The Keys to Step 1

The Keys to Step #1

Put Faith in the Stakeholders

Rigid, limited viewpoints prevent groups from considering crucial information. For example, a product development group rushing to meet a deadline might skip testing its product with typical customers. Senior management might launch a new service initiative without involving the people who will execute it.

In sharp contrast to this opaque thinking, casting a broad, open net improves the breadth and quality of ideas, which often come from people who are not traditional decision makers. By including everyone and tapping into their expanse of experience, you will achieve something even more important: You will avoid creating enemies.

Step #1 works wonders for community organizations, too. For example, in one community of 10,000, the 25-person police force was pushed to the limits. Crime grew along with the population, but the budget for the force did not. Somehow, the police had to figure out a way to get greater control over a population 400 times the size of the department.

But many fears blocked progress. The civilian population felt that the police didn't have time for their concerns. Their fear was that their complaints would be overlooked, that their families and businesses wouldn't get the protection they needed and deserved, and that crime would escalate. For their part, the stressed-out police worried that they couldn't control the increasing problems they faced. How could they deal with the rising tide of security problems and the public's expectations for safety?

What they did was reach out. The police chief invited service clubs, citizens' organizations, and neighborhood interest groups to discuss public safety. From this dialogue, many ideas emerged on how the community could help the police. In addition to neighborhood watch programs, community service volunteers became an active part of police activities. Through the creative ideas and energy from the broad range of participants, the community joined with the police to reach every neighborhood while remaining within the department's budget. The innovative solutions not only improved public safety but also strengthened links across the community and among its neighborhoods.

Enemies Are Made, Not Hired

When people feel left out of the decision-making process, it causes more than bruised egos. Leaving people out erodes trust and confidence. It also costs time and opportunity because the people making the decision need more time to find a solution or they miss important ideas when they're not working with all possible contributors. They also need extra time to explain the ultimate decision to those whom they left out. People who have been left out will want to know about the issues and options that were considered and how participants reached the conclusion they did. Excluding people from the process overturns the funnel of information and makes a mess. (See Figure 4.)

Figure 4: Excluding people wastes time and misses opportunities.

When those who have been left out express their dissension, as they almost inevitably do, the group can't move forward. Instead, it splits apart. Any goodwill that existed is destroyed because those who were excluded now believe that their ideas will never get a fair hearing. "They've already made up their minds; why should I even try to tell them what I think?" is the reasoning of the ignored.

Whether the exclusion is intentional or unintentional, the small-minded action undermines one of the most powerful learning experiences for group members. Leaving people out precludes the opportunity for groups to air their ideas, change their minds, or accept something new without losing face. Exclusionary tactics push people further into the field of fear.

Funnel People and Ideas into the Process

It doesn't have to be that way. By enlisting everyone, you can garner the best ideas and encourage cooperative effort. Turn the funnel right side up, and draw people and ideas into your working group to make great decisions together. (See Figure 5.)

Figure 5: Funnel everyone and their ideas and you get better results.

Build Shared Ownership

Focus on how you can encourage all persons with a stake or useful information to participate in the process. More than involvement, you want shared ownership for the discussions and their success.

For example, when the corporate leaders of the $250 million project shifted to an inclusive approach, they asked representatives from local business and community groups for advice on how to reach out. Who needed to be involved? When and where would it be best to meet? How can we promote a constructive dialogue? The informal representatives guided the company to constructive participants and the best arrangements to attract their involvement. Further, the representatives agreed to distribute notices and personally encourage attendance.

This shift to shared ownership for the meetings brought critically important government decision makers and even skeptical constituencies into the discussions. The dynamic shifted from the corporation pushing its project against fierce resistance to a mode of "let's look at the issues and opportunities together." Step #1 created the conditions for a positive process to begin.

Include Group Members Who Can't Attend a Meeting

There's no excuse to leave out people who aren't physically available. For one thing, you can get in touch with them before a meeting and ask for their input, including comments related to the next steps in the ten-step process. When you talk, ask them the following questions:

• What they hope will be accomplished

• What their thoughts, feelings, and perspectives are on the issues that the group needs to address

• If they have any possible solutions they would like to have considered

• What negatives or positives they want to share about those options

Another approach is to ask attendees to represent the missing people and voice what they believe their input might be. (Frequently, all the people involved know each other's perspectives well.) In the discussions about the new production facility, the team even added a chair for each missing party and wrote the organization's or person's name on it. This gave the entire group a physical reminder of important interests and the need to consider their perspectives. No one was "out of sight, out of mind."

Count on Everyone: The Sum Is Greater Than the Parts

Involving more people than just the key players also improves dynamics within a group. The additional players become leavening agents, who shift relationships and stimulate new perspectives. As a result, people work together better, progress accelerates, and results rise to new heights.

The inclusive approach contrasts with typical approaches that focus only on the primary protagonists. For example, some exclusive approaches send deeply divided parties off to work out their differences. That's like tossing flour, water, and yeast into a pressure cooker and hoping that the dough will rise. It intensifies fear-filled dynamics and undermines the goodwill needed for successful and sustained results.

Still other ineffective approaches use time-consuming and costly "shuttle diplomacy" between warring factions. In those situations, the person playing diplomat bears the burden of producing results, and the principals don't hear and learn from one another directly. This approach is like trying to bake bread without mixing the ingredients. Although it avoids direct conflict, it doesn't yield rich results.

In contrast, inclusion works as the first step in getting great results because it leads to the remaining steps, which provide ways for even deeply divided people to work together constructively. Focusing on 100 percent sharing of information reduces divisive debate to zero and brings out participants' best ideas. Including all of the people who are going to be affected by a decision—and others who have valuable ideas—enhances trust, builds confidence, and prevents the power plays that undermine the potential for cooperative action.