NOTE: This post is meant to ask serious questions regarding the role of litigation, liability insurance, and practice that provokes thought and conversations. It does not constitute the official position of my Fraternity, any of my future employers, or a rejection of my respect for the laws of the United States. I am curious and constantly trying to challenge my own effectiveness. These are musings I've had over the course of my two years as a consultant.
That I had to make such a disclaimer says alot about the topic of risk management education these days doesn't it?
Let's be honest with each other, many students drink in college. Not "everyone" drinks, as many chapters are fond of saying, but enough that the idea of abstinence before the age of 21 seems laughable. The problem, for Fraternity and Sorority consultants is that when we go into a chapter we are first and foremost agents of our respective organizations. Many organizations operate under the Fraternity Insurance Purchasing Group founded early in the 1990s to fight a spate of high risk incidents that drove premiums up across the board for all organizations. Though it does not directly sell insurance (as its name implies) FIPG creates a set of "risk management guidelines and educational resources to help member fraternities and sororities be more effective in their risk management policies and education efforts." These policies were adopted by 45+ Fraternities and Sororities and quickly set the standard for policies of other organizations and institutions around the country. It laid out base line definitions for "Bring Your Own Beer" events and qualifications for third party vendors. Universities and Professionals hailed these universal standards and the phrase "FIPG Compliant" become a trademark phrase around the country. This in turn led to decreasing insurance premiums for many organizations and thus everyone wins, right?
I'm not so sure.
Alcohol
As I mentioned earlier, drinking on college campuses remains high. There is a strong indication that banning alcohol consumption for those under the age of 21 does not in fact reduce college drinking and, on certain campuses where there are strict drinking enforcement regimes, may actually increase high risk drinking. This has given rise to organizations such as GAMMA (Greeks Advocating for Mature Management of Alcohol), CHOICES, and BACCHUS. All of those programs are peer education seminars where students themselves are the primary focal point NOT for abstinence but instead encourage responsible life choices. These programs show significantly more effectiveness than the average consultant visit. A survey conducted by Ohio University found that students retained 30% more information about FIPG when having a conversation with another trained undergraduate than when they heard a similar presentation from a Graduate Assitant or Fraternity / Sorority consultant. The issue is so thorny that many college presidents have gotten together and signed a public letter asking states to lower the drinking age back to 18 while promoting open and honest conversations about responsible drinking.
The liability aspect of alcohol conversations are even worse. An untrained consultant operates under a "wink, wink, nudge nudge" mentality that turns a blind eye to drinking. This denies a chapter the ability to have an open and honest conversation with a potential resource. Moreover, chapters run into the issue that the more formalized a chapter is in its risk management practices, the more likely they are to get into trouble if there is an accident. The biggest example is that of the designated driver program. As late as several years ago, even the insurance companies (including the Fraternity Insurance Purchasing Group) advocated their use. One of the greatest source of fatalities as a result of alcohol are those resulting from driving under the influence (Almost 2000 deaths of students aged 18 - 24 according to the Government in 2008-9). States pore huge resources into combating these fatali.
But then it became clear that the courts considered the organizations that sponsored the designated driver programs groups that "promoted intoxicated behavior and were responsible for the health and safety of all individuals who participated in these programs." Without proper training, student organizations were relying on younger drivers who were more prone to distraction and more likely to get into accidents. Some schools responded to this by taking the extra liability on their own shoulders and offering "safe ride" ride programs. Some institutions rejected the additional liability and continued to try and enforce abstinence at all costs. FIPG made a switch and issued a memorandum instructing Fraternities and Sororities to dissuade their chapters from utilizing these programs as well.
Suddenly, those shared standards that made FIPG so effective became liability red-herrings for many groups. The idea of a common "FIPG compliant" chapter moved away from shared standards on good risk management procedures to "legal compliant" and it became easier to use the law and liability as a hammer rather rather than promote safe practices of today's students. Schools that once utilized FIPG as a benchmark for best practices start going their own way leaving alumni, headquarter staff, and University Professionals dancing circles around each other unsure of what to say and when, in an ever expanding effort to avoid "liability."
Hazing
Hazing has been talked about almost ad-nauseum in a number of blogs, articles, and programs around the country. Needless to say the idea of hazing, in principle, activities designed to create subservience, dependence, or mental and physical harm are universally considered a detriment to the mission of Fraternity and Sorority life. I am absolutely against these practices and seek at all opportunities to discuss positive alternative programming whenever and wherever I can.
I won't comment at length here. I will merely to point out that the idea of "mental or physical harm" is such a broad definition and almost every institution has a different conception of the the idea of harm that only becomes somewhat more clear when there are claims brought against groups. Again, like the liabililty of drinking, hazing (despite our best claims) prevention does not seem to be prevention in many cases as it is selective reaction. The burden is on the consultant, the organization, and the University to take situations on a case by case basis in fighitng this scourage. The best example I can give of this double standard is the difference between a football team and a Fraternity intermural team. A Football team runs 2 a day drills at the request of its coach to develop team cohesion and develop physical endurance is a disney sports movie while a Fraternity that does the equivilant is harshley criticized. That said, I stand with most experts here in that while I am not condoning this "sports and / or military training analogy" there are some substantive issues in how we address the analogies while still maintaining the notion that we treat each student and organization relatively equitably.
Moreover, as a consultant, I'm troubled by the distinction of "minor hazing" or "little h" versuses "big H" hazing. I know that different campuses have VERY different tolerances for behavior and different responses. Sometimes looking soley to the Inter/National organizations or the alumni or sometimes working entirely in-house without any cooperation from anyone to punish hazing. For any consultant or professional who works at certain schools (specifically in the SEC among many others), these tolerances are a source of significant frustation and confusion.
The Theory
Insonsistency is a large problem for students. No one likes to be held (or think they're being held) to a double standard. There are a number of reasons why this is the case. Think about your own life experiences, in the work place, in your own classes, or in social scenarios (like the following). A man has sex with a large number of women and he's hailed as the epitome of manliness. He's sexy, he's a "player" etc, etc. A woman who has sex with a large number of men is a "slut" or is insecure about herself and lashing out as a response. How is that in any way fair?
The other example of our natural frustrations with inconsistent application of rules are speeding tickets. Just because lots of people go five miles per hour or more over the limit doesn't mean it feels any better to be the unlucky SOB who gets caught, does it?
The University Learning Outcomes Assessment demonstrates that Fraternities and Sororities tend to foster enhanced levels of student development between Freshmen and Junior years of college while plateuing during senior year compared to undergraduate peers that are "unaffiliated" or minimally affiliated with other social groups on college campuses. When you read these developements against William Perry's model of academic maturity, there are some (in my mind) significant implications.
During the first stage of academic maturity, a student operates in "dualist" thought patterns. There are right and wrong answers and they need someone to teach them those "right and wrong" responses. This is why hazing is so damaging and why many individuals do not consider hazing to actually be hazing. When a "pledge master" says that you must have 18 dollars and 52 cents on you at all times, there is no doubt that every pledge in the chapter had to do the same and that the symbols are important. As far as the pledge is concerned, it is the "right" way of doing things.
The same understanding goes for alcohol consumption. When you tell a pledge that he cannot (or must) drink, the natural mindset is to consider the rules to be "right" or "wrong" regardless of what the law says and what the campus practices are.
Most students, mainly freshmen and sophomores, tend to then morph into the second stage of Perry's model. They percieve problems in terms of problems that have solutions that they know or solutions that they don't know. When students realize that there are solutions that they don't know, they tend to go for broke as it were. Most schools play on this desire and encourage experiential learning as a major component of their first and second year curriculum. They hope that through hands on application and taking ownership over their own experiences, freshmen and sophomores will gain a bigger impact from their lessons than if they were in lecture classes alone.
Fraternity and Sorority students tend to fall into the same pattern. As they're exposed to more chapters (either at national events or through Greek Leadership Conferences), they tend to find that the comfortable world of pledging is no long as simple as they thought. Since few people follow "the rules" exactly as it is drilled into them from their Pledge Masters, their consultants, and the University officials, it is natural to want to experiment with a wide range of issues from alcohol, to drugs, even different world views and chapter operations. If left unconstrained, there is a great potential for damage both physically and emotionally vis a vis a student or a chapter's social actions as a result of running afoul of "The Rules."
The third major stage of Perry's model indicates that students become "relativists" or "proceduralists." In this stage, you begin to find significant chapter leadership for better or worse. Without clear rules, a student believes their situation to be "truly unique" and thus each response to any event must be viewed in context of their individual circumstance. Here we find chapters responding to critiques of their behavior and their procedures with the common refrain that "well, that doesn't work here because we're UNIQUE (or different)." However, in later stages of relativism, leaders may see the need to create proactive or alternative solutions. This is where most institutions begin modifying or "straying" from FIPG to accomidate the experiences of their individual chapters. We see this in the use of "off campus" or "annex" houses (apartments leased by seniors), bus parties, designated driver programs, and "alternative" or gimmick based new member education programs. Ironically, all of these may be influenced by consultants constantly challenging chapters to mix things up and engage in proactive leadership. Not to mention all of the ideas that students pick up from each other and other organizations!
Finally, while Perry does not make a normative claim on the value of the final stage of intellectual maturity, his framework is clearly where our Inter/National organizaitons are going. Perry talks about students making solid committments, facing challenges to those values based committments and learning that these committments are life long.
Doesn't that sound like "living your values" argument or "having a life long chapter obligation" rather than a three to four year committment?
Conclusion
The problems are multiple. First and foremost, consultants (often the face and the teachers of risk management) are not trained adequately to make simple declarative statements about the risk of running afoul of the liability line of FIPG. Second, even if you could make a cogent argument to follow the law to the T, you're not meeting students at their developmental level. Talking about brotherhood and love as a retention model while looking to the future of the chapter reflects a stage four development more often seen in seniors if it is seen at all in a chapter. Moreover it may well confuse the new members while frustrating the stage two and three leaders who see their model as "unique." Third, when talking about risk, you really are dealing in a relative argument that plays to the second and third stages of Perry's model of intellectual development. You frustrate those freshmen, sophomores, and juniors who are still looking for a line in the sand that they cannot cross and when you do put a line in the sand you run the risk of running afoul of the FIPG standards yourself let alone put your organization and the school at risk of a liability claim. Finally, you're a fighitng a culture where 90% of students make positive and constructive life decisions EVEN WHILE DRINKING and as thus, they don't see the risk that that poses to the bottom 10% who suffer from personal emotional issues that create the probability of further harm and conflict in the chapter.
Peer counseling is definitely a way to address these issues. Reducing The Rules, at least in the legal restrictions of drinking in college where personal experience trump any consultant, may be a significant step. Standardizing enforcement and making enforcement more transpearent is another great step.
Unfortunately, so long as students will be students (ie making mistakes) and the rules are so complex that any Fraternity and Sorority event presents some signficant liability while the victims of drinking are just as criminalized as their providers, then students will always remain unsure of where the line is until they cross it.
I do not condone under-age and irresponsible drinking. Nor do I condone hazing or acitvities that are designed to seperate and pit new classes of men and women against the older (or at least create the appearence thereof), but I do believe there is a significant problem with our liability models. I think that all chapters (and their alumni advisors) think of increasing measures to protect themselves and their brothers, they demonstrate further involvement in often times risky and often illegal (but accepted behavior) which should be integrated into our judicial process and the way we determine liability settlements in the courts. I also believe that de-criminalizing drinking (as the amethyst intiative suggests for adults over the age of 18) would also help us. Since then we could focus on educating against truly harmful behaviors.
There's certainly no perfect answer. I wish it would be as simple as promoting the ideals of brotherhood and sisterhood and that chapters that recruited properly grew at greater sizes than those that didn't. But there are a lot of conflicting models where bad practices win big and good practices flounder. These mis-gotten successes will only encourage others to make similar decisions with potentially radically different (and not positive) results.
As one Greek Advisor told me "Love is a Recruitment and Retention Strategy. We just need to find a lever to teach love."
How do you teach a concept such as love?
Some resources:
http://www.amethystinitiative.org/
http://www.bacchusgamma.org/mission.asp
http://www.stophazing.org/index.html
http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Finding Self While On The Road
I'll admit, this may be a personal rant (and perhaps narcissistic? Although what about a blog isn't in some ways narcissistic?)
I have been to a total of 47 chapters, going to every state except Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Hawaii over the past two years. I've even flown up to Alaska although not as a consultant. Alas, our Alaska Alpha chapter is just a figment of role playing scenarios. I mention this because I had a moment where I pulled off of the highway (at night) into a gas station subway that has become so ubiquitous and I forgot where I was. I didn't know what state or what chapter was next on my agenda. I had even forgotten what day of the week it was. Even after only two years, these gas station subways all tend to look alike and when you're traveling 100 + miles every three days, it drags on you after awhile.
I thought to myself that as I met more and more people, I actually knew less and less about everyone. Including myself.
One of the biggest challenges being a "Fraternity Road Warrior" is just that. Some, including the most extroverts amongst us, react to those feelings of isolation by throwing themselves headlong into their new found "virtual communities." Facebook groups and messages become the new coffee shop banter while every new chapter gets an online presence. Every consultant becomes a best friend and every chapter president a colleague. The conversation becomes a wide web of ice breakers and common projects that inspires those extroverts to even greater heights.
But not as much or to the same degree as us introverts.
I responded not with gregariousness or glee at every new encounter but a hardening of my soul (if you could call it that.) I took umbrage with my own inability to draw instant connections and saw those same webs as tools to facilitate information rather than connections and projected commonalities where nuances held sway. Projects become an end, not a beginning. Maybe that hurt me or maybe it helped create a sense of professionalism that I attempt to take pride in with every organization I meet with? I believe whole heartedly in the latter despite those carbon copy subways on empty dark highways. I think the introvert warrior arms themselves with knowledge as a shield rather than a weapon. We deflect what we see as excuses and use reason and logic with our colleagues and our friends rather than use those inherent personal connections to influence others. Rather than taking joy in creating an ever expanding web of personal connections we look to our constantly challenged knowledge and tricks. I guess I see myself as a constant learner and challenge others to learn from me rather than projecting myself a leader looking for followers. This is a leadership voice that the introvert must embrace while still understanding the limits of that style. We utilize our voice in the same way the extrovert must understand the power and limits of their own voice.
The extrovert, it seems to me, learns from people while the introvert learns from outcomes.
So I sit here in sunny Philadelphia and ruminating over how few people I actually know and realize that this sense of loss isn't so much loss as it is a perspective shift. I miss those core four or five people that I knew intimately as well as the small coterie of men and women who had a huge impact on my development. I miss my mentors and my colleagues, but I miss knowing my self even more. Still, I find satisfaction in finding myself in every conversation.
There seem to be two competing ideas of self that I seem to affiliate with. I'm sure there are more, but I am not well versed enough in philosophy to talk about them. The first is advocated by Aristotle who argued that self is defined by the act of the being. Basically, we are what we do. Lao Tzu argues that the self comes from self-knowledge.
As an introvert, I tend to find myself very sympathetic to the idea of self-knowledge. I am who I know myself to be. That may be defined by my relationships to others, my actions (past or present), or my surroundings but I do not find those compelling definitions in and of itself. I find comfort that as I sit here I can trace my decision making tree (regretable as some of those decisions may have been) and explore WHY I made some of those decisions yet still take pride that those decisions brought me to this point.
For those of you who are extroverts, I encourage you to find out for yourself what actions define your core essence and what actions you want to define who you are. That is a fundamental values exploration that I can't even begin to hold your hand on.
As for those of you who were looking for a discussion on educational theory this week? Well, let me pose you a question. If knowledge is critical to understanding self (be it identifying your core actions or increasing self-awareness), then how does experiential learning impact your core values? What tools help promote the best understanding of your experiential learning? Finally, what may be a better end result? A liberal arts wide ranging curriculum or a so-called "practical" employment focused discipline like pre-law, business, or pharmacy?
I'm just too weary to draw the necessary logical links between Aristotle and the Liberal Arts versus business degrees at the moment.
I have been to a total of 47 chapters, going to every state except Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Hawaii over the past two years. I've even flown up to Alaska although not as a consultant. Alas, our Alaska Alpha chapter is just a figment of role playing scenarios. I mention this because I had a moment where I pulled off of the highway (at night) into a gas station subway that has become so ubiquitous and I forgot where I was. I didn't know what state or what chapter was next on my agenda. I had even forgotten what day of the week it was. Even after only two years, these gas station subways all tend to look alike and when you're traveling 100 + miles every three days, it drags on you after awhile.
I thought to myself that as I met more and more people, I actually knew less and less about everyone. Including myself.
One of the biggest challenges being a "Fraternity Road Warrior" is just that. Some, including the most extroverts amongst us, react to those feelings of isolation by throwing themselves headlong into their new found "virtual communities." Facebook groups and messages become the new coffee shop banter while every new chapter gets an online presence. Every consultant becomes a best friend and every chapter president a colleague. The conversation becomes a wide web of ice breakers and common projects that inspires those extroverts to even greater heights.
But not as much or to the same degree as us introverts.
I responded not with gregariousness or glee at every new encounter but a hardening of my soul (if you could call it that.) I took umbrage with my own inability to draw instant connections and saw those same webs as tools to facilitate information rather than connections and projected commonalities where nuances held sway. Projects become an end, not a beginning. Maybe that hurt me or maybe it helped create a sense of professionalism that I attempt to take pride in with every organization I meet with? I believe whole heartedly in the latter despite those carbon copy subways on empty dark highways. I think the introvert warrior arms themselves with knowledge as a shield rather than a weapon. We deflect what we see as excuses and use reason and logic with our colleagues and our friends rather than use those inherent personal connections to influence others. Rather than taking joy in creating an ever expanding web of personal connections we look to our constantly challenged knowledge and tricks. I guess I see myself as a constant learner and challenge others to learn from me rather than projecting myself a leader looking for followers. This is a leadership voice that the introvert must embrace while still understanding the limits of that style. We utilize our voice in the same way the extrovert must understand the power and limits of their own voice.
The extrovert, it seems to me, learns from people while the introvert learns from outcomes.
So I sit here in sunny Philadelphia and ruminating over how few people I actually know and realize that this sense of loss isn't so much loss as it is a perspective shift. I miss those core four or five people that I knew intimately as well as the small coterie of men and women who had a huge impact on my development. I miss my mentors and my colleagues, but I miss knowing my self even more. Still, I find satisfaction in finding myself in every conversation.
There seem to be two competing ideas of self that I seem to affiliate with. I'm sure there are more, but I am not well versed enough in philosophy to talk about them. The first is advocated by Aristotle who argued that self is defined by the act of the being. Basically, we are what we do. Lao Tzu argues that the self comes from self-knowledge.
As an introvert, I tend to find myself very sympathetic to the idea of self-knowledge. I am who I know myself to be. That may be defined by my relationships to others, my actions (past or present), or my surroundings but I do not find those compelling definitions in and of itself. I find comfort that as I sit here I can trace my decision making tree (regretable as some of those decisions may have been) and explore WHY I made some of those decisions yet still take pride that those decisions brought me to this point.
For those of you who are extroverts, I encourage you to find out for yourself what actions define your core essence and what actions you want to define who you are. That is a fundamental values exploration that I can't even begin to hold your hand on.
As for those of you who were looking for a discussion on educational theory this week? Well, let me pose you a question. If knowledge is critical to understanding self (be it identifying your core actions or increasing self-awareness), then how does experiential learning impact your core values? What tools help promote the best understanding of your experiential learning? Finally, what may be a better end result? A liberal arts wide ranging curriculum or a so-called "practical" employment focused discipline like pre-law, business, or pharmacy?
I'm just too weary to draw the necessary logical links between Aristotle and the Liberal Arts versus business degrees at the moment.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
The New Normal and the Importance of Assessment at the Undergraduate Level in Fraternity and Sorority Life
In this day of budget shortfalls and idealogical opposition, I read an interesting opinion article written by David Brooks (that you can read here) called "The New Normal." He talks about the importance of smart government budget cuts. I was impressed because, unlike some of my more progressive compatriots, he is a firm believer that not only has the economy permenantly changed, but that government is going to have to change with it.
However, unlike some of my more conservative friends, he does not believe in wholesale (yet politically appealing) cuts. Instead, he focuses his efforts on linking budgets to concrete measureable improvements backed with a comprehensive strategy to improving the competitiveness of our society.
Mr. Brooks is basing his article on a speech made by Arne Duncan which is an interesting read for anyone interested in education policy.
So how does this relate to fraternities and sororities? Many of my posts have dealt with (many times in a high holy manner, for which I apologize my loyal reader) the relevancy of fraternities and sororities, and having concrete achievements is a cornerstone component of being relevant in today's society. I think if we want to maintain our arguments that Greek Life created great leaders we need to continue to train great leaders and prove just how valuable they are.
To train a great leader, we need to build our organizations into symbols and make our achievements greater than the sum of their respective parts.
I have said in past posts too that not everything we as a community will do will be a success, but that's not a bad thing. Like the budget battles raging across this country, chapters learn from their failures and committ to creating success the next time around. Moreover, a true leader not only accepts decent behavior but constantly challenges the process of their chapter and encourages progress through SMART goals.
So how does assessment fit into this picture of goal setting, proper communication, and execution? Too often chapters rise and fall in terms of numbers, image, and effectiveness of general operations. A strong new member class all but makes or breaks many chapter. However, if you document everything you do (and many groups do, for their university or inter/national headquarters) you can then educate and influence future executive boards as they look back at previous efforts and see what worked or didn't work.
That said, I'm not asking every chapter to run statistical analysis on everything you do, merely follow a few simple steps:
1) Create a written plan - This can be a document for resources and goals for a philanthropy or an agenda for your officer transition retreats that document essential skills you want to transfer. Every document should have a SPECIFIC and MEASUREABLE outcomes.
2) Create a set of deadlines for the implementation for your written plans - In this way, you develop solid time management skills and can learn how long you need to plan for your event. If you can't make your own self imposed deadlines, why or why not?
3) Implement - This is self explanatory, but make sure you delegate action items to as many people as possible, in this way more members of your chapter invests their "sweat equity" into the project.
4) As an executive group, assess your outcome on a mixed qualitative / quantatitve basis
Quantative Analysis is the assessment of a project on numerical grounds. Questions you want to ask are: Have you achieved the desired number of community service hours, philanthropy dollars raised, grade point average made, number of brothers who participated in an event. A quantative analysis is the easiest to measure because you can count your results and affirm whether achieved your goals or not. Again, if you have not met your specific goal, why did you not? What can you alter the next time around to succeed?
Qualitative Analysis is somewhat more difficult to measure but is just as important. This is a measurement of desired qualities such as improving the bonds of brotherhood / sisterhood, developing strong communication skills / delegation skills, being able to resolve conflict or confront brothers / guests. You will most likely do your qualitative analysis in new member education, but remember, every activity you do has a qualitative outcome, even parties. Otherwise, what's the point?
If you make a quantative goal and a qualitative goal for every event you do and find that some of your events aren't measuring up, then why continue to use those events? How do you prioritize your ideal qualities and achievements? If you can't answer these questions you will find that your members are less appealing as potential hirees to your alumni and your chapter will have less of an impact on campus and thus become less appealing to potential new members.
Just remember that as governors and congress seek to balance budgets and keep the country competitive, you are having the same discussion in your chapter (implicitly or explicitly). Every dollar you spend or hour used is a decleration of your core values and priorities. Every day is an opportunity to assess those values and priorities as you strive to make the most effecient use of your time outside of the classroom. Whether you have a budget of half a million dollars and 100 brothers or sisters or a budget of a thousand dollars with less than 10 brothers or sisters, what you do and why you do it is one of the best educational opportunities you will have.
Every campus has some outlet to find friends but how many of those friend groups prepares you for the real life in the same way as fraternity and sorority life?
However, unlike some of my more conservative friends, he does not believe in wholesale (yet politically appealing) cuts. Instead, he focuses his efforts on linking budgets to concrete measureable improvements backed with a comprehensive strategy to improving the competitiveness of our society.
Mr. Brooks is basing his article on a speech made by Arne Duncan which is an interesting read for anyone interested in education policy.
So how does this relate to fraternities and sororities? Many of my posts have dealt with (many times in a high holy manner, for which I apologize my loyal reader) the relevancy of fraternities and sororities, and having concrete achievements is a cornerstone component of being relevant in today's society. I think if we want to maintain our arguments that Greek Life created great leaders we need to continue to train great leaders and prove just how valuable they are.
To train a great leader, we need to build our organizations into symbols and make our achievements greater than the sum of their respective parts.
I have said in past posts too that not everything we as a community will do will be a success, but that's not a bad thing. Like the budget battles raging across this country, chapters learn from their failures and committ to creating success the next time around. Moreover, a true leader not only accepts decent behavior but constantly challenges the process of their chapter and encourages progress through SMART goals.
So how does assessment fit into this picture of goal setting, proper communication, and execution? Too often chapters rise and fall in terms of numbers, image, and effectiveness of general operations. A strong new member class all but makes or breaks many chapter. However, if you document everything you do (and many groups do, for their university or inter/national headquarters) you can then educate and influence future executive boards as they look back at previous efforts and see what worked or didn't work.
That said, I'm not asking every chapter to run statistical analysis on everything you do, merely follow a few simple steps:
1) Create a written plan - This can be a document for resources and goals for a philanthropy or an agenda for your officer transition retreats that document essential skills you want to transfer. Every document should have a SPECIFIC and MEASUREABLE outcomes.
2) Create a set of deadlines for the implementation for your written plans - In this way, you develop solid time management skills and can learn how long you need to plan for your event. If you can't make your own self imposed deadlines, why or why not?
3) Implement - This is self explanatory, but make sure you delegate action items to as many people as possible, in this way more members of your chapter invests their "sweat equity" into the project.
4) As an executive group, assess your outcome on a mixed qualitative / quantatitve basis
Quantative Analysis is the assessment of a project on numerical grounds. Questions you want to ask are: Have you achieved the desired number of community service hours, philanthropy dollars raised, grade point average made, number of brothers who participated in an event. A quantative analysis is the easiest to measure because you can count your results and affirm whether achieved your goals or not. Again, if you have not met your specific goal, why did you not? What can you alter the next time around to succeed?
Qualitative Analysis is somewhat more difficult to measure but is just as important. This is a measurement of desired qualities such as improving the bonds of brotherhood / sisterhood, developing strong communication skills / delegation skills, being able to resolve conflict or confront brothers / guests. You will most likely do your qualitative analysis in new member education, but remember, every activity you do has a qualitative outcome, even parties. Otherwise, what's the point?
If you make a quantative goal and a qualitative goal for every event you do and find that some of your events aren't measuring up, then why continue to use those events? How do you prioritize your ideal qualities and achievements? If you can't answer these questions you will find that your members are less appealing as potential hirees to your alumni and your chapter will have less of an impact on campus and thus become less appealing to potential new members.
Just remember that as governors and congress seek to balance budgets and keep the country competitive, you are having the same discussion in your chapter (implicitly or explicitly). Every dollar you spend or hour used is a decleration of your core values and priorities. Every day is an opportunity to assess those values and priorities as you strive to make the most effecient use of your time outside of the classroom. Whether you have a budget of half a million dollars and 100 brothers or sisters or a budget of a thousand dollars with less than 10 brothers or sisters, what you do and why you do it is one of the best educational opportunities you will have.
Every campus has some outlet to find friends but how many of those friend groups prepares you for the real life in the same way as fraternity and sorority life?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)