Committees, Task Forces & The Proper Use of Time and Power
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Rory
Jun 11, 2008, 2:30:02 AM6/11/08
to VFC General Discussion
Rory's general thoughts on committees, for those with ears to hear.
Various folks have claimed that I am hostile to all committees, but
this untrue. I am opposed to meaningless committees and feel that VFC
has a tin ear to the proper use and purpose of committees, as compared
with other structures such as task forces or work groups. A committee
is a standing body which meets periodically to address a variety of
issues and (usually) to report back. The proper use of committees, in
my judgment, is to perform a general monitoring function while the
purpose of "ad-hoc committees" is more akin to what I would call a
"work group" or "task force," with a set mission and a timeline to
complete that mission, whereupon it is disbanded.
The proper use of committees is to make sure that things do not fall
through the cracks and to serve as a "backstop" for tasks that might
otherwise be lost.
The proper use of work groups or task forces is to accomplish finite,
defined tasks, and then to disband.
Committees necessarily expend a great deal of effort on their own
maintenance, in the form of agendas, minutes, procedures and the
like, while task forces or work groups expend their energy on
completing a task or producing a specific and finite product: a
recommendation, a working web site, a slate of board candidates or a
vision statement. That product is then delivered to a larger
organization, such as a committee or board, but task forces do not
need to waste their energy on their own continuity and maintenance.
Task forces are like contractors while committees are like pensioned
employees. Each has their value to different organizations, but
competent people who would never be caught dead on a committee are
often delighted to serve on a task force.
The main objection I have had to committees within the VFC system is
(1) that committees create additional maintenance overhead for the
corporate secretary, in that their agendas and minutes and decisions
must often become part of the official corporate record, (2) that
committees introduce a certain degree of parliamentary and procedural
overhead that can almost always be used more productively for other
things while (3) all too often, the interim chair of VFC would willy-
nilly create committees when a task was one that the board did not
want to address. Rather than solve difficult problems, these problems
were sent off like red-headed stepchildren, in hopes that perhaps they
would die. How many committees has VFC had and how many were
officially created or disbanded? Of those committees which VFC has
had, how many have had consistent chairs/agendas/minutes and what
tasks have those committees produced. Having attended dozens of VFC
committee meetings I would challenge any chair to demonstrate that a
majority of those who attend one committee meeting ever attend three:
people appear, feel unheard and disappear, perhaps to never help VFC
ever again. Having sat through the same four meetings over and over
again as part of Outreach (let's discuss the logo, brainstorm, talk
about brochure ideas and ignore all prior decisions) I have no belief
in their value except as a way to make people feel better about
themselves for a short time and pretend that some work has somehow
gotten done.
In my experience it is not committees that get things done, but
individuals, and my belief in the power of individuals and small
groups to accomplish things is almost infinite, if they have passion
and are given the freedom and tools to enact that passion in a
tangible way. For the dozens of tiny tasks that VFC needs to
accomplish, task forces make better and more efficient use of the
human spirit, and giving individuals tasks and acknowledgment is much
more efficient than hoping a committee might get to it one day, after
a sub-committee studies it and makes a recommendation that may or may
not be tabled until the next meeting.
The tasks that VFC faces in this start-up phase are tasks more suited
to individuals, small work groups and focused task forces: write text
for a brochure (as Kate Wallis did), identify a general web strategy
(as Heather and Rory did), suggest an improvement over a previous
unstored email free-for-all (as Merritt Hitzeman-Anzjon did) or create
draft bylaws and enter hundreds of moldering paper records into a
computer (as Lori Loranger did). When the buyer's club was about to
fold, it was Anja Larson who stepped up and volunteered to help staff
it, to keep it in west Vancouver. When there was an opportunity to
organize a harvest dinner that earned over $3,000 it was Sunrise
O'Mahoney that did it. It was never any committee, but ordinary people
with extraordinary hearts.
Task forces and freedom enoble the human soul, and noble souls get
more work done. My objection to committees for VFC is a practical one,
based on their past abuses and performance relative to task forces and
inspired individuals. Are folks familiar with that great cartoon "Hold
a Meeting?" :
Are you lonely? Hate having to make decisions? Rather talk about it
than do it? Want to pass the buck? HOLD A MEETING! Sharpen your skills
in meaningless verbal interaction. Learn to off-load decisions. Write
volumes of meaningless rhetoric. Feel important, impress your
colleagues. Catch up on your sleep. AND ALL ON WORK TIME! Meetings:
the practical alternative to work.
Concern for the abuse of committees as a way to avoid real work is
deeply embedded in current philosophies of policy governance, used by
all three other Portland-area cooperatives, and addressed quite
succinctly by John and Miriam Mayhew Carver.
--- BEGIN QUOTE ---
If your board is to govern as a group and speak with one voice, it
must avoid some time-honored practices with regard to officers and
committees....
Traditionally, we have learned to speak of boards and committees much
as we speak of peaches and cream or horses and carriages; they go
together. People have a hard time conceiving of a board without
committees. This is regrettable. Some boards never need a committee
and, in any event, there is *no* committee that is generically
necessary to governance. Moreover, people often have a clearer, albeit
misinformed notion of what certain familiar committees should do than
they have of what the board should do. yet, since a committee is a
subpart of the board, the role or even the need for any committee
cannot possibly be determined until the role of the board as a whole
has been decided.....
If your board has decided to use Policy Governance it should:
- Create no office or committee position for the purpose of helping,
advising, instructing, or exercising responsibility for or authority
over any aspect of organization that has been delegated to the
[general manager or operations officer].
- Use committees, if it wishes, to help the board with parts of its
job.
- Allow no committee to be a board-within-the-board
- Create committees that last as long as the job the committee has to
do, but no longer.
- Be clear about the product the board is requiring from the committee
(for example, advice to the board or a set of options for board
action).
- Be clear about the resources the committee is authorized to use (for
example, money or staff time)
- Use the expertise of board members to inform but not substitute for
board wisdom.
- From pp. 51-52 of Carver and Carver's 1997 book Reinventing Your
Board: A Step-By-Step Guide to Implementing Policy Governance.
Various folks have claimed that I am hostile to all committees, but
this untrue. I am opposed to meaningless committees and feel that VFC
has a tin ear to the proper use and purpose of committees, as compared
with other structures such as task forces or work groups. A committee
is a standing body which meets periodically to address a variety of
issues and (usually) to report back. The proper use of committees, in
my judgment, is to perform a general monitoring function while the
purpose of "ad-hoc committees" is more akin to what I would call a
"work group" or "task force," with a set mission and a timeline to
complete that mission, whereupon it is disbanded.
The proper use of committees is to make sure that things do not fall
through the cracks and to serve as a "backstop" for tasks that might
otherwise be lost.
The proper use of work groups or task forces is to accomplish finite,
defined tasks, and then to disband.
Committees necessarily expend a great deal of effort on their own
maintenance, in the form of agendas, minutes, procedures and the
like, while task forces or work groups expend their energy on
completing a task or producing a specific and finite product: a
recommendation, a working web site, a slate of board candidates or a
vision statement. That product is then delivered to a larger
organization, such as a committee or board, but task forces do not
need to waste their energy on their own continuity and maintenance.
Task forces are like contractors while committees are like pensioned
employees. Each has their value to different organizations, but
competent people who would never be caught dead on a committee are
often delighted to serve on a task force.
The main objection I have had to committees within the VFC system is
(1) that committees create additional maintenance overhead for the
corporate secretary, in that their agendas and minutes and decisions
must often become part of the official corporate record, (2) that
committees introduce a certain degree of parliamentary and procedural
overhead that can almost always be used more productively for other
things while (3) all too often, the interim chair of VFC would willy-
nilly create committees when a task was one that the board did not
want to address. Rather than solve difficult problems, these problems
were sent off like red-headed stepchildren, in hopes that perhaps they
would die. How many committees has VFC had and how many were
officially created or disbanded? Of those committees which VFC has
had, how many have had consistent chairs/agendas/minutes and what
tasks have those committees produced. Having attended dozens of VFC
committee meetings I would challenge any chair to demonstrate that a
majority of those who attend one committee meeting ever attend three:
people appear, feel unheard and disappear, perhaps to never help VFC
ever again. Having sat through the same four meetings over and over
again as part of Outreach (let's discuss the logo, brainstorm, talk
about brochure ideas and ignore all prior decisions) I have no belief
in their value except as a way to make people feel better about
themselves for a short time and pretend that some work has somehow
gotten done.
In my experience it is not committees that get things done, but
individuals, and my belief in the power of individuals and small
groups to accomplish things is almost infinite, if they have passion
and are given the freedom and tools to enact that passion in a
tangible way. For the dozens of tiny tasks that VFC needs to
accomplish, task forces make better and more efficient use of the
human spirit, and giving individuals tasks and acknowledgment is much
more efficient than hoping a committee might get to it one day, after
a sub-committee studies it and makes a recommendation that may or may
not be tabled until the next meeting.
The tasks that VFC faces in this start-up phase are tasks more suited
to individuals, small work groups and focused task forces: write text
for a brochure (as Kate Wallis did), identify a general web strategy
(as Heather and Rory did), suggest an improvement over a previous
unstored email free-for-all (as Merritt Hitzeman-Anzjon did) or create
draft bylaws and enter hundreds of moldering paper records into a
computer (as Lori Loranger did). When the buyer's club was about to
fold, it was Anja Larson who stepped up and volunteered to help staff
it, to keep it in west Vancouver. When there was an opportunity to
organize a harvest dinner that earned over $3,000 it was Sunrise
O'Mahoney that did it. It was never any committee, but ordinary people
with extraordinary hearts.
Task forces and freedom enoble the human soul, and noble souls get
more work done. My objection to committees for VFC is a practical one,
based on their past abuses and performance relative to task forces and
inspired individuals. Are folks familiar with that great cartoon "Hold
a Meeting?" :
Are you lonely? Hate having to make decisions? Rather talk about it
than do it? Want to pass the buck? HOLD A MEETING! Sharpen your skills
in meaningless verbal interaction. Learn to off-load decisions. Write
volumes of meaningless rhetoric. Feel important, impress your
colleagues. Catch up on your sleep. AND ALL ON WORK TIME! Meetings:
the practical alternative to work.
Concern for the abuse of committees as a way to avoid real work is
deeply embedded in current philosophies of policy governance, used by
all three other Portland-area cooperatives, and addressed quite
succinctly by John and Miriam Mayhew Carver.
--- BEGIN QUOTE ---
If your board is to govern as a group and speak with one voice, it
must avoid some time-honored practices with regard to officers and
committees....
Traditionally, we have learned to speak of boards and committees much
as we speak of peaches and cream or horses and carriages; they go
together. People have a hard time conceiving of a board without
committees. This is regrettable. Some boards never need a committee
and, in any event, there is *no* committee that is generically
necessary to governance. Moreover, people often have a clearer, albeit
misinformed notion of what certain familiar committees should do than
they have of what the board should do. yet, since a committee is a
subpart of the board, the role or even the need for any committee
cannot possibly be determined until the role of the board as a whole
has been decided.....
If your board has decided to use Policy Governance it should:
- Create no office or committee position for the purpose of helping,
advising, instructing, or exercising responsibility for or authority
over any aspect of organization that has been delegated to the
[general manager or operations officer].
- Use committees, if it wishes, to help the board with parts of its
job.
- Allow no committee to be a board-within-the-board
- Create committees that last as long as the job the committee has to
do, but no longer.
- Be clear about the product the board is requiring from the committee
(for example, advice to the board or a set of options for board
action).
- Be clear about the resources the committee is authorized to use (for
example, money or staff time)
- Use the expertise of board members to inform but not substitute for
board wisdom.
- From pp. 51-52 of Carver and Carver's 1997 book Reinventing Your
Board: A Step-By-Step Guide to Implementing Policy Governance.
heather lehman
Jun 11, 2008, 2:13:31 PM6/11/08
to vfc-g...@googlegroups.com
No actually, there are no tin ears, and we (everyone who has tried hard to work with you) are all very sorry that you have never managed to hear us say so. What we are tired ofis that you want to force your thoughts about purpose and structure and everything else down our throats. You have proven deaf to the FACT that in a cooperative endeavor, no one is king. There are ways of contributing your expertise - which has never been called into question.
The problem is that you think there is only one way of doing things, and take a contemptuous and condescending tone with anyone who does not kowtow to your self importance.
~heather
heather l. lehman, MLIS
Glenna VFC 25
Jun 11, 2008, 2:48:04 PM6/11/08
to vfc-g...@googlegroups.com
At a recent outreach meeting, it was suggested (by Karen, I think) that we utilize the use of task forces for projects that would have a leader and would then be disbanded when the task was finished. It was well-received at the meeting. As I recall, everyone agreed it was a good idea.
Further, that has been implemented within the outreach committee. An example of that is the upcoming grocery bag sewing workshop. A specific person is handling it and it is getting done (arranged and scheduled!).
I think the point was that a committee of many people working on many tasks is not effective. Further, that it is better for a specific person to be in charge of a specific task/item so it can be the focused project and get done. To have everything headed by a particular committee chair is neither efficient or the best use of that person's time. As an example, because Carol is in charge of the sewing workshop, it is she that is doing most of the work on it and simply reporting back to the committee rather than waiting for a committee chair to guide her or for committee meetings to work out details. Within a two-week period, she has gotten her own training on the bags, arranged for an instructor, arranged for meeting space, requested a check for the space, is arranging for sewing machines, and will have all the information to start promoting it later this month; in other words, it is ready to go! She, as a task leader, has been able to accomplish all of this which would not have been practical if it were necessary to present each of these items through a committee chair who is already overloaded with things or to wait for committee meetings. This is a project that will have been suggested and completed within a two-month period because of the task force approach.
It is not that a committee chair is lax in any one area, quite the contrary; it simply is that there are too many details that folks don't even think about that need to be addressed and arranged for one person to take care of it all. There is simply not enough time in a day!
When the task force idea was suggested, it was also discussed that the task leader would have a sense of ownership of the project which encourages more participation and satisfaction of accomplishment. Also discussed was that others would step forward with other projects that they might like to work on as a task leader.
So far, it seems to be working very well within the outreach committee. Thank you to Karen for suggesting it!
Glenna
======================--
---<-@ Glenna Rose @->---
I cannot change the world, but I can make my little corner better.
Further, that has been implemented within the outreach committee. An example of that is the upcoming grocery bag sewing workshop. A specific person is handling it and it is getting done (arranged and scheduled!).
I think the point was that a committee of many people working on many tasks is not effective. Further, that it is better for a specific person to be in charge of a specific task/item so it can be the focused project and get done. To have everything headed by a particular committee chair is neither efficient or the best use of that person's time. As an example, because Carol is in charge of the sewing workshop, it is she that is doing most of the work on it and simply reporting back to the committee rather than waiting for a committee chair to guide her or for committee meetings to work out details. Within a two-week period, she has gotten her own training on the bags, arranged for an instructor, arranged for meeting space, requested a check for the space, is arranging for sewing machines, and will have all the information to start promoting it later this month; in other words, it is ready to go! She, as a task leader, has been able to accomplish all of this which would not have been practical if it were necessary to present each of these items through a committee chair who is already overloaded with things or to wait for committee meetings. This is a project that will have been suggested and completed within a two-month period because of the task force approach.
It is not that a committee chair is lax in any one area, quite the contrary; it simply is that there are too many details that folks don't even think about that need to be addressed and arranged for one person to take care of it all. There is simply not enough time in a day!
When the task force idea was suggested, it was also discussed that the task leader would have a sense of ownership of the project which encourages more participation and satisfaction of accomplishment. Also discussed was that others would step forward with other projects that they might like to work on as a task leader.
So far, it seems to be working very well within the outreach committee. Thank you to Karen for suggesting it!
Glenna
======================
---<-@ Glenna Rose @->---
I cannot change the world, but I can make my little corner better.
Rory
Jun 12, 2008, 10:27:20 AM6/12/08
to VFC General Discussion
I assert that an objective review of past accomplishments by VFC would
support my general view of the utility and efficacy of committees as
compared with finite and targeted work groups or task leaders,
especially in the startup phase of an organization. Consider a dozen
or so projects within VFC
- VFC buyer's club
- VFC grant applications
- VFC incorporation
- VFC ownership flyer
- VFC scholarship form
- VFC logo
- VFC brochure
- VFC business cards
- VFC bumper stickers
- VFC yard signs
- VFC web site(s)
- Registration of VancouverFood.org
- Original Mailman email lists
- VFC Google Groups
- VFC speaker's bureau
- VFC board-private Yahoo group
- Farmer's Market tabling
- Creation of draft bylaws
- Entry of paper contact data
- Consolidation and distribution of board minutes
- VFC financial reports
- VFC harvest dinner
- VFC feasibility study
- VFC business plan(s)
- VFC marketing plan
- VFC market study
- VFC financial pro-formas
- VFC newsletter
I would invite anyone to make a list of these projects and divide them
into two columns based on whether or not they have been completed.
Note just after it when the project was first begun and when it was
completed. Now circle all the ones which were accomplished by
committees (rather than individuals or tiny task forces within
committees). The evidence speaks for itself.
Having served on dozens of committees in many organizations I
absolutely value their proper uses and place. I assert that for VFC
right now, they are not a wise strategy. Perhaps later, but for now we
need more performing and less storming, which is why the constant
norming and forming of committee maintenance is an imprudent use of
our limited energies, and especially of people who have a specific,
valuable skill set or a finite amount of time to devote to helping
VFC.
If someone can help us three hours each month, why spend two of those
hours on a committee meeting (including travel time) and another half
hour on email? It is inelegant.
Committees talk and meet to monitor progress, not to make it. What
would those who adore VFC's committee system says make for a good
committee meeting? The Carvers have identified various ways that
committees can be abused, as does the "hold a meeting" cartoon. What
do good and efficient committees look like? How can they be measured?
How encouraged?
support my general view of the utility and efficacy of committees as
compared with finite and targeted work groups or task leaders,
especially in the startup phase of an organization. Consider a dozen
or so projects within VFC
- VFC buyer's club
- VFC grant applications
- VFC incorporation
- VFC ownership flyer
- VFC scholarship form
- VFC logo
- VFC brochure
- VFC business cards
- VFC bumper stickers
- VFC yard signs
- VFC web site(s)
- Registration of VancouverFood.org
- Original Mailman email lists
- VFC Google Groups
- VFC speaker's bureau
- VFC board-private Yahoo group
- Farmer's Market tabling
- Creation of draft bylaws
- Entry of paper contact data
- Consolidation and distribution of board minutes
- VFC financial reports
- VFC harvest dinner
- VFC feasibility study
- VFC business plan(s)
- VFC marketing plan
- VFC market study
- VFC financial pro-formas
- VFC newsletter
I would invite anyone to make a list of these projects and divide them
into two columns based on whether or not they have been completed.
Note just after it when the project was first begun and when it was
completed. Now circle all the ones which were accomplished by
committees (rather than individuals or tiny task forces within
committees). The evidence speaks for itself.
Having served on dozens of committees in many organizations I
absolutely value their proper uses and place. I assert that for VFC
right now, they are not a wise strategy. Perhaps later, but for now we
need more performing and less storming, which is why the constant
norming and forming of committee maintenance is an imprudent use of
our limited energies, and especially of people who have a specific,
valuable skill set or a finite amount of time to devote to helping
VFC.
If someone can help us three hours each month, why spend two of those
hours on a committee meeting (including travel time) and another half
hour on email? It is inelegant.
Committees talk and meet to monitor progress, not to make it. What
would those who adore VFC's committee system says make for a good
committee meeting? The Carvers have identified various ways that
committees can be abused, as does the "hold a meeting" cartoon. What
do good and efficient committees look like? How can they be measured?
How encouraged?
h
Jun 14, 2008, 10:21:39 PM6/14/08
to VFC General Discussion
consider that, instead of being able to focus on owner membership, the
board became entangled and sidetracked by irreconcilable differences
(to be polite).
consider that even your opinions have had to be reviewed and corrected
instead of being thrust outwards in a risky fashion
consider that the buyer's club has remained a hub of loyal people -
just like it was when I hosted it for years - but has not grown under
your care either!
consider that technical group/committee or what ave you never
manifested a database under your care either!
I assert that your idea of objective is a lark, and that each
community has a learning curve. In Vancouver, the cooperative is still
new. Which, in case you ever wonder, is why I am now adamant that
everything you have to say that smacks of self-serving bias will get a
response from someone who thins that we are on course given all that
the group has been through.
Making lists is good, and your thoughts are not bad. Unfortunately you
want to use them to castigate a bunch of people that you were a part
of. So it is kind of like shooting yourself in the back with a bow and
arrow....
~heather lehman#1
board became entangled and sidetracked by irreconcilable differences
(to be polite).
consider that even your opinions have had to be reviewed and corrected
instead of being thrust outwards in a risky fashion
consider that the buyer's club has remained a hub of loyal people -
just like it was when I hosted it for years - but has not grown under
your care either!
consider that technical group/committee or what ave you never
manifested a database under your care either!
I assert that your idea of objective is a lark, and that each
community has a learning curve. In Vancouver, the cooperative is still
new. Which, in case you ever wonder, is why I am now adamant that
everything you have to say that smacks of self-serving bias will get a
response from someone who thins that we are on course given all that
the group has been through.
Making lists is good, and your thoughts are not bad. Unfortunately you
want to use them to castigate a bunch of people that you were a part
of. So it is kind of like shooting yourself in the back with a bow and
arrow....
~heather lehman#1
Rory
Jun 14, 2008, 10:44:43 PM6/14/08
to VFC General Discussion
Technical committee determined that the single spreadsheet within
Google docs was sufficient to handle input of 3-5 entries per month,
and was much simpler than building and teaching a group of people who
already understood one relatively simple interface a more complicated
PHP one, as is reflected in the notes from those committee meetings.
What makes for a good committee again?
Are task forces every a better idea?
What is the proper use of committees, task forces and volunteer time?
Google docs was sufficient to handle input of 3-5 entries per month,
and was much simpler than building and teaching a group of people who
already understood one relatively simple interface a more complicated
PHP one, as is reflected in the notes from those committee meetings.
What makes for a good committee again?
Are task forces every a better idea?
What is the proper use of committees, task forces and volunteer time?
heather lehman
Jun 14, 2008, 11:03:53 PM6/14/08
to vfc-g...@googlegroups.com
Excellent response, but I will ask for clarification on some of the determinations. A spreadsheet google doc is a great tool, and I use them for various org's that I work with. Teaching issues are certainly real. Organizationally, however, to not assess a system based on higher capacity/traffic/querying creates certain limitations that only technical people can rectify. That is why databases and data managers exist.
While I am absolutely for cross training, multiple access/high transparency, I also recognize that technical systems are not a lowest common denominator area for successful organizations. now, I will qualify that statement by adding that I have found that this is only really true for organizations that require long term sustenance. Organizing a co-op as a business is not organizing people for a march.
The front end of a lot of database options available to the cooperative are quite amenable, given real training. They have been available for some time, and you yourself are a proponent of CMS!!
Now, your work on the POS is awesome, and the plone work that you and skeeter touched is still very real, with that in mind, databases that have the ability to back a website interface or the POS are the best option. they will work for low query, high entry as well as high query ,high entry - something that flat files jsut do not do well. Flatfiles that do not export correctly, or have to be normalized for export are a real nut when they get larger than expected.
So, what makes for a good committee? Too funny. I told you personally that I don't care what people want to call their groupings - good king/bad king - what's the difference? I am an utter pragmatist. I want results not taglines. But I also understand that "you get more flies with honey, than with vinegar"
cheers,
heather
While I am absolutely for cross training, multiple access/high transparency, I also recognize that technical systems are not a lowest common denominator area for successful organizations. now, I will qualify that statement by adding that I have found that this is only really true for organizations that require long term sustenance. Organizing a co-op as a business is not organizing people for a march.
The front end of a lot of database options available to the cooperative are quite amenable, given real training. They have been available for some time, and you yourself are a proponent of CMS!!
Now, your work on the POS is awesome, and the plone work that you and skeeter touched is still very real, with that in mind, databases that have the ability to back a website interface or the POS are the best option. they will work for low query, high entry as well as high query ,high entry - something that flat files jsut do not do well. Flatfiles that do not export correctly, or have to be normalized for export are a real nut when they get larger than expected.
So, what makes for a good committee? Too funny. I told you personally that I don't care what people want to call their groupings - good king/bad king - what's the difference? I am an utter pragmatist. I want results not taglines. But I also understand that "you get more flies with honey, than with vinegar"
cheers,
heather
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages