25
Death of a Committee
Robert Halliday
Hence it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity.1(Machiavelli, 1513).
Five years ago the chief executive officer decreed that our hospital should have an Internet as well as intranet presence to position the hospital as a leader in information technology (IT). As a result of this decree, the director of IT formed a Web services committee to oversee the development of these services. The initial efforts in this direction were beset with conflict, which resulted in the sudden resignation of the committee chair and, shortly thereafter, the exit of the Webmaster from the organiza- tion. Despite the significant impact of this false start on the remaining committee members, the process was resurrected, and a successful, functional group has subsequently overseen the implementation of Web services according to the original intention.
The sudden demise of the Web services committee illustrates a number of errors in planning that enhanced the likelihood of conflict developing and ensured that there would be little hope of satisfactory resolution once such difficulties were encountered.
In order to describe the events and dynamics, it is useful to document the par- ticipants, the process for their selection, and the brief they were given at the group’s inception.
The Players
Invitations to serve on the committee were issued by a procedure similar to that used by most committees within the organization. Representatives were selected by the key stakeholders to represent the interests of particular groups. The intent was to create a relatively large, but hopefully inclusive, group able to articulate the concerns that might arise at a relatively early stage of development.
The problem with this approach is that it frequently fails to harness individuals with expertise. Committee members tend to be chosen according to rank rather than skill, and the formation of this committee was no exception. Consequently, the membership was strikingly similar to that of many other committees and lacked individuals with awareness or skill in IT other than the representatives from the IT department.
233
While this general characteristic was present throughout the membership, some members deserve special mention.
The Committee Chair
The chief executive officer, with the blessing of the IT director, appointed the com- mittee chair. He was a specialist physician who had largely moved from clinical medi- cine into the research arena and was consequently not as well known to the committee members. This lack of day-to-day clinical credibility and contact ultimately proved to be a major factor in the committee’s demise. The committee chair had had some expe- rience with Web technology as a user, and his ability to speak the technical jargon earned him his position as chair. Unfortunately, he was also a person of strong conviction, and although he held a vision of how the project might evolve, it was held rigidly.
The Webmaster
The IT director appointed the Webmaster, who had recently been hired from outside the organization. He had been hired solely for his technical ability since the organiza- tion did not possess any other staff members with any of the required skills. He was highly technically competent and had had recent experience in the role in another organization.
Given this recent experience, the Webmaster had a well-defined concept of how the intranet and Internet sites should be managed. He accomplished his tasks efficiently but tended to operate independently. He did not pass on any of his skills to other members of the IT staff and maintained rigid control of access and content produc- tion. He insisted that others with lesser skills were at considerable risk of “breaking”
the system if they were permitted access.
The IT Director
The IT director had recently been appointed to the position from a clinical department when the position was made vacant by the departure of the previous incumbent. He had had no formal training or previous experience in administering technical projects and from a technical viewpoint was at the mercy of the IT staff. Given the over- whelming adjustments required by his new position, he played only a minor role in the inception of the committee.
The Clinicians
There was significant representation from clinicians on the committee with member- ship along divisional lines. As a result there was a medical representative, a surgical representative, a nursing representative, and allied health representatives. The ration- ale for this approach was to provide a broad perspective on content. Very few of the participants had had regular experience in using the Internet.
The IT Staff
There was representation from the IT department management on the committee because technical and resource issues, as well as training were likely to arise. The IT
staff subsequently proved to be important when conflict arose, as they universally supported their technical colleagues rather than the clinicians.
Rules and Assumptions
Once the participants were identified, an inaugural meeting was held to launch the project. By the conclusion of the first meeting several assumptions had been confirmed and a few rules had been defined.
One of the early decisions was to split the project into two distinct domains: the intranet, accessed entirely from within the walls of the institution, and the Internet site, which would be accessible from outside. It was decided that in order to gather experi- ence with the technology the first priority would be to develop the intranet, with the Internet site following.
The intranet would be built in the first instance with a departmental structure with pages allocated to each department and would essentially be a vehicle for dis- playing contact information, location, a brief statement of purpose, and each depart- ment’s policies and procedures. This decision was driven strongly by the hospital’s engagement in obtaining accreditation and the need for the policies and procedures to be widely available throughout the institution. Because of the time pressure for obtaining accreditation and the need for the policies and procedures to be complete, there was little consideration of how the intranet might contribute beyond this narrow functional role.
By the second or third meeting, the rules for content production and processing were beginning to emerge. It was decided that the authority for content would rest with the department heads. This was aligned with the current delegation of authority for the production of paper-based documents. Individuals within departments would be authors and editors, and department heads would approve content prior to its publi- cation. While this model received universal support, the first sign of conflict began to emerge when the discussion turned to the publication process from department to Web site incorporation.
Conflict
Within the first few meetings a polarizing issue emerged that divided the commit- tee quite sharply into two camps. The clinicians and nontechnical members of the committee felt strongly that the process of publication should be performed at the departmental level. This would mean that with the authority of the department head, individuals within a department could create, edit, and publish directly to the intranet from their offices. This would also mean that quite a large number of individuals would need to be given access to the Web server so that content could be changed. The cli- nicians felt that this was an essential step to assist in the generation of content. They did not believe that potential authors would create documents if the barriers to pub- lication were high. Similarly, frequently updated documents such as staff rosters and other lists would never be placed on the intranet if there was a risk that they would be out of date.
The Webmaster, supported by the technical staff, voted strongly for a centrally managed model where the only person to place content on the intranet would be the Webmaster. Authors and editors would need to submit documents to the Webmaster
in an electronic format. They would then be “tidied up,” translated into HTML, and placed in the correct location. The reason for this approach was largely the fear that unskilled users would break the system. Other reasons included the necessity of main- taining a uniform look and feel, the difficulty in training users, and the cost of supply- ing appropriate Web authoring software throughout the organization. There was also an unspoken belief among the technical staff that this work was their domain.
In practice, the Webmaster successfully thwarted all attempts by the clinicians to assume a role in the publishing process by remaining the single conduit to publication.
This sufficiently irritated the clinicians to slow the content production process to a trickle. Consequently, the task of achieving publication of the promised policies and procedures lagged, and increasing pressure was brought to bear on the committee chair from the chief executive officer via the IT director.
Showdown
To settle the dispute, the committee chair placed the issue at the top of a subsequent committee meeting’s agenda. He had already clearly stated his position as siding with the clinicians. The discussion at the meeting was rapidly reduced to the committee chair arguing with the Webmaster, and the meeting ended without resolution.
Shortly after the meeting the committee chair wrote to the IT director tendering his resignation from the committee, quoting irreconcilable differences with the technical staff. The Webmaster hung on a little longer, but he became increasingly distanced from his technical colleagues and was encouraged to depart.
Resolution
Following the meltdown of the committee, a new committee chair was appointed, a new Webmaster recruited, and the committee, sobered by its recent experience, reached a temporary compromise regarding the issue and concentrated on proceeding with the work required. The project has subsequently been very successful, although there are still differences of opinion regarding the publication process.
Comment
Conflict consists of interactive, opposing behaviors involving two or more people, groups, or larger social systems having incompatible goals.2The opposing behaviors may stem from a perceived loss or potential loss of something one or more of the parties has or wants. One of the consistent needs in complex organizations is the need for power.
Organizations are coalitions of individuals and interest groups. There are frequently enduring differences among members. Since most decisions involve the direction and allocation of scarce resources, this engenders conflict, with power being the most impor- tant resource. Goals and decisions emerge from bargaining, negotiation, and jockeying for position by different stakeholders.3
In this case there was a fundamental struggle for power over the publication process.
The clinicians were not going to be edited by the technical staff, and the technical staff were not going to clean up after the amateurs when they broke things.
While this particular sentiment is difficult to erase, a more constructive approach to managing these differences may have averted the crisis encountered. Much of the blame can be laid at the feet of the leadership, particularly the committee chair. The formal leader’s style within a group can have a powerful effect on the amount of con- flict in the group and how this conflict is managed. A leader who is able to adapt to chang is seen as more competent and is more likely to be effective than one who sticks rigidly to his or her own views.4A lack or weakness of skills in running meetings can also be a factor in conflict. For example, research has shown that when a leader fails to help a group separate understanding the problem from making proposals for a solu- tion, this is likely to precipitate unnecessary conflict.5
Other contributing factors that set the stage for conflict were: the overly large group size, the selection process that ensured that all the warring factions in the organization would be forced into a closed room while not including those with skills and insight, and the lack of clear direction from the executive at the inception.
Once the defining issue had materialized, the committee chair ensured that it became the focus of the group and personalized differences by aiming criticism squarely at the Webmaster. The Webmaster responded in a passive-aggressive manner that further fuelled the conflict.
Conclusion
Many of the problems could have been avoided by a more appropriate choice of a committee chair, selecting a smaller group, building the group according to expertise, and forwarding any contentious issues for wider discussion at presently existing divi- sional meetings. The development of terms of reference at the outset would have helped, as would a clear statement of the role of the Webmaster.
There is a persistent difficulty in many IT projects in the public health system when an attempt is made to form functional project groups by aggregating individuals from disparate backgrounds, as was seen in this case. There is an overwhelming need for project groups to include trained informatics professionals who are able to relate to both the technical and clinical members of these groups and thus avoid many of the sources of conflict.
References
1. Machiavelli N. The Prince. Ware, Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions, 1513.
2. French W, Kast F, et al. Understanding Human Behaviour in Organizations. New York: Harper
& Row, 1985.
3. Bolman L, Deal T. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1997.
4. Huczynski A, Buchanan D. Can Leaders Change Their Styles? London: SAGE Publications, 1996.
5. Maier N. Assets and liabilities in group problem solving: the need for an integrative function.
Psychological Review 74(July): 239–249;1967.
