SUBJECT: BMP Task Force -- BMP 2.0 Meeting, Boulder Colorado

ACTION: Review

Facilitators: John Schuyler, Brian Kapinski

NBD Present: Will Broadlick, Bert Harris, Tom Jelke

Undergraduates Present: Shane Lay, Matt Barnhill, Brett Bone, Max Rodenburg, Michael Von Gonten, Joe Blizzard, Peter Elliott

Background

This think tank was assembled to contemplate the current state of the Balanced Man Program and to identify ways to change, bolster, and augment the program so that it becomes the single way every Sigma Phi Epsilon chapter develops its members. The meeting was held in Boulder, Colorado - the birthplace of the original Balanced Man Program. Undergraduate members from BMP and pledging model chapters were assembled as well as several alumni who served as facilitators, instigators, and thought-provokers. Several themes/discussion points emerged from this structured but free-flowing session that lasted 2 days. Those themes, concepts, and contemplated actions steps are noted below.

Current State

1. BMP operationally fits into three categories: a) chapters that do it well (mostly a subjective rating currently), b) chapters that don't do it well (ranges from BMPP to BMP in name only), and 0) chapters that do not do it at all (pledge-model chapters).

2. There are contextual issues with the BMP and marketing issues with the BMP.

3. BMP marketing lacks power. When it happens, there is no energy around it. Nothing that creates a strong desire to devour the program. For the most part, it isn't marketed at all. Was hardly mentioned at Conclave, Ruck, CLA. Materials are boring. We sell the mechanics, not the outcome.

4. There aren't enough resources available to chapters to effectively run the Balanced Man Program. The chapters that are doing it correctly are basically inventing their own resources (creating their own Quest, for example). Resources that do exist are boring, bland, outdated and not user-friendly.

5. For many chapters, there is something cooler about pledging than the BMP. Culture, emphasis, language, etc. has created that perception. Pledge model chapters are called 'traditional' and our students like tradition. BMP is perceived to be unchallenging, bland, and weak. For many of our chapters, there is a constant press to revert back. To be more 'traditional' or as some call themselves, 'traditionally balanced.‘

6. Four year-continuous development is not really happening in most chapters. Even in some of our good BMP chapters, programming at the Epsilon stage and beyond is inconsistent. Few people become Brother Mentors. Almost none become fellows.

7. Mentoring, as it was delineated in the original program, does not take place in most chapters. Not much happening other than Big Brothers in many places.

8. BMP has not grown/adapted to new technology. Resources have become stagnant, and delivery of those resources has fallen way behind.

9. The program is run differently everywhere. No consistency. No commonality of experience.

10. The most difficult obstacle for those that resist changing to BMP: "the entitlement of being a brother" prevents understanding and acceptance of the single-tiered membership.

11. Some places have trouble understanding the difference between a brother and a member. For some it is fixable. For others it is an entitlement thing.

Improvement Areas

1. Specific Outcomes of the BMP need to be delineated. Create a common goal. We need to find a good balance between common outcomes and flexibility to adapt program locally. Create some uniformity without forcing conformity. Currently, there are no common outcomes in mind. Every student could name exactly what they wanted to see from their college/fraternity experience.

2. Big push on Junior/Senior programming is needed.

3. Need better resources across the board for the BMP.

4. Many VP Development do not understand what to do, how to do it.

5. Much better marketing of the program. To EVERYONE. Better training for chapter

members, better marketing to potential new members and parents, more powerful

marketing materials, teaching people the benefits of the program when run properly (not just the mechanics).

6. Better job of preparing chapters to appreciate and understand that they will be different. And with that comes ridicule from other fraternities, a strong press to regress to the norm of the campus, etc. Provide chapters with tools to combat this.

7. Need to connect/infuse the BMP into our regional and national programs. Example: How can we more definitely infuse EDGE and the BMP? CLA? Create new junior/senior programming?

8. Specific areas that the undergraduates would like to see emphasis in the BMP:

a. programming specifically for upperclassmen (Epsilon/Brother Mentor) such as job/internship/alumni mentoring opportunities. This could take place locally or regionally like at CLA such as a BM track.

b. Modernized resources. Cutting edge stuff like iPhone/iPad apps, interactive databases, forums, etc.

c. More dedicated training for chapters specifically on how to run the BMP- for Executive Board, VP Programming, challenge coordinators, AVG/advisers.

d. More challenge and intensity in the program. Experiential learning. Top Gun type of mentality. More opportunities to bond- not just the new guys.... everyone. Make the program "Bad Ass Elite."

e. Clear Focus on Sound Mind/Sound Body.... perhaps in different areas such as Leadership, Scholarship, Gentlemanly Behavior, Athletics, Service.

f. Clear Connection to Virtue, Diligence, Brotherly Love (although understanding that those words themselves may be confusing and need to be explained multiple times and in multiple ways)

3. Better academic attack plan.

4. Keep the single-tier piece but explain it better. Understand that there will be some that just cannot get over that part. Not sure we can change them, so may have to lose them.

5. Multiple carrots and sticks for moving through the process.

6. Need to be able to deal with all three kinds of chapters and identify best ways to

address them.

7. We do not evaluate/assess our programs well or frequently enough. BMP, Leadership continuum, etc.

8. Use good BMP chapters as the marketers, trainers, etc. for chapters thinking about changing.

9. For some chapters. there is a fear of changing. Not really interested in being different. Worried about losing their "traditions."

10. More emphasis on the mentoring piece at all levels.

11. Emphasize the group more in the Sigma challenge.

12. There are three layers of work to do: chapters that do it right (maintain); chapters that do it wrong (fix); chapters that don't do it (persuade/convince).

13. Sticking to standards: lapses, academics, etc.

Questions Left to Answer

1. What are the outcomes of BMP 2.0? How much of BMP 2.0 needs to be defined, how much should be left to the individual chapter? Can you define 'must have, can't have, and up-to-you' pieces.

2. Is there a way to partner with organizations or companies to provide better resources and/or bulk up our experience. Example: KOA, Outward Bound, etc.

3. How do we more accurately measure success, proficiency?

4. How much can be fixed through marketing? How much is actually contextual/operational in nature?

5. What modernization is possible?

6. How do you salvage chapters that were forced to adopt the BMP?

7. How do you entice chapters that have no intention of adopting it?

8. How do you provide GREAT resources for chapters running the BMP?

9. How much energy and resources can we put into making BMP 2.0 work properly for all our chapters?

10. Subsequently, are there chapters that we eventually have to say are not changing for the wrong reasons (want to continue hazing, for example) and how do we deal with those?

11. How do we proceed?

a. How do we utilize think tank?

b. Create task forces?

c. Beta test new ideas?

d. Create better training/marketing?

Great thoughts/quotes from the session:

Imagine if we had Brother Mentor only stuff at CLA, where recruiters or executives from Google, Apple, Nike, etc showed up and sat on a panel or critiqued resumes, etc. Wouldn't everyone want to go Brother Mentor then?

We need to find ways to make this extremely challenging without hazing. Intense without hazing.

What is needed for BMP is the same kind of hype that Ruck has.

The gap between us and the competition is decreasing, while the gap between where we are and where we can be is increasing.

What we need is to be statistically dominant in key areas: academics, retention, low incident rate, leaders on campus, etc.

Pledge chapters say you need to earn it. We need to sell this as 'you need to earn it all four years.‘

We want to recruit and develop people who are confident enough not to need to be hazed and not to have to haze themselves.