Co-Ed Fraternity in need of some serious help!

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

I agree with the piece about making the organization single-sex again, but I don't think "you shouldn't be relying on your alumni" is good advice, especially for an organization as young as this one.

And I agree about going back to single-sex as well. As for alumnae/i, she said in her earlier post they are not involved, so I don't think they should be relying on them now either. Realistically, they can't -- they have to rebuild alumnae relationships, which may be hard while they try to refocus on rebuilding an active membership.

dnall, I think you've given some good advice. My only quibble was with the goal of 20 in a semester. Given what she said here, and looking at a few websites of other sororities on her campus, I'm just not sure that's realistic. 20-30 members looks like it may be the norm for a healthy group (assuming the other groups are healthy.) I'd advocate a slower rebuilding, recruiting freshmen now who will help with a multi-year rebuilding process.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

And I agree about going back to single-sex as well. As for alumnae/i, she said in her earlier post they are not involved, so I don't think they should be relying on them now either. Realistically, they can't -- they have to rebuild alumnae relationships, which may be hard while they try to refocus on rebuilding an active membership.

For an organization that young and that small, the alumnae (whoops, forgot it was a sorority) involvement is necessary. They obviously need some advising, and the "OMG we're in danger of dying out" spiel is often more eye-opening than "Hey we want you to come around for a BBQ"

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

For an organization that young and that small, the alumnae (whoops, forgot it was a sorority) involvement is necessary. They obviously need some advising, and the "OMG we're in danger of dying out" spiel is often more eye-opening than "Hey we want you to come around for a BBQ"

Right, but alumnae support currently isn't there. As great as it would be to have alumnae involved, my guess is that bulk of them don't really care. If there are alumnae who want to be involved, great. But they can't make the alumnae be involved, so they need to plan without them.

[dnall]

Any national GLO that goes on a campus will start by building an interest group around 20. It seems daunting, but it's not that hard the way they do it. I'm not saying all 20 of them will stick around long-term, but they create a foundation to move through that re-building phase. They have a lot of work ahead of them and they need help to share the load.

As far as alumni... I don't really know what to say. It's not a national GLO, so there's no power structure that gives a theoretical alumni board authority over the chapter. If there was, then sure they could step in & forcibly throw people out &/or order changes. If they had no alumni involvement, but a national HQ then national would step in to do that stuff. As it is, all they could get from alumni is a glorified pep talk.

I'm not saying that's bad, but it seems unrealistic to get the people to even do that. With a 22yo org, those alumni have kids, jobs, mortgages, etc consuming the majority of their lives. Finding a group of people that can be deeply involved would be difficult, and I don't see that their powerless involvement could necessarily turn the tide.

So, I wouldn't count on alumni. I wouldn't waste time with the stupid interpersonal issues. I'd just clean house to get back on message. Then go find a bunch more people to get this thing back on its feet.

A national expansion team would be down there looking at non-greek folks in student govt, other orgs, RAs, intramural teams... you can string a lot of people together that bring different strengths to the equation. And watch all these videos: http://www.ato.org/Undergraduates/re...cruitment.aspx

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by dnall

Any national GLO that goes on a campus will start by building an interest group around 20. . . .

A national expansion team would be down there looking at non-greek folks in student govt, other orgs, RAs, intramural teams... you can string a lot of people together that bring different strengths to the equation.

Right, but she's in a local at a campus with around 3000 students, no national GLOs, and sororities that seem to be 20-30 members max. In her campus culture, going from 2 or 3 to 20 people in one semester just may not be realistic, and it could bring its own problems.

I'd advocate more for a goal of doubling membership every semester for the next 2 years, and making sure that the new members will be hard-working assets, not just warm bodies.

[33girl]

They went co-ed around 2.5 seconds ago (read her other posts). And in case you didn't get it...

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Right, but she's in a local at a campus with around 3000 students, no national GLOs, and sororities that seem to be 20-30 members max. In her campus culture, going from 2 or 3 to 20 people in one semester just may not be realistic, and it could bring its own problems.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Right, but she's in a local at a campus with around 3000 students, no national GLOs, and sororities that seem to be 20-30 members max. In her campus culture, going from 2 or 3 to 20 people in one semester just may not be realistic, and it could bring its own problems.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Right, but she's in a local at a campus with around 3000 students, no national GLOs, and sororities that seem to be 20-30 members max. In her campus culture, going from 2 or 3 to 20 people in one semester just may not be realistic, and it could bring its own problems.

[Barbie's_Rush]

Originally Posted by dnall

Any national GLO that goes on a campus will start by building an interest group around 20.

No they don't. Time to get back in your lane.

[dnall]

I know it's not the same as a national expansion model. But, there's a lot that can be learned from it. In particular, I'm trying to highlight some of the recruiting blitz tactics and goals they use to grab a foundation group real fast. I do think that's applicable.

Of course any number less than 20 is more realistic than 20. It also doesn't matter.

As counter-intuitive as it may at first seem, you can't set the goal on how hard it is to accomplish. The objective is survival, what's it take to achieve that, therefore the goal is X and we have to do whatever it takes to reach it or we fail.

From my experience, that's 20ish. Without an established org and a significant training pgm (new member process) to build strong dedication under a functional leadership hierarchy, you're going to lose 30-50% of whatever you recruit, especially with summer in the way. Anything less than around 20 & they're probably DOA when Fall semester starts. Even at 20, they have a fight to stay alive through Christmas. Until they can reestablish a sustainable base, which is probably above 20, than it'll always be a survival struggle.

I know at a 3000 campus that seems daunting. Just blind guessing, say it's 1k girls not otherwise affiliated, that's still a whole lot. If they move beyond traditional methods, treat it like they're restarting a new group from scratch, and cast a wide net... I really do think it's doable.

What's the worst that can happen by aiming too high anyway? They end up with less? Fine. Some of yall think that's adequate anyway. So, what's the problem? I'd rather aim high and settle for a little less than aim low and only try hard enough to get my goal.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by dnall

I know it's not the same as a national expansion model. But, there's a lot that can be learned from it. In particular, I'm trying to highlight some of the recruiting blitz tactics and goals they use to grab a foundation group real fast. I do think that's applicable.

Of course any number less than 20 is more realistic than 20. It also doesn't matter.

As counter-intuitive as it may at first seem, you can't set the goal on how hard it is to accomplish. The objective is survival, what's it take to achieve that, therefore the goal is X and we have to do whatever it takes to reach it or we fail.

From my experience, that's 20ish. Without an established org and a significant training pgm (new member process) to build strong dedication under a functional leadership hierarchy, you're going to lose 30-50% of whatever you recruit, especially with summer in the way. Anything less than around 20 & they're probably DOA when Fall semester starts. Even at 20, they have a fight to stay alive through Christmas. Until they can reestablish a sustainable base, which is probably above 20, than it'll always be a survival struggle.

I know at a 3000 campus that seems daunting. Just blind guessing, say it's 1k girls not otherwise affiliated, that's still a whole lot. If they move beyond traditional methods, treat it like they're restarting a new group from scratch, and cast a wide net... I really do think it's doable.

What's the worst that can happen by aiming too high anyway? They end up with less? Fine. Some of yall think that's adequate anyway. So, what's the problem? I'd rather aim high and settle for a little less than aim low and only try hard enough to get my goal.

Pineapple.

[Barbie's_Rush]

Originally Posted by dnall

I know it's not the same as a national expansion model. But, there's a lot that can be learned from it. In particular, I'm trying to highlight some of the recruiting blitz tactics and goals they use to grab a foundation group real fast. I do think that's applicable.

Of course any number less than 20 is more realistic than 20. It also doesn't matter.

As counter-intuitive as it may at first seem, you can't set the goal on how hard it is to accomplish. The objective is survival, what's it take to achieve that, therefore the goal is X and we have to do whatever it takes to reach it or we fail.

From my experience, that's 20ish. Without an established org and a significant training pgm (new member process) to build strong dedication under a functional leadership hierarchy, you're going to lose 30-50% of whatever you recruit, especially with summer in the way. Anything less than around 20 & they're probably DOA when Fall semester starts. Even at 20, they have a fight to stay alive through Christmas. Until they can reestablish a sustainable base, which is probably above 20, than it'll always be a survival struggle.

I know at a 3000 campus that seems daunting. Just blind guessing, say it's 1k girls not otherwise affiliated, that's still a whole lot. If they move beyond traditional methods, treat it like they're restarting a new group from scratch, and cast a wide net... I really do think it's doable.

What's the worst that can happen by aiming too high anyway? They end up with less? Fine. Some of yall think that's adequate anyway. So, what's the problem? I'd rather aim high and settle for a little less than aim low and only try hard enough to get my goal.

Fraternity expansions are completely different animals. You need to step the fuck out of this lane before Barbie drives her pink semi rig through it.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by dnall

What's the worst that can happen by aiming too high anyway? They end up with less? Fine.

Or they could give up out of frustration and weariness at trying to reach unattainable goals. Or their reputation takes a further hit because they try to do too much too quickly and fail.

I don't know about Daemon, but on many similar campuses Greek life is barely tolerated at best. They may have all they can handle just to double their numbers, particularly if what reputation they have has taken a major hit this past year. A realistic, workable and successful plan of action has to take into account the specific culture of the campus involved and of the Greek community involved.

For my money, I'd rather recruit five good, solid members in one semester than 20 warm bodies, half of whom you say will fall away in the first summer. The last thing they need is more people who aren't dedicated and won't hang on.