To take a central role or not
Should associations try to position themselves as the hub of conversation for their profession, industry, or interest?
Is there anyone who would argue that the answer could possibly be anything other than yes? Well, I would.
There's a key word in that question: the. That key word implies that the association should see itself as the central location of important knowledge in a sector. The argument is one we've heard since Google made information freely and easily accessible more than a decade ago: Yes, there's tons of instant information available at your fingertips, but associations are vital because it's the trusted source that culls through and finds the important content for you.
My problem with this way of thinking is not about content curation - I absolutely believe associations should be content curators in their sectors. The problem is when associations strive to position themselves in a central position. They're the hub and all the meaningful spokes attach to it. I just don't think the world of collaboration and content works that way anymore. When you try to centralize, you lose. The social web ensures decentralization. Rather than try to develop strategies that make you the central hub, develop strategies that make you an important part of the conversations.
| | Permalink |
Comments
Great observation Scott, and I imagine that for some parts of an association community or for some specific conversations, the association itself might remain in that central position either as the convener or primary catalyst.
Posted by: Jeffrey Cufaude | August 9, 2011 7:53 AM
Scott:
Sorry I missed this post earlier. And I wish we had the time to have a deep conversation about this onsite. Unfortunately, I had to leave early due to a family emergency. (all good now).
Perhaps your angst with the thought of an association as the hub of conversation is one of semantics. Or not?! Perhaps I could have chosen a better word.
For me, "Hub of conversation" does not come with baggage about controlling knowledge. I see conversations and knowledge as two very different things.
For me it's about being a common place where people gather to converse and knowledge share. The focus being on conversations and sharing.
I used the words "hub of conversations" to mean a communal gathering space. I do not see an association as entitled to be the main focal point of a member's world. Nor did I mean to imply that the association was the heart of the industry.
I meant is as a hive of discussion where everyone has an equal voice. I often use a picture of a bee hive when I refer to hub of conversations for associations. Not that the association is the queen either!
I encourage associations to be conduits of conversations. Not in a controlling manner or an it's-all-about-me-the-association-attitude. Rather I see it as a place where association leadership acts as catalysts spurring dialogue. And it's a "safe space." A channel where industry professionals, members and non-members alike, can converse, agree, disagree and debate. That's very different in my opinion than an association seeing itself as the main source of knowledge and information. It's not about controlling the knowledge rather being a vehicle that incites knowledge sharing.
For me it's about being more like an ancient Greek Portico where we invite people to have intelligent, adult discourse, share knowledge and ideas, and have active discussions. It's moving away from a an association as a Plato-mindset: controlling knowledge, seeing themselves as the sage on stage, broadcasting messages from one to many and forcing others into prescribed outdate curricula certifications. Instead it's moving to a Socrates-mindset where discourse, one-to-one shraing, mentoring and learning are center stage.
Does that make better sense?
Posted by: Jeff Hurt | August 12, 2011 5:38 PM