them. . . to the participants, and. . . after I read one of the texts, it opened something up. . . They started talking and sharing.
Leaders pondered what approach was most suitable for the current needs of their group and how much structuring would be beneficial. Considering the needs of internally displaced adolescents and young women, Amelia reflected:
[as a leader, previously] I could be silent, today you are not silent, you do not allow this space to stay there, to accumulate more stress and tension because it exists anyway, so on the contrary. . . it is a little more structured. . . [in the group she led] one girl said that what is most difficult is not having a home, and that she carries her belongings in plastic bags, and, and in response, there was silence. So, we handed out therapeutic cards, and told them, choose a card that expresses something that you have with you. . . and a card that expresses something that you do not have. She [the participant] then identified “home” as something she felt she was missing, which resonated with many other participants, sparking a discussion.
Going one step further, some leaders questioned the appropriateness of relational discussions between group participants. Gabrielle leads an ongoing supervision group for female soldiers whose customary task is to assess the personality of security service candidates. After October 7, their role shifted to coordinating soldiers’ funerals. She explained her dilemma:
If two [participants] don’t get along it’s not the main thing right now, at all. Like, we won’t deal with the competition between the two now, because the world outside is very, very, very loud. . . I felt that it was still a little too early, that time is needed to give room for the processing of extreme experiences that everyone is currently going through in addition to the normal day-to-day issues. . . This is a time. . .to bring back the fact that we have a safe place to talk and the fact that we are. . . in a calm place, through a focus on competence and autonomy and strengths, and then slowly bring back group dynamics as they were before.
To summarize, many leaders reported a transition from their pre-war practices and contemplated what would be suitable, due to the temporal proximity to the trauma; the present circumstances and needs of the group; and the perceived appropriateness of discussing relational dynamics within the group.
To Maintain Harmony or Allow Conflict in the Group
While conflict in groups is a common phenomenon not necessarily war-related, in the context of mass trauma, expressions of aggression seemed to raise unique dilemmas. Three main challenges emerged: expressions of mistrust and hostility against the leader, conflicts arising between group participants or subgroups, and the demanding task of leading diverse groups composed of Jewish and Arab participants during intense external conflict.
Julie, a psychotherapist with over 20 years of experience, who met with her group of parental guidance trainees 2 weeks after October 7, shared the following:
I ended the online meeting. . . and I felt. . . they can continue to throw whatever they want at me, I can’t bear it anymore, the accusations, the distrust, in me as their leader. . . one even said, “Well, we will need a professional leader here”. . . another one said, “You’re so rigid, you don’t have a drop of flexibility, you’re insensitive.”
The group members manifested their aggression toward Julie by questioning her professional skills and abilities. Other leaders experienced attacks regarding the content they chose to deliver. Naomi, an organizational consultant, shared her experience facilitating an online resilience workshop for educators, a few weeks after the massacre:
A participant stops me and really, really aggressively says: “Excuse me, but everything [you said] sounds like slogans. . . How is it even possible to talk about coping now?! About flexibility? About continuity? It is nothing but slogans!” She attacks me. . . and starts to paint the picture black. . ., and all this in front of me, in front of the authority figure. . . it was not easy for me, at all.
In their attempts to deal with such aggression, leaders employed several strategies. Julie, found it helpful to not view the attack as personal: “The very fact that I am required to manage this setting and hold it. . .they are not against me, and to get this guilt out of my system, it helped me.” In making sense of the situation, Naomi realized that discussing coping without giving enough space for pain, may have brought on the aggression: “A part of me wanted to tell her, ‘You’re right, the situation is terrible.’ Like, there was a part of me that agreed with her. . . .” Moreover, Naomi connected the occurrence to the wider social context:
I think that being a group leader now is a very, very difficult task, because even being an authority now. . . Because there is a crisis of trusting the country’s leadership. The leadership did not protect, the leader was not a responsible adult, the leadership disappointed. . . And I felt like she directed all of her anger toward me, which was really because of the leadership, so it calmed me down a little. . .
While conflicts among participants occur in many groups, extreme situations may amplify divisive opinions, endangering group cohesion, stability, and dynamics. Regarding her group of educators, Evelyn shared:
In a group that I led, a very, very heated debate arose about. . . this reality TV show, a singing competition . . . Whether it is needed, whether it’s OK or not [to air the show] . . . There were two sides and each of them was really fighting over it. . . So, one side said, soldiers are being killed in Gaza, someone said, both sides are being killed, there are a lot of people dying every day, it’s really inappropriate to broadcast a singing competition. . . They were very emotional. . .both sides. And some said that we are not robots. . . we also need something for the soul, we need to keep our sanity, to survive here.
Group leaders also struggled to balance participants’ different trauma responses and coping styles while maintaining group cohesion. Naomi shared:
We don’t react the same way. . . Some participants are more functional, those whose mechanisms are more cognitive, practical, immediately gathered themselves, went back to work, reinvented themselves, and on the other hand there are participants that are like: “How can you? I’m emotionally overwhelmed, I haven’t even raised my head yet, I’m alone with the children, I’m like, how can I even function again? I still can’t even concentrate at all.”
Different coping strategies in a group pose a challenge in light of the emotional responses of participants to each other, as Sophia, a social worker, leading a supervision group, explained:
One person’s way of coping exactly “pushes the buttons” of someone else’s way of coping. . . And people’s containers are too small to contain anything that is not within their form of coping. . . Right now, it is as if everyone’s nerves are more exposed, everything is more sensitive and the trigger, it happens in seconds, even from very subtle cues. . . Judgments arise very quickly because. . . everything is black and white, so I think that part of this thing is actually. . . to let the tension be, and. . . to actually help the group to contain paradoxes within itself. . . .
Israel is a highly diverse country. While the majority of the population is Jewish, 21.1% are Arabs, mostly Muslim (Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, 2024). Peaceful, law-abiding Muslim-Arab citizens of Israel share the same language, religion and ethnicity with the extremist terrorists of Hamas. After the October 7 massacre, fear and mistrust between the Jewish and Arab citizens of the country were apparent. Heidi, a Jewish psychologist, leading a supervision group of Jewish and Arab mental health professionals, shared:
One of the Arab participants from East Jerusalem said, “I can’t tell you what’s going on with me, I love you too much, I love you too much to risk pouring out everything I feel.”. . .At the end, he did share his experience of being an Arab in East Jerusalem at this time.
The difficulty of letting the voices of the Arab minority be heard was also shared by Kevin:
[Arab participants] are afraid to talk, there’s the fear. . .is [the session being] recorded. . . what will come out, what won’t come out. . . we don’t feel safe, we’re afraid. . . these are paranoid thoughts but they are rooted in reality, but we can say something. . . or you can mark that which cannot be said. Sometimes it is impossible to speak because of external fear, and sometimes the fear of speaking is because you want to keep. . . working in the organization, and not to create a bigger rift than what currently exists. . . To talk about that, it’s an achievement.
Arab leaders who led diverse groups faced a dual challenge. Abeer, an Arab social worker, shared how she felt when about to begin facilitating a group composed of both Jewish and Arab participants: “I arrived to the first meeting [of the group] with a tight stomach. . . .” It seems, at least from Abeer’s perspective, that her participants shared similar feelings:
[Prior to the beginning of the group] I made phone calls and I also asked both sides about this issue. Concerns arose, many concerns arose, not just matters of a language barrier, there were concerns, one [Muslim] participant told me “I’m wearing a hijab, I don’t know whether to return [to FTF], I prefer Zoom, I am afraid. . . .”
Ma’ali, an Arab social worker, disclosed another inherent difficulty:
If I sympathize with what is happening now in Gaza, then the Jews will devour me, and if I say that I sympathize with the Jews for what happened in Be’eri [a southern Israeli town which suffered many losses during the massacre] and all other places, the Arabs will devour me. So, . . . if I say that I really hurt both here and there, it’s something that can be perceived, like, very, very harshly, and each side can take it somewhere else when all I am really saying is, I see the suffering in both places.
These findings highlight the profound emotional and psychological challenges faced by Arab and Jewish participants and leaders. Group dynamics were strained, reflecting the broader societal struggles with fear, tension, and mistrust across communal divides.
Discussing the War or Everyday Concerns in the Group
One of the characteristics of trauma is the painful interruption of “normal” life. The October 7 massacre began on Saturday at 6:30 AM during the Jewish holiday of Simchat Torah, catching the country by surprise. The shock left many struggling to regain a sense of normalcy, as one of the supervisees in Kevin’s group shared: “In the workplace they act as if things are back to normal. I’m still at 6:30 AM. . . on October 7.” Prior to October 7, many of the groups focused on a specific target population or topic. This created a dilemma regarding what could and should be discussed in the group, following the massacre. Gideon shared:
On October 7 it was impossible to have a group of fathers. . . talk about parenting. . . I, as a leader, also asked myself, what do I do, why even open this group. . . . And I also felt like they won’t be up to it.
The terrifying events also seemed to cast a shadow on the emotional affect of the group. Not all reactions felt appropriate, but leaders felt their role included expanding the range of legitimate emotions, as Gabrielle shared: “The fact that we allowed ourselves to laugh a little, was a significant thing for me and for them.” Leaders asked themselves how to navigate the group in these traumatic times. Julie shared her resolution of this dilemma:
My hope is to convey to my supervisees this idea. . . That we do not ignore the trauma that we experience and live it, and it is here, it is not going anywhere. . . At the same time, we will do other things as well, and that does not mean we are not okay or that we are okay, it means that this is the reality and we will live with it.
Julie’s words seem to convey the guilt embedded in the decision to discuss non-war related topics. As Robin remarked: “The guilt was very strong. . . as time went by it seemed as if it was legitimate to engage in other content as well. . . .” Gabrielle, the leader of a group of soldiers who transitioned to coordination of funerals, shared how their return to a regular routine meant shifting back the group discussion:
Return to the day-to-day, return, yes, return to the “here and now” of the group and not turn into a group that will only be concerned with how they were attending funerals, I played with this tension . . .because they went back to the normal day-to-day and they were thankful for the fact that they do not have to deal with it anymore, . . . they haven’t been to a funeral for a week so why, why, why mention the funerals?
In some cases, leaders responded by shifting the topic according to the changing needs of the group. Slowly, leaders began to feel it was legitimate and necessary to return to discussing pre-war problems, even as the war continued. Gideon shared:
After about a month, it was as if some air entered my lungs and today, there still might be a siren [during a group meeting], and we will be talking about arguing with the wife and that is perfectly fine. . . talking about getting a divorce or not, and it is no longer where we were at the beginning, on October 7.
To summarize, these findings highlight group leaders’ struggles to balance acknowledging the ongoing trauma of war with addressing everyday concerns. Over time, leaders and participants gradually legitimized a return to pre-war topics, navigating feelings of guilt while adapting discussions to the evolving emotional needs of the group.
Discussion
The findings present a nuanced and complex overview of four dilemmas faced by the leaders who participated in this study: to set and maintain clear boundaries or permit flexibility in the setting, to structure sessions or focus on the “here and now,” to maintain harmony or allow conflict, and finally, to discuss the war or focus on everyday concerns in the group.
Group leaders struggled to balance boundary maintenance with wartime uncertainty. While established theory emphasizes the leader’s role in maintaining group boundaries to ensure safety (e.g., Cohn, 2014), trauma often disrupts both personal boundaries (Herman, 1997) and group boundaries, as participants may unconsciously re-enact boundary violations (Weinberg et al., 2005).
The participants found that maintaining group boundaries was challenged both in online and FTF settings. Online leadership was particularly complicated by air-raid sirens and unstable environments. Our findings corroborate previous research showing that virtual groups inherently struggle with cohesion and trust-building due to limitation of personal interaction and nonverbal cues, participant distraction, reduced emotional expression, and boundary issues (Békés et al., 2021; Ben-David et al., 2021; Gibbs et al., 2017; Giordano et al., 2022; Weinberg, 2016). In our study, the combination of virtual limitations and mass trauma was experienced by leaders as a permeable, “leaking” group container.
Creating a safe space in FTF groups was also challenging, as leaders had to ensure group members’ physical security (meeting in a sheltered space), but balance it with psychological safety (participants’ desire for familiar settings). As Rice and Rutan (1981) suggest, “The leader is constantly faced with the task of deciding which of the boundaries present in a group are uppermost at a particular time and require his intervention” (p. 298). Although dilemmas regarding boundary regulation are acknowledged as common in regular times, they seem to intensify in the context of ongoing mass trauma.
To sum up, this dilemma revolves around the need to ensure the safety and stability essential for effective group work (Yalom & Leszcz, 2020). However, the “attack on the setting,” as one of the interviewees reflected, is not merely symbolic but rooted in the external reality which constantly threatens the lives of group participants in the form of rockets and missile attacks. The challenge for leaders was to act flexibly about the setting and still ensure safety and maintain group boundaries, without appearing too rigid. Nevertheless, it seems that group sessions served as an emotional anchor for participants. Leaders found that thoughtfully adapting to the situation, by being flexible with structure, time, and space, paradoxically provided a sense of safety in uncertain times.
Yalom and Leszcz (2020) have indicated the importance of referring to the “here and now” in the group as a way of enhancing authentic interactions, reflecting the “here” of the physical space and the “now” of the immediate moment through the sharing of genuine and unfiltered thoughts and emotions about the group’s current situation. They describe the “here and now” as the goldmine of group work. However, in the current study, the “here and now” was potentially threatening to the group’s safety, filled with sadness, fear, horror, and guilt, and hardly a “goldmine.” Indeed, Phillips and Klein (2011) have claimed that: “Examination of the deeper, unconscious interpersonal patterns that are being replicated between members in the group does not constitute a primary focus for post-disaster groups” (p. 572).
Difficulties in group members’ ability to share emotions, discuss the “here and now”, or attend to interpersonal questions may reflect a group developmental regression that is “normal” in abnormal, traumatic contexts (Maheshwari et al., 2010). Regression is defined as a return to an earlier or less mature state, which often arises as a defense mechanism against anxiety (Weinberg, 2006). Thus, a group may return to an earlier stage of development when facing circumstances that create high anxiety, such as mass trauma.
Group regression may be framed using MacKenzie and Livesley’s (1983) developmental model, according to which the group’s developmental stage is related to the establishment of relevant boundaries. In the course of the group process, there is a resolution of a series of boundary issues involving both the group as a whole and its individual members. The term “boundary” is used in a psychological rather than physical sense. Psychological boundaries emerge from the recognition that two entities are distinct, with the awareness of differences defining the boundary. The experience of deep involvement in the group, coupled with an understanding of how this differs from previous interpersonal encounters, begins to form the group’s external boundary. As members recognize their individual differences, attention then shifts to the boundaries between them.
A notable phenomenon emerged in our study regarding ongoing groups established prior to October 7. Groups in advanced stages, in which boundaries were discussed interpersonally or even intrapersonally, seemed to have regressed to an early developmental stage in which the boundary needs to be set between the group-as-a-whole and the outside world. Interpersonal discussions were less encouraged by leaders and possibly subconsciously perceived as unbefitting to the circumstances. The violation of boundaries on the national level, coupled with heinous acts of boundary breaching during the massacre, may have unconsciously led leaders to reestablish the boundaries between the outside world and the group. Such a redefinition helped in regaining trust and safety within the group.
Leaders seemed to adapt their methods based on the group’s current needs, the temporal proximity to the traumatic events, and the appropriateness of discussing relational dynamics. Some leaders introduced structure to alleviate tension, while others allowed open discussions. Leaders modified their typical strategies in reaction to the group’s emotional state, for example forgoing relational discussions when participants were trying to process traumatic events. As in reaction to the first dilemma of boundary regulation, sensitivity in structuring leadership styles emerged as a key response to the shifting needs of members.
Leaders faced both aggressive behaviors directed at them, as well as tensions among participants, stemming from diverse responses to trauma and the ongoing war. Hostility toward the leader as an authority figure has been discussed in the literature through various lenses (e.g., Motherwell & Shay, 2014), including in the context of trauma responses.
Societal processes resonate within groups, which function as social microcosms (Yalom & Leszcz, 2020). Some leaders in our study experienced distrust from participants. Possibly the national crisis of distrust in the military and political leadership was unconsciously recreated in the group. Literature has claimed that participants with traumatic syndromes may develop intense and unique transference patterns. Having felt powerless during trauma, they may seek control over their environment and relationships in group settings, thus leading to conflict (Weinberg et al., 2005). Multiple group members may use this defense mechanism, compounding emotional distress. Moreover, trauma survivors often struggle to rebuild trust in authority figures (e.g., Icekson et al., 2023), feeling betrayed by perceived failures during their trauma. Such reactions emerged as quite common in the current study, corroborating previous literature and creating a dilemma for group leaders.
Another finding involved instances of limited tolerance of group members toward their peers. The use of disparate and conflicting coping mechanisms created tension between group members, who became less open toward diverse coping styles. In a similar vein, excessive interpersonal sensitivity has been recognized as one of the prominent reactions to traumatic events (Slanbekova et al., 2019). Indeed, a study on post-war trauma showed a relationship between interpersonal sensitivity and PTSD (Glück et al., 2012).
The problems faced by leaders working with conflict between participants have been addressed in Bion’s (1959) work. Bion (1959) suggested that the group as a whole tends to transition between levels of consciousness, from “work group” level to “basic assumptions group” level and vice versa. On the basic assumptions level, unconscious anxieties prevail and impact the reactions of both the group as a whole and its members. Specifically, the fight/flight basic assumption is characterized by splitting, projective identification, and aggression. The leaders in the current study reported varied expressions of aggression in many groups, although there were some that avoided expressions of anger and hostility altogether.
Another subtheme of findings emerged regarding intergroup relations between Jewish and Arab participants. Most research on the topic of group contact has focused on interactions occurring before or in the absence of external violence, primarily examining prejudice or outgroup attitudes (Voci et al., 2017). Studies conducted within a non-conflict context demonstrate that intergroup contact improves relations, particularly when favorable conditions for effective contact exist (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Less is known about post-violence intergroup relations (Voci et al., 2017). In some multi-ethnic countries, an “invisible psychological wall” between neighboring individuals from different ethnic groups has been described, in which cordiality may mask a sense of alienation and suspicion (Simic, 2000).
When groups discuss conflict or aggression, dynamics may be rooted in unconscious fantasies and fears (Bion, 1959). However, in the current context, the conflict is not metaphoric but concrete. Fear of its escalation within the group becomes real, due to ongoing violence outside. In a diverse group setting during mass trauma, leaders need to navigate between allowing authentic expression of emotions and de-escalation of intergroup conflict. An inherent challenge reported by leaders interviewed was providing voice and safety to minority members in the group. Studies have shown the challenge of giving voice to minorities in the context of societal power relations, as marginalization can reoccur in the group setting (e.g., Garrison et al., 2023).
In dealing with the dilemmas surrounding conflict in the group, strategies employed by the leaders in the current study included recognizing that participant hostility was often a projection of broader societal issues, acknowledging the varying emotional responses to trauma, and navigating the complexities of facilitating discussions among diverse Jewish and Arab participants amid ongoing conflict. Leaders reported the need for heightened sensitivity and caution to create safe spaces for open dialogue while effectively managing conflicting perspectives and emotions. They listened not only to their group members but to their own surfacing emotions and thoughts, deeming self-reflection pivotal in navigating such waters.
Regarding the fourth dilemma, our findings illustrate the complex dynamics group leaders navigated when addressing the aftermath of October 7, particularly in balancing discussions of the ongoing trauma of war with everyday concerns. This dilemma may be partly rooted in feelings of guilt and shame, which are common in the realm of trauma (Herman, 1997). It may also be related to survivor’s guilt, which commonly emerges in individuals who have experienced or witnessed death and remained alive, resulting in emotional turmoil and negative self-evaluation (Lifton, 2012). Survivors often feel accountable for the harming or loss of others, even in the absence of any actual control over the situation (Tangney & Dearing, 2002). Experiencing survivor’s guilt after mass trauma is relatively common (Murray et al., 2021). The difficulty expressed by participants and leaders alike regarding discussion of previous concerns (e.g., fatherhood) may be partly explained by survivor’s guilt.
On a more general level, Rutan et al. (2014) highlighted key dilemmas for group therapists, including whether to focus on internal group dynamics or external topics. They suggested that external events may serve as metaphors reflecting group issues on an unconscious level, but they stressed the importance of addressing these events directly, as members value the opportunity to discuss significant life experiences in a trusted environment. Referring more specifically to groups following disasters, Phillips and Klein (2011) suggested that the goals for group intervention post-disaster should include safety, support of feelings, assessment, triage, normalization of responses, acceptance, development and facilitation of coping skills, recognition of resiliency traits, connection and restoration of functioning.
Over time, leaders observed a shift toward legitimizing conversations about daily concerns, demonstrating a growing capacity to integrate both traumatic and routine aspects of life. This evolution allowed groups to find a semblance of normalcy, fostering the freedom to engage in a broader spectrum of emotions and experiences.
This qualitative study provides a preliminary exploration of the dilemmas encountered by experienced group leaders in Israel during the acute stage of mass trauma following the October 7, 2023 massacre. The study highlights the significant impact of mass trauma on both group members and leaders, challenging traditional group work practices and requiring adaptability and sensitivity in leadership styles. Ongoing self-reflection by leaders is a necessary tool for navigating the dilemmas they face. This study’s insights contribute to the limited existing research on group leadership in the context of ongoing mass trauma and offer valuable guidance for practitioners navigating similar challenging circumstances.
Study Limitations, Future Research, and Practical Implications
Our sample of 25 seasoned Israeli group leaders may limit generalizability to other cultural contexts or less experienced practitioners. Future research should explore how background and experience influence leadership dilemmas. This study focused on the acute phase of mass trauma; longitudinal research should examine how these dilemmas evolve over time and how leaders adjust during long-term recovery. Additionally, future studies should explore both leaders’ and participants’ perspectives to gain deeper insights into group dynamics and outcomes. Finally, research should assess the effectiveness of specific group interventions to provide evidence-based guidance for those affected by mass trauma.
This study offers practical insights for group leaders in mass trauma contexts. Leaders should adapt traditional practices, embracing flexible approaches to boundary management, session structure, and content. Key strategies include balancing stability with adaptability, understanding mass trauma’s impact on group dynamics, and creating a safe space for diverse perspectives. The study emphasizes addressing distrust and aggression toward authority figures, validating various coping mechanisms, and navigating sensitive trauma-related discussions. Self-reflection is a valuable tool for leaders in understanding the group’s current needs, as mass trauma unfolds over time. Implementing these insights can enhance leaders’ effectiveness in supporting individuals and communities through healing and recovery.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-sgr-10.1177_10464964251395052 – Supplemental material for Navigating Group Leadership Dilemmas in Times of Mass Trauma
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-sgr-10.1177_10464964251395052 for Navigating Group Leadership Dilemmas in Times of Mass Trauma by Avital Kaye-Tzadok and Tamar Icekson in Small Group Research
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Donna Dalenkoff for editing assistance and Shira Senesh for data transcription.
Ethical Considerations
The study was approved by the Human Subjects Research Committee (IRB no. 494) at Peres Academic Center.
Consent to Participate
All participants gave their written informed consent prior to participating in the study.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by funding from Ruppin Academic Center and Peres Academic Center. These institutes were not involved in the study design, in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, in the writing of the report, or in the decision to submit this article for publication.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, [AKT]. The data are not publicly available due to the privacy of research participants.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Author Biographies
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
