Peanut Butter and Jelly

Choose this exercise

Purpose: Demonstrate the gap between implied intentions and literal instructions in written processes.

Use it when: Use when teams need to write standard operating procedures, hand off technical work, or specify requirements.

Skip it when: Skip when dealing with severe airborne peanut allergies in an enclosed room, or when teams are currently experiencing high interpersonal friction around compliance.

Group arrangement: Teams of 3 to 5 people, followed by a whole-group demonstration

Timing: Relationship Makers Handbook suggests 15 to 30 minutes; UWT structures standard delivery at 20 minutes.

Materials and tools

• 1 loaf of sliced bread
• 1 jar of peanut butter or seed butter alternative
• 1 jar of jelly or jam
• 2 butter knives or plastic spreaders
• 1 roll of paper towels and wet wipes
• 1 plastic or washable table cover
• 1 pad of paper and pen per small team

Before participants arrive

1. Check with participants in advance for contact or airborne peanut allergies; substitute sunflower seed butter if needed.
2. Set up a demo table at the front covered with the plastic cloth.
3. Place unopened jars, bagged bread loaf, and knives on the table.

Say this to open

Your team has five minutes to write exact, numbered instructions for making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Write for someone who takes every word 100 percent literally and knows nothing about cooking. Do not assume any common sense.

How to run it

1. Draft instructions 5 minutes

   Form teams of 3 to 5. Hand each team a pen and paper. Teams write numbered, step-by-step instructions for making a sandwich. When finished, teams fold their arms or signal they are done.

2. Collect and select plans 2 minutes

   Collect all written instruction sheets. Select two sheets: one that leaves out basic physical steps like opening jars or bags, and one that is relatively detailed.

3. Execute literally 8 minutes

   Invite a designated chef (facilitator or volunteer) to the front. The facilitator reads the first chosen set of instructions aloud, one line at a time. The chef performs each command completely literally without correcting errors. For example, if the paper says 'put peanut butter on the bread,' place the closed jar on the bag of bread. Next, read the second, more detailed set of instructions to demonstrate how specific precision changes the result.

4. Debrief 5 minutes

   Facilitate a short group reflection connecting literal execution to everyday communication and work processes.

Debrief questions

• Where did the instructions rely on unstated assumptions?
• What happened when the chef followed your exact words rather than your intent?
• How does this dynamic show up in our team handoffs, documentation, or delegation?

Finished output: Two physically demonstrated instruction sets showing the effect of unstated assumptions on execution.

Remote

Run via video call with collaborative text documents. Teams enter breakout rooms of 3 to 5 for 5 minutes to draft steps in a shared document. Return to the main room. The facilitator points a camera at their kitchen counter or desk with the physical supplies and performs the literal execution live on camera as a designated team member reads their steps.

Hybrid

Form small teams purely in-person or purely remote. Remote teams collaborate in a shared document, while in-person teams write on paper. The facilitator points the room camera directly at the demo table so remote participants clearly see the literal demonstration.

Access and participation choices

• Substitute sunflower seed butter or soy nut butter to accommodate allergies.
• Participants may choose to write, read aloud, observe, or volunteer as the chef without pressure.

If the session gets stuck

Participants write excessively pedantic instructions and take too long.

Enforce the 5-minute hard stop. Even detailed lists usually overlook simple steps like opening containers or picking up tools.

The chef starts anticipating and fixing the team's mistakes.

Remind the chef to act like a literal computer program that cannot guess context.

Terms used here

• Literal execution: Acting strictly on the exact wording provided without adding human common sense or context.