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 »

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 De Cagna
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 De Cagna
No Comments »

This story in the Washington Post provides a tragic and inspiring example of change: A Crash’s Improbable Impact. The story is about how the crash of Air Florida on a DC bridge in 1982 illuminated how communicating as they always had in the cockpit decreased the safety of the flights. It then led to dramatic change in how pilots, ship captains and even surgeons interact with their crews. Here is an excerpt:

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.

Tags: Staff Issues, The Way We Execute, The Way We Involve Others, The Way We Lead, The Way We Manage, The Way We Work Together, We've Always Done It That Way by David
1 Comment »

HBR has a good article this month about “Disruptive Innovation for Social Change.” It looks at why, if we spend so much money on things like education and healthcare, do they fundamentally not get better? A part of their answer is that most of the money that is spent on these social issues goes to the largest institutions, who happen to be invested in the status quo! Consider the following quote, and think about associations:

“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.

Tags: The Way We Involve Others, The Way We Work Together, We've Always Done It That Way by Jamie
No Comments »

We Are Smarter Than Me is a new effort to publish a book that is collaboratively written by thousands of volunteers. The topic they are focusing on is how collaborative efforts can impact traditional top-down corporate activities.

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?

Tags: The Way We Execute, The Way We Involve Others, The Way We Work Together, We've Always Done It That Way by David
No Comments »

The concept of emotional intelligence was popularized in the last decade primarily by psychologist and author, Daniel Goleman. He and other researchers challenged our traditional definition of “smart” (people who did well in school and scored well on tests””tests like the IQ test that measured our reason, logic, memorization, and analytical capacity). According to the research of Goleman and others, however, measures of “emotional intelligence” (being able to manage and express feelings, having empathy for others, understanding and managing social relationships, etc.) are a better predictor of success than traditional measures of intelligence.

So why aren’t associations listening? We may invite Goleman to speak at our conferences, but typically we ignore much of what he says in the way we run our associations, at both the staff and volunteer levels. As human systems, our organizations by definition include an emotional component. There is an emotional side of decision making and strategy. There are emotions flowing among staff or among Board members””whether we like it or not. Remember, the emotional center of your brain sends its electric signals out much faster than the rational center. People will have their emotional reactions to things before they have a chance to rationalize them away. But if emotion is expressed or an emotional issue is raised, it is quickly skirted, ignored or actively suppressed. Many consider emotional expression “unprofessional.”

Yet there are ways to accept emotions as a part of the workplace and still uphold standards of professionalism. In terms of emotional expression, this simply requires clarification of ground rules. Outlawing all emotional expression is counterproductive, and although few associations explicitly state this as a norm, they often operate as if it were. This generates problems, however, because it encourages people to bottle up emotions as they arise. Over time, this creates pressure, so when emotion is expressed, it is usually quite intense (reinforcing the norm that you should not express emotion).

The alternative is to create an explicit ground rule that basic emotional expression is permitted. There are limits (no temper tantrums during staff meetings!), but if you can support people in accepting simple emotional expression, it will actually facilitate people’s ability to deal with issues as they arise, making for a more professional workplace in the end. This can also facilitate more productive meetings and interactions at the Board level.

In addition to expression, of course, you must also pay attention to the internal management of emotions. Expressions of emotion are usually greatly outnumbered by the number of times our “buttons” get pushed in the office, triggering an internal emotional reaction that tends to get in the way with us successfully doing our work. Simply being aware of this and developing techniques for managing this internally can also support a more productive and professional expression of emotion.

Tags: Staff Issues, The Way We Work Together, We've Always Done It That Way by Jamie
No Comments »

“Everything would be fine if it weren’t for [fill in the blank].”

How often have you heard such a statement in an association? This person could be a rank-and-file member, someone on the Board, or a staff person at any level. Whoever they are, they are definitely a problem. Too often, they are defined as the problem.

As such, the solutions associations develop in response tend to be focused on that individual “problem person,” but this too often makes matters worse. While it is true that there are individuals whose behavior or attitude can negatively impact the performance of an organization, it is rarely a case of simple cause and effect. Organizations are complex systems, and looking only at the problem person leaves out too many other important factors, so solutions that focus on the problem person usually fall short. As quality guru W. Edwards Deming said, “defects are always a sign of system failure.”

Consider three typical responses to problem people.

Termination
The obvious solution to a problem is to get rid of it. For staff, this means termination. If they are volunteers, it’s a bit trickier, but let’s be honest””there are ways to leverage the volunteer system to ensure that certain people do not volunteer any more. While in some cases, termination takes care of the problem behavior, in too many cases it does not””the problem behavior pops up in the form of a new individual. Problem people are often reflecting a frustration in the system. While it seems like it is one person’s personality (and that certainly would play a role), as long as the root frustration in the system is not addressed, new problem people are bound to emerge.

Write a policy
If you are afraid to get rid of the problem person, then the next means of control to which you can turn is policy. If you don’t like the behavior of someone, then write (or enforce) a policy that outlaws that behavior. A common example of this is when one or two staff people are perceived to be abusing flex time or not putting in enough hours, and suddenly the entire staff is then forced to punch in using a time clock. While that policy may convince your problem person to put in more hours, it also generates many new problems from the people who now feel like they are not trusted or have to waste time on bureaucratic details instead of getting their work done.

Train everyone
Similar to the policy solution, providing training to everyone in the areas where the “problem person” is perceived to be deficient is also a common solution. If people have trouble communicating with the problem person, then provide the Board with communication skills training. While this solution probably won’t hurt (who couldn’t use a brush up on communication skills?), it rarely solves the problem. The problem person usually sees through the ploy and gets defensive about the whole training, and the others often see it as a waste of time (“I already know how to communicate””the problem is him!”). The real value of the communication training is often lost.

So what’s the solution? First of all, the solution is not simple. These three typical solutions oversimplify the situation. There is nothing wrong with firing people, writing and enforcing policies, or providing training, but do not fall into the trap of using blunt instruments like these to solve complex and delicate problems. Second, problems require direct attention, and all three of these solutions involve avoidance. Even the seemingly direct answer of termination implies a long period of avoiding the problem person as the behaviors were developing. Confronting and dealing directly with both the problems (and the problem people) on a continuous basis will often resolve the problems before they escalate.

Tags: Staff Issues, The Way We Work Together, We've Always Done It That Way by Jamie
5 Comments »

Email is a wonderful tool, particularly for associations who need to manage communication with members and volunteers who are often spread out across the country, or even the world. Even among staff in the same building, it enables a higher volume and higher speed of communication. Without email, you couldn’t keep up with the communication demands of your association job.

Like any tool, however, email is not right for every job. Take, for example, that time when you were angry with a colleague or had a conflict with a volunteer about how to manage a project. You got an email from this person that you feel went one step too far. You then sat down at your computer and shot off an email response, laced with frustration and indignation (known in some associations as a “nasty-gram”). Of course, you made sure to copy a few dozen colleagues and/or supervisors, so everyone could see how “correct” your point was. It’s only a few keystrokes to keep these people in the loop. Isn’t email great?

The problem is, the email response you then get from your colleague is even nastier, and includes a now expanded list of cc’s. You’ll be frustrated because for some reason your colleague did not address the rational points you made in your email””he brought in new points that are only distractions to the issue at hand! You’d better get started on that reply email. Is there any way you can copy the entire staff and board?

Stop.

Stop using email to communicate in conflict situations. It never works, and it usually makes things worse. All conflict situations are complex. If they were very simple, they would be resolved by now. Communication in a complex conflict is not merely a literal exchange of words. It requires back and forth, clarification of positions, examination of assumptions, and communication at the level of logic and emotion at the same time.

It is impossible to do that by email, because in email, there is no tone. When two people talk to each other, most of the meaning is conveyed in nonverbal communication, particularly the use of tone. Which words you emphasize and the pattern of raising or lowering tone as you speak is absolutely critical for people to know what you really mean. Consider the following point you made in your email:

“Things were going great, and then Bob came into the room.”

The reader of the email has to figure out what you mean. On one hand, you might have felt that things were actually going poorly (you were being sarcastic by saying they were great), and you wanted to make a point about how relieved you were that Bob came in the room to save the day. On the other hand, you might have meant that things really were going great””until the moment Bob came in, and it clearly it went downhill from there. The only way the email recipient would know which of these two drastically different meanings is accurate would be through your tone (which does not exist on email), or by context. That is, if they already know that you don’t like Bob, they will guess that you were implying that things were going downhill.

So not only do emails rob communication of tone, making the communication inherently more confusing, they also force the recipient to determine what you mean based on their previous knowledge of who you are and what you think. In conflict situations, that is not likely to be an accurate (or pretty) picture, so they are even more likely to interpret what you are saying in the worst possible way. Clicking the “send” button on an email in a conflict situation is like clicking on an automatic “escalate” button.

The answer, of course, is to not send the email. Walk down the hall. Pick up the phone. Make it the norm in your association to de-escalate the conflict when you get that frustrating email by responding directly, instead of through a nasty-gram. It may take a bit more time in the short term (and you will need to brush up on your conflict resolution and communication skills), but saves volumes of time in the long run by enabling quicker and more direct resolution of conflict.

Tags: Staff Issues, The Way We Work Together, We've Always Done It That Way by Jamie
3 Comments »

Why is everyone afraid of conflict? Board, members, committees, staff groups, leaders, followers””the one thing they all have in common is that they are afraid to confront each other with conflicts or significant differences in opinions.

For example, an association executive recently asked advice from colleagues on a listserver about what to do about a committee co-chair who had “done a lot of work”¦but stepped on lots of toes and caused extra work for staff.” The incoming president was suggesting not reappointing this person as co-chair.

Instead of dealing with the conflict, the first response is to end the relationship. Unfortunately, this response is typical. At all levels of associations people bury conflict. They hide it. They ignore it. They pretend it isn’t conflict. They lie about it. If it gets really bad, they raise the stakes and take actions that simply remove the possibility of the conflict emerging again (e.g., ending the relationship). Anything but confronting it head on (like, for example, having a candid conversation with a volunteer about how his behavior is upsetting other volunteers or staff).

It is true, of course, that everyone has had experiences of being in conflict where the situation got uncomfortable, tense, maybe even painful and frustrating. That’s why we run the other way. But remember””just because conflict has been unpleasant, doesn’t mean it always will be. Conflict is a natural part of every single human system, so instead of trying to avoid it (which is impossible), how about learning how to deal with it more effectively?

It isn’t rocket science. It takes a little bit of knowledge and perhaps some skill development, but mostly it takes the courage to simply try a new approach. Start small on the less “important” conflicts, and as you make progress you can tackle the bigger issues. But above all, start. The cost of ignoring conflict can be overwhelming.

When conflict is avoided, the real issues never get out on the table. A pattern will then emerge in your association where the “norm” is to hide what you really think (or at best vent about it at the water cooler). So at meetings, people talk around the difficult issues, retiring to their offices without a clear sense of what was agreed to or what they should do next. In fact, in cultures where conflict is routinely avoided, being “accountable” becomes quite difficult, and results suffer””all because we were afraid to deal with conflict.

So it may feel like it would be less painful to avoid that conflict, but don’t be fooled. In the long run you will suffer more by avoiding it. Start paying attention to the conflict in your association. Notice where it happens and notice when you and others avoid it. Then start the work of changing the pattern, and prepare yourself because the first step in changing the pattern will be for you to try dealing with your conflict differently.

Tags: Leadership, Staff Issues, The Way We Work Together, We've Always Done It That Way by Jamie
2 Comments »

Generational differences receive a lot of attention these days, particularly in the association community, but too often in comments about these differences fall into the “sky is falling” category:

“¢ All the baby boomers are retiring!
“¢ Generation X are not “joiners!”
“¢ Millennials only want to play video games!

As researchers begin to identify trends in attitudes and behavior that vary from generation to generation, association executives struggle with how to apply that information to the actual running of their business. I actually heard an association executive suggest that the best strategy to deal with generation X is to simply wait them out. Millennials, he suggested, are joiners, so we just need to wait for them to take over the leadership positions in the association!

Get a hold of yourself, Chicken Little. The first step in dealing with generational shifts is to look beyond the stereotypes that have been generated over the last few years. Some of them are quite accurate, but some of them do not tell the whole story. For example, you may have noticed that there are fewer Generation X members entering your volunteer “pipeline.” While they may have different attitudes about “joining” and volunteering than their predecessors, the Baby Boomers, the fact is this drop in numbers is to be expected. Generation X was the baby “bust” after the boom. The Department of Labor predicts a net decline in the middle management workforce in this country by 10% between 2000 and 2010.

Sometimes, of course, the stereotypes are accurate: yes, generations are different. Knowledge of those differences, however, can only help you manage your association more effectively if it is paired with a critical organizational discipline that is too often neglected: the discipline of conversation. How do you manage the ongoing conversation with your members to uncover the relevance of generational differences? You know that there are generational differences, but it is only through a careful and respectful conversation with your membership that you will uncover the relevance. If younger members aren’t volunteering as much, don’t rely on an article to tell you why””ask them yourself. All that background information you got on Generation X will help guide the conversation, but the conclusions about what to do differently will only emerge from the conversation itself.

Have you actually examined your own organization’s capacity for conversations? How do you engage your staff in conversations about strategy and implementation? What is the quality of conversation during performance reviews? To what standard do you hold your Board in their conversations? And at the most basic level, how do you conduct meetings? Are people focused on the topic and listening to one another?

Take the answers to these questions and apply them to generational differences. Try intentionally starting some new conversations across different generations, and see where it leads. Remember, the goal is not to find the static answers; the goal is to find dynamic strategies for ongoing renewal.

Tags: Leadership, Membership, Staff Issues, Strategy, The Way We Work Together, We've Always Done It That Way by Jamie
1 Comment »