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.

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

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

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

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

What was the result?

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

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

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

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

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.

“The best things to ever come out of Yahoo, as far as I’m concerned, have been the work of individuals. Not of some hyperbolic purple and yellow machine, but from people, strong-willed individuals willing to buck the bureaucracy. And all the worst stuff the company has done has come out of committees.”

This really misses the point entirely. This is not a structural governance problem. It is a recruitment problem.

A Board that is heavily loaded with people who have been around the association for decades has failed to recruit new blood. Creating a token slot for a young person will get you just that: a person who will be discounted from the start because they are a token to diversity. Fundamentally changing your recruitment practices to identify leadership candidates throughout the membership will provide a more diverse array of candidates and most likely find some leaders you would never have known about.

To get better leaders you need to become a better recruiter.

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.

As experts and airline executives digested the safety board’s report, they began to more closely scrutinize other problems in the cockpit that day. It emerged that Pettit and Wheaton were emblematic of aviation’s lingering cowboy culture, a residue of an era when fighter jocks from World War II and Korea flew for the airlines. In that gung-ho environment, captains were always right. They did not need advice, and co-pilots and other crew members often were afraid to assert themselves.

“It was a more romantic time frame when aviation, wasn’t just a transportation system, but that needed to change,” said Larry Rockliff, vice president of training for Airbus North America.

“Organizations are set up to support their existing business models. Because implementing a simpler, less expensive, more accessible product or service could sabotage their current offerings, it’s almost impossible for them to disrupt themselves. Therefore, the catalytic innovations that will bring new benefits to the most people are likely to come from outside the ranks of the established players.”

This is why there are so many posts about issues ofdiversity, generations, and who’s in charge in our book.

A few books have recently been written on this topic, but they all fail to confront one central paradox. While they extol the power of communities, they were each written by only one person. We’re putting this paradox to the test by inviting hundreds of thousands of authors to contribute to this “network book” using today’s technologies.

This approach takes the idea of beta publishing to the extreme end of the continuum of participation. Beta publishing leverages a book’s audience to improve the quality of the book. However, there is still a single author whose vision and voice is embodied in the work. I honestly have my doubts about how well this concept will work when extended to authoring as well. It will require strong editing skills to hold together as a coherent book.

What do you think? Is this an interesting one-off experiment or the new wave of publishing?

The debate over staff versus member driven, however, is really just a reframing of the more basic question: who is in charge? And while we agree that there is no singular or simple answer to that question at the macro level (the macro answer is “it depends”), this should not provide association leaders with an excuse for avoiding this question within their own, specific, micro-level situations.

To be successful, association leaders must clarify and pinpoint a specific answer to that question within their own context, and that is not just at the Board meetings, where the staff versus member paradigm would expect the topic to come up. Confusion about who is in charge appears elsewhere in the association’s business as well:

Staff
Association leaders often espouse “flat” organizations, valuing input from everyone, even suggesting “consensus” decision making. At the same time, however, they structure their organizations hierarchically, where reporting relationships define authority in a clear and vertical fashion. You must confront this contradiction so staff will understand when they have input and when they do not. There is room for broad input, but do not hide the fact that a very few actually have the decision making power on major questions. You need not concentrate all control in the hands of the managers, but be truthful and clear about areas where control is not shared, and everyone will work more effectively.

Related Organizations
When associations create related organizations (often driven by benefits of a different tax status), they too often create independent Boards and structures of organizations that they intend to be literally “subsidiaries” of the association. It is easy to focus on the purpose of the new organization, its mission, and empowering the new Board that is set up to lead effectively, and in doing so avoid the “who’s in charge” question entirely. The two Boards then operate for years, even decades, without confronting huge contradictions in expectations and purpose. Each Board feels it is in charge, yet it never confronts the issue head on.

It takes courage to confront these “who is in charge” conversations, but remember: while the conversations may be difficult, they won’t kill you, and the longer you put off having them, the more difficult they will be.