The Association Renewal Blog

Three reasons why strategic planning is killing us

Let me follow up on Jamie's post from Monday, with a few reasons why I believe strategic planning is killing our organizations, and doing serious damage to our community in the process:

1. It induces us to believe that the form and process of planning are more important than the content of strategy.

One of my great frustrations with strategic planning is how much time is involved in laying out very elaborate processes to create more flexible and adaptable plans, without devoting anywhere near as much attention to deep strategic thought around the content of those documents, and whether they embrace bold and intelligent choices backed by appropriate investments.  The problem for knowledge-creating, synthesizing and brokering enterprises such as associations is that today, strategy is no longer simply the means by which we manage and measure disparate organizational activities.  In the hypercompetitive, Web-enabled world, strategy is about something truly non-trivial:  the ability to leverage the full range of available and accessible resources and relationships to create new and distinctive value for members and customers.  So while process does matter, it is what our strategy proposes to achieve and what we can learn from it that will make the critical difference for our organizations in the long run.

2. It does not encourage us to carefully examine the sustainability of current business models. 

It is a rare strategic plan that actually codifies the elements of a sustainable association business model for the future.  In fact, I don't think I've ever seen such a document!  Instead, we use strategic planning to dutifully go about the business of developing goals, objectives, strategies and tactics without stepping back and asking difficult questions, such as when we will exhaust our current strategy and business model, what will replace it and what capabilities will we require in order to make that shift and how will we develop them?  Strategic planning values continuity over creativity, hindsight over foresight and the ordinary over the radical.  It is small wonder, then, that so few strategic plans actually stretch organizations in our community to reach their full potential.

3.  It does not challenge leaders to accept personal responsibility for creating organizations of the future

Right now, I suspect that many people under the age of 35 (and certainly under the age of 30) view associations as organizations better suited to meeting the needs of their parents' or grandparents' generations than their own.  Among many people, young and old alike, associations enjoy a reputation for being rigid, highly centralized bureaucracies with a deeper commitment to defending the past and preserving the status quo than to creating the future.  Strategic planning doesn't help the situation.  Indeed, it exacerbates it by virtually eliminating the possibility of intelligent risk taking and genuine innovation, in favor of "doing what we've always done, because that's what the members want!"  Sadly, too many senior volunteer leaders buy in to this way of thinking, and operate unapologetically yet myopically as obstacles to meaningful progress.  Strategic planning offers nothing to either incent or require such leaders to accept personal responsibility for creating organizations that will thrive in a new world already in its early stages of formation.

Associations must break free of strategic planning's death grip on our community.  We need a new approach to the work of strategy and, as Jamie pointed out in his post, we are working on one that we look forward to sharing here in the near future.

Oy...

...my creaking bones. 

What's next?  Joining AARP?  Oh wait, I already did that.

It's really all downhill from here.

Gen X: Is there Work in Work/Life Balance?

Peter O’Neill put up an interesting post on the Acronym blog yesterday, making reference to some generational issues. The gist of his post was that although Gen X and Y are talking about wanting more work/life balance, Peter doesn’t see a way around working long hours in order to be successful.

I commented on the post, pointing out that there is a difference between “balance” and “working less.” The quest for balance does not necessarily mean fewer hours, it just means they are more flexibly applied (before carpool, after soccer practice, etc.). I also pointed out that when Gen X and Y started making vocal demands for balance, they were still young, not yet in middle management. At that point in their careers, they are less likely to NEED to work the long hours.

And this is actually the biggest point here. The older members of Generation X now range in age from their late thirties to their mid-forties. Yes, we’re hitting midlife. And crises aside, this is important because this is really the most powerful stage of life. This is where we get responsibility and authority. This is where we get positions of leadership. For a generation that has been in the shadow of the Boomers, it will be interesting to see what happens as we move through the life stage that is, ostensibly, the most powerful.

I think Peter’s observation is getting at this. It’s time to refine, a little, what it is to be Generation X. And I am starting to see more stories, like the story in HBR that Peter was talking about, that are now taking a closer look at what is often defined as “Gen X” issues (like flexible benefits, or work/life balance). I am interested to see if the generational tendencies are now going to show up as “new answers” to traditional workplace issues.

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?

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.

Generational Regression

The first half of the second day of ASAE & The Center’s Membership and Marketing meeting was about generational differences. The plenary speaker focused on it, as well as the subsequent concurrent sessions.

As popular as generational differences have become in the last year, too much of the conversation remains at the level of stereotypes. As Jeff put it during the session, a little knowledge can be very dangerous. The plenary speaker had accurate information about the differences, but here are some of my more frustrated reactions to what he said.

Generation X are “difficult” people
I thought we were over the Gen X bashing that characterized discussion of this generation in the early days. Maybe it’s because he’s still speaking to primarily Boomer audiences (everyone seems to enjoy putting down the generation after them), but I’m tired of it.

Chauvinism against youth
Which brings me to the next point. Inherent in too many of these conversations is an undercurrent that young people are incompetent and worthy of ridicule. Twice he referred to Millennials as kids (mid twenties) who live at home and have their parents cut their meat. Everyone laughs at this. I think there is a new trend with Millennials living at home longer—but I think this has more to do with the housing boom and economics than it does their inability to use a knife and fork. I do think millennials have been “attended to” as children more than X or Boomers were, but that is no reason to make fun of them. I think we need to actively support each other in stopping this .

The number of years in a generation span is purely random
This speaker had Gen X at 14 years long, and like most before him he provided no justification. I agree this is not an exact science, but if the length of a generation is significantly different than the length of a life stage—about 20 years—then I don’t trust it (unless you provide a rationale for your choice). People seem to choose a cutoff date in order to ensure that their research supports the conclusions they've already drawn about the generation, particularly Generation X.

I know we can do better than this in the ongoing conversation about generations.

Are they playing A Flock of Seagulls?

I don't know about you, but I absolutely love 80s music!  I just can't get enough of it and so I've really noticed recently that it is being played everywhere I go.  When I shop in my local supermarket, I'm singing and dancing down the aisles to Come on Eileen by Dexys Midnight Runners or Easy Lover by Philip Bailey and Phil Collins.  (Quite a sight for the other shoppers, I assure you...)  When I drop some clothes off at the cleaners, I'm mouthing the words to Stray Cat Strut, and when I'm sitting in a restaurant having lunch, I'll tap my foot on the floor while Hungry Like The Wolf by Duran Duran plays in the background.  (BTW, all of the song links go to their music videos on YouTube.com)

For me, this is an incredibly exciting cultural shift.  There was a time not that long ago when you couldn't pry an 80s song out a radio station, except perhaps for about 30 minutes on weekday evenings or during the wee hours on weekend nights.  Today, the music of 80s is front and center again because pesky Gen Xers like me have cash to spend and we just love to hear the songs we danced to in high school wearing our Members Only jackets, parachute pants and white Capezios!  (Let me just state for the record that I only wore two of these three items when I was in high school.  I will not elaborate any further at this time.)

So if you're an association leader questioning the deepening reality of generational shift, I suggest you listen closely to the music being played where you shop or eat. If you hear A Flock of Seagulls on the sound system, you can be sure that the world is changing.

It's official!

Yes, my friends, it is official.  I am now an associate member of AARP.  I received the notification letter on the left this weekend, confirming my membership in "America's leading organization for mature people."  I don't know about you, but the whole "mature" thing sounded pretty impressive to me.  Almost makes me want to stop listening to really loud music on my nano, while playing air guitar as I walk down the street.

Almost.  I'm a Gen Xer after all, and having my superior 80s tunage is absolute requirement!

In the months ahead, I occasionally will post about the first year of my AARP associate membership to give you a feel for what actually happens.  I'm sure the magazine will produce some interesting perspectives that I'll want to share here as well.  Let me know what you might like to hear about and I'll try to post something.

Millennials Speak!

In the April issue of Forum Magazine, published by the Association Forum of Chicagoland (I just joined), there is a brief story about Generation X and Millennials. I like that the title was "Not Another Generational Marketing Article." Instead of waxing on about whether or not Generation X are joiners, they actually got three young association people together and let them talk! Research is fine, but when you're dealing with your actual association, you can get much more information by simply asking your people. I like that the article had three authentic voices in it.

That being said, the article was a bit disappointing because much of it simply turned around and asked these people to give their generalizations about the generations (sigh). It's good to know the generalizations, but knowing them does not solve your problems.

Oh, and if you get Forum, also check out David Gammel's article about RSS.