The Meeting Rhythm

#Including the Facilitator Training Workshop for Tactical and Strategic Meetings

#Part 1: Why Meetings Fail, and Why TJP Cannot Afford Bad Ones

Most people have sat through a meeting that went nowhere. Someone talked too long. Nobody decided anything. The same topic came back next week like a bad penny. Everybody left, and then the real conversation happened in the hallway, the dayroom, or the chow line.

Patrick Lencioni, in Death by Meeting, names two reasons meetings fail.

Problem 1: Meetings are boring because they lack drama. A good movie hooks you in the first ten minutes. You know what is at stake. There is conflict. Most meetings have no stakes and no conflict. People nod, avoid the hard subject, and leave. Lencioni argues that the fix is not entertainment. It is honest disagreement about things that matter. He calls this mining for conflict: the leader goes looking for the disagreement that is buried in the room and brings it into the open, where it can do some good.

Problem 2: Meetings are ineffective because they lack context. Most groups have one kind of meeting and throw everything into it: today's schedule, next month's plan, a big question about direction, and somebody's complaint. It becomes "meeting stew." Small items crowd out big ones. Big ones get rushed. Lencioni's fix is to separate meetings by purpose and time frame, so each one does one job well.

TJP adds a third problem that Lencioni did not have to face.

Problem 3: In a correctional setting, meetings can be unsafe or stolen. Unsafe, because speaking up can cost something here. A resident who disagrees in front of others may worry about looking weak, looking disrespectful, or being labeled. Stolen, because count, lockdown, callouts, and movement can end a meeting without warning. A meeting system for TJP has to make honest talk safer and has to survive interruption.

#What TJP borrows, and from whom

TJP did not invent good meetings. It borrows from people who have studied them. Here is what each source brings, and why it is in this document.

#Part 2: The Common Language

A common language means a resident from Cohort A and a staff member from Education can sit in the same meeting and use the same words for the same things. It saves time. It also lowers the temperature. "Let's park it" is easier to hear than "That's off topic and you're wasting our time."

Each term below is defined in one plain sentence. Teach these in orientation. Post them in both the Think Tank and the Task Force.

#The TJP Meeting Words

#Part 3: The Format for Any Meeting: HUDDLE

Every TJP meeting, from a 10-minute Check-In to a half-day Horizon Review, follows the same six moves. The meetings differ in length and depth, but the shape is the same. That is what makes the system replicable: learn it once, use it everywhere, and teach it to the next cohort.

Say it like a football team: "Let's HUDDLE."

Part 6 shows exactly how HUDDLE stretches: one minute per move in a Check-In, up to an hour per move in a Horizon Review.

#Part 4: The Roles: CREW

Every Tactical, Strategic, and Horizon Review meeting has four named roles. A Check-In needs only a Wayfinder and a Recorder. Roles rotate so that every resident learns every job, and no single person becomes "the one who runs meetings."

#Why four roles and not one

Rogelberg's research points out that people who run meetings tend to rate them better than the people who sit through them. The leader is having a different meeting than everyone else. Splitting the work into four roles fixes that. The Wayfinder can focus on the conversation because the Clock is watching time, the Recorder is capturing decisions, and the Equalizer is watching the room.

The Equalizer role is TJP's addition, and it comes straight from Amy Edmondson's work on psychological safety. In a correctional setting, silence is often safety. The Equalizer's job is to make speaking up a little safer, one invitation at a time: "Marcus, you've been writing a lot. What do you see?"

#Who is not a CREW role

• The Decision Owner. For decisions that need approval, a staff member or leadership body owns the final call. The CREW runs the meeting; the Decision Owner makes decisions that belong to their level. See Part 7.
• Observers. Visitors from the Interdepartmental Committee, the Board of Volunteers, or partners may sit in. They follow the "Staff in the Room" rules in Part 7.

#Rotation rule

Roles rotate every Tactical. Keep a simple rotation chart on the wall. A resident may not serve as Wayfinder for a Tactical until they have served at least once in each of the other three roles. Strategic meetings are led by a certified Wayfinder (see the Workshop in Part 10).

#Part 5: The Attractor: Why People Will Want to Come

TJP leadership used the word "attractor." In a correctional setting, attendance can be required. But required attendance only gets bodies in chairs. It does not get minds in the room. The attractor is what makes a resident think, "I don't want to miss that."

TJP makes the attractor a named, required element of every meeting: it is the H in HUDDLE, the Hook.

#Five things that draw people in

1. A real stake. Lencioni's central point: people engage when they understand what is at risk. "If we do not settle the session plan today, the youth group visit slips to next quarter and those kids go another three months without hearing from us." That is a stake.
2. A question that matters. Rogelberg recommends writing agenda items as questions instead of topics. "Youth visit" is a topic. "What is the one thing a 15-year-old must remember when he walks out of here?" is a question. Questions pull people forward. Rogelberg also notes that if you cannot think of a question, you may not need the meeting.
3. Visible progress. People come back to rooms where things move. The Win of the Week opens every Tactical. A progress board on the wall shows each project moving across ADOPT stages.
4. A voice that counts. People come to meetings where what they say changes something. When a resident's idea shows up in the Decision Log with their name next to it, word gets around.
5. Rituals that belong to us. A one-word check-in. A check-out. "Commit out loud." Small, repeated rituals tell people, "This is our room, and it runs a certain way." Priya Parker argues that the opening and closing of a gathering carry outsized weight, and that starting with logistics wastes that moment. TJP starts with the Hook, never with announcements.

#The Hook Menu

Wayfinders choose one Hook for each meeting. Rotate so it stays fresh.

#Permission to disagree

Every Hook ends with one sentence from the Wayfinder that gives permission to disagree. Lencioni calls this giving "real-time permission" for conflict. Edmondson's research explains why it works: people take interpersonal risks when they believe the group will not punish them for it. Saying it out loud does not make the room safe by itself, but it signals the norm.

Standard wording (Wayfinders can adapt it):

"If you see a problem with any idea today, including mine, say it in the room. Rank the idea, not the person. That is how this team works."

These words come directly from TJP's TRUST rules (Say it in the room; Rank the idea, not the person), so residents already know them.

#Part 6: The Four Meetings in Detail

This part describes each meeting in the TJP Meeting Rhythm: its purpose, who attends, how long, how often, the exact agenda with minutes, the roles, what gets written down, and what it updates in The TJP Playbook. Each ends with a filled-in example from one running scenario.

#The running scenario

Cohort A is in week 8 of Course 13, No One Educates Alone, in the Task Force build and pilot phase. Their Channel 3 (Live) project: a 45-minute session for a visiting youth group from a community program, on "the fork in the road," the moment a young person chooses between a group that offers belonging and a path that offers a future. The visit is scheduled for week 10. The visit has to be approved by the Interdepartmental Committee, and the Associate Warden for Programs has asked to see the final session plan one week before.

The team: five residents (Andre, Darnell, Marcus, Tomas, Will) plus a staff facilitator from Education. Their PROOF line, written before building:

(All names and numbers in these examples are illustrations for training, not real data.)

#Meeting 1: The Check-In

Why standing. Lencioni's daily check-in is five minutes and standing. TJP allows ten because teams are learning the habit, and because a work block in a correctional setting may be the only time the team is together that day. A classic study by Bluedorn, Turban, and Love (1999) found that stand-up meetings were considerably shorter than sit-down meetings with no measurable loss in decision quality. Standing keeps it short.

Agenda (10 minutes)

Rules. No problem-solving in the Check-In. If two people start working a problem, the Wayfinder says, "Take it after. Who owns it?" The Check-In is a pulse check, not surgery.

Example: Cohort A, Tuesday of week 8, Task Force block

Blockers logged: Printer (Darnell owns; asks the staff facilitator at break). Role players (Andre and Will volunteer, cleared on the spot). Ages question (Tomas owns; goes to Tactical because it may need staff guidance on what can be collected from minors).

#Meeting 2: The Tactical

Why 50 minutes inside a 60-minute block. Lencioni suggests 45 to 90 minutes for a weekly tactical. Rogelberg points out that meetings expand to fill the time given (Parkinson's law) and urges leaders to question default lengths such as 60 minutes, trying shorter blocks like 48 or 50 minutes instead. TJP uses 50 minutes of meeting because the extra 10 minutes absorb the realities of a correctional facility: late arrivals from movement, room resets, and a staff member who needs a word afterward.

Why a small group. Amazon's widely reported "two-pizza team" idea says a working team should be small enough that two pizzas could feed it. Rogelberg's review of the research makes a similar point: groups that must solve a problem work best at about eight people or fewer. When a cohort of 12 to 15 holds a Tactical, split into two project pods of 6 to 8, each with its own CREW, and have the two Wayfinders swap Decision Logs afterward.

Why a Real-Time Agenda. This is Lencioni's key idea for the tactical meeting. Nobody writes the agenda in advance. The team does the Lightning Round and reviews the numbers first, and then the agenda builds itself from what the team just heard. This prevents the most common Tactical failure: spending 40 minutes on the item somebody put on the agenda last Thursday that no longer matters.

Agenda (50 minutes)

Tactical rules

• No Strategic topics. If a question is big, needs research, or would take more than 10 minutes, park it for the next Strategic. Lencioni is clear that mixing tactical and strategic topics is the main way tactical meetings fail.
• Two-minute warning. Clock calls it for each item. When time runs out, the Wayfinder asks: "Decide now, give it 5 more minutes, or park it?" The group chooses.
• One change rule. Borrowed from ADOPT's Try-Test-Tune: if a pilot needs fixing, the Tactical picks ONE change, not five.

Example: Cohort A, Week 8 Tactical

Hook (Wayfinder: Will). "Win of the Week: Andre rewrote the opening story and in the practice run the 'I'll remember this' score jumped from 2.1 to 3.4. The stake: the Associate Warden needs our final plan in six days. If we don't lock the session plan today, we miss that deadline and the visit is at risk. Permission to disagree: if you see a hole in the plan, say it in the room."

Lightning Round (highlights). Will: "Full run-through timed at 58 minutes. We have 45." Tomas: "Feedback card drafted, but can we ask the youths' ages?"

Numbers (Project Page, Q8).

Q6 check: "Is our One Big Thing still 'deliver a session youth remember'?" Yes.

Real-Time Agenda (written as questions).

1. What do we cut to get from 58 minutes to 45?
2. What are we allowed to ask the youth on the feedback card?
3. Who sends the final plan, and when?

Dig in and Decide. Question 1 produced real conflict. Marcus wanted to keep the fork activity whole; Andre wanted to cut it in half. The Wayfinder mined for it: "Marcus, say why the activity matters. Andre, say it back." Andre: "You're saying the activity is where they actually feel the choice, and the story only tells them about it." Marcus: "Yes." The team decided to cut the history section from 12 minutes to 4 and keep the activity whole. Marcus and Andre both committed out loud.

Question 2 went Up the ladder: collecting any information from minors is not the team's call. The team drafted a recommendation (anonymous card, no names, no ages, three questions) for the staff facilitator to take to the Programs Supervisor.

Question 3: Will owns it. Final plan to the staff facilitator by Thursday, who sends it to the Associate Warden by Friday.

Decision Log entries (see Worksheet 3 for the format):

Parking Lot. "Should we record the session for Channel 2?" Parked for the Strategic meeting (it is a big question with permission and privacy issues involving minors).

Playbook update. Q7 updated with the three actions. Q8 numbers updated. Q6 confirmed unchanged.

#Meeting 3: The Strategic

Why one topic. Lencioni allows one or two topics for a monthly strategic meeting. TJP uses One Big Topic as the rule, because residents and staff have limited time together and because doing one thing deeply beats doing two things halfway. A second small topic is allowed only if the first is settled early.

Why a Silent Read. Amazon's leadership practice, described in Jeff Bezos's shareholder letters and widely reported, is to start important meetings by having everyone silently read a written memo, instead of watching slides. TJP adopts this for three reasons. First, it puts everyone on the same facts. Second, it gives slower readers and people who think before they speak the same starting point as the fastest talker. Third, it forces the topic owner to think clearly, because a written page cannot hide fuzzy thinking the way a speech can. For residents with lower reading levels, the Recorder or topic owner reads the memo aloud while others follow along. Keep memos short, plain, and one or two pages.

Why silent writing before talking. Rogelberg and others recommend "brainwriting": writing ideas silently before discussing them. When people talk first, the first idea spoken tends to anchor everyone else, and the loudest voice sets the direction. Silent writing produces more ideas and more balanced participation.

Agenda (2 hours)

Understanding the Groan Zone. Sam Kaner's Facilitator's Guide to Participatory Decision-Making describes a common pattern: a group first opens up and generates many ideas (the divergent zone), and then has to narrow down to one (the convergent zone). In between is the Groan Zone: confusion, frustration, people talking past each other, someone saying "we're going in circles." Kaner's point is that this is normal. It is not a sign the meeting is failing. It is the sign that people with different views are actually wrestling with each other's ideas. The Wayfinder's job is to name it ("We're in the Groan Zone. That means we're working.") and to use Say it back until people understand each other.

To narrow options, use the Two Doors sort and LESS filter from ADOPT's "One path" step, tools residents already know.

Example: Cohort A, Month 5 Strategic

One Big Topic: "Should Cohort A record the youth session for Channel 2, and if so, how do we protect the youth and still get a usable training video?"

Why it is Strategic, not Tactical: It touches minors' privacy, SCDC media rules, the Board's concern for program integrity, and the Channel 2 plan. It needs research and a recommendation to leadership.

Decision Owner named in the Hook: "Today we do not decide. We recommend. The Interdepartmental Committee decides, and the Associate Warden for Programs has the final word on recording inside the institution. The Programs Supervisor is here to listen and answer questions."

Silent Read memo: Tomas wrote 1.5 pages laying out three options: record everything; record residents only, youth off camera; or do not record and write a Channel 1 guide instead.

TRIZ result (how to make it fail): "Film a kid's face." "Surprise the youth leaders with a camera." "Make the video about us, not them." "Record before we know it works." The team noticed the last one was a real risk: they were planning to record before the pilot proved the session worked.

Groan Zone: Darnell argued hard for recording the real session: "Real reactions are what make it worth watching." Marcus and Tomas pushed back on privacy. The Wayfinder named the Groan Zone and asked each side to say the other's point back. Darnell: "You're saying no video is worth risking a kid's privacy or our permission to have visitors at all." Tomas: "You're saying a staged video might feel fake and nobody will learn from it."

Recommendation (to the Interdepartmental Committee): Do not record the youth visit. After the visit, if the PROOF line is met (score 4.0 or higher), re-run the session with residents playing the youth and record that for Channel 2, pending approval. Everyone committed out loud, including Darnell, who said, "I disagree and commit. I think we lose something, but I'll make the staged version as real as I can."

15% Solutions: Darnell writes a one-page "how to stage it real" plan. Will drafts the recording request. Tomas adds a line to the Project Page on privacy.

Playbook edits:

#Meeting 4: The Horizon Review

Why it is co-led by staff. The Horizon Review touches the foundations: purpose, behavior, the work, and the people served. These connect directly to TJP's vision and mission, which the Board of Volunteers guards, and to program integrity, which the Interdepartmental Committee supervises. Residents do the work of reflecting; leadership is in the room because any change to Q1 to Q4 has to be proposed upward, not decided by residents alone.

How to make it feel "off-site" when you can't leave. Lencioni's quarterly meeting is an "off-site," held away from the usual workplace to break routine. That is not possible here, so TJP changes the setting in other ways. Priya Parker writes that changing the physical setting changes how people behave. Options: move the tables into one big circle; hold it in whichever space (Think Tank or Task Force) the group uses less; change the time of day; put the Eight Questions on the walls as stations people walk between; have no laptops open.

Agenda (3.5 hours)

Example: Cohort A, End of Quarter 2

Hook moment shared: "I was proud when the youth leader said one of the kids asked to write to us. I wasn't proud when we cut Marcus off in the Tactical three weeks running." This moment shaped the Q2 discussion.

Keep, Change, Stop:

Proposed Playbook edits (to leadership for approval): Q2 add "We let people finish." Q4 rewrite to name four groups served. Q1 and Q3 unchanged.

#Part 7: The Meeting Rhythm Map

This is the one-page view of all four meetings side by side. Post it in the Think Tank and the Task Force.

#How the meetings flow into each other

#Part 8: How Meetings Connect to Leadership and the TJP Monthly Report

TJP is not an inmate-led initiative. Residents do the work, and three levels of leadership govern it:

1. Oversight: SCDC Division of Programs, Reentry, and Rehabilitative Services.
2. Direction: the Board of Volunteers, trustees of the vision and mission and guardians of program integrity.
3. Supervision: the Interdepartmental Committee: Associate Warden for Programs, Programs Supervisor, the Chaplains, and the Education Leader.

The meeting system makes that structure visible and practical. Every decision has a home level, and the meetings are where residents prepare good recommendations for the levels above.

#The Decision Ladder

Decision rights mean knowing, before the meeting, who has the authority to make which decision. When this is clear, meetings go faster and nobody is embarrassed by deciding something that was never theirs to decide.

The rule: if it is not Level 1, we say "Up the ladder" and write a recommendation, not a decision. A good recommendation includes the question, the options considered, the team's recommendation, and the reasoning, all on one page. Leadership should be able to say yes or no in five minutes.

#Staff in the Room

Interdepartmental Committee members and staff are welcome at any TJP meeting. Their presence strengthens the meeting when everyone knows what role they are playing. At the start of the meeting, the Wayfinder asks each staff or leadership visitor one question:

"Are you here to listen, to advise, or to decide something today?"

This question is respectful to staff, and it protects the meeting. It helps prevent the hardest moment in a correctional-setting meeting: when a staff member's word ends a discussion that was never meant to be ended. (See the role play "The staff member who pulls rank" in Part 10.) It also means residents never have to guess, which is a form of safety.

Staff always retain authority for security and safety. If a staff member stops a meeting for a security reason, the meeting stops, no discussion. That is not "pulling rank." That is the job.

#Feeding the TJP Monthly Report

The TJP Monthly Report goes to all three levels of leadership. The meetings produce most of what goes into it. If the meetings are run well and logged well, the report almost writes itself.

#Part 9: When the Meeting Gets Cut: The SNAP Protocol

In a correctional facility, meetings get interrupted. Count clears late. A lockdown is called. A resident gets a callout. The yard opens or closes. Movement changes. A meeting system that only works when nothing goes wrong will not work here.

The SNAP protocol takes less than 60 seconds and means no work is lost.

#Rules for cut meetings

• Decisions made before the cut stand. If it was logged and people committed, it counts.
• Decisions in progress do not. A half-finished decision is not a decision. It returns as the first item next time.
• A cut Tactical is made up within 48 hours with a short "Tactical Lite" (20 minutes): Lightning Round, the unfinished item, Log it.
• A cut Strategic is rescheduled within one week. Do not try to finish a Strategic in a hallway.
• A cut Horizon Review resumes at the next available half day, starting from the station where it stopped.
• Log as you go. The Recorder writes each decision the moment it is made, so a cut never erases a decision. The Clock knows expected count and movement times (verify locally with staff) and puts the biggest item first.
• Keep the paper safe. The Decision Log and Parking Lot stay in the team's folder, which stays in the TJP space, not in a pocket.
• If a lockdown lasts days, teams keep their Q7 commitments where they can (reading, writing, planning on paper) and hold a Pick up at the first chance.

#Part 10: The Facilitator Training Workshop

#Overview

#The Scope Boundary

TJP peer facilitators are educators, never therapists. This applies to meetings too. A Wayfinder runs a work meeting. If a meeting surfaces trauma, a mental health concern, or a safety concern, the Wayfinder pauses the item, says "This needs staff," and brings in the staff facilitator. The Wayfinder does not counsel, diagnose, or push someone to go deeper. This boundary is taught in Session 1 and tested in Session 3.

#Session 1: The Rhythm and the Room (2 hours)

Goal: Participants understand why meetings fail, can use the TJP meeting words and HUDDLE, and can run a Check-In.

#Session 2: The Tactical and the Hard Moments (2 hours)

Goal: Participants can run a Tactical with a Real-Time Agenda and can handle five hard moments.

#The Five Hard Moments (role play cards)

For each card: one person is the Wayfinder, one plays the hard moment, the rest play the team. The trainer can whisper extra instructions to make it harder. After each, the group answers: "What did the Wayfinder do that worked? What would you try instead?"

Hard Moment 1: The Dominator

Setup: One team member talks in every round, goes over time in the Lightning Round, and responds to every point.

What the Wayfinder can do:

• Use structure first, not confrontation: "Let's do a Silent Write for two minutes, then go around."
• Use the Clock: "Two-minute warning. Let's hear from people who haven't spoken yet."
• Name the value, redirect the airtime: "You've given us a lot to work with. I want to hear Tomas on this."
• If it continues, talk privately afterward, never in front of the group.

Why: Blaming the person in front of the group breaks the TRUST rule "Rank the idea, not the person." Changing the structure fixes the pattern without shaming anyone.

Hard Moment 2: The Silent One

Setup: One team member says nothing, arms crossed or writing.

What the Wayfinder can do:

• Use 1-2-4-All or pairs: people who won't speak to twelve will often speak to one.
• Equalizer invites by name with an easy door: "Marcus, anything you'd add, or pass?" Always allow "pass."
• Ask for writing: silent contributions on index cards, read aloud by the Recorder.

Why: Edmondson's research shows that silence often means people do not feel safe to take a risk. The fix is to lower the risk, not raise the pressure.

Hard Moment 3: The Side Argument

Setup: Two team members start arguing about something off the agenda (for example, a disagreement from the dorm, or a different project).

What the Wayfinder can do:

• Name it calmly: "This sounds important, and it's not on today's agenda."
• Park it: "Recorder, put it in the Parking Lot. Who owns bringing it back?"
• If it is personal and heated, stop the item and ask for a quick break. If it could become a safety concern, bring in staff.

Why: Not every conflict is the productive kind Lencioni asks us to mine for. Conflict about ideas moves work. Conflict about people or old grudges belongs somewhere else, and sometimes with staff.

Hard Moment 4: The Staff Member Who Pulls Rank

Setup: Partway through a discussion, a staff member (played by a participant or, ideally, a real staff trainer) says, "We're not doing that. Next item," on a question that is actually the team's to decide, or before hearing the team's reasoning.

What the Wayfinder can do:

• Stay respectful. Never argue with staff in front of the group.
• Clarify the ladder: "Thank you. Just so we log it right: is this a decision for your level, or would you like us to bring you a recommendation?"
• If it is the staff member's call: log it as a Level 2 decision, with the staff member's name, and move on. Ask if the team can submit a written recommendation later.
• If it is unclear, park it and raise it respectfully with the staff facilitator after the meeting.
• Prevention: ask "listen, advise, or decide?" at the start of every meeting.

Why: Staff authority is real and necessary; TJP operates under three levels of leadership. The goal is not to win the moment. It is to keep the decision rights clear so the team knows what it owns. Staff taking the workshop should play this role and discuss how it feels from both sides.

Hard Moment 5: "That Won't Work Here"

Setup: A team member shoots down every idea: "That won't work in prison." "They'll never approve that." "We tried that before."

What the Wayfinder can do:

• Take it seriously: this person may know something real. "Say more. What specifically would stop it?"
• Turn it into TRIZ: "Great, let's list every way this could fail." Then ask which failures can be prevented.
• Turn it into a 15% Solution: "What part of it could work here with no one's permission?"

Why: Skeptics are often the people who have been burned before. Their knowledge makes plans stronger. What the team cannot allow is skepticism that ends every conversation without offering anything.

#Session 3: The Strategic and Certification Practice (2 hours)

Goal: Participants can plan and run the key parts of a Strategic meeting, hold the Groan Zone, and are observed for certification.

#Certification: TJP Meeting Wayfinder

This certification follows the logic of the TJP peer facilitator standard: complete the preparation, practice under observation, and co-facilitate with staff before leading. Like peer facilitator certification, it is internal to TJP, is not a professional credential, is not represented as one, and is reviewed annually.

To be certified as a Tactical Wayfinder, a participant must:

1. Complete all three workshop sessions.
2. Serve at least once each as Clock, Recorder, and Equalizer in real TJP meetings.
3. Run at least two real Tacticals as Wayfinder, with a staff member or certified Wayfinder observing, scoring "Solid" or better on every rubric row in the second one.
4. Demonstrate SNAP.
5. Explain the scope boundary (educator, not therapist) and the Decision Ladder in their own words.

To be certified as a Strategic Wayfinder, a participant must additionally:

6. Co-facilitate one real Strategic meeting with a staff member, and prepare the Strategic Prep Sheet for it.
7. Lead one real Strategic meeting with a staff member observing, scoring "Solid" or better on every rubric row and "Strong" on at least three.
8. Receive approval from the Programs Supervisor (or designee on the Interdepartmental Committee).

Keeping certification. Wayfinders are re-observed once a year. A Wayfinder who has not led a meeting in six months runs one observed Tactical before leading again. Certified Wayfinders are expected to co-train in future workshops, which is part of TJP's Channel 4 (training other incarcerated people) in action.

#Part 11: What Could Go Wrong

Every system has weak spots. Naming them early is how we protect the system.

#Part 12: Why TJP Must Exist

#Part 13: Signs for the Dorm

Print on letter paper, laminate, and post in the Think Tank, the Task Force, and the dorm. Use the label maker for the smaller role tags on the CREW rotation chart.

#Worksheet 1: Tactical Meeting Agenda

Team / Cohort: Date: Week:

CREW this week: Clock Recorder Equalizer Wayfinder

Staff present and role (listen / advise / decide):

Lightning Round

Numbers (from the Project Page)

Q6 check: Is our One Big Thing still right? Yes / No. If no, park it for Strategic.

Real-Time Agenda (write each as a question)

Parking Lot

#Worksheet 2: Strategic Meeting Prep Sheet

Complete this at least one week before the Strategic meeting. The topic owner and the Wayfinder fill it in together.

Date of meeting: Topic owner: Wayfinder:

1. The One Big Topic, written as one question:

2. Test the question (check each):

3. The stake (why it matters, 2 or 3 sentences, for the Hook):

4. Decision Ladder level: 1 Team / 2 Committee / 3 Board / 4 SCDC Division

Decision Owner (name and title):

Today we will: Decide / Write a recommendation to

5. Who must be in the room (people with knowledge or a stake):

6. The Silent Read memo (1 to 2 pages, plain language). Outline:

7. Structure plan (circle the tools you will use): 1-2-4-All / TRIZ / What So What Now What / 15% Solutions / Two Doors / LESS filter

8. Playbook questions this could change: Q5 / Q6 / Q7 / Q8

9. Who reads the memo aloud for those who want it read?

Approved by staff facilitator: Date:

#Worksheet 3: Decision Log

Every TJP meeting keeps one. Keep it in the team folder. Read it back before Exit. Check it at the start of every Tactical: "Did we do what we said?"

Team / Cohort: Page:

Up the ladder: recommendations waiting on leadership

Numbering tip: Use week and number (8.1, 8.2) so decisions can be found fast in the Monthly Report.

#Worksheet 4: Meeting Scorecard (60 seconds)

Everyone fills one out at Exit. No names. The Recorder collects, averages, and writes the averages in the team folder. Averages go into the TJP Monthly Report under "Meeting health."

Meeting: Check-In / Tactical / Strategic / Horizon Review Date:

Circle one number for each: 1 = Not at all, 3 = Somewhat, 5 = Completely.

One thing to change next time (optional):

(Cut along the line. Four scorecards fit on one page when printed small.)

Recorder's summary (for the team folder)

#Worksheet 5: Facilitator Observation Rubric

Used in the Workshop and for certification. The observer fills this out during the meeting and reviews it with the Wayfinder afterward. Score each row: 1 Not yet, 2 Developing, 3 Solid, 4 Strong.

Wayfinder: Observer: Date:

Meeting: Tactical / Strategic Observed run #:

Total: / 44 (or / 40 if no Groan Zone row)

Certification standard: Tactical: every row "Solid" (3) or better. Strategic: every row 3 or better and at least three rows "Strong" (4).

Two things that worked:

One change for next time (one change rule):

Observer signature: Wayfinder signature:

#Worksheet 6: The Pocket Card

Print, cut, fold, and laminate. One side for the meeting, one side for the words.

SIDE A: RUN THE MEETING

SIDE B: THE WORDS AND THE RHYTHM

#Further Study

• Patrick Lencioni, Death by Meeting: A Leadership Fable (Jossey-Bass, 2004). The foundation of this document. A short, readable story followed by a clear model. Good for the TJP library; readable at most reading levels.
• Patrick Lencioni, The Advantage (Jossey-Bass, 2012). Source of the six questions that TJP expanded into the Eight Questions of the TJP Playbook. Also explains how meetings keep an organization healthy.
• Patrick Lencioni, The Five Dysfunctions of a Team (Jossey-Bass, 2002). Background for the TRUST rules and why conflict must be productive.
• Steven G. Rogelberg, The Surprising Science of Meetings (Oxford University Press, 2019). The research behind meeting length, questions as agendas, standing and silent brainstorming, and why leaders overrate their own meetings. Good for staff and Wayfinders.
• Amy C. Edmondson, The Fearless Organization (Wiley, 2018). Psychological safety in plain language, with a practical toolkit for leaders. Especially useful for staff in the room.
• Henri Lipmanowicz and Keith McCandless, The Surprising Power of Liberating Structures (Liberating Structures Press, 2013). Step-by-step instructions for 1-2-4-All, TRIZ, 15% Solutions, What So What Now What, and more. Staff can print individual structures from liberatingstructures.com for the LAN.
• Priya Parker, The Art of Gathering: How We Meet and Why It Matters (Riverhead, 2018). Why purpose must be specific, why openings and closings matter, and what "generous authority" means for a host. Good for Horizon Review planning.
• Sam Kaner and colleagues, Facilitator's Guide to Participatory Decision-Making (Jossey-Bass; 3rd edition, 2014). The best practical manual on the Groan Zone, reaching agreement, and handling difficult dynamics. The workshop trainer's reference book.
• TJP's own ADOPT Model materials. TRUST, PROOF, LESS, and 3 Ws are the backbone this meeting system reuses.

#Sources

1. Lencioni, P. (2004). Death by Meeting: A Leadership Fable About Solving the Most Painful Problem in Business. Jossey-Bass. Four meeting types (daily check-in, weekly tactical with lightning round and real-time agenda, monthly strategic, quarterly off-site review); drama and context; mining for conflict; real-time permission. Summary checked at tylerdevries.com/book-summaries/death-by-meeting.
2. Lencioni, P. (2012). The Advantage: Why Organizational Health Trumps Everything Else in Business. Jossey-Bass.
3. Rogelberg, S. G. (2019). The Surprising Science of Meetings: How You Can Lead Your Team to Peak Performance. Oxford University Press. See also Rogelberg, "Have a compelling agenda," stevenrogelberg.com (agenda items framed as questions; "if you can't think of any questions, it likely means you don't need a meeting").
4. Bluedorn, A. C., Turban, D. B., and Love, M. S. (1999). The effects of stand-up and sit-down meeting formats on meeting outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 277-285.
5. Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
6. Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth. Wiley.
7. Lipmanowicz, H., and McCandless, K. (2013). The Surprising Power of Liberating Structures: Simple Rules to Unleash a Culture of Innovation. Liberating Structures Press. Also liberatingstructures.com and liberatingstructures.info (What, So What, Now What steps and timing).
8. Bezos, J. (2017). 2016 Letter to Shareholders. Amazon (aboutamazon.com). "Disagree and commit."
9. Bezos, J. (2018). 2017 Letter to Shareholders. Amazon. Six-page narrative memos.
10. Parker, P. (2018). The Art of Gathering: How We Meet and Why It Matters. Riverhead Books.
11. Kaner, S., with Lind, L., Toldi, C., Fisk, S., and Berger, D. (2014). Facilitator's Guide to Participatory Decision-Making (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
12. TJP internal materials: ADOPT Model Task Force Process; TJP Master Curriculum (peer facilitator standard, Four Channels, facilitation model).

Verify locally: count and movement times, rules on visitors (including minors), recording inside the institution, and any limits on what information may be collected from outside participants. These vary by institution and must be confirmed with the Interdepartmental Committee.