To accomplish this, you should fill your committee spots with intentionality, not by rote. I try to achieve a mix of those who mostly "give" and some of those who primarily "get". By this I mean that I blend a composition of members with experience who can add to the topic, and those with a fresh perspective who mostly learn from their involvement.
I also try to intentionally add competing voices -- as Lincoln did with the "team of rivals" that Doris Kearns Goodwin chronicled in her book of the same name. For the group who determines how our university allocates financial aid, I have the director and new staff member in the financial aid office (who advocate for funds to go towards need); a senior level and a new admissions staff member (who want all the awards to go toward merit); the athletics director and a coach (you can guess where they want any largess) and the controller (who would prefer that we didn't offer aid at all). The inevitable disagreement often prolongs our decision process, but I also believe it ultimately results in a better outcome.
Regardless of how we allocate funds, no one will ever think it is enough, but at least those on the committee can understand how the distribution came to pass. Then peers can assure peers that there was a method to the madness and that their voice was at least heard. It helps newer staff members truly understand the complexity of issues and gives them great experience to have a seat at the policy table.
The next time you gather a group together, think about who you are inviting. If it is only the "usual suspects", I encourage you to broaden your membership to allow your work to accomplish dual purposes.
-- beth triplett
leadershipdots.blogspot.com
@leadershipdots
leadershipdots@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment