There's still wisdom in 'conventional wisdom'
In my view, most associations seem to have abandoned the traditional volunteer selection process, commonly known as "the good ol' boys network." Formerly, in many associations, getting a board or committee appointment had been based more upon who you knew, rather than upon what you knew, or how well you performed. Thankfully, most associations have abandoned this adaptation of nepotism, which might be called the 'conventional wisdom' of volunteer selection.
If you read my blog, you know I'm the type to test assumptions and challenge the status quo. Over the past few years, the term 'conventional wisdom' has taken on a mostly negative connotation in my mind. But after hearing an NPR interview this morning with Marines deployed in Iraq to train that country's security forces, I had to challenge the 'unconventional wisdom' I've come to develop regarding volunteer leaders.
During the interview, the Marines talked about how the American soldiers were only interested in how Iraqis who were signing up for security positions performed in training or scored on aptitude tests. They were more concerned about what they knew. On the other hand, senior Iraqi security commanders were more concerned with what tribe the recruits came from and who their parents, friends and family members were. In other words, they wanted to discover who they knew. The Iraqi commanders felt they couldn't trust a recruit without knowing about their family and social ties, and if forced to choose between loyal and competent, they'd choose loyal.
Now, associations aren't in a life and death struggle every day, but I think there's a nugget of truth here for association executives. When selecting volunteers, how much weight do you place on abilities? How much do you place on how well you (or other trusted volunteers) know the member? Arguably, trust is the most powerful factor in most of our business dealings. Trust can't increase unless you get to know someone better.
The 'unconventional wisdom' says, select volunteers on merit. The 'conventional wisdom' says, select volunteers by who you know best. The challenge for us is to find the middle ground.
And isn't it interesting that as 'unconventional wisdom' unseats 'conventional wisdom,' it becomes the new 'conventional wisdom'? The roles are reversed. Does it cycle like this forever?
| | Permalink |
Comments
Inevitably, you're going to need a mix. National trade associations I've worked for have made it a priority to ensure geographic and company-size diversity on committees, the extent possible. The best policy, I think, is to make sure that if someone volunteers, you find a place for them. Even if you have to make something up.
Posted by: Mike Mason | June 22, 2006 3:26 PM
All things in moderation.
Posted by: Ben Martin | June 22, 2006 10:00 PM
I agree with Mike. Having a mix provides a solid balance of people who come up with new ideas, and people who can listen to those ideas and KNOW, because of their familiarity with the organization, how those ideas can help the association.
Posted by: DookieStyle | June 23, 2006 8:43 AM
I think it is incumbent in Ben's suggesstion that choosing volunteers based on merit includes diversity -- that's part of the merits to consider. But I wonder how important geographic diversity is -- at least if we're only talking about different regions of the U.S. (I take the question back if we're talking about members from different countries). While it's probably true that you wouldn't want most or all of a committee/board from an extremely narrow geograpic region, I wonder about the wisdom of dictating that you need one member from the Northeast, one from the South, one from the West Coast, etc.
In fact, I think that's the kind of logic that Ben directly challenges. The differences in approach and ability matter much more than differences in physical location.
Posted by: Scott Briscoe | June 23, 2006 1:59 PM
I worked at the national level of a 501 (c) (3), which may be different than associations, however, the mix of folks from across the country may not impact the board as much as it did the membership. Most folks like to know that someone from their area represents them. Variety was always good, challenging at times and most importantly I think volunteers that serve on a national board should have served on a national committee first, that way you have a chance to check them out.
Posted by: Pat Smithson | July 5, 2006 12:40 PM