In my previous post, I described a first step in addressing the complex interpersonal issues that can hinder an organization’s governance effectiveness. After forming a committee of rival stakeholders we work to clearly define the issue that has the organization seemingly deadlocked.

This process includes detailing the history of the issue, past attempts to address it, and any other pertinent facts or observations.

But the goal of this process moves beyond pure catharsis when we begin to pose “what if” scenarios. By engaging the committee members in a reasoning process without immediately requiring they declare their support or opposition for any given idea, stakeholders begin to see commonalities of interest that were previously masked, and the vague outlines of a solution start to emerge…

Complex questions about governance structure, function, and purpose often get confounded by interpersonal histories. This leads to avoiding key issues rather than risk facing the wrath of fellow board members who are in different camps.

Our collaborative committee model is a simple yet amazingly effective technique. Our approach brings together varied interests from large organizations to tackle what have been seen as intractable problems.

The key ingredient to this model’s success: forming a committee of stakeholders who represent the organization’s different, and even conflicting, viewpoints.

We propose our client’s adopt two requirements for committee membership:

1. Members must be identified within the organization as staunch advocates for their position and as key influencers. Any compromise these members reach will cause others throughout the organization with similar views to take notice.

2. Members must be reasonable. Not necessarily easygoing or un-skeptical, but members should be critical thinkers who are capable of fair and rational judgment.