He says that associations are basically built to monitor the environment:

An association’s role is to listen to members in the aggregate, gathering information about where the growth opportunities and threats are. Not every association does a great job of gathering that information, or presenting it back to members so they can act on it, but the antennae for detecting what’s coming next is built into association DNA.

In today’s rapidly changing environment, Mark argues, we need to build our capacity to do this monitoring. He thinks it’s arguably the biggest challenge associations face right now.

I agree that monitoring is a serious challenge. I think I disagree, however, with his assessment of Associations having monitoring their environment built into their DNA. I think they all try to listen to their members, but too many associations are actually very weak when it comes to deep understanding, insight, and learning.

In Belgium earlier this month, I heard a great presentation by Kristin Zhivago about better understanding your customers. She was speaking to a corporate audience, but her message was important: most companies have a very weak understanding of what the customer actually wants. We design processes for our customers that are mostly based on what WE the company want and need, not what works best for the customer.

One reason we’re bad at this is because we are not very good at asking our customers what they want and need. Now, some may protest, arguing that they talk to their customers all the time. Okay, but I have an important question for you: when you talk to them, are they telling you the truth?

People change their message when they are talking to YOU about your company. They’ll change their message if they have to express it within a group of fellow customers (like in a focus group). They’ll change their message if they are currently being sold to. We talk a lot to our customers, but that doesn’t mean we’re getting the full picture. The truth, it turns out, is a complex thing and not easy to get at. Kristin actually makes a living by interviewing YOUR customers so you can actually understand what they want when they buy from you (and then you have to change your processes to make it easier for them).

Are associations any good at this? Some are, I’m sure. But too many are not. Too many rely on member surveys where we force-fit our members to answer questions based on OUR thought processes, rather than theirs. We rely on input from Board and volunteers who have their own personal egos on the line at the Board or Committee meeting where we ask for their input. We’re getting data, but I’m not sure it’s necessarily the RIGHT data. Are we really getting truth? Do we really understand our members?

My deep concern about associations is that piece of our DNA that is coded to gather data from members. It was a genetic trait that we adopted back twenty, fifty, or one hundred and fifty years ago, when organizations could be successful with fairly simplistic data in hand. That DNA that served us well in the past could very well be leading to our extinction now. I agree with Mark that monitoring–uncovering and understanding important truth about the system–is a critical challenge for associations today, and I think we need some seriously Darwin-like adaptation if we’re going to stay in the game.

My wife gave birth to our 5th child, and I returned to work from my paternity leave wearing a new Stetson Fedora and driving a new Prius. I mentioned to a co-worker how I was driving past her house in my new Prius and if she would like to car pool. She agreed to meet up at a nearby park and ride.

It seemed we were trend setters, because during that same week, two new sets of co-workers who lived near each other began carpooling! Adding in Julie and Angela, who have been carpooling for over a year, that brings the grand total to 4 carpools! 4 cars off the road during rush-hour!

It is beautiful that MSPs carbon footprint has dramatically decreased and we all have more money in our pockets from saving on gas—but in addition to that we are developing a deeper sense of office community. At MSP, we pride ourselves on our work ethic and efficiency, but that doesn’t allow for too much time to interact in a casual manner.

We celebrate birthdays, occasionally eat lunch together and more recently work-out together (see Nancy’s post)—but the chance to chit chat about non-work related topics in the car is refreshing and it helps strengthen the office community—helping us all work more smoothly and happily together.

The success of any business ultimately depends on the people who make the business run. When those people can form a pleasant and healthy community, the greater likelihood that the business will continue to succeed.

Don’t forget there are many other benefits to carpooling, such as HOV lanes and Pool Rewards.

My association, the Association of Water Technologies (AWT), has been working on restructuring their membership categories for over 3 years now. This may seem like a long time, but it has been intentional. When we first identified that the categories might need to be changed we had just completed a bylaws revision. At first, I think there was some frustration from volunteer leaders that we hadn’t recognized this need in time to have it incorporated in those bylaws. But, the timing actually worked to our advantage.

Once we identified that a change probably needed to be made, we developed a timeline to gather information and from there, if necessary, educate the members about the proposed change.

We started by conducting multiple survey’s online and in person. We asked questions about AWT’s vision, mission and member needs. From there, we did a lot of research into membership models, membership categories and dues structures. The Board and Membership Committee had many discussions about their goals and the mission of AWT. Finally, a draft membership restructure was developed. All of this took about a year and a half.

This past year and a half has been spent gathering more information and educating the members about the proposed change. We continue to conduct focus groups, in-person meetings, phone meetings and surveys about the topic. So far, we have received positive feedback on the proposed changes. We think this is due to the fact that we truly sought member input and spent time explaining why the changes were even being considered.

We’re currently in the process of revising the bylaws and expect to have a vote June. Since everything we’ve heard to date has been relatively positive or neutral, we expect the changes to be approved.

Image Credit

So now a couple weeks later, our workout group has expanded to 11 MSP staff committed to taking a mid-morning and mid-afternoon exercise break. A quick break in the morning is great to get you going after the caffeine has worn off and the afternoon break heads-off that 3pm lull.

We have a few simple exercises that everyone can do at their own personal level and its just competing against yourself, not what anyone else is doing. What’s exciting to see is that we all have different strengths in our workouts. Who knew that tiny, little Penny (the oldest of our workout group, and I say that with all due respect) can hold a plank position for 3 minutes! Try it. If you’ve never done it you’ll be lucky to hold plank for 45 seconds.

Each of has a different motivation too. Julie B. has an upcoming wedding and wants buff arms in her bridesmaid gown. Jamie’s kids called him out on the ‘dad gut’ and Jon – well, he’s got 5 kids to keep up with so he needs lots of energy. Beth, a regular workout guru anyway has this as just a little extra strength training and of course it’s encouraging to see the boss get on the floor and do pushups with the rest of us. No excuses if the boss is doing it, right?

Much like our work environment, we all have different strengths and motivations that we bring with us and the teamwork of encouraging each other carries us further as a team than what we could do individually.

Almost time for push-ups.

And if you’re wondering what exercises we do, we do push-ups, plank, ab crunches and lunges.

• Mary Ann Bobrow
• Jeff Hurt, Jeff Hurt, and Jeff Hurt
• Elizabeth Engel
• Shelly Alcorn
• Maggie McGary

I’ve also had LOTS of conversations with people about it, beyond just those bloggers. I feel like the negative reactions can be bunched into groups.

Group 1: Anger. “How dare you bring that evil bastard in here.”

The angry people I’ve heard have all been liberal, so their anger is directed at Rove. He’s just in a different category for these people. There are plenty of conservatives that they would come and listen to (even if they disagree with the content), but not this guy. He makes their blood boil. I’m not sure if conservatives have the same reaction to Carville, but the bottom line is that this session pisses some people off. They’re either not coming or somehow wish they could disrupt the whole thing.

Group 2: Boredom. “Seriously? I can see these guys on TV for free.”

There is a category of people that either don’t care about politics, or view these two as not bringing anything new to the discussion. ASAE says it needs to give politics more attention (since that’s a major part of association work), but if that’s the case, this group of people is confident you could have picked better speakers (or they just say “meh” about the whole politics topic to begin with).

Group 3: Frustration. “Exactly what will anyone actually LEARN from this session?”

We as ASAE members do what ASAE does: we plan conferences and general sessions and care about education. We think about this stuff. It’s our job. So there’s a group that looks at this general session and is frustrated with its design. It’s weak in terms of education: you don’t learn a lot when the situation is intentionally polarized, and it doesn’t seem connected to other politically focused learning in the conference. It’s also blatantly NOT addressing the much-emphasized priority of diversity and inclusion (yay, two more white men!). This group is frustrated, because we feel we can do better than this.

Hmmmm. So what do we do about all this? There are obviously groups of people who dislike this program choice for pretty different reasons. And I’m sure there are other groups that I haven’t identified, too (not to mention the groups of people who, I assume, are very happy about this program). It seems like an impossible demand to make everyone happy, right? Is this actually a problem we can solve?

True. It should NOT be ASAE’s job to make everyone happy. When that’s your goal, you end up with the lowest common denominator. But maybe that gets us to the deeper issues here.

What is ASAE’s job? Better yet, to take the attention off ASAE for a minute, what is YOUR job as an association executive? I know that’s kind of a “big” question, but let me propose a controversial answer for your consideration:

We have no freakin’ idea what our jobs are as associations.

Now, I can hear the protests in my mind:

Oh, get off your consultant high-horse, Jamie. We do too know our jobs. We’re a big community and most of us are doing just fine, despite the bad economy, and we’re delivering value to members and making a huge difference in our various communities. We know our jobs, and we’re doing them, thank you very much. You can stay in your theoretical bubble about what our jobs are as associations all you like, but here in the real world we have to get stuff done.

I hear you. I didn’t mean you were incompetent. You’re doing your job. ASAE is doing its job too. What I mean is, I fear that this community is really doing the job that was required five (or more) years ago, but we’re not shifting to meet today’s needs at the same time. Think US auto industry in the early 70s.

Our “foundation is cracked,” as Maddie said in a post linking to these discussions, but we’re focusing on what’s right in front of us instead of addressing the real problem. We’re making sure the paint is perfectly polished on that huge gas-guzzling sedan that’s rolling off our assembly line. Great.

In my mind, the Rove/Carville thing is an illustration of that bigger picture issue. ASAE’s job is not just to put on a good annual meeting with big name speakers that get a 4.0 or above on the evaluation. That’s old school: deliver good content and produce a nice experience for people, and you win.

I think the rules have changed. We can all get great experiences and great content in so many different places now. Do you know how many mind-blowingly good presentations I can hear during my lunch hours between now and Dallas at Ted.com?! Certainly more than the sessions I will attend in Dallas. I don’t think we’re really letting that reality sink in. We are planning our conferences and picking our speakers with an outdated vision of success: good evaluation scores and good attendance.

Today’s member wants more. Sure I want good speakers and good experiences, and of course I don’t expect to be thrilled by every choice you make. You don’t have to be perfect. But boy, when I see something outrageous, I’m going to jump up and ask for engagement, and I will expect you to respond. I expect you to change and shift and offer alternatives. I expect you to negotiate with me. I expect you to be transparent about why you made your choices and engage in this conversation, even if it makes you uncomfortable.

Why? Why am I being so demanding? Because it’s no longer acceptable for me to be a passive partner with you in my professional growth. I am no longer willing to simply take what I am offered when it comes to my community of professional practice. Everywhere I turn these days, I am empowered with options and customization and engagement. And I like it. My standards have changed, and they aren’t so tolerant of the centralized, scarcity approach that I think too many associations are still embracing. The one where everything narrows down to that press release where you announce your opening general session speaker, hoping for a home run, and ending the conversation right there. And I don’t think it’s just me. Our business has changed–not “is changing,” but “has changed.” And we are being too slow to respond.

In the end, I just don’t feel strongly about the specifics of the Carville/Rove issue, partly because, sadly, I gave up on American politics years ago. But mostly because I am more interested in the broader issue of how associations are adapting to a new reality and a new relationship with their communities, including my deep concern that we are not.

What do you think? Am I off base here? Too far out in front? Maybe. But if so, then I think that’s a space that needs occupying. I’m hoping that as I ride by you, with my steel bike and 45-year old legs, that I might wake you up a little, maybe even piss you off. But either way, you’ll start pedaling faster.

My association, the Association of Water Technologies (AWT), has a very active committee structure. My members enjoy giving back to AWT and come up with some great projects and ideas for AWT to pursue.

Sometimes, though, volunteer expectations and the reality of the budget, time constraints, priorities of the Board or Association resources, don’t mesh. A committee might have a great idea that does not fit with the strategic goals they and the Board set. Or, it may simply not fit into the budget.

We want to encourage creativity from our volunteers. We want to keep them engaged and don’t want to stifle energy. At the same time, we have to keep the vision, mission and goals of the association in mind and also balance the resources. And often, the volunteers are only focused on their committee or project and are not aware of the larger picture or budget.

As staff, we have to manage the volunteers’ expectations. If a Committee is asking for, or asking to do, something that I know will not work or is not a priority of the Board, I explain that to them. But if it is just a matter of misplaced priorities or a lack of resources, instead of outright saying no, I first ask some questions to help them prioritize their idea within the framework of the current projects they are working on. If they still feel their new idea is something we should pursue, I give them some options – either alternatives to their idea, a timeline for when we might look into their idea again, or the opportunity to bring the idea to the Board.

This approach allows staff and the Board to be responsible with the association’s resources and budget. And, it lessens volunteer frustration, while also giving them control over their projects.

Image credit

I’ll be honest–I think a lot of it is crap. We throw huge generalizations out there about the differences between these two worlds, and it feels like most of it is based on ideology rather than experience or observation or a desire to generate any real insight. Here in the association world, the corporate world is described almost universally in negative terms. Over there they focus only on the bottom line. They only care about money and products and customers, and they’ll happily abuse people if profit is on the line. We association folk, on the other hand, are the good ones. We care about community and engagement and society, and the money is just a tool we use to accomplish our mission.

I think we’re lying to ourselves. This good guy/bad guy lens on the story is taking us in the wrong direction. It’s distracting us from the issues I think we need to face. And it contains some real inaccuracies in the story too. For example:

1. Associations (and other nonprofits) care about profit. We make it every year and we carefully design our overall program of activities to ensure we get it. In fact, we are “for” profit. We like it. Without it (over time), we go out of business. Because we have a mission that the government deems acceptable, we do not pay taxes on that profit, and we do not distribute the profit to shareholders (we keep it in reserves). But from a profit perspective, those are the only differences (no taxes and no shareholder distribution). We still have a bottom line and we pay ruthless attention to it, just like those evil corporate people.

2. Corporations care about community. Sure, not all of them do. There are plenty out there that focus on products, sales, margins, and survival and don’t give a whipstitch about community or meaning or values. But if you ask me, the ability to thrive with that approach is diminishing, and the smart companies are figuring this out. The smart companies are basically paying attention to the things we association folks have been looking at for years. And here’s the rub: there’s no reason why they can’t succeed doing that. There is no reason why WE are the only ones who can care about that stuff. We can’t draw a line in the sand and say “But we’re the nonprofits. This is the stuff WE do.”

Rather, we can draw that line, but those companies are simply going to step over it, and there’s nothing we can do about that. In fact, I would argue that there is nothing we SHOULD do about that. It’s not about being a nonprofit. It’s about elevating the community. It’s about changing the world. It’s about making a difference to people. Let’s all figure out how to do THAT better and ignore who pays taxes and who doesn’t.

I welcome push-back on these ideas. I just want to push the conversation. What do you think?

image credit

Every week we examine our registrations.  For example, our client the Association of Language Companies, is currently monitoring registrations for it’s 2012 Annual Conference in New Orleans this May.  We take into account how each week is growing in comparison to our past history.  Our registration records provide metrics.  Metrics to be able to appraise our members’ participation.  Metrics for understanding where we’ve been and where we’re headed and what is needed to get us there.  And metrics to guide us in our future budgeting and planning.

Each year our client teams want to surpass the registration numbers of the last.  Registration numbers can motivate, inspire, and encourage us to set the bar higher year after year.  Although as associations a lot of the work that we do is not always easily evaluated by standard metrics, we can be proud of our registrations.  Of course we don’t simply measure the success of a meeting or conference by the number of registrations.  It is an immeasurable joy to hear “Thank you” or “Well done” or “I really enjoyed this…” from our members at our meetings.

But our registration numbers remind us of the big picture: we, as an association, are looking to grow and do more for our members and our communities.  Registrations provide the feedback needed to continue to accomplish our goals, the metrics to understand what needs improvement, and the encouragement to set higher goals in our future meetings and conferences.

I can’t speak to that research (I haven’t seen it), but I think the whole question is missing the point. I don’t think Social Media brings with it a de-valuation of face-to-face. It never has. I am connected to a lot of people who are deep, deep fans of social media. We are “in the bubble.” And guess what: we all LOVE face-to-face interactions. We’ve all been engaging in face-to-face interactions our whole lives. And if anything, social media has led to MORE face-to-face interactions (or at least more satisfying ones) than ever before.

I know I hear complaints of how people sit at a conference all staring at their phones rather than talking to one another. This does happen, and before social media/smart phones, it didn’t. I get it. But here’s the rub. That’s just one moment when they are not talking to each other. Just because you spotted a moment when people aren’t talking to each other, doesn’t mean that “talking to each other” is declining. I know in “your day” that was a moment when people would be talking to each other, but it’s still just one moment. It’s just that the pattern has shifted. But face-to-face is absolutely necessary for deeper relationship building, and deep relationships are just as needed in today’s society as they were before computers. We just build these relationships using different patterns now, but I don’t think face-to-face ever went away, nor will it.

image credit

But let’s face it, many members are shy about jumping into a well established organization. They feel like everyone already knows everyone else, so they hang back, don’t get involved, don’t see the value in the membership, and then don’t renew. So how do you turn this process around? How about with a more personalized member orientation.

One of our association, the Association of Language Companies clients recently started making personalized member welcome calls. Here’s how they work:

• Once a new member joins the association, we email the welcome committee with the person’s contact information.
• The committee then identifies a couple of people—a board member, a committee member, etc—to contact the new member through a conference call.
• Once on the phone, the new member is asked about why they joined, what they hope to get from their membership, and what industry concerns they have. While the member is answering the questions, they respond with what the association is doing to address those issues and point out benefits that can help get them the answers they need. They also invite them to join specific committees, attend the conference, etc.
  

The point is they make the member feel wanted in a very personal way. And, at the same time, give the new member everything they need to have a successful and beneficial relationship with the association—increasing the chance of them renewing when the time comes.

Image credit.