Acronym

Lisa,

I think the experience you describe is extremely typical of associations, which do tend to overreact to criticism -- but it's this overreaction, and the waste it creates, that is the real problem being laid out (perhaps subconsciously) in your case study, in my opinion.

I think the reason that many associations respond the way you describe is that they operate in a data vacuum. For example, if one person sends a lengthy letter criticizing a program (or posts a critical comment on a blog), and the association doesn't have any other data regarding the program, then the letter becomes writ large, so to speak, in its impact.

However, if the association has good data regarding the program's participation and perception, and it runs counter to what the individual member says, then the response writes itself. We can't make everyone happy and every thing any organization does is going to have a detractor or two or three. If the number of detractors skews larger than that, then you may have a real problem and need to do some serious analysis.

The same issue can come up with a particular committee, for example, that may reach an opinion about something that is not necessarily in step with what a larger percentage of the membership thinks. In my opinion, associations need to become much more clear-eyed about what their members think and want (which is not necessarily the same thing as what volunteers think and want, or what more vocal members think and want).

I agree with Kevin. I've seen a lot of associations over-react to the loudest members. Case in point, in my consulting I often find myself faced with a task force of zealous members who just KNOW their field should be certified. Sometimes it's even just a few very vocal (but also very influential) members who instigate the plan to develop certification for an association. I often get huge resistance to the idea of a feasibility study -- because, again, those few KNOW it's what the org should do so why waste money on a feasibility study? After all, it's only a mil+ investment at risk. :-}

If it's any consolation, this happens in the corporate world, too. I once worked for a company whose president who decided to start a gigantic, big-dollar project on the basis of a conversation he had with a guy on an airplane who he thought had a great idea (BTW, it bombed, we lost a lot of money, and the company went out of business a while ago). I've worked on projects that took a u-turn based on input from just one customer.

I don't get it, but for some reason a data point of one or two is enough for some leaders in both the corporate and association worlds.

I think Kevin hit the nail on the head. As an executive director, I know how tempting it is to respond to every piece of criticism or strong opinion, especially if it is coming from a board member or other respected leader. While specific criticism can be helpful in identifying areas of concern, it is data that ultimately sets you free from knee jerk responses. Within three months of my arrival, we initiated a major market research initiative to gauge member and market perceptions on a host of issues. We also hired a data analyst and I began asking staff to back up assertions with data. And while data does not replace intuition or inspiration (both of which I welcome and encourage), it does provide a helpful foundation, particularly when it comes to sacred cows.

I recently facilitated a leadership retreat about the future of our annual meeting and there were many strong feelings in the room. Fortunately, we had conducted a focused survey prior to the meeting to provide grounding. Turned out the many of the sacred cows of our leadership were not so sacred to the vast majority of our members. At one point, a board member was arguing strongly that “everyone he knew” felt a certain way, which prompted a wonderful response from a past president: “We can’t substitute the views of five of our friends for those of five hundred [respondents] of our members.”

While I agree with everything being said about balancing a reaction to a single negative comment, I think it's important to point out two things about the case study.

1) The blog post attracted a large number of commenters who were in agreement with the initial negative comment. None of the commenters seemed interested in defending the association.

2) The blog as a publishing vehicle creates a permanent record on the Internet of a significant group of people with very negative feedback.

From a PR and marketing perspective, a response in this situation is very important. When someone searches on your association's board meeting, this blog post might very well come up in the search results. You'd want to be able to show that you responded and resolved the issues in some way.

Linda makes a very important point. That blog post might work its way up in search engine rankings and become one of the first impressions someone has of the organization.

While my association experience certainly echoes the fact that a small percentage of folks often receive a much larger percentage of attention, I'm also reminded of a few times when the minority or obscure viewpoint was rich in insight that the majority did not have.

Seems to me one of the leadership challenges for all of us is deciding how to filter and respond to feedback, both positive and negative, both limited and pervasive among the membership.

Kevin H. and Sue: Great points on the data issue. Anecdotal evidence can be powerful at any time, but it's even more powerful in the absence of quantitative data.

Mickie: Ouch! That's so true!

Scott: Thank you so much for sharing that story. I particularly like what you said here: "Turned out the many of the sacred cows of our leadership were not so sacred to the vast majority of our members." That was one thing I found interesting in the Decision to Join research--how disparate volunteer leaders' opinions tended to be from non-volunteer-leaders. But at the same time, I know that association staff often look to those same volunteer leaders as "the voice of the member." Creating the problem you were seeing in that retreat ...

Lindy: That's a really important point, and one that's easy to forget--the Internet preserves that tempest for a good long time. One of the top hits that pops up when you Google my name is a listserver post I made on behalf of my last association years ago; it bears no relationship to what I work on now, but it's prominent on Google. What would happen if a popular blogger's criticism of your association got a higher Google ranking than your own website?

Jeffrey: "I'm also reminded of a few times when the minority or obscure viewpoint was rich in insight that the majority did not have." GREAT point, and a very important one. Just because the complaint comes from just one member (or a handful) doesn't mean it's not valid by any means. The hard part is separating yourself from your work and your preconceptions to determine how valid it is, and why ...

Lindy's comment also points out that while only one person may write a letter, those same opinions may be felt by many others who don't bother to write.

Good data, as Kevin H. asserts, will help association executives exercise sound judgement and know when a critic actually represents a substantial segment of the audience.