People want to be included in decision making and have influence, which is a good sign. It shows they are engaged and feel a sense of ownership regarding the company’s success.

And, of course, leaders want employees to feel included. There are so many benefits of having a good cross-section of people involved. For example, more and different ideas and perspectives come from larger groups. It can also create more buy-in on actions taken.

The same is true in a community. It’s great when lots of citizens are very engaged and want to provide input into actions they feel will make the community better. Often, when I work with communities there are big groups of people working together on projects.

Yet even the best of things can have unintended consequences. As wonderful as it is having big groups of passionate people working together, there can also be challenges. For example, it is often very hard with a large group to get the scope of work to a doable point and to decide upon and prioritize actions. As a result, very little gets accomplished.

So is the answer always smaller groups? Jeff Bezos, founder and CEO of Amazon, famously talked about his two-pizza rule. By this he meant that if two pizzas can’t feed the team, then the team is too big to be effective. Over the years, I have heard many suggestions on the optimal size of a group, team, and/or board. The size usually suggested is 5 to 12 people.

Yes, there are definitely some advantages to small groups and we’ll talk more about them shortly. But what if you have a larger organization? What should you do if you want lots of input yet also want to make sure something gets accomplished quickly? Here is an example from my own experience that should work for you and meet your goals of input and perspectives as well as scope and priorities.

I was asked by a county to come discuss how to create a vibrant community. Prior to my arrival, the local newspaper conducted a survey of community members. On Day One, I met with a large group of these residents to share the results and then break into groups. For example, one group focused on what events could be held. Another group focused on what might increase shopping downtown. Yet another group focused on what could be done to get young people to stay in the community (among other topics). While no decisions were made on scope or priorities, there was a lot of input and many different perspectives were given.

Day Two was not intended to be a whole day but rather a scheduled two-hour session. To prepare for it, we reviewed Day One material. We were able to group the most pressing issues into about seven actions.

It had been decided that only a few representatives from each Day One group would attend this two-hour session. Thus, there were many fewer people on Day Two. The smaller group reviewed the summary and the seven items. They gave more thought to priorities. And they quickly narrowed the scope to three actions that could be accomplished over the next 90 days and settled on a communication plan for the Day One attendees and the community at large.

In other words, more decisions were made in two hours of Day Two than in eight hours of Day One. Does that mean Day Two was a better day?

Of course not! Day Two went so well due to the hard work of many on Day One. If only a small group met both days, we would have missed lots of ideas and perspectives. These made it possible to provide a summary for the Day Two session. If a large group had met on both days, I doubt we would have gotten to three action items in two hours of Day Two.

This approach to meetings captures the best of both worlds. If you want to try it inside your own company, here are a few tips that may help:

• Trust the process. What seems like a few ideas will expand to the point that it will feel like little will be accomplished. However, as time goes by, the scope of what needs to be done narrows. It is a “narrow, wide, narrow” process. Don’t panic midway through the big group day.
• Before going to the small group, prepare a summary of Day One actions. Still more culling will be needed but this is a starting point.
• Because the group is smaller on Day Two, let them prioritize the next steps. Ask them to narrow down the results from Day One into three action items. A nominal voting process works well.
• Explain that just because an item did not make the top three does not mean it will be missed. It is about sequencing. By taking on fewer action items, I find more gets completed, not less, which builds trust and confidence. Then bring the group back to select the next items or to find a way to make the first three even better.
• Create the communication plan and assign responsibilities. After completing the actions prescribed in Tip 4 it is easy to feel good and leave the session. Don’t. Take time to create who will own each action and develop a communication plan to loop in the larger group who attended on Day One and any others who need to be communicated with.

Again, this strategy works well if you have a large company, organization, or community. There are certain facilitation skills that are needed to get the most out of large-group work as well as small-group work. Let’s address large groups first:

How to Get the Most Out of Small-Group Meetings

Whether you work for a large organization following the “large-group/small-group” approach discussed at the start of this chapter, or a small business that by necessity has smaller, tight-knit teams, you need to know how to facilitate small groups. Before we get into the “how-tos,” let’s take a look at the many, many benefits of working with smaller groups:

• Smaller groups move at a faster pace. This is partly a matter of logistics. It’s easier to get five people together in one place than 15 people. Also, there are fewer people to weigh in, fewer viewpoints to consider, fewer arguments to be had.
• They’re better at getting specialized. In today’s economy, it’s not necessary to know a little about a lot of things. We have the internet for that. Far better to know a lot about one area. The fewer people there are, the quicker they all come to understand the task at hand. The more they understand about a subject and its challenges, the less likely they are to make costly mistakes.
• People are highly engaged and motivated. The smaller the group is, the more likely individuals are to feel that their efforts are important and the more effort they will put forth. This makes smaller groups more entrepreneurial by nature.
• High performers are more likely to be noticed. Individuals are more exposed in a small group. When you do a good job, your boss will see it, and you’re more likely to be recognized and rewarded for it, which is great for morale.
• It’s easier to build trust and unity. The fewer people there are, the easier it is for them to get to know each other. The better they know each other, the more comfortable they are collaborating and sharing their ideas. They grow to trust each other more and they bond more deeply. This unity means individuals on small teams are more likely to work late together to shore up a project they’re working on, or to go the extra mile to help a teammate.
• Team members naturally coach and mentor each other. I’m a big believer in the value of mentoring. It not only strengthens a business but a community. In small teams, this kind of relationship occurs organically as people work together on the project at hand. More experienced people enjoy sharing their skills with less experienced people, and new employees appreciate the personal attention.

Be sure to choose smart, hardworking, and passionate people for your small team. That’s important. But being a good facilitator may matter just as much. Your team may be overflowing with great ideas and raw energy, but without a good facilitator to bring them out, capture them, and direct them into the right channels, all that potential is lost.