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: 386a26b6105f13b2326381e02b4d4d540167e14763847502e00b394b63996131

# Pixar Critique Sessions

Participants analyze a single proposed course of action by spending timed intervals identifying its strengths, followed by its risks and flaws. The group records all points without debate to produce a balanced two-column critique.

**Time:** 25 minutes. Source suggests 15 to 30 minutes. UWT standardizes on 25 minutes to include framing and debrief.
**People:** 4 to 24. Whole group with designated scribe, or small groups of 4 to 6 when running above 12 participants.

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** List the advantages and operational risks of a single proposal without early defensive debate.
**Use it when:** Use when a team is about to commit to a major decision, project plan, or direction and needs opposing viewpoints out in the open.
**Skip it when:** Skip when the team is still generating initial options or when interpersonal conflict makes open critique unsafe without ground rules.

## Materials and tools

- One whiteboard or flipchart easel per group
- Two dry-erase or flipchart markers per group (differing colors)
- One 3x5 index card per participant
- One pen per participant
- One countdown timer visible to the room

## Before participants arrive

1. Write the single proposed course of action clearly at the top of the board.
2. Divide the board into two columns labeled 'Pros / Strengths' and 'Cons / Vulnerabilities'.
3. Place index cards and pens at each seat.

## Say this to open

Today we are evaluating one specific proposal. Our job is not to defend it or kill it, but to surface every strength and every risk so we can make an informed choice. Everyone has equal responsibility to call out errors and highlight what works. First, take two minutes to write your honest thoughts on your card.

## How to run it

### 1. Frame and silent note-taking (3 minutes)

State the proposed action clearly. Direct participants to write down at least one pro and one con on their private index card. Remind everyone that cards remain personal reference notes unless they choose to share.

### 2. Map the strengths (8 minutes)

Open the floor exclusively for pros, strengths, and upside consequences. Have a volunteer scribe write each point under the 'Pros' column as fast as it is stated. Enforce the rule: no criticism, rebuttals, or cons allowed during this block.

### 3. Map the vulnerabilities (8 minutes)

Switch the focus exclusively to cons, risks, past failure points, and operational flaws. The scribe writes every concern under 'Cons'. Encourage people to draw from direct past experiences. Forbid defensive responses or attempts to fix the problems during this block.

### 4. Review and debrief (6 minutes)

Review the completed board together. Invite up to three participants to name any pattern or surprise across both columns. Ask the debrief questions to close the session.


## Debrief questions

- Which risk listed under Cons was the most uncomfortable to bring up?
- Did seeing the full list of Pros change how you view the viability of the idea?
- What is one concrete modification that directly removes our biggest recorded vulnerability?

**Finished output:** A visible two-column chart displaying all unedited pros and cons of the proposed decision.

## Remote

Use a shared digital canvas (such as Miro or a shared document) divided into Pros and Cons columns. Run silent card writing in private notes. During verbal rounds, invite participants to type bullet points directly or call them out for a designated scribe. Keep cameras optional and accept written chat inputs simultaneously.

## Hybrid

Appoint a dedicated digital scribe. Have in-room speakers speak into the central microphone before speaking. Display the shared virtual board on the room screen so both online and in-person participants view the identical list update live.

## Access and participation choices

- Participants may submit points aloud, hand written notes to the scribe, or type in the chat.
- Anyone may pass entirely during public rounds without explanation; private index cards remain personal property.

## If the session gets stuck

**Participants immediately argue or defend the proposal during the Cons phase.**

Intervene immediately: 'Hold the defense. We are not solving or debating yet; we are simply logging the vulnerability. Scribe, please add the raw concern.'

**One or two senior members dominate the feedback while others stay quiet.**

Pause open speaking. Run a round where each person around the table offers one item from their card or explicitly says 'Pass'.


## Terms used here

- Pull the red card: An operational metaphor for granting any team member authority to halt a plan to address an unresolved safety or quality error.

## Sources and adaptation

Observed in Relationship Makers Handbook, pages 311-312, where it is titled 'Pixar Critique Sessions' and references Pixar's meeting culture.

Retained the core mechanic of dedicated timed phases for pros and cons, non-defensive logging, and optional initial index card writing from the Relationship Makers Handbook. UWT added explicit time partitions (3/8/8/6), structured debrief prompts, scribe roles, and hybrid coordination protocols.

Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/pixar-critique-sessions/