Acronym

I pick up my phone and Jim Collins is on the other end, waiting to be interviewed. Yes, that Jim Collins of Built to Last and Good to Great fame.

The interview had been in the works for a looong time, maybe eight or nine months since he was confirmed as a speaker at the last annual meeting. We decided to try to schedule it for after the meeting. Busy schedules collide and I was under the impression that he needed to do it through email. Not ideal, but he's Jim Collins, so I understand.

I'm trying to get it into the November issue of Associations Now, so I'm interacting with his organization there in Colorado to try to make it happen. On the last possible day to get it into the issue, I get the surprise phone call. No pressure or anything.

One of the things that struck me in his Good to Great and the Social Sectors monograph and then in his address at the annual meeting and again in this interview is his description of legislative leadership (listen to his 60-second audio explanation). As I begin to grasp this concept better, I plan to make it part of my pitch to authors who have important ideas that need to be shared but who know little about associations. When I ask them to write for Associations Now in the future, I want to succinctly use this description to help explain how the association audience is different than others.

What he means by legislative leadership is that leaders in social sectors, including the association sector, rarely if ever have the absolute power to make a big strategic decision on their own. In practice, they must cobble together enough support to make such a decision. As you’ll see in the November issue, Collins visualizes this as a power map where each individual is a bubble representing the percent of power they have. He didn’t say it expressly, but I got the impression from Collins that 51 percent was a key number, that when you got to that point, you then had the power to make your big strategic decision.

By definition, I suppose that’s true, but in an association setting, I think acting with 51 percent has the potential to blow the whole organization apart. I am an enemy of the word “consensus,” which in this scenario represents 100 percent. I think there are a lot of reasons why consensus is no way to make decisions, but I think a lot of associations feel it necessary to get there or to get close. The problem is, it takes a lot of time and a lot of will to add to your power points. You could also dilute the decision as you modify your position to increase support. Not to mention, almost all of the time, consensus is illusion.

The reality—at least as I define it—is that most association leaders would say consensus is ideal but they at least want to get well past 51 percent. Where’s the imaginary line in your organization? Is it 75 percent? 80? Sure, it changes with the magnitude of the decision, but we’re only talking about major, course-changing decisions here. Does it go to 90 then?

Here’s my controversial call—maybe 51 percent isn’t so bad. Associations spend a lot of time being politically careful. There are times when you’re looking at the big, big, major decisions that the organization may just need to be blown apart. It seems to me if you’re going to be a great association leader, you need to know when is the right time to charge forward with your 51 percent and when you should lay low and build support higher.

Collins has a way of making those who interview him feel very secure and smart, and he does it by being genuine, not slick. He closed the interview by asking me what I thought needed further study in the social sector. I stuttered and stammered an answer and said I’d email him. I have more of an answer now. I think he’s hit on something important with this legislative leadership idea, so I think the next step is there.