Acronym

I think you have a bit of moral high horse-ness going on here Jeffrey -- I'm not sure that talking smack about the board, volunteers, or members rises to the level of ethics. I do think it's unseemly though, and it's a conversation I would try to exit when it arises -- kind of like employees getting together to talk smack about the place they work at.

The crux of what you're talking about is the style part of it. As you say in concluding your post, there's absolutely a place for someone to complain to a colleague about their board (even if you still wouldn't want that complaint plastered across the front of the New York Times). Done right, the idea is to learn from the experiences of your colleagues.

And their are contexts where it's ok to gripe about the place you work. For me, it's one-on-one, or perhaps just 2 or 3 people. And while, yeah, it's kind of a bitch session, it's still a learning experience--I'm sharing what I think and some trusted colleagues are sharing what they think. When it becomes one-upsmanship, that's when it turns into talking smack and is no longer productive.

One last word from me -- I do think there is some positive that can come out of the smack-talk. I don't think it outweighs the negative, but it is possible that when you hear somebody else's war story, you file it away. Then, at a future time, when you find yourself going through something similar, you have someone to turn to who has experienced it. However, I agree with Jeffrey, that small positive doesn't outweigh the damage of smack-talk--it will always be best to approach such issues with professionalism.

Scott:

Appreciating you reacting. Notice though that I never said this was an issue of ethics. You did.

I framed it as an issue of professional conduct because such conversations are conducted in our role as professionals, and we have a code to address that.

I get that it occurs and have done some of it myself. But I try to catch myself nowadays and commit to conversations that are helpful and reflective of the values that matter.

I am with Jeffrey on this one. Deep down I don't think this one is "moral high horse," rather it is about emotional intelligence. Most smack talk (about your job or your board or whatever) is laced with anger. It's like a form of teasing. We're angry/frustrated about something, and the war stories or mocking of our Boards is basically a release. But it rarely contributes to learning. When you're in a smack talk session, does anyone EVER say anything positive? No, because there's an unspoken rule that those comments are not allowed. One-sided conversations rarely promote learning. Yes, my Board frustrates me, but I do better when I manage my own emotional reaction before I start talking to other people about it.

Disclosure: I am a member of ASAE & The Center's Ethics Committee. The following opinion is mine and does not represent the Committee or the education subcmte. I chair.

Jeffrey -- You sorta did refer to ethics in what you wrote -- at least as ASAE & The Center sees it -- by citing the Standards of Conduct for members. (http://asaecenter.org/AboutUs/content.cfm?ItemNumber=16007) (Btw: it is only for association staff and not for business partners and consultants.)

That said, I think "smack talk" can lead to productive conversation if one is careful about what is stated AND those listening ask questions that may lead to learning and changes in their own and the "tale-teller's" associations.

Does this cut both ways? That is, may volunteers kvetch to other volunteers about staff? Or is it viewed the same? If kvetching (IS it the same as "smack talk"?) leads to people taking action, it seems to be useful. Sometimes it's nice to know one is not alone.

Maybe it's 'cause I just finished reading "The Help" that I see the advantages in having conversations if those involved decide they can do more because of support and knowledge gleaned.

Great post, Jeffrey. I, too, think you're more right than wrong on this one. It always makes me uncomfortable to hear other association execs talk "smack" about their Boards and their Board members. But it's your comment about "beating up on the boss" that really leapt out at me. The Board, as a collective unit, is responsible for assessing an association exec's performance and determining his/her compensation and rewards, but I've never really thought of mine as my "boss." Partners, yes. My Board members and I are partners in shaping the future of our organization. Maybe it's that perspective that makes it difficult for me to speak disrespectfully about them.

Jeff -- you make some great points. And I believe overall you are correct. Telling horror stories just for the sake of horror stories doesn't work. In general, if you wouldn't share it in a job interview, why would you share it with the general public?

I make two observations:

As an association CEO, I have no one else to "unload" with who really understands my dilemma other than another association exec. My family doesn't even understand what I do. I can't share the war story with staff. There needs to be a release and someone who can confirm that I'm not crazy. I currently can't afford a coach. So a valued association colleague is where I turn to share the story and get support. Do you have a way to get that confirmation and release without speaking about the craziness with another association professional?

Secondly, I learn a great deal about handling difficult situations during these conversations. What did you do? is generally part of the conversation. I learn I'm not nuts. I learn that there are other boards out there that have their own brand of dis-function or exceptional function and I learn from that. I learn about unique ways to face the challenges and turn the conversations, convert the problem to opportunity.

War stories, just like those first-day-on-the-job-surprise stories, can be educational and informative.

The issue then becomes where is the line? When is the war story just that, and when is it part of a conversation that has professional development underneath?