The Surprising Power of Liberating Structures: Simple Rules to Unleash A Culture of Innovation Read Online Free PDF Page B

participation is distributed: Everybody is given equal time.
How groups are configured: First alone, then pairs, then groups of four, then the whole group
Sequence of steps and time allocation:
    Reflect alone and write down your thoughts (1 minute)
Share/compare/improve/expand in pairs (2 minutes)
Share/compare/improve/expand in groups of four (2 minutes)
One group at a time shares one important answer with the whole group moving quickly from group to group and avoiding repetitions (3 minutes)
    The whole cycle can be as short as three minutes and shouldn’t be longer than fifteen minutes. If an issue warrants more time, it is more productive to do a second cycle. Two cycles of ten minutes are better than one cycle of twenty minutes.
    Why the Structure Works
    Why does the insertion of a four-step structure elevate discussions consistently to a higher level no matter who the participants are or how senior or sophisticated they are? First, effective use of 1-2-4-All does not hinge on expertise or talent. All you have to be able to do, we often say, is count to four.
    Second, unlike Open or Managed Discussion, 1-2-4-All gives everyone both more time and equal time to contribute. The structure does this automatically without a “boss” having to give permission to anyone.
    Harvesting action ideas with 1-2-4-All in Peru
    Third, it makes space for silent thoughts that otherwise would stay in people’s heads to surface and be written down. Reflection in silence is an extremely valuable but consistently underutilized structural element in meetings
    Then, working in pairs provides the safest possible space for everyone to articulate and test thoughts for the first time. It guarantees that everyone will express himself or herself at least a little. Since every voice is heard, the amount and, most importantly, the diversity of ideas are multiplied compared to a Managed or Open Discussion, resulting in much richer initial content.
    Working in pairs provides the safest possible space for everyone to articulate and test thoughts for the first time
.
    In the groups of four, ideas—especially controversial ones—get a chance to be discussed and sifted to get them ready to be shared with the whole group. The stepwise progression provides support and time for ideas to be formed, modified, and strengthened before being exposed to a large group.
    Finally, in the last step, going quickly from group to group and collecting one main idea at a time levels the playing field to make space for all ideas to be aired.
    Overall, the progressive nature of the conversation, as it moves from one to two to four people, provides everyone with the repetition and time for greater depth and meaning to develop.
    1-2-4-All levels the personality playing field, giving safe spaces for the more timid and preventing the more vocal ones from monopolizing the entirediscussion. Many more good ideas are given the chance to get picked up. Without having to jostle for space to be heard, participants are freed to focus on listening. Cocreation rather than advocating for one’s position becomes more possible. As all participants hear the same information at the same time, they can discover patterns together. Better ideas, and more of them, are generated. Open, generative conversations unfold. Ideas are sifted in rapid fashion and “painlessly.” Solutions, conclusions, or decisions are reached more quickly.
    Liberating Structures make maximum use of the time available by replacing sequential interventions/contributions with simultaneous interactions
.
    What else is made possible?
    1-2-4-All transforms discussions from a linear sequence of single contributions into a series of simultaneous conversations. This makes it possible to engage within the same amount of time groups much larger than what is feasible with a Managed Discussion; getting contributions as wide and diverse as an issue requires is to be expected. More broadly, shared ownership of codeveloped initiatives