I left you in Part 1 asking, “What can we do as professionals” when it comes to risk management. I asked you to start re(thinking) our notion of risk management. Most of all, I asked you to read Part 2 with the intention of seeing the possibility. Well, here are a collection of ideas that I think can make a difference. I don’t see these as the be all end all when it come to risk management, but rather a buffet of ideas that will hopefully spark other ideas from other professionals that will result in the reduction of risk management issues.
To begin, let me explain my issue with how we have gone wrong about risk management. I think we have only looked at the issue of risk management, but we have not seen the true issue or risk management. A very important point I want to make clear, the difference between looking and seeing. To explain, I am going to share a story I read in Dan Roam’s “The Back of a Napkin” that will hopefully help you understand. Imagine you’re driving in your car and suddenly your car’s engine light comes on, it starts to make a weird noise, and the car starts to shake. You pull over and turn off the key. The engine dies with a shudder and a puff of blue smoke. You climb out, pop the hood, and lean in. Your eyes begin roving over the engine compartment from front to back, and side to side, taking it all in: hoses, headers, manifolds cables, wires, filters, dipsticks, fan belts. There’s a lot of stuff in there, some of which you may recognize, some a total mystery. You know something is wrong, but you don’t know what. So your eyes just roam. That’s looking.
Then your eyes catch on something over to the left, where a group of wires emerge from a black plastic cap, like spaghetti from a pasta maker. All the wires flow out and attach to the side of the engine…except one. That particular wire isn’t going anywhere—unlike the others, it’s just hanging there. Your eyes pick up on this broken pattern, and although you might not know anything about engines, you do know that it just doesn’t seem right. Then you notice a place on the engine where it appears that it should attach, just like the others. Hmm…perhaps attaching the noodle there would fix the problem? That’s seeing.
I think we as fraternity/sorority professionals have done a masterful job of looking. We look at risk management and we think hazing, alcohol, drugs, sexual assault, etc. We are very good at this. Like in the story, those risk management issues are like the hoses, headers, manifolds, etc. What we are lacking is the “seeing” part.
If a chapter has risk management issues, what does that mean? Do we see it as just alcohol? Just hazing? Or are we truly identifying the core of the problem? I think we are lacking in the “seeing” department. Part of that stems from staffing. Part of that stems from not knowing where the issue is. Part of that is the training we have been given. In some circumstances, I think we are afraid to truly get at the issue. So, in order for us to make change, we have to get down to the spaghetti wires. We have to get dirty. Using the car example, we have become the mechanic and inspect all aspects of our organizations in a NEW way.
Second, I want to get rid of FIPG. Scrap it. Delete it. Burn it. My rationale is that document is preventing us from thinking in a NEW way. It’s not that I think it is bad or that it hasn’t helped reduce liability and risk, but I just think its preventing our creativeness to thrive as a fraternal profession. Imagine for a moment that you were tasked with creating a policy that would outline risk management in 1-2 pages. What would it say? What would it entail? What would be the major points?
Next, I think we should ALL get rid of the term risk management. Do we manage hazing? Do we manage sexual assault? I’d like to see us shift towards a movement of risk reduction. I know some campuses have this as their language and I love it. They aren’t going to manage risks anymore; they are going to reduce risk. They are going to reduce hazing. They are going to reduce the number of sexual assaults. Sure, it’s a simple word change but I think it is needed in order for us to accomplish the end goal, which is to reduce risks as much as we can.
Moving along, we ALL need to agree that risk management is a problem. That means all NIC, NPC, NALFO, NPHC, NAPA, and etc. must acknowledge and agree that there has to be shared accountability amongst all groups, regardless of race or gender. Women are just as much of the problem as the men. Shocking I know but times have changed. So what might this entail? Maybe it’s to where there is a uniform policy across the board as it pertains to risk management. If that’s too much, what if for example, there is explicit language in each umbrella organization’s policies regarding social functions, risk management related issues, etc. An example may be, using NPC, a Unanimous Agreement on the shared accountability of any social function a chapter may have with another social organization. In this particular example, this would require NPC groups to accept the responsibility and liability that comes with that endeavor. Yet I see it as, would this help reduce risks? If the men are such a problem, would sharing accountability help the women tame the men?
Another idea I have relates to the restaurant industry. I was a waiter and as one who would be serving alcohol, I had to be TIPs (To Insure Proper Service) trained. This required going through a training seminar and getting certified so that I could serve alcohol to my customers. My thought is, how can we create something similar to TIPS but for fraternities and sororities. Could this be a task for the inter/national organizations? Every member must be certified in order to hold the position of president, risk manager, social chair, ritual chair, etc? Create a certification that expires every time a new officer is elected. A certification that requires bi-weekly check-ins with their respective inter/national organization liaison.
Here is another thought, let’s get new people, in particular, our students to the table to discuss risk management. In part 1, I picked on our profession for relying on Lori Hart Ebert, Rick Barnes, and Dave Westol too much when it comes to risk management. These are people with whom I admire, look up to, and recognize as experts in the area of risk management. Yet I always think who will be the next Lori? The next Westol? The up and coming Rick Barnes? Are we selling ourselves short by not recruiting new professionals to come to the risk management “table?” When there are tasks force created, how are we being intentional that there are multiple generations and thinking styles considered when the team is assembled? Could we create a risk management bootcamp and professionals that attend become a certified risk management specialist?
Furthermore, we need students at the table. I recently listened to a student explain that he feels in order for change to occur, mom (F/S advisor) and dad (Headquarters) cannot always dictate how the change will happen. He acknowledged that mom and dad are needed but in order to get buy-in, the students must set the tone. Who doesn’t agree with that sentiment? Yet, how often do we engage our students in those risk management conversations? As we create new national policies, are students offered the opportunity to provide input/feedback? I want to continue to reiterate that this may be occurring in some areas of the nation, but is it happening enough? If not, how we can do this better?
The last comment I have echoes that of other professionals in that we must be able and willing to close more chapters. I get that it’s a business. I get that it’s not easy. I get that I may not be the most compassionate human being alive. Yet what I don’t get is that we continue to allow stupidity, mediocrity, and the animal house mentalities to live on. In similar vain to the oil leak, how many of us know of a chapter that as a whole, has below a 2.3 GPA. How many of us know of a chapter that has less than 3 members? How many of us know of a chapter that has had a risk management issue the past 2-3 semesters? Why are they still around???
If we are truly going to elevate our communities and set the tone for the future of the fraternal movement, we need drastic change. I like to think of in the same fashion a college football coach comes in and takes command. No more bullshit on his watch. You buy-in and you win or you get out. It’s that simple. Brian Kelly (ND coach), Nick Saban (Alabama) and Urban Meyer (Florida) are a few that explain their football philosophy in that manner. How ironic that each has been successful at every institution they have been at. Why can’t we do the same on our campuses or within the context of our national organizations? We create a level of expectation that has never been seen before and say, you are either in or you are out. You decide.
In conclusion, these are my ideas. Some are more extreme than others but that is the point, we have to be willing to change the way we think about risk management. I’m sure some of you who read this will say these ideas will never happen while others will point out the shortcomings of my ideas. That is fine but at least I brought ideas to the table. What have you done? We are all in this profession together and I’m sick of dealing with risk management. I’m fired up to make some change. I’m sick of using UIFI buzzwords as professionals instead of having genuine conversations about the risk management issues we are having. I’m sick of the surface level crap; I’m ready to go deep….you coming?
No comments:
Post a Comment