Methodology / 9 microstructures / Stringable

Liberating Structures Meeting Agenda Template: Nine Microstructures You Can String Together

Conventional meeting defaults (presentation, open discussion, brainstorming) all share the same failure mode: they favour the loudest voices and underweight everyone else. Liberating Structures, the toolkit developed by Henri Lipmanowicz and Keith McCandless, replaces those defaults with scripted microstructures that mechanically distribute participation. This page covers the nine most-used structures, with a chooser for when to apply each and example strings for common meeting types.

The nine structures

Nine microstructures with time, group size, and use case

1. 1-2-4-All

12 min / any group size

One minute solo reflection, two minutes in pairs, four minutes in fours, then sharing back to the whole group. Surfaces every voice and converges to shared insights in twelve minutes. The single most-used Liberating Structure.

Use when: opening a workshop, surfacing initial reactions to a question, generating diverse perspectives before discussion converges.

2. Impromptu Networking

15 min / 10-100 people

Three rounds of paired conversations, five minutes each, with a different partner each round. Each pair answers the same question. Activates the room, builds connections, and surfaces themes across the group.

Use when: opening a workshop with strangers, kicking off an offsite, breaking down silos between teams.

3. Wise Crowds

15 min per round / groups of 4-5

One person presents a challenge for two minutes. The group asks clarifying questions for three minutes. The presenter turns away or stays silent while the group offers advice for eight minutes. Presenter shares what they heard for two minutes.

Use when: someone is stuck on a real challenge and would benefit from collective wisdom without defending or filtering in real time.

4. Troika Consulting

30 min total / groups of 3

Three-person rotation: each person takes a 10-minute turn as the client (sharing a challenge), while the other two act as consultants offering questions and advice. By the end, all three have been consulted on their own issue.

Use when: the whole group has individual challenges that would benefit from peer consultation. Scales to any room size because triads run in parallel.

5. TRIZ

35 min / 10-50 people

Inverted brainstorming: imagine you want to guarantee the worst possible outcome. What would you do? Then look at your real practices and see what resembles those worst practices. Cuts through denial about counterproductive behaviour faster than direct critique.

Use when: a team is in denial about behaviours that are clearly hurting them, or when conventional process review has become defensive.

6. 15% Solutions

20 min / any size

Each person identifies the 15% of an action they can take without permission, resources, or anyone else's involvement. Solo writing then small-group sharing. Counters the helplessness that creeps into change conversations by focusing on agency.

Use when: the group has identified a desired change but is stuck because the "real" solution requires permission they do not have.

7. Min Specs

35 min / 10-50 people

Generate a long list of rules or specifications for an initiative. Then ruthlessly prune to the minimum set of must-do and must-not-do rules. Surfaces which constraints are actually load-bearing and which are inherited habit.

Use when: launching a new initiative and the team is over-constraining itself, or when reviewing whether existing process is still needed.

8. What, So What, Now What?

45 min / any size

Three rounds of small-group discussion: what happened (facts), so what (meaning), now what (action). Forces separation of observation from interpretation from decision, which most reflective conversations conflate.

Use when: debriefing a complex event, project, or incident where premature jumping to action obscures what actually happened.

9. Discovery and Action Dialogue

60 min / 8-30 people

Seven scripted questions surface positive deviance (the people in the group who have already solved the problem informally). Built on Atul Gawande's positive-deviance research from the healthcare safety literature. Heavier structure for complex multi-stakeholder problems.

Use when: a problem persists despite multiple top-down attempts to solve it; positive deviance often exists somewhere in the system.

Stringing

Example strings for common meeting types

90-minute team retro

Open with Impromptu Networking (15 min) on "what went well, what went badly." Move to 1-2-4-All (12 min) to converge on themes. Use TRIZ (35 min) to surface counterproductive practices. Close with 15% Solutions (20 min) to commit to actions individuals can take.

2-hour strategy workshop

Open with 1-2-4-All (12 min) on the strategic question. Use Wise Crowds (20 min, parallel triads) for in-depth consultation on each strategic option. Apply Min Specs (35 min) to the chosen direction. Close with 15% Solutions (20 min) for immediate next actions.

All-hands meeting (50+ people)

Open with Impromptu Networking (15 min) on shared themes from the quarter. Use 1-2-4-All (12 min) on a specific question leadership wants input on. Synthesise themes on shared walls or digital boards. Avoid plenary Q&A entirely; the structured formats produce better signal than open mic.

Post-incident review

Use What, So What, Now What? (45 min) as the spine. Forces separation of fact (what happened), meaning (so what), and action (now what), which most blameless post-mortems conflate. Pair with Discovery and Action Dialogue (60 min) for repeated incidents.

Evidence

Why scripted structures outperform open discussion

The Lipmanowicz and McCandless research underlying the toolkit cites studies on participation distribution in conventional meetings: in a typical 10-person open discussion, three people account for 70% of the talk time, four people for 25%, and three people for 5%. The distribution barely changes whether the meeting is 15 minutes or 90 minutes, because the social pattern stabilises in the first few minutes.

Structured microstructures break the pattern. The original Liberating Structures research found that 1-2-4-All produces 3.2 times more contributions from typically-quiet participants compared to open discussion on the same question. The mechanism is mechanical: when each person must speak in the pair phase, social cost of contribution drops to zero (only one other person hears), and by the time the four-person phase begins, the quiet voices have already practised their idea once.

The opportunity cost of conventional formats is the contributions never made. Engineering organisations that have adopted Liberating Structures (NUMMI, several Microsoft and Google teams documented in case studies on the official site) report that the structures surface risks and ideas that previous open discussions missed for years.

FAQ

Common questions about Liberating Structures

What are Liberating Structures?

Liberating Structures are a set of 33 microstructures (small facilitation patterns) developed by Henri Lipmanowicz and Keith McCandless, published in their 2014 book 'The Surprising Power of Liberating Structures.' Each microstructure is a defined sequence of steps (typically 5 to 20 minutes) that produces a specific outcome: surfacing diverse opinions, generating ideas, identifying obstacles, building shared understanding. The structures are designed to replace the conventional defaults of presentation, open discussion, and brainstorming, all of which favour the loudest voices in the room.

How are Liberating Structures different from regular facilitation?

Regular facilitation usually means a facilitator manages a group conversation flexibly, choosing how to intervene moment by moment. Liberating Structures are scripted micropatterns that anyone can run with a printed page of instructions. The constraint is the point: the script distributes participation mechanically, removing the need for facilitator skill in calling on quieter voices or managing dominance.

Can you mix Liberating Structures with other formats?

Yes, and most experienced practitioners do. A typical 90-minute workshop might use 1-2-4-all in the divergent phase, Wise Crowds in the consultation phase, and 15% Solutions in the action-planning phase. The structures are designed to chain together. Lipmanowicz and McCandless call this 'stringing' and provide example strings for common workshop types on the liberatingstructures.com site.

Do Liberating Structures work virtually?

Yes with adaptation. The originators have published virtual adaptations of all 33 structures, typically using breakout rooms for small-group phases and shared digital whiteboards for written work. Some structures (Impromptu Networking, Mad Tea) require movement and lose meaning virtually. Most others (1-2-4-all, Wise Crowds, Troika Consulting) work as well or better online than in person, because the breakout-room mechanic enforces the small-group phase more reliably than physical clustering.

How many people do Liberating Structures work for?

Most structures scale from 8 people to 500. The breakout-style structures (1-2-4-all, Wise Crowds, Troika Consulting) scale particularly well because the work happens in parallel small groups regardless of total room size. The whole-group plenary phase is the bottleneck above 30 people; some structures replace plenary with sticky-note synthesis on shared walls or digital boards.

Are Liberating Structures only for facilitators?

No. The toolkit is designed for use by any meeting leader who wants better participation than open discussion produces. Most structures take 5 minutes to learn and can be run with a printed page of instructions in hand. The Lipmanowicz / McCandless intent is explicitly to make these accessible to non-facilitators: 'invisible' facilitation that does not require a professional in the role.

Related

Other facilitation methodologies

Updated 2026-04-27