Cooperation Exercise
Toolkit: PI4-CoEx
Participatory Investing toolkit

Cooperation Exercise

This tool helps groups practice cooperation through a role-play simulation of pooled resource allocation, surfacing underlying trust conditions and building awareness of how shared decision-making and knowledge exchange strengthen long-term trust and collaboration.
section One

Scenario

You are members of a multi-sector coalition tasked with distributing $500,000 in pooled funds for health equity. The funds must be allocated across four proposals received by coalition-aligned organizations:

Grassroots Community Organizers

proposal focused on convening and capacity support for community power-building and tenant organizing

Nonprofit Service Providers

proposal focused on a new trauma-informed health access project with community health workers

Public Health Department

proposal focused on convening cross-sector partners to activate shared data systems

Private Healthcare Company

proposal focuses on a tech-enabled equity dashboard and AI screening tool

All four proposals are considered viable and eligible. The coalition must make a shared funding decision and the goal is to reach a collective “yes” that everyone can live with.

Consider assigning roles before the exercise to allow participants to inhabit institutional perspectives and practice empathy-building and boundary navigation across sectors.

Grassroots leader

Nonprofit director

Public agency rep

Private sector partner

General coalition members

Facilitator

< LAST TOOL 3 - Trust Assessment
NEXT > TOOL 5 - Feedback Loops Exercise

section TWO

Step ONE

Initial Proposal

Either the facilitator or a pre-assigned coalition member puts forward a base proposal for consideration that the group divides the funds evenly, allocating $125,000 to each organization

Step TWO

Fist-to-Five Vote

Fist-to-Five Voting Rules

5 Fingers

I Love It

4 Fingers

I Like It

3 Fingers

I Can Live With It

2 Fingers

I Have Concerns

1 Finger

I Strongly Disagree

Fist (0)

I Block This Decision

Roles for voting can be pre-assigned or the group is encouraged to think of divergent perspectives. Facilitator counts votes. If there are any 0–2s, the group must pause to explore.

For example, a coalition member votes “1,” noting they cannot support giving equal money to a government agency or private company. They already have access to infrastructure so the allocation should prioritize those with fewer resources.

Step THREE

Group sense-making and discussion

Facilitation Prompts

What do we understand about the needs and assets of each org?
Notes and considerations for each prompt go here.

Step Four

Revised Vote

Same voting process. The revised proposal may still be equal funding or modified based on the group sense-making and discussion.

Roles for voting can be pre-assigned or the group is encouraged to think of divergent perspectives. Facilitator counts votes. If there are any 0–2s, the group must pause to explore.

For example, a coalition member votes “1,” noting that the grassroots group has the fewest resources and is a no vote for equal funding and want it to be equitable.

Step Five

Group sense-making and discussion

Facilitation Prompts

What’s the difference between equality and equity in funding?
Notes and considerations for each prompt go here.

Invite any clarification, learning, or changes to proposal structure.

If roles are assigned, consider a revised proposal
such as: (e.g., $200k grassroots, $150k nonprofit, $100k public, $50k private)

Step SIX

Consensus Vote

Same voting process with an aim of no scores 0-2. If there’s still a block, group may:

Return to Dialogue

Propose Conditional Funding

Defer and Assign Subgroup

Celebrate if consensus is reached and reflect on what made it possible.

section THREE

DEBRIEF QUESTIONS

Individual Reflection
When did I feel aligned or disoriented in the process?
[answer or prompt goes here]
Group Debrief
What were the biggest shifts in thinking during this process?

REFLECTIONS

BIO360 COOPERATION INSIGHTS on which TO REFLECT

Reciprocal support increases future beneficial interactions

Reflection Prompt

How did our willingness to listen to concerns improve our chance at shared benefit?

Shared knowledge increases adaptive strength

Reflection Prompt

What new insights emerged when we explored the rationale for objections? How did it help us adjust?

Cooperation must be flexible and multi-directional

Reflection Prompt

Where did rigidity prevent trust? Where did flexibility build it?

Co-creation lowers systemic energy costs

Reflection Prompt

Did we feel more drained by disagreement or energized by co-designing a solution?

Power must be distributed for system resilience

Reflection Prompt

What did we learn about the risks of holding power vs. sharing it? How might equitable distribution create long-term stability?

Learn how Shift Health Accelerator Can Help

Connect with Us