On the back of the students’ FFA jackets houses an FFA emblem and just above that emblem is embroidered the state where the person is from. Likewise, below the emblem is embroidered the chapter the student is from. However, if you are a regional officer it lists the region instead of the chapter and if you are a state officer it will simply say association. On the front of the jacket just under the person’s name lists the current office the student holds.
It was interesting to see how students reacted when they interacted with their regional and state officers. The higher level officers were respected and seemed to be the center of the group’s attention; especially, the state officers. The students paid attention if the state officers said something because they too hoped to someday wear the association jacket.
This sense of reverence made me think of the different aspects of leadership we have been discussing in class. Not too long ago an employee had to go through several different managers if they wanted to speak to the CEO of an organization, now the CEO’s or person in charge is much more attainable. In a sense the National FFA Organization is very similar to the old style of management. If a student wants to speak with a state officer they can always email the individual, but it will definitely be easier to get ahold of the regional officer first. Likewise, with the national officers being so busy they depend on the state officers to take care of their state’s students.
There are many advantages and disadvantages to this hierarchical system, but it works or at least it does within the FFA. So, like many other companies ask why change a system that works? Obviously, there are many answers to this question (most we’ve covered in class) including making managers more attainable to entry level employees. Still I ask why ultimately add more responsibility to higher level employees? If a company is successful and profitable it seems to be working pretty well to me.
