I love the sheer elegance of this structure. Running it will bring life to an under-cooked idea or a distilled list of perspectives to a malformed question. It works especially well when there are consultants in the room because they can really turn it!

In practice

In a longer sequence of content delivery, Troika Consulting is an engaging way to interject an interactive segment that works with the live system. User Experience Fishbowl can also be practiced for this purpose but Troika Consulting, as implied in the name, is better suited for "figuring things out". The 'client' benefits from a wealth of ideas and advice for a problem they're trying to solve (probably alone), and the 'consultants' get to try out their new knowledge or skills while sharing wisdom from past experiences.

I also find that Troika Consulting allows for people (that consider themselves) more advanced than the rest of the group to share their expertise in a productive manner. They will feel listened to and appreciated, and the group benefits from the input without slipping into a student posture or having pangs of resentment or inferiority. Don't underestimate this effect - it's hard to orchestrate, especially among a population that's gathered for training or community work.

In practice II

Here's a simple sequence within an ideation workshop: work on solutions in small groups > pitch to the room > Troika Consulting > re-work the solution in small groups > pitch again.

A round of Troika Consulting yields much higher quality discussion than asking for questions or feedback from the room because the group has agency over the input they want to elicit.
The structure has similarities to ritual dissent, which is also a good way to get input from the room. Note that ritual dissent is anchored in critique and is better suited for stress-testing or validating an idea, whereas Troika Consulting includes pathways to illuminate new ideas and narratives.
Like with many other Liberating Structures, this structure levels the playing field for the hierarchy. Juniors or colleagues in less "relevant" positions that might not have offered their input otherwise feel free to express their creativity, and seniors are put in an unusual position of not being able to defend their ideas. They walk away with a renewed appreciation for their colleagues.

Facilitation notes

One time, we ran Troika Consulting where a 'client' team who'd made a few compromises with their idea had became lost on what to do with its Frankenstein state. The 'consultants' really struggled to find an interesting angle. Each person tried and retreated a few times, failing to build on another's train of thought.

After letting the tension mount for a while, and sensing the consultants were falling into the same compromise-seeking trap that the clients had fallen into, I made an intervention to permit them to kill the idea. A few people chimed in to say "No, there's something there," and in under a minute, someone managed to put their finger to it and the discussion came to life.

It was amazing.

I want to deconstruct how I placed that bet, as this kind of intervention happens instinctively in the flow and doesn't get analyzed afterward.

The tone: It was a light-hearted "Hey, if you think this idea isn't going anywhere, it's an option to recommend not to pursue it!". If it were too heavy, the intervention would come across as a critique and immediately inflate their focus. If it were too light or not said confidently enough, it would be brushed aside. The right tone, though, would signal that there is no shame in taking a different path.
The timing: A premature comment would place on the table what would be perceived to be my personal lack of faith in the idea and the ability of the consultants. Too late, and it would feel like the teacher was rushing them for the sake of keeping to the timetable. Both would endanger the validity of the activity, which everyone was committed to.
Leading up to it: I held space by bringing a much stronger presence than I'd had for the other teams. It wouldn't do to pop out of the bushes with a suggestion. Since this was over video, in practical terms that meant expressing acute interest through body language, like leaning into the camera, nodding, looking at whoever's speaking, cocking my head, etc. Once the group converged on a direction, I quickly faded out.

See instructions

This entry is part of an ongoing series of Field notes from my Liberating Structures practice.

LS under development
- Aug 16, 2020 Tiny monsters
- Aug 13, 2020 Narrative reauthoring
- Aug 12, 2020 Spiral journal
- Aug 9, 2020 Mad Tea Party
Microstructures
- Feb 24, 2021 Helping Heuristics
- Oct 4, 2020 Nine Whys
- Oct 4, 2020 Appreciative interviews
- Sep 24, 2020 Ecocycle planning
- Sep 20, 2020 Celebrity interview
- Aug 22, 2020 25/10 Crowdsourcing
- Aug 22, 2020 Open space technology
- Aug 22, 2020 Wise crowds
- Aug 14, 2020 Wicked questions
- Aug 13, 2020 Heard, seen, respected
- Aug 13, 2020 15% Solution
- Aug 13, 2020 Triz
- Aug 13, 2020 Min specs
- Aug 12, 2020 User experience fishbowl
- Aug 11, 2020 Conversation cafe
- Aug 11, 2020 Troika Consulting
- Aug 11, 2020 Impromptu networking
- Aug 10, 2020 1-2-4-All