September 13, 2006

The 5 Types of Association Executives

Posted by Kevin | Print This Article

While the old adage is true — “There are two types of people: people who think there are two types of people, and people who don’t” — I’ve decided there are at least five types of association executives. Having done this now for fifteen years, and been an observer at untold meetings about and within associations, it seems to me that most of the people who find themselves doing this sort of thing fall in these categories.

Even if these categories are even just a little bit true (and I expect to get a few tomatoes thrown at me here), is there any value to categorizing like this at all? Probably not. But I do believe associations on the whole need to do a better job of adapting to changing realities, and one of the biggest obstacles is a general failure within the association community toward recognizing the reality we operate in now. Too many of us generalize about “what associations should do” (and I include myself in this indictment) based entirely on our own experiences within very specific organizations without thinking enough about the practical differences between experiences.

As I get older I get more and more convinced, for example, that professional societies have less in common with trade associations than a lot of people think. And trade associations that serve “big” members have almost nothing in common with trade associations that serve “small” members. And professional societies that serve high-paid professions have almost nothing in common with societies that serve lower-paid professions, etc. This all seems somewhat obvious, but in meetings you usually hear distinctions made between such organizational types based on programs and, especially, costs. (”We’d do that if we could afford it.”) The distinctions, I think, are much deeper than that, reaching into governance, member psychology, and, especially, staff culture.

I’m afraid that by ignoring these differences we are actually making it more difficult to learn from each other than it has to be. We sit in meetings of association execs collecting and discarding ideas — “this one could work, this one’s too alien, this one could be adapted” — without actually thinking deeper about where those ideas come from and, more importantly, what they really have to teach us. I think professional societies and trade associations do have things to teach each other — but they are about the things that each tend to be good at, not necessarily programmatic concepts.

I suppose what I’m saying is that we, as association execs, should get deeper about the sorts of things we want to discuss with each other, while being more clear-eyed about who we are and what we are and what our limitations are. There’s much more to say about this sort of thing, but I thought I’d start by pointing out what I think are at least five different types of association executives who work in all our organizations.

The Professional. Dedicated to the concept of the association as a profession, these are the ones who get certified, read the literature, are “evangelists” for association management, and love following well-thought-out plans. They tend to be friendly, highly networked, and are employable and professionally ambitious. They are note-takers. They can also sometimes get too bogged down in details — passionately seeking out the best possible way to produce a program, benchmarking religiously against other associations, and are better at building consensus than creating new concepts. It’s hard to imagine what these types would do in the corporate (non-association) sector.

The Entrepreneur. These are the ones who go somewhat against the grain of conventional association management, and are more interested in trying new things than following a plan (or even developing one). In the association world, the “entrepreneur” does not necessarily create revenues or profits (they can just as easily be risk-taking in cost center areas) but they have a higher focus on results than the professional, and take those results personally, for good or ill. They can also create enemies within both the staff and member culture because of their impatience with process, and can easily burn out, tiring both themselves and the rest of the staff.

The Bureaucrat. These are the ones who rigidly adhere to the rules because they fervently believe in those rules and the protection they afford. Members can rest assured that when they want something done, it will be done — it may not be done quickly, but it will be done according to protocol that assures consensus and consistency. Bureaucrats are masters at navigating the political waters. They are survivors, and almost always completely disinterested in receiving credit for anything. And in certain scientific and engineering societies, that is exactly what the members want. They do not necessarily want creative thinking, except within very strict boundaries (and properly vetted). In other types of associations, the bureaucrat can still do very well in certain positions. Some associations make a point of seeking out association ceos who meet this type, pulling from government or military organizations (though I am not saying that everyone who has worked for a bureaucracy in the past is a bureaucrat, sometimes they are quite the opposite). A friend of mine was interviewed for the top spot of an association where they informed him that they had created a detailed 10-year plan — !!! — and expected the ceo to make it happen. He ran screaming from the building, but I happen to know that the person who did take the job is doing very well with it.

The Member. This is the one who comes from the industry or profession served by the association. Let’s be honest, it has always been viewed as the most unseemly of types by those of us who do associations for a living, but I don’t think there’s any evidence that, when brought in as ceo or senior staff, they do any better or worse than others. Whether they fit closer to professional, entrepreneur, or bureaucrat can often depend on the type of industry or profession they come from. As might be expected, they tend to be more wedded to that particular industry or profession, and that’s both good and bad. They may be able to walk in with a level of instinctive respect from those members that someone else would have to work harder to gain, but they are also more likely to carry baggage with them from their prior career and find it harder to create new business models or ideas.

The Specialist. While many association execs start as a specialist in something and expand toward a more generalist leadership role, there are many more who are quite happy to remain in their chosen field. They are not really association execs at all, even if they work in associations their whole career. They are marketing people, communications people, technology people. They know their stuff; they perform well; but they should spend more of their time with peers from outside the association world because the world of association specialists can sometimes be way too insular (should you really be getting most of your ideas about direct marketing, or website development, or HR management, from other associations — who may or may not have much really in common with you other than a tax status and a budget line called dues?) In some cases, the specialist becomes ceo without having already expanded beyond their emotional and mental devotion to their particular field. These are the ones who spend most of their leadership tenure focusing on the area they understand so well — even micromanaging it — while the rest of the organization becomes lopsided and dysfunctional.

Now, am I making sweeping generalizations? Yep. Am I saying that any of these types are inherently better than the others? Nope! In fact, I think we all have much to teach each other. I think bureaucrats have much to teach specialists, and vice versa, as long as we are all clear in the understanding of the basic differences between our worldviews. When we are not so accepting of that difference, I think the tendency is to be outright dismissive. Professionals flock with professionals while entrepreneurs sit together and snicker. Let’s just admit who we all are, and what our organizations are, and start to teach each other what we’re all good at.

Now you can throw tomatoes …

Comments

Leave a comment

Name (required)

E-mail (required)

URI

Your Comments

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail