Works with Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, or your own local model: paste this prompt and your AI will co-facilitate this exercise with you.

Help me prepare and run the exercise below. First ask for my participant count, time, setting, access needs and intended result. Check these against the stated limits. Use the supplied rules and materials. Explain any proposed changes before using them, and label them as adaptations. Do not invent source claims or require personal disclosure. Give me one step at a time when I say start. I manage the people, physical activity and clock; do not claim to observe the room. Ask me what happened before choosing a next step.

Reference revision: 950c9c172332cf7510458df554be970c94aa71bb1a3dbb8a131493e03356827e

# Both Sides

Working in triads, two advocates present timed cases for opposing guidelines while a neutral listener listens impartially and summarizes both views.

**Time:** 30 minutes. Source specifies 30 to 60 minutes; fixed here at 30 minutes for a three-round rotation and whole-room debrief.
**People:** 4 to 24. Triads. Any leftover of one or two participants join existing triads as silent observers to keep the core three-role structure intact.

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Compare the trade-offs and appropriate contexts for opposing operational principles.
**Use it when:** Use when a group deals with conflicting advice or competing priorities and needs to clarify the specific conditions where each approach succeeds.
**Skip it when:** Skip when one side of an issue is a mandatory legal, safety, or non-negotiable compliance rule.

## Materials and tools

- Timer or digital countdown display
- Soft audio chime or bell
- Prepared Topic Dichotomies Handout or slide displaying 3 pairs of opposing guidelines
- Scratch paper and pen per participant

## Before participants arrive

1. Select a core topic and prepare 3 pairs of opposing guidelines (dichotomies).
2. Arrange seating in triads facing inward so the listener sits between the two advocates.
3. Distribute the prepared handout or display the first dichotomy clearly on a screen.

## Say this to open

Organizational work is full of contradictory advice. Today we will explore opposing pairs of guidelines to see when each approach fits best. In your triads, one person starts as the Neutral Listener and two act as Advocates. For each round, advocates get 15 seconds to prepare, then one minute each to make their case. The Neutral Listener practices impartial listening, then summarizes the strongest arguments from both sides without picking a winner.

## How to run it

### 1. Set up triads and assign roles (4 minutes)

Form groups of three. In each triad, designate Person A as Neutral Listener, Person B as Left Advocate, and Person C as Right Advocate. Any leftover participants join a triad as silent observers. Announce the rotation rule that will follow each round: Right Advocate becomes Neutral Listener, Neutral Listener becomes Left Advocate, and Left Advocate becomes Right Advocate.

### 2. Run round one (6 minutes)

Reveal dichotomy 1 (for example, 'Assertiveness' vs. 'Empathy'). Assign one side to Left Advocate and one to Right Advocate. Give 15 seconds of silent prep. Instruct the Neutral Listener to call on either advocate to speak first. Time 60 seconds. Ring the chime. Time 60 seconds for the second advocate. Ring the chime. Give the Neutral Listener 60 seconds to summarize key points heard from both sides. Call on one listener to share an insight with the whole room.

### 3. Rotate and run round two (6 minutes)

Rotate roles: Right Advocate becomes Neutral Listener, Neutral Listener becomes Left Advocate, and Left Advocate becomes Right Advocate. Reveal dichotomy 2. Give 15 seconds of silent prep. The Neutral Listener picks which advocate speaks first. Time 60 seconds, chime, time 60 seconds for the second advocate, chime. Give the listener 60 seconds to summarize both perspectives. Call on a different listener to share a quick synthesis.

### 4. Rotate and run round three (6 minutes)

Rotate roles one more time using the same sequence so everyone completes each role once. Reveal dichotomy 3. Run the cycle: 15 seconds prep, 60 seconds for the first advocate, 60 seconds for the second advocate, and 60 seconds for the listener summary. Call on a third listener to share key points.

### 5. Debrief and synthesize (8 minutes)

Bring the whole room together. Pose the debrief questions to the group. Take two or three responses per question. Focus on identifying context markers that determine which guideline should take priority.


## Debrief questions

- Under what specific circumstances does the first guideline clearly beat the second?
- How did it feel to advocate for a position you might personally avoid?
- What context criteria can our team use to select between these two approaches in current projects?

**Finished output:** A list of practical criteria identifying when to apply each opposing guideline.

## Remote

Assign participants to three-person breakout rooms. Any extra participants join a room as observers. Broadcast dichotomy prompts and timing signals into all breakout rooms via host announcements. Neutral Listeners verbally call on the first speaker and take private notes.

## Hybrid

Keep remote participants together in online breakout triads and physical participants in room triads. Do not mix remote and physical participants within a triad. Broadcast identical timers and text prompts simultaneously to both groups.

## Access and participation choices

- Participants may pass on rapid public advocacy and take the Neutral Listener or silent observer role.
- Provide written prompts on slides or paper in advance so participants do not rely solely on spoken instructions.
- Declining to speak requires no personal disclosure. If an advocate declines to speak, the triad spends that minute in silent individual note-taking before the listener summary.

## If the session gets stuck

**An advocate finishes their points well before the 60 seconds elapse.**

Prompt the advocate to provide a concrete past example or remain comfortably silent until the chime.

**The Neutral Listener debates the advocates or announces a winner.**

Remind listeners their sole job is nonjudgmental synthesis: state the strongest point heard on each side without choosing between them.


## Terms used here

- Dichotomy: A pair of opposing guidelines, principles, or viewpoints.

## Participant material: Prepared Topic Dichotomies Handout

Topic: Team Leadership
- Pair 1: Structured compliance vs. Autonomous challenge
- Pair 2: Speed of execution vs. Thorough consensus
- Pair 3: Centralized oversight vs. Distributed authority

Topic: Project Delivery
- Pair 1: Build to detailed upfront specs vs. Iterate through quick prototypes
- Pair 2: Maximize feature depth vs. Minimize time to launch
- Pair 3: Standardize toolsets vs. Let teams pick their own stack

## Sources and adaptation

Observed in The Thiagi Group archives (first published October 2001) and cataloged in the SessionLab IAF library.

Preserved Thiagi's core three-person mechanic (Left Advocate, Right Advocate, Neutral Listener) and rapid timed cycles. Replaced the loud whistle with a soft chime. Added a 30-minute structured plan across three complete rotating rounds, resolved odd group numbers by using silent observers, clarified remote turn selection, and added clear accessibility fallbacks.

[The Thiagi Group](https://www.thiagi.com/archived-games/2015/2/25/both-sides)

[SessionLab](https://www.sessionlab.com/methods/both-sides)

Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/both-sides/