How the Mighty Fall - Associations at Risk - Part 3 of 5

(This is the third in a five-part series and a break from my normal format.  During times of economic crisis many questions haunt executives, boards, staff members and volunteers alike.  How will we weather this storm? How long will it last?  How are our members being affected?  Will this signal a decline for our organization?  How will we know for sure and what can we do about it?  In his most recent work, How The Mighty Fall: And Why Some Companies Never Give In, Jim Collins posits five signs of an organization at risk of or beginning the descent into chaos, decline and - at the very worst -  destruction.  This five-part series will take a look at each of the main stages identified by Jim Collins and relate them to issues you may be facing as association professionals.)

The Third Stage of Decline – Denial of Risk and Peril

According to Jim Collins, the third stage for an organization on the brink is the denial of risk and peril.  Stage 1 – hubris born of success and Stage 2 – the undisciplined pursuit of more set the conditions for Stage 3.  Large successes are the backdrop against which danger and potential failure unfold which is why corporate boards are so reluctant, even when faced with evidence to the contrary, to admit their plans have gone awry.  Although Stage 1 and 2 behaviors can build over time, Stage 3 has a limited shelf-life and if not dealt with the chaos and collapse of Stages 4 and 5 can move with frightening speed. It’s almost as if Stage 1 and 2 might have labored to get your roller coaster car up to the top of the Stage 3 mountain but once the car stops teetering back and forth the slide to come can be terrifyingly fast.

Even if your organizational leadership drank the Kool-aid and invested a tremendous amount of time and money into ventures that appear to be going wrong, there may still be time to fix the situation if they can confront the facts and be honest about the situation.  More often than not, association leadership will engage in Stage 3 behavior and spend most of their time justifying their first direction instead of taking the time to examine the underlying causes of the changing situation.  Worse yet, is association leadership going into the bunker and continuing to insist they know better in spite of it all or volunteers who begin to set their executive up to take the fall instead.

Framing the Wrong Issues – In his book, Jim Collins talks about the lead-up to the space shuttle Challenger disaster.  At the time, it was rumored NASA personnel had launched the Challenger in the face of unassailable data that said the shuttle should not have been launched.  In fact, the lead-up was highly contentious with a deluge of conflicting data and opinion regarding the performance of some of the engine components.  (Get the book to read the entire story, it’s fascinating.)  My point here is this - in the end, during all the arguments somehow the question changed from “Can you prove it’s SAFE to launch?” to “Can you prove it’s UNSAFE to launch?”  Those are two very different questions and come from divergent risk management points of view.  When discussing the future of your association, it is wise to make sure issues are framed correctly and all parties are conducting honest assessments of the potential risks involved.

Selective Gathering and Interpretation of Data – A corollary to framing the wrong issues is the tendency for association leaders in crisis to be selective about the data they gather and how they interpret, accept or dismiss the conclusions therein.  Skilled pollsters know the difference between getting actual numbers and getting numbers that support a particular position - it all depends on which question you ask which population.  Associations conducting research are subject to the same perils.  Leaders can invest a significant amount of energy in finding data to support their own conclusions.  Association leadership in crisis and already suffering from hubris and expansion hangovers may spend their time looking for data to support what they already think they know – not data that will effectively knock them upside the head.

Thinking Positively – Some would argue our culture has become obsessed with thinking positively to our detriment.  At times this “believe in your dreams and you can be anything,” cultural narrative infects our business environment to the point where we believe our programs will work, in the face of evidence to the contrary, if we just have enough faith.  Should we always focus on the negative?  Well, no.  A person has to have some belief they are making a positive difference in order to get out of bed in the morning.  However, positive cultures that have gone over the edge are the ones who chide, ostracize or actively punish those who bring a negative perspective to the table.

Intellectually Dishonest Debate – It is one thing to have an active debate and a vote where one side wins and the other loses.  Legitimate debates have evidence, analysis and a cogent case to be made for or against a position.   An intellectually rigorous debate produces clear choices that can be voted upon in democratic fashion and supported by both winners and losers alike.  In fact, boards have a fiduciary duty to run that way.  All board members and staff should support the actions of the board – even those they disagree with.  However, it’s quite another thing to have one side win the debate by yelling the loudest, ignoring evidence, pushing their fingers in their ears, singing, “La la la la la la,” outvoting the other group and then claiming everyone should just fall in line. In that case, the winners didn’t legitimately win and there is little to no reason to hope the opposition can move forward in support of actions they have no confidence in.

Playing the Blame Game – Associations in Stage 3 spend much of their time seeking scapegoats and playing the blame game.  One way to deny risk and peril, while still appearing to be responsible actors, is to refuse to admit having played any part in it.  Stern talk about “investigations” and “fact finding commissions” boils down to – "We blew it, we just don’t want to admit it."  An association board is ultimately responsible for everything that happens in the organization.  Even if a board had an executive, staff, committee or other body run roughshod over them that board remains ultimately responsible for flying into the side of the mountain because they weren’t paying attention.  The only hope any association has is for leaders to quit playing the blame game and start fixing the problem.

Stage 3 is not the most contentious stage, but it is the most critical.  At this point, there is still time to back away from the ledge, but not without competent leadership and a committed volunteer and staff base to work with. Your job as an association volunteer leader or staff leaders is to face the brutal facts.  Teetering on the edge is not the place to engage in posturing, ostrich-like behavior and simply relying on the power of positive thinking.

Denying risk and peril is the fastest way to experience both.  Confronting risk and peril, staying clear about your mission and vision and having the strength to make necessary adjustments before it is too late can often bring an association back from the edge.  It takes courage and an unwavering sense of discipline to keep moving the pieces on the chess board.  The game is not lost in Stage 3 but the stakes are high.  You still have the opportunity, although it is fading fast, to set the stage for recovery or further decline.

Join us next time as we evaluate the fourth stage in decline – grasping for salvation.

How the Mighty Fall - Associations at Risk - Part 2 of 5

(This is the second in a five-part series and a break from my normal format.  During times of economic crisis many questions haunt executives, boards, staff members and volunteers alike.  How will we weather this storm? How long will it last?  How are our members being affected?  Will this signal a decline for our organization?  How will we know for sure and what can we do about it?  In his most recent work, How The Mighty Fall: And Why Some Companies Never Give In, Jim Collins posits five signs of an organization at risk of or beginning the descent into chaos, decline and - at the very worst -  destruction.  This five-part series will take a look at each of the main stages identified by Jim Collins and relate them to issues you may be facing as association professionals.)

After the first stage of decline - hubris born of success, the second stage is the undisciplined pursuit of more.  Think of it as akin to managing a group of race car drivers.  Association volunteers and staff that feel invincible and overconfident will begin to lean into the accelerator pedals in the turns.  The speed is fun, maybe just a little out of control and the adrenaline rush is addictive.  Each time around, they lean into the pedal a little more.  The trick is laying off the gas enough to maintain momentum without losing control.  The Stage 1 and Stage 2 run-up in the race may be long or short, but the Stage 3 crash is the same.

Remember, the five stages of decline are just markers along the way.  Organizations can conceivably rescue their enterprise at any point.  The trick is honestly facing and evaluating what stage your association may be in.  Both Stage 1 and Stage 2 behaviors gain traction while leaders are feeling powerful and the association seems to be thriving.  Continued success often masks indicators of potential danger leaving the leadership less inclined to listen to warnings.  Because of this, concerns expressed by other stakeholders can be viewed as negativism or worse, obstructionism.

Members, Members, Members – Beware of leadership which, absent direction from legitimate needs outlined in the mission and vision, begins to obsessively focus on new member acquisition.  More members, more members!  The leaders who focus on “more” often judge staff and volunteer performance on new member recruitment numbers rather than current member retention.  Leadership obsessed with recruitment at all costs will champion such things as running reckless membership promotion campaigns, offering deep, unsustainable dues discounts, offering commissions for new member sign-ups, or offering lavish prizes in member-get-a-member contests.  They can even recruit more members than the association staff can adequately serve leading to disappointment and low retention rates for new recruits.  The zeal to attract new folks can lead to creation of a multitude of member categories that range far a-field from the organizations base creating tension in the ranks and core misunderstandings about the value of membership on the part of the newly recruited.

Rapid Chapter Expansion – Beware of excited yips around conference rooms that sound like, “Of COURSE we need a chapter in Yreka, population 7,368!”  Leaders engaged in Stage 2 behavior often pursue membership increases and chapter expansion simultaneously. Chapter/section/region/component development is a process that should be thoughtfully engaged in and carefully negotiated.  Governance concerns, financial reporting and accountability, division and billing of dues and all of the hundreds of other issues covered in a comprehensive affiliation agreement are often rushed through.  Sometimes association leaders even forget to consider whether enough members even exist in a given geographic area to ensure a healthy and functioning group or whether there are political landmines involved with current chapters who may be angry about a new group starting up in their own backyard.  Concerns on the part of the executive regarding appropriate staffing levels needed to develop, manage and maintain close relationships with the new chapters are frequently shoved aside in the zeal to hit that “X number of new chapters this year” goal.

Mergers and Acquisitions – If your association leadership has that “more” gleam in its eyes, keep a sharp ear out for talk that bubbles up about sister associations within your profession or industry.  If leaders are feeling cocky they may suddenly and aggressively pursue potential mergers and acquisitions that may not serve the long-term interests of either organization. Due diligence is often the first casualty of any aggressive merger effort.  Weaker, “pounc-ees” may be only too happy to capitulate, leaving the “pounc-er” in dire financial straits when they finally get a look at the detailed financial statements.  Mergers may fly in the face of the actual mission and vision of the organization, offend members of both and can create bad blood in a profession or industry.  The dark side of rebuffed advances can lead “more, more” associations to conduct “raids” on the others membership as a way to weaken or discredit the other organization and “force” the eventual outcome.

Non-dues Program Proliferation – If a little non-dues revenue is good, more is better right?  Not necessarily.  Beware of leaders who become obsessed with non-dues revenue programs as a way to generate additional income.  Often in their zeal to pursue profitable business arrangements boards and committees will endorse any and every program that comes their way without doing enough due diligence and determining if the program will serve a strategic purpose, offer genuine value to the membership or if the proposed partner is willing to operate within the ethical guidelines and stated values of the association.  Again - in almost every instance whether based on a simple royalty basis or a more involved structure – any non-dues revenue program will have some staff impact and in some cases that impact can be significant.  If you hear volunteers blithely saying, “No worries, we’ll make enough money in the first year to hire another staff member to help absorb the hit,” you can almost guarantee you are in for a rough ride.

Balance Sheet Insanity – Association leadership on the “more” bandwagon will often waffle between two financial extremes.  They either become obsessed with spending money or saving it.  Boards can fall victim to reckless spending and borrowing in order to acquire more office space, more staff, more stuff, more lobster, more whatever.  The flip side is becoming miserly and hoarding more and more in reserves and investments at the cost of member service.  Instead of balancing fiscal responsibility with member needs and expectations, they spend freely on the things they feel will make them more important in the eyes of the members or on the other extreme, indiscriminately cut staff, programs and services to prevent any incursion into their savings accounts.

The bottom line is this - expansion is a good thing when done responsibly and when contingencies are thoughtfully planned for.  Even rapid expansion can be just fine if the issues brought up are appropriately assessed, honestly debated and intelligently handled.  Expansion at all costs including the abandonment of the strategic vision of the organization, recruitment for recruitments sake and other risky behaviors are a recipe for disaster.  The undisciplined pursuit of more is a heady mixture of danger and daring and often includes stifling dissent, pie eyed optimism and coping strategies (i.e., the hiring of additional staff with the incoming profits) that are wholly contingent upon the launching of the venture in the first place.

If your association leadership is after more and you aren’t feeling good about it, you may need to take steps to counter.  Education will be a key part of your strategy and putting appropriate policy in place to attempt to address some of these concerns before they gain traction will be helpful.  You have a responsibility to speak up and represent the best long-term interests of the members and the organization.  However, be aware that executives and staff who express concerns during this stage often run the risk of being painted as negative and unsupportive.  Executives who express too many concerns are sometimes replaced by executives who are perceived as “more innovative” and willing to take bigger risks.  In that case, it’s okay to be replaced.  If you manage to keep your position, you will just end up being blamed when they hit the wall in Stage 3 anyway.

Join us next time as we evaluate the third stage in decline – denial of risk and peril.

How the Mighty Fall - Associations at Risk - Part 1 of 5

(This is the first in a five-part series and a break from my normal format.  During times of economic crisis many questions haunt executives, boards, staff members and volunteers alike.  How will we weather this storm? How long will it last?  How are our members being affected?  Will this signal a decline for our organization?  How will we know for sure and what can we do about it?  In his most recent work, How The Mighty Fall: And Why Some Companies Never Give In, Jim Collins posits five signs of an organization at risk of or beginning the descent into chaos, decline and - at the very worst -  destruction.  This five-part series will take a look at each of the main stages identified by Jim Collins and relate them to issues you may be facing as association professionals.)

The First Stage of Decline - Hubris Born of Success

Any association is vulnerable to hubris.  Arrogance is not a trait limited to the for-profit corporate sphere as so recently and publicly displayed during our recent dip into economic recession.  Hubris stands in stark contrast to confidence.  A confident organization exudes a certain sense of capability and attention to detail.  Hubris goes a step further where capability becomes unassailable and attention to detail either all-consuming or irrelevant depending on the temperament of the board in question.

In associations, hubris tends to manifest in a couple of different dimensions and you can see clear signs in board actions and communications if you know what you are looking for.  Hubris tends to permeate an organization in subtle fashion but if left unchecked can lead to disaster for all concerned.  All of the following signs point to an association whose leadership is taking itself entirely too seriously and may be at risk.

Strategic Planning Mania – Show me an association with an 18 page strategic plan that reads like a space shuttle engineering manual and I will show you an association with an overdeveloped sense of organizational ego, and quite probably a very expensive consultant behind it all.  It’s not that I’m against strategic planning, believe associations aren’t vital and meaningful, or consultants shouldn’t be fairly compensated for the difficult work involved.  It’s simply my personal belief that there seems to be a correlation between how convoluted the final product is, how self-congratulatory the board is regarding its development, and how expensive the consultant was.  If your board spends its time repeatedly patting itself on the back for creating some flowery, bloated behemoth of a strategic plan rather than executing specific actions designed to actually implement its ideals, you have some rough water ahead.

Sacred Cows Run Amok – Hubris creates a multitude of sacred cows that are prone to breeding.  Pet projects, conflicts of interest, zombie programs that can’t be killed, end runs, legacy building – you name it.  Leaders in charge of an ego-driven governance system often believe they are vested with certain “special” rights giving them the green light to lasso as many sacred cows as they have rope.  An association that feels itself above criticism will corral and defend entire herds over the questions and objections of their membership.  They also run the risk of sharp decline once members decide steak is no longer on the menu.

Decision Making in a Vacuum – Association leaders who succumb to their own inflated self-image often behave in a didactic and perfunctory manner while sarcastically mocking or dismissing dissenting points of view.  Hubris will lead them to believe themselves well within their rights to make decisions without seeking input, and stifling legitimate opinions to the contrary.  It will also render them convinced they “couldn’t explain it to the members anyway,” while making whiny protestations that the members “should just trust us.”  If they can’t explain decisions, they have members who don’t understand them and decline is just around the corner.

Oh, Those Shiny Golden Handcuffs – Associations who corner a market on a particular industry or profession, usually by means of establishing a certification program or other similar benefit, can often fall victim to an over-dependence upon the mechanism that has individuals “trapped” into membership.  Innovation becomes anathema to protection of the status quo and volunteer leaders can become enamored of the inherent power associated with the association’s position as provider of a vital entry point into a job market.  Members who feel “forced” to maintain a membership develop resentments that can eventually undermine the stability of the organization overall.  Passive aggressive member behavior manifests in a myriad of ways from checkbook members depriving the association of energy and talent, all the way to rebellious factions splintering off into specialty groups leaving the association struggling and unable to cope. 

Appearance for Appearance Sake – If your association suddenly starts yearning to buy a building “suitable” for its station, investing in massive redecorating efforts or shuttling board members to meetings in private cars, watch out.  I’m not saying smart investments in real estate should be passed up in favor of working out of the local YMCA.  I’m also not saying that occasionally refreshing the look of your premises so your headquarters appears warm and inviting to the members and stakeholders who visit is a bad thing or that some small, reasonable perks can’t be extended to key volunteer leaders.  I am saying the minute you start considering dropping 10k for a statue to place near the entry way because the “members would want us to look as important as we are” you can pretty much be sure you aren’t in Kansas any more, Toto.

Success can be your own worst enemy and can lead to neglect of the members and programs that got you to where you are.  A board that looks upon its success with smug satisfaction can develop a sense of entitlement.  Too much good fortune can lead volunteer leaders to believe they can do no wrong and to disregard commonly held business principles, the opinions of the membership at large and simple common sense.  Allowing a board to squander time and money on things that don’t directly advance your mission and vision puts them in the perfect position to push the organization into a long downhill slide.

Join me next time as I evaluate the second stage in decline – the undisciplined pursuit of more.

Join Me in My Next Bold Move - Supreme Court Citizens United Ruling

coming of age during the plague
of reagan and bush
watching capitalism gun down democracy
it had this funny effect on me
i guess.......

The mighty multinationals
have monopolized the oxygen
so it's as easy as breathing
for us all to participate

yes they're buying and selling
off shares of air
and you know it's all around you
but it's hard to point and say "there"
so you just sit on your hands
and quietly contemplate.......Ani DiFranco, Reckoning

The Short of It

• Partisan politics aside, the recent Supreme Court ruling is mindblowing
• I was unable to blog last week because of it
• Sitting, staring, reading, learning
• And deciding whether I lose readers or gain readers
• I have a responsibility to say something
• And then do something
• No matter how small and insignificant I may be

The Long of It

In a democratic society, the longstanding consensus on the need to limit corporate campaign spending should outweigh the wooden application of judge-made rules. The majority’s rejection of this principle “elevate[s] corporations to a level of deference which has not been seen at least since the days when substantive due process was regularly used to invalidate regulatory legislation thought to unfairly impinge upon established economic interests.” Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 817, n. 13 (White, J., dissenting). At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics. - Justice Stevens, dissent on Citizens United vs FEC.

The recent Supreme Court ruling on corporate campaign finance defies conventional wisdom and overturns a century of accepted legal precedent.  Justice Stevens, writing for the minority in the dissent, is empassioned and precise in his criticism of it.  In my view, this decision is too important to be cast in purely partisan terms.  I don't think it's any secret that my personal politics lean to the left but this stunning ruling has implications far beyond the arguments of the day.  Unfettered corporate participation in our political sphere should supercede the "liberal" or "conservative" perspective as it holds consequences for all.  Beyond the decision itself, the manner in which the court arrived at it's conclusion is also worth examining and paying particular attention to.

Don't just take my word for it and don't just reference your favorite media outlets take on the issue.  Do not depend on the distillation and spin sure to come.  You have a responsibility to take the time to actually read these documents, inform yourselves and then draw your own conclusions.  Read the majority opinion first.  Then read Justice Stevens dissent.  (Read all 90 pages.  Then read it again.)  Here's the whole thing if you want to wonk out and get wild. 

Also, read other articles examing these issues from the nonprofit perspective.  Here are just two suggestions: Supreme Court Strikes Down Laws Banning Corporate Expenditures by Ronald M. Jacobs of Venable LLP, and an article and chart from Alliance for Justice.  (Keep your eyes out for others I am sure are being drafted as we speak and feel free to shoot them my way.)

My government affairs experience is largely in terms of how the system works (or doesn't work) in California.  (This upcoming 2010 election cycle, already promised to be a mess, just got that much worse.)  However, the brief time I spent going up against the car dealers and manufacturers working on the Consumers Right to Repair Act did nothing to convince me the national stage is any better.

I can assure you anyone claiming special interests do not hold significant sway on how politicians vote in California (and elsewhere) are either delusional or deliberately distorting how the process works.  Strategy sessions routinely (and by necessity) include the price tag discussion and frank evaluation of the oppositions ability to raise funds as well.  I have yet to participate in a discussion regarding donating to a candidate that did not have an implicit "expectation" that said candidate would support the associations issues upon election.  Carefully framed "candidate questionnaires" used to make decisions about who to give to are a common and accepted practice. 

Don't get me wrong.  I am not saying that fundraising and advocacy are inherently evil.  I routinely (if naively) make donations to those political entities I believe will most closely represent my interests once in office.  Associations have long provided powerful and necessary ways for citizens to band together as groups and participate in the democratic process.  However, anybody who claims money does not influence outcomes or that we are not outgunned by the sheer financial resources commanded by corporate entities both within and without our borders is barking mad. 

The Supreme Court limiting the discussion of potential corruption and influence from unlimited independent expenditures to "quid pro quo" arrangements is laughable in light of the fact that none of us who operate in this sphere would be dumb enough to suggest such an overt arrangement to begin with.  The claim that expenditures are "independent" and "uncoordinated" and therefore don't directly underwrite the candidates in question flies in the face of logic and common sense.

And now, I have something to ask.

Have we, in nonprofit trade and professional associations, been complicit in the system and what lengths are we willing to go to in order to attempt to mitigate the damage we can be sure will come with this ruling?

Do I believe corporate interests will release a waterfall in the 2010 elections?  Actually, I don't.  I think they will tend to lay low until the outrage dies down.  They are playing a longer game.  They will continue to engage in the usual manner, perhaps ramping up participation here and there.  But overt "buying and selling" of political clout has never been part of the strategy.  (As Ani says, "you know it's all around you but its hard to point and say there.")

So, Ani asks me what my next bold move will be.  Well, here it is.

I may be nobody in particular but I am still planning to convene a conference call in the near future on this topic.  I would like to invite association executives, consultants, attorneys, government affairs specialists and other interested parties to join me for a philosophical discussion that centers on four key points:

1.  Developing a clearer understanding about the impact of this decision on the trade and professional association community
2.  Brainstorming specific recommendations for the association community operating government affairs initiatives in the 2010 cycle and beyond
3.  Developing talking points for associations to use as they educate their members regarding this decision
4.  Exploring ideas on how the association community could collaborate on actions aimed at potentially mitigating the unmistakable impact this decision will have

I realize how difficult and potentially divisive this conversation could be.  Many associations are even now preparing challenges to PAC rules and regulations.  Some members of the 501(c)3 community are already making noises about going after a loosening of  restrictions on tax-exempt organizations imposed by the IRS rules and regs claiming infringement on their rights to "free speech."  Many associations have corporate members who will be only too happy to move forward on their legislative agendas.  Some associations have even been advocating for such action in order to circumvent current spending restrictions and will see this decision as a positive outcome for them.

But, I would like to believe that some association professionals, some association boards, some volunteers would see this for what it is.  An assault on democratic principles that directly undermines our electoral process.  Even those nonprofits who are drinking the Kool-aid and suddenly feel unburdened with spending limits surely recognize the folly of assuming they won't be easily outspent by interests that have billions of dollars on tap.

Will you at least join me for a discussion?  DM me on twitter @shellyalcorn or email me at shellyalcorn@gmail.com if you would like to be notified when this call is scheduled so you can participate.  I welcome all perspectives and points of view (yes, even positive ones - from a strategic point of view we need to find some positives in here somewhere to remain somewhat competitive on behalf of our members and their interests) but ask that those who participate accept the overall premise that this decision is a bad one that needs to be coped with, not celebrated.  If you have a desire to be disruptive in any way or are diametrically opposed to the notion that this decision has overall negative consequences I respectfully request that you find other venues to spend your time in.

you want to track each trickle
back to its source
and then scream up the faucet
'til your face is hoarse
cuz you're surrounded by a world's worth
of things you just can't excuse

What's your next bold move....what's the next thing you're gonna need to prove to yourself.....?

Enjoy the pure music and lyrics here:



Or a kick-ass live version here :D

Authenticity in Association Governance - Building Empire

Too bad, people say what's wrong with the kids today
Tell you right now they've got nothing to lose
They're building empire!

Game point, nobody wins. Decline, right on time.
What happened to the dream sublime?
Tear it all down, we'll put it up again.
Another empire?...................Queensryche, Empire

The Short of It

• Association governance is challenging
• True leadership is steeped in authenticity
• Honestly embracing the members and the mission
• Representing those interests above all others
• But when your governance structure loses that authenticity
• Then you are in for a long run of playing politics and "building empire"
• Achieving your core purpose and envisioned future will be more difficult
• And maybe even impossible

The Long of It

Association governance takes a bad rap most of the time. As an executive, it will be one of the trickier and most frustrating things you have to learn to deal with. Engaging in discussions around "governance" typically devolve into a quadrata of entrenched perspectives.

• Governance is nothing but a decision making model so if we play with the flowchart that will fix things.
• Governance is nothing but politics and the day belongs to the winners.
• Governance is entrenched and steeped in tradition therefore I am powerless against it.
• Governance is unnecessary and if we could just get rid of it our problems would be solved.

We've all heard these statements thrown about at one time or another. It seems to me those perspectives are too simplistic. They smack of "management" rather than "leadership" or seem to reflect a latent desire on the part of executive or board members to see themselves as Machiavellian power brokers or victims.

I am not going to pretend I am the end-all-be-all authority on governance issues. I do have a significant amount of hands on experience with different governance structures, many of which worked better than others. It isn't intellectually honest to assert simpler governance structures are automatically less troublesome or lead to faster decision making. In some cases, simpler structures can actually be steeped in more political struggles than larger ones perhaps because the perceived stakes are higher. In my humble opinion, the simplicity or complexity of the structure itself is less important than how it is run. Even complicated governance structures can run smoothly and efficiently if the volunteer leaders therein decide to embrace an authentic structure.

What do I mean by that?

Authenticity is defined as undisputed credibility, truthfulness in origin and intention, reliable and real. Authenticity in governance comes down to this - allowing and encouraging dissension, not hiding motives, recruiting volunteer leaders with diverse backgrounds, ideas and opinions, gathering facts, presenting both the positive and negative, acting credibly and consistently and, most importantly, eschewing petty politics for sincere concentration on pursuit of the mission above all.

Authentic governance structures honor the pieces that fit and eliminate the pieces that don't. They behave openly and with integrity without allowing personal politics to undermine and interfere with the greater good. Authentic structures focus on encouraging and implementing the types of innovative ideas that will benefit the membership as a whole and don't expend a great deal of energy playing politics and labeling the "winners" and "losers."

(Hey, I heard that! For those of you cynics out there who say, "Well our governance structure fits the definition of authentic because we are authentically nasty and uncooperative," then my response to you is you have bigger problems than this poor little blog can address.)

Moving on.

Here are three signs your association has a governance structure that is struggling with some authenticity issues and is focused on "politics" and "building empire" as opposed to "governance."

1. The Executive - If your executive director is vetting all prospective board members warning bells should be going off. Is the executive's perspective important when identifying future leaders of the association? Of course. Should the executive have a limited role in nomination committee activities? Sure, if certain guidelines are met. However, you know you have crossed the line when your executive brags about "hand-picking" those that ascend, or when simply being nominated to the board is, in effect, a fait accompli. At that point authentic governance is out the window. You are now operating in a structure dominated by the executive and the executive's main interest becomes self-protection not the accomplishment of the mission. At that point, the executive is building empire.

2. The Board/House of Delegates - If you require a professional parliamentarian at your Board or House of Delegates meetings to help control disputes you are in trouble. (I used to have the National Association of Parliamentarians on speed dial.) Should your board members and delegates be trained in Robert's or Sturgis' rules of order? Of course they should and in fact, your bylaws should reflect their use. Authentic and honorable use of parliamentary rules help ensure orderly progress through an agenda and do nothing to discourage honest discussion and debate. However, when squaring off with a couple of Lyndon-Johnson-wannabes requiring a professional parliamentarian to ensure they a) are appropriately corralled or b) don't wrest control with obscure motions nobody else understands then you have a much bigger issue. Authentic dissension is one thing. Deliberate obstructionism or attempted takeover is clearly another. At that point, your board/house of delegates is not governing, they are playing politics and building empire.

3. The Chapters/Regions - If you are continually wrestling with chapters and/or regions engaging in power struggles and disputes your governance structure needs a shot in the arm. A governance structure not based in authenticity is rife with chapter politics. Is that to say, chapters should not represent their local constituencies? Of course not. Chapters have regional flavors, diverse needs and I don't believe any chapter should blindly walk in lock step with the umbrella organization during a debate. They must represent their constituents sincerely and at times vigorously. However, as the character Spock said, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or of the one." In an authentic structure, regional input is legitimately solicited and honored. If the votes go down contrary to the chapters' opinion a reasonable and cogent argument should be made as to why. At that point, the chapters have a responsibility to set their individual concerns aside for the good of the order. Chapter leaders should not disingenuously attempt to revolt and continue the struggle in other venues. At that point, the chapters are building empire.

Your association should focus on achieving the mission and vision, using all assets to achieve the greater good and ensuring an open and authentic operating environment. Ideas to help in that include:

• Training your board, chapters and volunteer leaders
• Holding an annual board orientation with a professional third party
• Developing a task force to work through governance issues with an independent specialist
  
• Developing a strong and compelling core purpose and envisioned future for your members
• Developing and implementing strong affiliate agreements and enforcing them
• Developing nominating committee policy to assist in appropriately distributing "influence"
• Developing and publishing policy overall and following it
  
• Ensuring decisions are clearly documented and communicated to all interested parties
  

Good luck with your governance challenges.  My hope is that your volunteer leaders are appropriately inspired and trained to focus on doing the good work on behalf of the members who put them there, not playing political games and building empire.

Association Subculture Word for 2010 - Authenticity

Like the echoes of your childhood laughter, ever after
Like the first time love urged you to take it's guidance, in silence
Like your heartbeat when you realize you're dying, but you're trying
Like the way you cry for a happy ending, ending...
I know the feeling
It is the real thing....Faith No More, The Real Thing

The Short of It

• I may not dig new years resolutions
• But I am intrigued by the idea of a "word(s) for the year"
• So, I've picked a word to focus on
• And blog about in 2010
  
• One I hope to see in more association discussions
• Authenticity

The Long of It

I've been inspired by the idea of picking a word (or series of words) to define actions to focus on in 2010. Chris Brogan has his three words picked out - ecosystems, owners and kings. Jared Goralnick of Technotheory has picked "swim." I've seen other words run across my dashboard-o'-folks-I-follow. After much reflection on what word or words I would choose for myself, and by extension this blog, to focus on in 2010 (and whether I even should) I've picked a word.

Authenticity.

Now, although it is true I am an avid avoider of new years resolutions because I tend to see them as vain attempts to "overcome the negative" i.e., I will quit ABC, I will lose X number of pounds, etc., I see picking a theme word as a different exercise. It seems to accentuate consistent positive actions to promote an idea or concept. (Maybe it's a little Jim Collins-esque desire to experiment and see if I can get all "flywheel" with a word.) I've never done such a thing before and even though there is little doubt your dear Alice will chase other rabbits from time to time I'm going to commit to embedding that concept when and where it seems authentic to do so.  (Ha!)

Authenticity strongly resonates for me as a legitimate and fundamental aim for this blog and hopefully for our association community as a whole. This is not an unfamiliar word. Many calls for authenticity are routinely promulgated on blogs and in staff, board and committee meetings. Unfortunately, I don't see a lot more than talk when it comes to actually embracing authenticity.

Two outstanding blog posts recently caught my attention. Jeffrey Cufaude had a great post on "Speaking Our Truth"  and Joe Gerstandt did as well with The Whole Truth.  I think both posts do a fine job of identifying some of the reasons why we are marginalized into not bringing our truth and our whole selves into the work-a-day or volunteer world. Let's see what we can do to change that in 2010.

Topics I have on the horizon to blog about include authenticity in:

• executive and board relationships
• board and committee governance
• membership recruitment and retention
• professional development programming
• legislative and regulatory activity
• marketing and communications
• staffing issues including support of gender identity and LGBT issues
• workplace policy including attire and appearance

You get the point.

Authenticity is not for the faint of heart. I struggle with it just like everyone else (lots of birds flying into these glass walls today). How much is too much? What should I share and what should I keep back? Nobody is going to make this process easy for me, least of all myself.

I used to have a sign up in my office to remind me my job was not to tell the board, the staff or the volunteers what they wanted to hear, it was to tell them what they needed to hear. When you do that - you make friends and you make enemies. Ambivalence in the face of someone who is attempting to speak their truth is a rarity. However, it doesn't necessarily mean the truth teller is always "right," it just means they are reporting objective facts through a filter of their experience, best estimates and perspective. The best you can hope for is a truth teller isn't intentionally misleading anyone and has the best interests of the individual and/or organization at heart.

The other reason we have to be vigilant about marginalization and make sure we create safe spaces for people to speak their truth is because - it changes. What is true now about a situation (or about one's self) may change in the future. We are continually evolving as individuals, as teams and as organizations. What we assume is true for the moment, may lead us to feel threatened if it changes. What we assume is written in stone, can lead to the demise of our relationships, our strategic initiatives or our associations. By assuming what is true now will be true forever, can lead us to believe the worst of a person if their direction changes. We denounce them as liars from the beginning, when that may be far from reality. By assuming what is true about our organization won't change, we may miss indicators that say otherwise and miss opportunities to react or adjust as necessary to forestall difficulty, decline or collapse.

Am I advocating an anchorless amorphous purely situational based existence? Well, no. Striving for authentic stability and adjusting to inevitable changes is inherent in the dynamic tension of our entire existence.

We would hope certain things about our organization should remain stable over time. Our dedication to our core purpose, core values and our envisioned future. But if authenticity is missing from any one of those pieces we risk erosion of trust on the part of our staff, volunteer leadership and members.

We would hope certain things may remain constant about individuals over time although their expression may change. Certain beliefs and values I possess have changed as I've matured and certain things have not. I am at a point where I no longer feel it necessary to compromise quite so much.

So...authenticity it is. 2010 looks to be shaping up as an interesting year.

I know the feeling
It is the real thing
The essence of the soul

The perfect moment
That golden moment
I know you feel it too......

The End of the World as We Know It (in Associations)

Six o'clock - TV hour. Don't get caught in foreign tower. Slash and burn, return, listen to yourself churn. Lock him in uniform and book burning, blood letting. Every motive escalate. Automotive incinerate. Light a candle, light a motive. Step down, step down. Watch a heel crush, crush. Uh oh, this means no fear - cavalier. Renegade and steer clear! A tournament, a tournament, a tournament of lies. Offer me solutions, offer me alternatives and I decline.

It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.....REM, Document

The Short of It

• I don't believe in new years resolutions
• However, there is merit in stopping for a moment of reflection
• And moving forward with a renewed sense of purpose
• But that should happen more often than once per year
• Change doesn't wait for us to catch up and notice
• It lies in wait for us every moment of every day

The Long of It

My new years resolution is swearing off resolutions. (Ironic.....but let me explain.)

Most of us are heading back into the fray this week and I'd like to stop for just one more moment, have one more leisurely cup of coffee and consider the landscape ahead.

The world, as we know it, ends every day not just on December 31 of each year and thank goodness for that. We are given endless opportunities on an ongoing basis to promote positive changes (or survive negative ones). Financial institutions crumble, laws change, society changes, media changes. Governments struggle and sometimes achieve great things, wars begin and (thankfully) end. We face the birth of new technologies and move away from the old ways of doing things. Personally, we may generally feel the same about ourselves but even we are different today than we were yesterday. Professionally, the challenges we face this year may be similar but not identical to last years. Our board members will change. Our staffs may change. Even projects we were working on when we left a week or so ago may look different when we get back as perspective can change in the white space of even a few days off.

At this particular time of year, many of us stop and reflect on what was, what is or what could have been. It's almost as if life itself programs us with a basic subroutine for "personal strategic planning." Many of us go through a similar, natural annual process triggered by family, cultural, secular or religious traditions, the gathering of old friends or even the consumption of specific treats we associate with this time of year.  (Many of us find our association careers dictate this is the ONLY time of the year we can truly call our own after having run the previous years gauntlet of board meetings, conferences, etc., and playing "legislative committee roulette" or "regulatory agency Twister.")

After we have stopped, reflected and taken stock of our situation we sometimes feel a compulsion to appear to be "doing something about it" so we step forward and make pronouncements otherwise known as "new years resolutions."

That's where we blow it.

The resolution isn't enough and typically it isn't anything new. Most of the time the resolution is something we've been meaning to do and just haven't dedicated the resources to actually doing.  (Read Jeffrey Cufaude's recent post on "re-solving resolutions" for another take on this topic). Resolutions are notoriously unsuccessful, particularly when given an annual time frame for achievement. For example:

Resolution - "I'm going to lose twenty pounds this year."

Reality - Eating only carrots for three weeks, working out three times per week until I lose ten of those pounds, slowing to two times a week, then one before going back to business as usual while figuring I have a while until I get to the end of the year when the REAL goal is supposed to be reached, regaining the ten pounds but it doesn't matter cuz I still have my "fat clothes" in my closet, starting a diet in October because I need to regain the ground I lost and then some and I only have a few weeks left to hit my goal, getting sideswiped by Halloween, tripped up by Thanksgiving and then, well, then all hell breaks loose because nobody cares anymore and I have the opportunity to make another resolution in December for the same goal next year - which incidentally I MEAN to keep this time!

With cultural programming like this, is it any wonder our boards have such trouble with their own annual strategic planning process?

I'm guessing your organization goes through a similar process at their annual board retreat. They reflect on what was, what is, brainstorm an ideal future, make some "annual strategic priority" pronouncements and then what happens?

Resolution - "Our association will achieve "x" outcome."

Reality - The outcome statement goes to a committee who holds one meeting just to "figure out what the board means by that" and several more meetings to develop ideas on how to go about it, someone mentions doing a survey and months are eaten up developing, executing and analyzing the survey results at which point the strategic operating environment has changed again, six months in the budget is undergoing some fine-tuning to get to the end of the year on target so some retooling on costs of proposed ideas gets underway, members come on or go off the committee leading to some loss of institutional memory and the need to get the newbies up to speed, a little undermining here and a little obstructionism over there, staff goes on vacation which puts off implementation of any idea for weeks, several meetings are spent talking about new priorities subsequently assigned by the board that don't have anything to do with the original outcome and by that time everything they HAD scheduled is interrupted by the annual meeting, staff has no time to work on any committee projects and suddenly the board is back at the annual planning retreat coming up with a resolution to give that goal another go next year.

Let's agree to stop the personal and organizational "resolutions" madness - new years or otherwise.

By all means, Whether personally or organizationally, regularly set aside time to stop, reflect and plan to move forward. Celebrate your successes, revel where you are in the moment, evaluate your current environment and visualize a compelling future. Work to define your core purpose, core values and a BHAG (big, hairy, audacious goal) for yourself or your group. But resist the siren song of the "sweeping resolutions" which left unchecked can distract you from actually achieving your ultimate goals. Set strategic priorities that are obtainable, within a certain time frame (ideally shorter than a year because we are almost pre-programmed to blow off annual goals), properly monetized and do everything you can to minimize interference and/or distractions.

If your personal BHAG is to live a long life and your purpose and values reflect a commitment to health then don't make huge pronouncements about the immediate changes you intend to make to achieve that goal - eliminating all sugar, working out eighteen times a week and swearing off colas from now until eternity. Isn't it smarter to say to yourself, hey, I am committed to health and because of that just for today I will eat healthfully and consider joining a gym. Tomorrow, I'll actually join and next week, I'll go. Making smaller commitments in shorter time frames will allow for incremental change that can be sustained. It also allows you the ability to make adjustments as your environment changes rather than blowing the entire project off until the next time you guiltily decide to do something about it.

Accept that change is upon you.  Not just on January 1 but every day of the year.  Don't expect a single, dramatic pronouncement to achieve the final outcome. Your life will turn around in the small, daily actions you take to achieve your overall goal. Your environment and everything in it, including the people, is in the process of following an evolutionary path that is not always linear or logical. Your environment is predisposed to denying and resisting the very change that it demands. Deal with it. Then seize the opportunities the daily pursuit of authentic change will present to you!

Go out and live this year according to a more natural rhythm. Swear off the resolutions and stay focused on the reasons you made them in the first place.

It's the end of the world as we know it....and I feel fine!