In an old cartoon by Charles Addams, a man and his son walk through a park and look at statues, each of which depicts a little clutch of people. “There are no great men, my boy,” the father says, “only great committees” (The New Yorker, May 5, 1975). 

We laugh. A great committee—how absurd! For quite a while, the venerable committee has been out of style. Books on how to jazz up congregations scorn the committee as a time-wasting fossil of the pre-postmodern era.

And yet, some committees accomplish a great deal—managing existing programs, generating and evaluating new ideas, and making it possible for their parent body to make decisions more wisely. What makes it possible for a committee to be good, or even great?

Most standing committees in churches and synagogues are really not committees at all; they have charge of an activity. In effect, they function as department heads. If I ran the world, such committees would be called teams. In larger congregations, the paid staff would generally appoint their leaders, direct their work, and take responsibility for their performance.

But some committees really are committees: they don’t exist to manage operational work but to support decision-making by a parent body like the governing board or congregation.

This is the original idea of a committee as defined in parliamentary manuals like Robert’s Rules of Order, and it’s not a bad idea. Small groups can do things large groups can’t. It is often more efficient to create a committee to address a complex matter than for the parent body to take it on alone. Unfortunately, “the committee” has become an all-purpose organizing tool. Like the person with a hammer who sees only nails, we assign every kind of task to a committee.

Lots of committees do good work; a few are truly great. Good committees do what they’re told: pre-process a decision, come up with a recommended action, and make a case for it before the board. The board often does as its committee recommends—either because it is persuaded or perhaps simply because it thinks it should “trust the committees.”

Some boards refer business to committees in a more or less frank effort to evade responsibility. A board might, for example, create a committee to choose new carpet for the sanctuary. Such a committee’s job, of course, is mainly to take some of the heat for a decision that is guaranteed to be controversial. The board approves the recommended color (puce), piously intones its gratitude to the committee, and moves on to something else.

One wonders, in such cases, why the board doesn’t simply delegate authority to choose a carpet color. But by going through these motions, the board reassures itself that it is in the driver’s seat. Nothing is lost but a good chunk of everybody’s time, as each decision gets discussed three times or more.

Fine. But it’s not so fine when boards do the same thing with the annual budget, or the building plan—passing the buck to a committee on decisions that affect ministry priorities over months or years. Boards are especially keen to brush such matters off, not only because they are complex and time-consuming, but because to make them well, the board would have to understand and discuss subjects boards rarely talk about—like worship, education, music or social action.

A good committee accepts its charge, completes it, and relieves the board, as much as possible, from stress. But for critical decisions, the board needs a committee that is not just good, but great. A great committee scrutinizes its charge and demands more guidance if it needs it. Rather than relieving the board of its responsibilities, it sets the table for the board to face its most important questions and address them after full and open conversation.

Ideally, a board would never hand a matter to a committee without giving adequate guidance. This is not easy: it means saying up front everything the board has to say about the matter. What are the goals to be achieved and the criteria that must be met? Under what conditions would the board reject a course of action? This is a hard conversation, because it requires the board to rise above the particulars to be decided and address the matter more abstractly.

Great committees do not spare the board this work. Instead, they ask questions: What are the goals this budget must support? What are the principles that should underlie staff compensation? What difference do we mean to make in the lives of our young people through the behavior policies you want us to create? How many people and what kind of program does our new building need to accommodate?

These are hard conversations. Board members may say, “We don’t know what we want. That’s why we appointed a committee.” Really? The board has nothing to say about its underlying values, vision, and goals? Good committees accept this; great ones press on till the board has given them a proper charge.

Good committees produce recommendations and get them adopted; great committees set the table for important conversations. Great committees lead, not by getting their way, but by clarifying issues, gathering data, and posing questions that enable the board and the entire community to make its most important choices.

Good committees relieve others of responsibility. That can be a useful service, especially when the decision to be made is small. Big decisions require great committees, committees brave enough to require others—board, staff, congregation—to reflect more deeply and intelligently before making the decisions that matter in the long run.

  ______________________________________        

“Great Committees” originally appeared as the Unconventional Wisdom column in the first 2013 issue of Congregations magazine. Copyright © 2013 by the Alban Institute. All rights reserved.

______________________________________

FEATURES RESOURCES  

This week – Featured Resources 30% off  
Member discounts do not apply | Discount taken in shopping cart
ONLINE ORDERS ONLY | Valid through May 12, 2013               

Governance and Ministry: Rethinking Board Leadership    
by Dan Hotchkiss      

In Governance and Ministry, Alban Institute senior consultant Dan Hotchkiss offers congregational leaders a roadmap and tools for changing the way boards and clergy work together to lead congregations. Hotchkiss demonstrates that the right governance model is the one that best enables a congregation to fulfill its mission—to achieve both the outward results and the inward quality of life to which it is called.  

The Business of the Church: The Uncomfortable Truth that Faithful Ministry Requires Effective Mangagement  
by John W. Wimberly       

Pastors are called to be not only leaders with vision but also managers of congregational systems, says John Wimberly in The Business of the Church. Drawing on his thirty-six years in ordained ministry, Wimberly weaves the realities of congregational dynamics and faith-centered purpose together with practical, proven approaches to business management, helping readers avoid common pitfalls and put into practice effective techniques of congregational management. The author’s conversational writing style and many real-life examples make what is for some a seemingly complicated, mysterious topic an engaging and easily applicable read .

Know and Be Known: Small Groups that Nourish and Connect      
by Brooke B. Collison

People yearn for a sense of belonging. Congregations become places of belonging when people find ways to make connections, form relationships, and share their personal stories. That’s hard to do in the hasty comings and goings around the typical worship service. It’s even hard to do in a choir, committee, or ministry group.

When Better Isn’t Enough: Evaluation Tools for the 21st Century      
by Jill M. Hudson    

When serious conflict surfaces in a congregation, lay people are usually stunned. They feel frightened, angry, and helpless. Congregational Fitness explores why congregations are prone to conflict and describes healthy behaviors lay people can practice to manage conflict constructively. Goodman argues that since it is members of the congregation who carry on from one pastor to another, it is important for them to know and practice positive behaviors continually, rather than reacting out of emotion and anxiety to an unexpected situation.

____________________________________

What will it take for your congregation to break through the “150-in-worship” ceiling?
Get a realistic picture of the challenges and opportunities of making the move from Pastoral size to Program size.
Take home tools, skills, and new approaches to this critical growth point.

Register now and save:  Early Bird rates through May 16!

Raising the Roof:  The Pastoral-to-Program Size Transition in Congregations
Presenter:  Sarai Rice, Alban Consultant
July 16-17, 2013, Doubletree Airport Hotel, Cincinnati, OH

For Information and to Register

____________________________________    

Copyright © 2013 the Alban Institute. All rights reserved. We encourage you to share articles from the Alban Weekly with your congregation. We gladly allow permission to reprint articles from the Alban Weekly for one-time use by congregations and their leaders when the material is offered free of charge. All we ask is that you write to us at  alban@div.duke.edu  and let us know how the Alban Weekly is making an impact in your congregation. If you would like to use any other Alban material, or if your intended use of the Alban Weekly does not fall within this scope, please complete our     reprint permission request form  .                           

Subscribe  to the Alban Weekly.                           

Archive  of past issues of the Alban Weekly.