people as possible, all with knowledge and experience relative to the stated purpose. Members of a committee should be held accountable for doing their homework. Those who consistently fail to do so or don't contribute to the proceedings should be dismissed.

(Incidentally, did you ever notice that the people with the least knowledge of the subject at hand are likely to take up the most time of the committee?)

Never, never depend on a committee to write a report or even revise one. A committee can suggest amendments; it can approve a report, but it can't compose one with any sort of effectiveness. Too many spoil the soup

Committees are one of the favored whipping boys of management gurus and comedians alike.

The late comic Milton Berle said, "A committee is a group of men who keep minutes and waste hours."

One bon mot holds that "A committee is a group of the unfit, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary."

It has been suggested, only partly in jest, that to be effective, a committee should never consist of more than three persons with two of them absent for every meeting.

And then there is perhaps the most famous and unkindest cut of all: "A camel looks like a horse that was planned by a committee."

What could be so wrong with anything with such a good goal as to bring together diverse talents and points of view to serve a cause, solve a problem or make the most of an opportunity?

Could it be that committees continue to get a bad rap because they produce meetings? If there is one thing more vilified than a committee, it is a meeting.

It is more likely, however, that committees have gotten a bad name because they are made up of and chaired by people with all of our human faults.

Committees Can Be Useful

Despite all that, committees can still be useful tools. At least we ought to consider making committees all they can be before sacking them.

Committees should never be created without a clearly stated purpose, put in writing and restated on a regular basis. It helps to have the objectives posted in the meeting room for all to see. Each meeting should operate off an agenda that reflects the committee's purpose.

Committees could be improved greatly if we would remember that the really effective ones do not do their business as purely democratic institutions.

The best committees are those where the chairmen operate as enlightened and benevolent autocrats. Effective committees have chairmen who lead participants to conclusions from which some results can be obtained. They create an environment in which all relevant points of view are heard, while they cause the committee to remain focused on its business. They are intolerant of those who waste time. They avoid two of the prime culprits behind the bad reputation of committees: too many meetings and those that start late and run over time.

It would be a good idea to put a "sunset" rule in place when a committee is created. Review its purpose on a set date. Abolish if it has no current or foreseeable purpose justifying it renewable.

In order to be effective, committees should be made up of as few people as possible, all with knowledge and experience relative to the stated purpose. Members of a committee should be held accountable for doing their homework. Those who consistently fail to do so or don't contribute to the proceedings should be dismissed.

(Incidentally, did you ever notice that the people with the least knowledge of the subject at hand are likely to take up the most time of the committee?)

Never, never depend on a committee to write a report or even revise one. A committee can suggest amendments; it can approve a report, but it can't compose one with any sort of effectiveness. Too many spoil the soup

be so wrong with anything with such a good goal as to bring together diverse talents and points of view to serve a cause, solve a problem or make the most of an opportunity?

Could it be that committees continue to get a bad rap because they produce meetings? If there is one thing more vilified than a committee, it is a meeting.

It is more likely, however, that committees have gotten a bad name because they are made up of and chaired by people with all of our human faults.

Committees Can Be Useful

Despite all that, committees can still be useful tools. At least we ought to consider making committees all they can be before sacking them.

Committees should never be created without a clearly stated purpose, put in writing and restated on a regular basis. It helps to have the objectives posted in the meeting room for all to see. Each meeting should operate off an agenda that reflects the committee's purpose.

Committees could be improved greatly if we would remember that the really effective ones do not do their business as purely democratic institutions.

The best committees are those where the chairmen operate as enlightened and benevolent autocrats. Effective committees have chairmen who lead participants to conclusions from which some results can be obtained. They create an environment in which all relevant points of view are heard, while they cause the committee to remain focused on its business. They are intolerant of those who waste time. They avoid two of the prime culprits behind the bad reputation of committees: too many meetings and those that start late and run over time.

It would be a good idea to put a "sunset" rule in place when a committee is created. Review its purpose on a set date. Abolish if it has no current or foreseeable purpose justifying it renewable.

In order to be effective, committees should be made up of as few people as possible, all with knowledge and experience relative to the stated purpose. Members of a committee should be held accountable for doing their homework. Those who consistently fail to do so or don't contribute to the proceedings should be dismissed.

(Incidentally, did you ever notice that the people with the least knowledge of the subject at hand are likely to take up the most time of the committee?)

Never, never depend on a committee to write a report or even revise one. A committee can suggest amendments; it can approve a report, but it can't compose one with any sort of effectiveness. Too many spoil the soup

can be before sacking them.

Committees should never be created without a clearly stated purpose, put in writing and restated on a regular basis. It helps to have the objectives posted in the meeting room for all to see. Each meeting should operate off an agenda that reflects the committee's purpose.

Committees could be improved greatly if we would remember that the really effective ones do not do their business as purely democratic institutions.

The best committees are those where the chairmen operate as enlightened and benevolent autocrats. Effective committees have chairmen who lead participants to conclusions from which some results can be obtained. They create an environment in which all relevant points of view are heard, while they cause the committee to remain focused on its business. They are intolerant of those who waste time. They avoid two of the prime culprits behind the bad reputation of committees: too many meetings and those that start late and run over time.

It would be a good idea to put a "sunset" rule in place when a committee is created. Review its purpose on a set date. Abolish if it has no current or foreseeable purpose justifying it renewable.

In order to be effective, committees should be made up of as few people as possible, all with knowledge and experience relative to the stated purpose. Members of a committee should be held accountable for doing their homework. Those who consistently fail to do so or don't contribute to the proceedings should be dismissed.

(Incidentally, did you ever notice that the people with the least knowledge of the subject at hand are likely to take up the most time of the committee?)

Never, never depend on a committee to write a report or even revise one. A committee can suggest amendments; it can approve a report, but it can't compose one with any sort of effectiveness. Too many spoil the soup

rom which some results can be obtained. They create an environment in which all relevant points of view are heard, while they cause the committee to remain focused on its business. They are intolerant of those who waste time. They avoid two of the prime culprits behind the bad reputation of committees: too many meetings and those that start late and run over time.

It would be a good idea to put a "sunset" rule in place when a committee is created. Review its purpose on a set date. Abolish if it has no current or foreseeable purpose justifying it renewable.

In order to be effective, committees should be made up of as few people as possible, all with knowledge and experience relative to the stated purpose. Members of a committee should be held accountable for doing their homework. Those who consistently fail to do so or don't contribute to the proceedings should be dismissed.

(Incidentally, did you ever notice that the people with the least knowledge of the subject at hand are likely to take up the most time of the committee?)

Never, never depend on a committee to write a report or even revise one. A committee can suggest amendments; it can approve a report, but it can't compose one with any sort of effectiveness. Too many spoil the soup

people as possible, all with knowledge and experience relative to the stated purpose. Members of a committee should be held accountable for doing their homework. Those who consistently fail to do so or don't contribute to the proceedings should be dismissed.

(Incidentally, did you ever notice that the people with the least knowledge of the subject at hand are likely to take up the most time of the committee?)

Never, never depend on a committee to write a report or even revise one. A committee can suggest amendments; it can approve a report, but it can't compose one with any sort of effectiveness. Too many spoil the soup.

Are you serving on a committee that wastes time, or one that has drifted far afield from its beginning purpose? In other words, does it meet because it has "always" met?

If you answer yes to any of these questions set out now to get off the committee or get it abolished. Your work will be more productive and enjoyable.