Structuring Your Club

An Insiders Guide

Ryan P. Mozingo

Executive Summary
Traditional, vertical hierarchies, found in academic clubs marginalize the individual into a lack of action. We need a manual that illustrates an alternative approach where every member is actively involved in the decision making process. This manual will offer a fresh direction in structuring and sustaining members and membership.

Problem
President, Vice President, Treasurer, Secretary, and Faculty Advisor are concerned with maintaining the flow of operations within student run organisations. Within every student run organisation, degrees of status and dominance hierarchies are made manifest both formally and informally (Cummins, 2005.) Each of the aforementioned roles contain both a superior and a subordinate. These roles are constantly renegotiated then delegated often reflecting status, social connections and positions within the hierarchy. In order to circumvent these pressing issues that marginalize the soft spoken, I propose that an instructional manual that would abolish vertical hierarchies in favour of a horizontal structural model. Vertical hierarchies seem to be the tradition in student ran clubs. Typically the roles of: President, Vice President, Treasurer, Secretary, and Faculty Advisor are set up in a way that are inherently flawed. So-called low ranking members within an organization might become discouraged to share valuable thoughts and ideas as they perceive those that hold power to overshadow or intimidate them from speaking out. Furthermore, the stratification of information might reinforce positions of power as so-called top ranked officials might feel as if certain members of the group should have specific parcels of knowledge that wouldnt entirely benefit the whole. Individuals that occupy these positions are likely to cultivate an elitist attitude that only depreciates a groups potential. As a result, channels of communication could become diluted due to the barriers that low ranking or non-decision making club members face in discussing ideas that could innovate the club. After all, should a few decide what should and shouldnt be covered for all?

Proposed Solution
Instead of a vertical hierarchical structure, I suggest a flat organization structure. That is a organisational style incorporates a decentralised decision making process in addition to a greater degree of intimacy with regards to the decision making process. The flat organisation structure is both highly specialised in terms of the distribution of labour yet general enough for all to take

joint ownership. Instead of few taking ownership of the group, everyone is divided into four categories all of which provide members to become fully engaged. In creating an academic group it is important that the creator is mindful of how said group ought to be constructed. That being said, the proposed manual will solve the following questions: How should the club be structured? Who should be in charge of this group? Should a few, but highly dedicated group, be in charge of the entirety of the groups activities and content? How does one create an outlet that fosters intergroup cohesion while ensuring that all members use their diverse talents to benefit the whole? Within a club meeting, provide information about each of the committees such as: functions, responsibilities, nominate a leader (if desired). Each of the committees are responsible for maintaining certain aspects of the organisation while encouraging open discussions about how things are done. Each of these committees overlap. Digital Committee- Maintain and update existing forms of social media. Launch posts on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Pinterest, etc. Outreach Committee- Engage the local community. Plan and execute opportunities in volunteering for nonprofit organisations. Social Committee- Manage and execute club outings. Lead and participate in a range of activities in a variety of outdoor/indoor settings. Administration Committee- Responsible for the overall operation of the club. Interface with members of the faculty within academic specific department

Qualifications
I have worked as the club president of the Alpha Kappa Delta for the 2013 academic calendar year and have participated in a numerous throughout my academic tenure. Having participated as both an involved member and an uninvolved member, I have seen the problem firsthand and the consequences as a result. I will draw upon my previous experiences as both a leader and as a follower in composing this proposal. Furthermore, I have implemented this structure into the honors society with great success.

Conclusion

The proposed solution offers all members of academic clubs to participate freely using they have acquired throughout their academic and personal pursuits. In creating a horizontal structure for student run organisations, the clear hierarchy that marginalises non-decision making members will become nonexistent. The proposed solution costs no money to start. As a honors society member of the administration committee, I have seen the proposed solution implemented with results that ensure greater productivity.

Works Cited

Dominance, Status, and Social Hierarchies Buss, David M. (Ed), (2005). The handbook of evolutionary psychology. , (pp. 676-697). Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc., xxv, 1028.

President

Vice President Tresurer

Faculty Coordinator

Figure 1.1: This illustrates a vertical hierarchy model.

Administration

Digital

Social

Outreach

Figure 2.2: This illustrates a decentralized model.