I was in a meeting the other day when we started to talk about the development of a group or committee to tackle a big challenge. We started listing key names, industries, specialities that should be around the table. Eventually, one person said, “Well, we don’t need to add those people/subject matter experts.” They then described how those people, although often in the mix of the challenge we were trying to solve, would only take the conversation this way or that way and frankly, the person didn’t want to hear from them or their opinion.
In the town and region where I work both as an executive director and a consultant, we often hear the joke about too many organizations doing too many overlapping things - what people call the alphabet soup of (enter the industry or cause). When the town was going through massive economic shifts dealing with a disappearing middle working class, an aging workforce and a slower-than-average climb out of the recession, I sometimes felt like the lone voice challenging the notion about too many people or organizations by saying instead, “At this point, with how big the problem is, let’s have more people at and around the table. We need all hands on deck and all the help we can get!”
When we provide facilitation for a retreat or group meeting, I often start the group of diverse people with a simple exercise we call ‘The Fs Exercise.’ On a piece of paper that is faced down in front of them is a sentence written on the other side that includes many ‘Fs’ throughout a typed sentence. I ask them, before they turn the paper over, to read the sentence and to quickly identify as many Fs in the sentence as they can. They will have 5-7 seconds to do this, and then report out how many Fs there are in the sentence. “Ready, set, turn over the paper and read the sentence.” The participants do this individually and count the Fs throughout the sentence on the sheet of paper. “Okay, time’s up!”
I then ask how many people saw two Fs in the sentence - one or two hands go up. “How many people saw 3 Fs in the sentence” - 3-4 hands shoot up. “How many saw 4…and 5…and 6 Fs in the sentence.” More hands go up with each number announced. How is it that a group of intelligent, diverse people see a different amount of Fs in the same sentence?
Yes, there is only one right answer. And, usually there is only one or two individuals who have the correct answer. I then ask them to read the sentence back to the group identifying all the Fs they see along the way. The room is usually filled with “ah” “missed that one” “doh!” as all the at-one-time invisible Fs now become visible.
The illustration I then point out is that we all saw a different amount of Fs. Only one or two people in the group actually saw the right amount of Fs. Then comes the direct application: What if those people, who got the right answer, hadn’t been invited to the table? Or, once at the table, they were the minority voice? What if the person with the right answer wasn’t the loudest, or most influential, or wasn’t the CEO or president of the board, or wasn’t the one with the money? The group would have gotten the wrong answer. If we had done a vote and went with the majority of people who saw a certain amount of Fs, we would have gotten the wrong answer.
Here’s the pitch: Sometimes there’s an F that some of us can’t see but another person might. It’s a humbling and yet gratifying experience. I don’t have to have all the answers. I don’t have to find all the Fs myself. I do have to create a team of people around me looking for Fs I can’t see. How can we construct a safe, trusting space where my team feels free to share their minority opinion?
Another good example of this is the book and movie, “12 Angry Men.” Following the closing arguments in a murder trial, the 12 members of the jury must deliberate, with a guilty verdict meaning death for the accused, an inner-city teen. As the dozen men try to reach a unanimous decision while held up in a small juror room, one lone juror casts considerable doubt on elements of the case. That lone juror sees an F where others do not.
When we limit the people at the table, we limit our possibilities of seeing “all the Fs.” Fs represent creativity, innovation, perspectives, pitfalls, fears, experiences, connections and more.
If we’re trying to solve some of the biggest challenges in our organization, our community, and our world, it is critical to have the right people, in the right seats going in the right direction. Let’s err on the side of inclusivity, not exclusivity. Let’s invite more people and problem solvers to the table than less. Let’s look for the Fs together and provide space for all to be heard.