Put twenty people on a board or large committee and count on getting maybe five who will be seriously productive. If possible, scrap the large group in the first place and go directly to the five.
"But we have to have twenty," some will exclaim. "We need to make sure all nooks and crannies are represented."
No, we don't. We can take various concerns into account while moving forward. This isn't a government in which built-in inefficiencies are designed to prevent the abuse of power. This is a private organization and our job is to be effective, not to make gestures. In the long run, burdening the process will spark conflict, not avoid it.
Why strap weights to the ankles of the productive so we can pretend that a large group will work?
3 comments:
I'm working toward a "task force" model for the independent school where I'm on the board, rather than large monthly meetings. I think we'll be able to operate more nimbly, and we'll get a lot more accomplished. I think that the full board meetings should be reserved for policy discussions/votes and for voting on capital expenditures, as per the recommendations of the individual task force teams.
We have the school's first ever board planning reatreat scheduled for next month, so we'll see if we can get this model/concept rolling.
I am in an organisation where those that did stuff and made things happened worked really well together and was very productive.....Then it all changed.....now somebody who was on the outside whom didn't do much anyway wanted everybody to make decisions at big meetings.....now guess what? Very little can happen, the wheel turn slowly, things are discussed many many times.....there are no objectives or goals just lots of discussion about making decisions.....
CincyCat,
I think you're right. Good luck!
Bob,
That's a sad but common tale. Large groups can bog down with very little effort.
Michael
Post a Comment