Beltway bias
Those of you who know me know that I started my career in the association mecca of the world: Alexandria, Virginia. I cut my teeth in a couple of international associations – one trade association, and one professional society. Like many association executives in the DC marketplace, I developed an inside the beltway bias about the face of the association industry. One of the ways this manifested itself was in my opinions about components. For me and many of my colleagues in the DC area, state affiliates, chapters or allied organizations were disrespectfully viewed as nuisances and distractions.
A little over three years ago, looking for a change of scenery and relief from the traffic, I left DC to work for a statewide association in Richmond, just 100 miles south of Alexandria. In the time that I’ve been here, this association has grown to be the biggest I’ve ever worked for both in terms of staff and budget. I’ve also gotten to know association executives at other state associations around the country and have been consistently impressed with their capabilities. Furthermore, I’ve come across some local associations with programs that absolutely knock my socks off.
My colleagues at national and international associations are always shocked when I tell them the size of our membership. Still, I’m continually asked by my peers when will I be moving back to DC, or when will I be getting back to a national or international association. No time in the immediate future, I tell them; I’m very happy where I am.
In the years since I left DC, I’ve noticed that the savviest association executives are the ones that treat their affiliates and chapters with the utmost respect. They acknowledge that they’re partners in some ways and competitors in others. But there’s a genuine modesty and conscientious decorum in their relationships with chapters and affiliates. Although we’re not connected in any official way, I’ve always been pleased by the way I’ve been treated by the national association with whom my employers is aligned. Because of this positive relationship, I’m happy to carry the national association’s message to our membership and prospects. The results of this respect are played out in other areas as well.
Truly respecting your components may require giving up some control over programs. Opening yourself up to competition from chapters in some program areas may be necessary, too. Completely turning some things over entirely to components might be a demonstration of good faith.
Do you respect your components? Or do you overtly block them in some areas? Would they be offended if they overheard your staff’s indiscriminate comments about them?
As someone who has worked on both sides of the fence, I have learned: The beltway bias is unfounded and counterproductive.
| | Permalink |
Comments
Just to add a counterpoint: I've worked for a number of national trade associations that had state-level affiliates, and I've found there are often state and regional organizations that do not effectively use the resources of the national organization or keep the national group at arms length. Typically, this is because the state executive and/or board members do not want the membership to view the state group as less valuable -- after all, if I'm getting lobbying represenation and a magazine and other services from the national association, why do I need to pay state dues? It seems there is usually a short list of active and cooperative state associations that get most of the attention and service from the national association, and in turn those state associations are the ones that contribute most and share their knowledge with the entire network.
Posted by: Mike Mason | July 24, 2006 6:04 PM
Wait just a minute! You mean to tell me that the national organization doesn't bear ALL the responsibility for this? ;-) certainly respect is a 2 way street.
Posted by: Ben | July 25, 2006 9:59 AM
After spending over 10 years in the area of chapter/component relations at several organizations, I found that bad relationships always started with the national staff.
When I ran into negative attitudes from local chapters it was because they were reacting to the condescending position of national -- not holding them at arms length to emphasize the importance of the local group.
It took me a minimun of one year to rebuild relationships to the point where local leaders would re-open their minds to what a solid national-local partnership could accomplish. Changing the attitude of national staff always took longer.
In my experience, this attitude that chapters/components are nothing but a nuisance ALWAYS started with the Chief Staff Executive.
I posted a long article on this issue at www.associationpuzzle.typepad.com; look under the category "Chapter Relations."
Posted by: Cecilia Sepp | July 25, 2006 6:27 PM
Cecilia is right on target from my experience. And unfortunately disrespecting components (of any sort) is a dangerous path for organizations to take. National (or even state-level) associations that fail to be inclusive at every opportunity will fail to catch the member interest and lose connection to the "long tail" value these organizational parts present.
Posted by: David Lorms | August 7, 2006 2:58 PM