ROTARY’S ONE-TIME EXCLUSIVITY OF CLASSIFICATION
One of the very critical changes to Rotary in the last 30 years was the elimination of classification exclusivity within each club. “Classification exclusivity” meant that any given Rotary club could have no more than two members in the same business. One of those two was an active member, the other was called an “additional active.” Frequently, additional actives were co-workers for the same employer. Potential members could find it impossible to join a club because their classifications were occupied. If there wasn’t another nearby club with that opening, your only path was to wait, unless you wanted to start your own club.
Why was there this limitation?
The classification control afforded a passive way for Rotary to benefit the employing entity of each member. Members could see a real business advantage to belonging to an organization made up of business leaders. (Interestingly enough, all were barred from actively promoting their occupations. Keeping competitors out of the club provided an edge to those holding a seat without risking a fine for advertising.)
Limiting competition among members is a well-established benefit of belonging to some associations. There are hundreds of business networking organizations across the US that are founded on the very business-to-business interaction that is impossible when competitors are in the room.
So why did Rotary abandon exclusivity? Accepting members from a much wider pool of prospect clearly helped Rotary grow (or at least not to shrink). The range of capabilities and expertise was similarly enhanced. What’s more, there is a belief that the good work done by Rotary transcends daily business competition. At the same time two individuals compete for customers, they can also improve conditions locally, nationally and globally.
Trade associations and professional societies have, for years, proved that competitors can work together to make progress viewed by society as quite positive. The members of these groups are most certainly in competition. Nevertheless, they cooperate to achieve considerable advances in areas such as standards of practice, ethics, education, research, and more. The experience of these organizations supported the idea that abandoning classification exclusivity would not be result in the crumbling of Rotary everywhere.
Pressing the limitations of the rules, many Rotary clubs did an end-around the restrictions by slicing classifications into imaginative (excessive?) niches. Hypothetically, the attorneys in a club could be classified:
Attorney- criminal law
Attorney – civil law
Attorney – business law
Attorney – tax law
Attorney – estate planning
Attorney – maritime law
Attorney – employment law
…and so on. One could readily come up with 100 types of attorney members. Is there truly no overlap anywhere? In reality, there certainly was. Did conflict ensue? Rarely.
Existing members could object to admission of a prospect who was in the same line of work. So shady operators stood little chance of admission – a reality that continues to this day. Moreover, friendly competition was accompanied by friendly service above self, and members looked beyond their immediate gain toward the greater good.
If your only reason to belong to Rotary is to advance your business, having other members who do what you do might diminish the value of your belonging. But Rotary tends to attract those who view the organization’s mission as much more important.
Careful selection of members is not passé in Rotary. If you know that an individual, or the employer, does not adhere to the 4-way test, you have a right – and even a duty – to speak up when the person is proposed for membership. That is a solid reason for not allowing someone into Rotary. Mere classification exclusivity no longer is.
The world can use all the good Rotarians we can identify – don’t keep one out because you want all the business prospects for yourself.
NESDAYS, 12:00 PM-1:20 PM
REMARKABILITY
Jenny exuberantly shared with us some great information regarding the importance of books and reading for children under 3-years of age. Did you know that during the first 1,000 days of a child’s life, over 82% of the neural pathways are formed? And during that time, there are from 700 to 1000 connections occurring per second! And much of the brain development that occurs during this time is done through physical experiences. I did not know this and wish I had a better understanding of this many years ago when I was reading to my three infant children! Jenny shared that studies show how language, i.e. speaking and talking with and to a young child, and most importantly both the quantity and quality of words spoken, is directly related to increased learning ability later in life. So you can see how reading books to infants is critically important to a child’s learning development. I think we’ve made an excellent choice in choosing Make Way for Books as our new recipient. On a personal note, from a historical perspective it now makes sense to me why women (mothers) speak 30,000 words per day while we men (fathers) struggle to speak a mere 10,000 words per day!
