Should Association Executives Serve or Lead?
I started asking association executives that question several months ago. You have to serve today’s members if for no other reason than, as one of them said, “that’s what pays the bills.” If you get too far out in front of them, you risk irrelevance in the face of the issues they face today. But if you don’t lead them, you jeopardize both the association’s and the membership’s ability to survive and thrive in the future. You both need to be prepared for changes in the marketplace, the industry, the profession, in whatever niche you play.
The result of all that conversation is a feature in this month’s Associations Now. It’s already up on their site.
The association executives I talked to agreed that no association should serve to the exclusion of leading or vice versa but that one stance is not necessarily better than the other. There are characteristics of each and there is a continuum from one to the other. Most associations err on the side of service—70% to 75% by most estimates—but that to really remain viable, that needs to move to 50-50.
The article also contains a sidebar on how to move the needle up the continuum—to serve today’s members while leading them into the future.
Moving the Needle
A culture that embraces and nurtures calculated risk. At the beginning of every year, the Edison Electric Institute’s (EEI) executive committee develops a list of deliverables. President and CEO Tom Kuhn uses that as an ongoing, real-time strategic plan. Senior management’s compensation is “highly based” on achieving those results.
A way of calculating what that risk will be. The American College of Healthcare Executives (ACHE) performs constant environmental scanning from four to five major sources. The Metals Service Center Institute (MSCI) develops proprietary research data on the metals supply chain that is an extremely accurate predictor of which way the notoriously volatile industry will go.
A separate budget for strategic experimentation. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has its own venture capital fund so that future-facing initiatives won’t drag down the overall operating budget. ACHE launched its Fund for Innovation four years ago to which members are asked to contribute.
A short cycle time from conception to deployment. Kuhn says that being staff-driven speeds decision making and innovation. At both AAP and ACHE, a strongly evidenced-based membership has led to data-driven decision making that is much faster than a consensus model.
A plan for attaining projected results. EEI prepares a quarterly report which culminates in the annual report. “My promise is if I can’t get you a higher return on investment than you can get from another organization, you shouldn’t pay us dues,” Kuhn says.
A ruthless willingness to abandon things that don’t work. ACHE uses zero-based budgeting. EEI uses market-based testing. In either case, programs that are not making money or breaking even, even those loved by some members and therefore subsidized by everyone else, are either eliminated or must become subscription-based. Several years ago, MSCI’s president and CEO Bob Weidner and his vice president of research, Chris Marti, went through the whole list of research programs and asked themselves, “What would you do with this if you were a member company. We eliminated about 20% of research reports,” Weidner says. “No one called.”
Rebecca, thank you again for your work on that article for us! I think it’s a great conversation starter for association leaders. We really appreciate the work and time you put into it!