A question for Virgil Carter, great commenter in the blogoclump.
On Jamie's post about my post, On Collins' What Makes Powerful Nonprofit Leaders, Virgil posted this in his comment:
"Why is it that ASAE and some of our association bloggers can't figure out how to align and communicate membership mantras and leadership mantras? For example, when we hear ASAE talk about membership, we often hear incessantly that the membership is why we exist, whom we serve and how we should measure success. We hear that all too often association leadership is "out of synch" or disconnected with membership.
Yet when we hear about leadership, for example, we hear how important it is for leaders to be visionary, strategic, energetic, bold, courageous, making hard decisions that are best for the organization, yada yada.
Come on. Does anyone besides me see the complete mismatch (and conflicting results) these two independent disconnected views of membership and leadership represent? Do we have the membership specialists espousing the membership mantras and the governance specialists promoting the leadership mantras, in some sort of ridiculously competitive song and dance?
When will ASAE & the Center reconcile membership and leadership into one single, integrated and comprehensive continuum? They really aren't separate, stand alone issues, you know?"
I am a bit confused and wanted to post on this and get some clarification, if possible. Are you talking about the "serving members" vs. "leading members" debate? (Here, here and here, for example).
If so, isn't the concept of "CEO as broker of ideas" precisely the single continuum you are asking for?
2.07.2008
Dear Mr Carter... on leadership?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Maddie,
ReplyDeleteI haven't been following this discussion till I read this post, but I am reminded of the governance concept of "alignment" that has long been standard issue in IT management consulting (my own background before I got into social media and social networking).
In the IT management community the concept of alignment refers to the alignment between (a) an organization's business goals and (b) how the organization organizes and manages its IT resources (i.e., the people, processes, and technology that the IT department manages).
There are a gazillion methodologies for measuring this alignment in the IT management consulting world but what they seem to boil down to is answering the question, "Are you spending IT resources in ways that are responsive to and proportional to the business goals of your organization?"
Adapting this same concept of "alignment" to associations -- which I am sure others have already done -- the question could be, "Is your association spending it resources in ways that are responsive to and proportional to the business and professional goals of its members?" I would think that if you find that your members' priorities are ranked one way, and how the association spends its resources is ranked in another, there has to be a discussion about the reasons why the mismatch exists.
Anyway, that's how I'm interpreting Virgil's quote that you mention.
Dennis McDonald
email: ddmcd@yahoo.com
http://www.ddmcd.com
Maddie, thanks for your post and inquiry. And thanks, too, for all the great work you are doing on your blog and elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteSettle in--a rather long post follows. There's no way to make this into a USA Today commentary.
Let me explain my earlier comment. It was about the issue of (and predictable tension between) association members/customers and association leadership, i.e., governance. This topic prompted me to write " Are Card-Carrying Memberships Dead?" in the January 2008 Associations Now. You will find more detailed thoughts there.
My concern on the issue started with ASAE's & the Center's recent research report, "The Decision to Join"--an exemplary example of the kind of work that I think ASAE & the Center should be doing. Monica Dignam, Jim Dalton and the ASAE & C Research Committee did a fine job of sheding new light on what causes members to join non-profit organizations.
A key "To Join" finding was that "any meaningful understanding of an association involves a balancing act between a calcution of 1) WHAT'S IN IT FOR ME and 2) WHAT'S IN FOR THE DISCIPLINE AND THE PUBLIC" (my paraphrase, numbers and emphasis added). The report showed that members join for both reasons. These reasons rank very closely to each other as top reasons for joining.
Another key finding that I find astonishing and contradictory (and, I must add, ill-considered, IMHO): "The perception of what is important for an association to address changes significantly with one's level of involvement, to a point where THOSE WHO GOVERN ASSOCIATIONS ARE NO LONGER IN SYNC WITH THE PRIORITIES...OF UNINVOLVED MEMBERS..." (my paraphrse and emphasis added).
The implication that those who (are more active and) govern are "out of sync" (with those who are uninvolved), and that this is a bad and undesirable condition, is simply laughable.
While one cannot dismiss the potential for governance that may be out of synch, based on personal ego or other narrow-minded thinking by a few governance leaders, my experience is that this is not the case in majority of associations, in the majority of times.
The vast majority of governance models are composed of knowledgable, energetic folks who work tirelessly to do the right thing, the right way. They are not "out of synch". The decision-making is not bad, particularly and specially because it may not always align with the personal wishes of uninvolved members.
To suggest or imply that the proper role and model for successful governance is to hold uninvolved member's personal interests--"what's in it for me"--as the desirable performance standard for governance (this would make it in synch?), is simply lucdicrous! Not to mention illegal, since the fiduciary responsibility of governance is to make decisions based on what's best for the organization as a whole, not on personal or constituency-based interests.
If uninvolved member's interests are, in fact, the proper basis for association decision-making, why don't we save money by eliminating the entire governance model and simply replace it with an annual member survey, which, in turn, is translated into the annual budget? This is simply laughable.
As I point out in my Associations Now article, there may be a natural tension between member's personal self interests and governance's concern about what's best for the good of the discipline and the public. This tension, if present, needs continual attention and reasoned judgement, as I describe in my article.
Looking at the situation differently, if association existance is simply to support as many member's personal interests as possible, most associations can simply dissolve and become private social clubs. Members can meet for lunch and adjourn to the reading room after lunch. Cigars are optional. Pass the brandy, old chap!
Organizations without public or disciplinary purpose don't deserve a preferential non-profit and tax-sheltered public status, since they do not benefit the public nor their "good of the discipline" for public benefit.
Let's get a clear grip on why non-profit associations have that status, are tax-exempt and have certain rights and privileges that for-profit organizations do not enjoy. We--most of us--do have an obligation to the public and to "the discipline" (whatever our respective "discipline" may be).
We are not just about(or have highest priority for)some self-interest or personal benefit of as many members as possible.
Governance is where these tension gets reconciled and resolved. It does not mean governance is "out of synch". It means governance is doing exactly what is expected of it. And what is legally required.
I highly respect the Decision to Join project, but I think they badly missed this significant issue, and unfortunately came down in support of the tired mantra of "membership uber alles", which has done associations, particularly governance, no favor. This project conclusion has done little to advance the knowledge and understanding of the interrelationshp of memberhip and governance--about which more sound knowledge is needed.
Hopefully this oversight can be remedied over time with discussions such as this.
Many thanks. I recognize everyone's milage may vary.
Virgil - thank you for this long reply. I will try an follow up in a future post.
ReplyDelete