Category: Uncategorized

What’s at Stake?

The credibility of organizations and businesses that purport to assist the Small Staff Association (SSA)

Dig Deeper

Part three of this series highlights the many capacity challenges and suggests three that should be at the top of the list.

When your SSA has less than ten staff, a constantly strained budget, expectations that continue to grow, and staff performing multiple roles, we should first consider why we exist and then move on to the most valuable elements on which to focus.

Start here:

1. Assess Current Capacity: Conduct an internal assessment
2. Prioritize and Focus Goals: Given limited resources, it’s essential to prioritize your goals. Focus on a few key areas.
3. Strategic Thinking above Strategic Planning: Too many plans on too many shelves. Learn to think strategically before building plans.
4. Training and Development: Invest in staff professional development.
5. Cross-training: It is essential.
6. Volunteer and Intern Programs: Consider engaging volunteers or interns to assist with specific tasks or projects.
7. Leverage Technology: Explore cost-effective technologies and software that can help streamline operations without losing the human touch.
8. Collaboration: Seek collaborations or partnerships with other organizations.
9. Grant Funding: Look for grant opportunities that align with the organization’s mission and can support capacity-building initiatives.
10. Board Involvement: The board must understand the value of capacity building without meddling in day-to-day operations.
11. Monitoring and Evaluation: Collect data to measure the impact of your capacity-building efforts and use this information to make informed decisions.
12. Financial Management: Ensure prudent financial management.
13. Communication and Transparency: Keep open lines of communication with staff members about the organization’s goals and progress. Transparency can foster a sense of ownership and commitment among the team.
14. Cultivate a Learning Culture: Encourage a culture of learning and improvement within the organization. Encourage staff to share knowledge and learn from their experiences.
15. Resource Diversification: Explore various funding sources, such as membership dues, fundraising events, sponsorships, partnerships, and donations, to diversify your revenue streams.

Building organizational capacity is an ongoing process that requires dedication, creativity, and adaptability. By strategically allocating limited resources and focusing on critical priorities, we can enhance the association’s effectiveness and achieve purpose and mission despite the constraints.

Here are the three areas in which I think we should concentrate:

Staff Training and Development: Invest in the professional development of your staff. Building their skills and knowledge will enhance their effectiveness in their multiple roles. Training can help them become more efficient and better equipped to handle various tasks. Look for cost-effective training options and consider cross-training to maximize your resources. Vendors who refuse to understand SSA financial constraints must rethink their approach and model.

Technology and Process Improvement: Leverage technology and streamline processes. Investing in affordable software or tools can help small teams work more efficiently and manage tasks more effectively. In the end, effectiveness initiatives will provide efficiency. Not every task has a technical answer, so think of people first.

Collaboration and Partnerships: Seek collaborations or partnerships with other organizations or like-minded groups. Such entities can help you share resources, knowledge, and expertise. Collaboration can expand your capacity without increasing your staff or budget. It’s a strategic way to achieve more with limited resources.

These three areas are interrelated and can significantly impact the organization’s capacity. Staff training and development will empower your team to use technology and improve processes effectively, while collaborations can provide additional resources and support.

By prioritizing these three areas, we will address the challenges of the small staff association with limited resources. Those seeking to help and assist the SSA must recognize that resources are limited and not put training and technology out of reach; an association community of “haves” and “have-nots” is a community in name only.

What’s at Stake?

The Association Community needs the small staff associations (SSA) for its Credibility.

In part one of this series, we recognized the severe resource availability difference facing SSA Executives. If we fail to act with better professional development and understanding, we will fail to strengthen the entire association community.

Dig Deeper
Those working to assist in developing SSA Executives, their associations, and subsequent practices must establish and accept that the differences are fundamental and require additional skills and professional practices.

Here are eight categories that require the association community to stand up for the small staff executives and their needs:

1. Resource Constraints: (first mentioned in Part One of this series)
   • Small Staff: CSOs in small associations typically have limited financial and human resources. They must be more resourceful and efficient, often wearing multiple hats to accomplish things.
   • Large Staff: CSOs usually have more substantial budgets and larger staff teams. They can delegate more tasks and have greater financial flexibility.
2. Scope of Responsibility:
   • Small Staff: SSA CSOs often have broader responsibilities, from strategic planning foresight to day-to-day operations. They are more hands-on in various aspects of the organization. There is a difference in how, when, and to whom to delegate.
   • Large Staff: CSOs in larger associations can have a more specialized role, focusing on high-level strategic planning and decision-making. They might delegate many operational tasks to their staff.
3. Decision-Making Process:
   • Small Staff: SSA CSOs may have a more streamlined decision-making process with significant personal interactions. They can make decisions quickly and often have a deeper connection with the board and members.
   • Large Staff: In large associations, decision-making can be more complex and involve multiple layers of approval, thus resulting in a longer time to implement changes.
4. Member Engagement:
   • Small Staff: SSA CSOs often have more direct interactions with members. They may know their members on a personal level and be deeply involved in member and volunteer engagement efforts.
   • Large Staff: Here again, CSOs may rely more on staff and committees to engage with members. They may have a less personal connection with individual members.
5. Advocacy and Influence:
   • Small Staff: CSOs in small associations may need to work harder to gain influence and advocate for their organization’s interests. They may have limited resources for lobbying and advocacy efforts.
   • Large Staff: CSOs may have more resources for advocacy and a more substantial presence in their industry or field. They can often exert more influence on policy and regulatory matters.
6. Organizational Culture:
   • Small Staff: Small associations often have a tight-knit, family-like culture. CSOs in these organizations may have a more personal and close relationship with their staff and board.
   • Large Staff: Large associations may have a more corporate or hierarchical culture. CSOs in these organizations may have a more formal relationship with staff and board members.
7. Innovation and Change:
   • Small Staff: CSOs in small associations may have more flexibility to implement innovative ideas quickly due to the smaller bureaucracy. It’s not necessarily more manageable but more streamlined because the association’s trust culture is built differently.
   • Large Staff: CSOs may face more resistance to change and innovation due to the complexity of the organization and established processes.
8. External Relationships:
   • Small Staff: SSA CSOs may build external relationships with limited resources, relying on personal connections and networking.
   • Large Staff: CSOs in large associations may have more resources for building external relationships and partnerships through delegation.

It’s essential to note that the specific differences can vary significantly depending on the nature of the association, its industry or field, and its unique circumstances. CSOs in both small and large staff associations play crucial roles in advancing the organization’s mission and serving its members, but they do so within different contexts and challenges. In future posts, we will explore these categories in more detail.

What’s at Stake?

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:

1. Impact on the Mental and Physical Health of Individuals
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Policy Implications: Ageism can influence policy decisions. Policies perpetuating ageism can lead to unequal treatment and reduced support for older populations.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.

What’s Popping?

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.

What do you think?

What’s at Stake?

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.

Let me know what you think. mcihaelb@assocaitionactivision.com

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.

Adaption is not an option, it is the future!

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 21^st 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 21^st 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

• Communication

   Command of the organizational narrative, orally and in written form

• Creativity

   Innovative approach to work; a curious attitude, and hunger for learning

• Embrace of change

   Innovation, adaptability, flexibility, foresight

• Emotional intelligence

   Empathy, social sensitivity

• Leadership judgment

   Sound sense of when to lead and when to follow

• Motivation

   Energetic work ethic

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 21^stcentury 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?

---