Include and Engage Everyone with Liberating Structures - 1-2-4-All

How it used to go

She had been sitting in the meeting for a while when she felt it happening again.
Nothing major. No conflict. No tension. Rather that familiar, quiet draining of energy.
The same colleagues spoke. The same voices set the pace. Not because others had nothing to say, but because the conversation naturally drifted there each time. Silences were quickly filled. Ideas were mentioned but rarely truly explored.

She listened, thought along, and meanwhile felt her own thoughts piling up without finding space.
This wasn’t a one-time meeting. This was a pattern.

Afterwards, there would probably be another decision. No one would really be against it. And yet she already knew: the decision would feel thin. Something to be executed, but not truly carried. The problem wasn’t in motivation or commitment.

It was in how the conversation was structured.
That thought wouldn’t let her go.

A new structure

Halfway through the meeting, another brief silence fell. Normally someone would have filled it immediately. Not this time.

She took a breath and said:
“May I try something?”

People looked up. No resistance. More like curiosity.
“I notice we react quickly to each other,” she said.
“But I think there are many more thoughts in the group than we’re hearing now.”

She grabbed a marker and wrote one question on the board:
“What is most important for you that we decide together today, so that you can truly stand behind it afterwards?”

“First, take two minutes to think about this yourself,” she said. “Don’t share yet.”
The silence that followed was different from usual. Less empty. More concentrated.

Then she had people exchange their thoughts in pairs. Not to agree, but to understand what was important to each person. Next, they formed groups of four with one simple task:

“Look for what connects your answers — and where they differ.”
Only then did everyone come back together.
What she introduced was 1-2-4-All, one of the Liberating Structures.

Not as a method or solution, but as an experiment. A temporary structure that slowed down the conversation and distributed influence differently.
She needed to guide very little. The structure did the work.

What was liberated

The shift wasn’t spectacular, but it was immediately felt.

People who normally mostly listened now spoke up. Not hesitantly, but prepared. Their contributions didn’t come as loose impulses, but as thoughts that had already been sharpened.
The conversation changed character. Instead of reacting to the fastest voice, people began building on each other’s ideas. The pace slowed down — and the sharpness went up.

Silences also took on a different meaning. They no longer needed to be filled. They offered space to let things sink in.
The decision that eventually emerged might not have been groundbreaking in content. But it felt right. And more importantly: it felt like everyone’s.

In the days that followed, something unexpected happened. In the next meeting, someone said:
“Shall we do that thing from last time again?”

She smiled and facilitated 1-2-4-All again.

What shifted

After a few times, something began to shift. Not just in conversations, but in behavior.
People came better prepared to meetings. They waited more often before reacting. Silences were filled less quickly. The conversation became something you created together, not something you followed.

In later meetings, the group itself asked for the next step.
“We have many ideas,” someone said. “But what can we do with this ourselves right now?”

She introduced 15% Solutions: what can you do immediately, within your own sphere of influence?
And later, Min Specs: what is the minimum we need to agree on to move forward together?

What started as one experiment grew into a shared repertoire.
Not the same format every time, but the same reflex:

Let’s structure the conversation so everyone can participate.

Slowly, the culture changed. Not because someone had announced it, but because behavior changed. Decisions were discussed less after the meeting and made more during the meeting. Ownership became more visible. Not with a few people, but distributed throughout the group.