Last week's post talked about transformational thinking. I've been participating in a discussion by the Association Foum Group on LinkedIn. It's about how content strategies are influenced across multiple departments.
I'd love to see this discussion get some traction, sharing more perspectives and experiences. If you are in this group, please post you thoughts to it.
http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=76991&type=member&item=100538478&qid=b157b49f-d310-4b34-b93a-51bf50895a5b&trk=group_most_popular-0-b-ttl&goback=%2Egmp_76991
If you can't access this Association Forum group on LinkedIn, share your ideas on this blog and if you give me permission, I'll put your comments into the mix and report back.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Monday, March 12, 2012
Transformational what ifs
What if we changed the name from Strategic Planning to Outcomes Design? Would people stop talking about membership recruiting and retention and start talking about content that would result in those?
Would it maximize our human resources deployment if we dumped familiar department structures? No departmental loyalties or controls; just talent, moving at need, from one outcomes-defined effort to another. Would it break down barriers to free-ranging talent if we changed peoples' titles from descriptors of where they belong to descriptors of what they know?
What if we budgeted for outcomes instead of departments and topics? Would that shift attention to actual success instead of the trip to it? And what if we budget some things under different names? Instead of Administration, how might we think of and perhaps even differently use funds identified as Enabling Infrastructure?
Can we ever be anything more than we are now without asking "what if…?" even about our every-day practices?
Are there transformational what ifs your association has asked recently?
Would it maximize our human resources deployment if we dumped familiar department structures? No departmental loyalties or controls; just talent, moving at need, from one outcomes-defined effort to another. Would it break down barriers to free-ranging talent if we changed peoples' titles from descriptors of where they belong to descriptors of what they know?
What if we budgeted for outcomes instead of departments and topics? Would that shift attention to actual success instead of the trip to it? And what if we budget some things under different names? Instead of Administration, how might we think of and perhaps even differently use funds identified as Enabling Infrastructure?
Can we ever be anything more than we are now without asking "what if…?" even about our every-day practices?
Are there transformational what ifs your association has asked recently?
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Dickensian Governance?
Is your association's governance something Charles Dickens would recognize?
Representative governance is often touted as a core value. Isn't responsiveness to members the real core value, and governing modes merely ways of delivering it? Might not a change in focus for 'representing' produce better outcomes? How about dumping the geographic representation model and instead select representatives based on business or practice type, size, specialty, years of experience? Wouldn't those perspectives be more responsive to member perspectives, needs and interests than location? Do we even need 'representatives' anymore since it is now dirt cheap to reach every member directly for input, ideas, reaction, etc. Could we actually benefit from disintermediation in governance?
Might we switch from a few representing the many, to many directly informing the few who govern?
Would focus groups selected for perspectives, and expert panels selected for knowledge, produce better outcomes than the traditional committee structures we've relied on for centuries?
Would we do better if our leaders were selected for mindsets and personality characteristics that imagine, explore, experiment and try/test? Those characteristics are not location dependent, age, gender or ethnicity specific. They come from experiences, innate personality traits and enabled behaviors.
Why do some associations still make governing roles so intensive, time consuming and generally unattractive that young professionals prefer other volunteer opportunities over ours?
Is there a vision for the future of association governance? Why remain content with ages old governing models when there are so many other options that fit the way today's world really works?
Which associations have championed substantive governance retooling and been successful? My inquiring mind wants to know J
I'd been away for several weeks with lots of time to ruminate, and among the topics I pondered was association governance. (Unlike most folks, I can't seem to get enough of the subject.) I'd read an article about an association that's been around since the 1800s. That's impressive since not much from that era still exists. Having an association established way back when, lasting this long would be a proud accomplishment. But working under the same governing structures and planning processes centuries later, not so much. So I've got questions.
How might changing the language we use, change the focus to forward progress? Instead of Membership, Advocacy and Government Affairs and Communications, would we prosper with strategic plan sections like Imagineering, Exploration, Experimentation and Prototyping?
Representative governance is often touted as a core value. Isn't responsiveness to members the real core value, and governing modes merely ways of delivering it? Might not a change in focus for 'representing' produce better outcomes? How about dumping the geographic representation model and instead select representatives based on business or practice type, size, specialty, years of experience? Wouldn't those perspectives be more responsive to member perspectives, needs and interests than location? Do we even need 'representatives' anymore since it is now dirt cheap to reach every member directly for input, ideas, reaction, etc. Could we actually benefit from disintermediation in governance?
Might we switch from a few representing the many, to many directly informing the few who govern?
Would focus groups selected for perspectives, and expert panels selected for knowledge, produce better outcomes than the traditional committee structures we've relied on for centuries?
Would we do better if our leaders were selected for mindsets and personality characteristics that imagine, explore, experiment and try/test? Those characteristics are not location dependent, age, gender or ethnicity specific. They come from experiences, innate personality traits and enabled behaviors.
Why do some associations still make governing roles so intensive, time consuming and generally unattractive that young professionals prefer other volunteer opportunities over ours?
Is there a vision for the future of association governance? Why remain content with ages old governing models when there are so many other options that fit the way today's world really works?
Which associations have championed substantive governance retooling and been successful? My inquiring mind wants to know J
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)