The case study involved four Lahu villages. Their village committee structures were unique, comprising seven to ten members without consulting boards and with no formal divisions. Only one village had a legal chairman and committee. Members knew and understood very little about their roles and responsibilities, so they had to take and carry out orders from the chairmen. As a consequence, their performances were not regarded as satisfactory by the villagers, because members sometimes did not attend village meetings. Some talked more than acted and there were few initiatives. Others put personal interests ahead of public ones. Changing committee members was difficult to implement, except in cases of resignation, death, sickness or change of habitation. Terminating membership would make members lose face, causing conflicts, dissatisfaction and division. The village committee was thus not strong. Required monthly meetings were not held. Meetings would only be held in case of emergency. The organization lacked motivation or support from the villagers and concerned agencies. Therefore, action was corrective rather than preventive and not developed with careful planning mechanisms. In terms of their potential, the committee was able to accommodate and carry out village development. In general, it could be concluded that the chairmen were responsible for and thoughtful in applying their knowledge and capabilities for the benefits of the public. Development actions were in line with villagers’ needs and problems. Although some villages experienced less or more delayed action, it was based on honesty, transparency and the capacities of committee members.