No abstract

No abstract

An era of financial constraints calls for effective and efficient committee work when making collective decisions. A systematic search identified research literatures in business administration, health research and service development, and social psychology addressing decision making about highly technical issues by mixed groups of people. Existing empirical and theoretical syntheses were drawn together to identify learning about the structure, processes and environment of committees and the characteristics of effective chairing. Committee performance depends upon the individuals involved, their attributes and relationships; and the time available for a committee to explore their knowledge to make choices or solve problems. In general, groups with six to twelve members tend to perform better than those in either smaller or larger groups, especially when relying on virtual communication. Diverse groups take account of a range of opinions and enhance credibility and widespread acceptance and implementation of decisions but may be more difficult to convene and manage appropriately. However, where chairs manage conflict constructively, more varied membership leads to better performance and more reliable judgements. These small-scale interactions reflect the larger scale institutional relationships, hierarchies and cultures which act as a backdrop to committee activities. These findings suggest that effective committee performance is enhanced by: appointing members from all key stakeholder groups who between them bring the appropriate range in educational and functional background, while keeping the group size close to 6-12; appointing committee chairs for their facilitation skills and generalist background rather than specialist knowledge; allowing sufficient time to allow all relevant knowledge to be shared and evaluated through discussion, especially when judgements need to be made by committees with members who vary in status; applying formal consensus development processes; and, particularly when working virtually, considering the challenges of developing trust and cohesion, and integrating divergent perspectives. Collective deliberation and decision-making processes involving people with differing backgrounds are central to most policy and governance decisions. Making collective decisions commonly involves convening and managing small decision-making groups such as committees or boards for the task. These include advisory bodies, groups and committees in the public, commercial and charitable sectors. Although decision-making groups vary in their terms of reference and their terminology, the generic terms 'committee' and 'board' share similar meanings: a committee being a body of people 'appointed or elected (by a

There is a growing recognition of the effectiveness of locally led processes of social change and development. However, most of the case studies that have been discussed in the literature are focused on <em>programs</em> run by international development agencies. This article examines three locally led <em>processes</em> of change in the Pacific. These include the Simbo for Change Initiative in the Solomon Islands, the Voice in Papua New Guinea and a regional process led by the Green Growth Coalition. We explore how local understandings of leadership, preferences for informal ways of working, holistic ways of thinking, the importance placed upon maintaining good relationships and collective deliberation fundamentally shaped each of the cases. We note how these preferences and ways of working are often seen, or felt, to be at odds with western modes of thought and the practice of development agencies. Finally, we conclude by exploring how these initiatives were supported by external agencies, and suggest further research of this type might provide benchmarks by which Pacific citizens can hold their governments and development agencies to account.

No abstract