The Strength of the Association Community and its Credibility.
Does the association’s community professional development, stewardship, foresight, and subsequent practices reflect the community’s understanding of the small staff association?
Dig Deeper
The vast majority of associations are small or midsize. They reflect the enormous desire to individualize causes, professions, and industry cohorts.
Is size only defined by the number of staff? What about the size of the budget?
I witness a level of complexity in the SSA community that far too many association activists overlook.
The identified talent and capacities necessary to run the SSA can be categorized with the same language applied to larger associations; however, within each of those classifications is a significantly different set of potential solutions.
The failure of the community to recognize the enormous impact of resource deprivation in the SSA is dangerous and unwarranted.
SSAs have fewer staffers. SSA staff are assigned multiple tasks, many of which are not areas in which they were initially trained or hired to perform. These tasks require specific talents and skills for which they are not prepared. It is not their primary responsibility, but they do their best to serve. Examples are communications and marketing, fundraising, event and meeting planning, professional development, technology, business operations, human resources, talent acquisition, and research.
Large staff associations may think they have the same problem but don’t face the same resource dilemma. Because of significantly fewer resources, the SSA has fewer choices in eliminating the problem or finding situations. Thus, solutions like finding a consultant or part-time staff to take on new or extended unforeseen tasks are not a solution that SSAs have readily available, to name one.
What is the responsibility of the Association community in assisting the SSA?
Between this post and the next, I encourage you to consider the issue and offer ideas or counterarguments to those presented here. Place your comments in the reply below, or contact me directly at MichaelB@AssociationActivision.com.
What’s at Stake? Loss of Diversity, Experience, Expertise, and the Ill of Stereotyping Older People.
Dig Deeper
Besides being illegal, ageism can have serious negative consequences, both for individuals and society as a whole. Here is a baker’s dozen of the dangers of ageism:
Impact on the Mental and Physical Health of Individuals
Limiting Opportunities: Older individuals may be denied job opportunities, advancement, and training due to ageist assumptions about their abilities. While illegal, organizations have learned how to get around the issue with simple checklists developed by HR and Attorneys.
Reduced Diversity of Thought: Diverse teams with members of different ages can bring a broader range of perspectives and creative solutions. Ageism narrows this diversity, limiting the organization’s ability to innovate and adapt to changing circumstances.
Social Isolation: Negative stereotypes about aging can lead to social exclusion and isolation, as younger individuals might avoid or distance themselves from older people due to these biases.
Talent Drain: If older workers feel undervalued and discriminated against, they might choose to retire or seek employment elsewhere. This can lead to losing talented individuals who could have contributed significantly to the organization’s success.
Impact on Team Dynamics: Age-based biases can create tension and conflicts among team members, undermining collaboration and teamwork. A harmonious work environment is crucial for achieving organizational goals.
Inefficient Knowledge Transfer: Organizations that fail to address ageism might struggle with effectively transferring knowledge from older employees to younger ones, leading to gaps in skills and understanding that hinder the organization’s performance.
Missed Innovation Opportunities: Older employees can contribute to innovation and problem-solving through diverse experiences. Excluding them due to ageism limits the organization’s ability to create creative solutions to challenges.
Policy Implications: Ageism can influence policy decisions. Policies perpetuating ageism can lead to unequal treatment and reduced support for older populations.
Economic Impact: Ageism can lead to reduced productivity and economic growth. By excluding older individuals from the workforce, organizations miss out on the valuable contributions they can make regarding experience and skill.
Disregard for Wisdom and Experience: Ageism can result in dismissing older individuals’ wisdom, knowledge, and experience, preventing younger generations from learning from their elders and benefiting from their insights.
Media and Cultural Influence: Ageist stereotypes in media and culture can perpetuate negative perceptions of aging, influencing people’s attitudes and beliefs. This further normalizes ageism in society.
Generational Divide: Fostering ageism can create a divisive work environment where different generations feel pitted against each other, leading to misunderstandings, miscommunications, and reduced collaboration.
It is essential to promote inter-generational understanding, challenge stereotypes, advocate for fair treatment and representation of older individuals, and create policies that ensure equal opportunities and access to resources across all age groups.
Should the association community see itself as an institution?
What’s at Stake?
Losing value, reputation, and influence
Dig Deeper
Some individual Associations are seen as institutions along with the government, schools and universities, courts, banks, and media, but it is the association community as a whole. The military, family, and so on. But what about the community of associations as a collective? Not really. The collective association community has failed to establish itself as an institution despite generating significant research, learning, social good, economic impact, and professionalism. Maybe it is an issue of definition, but I think not! The collective community and those representing it have not worked at making the general public know and understand the value, stability, and significant impact associations have on their members and society.
We should correct this flaw. Speak with a more extraordinary voice and engage in public awareness campaigns, establishing the association community as an institution dedicated to society’s overall well-being. Failure to move in this direction can only diminish the individual associations’ value and professionalism. We live in a visual media world where the collective association of community representatives must generate public awareness, understanding, and excitement must be developed.
The nonprofit community’s potential and capacity to envision the future and attain improved outcomes in a vastly transformed world requires new thinking by governance.
Dig Deeper
Our new century is pressuring the association community to rethink almost everything about its operations, structure, and existence. The mission is lost in a more complex world if the Association governance doesn’t adapt to this new environment.
Here are several necessary factors for the nonprofit community to realize its potential and enhance its capability to envision the future and achieve better outcomes in a significantly transformed world.
1. Strategic Board Composition: Nonprofits should strive to have diverse and forward-thinking boards that reflect their communities’ changing needs and demographics. Accomplishing this change entails recruiting board members with varied expertise, backgrounds, and perspectives to bring fresh insights and strategic thinking to the organization. The usual board make-up of members or member industry-only boards has outlived its value. Strange as it sounds, elections alone will not resolve the issue.
2. Long-Term Vision, Foresight, and Planning: Nonprofit boards should adopt a long-term foresight-oriented vision and engage in strategic facilitation exercises considering emerging trends and potential future scenarios. Traditional strategic planning often fails in the new environment of rapid technology change, stakeholder rethinking, and dramatic demographic changes. Clear actual strategic goals, not a new group of operational tactics disguised as strategic, require regular review, adapting the organization’s mission and vision and aligning strategies with anticipated changes in the operating environment.
3. Agile Decision-Making Processes: Nonprofit governance structures should support agile decision-making processes that enable timely responses to evolving challenges and opportunities, empowering board members and staff to make informed decisions swiftly, delegating authority where appropriate, and minimizing bureaucratic hurdles that could hinder innovation and adaptability. Rework the board’s standard agenda in favor of foresight-oriented discussions. Executive and committee reports should not take up most of the board’s time.
4. Risk Management: Nonprofit boards must prioritize risk management, building efforts to navigate the uncertainties of a transformed world. The board and executive must identify potential risks, develop mitigation strategies, and establish contingency plans to ensure organizational sustainability and continuity in the face of disruptive events. Boards should not expect results for initiatives they have failed to appropriately resource.
5. Technology and Data Governance: Nonprofits should pay attention to technology and data governance to harness the benefits of digital transformation. The board should establish robust cybersecurity measures, ensure responsible data collection and handling practices, and leverage technology to improve operational efficiency, communication, and service delivery. Stay out of day-to-day operations, and focus on future thinking exercises and identification. Every issue does not require a new committee. More task forces with stricter timelines is a better idea. Technology cannot solve every problem, and qualitative inquiry should not be abandoned.
6. Performance Evaluation and Accountability: Nonprofit boards should establish practical performance evaluation and accountability mechanisms by regularly assessing the organization’s progress toward strategic goals, monitoring outcomes and impact, and holding their only employee, the Executive or CEO, accountable for results. They must also evaluate themselves on remaining strategic and thinking about the future. Transparent reporting and stakeholder communication are also essential for building trust and credibility.
7. Collaboration and Partnerships: Nonprofits should actively seek opportunities for cooperation and partnerships with other organizations within and outside the nonprofit sector. This collaboration and partnership will facilitate knowledge sharing, resource pooling, and collective problem-solving, enabling nonprofits to address complex challenges better and leverage shared expertise.
By implementing these governance changes, the nonprofit community can strengthen its potential and capability to envision the future, adapt to a transformed world, and achieve improved outcomes that positively impact society.
This is not a new potential board structure chart. What is good practice in the fast paced environment in which we operate? What must we do to understand the environmental changes requiring us to reconsider some of the assumptions that created the board structures typical in today’s Association community? This is a call to discuss the need for rethinking board responsibilities.
This short paper focuses on the responsibilities that will make a board capable of adapting to the new environment and gig economy not the specifics of legal issues embedded in the IRS Code. These matters will need addressing, but they should not hamper us from exploring association challenges and opportunities. The lawyers will figure out the appropriate legal path when necessary.
Some structure matters are mentioned, but our major task is to reconsider responsibilities in an age of monumental change.
Let’s not struggle through the traditional fiduciary responsibilities of care, loyalty, and obedience. They are fundamental to every board members role and responsibility. Unfortunately, in many board orientation programs, these responsibilities are dealt with only in legalistic terms. In a future oriented Association, board responsibilities must be seen in the context of the emerging environment rather than the present or traditional environment which we are more likely to know and understand.
If you practice care, are you demonstrating you are responsible for future orientation as well as the current? Does not loyalty require seeing the Association’s vision and acting upon it in a thoughtful and learned manner? Doesn’t obedience require us to exercise responsibility for sustainability that is more than just financial?
Associations of the future must have board members who are willing to take the risks associated with adaption. Like all living things, failure to adapt to the environment is a road to extinction.
Thus, building a board culture of curiosity, being an action visionary, and ensuring sustainability is the responsibility of future oriented boards. Each board member, the collective board, and individually the board’s chair and executive have this responsibility. The new board responsibilities minimally require:
▪ continuous learning
▪ scanning of environmental trends
▪ oversight with the future as well as the present in mind
▪ balancing tradition with future thinking, and
▪ obtaining enough power to be ethically and fiscally sustainable.
This is a time when change occurs at a pace that boggles the mind.
Today, information overload seems to crush our ability to see clearly. Monumental and the societal changes have come with diversity, globalization, and technological innovation. Thus, association boards must assume an orientation towards adaptive thinking, scanning, evaluating, and considering the many futures in which the Association will be required to operate. Boards that fail the test of future orientation are not acting in the best interests of their Association.
Here are a few items that require change and adaption:
▪ Consider a new type of board job description that emphasizes future thinking with current practices
▪ A board committee structure that begs for curiosity about the future
▪ A new type of board orientation that accepts new ideas
▪ Recognizing the principles of good practice and governance oversight reoriented with potential futures in mind as well as the next quarter
▪ In selecting and appointing a new chief executive the board must not simply overcome what they see as past shortcomings, but consider one’s ability to operate in the many potential futures which the gig economy presents
▪ Setting aside resources on a continuous basis to do both the current work and prepare for the potential work and sustainability of the association
▪ Seeing stakeholder accountability as far more complicated and requiring a more careful consideration of stakeholders who may not be within the Association’s existing membership categories
▪ A board structure that is not a matter of the association’s traditions or geography, but rather of an association poised to accept the challenges and opportunities that the future presents
▪ A board self-appraisal that accommodates a future orientation as well as current operations.
This is not the 20th century. This is not the industrial age. We are almost two decades into a new century. This is a time to recognize, learn, unlearn, and relearn what will make associations viable, responsible, and sustainable in the new century and in a new economy.
Over time I have become concerned about using strategic planning. It is not to say that planning is unimportant. Instead, is it genuinely strategic, and has the process overtaken the value of producing a fundamental strategic analysis and foresight-driven outcome?
Many of the so-called strategic plans do not engage the makers in a foresight-driven process but rather one of creating a few goals and a list of operational objectives. Still, many such projects end up on a shelf and are never implemented or resourced.
Many lack stakeholder involvement: Strategic planning often involves a small group of senior managers and directors, which can lead to a lack of buy-in and engagement from other stakeholders. Outside stakeholders and broad global trends are rarely considered, resulting in resistance or lack of commitment to implementing the plan.
The future is always uncertain, and strategic planning requires making assumptions about the future. Unforeseen events can disrupt or invalidate the assumptions, making the plan irrelevant or impractical. Few put in place a review process to evaluate the direction or new events that result in necessary revisions to the plan.
Resource constraints: implementing a strategic plan requires significant financial, human, and technological resources. Allocating resources in pursuit of the direction is a considerable problem. Social and political considerations are sidetracked. Organizations may not have the resources needed or refuse to reallocate resources, which can create tensions and conflicts.
Strategic plans often lack clear accountability for implementation, which can lead to a lack of ownership and responsibility. Without clear accountability at the Board and managerial levels, ensuring that the plan is executed and progress is made toward the goals can be challenging.
Organizations may become overly focused on the strategic planning process to the detriment of implementation, foresight learning, and execution. I believe in the process, but not as a deterrent to getting things done.
A foresight-driven board is essential. Without it, this can result in a lack of action and progress and frustration and disillusionment among stakeholders. Boards of Directors are not well trained to see the differences in oversight, implementation, and foresight-driven board accountability.
Organizations that engage in strategic planning need to be aware of these problems and take steps to mitigate them to ensure the success of their planning efforts.
As managers, we have come
to think of necessary workplace skills as either hard or soft. Rethinking—and
abandonment—of this outdated practice is necessary to move the workplace into
the 21st century.
Traditionally, respected
management thinkers, like Andrew DuBrin, in his Essentials of Management,
defined hard skills, also called technical skills, as those relating to a particular
task or situation. These operational skills involve both understanding
and proficiency in a specific activity that address methods, processes,
procedures, or techniques. These are also skills that can be, or have been,
tested and may entail some professional, technical, or academic qualification. Easily
quantifiable, these are unlike soft or human skills, which are related
to personal behavior.
Unfortunately, common definitions
of soft skills encompass abilities largely associated with
emotional intelligence, but are far too often independent of acquired
knowledge. This definition is often followed by examples that include a positive
or flexible attitude, or the manner in which an individual relates to others. Often,
soft or human skills are categorized as people or interpersonal skills, lacking
quantifiable measurement. Indeed, testing has occurred mostly in the social
sciences rather than in business schools. Hogwash! These human skills require
both knowledge and years of practice. Let’s put an end to this old-fashioned
thinking.
Moreover, individuals in
the 21st century require three sets of critical skills: operational,
human, and digital, all of which require continuous learning, inquiry,
and significant practice to be viable for both the individual and the
organization.
In this new 21st century
work ecology, this third set of necessary skills cannot be underestimated. The
technological advances that both disrupt and enhance the fundamentals necessary
for successful employment and organizational sustainability require separating
these digital skills from operational and human skill sets. Together, these
three components of workplace behavior are not hard or soft, they are
necessary, interdependent, and can be respectfully measured.
The triangle below illustrates
the three sides of strategic success.
Let’s look at each of
these skill categories.
And be sure to note—the foundation of the three skill sets is
the human skills component.
Human
skills:
These involve a command of practice
and fluency, as well as a set of abilities that permit interpersonal
understanding and communication. These include:
Collaboration
Ability to play well with others and succeed
in a team environment
Autonomy
Confidence to operate independently when appropriate; trust in self and
organization
It is wrong to think of these skills as not requiring learning and
academic rigor. [MB1] To
be competent in human skills one must engage in considerable reading, research,
reflection, and practice. All components of academic rigor.
Certainly, they
carry emotional overtones and can be difficult to measure. However, everyone
knows when an individual possesses these skills and when they are absent. This
is foundational, since all operational and digital skill capabilities cannot
overcome the failure to act and interact in a human context.
Operational skills:
This set of skills involves fundamental understanding, practice, and
ability to engage in specific functions. These broad operational areas include:
Administration
Organizational
tactics that keep the institution in working order
Data analysis
Ability
to detect patterns, integrating observations into daily operations
Financial fluency
Acting
on sound tenets of accounting, budget preparation. Absorbing financials,
evaluating proposals, making appropriate judgments with fiscal stewardship in
mind
General management
Ability
to see actions in context and practice foresight, sensitive to the difference of
tactics and strategy. Talent for negotiation, conflict resolution, planning
Re-engineering
Evaluation
and redesign of organizational processes
Reporting
Adept
at collecting and organizing information in logical, concise manner that
demonstrates status of operations
Time management
Prioritizing to increase effectiveness and productivity
Written expression
Ability to craft concepts into words in a form
that propels the desired message
In the new ecology and
culture of work and organizational fitness, we cannot avoid delineating a third
set of proficiencies—that of digital skills—rather than lumping them into the
old paradigm of hard and soft.
Digital skills:
These represent the aptitude
of the individual and an organization to use technology. They include not only
existing technological options, but an understanding that technological
advances and disruption are ongoing, are welcome, and will require continuous
upgrading. Organizations must invest in their employees by enhancing these
skills as demanded by advances in technology. These include:
AI fluency
General understanding of business and
social implications of AI, machine learning and other technologies, and perception
of the organization’s capacity to use them
Computer skills beyond the basics
Facility with email clients, search
engines, spreadsheets and presentations. Awareness of basic security, backup,
and privacy concerns, and a comfort level within an online environment
Digital etiquette and media fluency
Ability to
understand, create, evaluate, select and employ technology systems to access,
analyze, and communicate messages across a spectrum of platforms and formats
Document creation and information fluency
Ability to apply critical
thinking, tools, and systems to address challenges at multiple levels across
disciplines and format structures with a range of individuals and units
Problem solving
Sufficient aptitude to enable
troubleshooting. Using orderly methods to find solutions through active
listening, observational skills, data gathering, fact finding, and analysis to
assess causes and potential solutions
Project collaboration
Using tech tools, analyze and offer
solutions for project success throughout all organizational levels in pursuit
of ultimate goal
Search and research
Capacity to seek and retrieve
information via databases in order to execute basic qualitative and
quantitative analysis
A symbiotic relationship
Only by understanding
the interdependent nature of these skill sets can individuals and organizations
develop the capacity for 21stcentury success and sustainability,
thereby fulfilling their obligation to their stakeholders.
In rethinking skill sets,
we will need to change job descriptions and interview processes, deploy
executives to manage teams and individuals in new ways, empower boards to learn
and act in a future-focused capacity, exercise stewardship, and invest in
continuous learning for all levels of the organization.
Is it time for you and
your group to use this new workplace skill construct as a prism to view a
successful future?
This is not a new potential board structure chart. What is good practice in the fast paced environment in which we operate? What must we do to understand the environmental changes requiring us to reconsider some of the assumptions that created the board structures typical in today’s Association community? This is a call to discuss the need for rethinking board responsibilities
This short paper focuses on the responsibilities that will make a board capable of adapting to the new environment and gig economy not the specifics of legal issues embedded in the IRS Code. These matters will need addressing, but they should not hamper us from exploring association challenges and opportunities. The lawyers will figure out the appropriate legal path when necessary.
Some structure matters are mentioned, but our major task is to reconsider responsibilities in an age of monumental change
Let’s not struggle through the traditional fiduciary responsibilities of care, loyalty, and obedience. They are fundamental to every board members role and responsibility. Unfortunately, in many board orientation programs, these responsibilities are dealt with only in legalistic terms. In a future oriented Association, board responsibilities must be seen in the context of the emerging environment rather than the present or traditional environment which we are more likely to know and understand
If you practice care, are you demonstrating you are responsible for future orientation as well as the current? Does not loyalty require seeing the Association’s vision and acting upon it in a thoughtful and learned manner? Doesn’t obedience require us to exercise responsibility for sustainability that is more than just financial
Associations of the future must have board members who are willing to take the risks associated with adaption. Like all living things, failure to adapt to the environment is a road to extinction
Thus, building a board culture of curiosity, being an action visionary, and ensuring sustainability is the responsibility of future oriented boards. Each board member, the collective board, and individually the board’s chair and executive have this responsibility. The new board responsibilities minimally require:
continuous learning
scanning of environmental trends
oversight with the future as well as the present in mind
balancing tradition with future thinking, and
obtaining enough power to be ethically and fiscally sustainable
This is a time when change occurs at a pace that boggles the mind. Today, information overload seems to crush our ability to see clearly. Monumental and the societal changes have come with diversity, globalization, and technological innovation. Thus, association boards must assume an orientation towards adaptive thinking, scanning, evaluating, and considering the many futures in which the Association will be required to operate. Boards that fail the test of future orientation are not acting in the best interests of their Association.
Here are a few items that require change and adaption:
Consider a new type of board job description that emphasizes future thinking with current practices
A board committee structure that begs for curiosity about the future
A new type of board orientation that accepts new ideas
Recognizing the principles of good practice and governance oversight reoriented with potential futures in mind as well as the next quarter
In selecting and appointing a new chief executive the board must not simply overcome what they see as past shortcomings, but consider one’s ability to operate in the many potential futures which the gig economy presents
Setting aside resources on a continuous basis to do both the current work and prepare for the potential work and sustainability of the association
Seeing stakeholder accountability as far more complicated and requiring a more careful consideration of stakeholders who may not be within the Association’s existing membership categories
A board structure that is not a matter of the association’s traditions or geography, but rather of an association poised to accept the challenges and opportunities that the future presents
A board self-appraisal that accommodates a future orientation as well as current operations
This is not the 20th century. This is not the industrial age. We are almost two decades into a new century. This is a time to recognize, learn, unlearn, and relearn what will make associations viable, responsible, and sustainable in the new century and in a new economy.
Throughout our lives and particularly as we reach adulthood we hear the phrases “be a continuous learner or learning never stops.” It’s a simple truth, but not practiced frequently enough.
The first of the three pillars of the Art of Adaption is curiosity (The Learning Pillar). We cannot hope to garner the trust that is necessary or develop respectable standards of accountability if we are not curious.
As one advances up the staff career ladder or assumes a position on a board of directors the necessity for being curious, the desire to learn or know more becomes increasingly important. Boards of Director Members regularly receive introductory orientations. This often includes policies summaries , procedures, their fiduciary responsibilities, and legal structures. How often are they ask to be inquisitive? Are they encouraged to bring to the table new and engaging thoughts and ideas? It is not that directors haven’t the capacity for this curiosity, but rather that it is frequently stymied by the procedural role of the director. They receive a mountain of reports, and numerous presentations about ongoing programs and activities. In some cases, the role or their selection was primarily to enhance fiscal stability, to raise funds, or facilitate some perceived balance in geography. And of course, they are taught the basics of their fiduciary responsibilities; care, duty, and obedience. They are fed much of the whirlwind that staff face each day. Rather than enhancing the boards oversight and future thinking responsibilities, a great deal of time that should be devoted to long-term strategy and future thinking is diminished by a dirge of written and verbal reports that limits their time and avoids discussion of potential futures.
On the Executive Staff side, individuals have risen to their positions as CEO or COO, etc. and are busy in the day-to-day whirlwind of institutional work. Now that the industrial age has transitioned to the new knowledge or internet age or whatever we decide to call this new era, it is important that boards and their chief executives be more curious than ever before. Knowledge about our specific areas of expertise is a necessary tool in the process, but not an end in itself. Knowledge is always important, but knowledge alone is not enough. What we learn and know must be put into action.
Developing our thinking and analytical skills is more important than ever. We must learn to use that knowledge through profound, deep, probing, powerful questions in order to adapt to the new ecology. It is important to add a desire to look at potential futures. Learning how those futures affect the vision and sustainability of the organization is a function that should be fully developed. Technology strategy is yet another area for development. Repeat, strategy! One does not need to be a technologist to develop the technology strategy. Apply technology in support of the mission, the advent of artificial intelligence (AI), as well as the optimization of existing practices can be handled by staff. However, being data hungry is not only a IT function. Making sure the data is health and useable comes with knowing the organizations strategic technology objectives. Obtaining analytical skills that were not as necessary in previous periods will make it possible for the organization to adapt to the new ecology the world has left at our doorstep. While it is not the Boards job to do the work, it is the boards job to know if the organizational strategy is enhanced by what the technologist are doing.
Albert Einstein is quoted as saying, “I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious.” How passionately curious are CEOs and boards relative to the learning, knowledge, foresight, and thinking skills which are necessary in the interdependent environment in which all of us and particularly associations must live.
There are countless tools associated with the Learning Pillar. The following is not an exhaustive list but rather a starter set.
Reading, not just about the organization’s area of focus, but about organizational development, the vast interdependent nature of the new ecology in which the organization conducts its business, and a thirst for the tips of new thinking about institutional as well as current mission focused activities.
Learning to ask powerful questions. I would recommend as a start the pamphlet book “The Art of Powerful Questions.” It may be found at: http://www.firstuu.org/pdfs/art_of_powerful_questions.pdf
A continuous scan of the political, economic, social, and technological world in which the work of the Association is conducted. The internal and external scans generally associated during the strategic planning process should not be limited to that function. Rather, there is a need for continuously scanning of broad external areas. That is the advantage of PEST over the SWOT Analysis. For a PEST analysis, you might use a free tool such as: http://www.businessballs.com/pestanalysisfreetemplate.htm
Learning the new skills of data awareness. From data collection through predictive and prescriptive analysis and the enormous alterations that artificial intelligence (AI) bring to the debate must become a regular part of the board and staff tool kit, and
Staying in tune with the organizational and mission specific literature associated with the vision and mission of the organization.
The Curiosity Pillar is but one of three interdependent pillars for long term organizational success in the evolving ecology that requires us to learn to adapt so as to succeed and thrive.
Do not forget, our clients, members, allies, confidents, and competitors are just a mouse click way from loving us, checking us, condemning us, or promoting us. And, with voice recognition advancing every day, the mouse click itself may soon pass away.
Without applying the pillar of curiosity, our lack of inquisitiveness will make us less competitive in an ever more competitive environment. Without curiosity, the desire to be a continuous learner, there is little chance that the long-standing traditions of the Association community’s mission will survive the new environment. The Art of Adaption process is designed to help Association Executives and Boards fostered and actualize the many potential futures we face.
Finding a path to travel on a journey to adapt to the new environment of the knowledge driven economy requires more courage than previous shifts. We need a better understanding of the shifting plates on which organizations inhabit the earth. Permit me to suggest that there are three pillars in the Art of Adaption:
Curiosity
Being an Action Visionary, and
Sustainability
Why do organizations and CEOs need to adapt? Adapt to what? In the 21st Century ecosystem, where economic, social, demographic, and technology are permanently invading the climate and culture, we need to recognize the impact on our institutions. Darwin said, “It Is NOT the Strongest of the Species that Survives, but the Most Adaptable.” Our organizations very sustainability, our existence requires us to make sure that we learn the lessons of all living things. Learn how to adapt or slowly but surely become extinct. This is true for not only the organization, but particularly for the CEO. The climate is different and our programs, operational practices, and visioning needs to adapt to the new environment in which we exist.
Association CEOs and Board Chairs are facing the challenge of courage over tradition and short-term thinking over sustainability. Today, we are confronted with an extraordinarily fast-changing social, economic, political, and technological environment. Whether here in the United States or across the globe we must come face-to-face with the reality of a more complex and interdependent environment. While paradigm shift has been underway for several decades, associations have been slow to heed its warnings. Like all operational and cultural shifts it takes some time for them to be fully appreciated and accepted. Far too often we are relying on quick fixes. These fixes include: software over strategic technology development, tactics over strategy, and outmoded governance structures. Current governance structures are a particularly difficult problem. Today, many structures are more akin to the outgoing industrial age and lack the necessary vision of an evolving knowledge driven society.
Organizations must learn to adapt whether they are individual member driven institutions, trade organizations, or foundations. It is not that times are changing, it is that times have changed!
The obstacles to making this transition are not to be underestimated. Some of these obstacles sound like the same things that inhibited more sustainable development in years past. These include: time, gaining trust within the organization, including its executive and board leadership, staff, and volunteer groups. The sheer volume of information and help groups available to try to balance this challenge against the status quo may not be providing the in-depth process development that the new environment requires. Courageous leadership will be necessary on this journey. Add huge shifts in demography, demographics, the economy, social changes, and the accelerated speed with which they occur and we face the need for new models and processes, better thinking, and reflection on the standard practices that have brought us to this place.
Providing data fairly presented to governance and staff that broadens their perspective roles and responsibilities against the traditions and often the well-meaning desire to preserve the status quo against the tumultuous changes may be an uncomfortable role for the executive, but clearly required. The level and need for meaningful data and the analytical tools and skills to use that data to support responsible understanding and predictions about the future is sorely lacking in most of our associations and foundations. At least in the foundation world the idea of understanding and predicting donor behavior is more common place. Unfortunately, throughout the individual member and trade organizations, this level of analytical skill, data collection, and foresight is less operational.
Recognizing that we live in a much more complex environment that moves knowledge and opinion at the click of a mouse is uncomforting while at the same time reality. Our planning savvy is inhibited by old methods and the uncomfortable knowledge that many plans put on paper are never given the light and fertilizer of actualization in the daily operations of our organizations. Organizations are stymied by a whirlwind of daily tasks and functions which substitute for being an action visionary and building a sustainable future for the institution’s mission. And while it is unlikely to quickly and dramatically change in the short term, internal organizational jargon, as well as consultant jargon, may have a tendency to dance in the ballroom of past successes rather than the dreams and actualization of the futures we face.
There is a long arc on which these pillars hold up the organizations of the future. These pillars are not silos, but rather an interdependent flow through a multi-year journey. They must operate with both focus and agility to build success. Each pillar requires the interplay of curiosity, action visioning, and sustainable development. One without the other is not a path to success.
The following pictorial is a summary of the three pillars:
Pillar ONE – Curiosity (The Learning Pillar)
Learning to ask powerful questions
Acknowledging the ecological changes associated with demographic, economic, technological, and social changes
Staying in turn with the organizational and mission specific literature
Providing uncomfortable data, fairly presented to governance and staff, that broadens their perspective role, responsibility, and insight
Learning new analytical skills which promotes a reasoned approach to the complexities of modern society
Pillar TWO – Action Visionary (The Balance Pillar)
Strategy First
Technology as Strategy
Facing Uncomfortable Truths
A Governance Model for the future
Creating a shared understanding of the issues on which to build partnerships, alliances, and drive a forward thinking agenda
Planning savvy
Recognizing the speed of change and its impact on the new ecology of work and mission
Pillar THREE – Sustainability (The Power Pillar)
Capacity and Confidence Building
Meaningful Measurement
Optimization
Long-Term Development
Technology integration
Fiscal Strength
Future posts will explore the depth of each pillar, and the processes and learning required to seek the many futures that the new environment will force us to adapt too or be diminished.
Comments are welcome at info@associationactivision.com.
