Those who include some, automatically exclude others. In organisations, it is always a relief for members if they don’t have to concern themselves with something, as this allows more time for their own interests. It is also a relief when others are not allowed to interfere with their affairs and they can justifiably disregard them. On the other hand, every exclusion is also a burden, when they are not allowed to concern themselves with something which might be important for accomplishing their own goal. Likewise, it is a burden when others do not include them in things which would be important for their own interests.
In the face of this double layer of pros and cons, it is not surprising that a lot of communications about official and unofficial control and rights of influence can be observed. Of course, there are also those who are happy to be left undisturbed by ‘politics’ and ‘meetings’ in their quiet room, to simply be able to (and want to) do their work. But tasks, which are completed in this manner, are becoming fewer and fewer. Everything is more and more factually interlinked.
Those who allow themselves to be, or are excluded from the decision-making process, must compensate with trusting those who might represent questionable interests. And the organisation must trust that those, whom they exclude from the decision-making process, ‘digest’ their interests and factual information via official and unofficial channels! The self-initiated information and communication flow of the excluded, from below upwards and from here to there, must enhance the communication amongst the participants, otherwise almost all organisations get problems.