What do you think of this idea?

[Word Nerd]

What would you think of a proposal to do away with traditional officer elections in a youth organization and instead have members take turns being president, treasurer, secretary, etc. at monthly meetings?

[Suzanne in ABQ]

It would depend on the duties and responsibilities of the office.  If they've got responsibilities between meetings (like keeping records, writing minutes, correspondence, etc) between meetings that wouldn't work.  If there are long-term projects than need oversight by the officers, then it likewise wouldn't work.  But, if they're just doing specific tasks during the meetings, then it would be a great idea as a way to train more kids for leadership.

[*Lulu*]

It would depend on the duties and responsibilities of the office. If they've got responsibilities between meetings (like keeping records, writing minutes, correspondence, etc) between meetings that wouldn't work. If there are long-term projects than need oversight by the officers, then it likewise wouldn't work. But, if they're just doing specific tasks during the meetings, then it would be a great idea as a way to train more kids for leadership.

That is my thought as well.

[Alte Veste Academy]

I think it sounds like a recipe for chaos and disorganization. Plus, not everyone wants to be in a leadership position.

[J-rap]

It depends on the organization.  Also, I think some kids might choose to NOT be part of the organization if they are required to be an officer at some point.  As long as there are enough kids who want to be officers, then I don't think a required officer rotation of all members would be necessary. 

 

On the other hand, if no one wants to be officers, then I would take away the officer status and just divide it up into various jobs, and then everyone would take turns doing the various necessary jobs.

 

[Farrar]

It could work if it's a really small, tight knit group and if the roles were primarily for the meeting itself. But I'd be very hesitant. In addition to the above, another issue would be that no one would learn to be really good at their job because they'd constantly be changing.

 

That said, I've been part of many groups and helped kids run groups based on consensus and Quaker meeting principles. And it can work and run really smoothly. But it's not about changing things around all the time and it takes a ton of practice. Just saying that if the group is looking for alternatives to a traditional hierarchy, there are some out there that work.

[Tap]

Depends on if everything is decided by vote or not, and what the roles of each person are.  If one person makes most of the leadership decisions, then it will be problematic to have too many opinions leading a group.  

 

If the president is supposed to keep the meetings on topic and moving along, a chatty person floundering to lead a meeting will be a mess. If there is an event that needs to be planned and decisions are not made in a timely manner, then it can create havoc for the others involved. If there is an adult who is leading and keeping the group on track, it could work.  If the group handles money, I would make sure a consistent adult is overseeing and is ultimately responsible for that part of the process.  Too many hands in the cookie jar, soo to speak.  

 

It also could create some gossip/griping behind peoples backs if people get into the game of comparing each other to the other people in that role.  ie "Jimmy is so much better at being president, James just sucks.  He mumbles and doesn't know what he is doing......etc"  Comparing and griping are a hard dynamic to break once it gets started with some groups.

 

Depending on the complexity of the board, each role is going to have to be retrained each time you switch teens out.  It will require a lot of time of those teaching to give each person a chance to do his/her job well.  Will the training be done at the meeting or before hand?  And once the teen figures out the role, they will have to switch.  It may just take 5-10 minutes to train someone what a secretary does, but if you do swearing in or any other formalities each time, then it can add quite a bit of time.

 

One thing I don't like about this idea, is that if there is a problem from the result of a decision, then the person who created the problem may not be the one trying to fix it.  It depends a lot on what the group is for, and how active they are, for this to matter or not though. 

 

I think there is value for teens to see first hand how elections work.  About campaign promises and what people actually follow through with.  About how we elect leaders based on certain traits, and if those traits actually hold true in the end.  

 

 

 

I can also see the benefit of letting a shy person have a chance at leading.  It can be hard sometimes to get people to put themselves out there and maybe having a chance at a leadership role.  By taking away the election  part of the process, they can try on a role with out the idea of possible rejection. 

[happi duck]

Without giving it much thought:

I'd like having kids who *want* to take a turn get the experience. I'd want the kids who say "no" at first to stay in the rotation so they continue to have the option. (Some kids need time to warm up to the idea.)

 

That said, I think some parents would hate it because they want to be able to list that their kid was president etc.

 

Eta: nothing wrong with wanting to put president etc on college apps or wanting kids to experience a true leadership position as opposed to the tasks of a leadership position, kwim?

[Alte Veste Academy]

It could work if it's a really small, tight knit group and if the roles were primarily for the meeting itself. But I'd be very hesitant. In addition to the above, another issue would be that no one would learn to be really good at their job because they'd constantly be changing.

 

That said, I've been part of many groups and helped kids run groups based on consensus and Quaker meeting principles. And it can work and run really smoothly. But it's not about changing things around all the time and it takes a ton of practice. Just saying that if the group is looking for alternatives to a traditional hierarchy, there are some out there that work.

Yeah, I would sooner change the structure of the group entirely, transitioning from a formal hierarchy completely.

[Word Nerd]

Without giving it much thought:

I'd like having kids who *want* to take a turn get the experience. I'd want the kids who say "no" at first to stay in the rotation so they continue to have the option. (Some kids need time to warm up to the idea.)

 

That said, I think some parents would hate it because they want to be able to list that their kid was president etc.

I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting your kid to be president and get actual leadership experience, as opposed to just dabbling and pretending to be president, treasurer, or whatever.

[Word Nerd]

I think it's a terrible idea and balked when another parent leader pitched the idea as a way to get kids more involved and interested during business meetings. I'm trying to see it from a different perspective and knew Hive members would have some insight I hadn't considered. I also want to clarify my position and be able to clearly articulate why I oppose the idea instead of just sticking with my initial knee-jerk "what a stupid idea!" reaction (I didn't actually say that, but I suspect my facial expression did).

 

The biggest problem I have is that there is no real ownership. When everyone is responsible, it's easy for no one to be responsible and to think "that's not my job." Although it would give kids a chance to try out different jobs, it would not give anyone the opportunity to develop real leadership skills or to practice those skills and get better, whether it's leading a discussion or recording minutes. And because there is no ownership of any office, no one is ultimately responsible for making sure those jobs get done.

 

I think there are many other ways to get kids more involved in meetings besides throwing out the organizational structure (and because it would violate our club charter and the existing structure in the county and state organizations that oversee individual clubs, I highly doubt we could do this even if everyone wanted to).

[Farrar]

Does the group keep a punch list? When I've been in meetings that worked well and involved a lot of people, I feel like one thing that helped was having a good, running to do list all the time and someone to keep the list and make sure that people are all getting jobs and that no one is getting too many jobs. So the secretary or another person keeping the to do list, every task is immediately assigned to someone to get done, and then immediately after the meeting the list is sent to everyone to remind them of what they were assigned/committed to do.

[happi duck]

I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting your kid to be president and get actual leadership experience, as opposed to just dabbling and pretending to be president, treasurer, or whatever.

I don't think there's anything wrong either.

 

What I meant is that some parents would hate taking turns because even though kids would get experience by taking turns no one would actually *be* president etc. No one could list president etc on college applications etc.

[Bambam]

I don't think it is a good idea. 

 

The student officer learns and grows in the position. Meeting minutes might not be the best at first, but they learn and get better at it. 

 

Having kids take turn would hurt the group, I think, as some obligations might fall between the cracks --- Oh, I thought she was taking the minutes, writing the thank you note, scheduling the next speaker, etc. 

 

In our clubs (4-H and now Anchor), we only allow a student to hold each officer position for one year. If you are secretary one year, someone else must be secretary the next (this assumes, of course, that we have enough kids who want the positions, but this has always been more than true!), but you could run for secretary again the next year. 

 

I did create two positions for our Anchor club - one as a monthly reporter to document what service we did for our sponsoring Pilot Club. And a photographer to make sure we have pictures of most of our events, service projects, meetings, etc. These aren't elected (because I wanted someone who I wouldn't have to fix their grammar/spelling/etc!) and are on six month rotations.

 

And, as the club manager, I can really don't want to have to figure out who is the *president* this time. I slowly grow the kids (based on their ability) to doing all the work themselves, agendas, everything. I put time and effort into it. If there were a new President each time, it would not be worth the effort to me to try to coach/guide them into growing to fit the position. If they were all already talented and just able to hit the ground running, then maybe it would work.

 

I also try to make sure my president, at least, knows parliamentary procedure. To teach the other kids, I have one student bring a small "Parliamentary Tidbit" each meeting so all the kids can learn.