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: 5253d2054bc6fef236d5104c6a2a7f6039844eedcd55e8e360ee9a9bb742a053

# Improv Prototyping

Participants observe a brief, realistic enactment of a recurring interpersonal impasse, analyze the exact verbal and physical actions that caused it, and iteratively rehearse and stage improved alternatives.

**Time:** 30 minutes. Liberating Structures specifies approximately 20 minutes per round. This run sheet sets 30 minutes for a complete, structured single cycle with whole-room debrief.
**People:** 6 to 24. 2 stage actors and small observer clusters. For remaining participants, form clusters of 4. Clusters of 3 or 5 absorb odd counts. Never form an isolated cluster of 2; merge a remaining pair into adjacent clusters to make groups of 5.

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Test workable verbal and physical behaviors for a recurring interpersonal impasse through live staging, observation, and iterative group rehearsal.
**Use it when:** Use when teams face repeated communication breakdowns during handoffs, boundary negotiations, or difficult conversations, and theoretical discussion has failed to change habits.
**Skip it when:** Skip when psychological safety is insufficient for peer observation, when issues stem strictly from technical or policy defects rather than human interaction, or when participants fear punitive evaluations from leaders present.

## Materials and tools

- Observer Chunk Tracking Sheets (1 per participant)
- Pens (1 per person)
- Flip chart and markers for facilitator
- Timer
- Desk and 2 chairs for stage area
- Baseline Scenario Brief and Facilitator Guide

## Before participants arrive

1. Clear a stage area at the front with two chairs and a table.
2. Arrange observer chairs in clusters of 4 (with clusters of 3 or 5 as needed) facing the stage.
3. Place one Observer Chunk Tracking Sheet and pen on each chair.
4. Brief 2 pre-selected volunteers 15 minutes before the session using this script: 'You will play out this 3-minute dispute naturally. Do not try to solve it or turn it into comedy. Push your stated interest, interrupt slightly when frustrated, and stop when we reach an impasse. We want a realistic failure point, not a polished performance.'

## Say this to open

Today we use Improv Prototyping to rehearse our way through a tough workplace conversation. Instead of analyzing what people should do abstractly, we will watch a realistic scene, isolate specific phrases and postures that helped or hurt, and test practical alternatives in our small groups. You do not need acting experience. Watch for concrete words and physical cues that stall or move the interaction forward.

## How to run it

### 1. Introduce scenario and set roles (3 minutes)

Deliver the opening script. Describe the background scenario and introduce the two volunteer actors. Instruct observers to watch quietly and record specific verbal phrases, tones, and postures on their tracking sheets.

### 2. Enact baseline scene (4 minutes)

The two volunteer actors play the baseline scene for up to 3 minutes, demonstrating a realistic interpersonal stall without resolving it. Call cut as soon as the impasse is reached. Use the remaining time in this 4-minute stage for positioning and transition.

### 3. Analyze behavioral chunks (6 minutes)

Clusters analyze the scene progressively. Individuals spend 1 minute writing successful and unsuccessful chunks. Partners compare notes for 2 minutes (using trios in odd groups). The full cluster spends 3 minutes agreeing on two key failure points and choosing an alternative phrase or posture to test.

### 4. Rehearse prototype in small groups (6 minutes)

Each cluster rehearses its new sequence. Two members speak the lines while peers coach, suggest precise words, or direct body posture. Members who prefer not to act out loud can scribe, keep time, or provide verbal direction.

### 5. Demonstrate improved prototype (4 minutes)

Invite one volunteer cluster to the stage to enact their revised scene (3 minutes). Observers note the specific verbal and physical differences from the original baseline. Other clusters hold their alternative tactics ready for immediate plenary capture.

### 6. Debrief and capture tactics (7 minutes)

Facilitate a structured debrief. Ask what specific words or shifts altered the second scene. Take 4 spoken observations, then invite non-performing clusters to share their alternative tested tactics. Record 3 to 5 clear, usable behavioral moves on the plenary flip chart.


## Debrief questions

- What exact phrase or physical shift changed the direction of the interaction in the revised scene?
- Which specific chunk tested in your small group could you apply in your daily work this week?
- What habit tends to pull you into the baseline impasse, and what cue will remind you to test a new move?

**Finished output:** A tested sequence of verbal and physical tactics for the scenario, with 3 to 5 concrete behavioral moves recorded on a room flip chart or digital board.

## Remote

Spotlight the active actors on video during the stage scenes. Send observers to breakout rooms of 3 to 5 people to dissect chunks and practice alternative lines on camera or through chat. For the re-enactment, spotlight the volunteer breakout team. Collect alternative lines from all other groups via plenary chat waterfall before debriefing.

## Hybrid

Arrange room seating so physical clusters see both the live stage and the remote video screen. Remote participants form their own online breakout clusters. Remote actors can be projected onto a room screen to pair with an in-person actor, or act as a separate remote pair. Remote groups post their chunks in the shared digital workspace while in-person groups write on tracking sheets.

## Access and participation choices

- Participants may serve as silent observers, timekeepers, scribes, or directors rather than acting out loud.
- Participants may submit suggested dialogue in writing without speaking or acting on stage.

## If the session gets stuck

**Actors turn the baseline scene into exaggerated parody or broad comedy, eliminating realistic stakes.**

Intervene immediately. Direct the actors to reset, lower their volume, speak at a normal conversational pace, and focus on practical workplace stakes.

**Observer clusters spend breakout time debating abstract communication philosophy instead of rehearsing lines.**

Step in and prompt two participants directly: 'Speak the opening line right now and test how your partner responds.'


## Terms used here

- Chunk: A distinct, observable micro-behavior, phrase, tone, or physical movement within an interaction.
- Prototype: A quick, rough behavioral rehearsal conducted to test if an interaction pattern succeeds.

## Participant material: Observer Chunk Tracking Sheet

IMPROV PROTOTYPING: OBSERVER TRACKING SHEET

Scenario Role Observed:

1. SUCCESSFUL CHUNKS (Specific words, tone, posture, or timing that opened communication):
- 
- 

2. UNSUCCESSFUL CHUNKS (Specific phrases, defensive postures, or interruptions that stalled or escalated tension):
- 
- 

3. PROPOSED COUNTER-MOVE (Exact words or observable action to test in the next round):
- 

## Participant material: Baseline Scenario Brief

BASELINE SCENARIO BRIEF: THE SCOPE DISPUTE

Context: Urgent project handoff meeting.

Role A (Project Lead): You need a report finalized by tomorrow morning. The other party has missed two informal deadlines. You feel stressed, start with blunt blame, and interrupt when they explain their workload.

Role B (Specialist): You are overloaded with unexpected system outages. You feel unappreciated and defensive. You cross your arms, offer short answers, and refuse to commit to any new deadline until management reduces your queue.

Objective: Enact this 3-minute conversation realistically. Do not solve the problem. End in an impasse.

## Participant material: Facilitator Scenario Preparation Guide

SCENARIO CREATION GUIDE (FACILITATOR PREP)

If not using the Scope Dispute scenario, write a custom brief using this format:
1. Context: A recurring workplace friction point familiar to the group.
2. Role A: Goal, current pressure, and negative communication trigger (e.g., blunt demand, rushed pace).
3. Role B: Goal, defensive stance, and sticking point (e.g., stonewalling, deflection).
4. Length: 3 minutes maximum.
5. Outcome: Must demonstrate a realistic failure or deadlock, avoiding exaggerated comedy.

## Sources and adaptation

Observed in the Liberating Structures menu by Keith McCandless and Henri Lipmanowicz, who cite inspiration from Antonas Mockus and applied improvisation, with analytical framing adapted from Dr. Alan Duncan.

Retains the core Liberating Structures structure: baseline staging, chunk analysis via 1-2-4-All progressive sharing, breakout rehearsal, and plenary demonstration. UWT standardized the run to a 30-minute block, added explicit actor briefing guidance to prevent parodic play, resolved small-group clustering arithmetic by prohibiting isolated pairs of observers, and expanded the debrief step to harvest tactics from non-performing groups.

[Liberating Structures](https://www.liberatingstructures.com/15-improv-prototyping/)

[Liberating Structures](http://www.liberatingstructures.com/15-improv-prototyping/)

[SessionLab](https://www.sessionlab.com/methods/improv-prototyping)

Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/improv-prototyping/