"If you want to kill any idea in the world, get a committee working on it"

Charles F. Kettering’s observation speaks to the inefficiencies and pitfalls that can arise when groups, rather than individuals or small teams, are tasked with developing or executing ideas. Committees, by their nature, typically consist of diverse members with varying agendas, perspectives, and interests. While these differences can, theoretically, generate valuable debate and scrutiny, they often result in protracted discussions, diluted visions, and indecision. Ideas tend to lose their initial sharpness and momentum as committee members negotiate, compromise, and attempt to reach consensus.

The bureaucratic processes inherent in committees can slow progress, as protocol and procedure may become more important than the creative solution itself. The original intention behind the idea can become obscured or sanitized through endless rounds of edits, reviews, or voting. Each member's hesitation to fully commit to an untested vision can lead to a lowest-common-denominator approach, where novel or risky elements are removed to gather broader support. As a result, what began as a bold proposition can quickly morph into a bland, watered-down version, stripped of its innovation.

Moreover, accountability can become diffused within a committee. When responsibility is shared among many, individuals may feel less ownership, leading to diminished motivation and drive to see the idea through. The passion and urgency that often propel solitary inventors or small teams forward give way to apathy and obstructionism.

Risk aversion is another side effect. Committees are more likely to focus on avoiding mistakes or controversy than championing daring, unproven ideas. The tendency to defer decisions, revisit old concerns, or postpone action in favor of further study can stifle initiative. Visionary concepts rarely survive this climate of caution.

Ultimately, Kettering’s words serve as a caution against excessive collectivism in creative processes. While collaboration can be valuable, too many cooks in the kitchen often suffocate the very spark that gives birth to new ideas.