Maintaining relevancy in a changing world

[Rod D]

If you're not involved, you have no standing to complain. Most (80%) are not and thus things are dominated by the 20% that are. So get involved and make something happen.

[Curly95]

Originally Posted by Rod D

If you're not involved, you have no standing to complain. Most (80%) are not and thus things are dominated by the 20% that are. So get involved and make something happen.

I am generally not one to comment BUT this is incredibly dismissive and in no way furthers the conversation. I urge you to stay quietly uninvolved and to let people who have actual constructive ideas do the sharing.

[Rod D]

Originally Posted by Curly95

I am generally not one to comment BUT this is incredibly dismissive and in no way furthers the conversation. I urge you to stay quietly uninvolved and to let people who have actual constructive ideas do the sharing.

What are you talking about. All I said was stop complaining (the 80%) and get involved (the 20%) to make a change. Sitting on the sideline complaining gets you knowwhere. Give me a break.

[SWTXBelle]

Those "complaining" are involved; it is indeed dismissive to assume otherwise. Anyone following this controversy knows this. Awaiting "Well, actually . . ."

[Rod D]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Those "complaining" are involved; it is indeed dismissive to assume otherwise. Anyone following this controversy knows this. Awaiting "Well, actually . . ."

You do realize this was a generic post about organizational change. The controversy wasn't hardly mentioned and had been deleted.

[SWTXBelle]

And there it is. Different wording, but there it is.

And it was NOT a generic post - it very specifically referenced the previous thread. To quote " In light of a recent thread, I'd like to engage brains in a discussion about affecting organizational change. The previous thread outlined various reasons alumni of a particular group are disenchanted and disgusted with the state of their organization. Through various means, a small group has retained a significant level of power. I'm sure that's true for many organizations too. Not all agree with the direction that this group has been going in though. Concerns are.." and then the specific concerns are mentioned.

But let's pretend that yes, it was just a general "how can we make change" post. My point that those outlining the need for change in any group are the 20% still stands. The 80% (where do these percentages come from?) are not cognizant of the need, or are simply apathetic. While I did indeed make an allusion to a specific controversy (which I didn't name, and yet which everyone knew), the post wasn't merely about it, but was in fact more general, if not generic. It truly "wasn't hardly mentioned" (sic).

[bevinpiphi]

Originally Posted by Rod D

What are you talking about. All I said was stop complaining (the 80%) and get involved (the 20%) to make a change. Sitting on the sideline complaining gets you knowwhere. Give me a break.

Ok. so. What do you do when the 20% are the ones who decide who can be appointed to involvement?

[Rod D]

Originally Posted by bevinpiphi

Ok. so. What do you do when the 20% are the ones who decide who can be appointed to involvement?

Well you have an uphill battle. You need to work your bylaws. Challenge incumbents at election time -- use proxies. It's definitely hard. You have to ask yourself whether the organization is worth it.

[Cheerio]

Originally Posted by Rod D

If you're not involved, you have no standing to complain. Most (80%) are not and thus things are dominated by the 20% that are. So get involved and make something happen.

Sometimes "being involved" in the highest levels of a fraternal organization means paying a monetary price, in the form of yearly mandatory personal contributions to each of the philanthropic arms of an organization. This mandatory financial outlay can discourage and detract otherwise highly involved, qualified and capable fraternal members who desire higher office within their org but lack the financial means to be eligible.

[Theta1234]

Cheerio—how right you are. This is true for most non-profit groups. At the higher levels of leadership or board membership, it is typically expected that you are making a certain level of financial contribution. I can see both sides of the issue. However, as the former ED of a non-profit, I viewed a financial contribution as “putting your money where your mouth is” and essential to any leadership role in the organization. After reading some of the above comments, I feel like I should question some of my former beliefs about what would make a good board member.

[Rod D]

Originally Posted by Cheerio

Sometimes "being involved" in the highest levels of a fraternal organization means paying a monetary price, in the form of yearly mandatory personal contributions to each of the philanthropic arms of an organization. This mandatory financial outlay can discourage and detract otherwise highly involved, qualified and capable fraternal members who desire higher office within their org but lack the financial means to be eligible.

It can. And at some point you'll need to determine if the organization is worth the time, effort, and financial cost.