Our Consumer Place
How to Use the Site Starter Kit for CDIs Growing and Formalising your CDI Clearinghouse
Become a Member Training/Events Directories Message Board/Chat
Home About Us News/Updates Glossary of Terms Contact Us
Funder by the Department of Human Services Auspiced by Our Community

Help Sheet

Dealing with difficult Committee of Management members

In this help sheet, the term 'Committee of Management' (COM) is used but it is intended to apply to whatever governance structure your group has, such as a Board. The term "CEO" (Chief Executive Officer) is used but it is intended to apply to whatever name your group has for its head person (coordinator, general manager, chief executive, executive director etc.).

Most experienced Committee of Management (COM) members will tell you that one of the most rewarding aspects of their position is the opportunity it gives them to work alongside some fantastic colleagues.

But what happens when you come across a COM member who is not pulling his or her weight? What if one member is throwing around too much weight, dominating discussions or intimidating other members? What about the person who seems to want to "white ant" all of the COM's decisions? Or the one who means well but just doesn't seem to grasp his or her responsibilities?

Hopefully, you will never come across any such people but human nature being what it is, chances are you probably will.

This help sheet is designed to try to offer some strategies for dealing with difficult COM members. One word of warning, however: Just because you personally do not get along with a particular member does not mean they are necessarily "difficult". Personality clashes should not be used as an excuse to sideline a colleague.

1: The Dominator

The Symptoms: One person dominates debates and discussions, often talking over other COM members or shouting to make their view heard above all others. Other COM members regularly submit to the view of the Dominator in order to keep the peace, neglecting their duty to contribute fully to the workings and decisions of the COM.

Short-Term Treatment:

2: The Non-contributor

The Symptoms:The non-contributor may be present and even active during COM meetings but does little work in between. He or she does not read the agenda before meetings, does not review the minutes and does not carry out tasks assigned to him or her.

Short-Term Treatment:

3: The Absentee

The Symptoms: The Absentee does not often attend COM meetings. In fact, he or she does not take part in many COM events at all. Colleagues are resentful of the apparent lack of commitment and are beginning to wonder why the Absentee is even acknowledged as a member.

Short-Term Treatment:

4: The Silent Party

The Symptoms: The Silent Party rarely if ever contributes to discussions or debates and never volunteers for between-meeting tasks.

Short-Term Treatment:

5: The Empire Builder

The Symptoms: These COM members can be a real worry as they appear less interested in the group they are helping to lead than how they can use their position to further their own personal or business ends. They lobby to get their "mates" and supporters onto the COM and there are real concerns about potential or real conflicts of interest.

Short-Term Treatment:

6: The White-Anter

The Symptoms: Sometimes it seems like this COM member is working against the community group rather than for it. Every debate is turned into a "me versus them" contest and the member will not support majority decisions of the COM s/he has not voted for. The White-Anter regularly disrupts meetings with tantrums and walk-outs and bad-mouths the COM to outside influences including the media.

Short-Term Treatment:

7: The Bore

The Symptoms: Everyone is familiar with the work of the Bore. S/he drones on and on during meetings, speaking at length about irrelevant issues and restating points people have already heard and understood the first time. Despite the tiresome monologues, the Bore is often a nice person and colleagues are usually unwilling to offend them by directly confronting the problem.

Short-Term Treatment:

  • Consider the possibility of placing time limits on individual contributions to debates or discussions during meetings. This can be easily achieved with a stop-watch controlled by the Chair. Because all members will be subject to the same rule, this offers a tactful way of minimising the pain caused by the Bore's interminable speeches.

    8: The Dinosaur

    The Symptoms: This person has served on the COM for what seems like forever. While the other COM members respect his/her commitment to the organisation and the historical knowledge s/he brings to the role, some are worried that his/her presence is contributing to "staleness" within the COM.

    Short-Term Treatment:

    • A good mix of youth and experience never goes astray on a community group COM. However, a regular turnover and injection of new ideas is also good for a COM's long-term prospects. Initiate a discussion about the possibility of putting in place term limits, stipulating that COM members can only serve for a certain number of consecutive years or terms. This will ensure a regular turnover of members.

    Finding the Long-Term Antidote

    Difficult COM members can present a real challenge to the cohesiveness and effectiveness of a COM. While it is possible to merely try to wait out the problem - i.e. put up with the difficult COM member in the hopes that they will mend their ways or leave the COM when their term is up - this is not a recommended course of action. It is likely that if left unchecked, problem behaviour will worsen, creating a highly damaging effect on the COM culture and impeding the COM's duty to function as a team.

    In general, all COM members should take responsibility for the efficient functioning of their team, however the Chair and Deputy Chair are usually expected to provide leadership when problems arise.

    The COM should also put in place long-term structural measures to ensure that problems are prevented from occurring in the first place.

    • Ensure you have a good COM recruitment and selection process in place, including screening of potential members. This will allow you to make a proper assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of potential members before they are offered a place.

    • An effective orientation program should also be put in place to ensure that all new COM members are aware of all their responsibilities, including their duty to contribute and their duty to operate as part of a team. Consider asking all new members to sign a position description to show they understand and agree to fulfill their responsibilities. Re-state (and, if necessary, re-negotiate) responsibilities every year.

    • Consider trialling potential new COM members by offering them a place on a committee before they are offered a seat on the full COM. This will allow the COM to see prospective candidates in action, and hopefully uncover any problems early.

    • Put in place a COM Development Committee or a Peer Review System to allow for regular assessment of the performance of COM members - in much the same way that a work supervisor would assess the performance of an employee. Performance evaluations allow members to find out if their behaviour is causing problems for the COM and give them an opportunity to improve their effectiveness.

    • Ensure those elected to the positions of Chair and Deputy Chair are aware of the leadership role they will be expected to fulfill if disputes arise. Consider sending COM leaders on a course to help develop their dispute resolution and leadership skills.

    • Give COM members the opportunity to interact informally away from the boardroom. This will help members to get to know each other as individuals, which can inject a greater degree of respect and understanding into COM deliberations.

    • Review your meeting procedures to ensure that they provide the best possible opportunity for full and frank contributions by every member of the COM. Consider putting in place time limits for contributions during debates to make sure meetings don't drag on or are dominated by just one person. Look at whether you need to put in place minimum attendance requirements.

    • Put in place a process to allow COM members to provide regular feedback (anonymously, if necessary) on any problems or issues they may have identified. This way you can detect potential problems (for example, COM members who feel the organisation is heading in the wrong direction) early on and take action to minimise any impacts that might result.

    • Consider putting in place term limits for COM members. This will ensure that troublesome COM members will have to depart eventually. The downside of this approach, of course, is that good COM members will also be forced to leave when their term is up. However, it is widely considered that the positive effects of having regular turn-over of COM members generally outweigh the negatives.

    • Think about whether your COM needs to put in place a procedure to allow members to take a short-term leave of absence when necessary. This can provide breathing space for a COM member who is temporarily unable to give their COM duties his/her full attention. Put a strict time limit on the absence and reassess the situation when the time expires.

    • In very rare and extreme circumstances, the COM might have to consider removing a troublesome member. Your COM's rules, constitution or bylaws should detail procedures for removal of members; often it involves a two-thirds vote by COM members or the organisation's full membership. This course of action should be considered only as a very last resort as it can be highly damaging to the individual concerned, the COM, and the group as a whole.

     

     

    An initiative of Department of Human Services, Developed & Managed by www.ourcommunity.com.au