Acronym

Spot on as you so often are Lisa (we miss you on Acronym... well, and just in general).

I think one place us vs. them creeps up often in associations, especially larger ones, but smaller ones too, is the staff/volunteer relationship, particularly nonboard volunteers. I've caught myself in it before, and a major reason why I think it happens is that committees, task forces, working groups, etc., and those who staff them are not given clear direction from the board and the chief staff. I think it's overlooked because people think it's obvious, but it's not obvious. There needs to be some basic delineation of roles and expectations that goes beyond just giving the volunteer group a charge.

Glad to hear from you again, Lisa.

Your post reminded me of a Board meeting long ago, when a member interrupted me to say, "I think I heard the word 'can't.'" Since then, I've tried to avoid saying something "can't be done" (even if it couldn't be done).

So, I understand your "us vs. them" concern.

Still, you have to realize that Boards of Directors very, very often get involved in matters they shouldn't. Yes, we are all in this together, but we all have roles to play to achieve success, and Board members don't always know - and often don't care - what their roles are.

There really is a divide between staff and consultants, too. Many association professionals wish to exchange knowledge and information, or ask questions, and don't want consultants lurking, presumably searching for business opportunities.

AMCs and people who split their time between staff and consultant duties may be able to wear the appropriate hat at the appropriate time, and not fall on the wrong side of the "us vs. them" divide.

But the best solution to deal with this issue may be to find ways to reduce the conflict generated by the divides. But the divides are real and can't be ignored.

You know its really HQ vs the chapters ...

Good post and good reminder Lisa. And kudos to Shelly Acorn who's session I also attended. I left thinking the phrase a 'rose by any other name...' needs an inverse.

Isn't us v them a lot about "you have something I want" or "I have something you want/need and I'm not willing to share?" For some people it is all about power and control so if I cooperate I am diminishing my power; I'm giving something up.

I'm not sure how we get past this (if I had the answer I would make lots of money as a keynote speaker and high priced consultant). To me it is a matter of trust or mistrust - I don't trust you to act in a way that benefits me.

Too often members are viewed as an annoyance, not a resource or benefit. Chapters are more trouble than they are worth - they don't know what to do or how to do it (even though I've told them a million times). Don't get me started on volunteers! And let's not forget diversity and inclusion issues. It all boils down to "I don't trust them" and they don't trust me.

I'm not sure how you teach trust - is it nature vs. nurture? You're born with that talent or you can be taught to trust. In some situations I am very trusting - I know the people, I know they will do what they say, they've never let me down before. Others have messed with me and as the saying goes "I don't trust them any further than I can throw them." So you may have run into one or two demanding, annoying members. We all know people where it is all about them. But we need to push through the negativity and as with all things it starts with me.

Great observation, Lisa. The "Us vs. Them" conversation has another toxic effect: It tends to put the responsibility for change on the other person. How often does that work?

Thank you all for the comments and kind words!

David, I think you're absolutely right when you say the divides are real and can't be ignored--there really are differences in perspective between board and staff, staff and management, chapters and national (as Peggy points out), and so forth. But I also think sometimes we focus on the divide rather than the commonalities because it feels comfortable.

By focusing on the divide, we build up our own "in-group" feelings, and it's human nature to enjoy feeling like "one of us." If staff spend some time together complaining about board issues, they're strengthening their own group unity as a staff--but at a price.

Because it's often human nature to reflexively focus on the divides, I think we should put extra effort into questioning ourselves whenever we find that happening. Sometimes we'll find that the divide has to take priority, but I bet we miss a lot of opportunities to find commonalities because we don't take the time to look for them.

And now I have to spend some time trying to think of the inverse of "a rose by any other name ..."!

Lisa -

Excellent post and thrilling to see concepts being used in real time.

It really is amazing how you can listen in and pick up on these memes in our language. We often unwittingly use language in our everyday interactions that speaks volumes about an underlying philosophy or issue.

People are also prone to unwittingly telegraphing moves they plan to make before they make them. If you hear possessives or tenses change (from "ours" to "my" or from present tense to future tense) you may be able to sense action coming before a staff member/board member even has a chance to fully articulate their new position to themselves.

Shelly

I'm with you Lisa, while the divide (or different in perspectives) may very well be natural and real, the way it manifests itself in conversation is to treat any group (board, staff, members, volunteers) that is inherently diverse in opinion as if they march in a monolithic lockstep.

What bothers me most is that we let the mindset be the end of the conversation instead the start of inquiry and curiosity. "You're right that staff see this issue differently. Could we take a few minutes to share how things look from our perspective and then see what you make of that?"

Too many of our language conventions stop progress, stop thinking, and stop dialogue. They simply trigger pre-scripted mindsets. We can't lead or work on cruise control. But if any of us individually would tap on the breaks, we'd have to engage in driving the conversation again, just as tapping on the breaks with a car on cruise control, requires us to reengage with the gas pedal.

Thank you, Shelly and Jeffrey! I appreciate both of your comments.

Jeffrey, your comment made me think of the reason I love bringing in new hires. Admittedly, turnover on staff is always tough for the entire team. But when you're training a new staff person, their perspective is so valuable, because they question everything you take for granted. I can't tell you how many times a new hire has asked, "Why do we do that?" and it's given me a great opportunity to rethink and refine a process or even something much bigger.