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: a3524d5fede73bbb79ec87b24940422439a61de8e3aa29388974715ebc66d57f

# Pros and Cons: The Basics

Small groups analyze a proposed action by listing merits and demerits, assigning numeric weights to each, and calculating a net score.

**Time:** 20 minutes. 20 minutes suggested by UWT to allow setup, listing, scoring, room tally, and debrief.
**People:** 4 to 24. Small teams of 3 to 5 participants, with verbal reporting limited to 4 representative teams while others post scores in silence.

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Compare the advantages and disadvantages of a proposed course of action using weighted criteria.
**Use it when:** Use when a team faces a single clear proposal or distinct alternative and needs to make trade-offs visible.
**Skip it when:** Skip when the core problem is undefined, when people need to invent novel options, or when emotional buy-in requires narrative dialogue rather than numeric tallying.

## Materials and tools

- One sheet of blank paper per small group
- One pen or marker per small group
- Whiteboard or flip chart and markers for room tally
- Shared digital document or virtual whiteboard if running remotely

## Before participants arrive

1. Write the single decision prompt clearly on the main display (for example: 'Adopt an asynchronous-first communication policy').
2. Draw a simple two-column T-chart labeled 'Pros' on the left and 'Cons' on the right on the room board.
3. For remote sessions, prepare a shared digital whiteboard with pre-drawn T-charts labeled for each breakout room.

## Say this to open

We have a specific decision to evaluate today. We will map the arguments for and against this choice, assign weights based on practical impact, and calculate the net balance. This brings our assumptions into plain view before we commit.

## How to run it

### 1. Frame the proposal (3 minutes)

Read the opening script and point to the decision prompt. Divide the room into teams of 3 to 5 participants. For 4 people, run one team of 4. For other counts, form groups of 3 or 4, adding a 5th person to any team when numbers require. Each team draws a T-chart with 'Pros' on the left and 'Cons' on the right on their paper.

### 2. Brainstorm arguments (5 minutes)

Teams brainstorm arguments. Write positive consequences in the Pros column and negative consequences or risks in the Cons column. Anyone may pass on suggesting points. Stop writing when time is called.

### 3. Weigh and score (4 minutes)

Teams assign a weight to every item. Rate pros from +1 to +5 based on positive impact. Rate cons from -1 to -5 based on severity. Add all numbers together to get a net sum. Neutral example: a pro of 'saves 10 hours weekly' earns +4; a con of 'setup license cost' earns -3; net score is +1.

### 4. Tally and debrief (8 minutes)

Collect net scores on the board. Exactly four representative teams give a 30-second verbal report of their total and top driver; remaining teams post scores silently. Spend the remaining 6 minutes facilitating two debrief questions with the whole room to compare score divergence and underlying assumptions.


## Debrief questions

- Which arguments received the heaviest weights, and what made them decisive?
- Did your group's net score match your initial instinct before doing the math?
- What missing fact or uncertainty could tip your total in the opposite direction?

**Finished output:** A scored T-chart from each subgroup with weighted arguments and a net total for the evaluated decision.

## Remote

Set up a shared digital whiteboard with pre-drawn T-charts labeled for each breakout room. Split participants into breakout rooms of 3 to 5 for Steps 2 and 3. Return to the main session for Step 4, where spokespeople enter their final totals in chat.

## Hybrid

Form pure in-person pods and pure remote breakout pods. Both post their net scores and top arguments to the shared digital board so the whole room reviews identical data during tallying.

## Access and participation choices

- Participants may write ideas silently, speak them aloud to a partner, or observe without scoring.
- Any participant may pass during discussion turns without giving an explanation.

## If the session gets stuck

**A group stalls arguing whether an item is worth 3 or 4 points.**

Remind them that scores show relative order of magnitude, not formal accounting. Instruct them to take an average or flip a coin to stay on schedule.

**One vocal member dominates the list with personal objections.**

Ask groups to take round-robin turns where each member suggests one pro or one con in sequence.


## Terms used here

- T-chart: A two-column chart named for its T shape, used to compare opposing viewpoints or lists.

## Sources and adaptation

Observed in EasyRetro template documentation ('Pros and Cons List'). Weighted pros and cons analysis is a traditional public-domain decision method.

Retained the core two-column listing and numeric weighting mechanic (+5 to -1/-5) described in EasyRetro evidence. UWT structured the activity into a 20-minute facilitation plan with specific subgroup division rules, explicit reporting time limits, and debrief prompts.

[EasyRetro](https://easyretro.io/templates/pros-and-cons/)

Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/pros-and-cons-the-basics/