Wednesday, February 24, 2010

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.

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

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.

Monday, February 1, 2010

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