Can district leaders effect change in Rotary?
At the time of writing this blog, our district governors
elect were attending the International Assembly in San Diego, USA, in
preparation for their approaching year at the helm. This event was once a
closed shop, but thanks to the internet, anyone interested can follow the
speeches and even download transcripts within minutes of the presenters walking
off stage. For those prepared to look, there are some truly extraordinary
online resources available to help clubs with membership initiatives.
One such presentation was by Australia’s own Michael
McQueen, a presenter and author who I remain unambiguously impressed with (view
the presentation here). His extraordinary insights into our organisation’s
battle with relevance should be required viewing for all Rotarians. In his address
he quoted Paul Harris who once said “If
Rotary hopes to advance its aims, it must be evolutionary always, and at times
revolutionary”, and followed up by asking “As those of you who are at the helm of this organisation, will you be
the evolutionary and even the revolutionary leaders that your clubs and your
districts are crying out for? I sincerely hope you will, because make no
mistake - the future of Rotary will depend on it.” He delivered essentially
the same presentation last year to our current district governors, who he also
asked to be evolutionary and revolutionary leaders.
So this all has me wondering for how long we’ve been asking and
how long have we been dependent upon our district governors and other district
leaders to be agents of change, because our founder’s hopes for “at all times
evolutionary” have clearly not been met, and as for “at times revolutionary”…
Tell him he’s dreamin’.
To be fair, I’ve seen some good examples of positive change
at district administration level in my own and other districts. Credit where it’s
due, the changes in training methodology, content and delivery have bordered on revolutionary
in my own district. But real, meaningful and consistent change at club level (the
type required to turn around our membership fortunes) has been very rare.
District governors no doubt want desperately to leave their
districts in a better place than where they found it, but their success in that
mission relies heavily on the drive, energy and leadership of a band of club
presidents, who in turn are reliant on rank-and-file Rotarians in club land.
One of the great ironies in questioning the seemingly
catatonic pace of change in our organisation is that many regular Rotarians
feel that Rotary leadership at district and higher levels is deliberately
retarding change. It is my experience however, having served in senior district
roles for the last seven years, that the complete opposite is true. I have
found overwhelmingly that district leaders are very keen for clubs to innovate
and show initiative, and will even turn a blind eye toward clubs that dare fiddle
with our precious Rotary rules. The messages filtering down from the highest
levels of the organisation tacitly back up that stance. It is in fact conservative
elements within clubs that are holding back innovation and flexibility (and
ultimately growth), not district or Evanston.
It took me a while to realise it, but leadership positions
at district level are predominantly about leading horses to water. I have
personally delivered a number of presentations to presidents elect at PETS, and
am always encouraged by the will in the room to effect change in their
respective clubs. I’ve even been known to egg them on, but invariably this
enthusiasm gets beaten down by the week-to-week demands of driving the
presidency bus, and even the most modest of planned changes rarely get
implemented. So if presidents find it hard to effect change at club level,
where in theory, most members are rowing in a similar direction, how likely is
it that district governors will be successful in effecting change across a
district of autonomous clubs?
If I was asked what my key objectives were as District Membership
chair, they would obviously be to see more members recruited and retained. That’s
a no brainer. But I can’t personally recruit and retain members for every club,
so my strategy has been to provide club leaders with the resources they need to
make their clubs attractive and promote their work. These are made available in
a number of ways: membership seminars, blogs, Facebook, training, PETS,
websites, club visits and even tailored plans for clubs – for those interested,
anyway.
We are lucky to live in an age where the sharing of ideas
across the world has never been easier, and for many years I have been
collecting good membership initiatives from all over the Rotary world together
with ideas from corporations and organisations outside of Rotary. I feel
confident that our district membership committee can deliver genuine assistance
to clubs in need, and has the resources to help clubs work their way through
any membership challenge, but Rotarians in club land have to ask for help, and
be prepared to act on proven advice. Meaningful change WILL produce meaningful results, but discussing change will achieve nothing.
So back to the original question - Can District leaders
effect change in Rotary? Only if horses are prepared to drink once led to the
water. Regretfully, too many horses die of thirst with hooves still wet
from the waterhole.
