Acronym

I'd suggest its imperative sometimes to make a decision that is good for members but a headache to staff. And the issue is less about which was put first and more about how the decision was made and if the the "headache" is shared by the exec. When I agree with a board member on something that negatively affects staff, I share the why and share the responsibility.

I think there's a third question to ask. Rather than trying to decide between what's good for members and what's good for staff, ask what's good for the association? If you can define and defend that, both members and staff should agree.

Also, I would push back on the comparison between sports fans and association members. With the exception of the Green Bay Packers, fans usually don't have the leverage of an elected Board of Directors.

One (small) thing missing in this discussion is how winning (or any other definition of success) influences things. I'm not sure there should necessarily be a conflict between supporting your staff and keeping the members/fans happy, but it's always a lot easier to manage both without inherent conflict when you're winning/succeeding. Can't recall how long Gilbert's owned the Cavaliers but he either paid for an asset with a LeBron premium built in, or he bought a franchise & got a lucky lottery pick that transformed the team into a winner for some time. Now he's scrambling and hanging a former player in effigy, like throwing staffers under the bus, it feels like a very negative tactic with long-term repercussions, but there may be a payoff to the one who sacrifices others if it's positioned as ultra-commitment to the members/fans. Populist demagoguery sells in some circles.

I'm glad that I was included in this post - a good one I might add. I agree for the most part with everything that Joe wrote here. However, I think my comment was interpreted in a different way than it was intended (though not maliciously).

My main point is how an organization would look to the NEXT future all-star team member. If that person sees that a CEO is willing to badmouth a past employee after that person is gone (like Gilbert did to LeBron), I think that makes the organization a less desirable destination for that person. That goes for associations as well as professional sports teams...

Now, relating to the rest of the post, I agree wholeheartedly with the comment above that talks about asking what's best for the association, and having employees and fans rally around that... The fact is that Joe is right - employees are paid, and sometimes they aren't going to like the decision made by the CEO. However, it's their job to rally around the mission of the association and work hard for the members.

Wanted to add my thoughts...

I think Eric's approach of asking what is best for the association works in the abstract, but it's almost always a much grayer area than that. I would hope that every staff person has the best interests of the association in mind. (If not, if they admit that they take an action or have a position that is not in the best of interest of the organization, do not pass go, fire them right away. Why would you want them around?)

Likewise, most volunteers and members are going to have what they think is the best interest of the association in mind. When the two are at odds, it's not malice, it's opinion. The trick isn't figuring out which one is right, the trick is deciding which one is more right for the organization. That's what an exec gets paid to do, and that's what a board gets elected or appointed to do.

So an exec who always chooses one side or the other is doing a disservice to the organization. And no exec should ever throw his or her staff under the bus to a member or anyone else. The staff is absolutely a reflection of the CEO -- their performance is his or her performance. If the CEO throws them under the bus, then he or she is right there with them. Admit failures and mistakes, and correct or otherwise move on.

Conversely, association CEOs and staffers need to get over the notion that members are always right. I think members in the aggregate ARE always right, but each individual member? No, that sounds more like a disorganization than an organization. Goes back to a core fundamental belief of mine: define who you are, what you do, and how you do it as precisely as you can and then stick to that. If somebody wants the organization to do something different, it can't just be added on. Rather, the person has to use his or her power/influence/persuasion to rewrite the definition, or, conversely, the person is free to pursue it outside the organization.

A final thought: the notion that the CEO will act on a member impulse in a way that creates more work for staff. First, to the CEO: be sensitive and always work to simplify. If it's important, decide what is less important and help your staff with the priorities, realizing that lower priorities are unlikely to get done. To staff: Tough it. Things are going to get added to your plate, even things you don't want to do or make a priority. If your CEO is telling you everything is a top priority, do your best to prioritize, continue to work with him or her on what is and isn't getting done, and get the hell out of there as soon as you can if there's no end in sight.

Thanks for the comments, everyone. I'm glad you've all added some nuance to a topic that I presented as more black-and-white than it really is.

@Peggy: The "shared headache" is a good point. I think the CEO has to play the role of sharing the concern with members (regarding whatever they're asking for) and sharing the burden with staff (regarding whatever work is needed to carry out the members' request). As you say, sharing the "why" with staff will go a long way to getting them to buy in.

@Eric: you're right that the analogy between sports fans and members isn't direct, but your point about the power of elected boards raises another question in my mind, one that I might have to pose in a follow-up post at some point: What gives association members more power--their governance system via elected board leaders, etc., or their purchasing power? I'm not sure what the answer is there.

@Kevin: indeed, the world is always rosier when you're winning, or when the revenue numbers are trending upward.

@Bruce: good clarification on the impact on potential hires. That gets more directly into an HR angle, and in that case the old rule "praise in public, criticize in private" might help.

@Scott: you do a good job of getting to the heart of the situation when members and staff see things differently: it's all opinion, and so there's no point in picking sides. A good CEO can resolve that kind of difference of opinion and find a way to move forward that works for everyone. And regarding the "need to get over the notion that members are always right," I'm reminded of an idea I saw in a customer-service training session I did for a job in college: "'The customer is always right' is an attitude, not a fact."