Proplog recently started a thread about the scriptural basis for having a committee lead a congregation, rather than one man. Putting that question aside for a moment, however, I just wanted to talk about the practical realities of organization.
For many, the change from congregation servants to the elder arrangement was welcome. It avoided the situation of local 'petty dictators' having absolute control over a congregation.
On the other hand, it also had its downsides. Young and/or unqualified men are often given excessive authority as elders. And necessary matters can often get tied up in politics or wrangling on a committee.
A similar paradox is also evident at the organization-wide level. The change from control by a President to a Governing Body eliminated the ridiculous situation whereby one man's personal whims became binding law on the entire organization. It also, however, reduced accountability, and made long-term change and reform more difficult.
I was pondering this problem, and I realized that it's one that most organizations--including churches--solved a long time ago.
Corporations generally have a CEO who has broad authority to run the company. However, he has to report to the Board of Directors, and can be removed by them. Churches only have one lead Pastor; but--depending on the denomination--they usually have an elected body of elders, wardens, or trustees, to whom the Pastor has to respond.
Unfortunately, the idea of checks and balances is totally foreign to the Witness hierchical mentality, so I doubt that anything like that will happen anytime soon among the Witnesses. But I think that it's the only way out of their current organizational stultification.