Acronym

Great questions Scott, and I suspect the answer is not intrinsically linked to associations or membership recruitment. I could generate a similar list if questions for meetings and conferences.

So why do individuals and organizations continue to engage in patterns of unproductive behavior when they know better?

There can be all sorts of reasons but much of it comes down to not being held accountable for results or lack thereof, in my experience.

Going over the numbers once a year during the annual review process does not count as meaningful accountability.

Here, here David Gammel! That observation rings a bell. I feel a lot of associations are places where senior level people go to work before thier golden retirement years because the job/industry is not viewed as demending as a corporate job or a job in a results-driven environment.

I've also always heard the comment thrown around that people in the association world and nonprofit environment can't cut it in corporate America.

Maybe they're are right, especially if it takes a decade for an association to change marketing tactics or experiment with new vehicles, tools, tech or avenues.

And in this day and age of rapid 24-7 communications, a decade may as well be century.

(Please note I did not say "all associations." There are many shining examples of proactive nonprofits who leaverage new tools as soon as they get thier hands on them, who are not afraid to experiment, and view failure as a stepping stone on the road to success. They are just few and far between.)

Great question Scott. As I see it, at the deepest core, there are 4 basic reasons.

1. Some people are afraid of loosing control. They will do whatever it takes to hold onto control, even though it's only an illusion. This is often ego driven.

2. Some people are afraid of not being liked. Their greatest fear is social rejection. These people often just go along. They want to be socially accepted.

3. Some people are afraid of loss of stability. Any kind of change is hard for them. They want to have worked out the HOW and HOW it will impact them, before they will buy into change.

4. Some people are afraid of being of wrong. They want to make sure everything is worked out in great detail before any change takes place.

When change happens, usually it's initiated by types listed in #1. Then #2 types buy into it. BUT here's where it get's derailed.

#4 types ask so many questions that they can derail the process, though that not their intent. We NEED these people cause they'll see the holes well before anyone else does. But this is the smallest segment of the 4 groups. So here's the KEY to change.

Get #3 types to buy into change. They must get why change is good for the organization overall. Once they buy in, the scale tips. THEN #4 types automatically jump on board.

I realize this may sound simplistic. But this is the crux in many cases. But as Jeff said, which is so important for that provides reason for change, there has to be clear accountability and the right metrics in place to start with.

In today's times, many structural changes are taking place. Association leaders have to think differently. Remember, everything on the outside is reflection of what's happening on the inside. So if things are stuck on the outside, this means they are stuck on the inside. That's where the change efforts need to begin.

Thanks for bringing this important topic up Scott. Take care.

I agree with David and Chris--where is the incentive to change in cultures where you are pretty much guaranteed a job as long as the budget is there to support X number of staff people, no matter whether or not they're performing? As Chris says, there are of course many examples of associations that are NOT like this; but unfortunately there are many that fall into the stereotypical "we've always done it this way" mentality, staffed with people who've been there for 10, 20 or more years who have been receiving pay increases each of those years just for showing up.

To me, the association world is rife with upside-down organizations; the highest paid people who have been there the longest and are not required to keep their skill-sets up to date or in any way justify their existence versus the lowest paid, newer staff members with current skill-sets and innovative ideas who are nothing but annoying flies to the more senior people who just want to ride out their tenure in a wave-free, static environment. Where is the incentive for people to take risks, learn new ways of doing things, expend effort and probably personal time learning new ways of doing things?

In the for-profit world.

As a successful senior manager with 30 years in industry who came to an association late in his career, I can tell you that my decision was made not "go to work before their golden retirement years because the job/industry is not viewed as demanding as a corporate job or a job in a results-driven environment."

I left a very solid job simply because I had a passion to try to have a positive effect on an entire industry rather than a single company. That having been said, I think Scott's original questions are not only good one's but they are answering them is probably critical to the continued existence on many associations.

Difficulty changing is not an issue solely seen in associations - I saw many instances of companies unwilling/unable to change their business model. Many of these have either been absorbed or gone away.

Change is hard - not changing is so much easier. We all know this yet we find it hard to implement change, even when we know it is essential.

In my opinion, leaders of organizations, both in for-profit or not for-profit organizations need to be not only the catalyst, but the role model for change. Talk the talk AND walk the walk. Stop worrying about being liked. Stop worrying about being wrong. Stop worrying about stability - it's a myth today. Lastly, stop worrying about losing control, you probably don't have it anyway.

If you haven't read it yet, get a copy of "What Would Google Do?". Google became one of the biggest success stories of all time specifically by giving up control.

Change isn't something associations should be considering – it's something they need to be doing to survive.