Difference between revisions of "Trustee engagement"
From AwesomeWiki
Willowbl00 (talk | contribs) (→On Group Size: added willownotes) |
Willowbl00 (talk | contribs) (Added willownotes) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
How do we keep our trustees excited and engaged? | How do we keep our trustees excited and engaged? | ||
| − | + | == General Protips == | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
* Meeting with grant winners engages trustees and connects them to the projects they're funding. | * Meeting with grant winners engages trustees and connects them to the projects they're funding. | ||
* Regular structure with people signed on to it makes people more likely to be able to attend. | * Regular structure with people signed on to it makes people more likely to be able to attend. | ||
| − | * Food collects money in $300 chunks to make operations roll smoother, given their virtual distributed nature | + | * Food collects money in $300 chunks to make operations roll smoother, given their virtual distributed nature. |
| + | * Having entertaining, unique events means more people continually attend. | ||
| + | * Celebrating "wins" leads to continued engagement. | ||
| + | * Previous winner sits in on next round, votes | ||
| − | + | == On Group Size == | |
* Boston has 26 members, so about 10-14 show up each time and vote on two grants. | * Boston has 26 members, so about 10-14 show up each time and vote on two grants. | ||
| Line 20: | Line 19: | ||
* Bigger group means lower commitment, less connection. Balance! | * Bigger group means lower commitment, less connection. Balance! | ||
| − | + | == On Group Harmony == | |
| − | * In SF, forming personal relationships between the trustees has helped sustain things | + | * In SF, forming personal relationships between the trustees has helped sustain things. |
| − | * In Pittsburgh, meetings are very inefficient, because they're basically social events. Wine, beer, and food slow down the voting, in a good way :) No virtual call ins allowed | + | * In Pittsburgh, meetings are very inefficient, because they're basically social events. Wine, beer, and food slow down the voting, in a good way :) No virtual call ins allowed. |
* Food is virtual, so people don't know each other irl, but still has lively discussions. | * Food is virtual, so people don't know each other irl, but still has lively discussions. | ||
| + | * Setting norms and getting new people in, they know what they're signing up for leads to better cohesion with new members. | ||
| − | + | == On New Blood == | |
| − | * Boston let about 10 people in at once. It may have "saved the chapter" | + | * Boston let about 10 people in at once. It may have "saved the chapter." |
| − | * New York had a big turnover at once, as the original trustees got too busy or too famous. Bringing in new blood changed the culture and established new norms | + | * New York had a big turnover at once, as the original trustees got too busy or too famous. Bringing in new blood changed the culture and established new norms. |
| − | * Set norms with the active people, then invite more people to 'soft replace' the flakier people | + | * Set norms with the active people, then invite more people to 'soft replace' the flakier people. |
| − | * More people spreads responsibility, gets you more money to utilize | + | * More people spreads responsibility, gets you more money to utilize. |
| − | * Guest / Honorary trustees (like the mayor!) are a good source of fresh excitement | + | * Guest / Honorary trustees (like the mayor!) are a good source of fresh excitement. |
| − | * New people give busy people the opp to back out gracefully since they're not letting people down | + | * New people give busy people the opp to back out gracefully since they're not letting people down. |
| − | + | == On Ideological Splits == | |
| − | * Major split seems to be between "silent awesome" and "go for famo" | + | * Major split seems to be between "silent awesome" and "go for famo." |
* Detroit once reconvened to overturn a grant because one trustee decided the selected project didn't set the right tone for the group. Don't be afraid to speak up after decisions are made. Be diplomatic and sensitive when communicating like this. | * Detroit once reconvened to overturn a grant because one trustee decided the selected project didn't set the right tone for the group. Don't be afraid to speak up after decisions are made. Be diplomatic and sensitive when communicating like this. | ||
| − | [[category: | + | [[category:Summit 2012]] |
[[category:Operations]] | [[category:Operations]] | ||
Revision as of 16:17, 2 August 2012
How do we keep our trustees excited and engaged?
General Protips
- Meeting with grant winners engages trustees and connects them to the projects they're funding.
- Regular structure with people signed on to it makes people more likely to be able to attend.
- Food collects money in $300 chunks to make operations roll smoother, given their virtual distributed nature.
- Having entertaining, unique events means more people continually attend.
- Celebrating "wins" leads to continued engagement.
- Previous winner sits in on next round, votes
On Group Size
- Boston has 26 members, so about 10-14 show up each time and vote on two grants.
- Halifax has 30 members, and does three cycles (first and finalist selection, judging a live event, one set off) with 10 people, so everyone plays a role somewhere in the funnel
- Bigger org makes closeness in a big group harder. You become a bit more of a blob and a bit less of a "team"
- Bigger group means lower commitment, less connection. Balance!
On Group Harmony
- In SF, forming personal relationships between the trustees has helped sustain things.
- In Pittsburgh, meetings are very inefficient, because they're basically social events. Wine, beer, and food slow down the voting, in a good way :) No virtual call ins allowed.
- Food is virtual, so people don't know each other irl, but still has lively discussions.
- Setting norms and getting new people in, they know what they're signing up for leads to better cohesion with new members.
On New Blood
- Boston let about 10 people in at once. It may have "saved the chapter."
- New York had a big turnover at once, as the original trustees got too busy or too famous. Bringing in new blood changed the culture and established new norms.
- Set norms with the active people, then invite more people to 'soft replace' the flakier people.
- More people spreads responsibility, gets you more money to utilize.
- Guest / Honorary trustees (like the mayor!) are a good source of fresh excitement.
- New people give busy people the opp to back out gracefully since they're not letting people down.
On Ideological Splits
- Major split seems to be between "silent awesome" and "go for famo."
- Detroit once reconvened to overturn a grant because one trustee decided the selected project didn't set the right tone for the group. Don't be afraid to speak up after decisions are made. Be diplomatic and sensitive when communicating like this.
