Manager
Prepare a funded recommendation and a clear response to staff and community input.
Open workshop packLoading Academy & Workforce…
We use Google Analytics, Vercel Web Analytics, and Vercel Speed Insights to improve the site. Select Decline to turn them off in this browser. We honor GPC and Do Not Track. Read our Privacy Policy.
90 min · 12 participants · Script, cards and editable tools
Lead a complete sequence, preserve participant choice and turn ideas into a realistic handoff.
Prepare a funded recommendation and a clear response to staff and community input.
Open workshop packPrepare a member-directed proposal that preserves differences and checks the local decision process.
Open workshop packHelp a worker prepare a clear workload question, choose what to share and track the response.
Open workshop packLeave with a costed scope, paid-capacity map, useful measures and an owner for the next decision.
Practice course
Practice choosing and leading small-group methods for fair, useful decisions.
Use the case details. Leave out real patient and staff information.
Getting your practice ready…
This is a free course, not legal, clinical, or billing advice. Your completion record is not a license or CE credit.
Use fictional details. Notes stay in this tab; download a copy to keep them.
Printable toolkitFictional case: eight coworkers will suggest improvements to the community room booking handoff. You are preparing the invitation and timing for 1-2-4-All. This exercise is a 12-minute preparation rehearsal.
Write a 45-second invitation, the five timing blocks, and how you will keep minority suggestions visible.
“What would make the room booking handoff clearer within the two paid test hours? We are generating suggestions for the coordinator. You may write, speak or pass; send private input through the agreed channel. Keep different options visible.” Prepare eight seats in peer pairs and fours, with paper available. Run 1 + 1 + 2 + 5 + 7 minutes. Capture options, unanswered questions and resource needs, then name when the coordinator will respond.
Rehearse the opening aloud. Remove one vague promise and add the report-back time.
The organizer books only ten minutes for the whole meeting. A participant also requests interpretation.
Write the scheduling response before sending invitations.
Ask for a longer paid session: the method alone needs 16 minutes, plus opening, closing and the time agreed with the language provider. If that cannot be funded, choose a different listening format and describe its actual steps. Agree language support and peer grouping before inviting people.
Preparation card — 1-2-4-All Shared question: ___ Decision owner/open scope: ___ People/space/materials: ___ Access and private input: ___ Method: invitation 1 / alone 1 / pairs 2 / fours 5 / all 7 = 16 min Additional opening/closing/language time: ___ Options/disagreement to retain: ___ Response owner/date: ___
Describe this as a facilitation rehearsal. After a real session, document the invitation, adaptations, outputs and participant feedback before claiming a facilitation result.
FQHC Talent Exchange adaptation: fictional case, invitation, access and follow-up. Liberating Structures: Henri Lipmanowicz and Keith McCandless (2013); Keith McCandless and Nancy White (2026 Fieldbook). No endorsement implied. Keep credit and links.
Original method · CC BY-SA 4.0Fictional case: a community room coordinator wants clearer handoffs. In a 15% Solutions preparation rehearsal, a colleague proposes staying late to rewrite everyone’s instructions.
Ask two coaching questions, suggest one action within the colleague’s authority, and name an obstacle needing another owner.
“Which part of your own template can you change in the 20 paid minutes? What would tell you the handoff became clearer?” Offer to add a named receiver and a confirmation field to their own template, then ask whether that suggestion helps. An inbox owned by another team remains a request for that team. Ask permission before sharing the idea.
Rewrite your advice as an offer the colleague can decline, and add a small check of the result.
The template is locked and the colleague has no editing access. They can send a suggestion during the same paid time.
Revise the action and explain how you will track the unresolved change.
Draft and send one sample handoff to the template owner within the paid time, asking whether the proposed fields are useful. The owner decides about editing access and a wider change. Record the request and follow-up date. The colleague can choose a different action or decline.
Preparation card — 15% Solutions Challenge: ___ My authority/resources/paid minutes: ___ Action I choose: ___ Peer question and advice offered: ___ Permission to share: ___ Obstacle/decision owner: ___ Result to check/date: ___ Full method: 1 + 5 + 6–9 + 11 + 2 = 25–28 min; add session support time.
Explain how you checked capacity and coached without assigning extra work. Use observed results from your own work for future interview examples.
FQHC Talent Exchange adaptation: fictional case, invitation, access and follow-up. Liberating Structures: Henri Lipmanowicz and Keith McCandless (2013); Keith McCandless and Nancy White (2026 Fieldbook). No endorsement implied. Keep credit and links.
Original method · CC BY-SA 4.0Fictional case: a resource fair team tested two invitation messages. A supervisor wants the debrief to begin with “the new message worked.” Prepare a W3 debrief that can hold different explanations.
Write one observation, two possible explanations, and one next step. Show how each W3 round will collect everyone’s input.
What: replies were 8/20 (40%) and 15/30 (50%); paid hours rose by three. So What: the message may have mattered, or the different recipients may explain the change; attendance is unknown. Now What: the event lead proposes a better comparison and a way to record paid hours and attendance. In each round, begin with silent writing, share in the seven-person group, then capture key points together. Keep explanations separate from observations.
Replace the supervisor’s opening with a question that leaves room for surprise.
A worker privately reports that preparation took two more paid hours than the log shows and asks to correct the total without being named.
Revise the observations and follow-up while respecting that sharing choice.
Ask the time-log owner to verify the missing two hours without circulating the worker’s identity. Mark seven hours as incomplete pending that check; if confirmed, use nine. Invite the group to revisit the comparison after the correction, and record who will report back.
Preparation card — W3 Question/test: ___ What — observations, counts, unknowns: ___ So What — possible meanings and disagreements: ___ Now What — action, owner, paid resources, review date: ___ Each round: alone 1 / small groups 3 / plenary 2 min Introduction 2 + three rounds × 6 = 20 method min Additional opening/closing/access time: ___
Explain the observations, alternative explanations and revision you practiced. A real facilitation story should include participant feedback and your own contribution.
FQHC Talent Exchange adaptation: fictional case, invitation, access and follow-up. Liberating Structures: Henri Lipmanowicz and Keith McCandless (2013); Keith McCandless and Nancy White (2026 Fieldbook). No endorsement implied. Keep credit and links.
Original method · CC BY-SA 4.0Adapted from Liberating Structures for FQHC Talent. Original repertoire: Henri Lipmanowicz and Keith McCandless (2013); Fieldbook: Keith McCandless and Nancy White (2026). The 9 Whys page also credits Nancy White; Ecocycle Planning points to Brenda Zimmerman's work. Cases, invitations, access arrangements and follow-through are adapted to FQHC settings.
These method adaptations are shared under CC BY-SA 4.0.