If you haven't read Jamie's recent post in the on-going Web 2.0 conversation, I suggest you check it out. It's superb, and it makes several important points, including this one:

Something I've noticed personally about engaging in Web 2.0 activities: I get to shape right away. I get to actually write the book. I get to start the organization. I get to mobilize the march. I get to define the term. Or at least I get to actively participate in these activitiesâ€"instantly. The nature and meaning of participation is changing, in part due to what Web 2.0 tools can do.

In the Web 2.0 world, the terms of debate about participation and engagement in associations are different, and the locus of control over that conversation increasingly resides outside of our organizations. The idea that some leaders fear this shifting context is not an imaginary condition. In my work, I routinely observe (and push back on) these fears, particularly the deep lack of trust some leaders exhibit toward members whose commitment they have no reason to question. If we are unable to reverse this dynamic, and build a greater sense of trust inside our own member communities, it is going to be extraordinarily difficult for us to leverage Web 2.0 philosophies, approaches and tools to their full effect.

A primary argument on behalf of an architecture of participation for our organizations is the need to nurture a new convenant of collaboration between associations and their contributors. As a matter of principle, we must adopt trusting others as our updated default position, just as Web 2.0 thinking encourages us to do. While due diligence is an important legal concept, we need to balance the attention we pay to covering all of our bases with the more respectful and more human belief that, given the opportunity, the overwhelming majority of members within the same community will choose to act responsibly. Our convenant of collaboration should marry a willingness to "trust first" to the idea of distributing real responsibility for success toward the organizational edge. If we challenge our contributors to engage in ways that can make a real difference for our associations, there is every reason to believe they will rise to the occasion.

In short, Web 2.0 is precisely the generative force associations need to embrace to enable the creation of new value in the 21st century. It will not be possible to measure every dimension of change these technologies and techniques will bring to our organizations, but if we can creatively apply them and, in the process, successfully address the key strategic dilemma described by blogger Steve Borsch below, then our long-term investment in them will pay off:

In a day of limited attention spans and massive amounts of content choices, figuring out how to entice, engage, empower, delight and add significant value - as well as deliver a path for people to stay with you for the long term and continue to learn and grow with you or your company - is a powerful method for creating passionate users who are willing to enter a high value, high attentive and sustained relationship with you instead of one or a handful of lower value transactions.

If you just look at that last paragraph on the surface, doesn't a relationship sound a lot better (and more lucrative) than a transaction?

Relationships better than transactions? Amen. How does it sound to your organization, and how do these relationships need to be different going forward? Are you and your leaders prepared to consider fresh thinking around participation, engagement and Web 2.0? Let us know where you are in this process. You can post your ideas and insights below!