I’m not afraid of bureaucracy.
As a music historian, I spent years studying the network of East German state, party, and professional organizations that influenced the country’s musical development during the Cold War. The East German musical bureaucracy was, in practice, as opaque as any I would ever encounter.
My subsequent transition to higher education administration therefore came quite naturally. To be effective at my job, I needed to understand and interact with the various offices of a large and decentralized university.
Navigating bureaucracy felt like a game. I relished learning how systems function and then determining how I could leverage those systems to get work done. I trusted institutional processes and accepted that change, though slow, would eventually happen—as long as I pulled the right levers.
When you can’t pull the levers anymore
My attitude has evolved since I shifted to consulting a few years ago. Although I still study the systems that shape my clients’ projects and goals, I rarely have the opportunity to touch the controls. Consequently, I’m more likely to focus on the actions themselves and the people doing the work.
I’ve seen this most clearly with my volunteer leadership commitments to a local arts nonprofit (where I chair the board) and a community pro-democracy group that I co-founded. Both groups are trying to scale up rapidly in the face of existential challenges.
In both cases, I fell back on my administrator instincts. I wanted to form committees and working groups, with transparent duties, standard operating procedures, and reporting structures.
I wasn’t alone in this approach. Several other volunteers—especially those coming from similarly structured workplaces—had also defaulted to structure over action.
Yet over time, I noticed that we spent a disproportionate amount of time pondering systems-level questions. (Should we have 3 separate committees, or one committee with three charges? What decisions require a full board vote?)
In practice, we began to lose sight of the very reasons we came together: our mission and our desire for real-world impact. Even worse, those volunteers who simply wanted to roll up their sleeves and do something were getting disengaged.
To combat inertia, we changed course: first focus on the task at hand, and worry later about the larger organizational picture.
Signs that you don’t need a committee—yet
What are some signs that this action-first approach might be most effective?
- Your initiative already has clear buy-in; few people question its necessity or importance. This is especially straightforward if it aligns with your organizational mission or the goals outlined in your strategic plan.
- You already have people motivated to get to work. Rather than form a committee and delegate tasks, try doing the opposite: take an inventory of tasks that people are eager to take on, and then figure out what gaps still need to be filled.
- You can be reasonably certain that the initiative doesn’t undermine or replicate other work taking place. A check-in with key stakeholders or scan of current projects can help you determine whether you’ll step on anyone’s toes.
Final thoughts
Granted, there will be times when it’s more important to turn your attention to structure and process before taking action. As I’ve explored in previous newsletters (here and here), if you don’t have at least a rudimentary infrastructure for communication and a clear sense of purpose driving your work, then diving into the action stage can sow confusion and duplicate efforts.
Yet if you are fortunate to have people power, financial resources, and a way to communicate, then simply taking action is probably the right call. In many cases, the structure will make itself evident along the way.
You might even discover that your organization will be all the stronger for having been shaped by experience rather than theory.
Copyright 2023 Intellerate Consulting. All rights reserved.
