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: 6c5c97effe6d0349483b887faafc44d7f8c04945a32db3d57f7bbba2187a389d

# Gradients of Agreement

Group members evaluate a specific proposal using an eight-point scale ranging from full endorsement to veto. The facilitator maps the distribution against an agreed threshold to guide discussion or minor refinements.

**Time:** 25 minutes. Based on the 15 to 30 minute range in source evidence for a single proposal.
**People:** 4 to 24. Whole group plenary with individual silent polling followed by structured whole-room turn-taking.

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Map degrees of individual alignment on a single proposal to decide whether to adopt it, discuss specific objections, or refine the wording.
**Use it when:** Use when a team needs to test commitment on an important proposal after basic discussion, avoiding false binary yes-no votes.
**Skip it when:** Skip for trivial decisions where a simple thumbs-up suffices, or when a designated leader has already chosen the outcome regardless of input.

## Materials and tools

- 1 pre-drawn scale poster or whiteboard showing levels 1 to 8 with labels
- 1 flip chart or whiteboard displaying the draft proposal
- Markers in at least two colors
- Index cards or scratch paper (1 sheet per person)
- Pens (1 per person)

## Before participants arrive

1. Write the 8 levels of the Gradients of Agreement scale visibly on a whiteboard or flip chart.
2. Write the exact proposal statement in large text on a separate chart.
3. Distribute 1 slip of paper and 1 pen to each participant.

## Say this to open

We are testing our alignment on this specific proposal. This is a diagnostic poll, not a simple majority vote. Please look at the eight points on the chart. Your task right now is to identify which number represents your stance on this wording, without feeling pressured to say yes or no.

## How to run it

### 1. Set scale and decision threshold (4 minutes)

Review the 8-point scale aloud. Ask the group to agree on the target threshold required to move forward (for example, every participant at level 1 through 3, or all at 1 through 6). Confirm understanding of points 4 (Abstain) and 5 (More Discussion Needed).

### 2. Verify proposal wording (3 minutes)

Read the draft proposal aloud. Ask if the wording is clear and unambiguous. Make minor syntactic fixes for clarity if needed, but do not allow a full conceptual redesign at this point.

### 3. Poll simultaneously (3 minutes)

Ask each person to silently write their chosen number (1 to 8) on their slip of paper. Count to three and have everyone show their paper at once. Tally the count next to each number on the main scale chart.

### 4. Examine distribution (3 minutes)

Report the distribution neutrally without judgment. Compare the counts against the pre-agreed threshold. State whether the threshold was met or if outliers fall outside the target zone.

### 5. Hear high-number concerns (9 minutes)

Invite participants who chose higher numbers (levels 5 to 8) to state what specific modification would move them closer to agreement. Prevent debate or persuasion from others. If a concrete minor amendment emerges, verify whether it would push any participants at 1 to 3 further away.

### 6. Record outcome (3 minutes)

State the final decision: whether the proposal is adopted as written, adopted with an agreed amendment, or held for further work outside this meeting. Note any logged implementation concerns next to the tally.


## Debrief questions

- How did seeing the spread of numbers change our understanding compared to a simple yes or no?
- What specific concern raised today was most important to capture before implementation?

**Finished output:** A charted tally of group support across the 8-point scale and an explicit logged status (accepted, modified, or tabled).

## Remote

Display the proposal and the 8-point scale on a shared slide. Ask participants to privately direct-message their number to the facilitator, or type their number into the public meeting chat and press Enter together on a count of three. The facilitator inputs the tallies onto the shared screen.

## Hybrid

Display the digital scale on the room monitor and video share. In-person participants write numbers on cards and remote participants type numbers into chat. On the facilitator's count, in-person members raise cards while remote members submit chat messages simultaneously. The facilitator posts the combined counts onto the shared chart.

## Access and participation choices

- Point 4 on the scale explicitly allows anyone to abstain without giving reasons.
- Provide a printed or digital copy of the 8-point scale definitions at each seat or screen for reference.

## If the session gets stuck

**Participants try to argue with someone who selected a 7 or 8 during discussion.**

Intervene immediately. Remind the room that the purpose is to understand the specific risk or objection, not to convince or pressure the speaker.

**The group splits widely with many people selecting 5 (More Discussion Needed).**

Acknowledge that the proposal is not ready for convergence. Table the vote and assign a pair to rework the proposal with clearer data.


## Terms used here

- Gradients of Agreement: An eight-point scale developed to measure varying degrees of consensus on a proposal.
- Threshold of Agreement: The pre-determined range on the scale (such as all scores between 1 and 4) required for a proposal to pass.

## Participant material: Gradients of Agreement 8-Point Scale Reference

1. Wholehearted Endorsement: I love this.
2. Agreement with a Minor Point of Contention: Basically agree, with tiny quibbles.
3. Support with Reservations: I have doubts, but I support moving forward.
4. Abstain: This does not affect me or I take no position.
5. More Discussion Needed: I am not ready; key questions remain open.
6. Don't Like But Will Support: I disagree personally, but I will not block it.
7. Serious Disagreement: I strongly oppose this and want major changes.
8. Veto: I cannot live with this proposal under any circumstances.

## Sources and adaptation

Observed in WorkshopBank documentation. WorkshopBank attributes the Gradients of Agreement method to Sam Kaner, Duane Berger, and staff of Community At Work (1987).

Retained the core 8-point scale, pre-agreed threshold rule, and outlier exploration process from Kaner via WorkshopBank. Added explicit step timing summing to 25 minutes, hybrid parallel polling protocol, and plain participant materials.

[WorkshopBank](https://workshopbank.com/tools/gradients-of-agreement)

Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/gradients-of-agreement-workshopbank/