Move from a stuck team conflict to a shared understanding and concretely agreed next steps.
A shared understanding of the conflict across all sides and a concrete, agreed action plan.
You can decide which actions from the conflict are prioritized and who owns them.
Track the agreed actions in the team check-in after two to three weeks.
What concrete help can two peers offer for a real challenge?
Troika consulting brings in uninvolved perspectives before the actual parties meet and surfaces blind spots.
The sharpened problem view forms the basis for the actual conversation between the conflict parties.
How can a focused inner discussion gain diversity through visible observation and governed rotation?
The fishbowl format separates listening from speaking and prevents the conflict from getting stuck in an unstructured debate.
The surfaced perspectives show where real agreement and where real disagreement exists.
Which statements are shared, where do goals or assumptions diverge, and what clarification follows?
The alignment map separates points of real consensus from points of real dissent and prevents the two from being mixed up.
Based on the clearly named points of disagreement, concrete next steps can be decided.
Which most important problem will we address with which solution as the next experiment?
Decision jam turns the clarified situation into concrete decisions with ownership, instead of just discussing the conflict.
The agreed actions are tracked in day-to-day team work and reviewed after a fixed deadline.
Artifacts stay collapsed until you actually need them.
Plan subject, participation, complete flow, and review.
# Troika Consulting: Worksheet
## Question
To be confirmed
## Desired outcome
To be confirmed
## Scope
Complete run
Time: 30–45 minutes for three consulting rounds.
Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.
## Preparation for this scope
### Method setup
- **Materials:** Concrete challenges, timer, quiet triads, and notes for insights
- **Roles:** Triads with one client and two consultants; facilitator for timing and rotation
- **Advance information:** Set triads, equal airtime, and confidentiality; each person brings one real challenge and requested help. Prepare real cases, sources, and boundaries.
- **Overall time needed:** 30–45 minutes for three consulting rounds.
- **Setup:** Create a workspace with Working triad · Clear challenge · Clarified context · Peer advice · Personal insights; keep example values separate from live data.
### Prepare for the work steps
#### Frame: Working triad
- Set triads, equal airtime, and confidentiality; each person brings one real challenge and requested help.
- Concrete challenges, timer, quiet triads, and notes for insights
#### Case: Clear challenge
- Working triad
#### Questions: Clarified context
- Clear challenge
#### Consult: Peer advice
- Clarified context
#### Rotate: Personal insights
- Peer advice
## Troika Consulting · working structure
### Working triad
Form triads and clarify confidentiality and timing
...
### Clear challenge
The client describes the challenge and requested help in two minutes
...
### Clarified context
Consultants ask clarifying questions only, without offering solutions yet
...
### Peer advice
The client turns away while consultants discuss options and the client listens
...
### Personal insights
The client names useful insights; rotate until everyone has received consultation
...
The blank worksheet contains prompts only.
[Reference source · original teaching example](https://www.liberatingstructures.com/troika-consulting)
## Frame: Working triad
Expected artifact: Working triad
Form triads and clarify confidentiality and timing
Entry:
...
- [ ] Are roles, confidentiality, and equal airtime clear?
## Case: Clear challenge
Expected artifact: Clear challenge
The client describes the challenge and requested help in two minutes
Entry:
...
- [ ] Is the challenge concrete and the requested help named?
## Questions: Clarified context
Expected artifact: Clarified context
Consultants ask clarifying questions only, without offering solutions yet
Entry:
...
- [ ] Do questions remain short and free of hidden advice?
## Consult: Peer advice
Expected artifact: Peer advice
The client turns away while consultants discuss options and the client listens
Entry:
...
- [ ] Does the client remain silent during consultation and retain freedom to choose?
## Rotate: Personal insights
Expected artifact: Personal insights
The client names useful insights; rotate until everyone has received consultation
Entry:
...
- [ ] Does each person record their own next steps without forcing a group decision?
## Open questions and next steps
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/troika-consulting/run-sheet
Plan subject, participation, complete flow, and review.
# Fishbowl Discussion: Worksheet
## Question
To be confirmed
## Desired outcome
To be confirmed
## Scope
Complete run
Time: 60–120 minutes.
Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.
## Preparation for this scope
### Method setup
- **Materials:** Guiding question, visible agenda, work surfaces, timer, and result repository
- **Roles:** Facilitator · participants · hosts or session owners · scribe
- **Advance information:** Set one focused discussion question, listening task, and rotation rule; arrange an inner circle with an open chair. Prepare real cases, sources, and boundaries.
- **Overall time needed:** 60–120 minutes.
- **Setup:** Create a workspace with Discussion frame · Fishbowl setup · Inner dialogue · Perspective shifts · Review; keep example values separate from live data.
### Prepare for the work steps
#### Frame: Discussion frame
- Set one focused discussion question, listening task, and rotation rule; arrange an inner circle with an open chair.
- Guiding question, visible agenda, work surfaces, timer, and result repository
#### Circles: Fishbowl setup
- Discussion frame
#### Dialogue: Inner dialogue
- Fishbowl setup
#### Rotate: Perspective shifts
- Inner dialogue
#### Review: Review
- Perspective shifts
## Fishbowl Discussion · working structure
### Discussion frame
Clarify the discussion question, listening task, and rotation rule
...
### Fishbowl setup
Form an inner circle with one empty chair and an outer observation circle
...
### Inner dialogue
The inner group discusses while the outer circle listens to the agreed task
...
### Perspective shifts
Outer participants use the empty chair or agreed rotation without taking over
...
### Review
Review content insights, tensions, and observations from both circles
...
The blank worksheet contains prompts only.
[Reference source · original teaching example](https://www.sessionlab.com/methods/fishbowl)
## Frame: Discussion frame
Expected artifact: Discussion frame
Clarify the discussion question, listening task, and rotation rule
Entry:
...
- [ ] Are question, listening task, speaking rule, and rotation clear to both circles?
## Circles: Fishbowl setup
Expected artifact: Fishbowl setup
Form an inner circle with one empty chair and an outer observation circle
Entry:
...
- [ ] Does at least one chair remain open for governed perspective shifts?
## Dialogue: Inner dialogue
Expected artifact: Inner dialogue
The inner group discusses while the outer circle listens to the agreed task
Entry:
...
- [ ] Does the inner circle discuss while the outer circle listens to the agreed task?
## Rotate: Perspective shifts
Expected artifact: Perspective shifts
Outer participants use the empty chair or agreed rotation without taking over
Entry:
...
- [ ] Do guests leave the open chair again so more perspectives can enter?
## Review: Review
Expected artifact: Review
Review content insights, tensions, and observations from both circles
Entry:
...
- [ ] Does the review separate content findings from observations about discussion dynamics?
## Open questions and next steps
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/fishbowl-discussion/run-sheet
Plan the question, inputs, complete run, and review with clear ownership.
# Alignment Mapping: Worksheet
## Question
To be confirmed
## Desired outcome
To be confirmed
## Scope
Complete run
Time: 60–90 minutes for one goal or decision; investigate open evidence questions afterwards.
Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.
## Preparation for this scope
### Method setup
- **Materials:** Alignment map with perspective, shared statement, conflict, and clarification; decision question; existing goals and evidence; timer.
- **Roles:** Affected decision and delivery roles · facilitator · scribe · owner for each clarification
- **Advance information:** Write one concrete goal or decision question, identify relevant perspectives, and collect current goals, terms, and evidence.
- **Overall time needed:** 60–90 minutes for one goal or decision; investigate open evidence questions afterwards.
- **Setup:** Capture perspectives separately first. Mark common ground, open questions, contradictions, and dependencies as distinct states.
### Prepare for the work steps
#### Question: Frame alignment question
- Write one concrete goal or decision question, identify relevant perspectives, and collect current goals, terms, and evidence.
#### Perspectives: Collect views separately
- Precise alignment question
#### Map: Map together
- Unanchored perspectives
#### Gaps: Examine meaning
- Shared alignment map
#### Action: Plan clarification
- Named real gaps
## Alignment map
| Case | Perspective | Shared | Open or contradictory | Clarification step |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Example case | | | | |
- **Example case:** Which statements are shared, where do goals or assumptions diverge, and what clarification follows?
Use one specifically bounded case per row.
[Reference source · original teaching example](https://www.atlassian.com/team-playbook/plays/team-poster)
## Question: Frame alignment question
Expected artifact: Precise alignment question
Precise alignment question
Entry:
...
- [ ] Can the guiding question be answered by a decision or testable statement?
## Perspectives: Collect views separately
Expected artifact: Unanchored perspectives
Unanchored perspectives
Entry:
...
- [ ] Did every relevant role contribute target, priority, and assumption independently?
## Map: Map together
Expected artifact: Shared alignment map
Shared alignment map
Entry:
...
- [ ] Does the map distinguish shared statements, open questions, contradictions, and dependencies?
## Gaps: Examine meaning
Expected artifact: Named real gaps
Named real gaps
Entry:
...
- [ ] Did the group determine whether differences arise from terms, goals, data, or mandate?
## Action: Plan clarification
Expected artifact: Clarification and decision plan
Clarification and decision plan
Entry:
...
- [ ] Does each open question have required evidence, an owner, and a decision date?
## Open questions and next steps
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/alignment-mapping/run-sheet
Plan the session around the canonical method steps and a concrete decision.
# Decision Jam: Worksheet
## Question
To be confirmed
## Desired outcome
To be confirmed
## Scope
Full session
Time: 60–90 minutes
Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.
## Preparation for this scope
### Method setup
- **Materials:** LDJ decision board, timer, notes, and decision log.
- **Roles:** Facilitator · decider · 3–8 affected participants
- **Advance information:** Collect existing evidence and constraints in advance.
- **Overall time needed:** 60–90 minutes
- **Setup:** Prepare the canonical blank structure and make timeboxes visible.
### Prepare for the work steps
#### Problems: Problems
- Concrete work context
#### Priority: Priority
- problem wall
#### HMW question: HMW question
- top problem
#### Solutions: Solutions
- HMW question
#### Effort/impact: Effort/impact
- solution portfolio
## LDJ decision board
### Silent problems
...
### Top priority
...
### HMW
...
### Silent solutions
...
### Effort/impact
...
### Test
...
### Working policies
**Silent problems**
...
**Top priority**
...
**HMW**
...
**Silent solutions**
...
**Effort/impact**
...
**Test**
...
[AJ&Smart: Lightning Decision Jam](https://go.ajsmart.com/ldj)
## Problems: Problems
Expected artifact: problem wall
problem wall with evidence, owner, and next decision.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Are problems concrete and solution-free?
## Priority: Priority
Expected artifact: top problem
top problem with evidence, owner, and next decision.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Is exactly one problem selected for the next step?
## HMW question: HMW question
Expected artifact: HMW question
HMW question with evidence, owner, and next decision.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Does the question allow several solutions?
## Solutions: Solutions
Expected artifact: solution portfolio
solution portfolio with evidence, owner, and next decision.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Are solutions concrete enough for effort/impact?
## Effort/impact: Effort/impact
Expected artifact: experiment card
experiment card with evidence, owner, and next decision.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Does the experiment define behaviour, threshold, and guardrail?
## Open questions and next steps
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/decision-jam/run-sheet