Setting Ground Rules

Many discussions go awry simply because no attempt has been made to develop ground rules for discussion. This technique gets everyone involved in doing this.

Purposes

• To help discussants identify the specific behaviors that are likely to contribute to more fruitful conversations
• To give discussants practice in enacting these behaviors in an actual conversation

How It Works

• People begin by individually and silently writing down recollections of their best and worst discussion experiences. They are told to note specifically and concretely what features made discussions so satisfying or frustrating.
• People gather in small groups of four to six members and each person shares his or her notes.
• Groups then brainstorm all the specific things that people do to make discussions go well. These often include behaviors such as people listening closely, keeping one's own comments brief, staying on topic, asking good questions, everybody speaking, and so on.
• Groups also share things people do in discussions that are frustrating. These are often the mirror image of the first set of behaviors, for example, people not listening, constantly interrupting, going off track, a few people dominating, and so on.
• Small groups then list on newsprint all the features of enjoyable discussions.
• The facilitator asks groups to convert the most frequently mentioned features to specific behaviors that should be encouraged. For example, if people like discussions in which nobody dominates they might suggest that after speaking people should wait until at least three others have contributed something (technique 48, The Three-Person Rule).
• Groups list on newsprint the behaviors they've identified.
• A brief discussion then takes place addressing a question such as “What do we want to accomplish today?” with members attempting to carry out chosen behaviors.

Where and When It Works Well

1. With groups just starting their deliberations. This is one of the first things new groups should do.
2. In academic settings. Because discussion is frequently used in higher education, this exercise works well to create a culture of discussion.
3. In decision-making teams. This works well with teams that pride themselves on making good decisions, such as trying out something to improve the process.
4. People with little experience of discussion. Students transitioning to college, community groups engaged in neighborhood activism, and members of institutions who are relaxing their decision-making procedures all find this useful.

What Users Appreciate

1. Having their experiences acknowledged. Because the ground rules spring out of people's experiences, they feel they're being treated respectfully.
2. Being an active contributor to determining group process. When you're involved in a process for developing ground rules, it's easier to remember and follow them.
3. Its concreteness. People find it helpful to have very specific rules they can practice in future discussions.

What to Watch Out For

1. Timing going astray. The reflections about best and worst discussions must be no more than ten minutes; otherwise, groups delay in getting to the important work of identifying concrete behaviors.
2. Not being concrete enough. Groups need to be pushed to get specific and concrete about these behaviors. Facilitators can help by providing examples of specific behaviors that typically contribute to productive discussions and pressing participants to name others.

Questions That Fit This Protocol

This technique focuses on developing the capacity to participate in discussions of external questions, so there are no suggestions for specific topics given here other than “What's the best and the worst discussions you ever been a part of?”