Every organization or business that I have ever been involved
with, either in a managerial, executive or consulting capacity, has
tended to be heavily meetings - oriented. While one might easily be able
to discuss the virtues of meetings, unfortunately, the reality is that
most meetings are far more wasteful, in terms of time and other
resources, than achievement based. Because so few individuals in
leadership positions are well versed in organizing, coordinating and
running meetings, they rarely have a relevant, clear - cut, priority
based agenda. This usually creates a too long, quite uninteresting, and
often deflating and demotivating situation. Lester J. Pourciau put in
concisely, "There is no monument dedicated to the memory of a
committee."
1. Why do we have committees? In most cases, committees and their subsequent meetings exist because an organization creates them as part of their bylaws, and fails to update or evaluate their value. It has been my experience that any committee of more than five is unproductive, and over three barely productive. The dynamics of most committees is that either the committee is duplicative (or irrelevant), or very few of the committee members ever follow through on what is discussed. In my 4 decades of involvement in management and leadership involvement, as both a party to the insanity and as a consultant, I have often reviewed minutes from committee meetings. My discovery, which brings me to my premise that there are far too many committees, is that little gets accomplished, and the same topics are hashed over and reviewed, year after year. Having chaired many committees, I realize that most members are uninvolved or only marginally truly interested, and the only time anything gets done is when either the chairperson, or someone else, takes the project under his wing, and just does it himself.
2. The main arguments I have heard for the need for committees are: 1. to spread the work out; 2. get more people involved; and, 3. delegate responsibility. It has often been said that leaders must delegate responsibility, and while, ideally, that is true, unless individuals are thoroughly trained, experienced, knowledgeable and motivated, delegation often translates out to the job or project either not being done, or not being done properly. The catchword of management consulting is the advice to avoid micromanagement, but that assumes that systems and individuals are in place, where capable people can do what is needed. The reality is that when things are delegated, in more circumstances than not, it does not save the leader any time, because things that should have been done properly and thoroughly in the first place were not, and that creates having to create a contingency plan (which is often complicated because of the time delay risk associated with procrastination). Unfortunately, unless committees are set up properly, and create priorities and goals, while engaging and motivating committee members, they are often counter - productive.
Obviously, there will always be the need for certain committees and certain meetings. However, a vital organization and its leader always understand that its all about planning, training and priorities.
1. Why do we have committees? In most cases, committees and their subsequent meetings exist because an organization creates them as part of their bylaws, and fails to update or evaluate their value. It has been my experience that any committee of more than five is unproductive, and over three barely productive. The dynamics of most committees is that either the committee is duplicative (or irrelevant), or very few of the committee members ever follow through on what is discussed. In my 4 decades of involvement in management and leadership involvement, as both a party to the insanity and as a consultant, I have often reviewed minutes from committee meetings. My discovery, which brings me to my premise that there are far too many committees, is that little gets accomplished, and the same topics are hashed over and reviewed, year after year. Having chaired many committees, I realize that most members are uninvolved or only marginally truly interested, and the only time anything gets done is when either the chairperson, or someone else, takes the project under his wing, and just does it himself.
2. The main arguments I have heard for the need for committees are: 1. to spread the work out; 2. get more people involved; and, 3. delegate responsibility. It has often been said that leaders must delegate responsibility, and while, ideally, that is true, unless individuals are thoroughly trained, experienced, knowledgeable and motivated, delegation often translates out to the job or project either not being done, or not being done properly. The catchword of management consulting is the advice to avoid micromanagement, but that assumes that systems and individuals are in place, where capable people can do what is needed. The reality is that when things are delegated, in more circumstances than not, it does not save the leader any time, because things that should have been done properly and thoroughly in the first place were not, and that creates having to create a contingency plan (which is often complicated because of the time delay risk associated with procrastination). Unfortunately, unless committees are set up properly, and create priorities and goals, while engaging and motivating committee members, they are often counter - productive.
Obviously, there will always be the need for certain committees and certain meetings. However, a vital organization and its leader always understand that its all about planning, training and priorities.
No comments:
Post a Comment