Associations Archives : Conferences That Work

To Support Our Peers Prioritize Conversations Over Stories

Monday, June 2nd, 2025 by Adrian Segar

How can we best support our peers? Two powerful approaches are learning from shared stories and engaging in one-on-one conversations. But is one more effective than the other?

This question came up recently during an Association Chat weekly group conversation. As we discussed challenges association professionals face, one of us shared how impactful it can be for them to hear individual stories from peers with relevant life experiences. related to their association or independent work. They proposed collecting and sharing these stories as a resource to help others navigating similar paths.

I agreed that shared stories can offer valuable insights. But in association work, where individual journeys, roles, and organizational dynamics differ greatly, I believe that one-on-one peer conversations and mentoring are even more powerful. These direct exchanges allow for real-time support tailored to the listener’s unique situation, something static stories can rarely achieve.

The Power of Peer Conversation

This idea is backed by recent data. A survey of association, corporate, and nonprofit event professionals conducted by Fuse, JDC Events, and Bear Analytics—“Future-Ready Events: A Blueprint for Connection, Growth, and Innovation”—highlighted the value of interactive formats:

This idea is backed by recent data. A survey of association, corporate, and nonprofit event professionals by Fuse, JDC Events, and Bear Analytics, “Future-Ready Events: A Blueprint for Connection, Growth, and Innovation,” highlighted the value of interactive formats.

“When it comes to fostering community at events, survey responses reveal that formats emphasizing interpersonal connection, collaboration, and practical learning rank far above entertainment or promotional content.”
—Future-Ready Events: A Blueprint for Connection, Growth, and Innovation

Here’s how the meeting planners ranked the effectiveness of content formats at their meetings:

The four top-listed formats all involve peer conversation and interaction. “Inspirational Talks”—the sharing of stories—ranked fifth, with only a 10.6% effectiveness ranking.

The study’s broader findings align with this. It emphasizes that successful events “foster deeper loyalty, connection, and long-term impact.”

“The key lies in fostering a true sense of belonging and community, a sentiment that 42.6% of planners cited as the top priority for driving return attendance, and 52.9% included in their top two.”

In other words, what people need most at events—and, I would argue, in professional life—is authentic human connection. Not just curated narratives, but real-time, mutual presence. Conversation creates a space where people feel seen, heard, and supported. A space where they can receive and offer support and mentorship.

When we want to support our peers, stories matter. But dialogue meets people where they are.

Posted in Associations, Event design | No Comments »

Mistakes Associations Make — Part 2

Monday, May 26th, 2025 by Adrian Segar

After four decades of founding associations, serving on non-profit boards, and designing and facilitating countless association meetings, I’ve seen a lot. Enough, in fact, to spot patterns—especially when things go wrong. Earlier this year, I documented three common-but-overlooked mistakes associations make. Here are three more “Don’t do that!” from the frontlines of planning association events.

1—Don’t contract your venue before designing your event!

More often than not, clients ask me to help design a meeting after they’ve already signed a venue contract. Here’s why that happens, and why it’s a mistake.

Venue selection typically happens early in the event planning process—before budgeting, marketing, and F&B planning begin. But designing a thoughtful meeting process often gets overlooked or delayed, especially when the people convening the event aren’t familiar with participatory formats. So, they default to traditional workflows and bring me in post-contract, overlooking the need to think about how desired meeting outcomes might affect venue choice..

Meeting planners and venue staff are comfortable determining space needs for traditional events once they know:

the type of event;
the number of attendees; and
the meeting duration.

But they rarely understand what’s required for participant-driven and participation-rich meetings, which typically need:

larger general session rooms, to allow movement and eye contact; and
more flexible and plentiful breakout spaces for small group interaction.

The result? About 95% of the time, the contracted venue requires compromises to accommodate interactive formats. Sometimes I can design around it. Sometimes the contract has to be renegotiated (cue planner shudder). And sometimes, the event just doesn’t deliver what it could have.

Avoid this entirely. Design the event first. Then choose your venue. You’ll save money and frustration, and ensure your space supports your goals.

2—Don’t call your event an “unconference” because it sounds cool!

Lately, I’ve noticed more event marketers using “unconference” to describe traditional conferences. Don’t do this. There’s a meaningful difference.

Here’s how Wikipedia defines an unconference:

“An unconference is a participant-driven meeting.”
“Typically at an unconference, the agenda is created by the attendees at the beginning of the meeting.”
—Unconference, Wikipedia

Sorry, folks, but that’s not what happens when you use pre-event surveys or curate the program in advance. That’s not an unconference—it’s a conference.

I have been convening and facilitating unconferences (I prefer the term peer conferences, but no one else cares) since 1992. Why? Because they provide a far better conference experience. They give attendees what they actually want in real time—something no program committee or conference “curator” can predict.

In 2010, I explained why asking attendees in advance for program suggestions doesn’t work. And a couple of years later, I shared why a program committee or the mythical “conference curator” doesn’t do any better:

“In my twenty years of organizing conferences, I’ve never found a program committee that predicted more than half of the session topics that conference attendees chose when they were given the choice. During that time I’ve seen no evidence that any one person, whether they are given the title of “curator” or not, can put together a conference program that can match what attendees actually need and want.
—Jeremy Lin and the myth of the conference curator, February, 2012

And, as Seth Godin puts it: “We have no idea in advance who the great contributors are going to be.”

Just about every unconference I’ve convened or attended has brought to light participants whose valuable knowledge, expertise, experience, and contributions were unknown to the conveners (and most, if not all, of the attendees). You can’t do this effectively at a traditional conference with a predetermined program.

So, if you’re a marketer, stop using “unconference” as an event marketing buzzword. We’re not selling cereal here. As Robert Kreitner says, “Buzzwords…drive out good ideas.” Unconferences are participant-driven, which involves building the program in real-time during the event. Having (well-designed) discussion sessions during an event is great, but that doesn’t make a meeting an unconference.

And if you’re a conference convener, learn about what unconferences actually are before calling your event one. (Any of my books will give you detailed information about these meeting formats and how well they work.)

I care about how people use the word “unconference” because I’ve met too many folks who believe that an event billed as an unconference must be one. Then they attend and are underwhelmed. I’d hate to see unconferences suffer because marketing folks use the word as a way to make an event sound hip and sophisticated. So don’t call your event an “unconference” because it sounds cool!

3—Don’t run an “unconference track” at your event!

Here’s the problem with offering an unconference track alongside conventional sessions: very few people will choose it.

Why?

Most people have never experienced an unconference session (one shaped on the spot by the needs, experience, and expertise of the people present).
Passive, lecture-style formats comprise the vast majority of people’s formal learning experiences. If you haven’t previously experienced an unconference session, you’re probably skeptical that it’ll be useful to you.
Faced with the unfamiliar, people usually opt for the safer choice.

So what happens? The unconference track is sparsely attended. The skeptics nod smugly: “I told you it wouldn’t work.”

It turns out that when a participant-led session or sessions are the only conference activities going on, people dive in, and nearly everyone likes what occurs. But when you give people a choice between what’s familiar and what’s not, all but the bravest take the safer path.

Want participant-led sessions to succeed? Make participant-led sessions plenaries or simultaneous breakouts.

Don’t treat them as an experiment. Own them. You don’t have to make unconference sessions 100% of your conference, but there should be no other type of conference activity going on at the same time. Dedicate a morning, afternoon, day, or days to well-designed participant-led sessions. Then, you’ll see just how well these increasingly popular formats can work.

Mistakes associations make

These three common mistakes associations make spring from good intentions. But they’re still mistakes. If you want to create meaningful, effective events, you need to rethink the defaults. And start designing from the experience you want to create, not the contracts, categories, or conventions you’ve inherited.

[A version of this article, “Associations: don’t do that! — Part 2”, appeared in Association Chat Magazine, Volume 2, Issue 2, May 2025. This version includes additional links to resources.]

Posted in Associations | No Comments »

Associations: don’t do that! — Part 1

Monday, March 31st, 2025 by Adrian Segar

After four decades of founding associations, serving on non-profit boards, and designing and facilitating countless association meetings, I’ve witnessed my fair share of mistakes associations make. Some are well-known and documented behaviors, such as micromanagement, poor internal and external communications, neglecting leadership succession planning, etc., and I won’t cover them here. Instead, here are three less-common mistakes made by associations, all with the warning “Don’t do that!”

1. Missing or Late 990 Filings

Don’t do that! More importantly, be suspicious of any non-profit that doesn’t file timely tax returns. When associations ask me to work with them, one of the first things I do is to check out their 990 tax returns on Candid‘s Guidestar, the IRS, or ProPublica. 990s provide a wealth of useful information about tax-exempt organizations. The majority of non-profits file their returns on time, with the 990 typically appearing on the above sites within one to two (at most) years.

For example, as I write this in January 2025, a 2023 990, filed in May 2024 for one of the associations I founded is listed on ProPublica, and Guidestar, but isn’t yet posted on the IRS website.
Tip: If you want a more recent 990, many non-profits post them on their website.

A red flag goes up when I discover two or more missing 990s. Why? Because I know only three reasons why 990s aren’t posted in a timely fashion:

1. New non-profits sometimes take a while to realize they need to file 990s, or they struggle to provide the information their accountant needs to file. (Yes, I’ve seen this happen!) Regardless, if you’re working with a new organization, you may want to be cautious.

2. Occasionally, tax preparers for non-profits are behind on their work and file late or request a six-month extension. Again, this can be a warning sign that not all is well.

3. The non-profit is up to no good. When I see several years of returns missing, alarm bells go off. A textbook example of this occurred in 2020. Within 30 minutes of hearing that a non-profit had purchased a college campus in my hometown, a quick check using Guidestar made it obvious that the organization had an opaque financial past. When I confronted the CEO about his non-profit’s missing tax returns, he repeatedly changed the subject. The campus trustees ignored my warnings. It was only after a year of costly mayhem that the FBI arrested the CEO for stealing money from another non-profit to buy the campus! He subsequently went to prison. Here’s the whole sordid story.

The IRS won’t protect you from shady non-profits

Unfortunately, the IRS does a terrible job reviewing and acting on nonprofit filings or non-filings. The IRS can charge penalties for late filings, but, as far as I know, it rarely does. Tax-exempt organizations have to fail to file a 990 for 3 consecutive years before their non-profit status is revoked. And it’s easy for delinquent organizations to get their tax-exempt status reinstated.

So don’t rely on the IRS to police shady nonprofits effectively. (Exhibit A: The Donald J. Trump Foundation.)

And don’t raise suspicions about your non-profit’s finances and activities. File your 990s on time!

2. Losing Focus on Member Wants and Needs

Don’t do that! Sometimes, association leadership loses its way. This happens when leadership creates an association whose commitment to membership becomes secondary to leaders’ focus on pursuing profit (and, possibly, their own consequently generous salaries).

As associations grow, it becomes easier for leadership to forget that organizations and associations are, at their core, a set of agreements in people’s minds about supporting a community that is important to them.

“…organizations exist only in the mind; they are no more than the conceptual embodiments of the ancient idea of community.”
—Dee Hock, the first CEO of VISA, Birth of The Chaordic Age

Here’s how one critic describes what happens when association leadership loses its way [see this link for their detailed critique of a specific association]:

“…instead of being an organisation that exists to promote [X] and help their members, the members are rather regarded as nothing but a source of income, which is then stashed away in investments.”

Unfortunately, there’s no pass/fail test to determine whether association leadership has lost its way. So, I’ve seen associations slowly demote supporting their members to a secondary goal over time, though sometimes this happens abruptly with a change in leadership. Members drift away, and the association may go out of business as it becomes increasingly unresponsive to members’ wants and needs.

There’s no simple prophylactic for this problem. But here are three things that every association should do:

1. Hold regular leadership reviews, informed by member input, of the association’s mission. Assess whether the current mission is still 100% relevant and change it when necessary. Then review, revise, and internalize your association’s strategic goals.

2. Follow up with an honest assessment of how well the association’s current actions align with fulfilling its mission.

3. Make the necessary structural and program changes to reduce or eliminate any lack of congruence uncovered in the previous step.

This is hard, and the work never ends. But remember, the core work of an association is to serve its members. Tempted to stray? Don’t do that!

3. Trusting Consultants Who Never Say ‘I Don’t Know’

Don’t do that! Just about every association hires consultants. By “consultant” I mean independent professionals and companies that provide organization services, e.g., accountants, attorneys, event planners, etc.

The problem with hiring external expertise is that if you need help, obviously, you lack crucial knowledge or experience. So when you seek help, you don’t know if someone who claims to be able to help really can!

The familiar approach to hiring a consultant is to ask for references. Asking for references is helpful, as long as you take the time to check the references you receive! I’m happy to provide references and am amused at how infrequently they are subsequently checked. Sometimes, a consultant’s references will tell you things that cause you to promptly strike them from your list of candidates.

But there’s another test that you should always apply when hiring a consultant.

Check to see if they will say they don’t know the answer to a question when they actually don’t.

Interview the consultant and ask them questions about the work you want them to do. Listen carefully to how they respond to your questions. You are looking for them to show that they know the limits of their abilities and that they are willing to share their limits with you.

If necessary, ask whether they can do something that is a little outside their stated expertise and listen carefully to how they respond. If you hear an unwillingness to admit that they can’t fulfill your request, you are receiving an important warning. Ignore it at your peril!

Are you thinking of hiring a consultant who won’t sometimes tell you “I don’t know”? Don’t do that!

Conclusions and a follow-up

These three less-common mistakes are ones I’ve encountered repeatedly, yet they often go unnoticed, even by experienced association professionals. I hope that my observations are helpful, and I welcome your thoughts below!

In Part 2 of this post, I share more “Don’t do that!” warnings about common mistakes I’ve seen when planning association events.

[I wrote “Associations: don’t do that! [Part 1]” for Association Chat Magazine, Volume 2, Issue 1, February 2025, and have posted it here with additional links to resources.]

Tags: 990s, associations, consultants, mistakes, nonprofits| Posted in Associations | No Comments »

We need alternative platforms for communities and events

Monday, February 17th, 2025 by Adrian Segar

The corporate-owned platforms we rely on for professional and personal communities are increasingly failing to meet our needs. Major social media networks have become saturated with advertisements, data mining, and algorithmic controls that hinder authentic engagement. This shift poses significant threats to the integrity and autonomy of our online interactions. We need alternative platforms for communities and events.

The threats to online communities

Professional, cultural, and social online communities are at risk. Xitter is in the final stages of enshittification. Facebook is inundated with advertisements and extensive data mining practices. LinkedIn groups’ algorithms bury most comments and reduce the visibility of posts with links. While private groups on major platforms remain functional, opaque and ever-changing algorithms control what users see, and the future viability of these groups is uncertain.

In addition, all corporate platforms are vulnerable to changes imposed by the owners, who can sell them at any time to new proprietors with different visions for operation or monetization, potentially further compromising the user experience.

The Case for Alternative Platforms

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Alternative Platforms, community, Community Owned, event platforms, events, fediverse, Mobilizon, social media| Posted in Associations, Connection, Event design, Social media | No Comments »

Are for-profits muscling in on association events?

Monday, January 27th, 2025 by Adrian Segar

Are for-profits stepping into territory traditionally held by associations? Lately, I’ve seen signs that they might be. Recently, I’ve received inquiries from suppliers of products and services wanting to hold events for the communities they serve. In fact, I’m currently designing an event for a for-profit client that directly competes with association conferences in their profession.

Suppliers have held client events for their customers for many years. However, the for-profit supplier event I’m designing includes a small tradeshow with many suppliers of interest to potential professional attendees.

I’m flattered by my client’s belief that the participant-driven and participation-rich meetings I design provide a better experience than competing traditional association events. But, as someone who values the communities that well-functioning associations offer, I can’t help but feel concerned.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: associations, events, for-profit, non-profit| Posted in Associations | 3 Comments »

Why organizations fear connecting

Monday, April 15th, 2024 by Adrian Segar

Seth Godin points out that many organizations fear connecting because their leadership fears losing control. Even though the control they think they have is a myth.

“Organizations are afraid of connecting. They are afraid of losing control, of handing over power, of walking into a territory where they don’t always get to decide what’s going to happen next. When your customers like each other more than they like you, things can become challenging.

Of course, connecting is where the real emotions and change and impact happen.”
—Seth Godin, ‘Connect to’ vs. ‘Connect’

The importance of connection

A survey I conducted of attendees while writing Conferences That Work confirmed (as do many other meeting surveys) that the two most important reasons people go to meetings are to connect (80%) and learn (75%).

Nevertheless, many conferences are structured like this.

No one’s connecting here, except, maybe, a single speaker to his audience. The audience members aren’t connecting with each other at all.

To create connection, conferences need to be structured like this.

Here, we see people gathered together, talking, listening, and taking notes. Active learning, rather than passive reception of lecturing, is the model. Active learning is a better model for meetings because it builds connection around meaningful learning.

An organization that fears connecting:

Employs hierarchical meetings and events, controlling what happens by using a predetermined agenda of broadcast-style lecture sessions.
Creates a fundamental disconnect between the wants and needs of the staff and/or members and the structure of its meetings and conferences. Events that provide connection-rich sessions, allowing participants to discover their tribe and determine what they discuss, are anathema.

“Connect to” is a goal; “connect” is a verb

Seth again:

“An organization might seek to ‘connect to’ its customers or constituents…That’s different, though, than ‘connect'”

Some organizations try to obscure their control-based culture by asserting their goal is to “connect to/with” their clients. There’s plenty of plausible-seeming advice available along these lines; e.g., “How to Connect With Customers” or “5 Ways to Connect With Your Client“.

However, this goal attempts to disguise a desire for control. The leadership wants to control how the organization will “connect with” customers. Such a goal is a one-way street. It ignores the reality that, for healthy relationships, connection is a two-way process.

In contrast, a functional organization makes it easy for customers to connect about their wants and needs.

Connection is no longer a goal (noun). A functional organization connects (verb). In the same way that change is a verb, not a noun.

Creating exceptional connection—and organizations

Exceptional organizations take connection to an even higher level. They facilitate connection between their constituency members, supporting the creation of tribes.

Seth, once more:

“When you connect your customers or your audience or your students, you’re the matchmaker, building horizontal relationships, person to person. This is what makes a tribe.”

Tribes—self-organizing groups bound by a common passion—are the most powerful spontaneous human groups. Tribe members pour energy into connecting around their purpose, which leads to meaningful, powerful action. Having them associated with and supported by your organization reaps substantial rewards for everyone involved.

Seek out and create organizations that don’t fear connecting.

You’ll make your world and the world a better place.

Tags: change, connection, impact| Posted in Associations, Event design, Facilitating Change, leadership | No Comments »

You’re right! (About trade show appointments.)

Monday, March 27th, 2023 by Adrian Segar

Reading two recent MeetingsNet articles about the value of trade show appointments reminds me of a story attributed to the wry 13th-century Sufi philosopher Nasreddin.

A woman demonstrates the American Sign Language for "You're right!" — American Sign Language for “You’re right!”

Two men who were quarreling came to Nasreddin and asked him to adjudicate their argument. The first man presented his case, and when he was done, Nasreddin exclaimed, “You’re right!” The second man shouted, “You haven’t even listened to my side of the story!” He then presented his case and when he was done, Nasreddin exclaimed again, “You’re right!”

Nasreddin’s wife, who had listened to the whole thing, remarked, “They can’t both be right.”

Nasreddin looked at his wife and exclaimed with a smile, “You’re right too!”

Yes, although the articles express seemingly very different points of view, I think they’re both right!

Desirée Knight on trade show appointments

Let’s start with Desirée Knight, senior director of meetings at the American Psychological Association (APA), who shares a pessimistic view of the future of prescheduled appointments at her association events.

MeetingsNet: Five years from now, what won’t we be doing on the trade-show floor that we’re doing today?

Knight: We will not be doing appointments on the trade-show floor. We must rethink this concept and find new approaches to customer engagement. This will require the industry to develop new approaches to KPIs and different measurement tools. In the end, we are responsible for creating engaging events for our stakeholders. Setting appointments within the trade-show environment is not engaging and, quite frankly, for some, not a good use of time. Creating collaborative spaces with AI gadgets or open forums to discuss current trends and issues will help vendors and buyers reset their views on developing business. The next generation of trade-show attendees are looking for engaging content and not just 15-minute appointments.
—Two Minutes with Desirée Knight, CAE, CMP, DES • MeetingsNet, Mar 07, 2023

Carina Bauer’s point of view

Two weeks later, Carina Bauer, CEO of the IMEX Group, parent company to two leading trade shows in the business events industry, defended the value of trade show appointments:

“Let’s start with trade shows essentially being marketplaces (they’ve performed this role for hundreds of years) where the primary motivation for showing up is to do business. When planned and managed carefully, appointments are an efficient use of everyone’s time. A prescheduled appointment tells a business-hungry exhibitor that a motivated buyer is interested in them. A pre-agreed appointment allows time for sound preparation on both sides of the deal—a detailed RFP is often met by an exhibitor who’s done in-depth and detailed research. That instantly becomes an ROI win-win.

ROI and ROE (return on experience) are clearly now more important than ever, and buyers are more discerning about which events they attend. However, our experience shows that once committed, 21st-century planners don’t want to leave their schedules to chance. In fact, what they want—demand—is flexible scheduling and to be treated with respect, e.g. no forced matchmaking or quotas. That means trusting them to do business; encouraging them to make appointments when they have firm business to place but also valuing their time spent in other ways such as learning or networking.”
—In Defense of Buyer-Seller Appointments on the Trade-Show Floor by Carina Bauer • MeetingsNet, Mar 20, 2023

So, who’s right?

Associations’ needs vary

First of all, it’s important to note that Desirée is talking about the specific needs of her association. I have designed and facilitated events for hundreds of associations, and seen a large variation in the importance and positioning of trade shows at their meetings. Some associations do not even want a trade show component, while for others it’s a primary draw for members. Though I don’t know the specific objectives of the APA, reading between the lines gives the impression that the association wants its events to focus primarily on education and connection between participants, rather than creating and supporting supplier relationships.

Trade show organizers have a wider perspective

Second, it’s clear that Carina is coming from a wider perspective than that of an association meeting director. IMEX trade shows act as a marketplace for meeting industry suppliers and planners. Planners choose to attend because they see value in the convenience and efficiency of shopping for services and venues at one event. The ongoing popularity of IMEX trade shows, despite the significant impact of COVID, shows that trade show appointments meet genuine needs of both planners and suppliers.

Money, money, money

Finally, trade shows are the public face of a reality that few in the meeting industry discuss publicly. (It’s not mentioned in either of these articles, though it often influences decisions made by planners, suppliers, and trade show organizers.) The reality is that trade shows involve significant amounts of money. In many cases, they are the biggest event revenue sources for associations and the largest expense for participating suppliers. Some associations derive the bulk of their operating budget from trade show receipts and can charge low, sometimes no, fees to attendees. On the other side, the selling opportunities supplied by trade show appointments are perhaps the most compelling reason for suppliers to pay high fees to exhibit.

If APA (or any association) eliminates trade show appointments, they may see reduced revenue from suppliers that will need to be made up in some other area. (For example, by increasing participant fees to attend.) This is an issue that is discussed extensively internally by both:

Associations that are trying to optimize member satisfaction without sacrificing revenue; and
Suppliers that have to determine the value of exhibiting with or without secured and prescheduled appointments with potential or existing customers.

You’re both right!

Desirée and Carina are both right about the value of trade show appointments. The APA plans to move away from appointments, replacing them with increased opportunities for suppliers and participants to connect and learn in open forums that involve both groups. That’s what they and their members want. Meanwhile, IMEX has strong evidence that many association planners find trade show appointments valuable and are happy to attend them, especially with the sweetener of low or no attendance fees (and sometimes even subsidized travel and accommodations).

While trade show appointments may lead to tensions between the needs of suppliers and association members at meetings, it’s clear that they work for many though not all associations.

Sometimes, despite disagreement, everyone’s right!

Animated gif attribution: Clip from Learn ASL: Right, wrong, and more in American Sign Language for beginners

Tags: appointments, associations, trade shows, tradeshow| Posted in Associations, Event professionals, Marketing, Meeting industry, Venues | No Comments »

The highest meaning of a social group

Monday, January 23rd, 2023 by Adrian Segar

Over the years, I’ve written frequently about associations, which are just one kind of social group. Our lives are defined by myriads of social groups, some self-chosen, some completely beyond our control. These groups have many origins and purposes, some beneficial and some destructive. Although individual value systems vary, I think it’s worth asking the question: What’s the highest meaning or purpose of a social group?

Columnist, essayist, and poet Jim Ralston offers this answer:

“The highest meaning of the social group is to foster the development of individual potential, for the community’s own well-being depends on it. When the goal of the group ceases to be the individual, that group goes into decline.”
—Jim Ralston, July 1991 correspondence with The Sun

I agree with this, perhaps controversial, answer. There are plenty of social groups—including many (but not all) political movements, companies, and religions—that champion their collective interests over those of other groups or individuals. Someone who believes in these groups’ goals, is likely to give them a higher meaning than the development of group members’ individual potential.

From the point of view of associations, however, I think this answer stands. I’ve seen many examples of associations’ tails wagging their memberships’ dog., i.e. staff running an association for their own benefit or organizational survival at the expense of the development of individual members. A classic example is the National Rifle Association, which journalist Tim Mak described in his book Misfire: Inside the Downfall of the NRA as having “a ‘Field & Stream’ membership with a ‘Fox & Friends’ leadership”. In my experience, such associations eventually either implode or—often reluctantly—radically restructure their administration or mission.

Barbara Kingsolver on altruism and self-interest

Novelist, essayist, and poet Barbara Kingsolver highlights a different perspective on the highest meaning of a social group: the tension between altruism and self-interest.

“Altruism was also part of our evolution, but, again, it was a very constrained altruism that would benefit our own descendants and nobody else’s. That’s the wiring we’ve inherited. And on this razor-thin leading edge of history, we’ve developed a civilization in which we generally acknowledge the benefits of cooperation beyond our immediate group. So we have charitable organizations and adoptions and nonprofits, and also international trade and NAFTA. But our nature is still pulling us back.”
—Barbara Kingsolver, The Moral Universe: Barbara Kingsolver On Writing, Politics, And Human Nature, interview by Jeanne Supin, March 2014

This is the same tension that plays out between association staff and membership wants and needs. Over time, if staff self-interest significantly outweighs altruistic motivations, association culture is likely to become increasingly introspective, rather than continuing to evolve to satisfy individual members’ wants and needs.

Ending a group

Some groups evolve to a point where they no longer serve the development of their members but concentrate on the survival of themselves as an institution. Such groups do little to benefit anyone but their staff. It’s likely that they served their purpose well at some point in their history, but that period is over. The best outcome is to close them down.

Conclusion

Jim Ralston and Barbara Kingsolver illustrate the importance of deciding the highest meaning of any social group, especially ones you manage. Your choice will determine the health and future of the group.

What do you think is the highest meaning of a social group? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Image attributions: Jim Ralston from The Sun; Barbara Kingsolver (2023, January 10) from Wikipedia.

Tags: altruism, associations, highest meaning, members, membership, self-interest, social groups, staff| Posted in Associations | No Comments »

Does your association’s tail wag your membership’s dog?

Monday, February 22nd, 2021 by Adrian Segar

Who’s responsible for association culture? The association staff, or its membership?

[Association culture? Here’s a definition by Jamie Notter.]
“Organizational culture is the collection of words, actions, thoughts, and ‘stuff’ that clarifies and reinforces what a company truly values.”
—Jamie Notter, Definition of Organizational Culture

To explore this question, let’s be clear about which culture we’re talking. I view an association as a group of people with a shared mission, the organizational incarnation of a community of practice. Every association has an internal culture, formed by its staff, while existing in an external culture, its members’ relationships with each other and the industry or realm they inhabit.

In a dynamic association, these two cultures constantly interact with, inform, and influence each other. This leads us to the question.

Who’s responsible for external association culture?

Is it an association’s staff, or its membership? At first glance, internal association culture is the direct responsibility of its staff, usually steered by the board, which (hopefully) includes and represents members.

But who’s responsible for external association culture, which determines how members learn from and work with each other, and how the association impacts and influences the wider world?

Here’s how Joe Rominiecki, writing for Associations Now, describes what external culture can look like:

“It might be collaborative or it might be competitive. It might value academic accomplishment or it might value real-world experience. It might embrace diversity or it might fear it. Whatever your members’ culture might be, it’s there.”
—Joe Rominiecki, Where membership and culture meet

Later in the same article, Joe says:

“If any player has the position and influence to change the culture in an entire industry, it’s an association, because that’s exactly the sort of change an association is designed to do.

I disagree.

I think the primary purpose of an association is not to change “external culture”—i.e. the culture of its collective members—but rather to support and strengthen the culture. If you see associations as multi-purpose tools for communities of practice, then it’s the community itself that determines what kind of supporting and strengthening capabilities the association builds into its toolkit.

The internal culture then becomes the way in which the association structures and organizes itself to best support the external culture embodied in its membership.

Healthy external association culture

I’ve consulted with hundreds of associations over the last three decades, have served on numerous boards, and been a member of many non-profits. In my experience, healthy associations foster continual conversations between staff and members. These conversations develop the association in response to the wants and needs of the membership, the resources available to the association, and the pressures and challenges posed by the association’s commitment to its mission in the context of its changing external environment.

Such conversations can involve questions like:

What should the association be doing that it isn’t (or what should it do less of)?
How political should the association be?
How much member and societal education should the association provide or support, and what kind?
What useful things can and/or should the association do that individual members can’t and/or won’t?

There are no “right” answers to such questions. What’s important is that association culture allows and expects staff and members to ask them. And, of course, that there are mechanisms in place to:

Support the resulting conversations; and
Create appropriate organizational and programmatic changes when needed.

The devolution of responsibility from association members to staff

Finally, we get to the title question asked by this post: Does your association’s tail wag your membership’s dog? One unfortunate trend I sometimes see, especially with larger associations, is that responsibility for the external culture swings towards the staff at the expense of the membership. This is understandable. As associations grow, individual members tend to assume that the association leadership will “handle” the external cultural issues. (“Hey, I’ve got a business to run! That’s what my association’s staff gets paid to do!”) But that doesn’t mean that the staff should take over this important responsibility.

Instead, it’s vital that staff maintain a leadership role supporting how an association defines its external culture. That includes staying in close touch with member needs and wants, and the external political, social, and cultural environments. How an association responds to wants, needs, and external events, must always involve the entire association community — staff and members — so the organization responds and changes in a healthy way.

Photo attribution: Flickr user itsgreg

Tags: association, culture, external culture, internal culture, Jamie Notter, leadership, responsibility| Posted in Associations, leadership | No Comments »

A healthy organization contains active cultures

Monday, September 23rd, 2019 by Adrian Segar

“Contains active cultures.” How often have you read this on the sides of yogurt containers? Well, healthy organizations contain active cultures too.

Active cultures — not just for yogurt anymore

Just as there are hundreds of different strains of probiotic cultures, there are many ways to think about organizational culture. For example, you might focus on descriptive approaches: an organization’s core beliefs, attitudes, and assumptions about “what is” and “why is”, plus customary ways of interacting. Or, you could concentrate on a behavioral approach: how an organization consistently does things.

Unfortunately, in many organizational cultures the descriptive culture isn’t congruent with the behavioral reality. Ultimately, however you define organizational culture, what interests most people is changing it, hopefully for the better.

That’s where active (aka adaptive or adhocracy) organizational cultures shine.

What’s an active organizational culture?

An active organizational culture is one where it’s safe and routine for people to:

Share their needs and how they might be met;
Question current organizational beliefs, attitudes, assumptions, and patterns of interaction; and
Try new ways to work together.

Changing organizational culture

In passive cultures, needs go unmet, the culture discourages questioning beliefs and attitudes, and a “we’ve always done it this way” attitude predominates. Not surprisingly, a passive culture often “smells.” Like outdated yogurt, it probably won’t kill you, but it isn’t a pleasant experience.

From a behavioral perspective, organizational culture is “an emergent set of patterns that are formed from the interactions between people.” So changing organizational culture is a matter of changing the interactions between people. An active organizational culture, thanks to the characteristics listed above, has the environment and tools for changing interaction patterns, making the organization healthier in the process.

Does your organization contain active cultures? What about other organizational cultures you’ve experienced? Share your thoughts in the comments below!

Image attribution: pixabay

Tags: active cultures, adaptive cultures, adhocracy cultures, changing organizational culture, facilitating change, organizational culture, yogurt| Posted in Associations, Facilitating Change, leadership | No Comments »