We need a master’s degree
The association community needs a credible advanced degree that offers association professionals an educational pathway other than the CAE. An even more important reason to create such a degree program is the dearth of executive-level learning and development that actually helps association leaders operate effectively in a time of profound, accelerating and intensifying disruption and discontinuity. Let me put it another way: there is good reason to question whether today’s association leaders are adequately prepared to deal with the realities of the genuine paradigm shift that is already taking place in our society. Can we really afford to do nothing to address this issue?
To initiate a dialogue on this topic, let me offer the following specific thoughts about how I would design an executive master of science in association leadership (EMSAL) degree program:
+EMSAL would be a 20-month, cohort-based program organized into five four-month learning modules with intensive course sessions conducted once per month on Friday and Saturday.
+Each cohort would include no more than 25 participants, but multiple cohorts could be in the program at once, with groups entering in September, January and May if necessary.
+During each module, cohort members would be organized into five different project teams, so that each participant would have the opportunity to collaborate with everyone else in the cohort. Each module would conclude with a team project.
+The five module topics would be (1) The Historical Evolution of Associations, (2) The Role of Associations in a Global Society, (3) The Role of Associations in Industry and the Professions (4) The Role of the Individual in Associations and (5) Leadership of Associations in the 21st Century.
+The global society module would include a study mission of some length (perhaps 10-14 days) outside of North America.
+The course curriculum would be multidisciplinary, drawing on a variety of fields including anthropology, business and management, economics, education, future studies, history, leadership, natural and physical sciences, political science, psychology, sociology and technology.
+Both individual and team assessment would be a part of determining whether a participant successfully completes the program, including individual learning portfolios, peer evaluations and team projects.
+Learning facilitation would be conducted by both faculty from the university partner and senior leaders in the association community.
I realize this is an ambitious program design, and that is entirely intentional. Some in our community appear believe that what we do in associations isn’t important enough to merit the most forward-looking and intensive learning and leadership development opportunity possible. I strenuously disagree. We need to give association leaders today and tomorrow every opportunity to build their understanding of the forces of paradigm shift so they can elevate the quality of their leadership going forward. We have a deep responsibility to these leaders, their organizations and members, the professions, industries and fields their associations serve and to society as whole to make this kind of innovation a priority. I hope we will soon be prepared to act on making it real.
Note: A version of this post originally appeared on the Principled Innovation Blog.
I’ve been intimately involved in graduate level programs for associations. I’ve been part of a failed MBA in Associations, earned an MS in nonprofit management, and taught a grad school class on Association Management. I speak from experience.
There have been numerous efforts at this “association masters” concept and they’ve all failed. Why? Because as much as we may think our field is big and important, it isn’t in the big scheme of things. Membership organizations only represent 7% of all 501c organizations and only 2% of all revenues generated by 501c organizations.
So, guess where the Deans focus their attention? The C3s, of course. And, frankly, most potential grad students do not want to be pigeonholed with such a specialized degree — they want a degree that’s useable in more than one tiny market.
The graduate programs that HAVE succeeded are those that appeal to ALL nonprofits, primarily donor-based groups/execs, where associations are one of many “sub-specialties” in the curriculum (e.g., donor-based, government, associations, etc.)
Yes, yes, I’ll be accused of “that’s the past history; we need to try again, etc., etc.” Economic realities guarantee you’ll be spinning your wheels.
Chris, thanks for your comment, but we will have to agree to disagree. Our field may not be big statistically, but our organizations play a very important role in society. The challenges that association executives face are real and potent, and they need and deserve a different kind of learning and development opportunity in order to anticipate, understand and address them. The CAE is not sufficient and traditional master’s degree programs teach traditional ways of thinking.
I believe that one of the big reasons that previous master’s degree experiments have failed is the failure to differentiate from traditional management degrees. A few courses on association-specific law or accounting wasn’t enough for me to pursue the M.A.M. program at GW many years ago. But a truly interdisciplinary degree with a focus on leadership rather than management will have traction with professionals who are trying to make sense of the world in a new way as well as secure a credential that demonstrates the depth and breadth of their knowledge. The EMSAL degree would offer learners the chance to specialize while also developing a broader understanding of the context in which all organizations exist.
I also would not discount the attraction of the kind of degree program I propose to an international audience. Many nations around the world are trying to build an infrastructure of civil society that includes associations. The EMSAL should be of interest both to emerging association professionals in other countries as well as globally-minded association executives in the United States. The monthly cohort format I propose should make it possible for students around the world to participate.
So while the traditional economic perspective you suggest may not favor us, I believe that other forces are shaping the landscape in ways that make the kind of degree for which I advocate possible. And since the underpinnings of traditional economics are themselves under active reconsideration today, I urge you to remain open to the possibility that the “realities” you describe may not be as much of a guarantee as you think.