Comments on: No more committees

By: Principled Innovation LLC » Lessons from Firefox (LONG POST)

Principled Innovation LLC » Lessons from Firefox (LONG POST) — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:30:03 +0000

[...] Think hybrid–Associations can smartly experiment with open source approaches by marrying them to current strategic outcomes. For example, the entrenched and often dysfunctional committee bureaucracy found in most associations is a ripe opportunity for prototyping new forms of organizing that make richer and more rapid collaboration possible. In We Have Always Done It That Way: 101 Things About Associations We Must Change, I advocated for the elimination of all association standing committees, in favor of joint member-staff working groups with a focus on quick and creative action. By road testing new structures such as these in the service of their actual work, associations will learn what works and what doesn’t. In what areas can your association link new ways of organizing with on-going organizational work? [...]

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 20:06:17 +0000

Jeff – I like the structure you outline for getting rid of committees – seems fine to me, especially the idea that the membership must turn over and that the contribution of everyone must be evaluated. Drucker interviewed someone whose board did this (i.e. evaluated its own members) in his book Nonprofit Management. My thought, though is that these rules don’t represent a sea change — am I wrong? I mean, you could manage committees using the guidelines you’ve articulated and get the same outcomes, no?

By: Kevin Holland

Kevin Holland — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 12:35:57 +0000

Thanks, Jeff (and thanks for your help with the session yesterday).

I like your idea, just exploring further … this seems similar to what some groups tried to do a while back by changing “committees” to “working groups” or “teams” (which in most cases, admittedly, amounted to nothing more than a name change, while you outline a much more rigorous approach than just nomenclature).

And maybe we’re talking about two different things. I was thinking of committees as the way decisions get filtered up through a process in most organizations. There was a definite reason to have them if you wanted to get anything done. With technology, that reason has gone away. Now you could easily establish systems to involve every member (or at least every interested member) in these decisions. Discussions can happen anywhere in real time, opinions can be ranked and counted, and decisions can happen instantaneously, making the old model of small groups unnecessary.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 12:15:20 +0000

First of all, Kevin, great session yesterday on blogging at GI Orlando. But you need to read this post more carefully. I’m saying no more committees. But we still need small collaborative groups to work on specific projects or ideas. The real opportunity is create a new structure that makes it easier to develop our staff and volunteer leaders as partners through a variety of experiences. The kind of approach I’m advocating is an element of changing the way associations do business and grow their people. Thanks for commenting.

By: Kevin Holland

Kevin Holland — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 23:31:36 +0000

Jeff, I’ll call you on it.

Why do we need committees at all?

By: Jeff

Jeff — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 13:10:58 +0000

Paul, thanks for your comment, although I need to call you just a little bit on the self-promotional element of it. ;>)

I think you’re making an assumption that reporting equals tracking. I think there is more than one way to track progress without reports, including the visual minutes you suggest. I certainly agree that effective tracking is necessary lest we create a different kind of frustration. My experience tells me that individual organizations can develop tracking approaches that work for them without the horrors of constant reporting. Associations will have a more difficult time creating and supporting the right kinds of conversations to ensure a variety of stakeholders have a voice in moving the right work forward i the right way. It is in those conversations that we will find true wisdom.

By: Paul Skidmore

Paul Skidmore — Sun, 04 Dec 2005 23:25:39 +0000

I’m all in favour of reducing the paper trail, but the problem with having “no reports, just conversations” is that it’s impossible to keep track of where you’ve got to, what you’ve agreed and what you have left to think about. As a result, it’s very difficult to stay on task and what starts out as a prescription for making committee life less onerous ends up reproducing the very characteristic that makes it so frustrating: endless talking, and no shared sense of progress.

As an alternative, consider using visual minutes. They have a number of advantages over traditional reporting. They simplify, focusing on the important things without getting swamped by detail. They’re arresting, so you will want to actually look at and engage with them. And they change the tone of meetings, because they encourage you to talk in a different way, using imagery and metaphor to communicate your ideas rather than bureaucrat-ese.

Take a look at http://www.creativeconnection.co.uk/ for an example.