How secure is that golden handcuff?
The golden handcuff is a program or product so important to a member that it effectively binds them to the organization. (I’ll mail a shiny new $1 coin to the first person who puts a longer, better definition of “golden handcuff” in Associapedia.) For teachers’ unions in right-to-work states, you could perhaps describe the insurance as a golden handcuff (that’s my understanding, I apologize in advance if I’ve oversimplified). Several certifications also act as golden handcuffs. The fact is, most associations have no such handcuff, which isn’t a particularly friendly term anyway. But for those who do, I have a message: watch out!
I think the broad, popular perception of golden handcuffs is not unlike the perception of a monopoly. In a free market (or mostly free market) natural monopolies are created, and, surprise, surprise, they are not per se illegal. In fact, a monopoly signifies a good, strong company, one that is so valuable that it is able to beat out every single competitor. They’re able to do this because people like the value the company provides. As any good CAE candidate and hopefully any trade or professional society leader knows, anticompetitive practices are illegal. The formerly popular company that built the monopoly is now subject to public scorn because of the abuses, or perceived abuses, to the free market system.
Carrying the analogy forward, organizations with their golden handcuffs are fine as long as they piss anybody off. Fifteen years ago, you anger a few people and, unless you’ve been blatantly illegal, you just stifle their voice. It’s different now obviously. A few disgruntled people can easily find each other and magnify their voice. This is true for any organization, but public sentiment is distrustful of powerful organizations—and an organization with a real golden handcuff is powerful, even if it’s limited to small field or trade. I happen to believe that insurance and certifications and other handcuffs have done a lot of good for society, but I don’t think that argument matters much in a nightmare PR scenario.
The point is this, I think it’s a mistake to take that golden handcuff as a given. Something is granting you the power to have that handcuff. Maybe it’s a government or maybe it’s a hard market niche to enter, but something gives your organization that power. You need to look at that for vulnerabilities. What would it take for whatever is giving you that power to take it away? I would venture a guess that you are less inoculated from that power than you were 10 years ago, and your vulnerability will only increase.
| | Permalink |
Comments
Great observation Scott. As you note, in some respects the organization could be the one locked in handcuffs if it doesn't remain vigilant about the status of their untouchable initiatives.
I think Rhea Blanken and others in one of the previous environmental scans suggested organizations doing a "Berlin Walk" type of strategy conversation now and then, exploring what they would do if the thing they could never imagine occurring came to pass or if there most valuable initiative suddenly was worthless.
Might be a useful exercise for associations having handcuffs to consider before members obtain the key to unshackle themselves.
Posted by: Jeffrey Cufaude | September 24, 2009 6:30 PM
Jeffrey, what you say does make me think about the word handcuff. Clearly to me, when I talk about a "golden handcuff," I'm talking about the organization having more power in the relationship. But there are other handcuffs, aren't there? A tradeshow is like a cash cow handcuff for some associations isn't it -- and it's one where the association doesn't necessarily have the power. The association is at the mercy of both vendors and attendees. I think a whole lot of tradeshows are still pretty viable, but it's not that hard to imagine a way and a time when they are not. I have been a part of that exercise at an association -- the "what if" planning of what happens if a major cash cow begins to dry up.
Posted by: Scott Briscoe | September 25, 2009 10:09 AM
All cash cows dry up; all programs have a lifespan. Often associations cling to programs that they should have let die a long time ago. I think one of the most dangerous things an association can do is start to think it is in the business of producing a particular product -- a tradeshow, a magazine, books, whatever.
This is probably because an association develops a successful product and then creates a structure around it -- for example, you have a successful magazine, so you create a magazine department and now there's a built-in infrastructure that must be fed and an internal constituency for continuing that particular product, even when it stops being successful. Then the response when the market changes isn't "okay, what's next?" it's "how can we protect what we already have?"
Much more valuable (and liberating) to focus on helping your market succeed -- there's no reason to become wedded to whatever is you're doing right now, because it will inevitably change in the future. Individual programs, products and services will come and go (but only if you are continually focused on the development of new programs, products and services).
Posted by: Kevin H | September 25, 2009 11:37 AM