The Association Renewal Blog

The Importance of Clarity

Don Moyer has a one-page column on the last page of HBR, most of which is a cartoon. But he packed a lot of wisdom into a small space in this month’s issue:

Because anxiety about the path ahead is one of the most powerful work-related universals, people particularly value leaders who provide a clear picture of the future. Setting direction is important, and making the future vivid with actions, words, pictures, and stories is vital. As [Marcus] Buckingham, [author of The one Thing You need to Know] says, “Clarity is the preoccupation of the effective leader. If you do nothing else as a leader, be clear.”

Less Mass, More Nimble

Here’s another important point from the “Getting Real” book by 37 Signals. The title of the chapter is “Less Mass.” They point to a universal law: the more massive an object, the more energy is required to change its direction. Organizationally, less mass is better. It enables you to change and be more (pardon the jargon) nimble.

Less mass lets you change direction quickly. You can react and evolve. You can focus on the good ideas and drop the bad ones. You can listen and respond to your customers. You can integrate new technologies now instead of later. Instead of an aircraft carrier, you steer a cigarette boat. Revel in that fact.

So how do you get rid of mass? Simplicity. Use open source products. Work within your constraints, rather than spending energy trying to lift them. Create an open culture where it’s easy to admit mistakes.

Easier said than done, but you want to be nimble, don’t you?

End of Standardization

There's an article in HBR about localization in consumer markets. It is clearly written more for big consumer product companies than for associations, but I still think this one pull-quote from the article is worth thinking about:

The era of standardization is ending. Consumer communities are growing more  diverse—in ethnicity, wealth, lifestyle, and values.

Vendor Partnerships

I encourage everyone to check out Kevin Holland’s interesting post about association-vendor relationships. I liked his refreshingly honest and forthright opinions on a topic that the association community rarely tackles beyond the platitudes.

I’ll also add that the issue of “partnership” between vendor and client is apparently viewed very similarly from both sides of that fence. Kevin pointed out that he gets better results with a vendor when he can get the vendor excited about the project and really work WITH him on it as a partner. When he (as the association) simply signs the work order and pays the bills, he doesn’t get as good a product (as the vendor is pulled down the “path of least resistance” into producing more generic work).

From the vendor perspective, it can look remarkably similar. We insist on partnership, and only work with people who recognize the power of the work we do together and want to fully engage in the project (see our strategic principles for more on this). We come to agreement about all this with the association client in the beginning. But the “path of least resistance” can hit the client too. They have a ton on their plate, and the partnership is, in fact, hard work. Vendors may get pulled away by other clients, but clients get pulled away by other priorities. The bottom line is, both sides have to work hard for it to be a partnership, and they both need to learn (constantly) about how to support each other in staying in it and resisting the path of least resistance.

Let the Stereotyping Begin!

I missed it in the print version, but the January 06 Fast Company magazine has an article about Generation Y in the workplace. The author had contacted me a while back to see if I had any stories of Gen Y workplace issues--specifically their parents getting involved in the workplace (as they have been very involved in all of their lives, apparently). In the article, she tells a story of a Harvard grad who gets a mediocre performance review and his parents actually demand a mediated session between HR, their son, and THEMSELVES!

But the article doesn't harp on the horror stories. It provides a good summary of what the "experts" have to say about this generation. But remember to take ANYTHING you hear about Generation Y with a grain of salt. They are still too young for us to have a strong and accurate sense of what they're about, in my opinion. I also think when a generation first emerges into the workplace, the generalizations are inherently on the negative side, as they are ALWAYS pushing the buttons of those in power. Although Gen Y seems to be in favor with the Boomers, so maybe that won't happen as much.

But definitely pay attention to Gen Y. Why? As the article states:

Because this is our future workforce. Eighty million boomers will retire over the next 25 years, and there are only 46 million gen-Xers. Millennials will dominate the workforce for, oh, the next 70 years.

Unlike many articles about Generations, however, I like the fact that this one reminds us at the end, that there is more to these dynamics than the stereotypes:

Millennials aren't asking for signing bonuses or the right to bring their dogs (or parents) to work. They just want to be heard, which, when you think about it, really isn't that much to ask.

What if Strategy Meetings Were Strategic?

The April issue of Business 2.0 has a great article on the “best kept secrets of the world's best companies. One of the ideas is about strategy:

Proctor and Gamble actually has “strategic” strategy reviews! The subtitle of this secret is “Turn going-through-the-motions meetings into no-holds-barred debates.” They turned strategy reviews from passive powerpoint shows into real discussions where they tackle hard questions that “can last days or weeks until everyone agrees.” My favorite part: the CEO says “When we get it right, we can boil it down to a one-page document that provides clarity for everyone—and more consistent execution.” How long is your strategic plan, again?

Do Less

Here is one of the many nuggets of wisdom I'm finding in the "Getting Real" book by 37 Signals:

Conventional wisdom says that to beat your competitors you
need to one-up them. If they have four features, you need five
(or 15, or 25). If they’re spending x, you need to spend xx. If
they have 20, you need 30.

This sort of one-upping Cold War mentality is a dead-end. It’s
an expensive, defensive, and paranoid way of building products.
Defensive, paranoid companies can’t think ahead, they can only
think behind. They don’t lead, they follow.

...So what to do then? The answer is less. Do less than your com-
petitors to beat them. Solve the simple problems and leave the
hairy, difficult, nasty problems to everyone else. Instead of one-
upping, try one-downing. Instead of outdoing, try underdoing.

If you build your association soley around the areas that everyone expects the association to deal with, it will be harder to be a leader. In keeping up with competitors or even member demands, you can end up building an organization that  tackles lots of big things, but doesn't solve any of them fully. Don't underestimate the value of solving a real problem for members, even if it isn't as "impressive" as the programs you have now.

The language of renewal

In my recent travels on the Web, I made a mental note of a reference to an association's "volunteer management plan."  To be honest, I don't have any idea where the reference came from or what it was about.  It was the words that caught my attention...volunteer management plan.  Why would we choose this phrase?  It's so ordinary.  There must be something better, right?  Well, here are three that I think are better: