Pre-Exit Listening Circle

What could this idea change?

It gives the club a clearer view of people's experiences before decisions are made, including feedback that informal conversations can miss.

It may suit: Members who may welcome support or renewed contact, and the trusted club members following up.

A simple way to start

1. Write the decision brief for Pre-Exit Listening Circle: define which decision a survey or listening channel will inform and what minimum information is needed, the starting evidence, people affected, local authority, resource limit, success signals and stop conditions. Who could lead it: Board sponsor and information owner
2. Identify users and non-users, map access and digital-confidence barriers, explain data use and permissions and retain an equivalent human or non-digital route where essential participation is involved. Apply this specifically to Pre-Exit Listening Circle and record which relevant experiences or users are still missing. Who could lead it: Board sponsor and information owner with the access and privacy contacts
3. Build and test a facilitated conversation with a published influence boundary and balanced participation for Pre-Exit Listening Circle; complete the Pre-Exit Listening Circle Facilitation and Influence Run Sheet, rehearse the boundary wording and confirm who may decide, refer, pause, recover or close the work. Who could lead it: System lead, privacy contact and access tester
4. Use synthetic or minimised test data, least privilege, versioned configuration, accessible instructions, exception handling and a rollback; do not expose live credentials or private member information. Capture only the evidence needed to judge whether Pre-Exit Listening Circle advances proportionate member feedback. Who could lead it: System lead, privacy contact and access tester
5. Compare the evidence with the starting point, validate meaning with affected participants or users, record gaps and unintended effects and prepare a de-identified themes record and response register showing how participant input affected the decision without overstating what the trial proves. Who could lead it: System lead, privacy contact and access tester with an independent reviewer

What should we look for?

• After 90 days, review Pre-Exit Listening Circle. Look for representative responses, transparent findings, agreed actions and a timely report back to participants.
• Pre-Exit Listening Circle produces a de-identified themes record and response register showing how participant input affected the decision by the promised decision date, with evidence limitations, participation gaps and unintended effects stated.
• People affected can explain the purpose, their choices, the boundary and how to raise an access, privacy, safety or governance concern.
• The trial shows whether proportionate member feedback improved from the recorded starting point without shifting hidden workload, risk or exclusion elsewhere.
• Every accepted action has an owner, due date and completion evidence, and the club records a reasoned continue, adapt, refer, scale or stop decision.

Before we say yes

• Does it fit a real local need?
• Can people take part safely and fairly?
• Are the facts, permissions and Rotary branding right?
• Who will lead it, and when will we review it?