Acronym

While we may not have the budget of Office Max, I think it's always helpful to have a "failure budget" mindset.

If the expectation built into the budget is that we're going to execute perfectly, we will be:

• destined for disappointment.
• unlikely to take any risks.
• indisposed to think creatively about our options.

Budgeting with the expectation that some of our ideas for programs and campaigns will fail is curiously freeing. To be successful, the concept should be openly integrated into your organization's culture.

 Are we conditioned to fear failure, rather than embrace it in the assoc[i]ation landscape?

Yes. This is because too many associations are run like clubs or fraternities/sororities and not enough like businesses. Do your job -- it's not about being popular. It's about being successful.

 Even if we operate with an acceptable amount of risk, do we truly have the ability to respond with agility, given the approval process and volunteer oversight?

Yes. What prevents us from doing so is the fear of "getting in trouble" -- whatever that means. The absolute worst thing that can happen if you take a risk (which is the reason you have a job in the first place -- to do it) is that you will lose that job because you made someone else uncomfortable.

If you don't lose your job, YOU may be uncomfortable for a short period of time while others take out their fears and frustration on you.

Another mindset that gets in the way is the attitude that once you do something a certain way, you have to *keep* doing it that way. Not true -- we all know this but we don't act on it.

The best way to make other staff and volunteers comfortable with trying something new is to assure that if it doesn't work, *we don't have to do it that way again.* Let's just try it; we have a plan in place for if it does work, and one in place for if it doesn't work.

The reason this works is because other stakeholders (as we like to call them) need to feel comfortable and confident. Not everyone has the confidence to throw caution to the wind. Those of us who do need to give others something to hang to so they can enjoy the ride too.

Collins and Porras (and many others) have tried to teach us all to "try a lot of stuff and see what works." I think too often in the association world, we try just one thing and assume it will work perfectly the first time. Until we create an environment where more regular experimentation is the norm, we're going to experience more failure because we are setting ourselves up for it.

And when we finally do select an initiative, too often, we still operate with the implicit assumption that it will produce significant results in its first major iteration. Success for major new efforts is generally more like a relay race, requiring multiple laps to reach the finish line of the best results. Yet we let volunteers tie success and the finish line to only their term, to the leg they run. We must prepare them to run a good leg, put up a great time, and then pass the baton to the next runners to build on their success.

Staff need to be more proactive in engaging volunteers (particularly board members during budgeting) in discussing a multi-year timeframe for investment/results in new initiatives, clearly identifying acceptable metrics for each offering of the program, ones that should build on the previous results.

Failure is not an option. We've heard it before, but with some careful planning and an open mind, positives can still be gained from a new approach. As long as you aren't damaging your brand reputation, trying new initiatives on a small scale can be informative and actually help your organization by either driving you down this new path or finding out that you actually are on the right path to greater success. Test and refine!

Great feedback and insight all around!

Had a conversation with a colleague the other day regarding how crucial the management of expectations are in evaluating the success of new initiatives. Especially with the volunteer oversight - explaining the incremental risks and failures needed to research, test, and refine tools and resources for the membership. Like many of you mentioned above, budgeting for failure is a good thing, and not just related to financial outcomes.

DEFINITELY! Association professionals are often scared and have a mindset of doom and gloom for a number of very good reasons. First, we call the majority of staffers "association executives", but few have had executive-level training. One reason I think there is such a mindset of fear is because associations offer very little in the way of training budgets/professional development for most of their staff. The mindset is fear of the unknown because there is no framework in place for how things can/do work. We are saying marketing, but I see few associations that actually run marketing programs--they run campaigns, little stints, special discounts, standing discounts and offers, but everything is a one-off effort. Few have marketing programs in place that are designed to introduce a product or service, grow a product/service or eliminate (sunset) a product/service which are the 3 basic elements to a product marketing framework. There are a million books and templates and best practices on introducing a product to a market, but few associations follow this type of model. Instead, everything is treated as if it is a shot in the dark and no formal processes or best practices are followed. If this is the case then sure! that's scary!!! My point is that there is a lot of fear because associations are experts at execution--moving in a lot of directions and just doing tasks, but few are really proficient in allocating resources to clearly defined objectives and goals. There are high level strategies and the mission, but they are too amorphous to lead to directed activity. There is lots of detailed activity (newsletter, social media, member campaign, etc) but there is a gap in between. I think that gap in knowledge leads to the fear. If associations realized that there were more models, frameworks and disciplines out in the greater world, then everything would not need to be a one-off and you wouldn't have to rely on just what another association tried. I agree with the other writer that there is also not a culture of try it-test it-try it and this fear of making a move paralyzes organizations. Last point, most people --without training--have an internal voice or idea of "Them". People are petrified to send an email because it might have a typo in it so 8 hours is spent sending test emails to ensure that "They" don't see a mistake. There is fear of trying a new program because what would "They" say. Associations tend to feed the "Them" because they focus on the tiny number of people that actually are complaining instead of the vast majority that say nothing or are satisfied. Associations are horrible at weeding out and evaluating members based on their worth to the organization. For-profit companies typically have to weed out customers in the base that are costing the company money due to bad fit, too needy, too unhappy, etc. It happens, it's part of business. Associations, however, come from a mindset that they are beholden to each individual member. Associations are beholden to the membership, but all members are not created equal. My last point on the fear and what's-holding-associations-back is on that point: associations have held an "all members need to be treated equally" for a very long time. This worked in the mass market/industrial time (perhaps), but it does not fly now because it is entirely too costly for the association to do and is untrue--all members do not bring the same value back to the association. Why have the same benefits for all? Why focus on the members who aren't participating? Why spend all your effort and pain trying to get to a majority? Rethink and resegment. Base your programs on value in--value out. Rethink your membership not in terms of "serving members", but as "partnering". Being a partner is empowering, serving is not. Serving brings fear of reprimand and not performing to a certain level. Serving is an imbalance of power. Partnering empowers association staffers, provides a new mental mindset, allows for more open communication and the ability to ask a member "what do YOU think about OUR idea?" instead of just "what do you want us to do for you?". Associations, in my opinion, need to be market makers---drive your industry, push and push and push innovation and forward thinking, be a beacon. Fear comes with lack of knowledge, lack of power, and (false) belief that you can control the environment. Instead, create the environment so that you are set up to succeed and you'll notice that fear falls away and everyone is uplifted.

Suzanne - thx for the passionate response. Great points shared, and its obviously a frustration many assoc. profs share!

"Catering to the minority" seems to be highly prevalent in the association world. The fear of not pleasing everyone can definitely be paralyzing, and without support from the entire organization to push past this mind set, it can be a cyclical recipe for disaster. Great to keep in mind each and every day.

Fascinating discussion--in Marketing Section Council Monday several of the web experts emphasized 'fail fast' as a good philosophy and strategy for success. So often Suzanne's "They" are our peers who use subjective evaluations instead of relying on hard data to see what audience behavior will be. In direct marketing, every test implicitly has a winner and a loser; I remember spending years trying to overturn our standard direct marketing control and knowing that many of my peers in other philanthrophic orgs had the same issue. Rather than 1 in 20, I'd say we might have to judge 1 in 50 or 1 in 100 experiments as a reasonable success rate. The real cost is incurred by the associations that choose not to test things and to engage in long, overhead-incurring reviews to ensure that every message and campaign is perfect, dated by the time it's sent, and may actually be inferior to an alternative approach they could have identified long ago if only they'd test their messasges, concepts, offers, media, tones, and visuals...