The Association Renewal Blog

More Information Doesn't Solve the Problem

Check out Scott Briscoe’s post about planning over on the Acronym blog. It’s based on a book he read titled Why Most Things Fail: Evolution, Extinction, and Economics. Here’s my favorite quote from the post:

Why Things Fail goes on at some length on game theory as a learning experience and draws perhaps my favorite conclusion in the book: “Plan, predict, and control fails as a strategy, even [when] we have full and complete information.”

It’s interesting: when I first read that, I didn’t even pick up on the “even when we have full and complete information” part (you had me at “plan, predict, and control, fails as a strategy!”). But I think it’s a critical point.

Traditional strategic planners are on the defensive. They hear a lot of people proclaiming its death, and they hear a lot of clients saying “there must be a better way,” so they are pressed to come up with a new response. The response I’m hearing the most: get better information.

They are pushing for better environmental scans or using scenario thinking on the front end of planning (and I’m all for good scans and scenario thinking), but they’re missing the point, because they still use this better information to come up with traditional strategic plans. Traditional strategic planning did not fail because it had imperfect information (although that may have been a flaw). It failed because it tried to predict and control the future, and that’s impossible (among other reasons).

Guy Kawasaki on the Long Tail

Earllier this year, Jeff and I wrote an article for Associations Now on the concept of the Long Tail. Chris Anderson's book on that subject is now just coming out, so it's getting some attention, including from one of my favorite bloggers: Guy Kawasaki.

Kawasaki provides (as is his style) a top-ten list of things you need to focus on if you want to exploit the long tail. It's a good read.

Generations and Job Growth

Here’s one more post related to Arthur Brooks’ talk about generations at the Association Forum’s annual meeting last month. As I said before, he made several points in his presentation that he didn’t make in his report. In the report, he pronounced that the data indicate that Generation X are joiners. When you compare them to Boomers (when they were our age), we actually join at higher rates.

Super.

But in the presentation, he made an important point: the conclusion that Generation X will join does not apply to every association equally. If you represent textile manufacturing in the United States, the data on joining will not be so helpful—because you’re in an industry in serious decline! Industries and professions that are predicted to be leading the economy in the coming years (and adding jobs, thus potential members) are the ones to watch. Interestingly, from his perspective, the kinds of jobs and sectors that are predicted to grow (I didn’t get his list, but he summarized it as the “idea” parts of the economy) are ones that typically value very Gen X characteristics: creativity, innovation, individuality, entrepreneurship.

So Generation X may be small, but for the coming years, according to Brooks, their values are going to line up with what is driving growth in the economy. Makes you think twice about “waiting out” Gen X until the ostensibly more Boomer-oriented Millennials arrive in great numbers!

One final note: one of the job sectors predicted for growth is employment services. You already know that people are changing jobs and careers more often than they used to. Brooks even pointed out that the younger generations are changing what it means to be “happy” at work (I posted about that here). This creates more churn, thus the growth in employment services. Is your association aware of this? Are you responding?

Book Nearing Completion

In case you haven't been to the "We've Always Done It That Way" blog recently, please check it out, because we've passed the 100 post mark! We promised 101 things about associations that we must change, and we've delivered. Actually, I think we're up to 104 things on the blog.

We're now in the process of putting together the printed book, which should be available within the next month, but check out the new posts on the blog, and keep the blog bookmarked, because we are not stopping our postings just because we reached 101 things (what, you thought there are ONLY 101 things that need changing?!).

It's not about buckets...

Jamie and I are a bit frustrated with how the generational shift conversation is unfolding in association community.  Ben writes about this in a recent post on his blog:

Jeff De Cagna and Jamie Notter have both expressed disappointment about Cam Marston's session on generational differences at ASAE & The Center's Membership & Marketing Conference. I've been somewhat biased against generational research for some time now. I can draw as many conclusions about someone's disposition from their generation as I can draw from their astrological sign. And after hearing Cam's speech, I've now decided that knowledge about generational differences is overrated. Grouping people into buckets with tens of millions of others and calling it "segmentation" is sounding pretty ridiculous to me right now. (Bold emphasis added)

I both agree and disagree with Ben's post.  On the one hand, there is actually considerable value in understanding how different generations make sense of the world in different ways.  There can be no doubt that Silents/Matures, Boomers, Xers and Millennials hold vastly divergent perspectives on a wide variety of issues.  What's more, this full spectrum of ideas and opinions influences our society in ways that go far beyond the deeper meaning of the Zodiac.  (Except perhaps when Reagan was president...;>)  Getting inside the story of how and where generations disagree--as well as agree--must be a central theme of our national and organizational discourse in the coming years if we are to identify solutions to the profound problems we face.

On the other hand, Ben's last sentence shines a light on a big problem:  we are trying feverishly to put people into "buckets" for marketing and messaging purposes and it won't work.  While some brands may occasionally crack the code of generational understanding and enjoy spectacular, if short-lived, financial success as a result, the overwhelming majority of organizations will experience the same kind of frustration and disappointment we're describing in our posts.

If I may propose a different metaphor, true generational understanding isn't about buckets, but shot glasses.  Everyone is an individual and has his or her own shot glass, but because we can more easily move the glasses around, we can see the relevant patterns more clearly.  Achieving this depth of understanding, however, depends on our ability to think and talk differently about generational shift.

Which brings me to three guides I'd like to propose to shape a new generational conversation in associations:

• Use broad generalizations to ask better questions--Big and broad assumptions, even those based on survey data, can be dangerous, so test their meaning and validity by asking probing questions that help you get inside the story of individual members and stakeholders. 
  
• Use the answers to frame better conversations--Listen carefully to the nuances and textures of the responses to build your capacity for shaping conversations that move beyond the level of assumption, generalization and stereotype.
• Use your learning to craft better ways of connecting and connecting with your members--Developing an organizational strategy for generational renewal isn't about mass production or even mass customization.  It's about honoring the uniqueness of individuals by supporting their efforts to build new relationships and create new opportunities.
  

Generations and Data

Generations are certainly popular in the association world these days. In addition to the ASAE & The Center Membership and Marketing keynote, the Association Forum of Chicagoland’s annual meeting a couple of weeks ago also did a keynote on the topic. They brought in Arthur Brooks, author of the Smith Institute report on generations that proclaimed Generation X as joiners after all. As you can see from my earlier post, I was somewhat skeptical of the report for its odd distribution of generational time spans (Boomers get 18 years, but Gen X only ten?).

Fortunately, Brook’s talk explained some of his thinking on that topic. You have to understand: Brooks is an economist. Economists seem to care mostly about two things: human behavior and data (and data is more important). Brooks defined Gen X as 1965 to 1975 because that is the literal baby “bust” after the boom—there was a ten-year dip in birth rates before it went up again. Had the birth rate dip been longer, Gen x would have been longer, and honestly perhaps his conclusions would have been different. He’s not explaining why Generation X are joiners, he’s just pointing to what the data says about their behavior. He told me that we’re also just too much “on top of” that data right now. He thinks that over time Generation X will be known as spanning from 1965 to 1985.

I only wish he would have explained that in the report! There’s more to what he said, but I’ll save that for a later post.