The Fears and Hopes Protocol is a facilitation exercise designed to get a group’s expectations and concerns into the open at the beginning of working together. Its stated deeper purpose is to create a norm in which the group takes collective ownership of people’s expectations and concerns and begins addressing them together.
The basic exercise is very simple:
Fear: Each person considers: If this were the worst meeting/workshop/class you had attended, what would happen or fail to happen?
Hope: Then: If this were the best, what would the outcome be?
People can share in pairs, before the group collects the hopes and fears together.
The facilitator records them without editing, commenting or judging them.
The group reflects on what has emerged and can turn that into working norms: essentially, what do we need to do together to achieve the hopes while dealing with the fears?
I find this highly relevant to my transformation-in-teams philosophy. It isn't an intimacy exercise; people aren't being asked to expose their deepest personal fears. They're making explicit things that often remain hidden when a group starts work:
What do I hope we can achieve? What am I worried might happen?
Related Journal Insights
A psychological orientation towards status, control, and self-protection may overpower the collaborative instincts that good project management usually requires. A few different bodies of literature speak to this. I wanted to dig further into some of these.
One of the most counterintuitive things I do when preparing a major change announcement, a team away day, or the launch of a high-risk, uncertain project is I discourage people from reaching a decision too quickly.
Most transformation programmes begin with no shortage of ideas, ambition, vision, opportunities and potential solutions - but transformation can falter because its difficult to bridge the gap between thinking and doing.
When people work on a transformation programme, they are not always just delivering tasks; they may also be living with uncertainty about their role, their team, their managers, their status, their expertise, their workload, and sometimes their future employment.
While resistance is real and ever‑present, it is only one piece of a much wider and more valuable discipline.
Talcott Parsons’ work sought to answer a big question: “How do societies maintain stability and order over time?”
Capacity often becomes the biggest friction force hampering change delivery - not lack of ambition, not lack of vision, not lack of support, not lack of skill, not lack of money.
Diane Coutu’s Harvard Business Review article, How Resilience Works, reminds me that resilience, in people and in organisations, starts with the courage to see things as they are, not as we wish they were.
For decades, management has been framed around a single dominant idea: managing people to a defined performance standard. But that framing becomes limiting when organisations are trying to change, not just perform.