Shertzer on Fraternal Relevance

John Shertzer wrote a thought-provoking blog entry about fraternal "relevance" on his blog recently. It found it interesting, and it's worth a read.

John is a fraternity man, a former employee of the North-American Interfraternity Conference (NIC), and currently works for Leadership Ventures, a leadership training non-profit based in Indianapolis.

I'm reprinting it here in its entirety, and then I have a few discussion questions at the end. The discussion questions are mine, not John's.

Fraternal Relevancy that Matters (Part One)

via Fraternal Thoughts by John Shertzer on 4/15/09

The word “relevance” seems to be all the rage right now. I’m reading it and hearing it much more often, and I’ve spoken with many Greek Advisors who incorporate that term frequently into their discussions with undergraduates. Many Alumni programs seem to grapple with the idea of relevance as well. I have a few observations on that term and its use towards Greek-letter organizations.

When examining fraternal relevance we need to add the question, “relevant to what?” A thing cannot just be relevant on its own. It needs to be relevant to something else. Greek-letter organizations can ask if they are relevant to any of the following: host colleges/universities, individual members’ lives, and/or the growth of society as a whole. I think most people are considering colleges/universities when they speak of fraternal relevance. In other words, when asking about the relevance of college fraternities and sororities, they are questioning whether or not they are still pertinent to the host institution. That’s fine – but we shouldn’t use that as our only measure. If we determine that we are no longer relevant to host institutions, then is it over? No. We may still be VERY relevant to the lives of our individual members who will achieve great things because of their involvement. Greek-letter organizations may still be VERY relevant to the growth of our society – particularly American society and its need for leaders and organizers.

If tomorrow, all host institutions decided to cut their ties with Greek-letter organizations, would we go the way of the dodo? I doubt we would. Instead, we would adapt. For instance, we might transform into more community-oriented organizations, much like Kiwanis or Freemasons. We would find a way to carry on.

I’m not making the case that we ignore our relationship with our host institutions. In all possible ways, we need to nurture that relationship. We should be actively concerned with how we impact the academic success of our members. If we house students on a particular campus, we should ensure that we are creating safe and secure living environments. Overall, we should act as good partners to these institutions, because partners are what we are.

I understand the need to play nice with our “hosts.” I value the perspectives and call to action brought forth by the Franklin Square group. But, I fear that in philosophical and tangible ways, we are handing over our right to exist to institutions of higher education – most of which never really wanted us to exist in the first place.

In other words, the frenzy over trying to regain relevance to colleges and universities has to be tempered with the following question: were we ever meant to be relevant? Were we ever really meant to compliment the mission of the campuses where our founders happened to meet up? I admit that I am not a “Bairds Manual” aficionado that can speak to fraternity history with precision. However, my understanding of the founding of our movement is that individuals were looking for something that wasn’t provided in their college experience. They wanted shared values, camaraderie, spirited debate, and fun. I doubt they took much time wondering how these new organizations fit into the missions of their college or university. My interpretation of our beginnings is that we were borne out of defiance to the host institutions, not in seamless companionship with them. So while we should care about that relationship now, should it really define our right to exist?

Focusing on our relevancy to higher education also puts us on the defensive. We are always stuck responding to someone else’s needs. This results in a one-way relationship, with colleges and universities holding all the cards. Simply by asking the question of whether or not we are relevant to our host institutions, we are positing the possibility that we are not. We are falsely expressing that we might not matter.

We do matter. We do make a difference - ask almost any person who has had a fraternal experience. We have a story to share, and lessons to teach. Our values are timeless, and every man or woman who passes through our organizations can be better off by having learned them. If we are to dissolve, it will not be because we stopped being relevant to a university or a college – it will be because we stopped being relevant to those who are yet to join.

Discussion Questions:

1. When speaking of "relevance," should we be talking about Greek Life's relevance to individual members, to their host institutions, or to society at large? How are we doing on all three?

2. If fraternal relevance is about being relevant to our members, then why does such a small percentage of initiated members stay involved with fraternities and sororities after graduation?

3. Is John's questioning of relevancy to host institutions representative of an adversarial perspective that some say the North-American Interfraternity Conference (NIC) has taken in recent years against higher education (particularly regarding expansion, etc.)?

4. If colleges and universities eliminated Greek Life, would it adapt and survive, as John suggests? How would this impact the character of fraternities and sororities?

5. John suggests that fraternities and sororities are "partners" of the host institutions. What obligation does that imply on both sides? Who is being the better partner right now? Is "playing nice" enough?

6. In his closing statement, John talks about our future being tied to our relevance to those yet to join. What are the pros and cons of being relevant to 18-year-old incoming freshmen?

Managing the group bitch session

Sisters in the chapter are in an uproar. Everyone wants to vent, and they are looking to do it at this weekend's meeting. The president's blood pressure is shooting up because she knows that a great deal of the venting will be directed at her and her fellow officers. It seems like a 2-3 hour meeting is inevitable, particularly if everyone feels the need to share. This could get really, really ugly.

Rather than deal with it, the president cancels the meeting altogether.

This was the scenario emailed to me last week. The question: what did I think of it?

There's nothing quite as dread-inducing for a president as knowing he or she is walking into a meeting where drama is going to happen. The tension is killer. It's like those days in high school when everyone knows a big fight is going to happen at the end of the day – and you're the one who's going to get your ass kicked.

If it were me, I would have allowed the meeting to go on, as scheduled. If there is a huge storm brewing in your group, ignoring it isn't going to make it go away. People will simply vent their frustration in a less controlled and filtered way, and the damage will likely be worse. Openness is almost always a better option.

I would have canceled most of the agenda items, and I would have started the meeting by saying, "We are going to start with a few critical officer reports for the first 15 minutes, but then we're going to have an open discussion about (this issue) for about 45 minutes. I'm going to put a list up here, and we will call on people to speak in the order they sign up. This isn't going to be a free-for-all that goes on all night, but everyone who has something to say will have a chance to be heard."

"Everyone is limited to 2 minutes. We will not hear rebuttals. We will not allow people to speak more than once. Speakers can ask questions during their 2 minutes, but if they do, the 2 minute time limit still applies. If someone else has said what you planned to say, then please respect the group and limit your comments to new ideas, new solutions, and new information."

I would also instruct my officers to keep their scowls and defensive comments to themselves. Sit there and take it like big boys and girls, even if you think it's unfair. As a group, you need to commit to keeping quiet and not making matters worse. People need to feel like they are heard, and sometimes feelings get hurt.

It's been my experience that after a few people say incendiary things, the wiser voices will prevail. The pissed-off people always want to go first, and they sign up quickly. This allows the wiser voices to respond to them. Let the process work itself out.

If people get up and say you suck, and then no one jumps to your defense, then you probably suck. Mistakes have been made. Time to figure out the next steps. I find that, usually, those who want to scream, yell, and call everyone out end up making themselves look immature and unreasonable. Give them the rope to hang themselves.

These bitch sessions are never fun, but if you allow them to happen in a controlled and respectful way, good things can come from them. It's important to let everyone – even the unreasonable – have their say. Shutting them down almost always causes more damage then letting them air their grievances.

Risk management strategy #1: Stop recruiting risky people

This evening in Lawrence, Kansas, a memorial service was held for Jason Wren, a 19-year-old freshman who was found dead Sunday at the local Sigma Alpha Epsilon chapter house. It will be a while before the facts surrounding the death are known, but the Denver Post reports today that Wren allegedly drank margaritas with friends at dinner and then consumed more than a dozen beers and some whiskey at the SAE house. Although unconfirmed, alcohol poisoning is presumed to be the cause of death.

A paragraph at the end of the Post's article caught my attention. It reads:

Jay Wren [the boy's father] told The Denver Post that about a week before Jason moved into the SAE house, he had been kicked out of one of the KU dorms for drinking and other violations. Jason quickly found a home at the SAE house, Jay Wren added.

Which leads me to this thought... why in the world would a chapter knowingly recruit and move in a young man who had been kicked out of university housing for drinking and other violations?

For all the risk management education we've done for our fraternity and sorority undergraduates over the last two decades, perhaps we've missed one of the most obvious lessons. We need to stop affiliating young men and women who are DANGEROUS with regard to their personal behavior. Proper recruitment is, in reality, one of our most important acts of risk management.

The details of Wren's death will be revealed in the coming weeks and months. There is likely blame to spread around to numerous parties: the chapter, the restaurant that served the margaritas, the brothers who left him alone in a dangerous state of intoxication, and yes, Wren himself. Perhaps the Post's information is wrong, and he had no history of risky drinking.

But, if it ends up to be true, it begs a few critical questions for the fraternity members. Didn't you think that this kid might have a drinking problem? Why were you willing to gamble your chapter on a nice kid who posed a danger to your chapter? Why would you invite a kid with a potential drinking problem into your chapter as a member and as a resident of your facility, and then enable his worst impulses?

Maybe I'd ask the parents why they allowed their son to move into a fraternity house after he was thrown out of a residence hall for drinking.

No one knows, at this point, whether any criminal behavior occurred in this incident. We don't know, yet, if anyone could have intervened and saved this young man's life. But, there is probably a valid argument that a "criminal" lack of judgment sealed this young man's fate. If indeed this young man had issues related to high risk underage drinking, he shouldn't have been allowed near a fraternity.

We need to stop allowing our chapters to be the place where dangerous drinkers fit in.

Taming the Monster

Sometimes, there is a person who drives you crazy in the office or in your organization. You find yourself cringing every time he or she approaches you or sends an email. You avoid eye contact.

This person starts taking on the role of the "Monster" in your mind. You're just sure that the Monster gleefully spends hours each day thinking of new and creative ways to piss you off, question your capabilities, undermine your ideas, and otherwise make your life a living hell.

That's almost never the case. You are the problem, just as much, if not more, than they.

This person is probably just trying to accomplish his or her tasks in a completely different style than yours, and because of communication issues, distrust, and that irrational monster living in your imagination, you've allowed a small barrier to become a mountain.

You're both building the mountain. You're both trying to accomplish goals, and honestly, you probably both want the similar things. It's just a style and communication conflict. Because you've both engaged in this stupid battle, you're both contributing to making the situation worse. As a result, you become enemies, and your non-productive relationship negatively impacts the organization.

Neither of you trusts the other, and neither will be the bigger person who tries to solve the situation. Tension builds. Sides are drawn. Angry whispers of complaint become full blown emotional outbursts.

You think that giving them a forced smile or making one attempt to work together makes you some sort of wonderful saint. Sorry, not good enough.

It doesn't need to be this way. Take a deep breath and repeat after me, "This person is not trying to piss me off."

Do it again. "This person is not trying to piss me off."

Write it up on a piece of paper above your desk. "This person is not trying to piss me off."

They aren't making you crazy. You're making yourself crazy. And, you're putting your team at risk because of it.

Here's what you need to do. Start going to this person on a regular basis when you don't need anything. Ask how she's doing. Ask if there's anything you can do to help. Remember, this person doesn't trust you, so they will look at you weirdly when you start being social. She doesn't want your help, but offer it anyway. Don't force it on her because she'll misinterpret it. Bring her a doughnut. Just be nice and non-threatening.

Then, find some basic little situation or problem that you're dealing with, and ask for her help or feedback. Give her the opportunity to weigh in, and whatever she says, validate it as a good idea (even if you had already thought of it, tried it, whatever). The key here is to validate the other person and make her feel appreciated and valued.

Third step. At your next meeting, thank the person publicly for her help. You don't need to go overboard. Your validation in front of others is going to make a big difference. Another thing you can do is to ask for his or her help in front of others in a friendly, positive way. It's hard to consider someone a Monster when they are asking for your valued help.

Rinse and repeat. Go be social and friendly. Ask for help and opinions. Praise and thank the other person.

The next time the person seems to do something that pisses you off, take a deep breath, remember "This person is not trying to piss me off" and put a smile on your face. Ask the person to sit with you to discuss the situation. Start off by asking for her perception of the problem, and just listen. When you feel the desire to be defensive or dismissive, stop yourself.

When you start to open up the communication a bit more proactively, the trust starts to build, and the mountain starts coming down. One day, you might even start seeing the Monster as an ally in helping you achieve your leadership goals.