More and more in organizations we find it important to assign various tasks and responsibilities to small groups. The key to success in doing this has to do with how we select individuals for the group and how we define the task and the role and responsibility of the group. The description for the group is called a mandate and how we understand and practice creating and managing mandates makes a great difference in the groups success. This is especially true in nonprofit organizations and schools where staffing is usually minimal and the desire for collaboration and consensus is high. In this informative article, Cornelis outlines a clear and useful description of what a mandate system is and how to make it effective in an organization. -MS
THE MANDATE SYSTEM
Cornelis Pieterse, MA.
Lemnis Associates
(Reprinted from "Administrative Explorations." AWSNA. (1999) Ed. David Mitchell)
(I would like to thank Kathy Kelly and Herb Walsh, both members of the Lemnis Conference Series coordinating group, for their helpful input.)
What follows is my perspective on the mandate system as it may work in Waldorf schools and other not for profit organizations. However, the system may in large measure be applied in business settings as well. I make a distinction between a "constitutional mandate" and a "regular mandate." A constitutional mandate is one derived from the ‘articles of incorporation’ or ‘bylaws’ of the institution. These mandates (job descriptions) usually pertain to the governing bodies and standing committees of the organization and are permanent and multifaceted in nature. (If there is a question about the mandates of these permanent groups, then the constitution should provide an answer. If there is no answer, then the constitution may need to be amended.) A regular mandate is singular in task and limited in duration.
A mandate is primarily used for groups and individuals that have specific tasks to perform and/or decisions to make on behalf of a governing body. The need for mandate systems is greater for larger and therefore more complex institutions, and less pertinent to smaller organizations that are still in their early phase of development.
It is not easy for most of us today to truly empower other people to exercise power and responsibility on our behalf. Somehow we feel that if proposals and decisions are not identical to what we would have done, then the institution will suffer irreparable harm and never survive the mistakes. Such is the illusion under which most of us labor. To gradually wean us from this illusion, schools would do well by setting smaller mandates and to practice this process over and over again until the benefits to the organization and to ourselves become evident. We should learn to consciously and freely delegate responsibility to others without taking it back later when it doesn’t suit our purposes.
Mandate definition:
I define a mandate as an act of empowerment by the leadership groups of an organization to a smaller group or individual to act, research or make proposals. There must be a leadership body (board, council, College, etc.) that is authorized to formulate and delegate a mandate to a sub-ordinate body (a committee, task force or individual). There is therefore always a reporting responsibility from the group or individual that received the mandate to the authorizing body.
Mandate components:
An effective mandate must have each of these components clearly described and documented in all cases:
1. Succinct description of the task.
I cannot over-emphasize the need for a very succinct and well-documented description of the task. The delegating body would do well to use all the time necessary to formulate and agree on the task. Any short-circuited process or open-ended description will inevitably result in spending much more energy and time afterwards. Write the task down (one paragraph should suffice), read it and re-read it until everybody is crystal clear and in full agreement.
The task usually consists of fact-finding and making proposals or sometimes making a decision. A mandate could also be centered around a function; for instance, mediating a conflict.
2. Reporting responsibility.
Make clear and document to whom and when and how (verbal or written) the mandated group should report.
3. Time line of when the task and the interim steps are to be completed.
A proper mandate has a very specific time for completion. If the ending date is exceeded, then the authorizing body must consent to another targeted completion date. A mandate must always have a time limit, usually no longer than a year in duration. A limited time frame and scope of the task helps in finding qualified individuals to serve with energy and commitment.
4. Criteria for membership and term of service.
It should be clarified and documented who are eligible to serve, how many members, and the length of time of service. Volunteering for key positions is usually not helpful. The group that decides on the mandate should be clear on the general criteria and identify specific people who may qualify. Make this as open a process as possible. Let the light of day shine on this process. When nominating members, specify the reasons why he or she is a good candidate. The candidate has the freedom, of course, to decline. In either case, the nominee should be specific of why he or she wants to accept the nomination, and also specify the strengths and weaknesses that he or she may bring to the task. Expectations and reservations should be expressed by all sides and, when needed, addressed.
Once the group has been selected, it should have a frank discussion and decide if additional input or clarification is needed. The chair may either be chosen by the mandated group or by the delegating body. How the chair is chosen should be determined when the mandate is formulated.
Guidelines and Selection Process
(For larger groups)
Guidelines:
- In all that you do, publicize in advance a clear description of the mandate, the selection process, membership criteria and number of members.
- Make sure that people know where, when, how and with whom a final decision is made.
- To obtain a balance of capacities is of much greater importance than that a person belongs to a certain constituency. You would want the right people with the right skills, and you would want the group constellation of people.
- People cannot nominate themselves.
- Each participant can only nominate one person per committee.
- Never allow absentee voting. (This undermines the integrity of the group process.)
- The nominating person should give at least two (2) reasons for the nomination.
- After all nominees are nominated, each nominee indicates his/her willingness to serve or not, and one or two reasons for their acceptance or withdrawal.
Selection Process:
Note: If you want to select membership for more than one committee at a time, read all mandates and membership criteria at the beginning of the meeting. This enables people to take the totality into account once the nominating process starts. You may even choose the membership of more than one committee simultaneously, so that people have to prioritize their thinking.
Note: I have chosen a voting procedure rather than working by consensus. I do not think that seeking consensus in a large group is realistic or necessary. At the end of this process, each person is asked to give his or her approval of the outcome (slate). Since the process was open and fair, you will find most often that you will get unanimous consent, i.e. consensus!
Note: Keep in mind the following principle: A work or mandated group needs to include only those people who have jurisdiction over the task at hand. If a work group has members who are peripheral to the task or, worse, relies on the authority (insight/participation) of non-members to fulfill its mandate, it ceases to be useful or necessary. In such a case, the group should be dismantled or reconstituted.
Three scenarios for selection and approval:
- Nomination and selection takes place within the community meeting. (I prefer this scenario because it open and clear, and requires full participation and therefore commitment by all.)
- A nominating committee is established and selects a slate that then is approved in the community meeting or by the authorizing body.
- Solicit nominations in writing for subsequent approval by the authorizing group.
Steps:
- Outline the mandate. (Remember that the mandate can be amended once the committee is functioning.)
- Outline criteria for membership and the number of positions to be filled.
- Solicit questions for clarification on the above. (In all, be brief. If major issues arise and it cannot be resolved in the meeting, the authorizing body should be empowered to make the final call.)
- Outline process for selection and final decision.
- Solicit questions of clarification.
- Open the floor for nominations, using the guidelines as stated above. Post the results.
- Close the nominating at 10 or 12. (If you want to place a limit on nominations.)
- Have each nominee state the reasons for accepting or withdrawal.
- Assess the end result. If you have all positions filled, you have your committee! (In some cases it may be wise to select an additional member who would function as alternate.)
10. Before final affirmation, the selected group will have a brief conversation among them to consider their mandate and constellation. This may include a brief discussion on what additional support or information they may need from the community. In some cases, an adjustment may need to be made on account of an imbalance of representation or talents.
If you have more nominees than the mandate requires, continue:
11. a. Give each person present (no absentee votes) one choice from the slate. (Nominees cannot vote for themselves but can for someone else.) Tabulate results. The top nominees become the committee.
11. b. As in (11a) but by open ballot. (An advantage in using ballots is that participants are less swayed by comments and decisions made by those who voted before them.) The ballots and comments are read aloud once they have been collected.
11. c. As in (11b) but by secret ballot. (Whenever possible, avoid this measure. Use it only when there is low trust among community members.) The facilitator, and maybe two other people, who can be entrusted with this task, tabulate results and announce the nominees with the highest votes. (Ballots will be destroyed and the 3 people will commit to holding their findings in strict confidence.)
12. Re-affirm the membership by going around the circle and seek EACH person's final approval of the slate!
13. Debrief entire experience (briefly) and share what people have learned from the process.
14. Celebrate and acknowledge accomplishments.
If qualified members cannot be found, or the same people find themselves serving on many committees at the same time, it may be that the organization is over "committeesizing" itself. This usually happens when, (1) groups and individuals are not empowered and entrusted to do work on behalf of the rest and when, (2) the leaderships group(s) are confused about their role or lack a common vision. As mentioned above, in this case it is best to start with small pilot projects to practice mandating tasks.
5. Fine-tuning.
Once the membership and the task has been agreed upon, the mandated group or individual should work with the mandate in the best way they can and be given a chance early on in the process to suggest amendments, if needed. This is done because there is no substitute for experience gained "in the field." The people closest to the action often gain insights and could make suggestions that may have been overlooked in the original design of the mandate. Walk a fine line between too much rigidity and too much flexibility in amending the mandate afterwards.
6. Process for soliciting input from constituents.
It is very important to realize that part of the mandate includes how and how often the group should seek input and information from its constituencies. I call these "in-put loops." This is a key element in the process. I would suggest that in most cases the group should be expected to seek at least 2 input loops (depending on the complexity of the task), and submits preliminary proposals for feedback and further input. When your input is requested, give it freely without undue expectation that your comments will be incorporated in the final recommendation or decision.
7. Areas of decision making authority (if any) and proposal making.
If the mandate includes decision-making authority, we should be extremely clear and have it documented where and how decisions can be made. If this clarity exists prior to granting the mandate, then no one should second-guess or question the decision and outcome. There is nothing more demoralizing and destructive to the people and health of the organization than to undo, second guess, or plainly undermine decisions that were made under a previously agreed upon process. I truly believe that the health and success of an organization depends on how well decisions are adhered to and implemented. Any decision that is later contradicted weakens the life of the organization to the point of paralysis.
In addition, even if a mandated group was only asked to make recommendations, these recommendation should weight much heavier in the debate then the ones that come from those who were not part of the mandate group. When in doubt, or when no clear consensus can be reached, always defer back to those who did the research and legwork on the issue.
8. Evaluation.
It is only after the task has been completed and the completion date has been reached that a detailed evaluation of the task and the people who performed it should be undertaken. The mandated group should be asked to do a self-evaluation and look at all aspects of their work: process and outcome. It is in the evaluation that all parties will learn the most. It is here where we can learn how to refine the process and the methodology of the mandate system for the next task. It is at this time that constructive questions can be asked why a certain course of action was taken or decision made. An honest and constructive evaluation becomes the elixir for continuous improvement and health. Do not side step this. Document the findings of the evaluation.
But above all, celebrate the accomplishments and the mistakes, the people who had the power and wisdom to delegated responsibility, and the people who were willing to assume it!
In summary, a mandate consists of the following elements:
- Succinct description of the task.
- Reporting responsibility.
- Time line of when the task and the interim steps are to be completed.
- Membership criteria and term of service.
- Fine-tuning the mandate.
- Process for soliciting input from constituents.
- Areas of decision making authority (if any) and proposal making.
- Evaluation.
More on Mandates can be found in C Pieterse's book, Empowerment in Organizations
