Before you read any further: this module is different from Values and from Dreams and Aspirations. Those two are about the participant, what they value, what they're moving toward. This one is about the participant and someone else. It's the only module in the program that asks people to think about specific real relationships in their lives, which is exactly why it needs a steadier hand than it might look like it needs on paper. Keep two things in your head the whole session: no names, ever, only actions, and nobody here is being asked to fix or repair a relationship, only to notice their own part in it.
[Gather the group. Wait until you have most people's attention before starting.]
"Hi everyone, I'm [your name], and I'll be facilitating today's session.
This module is about the relationships in your life, and specifically about how trust actually gets built and broken. Not the big dramatic moments. The small repeated ones. Every action you take with another person either builds the relationship up, breaks it down a little, or doesn't change much either way. Nobody is walking around consciously counting. But you can usually feel roughly where you stand with someone.
Two things this is not. It's not a scoreboard, we're not working out who owes who. And it's not about fixing anyone else. It's about noticing what's in your control.
Here's how it's going to go. You'll sort twelve everyday actions into building a relationship or breaking one. You'll look honestly at which of those you actually do, in a way that never leaves this room unless you want it to. You'll see how the exact same action can land completely differently depending on who's receiving it. And at the end, you'll walk away with something concrete: a written declaration and one relationship-building action you can actually take this week."
"I'm not here to tell you who to trust or how to fix any relationship in your life. I'm here to help you notice what's already happening, and how much of it is inside your control. Let's begin."
Mandatory · 25–26 min
[The mechanic: 1. Bring up the Action Sort screen on the Group Relationships Board. 2. Read one action aloud at a time, everyone signals builds or breaks (thumbs up or thumbs down), tally the read on the board. 3. Wave 1 (actions 1–6) usually lands cleanly, keep it fast. Wave 2 (actions 7–12) is built to split the group, slow down here. 4. When the board's split marker appears, stop and ask one person from each side what they were picturing, don't resolve it, just hear both, then move on. 5. Tap "Next Action" to move on, or "Back" to revisit one, tallies already entered are kept. Completed actions build up into a visible results board underneath, so the group can see everything they've sorted so far.]
"We're going to look at twelve everyday actions, and for each one you tell me whether it builds the relationship or breaks it. Thumbs up for builds, thumbs down for breaks. No right answers, just your honest read. One rule for the whole round, and it's the only one: we talk about the action, not about who did it. No names, not even initials."
"These first few are pretty straightforward. Just go with your gut."
[After action 6, the mid-point:] "Okay, halfway. Those were the easy ones, and I think we mostly agreed. The next six are going to be less obvious. If you find yourself thinking 'well, it depends,' that's the right instinct, hold onto it."
[On a split, in Wave 2:] "Okay, we're split on this one. What were you picturing when you picked yours?" [Take one from each side, without resolving it.] "So the same action, two completely different reads. Let's keep going."
[Watch for: a room that agrees on everything in Wave 2 usually means the actions are being read as abstract categories rather than real situations, ask one person what they were actually picturing and the split usually appears. If a participant reads an action against everyone else, that's a good sign, not a problem, give them the floor briefly. This is the module where names leak, catch a name at the first instance, before it becomes the group's norm.]
"There's no universal list of what builds a relationship and what breaks it. What just happened in this room, real splits across twelve actions, is closer to the truth than any rulebook could be.
The people who get the most from their relationships build them up early, before they ever need to draw on them. They're rarely caught off guard when someone pulls away, because they were never behind in the first place. Notice which of today's twelve actions you already do without thinking, and which ones you've been meaning to.
A relationship-building action isn't always obvious from the outside. The split you just saw proves it: half the room can watch the same action and read it two different ways. That's not a disagreement to resolve. It's useful information about how differently people take in the same thing."
"Which action surprised you most, and why?"
[Optional. Use your judgment for your group, but it's worth considering after this first round.]
"Some of us grew up with relationships that were easy to trust. Some of us have had to learn the hard way that people don't always mean what they say, or that trust gets broken and takes a long time to rebuild. Those experiences are real, and they can make a round like this feel more personal than it looks on paper. Today isn't about deciding who was right or wrong in your past. It's about noticing what's actually in your control going forward."
[Only if you're running Round 2.]
"So we've sorted twelve actions in the abstract. Now we're going to make it specific, and it gets a bit more uncomfortable, because you're going to look at which of these you actually do."
Optional · 15–17 min
[The mechanic: 1. Bring up the Pair Exchange screen. 2. Say the framing out loud before pairs start, not after: nothing from this round goes on the board, and nothing goes back to the group unless the participant chooses to bring it. 3. Give two minutes of silent individual thinking on three prompts, using the recommended time shown on the board and keeping time yourself. Don't fill the silence. 4. Pair up for 4 minutes each way, keeping time yourself using the recommended times shown on the board. The listener's job is just to listen, no advice, no interpretation. If the group is an odd number, make one group of three and give them 3 minutes each. 5. Bring the group back together and take two or three people sharing one insight, not the person it was about.]
"This one's in pairs, and it's the most personal bit of the module, so a couple of things first. Nothing you say in your pair goes on the board, and nothing goes back to the group unless you choose to bring it. And you can pass, on any of the three, no explanation needed."
"Take two minutes on your own to think about three things. One, a relationship-building action you already do. Two, a relationship-breaking action you'd like to be more aware of in yourself. Three, one change you'd like to make this week."
"Pair up. Four minutes each way, I'll tell you when to swap. The listener's job is just to listen. Don't advise, don't diagnose, don't tell them what it means. You just listen."
"Two or three of you, what's one thing you noticed in that conversation? Remember, the insight, not the person."
[Watch for: self-criticism is the risk here, not distress. A participant who spends four minutes cataloguing their own failures has misunderstood the round, the frame is noticing, not confessing. Redirect to the third item, the change they want to make. Also watch listeners who start advising, that's the habit this whole day is trying to break, and correcting it here pays off in every round afterwards. If someone starts describing another person in detail during the group share, bring it back: "Let's bring it back to you, what did you notice about your own side of it?"]
[The pauses in this round are longer and more loaded than in Round 1, and it's tempting to fill them. Notice your own urge to rescue a silence, especially during the two minutes of individual thinking and the four minutes each way in pairs, and resist it. Those pauses are where the round actually works.]
"This round doesn't get written down anywhere, on purpose. What you said to your partner is yours to keep or act on, not something the room needs to see.
Most people are naturally better at one of these three: building relationships up, noticing when they're breaking down, or actually changing how they act. Whichever one felt easiest to answer just now is probably the one you already lean on. The one that took longest to think of is worth paying attention to this week.
Not every relationship needs the same kind of effort. Some need consistency, some need honesty, some need you to simply show up once. Knowing what you naturally lean toward helps you notice when a relationship actually needs something different."
"Of the three things you just said out loud, which one are you actually going to do something about this week?"
[Only if you're running the next activity.]
"We've sorted the actions, and we've looked at which ones we do. Now we're going one level deeper, into why the same action lands completely differently depending on who's receiving it."
Optional, check first · 12–15 min
[Facilitator background, not something you read aloud. Check all five before letting a group start. If any one isn't true, send the group straight to Round 4 instead. Rounds 1, 2 and 4 are complete in themselves, a group that skips this round hasn't missed anything they need.]
[The mechanic: 1. Bring up the It Depends screen. 2. Walk through both worked examples with the group, a relationship-building action that can land badly (unsolicited advice), and a relationship-breaking action that can build trust (a firm boundary or a clear no). 3. Give two minutes of individual reflection on the three prompts below, then five minutes in pairs on whichever question they've got most to say about. 4. Run the facilitation practice: hold the key question on screen, keep time yourself using the recommended time shown, one person names an action, the other asks the question and listens without adding to it.]
"In Round 1 we sorted actions into building and breaking. Now we're going to break that sorting, on purpose. Offering someone advice is meant as relationship building, and it can land as intrusive, or controlling, or like you think they can't handle it. Setting a firm boundary, or just saying no, looks like relationship breaking on paper, and it can land as respect, because now the other person knows exactly where they stand with you. So the same action can go either way. What decides it isn't the action. It's the person, and what's already going on between you."
[Individual reflection prompts, read all three aloud:]
"There is one question that does most of the work in this whole module. Here it is: 'How might the other person experience that action?' That's it. It moves someone from what they meant to what actually landed, without you having to explain anything to them."
[Watch for: signals the group is ready, participants describe their own patterns without blaming themselves or anyone else, show curiosity, and can hold intention and impact apart. Signals to stop and go to Round 4, participants start diagnosing themselves or others, repeatedly assign blame, withdraw emotionally, or treat the metaphor as a calculation of who owes whom.]
[Watch the metaphor. If you hear "he owes me," "I've made so many deposits," or anything that sounds like a balance dispute, redirect once:] "This isn't a ledger. What's the part that's actually in your control?"
[Don't let anyone leave with a label. No "toxic," "narcissistic," "avoidant," "traumatised," "people-pleaser," about themselves or about absent people. Use observational language instead: "That's a pattern you've noticed." / "What effect does it tend to have?" / "When does it show up most often?" / "What different response might you want to practise?"]
"Every example on this board could have gone the other way, with almost no change in the action itself. What changed was who received it and what they needed that day.
Before you act on someone else's behalf, especially someone you don't know well yet, ask how it might land instead of assuming they'll understand what you meant. A thirty-second check-in costs almost nothing: 'Is it okay if I bring this up?' or 'How do you want help with this?' can close most of the gap.
Meaning well and landing well are two different things. The gap between them is usually invisible to the person acting. The examples on this board aren't mistakes. They show the normal gap between what someone intended and what someone else actually felt."
"Think of one relationship in your life where you'd want to check first instead of assume. What would checking actually sound like?"
"Okay, we've looked at what builds a relationship, what we actually do, and how the same action can land two different ways. Let's turn that into something you actually walk away with."
Mandatory · 10 min
[Use Back and Next on the board to bring up each reflection stage in turn, and read it out loud together before anyone starts writing. Hand out a worksheet and a pen to each participant, the board never collects the private declaration, this part stays on paper. Give everyone quiet time to write privately, three minutes.]
"One more thing before you write. You're responsible for your own contribution to a relationship, the actions you choose to take. You're not responsible for the other person's choices. And you're never responsible for keeping a relationship going if it isn't safe."
"Finish these two sentences. 'Someone I want to build a relationship with is ___, and I will ___ this week.' 'One thing I will do this week to strengthen a key relationship is ___.'"
"You don't have to use a real name on your sheet, 'my brother' or 'a friend from CCA' works just as well. And make the action small enough that it's genuinely happening this week. 'I'll be a better friend' isn't an action, nobody can do that on Tuesday. 'I'll message them and actually ask how the interview went' is an action. If the relationship you're thinking of is a difficult one, and writing an action toward it doesn't feel right, don't. Pick a different relationship, or just sit this one out. That's completely fine."
[If you only have thirty seconds with a group in this round, spend it on this distinction: "I will be a better friend" is abstract, and nothing happens on Tuesday because of it. "I will check in and listen without picking up my phone" is observable.]
[The Non-Negotiable.] This is where the agency boundary you just said out loud gets enforced, not just stated. If a participant's relationship involves abuse, coercion, family violence, or is otherwise unsafe, do not ask them what relationship-building action they could make. The responsibility for maintaining an unsafe relationship must never be placed on the participant. Offer a different relationship, or let them sit the writing out entirely. Then follow the STOP protocol if anything was disclosed.
"Revisit your action in four weeks. Don't grade whether it worked, ask whether it's become automatic yet. Relationships are built the same way trust is: through small actions, repeated often enough that they stop needing to be decided on each time.
No single gesture fixes or breaks a relationship. What builds up over months is what actually determines the shape of that relationship, whether people trust you, feel safe with you, and want to keep showing up. That means today's twelve actions matter less on their own than as a pattern you keep choosing."
"Thank you for your honesty and effort today. Hold onto what you wrote, nobody needs to read it out for it to count."
[Close warmly. You don't need a big speech, a simple and sincere thank you lands better than a long one.]