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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.