Leading on the Forward Edge – At Work · Weekend Reflections for Leaders · Reflection: “Who Is Not in the Room”

Look around the table the next time our leadership team makes a decision that will still matter in three years.

Count the tenures. Count the functions. Count how many people in the room read the same reports, attend the same reviews, sit in the same compensation plan, and hear about the customer secondhand from the same two sources.

Most senior teams, in large and small businesses alike, converge over time. This is not sloppiness and it is not a failure of intent. It is what happens when a group of capable people work on the same problems, with the same information, under the same incentives, for several years. Convergence feels like alignment from the inside. It looks like a team that has finally learned to move fast together.

The cost is that the quality of any decision is capped by the range of points of view genuinely present when it is made. Not the range of personalities. The range of positions — the actual competing interests the decision will land on.

And the positions most often absent are the three the decision lands on hardest: the customer, the frontline employee, and the future shareholder. None of them are in the room. All three will live with what we decide.

This is the stakeholder paradox in its practical form. Every consequential decision requires trading among parties whose interests do not align, and we tend to resolve those trades in favor of whoever is physically present with a voice. That is almost always the near-term interest, argued by the most senior person, in a room where nobody has been assigned to argue anything else.

The fix is mechanical, not cultural. The mechanism is simple enough to run next quarter: the Empty Chairs. Before any decision above an agreed threshold like a pricing change, a reorganization, a major hire, a capital commitment, assign each of the three absent stakeholders to a named person on the team. That person prepares a one-page position in writing, from that stakeholder's point of view, and reads it into the meeting before the discussion opens. It is an assignment, not a volunteer role, and it rotates. The whole thing costs an hour of preparation per person.

Three absent voices, and how to seat each one:

1. The customer. The person assigned this chair is not permitted to write from memory or from the dashboard. They must have spoken to at least two customers about the specific decision in the prior two weeks, and the page should include something the customer said in their own words. In having sat in many decision meetings across large and small businesses, I have experienced that the customer's interest is usually represented by a proxy — a metric, a segment, a survey summary — and proxies are agreeable in a way that customers are not. A live quote changes the temperature of a room more than a slide ever has.
2. The frontline employee. The person who will actually execute the decision is rarely present when it is made, and they are the one who knows which parts of it are undeliverable. This chair's page answers three questions: what does this ask of the person doing the work, what will they have to stop doing to do it, and what will they be blamed for if it does not work. Senior teams routinely approve plans that require the frontline to absorb the difference between intent and reality. Naming that cost in advance either changes the decision or funds it properly. Either outcome beats discovering it in month six.
3. The future shareholder. Not the current owners, who are in the room or well represented in it, but whoever holds this business in five years. Their interest is durable earning power, the brand, the talent bench, the customer relationships, the technical debt we are about to take on. This chair's page asks one question: if we make this decision, does the business become more valuable to someone who has to run it after we are gone? It is the chair that most reliably catches the decision that makes this quarter look good and next decade harder.

One rule makes the practice work: the assigned advocate must argue the position even when they personally disagree with it. The moment the exercise becomes an opportunity to state one's own view in costume, it collapses into the convergence it was built to interrupt.

As the marketplace continues to grow in complexity and uncertainty, the advantage does not go to the team that decides fastest. It goes to the team that has heard the objection before the market delivers it.

If I were to ask you, "What is the most difficult leadership challenge you are facing today?" what would you say?

Please reach out if I can help you today. My mobile is 269-370-9275 and my email is david@harvesttimepartners.com

Please download some FREE resources at

This reflection builds on two earlier Weekend Reflections for Leaders posts: Leading Through Uncertainty (Part V – Points of View) and Leading Through Uncertainty (Part VI – Stakeholder Paradox).

Questions this reflection answers

What is the Empty Chairs practice?

Before any decision above an agreed threshold, like a pricing change or reorganization, a named team member is assigned to each absent stakeholder: the customer, the frontline employee, and the future shareholder. Each writes a one-page position from that point of view and reads it into the meeting before discussion. The role rotates.

How can leadership teams avoid groupthink?

Teams that share the same information and incentives for years converge, and it feels like alignment from inside. Seat the missing voices on purpose. The customer advocate must quote real customers spoken to in the prior two weeks, and every advocate argues the assigned position even when they disagree.