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: 562185e4450305a9263ab7e3edcf73b7b55c97de47710d565c240b8e87e3c266

# Confidence Vote

Participants silently score their confidence in a specific proposal on a 1 to 5 scale, reveal their scores simultaneously, and discuss differences to refine the plan.

**Time:** 15 minutes. 15 minutes reflects the lower end of the source 15 to 30 minute range, sufficient for evaluating one proposal.
**People:** 5 to 20. Whole group plenary with individual voting and structured turns.

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Gauge the distribution of group agreement and highlight specific reservations or endorsements before taking action.
**Use it when:** Use when a team needs to test commitment to a concrete proposal or detect hidden doubts before implementation.
**Skip it when:** Skip when the group is still generating early ideas or when a legally mandated secret ballot or formal majority vote is required.

## Materials and tools

- 1 flipchart or whiteboard with markers
- Visual 1 to 5 scale poster or drawing on the board
- Index cards with numbers 1 to 5 (or participants use fingers/sticky notes)

## Before participants arrive

1. Write the proposal clearly at the top of the board.
2. Draw a horizontal scale labeled 1 (no confidence) through 5 (total confidence) beneath the text.

## Say this to open

We are going to check our confidence in this proposal using a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means no confidence and 5 means total confidence. When I give the signal, show your number at the exact same moment.

## How to run it

### 1. Review the proposal (3 minutes)

Read the written proposal aloud. For example: 'We will move our weekly release window from Friday afternoon to Tuesday morning starting next month.' Check for basic comprehension. Answer factual questions about what the text means without debating its merits yet.

### 2. Cast simultaneous vote (2 minutes)

Ask everyone to choose a whole number from 1 to 5. On the facilitator's count of three, all participants reveal their vote at once by raising fingers or holding up an index card. Note the distribution on the board scale.

### 3. Examine the spread (6 minutes)

Invite 2 or 3 participants who voted 1 or 2 to share their key concerns if they wish to speak. Then invite 1 or 2 participants who voted 4 or 5 to share what gives them confidence. Limit each speaker to 1 minute.

### 4. Decide adjustments and closing (4 minutes)

If ratings cluster at 4 and 5, record adoption. If there are 1s and 2s, ask the group what single amendment would raise their confidence. Note the adjustment or record that the proposal needs revision before adoption.


## Debrief questions

- What specific information or condition shifted your confidence level during our discussion?
- What amendment would bring our lowest scores up to an acceptable level?

**Finished output:** A recorded visual tally of confidence levels and an agreed list of adjustments or clear next steps for the proposal.

## Remote

Display the proposal on a shared digital screen. When prompted, participants type their score from 1 to 5 into the meeting chat but press Enter only when the facilitator says 'Send'. Alternatively, use a digital poll or place markers on a 1 to 5 scale on a shared whiteboard.

## Hybrid

Display the proposal on screen and on the physical board. Remote participants type their 1 to 5 rating in chat while in-person participants raise fingers or cards at the facilitator's countdown. A designated co-facilitator reads the remote distribution so the whole room sees the complete tally.

## Access and participation choices

- Participants may hold up a numbered card, write on a sticky note, or use hand fingers to indicate their score.
- Any participant may pass on explaining their score during the discussion phase without giving a reason.

## If the session gets stuck

**Participants look around and change their votes to match senior colleagues.**

Enforce a strict simultaneous reveal. Have everyone hold their hand behind their back or keep their card face down until the verbal count of three.

**Speakers with low confidence feel put on the spot or defensive.**

Remind the room that scores of 1 and 2 are essential data that protect the project from unseen risks. Invite volunteers rather than calling on specific individuals.


## Terms used here

- Confidence Scale: A visual ranking where 1 represents zero confidence and 5 represents complete certainty in the proposal.

## Sources and adaptation

Observed in the Participatory Methods library under 'Confidence Vote' (2025).

Retained the 1 to 5 scale, simultaneous voting options (fingers, cards, physical scale), and focus on hearing low and high scores from the Participatory Methods source. Added a concrete proposal example, step timing designed for a 15-minute slot, and explicit rules for passing and hybrid facilitation.

[Participatory Methods](https://participatorymethods.com/activities/confidence-vote/)

[Participatory Methods](https://participatorymethods.com/activities/confidence)

Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/confidence-vote/