Have you ever noticed how often the word “committee” shows up as the punch line of a joke or derogatory comment? Take, for example, this reference by American newspaper columnist George Will: “Football features two of the worst aspects of American life: violence and committee meetings.” Not exactly words of praise for a concept designed to be helpful to organizations. But many association executives would agree that working with committees can be a huge source of frustration.
This issue has been examined by business schools and professional organizations alike. In particular, two white papers published by ASAE should be credited for their research on the issue: “The Decision to Volunteer,” published in 2008, and “The Mission-Driven Volunteer,” which came out in August 2013 and was written by Elizabeth Weaver Engel, CEO of Spark Consulting, and Peggy Hoffman, president of Mariner Management & Marketing. Both studies contain insights that may be getting us closer to understanding the dynamics of how groups can work more effectively in the association environment.
Unfortunately, the challenges that committees face have become more complex. Consider the issues of generational attitudes, the latest technology advancements or increasing diversity. Each alone adds levels of complexity—but when combined, they can be daunting.
Research in “The Mission-Driven Volunteer” reveals that Millennials increasingly embrace the idea of volunteering. However, Millennials are eager to volunteer largely for community-based groups like parent-teacher associations and church groups—not for the associations that we manage. The likely cause is that associations remain too entrenched in the traditional ways of using groups to get things done. We still think most committees should meet face-to-face two to three times a year. But Millennials are generally soloists who prefer to work at their own pace, which naturally conflicts with associations’ preferences. This is a reality that most associations are unable to accept, so we see declining participation in committee work. But there are other reasons why many committees are sliding off the rails:
• Many associations just have too many committees. Some can and in fact should be cut because there’s no longer any reason for them to exist.
• Most associations don’t do a good job of communicating the need for and the benefits of volunteering for committees.
• Many volunteers never receive the proper committee training and orientation.
• Often, committee members or leaders, and sometimes staff, are not competent to do the work that is required.
• Many committees have not been given specific, measurable or time-sensitive goals to achieve. Many possess no goals at all.
Here is my prescription for making committees more effective.
1. Value the capability of the individual and the creativity of chaos.
We know that individuals work more efficiently and almost always more effectively than groups. We also know that the larger the group, the less likely it is to be effective. This is why, for the last decade, the bias of many associations has been to reduce the size of boards. So why not, then, apply the same principles to committees? Imagine for a moment a group of five content experts or thought leaders who are given the task of developing solutions to a problem. Instead of convening them to work together from the start, why not ask each to first address the issues on their own? Once they have done so, the group can come together to compare results and opinions and then embark upon the mission to align their work.
Associations should also spend less time focusing on their committees’ structures and systems and devote more energy and resources to nurturing creative chaos. Place an emphasis on what is achieved rather than who achieved it or how it was achieved.
2. For standing committees, be prepared to make changes.
Many associations hold the mistaken belief that to be effective they are obliged to find a position for every member who wishes to be placed on a committee. This creates committees of convenience, in which members are assigned and will serve year after year after year, regardless of whether or not they contribute.
If you create a committee system anew, start by examining those defined in the bylaws. For most groups, these would include a nominations or leadership development committee, an executive committee and perhaps committees that deal with budget and finance issues, audits or elections.
The next step is to take inventory of all the standing committees, asking, “Is each really necessary?” “Is each group’s mission still relevant?” and “Is a standing committee the best way to achieve each mission?”
You may find that creating task forces charged with achieving precisely defined goals within a specified time period and permitting members to engage with the group will have better results than the traditional approaches. For example, why not eliminate a standing awards committee, whose same members serve multiple terms, and replace it with a new Awards Task Force every year? The annual Awards Task Force could be appointed with members who are charged with specific tasks, perhaps reviewing the validity and relevance of awards or designing the criteria for new awards and award presentations. Associations would also be smart to analyze the need for each committee every two years. If it cannot be demonstrated and measured that a committee has value to the association, it should be eliminated.
Further, many associations now employ highly skilled staff specialists who possess both the experience and knowledge to get important things done. But this begs the question: Doesn’t a higher level of resident talent mean groups can reduce or eliminate certain committees?
3. Use committees to test potential future leadership.
A board of directors is, in a sense, the ultimate committee, so it stands to reason that anyone who covets a board seat must first demonstrate the skills required to help groups work together effectively. Many groups make the mistake of appointing board members based solely on their industry knowledge or, worse, because they have a high profile within the industry. But the only filter that matters is: Do you possess leadership skills? A board can assess everything else it needs from sources other than directors.
4. End the patronage system for committee appointments.
In most associations, as soon as the chairman-elect assumes the lead role and begins a new term, the annual ritual is for the chairman to appoint the organization’s committee members and chairs for that year. In politics, this system is referred to as patronage. The problem is that too many committee chairs and members are appointed because they have been friends with or are loyal supporters of the chairman. Whether they are competent to serve or lead often never comes into play.
A better system is recruiting relevant talent. A budget and finance committee should be a place where members with financial management skills should land, for example. Who should make these appointments? I think the nominating (leadership development) committee is a good choice. Typically that’s what the organization charges with finding, training and nominating future leaders. Also, the nominating committee should feel obligated to be objective and not to reward a position on loyalty.
5. Employ more personal efforts to get members engaged in committees.
In 2012, an ASAE member survey in support of the organization’s project “Rebuilding the Volunteer Spirit” asked association executives, “How do you communicate available volunteer opportunities?” The most common reply was “word of mouth,” followed by websites, mass emails and newsletters.
Targeted communications trailed the list. Why, then, is it a surprise that so few association members step forward to volunteer? Could it be that many aren’t even aware of the opportunities? Instead, try picking up the phone or visiting face-to-face with prospects and recruit your future leaders like a college coach would recruit a highly sought-after athlete. Be proactive, not reactive.
It has often been stated that associations have thrived in America because so many members are willing to volunteer and become an organization’s non-paid workforce. Nothing is more gratifying than witnessing a dynamic, highly focused and effective committee in action. But before that can happen, an association needs to have enough volunteer members, and those members need to be properly placed into the right committees based on their talent and leadership abilities.