
In Abundance, Peter Diamandis and Steven Kotler make a provocative point: many of today’s most persistent challenges stem not from failure, but from the unintended consequences of yesterday’s solutions. Procedures, rules, and structures designed to fix problems or ensure fairness decades ago now often stand in the way of progress. This tension is especially visible in the nonprofit association world—where mission-driven intent collides with the inertia of institutional Process.
Associations, by nature, are built for stability. They safeguard standards, preserve institutional memory, and uphold democratic engagement. But over time, these same strengths can become barriers to agility, especially in an era of rapid change, digital disruption, and escalating member expectations. The challenge we face isn’t whether to keep or discard Process, but how to make it serve outcomes—rather than hinder them.
1. A Legacy of Good Intentions
Processes in associations often come from a place of principle. They’re designed to ensure fairness, transparency, member input, and legal compliance. Bylaws protect against tyranny. Policies promote consistency. Procedures provide a roadmap when the road ahead is unclear.
But as Abundance suggests, good solutions can age poorly. Structures created to solve problems in one era may be ill-suited for today’s needs. Legacy processes in associations—especially those designed in the analog era—can become calcified, taking on a life of their own, detached from the purpose they once served.
2. The Problem with Over-Processing
Every association executive knows the pain of watching a fresh idea die in committee. Or watching a board table a strategic priority because the bylaws don’t address it. Or shelving innovation because the risk, however small, threatens “the way we’ve always done it.”
Over-processing leads to what some call “policy paralysis.” The costs are substantial:
- Missed opportunities for innovation and growth
- Delays in responding to members’ urgent needs
- A culture of “no” or “not yet” instead of “why not?”
Risk aversion becomes a core cultural trait, even when the risk of doing nothing is greater.
3. When Structure Serves, and When It Doesn’t
None of this is to say that Process is inherently bad. On the contrary—Process can be a powerful ally in building trust and delivering value. The key is fitness for purpose.
Structure serves us when:
- It clarifies authority and accountability
- It provides a framework for inclusive decision-making
- It ensures continuity across leadership transitions
But it fails us when:
- The Process becomes the goal rather than the means
- We prioritize adherence to protocol over member impact
- Decision-making cycles drag on without resolution
To lead well, associations must distinguish between Process that supports strategy and Process that supplants it.
4. Toward a More Adaptive Association
Some associations are already rethinking how they govern and operate:
- Sunsetting outdated policies: Automatically reviewing and retiring policies every 3–5 years unless reaffirmed
- Creating innovation zones: Establishing “safe to try” pilot programs outside traditional governance channels
- Using agile committees: Task forces with short-term mandates, clear charters, and direct reporting lines
- Empowering staff: Letting executive teams make low-risk decisions without board micromanagement
These shifts require trust, clarity, and shared purpose—but they free up organizations to experiment, adapt, and evolve.
5. Questions for Boards and Staff to Ask Themselves
To begin this journey, ask:
- Which of our processes protect us, and which limit us?
- Where are we using Process as a proxy for trust or control?
- What policies or procedures have outlived their usefulness?
- Are we prioritizing procedural compliance over mission outcomes?
- How can we create space for rapid experimentation and learning?
A regular governance and policy audit can reveal friction points and spark meaningful reform.
6. Conclusion: A Call to Purposeful Agility
Process isn’t the enemy. But in an era that demands nimbleness and clarity of purpose, associations must ensure that their structures serve the mission—not the other way around. We owe it to our members, our missions, and our futures to ask: is our Process a platform for progress—or a cage?
By balancing thoughtful structure with adaptive execution, associations can step fully into the future—not as prisoners of past solutions, but as builders of new ones.