Small Group Safety Rules – Before, During, and After

There are many cases where groups can be powerful tools for healing.  Whether these groups are in a religious context, a mental-health recovery context, or simply a community context, they need to remain psychologically safe for everyone.  This guide is designed to address what should be done before you meet, while you meet, and after you meet to ensure the psychological safety of everyone involved.

Before

Before anyone gets together, they need to understand what the rules will be and what is expected of them.  Setting expectations prevents people from arriving at an event unprepared for the rules of the event.  Here are some suggestions for rules that every group should have:

1. Confidentiality – Except as expressed in the organization of our group or explicitly agreed to by the participants of the group, everything shared in the group will remain in the group. No one will disclose what was discussed except through the rules the group has agreed to.
2. Privacy – If you are participating virtually, we ask that you take steps to ensure that the others in the group will not be heard to protect their rights to control who hears what they’re sharing.
3. Safety – This group will respect both the physical safety and the psychological safety of every individual. No overtly threatening physical activities or verbal attacks will be tolerated.
4. Power Dynamics – In every group, there are a set of power dynamics that are unavoidable. Our goal is to minimize them so that everyone feels free to share.
5. Inclusivity – Everyone will be given the opportunity to speak and share. We will not dismiss or interrupt others when they’re sharing.
6. Focus – Everyone in the group is present for a reason. We ask that you remove distractions that may prevent you from fully participating, including silencing phones and removing other potential distractions.
7. Curiosity – Stay curious about what the other person is sharing, including their values and the perspectives that led to their beliefs.
8. Judgement Free – This group will remain judgement free. Everyone is entitled to their own values and experiences.  We don’t have to agree with them.  Our goal is to understand them.

Further, for groups that are intended to create space for hurting individuals to share, it’s recommended that you add:

9. No Commentary – Participants should not directly address other participants’ comments unless specifically requested and approved by the person who’s being responded to. Even positive comments may be interpreted negatively or reinforce the perception that they’re being judged.

In addition to the rules, it’s recommended that participants receive invitations to the behaviors that are desired.  Some desired behaviors are:

1. Titles – Please introduce yourself without unnecessary titles, certifications, and credentials. Consistent with our stance on power dynamics, we don’t want to imply that anyone else’s perspective is less valuable.
2. Preferred Pronouns – We encourage you to signal to other participants your preferred pronouns, if you desire. It’s expected that others will honor your preferences, though they may forget or stumble.  If other participants don’t use your preferred pronouns, we suggest that you model the pronouns you would like to have used.

These invitations and rules help participants prepare for their experience with the group.  However, in some cases, there may need to be a broader understanding of why the group is gathering and the expectations of behavior.  An introductory statement can set the tone for the gathering even when the tone can’t be translated into specific, defined behaviors.  For example, an introduction might look like:

We’re looking forward to everyone joining us for this event.  Our goal is to create a safe and inviting space for everyone to feel heard and listened to.  We expect to demonstrate our caring and compassion for one another.  To do that, we’ve established a set of expected ground rules, which are:

During

When the group meets, there are two big goals.  First is setting the tone for the group, and second is maintaining the integrity of the group.

Setting the Tone

The process of setting the tone has two parts.  First, participants should be reminded that they’ve seen the rules governing the meeting, and that their presence is a tacit agreement to those rules.  They’re further reminded of critical rules in summary.  For instance, a tone-setting statement might look something like:

You’ve all received the set of rules that we’ll be following here, and by your presence here, we accept that you agree to abide by them.  As stated, confidentiality about what we discuss here is paramount, and we remind you that what is said here will only be shared in the ways that we’ve all explicitly agreed to.

Second, the first person to share should model the behavior that’s expected from the group.  The facilitator or convener should call on someone to start the conversation who can demonstrate the expected approach.  This can be someone with whom the facilitator has prior conversation or someone who has experience with the group process and knows what behavior should be modeled.

Maintaining Integrity

Facilitators should be on the constant lookout for boundary-pushing or boundary-crossing of the rules that are established for the group.  Boundary pushing is when a participant makes a comment that’s inside the rules – but just barely.  It’s important for facilitators address participants who are intentionally or unintentionally boundary-pushing, because not every participant will see these as boundary-pushing – some will interpret the response as a boundary-crossing.  Boundary crossings refer to those cases when someone feels as if the rules of the group have been violated.

In all cases, the facilitator should start with gentle shaping remarks designed to steer the participant(s) back inside the boundaries for the group.  If this isn’t effective, the facilitator should directly remind the participant(s) of the rules that were agreed to.  In extreme cases, it may become necessary to provide a single warning that further boundary crossings will result in expulsion from the group.  Finally, if a warning is given, and the participant breaches the boundary again, they should be expelled immediately.

In our experience, almost never does the situation require the warning – and in decades of experience, we have only seen someone expelled from a group once.  While these are exceedingly rare events, everyone should believe that these measures can and will be enacted if necessary.

After

After the event, the need to protect the safety of the group isn’t over.  A follow up message should be sent, which includes a reminder of rules that persist beyond the meeting and is a summary (without details) of what was experienced.

Typically, the rule that is most necessary for post-meeting is confidentiality.  The communication should indicate whom information is authorized to be disclosed to – including restrictions on those not in the group – and, if appropriate, when disclosures will be made.  In some cases, the group will have agreed to share notes with those beyond the group.  In cases like this, it’s ideal to provide the notes to the members and invite them to review the notes for a short period of time prior to being shared more broadly using the terms and conditions previously agreed to.

In cases where no disclosure is authorized, the follow-up message should state this and provide a generic appreciation and summary of the event.  For instance:

Thank you for your participation.  We feel that it was enriching experience for everyone and hope that you feel the same way.  As you know, none of us will be sharing the details of what was discussed during the meeting, but we’re deeply appreciative of the stories and perspectives shared during our time together.  We respect the vulnerability and courage everyone displayed in creating the space of learning and caring.

Practical Complexity

It was a great, spirited conversation about the concept of complexity that led me to wonder what we really know.  Specifically, the conversation was about the idea that we love linear problem solving.  Proverbially, it’s the simplicity of A+B=C.  It’s a simple math equation that anyone who has learned algebra gets.  However, it’s a simplification of the world around us – and one that sometimes gets us into trouble.

Chemical Reactions and Probabilities

Given perfect understanding and infinite time, A+B does, in fact, equal C.  However, the problem is that we rarely understand things perfectly – and we rarely have enough time to allow all of the A+B to happen.  Let’s take a chemistry example in an attempt to make this clear.

We now know that different kinds of atoms have different kinds of properties and propensities to cluster together.  For instance, water is H₂O: two hydrogen atoms with one oxygen atom.  If we placed twice as much hydrogen as oxygen in a sealed container, we’d end up with water.  The reaction time is dependent on many things, principally temperature and pressure.

Both of these factors lead to the probability that the correct combination of atoms will collide into one another in a range that causes them to enter the relatively stable relationship we call water.  Too slow, and they’ll bounce off; too fast and they’ll plow through each other without enough magnetic pull to stay together.  Temperature and pressure increase the overall motion of the atoms and their proximity to one another and therefore make the conditions more likely to occur where the factors are just right.

There are a few important aspects here.  First, the reaction isn’t immediate.  It may appear immediate, but it’s not.  Second, we simplify the billions of individual molecule formations of a much larger quantity – say, a cup of water – into a single reaction when it’s not.  Finally, the introduction of other factors may increase or inhibit the reaction.  We call items that accelerate a reaction, but are not consumed by it, “catalysts.”

Reinforcing Loops

Einstein called compounding interest the 8^th Wonder of the World.  Even small changes over time create big results.  Consider, for a moment, the idea that you get better by 1% each month.  It’s a tiny change – barely noticeable.  After 10 years of this, how much better would you expect to be?  Mathematically, you’d be 3.3 times as good as when you started.  This is because even at very low rates of increase, these increases compound over time.  The previous result – the increase – is fed back in for the next cycle, so the second month you’re better from the first by not just two percent but slightly more than that (2.01%).

Extended out over long periods of time, this makes some sense.  However, the problem becomes that we rarely think about short periods of time.  Returning to the world of chemistry for a moment, an explosion is a rapid increase in a chemical reaction.  Fire results from heat (energy), oxygen, and fuel.  In an explosion, the cycle time from one set of molecules to the next is very, very quick.  There’s enough heat in the presence of oxygen and fuel that the reaction expands quite quickly.  The output of the prior reaction – fire or explosion – is available for the next cycle.  The result can be catastrophic very quickly.

Balancing Loops

Most of the time, we don’t find explosions, because there are balancing loops that reduce or dampen the impact of the forces that tend to reinforce themselves.  In the case of explosions, the consumption of the fuel eventually depletes it and deprives the reinforcing loop of the conditions of its action.  In the simple example, the results are relatively predictable.  The explosion continues until the conditions of heat, fuel, and oxygen are somehow removed.  Often, the fuel component is exhausted, but sometimes the expansion created by the explosion occurs more rapidly, and the heat (energy) dissipates too quickly.

In many cases, the reinforcing loops are stopped automatically because they reach some limit.

Initial Conditions

Imagine that you’re standing at the Continental Divide in the United States.  On one side of a spot, water rolls down into the Pacific Ocean; on the other side, water will roll down into the Atlantic Ocean.  At the very top of a peak, a very tiny difference in position leads to a very large difference in the water’s final resting place.  (If you’re a teenage boy, you’ll stand at the top and urinate in a sweeping motion to pee in both oceans at the same time.)

A very small difference in initial conditions leads to a very radical difference in the outcomes.  While it’s easy to determine that when we’re at the Continental Divide, it’s much more challenging to determine the places in life where a very small change in initial conditions can have a large impact.  Whether we identify them or not, they’re present everywhere in our everyday life.

Perfect Understanding

Of course, it would be great to have perfect understanding.  If we knew all the places where initial conditions mattered, we could adapt, adjust, and engage in ways that allow us to take advantage of the situation – but we don’t.  In fact, we simplify our world to pretend as if we have a perfect understanding when we often do not.  Let’s come back to water.

You get a glass of water from your faucet and wonder, is it 100% pure water, or are there other things in there as well?  There are, of course, other things in trace amounts.  There’s some chlorine that was used in the treatment process that hasn’t fully broken down yet.  There’s a bit of limestone that was dissolved in the water.  There are probably very tiny amounts of all sorts of things.

You dump the water, turn around, and get some from the refrigerator, thinking that it will be colder anyway.  The filter in the refrigerator has removed some more of the impurities from the water – but it’s still not 100% H₂O molecules.  Trace amounts of other stuff still hitch a ride.

Even in our examples here, we’re intentionally ignored the impurities that don’t make much of a difference – at least most of the time.

Applying Probabilities, Time, and Loops

Now, combine these concepts and recognize that there’s a probability of something happening in a given time, that loops drive the continued expansion until a point of collapse or stability, and that our initial conditions that we can’t fully understand can make a big difference in outcomes, and we’ve arrived at complexity.  It’s a place where we can’t predict the outcomes with high degrees of certainty, because there are too many variables and too many components of the situation that we cannot know.  This is what led Lorenz to realize that a butterfly flapping its wings could create a tornado in Texas.  This doesn’t occur in the linear cause-and-effect type way.  Rather, given loops, time, and initial conditions, it’s possible that a small change can lead to a very, very large outcome.

Some would describe this as a non-linear model or a non-proportional result, but I do not.  Ultimately, it is a set of equations and reactions that are all quite linear in nature.  The results of a linear equation need not be proportional – exponents are allowed.  Further, the emergence of the perception of non-linearity is because we fail to recognize both the simplification of many to one – and we fail to recognize the challenges of multiple iterations and the impact of initial conditions.

Perception

What we perceive as complexity is often just something complicated that we’ve over-simplified and failed to take into account the components and speed at which the system loops and therefore feeds back on itself.

Healthy Dependency in Relationships

We all want it. We want to be healthy. We want to be in relationships. We recognize that to be in a relationship creates some degree of dependency. Despite this desire, many of us have no idea how to create healthy dependency in our relationships. This is about making healthy dependency in relationships possible.

The Need for Dependency

Before we can speak about how to reach a healthy dependency, we must first recognize why dependency is required. We are all born dependent. In fact, humans are the least developed mammal at birth. We’ll require more care and support than any other mammal and much more time.

In our adolescence, we begin to assert our independence. (For more, see Erikson’s stages in Childhood and Society.) We begin to embrace the ideas that the West was won by the lone cowboy on his trusty steed and his reliable rifle. This myth of the American Western is simple fiction. The West was won by wagon trains, and it is where the phrase “circle the wagons” comes from. At some point during our development, we realize that we need our parents. Maybe it’s when we wreck our car or when we see the first bill from college, but we decide once again that other people can be helpful to us.

This is the phase when we can become interdependent on one another. We can start to work in ways that are mutually beneficial. With parents, that may be harder; but with our peers, we can look for ways to work together rather than always competing. Instead of seeing everyone as a competitor, we can begin to work together for everyone’s best interest. See The Science of Trust for the Nash equilibrium, which explains how working towards everyone’s best interests benefits us, too. (See also The Evolution of Cooperation for more on the mathematics behind interdependence and cooperation, and Adam Grant’s Give and Take for how being generous results in better outcomes in the end.)

For more on the progression of dependent to independent and finally to interdependence, see The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.

Relationships are Dependency

Though it’s not obvious, every relationship we’re in is a form of dependency. We’re dependent on the other person in the relationship – even if it’s just to be a sympathetic ear. That isn’t to say that the relationship needs to be deep or that every relationship creates a great deal of dependency, but those relationships that are more interdependent are those relationships that really matter.

We’re more effective when we can have many interdependent relationships. (See How to Be an Adult in Relationships for more on the need to get emotional support from multiple people and places.)

Speaking Truth to Power

Once we realize that we need to be dependent, we must work our way towards understanding the difference between dysfunctional dependency and healthy dependency. The litmus test – for me – for healthy dependency is the ability to speak truth (in love) to those who we’ve given power over us – that is, those with whom we’re in a relationship. Let me unpack that.

There’s an inherent power balance in relationships. In healthy relationships, that power is ever-changing, ebbing and flowing from one person to the other. For the person in power, they enable healthy relationships by holding their power in service of the other. (See Humilitas for this as a definition of humility.) For the person who is momentarily out of power, the ability to speak truth with love is the best assessment of health of the relationship.

Speaking truth to power is an active of courage. The person with power can, of course, harm the person of lesser power, and therefore it’s a risky thing to speak truth to them. (See Find Your Courage for more on how courage overcomes fear.)

The person of power can choose to become angry and stop supporting the person with less power. (See Choice Theory for choosing our emotions, and Emotion and Adaptation for how our emotions are formed.) According to Eastern philosophy, anger is disappointment directed. (See A Force for Good for more.) Anger is, then, some prediction we’ve made about someone’s behavior that didn’t come to pass. We expected them to behave one way, and they actually behaved in a different, disappointing way. We are prediction machines – it’s a fundamental aspect of our consciousness. (See Mindreading and The Body Keeps Score for more.)

So, others may be angry because they predict a different behavior from us (likely compliance), and when we speak our truth, they must accept that their prediction was bad and what they’re going to do about it. As Inside Jokes explains, we laugh at a joke, because we recognize that the prediction engine has failed in a small way and discovering and correcting for the missed prediction, we get a small reward.

The challenge for the person who has more power is to listen without choosing anger. The challenge for the person with less power is to summon the courage to speak the truth in a way that the other person can recognize the concern and relationship. (For more on relationships, see The Dance of Connection.)

Wholehearted Authenticity

The words for this are different. Brene Brown tends to use “wholehearted people” or “authentic people.” (See Daring Greatly and The Gifts of Imperfection.) Most of the time, I speak of stable core or integrated self-image. (See Braving the Wilderness, Rising Strong, and Beyond Boundaries.) Though the language is different, the intent and concept are not. Wholehearted people are authentic. They know who they are and who they are not. They’re tolerant of others’ perspectives, views, and values while maintaining their own.

I’d love to give you a direct path towards the kind of wholehearted authenticity that makes it easier to have healthy relationships and healthy dependency – but I don’t have a straight path to offer. I can start you with my post, How to Be Yourself, and share that, in Daring Greatly, Brene Brown explains that the most wholehearted people she knows are also vulnerable. (See more on vulnerability, see Trust=>Vulnerability=>Intimacy, Revisited.) One factor that helps in becoming authentic is being clear on who you are.

Creating Clarity

For most people, the Industrial Revolution is about steam engines and the power that they brought to work. With greater power, greater achievements were possible. While this is certainly true, it’s not the only driver for the dramatic increase in productivity. The other key factor was standardization. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, everything was crafted and therefore not standardized. With the advent of machinery, it became both possible and more essential to maintain standards. Bolts needed to be exactly the same size so that they could be replaced. We needed the consistency, and that came from clarity. Clarity in what a bolt and other parts should be – exactly – allowed for mass production, replication, replacement, and ultimately productivity.

In our own lives, clarity isn’t as easy. One tool that we can use to get clearer about ourselves is boundaries.

Boundaries for Me

Henry Cloud and John Townsend wrote Boundaries, and John Townsend followed up with Beyond Boundaries. These two works encourage us to define what is “us” and “not us.” Too often, boundaries are confused. People say, “You can’t do that to me,” but the truth is that boundaries are about us – what we will do and what we’ll allow – not other people. The boundary may be “If you smoke, then I’m going to leave. I refuse to be in the presence of cigarette smoke.” You’ll note that the structure of this is how the person is going to be themselves, and their statement about them – not the other person. Done correctly, discovering your boundaries is a way to get greater clarity about who you are – and thereby become better at being in relationships and healthy dependency.

Another key to boundaries covered in Beyond Boundaries is the difference between a defining boundary and temporary boundaries. A defining (or permanent) boundary is one that, if changed, would fundamentally change who you are. Temporary boundaries are erected after you’ve been injured, harmed, or simply when you need to focus on your needs. Temporary boundaries define what you will or won’t do in the short term to allow for your recovery.

Too often in relationships, we become so dependent on the relationship itself that we allow ourselves to be influenced too much by the other person. (See The Nurture Assumption for peer pressure and The Deep Water of Affinity Groups for how our belongingness can drive our behaviors.)

The Role of Trust

I mentioned while explaining anger that we’re prediction machines, and we try to predict others’ behaviors. When we’re angry, it’s most frequently someone’s behavior that didn’t match our prediction. Trust is our reliance on those predictions knowing that most of the time we’ll be right, and some of the time we’ll be wrong. Healthy dependency is built on trust. It’s a trust that the other person won’t use your dependency against you. It’s a trust that they’ll be there when you need them.

The key to understanding trust is to realize its power. Trust: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order
is a study in how trust, placed in different places, influences the world, our societies, and our economic productivity. The short version is that more trust is better. The less we trust our prediction of others’ behavior, the more resources we must waste validating our trust.

Ronald Regan picked up a Russian proverb, “Doveryay, no proveryay,” which translates to “Trust, but verify.” He turned it into a strategy for dealing with Michail Gorbachev. This proverb is a shortcut to understanding the cost of not trusting. When you have no trust, you must verify everything. The greater the trust, the less effort is wasted on verification.

In the context of dependency and relationships, we can cause a relationship damage when we become too dependent and insecure about the relationship and therefore seek constant reassurance.

Types of Attachment

It was the work of John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth that led to the perspective of three kinds of attachments that children form with their parents: secure, anxious-avoidant, and anxious-ambivalent. Much like the work of Michell in The Marshmallow Test, the adverse childhood events (ACE) study leading to adult diseases and Fetal Origins of Adult Disease (FOAD), attachment style is an indicator for how we’ll connect with others as an adult. (See How Children Succeed for more on ACE and Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers for coverage of both ACE and FOAD.)

In Daring to Trust, David Richo offers a way to transform your adult experience of relationships to be more positive no matter what attachment style you started your adolescent life with. He helps understand when to trust others – and when trusting others isn’t warranted.

Broken Attachment – Approach-Avoidance

Some people exit their childhood and adolescence with a sense of connection to others that isn’t balanced. The style of interaction forms an approach-avoidance cycle. Often, this cycle operates as one person in a relationship approaches, causing the other person to flee. The cycle operates in reverse when the second person begins to reapproach, and the first person begins to avoid. This becomes a sick cycle, with the relationship constantly oscillating between approach and avoidance and never settling into connection. (See The Dance of Connection for more.)

In even more broken situations, one person may be incapable of maintaining an intimate relationship. In Intimacy Anorexia, Douglas Weiss explains that some people have never learned to be intimate with other people. Their history has led them to dysfunctional types of superficial connection. In these cases, the cycle never reverses, and one person in the relationship is always (or nearly always) approaching while the other person is constantly avoiding. This scenario is mostly found in marriages.

Dependency in Marriage

John Gottman is famous for his research demonstrating a 91% accuracy in prediction about whether a couple would remain married for 3 years based on evaluation of only three minutes. The key is that the couple had to argue. Gottman explains in The Science of Trust how there are a handful of factors which push towards divorce and some – like emotional attunement – which lead towards intimacy and away from divorce.

Perhaps the best explanation of appropriate dependency in marriage comes from Team Genius and its explanations of the kinds of two-person teams that are effective – and why they’re effective. These patterns are prototypical examples of how two people can work together, be mutually dependent, and be productive.

Detachment

At some level, the ability to be in a relationship that demonstrates healthy dependency it must be possible to detach oneself from the outcomes, both of the relationship itself and the joint work that is being attempted through the relationship. The more firmly entrenched in the relationship itself and the outcomes, the less willing we become to speak our truth and to do the hard work it takes to improve the relationship. (For more on getting teams to do the work to be able to effectively produce, see Collaborative Intelligence by Richard Hackman)

Over time, we’ve developed a sense that we’re in control. In Compelled to Control, J. Keith Miller explains that everyone wants to control – and no one wants to be controlled. Conceptually, both cannot be true at the same time. The way that society has come to understand and harness nature more completely leads us to believe – incorrectly – in our societal and personal levels of control, which ultimately leads us away from detachment. If we are in control, then we’re responsible; when we don’t achieve the outcomes we desire, then we’re responsible, and we should be upset with ourselves. However, since we really only have some degree of influence, we should not be surprised when we occasionally fail to get the results we want.

Working on detaching isn’t always easy and is sometimes confused with disengagement, which can seem like a negative thing, but the concept of detachment comes up too often when looking for ways to become a better, wholehearted, person. (See The Heartmath Solution for more.)

The Ebb and Flow

When I started explaining healthy relationships and dependency, I explained the ebb and flow of power is essential to a healthy relationship. However, what does that mean? Well, let’s look at the divorce rate as it pertains to women being able to find and maintain a job that pays them a livable wage. Instead of so-called “pink-collar” jobs that offered money for luxuries, during World War II, women began working blue-collar and professional jobs, which paid enough money to support themselves, and the result was a wave of divorce. (See Divorce and The Anatomy of Love for more.) It wasn’t just “no fault” divorce laws, it was the fact that women were no longer trapped in relationships with a constant power imbalance. Divorce is bad, but unhealthy marriages are worse – at least in some cases. When the power started to ebb and flow between spouses, some marriages couldn’t survive the changes.

Another way to look at the situation is that both people in a relationship should be whole before they enter the relationship. Please understand, I’m not saying that they can’t be better in the relationship, I’m saying that they’re at least whole to start. When Terri and I got engaged, I designed a custom engagement ring. It’s a heart made of two diamonds. They’re two pear shaped diamonds that are each – in their own right – beautiful and complete.

Unsafe People

While it may be ideal to be in a power-balanced relationship with people who are complete and whole, this isn’t the case that most of us find ourselves in every day. We find ourselves dealing with other humans with faults like us – and faults that are different than ours. In Safe People, Henry Cloud and John Townsend enumerate ways that people may be unsafe. Unfortunately, they don’t explain how to be in relationships with people who aren’t safe. It’s certainly helpful to be able to identify the ways in which people may be unsafe, because it changes your predictions of their behavior and encourages you to take less risks by trusting them in those areas.

At some level, being in relationships with unsafe people is about establishing your boundaries. (See their book Boundaries and Townsend’s book Beyond Boundaries for more.) However, it’s more than that. It’s about learning the skills that you need to have hard conversations. (See Crucial Conversations for more.) It’s about learning the skills you need to be in a conflict with someone and at the same time not think of them as a villain. (See Words Can Change Your Brain, Nonviolent Communication, and Why Are We Yelling? for techniques for managing conflict.)

Safety

Overall, the feeling that pervades healthy dependency is safety – not when the person provides for your needs, but when the person cannot provide for your needs. The safety exists when you’re able to be only partially dependent upon them and know that there is a mutual intent of caring for and supporting each other.