Should a Lodge Officer be required to prove he can do the work of the next higher office, before he is elected or appointed to that next higher office?
Why do we accept Lodge Officers who can’t do the work?
Is it because we feel that a Mason has a ‘right’ to advance each year? Or because we feel that a WM should only serve for a single year?
If we had an excellent Worshipful Master, whom was beloved by the Lodge, and leading it to success, would we not be better off keeping him as WM for twenty years?
Are we not slowly destroying our Lodges by not requiring that our Officers be proficient?
Requiring proficiency in the next higher office - well, what does that mean?
I’m a new WM. Proficiency as SW did not prove I was ready to be WM. Being WM pro tem for short periods did not prove it.
It turned out that I was WM pro tem for months, which did show some level of proficiency, mostly at juggling cats.
Do we mean proficiency in ritual?
I strongly believe this is important to the Lodge experience, and I’m working on it, but in my Lodge, now, ritual is the least important part of the WM job.
Budgeting, managing meetings, managing a calendar, networking between Lodges and within the community, reaching out to prospective members or long-absent members, putting out fires - these are critical WM skills. We’ll see how well I do at them.
If he doesn’t get a chance to pro tem for an extended period, ow does anyone prove proficiency in critical skills in advance?
Being in the UK I have seen it work both ways. Very few people are 100% on the words for any job in the lodge. I have see a lodge where if you don't know your words there is no job for you in the last 6 years no MM has had a job its all past masters that is the way to kill a lodge all the MM bar two have left. On the other hand should people who don't turn up for LOI and who don't know the words just get a job because its their turn? Again that may kill the lodge off. There needs to be a way of getting people to come to Loi learn the words and have fun at the same time. It should be down to the dark blues to put their selfs out to help brothers who would like a job. You can lead a horse 🐎 to water but you can't make him drink comes to mind. Seems to be a 50 50 thing.
I just can't help it. Y'all are probably tired of hearing this from me but it seems I just have to keep repeating it.
The progressive line is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of in leadership selection yet so many lodges are stuck on this bad idea.
Yes. Keep the best man in the job for as long as he is willing and able. Train his replacement, but don't saddle the best executives in an operational role. Train them in executive tasks. As an assistant to the executive or as a vice executive.
In our jurisdiction we have an informal thing in a lot of lodges called "Step up night", where officers in the line for one night step up to the next chair to demonstrate to the brothers that they can do that work. Well, at least in my opinion that's how it's supposed to go.
I've seen time and again that it's simply just a formality. Some do the step up night *after* elections, which I find a little silly. I have also seen officers, even the pillared, openly reading from the cyphers during the meeting. And ultimately, even if the brother doesn't demonstrate the ability to do the work, they move up anyway. Generally because no one else wants the job.
The progressive line does have some positives, like giving the brothers moving up the line a year to prepare for the next chair. At least that's how it's supposed to work. And it does allow the brothers to experience having to learn and publicly perform the ritual. There have been times where the brother, either through his own initiative, or wise counsel from others, steps out of the line, realizing they weren't ready to fill those shoes.
Where the problems occur is when a brother is continued up the line and clearly not able (or willing) to put the time in to learn their jobs.
With everything, a lodge needs to consider what is best for the lodge, not one brother. The needs of the many....and all that.
Great question! I think we’ve found a pretty good method or model for our lodge. It goes something like this:
Picture the elected officers as a board of directors. The boards job is orient the organization in the direction that creates success.
The WM is the chair and it’s not uncommon for the chairmanship to change. The focus of our WM is running a smooth and successful meeting. In our lodge he is required to provide Masonic education either by delivering himself or coordinating a speaker. He also learns to be decisive. In our lodge he has already conferred several degrees, received his PILM and progressed through the responsibilities of JW and SW.
The Secretary functions like the Executive Director for the board. Most of the operation of the lodge falls on the Secretary and this doesn’t change as frequent as a rotating chairman. By focusing on the operations of the lodge (budget, communication, etc) it allows the WM to focus on leading. If you don’t like ExDir, think Chief of Staff.
Our “progressive” line starts at SD. I’d lie to draw a distinction between progressive and presumptive. A presumptive line sets you up to fail. If the qualification to advance is simply occupying a chair, you’ve done yourself and the lodge a disservice. But to throw progression out altogether is also a mistake. You don’t become a Senior Vice President without first being a great Vice President. Our ritual even says Masonry is a progressive science. We need our lodge leaders to go through the duties of JW because coordinating a dinner takes some skill. Hosting in the dining room takes speaking skills.
So the notion that a JS is going to progress all the way through and become WM by simple osmosis is a big stretch. In our lodge, being appointed SD means you’re making a commitment.
One final thought, lodge is meant to help men become better. So yes, men with certain skills are going to excel in certain stations but the expectation should be that lodge is a place where a man who hasn’t yet had the opportunity to lead can develop the skills in lodge and take them to the outer world to better his life and those around him. If your lodge is unable to develop those skills in a man, well…
This is a question I have never considered before, and after pondering a bit my short answer is that a certain level of ritual proficiency should be required, as well as completion of the Grand Lodge Proficiency in Lodge Management course. Ideally they would have attended the Lodge Leadership Retreat as well.
When and Entered Apprentice knocks on the door of a Fellowcraft lodge, seeking more light, he is asked if he has made suitable proficiency in the preceding degree. While the exact requirement of that proficiency is determined by each Lodge individually, let's just say that whatever the requirement, we are looking for that EA to have an enough of an understanding of the EA degree to enable meaningful progression towards being a master of himself.
Likewise, it would seem that some level of proficiency should be required for the advancement of a Brother in his progression toward being Master of his Lodge.
Brother Zane's Board of Directors analogy is great. If we are trying to make our Lodges legendary, we need standards of leadership. We don't need a warm body in the East. We need someone who actually leads a lodge, and has the skills and experience to do so. It has happened that someone hired as a janitor has risen to CEO in a corporation. But just because you are hired as a janitor does not mean you get to be CEO one day.
In my lodge everyone in line by the end of the year is supposed to know two chairs up. So when we come back from being dark (July and August) everyone moves up a chair. This shows the brothers proficiency. My year as master nobody wanted the SW to move up due to his proficiency. I spoke with him and he was able to tighten it up by the end of the year.
Requiring proficiency in the next higher office - well, what does that mean?
I’m a new WM. Proficiency as SW did not prove I was ready to be WM. Being WM pro tem for short periods did not prove it.
It turned out that I was WM pro tem for months, which did show some level of proficiency, mostly at juggling cats.
Do we mean proficiency in ritual?
I strongly believe this is important to the Lodge experience, and I’m working on it, but in my Lodge, now, ritual is the least important part of the WM job.
Budgeting, managing meetings, managing a calendar, networking between Lodges and within the community, reaching out to prospective members or long-absent members, putting out fires - these are critical WM skills. We’ll see how well I do at them.
If he doesn’t get a chance to pro tem for an extended period, ow does anyone prove proficiency in critical skills in advance?
Being in the UK I have seen it work both ways. Very few people are 100% on the words for any job in the lodge. I have see a lodge where if you don't know your words there is no job for you in the last 6 years no MM has had a job its all past masters that is the way to kill a lodge all the MM bar two have left. On the other hand should people who don't turn up for LOI and who don't know the words just get a job because its their turn? Again that may kill the lodge off. There needs to be a way of getting people to come to Loi learn the words and have fun at the same time. It should be down to the dark blues to put their selfs out to help brothers who would like a job. You can lead a horse 🐎 to water but you can't make him drink comes to mind. Seems to be a 50 50 thing.
NC has the Davie Leadership Acad https://www.grandlodge-nc.org/william-r-davie-academy
Its for all Senior Deacons. Trains them on lodge operations, planning organizing and communication.
Subjects include:
Introduction to Freemasonry:
History and Traditions
Introduction to Masonic
Leadership:
The Lodge Officer
Intermediate Topics in
Masonic Leadership:
Approaching the East
Advanced Topics in
Masonic Leadership:
The Master’s Station
I just can't help it. Y'all are probably tired of hearing this from me but it seems I just have to keep repeating it.
The progressive line is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of in leadership selection yet so many lodges are stuck on this bad idea.
Yes. Keep the best man in the job for as long as he is willing and able. Train his replacement, but don't saddle the best executives in an operational role. Train them in executive tasks. As an assistant to the executive or as a vice executive.
In our jurisdiction we have an informal thing in a lot of lodges called "Step up night", where officers in the line for one night step up to the next chair to demonstrate to the brothers that they can do that work. Well, at least in my opinion that's how it's supposed to go.
I've seen time and again that it's simply just a formality. Some do the step up night *after* elections, which I find a little silly. I have also seen officers, even the pillared, openly reading from the cyphers during the meeting. And ultimately, even if the brother doesn't demonstrate the ability to do the work, they move up anyway. Generally because no one else wants the job.
The progressive line does have some positives, like giving the brothers moving up the line a year to prepare for the next chair. At least that's how it's supposed to work. And it does allow the brothers to experience having to learn and publicly perform the ritual. There have been times where the brother, either through his own initiative, or wise counsel from others, steps out of the line, realizing they weren't ready to fill those shoes.
Where the problems occur is when a brother is continued up the line and clearly not able (or willing) to put the time in to learn their jobs.
With everything, a lodge needs to consider what is best for the lodge, not one brother. The needs of the many....and all that.
Great question! I think we’ve found a pretty good method or model for our lodge. It goes something like this:
Picture the elected officers as a board of directors. The boards job is orient the organization in the direction that creates success.
The WM is the chair and it’s not uncommon for the chairmanship to change. The focus of our WM is running a smooth and successful meeting. In our lodge he is required to provide Masonic education either by delivering himself or coordinating a speaker. He also learns to be decisive. In our lodge he has already conferred several degrees, received his PILM and progressed through the responsibilities of JW and SW.
The Secretary functions like the Executive Director for the board. Most of the operation of the lodge falls on the Secretary and this doesn’t change as frequent as a rotating chairman. By focusing on the operations of the lodge (budget, communication, etc) it allows the WM to focus on leading. If you don’t like ExDir, think Chief of Staff.
Our “progressive” line starts at SD. I’d lie to draw a distinction between progressive and presumptive. A presumptive line sets you up to fail. If the qualification to advance is simply occupying a chair, you’ve done yourself and the lodge a disservice. But to throw progression out altogether is also a mistake. You don’t become a Senior Vice President without first being a great Vice President. Our ritual even says Masonry is a progressive science. We need our lodge leaders to go through the duties of JW because coordinating a dinner takes some skill. Hosting in the dining room takes speaking skills.
So the notion that a JS is going to progress all the way through and become WM by simple osmosis is a big stretch. In our lodge, being appointed SD means you’re making a commitment.
One final thought, lodge is meant to help men become better. So yes, men with certain skills are going to excel in certain stations but the expectation should be that lodge is a place where a man who hasn’t yet had the opportunity to lead can develop the skills in lodge and take them to the outer world to better his life and those around him. If your lodge is unable to develop those skills in a man, well…
This is a question I have never considered before, and after pondering a bit my short answer is that a certain level of ritual proficiency should be required, as well as completion of the Grand Lodge Proficiency in Lodge Management course. Ideally they would have attended the Lodge Leadership Retreat as well.
When and Entered Apprentice knocks on the door of a Fellowcraft lodge, seeking more light, he is asked if he has made suitable proficiency in the preceding degree. While the exact requirement of that proficiency is determined by each Lodge individually, let's just say that whatever the requirement, we are looking for that EA to have an enough of an understanding of the EA degree to enable meaningful progression towards being a master of himself.
Likewise, it would seem that some level of proficiency should be required for the advancement of a Brother in his progression toward being Master of his Lodge.
Brother Zane's Board of Directors analogy is great. If we are trying to make our Lodges legendary, we need standards of leadership. We don't need a warm body in the East. We need someone who actually leads a lodge, and has the skills and experience to do so. It has happened that someone hired as a janitor has risen to CEO in a corporation. But just because you are hired as a janitor does not mean you get to be CEO one day.
In my lodge everyone in line by the end of the year is supposed to know two chairs up. So when we come back from being dark (July and August) everyone moves up a chair. This shows the brothers proficiency. My year as master nobody wanted the SW to move up due to his proficiency. I spoke with him and he was able to tighten it up by the end of the year.