It's Always The Same Three People

“It’s always the same three people.”

I’ve been hearing some version of this a lot lately.

Nobody wants to volunteer for the committee. Nobody steps up for the project. Nobody new wants to take on a leadership role.

So then I usually ask some version of: How are you asking them?

Quite often, the answer is an email. An email that went out telling everyone there was an opportunity to serve on the committee and asking anyone interested to let the organization know.

Except nobody did. And eventually, another email went out. Yet strangely, the results did not improve.

This is usually the point where I suggest something apparently radical: What if you intentionally identified people you thought might have something to contribute and invited them?

Sometimes people look at me like I have three heads. Because we tend to assume that if the opportunity was available, people knew they could take it. And if they didn't, they must not have wanted it.

But did they even know it was an invitation? More specifically, did they know it was an invitation to them?

Available isn't the same as invited

We do this all. the. time.

Anyone can volunteer. Anyone can apply. Anyone can offer feedback. Anyone can speak up. My door is always open.

Technically, we've created an opportunity.

But “anyone can” sends a very different message from “I'd like you to.”

A mass email may tell me that a committee needs members without ever making me think you see something in me that would make me valuable to it. A job posting may tell me I'm permitted to apply without telling me anyone sees me as someone with leadership potential. “Any thoughts?” at the end of a meeting gives me an opportunity to speak. It doesn't necessarily convince me you actually want to know what I'm thinking.

Sometimes people are perfectly willing to walk through a door. They just need the door opened differently.

This isn't just about volunteers

The same thing happens in the workplace.

Maybe you want to improve communication with your staff, so you start scheduling regular one-on-ones.

“How's everything going?”

“Good.”

“Anything you need from me?”

“Nope.”

“Great.”

Five minutes later, you're both back at your desks. You do this for a few months and eventually conclude that this employee simply doesn't have much to talk about. After all, you've given them plenty of opportunities.

Or have you?

“How's everything going?” can sound a lot more like a pleasantry than an invitation to talk about what's frustrating them.

“Anything you need?” can be answered with “no” before either of you has really thought about the question.

What might happen if instead you asked:

What's one thing making your job harder than it needs to be right now?

What's something we haven't talked about lately that you think we should?

I noticed you seemed frustrated when we talked about that project last week. What's going on?

Same employee. Same meeting. Very different invitation.

The same thing happens when we tell employees our door is always open, end meetings with “Any questions?” or send out a survey and wonder why hardly anyone responds.

Then we make the leap. We take the response to the conditions we've created and turn it into a conclusion about the person.

We tell ourselves they aren't engaged. They aren't interested. They don't have anything to say. They don't want to lead.

Well, maybe.

But that's actually a pretty big conclusion to draw from someone's response to one particular opportunity, offered in one particular way, under one particular set of conditions.

Maybe it's not the invitation

Sometimes we can make the invitation crystal clear and still get no takers.

That's worth getting curious about, too.

Because if your committee chair description reads like you've quietly advertised an unpaid part-time job, a more enthusiastic invitation probably isn't going to solve your problem.

Someone who doesn't want a three-year board commitment might happily lead a six-week project. Someone who has no interest in “serving on the membership committee” might have terrific ideas about improving new-member onboarding. Someone who isn't going to raise a concern in front of twelve colleagues may talk candidly about it one-on-one.

None of those people is unwilling to contribute. They may simply be unwilling to contribute in the particular way we've decided contribution is supposed to look.

And sometimes that means we need to rethink the opportunity itself rather than lament the lack of people willing to take it.

And if it really is always the same three people?

There's another possibility.

You decide to stop relying on the all-call email and intentionally invite someone. But you can't think of anyone.

That's not proof that the other people aren't out there. It's a sign that you haven't built enough of a pipeline to know who they are yet.

People rarely arrive as fully formed committee chairs, board members, project leads or senior leaders. They become those things because someone gives them smaller opportunities to contribute, notices what they're good at, gives them a little more responsibility and eventually says, “I think you'd be good at this.”

That development doesn't happen when we wait until a seat is empty and hope someone raises their hand.

Which brings us back to those same three people. Maybe they really are the only three who want to do it.

But we shouldn't arrive at that conclusion simply because they're the only three who responded to the invitation we chose to extend.

Silence can mean no. It can also mean I didn't know you meant me. Or not like that. Or I don't know if I belong there. Or you've never given me a reason to think you want to hear from me.

Those are very different answers.

But if we keep getting the same answer from the same three people, perhaps our next move shouldn't be to send the same invitation one more time.

It should be to get curious about everyone we haven't heard from yet.