# Empowered Teams Participants negotiate among themselves to sort the room into balanced working groups using concrete criteria posted on the board. They evaluate trade-offs directly rather than having the facilitator assign rosters. **Time:** 10 minutes. UWT suggested duration. Playmeo source suggests allowing several minutes. **People:** 6 to 24. Whole-group negotiation dividing into 2 to 4 teams of 3 to 6 members ## Choose this exercise **Purpose:** Form balanced working groups based on transparent criteria through participant self-organization. **Use it when:** Use when starting a workshop or project session where cross-functional, diverse, or skill-balanced teams are needed for upcoming tasks. **Skip it when:** Skip when demographic categories risk singling out isolated individuals, when participants lack clear functional criteria to sort by, or when quick random pairing is sufficient. ## Materials and tools - 1 whiteboard or flip chart - 1 dry-erase marker or flip-chart pen - Numbered table cards or signs (1 through 4) - Optional blank index cards or pre-printed role cards for nonverbal declarations ## Before participants arrive 1. Count present attendees and calculate target team sizes (for example, 16 people become four teams of four; 14 people become two teams of five and one team of four). 2. Write the target number of teams, exact headcounts per team, and 2 or 3 non-sensitive balancing criteria on the whiteboard (for example: department mix, project role, tenure band). 3. Place numbered signs at physical tables or designated room stations to mark team gathering spots. ## Say this to open We need to form working groups for today's tasks. Instead of assigning you, you will organize yourselves. As written on the board, our target is [X] teams of [Y] people. Each team must balance the posted criteria: [read criteria]. Talk together, trade spots as needed, and gather at your chosen table when your team meets the target size and balance. You have five minutes. ## How to run it ### 1. Set parameters and rules (2 minutes) Read the opening script. Point out the target team numbers, exact headcount per team, and balancing criteria written on the board. If the total group count does not divide evenly, specify exactly which numbered tables accept one additional person so sizes vary by at most one member. Announce that participants may speak freely or use index cards to indicate their roles. ### 2. Self-organize across the room (5 minutes) Participants circulate, discuss their attributes relative to the posted criteria, and assemble at the numbered tables. If a table fills up or concentrates one attribute, participants negotiate swaps across tables. Give time checks at three minutes and one minute remaining. Stop when all tables reach their assigned headcounts and report they satisfy the balancing criteria. ### 3. Verify group composition (1 minutes) Conduct a quick roll call of tables. Have one representative from each table state their headcount and confirm how they satisfied each balancing criterion. Make any final single-person swap if a team missed a stated requirement. ### 4. Debrief team formation (2 minutes) Ask the room the debrief questions. Take two brief observations from volunteers on how they negotiated trade-offs and how self-selection compared to top-down assignment. ## Debrief questions - What trade-offs or adjustments did you have to negotiate to balance your groups? - How did choosing your own balanced group compare to having the facilitator assign rosters? **Finished output:** Formed working teams that meet the posted headcount targets and balancing criteria, ready for downstream workshop tasks. ## Remote Display the criteria and target team headcounts on a shared slide. Create open breakout rooms labeled Team 1 through Team 4. Allow participants to self-select into breakout rooms. Instruct participants to check the room roster and move between rooms until all rooms meet both the headcount cap and the criteria balance. Keep the main room open for anyone who prefers facilitator placement. ## Hybrid Assign each physical table a dedicated video conference station. Distribute remote participants evenly across table stations first. In-person participants then self-organize around those stations to satisfy the remaining criteria, ensuring remote participants are not clustered into a single separated group. ## Access and participation choices - Participants may write their functional role or relevant criteria on an index card to avoid verbal pitching. - Anyone uncomfortable negotiating group membership may privately notify the facilitator before or during step 1 to be placed onto an assigned team. ## If the session gets stuck **One table fills to capacity immediately with close friends, ignoring the balancing criteria.** Point to the posted criteria on the board. Ask that table to check their balance against the rules and release members to trade with other tables. **Total attendee count is not evenly divisible by the target team count.** Announce in step 1 exactly which numbered tables take an extra person (for example, two teams of four and one team of five) so headcounts vary by at most one person. ## Terms used here - Balancing criteria: Observable functional attributes, project roles, or experience bands used to distribute skills evenly across groups. ## Sources and adaptation Observed on Playmeo, where the activity is attributed to Mark Collard. Retains the core mechanic from Playmeo (participants self-organize into balanced teams using explicit criteria). UWT bounded the duration to 10 minutes, shifted suggested criteria from sensitive demographic markers to functional workshop skills, reconciled uneven group distribution rules, and added structured remote, hybrid, and opt-out paths. [Playmeo](https://www.playmeo.com/activities/trust-building-games/empowered-teams) [Playmeo](https://www.playmeo.com/activities/trust-building-games/empowered-teams/) Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/structured-team-formation-for-balanced-groups-empowered-teams/