Who is in the room together matters as much as the curriculum that runs in it. Two people in an unspoken power relationship will distort the cohort even if both are individually ready. This page covers the protocol for forming a cohort that can hold the work — size, composition, what to avoid, and what to do when a cohort needs to reform mid-course.
Size
The interview vets readiness. Size and composition determine whether a cohort of ready people can actually do the work together.
Target size
8 – 12
Participants per cohort
Why this range: Below eight, the silence in the room can become heavy enough that participants stop bringing real material. Above twelve, the 15-minute report-back cannot give each person 90 seconds at depth, and the cohort becomes a class.
Hard floor: 6. Hard ceiling: 14. Outside that range, the model breaks regardless of how good the participants are.
Composition — who not to put together
The following pairings are not disqualified from the course. They are disqualified from being in the same cohort. Wait-list them and put them in different cohorts when possible.
Avoid 01
Boss and direct report. Dean and student. Pastor and congregant. The subordinate party cannot speak freely while the superior is in the room — and the report-back is designed to require that freedom. Both can take the course; not together.
Avoid 02
Parent and adult child. Adult siblings with a long-standing dynamic. The family system runs faster than any cohort norm; assigned roles will reassert themselves and override the work.
Avoid 03
The intimacy is too high. Either both parties self-censor to protect the relationship, or one party uses the cohort as an indirect channel to address the other. Couples work belongs in couples therapy, not in this room.
Avoid 04
If two prospective participants are in current conflict with each other, the cohort becomes a stage for that conflict. Resolve it first — or place them in different cohorts.
Avoid 05
A single workplace team, a church small group, a family system — these groups already have a culture and assigned roles. A cohort drawn entirely from one of them inherits that culture instead of building its own. Some overlap is fine; majority is not.
Avoid 06
Lifelong friends who have built a relationship by going around the hard things will continue that pattern in the cohort, often unconsciously, and pull the cohort toward the same evasion.
What makes a strong cohort
Strong cohorts are not curated for harmony. They are curated for the diversity that makes peacemaking actually relevant — across difference, across discomfort, across the lines that matter.
Formation steps
Lindsey holds the conversations described in Who this course is for. Each candidate is independently assessed for readiness.
As ready candidates accumulate, watch the pool for composition fit — the size range, the mix dimensions, and the avoid-pairings list above. Some candidates may wait longer than others, not because they're less ready, but because the cohort that fits them hasn't formed yet.
When 8–12 candidates form a workable cohort — including a check for cross-cohort relationships, power asymmetries, and life-stage compatibility — formalize the cohort and share the schedule.
Once confirmed, each participant receives the Prep-Work orientation to read and complete in the days before Session 01. The interview and Prep-Work together do the work of orienting the cohort before they meet.
Sometimes a power dynamic or a hidden relationship surfaces in Week 01 or 02 that the intake didn't catch. The facilitator holds the authority to ask one member to wait for a different cohort. This is rare. It is also necessary to name as possible up front.
When a cohort needs to reform
Most cohorts hold without intervention. Occasionally — once every five or ten cohorts, probably — something surfaces that the formation process missed. Examples:
A power relationship surfaces. Two members realize in Week 02 that they share a workplace boss in common, or that one's spouse is the other's therapist, or that there is a recent conflict between their families that neither named at intake.
A pre-existing relationship distorts the work. Two members turn out to know each other in a way that constrains what either feels safe sharing in front of the other. The constraint becomes visible to the facilitator after a few weeks.
A participant's capacity has changed. Someone who was ready at intake is no longer ready — a crisis intervened. The right move may be to invite them to step out and rejoin a later cohort, with their dignity intact.
The facilitator's job in any of these is to hold the conversation directly, kindly, and without prolonging the distortion. The cohort is a living thing. Adjustment is part of the protocol, not a failure of it.
Why composition matters this much
A cohort of eight to twelve people doing this work together for ten weeks is doing something rare. The composition of the room either makes that possible or makes it impossible. A perfect curriculum cannot rescue a cohort whose composition will not let the work be done.
The principle
Most program-design failures happen in composition, not in content. A cohort that holds the work can hold imperfect material. A cohort that does not hold the work cannot be rescued by perfect material.
The protocol on this page is a starting bias, not a guarantee. The interview, the composition check, and the facilitator's authority to adjust together do the work of curating a cohort that can become — over ten weeks — the kind of group that produces the change the course exists for.