Rules for culture in group discussions according to Ruth Cohn

Conversation culture in teams – rules for the culture of group discussions

You’ve probably experienced this too: one person says something and everyone rolls their eyes.

The culture of discussion in teams sometimes needs to be regulated. This becomes clear when the participants realize that they are becoming dissatisfied. Their expectations are first disappointed and only then become conscious. The consequences are: Frustration, discord, unfavorable group dynamics. One person who recognized this particularly early on was Ruth Cohn. The well-known German psychoanalyst and pioneer of group communication discussed her discussion culture with many teams. Here, too, accidents happened before there was a call for rules. So Ruth asked teams what rules of conversation or interaction they would like to follow. After doing this with various teams, Ruth discovered very interesting similarities in the team rules she found. Here is an example of each and then the conversation rules. Example 1: Sara: “If Kurt had documented the work processes better early on, before he retired, then we wouldn’t have to search so much.”

Here and now

The more concretely you focus on the issues in the current situation, the more constructively you can work on improvements for the future. Constantly living in the past (“Everything used to be better…” or: “If you didn’t… back then, then…”) is just as ineffective as hoping only for the future (“If we had different working conditions, then we could do better…”). Both are FIucht from reality! Better: “The mistake has been made, there’s nothing we can do about it. Now, how do we solve the situation?”

Example 2: “Well, I would have liked you to speak to me when you realized that I was keeping quiet about a topic as important as this.”

Everyone is responsible for themselves – take responsibility for yourself

You are the only one who can know whether the topics of interest to you will be dealt with at a meeting. This means that everyone is responsible for bringing their own concerns to a meeting. Decide for yourself what you want to say. Remain silent if you wish and accept the consequences. Your freedom is great, and it ends as soon as it impedes the freedom of others.

Example 3: David: “We are not fans of duplication.”

“I” instead of “you” or “we”

Everyone should use “I” formulations to express their personal opinion. Anyone who speaks using “we”, “you” or “it” is hiding behind global statements for which they do not (or do not want to) take responsibility. In addition, they always speak for others without knowing whether they even want to: “You don’t understand it”, “We can’t do anything with it”, “It’s not interesting”, etc. The “we” is only appropriate when someone else or a group has given permission to speak on their behalf and in their name. So everyone is only “authorized” to speak for one single person in the world: for themselves (and no one can talk them into it!).

Example 4: Klaus’ cell phone buzzes. When he looks at it, he looks visibly horrified. Everyone notices, but no one responds.

Disruptions have priority

For example, if someone is agitated, bored or distracted for any other reason, they cannot really participate in a conversation or group work. Therefore, a “disruption” in the group should be addressed as soon as possible! An “absentee” not only loses the opportunity to pursue their interests, they also represent a loss for the group.

Example 5: During a discussion of a hot topic in plenary, three small subgroups suddenly emerge and talk at the same time.

Side conversations deserve attention and only one person talks at a time.

They are disruptive and at the same time usually important, otherwise they would not happen. When participants engage in side conversations, they are very likely to be heavily involved or not involved at all. It may be that a group member wants to say something that is important to them, but cannot compete with faster speakers and needs help to assert themselves in the group. Only one person speaks at a time. No one can listen to more than one statement at a time. That is why people should speak one after the other. If more than one person wants to speak at the same time, agree on what is to be said in keywords and the order in which the speakers are to speak.

Example 6: A participant says: “I don’t want to name names, but a few people in here should think about how they can apologize to me.”

What I say, I mean – openly and honestly – confidentially

You don’t have to say everything you think, but what you choose to say should be true and reflect your honest opinion. The more openly you address problems, the more likely you are to resolve them. If you withhold your opinion or give your conversation partners “communicative crossword puzzles”, don’t be surprised if nobody cares. However, personal matters should remain within the group and not be passed on by anyone, i.e. please maintain trust and confidentiality.

Example 7: Franz comes to you and asks: “Say mail, do you think Elke smells nice? Well, I don’t.”

Giving and accepting feedback openly

It is not a good idea to talk about absentees and listen to complaints about third parties. Anyone who is bothered by something should tell the person who is bothering them immediately and directly rather than later to a third party. Don’t just talk about the other person’s behavior, but also about the effects that the other person’s behavior has on you. Try to obtain the consent of the other person before giving feedback. If someone gives you feedback, listen actively.