Improving TEI's "house".

• Author: Wielenga, Terilea J.
• Position: Tax Executives Institute Governance and Management Task Force - President's page

All of us have been involved in home improvement projects. Whether reconfiguring room furniture, upgrading an attic or basement or undertaking a wholesale remodeling, all require careful consideration of objectives, options, costs, and outcomes. The same has been true for the Institute's Governance and Management Task Force, an evaluation of various aspects of TEI's house, and its operational and management infrastructure.

Because these efforts are now approaching their conclusion, I would like to share some observations about this project, its participants, process and outcomes, as well as suggest why the approach undertaken bodes well for ongoing efforts in the Membership and Continuing Education areas.

First, we spent time scoping the project. What do we want to study? What is "in" versus "out of" scope? How do we divide responsibilities to ensure thoroughness and efficiency? Taking the Board-approved mandate, the task force divided itself into three subgroups: Governance Structure, Leadership Development/ Nominating Committee and Finance. By doing so, clear lines of demarcation were established to ensure two things: (1) clarity of focus, and (2) limitation of overlap.

Next, each group separately embarked on brainstorming, fact-finding, evaluation and assessment processes. Executive Committee leads, task force members in conjunction with staff liaisons engaged in email, conference calls and face-to-face meetings to fully vet their subjects. Staff support was especially valuable as it facilitated institutional memory and, as important, line of sight to recognize and share areas of potential overlap among the other subgroups.

In the early part of the process, brainstorming and fact-finding consumed the largest part of the Task Force's work. Possible areas of focus were identified, and we resisted the temptation to jump immediately into evaluative mode to assess pros and cons. Our concept was to put all ideas on the table for discussion. Once all the ideas were on the table, we then proceeded to evaluate and narrow the recommendations. It was a challenging, but effective process.

Next, each subgroup's work-in-progress efforts were shared with the other subgroups at key points of time. Three purposes were served by this exchange; (1) enable cross-pollinization of ideas, (2) guard against unforeseen train wrecks, and (3) ensure collaboration.

Finally, in addition to the mandatory Executive Committee and Board of Director review, the Task...