I agree that a degree doesn’t make anyone smart or good at what he/she does; how many successful business or associations are run by people who don’t have an MBA?! However, there is value in knowing what has come before. As the saying goes, those who don’t know history are condemned to repeat it. The point is to keep learning, and the Internet provides us with so many opportunities to do that. Meanwhile, I am none the worse for having followed the traditional BA path, reading Shakespeare and studying weird things they told me I had to that, surprisingly, do come in handy. Sociology, for example. Even chemistry (YUK!)

As always,
Peace
JP

I thank my lucky stars that more association executives don’t have MBAs because there could hardly be worse preparation for leading organizations in our community than what that degree teaches and how it teaches it, as Seth Godin’s observations suggest.

But what actually is worse is that the specialty of association leadership is not yet presumed to be sufficiently important even by some of its own leaders to merit its own degree. It is a travesty and a huge missed opportunity.

I disagree that members of Gen X & Y aren’t interested in pursuing degrees (the explosive growth in post-baccalaureate education over the last decade certainly doesn’t support that view), but I do agree that they want to exert more control over their own learning. The shortcoming, then, is in the way degree programs are designed rather than in the notion of degrees itself.

I congratulate Josh on his initiative and I’m sure that he and many people will benefit from what he is doing. I agree that the underlying concept is quite intriguing and easily adapted in a number of ways to the education/professional development work of associations, and we should pay attention to it.

Dear Jeff — What is special about “association leadership”? Associations are businesses. They have customers, who happen to be called “members.” It doesn’t matter what you call them, though. If you don’t do what they want and need, you’re history. I do agree that one does not need an MBA to figure that out.

Peace –
Janet

Ah Janet, if only it were as simple as you make it sound! Sure, associations are businesses, but they are also not businesses in many ways. Sure, associations have customers who are also members, but they also have members who are not truly customers, not to mention customers who are only customers and stakeholders who are neither.

It actually does matter what you call them, however, because members typically get more of a say in what happens in the association than the standard customer. But then again, in some associations, customers who aren’t members often are the primary source of revenue, but the members don’t want to acknowledge that fact by being responsive to the customers’ needs. While you and I agree that failing to understand the needs of customers is a form of organizational suicide, so far that message hasn’t penetrated the awareness of some volunteers, who aren’t feeling the pain of the marketplace in their 100+ year old organizations that they probably believe are going to last forever. We don’t have many levers to pull to change the minds of such myopic volunteer leaders: we don’t pay them, we don’t have any stock to give them and it can be extremely difficult if not impossible to “fire” them. Not all of this description applies to every association, but I think it is fair to say that at least some of it applies to just about all of them.

In my experience, then, there is a heck of a lot of specialization required to deal effectively with the unique challenges of association leadership. My strategic concern is that we are doing a pretty poor job of developing a generation of association professionals who fully grasp both the content and context of these challenges and who are prepared to act confidently on them despite great turbulence and uncertainty. The MBA is wholly inadequate preparation for the challenge of association leadership, which is why I believe we need an EMSAL or executive master of science in association leadership, an idea on which I’d be happy to share further thoughts if you’re interested.

Janet, thanks for pushing the conversation!

Thanks Kevin for the reference to PMBA. I am a new admin helping Josh with the group. The truth is that we are all doing PMBA for the same reason. We all want to “gather” with like minded excited people that want to learn. It is not a true venture yet but who knows. We are just trying to keep the site going with over 200 members and the 2 learning/reading groups.

One cool thing that is happening is that authors are contacting us to become active in helping the groups learn when their books are being read. That is a distinct we may have over other groups.

Thanks again and I hope if you have not joined you consider joining us and helping us build the community.

Jeff — You are right — businesses don’t have to deal with volunteers, and that’s a whole ‘nother thing worthy of discussion and education. However, it seems to me that in most other respects, associations and businesses are the same. Both have stakeholders who may or may not be connected with the organization. Both advocate for themselves, an industry, or profession. Both have to satisfy their customers’ needs. In an association’s case, the real customers are dues-paying members. We have to provide the goods and services they need. Membership must have perceived value. (We are, of course, always courteous and helpful to those who aren’t members, because our reputation is at stake and who knows?! Maybe if I treat them well they’ll be impressed and sign up!)

Maybe it’s just my BA orientation that makes me suspicious of too much specialization.

Let’s keep the dialogue going.

Peace –
Janet

Janet, I’m afraid it simply isn’t sufficient to say that “business don’t have to deal with volunteers.” Neither large nor small businesses are led at the most senior levels by unpaid part-time volunteer officers whose personal and/or life experiences often have not prepared them for the responsibilities of organizational stewardship. (Not every association is like ACCA which has business owners as members. But let’s not kid ourselves, either. That type of member creates its own problems as well.) The complexity of the operating environment for associations is growing, and in many associations the rate of change is outstripping the capabilities of volunteer and even its staff leaders. This is a profound cause for concern both today and going forward.

It isn’t always the case that the members are the “real customers.” As I wrote in my prior post, for some associations, non-member customers will always generate significantly more revenue than the members. So whose needs do you satisfy in that situations? The members who often regard non-member customers with disdain or the customers whose money pays your salary but who will never be a member? This is not a fictional scenario. It is the reality of many scientific and engineering societies and one with which they are struggling mightily.

I am not a big fan of the phrase, “perceived value.” I think membership should have actual value or there shouldn’t be membership. The more that associations traffic in perceptions the more likely they are to lose ground either to competitors who deal with actual value, or to the opt-out alternative. Remember that association involvement, contribution and engagement is often discretionary. Perception may be reality in politics, but in our world, we can’t afford simply to be perceived as valuable. We have to actually deliver value or we’re toast.

Finally, I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “my BA orientation that makes me suspicious of too much specialization.” The trend toward increased specialization has been in progress for 20-25 years. Take a look at every profession and most industries. They are all highly specialized or moving in that direction. I don’t think of specialization as something of which we should be suspicious. It is a natural and necessary outgrowth of a knowledge-driven world. At the same time that I advocate for recognizing the specialization of association leadership, I advocate with equal vigor that we adopt an interdisciplinary approach to our work, so that we can develop a new lens through which to view our challenges. We need leaders who embrace the specialized nature of association leadership and then lead in ways that reflect both a deep and broad view. It’s not an either/or. It’s a both/and.

Janet, let’s keep the conversation going. I’m off to ASAE & The Center Annual Meeting on Friday. But I’ll be checking in!