Entries Tagged as 'Innovation'

2008: Three commitments for our community

2008 is fast approaching, and it is going to be a very significant, and quite possibly, historic year for both our country and our world. Not only will America elect its 44th president next fall, but all eyes will be on Beijing during the month of August as China plays host to the Games of the XXIX Olympiad. On a very personal level, I’m looking forward to celebrating my 40th birthday in March 2008. Well, that’s not exactly true. I’m neither “looking forward to” nor “celebrating” the conclusion of my 40th year of life, but I am paying close attention to what I can learn from the inevitability of this important milestone, as well as what new inspiration and imagination its arrival will bring.

This spirit of discovery and possibility in the face of inexorable reality fills me with a genuine hope that 2008 will be a momentous year for our association community as well, a time in which our commitment to meaningful innovation is dominant, and our “we have always done it that way” reflex is in decline. To help nurture this hope in others, I want to propose three “commitments” of learning and action for the association community to pursue in the coming year. Individually, each of these commitments is about building stronger organizations and, by design, a stronger and more authentic community of associations. When taken together, progress on these commitments could be a wellspring of innovation, with broader positive implications for society.

+Commit to build new capacity for association stewardship—Far too many associations, especially small organizations, continue to struggle with the profound challenges of making a complete transition into the 21st Century. The ambiguity and uncertainty unleashed by rapid and on-going paradigm shift creates unprecedented difficulties for all associations. Our traditional business models are decaying, and our standard practices are not delivering their usual impact, if they still work at all. To flourish in the years ahead, our community needs boards, CEOs and other senior leaders who are willing to be inventive, decisive and bold in the pursuit of new forms of success.

+Commit to tear down our irrelevant, self-imposed boundaries—One of the major business imperatives for all associations is the full embrace of inclusion in every conceivable dimension. Diversity is not (and has never been) a human resources buzzword, but a true reflection of our enormous national promise. It is now time for our community to demonstrate that it can fully realize this reservoir of untapped potential. At the same time, we should acknowledge that inclusion isn’t merely a domestic issue. Associations must stretch beyond the limitations of geographic borders, shake off the fear of what we do not understand and reach out to a global, dynamic and diverse network of colleagues to connect, collaborate and create value on behalf of our members and customers.

+Commit to take action on strategic social responsibility—In 2008, all associations will have the opportunity to make a meaningful contribution to a critical dialogue on the importance of strategic social responsibility to our community, our country and our planet. The Global Summit on Social Responsibility, which ASAE & The Center for Association Leadership will convene in the spring of 2008, will be the platform for a robust exchange of ideas around how associations can capitalize on the exciting new business opportunities created when we collaborate to develop solutions to the world’s most pressing environmental and social problems. Strategic social responsibility isn’t about community service or doing good works. It’s about protecting and investing in what was entrusted to us to ensure that it is sustainable for those who will inherit it. It’s not about self-interest. It’s about shared interest.

If we are able to act on these three commitments, we can be catalysts for the kind of deep-seated change and innovation that originally inspired the creation of this book. So will you accept the challenge?

Six principles for designing an architecture of participation

To reinvent eroding membership-centric business models, association leaders will need to answer a fundamental question:

What is the strategic relationship between membership and participation?

In answering this question, leaders also will need to confront the even more fundamental truth that dues payments do not create members. Instead, going forward, association membership must be based on a personal commitment to participate, irrespective of dues payments. The approach associations adopt in this area must be open and flexible enough to accommodate both the absolute need to fully engage the payers of dues and the non-dues paying participant’s choice to be active in the association. While the former will pay for membership in order to participate, the latter will use participation as a form of currency to “pay” for membership.

This type of business model innovation is made necessary by what is happening online. The ease and simplicity with which anyone can make immediate and passionate contributions using free and inexpensive Web 2.0 technologies highlights the lack of an equally clear and accessible “architecture of participation” in most associations. A phrase that originated with the Web 2.0 revolution itself, a useful definition of an architecture of participation as it pertains to organizations in our community is “the collaborative design of pathways for meaningful engagement in and substantive contribution to the association’s work.” Designing an architecture of participation is about much more than simply offering opportunities for involvement. It is about innovating our associations for the future.

Association professionals must begin experimenting right away with developing new architectures of participation. Some of those experiments will fail, while others will evolve to become integral elements of new business models built for sustainable growth. To facilitate these processes of experimentation, staff and volunteer leaders can use the following six design principles:

+Keep it simple—In developing wiki technology, creator Ward Cunningham kept asking an important question: what is the simplest thing that could possibly work? In designing a new architecture of participation that will attract your next contributors, you should be asking yourself the same question over and over again. Try to create the simplest possible participation experience for everyone who wants to contribute by looking carefully at the factors that make your current architecture of participation complicated and less satisfying for your stakeholders.

+Tear down the garden walls—It is impossible for any association today to possess all of the ideas, knowledge and talent it needs to succeed. Fortunately, those resources are quite abundant, connected and mobile in the current marketplace, but they will not be attracted to our organizations if we continue to put up obstacles to keep them out. Just like the Web itself, your new architecture of participation must fully embrace open networks as a tenet of a new business model, and sunset the idea of the association as a walled garden.

+Take down the ladder—The ladder is the most enduring symbol of association participation. Contributors spend years, and usually decades, climbing these ladders in pursuit of leadership opportunities with increasing responsibility and authority. But what if your next contributors aren’t interested in climbing your ladder? What if they are comfortable leading horizontally and don’t necessarily want or need vertical authority to accomplish their goals? To address these questions, your new architecture of participation must reconsider traditional structures and roles, and fully engage the self-organizing leadership talents and coordination capabilities your next contributors bring to the table.

+Be modular—If the ladder is no longer the appropriate metaphor for association involvement, what should replace it? Think Legos. To fully engage your next contributors, your association’s new architecture of participation needs to be as modular as Lego bricks, allowing individuals and groups to quickly assemble, disassemble and rebuild “pieces” of different shapes and sizes to create new experiences that easily connect and enable meaningful collaboration with globally-distributed peer networks on a near real time basis.

+Trust first—Associations use a combination of policies, guidelines, requirements and similar mechanisms to enforce “synthetic trust” within their contributor communities. But community on the Web, as well as the trust that bonds the members of those communities, is considerably more organic, and it is this more authentic way of being that associations must embrace going forward. Your new architecture of participation can energize its next contributors by first demonstrating real trust in them, without requiring prior proof of their fidelity to the association.

+Make success a shared responsibility—Associations are still more comfortable with concentrating responsibility for success in the organizational core at a time when most of the energy for future progress lives at or near the “edge” of our organizations. By distributing real responsibility away from the core, associations can challenge their next contributors to direct their efforts toward executing strategy, advancing mission and realizing vision. Your new
architecture of participation can energize contributors by offering them the opportunity to connect their passionate interests and commitments to the long-term growth and success of the association.

The continuing decline of the membership-centric association business model means the end of association membership as we’ve always known it. To flourish in the years ahead, associations will need to shift their focus away from the inertia of transactional relationships and toward dynamic approaches that can unleash the full potential of passionate engagement.

Resilience and responsibility

One of the most common arguments made in defense of the “we have always done it that way” approach to leadership in our organizations is that associations have existed for many years, indeed for many decades, and thus have a demonstrated ability to survive and thrive in the face of profound change. So, the argument goes, why should association leaders dramatically change their beliefs and practices to accommodate what’s happening today? Isn’t today’s brand of change simply an extension of what we’ve always known?

Let’s unpack this argument. First, there is no question that associations are resilient organizations. It’s absolutely true that many associations have managed to stick around for a long time, and the leaders of those enterprises deserve most of the credit for keeping them going during periods of considerable difficulty, including depressive economic conditions, social and technological disruption and world war. Whether these leaders made all of the right decisions in their time is immaterial as far as I am concerned. They accepted the responsibility of leadership, and they’ve earned both our gratitude and our respect for everything they achieved.

Going forward, however, the question is not where we’ve been, but where are going and how we will sustain what our predecessors entrusted to us. In our time, we face a fundamental question that those who came before never had to confront seriously: what role, if any, should associations play in our society? We are neck deep in a period of accelerated political, economic, social and technological shift that is unlikely to abate anytime soon. Precisely what it will take for our organizations to be successful in this environment remains somewhat unclear, making our historic resilience useful. What is increasingly clear is that our standard set of responses to new realities is no longer getting it done. We need new approaches, which diminishes the value of being resilient because it may prevent the deep and sober reconsideration of the conventional wisdom that is the basis for doing what we’ve always done.

So associations must continue to be resilient, of course, but not in a way that ignores the solemn responsibility to create a more vibrant future. We cannot defer the hard strategic choices that we certainly will need to make in the next few years. To do so, would be absolutely irresponsible. Rather, we must embrace the challenges and opportunities of a new era, and act decisively, confidently and responsibly. Our ancestors would expect nothing less from us, and we should accept nothing less for ourselves and our successors.

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.

Is there an imagination deficit in associations today?

I’ve been thinking about this difficult question for quite some time now, but I’ve been reluctant to write about it out of a genuine concern that the question itself might sound like an unprovoked attack on hard-working association staff and volunteers. This is definitely not my intention. Rather, I’m hoping we can make our colleagues’ lives a bit easier by creating a more favorable climate in which they can always bring their imagination to bear on the work of their organizations.

Albert Einstein suggested that “imagination is more important than knowledge,” and who am I to disagree with him. In a time of paradigm shift, what we think we know is increasingly less useful than what we can learn, imagine and create. In a recent post, Micropersuasion blogger Steve Rubel suggested that “the most important ‘tool’ you can have today in business is insatiable curiosity. The minute you lose it, you’re dead.” I think Steve is right on target and, from my perspective, curiosity and imagination go hand in hand: our curiosity feeds our imagination, and our imagination drives our curiosity.

Which brings me back to my inquiry about the possible imagination deficit in our community. I suppose what I’m really wondering is whether the work environment in associations today cultivates and nurtures the curiosity and imagination of staff and volunteers. One specific source of concern in this regard is the recent emphasis placed on so-called “data-driven strategies,” as advocated by ASAE & The Center’s 7 Measures of Success report. Without a doubt, there is a need to infuse the strategic decision-making process with useful data. But we must also recognize there are limits to what data can tell us, and there is good reason to challenge the notion that backward-looking information will always illuminate the wisest course of action for the future of our organizations. Associations definitely need clear, simple and focused strategy, but it should be “driven” by the value it will create for members, customers and stakeholders. Identifying and implementing that potential value necessarily will involve some combination of what we know, what we can learn, what we can imagine and what we can create together.

The powerful forces of paradigm shift are reshaping our society, and associations are going along for that very bumpy ride. But in the midst of this uncertainty, association professionals and volunteers have an extraordinary opportunity to envision a very different and more vibrant future for the organizations to which they have committed themselves. I challenge you to do just that by remaining curious and using your imagination everyday. If you’re able to do that, then in time the more important question won’t be whether there once was an imagination deficit, but what we did to eliminate it for the benefit of our community.

WHADITW authors featured in Association Meetings

Association Meetings Feb 2007 Cover

We are very pleased to let you know that the cover story in the current issue of Association Meetings Magazine focuses on WHADITW, and includes quotes from four of us. We want to thank fellow blogger Sue Pelletier, the magazine’s editor-in-chief, for approaching us with this idea and for interviewing us for the article. It was great fun!

I especially like the prompt the magazine uses to encourage its readers to provide their feedback on the article and on the ideas we share:

Tell us what you think: Are these folks on the money? Prophetic? Deranged? Naive?

Personally, I’m pulling for deranged. In all seriousness, though, we’d very much like to know your reaction to the article. We hope you will post your comments below.

Searching for Your Association’s Core Comptency

Associations have long built their value to members on creating information products. Conferences, magazines, journals, newsletters and web sites all have been traditional vehicles for creating and providing information and knowledge to members that couldn’t be had elsewhere.

Then the Web came along. Suddenly, we all have access to vast collections of information. However, this has brought a new challenge: finding the valuable stuff in that massive pile of information. Your association can continue to provide value in an information rich economy by developing the capacity to assist your members in sifting through it. Invest in understanding how search technology works and how it could be tailored for your members. Think like an information concierge rather than a publisher.

Make helping your members to find critical information and knowledge a key part of your value, wether or not you published that information in the first place.

Radical simplicity

“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” (Leonardo da Vinci)

We need to make our organizations easier, clearer and simpler for everyone involved. We need to consistently, carefully and firmly identify everything we do that isn’t fundamental to advancing the larger purposes of our existence and get rid of those things as quickly as possible. This is what I mean by “radical simplicity.” In today’s world, less is not only more, much less is much more.

In recent months, I have come to view radical simplicity as a major strategic opportunity for associations that touches all aspects of what we do from governance to products and services to volunteer engagement. In far too many organizations in our community, the complexity we create ourselves interferes with our ability to achieve what we say we care about most, including supporting learning, building vibrant communities and delivering value to those we serve. We live in a complicated world to be sure, and there isn’t much we’re going to do to change that, except to the extent we are able to change both our organizations and ourselves.

“As simple as possible, but no simpler.” (Albert Einstein)

By suggesting we make radical simplicity a priority, I do not mean to imply we should “dumb down” our organizations. On the contrary, our organizations should be the hottest of hothouses, in which we plant the seeds of many new innovations, nurture them and allow them to grow in all kinds of surprising and unexpected directions. There is an important difference between the organic evolution of complexity in our thinking and the creation of synthetic complexity that so often occurs in our organizations. The former is a natural cycle of growth and change that systematically builds our capacity, while the latter involves the unnatural and unnecessary introduction of hierarchical and bureaucratic constraints into places and spaces where, if we took the initiative to cultivate them, trust, reciprocity and the capacity for self-organization could do the job quite well.

Radical simplicity isn’t about avoiding complexity altogether. It is about creating a markedly more intuitive and straightforward interface between our organizations and our members that enables us to make sense of the complexity we need and drastically reduces (if not eliminates altogether) the complexity we don’t.

“What is the simplest thing that could possibly work?” (Ward Cunningham, inventor of the wiki.)

On a very practical level, embracing radical simplicity in our work might make the difference between robust growth and anemic performance in key metrics. At the very minimum, a radically simpler organization should make for happier and more satisfied staff and members. For me, a focus on radical simplicity is itself a form of genuine innovation, and one that definitely can make a meaningful impact along multiple dimensions quickly.

To set your organization down the path of radical simplicity, consider raising the following five questions for discussion:

* What factors create complexity in your association’s work?
* How much of the complexity in your association is self-inflicted?
* How do “tried-and-true” solutions actually increase complexity in your organization?
* Why does your association have difficulty letting go of just about anything?
* What are the elements of a new business model that will allow your association to fully embrace radical simplicity?

To put your strategic thinking into action, consider one final inquiry: what three things about your association can you radically simplify in the next three months? If you can initiate these critical conversations, you will go a long way toward creating the right conditions for enduring success in your association.

We can’t be all things to all people

I’m pretty sure I don’t need to write too much here, but in case you’re wondering why, here are my three simple, one-sentence answers:

1. It can’t be done–can you think of an organization of any kind that does “all things” equally well?
2. It shouldn’t be done–can you think of a good reason to pursue a strategy that sets up everyone in the organization for frustration and failure?
3. It doesn’t work anyway–can you think of a good reason why anyone would want to be member of an association that doesn’t get the first two?

Instead of being everything to everyone, consider being a single thing for most people, and let the others figure out where and how they want to play. I can’t tell you what that “thing” is, because it is going to be different for every organization. There are no ready-made answers. Figuring out what your association’s one thing should be is the whole point of strategy, but we tend to overlook this basic fact while we’re busy administering the thousand-and-one details contained in our multi-year, multi-page, multi-goal, multi-objective, multi-tactic and largely non-strategic strategic plans.

Why are we making it so hard, when we could be making it easier on ourselves and our members? Give up the illusion that being all things to all people is either desirable or achievable, and, instead, focus on the genuine strategic opportunities that will emerge as soon as you begin looking at the world in a new way.

Organizational Dashboard

There has been so much discussion in popular business publications about the importance of creating a “dashboard”. A dashboard is a tool that senior executives use to measure performance or results of just about any business-related information you need to know. As the Chief Executive of an association or non-profit, organizational dashboards can provide you with critical information that can be used to make good business decisions for the association.

I am in the process of creating a dashboard for my organization right now. The process is eye opening and amazingly useful. On a bi-weekly basis I know exactly where I stand on a range of issues and feel like I have a much better way of tracking new initiatives within the organization.

Here are some questions to get you started.

What items should be put on the dashboard? Great question. This is personal to each individual/organization. Initially I looked for articles and/or books on the subject but I quickly abandoned this because, as a small business owner, I don’t have the same “metrics” that big companies may have.

What performance measures do you have and what are the metrics? (financial goals, program measurements, prospective members, reserve amounts, etc.) Where ever you need to see change is where you may want to start. Add these items to a “change” section of the dashboard. Create a “reality check” and a “target” for each of these items and list where you are today (reality check) and where you want to be.

What items do you need to know about on a regular basis to make sound business decisions for your organization? Add these items to a “maintenance” section of the dashboard. Some ideas: membership numbers in key categories, the status of major GR issues, status of an IT implementation.

Who should be involved in creating and upating the dashboard? Maybe it is you, maybe it is the senior management team, maybe it is the entire staff. It’s your call, but regardless make sure that the dashboard is useful to you as a management tool. Keep in mind the final use of the tool.

Why is this important? Too many association executives do not think entrepreneurally about their organization. The creation of the dashboard allows you to get a great snapshot of exactly what you need to know, on a regular basis, in one place. It provides a great reality check on where you are and where you are headed.

Think Like an Entrepreneur First, Association Exec Second

Dan Sullivan, founder and president of The Strategic Coach, Inc., writes an eNewsletter that is fantastic. His organization provides a structured coaching program for entrepreneurs and his newsletter focuses on specific aspects of the program.

The July 2006 newsletter (Strategic eNews) has an article entitled, “Thinking Like an Intellectual Capitalist“. Sullivan suggests, “Instead of identifying yourself by the products you sell or the title your industry gives you, you define yourself as an entrepreneur with a specialty in a particular area.”

What kinds of mental shifts do you think would happen if association executives changed their mindset to think (first) like an entrepreur then (second) as an “association executive”?

Sullivan continues, “This shift allows you to come up with creative responses to others’ needs “” opening you up to the possibility of doing anything that will create value, not simply acting as a channel for industry goods and services. It also allows you to shift your focus to your biggest asset: your existing relationships.”

What a brilliant concept!

Can we make it the 45% rule instead?

The rule of thumb in our community is that an association should have an amount in reserves equal to 50% of its budget, just in case the organization’s financial position begins to deteriorate. So, for example, if I am the CEO of a $10 million association, I’m looking to accumulate $5 million in my reserve fund as expeditiously as possible. It makes complete sense, right?

Of course it does, and that’s why I can’t resist mucking things up by proposing a minor edit: let’s make 45% instead. And with the other 5%, let’s invest in the work of innovation for the future. After all, it’s a rule of thumb, not a rule, regulation or law, so we can make it whatever we want it to be. And just imagine the extraordinary impact that 5% of your reserves would have on the pursuit of innovation in the community your association serves!

There are great reasons to pursue this alternative. First and foremost, by investing 5% in innovation, you will be making a powerful statement that you value the creativity, energy and passion of the people who make up your association more than markets or financial instruments. Second, building a deep capacity for innovation creates tangible and intangible benefits for your association that will never come about from even the most successful portfolio of investments, including new ideas, new capabilities, brand equity, member engagement and new revenue streams. And finally, if your innovation efforts produces a winner, the financial upside to your future reserve fund investments could be quite considerable. Surely these attractive opportunities are worth an investment of 5%?

Well, I know what you’re going to say…we don’t like to take risks. You don’t think you’re taking risks in the market? Yes, I know you’re carefully managing your portfolio and doing the other stuff all smart investors do. That really isn’t the point, however. Risk is an element of today’s operating environment and present in every choice that leaders make. No amount of careful planning, smart implementation or wishful thinking will eliminate it altogether, nor do we want to eliminate it. (It would be incredibly boring and routine to run an organization in an environment of zero risk, wouldn’t it?) So, the issue isn’t whether your organization “likes” to take risks, but how much risk you’re willing to accept. And if you’re investing any of your reserves in the market, you’ve already decided that you will tolerate some risk in exchange for a certain level of reward.

Unfortunately, you exercise absolutely no control over the rewards the market will bring you. But you do have levers you can pull when it comes to innovation. By taking a strategic approach to innovation, your organization can invest its 5% in ways that minimize and manage risk by limiting uncertainty and controlling financial exposure, while maximizing whatever upside a given idea may produce. You can’t get away from risk, but you can take steps to make it work for you.

So, I’m thinking that just about every organization around could make do with 45% in reserves instead of 50%. I’m also thinking that the 5% your association invests in innovation will be, in the long run, the best investment it ever made.

Embrace heterodoxy

By circumstance, tradition or choice, associations often operate as masters of orthodoxy, the de jure or de facto enforcers of accepted ways of thinking and acting within the industries, professions and fields they serve. Through certification programs, licensing, standards and other mechanisms, associations can create near impenetrable boundaries around what “professionals” in those fields must, should or can know. In some respects, this is an appropriate and vital function, especially in fields in which lives are at stake.

Yet when associations place a higher priority on preserving and protecting what is known above exploring and understanding what is unknown, they may try to thwart the emergence of significant breakthroughs in learning and the creation of new knowledge. Associations operating as masters of orthodoxy may exclude, with or without sinister intent, divergent viewpoints that directly question accepted beliefs and conventional wisdom. But in a time of genuine paradigm shift, when the tools for creating and sharing new ideas and knowledge are in the hands of many–including quite capable creators who are purely amateurs in their fields–associations have no choice but to break down the boundaries they’ve created over many decades and open themselves to ideas that they might otherwise categorically reject, as well as the “dissidents” who propose them.

Heterodoxy is defined as “any opinions or doctrines at variance with the official or orthodox position.” In the 21st Century, associations will need to create new intellectual frameworks and environments that actively and consistently engage the broad spectrum of agreed-upon and profoundly controversial views in their fields. Embracing heterodoxy must become the new association tradition.

When will we learn?

Just a random bunch of intriguing, pointed and challenging questions for reflection and discussion by leaders in our community.

+When will we learn that human beings have always lived in “times of change?”
+When will we learn that today’s genuine “paradigm shift” is deeper, faster and more intense than anything our society has experienced for more than 100 years?

+When will we learn that strategic planning is NEVER, NEVER, NEVER going to help us take our organizations to the next level of success?
+When will we learn that strategic planning is now a profound waste of time and resources, and must be jettisoned in favor of approaches that fit with a new reality?

+When will we learn that the future cannot and should not be predicted?
+When will we learn that our long-term success depends on cultivating a deep capacity for creating the future?

+When will we learn that pursuing innovation costs less than trying to build a strong and sustainable brand?
+When will we learn that being an innovator is a strong and sustainable brand?

+When will we learn that the only way to gain greater influence is to give up virtually all control?
+When will we learn that we never really had control in the first place?

+When will we learn that demographic shift and generational shift are connected but not the same thing?
+When will we learn that appreciating the meaning of generational shift requires us to admit that the life experiences of others are valuable and worth our understanding?

+When will we learn that our old assumptions about associations are already getting our organizations into trouble?
+When will we learn that we must work hard at getting ourselves into trouble by probing and testing these old assumptions?

+When will we learn that what appear to be mere technology tools today are actually the fundamental forces shaping the future of our society?
+When will we learn that we cannot put off embracing the transformative power of Web 2.0/social media technologies no matter how much they challenge what we do?

+When will we learn that risk cannot and should not be avoided?
+When will we learn that it is not possible to really lead without taking risks?

+When will we learn that training and learning are not the same thing?
+When will we learn how to learn, and help our members do the same?

+When will we learn that “we’ve always done it that way” is no longer a sufficient response?
+When will we learn that “we’ve always done it that way” was never a sufficient response in the first place?

Want to make a difference in the association community? Think about these questions. Talk about them with your colleagues. Better yet, come up with your own questions. Drive the conversation everywhere you go. Make people pay attention. Don’t give up and don’t make excuses. Lead by choice. Lead by example.

May I Have Your Attention Please!

How much attention do your members pay to you? Many web-oriented companies and services have begun thinking about how much of their customers’ attention they receive rather than how much of their money they get. This is described as attention economics.

Framing your products and services within the concept of gaining attention may help you to to better target your members’ interests and ultimately increase revenue and member satisfaction over the long run.

Some attention questions to ask about your association:

  • How much of our members attention do we want?
  • How much should we have?
  • How much do they give us now?
  • What are they paying attention to?
  • How well do our current products and services get their attention?

If you focus on getting and retaining your members’ attention, the money will follow.

Four Questions re: Professional Development

So we have collectively ranted about organizations that offer the same conference programming year after year. It amazes me that some organizations think that the topics/issues and delivery formats popular in the late nineties still resonate in 2006. Organizations that haven’t changed fast enough are feeling the pressure from for-profit organizations that tend to be more nible in their program planning and delivery. This scenario begins to raise many questions, but here are some critical questions to consider.

(1) Is the head of professional development in your organization actively participating in professional development programming themself? The world of professional development and adult education is undergoing profound changes. Major shifts in PD are occuring every 12-18 months. How much time is the head of your organization’s PD programming learning about these changes?

(2) Is your education committee (or it’s equivalent) too involved in the adult learning side of things (delivery methods for content) versus providing content direction? Practitioners in a field need to stay focused on providing content guidance while PD professionals need to focus on the best way to organize, manage and deliver that content.

(3) Does your organization have an integrated professional development strategy? Is there a working PD plan that includes all functional areas of the organization, including special project groups, working groups, etc.?

(4) Does your budget include enough money to adequately keep your staff up to speed? Too many association educators I know often say, “we don’t have enough budget money to attend that conference.” I am appalled by this notion especially if for-profit competition is an issue for your organization. For-profit educators are attending the major education and adult learning conferences. If your staff isn’t there, where are they going to get a competitive advantage?

Now is the time to get serious about creating a professional development strategy that integrates the needs of your members as well as the ongoing PD needs of staff. It is time to pony up the cash to pay for these PD programs for staff, especially if your organization is competing for educational dollars.

Pitch the Outcomes, Not the Technology

Many association staff are interested in adding blogs to the mix of communication efforts they employ. However, just coming out and pitching a blog as a solution to anything can often raise eyebrows among staff and leaders who haven’t gotten on the Cluetrain yet. You need to be a bit more subtle and start by pitching the benefits of blogging rather than blogging itself.

For example, go to your boss and say something along the lines of:

“I have found a way to easily develop new content for our web site every day that is highly compelling to our younger members. In fact, it would require very little investment in software or design and could be up and running almost immediately. I would need to spend about 5 or 6 hours each week working on it. I would like to start a pilot next week to test it out.”

It should be hard for anyone to respond to that with anything other than “Let’s do it!” This same approach should work for any technology you wish to use so long as you have identified the valuable outcomes it will achieve for the association (assuming it will do so!).

Offer Free Shipping for Members Instead of Discounting Prices

Amazon.com sells a membership called Amazon Prime. Membership gets you free 2-day shipping and discounts on overnighting packages. The more you spend with Amazon, the more valuable your membership. It is very easy to understand the value of the membership because it is quite simple. You can even share the member benefits with up to four other people in your household. Nice dynamic!

Why not offer free shipping to your members for all publications and products rather than giving a discount off the price? Discounting your products can be seen as devaluing their worth. Free shipping is an excellent perk that doesn’t make any statement about the worth of the content and encourages more spending. It should also make you more money in the long run since it is roughly a fixed cost and you won’t be discounting your more expensive items.

What if there were no dues?

Let’s try a thought experiment….

After numerous complaints from members over a three-year period, your board concludes the association’s dues are simply too high. They are so high, in fact, they have become the number one reason why even very good prospects don’t join. After extensive deliberation and discussion of the issue, the board votes to get rid of dues permanently, even though these payments represent at least 20% (and sometimes more) of your association’s revenue each fiscal year.

If confronted with this situation, what would you do differently?

If you don’t know, why? If you do, why aren’t you already doing it?

Be original

Associations love to copy the work of other individuals and organizations. Best practices are a big thing in our community, probably because the scarcity and constraints culture of associations leads us to conclude that best practices will be easier to implement and more cost effective over time. Unfortunately for us, there is overwhelming evidence that you cannot and will not build a truly great and successful organization simply by copying others. True success and true greatness come from daring to do what others can’t do or won’t try.

Personally, I loathe best practices, but I do recognize that some people like them, so I’ll hold off on further critique for now. But I still would like to challenge those association leaders enamored with best practices to consider the truly radical and counterintuitive notion of not duplicating what others do before first. Instead, be original. Rather than constantly “tweaking” someone else’s existing solutions to your context, open yourself up to fresh, different and even plainly absurd ways of thinking. (In this vein, remember the words of Albert Einstein, “If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.”) Take the time to consider the unique and creative contribution you, your team and your organization can make to addressing both new and long-standing challenges in surprising ways.

Best practices stifle meaningful innovation and embrace status quo thinking. (Oh, did I write that out loud?…;>)) But I know I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know. Leadership isn’t about driving our associations down toward the lowest common denominator. Haven’t we had enough of that? Genuine leadership values and demands authenticity, creativity and originality in the work of every contributor and from the organization as a whole. Seize the opportunity to become a true pioneer, and let the laggards copy you. Before long, they will be eating your dust!

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.

Letting problems solve us

When confronted with a problem, human beings instinctively want to solve it. Most of the time, that instinct serves us well, especially when it comes to both routine difficulties and matters of life and death. But more often than we might suspect, there are golden opportunities not to follow our instincts and, instead, let the problems we face “solve us.”

Solve us you ask? It is an insight that I took away from my graduate work with Professor Robert Kegan in the late 1990s. As Professor Kegan says, “Each of us does the best we can coping within the world of our assumptive design.” To put it another way, the assumptions we make everyday about every aspect of our life experience shape the way we make sense of and interact with the world. In effect, our assumptions allow us to design the world in which we want to live, one that is often at odds with the “realities” experienced by others. We cope by resolving this dissonance, which is why we are very intent on solving problems.

But what if we had sufficient awareness to recognize that our problems might not be the actual problem? What if we could see that sometimes the problem is simply an indicator of flawed or, at least, untested assumptions? What if we could step outside of the problem and look at our relationship to it so that we might understand it in a new way? Without a doubt, it is easier to ask these questions than it is to do what they ask. Nevertheless, I believe what I am writing about here is an absolutely critical capability that both staff and volunteer association leaders must develop going forward.

Let’s think briefly about how letting problems solve us might influence our work on strategy. Strategic planning is clear-cut method for solving the problems we have with ambiguity, complexity and uncertainty. In strategic planning, we identify mostly what we know we know today, and we do a little bit of elaboration on it to give it a future feel. Then, we pre-determine the outcomes we want to achieve and work fastidiously toward reaching them. No mess, no fuss. This approach may be clean and neat, but it is neither authentic nor pragmatic, given what we know is true about the current strategic landscape. In contrast, letting the problem solve us challenges our assumptions along multiple dimensions, especially our commitment to knowing all the answers even before the questions are asked. Letting the problem solve us focuses instead on learning as we go, exercising judgment and constantly testing our assumptions. From this process, not only will we achieve different results, but our approach to strategic leadership also will be different.

So, the next time you confront a problem in your work, consider stepping back from trying to solve it immediately. Instead, see if the problem can solve you.

Boards we cannot afford

In a post last month on the Principled Innovation Blog, I wrote about the need for better vision from governance. Of course, I believe we should expect even more from our boards, as well as their members, and so I thought I would share some further perspectives on the kind of boards our associations really cannot afford either today or going forward.

+We cannot afford boards that are paralyzed by denial, nostalgia, myopia or intransigence. We need boards that recognize and accept the emerging reality of profound, accelerating and intensifying disruption and discontinuity, i.e., genuine paradigm shift. We need board members who understand the new drivers of growth and success in this uncertain environment.

+We cannot afford boards that defer difficult choices to the future in the interest of keeping the peace today. We need boards that will confront divisive issues, even if some people might be angered or offended by the result. We need board members who accept the necessity of conflict if it serves a larger, strategic purpose.

+We cannot afford boards that willingly revoke their public commitments in the interest of expedience or political pressure. We need boards with integrity. We need board members who understand that it is more important to make and stand behind smart decisions than it is to be popular.

+We cannot afford boards that value the superficial over the substantive. We need boards that deeply embrace their leadership responsibilities, while eschewing the accompanying perquisites. We need board members who embrace the privilege of board service as its own reward.

+We cannot afford boards that interfere with or prevent the pursuit of innovation. We need boards that are guided by a strategic mindset, and imbued with an entrepreneurial spirit. We need board members who understand the preeminence of value creation for members, customers and stakeholders.

In short, our associations need and deserve stronger, better boards. Not every association board fails to meet the standards I’ve outlined above but, unfortunately, many do and that is a situation our community can no longer tolerate.

Fearing Rejection

Associations are afraid of rejection. They want to please everyone. They do not want to offer something unless they know that people will show up and will provide universally glowing evaluation forms. The desire to produce high-quality and high-value products and services, of course, is laudable. But it is important to remember that the path to that high-value endpoint will often take you through rejection and frustration. To assume that you can always get it right simply denies our own experience.

Who makes the right decisions all the time? Who accurately predicts what people will want or need with 100% accuracy? The very best hitters in professional baseball fail to get base hits 65% of the time. We learn, grow, and are successful in life by trying and sometimes failing. As long as we learn from what did not work, we make great progress. The more we try, the more we learn, and the more successful we are.

But associations forget this. They are reluctant to experiment””what if the members don’t like it? What if we get low scores on the evaluation forms? Two of us were planning a session for a conference with the client and we proposed a format that was non-traditional for this client. They balked. Their main concern: what if people come into the room, see the nontraditional format, and then leave for another session.

Our response: great! This session is not designed to please everyone. Some may want to go elsewhere, but we think some will like it and want to stay. But we will only know this if we try. We will only learn what works if we risk being rejected.

Less Paper Rather Than Paperless

Associations are beginning to try taking their conferences ‘paperless’: no more handouts on chairs, no more frantic photocopying late into the night. All handouts are available via the conference web site and/or a jump drive given to attendees. This saves the association a lot of money and attendees don’t have to damage their spinal column adding a few pounds of paper to their luggage for the trip home.

However there is one problem: attendees actually like to have a handout in the room to refer to. Paper still has a pretty high usability factor. Speakers also like to have the ability to put something in front of attendees, especially if it provides a useful reference for them during the session. What to do?

One solution is to print less paper rather than none. Limit speakers to a single 8.5 x 11 page, front and back for an in-room handout. This should not be a tiny set of slides. It should be critical information the attendees should have in front of them during the session. The conference organizers can still put extended handouts online or on a jump drive for people to review in depth once they get home.

Providing one page paper handouts allows you to continue to provide a valuable resource in the room while still gaining most of the benefits of going fully paperless. It also encourages speakers to do more than provide redundant slideuments.

Diversity as a Numbers Game

Diversity is given a lot of lip service in associations. We see diversity initiatives, diversity committees, diversity scholarships, and more. However, diversity is most often viewed as a necessary evil at worst and a numbers game at best. Members of diverse groups (of a different nationality, gender, age, etc., than the “average” member) are purposefully placed on boards and committees to meet diversity goals and/or to be politically correct.

Diversity is usually not seen for what it really is: a business strategy. As Frans Johansson is most famous for expressing, diversity brings greater potential for a wider range of perspectives and ideas which can lead to new and improved products and services. A great strategy for getting out of the “we’ve always done it that way” mentality would be to truly embrace diversity and the value it could bring to your association.

And, contrary to popular belief, probably the first clue that an association hasn’t fully embraced diversity is that it still has a diversity committee.

Letting an Idea Become New Again

“We’ve tried it before and it didn’t work.” You have no doubt heard that conversation-ending, idea-busting statement before by association colleagues. You may have even muttered it yourself (but don’t admit it, please).

Of course there is great value in staff and volunteer leaders with a historical perspective of association activities. However, if you’re one of them, it’s important for you to realize that just as “we’ve always done it that way” is not a valid reason for continuing an approach, “we’ve tried it before and it didn’t work” is not a valid reason for abandoning an idea.

There may be situational or contextual reasons for past failures. Perhaps the timing was off. Perhaps the positioning was ineffective. Perhaps the target was inappropriate. Perhaps the implementation was weak.

The next time you are presented with an idea that you know has been attempted and failed in the past, don’t assume it will fail again. Describe the past attempt to the idea proposer and ask him or her what about the current circumstances is different leading him or her to feel the idea could succeed in the present situation. Give the individual time to investigate the idea, given this new (to them) information.

In the end, perhaps you will decide the idea really does stink or maybe you’ll discover it has great potential. The important point is that you don’t discount its consideration simply because it’s been done before.

Going Social with Your Public Service Announcements

Many associations create public service announcement videos highlighting important issues on behalf of their members to the general public. However, PSAs are often run by television stations during low ratings time slots to use up excess advertising capacity that they were not able to sell. Hardly ideal exposure.

Enter YouTube, the online video sharing service that was founded in 2005. Anyone can post video to the site, which then allows others to comment and rate the video as well as share it via e-mail and blogs with their friends. Corporate marketers have recently begun posting video clips to the site as part of their marketing. They also peruse the comments people add to the videos as a research tool for how people react to the videos.

Associations should experiment with using services such as YouTube to get their ideas out into the greater web community. Be prepared to view the feedback you get on your video as valuable insight into how people react to your piece without getting defensive. Ultimately, sharing video via services such as YouTube may get your PSA much more exposure to higher quality audiences than traditional distriution can provide.

The real innovation will come, however, when your members begin posting their own video testimonials and commentary about your field on their own initiative!

Avoiding Disruptions

There was a quote in the winter 2006 Journal of Association Leadership that reflects a fundamental stumbling block in the association community. In the commentary to an article about strategy making, Adrienne Bien expressed concern about the resistance the author encountered when bringing a new approach to strategy to his association:

“For most associations, this resistance would be a red flag, as we tend to avoid conflict and steer away from disruptions to the volunteer structures that are the backbones of our organizations.”

Forget just the volunteer structures: associations steer away from disruption. We want things to go smoothly. We want things to go as we planned them. We want the activities of the association to unfold predictably, resulting in universal acclaim and positive feedback.

And then there is real life. In real life there are disruptions. Yes, we can plan, and we can certainly strive to do things that people find valuable (maybe we’ll get all “fives” on our evaluation sheets!). As life unfolds, however, we are bound to find disruptions. People don’t show up. The program is not making participants happy. The staff does not like the new initiative we just announced.

At that moment, you need to embrace the disruption, rather than avoiding it. Disruptions are infinitely more valuable than your stack of “happy sheets” with all fives on them. Disruptions open your eyes to new possibilities. Disruptions support you in confronting the truth. Without disruptions, you would continue to do what you’ve always done””even if it isn’t working.

Avoiding or ignoring the disruptions is certainly tempting. At the first sign of disruption, you can look the other way. You can silence the disruptive voices. You can stop asking questions, in order to avoid disruptive answers. That feels more comfortable. By focusing on the positive messages, you feel good about the way things are going. If you need to, you can explain away the disruption””they don’t know what they are talking about, they are not a representative sample.

Don’t do that. Resist the temptation. Ask yourself which is more important: comfort or success? Your chances for success increase proportionally with the amount of information you let in, and by avoiding disruptions you close off a critical channel of information, resulting in missed opportunities for growth and change. The next time you have a disruption””even one in your volunteer structure””move towards it instead of away from it. Learn more about it. Ask questions. Dig deeper. The decisions that emerge will be smarter.

The “unchapter”

I recently attended a conference where there was a rather robust conversation about creating local affiliate organizations for the national association that had organized the conference. This was my first time attending this conference and my background in associations was not well-known among the participants. I saw this as an opportunity to advance my thoughts on what we have traditionally called “chapter development.” Let me share them for you here:

1 Don’t start a chapter.
2. Create an “unchapter” instead.
3. Do that by thinking about everything you would do to create a chapter.
4. And then do the opposite.

I can’t find a good reason why we refer to local affiliate organizations as chapters, so there is no good reason to keep doing it. Call them communities, networks, clusters or something completely different. Whatever floats your boat. Just don’t call them chapters!

I see no reason why our local affiliates need to duplicate the burdensome bureaucracy and chair filling of our national organizations, so let’s not do that either. No officers and no board. Let’s have a small coordinating council instead that can make sure people are kept up to date about what’s happening. Streamline administration and communication.

And, in that spirit, I see no reason why our group needs to have a formal web site. Just put up a blog with all of the content the members might need. Much easier for volunteers to handle, much easier for the members to use and much more current in terms of sharing information.

I see no reason why these groups must have monthly in-person programs or lunches. Let each group choose its own approach. Some may want quarterly programming or only virtual programming or even no formal programming at all. I see no problem with any of those approaches so long as it works for the members. Not every group needs to fit the cookie-cutter image of the traditional chapter and nor should every group do the exact same things. The groups should differentiate, and then coordinate, cooperate and compete with each other as necessary.

I see no reason why our groups need to follow any mandate or requirement from the national organization other than staying true to vision, mission and strategy and remaining within the boundaries of legal, ethical and financial propriety. They should do their own things and do them as well as anybody else, including the national organization. Forget about the parent-child relationship. Think of it as cousins instead…

Associations need to dump the traditional model of “chapter development” in favor of a fundamentally new way of bringing people together at the local and regional levels. I’m sure the naysayers out there will point out everything they think is wrong with what I’ve suggested. Good. I look forward to that debate!

Change Management

When associations realize that they need to do things differently in order to get different (hopefully better) results, they too often turn to the field of “change management” to ensure that their staff and/or members do not ruin progress by resisting the positive change. We need to stop calling these activities “change management” and refer to them instead by a more accurate name: “change enforcement.”

Much of the advice in change management books is focused on compelling other people to do what you want them to do. It presumes that you know better than they do, and it seeks a benevolent way to “get them on board”””because firing everyone and simply orienting your new recruits to your plan seems a bit rash.

The advice in these books is not wrong””knowledge of how fear and the comfort of routine play into behavior patterns is well documented and relevant in organizations. My problem with these books is that they tend to imply that the first time you engage people in the change is when you are enforcing it. While this may happen frequently in large organizations seeking consistency across a global enterprise, this is rarely necessary in associations with significantly smaller staffs. When you only have ten people on staff, there really isn’t an excuse for not engaging them earlier on in the change process.

Tradition, however, dictates that exclusion. Tradition says issues of “change” are relegated to the strategic conversations, which, of course, take place only among the Board and most senior management, so we’ve built organizational routines that reinforce those assumptions.

The good news is, this is easy to change. Simply build new routines. Specifically, build the topic of “change” into your routine at a lower level. Don’t leave the “what are we going to do differently” conversation to the once-every-two-years strategic planning conversation (or to the “everyone get on board” change management processes). Create space on a specific meeting agenda (at least once per quarter, but more often is better) about what is changing or needs to change in the organization.

Let staff develop the agenda and facilitate the meeting. This does not mean they are in charge””decisions about what to change can still rest at the top of the hierarchy (if that’s what you want). But think about it: if you are really interested in change, then it makes sense to get someone other than the person who is most invested in the way things are (the leader) to lead that discussion.

Be open to where the conversation leads you, and use these interactions as a chance to discuss major decisions about change you are going to make. And if you are not going to change (despite the staff’s call for change), then you can use these meetings to make your rationale crystal clear. With these conversations more the routine in organizations, we will have less need for the psychology-based coercion techniques from the “change enforcement” field.

Recruiting GenX Women

So the Always Done It That Way crew is made up of five GenXers (if you haven’t figured that out by now). Three men, two women…all of us are consultants and all of us are business owners. With this said…

Very recently I attended a professional association conference (of which I am a member) where the membership is all women. I belong to a few of these groups, so identification will be difficult (although several of these groups are dealing with the same issue). They want to recruit young GenX and millenial women from to join the organization and to eventually be on the Board. Many associations are discussing the issue of how to recruit “younger” members. I can’t speak for my entire generation, but I do have some insight on recruiting GenX women….so here it goes.

Some Background –
The Board of this organization is mostly women 50 and older with a couple of token 40-somethings. Basically the female version of the “old white male” Board structure we see in the association world. The Board selected a keynoter for the conference who spoke about generational issues using data that was at least 10 years out of date – and again, an over 50 white female. The requirements to sit on the Board include attendance at the two annual conferences the organization hosts plus a whole bunch of other hoops. From an educational point of view, the content at the conference is weak – thus few people beyond senior volunteer leaders attend. Sessions are led, again, by Boomer+ women and this time a few minority women are included in the bunch.

Are you seeing the picture yet?

The one saving grace – the Board did have enough insight to hire a GenX female Executive Director (that get’s it). Unfortunately, I’m not sure how much guidance they really take from her. But I do have to give the Board credit for recognizing that they need to make significant changes to the organization to exist going forward.

I think you can begin to see my point here, but I’ll continue….

So after the first day of the conference I can’t tell you how many Board members pulled me and other token GenX participants aside to ask how the organization can do a better job of recruiting members “like us”.

Here is my off-the-top-of-my-head snap shot of what your association is competing with right now. And keep in mind GenX women are dealing with many of the same issues.

GenX women are of child bearing age. I happen to have two small children (2 1/2 and 11 months) – and miss them terribly.
A husband who likes to see my face occasionally versus our long daily string of instant messages.
A growing business (and travel quite a bit) – the office manager often questions who I am.
A large family and a group of friends – all of whom wonder where I am most of the time.
A stack of 50 great business books and industry publications sitting in my office that I want to get to.
A laundry list of business questions I want answers to NOW, not in six months when the next conference takes place.

Frankly, many of these issues are not GenX specific. However, I would add the following general characteristics…

- My generation of women is the first to fully view ourselves as peers and equals to our male counterparts. Title IX helped with that. And, we are the first generation to graduate in larger numbers than men. We expect equality with men AND women – and frankly everyone.

- We watched our loyal Boomer+ parents get fired and laid off from companies they spent their whole lives serving. So we’re not too interested in “organizational loyalty”. You will have to prove it to us that participation in your association is truly valuable to my professional goals.

Two big business isssues for me now – (1) how to create a business “dashboard” that include financial and other data that relates to a growing consulting practice. AND (2) I want to meet three to five other business consultants who have growing consulting practices. I want to get in a room with them for a day and pick their brains. However, this format is not available at the conference. Just a whole bunch of speakers spreading their “wisdom” about business issues.

So to sit on the Board or become a more senior leader within the organization you are asking us GenX women to spend $500+ on registration, $200+tax a night on hotel for three nights, plus travel to attend a two-day conference with questionable content? All so I can sit on the Board to “represent” the GenX crowd and possibly help you fix your “recruitment” problem?

Here is my free advice on your “recruitment problem”…

(1) Ask GenXers what it takes to get them to join a professional association. Don’t listen to consultants or anyone else – especially those with out-of-date generational information.
(2) LISTEN, LISTEN, LISTEN. Actually listen to what GenXers have to say.
(3) Do something about it today – not create a two-year plan on recruiting GenXers – make the changes quickly.
(4) Get smart GenX members into the organization at the highest levels…and not just one token GenXer at the Board table. If that means you have to loosen some of your requirements, do so.
(5) Make membership valuable. Provide challenging and interesting content presented by a wide range of people and allow for opportunities to collaborate with other like-minded members.

If your organization takes too long to make significant changes to attract GenXers, they will go start a competing organization that meets their needs. In this day and age it’s easy to do.

Vision and venture

In our work together, my co-author Jamie Notter and I frequently use the following quotation from Vaclav Havel, the former president of the Czech Republic:

“Vision is not enough; it must be combined with venture. It is not enough to stare up the steps; we must step up the stairs.”

Most associations in which I’ve been involved are quite adroit at articulating grand statements of vision and mission. They are less good, however, at venturing something real to help make those intentions come true. And yet, as Havel’s words confirm, we will never accomplish anything important unless we are prepared to risk something in the process. Throughout human history, no meaningful achievement of any consequence has ever been attempted, let alone completed, without the expectation and acceptance of risk. It’s time for association staff and volunteer leaders to recognize this inescapable fact.

Of course, by venture, I don’t mean the reckless and uninformed pursuit of just any opportunity that may present itself. Venture must be a strategic endeavor, guided by a clear sense of both realism and possibility. Risk is something to be managed and, if possible, leveraged to the benefit of the organization and its members. It can be done, but only if leaders are willing to challenge their associations to “step up the stairs.”

There is no such thing as “a great idea”

Blasphemy, I know, but hear me out. I can have a great idea and you can have a great idea, but is my idea going to be great for you, and yours great for me? (If you can follow that sentence, you’re approved to read on.)

Next time you’re at a conference, when a speaker starts presenting their “great ideas” for how to do something, notice how many people around the room are ferociously scribbling all the ideas down. This is when I get a little uncomfortable. The sharing of ideas is great ““ if I’m there, I’ll probably be scribbling the ideas down too. What concerns me is that presenters often advocate their ideas as golden rules, and what concerns me more is that many participants seem to buy what the presenters are selling.

We need to be clear that just because one person’s “great idea” was proven successful for a particular situation(s), that’s little to no indication for how it will play out for another organization. (An analogy for all you parents out there: did all those great ideas you collected for handling your first child work identically for all your children?! How about those great ideas you were offered from other parents with swears of success ““ did they all work for you? Of course not. In fact, many were probably contradictory.)

We all need to recognize that any idea we hear, no matter how successful it was in a given situation, is only a “potentially great idea” to us (a PGI, that is, because the association world needs a few more acronyms). It’s up to us to determine what the potential success of that idea will be in our particular situation.

Hmmm, do you think ASAE and The Center for Association Leadership will rename their conference “Potentially Great Ideas Conference”? Okay, maybe not.

Now, go forth and collect all the ideas you can, but scrutinize them well to find your gems.