Welcome, and thank you for stepping into this role today.
Here's what that actually looks like with a group this size. You're not one facilitator managing a room, you're one person giving full attention to six people or fewer, sometimes just two or three. That means you can actually learn their names, notice who's gone quiet, and adjust the pace because you can see every face. That's not a small thing. That's the job.
This module is different from the other two you might be running. Values and Dreams and Aspirations are both 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.
Here's the central idea, and it's worth holding onto for the whole session: this isn't about repairing relationships, and it isn't therapy. It's about noticing that relationships are built and worn down through small repeated actions, most of which people take without thinking. Trust is one of the things this shapes, but it's not the only one, so are safety, closeness, and whether someone feels like they can rely on you. Every action either helps a relationship, hurts it, or doesn't change much either way. Nobody's consciously counting, but people can usually feel roughly where they stand with someone. Participants aren't being asked to fix anyone. They're being shown that this is already happening around them all the time, whether they're paying attention to it or not, and that a surprising amount of it is inside their control.
Keep it simple. Talk about what someone does, not what's wrong with them. Values is the participant's decision filter. Dreams and Aspirations is their direction statement with a date. This module is their relationship maintenance system. Don't use words like attachment style, emotional regulation, or anything that sounds like a diagnosis, even if it feels more accurate. It isn't more useful to this audience, and in this module it's actually risky: a participant who walks away with a label for themselves or someone else tends to keep using it on people who aren't in the room.
When you help, serve, or work with someone, you can do things FOR them, WITH them, or TO them. These can look similar from the outside, but they feel very different to the person on the receiving end.
FOR — “I'll do this for you.” You help or make things easier: “You're tired, I'll carry your bag.” “I'll fill in the form for you.” This isn't bad, people genuinely need help sometimes, just keep paying attention to what they actually want.
WITH — “Let's do this together.” You involve the person and work alongside them: “Would you like me to carry that, or would you rather carry it yourself?” “Let's fill in the form together.” You listen, ask, notice, and adjust.
TO — “I know what's best for you.” You decide or act without really involving them: “Give me your bag, you obviously can't carry it.” “Don't worry about the form, you won't understand it anyway.” Sometimes acting TO protect someone is necessary, but done unnecessarily, it can feel controlling.
Aim for WITH when you can. Before helping, ask yourself: am I doing this for, with, or to this person?
Be Human. No need to sound like a counsellor. Talk normally, laugh, share something real.
Be Responsive. Slow down if someone's uncomfortable, listen if they want to talk, don't force conversation.
Be Useful. Ask what would actually help, rather than assuming.
Be Respectful. Don't treat someone's circumstances as their identity.
The participant in front of you isn't “an underprivileged teenager” or “a kid who needs mentoring.” They're a specific person, with their own relationships, their own read on who's trustworthy in their life, and their own reasons for whatever they say when this module asks them to look at that. Start there.
If this is your first time facilitating, that's okay. Follow this guide one step at a time, and you'll do just fine.
One more thing worth knowing before you start: today is one session inside something much longer for you too. As an NTU CSL student, you're committing to up to 40 hours of service across as long as a year, not just today, return visits, repeat contact, and a real relationship with the people you're serving. What you're facilitating today isn't a one-off for you either, it's the opening of something you'll keep coming back to well after this session ends.
If this group did the Values Module earlier today, you can open with a light callback rather than starting cold: “Earlier you looked at what you'd protect when a choice costs you something. This module is the same question, pointed at other people.” It isn't mandatory, but it makes the day feel like one arc instead of two unrelated activities.
First, this is the only module where participants think about specific real people in their lives, and some of those people are in the room. Set the no-names rule with your group right at the start of Round 1, before anyone starts sorting, not after the first slip. Talk about actions, not about who did them.
Second, nobody in this module gets told to repair a relationship. Participants take responsibility for their own contribution, and nothing beyond that. They are never responsible for another person's choices, and never responsible for maintaining a relationship that isn't safe.
This guide is written around the Group Relationships Board, the default way to run this module. It holds the tallies for Round 1 and the worked examples and recommended times for Round 3, so there's very little writing up for you to do by hand. Round 2 and Round 4 never touch the board at all, both stay private on paper regardless of which format you're using. Timing on the board is a reference only, in Rounds 2 and 3 you keep and adjust time yourself.
Three things to hold onto the whole session:
Conversation starters, before the activity starts:
If you're seeing this group again: “What's something that happened since I last saw you that you want to tell me about?” A specific callback to something they mentioned last time lands better than a general “how are you,” it shows you remembered them.
If someone shares something unexpected, not a safety concern, just more personal than you expected, you don't need a clever response. Try: “Thanks for telling me that.” / “That makes sense.” / “I hear you.” Then let the activity continue.
Getting along with this group:
Your main adjustment for this group: keep it fast and concrete in Round 1, then slow right down for Round 2. This age group will sort a list of actions happily and then go abstract the moment it becomes about them, “I'll be a better friend,” “I'll communicate more.” Push for observable actions. If you can't picture someone doing it on a specific day this week, it isn't specific enough yet.
A note on images: the pictures on this module's Group Board are a visual aid, not a requirement, generated to reflect a diverse range of youth. Each round has a "Show Images" / "Hide Images" toggle, off by default. Use your judgment: show them if a picture helps an option land faster than text alone, hide them if they're distracting or don't fit the room. Either way, every round works exactly the same with or without them.
This module isn't really about rules for relationships. It's about noticing what you're already doing, on purpose.
Nobody can tell a participant exactly who to trust or how to keep every relationship in their life healthy. But they can get better at knowing:
That's what this module practises. Every round is really asking one of these four questions in a different way. Your job as facilitator is simply to help participants move through these four steps. You don't need to be a relationship expert, you just need to run the steps and stay calm if something real comes up.
This helps participants practise:
For youth, this shows up everywhere from friendships to family to teamwork at school, and it's a skill that keeps paying off well beyond today: the people who get the most from their relationships build them up early, before they ever need to draw on them.
The words in the SAY boxes are written to be read aloud in your own natural voice, not memorised word for word. You can read them exactly as written, or put them in your own words as long as the meaning stays the same.
If a device isn't available: the twelve Round 1 actions printed as a list with two tally columns, nothing needed to print for Round 3, and individual sheets for Round 4.
| Round | What Happens | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Action Sort — Mandatory | Everyone reads 12 everyday actions as building or breaking a relationship | 25–26 min |
| 2. Pair Exchange — Optional | Pairs name one action they do, one they want to watch, one change | 15–17 min |
| 3. It Depends — Optional, check first | The same action, landing two different ways, plus facilitation practice | 12–15 min |
| 4. Final Reflection — Mandatory | Each person reflects, writes a private declaration and action, then closes with a reflection question | 12 min |
Rounds below sum to about 62–68 minutes, the rest is buffer for setup, transitions, and coaching pauses.
You are working with youth from a range of backgrounds, including some who may have experienced difficult things in the relationships this module asks them to think about. You are not expected to handle everything alone. Your job is to notice, respond calmly, and get the right person involved.
| Signal | Looks like | Do |
|---|---|---|
| STOP | Disclosure of abuse, coercion or violence in a current relationship, self-harm, or acute distress | Stop the activity and get the person in charge right away. Do not ask follow-up questions about what happened, and do not proceed to any action-planning about that relationship. |
| SLOW | Someone names a relationship and then goes quiet or withdraws, or their example clearly places them on the receiving end of the “breaking” list | Reduce pressure. Let them pass. Check in later. Check in with them quietly and privately after the round. |
| MONITOR | Scorekeeping, building a case against an absent person, or self-criticism that runs past noticing into cataloguing | Keep going gently. Redirect to what's in their control, tell the person in charge afterward. |
1. Never ask someone to make a relationship-building action toward an unsafe relationship. If abuse, coercion, family violence or an unsafe relationship surfaces, the responsibility for maintaining that relationship must never be placed on the participant. Move them to a different relationship, or let them sit the writing out entirely.
2. No labels. Not “toxic,” “narcissistic,” “avoidant,” “traumatised,” “people-pleaser.” Not about themselves, not about anyone absent. Support noticing, don't explain the cause of anything.
You are the first person in the room. What you do in the first 30 seconds of a difficult moment matters more than having the perfect words. Stay calm, stay warm, and hand it to the person in charge. A school teacher should be present at every session, if for any reason they're not in the room, know who you'd go to instead before you start.
Purpose: make the account visible before it gets personal. Twelve actions, read fast, sorted as building or breaking a relationship. Round question: what builds a relationship, and what breaks it?
Opening welcome: “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.”
Starting the round: “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: we talk about the action, not about who did it. No names, not even initials.”
Wave 1: “These first few are pretty straightforward. Just go with your gut.”
Mid-point check-in, after action 6: “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, 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.”
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, it's the only one where participants think about specific real people, and some of those people are in the room. 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.”
Closing question: “Which action surprised you most, and why?”
This is 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.”
This validates real experience without turning the session into a discussion of past hurt. It keeps the round focused on noticing patterns rather than relitigating specific relationships, which is what keeps this activity safe for a small group.
“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.”
Purpose: move from the abstract list to the participant's own behaviour, in the safest possible container. Round question: which of these do I actually do?
Framing, before pairs start: “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.”
Individual thinking: “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.”
Pairing up: “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.”
Group share: “Two or three of you, what's one thing you noticed in that conversation? Remember, the insight, not the person.”
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.”
Closing question: “Of the three things you just said out loud, which one are you actually going to do something about this week?”
“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.”
Purpose: the most demanding round, and the only one you need to check the group is ready for before you start. It breaks Round 1's sorting on purpose, intention and impact are two different things, and the receiver decides which one they experienced. Round question: how might the other person experience it?
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.
Framing: “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:
The key facilitation question: “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.”
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. The Emotional Bank Account is useful because it's concrete, and it fails the moment a group turns it into accounting. 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?”
Watch for deeper gaps. If someone goes quiet or disengages during this debrief, it may be because the “good intentions, bad landing” framing doesn't fit a relationship they're thinking of, one where something more serious happened. Don't push for the specifics. A brief private check-in after the round (per MONITOR guidance) is enough.
“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.”
Closing question: “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.”
Purpose: land the module in a look back at how you relate to others, one specific, doable action, and a closing reflection on who you want to be in your relationships. Round questions: what did I notice about how I build relationships, what's the one action I'll take this week, and who do I want to become in how I treat people?
Opening: “Looking back at today's rounds, what's one thing you noticed about how you build or maintain relationships?”
The agency boundary, before anyone writes the declaration: “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.”
Declaration: “Complete this sentence: ‘Someone I want to build a relationship with is ___.’”
Action: “What's one specific thing you'll do this week for the relationship you just named?”
Before they write: “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.”
Closing sequence: “What's one word for how you want people to feel when they're with you?”
“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. If you only have thirty seconds with a group in this round, spend it on this distinction.
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.”
Closing: “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. Thank the group for their honesty and effort today. A simple and sincere thank you lands better than a long speech.
Welcome, and thank you for stepping into this role today.
Here's what that actually looks like with a group this size. You're not one facilitator managing a room, you're one person giving full attention to six people or fewer, sometimes just two or three. That means you can actually learn their names, notice who's gone quiet, and adjust the pace because you can see every face. That's not a small thing. That's the job.
This module is different from the other two you might be running. Values and Dreams and Aspirations are both 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.
Here's the central idea, and it's worth holding onto for the whole session: this isn't about repairing relationships, and it isn't therapy. It's about noticing that relationships are built and worn down through small repeated actions, most of which people take without thinking. Trust is one of the things this shapes, but it's not the only one, so are safety, closeness, and whether someone feels like they can rely on you. Every action either helps a relationship, hurts it, or doesn't change much either way. Nobody's consciously counting, but people can usually feel roughly where they stand with someone. Participants aren't being asked to fix anyone. They're being shown that this is already happening around them all the time, whether they're paying attention to it or not, and that a surprising amount of it is inside their control.
Keep it simple. Talk about what someone does, not what's wrong with them. Values is the participant's decision filter. Dreams and Aspirations is their direction statement with a date. This module is their relationship maintenance system. Don't use words like attachment style, emotional regulation, or anything that sounds like a diagnosis, even if it feels more accurate. It isn't more useful to this audience, and in this module it's actually risky: a participant who walks away with a label for themselves or someone else tends to keep using it on people who aren't in the room.
When you help, serve, or work with someone, you can do things FOR them, WITH them, or TO them. These can look similar from the outside, but they feel very different to the person on the receiving end. This one matters more in this module than any other, it's the same shape as the actions you'll be sorting all session.
FOR — “I'll do this for you.” You help or make things easier: “You're tired, I'll carry your bag.” “I'll fill in the form for you.” This isn't bad, people genuinely need help sometimes, just keep paying attention to what they actually want.
WITH — “Let's do this together.” You involve the person and work alongside them: “Would you like me to carry that, or would you rather carry it yourself?” “Let's fill in the form together.” You listen, ask, notice, and adjust.
TO — “I know what's best for you.” You decide or act without really involving them: “Give me your bag, you obviously can't carry it.” “Don't worry about the form, you won't understand it anyway.” Sometimes acting TO protect someone is necessary, but done unnecessarily, it can feel controlling.
Aim for WITH when you can. Before helping, ask yourself: am I doing this for, with, or to this person?
Be Human. No need to sound like a counsellor. Talk normally, laugh, share something real.
Be Responsive. Slow down if someone's uncomfortable, listen if they want to talk, don't force conversation.
Be Useful. Ask what would actually help, rather than assuming.
Be Respectful. Don't treat someone's disability as their identity.
The participant in front of you isn't “a person with a disability who needs help” or “someone from the day centre.” They're a specific person, with their own relationships, their own read on who's trustworthy in their life, and their own reasons for whatever they say or signal when this module asks them to look at that. Start there, and never assume a participant's ability based on their disability.
If this is your first time facilitating, that's okay. Follow this guide one step at a time, and you'll do just fine.
One more thing worth knowing before you start: today is one session inside something much longer for you too. As an NTU CSL student, you're committing to up to 40 hours of service across as long as a year, not just today, return visits, repeat contact, and a real relationship with the people you're serving. What you're facilitating today isn't a one-off for you either, it's the opening of something you'll keep coming back to well after this session ends.
If this group did the Values Module earlier today, you can open with a light callback rather than starting cold: “Earlier you looked at what you'd protect when a choice costs you something. This module is the same question, pointed at other people.” It isn't mandatory, but it makes the day feel like one arc instead of two unrelated activities.
First, this is the only module where participants think about specific real people in their lives, and some of those people are in the room. Set the no-names rule with your group right at the start of Round 1, before anyone starts sorting, not after the first slip. Talk about actions, not about who did them.
Second, nobody in this module gets told to repair a relationship. Participants take responsibility for their own contribution, and nothing beyond that. They are never responsible for another person's choices, and never responsible for maintaining a relationship that isn't safe.
This guide is written around the Group Relationships Board, the default way to run this module. It holds the tallies for Round 1 and the worked examples and recommended times for Round 3, so there's very little writing up for you to do by hand. Round 2 and Round 4 never touch the board at all, both stay private on paper regardless of which format you're using. Timing on the board is a reference only, in Rounds 2 and 3 you keep and adjust time yourself.
Three things to hold onto the whole session:
Conversation starters, before the activity starts:
If you're seeing this group again: “What's something that happened since I last saw you that you want to tell me about?” A specific callback to something they mentioned last time lands better than a general “how are you,” it shows you remembered them.
If someone shares something unexpected, not a safety concern, just more personal than you expected, you don't need a clever response. Try: “Thanks for telling me that.” / “That makes sense.” / “I hear you.” Then let the activity continue.
Getting along with this group:
Your main adjustment for this group: match the pace and communication method to each person, not to a group average. Some participants will move through this as fast as any group you'll facilitate, others need real processing time between actions. Don't average it out, follow the room, and treat every form of response, speech, gesture, pointing, writing, an AAC device, or a support person relaying, as an equally complete answer. These materials are designed to work across a wide range of disabilities, but every group is different, so check with the person in charge on site on how they'd plan to run it with this group, and adjust based on what they tell you.
↗ Read the full PWD Interaction Guidelines — communication, language, physical and sensory access, and the blind/low-vision protocol, in one place.
A note on images: the images used throughout this module's Group Board are there to give the PWD population visual parity with the Youth and Seniors boards, not because facilitation depends on them. They have been generated to reflect a diverse range of persons with disabilities. Every round has a "Show Images" / "Hide Images" toggle, off by default, and you decide whether to turn it on. There's no single right answer, use your judgment on the day: hide images if your device makes them hard to see clearly for the whole group, or if the pictures don't resonate with the particular people you're serving, the words alone carry the activity fine. Turn them on if the group needs help visualising a scenario or value, or if someone's struggling to picture what's being asked, images are there as a fallback, not a requirement. No image is required to run any exercise. If a screen isn't available, if images are toggled off, or if a participant can't see them, every round still functions exactly as designed. Be sensitive to turning the images off if the group you're facilitating doesn't take well to them, and check with the people in charge if you're unsure.
This module isn't really about rules for relationships. It's about noticing what you're already doing, on purpose.
Nobody can tell a participant exactly who to trust or how to keep every relationship in their life healthy. But they can get better at knowing:
That's what this module practises. Every round is really asking one of these four questions in a different way. Your job as facilitator is simply to help participants move through these four steps, in whatever way works for each person. You don't need to be a relationship expert, you just need to run the steps and stay calm if something real comes up.
This helps participants practise:
For PWD participants, this can help with deciding what support to accept and what to say no to, communicating what actually matters to them, and noticing the difference between a relationship that involves support and a relationship where all the deciding happens on their behalf.
The words in the SAY boxes are written to be plain and simple. You can read them exactly as written, or put them in your own words as long as the meaning stays the same. Where useful, back up spoken instructions with something visual or written, not everyone will pick up an instruction from hearing it alone.
Everyone should be able to participate in a way that works for them. Success is not about completing the activity in one specific way. Success is engaging with the ideas using the communication and participation method that suits each participant best.
If a device isn't available: the twelve Round 1 actions printed as an accessible list with two tally columns, nothing needed to print for Round 3, and individual accessible sheets for Round 4.
| Round | What Happens | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Action Sort — Mandatory | Everyone signals 12 everyday actions as building or breaking a relationship | 28–32 min |
| 2. Pair Exchange — Optional | Pairs, or a facilitator-led go-around, name one action they do, one they want to watch, one change | 18–21 min |
| 3. It Depends — Optional, check first | The same action, landing two different ways, plus facilitation practice | 15–18 min |
| 4. Final Reflection — Mandatory | Each person reflects, writes or dictates a private declaration and action, then closes with a reflection question | 14–17 min |
Rounds above sum to about 73–86 minutes, the rest is buffer for setup, transitions, and coaching pauses. Allow more if your group's communication needs mean things take longer, there's no penalty for running over.
You are working with participants with a range of disabilities and communication styles, some of whom may have experienced difficult things in the relationships this module asks them to think about. You are not expected to handle everything alone. Your job is to notice, respond calmly, and get the right person involved.
| Signal | Looks like | Do |
|---|---|---|
| STOP | Disclosure of abuse, coercion or violence in a current relationship, self-harm, sensory overwhelm, or a shutdown | Stop the activity and get the person in charge right away. Do not ask follow-up questions about what happened, and do not proceed to any action-planning about that relationship. |
| SLOW | Someone needs more time to process, is communicating differently than usual, or their example clearly places them on the receiving end of the “breaking” list | Reduce pressure. Give extra time. Check in later. Ease off, let them pass, and check in quietly and privately after the round, in whatever way they communicate best. |
| MONITOR | Stimming more than usual, scorekeeping, or self-criticism that runs past noticing into cataloguing | Keep going gently. Distress doesn't always look like distress here, quiet withdrawal or avoiding eye contact is worth a check-in. Redirect to what's in their control, tell the person in charge afterward. |
1. Never ask someone to make a relationship-building action toward an unsafe relationship. If abuse, coercion, family violence or an unsafe relationship surfaces, the responsibility for maintaining that relationship must never be placed on the participant. Move them to a different relationship, or let them sit the writing out entirely.
2. No labels. Not “toxic,” “narcissistic,” “avoidant,” “traumatised,” “people-pleaser.” Not about themselves, not about anyone absent. Support noticing, don't explain the cause of anything.
You are the first person in the room. What you do in the first 30 seconds of a difficult moment matters more than having the perfect words. Stay calm, stay warm, and hand it to the person in charge. A support worker or lead facilitator must be present at every session, this is a non-negotiable safety requirement, if for any reason they're not in the room, know who you'd go to instead before you start.
Purpose: make the account visible before it gets personal. Twelve actions, sorted as building or breaking a relationship, in whatever way works for each person to signal it. Round question: what builds a relationship, and what breaks it?
Opening welcome: “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.”
Starting the round: “We're going to look at twelve everyday actions, and for each one you tell me whether it builds the relationship or breaks it. Answer however works for you, thumbs up or down, a card, pointing, however you'd like. No right answers, just your honest read. One rule for the whole round: we talk about the action, not about who did it. No names, not even initials.”
Wave 1: “These first few are pretty straightforward. Just go with your gut, take whatever time you need.”
Mid-point check-in, after action 6: “Okay, halfway. Those were the easier 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, 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.”
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. Two actions on this list, doing something for someone without asking, and talking to someone's support person instead of them directly, tend to land harder here than anywhere else. Give the group extra space on those two. This is the module where names leak, it's the only one where participants think about specific real people, and some of those people are in the room. 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.”
Closing question: “Which action surprised you most, and why?”
This is optional. Use your judgment for your group, but it's worth considering after this first round.
“Some of the relationships in our lives involve a lot of support, a carer, a family member, someone who helps us get through the day. Those relationships are real relationships too, not just arrangements, and it's okay if some of today's actions feel different to think about when support is part of the picture. Today isn't about deciding whether that support is right or wrong. It's about noticing what's actually yours to decide, in whatever relationship you're thinking about.”
This validates that support relationships are real relationships without turning the session into a discussion of care arrangements. It keeps the round focused on noticing patterns rather than evaluating anyone's living situation, which is what keeps this activity safe for a small group.
“So we've sorted twelve actions in the abstract. Now we're going to make it specific, and it gets a bit more personal, because you're going to look at which of these you actually do.”
Purpose: move from the abstract list to the participant's own behaviour, in the safest possible container. Round question: which of these do I actually do?
Decide before you start whether this round works as simultaneous pairs or needs to become a facilitator-led go-around, depending on the communication methods in your group. Neither is more correct than the other, choose whichever lets everyone actually participate. If a support person will be relaying for someone, agree beforehand what goes back to the group and what stays private.
Framing, before you start: “This one's personal, so a couple of things first. Nothing you say here 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.”
Individual thinking: “Take three minutes 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.”
Pairing up, or go-around: “Five minutes each, I'll tell you when it's time to swap or move to the next person. If you're listening, your job is just to listen. Don't advise, don't diagnose, don't tell them what it means. You just listen.”
Group share: “Two or three of you, what's one thing you noticed? Remember, the insight, not the person.”
Self-criticism is the risk here, not distress. A participant who spends the whole round 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 individual thinking and each person's turn, and resist it. Those pauses are where the round actually works.
“This round doesn't get written down anywhere, on purpose. What you said 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.”
“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.”
Closing question: “Of the three things you just said, which one are you actually going to do something about?”
“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.”
Purpose: the most demanding round, and the only one you need to check the group is ready for before you start. It breaks Round 1's sorting on purpose, intention and impact are two different things, and the receiver decides which one they experienced. Round question: how might the other person experience it?
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.
This is the most language-dependent round in the module, and the first thing to drop if your group is working hard on comprehension elsewhere. Dropping it costs the group nothing essential, Rounds 1, 2 and 4 already stand on their own. Don't feel you have to push through it to make the session feel complete.
Framing: “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:
The key facilitation question: “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.”
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. The Emotional Bank Account is useful because it's concrete, and it fails the moment a group turns it into accounting. If you hear “he owes me,” “I've done so much for her,” 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?”
Watch for deeper gaps. If someone goes quiet or disengages during this debrief, it may be because the “good intentions, bad landing” framing doesn't fit a relationship they're thinking of, one where something more serious happened. Don't push for the specifics. A brief private check-in after the round (per MONITOR guidance) is enough.
“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.”
Closing question: “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.”
Purpose: land the module in a look back at how you relate to others, one specific, doable action, and a closing reflection on who you want to be in your relationships. Round questions: what did I notice about how I build relationships, what's the one action I'll take this week, and who do I want to become in how I treat people?
Opening: “Looking back at today's rounds, what's one thing you noticed about how you build or maintain relationships?”
The agency boundary, before anyone writes the declaration: “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.”
Declaration: “Complete this sentence: ‘Someone I want to build a relationship with is ___.’”
Action: “What's one specific thing you'll do this week for the relationship you just named?”
Before they write: “You don't have to use a real name on your sheet, ‘my friend’ or ‘someone I know’ 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 point to when that happens. ‘I'll text them and actually ask how they're doing’ 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.”
Closing sequence: “What's one word for how you want people to feel when they're with you?”
“I will be a better friend” is abstract, and nobody can point to when it happens. “I will text them and actually ask how they're doing” is observable. If you only have thirty seconds with a group in this round, spend it on this distinction.
Some participants have relationships characterised by dependence on a carer, and the building or breaking frame can land awkwardly against a relationship they can't simply choose to change. Keep this round firmly on actions the participant has genuine agency over, not on whether the relationship itself should look different. If a participant seems to be writing toward a relationship they have little control over, gently offer a different one: “Is there another relationship where the next step is more up to you?”
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.”
Closing: “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. Thank the group for their honesty and effort today. A simple and sincere thank you lands better than a long speech.
Welcome, and thank you for stepping into this role today.
Here's what that actually looks like with a group this size. You're not one facilitator managing a room, you're one person giving full attention to six people or fewer, sometimes just two or three. That means you can actually learn their names, notice who's gone quiet, and adjust the pace because you can see every face. That's not a small thing. That's the job.
This module is different from the other two you might be running. Values and Dreams and Aspirations are both 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.
Here's the central idea, and it's worth holding onto for the whole session: this isn't about repairing relationships, and it isn't therapy. It's about noticing that relationships are built and worn down through small repeated actions, most of which people take without thinking. Trust is one of the things this shapes, but it's not the only one, so are safety, closeness, and whether someone feels like they can rely on you. Every action either helps a relationship, hurts it, or doesn't change much either way. Nobody's consciously counting, but people can usually feel roughly where they stand with someone. Participants aren't being asked to fix anyone. They're being shown that this is already happening around them all the time, whether they're paying attention to it or not, and that a surprising amount of it is inside their control.
Keep it simple. Talk about what someone does, not what's wrong with them. Values is the participant's decision filter. Dreams and Aspirations is their direction statement with a date. This module is their relationship maintenance system. Don't use words like attachment style, emotional regulation, or anything that sounds like a diagnosis, even if it feels more accurate. It isn't more useful to this audience, and in this module it's actually risky: a participant who walks away with a label for themselves or someone else tends to keep using it on people who aren't in the room.
When you help, serve, or work with someone, you can do things FOR them, WITH them, or TO them. These can look similar from the outside, but they feel very different to the person on the receiving end.
FOR — “I'll do this for you.” You help or make things easier: “I'll carry that for you.” “I'll fill in the form for you.” This isn't bad, people genuinely need help sometimes, just keep paying attention to what they actually want.
WITH — “Let's do this together.” You involve the person and work alongside them: “Would you like help carrying that, or would you rather manage it yourself?” “Let's fill in the form together.” You listen, ask, notice, and adjust.
TO — “I know what's best for you.” You decide or act without really involving them: “Give me that, you obviously can't manage it.” “Don't worry about the form, I'll just do it for you.” Sometimes acting TO protect someone is necessary, but done unnecessarily, it can feel like being treated as less capable than you are.
Aim for WITH when you can. Before helping, ask yourself: am I doing this for, with, or to this person?
Be Human. No need to sound like a counsellor. Talk normally, laugh, share something real.
Be Responsive. Slow down if someone's uncomfortable, listen if they want to talk, don't force conversation.
Be Useful. Ask what would actually help, rather than assuming.
Be Respectful. Don't treat someone's age or circumstances as their identity.
The participant in front of you isn't “an elderly person who needs company” or “someone from the home.” They're a specific person, with a full life behind them, their own relationships, their own read on who's trustworthy in their life, and their own reasons for whatever they say when this module asks them to look at that. Start there.
If this is your first time facilitating, that's okay. Follow this guide one step at a time, and you'll do just fine.
One more thing worth knowing before you start: today is one session inside something much longer for you too. As an NTU CSL student, you're committing to up to 40 hours of service across as long as a year, not just today, return visits, repeat contact, and a real relationship with the people you're serving. What you're facilitating today isn't a one-off for you either, it's the opening of something you'll keep coming back to well after this session ends.
If this group did the Values Module earlier today, you can open with a light callback rather than starting cold: “Earlier you looked at what you'd protect when a choice costs you something. This module is the same question, pointed at other people.” It isn't mandatory, but it makes the day feel like one arc instead of two unrelated activities.
First, this is the only module where participants think about specific real people in their lives, and some of those people are in the room. Set the no-names rule with your group right at the start of Round 1, before anyone starts sorting, not after the first slip. Talk about actions, not about who did them.
Second, nobody in this module gets told to repair a relationship. Participants take responsibility for their own contribution, and nothing beyond that. They are never responsible for another person's choices, and never responsible for maintaining a relationship that isn't safe.
This guide is written around the Group Relationships Board, the default way to run this module. It holds the tallies for Round 1 and the worked examples and recommended times for Round 3, so there's very little writing up for you to do by hand. Round 2 and Round 4 never touch the board at all, both stay private on paper regardless of which format you're using. Timing on the board is a reference only, in Rounds 2 and 3 you keep and adjust time yourself.
Three things to hold onto the whole session:
Conversation starters, before the activity starts:
If you're seeing this group again: “What's something that happened since I last saw you that you want to tell me about?” A specific callback to something they mentioned last time lands better than a general “how are you,” it shows you remembered them.
If someone shares something unexpected, not a safety concern, just more personal than you expected, you don't need a clever response. Try: “Thanks for telling me that.” / “That makes sense.” / “I hear you.” Then let the activity continue.
Getting along with this group:
Your main adjustment for this group: slow down, throughout, not just in one round. Expect Round 1 to generate stories rather than quick tallies, and budget for that rather than cutting it off, a senior group will often produce the module's best content inside Round 1. Don't rush a silence, and don't finish anyone's sentence for them.
A note on images: the pictures on this module's Group Board are a visual aid, not a requirement, generated to reflect a diverse range of seniors. Each round has a "Show Images" / "Hide Images" toggle, off by default. Use your judgment: show them if a picture makes an option easier to take in, hide them if your device makes them hard to see clearly or they don't resonate with the group, the words alone carry the activity fine. Either way, every round works exactly the same with or without them, and check with the person in charge if you're unsure.
This module isn't really about rules for relationships. It's about noticing what you're already doing, on purpose.
Nobody can tell a participant exactly who to trust or how to keep every relationship in their life healthy. But they can get better at knowing:
That's what this module practises. Every round is really asking one of these four questions in a different way. Your job as facilitator is simply to help participants move through these four steps. You don't need to be a relationship expert, you just need to run the steps and stay calm if something real comes up.
This helps participants practise:
For seniors, this shows up in relationships that often go back decades, with family, old friends, and neighbours, and it's never too late to notice the pattern: the relationships that still feel solid usually are, because someone kept choosing small actions long before they were ever tested.
The words in the SAY boxes are a starting point, not a script to memorise. Feel free to simplify further in the moment, a shorter sentence that lands is better than a complete one that doesn't.
If a device isn't available: the twelve Round 1 actions printed as a large-print list with two tally columns, nothing needed to print for Round 3, and individual large-print sheets for Round 4.
This runs longer than the standard 75–85 minutes to allow for longer stories, translation between languages, and any hearing or mobility needs.
| Round | What Happens | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Action Sort — Mandatory | Everyone reads 12 everyday actions as building or breaking a relationship | 30–35 min |
| 2. Pair Exchange — Optional | Pairs name one action they do, one they want to watch, one thing they'd still like to say or do | 20–23 min |
| 3. It Depends — Optional, check first | The same action, landing two different ways, plus facilitation practice | 15–20 min |
| 4. Final Reflection — Mandatory | Each person reflects, writes a private declaration and action, then closes with a reflection question | 17 min |
Rounds above sum to about 80–93 minutes, the rest is buffer for setup, transitions, translation, and coaching pauses.
You are working with seniors from a range of backgrounds and life experiences, some of whom carry real loss or estrangement in the relationships this module asks them to think about. You are not expected to handle everything alone. Your job is to notice, respond calmly, and get the right person involved.
| Signal | Looks like | Do |
|---|---|---|
| STOP | Disclosure of abuse, coercion or violence in a current relationship, a health scare, disorientation, or acute distress | Stop the activity and get the person in charge right away. Do not ask follow-up questions about what happened, and do not proceed to any action-planning about that relationship. |
| SLOW | Someone names a relationship and then goes quiet or withdraws, or an emotional response to loss, grief, or estrangement surfaces | Reduce pressure. Let them pass. Check in later. Grief surfacing here doesn't mean something has gone wrong, it means the module is working. Check in with them quietly and privately after the round. |
| MONITOR | Scorekeeping, building a case against an absent person, or confusion about where they are in the activity | Keep going gently. Redirect to what's in their control, reorient them to the current step, tell the person in charge afterward. |
1. Never ask someone to make a relationship-building action toward an unsafe relationship. If abuse, coercion, family violence or an unsafe relationship surfaces, the responsibility for maintaining that relationship must never be placed on the participant. Move them to a different relationship, or let them sit the writing out entirely.
2. No labels. Not “toxic,” “narcissistic,” “avoidant,” “traumatised,” “people-pleaser.” Not about themselves, not about anyone absent. Support noticing, don't explain the cause of anything.
You are the first person in the room. What you do in the first 30 seconds of a difficult moment matters more than having the perfect words. Stay calm, stay warm, and hand it to the person in charge. A staff member or family caregiver should be present at every session, if for any reason they're not in the room, know who you'd go to instead before you start.
Purpose: make the account visible before it gets personal. Twelve actions, sorted as building or breaking a relationship, at whatever pace this group needs. Round question: what builds a relationship, and what breaks it?
Opening welcome: “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.”
Starting the round: “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, or just tell me. No right answers, just your honest read. One rule for the whole round: we talk about the action, not about who did it. No names, not even initials.”
Wave 1: “These first few are pretty straightforward. Just go with what you know.”
Mid-point check-in, after action 6: “Okay, halfway. Those were the easier 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, 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.”
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 tells a longer story behind their answer, let it run, this is often where the module's richest content shows up for this group. This is the module where names leak, it's the only one where participants think about specific real people, and some of those people are in the room. 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.”
Closing question: “Which action surprised you most, and why?”
This is optional. Use your judgment for your group, but it's worth considering after this first round.
“Many of us carry a lifetime of relationships in this room, some that lasted, some that didn't, some we're still working out how we feel about. A round like this can bring up memories, or people, that have nothing to do with today. That's alright. Today isn't about deciding who was right or wrong in the past. It's about noticing what's still in your control, right now, in the relationships you have today.”
If this brings up grief, loss, or an estrangement someone hasn't resolved, that's not a sign the round went wrong. It usually means the round is working. Let it be said, don't rush past it, and check in privately afterward if it seems to be sitting heavily with someone.
“So we've sorted twelve actions in the abstract. Now we're going to make it specific, and it gets a bit more personal, because you're going to look at which of these you actually do.”
Purpose: move from the abstract list to the participant's own behaviour, in the safest possible container. Round question: which of these do I actually do?
Framing, before pairs start: “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.”
Individual thinking: “Take three 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 thing you'd still like to say or do in a relationship that matters to you.”
Pairing up: “Pair up. Six minutes each way, I'll tell you when to swap. Take your time, there's no rush. The listener's job is just to listen. Don't advise, don't diagnose, don't tell them what it means. You just listen.”
Group share: “Two or three of you, what's one thing you noticed in that conversation? Remember, the insight, not the person.”
Self-criticism is the risk here, not distress. A participant who spends their whole six minutes cataloguing their own failures has misunderstood the round, the frame is noticing, not confessing. Redirect to the third item, the thing they'd still like to say or do. 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 three minutes of individual thinking and the six 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.”
“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.”
Closing question: “Of the three things you just said out loud, which one are you actually going to do something about?”
“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.”
Purpose: the most demanding round, and the only one you need to check the group is ready for before you start. It breaks Round 1's sorting on purpose, intention and impact are two different things, and the receiver decides which one they experienced. Round question: how might the other person experience it?
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.
This round usually needs less explaining with this group than with any other. Most participants have already lived the insight that the same action lands two different ways, they don't need to be convinced of it. Feel free to move through the framing quickly and spend more of the round on the reflection and facilitation practice instead.
Framing: “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:
The key facilitation question: “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.”
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. The Emotional Bank Account is useful because it's concrete, and it fails the moment a group turns it into accounting. If you hear “he owes me,” “I've done so much for her,” 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?”
Watch for deeper gaps. If someone goes quiet or disengages during this debrief, it may be because the “good intentions, bad landing” framing doesn't fit a relationship they're thinking of, one where something more serious happened. Don't push for the specifics. A brief private check-in after the round (per MONITOR guidance) is enough.
“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.”
Closing question: “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.”
Purpose: land the module in a look back at your relationships, one specific, doable action, and a closing reflection on who you want to be in your relationships. Round questions: what did I notice about my relationships, what's the one action I'll take, and who do I want to become in how I treat people?
Opening: “Looking back at today, what's one thing you noticed about your relationships, past or present?”
The agency boundary, before anyone writes the declaration: “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.”
Declaration: “Complete this sentence: ‘Someone I want to build or strengthen a relationship with is ___.’”
Action: “What's one specific thing you'll do soon for the relationship you just named?”
Before they write: “You don't have to use a real name on your sheet, ‘my daughter’ or ‘an old friend’ works just as well. And make it something you can actually picture yourself doing. ‘I'll be a better mother’ isn't an action, nobody can point to when that happens. ‘I'll call her and actually ask about her week’ 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.”
Closing sequence: “Looking back on your relationships over the years, what's one word for how you want people to feel when they're with you?”
“I will be a better mother” is abstract, and nobody can point to when it happens. “I will call her and actually ask about her week” is observable. If you only have thirty seconds with a group in this round, spend it on this distinction.
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 next time you meet. 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 and years 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.”
Closing: “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. Thank the group for their honesty and effort today. A simple and sincere thank you lands better than a long speech.