Or perhaps better titled seeking
consensus within a committee! I have recently become involved with a
major project to rebuild & update the internet presence of a
local organization that, in that it is not really a corporate entity
nor really simply a 'club but rests somewhere between those two,
seeks consensus via a committee. Having been involved in a number
committees over the years both formal in a work setting, and informal
in a club setting, as well as having been on the executive of several
clubs I can say that the approach to such committee work varies
considerably. Some run very formally with very structured discussions
and a recorded vote upon issues where the majority rules, others may
allow extensive discussion but in the end what the chairperson wants
is what gets done (something like how the Harper 'government' works).
In most cases the preferred option is to build consensus, where there
is disagreement we should try to find middle ground, seek compromise
between two opposing positions and leave everybody in a position that
they can say “I can live with that”.
“A
committee is a thing which takes a week to do what one good man can
do in an hour.” - Elbert Hubbard
In my view this is by far the best way
to approach working with or for a committee, if members of a group go
away disgruntled that their point of view did not get heard or was
dismissed arbitrarily then they will not be receptive to your point
of view in the future, and if working in a volunteer capacity may
well decide to go on to other less frustrating activities. Seeking
such consensus will inevitably lead to extended discussions which
center around the various options available and the personal opinion
of each participant at the table, such things can often go around and
around interminably, it is the chairs job to decide at which point to
bring such 'discussions' to a head without offending anyone. This can
often be difficult when strong opinions are held.
“A
committee is organic rather than mechanical in its nature: it is not
a structure but a plant. It takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts,
and dies, scattering the seed from which other committees will bloom
in their turn.” - C. Northcote Parkinson
With modern communications such
'discussions' often take place at virtual meetings by a series of
emails, this is a great way to get things done without dragging folks
to a central location every couple of days but it has its own set of
pitfalls. The first is the tendency when replying to someone who has
responsibility for one particular issue of replying to just them and
not including all the group, emails should almost always have a copy
to all members. This may result in some folks getting reams of
emails which they have little need to reply to but they are kept 'in
the loop', do not feel they are being passed by regarding the topic
and can always ignore them if they wish. The second thing to beware
of is how quickly and almost without thought we all hit that 'send'
button, true it takes a little longer to screw up when typing than
when speaking directly (at least for one finger keyboard peckers like
me) but once sent your thoughts are documented and non retrievable.
Having such conversations 'documented' is in the whole scheme of
thing a good thing in that previous input, decisions and opinions can
be reviewed without the '”but you said.....” arguments, which
is why it is important to review your text before hitting send.
“To
get something done a committee should consist of no more than three
people, two of whom are absent.” - Robert Copeland
I am guilty on that score all to often,
whilst articles like this one are assembled over several days and
reviewed numerous times before publication I tend to treat email
'conversations' much the same as face to face conversations and reply
with my immediate reaction without thinking it through. This can
often result in one or more 'I forgot to say....' follow up emails
which can be most disconcerting for the recipients. I find one way to
avoid that is to formulate each answer to a complex and ongoing issue
in a document as they emerge and then review and edit it at the end
of the day before sending it off. This can slow down the 'discussion'
sometimes but often clarifies the issues and certainly give one time
to 'rethink' your response.
“Any
committee is only as good as the most knowledgeable, determined and
vigorous person on it. There must be somebody who provides the
flame.” - Claudia Lady Bird Johnson
I am sure my fellow committee members
will be interested to read this and it remains to be seen if I
practice what I preach! If my primary goal of fostering open and
honest discussion is met then I am sure they will let me know. I hope
I can provide that 'Flame'! In that regard I must now 'review' this
post before publication and add a brief summary how I believe a
committee meeting should proceed be it face to face or online in some
form.
- Foster open and honest discussions where no idea or opinion is dismissed without due consideration.
- Try to keep the discussions focused but know when to move on when consensus cannot be reached.
- Beware excluding any member from a discussion, particularly one with whom you disagree.
- Think before you speak or hit that send button, your remarks may be misconstrued by some..
- Review and summarize your discussions frequently in order to clarify the status of issue under consideration.
- Above all do not take critique as a personal attack, you SHOULD all be working towards the same goal and finding flaws in any proposal is a GOOD thing.
In this case the committee of one
reached complete consensus on the text of this post!
