01 Building the Right Team

Working with the OAI Front Office, consider:

• Do you have a mix of technical expertise across the ILS content areas (e.g., investigations, due diligence, policy) that allows the team to credibly field a broad range of participant questions?
• Are your facilitator styles complementary and will participants experience a dynamic shift in energy across the session rather than a single mode?
• Are you building capability in OAI by pairing an experienced facilitator with a developing one who has structured opportunities to lead?
• Have you assessed regional, language, and cultural competencies?
• If translators are involved, have they been given materials and key terminology in advance?
• Have you brought administrative support staff and translators into the team early enough to draw on their local knowledge of room dynamics, institutional norms, and participant expectations?

02 Pre-session Alignment

Before delivery, the team should connect to build shared understanding — not just of logistics, but of intent.

• Walk through the session plan together so every team member understands the arc, not just their own segment
• Agree on roles, handoff points, and signals (e.g., how to flag timing, when to step in, how to call a break)
• Brief translators on key terminology, acronyms, and concepts that don't translate directly
• Surface any sensitivities: who's in the room, what political or institutional dynamics might shape participation
• Clarify what "good" looks like for this session. Is it awareness-building, skill development, commitment to action?

03 Working Together in the Room

During the session, work as one team by:

• Maintain a clear lead facilitator at any given moment, and present as a unified front so participants experience one coherent training rather than separate contributions from disconnected experts.
• Use a 'spotter' approach: while one person facilitates, another watches the room for body language, energy dips, confused faces, or side conversations that signal something needs addressing
• Keep a shared, visible mechanism for parking lot items and time tracking so the support person can manage these without interrupting flow
• Debrief briefly at every break, even if it's just 60 seconds: what's landing, what needs adjusting, are we on time — and make small course corrections to prevent bigger problems later

Preferred Layouts

Layouts to Avoid

Close the distance, ditch the podium

The gap between you and the front row sets the energy. Move tables forward. A podium anchors you to one spot — it is better to facilitate from the floor with a lapel or handheld mic.

Place catering outside the room or at the back

If tea and coffee are inside the room, participants drift toward it during the session. Breaks should pull people out of the room, so they mentally reset.

Common Problems & Workarounds

• Greet people by name and ask for cameras on — As people arrive, greet them and check their microphone. This breaks the 'speaking barrier'.
• Use 'low barrier' engagement early — Start with chat drops, emoji reactions, or simple polls before moving to verbal contributions.
• Join on individual devices — Even where multiple participants share a room, ask them to join individually.
• Help people use the platforms — Choose one or two tools. At the start, spend time training people with a low-stakes activity like an icebreaker.
• Pause more than you think you need to — After asking a question, pause much longer than in person. People need time to unmute.
• Use breakout rooms, and cycle through — For activities over 10 minutes, use breakout rooms. Rotate through them as you would walk between tables.
• Practice run your session — Technology lags, misinterpreted instructions, false starts. Do dry runs, preferably with someone in-country.

Platform Setup — Before the Day

• Permissions — Co-host rights for co-facilitator. Participant mute/unmute controls agreed. Screen sharing restricted to hosts.
• Breakout rooms — Pre-configured with intentional groups. Clear tasks with facilitators per breakout room.
• Content ready — Slides loaded, polls built, shared links tested.
• Recording & AI Transcription Bots — Decision made in advance. Participants notified on entry. Recording controls assigned.

Session Rhythm — Shift Mode Every 15-20 Minutes

Using Your Tools

• Breakout Rooms — Pre-assign groups. Give a clear task + time limit. Allow 60-90 seconds for the return.
• Chat — Decide the norm and tell participants upfront. Co-facilitator oversees the chat.
• Polls & Mentimeter — Replace show-of-hands and dot-voting. Keep to 2-4 options. Share results live and reflect.

What Changes Online

Making This Work

• Appoint an in-room point of contact — Someone who relays what you can't see — side conversations, confusion, energy dips, questions that don't reach the mic.
• All participants join on their own device — Participants need individual devices so that they can access the session tools.
• Chat as your equalizer — Gives every participant an equal voice. Use for responses, temperature checks, questions.
• Audio is your biggest risk — A room mic picks up the loudest voice. Ask the contact to repeat contributions. Ensure only one device mic and speaker is active.

Design Responses

• Shift from statements to questions — Instead of explaining a rule, ask "what would you do if you noticed this?" Participants learn more by thinking than listening.
• Break content into 5-minute bursts — Never talk for more than 5 minutes without interaction. Insert a question, a poll, or a pair discussion.
• Use case studies to make it real — Every facilitator needs a grab-bag of 3-5 case studies they know deeply and can adapt.
• Follow the energy, not the slides — If the room is engaged, keep going. If not, stop and shift mode.

Using Case Studies Well

Case studies connect real-life relevance to theory, let participants explore their own thinking, and build credibility.

Structure: Context (Where are we? Who's involved?) → Tension (Something doesn't feel right) → Choice (A decision must be made) → Consequence (What happened next?)

Where Case Studies Add Value:

• Grabbing audience attention at the start of a session
• Explaining complex rules through real situations
• Surfacing grey areas and practicing judgment
• Re-energizing the room when content gets dense
• Making invisible risks visible

Common Challenges

Making This Work

• Frame Q&A as shared problem-solving — "I'd love to hear what questions this raises for your work" is better than "any questions?"
• Use structured capture methods — Post-it questions, chat drops, or pair-share-then-ask formats give everyone a voice.
• Redirect back to the group — "That's a great question — before I answer, does anyone have experience with this?"
• "I don't know — let's explore" — Be honest. Commit to finding the answer. Use the parking lot.
• Manage airtime deliberately — "I want to hear from someone who hasn't spoken yet" or "Let's take three more questions, one from each table."
• Use the parking lot — Capture visibly, commit to returning. Participants are more willing to let go when they can see it's been logged.

Signs You Need to Pivot

• Grabbing audience attention at the start of a session
• Explaining complex rules through real situations
• Surfacing grey areas and practicing judgment
• Re-energizing the room when content gets dense
• Making invisible risks visible

Your Three Moves

• Adapt — Be ok with changing the plan and tweaking the agenda. An activity not working? Cut it short and debrief what you have. Running behind? Identify what can be shortened or dropped without losing the session's core intent. Communicate changes to your group and your team.
• Call someone — Your colleagues at OAI have a wealth of experience. Use them. A quick WhatsApp or Teams message to HQ can get you an answer, a second opinion, or moral support. This is why the pre-session checklist includes arranging a backup contact.
• Talk to the group, be guided by them — The group can tell you where they need to go. Ask them: "We have an hour left — what would be most useful?" Follow the energy of the room.

• Find a Shared 'Same Here': In pairs, find 2 things in common that aren't job/title. Share one to the room.
• Line Up: Line up by "how much you [scenario]" (1-10), without talking. Debrief: ask 2 people why they chose their spot.
• One-Word Snapshot: Round-robin — one word for how you're arriving today.

• Quick Prediction: Provocative statement, vote 1-5 with fingers. Ask 2 people: "What made you choose that?"
• What Do We Need to Know? Show a short scenario. In pairs: list 3 questions you'd ask before deciding anything.
• Assumption Check: Write one assumption about the topic. Share 2-3 anonymously. "What's the risk if it's wrong?"

• Worst Idea First: Generate 3 terrible ideas for the workshop goal. Flip each into a useful principle.
• Yes, And: Given a scenario, one proposes an idea, other starts with "Yes, and..." for 4 rounds.
• Design Bomb: Describe a challenge. 3 minutes to create a product/service solution using pictures only. Pitch and vote.

• Forced Mix Pairing: Find someone you don't work with. 60 secs each: "One thing you want this group to do well today."
• Add a Constraint: Groups of 4. One proposes an idea. Next adds a constraint. Rotate fast.
• Respectful Rebuttal Relay: Mixed groups. Person A states view, B disagrees with "I see it differently because...", C adds nuance, D summarizes both fairly.

• One Word in Chat: "Drop one word that describes how you're feeling about today's topic." Read a few aloud and react.
• This or That: Post two options. Participants type their answer. Escalate to topic-related choices.
• Emoji Temperature Check: "React with an emoji that shows your energy right now."
• First Word Association: "When I say 'integrity', what's the first word that comes to mind? Drop it in chat now."

• Show and Tell: "Hold up something from your desk that says something about you." 30 seconds each.
• Where in the World: "Tell us where you are and one thing about your city most people don't know."
• Background Story: "Tell us the story behind your background" (virtual or real).

• Scavenger Hunt: "Bring back something [blue / older than you / from another country] within 30 seconds."
• Poll Prediction: Before sharing a stat, ask people to guess in chat. Reveal the real answer.
• Breakout Buzz: 2-minute breakout rooms, pairs only. One question: "What's the most useful thing you've heard so far?"

• Anonymous Poll: Use Mentimeter or Teams poll. Results visible to all — voices equal.
• Chat Waterfall: Everyone types their answer but waits. "3, 2, 1 — hit enter!" Simultaneous responses prevent anchoring.
• Role Swap Discussion: In breakout rooms, assign roles that flip normal hierarchies.

The Inform — Inspire — Empower Framework

Planning Template

• Opening Intention — What is the purpose of your introduction?
• Logistics — What practical information do you need to cover?
• Introduction — How will you introduce yourself? What builds credibility without creating distance?
• Opening Activity — What state are you aiming to create? (connection, curiosity, lower power-distance?)
• Style Check — What do you need to consider about your own facilitation style?

Planning Template

• Key Takeaway — What is the one message you want people to leave with?
• Reflection Moment — How will you create space for reflection?
• Linking to Practice — How will you signal application beyond the session?
• Closing Logistics — What needs to be clearly communicated before people leave?
• Style Check — What do you need to consider about your own facilitation style?

1. Integrity and anti-corruption programs traditionally focus on rules, compliance mechanisms, and enforcement. While these remain essential, research increasingly shows that corruption risks are also shaped by behavioural and social factors. Individuals do not make decisions in isolation. Their choices are influenced by perceptions of what others are doing, the expectations within their environment, and whether they believe that acting with integrity will have meaningful outcomes.

2. Behavioural science helps explain why individuals sometimes make poor ethical decisions even when rules are clear. It highlights the role of social norms, perceived incentives, cognitive shortcuts, and environmental cues in shaping behaviour. For anticorruption programs such as the ILS, this means that training must go beyond communicating policies. It must also support participants to recognize integrity risks, reflect on real decision points, and build confidence to act when challenges arise.

3. This behavioural perspective is particularly relevant within complex institutional environments involving multiple stakeholders, from diverse social and cultural contexts. Each of these actors operates within their own social and organizational context, which can influence how integrity risks are perceived and managed.

The re-design of the Integrity Learning Series draws on several complementary frameworks from behavioural science and learning theory.

Three Complementary Dimensions

• Cognitive understanding — Participants must understand integrity risks, policies, and procedures.
• Social norms and expectations — Participants must see integrity behaviour as expected and supported within their professional environment.
• Applied decision-making — Participants must practice navigating realistic scenarios where judgement is required.

Six Levels

1. Remember — Recalling information or definitions
2. Understand — Explaining ideas or concepts
3. Apply — Using knowledge in practical situations
4. Analyse — Examining relationships or identifying patterns
5. Evaluate — Making judgements based on criteria
6. Create — Developing new ideas or solutions

In many training environments, learning remains concentrated at the lower levels. Participants may become familiar with definitions or rules but may struggle to apply these concepts in real situations. Integrity risks rarely present themselves as clear-cut rule violations. They often emerge through ambiguous situations where judgement is required.

Instructional Tactics for the ILS

Social diffusion theory, developed by Everett Rogers, explains how new behaviours and ideas spread within social groups. According to this theory, individuals are influenced not only by formal rules but also by their perceptions of what others around them believe and do.

In the context of integrity, this means that individuals often look to their peers to determine acceptable behaviour. If corruption is perceived as common or tolerated, individuals may feel pressure to conform. Conversely, when integrity norms are visible and reinforced, individuals are more likely to act in line with those expectations.

Training environments themselves are also social spaces. Participants observe each other's reactions, opinions, and experiences. This interaction can influence how they interpret integrity risks and whether they feel confident raising concerns.

Six Principles

1. The need to know — Adults want to understand why the learning is relevant to their work.
2. Self-concept — Adult learners prefer autonomy and active participation rather than passive instruction.
3. Role of experience — Adults bring significant professional experience that shapes how they interpret new information.
4. Readiness to learn — Learning is most effective when it helps solve real problems.
5. Orientation to learning — Adults prefer problem-centered learning rather than subject-centered instruction.
6. Motivation — Internal motivations, such as professional pride and responsibility, often drive learning more strongly than external incentives.

These principles strongly influence how the ILS is structured. Rather than relying primarily on lectures or presentations, the training emphasizes practical scenarios, participant discussion, collaborative problem solving, and application to real project contexts.

The Show Me — Help Me — Let Me Framework