By Anna Caraveli
There is no organization in the world that does not want to be relevant to its next generation of customers. Associations are no exception. I get this. How do we do it? Most people’s gut reaction is to prepare for the future by rooting out all uncertainty about it. This need for certainty has spawned a veritable downpour of experts, data and scientific-sounding predictions. Some may make stimulating reading but can also create a deceptive reassurance.
Sure. Great organizations must develop foresight into the future and stretch their horizons of possibility to entertain intelligent predictions and envision very different scenarios of the world. But great organizations also seek to develop future-oriented competencies and deep insights into people rather than only accumulate data and theories. We live in an era that defies predictability. Do we develop measures of predictability or instincts for operating in unpredictability?
Robert Safian, the author of a recent article in Fast Company argues that ”we need different approaches to planning for the future in an era of constant disruption: “When businesspeople search for the right forecast–the road map and model that will define the next era–no credible long-term picture emerges. There is one certainty, however. The next decade or two will be defined more by fluidity than by any new, settled paradigm; if there is a pattern to all this, it is that there is no pattern. “
Do we develop future members with formulas about how they behave with the only determinant being age? As a baby boomer I am supposed to feel all kinds of things that I do not actually feel. I am supposed to be uncomfortable with technology; comfortable with volunteering for my community and joining membership organizations; motivated by climbing an orderly career ladder rather than by exploring, taking risks and re-inventing. This couldn’t be further from who I am. I thrive on fluidity and change; I have been and always will be driven to transform and reinvent and I am a passionate advocate and user of social media. Is there something wrong with me? Okay, I will grant that interest in areas such as social medi is far more prevalent in younger than older demographics. But other groups—certain ethnic and cultural sub-segments, recently unemployed workers, senior citizens, etc—may also occupy distinctive niches in that market.
What I am saying is that we should not look to predictability as the key to competing for the future but to the development of capabilities such as, flexibility, foresight and constant reinvention.
The above article by Safian and another on a similar topic by Anya Kamenetz called, The Four-Year Career, 
point to two criteria for assessing new and future customer needs and categories:
- Data-driven approaches are overrated and, according to these writers, unsuitable for a world in flux. I would love to see more association leaders who can resist the seductive drive for more and better data and, instead, have the patience and foresight to invest in developing people, culture and capabilities for adapting to constantly new disruptions.
- Resist one-dimensional, a-contextual and narrow categories. Instead of “generation,” for example, Safian uses the term “generation flux,” to describe, what he says is “less a demographic designation than a psychographic one.” What defines GenFlux, he tells us, is not chronological age as much as it “is a mind-set that embraces instability that tolerates–and even enjoys–recalibrating careers, business models, and assumptions.”
I think that this is a much better framework for discerning and responding to new and emerging needs of various member groups. Instead of strict age groups, for example, this author proposes that we differentiate among attitudes toward, and approaches to work. From these and related articles I glean 3 emerging trends that associations and other service providers must acknowledge and address to prepare for the future:
Economic and career volatility are becoming the new norm. Rapid career change–what Anya Kamenetz calls “The Four-Year Career”– is “business as usual” for many people. This means that economic uncertainty is not just a temporary slump that can be met with temporary solutions, such as reduced dues for the recently unemployed. Instead, helping members navigate and succeed in an environment defined by flux must increasingly become the new norm for member benefits and programs.
Conventional career planning and development are morphing into continuous reinvention and skill-building. Surviving through major disruptions has necessitated new coping mechanisms, skills and career paths. There is a new breed of professionals who can weather and, in fact, thrive on “disruption.”The article chronicles the career path of two young professionals: one goes through a sequence of seemingly unrelated jobs, from owning a café to international development, electronics, programming and a return to school. The other is afforded the freedom to continuously re-invent her career within the same organization and assume a great number of different positions. In both cases the drivers are not external, hierarchical paths but lessons learned; and entrepreneurial responses to problems and opportunities as they arise. Associations mostly provide professional development on the assumption of vertical and orderly career paths. Is it time to help members build competencies along different and less predictable avenues?
Members and markets do not fall into predictable categories. For example, the young are not the only ones driving and shaping new career development paths and views. Massive layoffs, globalization and other economic factors have displaced an unprecedented number of older workers. The article depicts a number of cases of women who were laid off in their 50’s and 60’s and like their younger counterparts, transformed their lives and reinvented their careers through entrepreneurial ventures. Marc Freedman, author of the 2011 book The Big Shift. In Freedman’s view is that our culture needs to acknowledge a new life stage. He sees the nation’s millions of healthy, active 60- to 80-year-olds as a huge untapped resource. Are we missing market opportunities and failing to establish deep, multi-dimensional relationships with members by relying on narrow categories?
I believe that associations would be better served if they developed capabilities for market foresight, rapid adjustment and reinvention rather than relying on magic formulas and prophecies for the future. To be in sync with new needs and generations we must understand the trends and possibilities shaping the big picture but also be able to discern and analyze a confluence of factors and patterns as they converge on individual human beings at specific moments of time and in real situations.
While I agree that it is crucial to build a flexible organization, that does not devalue the role that models/data play in defining strategy for an association. Initially, I think, one has to approach members at a one-on-one level. That’s the only way to begin to have an understanding of the potential role that the association can play in their lives. But assuming that your membership exceeds more than a handful of people, you need to have some way of abstracting what you learn so that it can be applied across a much larger set of people.
What I would call “agility” (derived from the notion of agile software development practices) ensures that an association can quickly recognize when products/services are failing, or where there are new opportunities. But there is still a need to validate those observations, and that is where data/surveys/modelling come into play. If you don’t use these tools, then you may find yourself acting based on observations that were skewed or biased in some manner, and making the wrong decisions.
One of the tenets of agile is to fail fast and fail frequently — but that does not mean that one rushes headlong into efforts that, with a little data gathering effort, could be easily seen to be doomed. As with many things there is a balance — you don’t want to fall into the trap of spending so much time analyzing things that you miss opportunities, but you also don’t want to unecessarily waste effort because that too has an opportunity cost associated with it.
Thanks Terry. I agree that quantitative research and tools have an important role in validating observations and giving us a sense of their scale and dimensions. I wasn’t talking about validating observations, which I support, but about relying on data without any consideration of context; in fact preferring data and secondary source knowledge to the hard work of getting to know members as whole persons and constantly adapting your organizations to better serve them. I feel the same way about sweeping projections about the future and abstract trend analyses. In my experience, a great number of associations use them INSTEAD of real relationships with their members and immersion in members’ universe.
Looking for magic bullets rather than set an organization on a path of continuous discovery widens the gap I see between provider and customer and prolongue inaction. Haven’t you seen executives who proudly publicize how much they are doing to respond to changing customers and markets because they have added social media features or hosted a conference on big trends?
Data and generalizations are not, in themselves, pivots for transformative action, especially when it comes to the most critical determinant of success: delivering real and meaningful value to customers. I have seen way too many organizations set as strategic goals for the year things like conferences, publications or workshops on topics such as global education or green chemistry or global health etc. and investing no effort in helping members address the daily challenges and concerns that stand in the way of their success. This is why so many associations can talk the talk but, other than cosmetic changes, maintain business as usual.
I don’t see how a knowledge service business can be what some proudly call “data-driven.” No matter what combination of approaches and instruments you use, you have to be driven by customers as real people and understand how they experience their lives day by day. Actually your suggested approach (starting with one-on-one discussions and then validating) seems to be in accord with what I am saying. I can see why my blog post may sound as if I am recommending acting on episodic insights rather that systems thinking. I’ll be sure to clarify this in the future. Thanks.
I agree that sometimes groups can hide behind data and research and fall into “analysis paralysis.” However, the right type and scope of research for a trade association can be invaluable. Often associations (and other organizations) are afraid to ask the tough questions because they make look bad among their stakeholders. This is rarely the reality. Instead, if the association does the hard look in the mirror, they gain insight into exactly how their members feel and what they want. Armed with the knowledge, the association can develop the necessary programs and services that will position their members for success and ensure the association remains relevant.
Hi Annie, I totally agree. I hope I didn’t convey the wrong message. The two things you mentioned are absolutely fundamental to my approach: “asking the tough questions” honestly and with an open mind rather than defensively with an eye to “looking good;” and holding an unmerciful mirror to oneself. This is why I am suggesting that formal means of assessment are not nearly enough to get under members’ skin, gain a degree of trust, probe beyond scripted or easy answers and dig deeply to understand the whole person and the context for his/her answers. I think that a service provider needs to engage one-on-one whenever possible, and the whole organization should be structured so they are immersed in their customers’ world–co-developing, brainstorming, jointly testing new products etc. What I had in mind when I talked about hiding behind data, were my experiences with many many organization that would do anything rather than directly go to their member or customer for input. Some would want me to endlessly postpone talking to their members until they had had strategic planning meetings or committee-led re-statements of mission or data from a survey or a re-structuring project; others substituted abstract data for the need to interact with members, interview them and have on-going relationships with them in order to understand them, for example: lists of future trends, demographics… I am not even saying that there should not be trend and demographic analyses. Any market insight gives us a piece of the total knowledge we must gain. I am saying that the main goal should be probing, asking tough questions and really understanding what makes members tick and for this you need to dig more deeply than only surveys and the like. Does it make sense?