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: 93b07126beacae20cefc9b50f88228457f36cffa8ad2a53b0260314e3e745f82

# Envelopes

Small teams generate concrete examples or solutions for a stated topic on an envelope, pass the envelopes blindly across multiple rounds, and then evaluate and score the accumulated cards using a hundred-point distribution.

**Time:** 25 minutes. UWT suggested 25-minute schedule based on three 3-minute generation rounds, one 6-minute evaluation round, and a debrief.
**People:** 8 to 20. Four teams of 2 to 5 people each. The number of teams exactly matches the four topic envelopes.

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Compare and prioritize concrete behavioral examples or solutions across multiple topic areas.
**Use it when:** Use when a group needs to translate abstract concepts, core values, or complex policies into specific, observable behaviors and evaluate their practical value.
**Skip it when:** Skip when the group has fewer than eight people or when the work requires individual private reflection rather than peer evaluation.

## Materials and tools

- 4 large mailing envelopes, each labeled on the outside with one distinct topic or value
- 12 to 16 blank index cards (lined index cards available on request)
- 4 standard pens plus optional large-print pens
- 1 digital countdown timer or stopwatch

## Before participants arrive

1. Select 4 distinct topics or organizational values based on session goals.
2. Write one topic clearly on the face of each envelope.
3. Distribute 3 blank index cards and 1 pen to each team table.
4. Arrange 4 team tables in a clear clockwise passing sequence.

## Say this to open

Today we will turn abstract values into concrete actions. Each team holds an envelope with a distinct topic. In each round, your team has three minutes to write observable behaviors for that topic onto an index card. Drop your card into the envelope without reading what others wrote, and pass it clockwise. At the end, teams review and score the accumulated cards.

## How to run it

### 1. Introduce and write round 1 (4 minutes)

Divide participants into 4 equal teams. Hand one labeled envelope and 3 index cards to each team. Read the opening script. Start a 3-minute timer. Teams brainstorm and record observable behaviors for their envelope's topic on their first index card.

### 2. Pass and complete generation rounds (9 minutes)

Direct teams to place their card inside the envelope unsealed without reading prior cards. Pass envelopes clockwise. Run two more 3-minute rounds following this exact rule: read only the label, write ideas on a fresh card, insert it, and pass. Stop when each team receives a fourth envelope.

### 3. Evaluate and distribute 100 points (6 minutes)

Teams keep their fourth envelope and remove all three cards inside. Give teams 5 minutes to compare the cards and distribute exactly 100 points among them based on clarity and practical value. For example, assign 50 points to the strongest card and 25 each to the other two. Teams write scores directly on each card.

### 4. Share rankings and debrief (6 minutes)

Invite each team to name their envelope topic and read their highest-scoring card. Hear up to 4 shares. Display cards for walk-up review. Ask two selected debrief questions to close.


## Debrief questions

- What made a specific behavior clear and actionable enough to earn high points during evaluation?
- Looking across the cards, where did different teams generate nearly identical ideas without seeing each other's work?
- Which evaluated behavior could you put into practice immediately tomorrow?

**Finished output:** Four labeled envelopes containing peer-evaluated index cards with specific behavioral examples scored across a 100-point distribution.

## Remote

Set up a shared digital whiteboard (such as Miro or Mural) with 4 labeled frames. Each frame has private sticky notes or hidden note containers. Teams rotate across breakout rooms or designated areas for three 3-minute rounds, adding notes without reading prior contributions. In the evaluation round, teams reveal all notes in their assigned frame and allocate 100 points total using digital text labels.

## Hybrid

In-person teams use physical envelopes while remote participants form a dedicated online team using a digital workspace frame. During passing phases, an in-person facilitator transcribes or photos physical cards into the digital frame and prints or writes remote ideas onto cards for physical envelopes, ensuring equal cross-pollination before final evaluation.

## Access and participation choices

- Large-print pens and lined index cards are available on request.
- Participants may choose whether to serve as their team's writer, reader, or timekeeper.
- Teams and individuals may pass on reading their cards aloud during the final sharing step.

## If the session gets stuck

**A team looks inside the envelope during an early generation round to see previous ideas.**

Remind everyone that prior cards remain private until the scoring round so every team generates independent ideas. Have them replace the card immediately and proceed based solely on the envelope title.

**A team's point distribution does not sum to 100 during the evaluation round.**

Ask one teammate to sum the numbers aloud before writing them down. If the total is off, give them one minute to adjust the points so the sum equals 100.


## Terms used here

- Framegame: A reusable activity structure or game template where the mechanics stay the same while the training content changes.
- 100-Point Distribution: A scoring method where a team divides a fixed pool of 100 points among several options to show relative merit.

## Sources and adaptation

Observed in Play for Performance newsletter (February 2002), published by Workshops by Thiagi, Inc., featuring the Envelopes framegame structure illustrated via Value Envelopes.

Retained the Envelopes framegame mechanic documented in Play for Performance (February 2002): envelope labels, independent generation, blind envelope rotation, and 100-point relative distribution. UWT standardized the design to 4 teams and 4 envelopes (requiring 8 to 20 participants) across 3 generation rounds and 1 evaluation round to ensure smooth arithmetic within 25 minutes.

[The Thiagi Group](https://thiagi.net/archive/www/pfp/IE4H/february2002.html)

[The Thiagi Group](http://thiagi.net/archive/www/pfp/IE4H/february2002.html)

Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/pfp-february-2002/