What is an effective group discussion?
The literal definition of a group discussion is obvious: a critical conversation about a particular topic, or perhaps a range of topics, conducted in a group of a size that allows participation by all members. A group of two or three generally doesn’t need a leader to have a good discussion, but once the number reaches five or six, a leader or facilitator can often be helpful. When the group numbers eight or more, a leader or facilitator, whether formal or informal, is almost always helpful in ensuring an effective discussion.
A group discussion is a type of meeting, but it differs from the formal meetings in a number of ways:
- It may not have a specific goal – many group discussions are just that: a group kicking around ideas on a particular topic. That may lead to a goal ultimately...but it may not.
- It’s less formal, and may have no time constraints, or structured order, or agenda.
- Its leadership is usually less directive than that of a meeting.
- It emphasizes process (the consideration of ideas) over product (specific tasks to be accomplished within the confines of the meeting itself.
- Leading a discussion group is not the same as running a meeting. It’s much closer to acting as a facilitator, but not exactly the same as that either.
An effective group discussion generally has a number of elements:
- All members of the group have a chance to speak, expressing their own ideas and feelings freely, and to pursue and finish out their thoughts
- All members of the group can hear others’ ideas and feelings stated openly
- Group members can safely test out ideas that are not yet fully formed
- Group members can receive and respond to respectful but honest and constructive feedback. Feedback could be positive, negative, or merely clarifying or correcting factual questions or errors, but is in all cases delivered respectfully.
- A variety of points of view are put forward and discussed
- The discussion is not dominated by any one person
- Arguments, while they may be spirited, are based on the content of ideas and opinions, not on personalities
- Even in disagreement, there’s an understanding that the group is working together to resolve a dispute, solve a problem, create a plan, make a decision, find principles all can agree on, or come to a conclusion from which it can move on to further discussion
Many group discussions have no specific purpose except the exchange of ideas and opinions. Ultimately, an effective group discussion is one in which many different ideas and viewpoints are heard and considered. This allows the group to accomplish its purpose if it has one, or to establish a basis either for ongoing discussion or for further contact and collaboration among its members.
There are many possible purposes for a group discussion, such as:
- Create a new situation – form a coalition, start an initiative, etc.
- Explore cooperative or collaborative arrangements among groups or organizations
- Discuss and/or analyze an issue, with no specific goal in mind but understanding
- Create a strategic plan – for an initiative, an advocacy campaign, an intervention, etc.
- Discuss policy and policy change
- Air concerns and differences among individuals or groups
- Hold public hearings on proposed laws or regulations, development, etc.
- Decide on an action
- Provide mutual support
- Solve a problem
- Resolve a conflict
- Plan your work or an event
Possible leadership styles of a group discussion also vary. A group leader or facilitator might be directive or nondirective; that is, she might try to control what goes on to a large extent; or she might assume that the group should be in control, and that her job is to facilitate the process. In most group discussions, leaders who are relatively nondirective make for a more broad-ranging outlay of ideas and a more satisfying experience for participants.
Why would you lead a group discussion?
There are two ways to look at this question: “What’s the point of group discussion?” and “Why would you, as opposed to someone else, lead a group discussion?” Let’s examine both.
What’s the point of group discussion?
As explained in the opening paragraphs of this section, group discussions are common in a democratic society. There are a number of reasons for this, some practical and some philosophical.
A group discussion:
- Gives everyone involved a voice. Whether the discussion is meant to form a basis for action, or just to play with ideas, it gives all members of the group a chance to speak their opinions, to agree or disagree with others, and to have their thoughts heard. In many community-building situations, the members of the group might be chosen specifically because they represent a cross-section of the community, or a diversity of points of view.
- Allows for a variety of ideas to be expressed and discussed. A group is much more likely to come to a good conclusion if a mix of ideas is on the table, and if all members have the opportunity to think about and respond to them.
- Is generally a democratic, egalitarian process. It reflects the ideals of most grassroots and community groups, and encourages a diversity of views.
- Leads to group ownership of whatever conclusions, plans, or action the group decides upon. Because everyone has a chance to contribute to the discussion and to be heard, the final result feels like it was arrived at by and belongs to everyone.
- Encourages those who might normally be reluctant to speak their minds. Often, quiet people have important things to contribute, but aren’t assertive enough to make themselves heard. A good group discussion will bring them out and support them.
- Can often open communication channels among people who might not communicate in any other way. People from very different backgrounds, from opposite ends of the political spectrum, from different cultures, who may, under most circumstances, either never make contact or never trust one another enough to try to communicate, might, in a group discussion, find more common ground than they expected.
- Is sometimes simply the obvious, or even the only, way to proceed? Several of the examples given at the beginning of the section – the group of parents concerned about their school system, for instance, or the college class – fall into this category, as do public hearings and similar gatherings.
Why would you specifically lead a group discussion?
You might choose to lead a group discussion, or you might find yourself drafted for the task. Some of the most common reasons that you might be in that situation:
- It’s part of your job. As a mental health counsellor, a youth worker, a coalition coordinator, a teacher, the president of a board of directors, etc. you might be expected to lead group discussions regularly.
- You’ve been asked to. Because of your reputation for objectivity or integrity, because of your position in the community, or because of your skill at leading group discussions, you might be the obvious choice to lead a particular discussion.
- A discussion is necessary, and you’re the logical choice to lead it. If you’re the chair of a task force to address substance abuse in the community, for instance, it’s likely that you’ll be expected to conduct that task force’s meetings, and to lead discussion of the issue.
- It was your idea in the first place. The group discussion, or its purpose, was your idea, and the organization of the process falls to you.
You might find yourself in one of these situations if you fall into one of the categories of people who are often tapped to lead group discussions.
These categories include (but aren’t limited to):
- Directors of organizations
- Public officials
- Coalition coordinators
- Professionals with group-leading skills – counsellors, social workers, therapists, etc.
- Teachers
- Health professionals and health educators
- Respected community members. These folks may be respected for their leadership – president of the Rotary Club, spokesperson for an environmental movement – for their positions in the community – bank president, clergyman – or simply for their personal qualities – integrity, fairness, ability to communicate with all sectors of the community.
- Community activists. This category could include anyone from “professional” community organizers to average citizens who care about an issue or have an idea they want to pursue.
0 Comments