Acronym

Perhaps the situation you have in mind merits it, but I think some intermediate options are available before worker bees have to stand up and fight for what they believe in.

Seems to me like any committee member or staff liaison could use some of the same language and interventions an external facilitator would use if managing this situation. In his book Facilitation Trevor Bentley talks about a scale of interventions that move from gentle to persuasive to directive in tone and content. At the gentle level in this case, shift the attention away from the chair and his/her perspective to the other committee members and theirs: I wonder if others feel the same way about this as Chris. We've got one suggested path to take, are there others we might want to consider?

If the chair continues to dominate or dismiss committee members' opinions, the language and intervention might have to become more persuasive or directive: Chris, I know you feel strongly about doing XX but not everyone sees that as the most desirable option. Chris, I'm struggling here because people are making a variety of suggestions, but you don't seem to be interested in others' perspectives. Am I seeing this correctly? Individuals can make factual observations without offering judgmental inferences about the chair.

And of course, the tried and true approach of talking to the person one-on-one outside of the meeting is always an option if you don't have to address the behavior in a real-time meeting. And as a preventative measure, associations should look to who they are recruiting for leadership positions and the orientation they offer. They to make sure that candidates understand one of their responsibilities is to engage the wisdom of their colleagues and then provide them with training and tools for doing so.

Scott - I think part of your question is easy -- the old CAE test prep adage: always put a member between yourself and another member. So, no, in most cases and cultures, the staff person should not be the one to confront your queen bee. (* but I have a caveat to come!)

You don't expressly say so, but it sounds like there were not some kind of norms or Roberts Rules established for the committee. There should, in fact, be no queen bee. A chair has extra responsibilities, but that doesn't make him or her a dictator. If the worker bees are truly dissatisfied with the direction the chair takes, they need to pursue with him or her -- as Jeffrey notes, ideally this happens outside the meeting and on collegial level. And, if the chair is such a big personality that he or she is described as the queen bee -- then I'd suggest that at least two people from the council approach the chair with the concerns.

The staff person should be very clear and absolutely consistent in what he or she says. The staff person's job is to express to the best of his knowledge what the committee's job is supposed to be -- and that message needs to be said using the same words to anybody who asks for guidance, whether that's the chair or the upset committee members. (That's the caveat, by the way, if the chair asks staff for input, he or she should give it honestly).

One more piece of advice -- WATCH OUT FOR THE EMAIL TRAP! You've heard it before, never, ever, ever put anything in email about somebody else that you wouldn't want them to know you said about them. Even though you know this rule, I can't tell you the number of times people get careless and are shocked -- SHOCKED -- that a nasty-gram gets back to the target. First of all, don't be nasty. But if you just can't help it, don't put in writing.

In my experience one of the key elements in transacting any of this type of meeting is for the Terms of Reference for the committee's function, role and interactivity with the organisation to be constructed in detail, if possible before the committee first meets. These ToRs should detail how the committee functions within the larger strategic intent of the organisation and all its discussions should be around furthering that strategy for the organisation. In fact, any discussion not in this vein should not be taking place. In addition, the ToRs for the role of committee Chair and members should be equally clear. It is then much easier to ensure that 'personalities' are subsumed to the greater good. If an individual consistently refuses to function as requested then the issue becomes one of conduct and should be dealt with as such.

And when all else fails, take the chair aside - as a staff person - and tell them we need to hear all voices and be democratic and politely ask "don't you agree?"

Okay that's tough - I work in an arena of a small staff association (actually AMC) with volunteer-run (really!) groups and I talk 1 on 1 with volunteer chairs frequently, specifically to help them engage opinions and involvement. It's hard, but I think that is the role of the staff. We're guides, mentors, coaches to help our volunteers be the best they can be - and help the org be the best it canbe.