Case clinic

A peer-consultation method for a standing group of four or five colleagues, in seven steps around one case, without a single piece of advice. The presenter brings a situation where they lead and decide, and answers five questions: what is going on, how do others see it, what do I want to achieve, where do I want to grow and what am I willing to rethink, where do I want help (ten minutes; the group only asks clarifying questions). Then two minutes of stillness, in which everyone notices what the story stirs in them: an image, a feeling, an association, a movement, a sound. Next, everyone in turn shares what came up and deepens it a little while the presenter listens (ten minutes). The presenter responds (three minutes), group and presenter think further together in a generative dialogue (fifteen minutes), and the closing has three parts: each coach says in one sentence what they take away, the presenter says how they see their situation now and what their next step is, and a round of appreciation ends it (five minutes). Finally everyone writes for two minutes for themselves. The player splits step 6 into three parts, each with its own timer, because in each part someone else speaks; that is also how the groups we work with run it.

Sensing is listening with attention to what a story touches in you, rather than to what you think of it. During the stillness the screen shows five cards: image, feeling, association, movement and sound, each with one question. In the mirroring everyone says what came up along one of those routes. Open mind, open heart and open will belong to step 5, thinking further together: a generative dialogue, in which you neither debate nor solve, but reach together what nobody would have reached alone. Open mind: suspend your judgement. What do you see now that you did not see before? Open heart: look through the presenter's eyes. How does the situation feel from inside? Open will: let go of the familiar. What wants to emerge here? In Otto Scharmer's Theory U they are the three openings that make such a dialogue possible; in a teaching team you do not need the terms, the questions are enough.

With the default settings the whole structure takes ± 50 minutes, briefing and look-back included.

The seven steps add up to forty-seven minutes with the default times: 10, 2, 10, 3, 15, 5 and 2. The five minutes of step 6 are two, one and two: the player gives each of its three parts its own timer. With settling into the circle and the reflection questions at the end, one case takes forty-five to fifty-five minutes, so plan it as the whole subject of a meeting. Whoever prepares the structure sets the time per step; the player counts down. If you have an hour, give the extra time above all to thinking further together. The mirroring keeps its ten minutes: that is the method.

Four or five: one presenter and three or four coaches. With fewer than three coaches there are too few images to lay side by side; with more than four the mirroring becomes a long queue and everyone gets less than two minutes. The player allows three to twelve so that a group that falls slightly outside can still run, but the method is made for four or five. Split a bigger team into two circles, each with its own case and its own screen.

A situation from now, concrete and important, in which the presenter leads and decides: in class, with a colleague, with parents. Three tests help. Can they do something differently in it tomorrow? Is the question about their own part, not about what someone else should do? And can they say where they want to grow themselves? A good phrasing starts with "I": "I can no longer hold my class together, and what I have tried so far hasn't worked." The case text you type in the preparation is shown large on the screen at every step. If you want to practise the structure first with an invented case, the preparation screen has a prompt ready to copy for your own assistant.

Because the presenter is the one who decides, and advice takes that role over. Whoever gets advice about their own leadership starts defending it or carrying it out; either way it is no longer their own step. Mirroring leaves the situation with them: they hear how their story lands in others, and draw the conclusion themselves. That is also why the method works among peers: nobody is the expert. Advice that still wants to be said belongs in thinking further together, as an image or a question, not as an instruction.

Three things carry the round. One: the case. Check in step 1 that it is the presenter's own situation and that they answer the growth question: where do I want to grow, what am I willing to rethink or learn afresh. Two: the stillness. Announce it as two minutes, point at the five questions, and do not break it. Three: the boundary in the mirroring. At every "maybe you could…" ask kindly what came up in that colleague themselves, and a gesture or a sound may really be made. The player keeps the time. Let the presenter speak last in the round of appreciation, and do the structure yourself once as presenter.

In both, the presenter listens to the group for one step, but the group says something different. In the Gossip Method the group talks freely about the case as if the presenter were not there (what stands out, what would we do), and the yield is an honest mirror of the situation. In a case clinic everyone says only what the story stirs in themselves, and there is no advice in any step. Rule of thumb: Gossip Method when the presenter needs honest feedback; case clinic when they are looking for a new view of their own role.

Neither gives advice, but they listen for different things. In Dominant Ideas the group names the beliefs it hears in the story ("I hear: a good teacher solves this alone") and puts other ideas next to them. In a case clinic the group names nothing about the presenter: everyone says what came up in them. Choose Dominant Ideas when the same pattern returns in different situations; case clinic when it is about this one situation and your role in it.

Yes, the source describes groups that do it monthly by phone. Cameras on, and in the stillness everyone looks away from the screen for a moment, so nobody is looking at anyone. A gesture is simply shown on camera. Share the player's screen or give everyone the live link, and the step, the timer, the case text and the five questions of the stillness are on everyone's own screen.

The method comes from the Presencing Institute around Otto Scharmer, which developed it as part of Theory U: a way of learning that starts with observing and becoming still before acting. Open mind, open heart and open will, the three openings that make a generative dialogue possible, are the core of that model. The coaches' stance goes back to Edgar Schein's process consultation: whoever helps does not fix, but helps the other person see their own situation. The Presencing Institute makes the method freely available under a Creative Commons licence; the steps and default times on this page are those of the player here.