After concrete suggestions from the check-in round followed by sociodramatic choice, the group formulates the following question: how can we tell our boss that we don't like the way he communicates with us?

The group arrives upset about what has happened in the institution in the last few days, and they are concerned. They inspire each other with their suggestions on issues and problems, which warms them up. Thus, the opening round itself is the warm up.

The main benefit is that they dare to speak out about problems that others can join in on. For the first time, they speak up about something that has critical overtones about their immediate boss. They experience that they are not alone and that it is easier to find solutions together.

In the check-in round and during the choice, it is felt that the group is afraid to play out their conflict with their boss openly, naming the persons. So the leaders encourage the group to look for an analogue situation and give the following instruction: find a situation and a place where this issue can arise. Brainstorming begins, and then they unanimously vote for a swimming pool changing room. The situation is the changing room of a water polo team, where they are talking to the coach after a successful match.

Leaders encourage group members to volunteer, the team starts to come together, but they are reluctant to take on the role of coach.

Since no one is stepping into the role of coach, the leaders put out a chair in the coach's place and ask group members to "stand behind him and voice the coach's thoughts from there" (doubling). This solves the situation somewhat, until someone sits in the chair. This encourages others to try out the role of coach.

One of the key elements of shifting the conflict is to test what it is like to be in the other's role. Many people have important insights into what may be the cause of the coach's harsh communication. From that position, they also learn that the coach can only perceive what his team needs if they can articulate it.

At the point in the drama when it becomes clear that the coach doesn't quite understand what the team's problem is, the leaders bring back the original sociodramatic question and ask the team members to formulate a way to make the coach understand what they need.

Here, the search for a solution takes the form of a trial action, where the group members try out in an analogue situation what they would like to do in real life with their own boss. (How to tell him..) The analogue situation creates the playfulness to express their needs without being personal. The group search for a solution is liberating, because it confirms that it is not an individual problem, but that others want what I want.

The managers interview the coach and ask him what he heard from what the team members told him.

It is a kind of "reality check" for the group and shows what can be heard from the coach's chair and what is less so.

In the integration phase, the group members themselves draw conclusions from the fictional drama to their own situation, and the team finishes the session feeling empowered. They leave with the intention of speaking up at the next meeting about what they feel is wrong, so the rehearsal action at this point prepares a quasi-plan of action.

I recommend this solution in a team, workplace or team situation where employees who are already working together would be embarrassed to openly display conflict with their boss or even with each other. Acting out an analogue or fictional story can reveal new layers of conflict anyway, because you have to formulate relationships by role-playing, rather than using familiar phrases (distancing).

There are no real drawbacks, as it builds on the essence of the Moreno methods of action. It is worth paying attention especially in case of conflict to ensure that as many position changes as possible take place.