Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Seven Warning Signs of Decline

May 19, 2013 by Anna Caraveli

Do any of these responses to questions or ideas presented to association and academic leaders below have a familar ring for you?  Do they capture a familiar declinetone, theme or pattern in your organization?

–“We already know our members (students, donors, customers)”
–“These examples don’t apply to us because:”

–”They re for-profit and we are non-profit so this has no relevance for us”
–“We are an urban, research university and your case features a land grant university.”
–“They are a big corporation with money and we are an association with limited resources”

–“They can play around with innovations like virtual benefits and real-time support because they are not an association. They don’t have to wait for members to vote on decisions or spend 10 months a year preparing for the annual conference the way we do. This is what an association does. It comes with the territory.”

–“Not worth even considering it! Our by-laws would not allow us to start with venture capital like they did”
–“But we have to have annual conferences and dues. I mean we are and association”
–“We have a slight drop in new membership and renewal. We need to invest a whole lot more in marketing and add a line of new products.”
–“Members just don’t understand our value. If they took time to read about our benefits, they wouldn’t be complaining’

Some may laugh these off as typical association thinking—“boys will be boys” kind of logic.  Some will wonder what is wrong with such perfectly reasonable statements. For strategy guru Gary Hamel these are not merely innocuous statements but signs of decline that would fit neatly into the 7 signs of decline that he lists in his book “What Matters Now: How to Win in a World of Relentless Change, Ferocious Competition, and Unstoppable Innovation.” Since they happen to echo our own findings in non-profit knowledge services—from associations to universities and think tanks—they are worth noting.

    1. Gravity wins: sticking with things that are no longer successful as the easiest and most familiar course of action. Force of habit wins
    2. Strategies die: e.g. they are replicated, superseded, eviscerated, etc. Asking the same questions you have been asking for the last decade; answering them with the same strategies and expecting different results.
    3. Inflexible business systems: when an organization’s focus is on maintaining and fine-tuning its current systems rather than innovating, reconfiguring and adapting.
    4. Fossilized mental models: over the years “what was once the best way, becomes the only way”
    5. Abundant resources: when the emphasis is on more of the same –programs, staff etc. — rather than on better strategy and solutions. “..Affluence dulls the appetite for innovation.”
    6. Contentment and entitlement: no hunger for new knowledge; no sense of urgency or drive for innovation
    7. Defensive thinking: defending the status quo takes priority over learning, improving and innovating; and the organization takes priority over its customers

A shared characteristic in all these is an inward orientation. Perhaps the most detrimental of all –a real deal breaker for growth and customer connection—– is defensive thinking. This is because by closing the door to listening, learning and continuous re-examination and change, you have effectively closed the door to understanding customers and markets; discerning and closing gaps;  and exploring substantially new solutions that could make a difference.

How do you know if your organization, even when seemingly healthy, is on a trajectory of decline rather than growth? Just consider this: of the warning signals of decline that Gary Hamel gives, none addresses numbers–revenue, members/customers, products, staff etc. Instead, they address habits, mental constructs, ways of thinking, values and assumptions. This is because thought and culture determine all other results; and because the factors of decline are at work long before the effects of decline are manifested. In leadership, it takes resourcefulness and innovation to turn organizations around but it takes courage, foresight and extraordinary discernment to detect and act on warning signs before an organization is in crisis.

Posted in Getting to Why, Growth in an Age of Disruption, Weekly Thoughts | Tagged , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Is the association model broken?

May 14, 2013 by Andrea Pellegrino

broken-buildingIn a recent online discussion on the ASAE Executive Management Section Listserv, one poster made the point that too many of today’s thought leaders are claiming that the traditional association and membership models are “broken.”

Although I wouldn’t presume to call myself a “thought leader,” we have been thinking, writing, and talking quite a bit about the changes associations need to make in order to grow and thrive in the internet or knowledge age. We’ve written about the danger of associations going from “good to great to gone,” the new rules of engagement, getting unstuck, “Association Think,” and how associations need to reorient their focus 180 degrees, from inside out to outside in.

As we talk to CEOs about reorienting their organization toward demand- and customer-centricity, we’re constantly hearing how frustrated association executives are with their governance models and how stymied they are about how to grow membership and serve increasingly diverse membership populations. At the same time, we often encounter puzzlement and sometimes outright resistance from these same leaders to any suggestion that involves changing either their governance or their membership models. So, I wondered:

Is the association model really broken?

Well…yes and no. Remember, back in 1992, when Francis Fukuyama announced “The End of History,” but history dug in its heels and went on happening anyway?

It’s sort of like that with associations. Traditional association models will survive despite all predictions to the contrary. In some cases, perhaps, the one-size-fits-all membership model, with its governance and leadership garnishes, may even be (as some claim), the best way to achieve a common cause. Certainly, it’s the most familiar. And, it’s the easiest, since associations are already set up for it. It’s definitely the model that brought about “The Golden Age of Associations,” from 1950-2000, when many of today’s associations went from “good to great.” And, it’s the model that some associations are still using to grow, despite the rise of the internet and the onset of the Great Recession.

So, we, at least, are not arguing that the association model is completely “broken.” We are saying that, in the Knowledge Age, it is limiting what associations can achieve and how many people they can reach and engage.

Something is clearly not working. The latest benchmarking reports show that as many as 60% of associations have experienced serious membership decline or stagnation over the past five years. Many that are reporting growth are not growing sustainably. And, those of us who have been around associations for a while know that the slow, steady, incremental decline of associations didn’t start with the recent recession. It actually started as long ago as the 1990’s in some industries.

Or, does the association model need to evolve?

The association model itself isn’t the problem. The problem is associations’ attempts to apply it to all relationships and decision making regardless of whether it’s appropriate. Like the corporate model, the union model, the university model and just about every other organizational model, the association model has to evolve to keep pace with the era. Can anyone realistically argue that, in the wake of globalization, corporations haven’t had to adapt in order to survive and thrive?

There are associations out there that have not yet maximized their membership growth potential. They still have room to grow within the confines of the traditional governance and membership models. And they should, until they can’t any more. But these groups are increasingly exceptions to the rule.

If your association is struggling to add members, going farther and farther afield from your core to find “members”…wondering why so few of your members want to engage with your organization…holding your breath until those last-minute conference registrations come in to be sure you have operating funds for this year, then it’s probably time to consider whether you need to start looking at new models for engaging people around your mission.

Not instead of traditional membership (at least not yet), but in addition to it. For example, consider:

  • New options within membership—tiered membership, nonvoting membership, online only, customizable benefits packages.
  • New relationship categories outside of membership and sponsorship.
  • New delivery systems of traditional benefits—live streaming or on-demand conferences, conference sessions or tracks.
  • New product development processes—strategic partnerships, co-development of benefits with members, staff champions.
  • New engagement opportunities that maximize social media tools, inclusion, and sense of belonging.

Bricks and Mortar in the Internet Age

Go ahead and keep your traditional one-size-and-one-price-fits-all membership option for anyone who wants it. Keep your volunteer leaders, your committees, and task forces and boards. Keep your publications, annual conferences, and continuing education. There will always be a market for them.

But, think of traditional association models as bricks-and-mortar bookstores in the Age of Amazon.com. “Real” bookstores will always be around (I hope) and there will always be a market for them. They may even see something of a resurgence as the dust settles from the big-box bookstore collapse. But, their best days are behind them and they will never dominate the market as they once did.

So, maybe the association model is not so much broken as it is crippled. Why let it hobble your association?

Posted in Getting to Why, Growth in an Age of Disruption, Membership Engagement & Growth, Organizational and culture change, Weekly Thoughts | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

From Formal Strategic Planning to Strategic, Improvisatory Thinking

May 8, 2013 by Anna Caraveli

Why is it that when people act on the logic by which bureaucracies operate, they seem to have allowed simple common sense to escape outimprovising music the window?  It could be the DMV clerk behind the counter making you stand in the line again, after you patiently waiting your turn for 45 minutes, because a form had not been filled correctly. Or it could be your organization missing an obvious opportunity because they needed to wait until their annual strategic planning meeting to consider it.  

If your organization is like most others, it was built on the basis of what is called the scientific management theory, first developed fully by Frederick Taylor, a mechanical engineer, in the 1900’s. Modern bureaucracy is based on the assumption that a perfect system of management can anticipate every possible risk and opportunity, increase efficiency and result in the perfect organization.  This was the idea behind formal “strategic planning:” if you can figure out everything in advance and create perfect plans, then you are bound to have a perfect outcome. But guess what! Human beings do not function like machines, on the basis of rational, predictable principles or the programming codes inserted in them. Maybe this is why so many “strategic plans’ sit on the shelf, once completed.

The flaws of this system and its mechanistic view of the world became especially pronounced in our knowledge age, when unpredictability is the norm.  While there is still an enormous gap between process-and-product-driven bureaucracies and knowledge-and-consumer-driven markets, there an increasing emphasis on the human elements of organizations and a need for strategic thinking capabilities rather than strategic planning processes. 

Most association, however, not only revere formal “strategic planning” but assume that it is the go-to mechanism each time any planning and strategic thinking are required. This is the path of doom for many an innovative idea we have witness being born and led to their demise.

“improvising machineFormal planning,” Henry Mintzberg writes in his 1994 seminal article:  “by its very analytical nature has been and always will be dependent on rearrangement and preservation of existing categories. “But real strategic change requires not merely rearranging the established categories but inventing new ones.”  The ability to think outside categories is the most essential element in an organization’s ability to constantly adapt and succeed in this environment. Mintzberg continues in the same article:   

 “Strategic planning isn’t strategic thinking. One is analysis, and the other is synthesis. …Strategic planning……..involves intuition and creativity. The outcome of strategic thinking is an integrated perspective of the enterprise, a not too precisely articulated vision or direction, such as the vision of Jim Clark, founder of Silicon Graphics, that three-dimensional computers is the way to make computers easier to use.  Such strategies often cannot be developed on schedule and immaculately conceived. They must be free to appear at any time at any place in the organization, typically through messy processes of informal learning that must necessarily be carried out by people at various levels who are involved with the specific issues at hand.”  

He further observes: “Strategic planning, as it has been practiced, has been strategic programming, the articulation and elaboration of strategies, or visions that already exist.” 

“Strategic programming” describes the mode of “strategic thinking” in most associations we visited.  These organizations have a gap in capabilities for continuous innovation, recalibration and swift opportunity leveraging which does not bode well for their potential for success and growth in this environment. It also has a serious gap in common sense.  How have unexpected opportunities, life-transforming occasions and “Aha” moments occurred in your life? Meeting your spouse or partner? Coming across a great job or project opportunity? Figuring out an imaginative solution to garden pests with your neighbor? Making a key life decision to change a behavior as a result of a new insight you had?  Do you call strategic planning meetings in your home and write up plans?  Probably not!  You learn by living and experiencing.  In innovative workplaces, any moment can become a learning and discovery experience.

Does formal strategic planning or analytical reports motivate your organization to commit to new ways of thinking and action?  If yes, you are the exception.  The greatest mistake organizations make in planning is to assume that analysis and detailed plans will automatically translate into action. People are motivated when they themselves learn by doing rather than be lectured or be involved in scheduling. Mintzberg believes that great ideas and strategies are not arrived at through formal processes but by opportunities for learning by doing.

 In demand-driven organizations this process involves co-development with customers, testing and adapting. VIN (the Veterinary Information Network) set up a Beta site with a rough framework of a concept for members to experiment with designing ideal clusters of inter-connected services. AAFP (American Academy of Family Physicians) created a demonstration community with the participation of 36 invited practices to assess and adopt a new Patient-Centered Medical Home model for the practice of family medicine that had been recommended in a seminal report, The Future of Family Medicine. It was called the National Demonstration Project.  Since they had contributed to and experienced the value of the model, community members were eager to continue their membership on a paid, subscription basis.

 Here are some tips for replacing “formal strategic planning” with the capability of thinking strategically all the time and rapidly uncovering opportunity and constructing new and unique solutions in an environment of change and unpredictability: 

  •  Replace formal planning for new products and solutions with continuous co-development with members, customers and other stakeholders.
  • Assemble small, cross-functional teams around solutions to specific strategic problems
  • Motivate participants by getting them to understand:
    •  Why these solutions are critically important to the organization’s ability to achieve a strategic objective–survive, achieve a new level of success, become more central to the lives of its customers etc. 
    • What their role, no matter how small, is within the larger strategic picture
    • Their share of any success achieved; what’s in it for them? 
  • Give teams responsibility and authority for coming up with actionable solutions and testing them rather than just simply writing reports.
  • Include members/customers as partners in assessing value; re-thinking a product or direction; crafting a solution; designing and testing a new product.
  • Do not hesitate to get immediate and frequent market feedback–running a new idea by selected customers; hashing  it out with a small group of staff and members over lunch; persuading customers to test it and give you feedback
  • Learn by doing: find inexpensive, informal ways to test prototypes of programs, products and various initiatives
  • Create a sense of urgency. Employees, customers, members etc. are very weary of abstract processes that lack urgency and are not critical to results that people have bought into.
  • Instead of formal research methods, learn to use one-on-one interviews; monitor and participate in conversations among members in various online and off-line platforms; teach staff to use every interaction as a learning opportunity and stepping stone to deeper relationships. and competitive advantage:

 

[1] Henry Mintzberg, From Strategic Planning to Strategic Thinking,  HBR, Jan-Feb 1994

 

[2] Mintzberg

Posted in Growth in an Age of Disruption, Leading for Growth & Engagement, Membership Engagement & Growth, Organizational and culture change, Weekly Thoughts | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments »

The Starting Point of Real Change: From Operational Thinking to Innovating in Disruption

May 4, 2013 by Anna Caraveli

disruption1

Ideas from our forthcoming book

If, like many of the association executives we interviewed, you are overwhelmed by myriads of new options and paralyzed by the thought of all the hurdles you will encounter, you may be sitting in a familiar no man’s land – between idea and execution—for a very long time. The question most leaders ask is: where do I start?

We have a two-part answer for this. The first is start right now. Not next week or when there will be a new chair in your board; and not until you have a perfect plan for execution and answered all possible questions. This is what thinking and operating in en environment of constant disruption requires. Learn by doing not planning on paper. Change the tone of your conversation with members; shift the focus on daily priorities; run an idea by a small group of members and test it with them–just get change in motion.

This leads to the second part: start with a tough assessment of how your organization thinks, views the world and perceives challenges. Identify and root out entrenched, often hidden, assumptions that may limit creative thinking and options; and develop competencies for strategic thinking that are in sync with your environment and market.

Our research indicated that how leaders perceived their organization’s value, their markets and the challenges facing them was a fairly accurate indicator of their market orientation and potential for growth and competitiveness. Bureaucratic, association-centric executives tended to look at tactical symptoms rather than the larger, underlying problems. As a result, their actions were largely tactical and incremental, e.g. fixing the processes for member renewal and improving communications and marketing as the way to stem attrition, rather than addressing the diminishing value of their programs and services.

Executives in demand-oriented, entrepreneurial organizations uncovered underlying problems beneath symptoms; learned from and synthesized multiple sources of information into strategic solutions, which were of far greater scope and diversity than the more-of-the-same incremental approach.

If you are tempted to discount the importance of strategic thinking as “soft” and see it as a low priority compared to, say, restructuring your membership, preparing for your conference or creating a new program for young professionals, consider what it takes to make companies market leaders.

For example, would your leadership team and staff have the foresight, market instincts, understanding of customers and creativity that led Amazon to continuing growth and transformation from book retailer, to one-stop shopping community to leadership in cloud computing? Would they be able to see the value of current assets, outside their current use, leverage it for a different market and through a different model, and launch a new business? Sermo did. Originally an online network for physicians, it tapped the value of physicians’ case-based discussions for industries that did business with health care to create a new corporate services business line.

How an organization gets from A to Z—from concept to execution and from getting customers through the doors to retaining and growing them—determines results. When organizations run on automatic pilot, primarily maintaining and enhancing strategies and systems that had proven successful in the past, the focus on operations intensifies. Operational details and glitches are elevated into priorities, process changes are debated and slowed down and “business as usual” is driven by frantic deadlines and overwhelming lists of tasks to be accomplished. The organizational energy is consumed by operational efficiency and there are no mental and physical resources left to stand back and look at how the pieces add up to a whole, let along reinvention and innovation. To survive leaders have to extricate their organizations from the downward spiral of operational thinking.

But not all strategy is appropriate for particular situations and environments, and not all thoughtful processes for arriving at conclusions are effective from bringing about the results you want.

Here are two significant market re-alignments that require different types of thinking and solutions to adapt to them and thrive

Transition from Industrial to Knowledge Age: Strategic Intelligence & Systems Thinking

Leadership and strategy expert Michael Maccoby is an expert intelligence capabilities needed in the knowledge workplace. “We are moving from an industrial society where wealth is created by products to a knowledge society that builds wealth through partnering and strategic solutions” he says. The thinking that is required to keep up with and make sense of the complexity of our world and uncover opportunities is no longer linear. It is based on constantly discerning, re-organizing and leveraging “pieces of a puzzle that are constantly shifting.” He calls this, Strategic Intelligence. Strategic Intelligence is not a quantifiable capability, like IQ, but a system of thinking that combines 6 complementary characteristics that have proven to be essential to not only conceptualizing innovative, strategic solutions but to also carry them to execution.

Foresight—the ability to think beyond what is immediate and visible, “ in terms of unapprovable forces that are shaping the future”
Systems thinking—a holistic and analytical way of thinking; “an entirely different way of seeing the world, an ability to synthesize and integrate, to conceptualize the whole rather than see it as a collection of separate parts”
Visioning –not the usual pie-in-the-sky rhetoric but the bridge that converts strategic and analytical capabilities into reality; “ the combining foresight and systems thinking into a holistic vision, then creating that vision in the real world of business”
Motivating—an ability that Maccoby considers to be perhaps the most essential for knowledge age leadership; “to get people—a social system—to embrace a common purpose and implement your vision;” to engage them as “whole persons” in ways that are meaningful to them and, as a result, unleash their potential and harness it to a company’s strategic goals.
Partnering—“understanding how each alliance—personal or corporate—fits into your vision for the company;” looking beyond individual products or your own organization in isolation but knowing what combinations of internal and/or external assets will increase capabilities

Consider if these qualities are represented in your organization and, especially, its leadership team.

Strategic Innovation: When Disruption is the New Normal

“To discover the future,” influential strategy expert, Gary Hamel says, “it is not necessary to be a seer, but it is absolutely vital to be unorthodox.”

By “unorthodox” Hamel refers to the ability to think and create outside the confines of existing categories and the willingness to constantly learn, reconfigure, adapt, experiment and re-invent. For Hamel, the degree of change is so enormous that even change, itself, behaves differently than it did in the past and looks nothing like what we associate  with change.

“For change has changed. No longer is it additive. No longer does it move in a straight line. In the twenty-first century change is discontinuous, abrupt, seditious.” (Gary Hamel)

In other words, it is no longer enough to “change” an aspect of your business. You have to innovate on a larger scale, changing the categories rather than fine-tuning products within them. Amazingly, most association executives do not realize the extent of their capability gaps that block the options that will take them to a different future. As a result their efforts focus on developing new products and strategies.   

All our established institutions—business, educational and non-profit alike, Fast Company’s Robert Safian says, —are built on assumptions of predictability and made to manage efficiency rather than fuel continuous reinvention. Our challenge is to extricate ourselves from our comfort zone–the constant pursuit of stability– and invest, instead, in building new capabilities for instability. No amount of planning, accumulation of data, investments in new products and technologies or speculations about the future will improve results, for example, if your association does not have the most fundamental capabilities for doing business in the age of flux: innovation, entrepreneurship, speed and agility.

Changes in the outside world have far outpaced the incremental improvements in most associations. The intelligence capabilities needed to perform routine tasks, manage or make product and process innovations within the same model and categories are very different from those needed to perceive and act on opportunities that do not fit in existing categories, or to reinvent entire models.  If you channel the pursuit for new ideas and levels of growth through the limited channel of narrow, operational thinking, you will not get to your destination. And if you magically get there, you will not sustain your new position.

Posted in Growth in an Age of Disruption, Leading for Growth & Engagement, Organizational and culture change, Weekly Thoughts | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments »

Should Associations Abandon the Relentless Pursuit of Membership Growth?

April 29, 2013 by Andrea Pellegrino

Stock Unicorn Isolated on BlackEvery once in a while, an organization like the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), which has grown from 50,000-110,000 members in the teeth of a worldwide recession, comes along and confounds all conventional wisdom and market trends.

Although, for the past 10 years, this type of growth within a traditional association has been rarer than a confirmed unicorn sighting, most associations still believe it will happen for them. As a result, they will not let go of the idea that the path to organizational growth is through membership growth. They remain fiercely focused on acquiring and retaining members—whatever the cost to their mission, their revenue, their reputation, their relevance, and their members.

While a few organizations, like SPE, can grow membership exponentially (in this case by moving into membership markets outside the USA), this approach requires a growing market, a clearly articulated long-term vision, and enormous capital investment, three ingredients which most associations simply do not have. It also requires a host of fundamental changes to the association’s membership, governance, organizational, and cultural models that most associations have either not fully considered or are unwilling or unable to make.

The Glory Days are Over

The fact is that, for many associations, the glory days of membership growth are in the past. The new normal is membership decline or stagnation. Many, if not most associations are selling mature benefits in mature industries that are contracting rather than expanding. There just isn’t enough meat left to pick off the remaining bones to sustain meaningful membership growth. Attempts to increase membership in shrinking markets have forced associations to recruit more and more peripheral market segments under the aegis of “membership” with benefits that have little relevance to these newer, more diverse groups. And this reduced relevance is reflected in decreased renewal, retention, and acquisition rates.

“Fanaticism,” says George Santayana, “consists of redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim.”

Are associations too fanatical about growing membership? Why does “growth” have to equal “more members”? Why do those engaged with the association have to be “members”? And what are members anyway?

Rather than a specific and random number of members, shouldn’t association growth be defined as anything that helps an association expand or continue its mission, engage its markets, and help its stakeholders succeed as individual members of a community? Isn’t this the real aim of growth?

Is Association Growth the Same as Membership Growth?

I think the nub of the problem here is the “inside-out” fallacy that “association growth” always and everywhere equals “membership growth.” It’s the only idea most associations have about growth. And, as Emile Chartier has said: “Nothing is more dangerous than an idea, when it is the only one you have.”

The “growth = more members” misconception traps associations into believing that by rethinking membership definitions and models, and scaling back the pursuit and acquisition of new members, the association has to “just say no” to new members, let a portion of the membership “go,” and thus lose market share and revenue from reduced membership. I’ve heard each of these dire predictions, but, to my mind, they are false choices.

While refocusing association growth strategies beyond membership growth may ultimately result in fewer members overall, there is absolutely no reason that associations should ever “just say no” to new members. There is no reason for associations to ever write off portions of their memberships as non-engaged, non-revenue-producing deadbeats, nor should associations accept reduced market share and revenue as the inevitable price of abandoning the relentless  pursuit of membership growth.

Maximizing Membership and Growth

Associations can put themselves back on the path to true growth—beyond membership—by accepting that not all of an association’s market engagement (or economic benefit) has to come through members or membership growth. Associations can maximize both membership and growth by:

  1. (Re)defining membership, based on the core market(s) the association actually serves and for whom the concept of “member” has indispensable value.
  2. Using the updated definition of “member” to develop in-depth understanding of and empathy with member needs, values, and the relationships members depend on to solve problems and to succeed.
  3. Matching members’ desired outcomes and value propositions with the association’s unique capabilities and relationships to develop assets that provide indispensable and quantifiable value to members.
  4. Using the increased value it provides to members to increase member engagement, revenue per member, and member loyalty.
  5. Using the results it generates for members to grow the association through other, ongoing relationships and partnerships within the association’s industry or markets in addition to (rather than instead of) membership.

By letting go of their single-minded pursuit of “more members for the sake of more members,” associations can have it all. They can: grow membership within meaningful and sustainable parameters; increase member revenue, engagement and loyalty by increasing value; grow non-member revenue and market share by developing ongoing relationships outside of membership; and “just says yes” to sustainable growth beyond the confines of “membership growth.”

Posted in Getting to Why, Growth in an Age of Disruption, Leading for Growth & Engagement, Membership Engagement & Growth, Organizational and culture change, Weekly Thoughts | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

3. Closing the Door to New Solutions & How to Open it

April 20, 2013 by Anna Caraveli

Partial excerpt from our forthcoming book (working title): Leading for Growth and Engagement: from Bureaucracy to Knowledge Age EntrepreneurshipclosingTheDoor-large

“Insanity,” Albert Einstein said, “is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” 

First, however, someone has to be able to identify and admit what it is they are repeating, right? This is hard to do when you are far from static and, in fact caught in a whirlwind of frenzied activity.  When you keep up with the latest thinking on management theory, have made significant investments in social media, created new types of positions, instilled high standards for customer service and announced a brand new strategic plan, you are not likely to see yourself as doing the same thing over and over again.  No doubt you have introduced many innovations and made progress toward modernizing your organization. Yet, like most associations, you may be in fact “doing the same thing” in that your basic footprint remains the same. One of the greatest hurdles to change for associations is denial or lack of recognition for where, how and to which degree they are stuck. 

The most vulnerable point is at the very start of a strategic action. Framing challenges from the same inward-oriented perspective and using the same assumptions and mechanisms for solutions dooms many efforts at change before they are even off-the ground.

See if any of the self-created obstacles to truly new solutions below echo any of the hurdles that may be unwittingly sabotaging your efforts. The first step to change is to establish an open and collaborative learning and discovery process, free from assumptions, habitual tools and practices; and anchored in the perspective of your customers. 

                     What do these two RFPs have in common?

 RFP from” Regional Southwest Tech Association”

Scope of Work

  1. Conduct 2 member focus groups
  2. Develop survey questions for review and discussion with staff
  3. Create survey (staff will distribute)
  4. Analyze results and share data with staff
  5. Work with staff to create final report
  6. Interview up to 15 donors (as identified by staff)
  7. Work with staff to suggest which existing programs to drop and which new programs to develop that suit members’ interests

 RFP from “Big Huge Association” for membership acquisition

 1. Develop a member-to-member approach to recruit members in 4 categories the association has determined.

  • Create campaign themes
  • Consider use of X marketing approaches that we have successfully used in the past
  • Write copy and take on brochure production from A to Z

2. Identify prospects in these 4 categories

  • Provide sources of potential prospects (e.g.  Lists, directories, social media sites etc.) Prospect identification and procurement i.e. lists, social media strategies, word of mouth.
  • Identify factors that may increase or decrease list response rates.

3. Develop a sales strategy

  • Provide a brand and messaging plan
  • Make recommendations for member incentives
  • Responsibilities for copywriting, printing and implementation.  

 These two RFPs are quite representative of how many associations typically frame their needs and look for solutions. Tech Association is a trade association experiencing attrition, waning interest in their programs and rapidly proliferating competition in their landscape. Big Huge is also experiencing attrition especially among its CEO members. What do their RFPs have in common?  Both seem to already have the answer and need someone to implement it. They expect the finalist to begin with the association’s conclusions for what is needed and how to get it, and deliver data and a final report that support those conclusions. Some new ideas within that framework would be considered. How new can these ideas be?

 Big Huge does not seem interested in identifying the root of the problem. Why is there attrition and why are executives increasingly determining that the association has no value for them?  Without understanding exactly the nature of the problem, from an intimate customer perspective, you simply cannot repair it. Based on a faulty assumption of the causes of attrition the association has determined to treat what is clearly an issue of value delivery as a marketing and communications problem. As if starting on the wrong path was not enough, this association is also detailing the marketing methodology, laying out a blueprint for an outdated, passive and provider-driven approach that they have used before.   

 SW Tech similarly details a conventional, passive and survey-based approach that would not likely provide the depth of understanding and relationship-development that such challenges usually require to get to the bottom of the underlying problems and identify a new basis for value propositions.  Neither organization asks for help to diagnose the nature of the problem and help shape a path to solutions. Neither allows for engaging customers and stakeholders in the process; for co-developing and testing and adapting—all of which represent entrepreneurial and customer-centric modes for discovery and development that are far more likely to produce programs and services that resonate with market needs and convert potential customers into stakeholders.  Both organizations have in essence laid out narrow tracks of implementation that they are familiar with and preclude different perspective and new solutions.   

 Over the years, we have had many stimulating, probing conversations with leaders of many types of knowledge organizations that produced breakthrough insights and major A ha! moments.  Yet these insights are rarely converted into action. There is always tremendous resistance to any change to the conventional formulas for planning: surveys, committees, product-based perspective and outdated assumptions.  There is especially reluctance to truly incorporating outside perspectives, especially those of their own customers.  The response is always: “we first need to figure out among ourselves what we need;”  “no point to involve members at this point. We are not ready.  There will be time to get some feedback in the end.”

 This impulse to retreat inside, engrained in the culture of bureaucratic organizations, is absurd for a service provider in a customer-focused market. In essence it closes the door to new partnership relationships with customers and new trajectories for growth and innovation. How can you determine internally “what you need” when the answers depend on how the “outside” perceives, and experiences your value and frames their most important challenges?  

 Customer responsive organizations begin with the outside. They establish open processes of learning of discovery with key stakeholders; look for outside perspectives to challenge their assumptions and bring different perspectives on the potential of their assets; engage customers and stakeholders in co-developing, testing and implementing.  The questioned you ask; the participants you engage; and the mechanisms you utilize at the very beginning of planning and development processes will determine the results. To look for new solutions you have to first open the door.

Posted in Growth in an Age of Disruption, Leading for Growth & Engagement | Tagged , , , | Leave a Comment »

2. The Members Don’t Add Up: Why Associations are Behind the 8-Ball on Value, Engagement, and Sustainable Growth

April 14, 2013 by Andrea Pellegrino

“Take advantage of your benefits already!”

This little gem comes from MGI’s 2012 Membership Marketing Benchmarking Report. It was one of the featured responses to the open-ended survey question: “If you could freely say anything to your members, what would you say?”

As an association marketer, I hear this kind of frustration from association execs all the time. But, until recently, when I was reviewing the MGI survey report for other reasons, I hadn’t realized how perfectly this heartfelt plea from association executives to their members—which I sometimes think of as “The Membership Director’s Lament”— sums up why so many associations find themselves behind the eight ball on member value, engagement, and sustainable growth.

Despite their best efforts to the contrary, associations are becoming increasingly irrelevant to their members and are extremely vulnerable to their growing competition. Consider these statistical findings from the 2012 Marketing General Membership Benchmarking Report. Over the past five years:

  • The percentage of associations reporting an overall increase in membership has gone down—from 60% in 2009, to 52% in 2012.
  • The percentage of associations reporting an overall decrease in membership has gone up—from 27% in 2009, to 34% in 2012.
  • Overall, 9% of associations report that their memberships have stagnated (“unchanged overall”).

Maintenance and Decline, Not Growth

Even those associations reporting growth are not really growing, in any meaningful way. The average reported membership increase is just 3%. This isn’t really growth, except in the most wishful of thinking. It’s barely maintenance. A slip of one or two percentage points in either renewal or acquisition rates (both of which can and do happen frequently and for a variety of reasons beyond an association’s control) will erase this feeble “growth” overnight.

An association that is not growing, is shrinking. No organization can truly maintain “steady state.” In a stagnant or low-growth organization, the churn rate between new and non-renewing members inevitably begins to tilt toward decline, and erodes membership over time. This is especially true of smaller associations, which have fewer resources to throw at acquisition and renewal efforts.

If we look at MGI’s statistics from the other side—the percentages of associations that are not reporting even minimal growth—more than 40% of associations are in varying degrees of active decline.

The trends in membership decline and stagnation reflect the deeper challenges associations are facing with regard to value, engagement, and relevance. Based on associations’ own perceptions, the traditional value propositions and products associations continue to build their existence around do not appear to be either attracting or engaging significant—or sustainable—numbers of members.

Traditional Value Propositions Are Not Attracting Members

The MGI survey asked association executives why members join their association. The top three answers were:

  • Networking (22%)
  • Access to specialized/current info (12%)
  • Advocacy (12%)

Ask any association executive what his or her association’s top value proposition is, and you will undoubtedly hear at least two, if not all three of the above. Yet, none of these supposedly key association value propositions is actually the key membership driver for even 25% of association members!

Other traditional value propositions fare even worse. Fewer than 1 in 10 members apparently joins an association for these other “must-have” association benefits:

  • Continuing education (8%)
  • Discounts on products or meeting purchases (5%)
  • Association publications (4%)
  • Conferences/trade shows (4%)
  • Advancing in their position (2%)

In other words, association executives seem to feel that very few members actually join an association for the products and services most associations provide! So, it comes as no surprise that members are also not engaging with associations around their traditional membership benefits.

They Are Not Engaging Members Either

When MGI looked at the traditional association “Areas of Engagement,” associations reported that, on average:

  • 23% of members attend the association’s annual conference or other meetings.
  • 17% of members attend at least one webinar.
  • 17% purchase a non-dues service.
  • 14% participate in the association’s public or private social networks.
  • 12% volunteer within the organization.

Although these statistics almost certainly vary within industries and types of organizations, taken overall, association execs appear to be telling us that even associations’ traditionally most “member-engaging activities” are NOT engaging or providing value to the vast majority of their members.

The Members Don’t Add Up

If sustainable numbers of members don’t join based on traditional association value propositions and don’t engage with typical association benefits, it’s pretty clear why association membership directors are pleading with members to use their benefits, and why they are not succeeding in convincing more members to join, renew, and engage.

Put simply: The members don’t add up.

Associations are behind the eight ball on value, engagement, and sustainable growth. It’s time to change the game.

Posted in Getting to Why, Growth in an Age of Disruption, Leading for Growth & Engagement, Membership Engagement & Growth, Organizational and culture change, Weekly Thoughts | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 247 other followers

%d bloggers like this: