Family isn’t just the people that comprise a nuclear family. Family extends to the people married in, the in-laws, the neighbors, the coaches, the teachers, and the people we choose to welcome into our family. Family might be a big picture community and the people we consider siblings might hold the potential to become the people we are closest with in that community.
Fraternities and sororities promote the ideal of siblinghood. We tout this as one of the markers that set us apart from all other clubs and organizations. When one joins a fraternal organization, they enter as a new member or youngest sibling. There are layers of older siblings there to provide a welcome. We’ve got a few different types of older siblings:
- The leaders: Typical go-getter types. They want others to learn by example. Watch and learn, follow in their footsteps. One might hear the sounds of ‘why can’t you be more like so-and-so?’ ringing in their ear at the thought of them.
- The cool seniors: With all due respect, they don’t even know you’re here. They are trying to figure out when the line to get into chapter meeting got so long, not realizing initiation was two weeks ago.
- The ‘Bigs’: Close in age, dying to impress. They are striving to have you like them as much as they like you. They want to bring others into their friend group and have them be part of their smaller community within the chapter.
From day one we are surrounded by “older siblings” that are told to protect us and look out for us. One school of logic might suggest that this is great for community level accountability. Many of us have had the experience of a parental figure saying, ‘Why weren’t you watching them!?’ when a younger family member gets into trouble or gets injured. As a younger sibling myself, I’ve certainly benefited from this and can say for sure it led me to occasionally diffuse responsibility in future situations.
Diffusion of responsibility in subsequent incidents poses cause for concern. This begs several questions:
- When does someone stop being the “younger sibling?” That question leads to a host of related questions:
- When does a member become someone that holds a stake in accountability?
- Is it day one, is it after their first meeting, is it after initiation?
- What magical moment flips the switch to allow a member to be seen as no longer just the little sibling?
- How do we teach personal accountability while also honoring the role of the older sibling as caretaker and role model?
- What is the impact if we do not create opportunity for accountability in the new member period?
In our work at Delta Zeta, we are currently seeing two unique trends with new members that highlight this issue:
In an incident that involves a group of members, there is a desire to have the initiated members who participated go through the formal accountability process, but not the new members.
When working with these groups, we always inquire about this difference. We are consistently presented with the idea that it is the responsibility of the older members to prevent issues. The notion is that initiated members ‘know better’ and new members do not. We challenge this notion to see how we can include the new members in these discussions. It might be fair for their outcome to look a bit different, but we do not want to completely avoid accountability altogether.
We try to help coach on the concerning message that is sent when the new members do not experience any accountability discussions. There is a way to engage our initiated members in this process: when something goes wrong, have the initiated members engage with our members on the need for both parties to take accountability. That can be a coaching moment where the older siblings get to be an active participant in leading by example.
In an incident that involves a new member that is deemed very serious, the desire is to immediately part ways with the new member. There is no interest in meeting with them, learning from them or giving them the opportunity to learn from the incident.
When working with these groups, we always inquire about this very all or nothing approach. We typically learn that in these types of cases, they believe the new member acted alone and is not a good representative of the organization. We challenge this notion by asking questions such as, “If this person was initiated, how would you approach this?” and, “have we paused to check in with this new member yet?” Are they remorseful, understanding of the issue, and ready and willing to move forward? We do our best to coach these groups on keeping an open mind. We chose this person to be a member of our organization just a short time ago; does a single incident completely discount that?
These two concepts may seem to highlight very different schools of thought – but ultimately align. The underlying sentiment is new members are not accountable for their actions and are not afforded the same opportunities to learn and grow from mistakes. Either way, the message is the same. One concern this presents is the idea that we might not even be giving new members the chance to take accountability. We run the risk of deciding whether they cannot or should not be afforded the chance to grow through the act of accountability.
Accountability is something we learn, and certainly there is something to be learned by watching others take accountability (and responsibility) for younger members. The challenge I would present is: if as a new member, an older member takes accountability for your actions, and then it is your job to take responsibility for the actions of the younger member that come after you, then accountability becomes an external act and not an internal act. Accountability is focused solely on the group, not the individual.
This is a double-edged sword; the idea of community accountability is something many of us have spent hours, even years trying to cultivate. It is the basic idea behind lots of bystander intervention programs. This leaves the individual with strong community level accountability skills but perhaps subpar individual skills. What I am suggesting is that there is an AND here, not a BUT. The focus on community-level accountability is skipping ahead a step. I am suggesting that a core part of the new member education process should focus on the individual and their role in holding themselves accountable. That effort becomes a building block to foster peer-to-peer accountability in interpersonal conflict, and then accountability for and to the entire organization and broader community.
One important way to do this is to create an environment in which taking accountability is valued or praised. Part of that environment is showing the idea that accountability is a positive part of growth and learning; it is not a punishment. Accountability, when done well, is one of the most transformative parts of our organizations. Holding new members accountable and asking them to hold themselves accountable in the same way initiated members are held accountable, provides them with a clear understanding of how accountability works. The biggest lessons learned in our work with new members and accountability is the need to slow down, pause, and be open to the opportunity for growth that happens when members are allowed the chance to take accountability.
About the Author
Sarah Cohen serves as the Director of Accountability at Delta Zeta Sorority. She is also a member of Delta Zeta. She worked to oversee the transition that eliminated the Standards Board and adopted a focus on restorative mediation to address most policy violations.
