We Have Always Done It That Way

Ever since Good to Great hit the scene, the association community has gotten data religion. Count this, measure that, does this metric make my balanced score card look fat? The problem with too much data collection is that you can be paralyzed by an undifferentiated mass of input. You become the crunchee rather than the cruncher.

Repeat after me: If a piece of data can’t enable a decision to be made, it isn’t worth measuring. Using this simple rule will dramatically reduce your measurement efforts while simultaneously enabling you to take more action. What’s not to like?

This same approach can be invaluable for your Board of Directors and other leadership bodies. When you are pressed for more and more data, push back. Ask what decisions the requested data will support. If it doesn’t support any, it is in everyone’s best interest to not go through the labor of producing it nor the time of assessing and discussing it. You can move on to those metrics that really matter to your leaders making decisions about the future of the organization.

Do not allow your measurement efforts to crunch you and your leadership.

Tags: Leadership, Strategy, Technology, The Way We Execute, The Way We Manage, The Way We Think, The Way We Work Together, We've Always Done It That Way by David
6 Comments »

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.

Tags: Innovation, Leadership, Staff Issues, Strategy, Technology, The Way We Think, We've Always Done It That Way by Jeff
5 Comments »

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

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

Tags: Professional Development, The Way We Think, We've Always Done It That Way by Mickie
3 Comments »

Shel Israel (co-author of Naked Conversations) has a simply outstanding post on his blog about reflections on life at age 63. Really, read the whole thing. It’s great.

But I’ll quote a couple of lines that struck me as kindred thoughts to We Have Always Done It That Way:

Without discovery, you start growing old fast. Those who adopt a “been there-done that” grow old rapidly from not going anywhere new.

Habits can make you too comfortable, so every now and then break them just to see what happens.

I have outlived the eras in which conventional wisdom complacently knew that IBM, DEC, HP, Microsoft, Google and the old AT&T were too entrenched and too powerful to be disrupted by some upstart entrepreneur.

Tags: The Way We Think, We've Always Done It That Way by Jamie
No Comments »

I’m not the only one who sees the value in “middle-level thinking.” There is an article in Harvard Business Review titled “To Succeed in the Long Term, Focus on the Middle Term” that argues for the strategic importance of the middle-term time horizon. His analysis is at the large corporation level (his case study is Cisco Systems), but the lessons should be relevant anywhere. Most organizations build themselves around the short term (are we making out numbers this year) and long-term (what is our vision?). But there is a middle term where you launch new initiatives, lay the foundation for future success, and build your brand, your reputation, your R&D infrastructure, etc. The problem is, anything done in this time horizon is viewed as a failure, because our measurement systems tend to be either long-term or short-term focused:

“All companies have their established ways of assessing performance. Many have also devised their own methods of gauging whether research and development projects are progressing as hoped. Unfortunately, few have found a way to measure Horizon 2 [middle-term] efforts that takes into account their particular challenges. Instead, companies compare these projects either with those of Horizon 1 (which are much more reliable and lucrative) or with those of Horizon 3 (which are much more inspiring). Regardless of which standard Horizon 2 offerings are held to, they fall short, and whatever organization is sponsoring them is found wanting.”

Tags: The Way We Think, We've Always Done It That Way by Jamie
No Comments »

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.

Tags: Innovation, Leadership, Membership, Professional Development, Staff Issues, Strategy, Technology, The Way We Execute, The Way We Involve Others, The Way We Lead, The Way We Manage, The Way We Think, The Way We Work Together, We've Always Done It That Way by Jeff
4 Comments »

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.

Tags: Innovation, Leadership, Professional Development, Technology, The Way We Execute, The Way We Involve Others, The Way We Lead, The Way We Manage, The Way We Think, The Way We Work Together, We've Always Done It That Way by Jeff
No Comments »

Associations seem to be very good at high-level thinking. They love their vision statements and mission statements. They work hard on their keynote speeches. They really love platitudes:

We’re here for the members
Our priority is customer service
We support the development or perpetuation of the field

Associations are equally good at details. They love their action plans. They relish the debate about the color of next year’s annual meeting brochure. With a tradition of small staffs, it is not uncommon for senior managers to be immersed in the details of implementation throughout the year.

What associations really need to develop, however, is their middle-level thinking. They need to devote more time to discussing issues and making decisions that rise above the minutia of implementation, but have more subtlety or definition than the blanket statements of the mission and vision realm. Consider the following examples:

Strategy
Strategic plans typically start with the broad mission or vision and then present categories of activities, spelled out in detail. Plans basically “back in” to the middle level, by presenting it as the sum of all the detailed actions. Associations need to make more strategic decisions about the middle level. What really is our priority this year? Of all the things we usually do, which ones will drive our success over the next eighteen months? Those are tough decisions, but if you get clarity on them, it empowers staff to actually be more strategic during the year (rather than simply checking off to-do items from the plan).

Staff Issues
If problems or conflicts develop among staff members, the discussion tends to bounce between the high level (she’s not a team player; he’s not a good fit with our culture; we need her to be more of a leader) and the details (I saw her shopping online during work; he shouldn’t talk to me like that during staff meeting; I can’t believe she said that at a Board meeting). The opportunities for resolution, however, are in that middle level. Yes, you need to talk about the behavior, but you need to spell out how the behavior connects to those high-level conclusions. How is “team player” defined, and why, quite frankly, does everyone need to be one? What really is the culture here and will that drive our success? What is the impact of leadership style on what we are doing? When you work through those discussions, the examination of behavior is more meaningful and effective.

Program Evaluation
There was an article in Forum magazine in May 2006 examining how to decide to cut long-standing programs that perfectly demonstrated the lack of a middle level. The questions they posed tended to be high level (does this program impact the mission?) or detailed (what is the net revenue?). Those are both important, but you need some middle level analysis for this decision as well. How does this program impact our brand? Does this program help us develop internal capacity that helps us in other areas? Is this program taking resources away from our mid-level strategic direction? Without the middle level in this discussion, your evaluation tool becomes too blunt an instrument.

Tags: The Way We Think, We've Always Done It That Way by Jamie
2 Comments »

As membership-based organizations, associations by definition must create themselves in a way that allows them to satisfy a large number of stakeholders. Within their membership alone they are guaranteed to find a broad range of preferences and priorities, and that range only expands when you consider other stakeholders (business partners, staff, policy communities, the public, etc.). Obviously there is value in creating a variety of experiences, products, services, etc. so that your differing stakeholders can extract different types of value.

For example, AARP produces a very successful magazine. A few years back they experimented with two versions of the magazine, including a new one focused on a specific generation””the newest retirees, the “Baby Boomers.” As they evaluated the success of the new venture, however, the results were disappointing, and they cancelled the new magazine. But they did not go back to one magazine for all of their membership. They started producing three slightly different versions of their magazine based on age groupings rather than generations: one for members in their fifties, one for members in their sixties, and one for members seventy and above. This approach has been more successful.

So shifting in response to diversity among stakeholders can be a good thing, but it also has its dark side, and associations too often fail to see this. At a high level, the dark side is obvious and captured in platitudes we hear all the time. You can’t be everything to everyone. Trying to go in too many directions at once makes it impossible to move forward. We all know that there is a limit to our ability to please all the different perspectives, interests, or motivations among stakeholders.

But we still try to do it. The problem is our devotion to our members. We take a good platitude (providing member value will make your association successful) and take it to an extreme that ignores the platitudes we mentioned above about being everything to everyone. We start, innocently enough, by doing research about the various needs and interests of our members and stakeholders. The more sophisticated we get with our research, the larger the variety of interests we discover. We use that knowledge to tweak our services or processes and we get good results (retention up! satisfaction up!). So we keep doing it.

Unfortunately, over time, it provides us with too many choices, and we begin to see clearly how many people will be unhappy unless we choose to meet their needs. So we choose to diversify even further. In the end, we lose the capacity to make choices, because we don’t want to make any stakeholder unhappy. It happens over time. No one makes the explicit decision that making choices is bad, but that is what happens. We add new programs without taking anything away. We respond to every member demand. We abandon a strategy if a focus group objects to it. We just end up there.

You have to choose. You have to take some people’s interests and desires and give them a higher priority than others. You have to make some people unhappy with your decisions, because if you don’t, then you are making weak decisions, and success requires strength. You have to choose some courses of action, knowing that you are ruling out a host of other options. You don’t have to be blind to what others want, and we don’t encourage you to ignore stakeholder groups and their varied interests and opinions. But you do have to choose.

Tags: Leadership, Membership, Strategy, The Way We Think by Jamie
2 Comments »