Kili covered a lot of points I'd say, so I'll stay brief. I will piggy back off his point on absenteeism though, because its importance needs stressing.
Anyone within a leadership position--yes, including the GM(s)--must set aside time to invest into the FC and be active. If they cannot do that, then they should not lead. Period. I lost count of how many groups--FC, LS, or neither--go silent once the 'leader(s)' go silent.
Before selecting an officer (or even a FC member, depending on your selection and invitation policies), ask yourself "Is this someone I can count on?"
I'd even argue that the GM position (and general officers, by a lesser extent) is most similar to a CEO/Executive. I'd talk more on this post, but I'd start a copy-paste of another CEO talking about their experiences.
Anyone within a leadership position--yes, including the GM(s)--must set aside time to invest into the FC and be active. If they cannot do that, then they should not lead. Period. I lost count of how many groups--FC, LS, or neither--go silent once the 'leader(s)' go silent.
Before selecting an officer (or even a FC member, depending on your selection and invitation policies), ask yourself "Is this someone I can count on?"
I'd even argue that the GM position (and general officers, by a lesser extent) is most similar to a CEO/Executive. I'd talk more on this post, but I'd start a copy-paste of another CEO talking about their experiences.
