Where we differ is in our approach to pushing the association industry to join in the revolution. You are coming at them with a big torch, lighter fluid and matches. I am coming at them with a smile, a cocktail and a bowl of red pills. You say, "join the revolution or face extinction"; I say, "come with me, take my hand, you'll love it, it will change your life and how you work forever".
You want them to burn their houses down in order to rebuild; I want them to take all the doors and windows off, open up their interior walls, and get rid of most of their furniture.
The end result should be the same - a different (open) landscape and a different (collaborative) way of working - but I think my way will work faster and minimize the damage (to people and structures).
You may think we can't create a new world on top of the old; I think you have to respect the history of an industry that has evolved purely from hard work and common goals, at the same time as you work to convince the people in that industry to change the way they do everything.
There's a lot of talk in the blogosphere (as a whole) about the disconnect between the early adopters and the old guard, the fact that we have to stop just evangelizing and be able to show ROI and real value. We continue to talk about bridging the gap. Read that post again - most of it is a really important quote from Jay Deragon:
"Unless there is synergy in mindsets and activity which demonstrates an understanding of the dynamic then the basis of a relationship cannot be formed and subsequently conversations cannot be facilitated effectively.
Traditional consultants with traditional mindsets cannot provide a "practice or a mythology" which provides understanding. Most of today's consultants can provide business with the tools but unless you know how to "build a community of relationships" the tools are useless."
This is not a "top down" kind of thing. You can't force the "synergy in mindsets and activity". You can't beat the "understanding of the dynamic" into people, especially those who are already resistant to change. Real understanding is something that grows, that does not happen overnight, even if it includes some epiphanies that feel like they happened overnight. And of course, it's not enough to just persuade organizations to use the new technologies available to them. Lee White calls it the "the cognitive dissonance that occurs when organizations attempt "community" marketing while operating internally as an authoritarian hierarchy." Real change has to happen from within, not just on the surface. I think Jeff and I both agree on that.But for that to happen, you HAVE to start incrementally, because you're talking about people's work and their time, both of which are precious. You have to plant the seeds, water them carefully, fertilize (but not too much), watch them grow. You have to TEACH (not just show) associations how a new way of working can create value in one area, in order for those lessons to spread to other areas of practice. Or, for association staffers like me, you have to LEARN by DOING.
Jeff said,"If we're going to harness the forces of paradigm shift and leverage the revolution to our advantage, we must cultivate strategic imagination. Maddie argues that association leaders use strategic imagination everyday. It saddens me to write that my experience has been very much the opposite, to the point that I am genuinely concerned about the lack of capacity for responsible stewardship in organizations of all sizes throughout our community, and I have heard this same concern expressed by other association leaders as well. So after sixteen years of watching associations not deal with the same issues over and over again, rethinking the assumptions that guide the way our organizations create value from the ground up strikes me as precisely the kind of fundamental reinvention that is urgently needed for the association community to have a fighting chance at thriving and growing in the years ahead."
But that's not what I said. What I said was, "I think we use our strategic imagination all the time, every day!" But - I am not (yet) an association leader! I agree with you about the "lack of capacity for responsible stewardship" - because you're looking in the wrong place. Strategic imagination is being used every day at the mid-levels of association management. The IT managers who see the future in social networks but can't get the CFO to buy in. The membership and marketing managers who communicate with their members and want to change their marketing from a push vehicle to a conversation. The alliance builders who are sharing information and resources with other similar organizations. The event planners discussing ways to go green by using social media to help their members gather remotely. This is what I am talking about.
So I agree we need a fundamental reinvention. I just disagree on how best we can help associations achieve it. But I also believe both our methods (and others) can coexist! Some associations will need to burn their structures to the ground before they can rebuild in a different form; others already have the capacity for flexibility and openness and just need to figure out how to implement that from the inside out. Some just need to wait for the old leadership to retire, others need to change their bylaws and revamp their leadership by force. And some just need someone to "show them the money"! But social Darwinism will prevail in the end, no matter what the path is for getting to the future.
And as for us... we can only show them the door, they are the ones who have to walk through it.
Link to original post