The Future of Work in FSL

Thinking about the future of work perhaps elicits visions of George Jetson packing his briefcase into his flying car or robots taking over offices. We might not be quite there yet, but the reality is, the future of work is here; and higher education is likely at the precipice of a major workforce transformation.

The current employment model for higher education is not sustainable. As enrollment has declined and universities have merged and closed, amenities have increased and support staff salaries have stagnated. If universities seek to thrive in the present and future, they must adapt to modern employment trends and start integrating both technology and human resources. Here are a few truths:

1. College enrollment is declining. It has been for eight straight years. There are numerous reasons for this. For example, lower birth rates mean fewer students and more space at universities. Also, public support of higher education is wavering, particularly regarding the perceived ROI of a degree and concerns of mounting student loan debt.

2. The gig economy is on the rise. In fact, some university career centers are providing resources to students to prepare them for this type of career path instead of the traditional, full-time employment path. And this is with good reason! The gig economy provides more flexibility for workers, giving them the opportunity to work on specialized projects that are suited to their skill sets on a more fluid time schedule. It also saves money for employers as having an ever-evolving workforce precludes them from providing benefits to every person doing work for the company. The full-time employment model is no longer viable for everyone.

3. There is a growing gap between workers who embrace and understand how to use technology and those who do not. Higher education is going to want to be on the right side of this trend. Artificial intelligence is improving and growing faster than we can conceptualize; higher education workers need to up-skill or re-skill to operate within more technologically advanced settings.

The reality of the future of higher education, specifically student support services, is that we simply will not need nearly as many full-time employees. It is not economically feasible, and it is not in alignment with staffing or technology trends in the broader workforce. Just briefly consider these questions:

• When we lose our IDs, why should we have to go to the ID Center to talk to a person who must pull out a blank card and print? This process could be entirely automated.
• Why do we need full-time staffs to deliver programs? It would be tremendously cost saving to hire specialized gig workers to deliver high-impact programs rather than keeping full-time staff members on the payroll year round (many of whom may not actually be experts in all aspects of their programming jobs!).
• What purpose is there to having a full time IT staff on site when IT professionals can VPN into your computer remotely to troubleshoot your issues? Again, specialized gig workers could be doing this work for multiple campuses simultaneously giving them more flexibility for hours worked while also freeing up office space on campus.

If you give it some thought, there are countless ways to create a more economically sound staffing model in student affairs while still providing an excellent product, aligning the field with broader employment trends, and taking into account the needs of employees. I’m not saying we can or should entirely eliminate or automate student support staff; I am saying, however, that there are opportunities to engage an evolving and highly skilled workforce and maximize technology implementation to strengthen the viability of universities for the future.

Fraternity and sorority life has been feeding into the gig economy for years- this is why we bring in content experts to speak during Hazing Prevention Week or hire Dyad Strategies to conduct campus assessments. Why do we do this? On the surface it’s because we want someone specialized, but it’s rooted in the fact that it would be an enormous cost to keep these people on our payroll year-round when we do not need their specialized focus all the time. As the student support workforce transforms to align with broader employment trends, fraternity and sorority professionals, along with our student affairs colleagues, will be called upon to demonstrate our impact. Essentially, why can’t your full-time staff be replaced by AI or specialized contractors?

The primary response to this is that fraternity and sorority advising requires uniquely human skills; that is, the skillset required to work in our field cannot be programmed into AI and cannot be farmed out entirely to gig workers. For instance, AI cannot navigate the campus political climate with stakeholders or demonstrate empathy for low performing chapters; gig workers do not bring the historical context of campus traditions or know the steps to the intricate dance we so frequently perform to placate major players in the community. But this response will not be enough: when the future of universities as we know them is on the line, you must be able to define your value to the institution.

Fraternity and sorority professionals often attempt to demonstrate value by being all things to all people, but it is this approach that deters us from focusing on strategic priorities that will drive us towards a sustainable future. A calendar full of one-on-ones and a drawer of thank you notes does not demonstrate departmental impact: data does. This is the time to work smarter, not harder, to embrace emerging technology, and to define our unique value in the broader higher education field.

Data driven fraternity and sorority communities can easily demonstrate have how they’ve moved the needle using measurable information to pinpoint specific trouble areas for chapters and communities alike. Campuses have leveraged this type of information to advocate for chapters, to inform the decision to close chapters when conduct is deemed impermissible and shift the way professionals talk about the fraternity and sorority experience with students and stakeholders. Especially those campuses and organizations that have worked with Dyad for years, their longitudinal data tells a very clear story of professional impact. Dyad is at the forefront of disrupting the way we work with fraternities and sororities, and I suspect that this kind of specialized work is only going to become more critical to sustain our field.

A workforce transformation in higher education is almost certainly inevitable; fraternity and sorority professionals must consider the implications for our roles and how we remain relevant and effective in the midst of new technology and evolving employment models. Utilizing meaningful data will help to shape what the future of work will look like for fraternity and sorority professionals. 

Do you want to get out ahead? Dyad can help. 

Molly Devine Jambor is a member of Dyad Strategies facilitation team and also works as a Lead Learning and Development Specialist for one of America's largest consulting firms. She previously served as Associate Director of FSL at Texas Christian University, where she worked to incorporate Dyad data into the residential living/learning curriculum in fraternity/sorority housing. She is completing her Ph.D. in Higher Education Administration at the University of North Texas and is a former staff member and active volunteer for Phi Mu fraternity.  

Building Belonging through an Asset-Based Approach to Masculinity

The fraternity experience thrives on many college campuses, in spite of our well-documented challenges, because fraternities provide young men with something that they struggle to find elsewhere on a college campus – a sense of belonging. From Dyad’s research, belonging is one of the primary indicators of a healthy chapter, boosting commitment, retention, and overall satisfaction with the fraternity experience. Participating in a healthy brotherhood can be a catalyst to a college experience that builds a man through self-exploration, leadership experiences, mentorship, and a community of support. This type of experience can give men the tools and integrity to lead in their family, faith, and work communities. Promoting a healthy sense of belonging within fraternity chapters is essential to having a healthy and positive chapter culture. However, the manner in which a chapter expresses and rewards masculinity can deeply impact members' sense of belonging. Toxic masculinity destroys belonging, but healthy masculinity can be an asset leveraged to combat the toxicity.

So how does toxic masculinity show up in a fraternity chapter? Fraternity chapters plagued by toxic masculinity establish a hierarchy where those who fit traditional masculine stereotypes move to the top by diminishing those who do not fit traditional masculine stereotypes. These traditional masculine stereotypes might include suppressing emotions, maintaining an appearance of hardness, violence as an indicator of power, and objectification of women, just to name a few. This diminishing of others comes at the expenses of fostering sense of belonging, because it can limit the openness needed to be vulnerable and feel accepted within a group. Simply, it is impossible to feel universally loved, valued, and/or accepted by your brothers if they are minimizing/attacking you based on your masculinity. Our research at Dyad shows that conformity and belonging have a strong, inverse correlation. If a member feels pressured to conform to his chapter’s hyper-masculine norm, then that member will not feel accepted by his brothers for who he feels he truly is.

Toxic masculinity can be particularly destructive during the new member education process, where the expression of toxic masculinity can feed into bullying, hazing, physical violence, sexual conquest/harassment and dangerous and high-risk behaviors. The research team at Dyad is able to measure hazing along the lines of four different “motivations.” The most problematic of the four hazing motivations is Social Dominance hazing. This rationale is motivated by reinforcing the social hierarchy between brothers and pledges through mechanisms of power and control. Our research has found that social dominance hazing is strongly connected with several of the stereotypes associated with toxic masculinity – particularly risk taking, heterosexual presentation, and the “playboy” mentality, which promotes sexual conquest.  As advisors, we need to have conversations with new member educators to inspire healthy masculinity, minimize/eliminate hierarchies, and foster environments where new members are free to be vulnerable and open with one another. Creating a sense of belonging is the key to retention, commitment to the organization, and a healthy brotherhood, all goals of their new member education process. This is best achieved by creating spaces where new members can be authentic and open, and it is diminished by environments where new members feel the need to conform to a certain set of social or masculine norms.

The conversation surrounding toxic masculinity is often met with criticism from men, and we see this on news outlets, responses to the Gillette ads, the Joe Rogan Podcast, and from the men we advise. Critics feel the conversation is an attempt to emasculate or villainize men, tell them to be more like women, or virtue signal.  The framing of the conversation puts men on the defensive and distracts from helping them find areas for growth. It also prevents the vulnerability and openness needed to develop a healthy sense of masculinity. In order to reach more men, we need to approach conversations about masculinity in a way that doesn’t immediately put them on the defensive.

What if we identify the positive aspects of masculinity and utilize them as an asset to achieve positive behaviors and outcomes? An asset-based approach to conversations on masculinity requires advisors to identify how masculinity can be a strength, recognize healthy forms of masculinity, and engage members in ways that leverage common masculine qualities to create belonging and meaningful connections. Giving men a positive message can allow them to take ownership of their masculinity and approach the problem in an authentic way. Men are traditionally associated with a variety of traits, many of which can be assets for advisors to leverage and reinforce within their men. In this way, instead of attacking traditional or toxic masculinity, we are embracing it and then helping members redefine it.

Examples of masculine traits that can be leveraged to help build healthy masculinity include:

Courage - What does it mean to have courage? Is sharing something about yourself when you are afraid of how others might view you an act of courage? Chapters can foster belonging by allowing members to be vulnerable and making them feel supported during those moments of vulnerability, helping them understand that it takes courage to be open and authentic. By giving members an opportunity to discuss things like their shared fears, disappointments, anxieties, and failures, we can promote the concept of courage as a positive asset to help men build a healthier masculinity. While a culture of toxic masculinity would look to exploit these fears through mean-spirited jokes, a healthy masculinity will seek to help these men be courageous and conquer these fears. Robert has low self-esteem and struggles to overcome being rejected by women, but after disclosing this to his brothers he receives encouragement and support. Chris lost a father to alcoholism and is worried that being in a fraternity will present him with too much pressure to drink. After disclosing this to his brothers, he is constantly reassured that he doesn’t need to drink in order to fit in, and his brothers seek out ways to socialize with him in environments free of alcohol. By being courageous and sharing their fears, these men have earned the acceptance and support of their brothers, which will only increase their sense of belonging.

Competition - Many men grow up in environments sports and competitive pursuits are prioritized over other, less masculine pursuits. While a win-at-all-costs attitude lacks morality, a competitive nature, the right metrics, and the creation of a healthy foil can help us motivate our chapters to reach new heights. Campuses and national organizations have many metrics including GPA, philanthropy dollars, operational metrics, and participation in programs that represent ideal opportunities to foster a competitive spirit among fraternity members. During my time as a consultant with Delta Upsilon, our chapter services team utilized the data provided to us by Dyad strategies and helped chapters embrace these measures to more accurately describe their strengths and weaknesses. Harnessing the competitive spirit in our chapters, we helped groups set goals and benchmarks to address some of their challenges identified in the data. During this data-driven age, our chapters crave helpful information and targets to have a healthier chapter, and the Dyad assessment served as a powerful tool for both chapter members and advisor to push our chapters to be the best they could be. Working together to achieve a common goal creates a sense of common purpose that strongly correlates with belonging. There is pride and satisfaction that can be taken from being part of something bigger than yourself.

Duty - My father feels it is his duty to protect the family and he takes pride in making sure the doors are locked each night. That simple, nightly act of pride has always stuck with me. Undergraduates usually feel a sense of duty to look after their guest at events. My father, like many men I see, is strong in his convictions, trying to teach me right and wrong. The combination of a strong moral compass and a duty to protect others can provide and excellent entry point into conversations about bystander intervention. As men, it is our duty to stand up for what we believe in and to protect the vulnerable. That duty can be demonstrated by calling brothers out for bad behavior, walking people home at night, or stepping in to diffuse a problematic situation when a brother isn’t taking a hint. Our men should strive to be leaders in this way and recognize people when they uphold their duties to do the right thing. Healthy confrontation as a form of accountability creates a sense of belonging by showing members that their brothers care enough for them to look out for their best interests. “I care enough about you to have this difficult conversation with you” is a powerful message to send to an insecure young man looking for a place to fit in. The duty to look out for the best interests of our brothers is an admonition contained in almost every fraternal initiation ceremony, and leveraging it as a positive aspect of masculinity can be a powerful reminder of our obligations to one another.

What ways have you had success helping men foster belonging in their chapters? How have you most effectively engaged men in talking about masculinity? As supporters of the fraternal movement, we need to understand the strengths and pitfalls of masculinity to help fraternity men ditch the unhealthy hierarchy and dangerous behaviors and find a true sense of belonging and identity through their brotherhood. We need to ask ourselves, “How do we allow men to build upon the healthy characteristics that are authentic to them?” By using an asset-based approach to masculinity, we can help men lead authentically, role model heathy behaviors in their chapter, and combat the toxic masculinity that will limit the sense of belonging in their brotherhood.

Jacob Ellis, M.Ed. is a member of the Dyad Strategies Facilitation Team, where he works with campus clients to deliver data-driven programming based on Dyad Strategies' award-winning research. In addition, he serves as Coordinator of Undergraduate Education for Delta Tau Delta Fraternity. In that role, he provides curriculum development and support for all of the fraternity's leadership development programs. Prior to completing his masters degree in Higher Education and Student Affairs at Florida State University, Jacob traveled for his fraternity, Delta Upsilon. In that role, he was part of the first group of fraternity consultants in the country to use Dyad data to engage in data-informed chapter visits. He received an undergraduate degree from Purdue University. 

Five Fundamental Truths About Hazing

As Spring turns to Summer, many of my friends who work on college campuses enter this time of year with a sense of relief, coupled with a looming sense of dread. I know during my time at Alabama, Fall was the semester I dreaded the most, because that was the time I had to worry the most about hazing. The summer represented a time in which I had an opportunity to plan my approach, hoping I could do something to make a difference in the hazing culture on campus, always counting down the days until Summer was over and the craziness of Fall began.

Since that time, I’ve devoted a majority of my attention to thinking about, studying, and writing about hazing. I’ve read everything there is to read on the topic. I’ve published three journal articles on the topic. I’ve presented at national conferences. I’ve been on the Today Show. And I’ve talked to hundreds of students about hazing. This research has led me to the understanding of five fundamental truths about hazing - five ways of understanding hazing that are at the core of my approach in talking with students about this important topic. I want to share those fundamental truths with you.

Truth #1 - Sometimes hazing has altruistic motivations. Not all hazing is evil. Not all students who haze are evil. When we talk about hazing with students, it is important to acknowledge this fundamental truth in order to avoid putting them on the defensive. Sometimes (not always), students haze because they THINK they are doing something positive for their organizations and/or their new members. Students hold a number of misguided beliefs about hazing – that hazing builds pledge class solidarity, that it builds brotherhood, that hazed new members will be more loyal and committed to one another and to their organizations, or that hazing teaches/reinforces important lessons about the organization. This truth must be acknowledged because, in order to effectively address hazing, we have to redirect those altruistic motivations towards activities that are not hazing, teaching students how to achieve those noble objectives in ways that are not dangerous or abusive.

Truth #2 - Sometimes hazing has no altruistic motivation. Some hazing is evil – a cycle of abuse with no point or purpose. Some students believe that new members must “earn” the right to be in the organization by subjecting themselves to abuse. This hazing, motivated by social dominance, perpetuates a dangerous cycle. If I had to earn my letters by subjecting myself to abuse, I now have the unquestionable right to subject future generations of members to the same (or worse) abuse. There is not altruistic motivation for this hazing. It has no noble goal or purpose – it is abuse for its own sake. Chapters with this type of hazing culture cannot be changed or rehabilitated. Unlike other hazing, this social dominance hazing cannot be redirected into positive activities. Once a culture of social dominance manifests in an organization, the death of that group is inevitable.

Truth #3 - Understanding and recognizing the difference between these two hazing motivations is critical. In all of our work related to hazing - be it prevention, investigation, or adjudication – recognizing and understanding the differences between social dominance hazing and other, more altruistic forms of hazing is critical. Even more critical is helping students understand and recognize the differences. By distinguishing social dominance from other forms of hazing, we can accomplish two things: help students understand the cycle of violence inherent in social dominance hazing, and help them develop better ways to accomplish the altruistic objectives of other forms of hazing (i.e. how to build meaningful brotherhood or instill emotional commitment WITHOUT hazing).

Truth # 4 - Guilt, shame and fear are not effective means of achieving long-term behavior change. The research on this is actually pretty clear. Take, for example, the crashed car from a DUI related fatal accident that police officers will bring to high school parking lots and leave for a few days in order to scare high school kids away from drinking and driving. This type of intervention has only a short-term impact – the initial shock and fear wears off in a short time and we go on about our lives. The same is true for many other types of educational interventions, and hazing is no different. So, why do scare tactics and the induction of shame and guilt have such a limited shelf-life in terms of prevention? The answer lies in our incredible ability to minimize the potential consequences of our behaviors. When confronted with disastrous statistics or a story of tragedy, our minds almost automatically minimize the likelihood that our own behaviors will result in such tragedy. “Yeah, we haze a little in our chapter, but we would never kill anyone.” This cognitive mechanism is the same one that allows the smoker to continue smoking despite all of the well-publicized health risks. “It won’t happen here” or “It won’t happen to me” is a powerful psychological phenomenon that allows students to continue perpetuating dangerous rites of passage in their chapters, and using extreme examples of hazing only increases the likelihood that students will flip on the minimization “switch.” Hazing cannot be successfully eradicated by scaring students or throwing statistics or scary anecdotes at them. In order to successfully address hazing, we have to change the way students think about hazing, and provide them with a framework by which they can achieve some of the altruistic goals of hazing in ways that are not dangerous or abusive.

Truth #5 – Students haze because they don’t know what else to do to make the new member process meaningful. Many 18 year-old male college freshmen are seeking a meaningful rite of passage. They want their manhood tested. They want a new member process that is difficult and provides them with a sense of accomplishment. The easiest way for chapters to provide that meaningful experience is to engage in hazing. Let’s be honest – some students haze because it is easy. Because they are lazy. You don’t need a Ph.D. in organizational psychology to line new members up against a wall and yell at them. Hazing new members is the single easiest way to make the new member process “meaningful.” While hazing may represent the EASIEST way to create a meaningful new member experience, it is not the BEST way to produce long term commitment and brotherhood.

These five fundamental truths are at the heart of my approach to hazing education. When I speak to students about hazing, I do so with a specific goal in mind – to help them understand that there are better ways to create a meaningful rite of passage, to build bonds of brotherhood that emphasize belonging over solidarity, and to build powerful emotional bonds within their chapters. I don’t try to scare students into stopping hazing – I try to help them understand that there are better ways to accomplish what it is they think they are accomplishing through hazing.

It has become really popular in the fraternity/sorority industry to say “prevention is more than just having a speaker.” And that statement is 100 percent true. Prevention IS more than just a speaker. But if someone can connect with students in a meaningful way provide them with new cognitive frames about a topic, then a speaker CAN change the way students think about something. That is my approach to hazing education. My goal is to change the way students think about hazing, and to provide them with meaningful alternatives to hazing.

To find out more about the research-based education around hazing that we are developing at Dyad Strategies, feel free to check out our website.

Have a great summer!

Gentry

Gentry McCreary, Ph.D.
CEO and Managing Partner
Dyad Strategies LLC

What If We All Wore Nike Shorts During Recruitment?

By Sarah Cohen, Dyad Director of Education

While presenting at a conference recently, I asked a large group of Panhellenic women what they thought sorority ‘recruitment’ looked like in the early 1900’s. Outside of the one suggestion that it may have been a group of women smoking cigars and playing card games, the majority felt that recruitment in 1900 would have been much less formalized and structured than what we see today.  You’d get to know prospective members, extend invitations to the women you like, who also liked you, and call it a day.

When asked what recruitment looks like today, we got into a great discussion about the competition, the need to be perfect, the ‘look’, the rules, and the regulations. Over the years, Panhellenic sorority recruitment has turned into an incredibly elaborate production for many campuses and organizations.  The time, effort, energy, money and emotional labor that get poured into the process on all sides makes me wonder: Why are we doing this to ourselves?

I’ve spent the last 9 years working closely with Panhellenic sororities, including a stint as an Educational Leadership Consultant for Delta Zeta and now on coming up on my fourth recruitment at Indiana University.  I’ve had the opportunity to work with countless Recruitment Chairs, Advisors, Consultants and Recruitment Counselors and year after year I am struck by the fact that we seem to be terrified to deviate from the norm, and yet at the exact same time- want to express how different and unique our chapter are. We go to great lengths to blend in, while claiming to be unique. “We’re the laid-back sorority.” “We have the most fun.” Or, my personal favorite, “We love each other soooo much – we just have the BEST sisterhood.”  

Overwhelmingly, when I ask a Panhellenic sorority during recruitment what makes them unique- I will hear “We have the BEST sisterhood on campus” - which is great, until you ask a few follow up questions and learn how shallow that statement truly is for most women.  I hate to be the one to point this out, but, if every single sorority on your campus is promoting themselves as the place with the best sisterhood and can’t say anything more than that- we’ve got ourselves a problem. It’s important that we understand sisterhood and know how to discuss it during recruitment before we can proclaim it “the best.”

Earlier this fall, I had the opportunity to work with the Panhellenic community at East Carolina University (they gave me hummus - 10/10 would recommend the southern hospitality). I met with each of the Panhellenic sororities one-on-one and shared with them the results of their Dyad sisterhood assessment and talked through how to use their results to improve their recruitment conversations. I opened each session the same way: “If I came back to your campus next week during recruitment, would I get the same version of your chapter I am getting today? Would I see the baseball caps, ponytails, over-sized t-shirts and Nike shorts, or something else?”

And every single group was shocked at the idea, and when asked why they wouldn’t show that authentic version of themselves, the answer always came back to appearances and blending in. There was tremendous fear of appearing to be different from the other groups on campus.  But here’s the problem - we are creating a system in which potential members feel the need to meet a certain level of appearance standards and feel the need to present an unauthentic, sanitized,  perfected version of themselves. The reason our potential member are faking it is, at least in part, because our chapters are faking it. Inauthentic chapters lead to inauthentic PNM’s, which leads to an inauthentic recruitment process wherein chapters and potential members are mutually selecting one another based on false pretenses. Everyone has their mask on, and when the masks go down after bid day, everyone realizes that mistakes were made. New members realize they joined the wrong chapters. Chapters realize not all of their new members are as great as they seemed during recruitment. 

How can we expect to have any kind of genuine, meaningful connection when everyone is just putting on a show for one another? We know from the research we’ve conducted at Dyad that belonging is the key to a successful new member experience.  We can foster that sense of belonging during the recruitment process by showing that we value the individuality of our sisters and care more about everyone being themselves than everyone looking the same. We communicate our values through everything we do – and we send a clear message to prospective members about our priorities when we value conformity over belonging, image over meaningful connection, and “looking the part” over “being true to ourselves.”

Sorority recruitment should be about finding the women you like, who also like you, and calling it a day.  If one of your sisters wants to wear Nike shorts instead of jeans, who cares? I guarantee she will recruit at a higher level and be a stronger asset in the process if we allow her to be herself.  Everyone is doing the same thing, so if you truly want to stand out – focus on showing prospective members how much you all belong in your sisterhood and how easy it will be for them to find that same sense of belonging once they join. Take off the mask, let potential members see you for who you really are, and perhaps they’ll show you who they really are, as well.

In addition to serving as Associate Director of Sorority and Fraternity Life at Indiana University, Sarah Cohen is the Director of Education for Dyad Strategies. In that role, she heads up Dyad’s programming arm, working with campus clients on data-driven education around sisterhood, recruitment, social culture and sexual violence. A former traveling consultant for her sorority, Delta Zeta, Sarah is a graduate of UNC-Wilmington and the University of West Florida. She is currently a doctoral candidate at Indiana University, studying the intersection of social culture and support for sexual assault survivors in sororities.  

In Their Words - A Sorority President Reflects on Improving Her Chapter's Sisterhood

Our facilitation team at Dyad recently had the opportunity to visit the University of Maryland for two days of data-driven workshops. These workshops involve sending surveys to student groups in advance of the visit, and then facilitating chapter discussions around brother/sisterhood, using the data to help us understand each chapter’s unique strengths and weaknesses. These conversations are often very illuminating, as chapter members diagnose the reasons for their challenges and begin developing strategies aimed at addressing those deficiencies.

As this was our second year doing this project at Maryland, we were also able to help chapters understand how their brother/sisterhood had changed over the last year. One of the sorority chapters on campus, Alpha Xi Delta, saw tremendous gains over the past year – on a five point scale, both the Belonging sisterhood and Support and Encouragement sisterhood increased by between .2 and .3, incredible jumps from the previous year. The chapter also saw gains on measures of organizational commitment and identification, including almost a 1 point jump on overall satisfaction with the sorority experience. After facilitating our workshop this year with the chapter, it became obvious that the chapter had made some significant changes over the last year.

We asked their chapter president, Laura, if she would be willing to share her thoughts on some of the changes the chapter made in the last year that caused the drastic improvement in their sisterhood, and this is what she shared with us:

As a newly initiated member of my sorority at the University of Maryland last year, filling out the “Sisterhood Survey” facilitated by Dyad Strategies through our campus Panhellenic Council, I was optimistic about my chapter and our bonds of sisterhood.  I had made close friends in my first semester within the chapter and wasn’t aware of any dysfunction or issues on a chapter-wide level.  I knew that the seniors were distant and that there was occasional drama between cliques, but I assumed this behavior was just a normal part of being in a sorority. When Gentry came to a chapter meeting to review our results, my eyes were truly opened to some of the serious issues we were facing as a chapter. 

I remember being told that so many components of our sisterhood-- from feeling a sense of belonging to accountability among sisters—was not where it needed to be.  Compared to other chapters on campus and nationally, our chapter showed serious signs of conflict.  Among many of the issues discussed were a desire to be “top tier,” unsafe drinking habits, and an obvious disconnect between pledge classes.  These issues went deep, influencing many aspects of our sisterhood.  Throughout the meeting and subsequent discussion, many members were teary-eyed or crying.  It was clear that as a chapter, we were not genuinely happy with the sisterhood that we were a part of.

The consultation was a wake-up call.  It proved that our next executive board would need to make drastic changes to our current system, and that each and every member would need to consider what role they could play to be a part of working towards that change.  During our executive board transitions last year, the outgoing officers shared their hopes for what they thought our sisterhood could become.  They shared advice and ideas for making those improvements.  At our first executive board meeting, we broke down which ideas we felt would work, and which practices from the past executive board term should be abandoned.  We ultimately decided to start at the roots of our sisterhood-- the new member process.  All members of the executive board, and even other general chapter members, dedicated so much effort and time to making the new members’ experiences a positive one, doing everything imaginable to help get them socially integrated into the chapter. 

Changes to our big-little process played a large role in our transition; members from the sophomore pledge class went above and beyond in their efforts getting to know the new members.  People went on group dates so that they could meet and get to know even more women and were not afraid to invite people they had never spoken to previously. This really helped make sure that freshmen had a chance to get to know all of the sophomores and not just a few.  I recall one night where there were about forty of us, a mix of new and old members, that had taken over the back half of the Applebee’s on Route 1.  It was a great way to get to know everyone in the new pledge class, and I think the closeness that was formed between members has transcended to many other aspects of our sisterhood. In addition, our seniors this year also focused on getting to know our new members, and those mentoring relationships really helped the new members feel welcomed and valued in the chapter.

Along with focusing on an improved new member process, we rolled out a new accountability system.  Judicial matters, that had once been handled by the executive board and a chapter vote, now are handled by an Honor Board system.  The new process allows us to hold more women accountable and set clear expectations for everyone.  This has led to a sisterhood where everyone places a high priority on acting in a way that is beneficial to the chapter.  As our relationships with one another have become stronger, sisters are more willing to hold each other accountable and expect a lot from one another. It has also helped us to focus less on comparing ourselves to other sororities and, instead, to focus on the sisterhood and the relationships we have with one another.  

Our second consultation with Gentry last week was a complete 180 from our past experience.  We were nervous to see the results because we had spent the last year working so hard to change the chapter culture surrounding our sisterhood. When our new scores were projected on the wall with a comparison to our previous scores, a sense of pride and relief washed over many of us.  We were all optimistic about the change that had occurred over the last year, but seeing the quantifiable results really validated all of our hard work.  The following discussion focused on why we all felt this improvement occurred-- new members shared their positive experiences and older members discussed their renewed commitment to the chapter.  It was overall a much more uplifting and positive experience than the prior year.  I hope that as a chapter we will continue moving on this path and our sisterhood will make even greater strides in the future.  The consultations have been such an eye-opening and learning experience for our chapter, helping us focus on real, tangible ways we can improve our sisterhood. This will be something we look forward to each year.

For more information about our campus cultural assessments (based on our award-winning research) and our Assessment + Programming chapter workshop option, visit our website.