We like our club, the club visioning session shows, but there is room for improvement.
The results of the survey conducted as part of the club’s visioning session at the end of May show members are pleased and proud of their club, but there are areas where changes and improvements are being sought.
Twenty-eight members completed questionnaires either at the club meeting on 31 May, or sent them to me later. The board will be considering the findings at its next meeting. This is the first of two reports for members on the findings.
Asked to choose some words that described the club, the most popular word was “fun” (chosen by 15 members), followed by ‘vibrant’ (six mentions), and ‘enthusiastic’ with three. Words mentioned twice were ‘generous’, ‘encouraging’, ‘of service’, ‘inspirational’, ‘people centred’, and ‘welcoming’. ‘Happy belly’ got one mention.
Of the 43 words used, only four were negative: ‘declining’, ‘irrelevant’, ‘aging’ and ‘non-coherent’.
Members were invited to score various elements of the weekly meeting out of ten. The venue came top with an average score of 8.7, followed by the speakers with 8.6. Interaction with members rated 8.5, opportunities to participate was 8.1, but getting to know what’s happening scored only 7.1 and the sergeant’s session was last on 6.9.
There was a number of members – eight of the 28 who’s responded (that’s 28%) – who scored the Sergeant’s session at 5 or below with comments indicating a level of dissatisfaction with both the idea of such a session and with the way it has been conducted. There is also room for improvement in our communication with members.
Members generally liked the speakers, but suggested a range of subjects, headed by Wellington and community issues. Members also wanted to hear from leading politicians, ambassadors, and from speakers on international issues. Other subjects sought were on business, academic research findings, and on politics generally.
On the other hand, members also wanted fewer speakers who were plugging themselves or their own products, and some members were against talks on politics, finance or charities.
On the club itself, most members were “proud to be a member of the club”, (agreement with that statement scored 9.2 out of ten), but not quite as many “often tell friends and colleagues about what we do’ (7.8), and fewer still “look for opportunities to invite people to the club” (6.4).
Communication between members and non-members seems to happen quite a bit. Agreement with the statement, “I like being a member, but I don’t tell people who aren’t members”, scored only 3.7 suggesting most members are active (at least to some degree) in talking about their involvement with Rotary.
“I enjoy coming to the weekly meetings” got the highest level of agreement at 9.2.
On the projects and activities the club undertakes, most (but not all) agreed that “we have the right balance between projects in the local community and international projects”, (7.3), and disagreed with the idea that we should put “more emphasis on international projects” (4.8).
Only 3 of the 38 respondents (11%) scored agreement levels of 8 or more, suggesting this is a minority view, though one strongly held.
These are the top line findings. I will prepare a second report on what members like about the club and what they want to see improved, on what changes are suggested for breakfast, on the projects that are favoured, and on the balance between giving money and investing time.
.jpg)
