Committees aren’t unique to Quakers: Nicholas J Tyldesley offers some wider consideration

‘Agendas need to be pragmatic and achievable.’

Organisations are kept functioning effectively by committees. This is true across the public, private and voluntary sectors. They ensure accountability, give opportunities for participation, draw on the skills of members, and support decision-making. People join committees for a variety of reasons. They might want to serve a community, inspired by the Spirit. They might want to indulge in power politics (Malcolm Bradbury’s The History Man describes a wicked parody of the politicking in an academic meeting of sociologists!). They might even just want the status and self-importance. People might also become members of a committee out of a sense of guilt that, if they don’t join, the organisation might collapse. Then, once you’re on a committee, it can be difficult to disengage, because there might be little in the way of succession planning.

Worryingly, the committees that run schools, churches, social clubs and charities are under threat. These days no one seems keen to take over from ‘the usual suspects’. People lead busy lives and haven’t the time to invest in service.

Added to this, Covid lockdowns have accelerated the trend for individuals to live in social silos and not connect with others. The burdens of office are increased by having to comply with statutory rules and regulations, health and safety issues, plus important safeguarding policies. Criticism of committee members is rife, and praise grudgingly given. Think, for example, of Ofsted school inspectors blaming the governors for a poor school.

It is always assumed that ‘they’ – the committee members – will provide tea, external speakers, and sort out the heating. Non-specialists can be fazed by the need for scrupulous financial management. Above all there is a demographic timebomb ticking away, as the Baby Boomer generation becomes more aged, infirm, and lacks the energies to cope. Many people will have already done sterling service in their professional careers and, quite understandably, don’t want to do more of the same in retirement. There is more to life than examining the minutes of a previous meeting and drafting more resolutions.

So what might be done to address this serious situation? The answer, surely, is not to set up another working party to come up with possible solutions! Unfortunately, the rules laid down by the Charity Commission make a more light-hearted and casual approach to governance a risky business. There can be serious legal consequences for non-compliance. But the following suggestions might prompt some thoughts, and can be applied to any organisation.

It is crucial to engage people with the prospect of minimal tedium and maximum interest/enjoyment. Committees need to pose one question at the end of every meeting: ‘What was practically achieved?’ A positive response should be the norm. Dividing committee responsibilities – perhaps with co-chairs and a team approach – can help share the burden but, in practice, co-chairing can often lead to confusion and division.

Lockdown taught us that technology can bring people together from the comfort of their homes, and internet discussion can widen the participation in study groups. All this, however, has a serious downside in de-socialising the audience, and it deters those who are not computer savvy. All the evidence suggests that face-to-face in-person contacts are healthier for us in terms of mindfulness.

Specialist matters like finance or buildings maintenance are probably best left to those with professional expertise, and this can be bought in. But this professionalism comes at a cost, particularly for faith organisations where management issues bump up against spiritual matters. The early church was based on small networks. There was no complex committee structure, just nurturing advice from the evangelists. We need to examine, robustly, just how long, and how often, committees should be meeting for.

Corporate organisations sugar the committee pill by offering nice snacks before voting on resolutions. Quality biscuits, at a more modest level, shouldn’t be discounted as a means of encouragement. Perhaps some form of honorarium might compensate for the time spent in discussion?

Refreshing the gene pool with younger participants is an obvious solution. But the real conundrum is how to effectively reach out to a generation that is more at home with social media.

Keeping meetings short is important, as is holding them at a convenient time for families – weekends are tied up with shopping, time with children, or housework and so on. Again the point must be made that agendas need to be pragmatic and achievable, and linked to some pleasurable social activity. Perhaps young people, students, or the unemployed could be offered internships to assist in management. This would bring in new energies, new experiences, and give links with the outside world.

Renting spaces avoids the trauma of the broken boiler. Small house groups are also helpful when meeting for prayers – this avoids much management baggage.

Pentecostal churches are a good example of how to channel vibrant energies and full family participation. They do this as they proclaim the power of the Holy Spirit. These churches can be strict in their scriptural interpretations – members with doubts might not feel welcome – but having an unequivocally-simple message does help in building up a sense of community of shared values. Schisms are not good news.

How do we start to create a strategy for encouraging people to join our committees? We need to think creatively, and to robustly critique the status quo by doing a SWOT analysis (of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats). We need to be clear about our purpose, continually evaluating development, and make coming together fun. Begin by posing the question: if we were setting up our organisation for the first time, how would we do things now?

Let’s share our thoughts with other organisations to find out what works for them. Discernment and prayer should not be ignored in the process of seeking out creative solutions. Organisations are essentially organic, and ongoing change is at the heart of their being. Moving on from current difficulties ought to be positively embraced. Go for it!

Nick is an ecumenical writer with an ‘empathy with Quakerism’.

---

Comments

Please login to add a comment