Acronym

Big ideas month continues...

What if associations didn’t accept mediocrity?

So many ways to take this question, so let’s start with the least likely. Let’s define a mediocre program, product, or service as one that nets $100 (you add as many zeros as would be appropriate for a mediocre product for an association your size) and is valued a little by a chunk of your stakeholders. What’s so bad about that? Why can’t you accept that mediocrity?

I believe leaders need to constantly look at both making big, splashy changes and at making tweaks. I’m not opposed to making a tweak to a mediocre program that pulls the net to $110, or that keeps it at $100 in the face of change.

What we’re talking about here is a risk vs. reward assessment. I like to make change decisions by looking at four scenarios for each option you are considering. Let’s say you’re thinking of scrapping this mediocre product in favor of something totally different, what are the four scenarios? One would be that it would be wildly successful and instead of $100 and creating some value, you generate $1,000 and a lot of value. What factors would have to align for this to happen? What are the arguments against it? Another outcome might be that it nets $200, but is highly valued by stakeholders—what are the factors and arguments? The third scenario is a wash and the fourth is failure (and don’t be fooled into thinking there is no value in failure, there is value in trying and failing).

Go through this and if you think the $100, some-value option is the best, then I think it’s a fine decision.

Now, one argument haters will use is that you should never expend resources on something you know is mediocre. I think that’s a dreamworld. I guess I’d agree that you shouldn’t launch a product or service that you think is likely to be mediocre. But if you already have the product, then you already have people with the knowledge and skills to do it. It’s nice to say these people can automatically be retrained for something else, but I say that has to be part of the scenario calculation.

A few caveats:

- If all you have is mediocrity, then you’re in trouble. Part of the risk/reward thing has to account for a holistic look at the organization.

- You can’t let mediocrity paralyze you. If you’re not constantly looking at how it can both be tweaked or blown up and reinvented, then you’re doing your organization a disservice. (That’s true even if you’re program is fantastic—nothing is ever good enough; you should always be thinking of options large and small.)

- Mediocrity can be a slippery slope to bad –particularly in the political world of associations where seemingly no bad program goes unchampioned by an important volunteer.

Now, a slightly different take on the question (and I’ll be quick). If the question is mediocre performance from staff or volunteers, then I say you don’t and shouldn’t accept it. I think there’s usually some obligation to train, teach, coach, etc., but as a manager in your organization, your duty is to that organization, not the employee (or volunteer). I think sustained mediocre performance is a firing offense, and organizations don’t use that option near enough (for staff or volunteers). Finally, when it’s staff, I think there needs to be some financial consideration. You could perhaps describe my position as ruthless, but not heartless. If the organization can't afford money in the form of severance, then perhaps time is the answer (accept mediocrity for 4 months while being accommodating to a person's job search schedule).