Acronym

I think I get where you and Maddy are coming from, but relevance is a fairly value-neutral term in my book. It doesn't necessarily imply a low bar. Relevance can mean maintaining the status quo or meeting the needs of the highest-flying early adopters and innovators.

In fact, looking at things through the reverse can be useful: what is your association doing right now that might be irrelevant and who would find that to be the case? That could help identify some efforts that need revamping or retiring.

I think there are a few problems with using relevance as a baseline:

1. Most organizations have a lot of different types of members--how relevant do you need to be to each segment to be relevant to the whole? By seeking to be relevant to the whole, do you end up alienating some parts? By seeking to be relevant to the parts, do you alienate the organization from its members as a whole?

2. How do you determine relevance? Is it by today's standards, tomorrow's, five years from now? Ten?

3. A lot of the best value some of the best organizations provide, IMHO, is by providing the answers to what we members don't know we don't know. We may resist it at first, say it's not relevant because we don't understand how it works for us, but once we learn what it (whatever that "it" may be for your members), we redefine what relevance means to us.

You'll never get this by surveying members; only by really understanding what we need--bringing a fresh perspective to it that those in the daily grind don't necessarily have the space from our work to have. I guess that'd be a sort of meta-relevance?

But if I were leading an association, that's the place I'd want it to be. Leads to those sparks that propel members from competence in all those relevant things to leaps in thinking that can lead a whole industry forward.

I don't think of relevance as a low bar - just as no bar at all. Not a thing to aspire to, relevance should be a given, assuming an organization has been paying attention at all to its members. But I do like Jeffrey's point about finding those things that might now be IRrelevant. People change, their needs change.

Maybe I'm just getting old, but I no longer find arguments over semantics as interesting as I once did. Are people willing to buy what you do? Are they buying it every year, and are they buying more of it this year than they did last year? Call yourself "relevant" or call yourself blazingly revolutionary or call yourself quietly competent or call yourself whatever you want -- if your customers aren't buying it, it really doesn't matter. Just don't bore them with theory.

Linking a bit of Maddie and Sue might result in us thinking of relevance as a given, but only useful if the organization has considered for which audiences/needs/aspirations the relevance of the organization and its offerings should be a given.

I worked once for an association that wanted to be most relevant to members needing the basics and our most innovative members, essentially the ends of the bell curve, but not much of the middle. While it might have seemed schizophrenic to outsiders, it provided pretty strong focus for our internal deliberations and efforts.

But all this really gets us back to Drucker's Five questions, as useful today as ever.

Since it looks like everyone forgot about my posts on relevance from early 2008, I decided to post a brief refresher today. You can find it at http://tinyurl.com/mha2f4

I don't think there is anything semantic about trying to establish a leadership point of view about what will drive organizational success going forward. The relevance argument has been a brake on the growth of our organizations because it narrows our thinking about what is possible and, as Maddie points out, it is in no way inspirational. Great organizations don't aspire to relevance.

And I cannot say that I agree with the theory that associations should simply churn out more and more stuff for members to buy. That is what most associations have been doing, and many continue to struggle. Re-defining the nature of the value-creating relationship between associations and their stakeholders is part of the challenge of designing new and sustainable business models that all organizations inevitably will confront.

Jeff: You're absolutely right. Associations shouldn't "sell" anything. The exchange of currency for goods and services is just so GAUCHE, you know? It certainly has no place in high-minded conversation. Dirty, dirty money.

Associations with bad business models and declining levels of money will be so much better off when they have NO business model at all, and have given all their money away to consultants, don't you think?

Kevin, I don't have any problem with people paying money to their associations in exchange for meaningful value. Where you and I differ, I think, is where that value is located, the form it takes and how it will be created.

Based on what's happening in our community right now, there is ample to reason to be skeptical of the idea that more products and services are a long-term solution to what ails associations. I believe there is deeper and more sustainable value that can be co-created with stakeholders embedded in "social assets," such as knowledge and network relationships. The challenge is to design new business models to tap into this value in a way that is profitable for our organizations.

Associations with bad business models and declining levels of money will be better off when they recognize they got to that place by doing the same things over and over again, while expecting a different result. As you know, Einstein defines this as insanity, and it doesn't take any consulting investment to know that this approach won't work in the years ahead.

Jeff, actually, I think the difference between you and me is that you are taking a more simplistic view than I am, even though I'm the one using more simplistic language. I know that you certainly don't mean to do so, and you're definitely not a simple person, but whenever you try to paint an entire segment with such a broad brush, oversimplification results.

When you make statements like "all organizations will inevitably confront" something, then you box yourself into a corner. Arguing for "revolution" in association leadership, as you have done on several occasions, requires that all associations be in the same place, facing the same challenges, and the same opportunities, at the same time. Otherwise a broad "revolutionary" argument doesn't make any sense.

When you say, as you did in your recent post, that there are only "two paths" to follow -- the one you think associations are on, and the one you think they should be on -- then you have no choice but to deal with, explain away, or otherwise belittle associations that don't necessarily follow your precepts yet are quite successful. You leave yourself no other choice when you establish a simplistic "either/or" argument.

So where we differ is that I think where associations will find their success, and discover the changes they must make to thrive, will be in the constituency they serve, and NOT in "the association community." People who work for funeral directors will learn much more from funeral directors than they will ever learn from people who work for actuaries. Discovering what funeral directors want, what funeral directors need -- as opposed to what the funeral directors ASSOCIATION wants or needs, or what other completely different associations want or need -- will help people who work for funeral directors discover those new areas that will take their association to new heights where they will thrive.

In short, while what I say about how associations succeed when people buy what they sell may sound simplistic, it is not simple at all. It requires each individual association to actually think, and act, individually.

It would be much easier for all of us if all associations were exactly alike, if we could take "best practices" of one organization and plop them into another, if we could face the same revolutions and evolutions at the same time in the same way. Lord, it would have been so much easier for me over the last few years if there really were such a thing as an "association profession" and I could just read a couple books and take a few classes and get a "certification" and watch everything unfold the way it should.

Alas, that's not the way the world works. It's not that easy. The reason our organization has transformed, and grown (yes, even this year), is that we decided very purposefully to STOP acting like a typical association. Instead, we just listen to our market, and despite all the challenges of the larger world, we see nothing ahead of us but one fantastic opportunity unfolding after another.

So, based on nothing but my own actual experience, I return to my original comment here (which was probably snarkier than it should have been, I admit), and say to associations: don't lose yourselves in insular "association community" arguments over semantics. Instead, let go of who you think you are, or what you think associations should be. Rediscover your market. Find out what they want and need, and then give it to them -- even if it doesn't fit with what you think associations "do", even if it involves completely different types of business models. If your only goal is to help your market reach ITS goals, and that's what you do, then they will "buy your stuff."

(My apologies for the length of this reply -- and also to the funeral directors and actuaries, you were just the first example that came to mind.)

Thanks to Steve Worth for starting the relevant discussion on relevancy. Couldn't resist! Whatever words we use, associations need to engage their stakeholders in co-creating an environment that sets the highest bar for all. This involves achieving extraordinary results as a community that individuals could never accomplish independently. How is this done? In my view, by encouraging debate and diversity of ideas to flourish, by being inclusive, by striving for innovation, creativity and not resting until beyond excellent is achieved. Walking the talk around trust and transparency is essential. Not just giving it lip service, but living and breathing it however difficult that is.