Workshop Participant Roster

The Make-or-Break Decision for Phase 2 Success

Why This Matters More Than You Think

The brutal truth: You can have perfect facilitation skills, brilliant frameworks, and comprehensive prep work—but if you have the wrong people in the room, Phase 2 will fail.

The participant roster isn’t an administrative detail. It’s a strategic decision that determines:

Whether you get honest conversations or political theater
Whether insights lead to action or die in committees
Whether solutions get implemented or languish
Whether cross-functional patterns emerge or silos deepen

Getting this right is 60% of Phase 2 success.

The Core Principle: Diversity of Perspective, Unity of Purpose

You need people who:

See different parts of the elephant (cross-functional perspectives)
Have skin in the game (personally affected by problems)
Can speak freely (psychological safety to be honest)
Have implementation power (can actually make change happen)
Will follow through (track record of execution)

This creates natural tension. Senior leaders have authority but may not know operational reality. Frontline staff know the problems but may lack political capital. You need both, calibrated carefully.

The Roster Framework: Three Tiers

Tier 1: Core Participants (8-12 people)

These people attend every session in Phase 2. They’re the working group.

Composition:

Senior Individual Contributors / Team Leads (50-60%)

5-7 people
People who do the actual work daily
Deep operational knowledge
Credibility with their teams
Not too junior to lack context
Not too senior to be disconnected

Middle Managers (30-40%)

3-4 people
Bridge between strategy and execution
See both departmental and cross-functional issues
Have authority to pilot solutions
Can allocate resources for implementation

Executive Sponsor or Delegate (1 person)

Decision-making authority
Organizational legitimacy
Can remove roadblocks
Signals that this matters

Department Representation:

You need voices from:

✅ Operations (whoever touches core workflows)
✅ Finance (whoever deals with reporting/reconciliation)
✅ Customer-facing team (Sales, CS, Support—pick one or two)
✅ IT/Technology (whoever manages systems and data)
✅ Any department identified as a pain point nexus in your assessment

DO NOT include:

❌ Pure observers (everyone participates or doesn’t attend)
❌ Redundant roles from same department (one Finance person, not three)
❌ People who will dominate/derail (you know who they are from interviews)
❌ People with no implementation power whatsoever

Tier 2: Subject Matter Experts (3-5 people)

These people attend specific sessions where their expertise is needed.

Who they are:

Technical specialists (database admin, integration architect)
Compliance/legal (if regulatory issues surface)
Vendor relationship managers (if third-party tools are involved)
Power users of specific systems
Process documentation owners

When to bring them in:

Session 2 or 3, after core problems are identified
For 60-90 minutes of specific discussion
When you need technical feasibility input
When you need to validate assumptions

Why not make them core participants?

Keeps core group size manageable
Doesn’t waste their time on irrelevant topics
Brings fresh perspective mid-stream
Signals “we’re getting serious” about specific problems

Tier 3: Stakeholder Observers (Variable)

These people don’t attend sessions but receive updates and provide input asynchronously.

Who they are:

Department heads not directly involved
Adjacent teams affected by potential changes
Executive team members (beyond the sponsor)
Change management / training teams
Project management office

How they engage:

Receive session summaries
Provide written feedback
Available for follow-up questions
Participate in final presentation

Why this tier matters:

Prevents surprise resistance later
Gathers input without bloating sessions
Builds broader organizational buy-in
Identifies downstream impacts early

The Selection Process: How to Actually Choose

Step 1: Create Long List from Assessment (Days 1-2)

From your interviews, identify everyone who:

Articulated specific, detailed problems
Showed cross-functional awareness
Demonstrated willingness to change
Has respect of their peers
Has been mentioned positively by others

You’ll have 20-30 candidates.

Step 2: Apply Selection Criteria (Day 3)

Score each candidate on:

Knowledge (1-5):

How deeply do they understand operational reality?
Do they know where things break?
Can they articulate problems clearly?

Influence (1-5):

Do their peers listen to them?
Can they drive adoption in their team?
Do they have credibility with leadership?

Availability (1-5):

Can they commit 8-12 hours over 2 weeks?
Are they about to go on leave/travel?
Do they have urgent conflicting projects?

Collaboration (1-5):

Do they work well across departments?
Are they solutions-focused vs. blame-focused?
Can they handle disagreement constructively?

Diversity Factor (1-5):

Do they bring a unique perspective?
Do they represent an underrepresented function?
Do they balance the roster demographically?

Total score out of 25.

Anyone scoring 18+ is a strong candidate.

Step 3: Balance the Roster (Day 4)

Don’t just take the top 12 scorers. Balance for:

Functional Diversity:

No department should have >30% of seats
Every critical function must have voice
Avoid clustering from friendly departments

Seniority Mix:

Roughly 60% practitioners, 30% managers, 10% executive
Too many senior = not grounded in reality
Too many junior = lacks authority to implement

Personality Balance:

Mix introverts and extroverts
Mix creative thinkers and analytical thinkers
Mix optimists and pragmatists
Avoid: All alpha personalities or all passive personalities

Political Representation:

Include at least one person from each “power center”
Don’t stack with allies of one executive
Represent different tenure levels (new hires + veterans)

Cognitive Diversity:

Different problem-solving styles
Different areas of expertise
Different career paths (promoted from within vs. external hires)

Step 4: Validate with Executive Sponsor (Day 5)

Present your proposed roster with rationale:

“Here’s my recommended core group of 10 participants:

From Operations:

Sarah Chen (Team Lead, Order Processing) – Deep knowledge of fulfillment workflows, mentioned by 4 people as go-to problem-solver, 8 years tenure

From Finance:

Marcus Rodriguez (Senior Analyst) – Owns monthly reporting, articulated data fragmentation issues clearly, respected by both Finance and Operations

[Continue for each person with specific justification]

Ask the sponsor:

“Who am I missing that would be critical?”
“Are there political dynamics I’m not seeing?”
“Anyone here who would clash destructively?”
“Anyone who’ll be resentful if not included?”

Listen carefully. The sponsor knows landmines you don’t.

Step 5: Pre-Recruit Participants (Days 6-8)

Don’t just send calendar invites.

Call or meet each person individually:

“Hi [Name], I wanted to talk to you about the cross-functional problem analysis sessions we’re running.

Based on my conversations across the organization, you came up repeatedly as someone who really understands [specific area] and has credibility with your peers. I’d like you to be part of the core working group.

This is 3-4 sessions over two weeks, about 2-3 hours each. We’ll be identifying the biggest operational problems worth solving and deciding which ones to tackle first.

Your perspective on [specific issue they mentioned in interview] would be really valuable, and I think you’d get a lot out of hearing what other departments are dealing with too.

Can I count on you being there?”

Why this personal approach:

✅ Makes them feel valued (not randomly selected)
✅ Clarifies expectations upfront
✅ Gives them chance to voice concerns
✅ Builds commitment before first session
✅ Lets you gauge enthusiasm and adjust roster if needed

If someone declines or seems reluctant:

Don’t force it. Reluctant participants poison the group.
Ask: “Who from your team would be great for this?”
Use their suggestion if credible.

Special Roster Situations: How to Handle Them

Situation 1: The Indispensable Person Who Can’t Commit Time

The problem: The one person who really needs to be there (e.g., the Oracle DBA who knows where all the data lives) can’t commit to 12 hours of sessions.

Solution options:

Option A: Make them a Tier 2 SME

Attend only Session 3 for 90 minutes when technical deep-dive happens
Pre-brief them on context before session
Follow up with specific questions after

Option B: Shadow participation

They review session notes asynchronously
Provide written input between sessions
Available for 15-minute check-ins

Option C: Delegate with backup

They identify someone from their team who can attend
They stay available for the delegate to consult
They join final presentation

Don’t: Compromise the whole session schedule around one person. That signals their time is more valuable than everyone else’s.

Situation 2: The Toxic High-Performer

The problem: Someone who knows the domain deeply but is known for dominating conversations, dismissing others’ ideas, or creating conflict.

Decision framework:

Include them if:

Their knowledge is truly irreplaceable
You’re confident you can manage their behavior
Excluding them would create worse political problems
They’ve shown willingness to collaborate in the past

Exclude them if:

Others have said they won’t speak up if that person is there
They have pattern of derailing meetings
Alternative people can provide 80% of the knowledge
Psychological safety matters more than their expertise

If you include them:

Set ground rules explicitly in Session 1
Speak with them privately beforehand about your expectations
Use facilitation techniques to manage dominance (timeboxing, round-robin)
Be prepared to intervene directly if needed

If you exclude them:

Make them a Tier 3 stakeholder observer
Emphasize that you value their input via written feedback
Brief them privately on why roster is sized this way

Situation 3: The Brand-New Employee

The problem: Someone just started 4 weeks ago. Fresh eyes might be valuable, but they lack context.

Decision:

Include them if:

They came from a competitor or similar role elsewhere (they bring comparative perspective)
The problems being discussed affect their onboarding experience
Their “beginner’s mind” would highlight assumptions others miss
They’re already asking great questions

Exclude them if:

They’re still learning basic terminology
They’d spend sessions catching up on context
They don’t yet have credibility with the group
It would overwhelm them during onboarding

Alternative: Make them a Tier 2 participant for one specific session where fresh perspective is most valuable (usually Session 1 or 2).

Situation 4: The Boss Who Wants to Attend

The problem: A department head or VP wants to be in the sessions, but their presence will make their reports clam up.

Solution:

Option A: Make them the executive sponsor representative (if appropriate)

They attend but are clearly there to learn, not evaluate
Set explicit ground rules: “No performance discussions, no defending current state, no shooting down ideas”
They commit to listening 80%, talking 20%

Option B: Stakeholder observer (usually better)

They receive detailed session summaries
They provide input between sessions
They join final presentation and decision-making
Their reports can be honest without fear of consequences

Option C: Alternate attendance

They attend Session 1 (scene-setting)
They skip Sessions 2-3 (problem identification)
They return for Session 4 (prioritization and solutions)

The conversation to have:

“I really value your perspective, and I want to make sure we get the most honest feedback possible. Sometimes when senior leaders are in the room, people are less candid about what’s broken—not because of you specifically, but just natural organizational dynamics.

What if you stayed closely involved by [Option B/C], and we make sure your input shapes the process without inadvertently creating a filter on what people share?”

Most reasonable executives appreciate this and agree.

Situation 5: The Remote vs. On-Site Mix

The problem: Your organization is hybrid. Some people are in HQ, some are remote. Sessions are harder to facilitate mixed.

Solutions:

Option A: All-remote sessions (recommended if >30% are remote)

Levels playing field
Better than hybrid where remote people feel second-class
Use collaborative tools (Miro, MURAL, etc.)
Record sessions for those who must be async

Option B: In-person with remote accommodation

High-quality video setup (not laptop cameras)
Remote participants on large screen, equal visibility
Dedicated facilitator to monitor remote chat/questions
Breakouts are also remote (everyone on laptops even in-person folks)

Option C: Regional clustering

Run parallel sessions in different locations
Synthesize insights centrally
Only works if natural geographic team groupings exist

Don’t: Assume remote people can “just dial in” to an in-person session. They’ll be marginalized.

Situation 6: Union Environments or Hierarchical Cultures

The problem: Strict organizational hierarchies or union rules make mixing seniority levels fraught.

Adaptations:

Parallel groups:

Frontline employees in Group A sessions
Management in Group B sessions
You synthesize across both
Final joint session for shared prioritization

Structured representation:

Union selects their representatives
Management selects theirs
Clear protocols about confidentiality and attribution

Cultural respect:

Extra emphasis on psychological safety
Clear ground rules about ideas not being attributed to individuals
Anonymous input mechanisms (digital surveys between sessions)

Don’t fight the culture. Work within it.

The Roster Checklist: Pre-Session Validation

Before sending final invites, validate:

✅ Functional Coverage

[ ] Every department touching the identified problems is represented
[ ] No obvious blind spots (e.g., forgot about warehouse operations)

✅ Authority Mix

[ ] At least one person who can approve budget expenditure
[ ] At least one person who can allocate technical resources
[ ] Mix of decision-makers and implementers

✅ Size

[ ] Core group is 8-12 people (smaller if complex facilitation, larger if simple)
[ ] Can fit in one room (or one Zoom) comfortably
[ ] Small enough for real conversation, large enough for diversity

✅ Availability

[ ] Everyone has confirmed they can attend all sessions
[ ] Conflicts are minimal and manageable
[ ] You have backup participants if someone drops out

✅ Psychological Safety

[ ] No direct report/manager pairs in core group
[ ] No recent interpersonal conflicts between participants
[ ] Mix of personalities won’t create toxicity
[ ] People feel safe disagreeing with each other

✅ Implementation Viability

[ ] These people can actually make change happen
[ ] They have credibility to bring their teams along
[ ] Mix includes both ideation and execution mindsets

✅ Political Legitimacy

[ ] Key stakeholders see their interests represented
[ ] No major power centers feel excluded
[ ] Executive sponsor endorses the roster
[ ] You can defend every choice

✅ Cognitive Diversity

[ ] Mix of analytical and creative thinkers
[ ] Mix of optimists and skeptics
[ ] Mix of detailed-oriented and big-picture people
[ ] Mix of tenures, backgrounds, expertise areas

The Invitation: Setting Expectations

Don’t send this:

“You’re invited to Cross-Functional Workshop Sessions. Please accept the calendar invite.”

Send this:

Subject: Invitation to Join Cross-Functional Problem Analysis Working Group

Hi [Name],

Following up on our conversation, I’m confirming your participation in our cross-functional problem analysis sessions. Here’s what to expect:

What We’re Doing: We’re bringing together people from across [Company] who deeply understand our operations to identify and prioritize the biggest problems worth solving. This isn’t a theoretical exercise—we’re building a roadmap for real improvements.

Your Role: You were selected because of your expertise in [specific area] and your credibility across the organization. Your perspective on [specific issue from your interview] will be valuable, and I think you’ll find it eye-opening to hear what other departments are dealing with.

Time Commitment:

Session 1: [Date/Time] – 2.5 hours – Problem identification
Session 2: [Date/Time] – 3 hours – Deep-dive analysis
Session 3: [Date/Time] – 2.5 hours – Cross-functional mapping
Session 4: [Date/Time] – 2 hours – Prioritization and roadmap

Total: ~10 hours over 2 weeks

What We Need from You:

Active participation in all four sessions (please block your calendar now)
Honest perspective on what’s working and what’s broken
Willingness to think beyond your department
Commitment to follow through on prioritized solutions

Ground Rules:

What’s shared in sessions stays confidential
No ideas are stupid; all perspectives are valid
We’re solving problems, not assigning blame
Everyone participates; there are no observers

Preparation: Before Session 1, please think about:

The 3 biggest time-wasters in your daily work
One process that drives you crazy
One thing that works really well that we should protect

Calendar invites are attached. Please accept and block this time as a high priority.

Looking forward to working with you,

[Your Name]

Why this invitation works:

✅ Clarifies expectations upfront
✅ Makes them feel valued
✅ Sets psychological safety ground rules
✅ Requests specific prep (gets them thinking)
✅ Emphasizes commitment needed
✅ Positions this as important, not optional

Backup Plans: When the Roster Changes

Murphy’s Law applies: Someone will drop out, get sick, get pulled into a crisis, or quit the company.

Pre-Session Dropouts

If someone drops out before Session 1:

Immediate replacement (if time allows):

Use your ranked candidate list from selection process
Call next-best person with same functional role
Brief them individually before Session 1

Absorb the gap (if replacement isn’t viable):

Redistribute their perspective across remaining participants
Make sure their function is still represented
Potentially invite them as SME to specific later session

Don’t: Try to replace someone 24 hours before Session 1. Better to go ahead with 9 people than frantically recruit someone unprepared.

Mid-Process Dropouts

If someone drops out after Session 1 or 2:

Assess criticality:

Can remaining participants cover their function?
Were they contributing actively or quietly?
Is their perspective irreplaceable?

If critical:

Bring in replacement
Give them all previous session notes
Schedule 30-min pre-brief before their first session
Other participants help them catch up in first 15 minutes

If not critical:

Continue with smaller group
Note the gap in synthesis
Include them as Tier 3 stakeholder going forward

Don’t: Assume you can replay two sessions for a new person. Move forward with what you have.

The Nuclear Option: Postponement

If >30% of your core group becomes unavailable (crisis, all-hands emergency, etc.), postpone rather than push through with fragments.

Criteria for postponement:

Lost functional diversity (e.g., all Finance people pulled)
Lost decision-making authority (executive sponsor unavailable)
Organizational crisis consuming everyone’s attention
You can’t reschedule within 2 weeks

How to postpone:

Communicate immediately and transparently
Propose new dates within 2-3 weeks
Use delay to do additional prep if needed
Don’t let momentum die completely

Tier 2 SME Selection: When and Who

When to bring in SMEs:

Session 2 (typically): After core problems are identified, before deep solutions discussion

Who to invite depends on problem clusters:

If problems cluster around data/systems:

Database administrators
Integration architects
Data analysts
BI/reporting leads

If problems cluster around customer experience:

Customer success managers
Support team leads
UX researchers
Customer data analysts

If problems cluster around compliance/risk:

Compliance officers
Legal counsel
Risk managers
Audit leads

If problems cluster around process complexity:

Lean/Six Sigma practitioners
Process documentation owners
Quality assurance leads
Training managers

How to brief them:

2 days before their session:

“Hi [Name], we’ve identified [specific problem cluster] as a high-priority area in our cross-functional sessions. We need your technical expertise for about 90 minutes in Session [X].

Here’s the context: [2-paragraph summary of what’s been discussed]

Here are the specific questions we need your help with: 1. [Question] 2. [Question] 3. [Question]

You don’t need to prepare formal materials—just come ready to discuss feasibility, constraints, and options. The group will brief you on details in the first 15 minutes.”

During their session:

First 10 min: Group briefs them on problem context
Next 60 min: Facilitated Q&A and feasibility discussion
Last 20 min: SME provides recommendations or identifies what more info is needed

After their session:

Thank them
Share relevant portions of final roadmap
Keep them warm for potential implementation involvement

Common Roster Mistakes and How to Avoid Them

Mistake #1: Too Many Senior Leaders

What it looks like:

Roster is 50%+ directors and above
Frontline reality is missing
Conversation stays abstract and strategic
No one admits current processes are broken (because they designed them)

Fix:

Cap senior leadership at 20% of roster
Ensure 60%+ are practitioners who do the work daily
If executive insists on being involved, make them Tier 3 observer

Mistake #2: One Department Dominates

What it looks like:

6 of 10 participants are from IT
Other functions feel outnumbered
Problems identified skew toward one perspective
Cross-functional insights don’t emerge

Fix:

No department should have >3 seats in a 10-person roster
Force yourself to distribute evenly
If one department genuinely has more stake, add session specifically for them

Mistake #3: All Friends or All Rivals

What it looks like: Scenario A (all friends):

Roster is people who already lunch together
Groupthink emerges
Challenging questions don’t get asked
Political diversity is missing

Scenario B (all rivals):

Participants have history of conflict
Sessions become blame sessions
Defensive posturing instead of problem-solving
You spend all time mediating

Fix:

Mix people who know each other with people who don’t
Include some productive tension, not destructive conflict
Interview process should surface interpersonal dynamics
When in doubt, ask sponsor about relationship dynamics

Mistake #4: The Token Junior Person

What it looks like:

One very junior person among 9 seasoned managers
They don’t speak up because they’re intimidated
You hoped for “fresh perspective” but get silence
They feel like they’re being auditioned rather than consulted

Fix:

If including junior staff, include at least 2-3 so they’re not alone
Brief them separately beforehand on your expectations
Explicitly create space for them to contribute
Or just don’t include anyone too junior to have developed perspective

Mistake #5: Optimizing for Convenience Over Quality

What it looks like:

“Who’s available Thursday afternoon?”
Picking people because they’re local/in office
Filling seats with whoever’s calendar is open
Avoiding “difficult” people who’d be valuable

Fix:

Make the calendar work around the right people, not vice versa
It’s worth 2 weeks of scheduling hell to get the right roster
Remote participation is fine if that’s what it takes
Difficult people with insights > easy people without

Mistake #6: No Implementation Authority

What it looks like:

Everyone is an individual contributor
No one can approve budget
No one can allocate development resources
Great ideas die in “we’d need approval for that”

Fix:

Include at least 1-2 people with discretionary authority
Or ensure executive sponsor attends key decisions
Or pre-clear implementation authority with leadership
Make sure someone in room can say “yes, we can do this”

Mistake #7: Treating It Like a Democracy

What it looks like:

“Everyone who wants to participate can join!”
18 people in sessions
Chaos
Nothing gets done

Fix:

This is curated, not open enrollment
Set size limits and stick to them
Create Tier 2 and 3 participation for others
Be comfortable disappointing people who want in

The Ideal Roster: A Template

For a mid-size company (500-2000 employees):

Core Group (10 people):

Operations Manager – Understands fulfillment/production workflows
Senior Customer Success Rep – Voice of customer pain points
Finance Analyst – Handles reporting and data reconciliation
Sales Operations Coordinator – Manages CRM and sales workflow
IT Systems Administrator – Knows technical infrastructure
Product Manager (if applicable) – Understands feature requests and roadmap
Warehouse/Logistics Lead (if applicable) – Ground-level operational reality
Senior Analyst from Data/BI team – Data literacy and possibilities
Middle Manager from largest department – Bridge to execution
Director-level Executive Sponsor Delegate – Decision-making authority

Tier 2 SMEs (invited to specific sessions):

Database Administrator
Compliance Officer
Training Manager
Vendor Relationship Manager
Process Documentation Lead

Tier 3 Stakeholders:

All department heads
CTO/CIO
CFO
VP Operations
Change Management team

This roster gives you:

✅ Cross-functional perspectives
✅ Operational grounding
✅ Technical feasibility input
✅ Decision-making authority
✅ Implementation capability
✅ Manageable group size
✅ Broader stakeholder engagement

Final Validation Questions

Before finalizing roster, ask yourself:

Knowledge Test: “If I asked this group ‘where does [critical process] break down most often?’, would they collectively be able to answer with specificity?”

Authority Test: “If this group agrees on a solution that costs $50K, can anyone in the room approve it—or do we have a clear path to approval?”

Safety Test: “Is there anyone in this room whose presence would make others afraid to speak honestly?”

Diversity Test: “Do we have enough different perspectives that non-obvious insights will emerge?”

Implementation Test: “Can these people actually make change happen, or will we just be writing reports for someone else to execute?”

Chemistry Test: “Will these people work well together, or will we spend sessions managing dysfunction?”

Legitimacy Test: “When we present recommendations, will stakeholders say ‘but you didn’t include anyone from [X]’?”

If you can’t answer “yes” to all of these, revise the roster.

The Meta-Principle

The roster IS the intervention.

Bringing the right people into the same room to discuss shared problems—many for the first time—creates organizational learning independent of any specific solutions you ultimately implement.

Cross-functional empathy, shared context, relationship-building, and breaking down silos happens during the sessions themselves, regardless of outcomes.

So treat roster selection with the seriousness it deserves. It’s not just logistics. It’s strategic organizational development.

What specific roster scenarios are you worried about or want to explore? Geographic distribution? Union environments? Very small companies? Very large enterprises? Political minefields?