Entries Tagged as ''

Five ways “ungovernance” thinking enables innovation

The success of associations in the 21st century will depend, in large measure, on whether the leaders of our organizations choose to set aside their self-aggrandizing agendas, petty personality conflicts and micro-managing tendencies to embrace the real responsibilities of stewardship that come with the staff and volunteer roles they occupy. It’s clear to just about everybody in our community that current governance approaches aren’t working for many organizations. So, if we’re really ever going to extract the “we have always done it that way” DNA from associations, those legacy systems must be among the first challenges we tackle.

To make it simpler and more attractive for boards, CEOs and other stakeholders to adopt a new mindset, I have articulated a set of ideas around what I call “innovation ungovernance.” Ungovernance offers an alternative perspective on what association stewardship can be and what it can achieve if we’re willing to let go of old ways of thinking, acting and being, and embrace the necessity of innovation. It is a framework for driving organizational success that is more consonant with the world in which associations operate today, and it certainly can be a catalyst for a renewal in the critical role associations have always played in the fabric of our democratic society.

Below are five ways that ungovernance thinking enables innovation in our organizations. I hope you will share your reactions, thoughts and ideas as comments. Also, I invite you to join a virtual dialogue on innovation governance where you can help shape this conversation for our community.

1. Ungovernance questions existing assumptions and beliefs—Associations face daunting challenges in the years ahead, and chief among them is the need to complete the transition of our organizations from the last century into this one. Unfortunately, the outdated core beliefs that guide association governance practices interfere with this process. Ungovernance seeks to challenge such orthodoxies by asking different questions, posing fresh and perhaps unpopular perspectives and demanding more original responses from leaders. Associations are long overdue to eradicate the toxic influence of denial and nostalgia in their organizations, and it must begin with a radical shift in the way we think about association stewardship going forward.

2. Ungovernance focuses on the association’s business model—Associations don’t exist to be governed, but to create value for stakeholders. Indeed, the future growth and advancement of associations depends on their ability to create distinctive new value in a time when the traditional economic framework for such value creation is rapidly eroding. Organizations in our community—not to mention the community as a whole—face a competitive landscape that has changed dramatically in the last decade, and will continue to morph in the next one. In this new context, association leaders must cultivate both the freedom to discover and develop inventive new strategies and the discipline necessary to execute them intelligently. As the Ungovernance Doctrine states, the definitive responsibility of association boards and CEOs is the capable stewardship of sustainable business models powered by innovation.

3. Ungovernance distributes responsibility—Current approaches to association governance embody the concept of centralized control. The future of associations, however, lives at or very near the edge, with contributors who are already deeply involved with—or are actually creating—what’s next. Ungovernance recognizes that sharing real responsibility for long-term success with all stakeholders supports the kind of robust and energetic collaboration necessary to achieve it. Contributors must be invited to engage with the association on their terms, but within a coherent and sustainable strategic framework that capitalizes on everyone’s unique talents and capabilities and inspires them to innovate consistently. In short, ungovernance is about creating an ecology of stewardship.

4. Ungovernance builds trust—At best, legacy governance practices create a kind of “synthetic trust” that must be enforced through bureaucratic structures, burdensome management mechanisms and restrictive policies. At worst, association governance actively undermines trust by creating a culture of risk aversion and fear. In contrast, authentic trust is organic, and emerges only through an unswerving commitment to build it everyday. Ungovernance enables innovation by inviting leaders to adopt the notion of “trust first” as their new default position, while working hard to earn the trust of those they serve by “walking the walk” of innovation in their own work.

5. Ungovernance inspires creativity and unleashes passion—Associations desperately need creative, passionate contributors who are willing to advance the work of innovation by experimenting with powerful ideas. Ungovernance is all about removing onerous constraints that impede the freedom to think expansively and act with confidence, while applying “generative constraints” that help ignite new thinking around difficult problems. Ungovernance embraces possibilities that fuel the passion of contributors who will drive the association’s long-term success. At the same time, ungovernance requires clarity around which possibilities have the greatest potential to become worthwhile strategic opportunities.

Stifling Ideas, Stifling People

While finalizing an online learning program for preceptors (clinical setting teachers), I saw a table with the phrases preceptors should never use with students. I couldn’t help but share them here. I think the reason is obvious.


Phrases Preceptors Shouldn’t Use

That’s not the way we do things here.
I don’t think that will work.
We don’t have the resources to do that.
Don’t you think that’s more trouble than it is worth?
Please just stick to your responsibilities; I’ll worry about everything else.
The way we’re doing it now is working just fine.
Because I said so.

I began my career in association management at the age of 23. Through a fortunate series of events, I landed a great association continuing education job for which I was (on paper anyway) under qualified. I should have had 5-10 years of experience and a master’s degree. I had neither. But, in true GenX style, that didn’t stop me. I set out to transform my little corner of the association world. I had ideas and was ready to make an impact. Sadly, however, I hit roadblocks at every turn – many of them in the form of the statements above. Indeed I was young and inexperienced (naive, as I was reminded more than once). I didn’t know how it was supposed to be done in associations. My boss at the time did not see that maybe that was a good thing, maybe that allowed me to see the possibilities. My boss just saw my youth and asserted that I just needed to “stick with the program” and not try to change anything until I had more experience (until I was fully entrenched into the way they’d always done it?). Well, the status quo isn’t really my thing, and I would not have lasted long under those conditions. Luckily for me, a consultant came in to lead the department during a time of transition and she supported and even mentored me in making significant changes. I will never forget the contrast of the WHADITW and “you are too young to know” attitude of the boss versus the consultant’s value of ideas and change and her ability to see beyond my age. (BTW, they were approximately the same age.)

I’ve now been in the field 17 years — yes, I’m 40, the eldest of the Independent Thinkers, I might add. :) — and I am ashamed to say that every once in a while I catch myself starting to question the merit of ideas based on the age of the idea holder. To be honest, I more often jump to the conclusion that a Boomer or beyond is of the WHADITW mindset than I conclude youth equals ill-informed idea. But when that happens, so far I’ve been quick to catch and scold myself not to make any conclusions until I hear them out. Do you?

Do you let preconceived notions about people hamper your ability to hear them? Are you so entrenched in the ways you do things that you close yourself off to the possibilities? Are you stifling the creativity of those around you?

The next time someone approaches you with an idea, just stop right there. Don’t judge; don’t react. Pause. Say, “Tell me more.” Then, really listen (not listening with the intent to respond, but listening with the intent to understand – which is very different). Then, even if you are not convinced about the idea’s merit, consider the risk of idea failure relative to the potential learning and empowerment opportunity for the individual. What do you really have to lose?

And, by the way, if you ever hear me utter the words, “Because I said so.’, just shoot me.

Planned Reflections and A Reflection Blog?

Earlier this week I wrapped up a client meeting and enjoyed lunch at Cordoroy’s while passing time for my flight later that day. (Side note: Goat cheese and black olive pizza was awesome.) So often we are rushed from one meeting to the next, to the airport, and on. Too often we don’t even think about the meeting we just left before we move on to our next thing. Lately I’ve attempted to be purposeful in scheduling reflection time. I actually could have booked an earlier flight. With two small children at home, I usually book the latest flight in and the earliest out. But, this time I didn’t. Why? The value of the immediate reflection after a meeting. Too often we have a great idea or thought on process or content, but don’t make a note of it. Then, the next meeting comes up and we default back to our last meeting plan/agenda as the starting point (yes, the way we’ve always done it). We trust our memory – and that’s a mistake. Often too much time passes and the improvement idea is lost. Or, is this just me? Am I just getting old? (My 4 year old did just ask me this morning, “Mom, when you are as old as you, can you still do gymnastics?” Note to self: get to the gym.)

So, I’m vowing to schedule reflection time when at all possible. I’m thinking about starting a private blog of my reflections, ideas, and learning. Quite a while back Amy brought up the idea of a personal learning blog here on WHADITW. Anyone doing it? To be able to capture and categorize my ideas as a blog easily does has real appeal – the blogging platform seems a good fit. My notepad notes sure aren’t working. A bunch of ideas written down that I never refer to again. One downside of the blog formats is that it is web-based. Are there platforms that allow drafting off-line? David, help.

Would anyone notice?

Cindy suggests we should all stop some things and see if anyone notices! Great idea, Cindy. In her case, it was a print newsletter that didn’t go out – and nobody did seem to notice or care. What little (or big) things are you doing just because you’ve always done it that way? Are you spending time or money on things that wouldn’t be missed?

For starters, how about:
Standing meetings or teleconferences
Detailed meeting minutes/reports
Expensive marketing brochures (that one’s for you Scott)

And, for the record, I would NOT have missed the seemingly expensive CenterU calendar I just received in the mail. An e-mail with a link to the calendar would do just fine.

Don’t Feel So Bad

For all the criticisms we have of “always done it that way” thinking, we should probably point out that there are some strong psychological forces that push us in that direction. This quote is from an article by Donald Sull in the MIT Sloan Management Review:

Psychologists have documented a depressingly long list of factors that keep people locked into the confines of their established mental models. For example, people often escalate their commitment to a failed course of action in order to avoid admitting any mistakes, or they fixate on data that confirm their expectations while ignoring or downplaying any contradictory information.

Sull’s suggestion, then, is to ensure that organizations build in “frequent and rigorous” opportunities to make revisions to strategies and plans.

Marketing Different

There has been a positively raging firestorm of personal attacks in the association blogoclump on the idea of marketing. OK, more like spirited debate of the ideas while maintaining respect for each other individually but that didn’t sound as exciting. :)

Here is Kevin Holland’s post that sums it up nicely and gives his take.

In any case, I offer up an example of someone who tried something new in marketing their event, measured the results and learned from the process. I give you Kristi Donovan:

David asked me about the crazy idea – and I realize I never did tell the details. We decided to segment our marketing to our target audiences for the conference. I identified three sessions that each of our audiences would be interested in attending, put them on the cover of our brochure along with a statment such as: “We’ve designed the following sessions for chief executives like you!” Then we mailed that cover to our CEOs and COOs. We did it for 4 distinct audiences and then a generic for everyone else. We intended to personalize but that became cost prohibitive. (And maybe we didn’t even need it!)

Is this rocket science? No, not really. But a big, big step forward for us.

What was the result?

I am absolutely thrilled that my cockamamie idea in June that caused me and my coworkers so much stress has apparently resulted in an 85% increase in registration for our meeting over this time last year. Truly phenomenal. Some folks have suggested that may not hold through the rest of the reg period. Frankly, I’m just happy that something in our marketing mix is working. Heck, not just working, but kicking butt. If nothing else, we’ve gotten 85% more people to commit to our meeting earlier than ever.

Can’t beat that. It wasn’t so crazy after all!

Kristi’s posts are an excellent example of how thinking critically about your segments and making a targeted offer can pay off. And they did measure data to track results but it all started with trying something they had never done before.

Like Kristi says, this isn’t rocket science. What is different? She tried it! Breaking out of the ‘always done it that way’ rut and taking action puts her ahead of 90% of the field out there.

Call for Topic Ideas

We are busy gearing up to write a second edition of the book and will be posting quite a bit of new material in this blog as our first draft of the expanded book.

Since we have this lovely interactive forum for talking with many of the people who have already bought and read the book, I thought I would start up a conversation about what you would like for us to address.

  • What burning issues do you have in your organization?
  • What have you “always done that way” and desperately need an alternative?
  • What did you like most in the original book and want more of?
  • What made you the most uncomfortable in the original book?

Please share your thoughts below or post your ideas to your own blog. Thanks!

(P.S. We also have a new design in place on the site. Come on by to check it out if you are reading this from our feed.)

WHADITW and Measurement

There has been an interesting and varied blog discussion lately about the importance and role of “measurement” in associations. It strated with Scott Briscoe’s post (lots of comments), and then include related posts by me, Kevin Holland, and another by Scott.

Kevin then did another post, and it has a good WHADITW quote in it:

“The solution to a declining or stagnated membership is almost never a marketing campaign. I suppose there might be some organizations that offer enticing programs, stellar service, and rock-solid value whose only problem is that they’ve been too quiet about it. But far more likely, the best thing a declining association can do to grow its membership numbers is to stop caring about them — and start providing the types of programs and services that its customer base actually wants. (As opposed to what its always done, or what certain volunteers want done, or what certain departments want done.)”

It reminded me of an interesting point, though. Kevin says associations should provide stuff that the people actually want, as opposed to what it’s always done, etc. I just want to point out that those two things aren’t mutually exclusive. Sometimes what a certain volunteer wants is perfect. Sometimes a certain department is right. And sometimes what you have always done is PRECISELY what you need to keep doing. What we point to in our book is the EXCUSE of “we have always done it that way. As a rationale, that is very dangerous. But if you can show that your customers actually want something (through—gasp—measurement?) then it’s okay to keep doing it that way (as long as you stay disciplined about continually showing that customers want it).