The Playbook

#Part 1: Why a Playbook?

TJP is full of talented people. Our risk is not a lack of intelligence or effort. Our risk is that thirty good people pull in thirty slightly different directions, and nobody notices until a pilot fails, a partner gets a confusing message, or a leadership level hears two different stories about what we are doing.

The TJP Playbook solves that problem in the plainest way possible: it writes down, in short sentences, the answers to eight questions, and then it makes sure those answers are read, used, checked, and improved at every meeting.

Here is how the football picture maps onto TJP:

#What the Playbook is, and what it is not

#Part 2: Where This Comes From: Lencioni's Six Questions

Patrick Lencioni is a writer and consultant who has spent his career studying why some teams work and others do not. In The Advantage (2012), he argues that the biggest advantage any organization can have is not smarts but health: less confusion, less politics, higher morale, lower turnover. He says an organization gets healthy through four disciplines:

The heart of "create clarity" is six questions Lencioni says every leadership team must answer together, with no daylight between them:

Lencioni puts the answers on a short document he calls a playbook, and he tells leaders to become their organization's "chief reminding officers," repeating the answers until people roll their eyes, and then repeating them again. He is right about that. People do not remember what they heard once. They remember what they hear every week.

#What Lencioni gets right for us

• Clarity beats cleverness. A room full of brilliant people who disagree about the goal will lose to an average team that agrees.
• One goal per season. His "thematic goal" is one rallying cry for a stretch of roughly three to twelve months. Everything else is either supporting that goal or keeping the lights on.
• Values must be real. He warns against "values" that are just nice words on a wall. A real value is one you would keep even if it cost you something.
• Repetition is not weakness. Saying the same thing forty times is the job, not a failure.

#Where Lencioni's language gets in our way

TJP leadership named it: the language is "too business-y." Words like business definition, strategic anchors, thematic goal, standard operating objectives are useful to consultants and executives. They are not how intelligent people who never sat in a boardroom talk. And TJP is going to be explaining itself to residents, families, youth, pastors, judges, and legislators. Plain words travel further.

#Part 3: The TJP Translation: Eight Questions

The memory chant: Why, How, What, Whom. Win, Now, Who, Know. Two lines of four words. The first line is who we are and do not change often. The second line is how we play this season and changes more often.

#Why we added Question 4: Who are we doing it for?

In a business, the customer is the one who pays. Everybody knows who that is. In TJP, nobody pays, and almost everybody is a possible audience: residents, officers, families, youth, victims, churches, courts, the legislature, "the community." That sounds generous. In practice it is a trap.

The ADOPT doctrine already says it: build for one named real person, not "the public." A project that serves "the public" serves no one, because you cannot test it, you cannot tell if it worked, and you cannot fix it. "The public" cannot tell you the workshop was confusing. A fifteen-year-old named in your plan (with privacy protected) can.

Question 4 forces every level of TJP, from the whole program down to a single ADOPT project, to say out loud who the work is for, and who it is not for. The second half matters just as much. Saying "not for victims directly, unless a licensed therapist invites it" is how we keep people safe.

#Why we added Question 8: How will we know it worked?

W. Edwards Deming, the quality expert whose ideas rebuilt Japanese manufacturing after World War II and later reshaped American industry and health care, taught that you cannot improve what you have not defined and measured. His Plan, Do, Study, Act cycle only works if the "Study" step has something to study.

Lencioni's six questions assume a business will notice success because money comes in. TJP will not have that signal. We could run for five years, feel good, and have no idea whether a single person was safer. Question 8 makes proof part of clarity, not an afterthought. Every answer to Question 8 points to a PROOF line: Problem Number, Result Number, Observer, On this date, Fail Line. Written before we build. Always.

#Part 4: The Eight Questions, One at a Time

Each question below follows the same pattern: plain meaning, why it matters, how to answer it well, a bad answer and a good answer, TJP's draft answer, and who can change the answer.

#How authority works in the Playbook

Before the questions, one table. TJP is not a resident-led initiative. Three levels of leadership provide oversight, direction, and supervision. Residents do the work and are expected to think hard, speak up, and propose improvements. The levels below decide.

#Question 1: Why are we here? (Purpose)

Plain meaning. The reason TJP exists. Not what we do, but why it is worth doing at all. If TJP disappeared tomorrow, what would South Carolina lose?

Why it matters. Purpose is the anchor when things get hard. When a pilot flops, when a cohort loses members to transfers, when a partner says no, the purpose is what keeps people from quitting or drifting into side projects. It also protects the program from being bent into something it is not. A strong purpose statement lets any person say, "That is a good idea, but it is not why we are here."

How to answer it well.

• Keep it short enough to say in one breath (the LESS filter applies).
• Aim it outward. Purpose is about what changes in the world, not about us.
• Make it true in ten years. Purpose should not change when the season changes.
• Do not stuff it with activities. Activities belong in Question 3.

TJP draft answer (Q1).

Our vision: TJP reframes the narrative of harm, healing, and prevention.

Our mission: To implement the principles and practices of Transformative Justice across all sectors of South Carolina.

In our own words: We are here because the old story says harm is only about punishment. We believe harm can be understood, healed, and prevented, and that people who caused harm can help prevent the next harm. We exist so that fewer people in South Carolina get hurt.

Who can change it. The Board of Volunteers only. Residents and staff may propose wording changes through a Change Request, which the Interdepartmental Committee forwards to the Board with its recommendation. The SCDC Division is informed. Expect this answer to change rarely, if ever.

#Question 2: How do we treat each other? (Core behaviors)

Plain meaning. The few ways of acting that are non-negotiable in TJP, whether anyone is watching or not. Lencioni calls these core values. We call them core behaviors, because a value you cannot see in behavior is just a slogan.

Why it matters. A transformative justice program that does not practice what it teaches will teach the opposite. Residents, officers, and visitors watch what we do far more closely than they listen to what we say. Core behaviors also make hard moments easier: when a disagreement gets hot, anyone can point to the wall and say, "Rank the idea, not the person," and the room resets.

How to answer it well. Lencioni describes four kinds of values, and knowing the difference prevents a lot of confusion:

A good Q2 answer names the core behaviors, lists permission-to-play rules separately, and is honest about what is still aspirational. It describes behavior you could see on a video.

TJP draft answer (Q2): the TRUST behaviors. These come straight from the ADOPT workshop, turned into behaviors we hold for the whole program.

Permission-to-play rules (required, not special):

1. Safety and SCDC policy come first, always.
2. What is shared in a session stays in the session, unless safety requires otherwise.
3. Peer facilitators are educators, never therapists. Trauma sessions are always led by staff.
4. No one's story is used without their consent and the proper review.
5. Equipment and space are cared for as if they belonged to the next cohort, because they do.

Aspirational (be honest, we are not there yet): "Every TJP resident can teach one thing they learned to someone who was not in the room."

Who can change it. The Board of Volunteers approves any change to the core behaviors. The Interdepartmental Committee may add or clarify permission-to-play rules, since those follow institutional policy, and informs the Board. Residents propose.

#Question 3: What do we actually do? (The work)

Plain meaning. A plain description of our activities, the kind you would give a family member on the phone in thirty seconds. Lencioni calls this the business definition. It is the least exciting question and the one most often answered badly.

Why it matters. If you cannot say what you do, partners cannot help you, leadership cannot defend you, and new residents join expecting something else. It also draws a fence: work outside the fence is not TJP work, even if it is good work.

How to answer it well.

• Use verbs. "We study, build, test, and teach."
• Name the setting and the method, not the dream.
• Draw the fence: say what we do not do.

TJP draft answer (Q3).

TJP residents move together, as a cohort, through 13 ten-week courses on the science of harm, healing, and prevention (about 2.5 years), after an orientation where each resident writes The Personal Narrative.

In each course we research in the Think Tank (weeks 1 to 6), build and pilot a real tool in the Task Force (weeks 7 to 9) using the ADOPT process, and deliver and publish it (week 10).

We deliver through Four Channels: training other incarcerated people, written materials, live visitors, and recordings (introduced in that order: 4, 1, 3, 2).

Residents then co-facilitate courses and complete the Keystone: a ten-week team project that produces a deployable intervention package for one real, bounded South Carolina harm, scored by an outside panel and tracked for adoption.

What we do not do: We do not provide therapy. We do not contact people harmed by residents except through proper, therapist-guided channels. We do not operate outside SCDC policy or without leadership approval.

Who can change it. The Interdepartmental Committee approves changes, after consulting the Board of Volunteers, since changes to the work can change the mission. Changes to the course sequence or structure also go to the SCDC Division if they affect agency programming approvals. Revisited at the Horizon Review.

#Question 4: Who are we doing it for? (The people we serve) [added]

Plain meaning. The specific people whose lives should be different because TJP exists. Not "society." Real groups, and, at the project level, one named real person.

Why it matters. This is the question that keeps us honest. A tool built "for everyone" is usually built for the builder. When you name who it is for, you have to go ask them, test with them, and accept their verdict. It also protects people: naming who the work is not for (for example, people harmed by a resident's own crime, unless a licensed therapist deems it appropriate) prevents well-meant damage.

How to answer it well.

• List groups in order of priority, and be honest that the first group served is often ourselves.
• For each group, say what should be different for them.
• Name who it is not for, or not yet for.
• At the project level, name one real person (with privacy protected: a first name, a role, or a description the team agrees on).

TJP draft answer (Q4).

Not for (or not yet): We do not design for "the public" in general. We do not deliver directly to people harmed without a licensed professional deciding it is appropriate. We do not serve audiences outside SCDC approval.

Who can change it. The Interdepartmental Committee approves changes after consulting the Board of Volunteers. Any change that adds a new group involving minors or people harmed also goes to the SCDC Division. Revisited at the Horizon Review.

#Question 5: How will we win? (Our three anchors)

Plain meaning. What makes TJP different from every other program, and the few choices we will keep making because of it. Lencioni calls these "strategic anchors": usually about three things that guide every decision. "Win" does not mean beating another program. It means succeeding at our purpose.

Why it matters. Without anchors, every decision starts from zero, and the loudest idea wins. With anchors, you can take a new proposal and ask, "Does this fit our three anchors?" and most decisions make themselves. Anchors also give partners a reason to choose us.

How to answer it well.

• Three anchors is usually right. Two is too thin; six is a wish list.
• Each anchor should be something a competitor could not easily copy.
• Each anchor should help you say no to something.

TJP draft answer (Q5): The Three Cs.

The one-breath version: We are close to the harm, we check our work, and we build what others can carry.

Who can change it. The Interdepartmental Committee approves changes, and informs the Board of Volunteers (the Board may ask to review any anchor it believes affects the mission). Revised at Strategic meetings when evidence says an anchor is not working.

#Question 6: What matters most right now? (The One Big Thing)

Plain meaning. The single most important goal for this season, usually six to twelve months. Lencioni calls it the thematic goal: one rallying cry that everyone shares. We call it the One Big Thing.

Why it matters. When everything is a priority, nothing is. A new program especially will be pulled toward a hundred good ideas: a podcast, a youth summit, a book, a partnership with every church in the county. The One Big Thing is permission to say "not this season" to good ideas so the most important idea gets done.

How to answer it well. Lencioni's structure has three layers, and we keep all three:

Rules for a good One Big Thing:

• One. Not two. Not "one with a sub-bullet that is really a second goal."
• A season. It has a start and an end date, roughly six to twelve months.
• Shared. Everyone, including staff and leadership, can say it.
• Qualitative, then measured. The One Big Thing is stated in plain words; its supporting goals carry the numbers through Question 8.

TJP draft answer (Q6): First season.

ONE BIG THING (Season 1, roughly the first 9 to 12 months): Launch Cohort A and prove the model.

Standing responsibilities (every season):

• Keep every activity inside SCDC policy and institutional security requirements.
• Protect confidentiality and clinical boundaries.
• Deliver the TJP Monthly Report on time to all three leadership levels.
• Enter evidence into the TJP Evidence Workbook weekly.
• Care for the Think Tank, the Task Force, and all equipment.
• Keep the Playbook current and posted.

Who can change it. The Interdepartmental Committee approves the One Big Thing, its supporting goals, and any mid-season change, and informs the Board of Volunteers. The SCDC Division sees it in every Monthly Report. Residents draft proposals for the next season's One Big Thing at the last Strategic meeting of the season.

#Question 7: Who does what, by when? (Roles and commitments)

Plain meaning. Who is responsible for each piece of work, and the date it is due. Lencioni's version is "Who must do what?" We add "by when" because a task without a date is a wish.

Why it matters. Most failures inside good teams are not failures of effort. They are failures of ownership: two people each thought the other had it, or nobody did. Question 7 is where the TRUST behavior "Take the task" becomes real.

How to answer it well. Question 7 has two parts:

1. Standing roles that stay the same for a season (who facilitates Tactical, who keeps the Decision Log, who manages the Evidence Workbook).
2. Commitments that come out of each meeting: one task, one owner, one date, one way to tell it is done.

A good commitment passes the one-name, one-date, one-proof test.

TJP draft answer (Q7): Standing roles for Season 1. Names are filled in by the Interdepartmental Committee. Roles marked "staff" must be held by staff or leadership, not residents.

Commitments are tracked on Worksheet 4 (Who Does What by When) and reviewed at every Tactical.

Who can change it. The Interdepartmental Committee approves standing roles. Commitments are set in Tactical meetings by the people doing the work, with the staff facilitator confirming. Changes that affect staff duties are decided by the Committee alone.

#Question 8: How will we know it worked? (Proof) [added]

Plain meaning. The evidence that tells us whether we are succeeding, written down before we start, including the number that would tell us we failed.

Why it matters. Deming spent his life showing that good people inside a bad system produce bad results, and that you cannot tell a good system from a bad one without measuring it. TJP will be judged by people who have seen many programs promise change. Honest proof, including honest failures, is what will earn their trust. It is also how we get better: Tactical meetings can only fix what they can see.

How to answer it well.

• Write it first. Nobody builds until the numbers are written down.
• Use the PROOF line for every project and every supporting goal.
• Use the three measurement layers for the program as a whole.
• Pass the two-counter test: if two people counted, would they get the same number?
• Name the Fail Line and mean it.

The PROOF line (reminder):

TJP draft answer (Q8).

We will know TJP is working through three layers of evidence, kept in the TJP Evidence Workbook and reported monthly:

1. Validated instruments: given at baseline (week 1), post (week 10), and a 6-month retention check.
2. Behavioral markers: attendance, disciplinary trends, peer teaching, and other observable behavior, defined with the TJP Evidence System.
3. Product artifacts: every tool built, every PROOF line, every ADOPT verdict, and every adoption tracked in the Adoption Register at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months.

Season 1 proof: each supporting goal of the One Big Thing carries its own PROOF line, drafted at the first Strategic meeting of the season and approved by the Interdepartmental Committee.

Honesty rule: a documented ABANDON verdict is a success of the process. We report misses as plainly as wins.

Who can change it. The Interdepartmental Committee approves program-level measures, after consulting the Board of Volunteers and, where research partners are involved, following their review requirements. Project-level PROOF lines are drafted by residents and approved by the staff facilitator before the build begins. Once a PROOF line is approved, the Result Number and Fail Line are not changed after the pilot. Changing the target after you see the score is not measurement; it is storytelling.

#Part 5: Project Pages: The Playbook in Miniature

Every ADOPT project, from a three-week Task Force build inside a course to a ten-week Keystone, gets one page in the Playbook. The Project Page answers a project-sized version of the Eight Questions, holds the PROOF line, and shows where the project is in the ADOPT steps and what the verdict was.

#Why one page

• It forces clarity. If you cannot fit it on one page, you do not yet know what you are doing.
• It travels. One page can be read in a Tactical, attached to a Monthly Report, and handed to a partner.
• It builds a library. After 13 courses, Cohort A alone will have produced a shelf of Project Pages. Cohort B starts on the shoulders of Cohort A.

#The eight questions at project size

The blank template is Worksheet 5. Below is a fully filled example.

#Example Project Page: "Say It as a Request"

This is a training example. The team, numbers, and dates are illustrative, not real results.

Q1. Why does this project exist? Many fights between teenagers start as a need nobody could name: respect, safety, belonging. The youth hear demands and threats where there was a request underneath. We want them to hear the request.

Q2. How will we treat each other? TRUST charter signed by all four team members on week 7. Extra team rule: nobody tells their own case story to the youth unless staff approved it in advance.

Q3. What exactly are we building? A 45-minute live workshop where four residents teach the four NVC steps (observation, feeling, need, request) using three role-plays drawn from school situations, plus a pocket card the youth keep.

Q4. Who is it for? One named real person: "Jay," 15, a composite built from the team's own memories of who they were at that age and checked with the visiting group's youth leader. Jay is quick to anger, smart, and hates being lectured. Not for: youth in crisis, or as a substitute for counseling. The visiting group's own adult leaders remain responsible for their youth at all times.

Q5. Which anchor does it show? CLOSE most strongly (credible messengers who were once Jay), with CARRIED built in: the pocket card and a two-page leader guide let the youth leader repeat the lesson without us.

Q6. Current step and next thing due. ADOPT step: T (Try, Test, Tune): complete. Verdict recorded. Next thing due: submit revised leader guide to staff sponsor by week 10, day 3.

Q7. Team and commitments.

Q8. PROOF line (written week 7, before building).

ADOPT step status

Result and 3 Ws

Verdict: ADJUST. Deliver again with the one change; same PROOF line; next visit per the Chaplain's schedule.

Limits (honest): One small group. The card measures understanding in the room, not behavior next week. The youth leader has offered to use the card again in 30 days; if approved, that becomes a retention check.

Approvals: Staff sponsor signature and date. Clinical and safety reviewer signature and date (required for any outside youth audience).

#Part 6: How the Playbook Lives in the Meeting Rhythm

The TJP Meeting Rhythm has four meetings. Each one has a job to do with the Playbook. The rule of thumb: the faster the meeting, the smaller the change it can make.

#What each meeting does with the Playbook, in detail

#How Playbook changes are logged

Every change to the Playbook, however small, gets a line in the Playbook Change Log, kept by the Playbook keeper at the front of the master Playbook. The version number tells anyone at a glance how big the change was.

Version numbers:

Sample change log:

Rules for changes:

1. Every change starts as a Playbook Change Request (Worksheet 7). Anyone can write one.
2. The request goes to the right meeting: Tactical for Q7, Strategic for Q5 to Q8, Horizon Review for Q1 to Q4.
3. The meeting recommends; the right leadership level approves.
4. Once approved, the Playbook keeper updates the master copy, the posted copies, and the change log within one week.
5. Every approved change appears in the next Monthly Report.
6. Old versions are kept, never thrown away. A dated, printed copy of each version goes in the Playbook binder.

#The Playbook Life Cycle

This is the loop that ties meetings, the Playbook, and leadership together. It runs every month.

#How the Playbook feeds The TJP Monthly Report

The Monthly Report should not require anyone to invent anything. If the Playbook is current, most of the report is already written.

#Part 7: The Clarity Check

The Clarity Check tells you whether the Playbook is living in people's heads or only on the wall. It takes about 25 minutes. Use it at orientation, at every Horizon Review, and any time a team feels confused.

#How to run it

1. Hand out blank Clarity Check sheets (Worksheet 6). No Playbook on the table. Cover the posters if you need to.
2. Each person answers all Eight Questions in one sentence, from memory. Eight minutes. Silent. No looking at a neighbor.
3. Uncover the Playbook. Each person scores their own sheet against the current Playbook answers using the scale below. Five minutes.
4. Compare. Go around the room, question by question. Read a few answers aloud (voluntary). Where are we saying the same thing? Where are we far apart? Ten minutes.
5. Record the team score and pick one question the team will work on before the next check.

#Scoring scale (per question)

Maximum per person: 16.

#What the scores mean

Team reading: Add up the scores for each question across the room and divide by the number of people. Any question with a team average below 1.5 is a clarity gap. The fix is almost never "people should study harder." Per Deming, blame the process, not the person: the answer may be too long, the poster may be in the wrong place, or the Check-In may have stopped reading it. Fix the process.

#Part 8: What Could Go Wrong

Every good tool can be misused. Here are the most likely ways the Playbook fails, and what to do about each.

#Part 9: Why TJP Must Exist

#Why this Playbook, specifically, is part of the case

A skeptic will ask a fair question: "Isn't this just another prison program with good intentions?" The Playbook is our answer, and it is a strong one:

#Part 10: Signage for the Dorm, the Think Tank, and the Task Force

#Part 11: Getting Started: The First 30 Days

A Playbook starts as a draft and becomes real through use. Here is a simple path from this document to a living Playbook.

#Worksheet 1: The Eight Questions Master Sheet

Playbook version: v Date: Approved by:

Write each answer in one or two sentences. If you cannot fit it, it is not clear yet.

Say-it-back check: Can every person in the room say the One Big Thing from memory? Yes No

One-breath test: Read your Q1 answer aloud. Did it take more than one breath? Yes No

Signatures (drafting team):

#Worksheet 2: Core Behaviors

Use this to review TRUST, sort values into the four kinds, and check whether we live what we say.

Part A: Sort our values. List everything people say we value. Put each in one column.

Part B: Behavior check. For each TRUST behavior, write one example from the past two weeks where we did it, and one where we missed it.

Part C: The cost test. Which core behavior would we keep even if it cost us something (time, comfort, looking good)? Explain.

Part D: Proposed change (if any). Use Worksheet 7 to send it to the Board of Volunteers through the Interdepartmental Committee.

#Worksheet 3: The One Big Thing

Lencioni's thematic goal in plain words: one rallying cry for one season (six to twelve months), three to five supporting goals, and the standing responsibilities that never go away.

Season: from to

THE ONE BIG THING (one sentence):

Test it: Is it one thing? Has an end date? Could every resident and staff member say it?

Supporting goals (temporary pieces that make the One Big Thing true):

Standing responsibilities (every season, no matter what):

"Not this season" list (good ideas we are choosing to wait on):

Approved by Interdepartmental Committee: Date:

#Worksheet 4: Who Does What by When

Filled in during Tactical meetings. Read back at the end of every meeting. One name, one date, one proof.

Team or meeting: Week of: Facilitator:

Last week's commitments review:

Commitments kept this week: of

Staff facilitator initials:

#Worksheet 5: Project Page Template

Project name: Playbook version: v

Course or Keystone: Channel (1, 2, 3, or 4): Space: Think Tank / Task Force

Project lead: Staff sponsor:

8. PROOF line (written BEFORE building):

ADOPT status: A D O P T (write the date each step was completed)

Result: What Worked:

What Wobbled: What's Next (one change):

Verdict (circle one): ADOPT / ADJUST / ABANDON

Honest limits:

Staff sponsor signature and date:

Clinical and safety reviewer (required for trauma-adjacent content or outside audiences):

#Worksheet 6: The Clarity Check

Name (optional): Date: Playbook version: v

Answer each question in one sentence, from memory. Do not look at the posters. Then score yourself: 2 = same meaning, 1 = close, 0 = blank or different.

My total: of 16

Team tally (facilitator):

The one question we will work on before the next check: Process fix:

#Worksheet 7: Playbook Change Request

Anyone can propose a change. The right leadership level decides. Attach extra pages if needed.

Proposed by: Date: Current version: v

Which question? (circle) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 or Project Page:

Current answer (copy it exactly):

Proposed new answer:

Why change it? What evidence do we have? (a PROOF result, a 3 Ws debrief, a Clarity Check gap, leadership feedback)

Which TRUST behavior or anchor does this protect or strengthen?

Routing (facilitator completes):

New version number: v Change log updated by: Posted copies updated on:

#Further Study

• Patrick Lencioni, The Advantage: Why Organizational Health Trumps Everything Else in Business (Jossey-Bass, 2012). The source of the six critical questions, the four kinds of values, strategic anchors, the thematic goal, and the "playbook." Read the section on creating clarity closely; skim the business examples. Ask for it through the institutional library or a partner donation.
• Patrick Lencioni, The Five Dysfunctions of a Team (Jossey-Bass, 2002). A short story about a leadership team that cannot trust each other. The foundation for our TRUST behaviors. Excellent for group reading; the story format works well for any reading level.
• Patrick Lencioni, Death by Meeting (Jossey-Bass, 2004). The source of the meeting types behind the TJP Meeting Rhythm. Read alongside the TJP Meeting Rhythm document.
• W. Edwards Deming, Out of the Crisis (MIT Press). Deming's case that most problems come from the system, not the worker. The idea behind "blame the process, not the person." Dense; read chapter summaries first.
• W. Edwards Deming, The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education (MIT Press). Includes the Plan, Do, Study, Act cycle, the thinking behind Question 8 and the One Change Rule.
• Mary Walton, The Deming Management Method (Perigee). The friendliest introduction to Deming. Start here before Out of the Crisis.
• Gerald Langley and colleagues, The Improvement Guide (Jossey-Bass). Built around three questions that sit close to our Question 8: What are we trying to accomplish? How will we know a change is an improvement? What change can we make that will result in improvement?
• Atul Gawande, The Checklist Manifesto (Metropolitan Books, 2009). Why short written tools save lives in complex work. A good argument for keeping the Playbook short.
• Amy Edmondson, The Fearless Organization (Wiley, 2018). On psychological safety: why people speak up or stay silent. Supports "Tell it early" and "Say it in the room."
• Chip Heath and Dan Heath, Made to Stick (Random House, 2007). Why some ideas are remembered and others are forgotten. Use it when writing Playbook answers and signs.
• Sam Kaner and colleagues, Facilitator's Guide to Participatory Decision-Making (Jossey-Bass). The best practical book for anyone facilitating Tactical and Strategic meetings.
• Marshall Rosenberg, Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life (PuddleDancer Press). Background for the Course 11 example Project Page.
• The Table Group (Lencioni's firm), tablegroup.com. Free summaries and tools on organizational health. Staff or partners can print relevant pages; residents have no internet access.

#Sources

• Lencioni, Patrick. The Advantage: Why Organizational Health Trumps Everything Else in Business. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2012. (Six critical questions, four disciplines, value types, strategic anchors, thematic goal, playbook.)
• Lencioni, Patrick. The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Leadership Fable. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002.
• Lencioni, Patrick. Death by Meeting: A Leadership Fable. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004.
• Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, "Lencioni Thematic Goal Model" (summary of thematic goal, defining objectives, standard operating objectives): https://www.ttuhsc.edu/president/documents/lencioni/lencioni-thematic-goal-model.pdf
• Consult Clarity, "Thematic Goal: Lencioni Guide" (summary noting a three-to-twelve-month thematic goal window): https://www.consultclarity.org/post/thematic-goal-lencioni-guide
• Deming, W. Edwards. Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (originally MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study, 1982/1986).
• Deming, W. Edwards. The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993.
• Walton, Mary. The Deming Management Method. New York: Perigee, 1986.
• Langley, Gerald J., et al. The Improvement Guide: A Practical Approach to Enhancing Organizational Performance. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2009.
• Gawande, Atul. The Checklist Manifesto. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2009.
• Edmondson, Amy C. The Fearless Organization. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2018.
• Heath, Chip, and Dan Heath. Made to Stick. New York: Random House, 2007.
• TJP, The ADOPT Model: Task Force Workshop Series (internal). Source of ADOPT, TRUST, PROOF, LESS, the 3 Ws, and the doctrine quoted throughout.