Category Archives: Membership Retention

Rotary@105: April 24th – Donald M. Carter Day

17 Saturday Apr 2010

Posted by in Membership Retention, Passionate People, Public Relations, Rotary, Rotary@105

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

by Paul Kiser

For 364 Days a year, thousands of Rotary Clubs around the world are involved in programs and projects to help the local, regional, national, and international communities, but on one day, EVERY Rotary Club is asked to do a community service project.  This year that day will be April 24, 2010.

Throughout Rotary we know this day as Rotarians at Work Day, but I like to think of it as Donald M. Carter Day.  Who was Donald M. Carter?

If you do a Google search for him you will find a few articles that mention his name. You might find out that he was a patent attorney and that he was involved in attempting to obtain a patent on the Rotary cog icon, but that would hardly justify naming a day after him.  If fact, to most Rotarians, Donald M. Carter is no one special….unless they know the early history of Rotary.

When Rotary was formed in 1905, Rotarians in the inaugural club established two reasons as the ‘purpose’ of Rotary.  They were as follows:

  1. The promotion of the business interests of its members
  2. The promotion of good fellowship and other desiderata ordinarily incident to social clubs.

In 1905, Rotary was a networking club that promoted business within the membership. The organization was established for the sole benefit of the members.

In April of 1906, a patent attorney named Donald M. Carter was approached by Frederick Tweed, a new Rotarian, and encouraged to join.  Carter was interested and asked about the objectives of the club.  When told of the two stated purposes of Rotary and shown the newly created Club Constitution, he declined and said that a club should have a higher ideal, some ‘civic’ purpose.  Tweed then suggested that Carter join and propose the new purpose to the club.

At this moment Carter could have just said ‘no’.  He could have thanked Tweed and sent him off with a handshake.  Rotary might have remained a business networking club existing solely for the benefit of the members…but Carter didn’t say ‘no’ to Tweed, or ‘no’ to his desire for a higher ideal for the organization.

The next month Donald M. Carter became a member of Rotary and later that year he composed the third purpose of Rotary:

3.  The advancement of the best interests of Chicago and the spreading of the spirit of civic pride and loyalty among its citizens.

The third purpose was adopted in 1907 and Rotary ceased to become an inward focused group of business men.  It became a group of people who promoted service and pride in the larger community outside of business and Rotary.

So on April 24, 2010, let’s give a nod and a smile to Donald M. Carter who gave Rotary a challenge to be more than a pursuit of the personal interests of the members, and instilled the value of community service and civic pride into every member.

Thanks Donald.  I glad you were a Rotarian!

A Century of Service by David C. Forward

(Special thanks to David C. Forward and his book, A Century of Service:  The story of Rotary International.  Book is available at www.shop.rotary.org)

Other Rotary Blog Posts


Rotary@105: What Kind of Animal is RI?

12 Monday Apr 2010

Posted by in Management Practices, Membership Retention, Public Relations, Re-Imagine!, Rotary, Rotary@105

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Paul Kiser - Rotary District 5190 Public Relations Chair - RC of Reno Sunrise, NV

by Paul Kiser

When considering the care and feeding of any beast one must first decide what kind of beast you have, and that is not an easy task when examining the beast known as Rotary International (RI).  I’ve been thinking about this because in two weeks RI will hold the 2010 session of the Council on Legislation (CoL).  This meeting is charged with approving new policies and policy changes that will determine what RI will be, or not be, for the next three years.

If you don’t understand what I’m talking about…you are not alone and some background might be helpful.

Rotary International is a separate and distinct organization. We, as Rotarians, do not belong to Rotary International.  The individual Rotary Club is a member of Rotary International, but the club members are not. It’s a fine line, but a very important one.  Our clubs have a voice in RI, but individual members do not.

RI is governed by the Manual of Procedure (MoP), the Rotary Code of Policies, and the RI Constitution.  The Council on Legislation decides changes, deletions, and additions to the governing documents.  This happens once every three years…yes, I said once every three years.  After the Council on Legislation meets during the last week of this month (April 2010) it will not reconvene until 2013.

The Rotary Theme Logo for 2009-10

Individual members cannot propose changes to the Council on Legislation (because they are not members of RI), so for a Rotarian to propose a change to RI policies and procedures she or he must get his or her Club to do it. Once a Club has decided to propose a change to the Council on Legislation they must:

  1. Propose the change almost two years prior to the Council of Legislation (2008 deadline for 2010 CoL)
  2. Have that proposal approved by the majority of clubs in the District
  3. Gain the approval of the Council Services (Administrative Staff at RI) that the proposed legislation is legitimate

The Council on Legislation only sees the proposed legislation that survives all of these hurdles and many proposed changes die in RI’s Council Services review process.

It is noteworthy that all things RI are handled by two groups of people. District Governors (past and present) consist of one group.  They serve in various capacities in governing RI, including serving as District Representative to the Council on Legislation.

The second group is almost invisible to the rank and file of Rotary.  That group is the administrative staff at RI.  The RI staff is governed by the MoP, Code of Policies, and the RI Constitution; however, they also serve as the gatekeeper, and in the case of the Council on Legislation, the Council Services division has significant power to allow or deny legislation to be presented to the CoL.

Change in RI is controlled by who is allowed to make the decisions and by the drawn-out approval process.  Part of the challenges we face in making Rotary relevant for 2010 and beyond is the fact that our organization is not structured to allow changes to be done quickly, or in some cases, at all.  Our RI beast is governed by policies and procedures that, for the most part:

  1. can only be changed once every three years
  2. proposed changes must be submitted in two years in advance
  3. proposed changes must be filtered through the District Governors who may not support the change

Whether intentional or not, this process is designed to be resistant to change.  When it comes to adapting to a new environment the RI beast is a dinosaur in a world that changes in the time it takes to post a Tweet.  As we attempt to make Rotary relevant to the professionals in today’s world we must find a more representative and responsive method for making meaningful changes.

Rotary International’s President Elect, Ray Klinginsmith, tells us it is time we found some new traditions and this year’s RI Theme is “The Future of Rotary is in Your Hands.”  The sentiments seems to reflect that it is time for Rotarians to step up and Re-Imagine our organization…but we now need to clear out those roadblocks that seek to keep Rotary from becoming all it can be.

Other Rotary Related Blogs

Rotary: The Man in the Yellow Hat as the Ideal Club President?

07 Wednesday Apr 2010

Posted by in Crisis Management, Human Resources, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Membership Retention, Public Relations, Random, Rotary

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Paul Kiser - Public Relations Chair - Rotary District 5190 (Northeast CA/Northern NV

The Man in the Yellow Hat seems to be overwhelmed by the adventurousness of his pet monkey, better known to the world as Curious George, but at closer inspection George’s owner has a style about him that allows the little monkey to have the freedom to be creative, while not stifling his enthusiasm.  It is a model that could help every Rotary Club President understand that individual members need the freedom to fail if a club is to be successful.

If you are blessed with a four year-old you probably have some screen time with the Public Broadcast Service (PBS) young children’s programming known as PBS Kids.  Among the many children’s programs offered by PBS Kids is the Curious George series that began in 2006 and based on the Curious George books.

Most people over 50 may remember Curious George from the seven children’s books written from 1941 to 1966 by Margaret and H.A. Rey.  In both the book series and the PBS Kids program the owner of Curious George is the Man in the Yellow Hat (let’s abbreviate that to MITYH) who is never identified by a name.  (A 2006 animated movie did name him, but I’m not going to acknowledge that feeble attempt to put a name on a character that the original authors intentionally left unnamed.)

What I find fascinating is the relationship between Curious George and the MITYH.  For those who have not watched the PBS Kids program, The MITYH and Curious George live in a flat (presumably in New York) and George is the MITYH’s pet monkey.  As an animal owner he would likely be arrested for not controlling his animal.  George is often left alone for vast stretches at a time and he always get into mischief when the MITYH is absent.  Fortunately for the MITYH, it seems that the cartoon world has no Humane Society or ASPCA to interfere with the relationship between a man and his monkey.

(Link to PBS Kids)

Curious George - Monkey making mischief

If you watch the show you will see a pattern of disaster that is always preceded by the MITYH leaving the flat and saying, “Be a good little monkey.”  George then proceeds to solve a problem, understand how something works, or tries to be helpful, which always results in a mess.  What is surprising is the tolerance level of the MITYH and his neighbors and friends.  They always seem to understand that George will be George and all is forgiven.  At the end of each episode George has a new understanding of how the world works and all problems are fixed and everyone ends up happy.

So what does this have to do with a Rotary Club?  First, let me be clear, I’m not trying to infer that Rotarians are a bunch of monkeys…although I have been involved in some meetings where it seemed that the behavior of the members could be best described as Simian in nature.  Rotarians are all human and typically a creative group of people.  But because we all come from a business-related background our first thought as a Club President is to ‘manage’ the members.  I would suggest that it is not the best strategy.

As volunteers, Rotarians represent a vast resource of knowledge, skills, and creativity that is unique in the world.  Few organizations can put together the quality of people that Rotary attracts without offering significant compensation and benefit packages.  Rotary’s only asset is its members, but it is an asset that is more valuable than gold regardless of the current market price.

But our members are an asset, not a commodity.  Each day as a Club President is a gift.  The Club President represents a group of people who belong to the Rotary Club simply because they want to be, and not because of any quid pro quo.  It is a mistake to belief they belong because they want to be managed.

That is the magic of the MITYH’s style can be applied to the Rotary Club.  He doesn’t try to ‘manage’ his monkey.  Indeed, the MITYH acts as if it his pleasure to be able to simply be associated with George.  Sometimes it almost seems that he intentionally finds reasons to leave George alone to explore his world and create mischief with the understanding that all will work out in the end.

Often the MITYH is embarrassed by George’s actions, but his embarrassment is short-lived, and never does the MITYH decide that he needs to control George more to save face.  Nor does the MITYH decide that George must become more involved and assign George to a committee.  The MITYH offers opportunities and then walks away.  Never does he judge or attempt to manipulate…but he is always there to help clean up.

The Man in the Yellow Hat has a style that is unique in a world that values and teaches ‘managing’ other people in order to achieve his or her goals , but I think we could all learn a lot about working with talented volunteers from the example of empowering without fear of failure.   Our members deserve no less.

Other Paul Kiser Rotary Blogs

Rotary@105:  Our 1st Rotary Club Dropout

Rotary Public Relations and Membership: Eight Steps to a Team Win

Rotary: All Public Relations is Local

Best Practices:  Become a Target!

Fear of Public Relations

Dissatisfiers: Why John Quit

21 Sunday Feb 2010

Posted by in Club Leadership, Communication, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Human Resources, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Membership Retention, Public Relations, Relationships, Rotary, Rotary@105, Social Media Relations, The Tipping Point

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Paul Kiser
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] Skype: kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]

Paul Kiser

Why Did John Quit?
In my years in management, human resources, and service club involvement I have watched many people leave organizations and periodically someone in the organization starts throwing around the ‘R’ word: Retention. What follows are committee meetings, calls for surveys, and finger-pointing. The search usually turns up discovery of a plausible single cause for the problem based upon limited evidence, followed by a shrug of shoulders because the alledged cause is almost always determined to be a reason that is out of control of the organization.

Finding the real reason for attrition for any organization is elusive because there is almost never just one reason for someone to quit. The decision to quit is typically after the person has accumulated multiple ‘dissatisfiers‘ or negative experiences that finally caused the person to make a change by leaving. Dissatisfiers can be issues about pay, benefits, or other tangible reasons; however, most negative experiences are intangible acts that weaken (or fail to strengthen) a person’s perception of belonging to the organization.

A Dissatisfier may be something small, like a person not getting thanked for his or her contribution to a special project, or something more significant, like a lack of a desired promotion. As each Dissatisfier is added the person gets closer to the decision that the organization is not meeting his or her needs.

While a group or organization may be unaware of their actions that cause a Dissatisfier for an individual, people often consciously use Dissatisfiers to drive away a member or employee from a group because it is a subtle form of discrimination that is difficult to detect and easy to blame the victim as being overly sensitive. We learn this tactic at a young age and often as a byproduct of sibling rivalry when one child torments another by subtlety annoying them until they react violently. In adults, the behavior is rarely as overt, nor does it result in violence, but can be very effective in weeding out diversity in the group.

When the Dissatisfiers are not the result of a conscious effort against a person, but rather the failure to include the person, the result can be the same. Over time the person may ultimately decide to quit for a better opportunity, or, in the case of a volunteer organization, leave for no other opportunity.

The Perfect Environment to Study Dissatisfiers
Volunteer organizations are an ideal environment to study the effect of Dissatisfiers because the issue of compensation and/or benefits (tangible rewards) can be ruled out as factors for attrition. While some may conclude that because there is no tangible rewards for a volunteer, his or her involvement is tenuous all the time; however, often an individual has a deeper commitment to a volunteer organization simply because they are involved for more meaningful reasons. That reason may be as simple as wanting to be a part of an organization that seeks to do good, but for many people who need is often more powerful than monetary gain.

Members of a volunteer organization should feel that the work they perform not only gives them a sense of accomplishment; but also gives them a sense  of worth, belonging (or friendship) and pride. For a member to leave that organization means that the group failed to provide or connect the member to the key rewards of volunteer service. Attrition in a volunteer organization is often blamed on a single external factor (a bad economy) or the person (not in the organization for the right reasons) rather than examine the Dissatisfiers that they might have been able to address that would have retained that member.

To improve retention organizations need to stop looking for the single factor for attrition, and start looking for the list of Dissatisfiers that led to the decision to quit. In volunteer organizations, a member’s involvement is to fill a need of belonging and attrition can only be attributed to internal Dissatisfiers, not external factors.

More Articles