6 min read
May 1, 2026
Support Group Ground Rules: What to Include
Writing ground rules for your group? What to include, how to introduce them in session one, and a set you can copy and adapt.
Share
Subscribe
Ground rules written after a problem tend to read as a reaction to one person. Written before, they are simply how the room works, which is the entire reason to write them now.
Here is a set you can copy, what each rule is actually for, and how to introduce them so the group owns them rather than tolerating them.
Keep it short enough to read aloud in three minutes. Seven rules is about the limit before people stop listening.
Vagueness is what breaks this rule, not malice. Most breaches are a detail mentioned to a spouse by someone who genuinely did not think that counted. Spelling out that it does is what prevents it.
The limit matters too. A promise of absolute confidentiality is one you cannot keep, and naming the exception in session one is far better than invoking it unannounced in session nine.
The single most useful rule in any support group. Without it, a member describes a difficulty and three people offer solutions, the helpers feel useful and the person who spoke feels handled rather than heard. This is the rule that most often makes people say a group felt different from anything else.
Stops generalization, which is where most avoidable friction comes from. "That never helps" is a claim about everyone; "that didn't help me" is a contribution.
Protects the quiet members, and counter-intuitively increases how much people speak. A group where passing is visibly normal is a group where speaking is a choice rather than a performance.
Obvious in a room, essential online, where a side thread in the chat is invisible to whoever is speaking and corrosive when discovered.
A group that starts late teaches people the start time is approximate. Ending on time also protects members from the session that runs on because nobody wanted to interrupt someone.
Worth stating explicitly, because groups often assume harmony is the goal and go quiet rather than differ. The first mild disagreement in a group is usually a sign of health.
Then let the group own them. When you need to intervene later, you are pointing at an agreement everyone made rather than exercising authority, which is a far easier position to hold.
The point of having written rules is that enforcement stops being personal.
| What happens | What to say |
|---|---|
| Someone gives unasked-for advice | "Before we go to suggestions. Does anyone recognize this?" |
| Someone has talked for a long time | "That's a lot to be carrying. I want to make sure others get time. Has anyone else been sitting with something like that?" |
| Someone dismisses another member | "We can hold both of those. They were different experiences." |
| Side conversation in the chat | "Let's keep it to one conversation, drop it in the main thread if it's for everyone." |
| Someone is clearly in distress | Slow down, speak to them directly, and follow up privately after. Do not assess anyone in front of the group. |
Light and early beats heavy and late. A rule mentioned in passing the first time it is bent rarely has to be enforced properly later.
Do not add all of these. Add the ones your group's subject actually raises, and keep the list readable.
That last one deserves emphasis. A group that has quietly forbidden difficulty will be pleasant, well-attended for a while, and useless.
A workable minimum: confidentiality with its limits stated, no advice unless asked, speak from your own experience, you can always pass, one conversation at a time, start and finish on time, and disagreement is fine but dismissing someone is not. Seven is about the limit before people stop listening.
Read them aloud in the first session rather than linking to a document, say in one sentence what each is for, ask the group what is missing, and get explicit agreement. Most groups add their own rule, and that is often the one they enforce hardest.
Be specific rather than general: nothing said here is repeated outside the group, including to partners, including without names. And state the limit. That if someone is at risk of serious harm you may have to act. A promise of absolute confidentiality is one you cannot keep.
Address it lightly and early, pointing at the agreement rather than the person. "Before we go to suggestions. Does anyone recognize this?" does more than a formal correction. A rule mentioned in passing the first time it is bent rarely needs enforcing properly later.
No. Participation that has been extracted is worth very little, and a group where passing is visibly normal is one where people speak more, not less. Make the choice real and most members eventually use it to speak rather than to opt out.
.svg)
