Action Brainstorming Worksheet

A manager has set a goal around improving team performance and arrived at session with a list of additional practices they plan to implement: more one-on-ones, a new feedback cadence, a skills development program. The list keeps growing. What hasn't been examined is what they could stop doing, do less of, or change - the goal may be reachable with less added and more removed.

Position the five-row structure as a complete inventory, not a to-do list expansion. 'Most planning exercises ask what you'll start. This one asks five questions, and the most useful ones for you right now are probably 'stop' and 'do less of.' You've already generated a strong 'start doing' list. We're going to see what's underneath it.' Write the specific goal at the top before starting any row. Some clients resist the 'stop' row because stopping something feels like giving up. Name it: 'Stopping something that isn't working frees the capacity that everything on your start list requires. They're connected.'

Watch the 'stop doing' and 'do less of' rows for entries that are actually aspirational rather than behavioral ('stop worrying about results', 'do less of second-guessing'). These are cognitive states, not behaviors the client can directly schedule. Push for the observable: 'What specifically do you do that you're naming? What can someone see?' Also watch the 'keep doing' row - if it's empty, the client may be in a deficit mindset about their current practice. Ask: 'What are you already doing that's working, even partially?' A client who can't populate 'keep doing' may need to examine whether their baseline assessment of their own effectiveness is accurate.

Start by asking the client to read the five rows in this order: stop, do less of, keep, do more of, start. That sequence - reduction first, then maintenance, then expansion - often changes which items feel most important. Then ask: 'If you could only commit to one row, which one would have the most impact on this goal?' Close by identifying which entries across the five rows the client is willing to commit to for the next four weeks, specifically - not the entire matrix, just the entries they will actually execute.

A professional has been conducting a job search for twelve weeks using the same methods: applying through job boards, updating their resume, waiting. Activity is high; outcomes are not. They haven't examined whether the activities they're investing in are producing results proportionate to the effort, or whether there are activities they're actively avoiding that are more likely to work.

Anchor the worksheet to a specific search outcome rather than the search in general. 'Write at the top: three conversations with hiring managers at target companies in the next 30 days. Not applications submitted - conversations. Everything in the five rows connects to that specific outcome.' The five-row structure is useful here because it will surface the avoidance pattern. 'The stop and do less of rows are going to be informative - what you've been doing that's not generating results. The start row is where the higher-leverage activities will probably land.' Some clients in extended searches resist examining what's not working because it feels like self-criticism. Name it: 'This is a resource allocation exercise. Three months in, the data says the current mix isn't producing results. The matrix helps you see why.'

Watch the 'start doing' row for entries that look like higher-leverage but avoided activities: direct outreach to people at target companies, asking former colleagues for introductions, reaching out to recruiters in the client's sector. These often appear in 'start doing' after appearing nowhere in the three-month history - which means they've been avoided, not overlooked. If they show up in 'start doing,' ask: 'What has stopped you from doing this until now?' Also watch 'stop doing' for activities that feel productive but aren't producing outcomes: optimizing the resume without evidence it's the obstacle, applying to roles without targeting them specifically.

Start with the stop and do less of rows. Ask: 'Of what you've been doing for three months, what would you eliminate if you were designing this search from scratch?' Then move to start doing: 'What on this list have you been avoiding, and what's the real reason?' The avoidance question usually produces the most actionable insight. Close by asking the client to commit to one specific start-doing entry before the next session - with a date, a target person, and a specific action.

A team lead is entering a quarter where the team has lost a key member, taken on additional scope, and has no budget for external support. They've been framing the quarter as a problem of addition - how to add capacity or skills they don't have. The more productive frame may be subtraction and reallocation: what work the team stops doing, does less of, or changes to make the additional scope manageable.

Use the goal at the top to set the frame precisely: 'Not 'survive the quarter' - what's the specific outcome you need to deliver with this team by the end of the quarter?' The specificity determines what belongs in each row. 'From there, we're working backward: what do you start, stop, do less of, do more of, and keep - relative to that specific outcome.' Some leaders resist the stop row because stopping feels like letting the team down or reducing standards. Name the framing: 'Stopping low-leverage work is how you protect capacity for the high-leverage work. The quarter requires you to be selective.'

Watch the 'stop doing' row for items that require organizational permission - work that's assigned from above or expected by stakeholders. If the stop row is full of work that needs to stop but can't stop without a conversation, that conversation is the first action item, not the last. Also watch the 'keep doing' row for entries that are habits rather than high-leverage activities. If 'keep doing' contains things the team does because they've always done them, ask: 'If you were starting fresh with this team this quarter, would you design this practice?' That question surfaces what's being kept by default rather than by choice.

Start with the stop and do less of rows and ask: 'Of what you've listed here, which one requires a conversation with someone else before it can actually stop?' Those are action items, not planning items - they need to happen before the quarter starts. Then move to start doing: 'Which of these would have the highest leverage on the specific outcome at the top?' Close by asking the client to share the matrix with the team and ask them to add entries. 'What would your team add to stop doing that you haven't seen yet?' The leader's view of the five rows is not necessarily the team's view.