Principled Innovation LLC

Innovation for Associations: Part Two

January 20th, 2011

This is the second in a series of three posts in which I react to the “Innovation for Associations” white paper from the Wisconsin Society of Association Executives.  Please read this post from Eric Lanke on the Hourglass Blog for more information on our plans for this point-counterpoint series.

Here is my first post in the series, and Eric’s response.

Today’s post: What factors prevent associations from making innovation an on-going priority?

The “Innovation for Associations” white paper proposes four barriers to innovation in associations:  diffuse leadership, low tolerance for risk, unwillingness to commit resources and complex organizational structures.  While these barriers certainly exist to varying degrees in most associations, they are not the real root causes of our community’s continuing struggle with innovation.  Throughout my career working in and with associations, I have observed four other deep-seated obstacles that have rendered the phrase, “association innovation,” something of a contradiction in terms.

Sameness–Sameness is the defining characteristic of the association experience.  Associations bring together people who are alike in more ways than they are different:  same fields, same jobs and, thus, similar ways of seeing and thinking about the world.  Sameness also shapes the typical association value creation process itself:  everyone must be treated the same, receive the same benefits and participate in the same activities.  Unfortunately, this homogeneous way of being engenders an inherent resistance to radical and disruptive thinking that is very hard to overcome.  Innovation thrives in vibrantly imaginative environments filled with diverse experiences, divergent points of view and the creative friction they inspire.  The native sameness of associations makes it hard to spark these conditions in the first place, and difficult to sustain over time.

Politics trumps everything--Politics exists in all organizations, and certainly can be an obstacle to innovation in any setting.  But it is the unique role politics plays in both the selection and decision-making of voluntary association leaders that creates special problems for making innovation a priority.  In far too many associations, political considerations trump all other factors, including individual capability, in determining who will occupy critical leadership roles.  The rise to office of politically-popular leaders, often as a result of contested elections, is rarely good news for the pursuit of innovation.  Senior voluntary leaders have no real incentive to jeopardize their standing within a status quo they helped to create and over which they now preside by embracing so-called “risky” ideas.  Leaders elsewhere in association hierarchies take their cues from the top and tend to favor more conservative courses of action to ensure their future political viability.

Markets vs. membership–For better and for worse, for-profit companies live in the world of turbulent markets and, as a consequence, use continuous innovation as a strategy for anticipating and serving rapidly shifting customer needs.  In contrast, associations exist in the more proscribed world of membership and, as a consequence, try to meet the needs of vastly smaller self-selected groups of stakeholders with similar (see above) and often more conventional attitudes and preferences.  For most associations, member loyalty, rather than sustained new value creation through innovation, has been the historic driver of both strategic and financial success.  Over the last 10 years, however, the end of any credible belief in unquestioned member loyalty–a belief that blinded both leaders and organizations across our community for a very long time–has left associations with no alternative but to consider how to deal with unfavorable market realities from which they were previously insulated.

Plans matter more than possibilities–Contrary to our community’s conventional wisdom, strategic planning has done more to squander association potential than it has to harness it.  Indeed if the Task Force is correct, and a low tolerance for risk and an unwillingness to commit resources are two major barriers to innovation in associations, much of the blame goes to our continued use of strategic planning as a tool for “creating the future.”  Through an endless series of strategic planning processes, association leaders have learned to value the plan above all else.  Planning is about creating certainty by requiring all answers upfront and eliminating all risk.  Innovation leverages risk to create new value.  Planning is about prioritizing the operational needs of the organization ahead of the profound challenges facing association stakeholders.  Innovation builds on empathy and learning to create new value.  Planning concentrates organizational efforts on achieving the feasible.  Innovation expands organizational capacity to embrace the possible.  So, exactly what kind of future are associations trying to create for themselves and their stakeholders?

In my final post next week, I will address how associations can embrace innovation more easily and turn it into a genuine strategic priority.

What do you think?  Why isn’t (or why is) innovation a priority in your association?  Please join this important conversation by sharing your thoughts below.  Back to you Eric!

My final post:  How can associations embrace innovation more easily?

Join me in February for “From Tradition to Transformation: Building the 21st Century Association to Thrive,” a three-part Power Learning Series presented by Peach New Media.

Please follow me on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/pinnovation.

Entry Filed under: Principled Innovation Blog, What's New?, Social Media, Innovation, Associations, Extreme Makeover, The Association Innovator, We Have Always Done It That Way, PI Events, Garage Memes, Governing for Innovation, Embrace the Revolution