What’s the difference?
In simple terms, one is permanent and one is temporary. One is difficult to disband, the other already has a term limit.
Hence, the main reason to create a task force. Standing Committee (permanent) – think finance committee, government affairs committee, annual meeting committee, etc. Task Force (temporary) – think special event, purchasing a building, etc.
While we all know that keeping members engaged helps retention, I definitely subscribe to the philosophy that less standing committee’s is the way to go.
They are your future after all aren’t they?
Linda Ridge says
I'm on board with fewer standing units and more task forces. I also agree that task forces are a great way to involve new and youger members. Where we part company is asking board members chair task forces.
I think task force composition is best focused first on expertise for the task at hand and secondly on achieving a balance of experienced players and new ones for fresh perspectives. None of which need come from the board. If the board gives the task force clear outcomes to achieve, parameters for the work and resources for doing it, a board member chair shouldn't be necessary. If the work itself requires a direct link with the board, a less intense and time consuming board liaison or adivisor role might be in order.
We ask so much of board members already. I know several who are disenchanted because they are consistently asked to do more than what they'd signed on for. And in some cases, board membership has become unattractive to potential new candidates who are reluctant to commit to a job that is just too darn big and requires them to wear too many hats. My instinct is to let the board be the board and leave task force chair seats open for others.