The Problem with Committees (Or, "When the Kingdom Gets in the Way")

The other day, I saw a large committee (more than twelve people were present, with more who were supposed to be there) actually function well, and seem to effectively get necessary tasks accomplished or designated. I didn't think about it at the time, but now that I ponder it, I wonder why committees sometimes work, but other times don't.

They often fail to work successfully (or work only at a mediocre level) in churches...and generally it is the same with cities that have a city council. The committee ends up not doing very much at all, just sort of muddling along, not breaking anything, but also not really accomplishing anything noteworthy. Or the council members will work or fight against each other and, while still muddling along and not technically breaking anything, end up destroying their citizenry's confidence in their effectiveness and the integrity of the members and the system (and once the taxpayers are convinced that the system and the governors are not looking out for their best interests, they start taking some sort of action, be it protesting, getting involved directly in the system, or simply moving away).

Churches often end up the same way -- the board of elders, or the several pastors, or whoever makes up the committee will generally muddle along, getting enough done to keep the normal day-to-day church operations going (paying rent, salaries, and scheduling cleaning, or whatever), but not really doing much more than that, having difficulty getting involved in a new area of activity or changing routines. Or the elders/pastors will end up in conflict and will spend so much of their energy in adversarial activities amongst themselves, that they have trouble functioning effectively, and the church members end up losing confidence in the leaders' effectiveness, integrity, and often begin to doubt that the system works at all.


So… what makes the difference between a functional committee and a dysfunctional committee? I think there are several elements:

Necessaries:

First, a group will function well if there is a common goal to work towards. This cannot be a nebulous or inconcrete goal, however; it must be a goal that everyone can see and know exactly what they are working towards -- in short, it must be measureable -- it does not need to be measureable exactly in numbers (though that is certainly one way of measuring something), but it must, at all events, be crystal clear in the minds of all members. [Examples of goals that don't have numbers but are yet measurable: winning WWII, stopping Godzilla from destroying Tokyo, hitchhiking to California, etc.]

Second, a group must not only have a common goal, but all the members of the group must agree that that goal is the one to work towards. In a work situation, this acceptance is generally implied when you take the job -- you must work toward the goals of the company. In a church setting, this goal must be made clear, and must clearly be accepted by the members of the group.

Hindrances:

First is the kingdom mentality. I think one of the things that often gets in the way of effective committee functioning is when the committee is given rule over a kingdom. This happens in city government -- the mandate of the city council is to bear rule over the citizenry, and maximize their welfare; same story in church government -- somehow, the church body becomes to the leaders a type of citizenry ("our flock," "our congregation," etc) for which the elders/leaders perceive that they have some mandate to rule over and maximize "welfare...

The problem that I see with this is that truly effective kingdoms must clearly have in mind a common goal (as mentioned above), but in general, the basic premise of a kingdom is to extend your rule over as many people, and as much territory as is feasible -- this means WAR -- but war is pretty much the one thing that these kingdoms either cannot, or will not do. For municipalities, it is forbidden, and for churches, it is sorely ill-defined, and few "soldiers" can see the battle to fight it, let alone prepare for it.

Thus, when your organization is in some sense a kingdom, and there is no war or conquest, the kingdom mentality fails to function very well at all.

Second, any obscurity of the goal will tend to result in a proportional reduction in the effectiveness of the group to make decisions. Clarity of purpose, direction, and objective are absolutely essential.

Third, forgetfulness. People often tend to get involved in their specific tasks, and forget the end goal that their task is designed to help accomplish. When the leadership gets involved and focused on this project, that project, and what-project-should-we-do-next, sight of the goal is lost, and the effectiveness of their directions is greatly reduced. The goal must be kept in mind at all times, and the criteria for all projects must be its effective contribution to the accomplishment of the goal. “Where there is no vision, the people perish.”

Fourth, stasis. Growth or movement helps to focus a goal [it is easier to spot someone who is running, than someone who is walking, and easier to spot someone who is walking than someone who is standing still]. The point at which an organization "reaches the top," is the point at which it is most likely to fall apart. This is because a goal once reached is a goal now nonexistent. When the leadership is in a position of "what shall we do now?" all unifying and motivating effects of the common goal are removed, and unless a new goal is instituted [this is, in my opinion, where a good leader will recognize that a new goal is needed, and set it up for the organization], the leadership will fall to bickering about selfish points that accomplish nothing for the organization.

I had a fifth point....but I thought of it as I was in the middle of writing the fourth, and I forgot it. I even considered stopping to write it down, but decided not to, continued writing number four, and promptly forgot my fifth point. Frustrating. (And my own fault, too!)