Quite a few service clubs opted to adopt a one-year-to-lead principle. Not all implement it, though.
I’ve been an active member of JCI and continue to attend events whenever I have the time. Nowadays, I’m an active member of Rotary. As life happens, I’ve been a member of several clubs in both organizations. It’s fascinating to observe how cultural differences, the life cycle of membership, and the existing history all contribute to shaping the members’ experience in a club. No club is the same.
One could assume that it is the atmosphere that is different, or that the experience is different because of the mix of members present in the club. It’s true, but only in parts. Just as important is the club’s history, its origins, and the many leaders they’ve had.
This is independent of the length of the mandate that leaders may have.
Considering the one-year-to-lead principle, there are many benefits to be found. But whenever there are advantages, there are also disadvantages. One of the disadvantages is how much of the club’s structure and working mode becomes dependent on the global organization. Another disadvantage is that most of the leaders don’t find the time to start a relevant project and see it reach its full potential within their tenure.
Having only one year means that the leadership learning cycle needs to move fast.
Given the desire to have an impact, many will focus on the relevant project. The consequence is the lack of time to engage in other activities, especially if they are the less fun aspects of leadership: working on the organization, dealing with the administrative details of the organization. This approach also results from an assumption that slowing down will prevent success or that it is action that was missing in the past. Sometimes, however, the focus is so connected with organizational aspects that hardly anything else happens. Then it’s the assumption that one can only be successful under perfect conditions and that they need to be created first.
It’s rare for a one-year-to-lead leader to actually think beyond his time in office. It’s hard to see how one can trigger a dynamic and how it will impact the organization years on. And it requires quite a bit of courage to make a decision that will impact a successor’s ability to define what his tenure will be about. What’s easy, though, is to leave things as is and leave the problems to one’s successors.
