When Committees Don't Function Like Plenaries

As a process consultant I'm asked to assist groups in a variety of ways. One is by helping them learn how to facilitate better meetings. Another is how to set up committees to function well. Both of these are common requests, and I get plenty of practice at each. As odd as it may seem, however, sometimes these two objectives land at cross purposes, and that's what I want to explore in this essay.

As a consultant, my work is overwhelmingly focused on plenaries—meetings of the whole. Almost always that's the messiest arena (where there are the most variables) and the place where I can do the most good. However, success at that level doesn't always permeate to all corners of the group culture.

I. Even when the group gets religion about the need to invest in facilitation skills, and shifts the meeting culture about how plenaries are run (praise the lord) that does not guarantee that those advancements will trickle down to the committee level.

Most groups allow committees the latitude to determine their own process (rather than expecting them to mirror the way plenaries are run), and most committees default into the Roberts Rules of Order standard of expecting the chair to run meetings—without giving a moment's thought to whether the reason a person has been selected as chair (perhaps administrative skill, expertise in the committee's domain, organizational diligence, facility with details, or just plain willingness to take a turn in the barrel) has anything to do with qualities needed to run a good meeting (good communication skills, neutrality on the topics, a knack for at bridging differences, unflappable in the presence of reactivity).

Thus, even when the group adopts the practice of carefully selecting a facilitator to run plenaries, committees often don't. Worse, they often don't ask for help—even when they desperately need it. And if the community has offered committees carte blanche when it comes to how they'll operate, they are loath to go in after the fact to suggest that they up their game.

II. In a typical group it's not unusual for the enthusiasm for process to be held on a gradient. While some see it as the second coming, others consider it a necessarily evil that has to be tolerated to quell the navel gazers. This spectrum is often characterized as the tension between Process People and Product People. 

Not surprisingly there tends to be certain committees (maintenance and landscaping, for two) that attract more than their share of the Get 'Er Done folks (aka Product People) who want to spend minimal time in meetings and maximal time doing stuff.

While this is not necessarily a problem, it can be. If a committee has an underdeveloped sense of process and low tolerance for talking through dynamics, it can come across as inaccessible when other community members have a beef with them. When process isn't in your consciousness, or you have a low opinion of its utility, issues tend to get shunted to the side or ignored (I'd rather be weeding) and that just pisses people off. They can appear as a rogue committee that doesn't give a shit about anyone else. I'm not saying that's true, but that's how it can look.

The committee can feel like martyrs (unfairly vilified and under-appreciated for all the work they're doing for the community) while appearing as prima donnas to others (going about their merry way doing what they please and ignoring complaints). Can you see the train wreck?

III. I believe the antidote is crisper mandates. In the plenary agreement that authorizes each committee, it's important to spell out what latitude the committee has about how it operates and the rights retained by the plenary to step in if there's the perception that the committee is not functioning well—one of the tests for which should be whether good faith attempts are being made to resolve complaints in their field of operation with alacrity and openness. No siloing.

I'm all in favor of giving committees latitude for self-determination, but you need to accompany that with a clear pathway for dealing with problems. Otherwise you're betting on the weather and praying it doesn't rain—which is a very bad plan, because it always rains eventually.