certain spot.

Most groups will attempt to accommodate one or two pet peeves per member if theiracquiescence does not jeopardize the major work of the group. Competent communicators attempt toadapt to the demands of different people and situations.Finally, a commitment to rationality has its justification rooted in our intellectual search fortruth. Certainly one of the most time-honored ethics of discussion is the belief that wellmeaning peoplewho have been trained in group methods can reason together and that the product of their discussionis our best facsimile of intellectual truth. Commitment to Fair Play In a court of law, the prosecuting attorney presents only those arguments that prove the guilt of adefendant with the expectation that the defense attorney will present those arguments that suggest thedef endants innocenc e. The judge and jury then objectively sort out the truth of the matter. The fair playof the courtroom is not fair play in a group discussion. Team members must objectively search out allevidence and arguments that support their individual viewpoints; however, during a discussion, theyshould not conceal arguments or evidence that might help the group.Group discussants should not attempt to manipulate or entrap one another in their commonsearch for truth. In a court of law, lawyers may use clever strategies that unnerve witnesses or infuriatetheir opposition. But in a discussion, there is no opponent; everyone should be working cooperativelyfor the common good. Therefore, a good discussant does not compete against the other groupmembers. One should construct good arguments and back them with evidence but keep in mind thatone of the primary outcomes of the group work is consensus.In small groups that are composed of more that seven members, there is a tendency for cliquesto form. Power struggles ensue between rival factions. These struggles often can subvert the good.Members can get so intense about their internal structure that no work gets done. A commitment to fair play requires that power plays within the group should not jeopardize the groups goals. Commitment to Good Listening An ethical standard that all discussants should endorse is a commitment to good listening. Listening goes beyond just hearing fellow group members talk. For us to be able to play the role of an active listener in a discussion, we must listen attentively to what fellow group member are saying. Howoften we respond to member contributions shows whether we have been listening or not. Heighteningour awareness of good listening and using effective listening skills can only help us in achieving the otherpreviously mentioned ethical standards that discussants should continually try to attain. Commitment to Preparation Occasionally discussion groups spontaneously create an idea that is truly remarkable. But mostof time, productive result of group work stem from a lot hard work by the individual members, most of which is done before the discussion convenes. It is an inescapable fact of group life that most of the work of team is done between meetings. Often the task of meeting is to integrate, negotiate, coordinate, and delegated. If no one has accomplished tasks between meetings, these important groupprocesses do not operate.If you want to have a good discussion, do your homework! When you observe an experiencedroundtable discussion on television, you do not see the hundreds of hours of research that go intopreparation. Few people, even those who are experts on a subject, can glibly recall the necessaryevidence and arguments in the heat of a face-to-face discussion without sufficient

advance planning. Anhour-long discussion requires at least twenty hours of preparation by each member and probably evenmore on the part of the task leader. Commitment to Ideational Conflict In addition to your commitment to do your best to work for the group good, to deliberaterationally, and to be a fair player, you should work on your communication skills so that you can attack a persons ideas without attacking the person. Experienced discussion groups have a high tolerance for verbal argument. They interrogate anexamine arguments in a vigorous manner and at the same time avoid injuring the people whoformulated the arguments. Newly formed groups usually have to verbalize the fact continually that theideas, not people, are under examination. So when you are a member of the new group, it is oftenhelpful to say explicitly that you want to examine the argument with no intended offense against theperson. Commitment to Objectivity Dispassionate objectivity is a highly valued quality of a group member. If a person has areputation for being objective while reasoning together with other discussants, his or her career usuallyis significantly enhanced in the company. When you are in a discussion, make a concerted effort to separate the facts from your opinion. In other words, dont color the data to fit a group outcome youmight want. Also, your job description within a company may produce a kind of occupational blinder that in subtle ways keeps you from viewing the data objectively. For example, if you are in a marketing department, youll have to work hard to escape the mind -set of market research and try to see problemas sales or advertising might. It is often wise to keep in mind that two people can often see differentthings, when they look from the same point in the same direction. Perspective taking is the ability tounderstand the perspective of others and to differentiate your viewpoint from the viewpoint of theothers. It is never easy to escape the confines of our own egocentric perspectives, so being objective in adiscussion is hard work, but it is worth the effort. Commitment to tolerance Most people whom you work with in groups will not have had the benefit of the course you arenow taking. As a consequence, you may be initially shocked at the ill-mannered group behavior youconfront. Try not to be too judgmental about your colleagues when confronted with lewd, crude, boring,and offensive interpersonal behavior. Most of them dont intend to be so uncouth; they just have not had formal training in small group discussion. Many of them may have aggressive communication stylesthat you find abrasive, but be tolerant. By following your example of good group skills, most problem-solving groups are educable and in time will mature. Also, as Leo Buscaglia once reminded us, tolerancein interpersonal relations is often the result of sympathetic identification adopting the attitude that nothing you have done, I have not done too. Commitment to social maturity For a group to make good decisions, a great deal of ideational conflict must occur. Someevidence will be found to be useless, and many arguments will turn out to be flawed. It is through thiscollective examination of evidence and reasoning that groups can arrive at solutions that are better thenthose of an individual acting

alone. So dont be defensive when arguments you advance are defeated or the group dismisses evidence you researched. In fact, you should willingly participate in the closescrutiny of evidence and arguments you have advanced to ensure their correctness. As a general rule itis often a good idea not to get too egoinvolved in ones own ideas, particularly in the early stages of a team project. A clear mark of a mature discussant is the ability to have many of your arguments shotdown and not take it personally.