Uh oh, you hit one of my hot buttons–the dreaded association-speak. Wouldn’t it be refreshing to have an association leader who just told it like it is, in his/her own voice, and let the chips fall where they may? I know that’ll never happen, but it would engender infinitely more trust, authenticity, and just be a whole lot more interesting than the usual inoffesnive blather.

How much does association-speak have to do with your previous post(points 13 and 15 specifically)? Frankly, even if the “strategic plan”–someone, please, put that phrase out of its misery!–is amazing, by the time it gets through the PR machine, it sounds like meaningless babble and makes the organization look clueless, vague, and directionless.

A leader should worry about leading, not saying something that might raise an eyebrow or two. And as Miers is finding out, what seems safe in the cocoon of an association is exposed for the inanity it really is when its brought out into the real world. And guess what? The real world is where your members live. They’re big boys and girls, they can take real challenges in real words. I’d love to see association leaders treat their members like the grown-up professionals they are, rather than feed them pablum. Yes, you could lose members, but you’d also gain members, and have a much more interesting, involved, and engaged constituency.

Even more concerning to me than the words attributed to Miers is Brooks’s statement that “the first job of any association president is to not offend her members.” As Sue suggests, that is a real world and, frankly, sad perspective of what it means to lead an association. Similarly, associations are dismissed by an alarming number of people as “trade groups” or “special interests,” to which they don’t give a second thought, perhaps unless they have a personal connection to such an organization.

Then again, who knows? Kevin’s previous post reflects a reasonably detached approach to association membership…some participation but no great passion. This leads me to question whether the reason we receive pablum from association leaders is that we invite it, not to mention tolerate it. I think the answer is yes, but it is a bit of a chicken-and-egg issue, raising yet another question: do we need more honesty and authenticity from association leaders to inspire a more passionate reaction and commitment on the part of members, or does “the crowd” need to decide that associations are good for more than a magazine and a lobbying effort before they will bring more of themselves to the table? I think this is a worthy topic for further inquiry.

When it comes to bad communication on the part of association leadership, I’d say it’s absolutely up to the leadership to learn how to communicate real-world issues in real-world language and treat members as respected and vital elements of the community. That means they need to be authentic, honest, and clear instead of just spouting association-speak. Members may tolerate the status quo, but I wouldn’t say a resigned acceptance equals an invitation to mediocrity.

Members can (and do–me included) ask until we’re blue in the face, but that horse has to want to drink the water you lead him to. Our main option is to quit, but that magazine, meeting, and lobbying effort still are worth the dues. So we end up being half-hearted members, as Kevin points out in the previous post, but not enthusiastic participants of a community. Just as the association ends up being a half-hearted organization that seldom gets anything done beyond that meeting and magazine.

Since the association exists for its members, not the other way around, I’d put the onus there.

I think this dialogue is really drilling down to a state of vibrant and dynamic action learning. Through a nuanced developmental journey around mission-critical concepts, we are uncovering just-in-time value deliverables that will drive performance-based metrics in matrixed organizations. This win-win approach yields customer-centric platforms designed for robust growth and grass-roots change management dynamics. Thanks.

(Sorry. I didn’t mean to distract from a very good thread, but I just couldn’t resist. Jamie)

You rock, Jaime!

Sue, I must challenge your assertion that “resigned acceptance equals an invitation to mediocrity.” Of course, leaders always need to do more, and they need to do it better. I accept that as axiomatic. But leadership isn’t a one way, top down notion anymore, as if it ever was. Being a member of a community involves a measure of responsibility for ensuring its effective stewardship. Members today have easy access to the tools they need (such as blogs) to assert themselves and to call out those leaders who fail to truly lead. Unfortunately, only a very few members accept any responsibility. When we don’t push our leaders to do more, to be more, we give them our tacit approval to do less and to be less, i.e., to be mediocre. If you need evidence to support this view, just take a look at the current state of our national politics.

Mahatma Gandhi said, “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” Those words resonate very deeply with me and I think this powerful statement of purpose must become a mantra for everyone who wants to see associations thrive in the 21st Century. But if we choose to ignore our own role in sustaining the status quo, we will have no one else to blame for the consequences. And that is not association-speak.

Jeff, I don’t disagree that members have to take some responsibility to speak up and let the leadership know when something’s off-kilter. I have done a fair amount of that myself this past year and, being a journalist, I also have a pretty good platform to shout from (including blogs, magazines, and e-newsletters). Nothing changed.

Communication has to be a two-way street. When leaders don’t listen and respond, that’s when apathy sets in. I’m not saying that members should just roll over–of course not. But most of us get worn down by the lack of response, the lack of a willingness to heed our calls.

Should we keep pushing the leaders to do the right thing? Of course. But when it becomes obvious that isn’t going to happen, it becomes harder and harder to drum up the passion to keep going.

The more I think about this, the more I think we’re both right, Jeff. We both want an ideal where members speak up, and leadership listens and responds. All too often, we get too little on either side. The result is mediocrity on both. Sad. How can we change this?

I just read this on Johnnie Moore’s blog, and it seemed relevant to this discussion:

http://www.johnniemoore.com/blog/archives/001133.php

He talks about a customer service survey and the concept of “trained hopelessness.” I think that’s what this is all about.