Acronym

Good questions, and I look forward to reading others' responses.

Anyone in a position of management needs to know the results that matter to members or customers and what details the staff they manage need to be addressing. A CEO should know that room sets matter and be asking ehr meeting planner aout them, but doesn't necessarily need to know the PCMA or MPI prescribed standards for number of chairs at a 60" round vs. a 72" round.

To carry your burger analogy forward, I think the restaurant CEO/manager needs to know that the time a burger is cooked on each side affects quality, not the specific time each side should be cooked ... unless as often happens in restaurants, the manager is called upon to cook, wait tables, support whatever function is maxed out. In that case you clearly need to know the basics and be able to pinch-hit even tough you might not do it as well as people for whom it is their job all day long.

It's funny you bring this up, Joe... I think that while member satisfaction is the ultimate goal, we should also look at this from an employee's point of view as well.

In the next issue of our organization's magazine, I have a story about one of our member CEOs who has been with his company for over 30 years, working his way up from the bottom rung to the top. I asked him about whether he felt that gave him some credibility with his employees, and his answer was an emphatic yes.

He's the CEO of a savory snack food company, and said that if it was absolutely required, he could run a sales route or run a production line, not expertly, but well enough to get the job done... He said that because his employees know he's been in their shoes, he is more credible in their eyes.

While I agree with both you and Jeffrey that association executives probably don't need to be as well versed as someone who is doing the very specific jobs on a daily basis, I agree with our member that if an association CEO can show his/her fellow employees that he has an understanding and has walked in their shoes, he/she will be a much more credible leader with them.

Hopefully that will translate to the members' experiences as well...

Great post and an interesting question.

I absolutely believe the CEO who understands what steps the staff must take and the time it may involve to reach any given objective is miles ahead of the CEO who simply expects to wave a magic wand and have things happen. Having a familiarity with the inner workings of staff functions within an organization is a tremendous advantage.

The CEO who has a working knowledge of how things are done is able to empathize with employees under ever-increasing workloads, allocate resources more effectively and, most importantly, can accurately represent association staff capacity to enthusiastic volunteers with long wish lists.

(The flip side of this is the CEO who knows the jobs so well they micromanage and don't allow their staff members to actually execute without their interference or an obsessive need to "proof it before it goes out the door." Any strength can be a weakness if taken to extremes but I digress......)

As far as the small staff CEO who is charged with multiple duties above and beyond simply acting as chief staff executive, my advice is simple. Do the things you love, are good at doing and have a passion for. Delegate and outsource the rest as much as is humanly possible and monetarily feasible.

Shelly Alcorn, CAE
@shellyalcorn

I've been in both places - small and large associations. I'm very glad I started in the association business in communications and membership and worked my way up. When I took my first CEO position it was with a small staff association. It was essential that I know how to get things done. I may not have been as proficient as the staff member who had that primary responsibility. I was able to fill in when the stars aligned to create some short-term challenges. I did site selection and reviewed every detail of hotel contracts. When our admin was out I was the only person who had time to do data entry. So the CEO learned about their frustrations with the database and the forms we used. I compiled a newsletter when I was between communications managers. For me, I have a greater appreciation of my great staff because I have done their jobs and I know that I'm not nearly as good at the work as they are. It makes performance reviews easier because you really know what needs to be done.

When I went to a larger association as CEO, people were surprised that I had a good grasp of their work and their challenges. The downside of the large organization is that you rarely get to say "that was my project and it was a great success." We make sure the staff gets to do that.

Now I'm back to a small staff association. It would be nice to have an assistant to do the stuff I don't enjoy, and it would be nice to have more than two staff to spread the work. My past experience allows me to jump right in and be very hands on. I've learned I have a passion for associations where I am involved in the actual work. It's just fun.

Thanks for the comments, everyone.

@Jeffrey: I like your tweak to the burger metaphor. Knowing THAT the cook time is important, regardless of what it is, the key. I think that's more appropriate.

@Bruce: You make a good point that knowing the low-level jobs has positive effects internally. I think those internal positive effects can lead, in turn, to positive external effects as well. If you have a happier staff, for any reason (in this case b/c they have a leader they respect for his/her knowledge of their roles), they'll be more productive, they'll like their jobs more, there will be less turnover, and so on; all of these are good for the customer/member, too.

@Shelly: Yes, micromanaging is the one big caveat. I'm glad you brought that up, b/c it shouldn't be left unsaid. And I like your final piece of advice for small-staff CEOs. Simple but true.

@Donna: Thanks for sharing your personal experience. The point about performance reviews is a great one. I'm sure employees take reviews a little more seriously, too, when they know their supervisors actually understand what they do.

My first association boss operated under the philosophy that, if push came to shove, she could do any job in the organization. As a very junior staff member, it was NOT an empowering attitude. The clear message we all got was that we were just extensions of her. We did not bring unique talents to the organization, we merely were extensions of the man-hours available for the boss to get her job done the way she would do it if she wasn't busy with other things.

It was a lesson earned early that has stuck with me for more than thirty years now. Even at the age of 20 it didn't make sense to me to limit the organization's skill sets to what the boss was good at. It seemed to me it would make more sense to build a team that built upon and expanded the collection of skills, expertise, experience and knowledge and find a way for them all to be coordinated and complimentary. I need a team of people who brings things to the table that no other member of staff brings. I need a strong CFO precisely because s/he can do something I could not, or at least could not do as well.

As a CEO, I need to understand (and more importantly, appreciate) what my CFO does rather than to pretend to be able to do his job. Where senior management CAN fall short, however, is in failing to look past direct reports and have the same respect, understanding and appreciation right down to the part-time mailroom clerk.