Fraternal Glory

The video clip below is from the movie “Glory.” Whenever I think of the sacrifice of soldiers, and the courage they are asked to exhibit, I remember this scene. The scene portrays the night before the 54th Massachusetts Infantry – an all-black regiment fighting for the North in the Civil War – would lead an assault on a Confederate fort. Due the circumstances of the battle plan, the 54th is almost assured to be decimated in the fight. Thus, the men you see in the clip know that they will most likely die the next day. However, because of their strong desire to make a contribution in this war, they turn their fears into pride. They know that their bravery, and their sacrifice, will mean so much to the cause they are fighting for.

The scene also reflects the internal struggle these former slaves had with their perceptions of themselves as men. For so long, they were considered inhuman – more like property or animals rather than men. As they bonded together, learned from each other, and were pushed by their leaders, they developed self-confidence and self-worth. The character portrayed by Denzel Washington struggles with this throughout the film, and the scene shows him finally voicing his understanding that he – and his fellow soldiers – are men who matter.

What does this have to do with fraternity? Perhaps not much. I see fraternity in this scene. I feel brotherhood through their singing. I see leadership flowing back and forth amongst the men. I see how supportive they are of each other.

We also should remember all of our members who fought for our nation, and those who fight today.

The struggles we face as Greek-letter organizations are nothing compared to what real-life soldiers face each day. We should never make that an even comparison. The black men who stepped up to fight for the country that had treated them so poorly are examples of selflessness and dedication that none of us will likely match in our lifetimes.

On this Veteran’s Day, we should all put our challenges in perspective. However, we can also learn from those who show bravery and courage through military service. As I hear undergraduates complain about the amount of work it would take to build a stronger fraternity or sorority, I often want to remind them that there are men and women of a similar age, who spend their days loading up a weapon, putting on a uniform, and stepping forward into a day that they may never see the end of. We owe it to them, and those who fought before them, to strive to be as courageous and dedicated in our dealings. They should inspire us to greater leadership in whatever cause we are a part of.

Morgan Freeman, through his character in the scene, references the impending battle as their great “gettin’-up” moment. What’s yours? It may be smaller than what these soldiers had to endure, but just like them, we shouldn’t shirk from that great and glorious opportunity.

Recruit Your Way Out

Below is a great new video from Phired Up Productions.

Thanks to experience, advice, and observation, I'm starting to believe that the only way to truly solve the problems we face is to recruit our way out of them. The folks at Phired Up refer to those who drive positive change in our chapters as "horses," and those who resist change as "mules." The horses have desires, wants, and visions for a better fraternity/sorority. They may be able to get some of the mules on board, but in the end, they will find far greater success by recruiting new members (new horses) who share their vision. Instead of focusing our energy on how we get the mules out of our chapters, we should just manage their presence and charge forward without them. "Get on board, or get out of the way" should be the battle cry.

What we focus on becomes our reality. How much time is drained by the energy we devote to the negative, apathetic, and uncommitted among us? What if that energy was focused towards those who understand the bigger picture and are ready to contribute? Or, those unaffiliated men and women who share our vision? NOTE: You need to have a vision first. Can you answer the questions that are posed at the beginning of the video?

The practice of Appreciative Inquiry tells us that if we focus on problems, that's what we'll find. If we focus on possibilities instead, then we may find that they are more abundant. As the video points out, those "possibilities" may be the men and women we have yet to discover.

Leadership in Our Chapters…and the Abilene Paradox

Guest Essay By Dave Westol, Limberlost Consulting

It has been said that the boards of directors of non-profit organizations are often composed of good—I will make that very good—men and women who nonetheless may make bad or occasionally terrible decisions as a board that none of the directors would make as individuals.

And that sounds counterintuitive. Why would individuals, who were theoretically elected or appointed because they possess strong positive qualities including the ability to analyze facts and data and make sound decisions, do the exact opposite while in a group of good people?

Why indeed? And how does that apply to our undergraduate chapters?

Mr. Rhetorical Question, may I present the Abilene Paradox?

The Abilene Paradox is the creation of Jerry B. Harvey—now Dr. Harvey—who has contributed in many ways to the study of organizational dynamics. His Paradox theory has been used countless times to explain a simple concept—that people react differently when in a group, especially when they are in a leadership role.

The Abilene Paradox occurred to Jerry when he was a doctoral student. He and his wife were visiting her parents in Coleman, Texas on a Sunday afternoon in August. Coleman is located about fifty miles southeast of Abilene.

Jerry was sitting on the shaded back porch of the home playing dominoes with his father-in-law at about three o’clock in the afternoon. It was hot but pleasant—a breeze, cold lemonade, peaceful. Then, it happened. His father-in-law got to his feet and said, “Let’s go to Abilene to the cafeteria for dinner!”

Jerry, not wanting to be branded as the whiny son-in-law, said, “Ah, okay”. His wife, knowing what was in store but also wanting to go along with the apparent majority, said, “Ah, okay”. His mother-in-law said, “Let’s get going if we’re going to go”. And away they went, each of the four knowing that the trip would involve a two-hour drive over dirt roads in an unairconditioned automobile for a dinner that would be a tribute to gastrointestinal distress followed by another two-hour drive home.

The trip and the food were worse than anticipated. After they arrived home, his mother-in-law reportedly said, “I don’t know why I let y’all talk me into that”. Jerry responded that he didn’t want to be in the collective “Y’all”—that he had not wanted to go in the first place. His wife agreed. His father-in-law then justified it by observing that his daughter and son-in-law seldom visited and he thought that they might want something different. He added that he would have been happy with a beer and leftovers served on the back porch.

There you have it…the Abilene Paradox. Four intelligent people agreeing to a course of action that not one of them would have done as an individual…and to please others who in fact were not pleased.

When board members fail to state their true opinions; when they misperceive the collective reality; when they will not challenge or question because they defer to older, more experienced board members or when they allow friendships, shared experiences or other real or imagined affiliations to affect decision-making—then the board of directors has just climbed onto the bus for Abilene, as Dr. Harvey notes in subsequent writings.

Dr. Harvey also includes action anxiety (my interpretation is the reluctance by board members to pull the trigger or make a decision—“We need more information!”), fantasized risks, fear of ostracism by other board members and group tyranny as other aspects for the Abilene Paradox.

And do those dynamics apply to undergraduate chapters?

Absolutely.

Perhaps more so than with a board of directors, because our undergraduates often have stronger perceived bonds. Friendships, roommates, “She gave me a ride home last Thanksgiving”, “He threw me a TD last week at the game”…all factor into the chapter version of the Paradox.

One of the best arguments against the emphasis placed upon pledge class unity in hazing chapters is that we intentionally create our own version of the Abilene Paradox—we require our new members to think, act and in some cases speak alike, thus effectively snuffing individualism, critical thinking and initiative. When I served as CEO of my national fraternity I often saw that dynamic, especially during times that called for a significant decision. The brother who was stiffing the chapter on a large bill and up for suspension…the junior who was unsuited to serve as president but nominated…watch and listen as his pledge class lined up on the side of their former pledge brother because of blind loyalty rather than what was right for the chapter.

What can we do as chapter leaders to prevent our version of the Abilene Paradox?

First, we can create an atmosphere—a culture in our chapters—in which all members, not just older or more experienced members—can voice their opinions without fear of being ridiculed or mocked. Presidents and other officers: this is your area of control. Set the tone at meetings.

Secondly, we encourage a culture of inquiry—that is, a culture of healthy debate. We ask for and listen to opinions and arguments. We don’t, however, waste the time of the chapter with repetitive arguments or duplicate comments that begin with, “I agree with ___” Chapter presidents, this is your time to guide but not control the discussion.

Third…we get it right. That means that we may disagree with others but through that process of discussion and debate—attorneys often call it, “Discourse”, which is a good word for reasoned, respectful disagreement—we arrive at the best resolution.

Mark Baltz is an official in the National Football League who lives in Zionsville, Indiana, and attends some of the weekly meetings of the high school football officials held in downtown Indianapolis. I am co-chairman of the Football Committee with Bud Klumph, a Sigma Chi from Arizona State, and we schedule Mark to speak to our 100+ officials each year.

In his presentation Mark always notes that the biggest mistake he made in his career was starting a varsity football officiating crew with four friends. They were good officials…but they had difficulty speaking to each other in blunt and candid fashion. They allowed their friendships to get in the way of getting it right.

As a football official, I understand that simple concept. We must get the call right for the players, the coaches and the fans, whether there are 200 or 8,000. Friendship, hurt feelings or perceived slights have no place in an effective crew. We cannot get on the bus to Abilene and agree with a bad call because we don’t want someone to feel hurt.

As chapter leaders, you must encourage, prompt and indeed stimulate thoughtful discussion and discourse, especially about important topics or issues. Then, you must zealously safeguard the right of each member, regardless of age, seniority or status in the chapter, to speak to those topics and issues. You must insure that members feel comfortable challenging and questioning practices and decisions that in years past may have been no-brainers.

Finally, you must help sisters or brothers find that “getting it right” place. Sometimes that means you must put aside your feelings about an issue or question. There is a difference, of course, between a legitimate issue and voting on an illegal activity such as hazing. That is one occasion when you must stand up and speak out.

The Abilene Paradox…will exist as long as we fail to encourage our members to stand up and speak out. Many a chapter has been asked, “What were you thinking?” after a serious incident, problem or tragedy. I suspect that the answer is: “We were thinking…but we were not expressing our thoughts”

Dave Westol served as CEO of his national fraternity for eighteen years and now has his own consulting company, Limberlost Consulting, Inc., in Carmel, Indiana. He has served on the board of directors for FIPG, Inc. for sixteen years and as a football official for 24 seasons. He can be reached at David.Westol@gmail.com.

Deferred Madness

Clearly, some colleges/universities just get it, and others don’t. The enlightened institutions among us have realized that the choice to join a fraternity is so profound, so complicated (and possibly so hazardous), that young and impressionable freshmen students should not be rushed into that decision. In fact, the smartest colleges/universities also realize that freshmen students are incapable of critical thinking and decision making, and thus need to be told when they can join a fraternity or sorority. I’m sure these institutions have conducted studies that confirm that a young man or woman’s decision-making skills are only effective and useful starting in the second semester. However, there must be some debate to this question – since some institutions do not allow this decision to be made until the sophomore year. The students they enroll must struggle to even know what kind of cereal to have in the morning!

The smartest of the enlightened institutions of higher education often realize that not only should freshmen wait to join a fraternity or sorority, they should be prevented from even having contact with a fraternity or sorority member until told otherwise. This is obviously because their students have the thinking skills of a gnat who allows itself to be drawn into the scorching death of a bug zapper.

It is most noble of these colleges/universities to look after their young neophytes with care and compassion. They’ve obviously discovered a truth that has been elusive for so many of us – first-semester college freshmen are pretty dumb. They need to be protected from their own stupidity. They cannot make a wise decision, especially when allowed to move at their own pace. So instead, let’s help them by adding structure. Yes – help them – that sounds nice! Let’s give them two weeks of quick meetings, funny slide shows, and fancy brochures. That will clearly allow for more controlled - er - I mean better decision-making.

By the way, this doesn’t apply to other student organizations. Students are free to join them at any time, since they are the kinds of decisions students can make quickly and without any thought.

I’m sure that there is research that proves that deferred recruitment results in greater recruitment numbers, fewer incidents of alcohol and hazing, greater alumni engagement, better academics for the members, and a greater commitment to founding values and principles. Just because I couldn’t find this research anywhere doesn’t mean it’s not there.

I want to thank these enlightened institutions for challenging all of our intuitive ideas and notions of common sense by proving that deferred recruitment is the way to go. Because of the inspiration of their example, I want to challenge them in kind. Since these colleges and universities have the best interests of students in mind, I’m sure they wouldn’t care if we prevented them from making contact with or actively recruiting high school students until the second semester of their senior years. In fact, we’ll just give them two weeks in August to make their case. After all, it’s such a big decision.

What Would Cliff Huxtable Do?

Have you ever just wanted to take a fraternity or sorority chapter, a student leader, or a brother/sister, who you know is capable of so much more than they are doing, and yell at them to wake up and try harder!

I love the scene below from The Cosby Show, one of the greatest television shows of all time. This is a scene from the pilot episode, and it’s a classic because of the unexpected way Cliff (Bill Cosby) reacts to Theo (Malcolm Jamal Warner) and his monologue about being a regular person. In the sitcoms of the 80’s and early 90’s, it was common to have a moral or lesson at the end of the episode, expressed by one of the characters in a stirring way, and punctuated by uplifting music and audience applause. Family Ties, Growing Pains, Full House, and Facts of Life all had these moments. The Cosby Show mocked this formula in its first episode, and the series became the gold standard for portraying family life for over a decade. Here is the scene, and my thoughts about its connection to fraternity follows...

I sometimes show this clip when I’m talking to alumni advisers because it portrays something very powerful – the importance of raising expectations. Theo thinks he is on the path to becoming a “regular person” and he has convinced himself that he actually wants this for himself. There's nothing wrong with the professions he describes (such as driving a bus), but he believes that having a goal like this absolves him of the need to work hard. Enter his very successful father who tells him point blank that it is not enough to just be “regular” and that he will work harder.

Cliff’s approach is very parental and we shouldn’t necessarily mimic his tone or language. Try the line “I brought you in the world and I’ll take you out!” at the next chapter meeting. It probably won’t work. The principle behind it is the important thing. Many undergraduates only expect and/or want a “regular” fraternity experience because that’s all they’ve known. For them, regular often includes accepting apathy, unethical decisions, and dangerous behavior. If regular is good enough, then it's natural for them to avoid the hard work required to build something grander. It’s often not their fault. They just haven’t been challenged. As advisers, friends, and supporters, it’s our duty to not allow them to be mediocre.

I learned a term in graduate school called “plus-one staging,” and I’ve built my work around it ever since. Plus-one staging means that a teacher should teach to a level one step above the standard expectation for their students. The theory is that you’ll better meet the advanced learners where they are, and the other learners will elevate their game to catch up. The opposite of this is teaching to the lowest learning level. This does nobody any favors, including the student at that low level. Advising at a lower level means saying things like "if it's worked in the past, let's do it again" or "some people are just lazy." Instead, think about what the students are capable of, and coach them one notch above that place. You might be surprised by the results.

This is applicable to peers leading peers as well. Lead at a higher level and quietly demand that your brothers or sisters get to that place with you. Don’t let them off the hook. Don’t believe them when they say that being average is good enough. They just haven’t had a “Cliff Huxtable” in their life to sternly tell them that they can and will do better. You can be that person.

We are dealing with the brightest and most capable young men and women among us. They deserve for us to teach, lead, and advise to a level that’s just beyond their reach – because they can get there. If we stop accepting that it’s just okay to work towards mediocrity, then hopefully those we lead will no longer accept it either.

Responses to Eliminating Pledging

I received some great feedback and opinions from the “No Pledging” post a couple of weeks ago. It helps me clarify my own thoughts to try and respond to some of the comments. I’ve written those responses below.

I should have added in the original post that I am looking at this from a macro level. I don’t think the fraternity movement will measurably advance without bold action, such as eliminating pledging. I also think a pledge-free experience is more true to our history. I recognize that pledging works for some groups. Many groups, in fact. I simply see a more successful future for the whole fraternity movement without it.

On to the comments…

I know you are going to advocate for a longer recruitment process in order to get to know the potential new members but from a formal recruitment stand point I am not sure how this would work.
You’re right. Formal recruitment encourages pledging. You wouldn’t be able to eliminate pledging without eliminating formal recruitment first.

More importantly pledging is a time for candidates to learn about the members and the members to learn about the candidates.
Shouldn’t that be what rush/recruitment is for? Besides, I was still learning new things about my brothers years after I was initiated. That’s the beauty of brotherhood. The problem with pledging is that it creates a power differential and a false finish line. I wonder if we ever truly get to know each other in that kind of setting. I knew great pledges that were terrible brothers.

Initiating men and women within 72 hours is a terrible idea. Groups would have to have several initiations per semester, maybe two in the same week. Don't get me wrong, frequent ritual is important but this would just get excessive.
We have a history of being fairly adaptable groups, and I think we’d figure it out. Why is having monthly initiations/Ritual ceremonies excessive, but having weekly social events okay (I know you’re not saying that)? If there are things we should be doing “excessively,” it’s Ritual and welcoming new men into our brotherhoods.

Great argument from the fraternity perspective, but what about from the recruit's? I needed the pledge period to learn what I was getting myself into. I needed to get to know all the brothers, learn what fraternity meant, and what was expected of me as a brother before making the plunge.
I think you can learn all of this during recruitment – if recruitment is not confined to one week of eating chicken wings and watching football. What if you find out you’re not a fit? It’s easier on you (the potential member) to sever ties with the fraternity during a recruitment process rather than in the 7th week of pledging.

You should do some research on this topic rather than making up statistics. 100% of chapters have a problem with apathy? You cannot tell me that came from a credible source.
Fair point. I didn’t mean for it to be taken as statistically accurate – I was just trying to be emphatic. I would add that I have facilitated conversations with thousands of students (especially when I was at the NIC). I often asked the question, “who has an apathy problem in their chapter?” I can’t remember ever seeing someone keep their hand down. You’re right – maybe more formal research on this question is warranted.

I don't see this working for women's/NPC groups, especially when the majority of new members enter through the formal recruitment process.
Perhaps not. My thoughts were focused only on men’s organizations.

Maybe we need a MORE structured and a consistent program from HQ’s…We need more structure not less.
Most HQ’s have a structured and consistent program, but enforcing that is difficult. If anything, better mechanisms for accountability are what’s needed. Then again – weren’t we founded as a means to escape rigid structure in favor of natural human relationships? Now we want more structure? Instead of more structure, let’s get simpler. Recruit well – Initiate – Repeat.

You're not smart are you?
Ouch! I hope that's not something you say to your pledges!

It’s Time to End Pledging

The onset of recruitment activities in fraternal organizations across North America leads to the onset of pledging activities. The former involves the best of fraternity – self-governance, building friendships, creating connections, etc. The latter, in my view, represents the worst of fraternity.

I believe it is time to consider eliminating pledging from the fraternity experience. Of course, this is a decision each fraternity needs to make on their own. However, it’s become ridiculous to see how much we bend over backwards to keep some form of pledging alive. 12 weeks, 8 weeks, 4 weeks. Instead of shortening the pledge periods, or trying to soften their effect by creating elaborate “member education programs,” I think we’ll solve many problems by just scrapping pledging altogether.

At least a couple of national fraternities have tried to eliminate pledging (most recently in 1989). Typically, these attempts are thwarted by alumni who couldn’t go along with the idea of a pledge-free experience. Zeta Beta Tau continues to be pledging-free. New members must be initiated within 72 hours of receiving a bid. I would challenge ZBT to more actively promote this, since it is a very distinguishable selling point.

Most fraternities hold tightly to pledging as if it was part of our founders’ vision. Pledging was something added to the fraternity experience much later, and we existed for many years without it. It emerged in the early 1900’s. How it came about is unclear. Some sources point to the influx of G.I. Bill students who brought military-style rites of passage into fraternities. Other sources claim it to be just an outgrowth of hazing activities older classes inflicted upon new freshmen (imagine kids wandering the campus wearing beanies). The point is, pledging wasn't there from the start, although we act as if it was. Pledging wasn't a necessary change or evolution of fraternity - it was an add-on. Add-ons can be removed.

Pledging has never served a critical purpose. The best pledging programs can be useful, and perhaps even beneficiary to the fraternity. However, can these benefits only be gained by pledging programs? Do the positives outweigh the negatives? I cannot think of any compelling reasons why pledging is necessary for the health and sustainability of fraternal organizations. I can think several reasons why it could continue to be our downfall. Chief among these is hazing, one of the single biggest reasons men will not join our organizations.

My biggest problem with pledging is that it leads to apathy. Why would we take committed, eager, energetic young men, and right from the beginning of their experience, give them a finish line? That’s what initiation has become in most fraternities and sororities. It’s viewed as the end, and not the beginning.

Those that cling to pledging argue that it’s the best way for a new member to learn about the history and values of the fraternity. Really? I’d bet that in 90% of fraternities that use pledging as the primary educational vehicle, 90% of the chapter forgets everything they were taught in pledging. History can be conveyed to new members outside of the pledging structure. Values are taught through Ritual, which is something used continuously – again outside of the pledging structure. Pledging is not the only (or even the best) vehicle to teach history and values.

Proponents of pledging also argue that it creates pledge class unity. Why do we care so much about pledge class unity? We don’t need to force unity upon a group of men who will likely bond anyway due to their similar ages, class year, and life experiences. As Dave Westol and others have taught me, individuals join a fraternity, not a pledge class.

Finally, those who argue for pledging describe it as the best way to test the commitment level of potential initiates. If this were true, we wouldn’t have member apathy as an issue of concern in 100% of our chapters. Commitment can be judged based on a recruit’s past experiences (the best predictor of future behavior). Pledging is a false test of commitment.

So what should we do instead? Recruit better. We should employ effective, well-designed, and disciplined recruitment processes that allow us to investigate a man’s character before we offer a bid. We should take time to get to know his past accomplishments and his future goals. Maybe we should even demand recommendation letters from high school teachers or coaches? After we give him a bid, we should immediately assign him a mentor (such as a big brother) who helps him learn fraternity history, policies, and responsibilities. We should immediately include him in all fraternity activities except for Ritual activities. We should then initiate him as soon as possible.

I believe that the national fraternity that eliminates pledging, gains buy-in from alumni and undergraduates by arguing the points described above, and then promotes a pledging-free experience to potential members, will see immediate benefits. Alumni may be angry. Give them a fraternity that grows and excels, and they will get over it.

Let’s quit tinkering around the edges and instead, show boldness that would make our founders proud. It’s time for pledging to go. We don't need it anymore. Actually, we never did.