Who’s at the table, and who’s not?
When leaders gather to understand problems and chart paths forward I encourage them to be comprehensive in who is included at the table. My reasons include the following:
The greater representation of individuals and groups involved in decision-making the more likely it is they follow-through with the identified goals.
Transparency in processes with trusted ‘influencers’ minimizes the us vs. them response that’s a frequent default when new goals are presented.
We all have viewpoints and beliefs that are limited and diverse contributions help negate blind spots, helping to address hurdles earlier.
This is one of the most frequent conversations I have with leaders, and also the ones met with some combination of hesitation and reservation. I often invite them to dig up any ‘lessons learned’ summaries from previous projects, where the path to increasing success highlights stakeholder engagement and on-going communication as key; even Google's AI Gemini thinks so! This can help with appreciating why broad engagement is beneficial yet the hesitation to apply this approach may be rooted deeper, and with good reasons. From past negative experiences to the urgency of decision-making, planning for comprehensive inclusion isn’t easy. But what happens when we don’t?
Let’s take a simple example to start. Our rapidly accelerating technological world will increase the need to apply tech solutions, and planning for that adoption is at the forefront for many. As part of a shared learning experience, a client shared their implementation journey with peers and honestly highlighted how the technology experts were missing from their strategic decisions. Much time was spent understanding what was needed to implement the solution operationally, but when tech was invited to the table they had to take several steps backwards because the solutions were not possible given current computing functions.
In another case I encouraged for-profit representation within the government planning space, as their products and services are already contracted and will continue to be. The root of this hesitation tracks historically to mistrust, whether from experience or reputation. In this specific case I encouraged an ethicist to be at the table, helping to neutralize concerns and serve as a real-time mediator if contributions veer to self-interest.
Lastly is one where I’m waiting on a decision from the leader, but sharing to hear your thoughts as well. This person is forming their first board and I encouraged them to include a vocal adversary of the leader’s mission. This challenging persona would represent the realistic hurdles the leader would require navigating to achieve their goals, and allows them to understand how diverse perspectives would challenge their solutions and to mitigate approaches. Doing this one without constant frustration may be overly idealistic, but what happens when we don’t plan for our adversaries' perspectives?
Including comprehensive representation requires courage and risk-taking that can place leaders in uncomfortable positions, and it also requires additional time. I will encourage you to reflect on stalled, derailed and failed projects you have undoubtedly experienced in some capacity during your careers and how the results may have been different if the planning table was more comprehensive?