Get Me Jamie Notter

Truth and Authenticity in the Digital Age

That's the title of the session that Maddie Grant and I will be delivering at the upcoming ASAE & The Center Great Ideas Conference, at the Broadmoor in Colorado Springs. I am a big fan of the Great Ideas Conference, as evidenced by the fact that I have been to every single one of them, since their inception back in the GWSAE days. It has morphed over the years, but I still hold it in my mind as a place where I (as a speaker) can push the envelope a bit and challenge people a little more.

Hence this topic. It's deep and broad at the same time, touching on individual identity online, but also talking about organizational culture and transparency. Maddie and I will be outlining how the social internet is changing the way we operate in organizations, from the blurred line between personal and professional, to a more decentralized understanding of how "brand" works. 

I'll post a recap after the session on Monday, because I'm sure the participants are going to add as much to the conversation as Maddie and I do, and if you can't be at the conference, be sure to follow the Twitter stream at #ideas10. 

Oh, and we didn't do "slides." Following the lead of the Graphic Designer in my office, we're using the online presentation software, Prezi. You can view our presentation online.

The Beyond Relevance Conversation

I thought last week's webinar on beyond relevance was tremendous fun. I believe we had close to 100 sites participating. The Chat and Twitter stream were quite active, and I was happy with the conversation going on and the questions they were throwing to Jeff, Ken, Nedra, and me. I thought our conversation was productive and we were able to build off the points we were making. I'll post my content "debrief" of the conversation on the Beyond Relevance Blog.

The next two webinars are scheduled for March 16 and March 31, but one thing I really like about this project is the variety of avenues for participation. Check out the following conversation spaces:

Beyond Relevance Blog, with posts so far by Paul Gannon at TMA Resources, Ken Wolff, Mark Drapeau, Jeff De Cagna, Maddie Grant, and me. 

The #beyondrelevance twitter stream.

Check out the photos from the first webinar on the TMA Resources Facebook Fan page.

Soon I think I will be able to post links to the recording of the first session.

Best Practices are Flawed Because We Are Human

 I love the association community, but I don't like our obsession with "best practices." Having said that, I have to admit that I get some benefit from the obsession. Volunteer Boards I think get a lot of comfort out of the idea--that we, the somewhat-trusted staff, have access to this pool of "best practices" in association management that the volunteers could never know about coming from a different industry. "The staff knows the best practices," the Board members tell each other, "so let them do their job. Let's not reinvent the wheel." I admit it: it makes my job easier. 

But I have also written about the dangers of best practices, as have many, many smart people. There are compelling arguments why best practices don't work, given the uniqueness of organizational cultures, the inability to track true cause and effect in organizations, and the power of coming up with your OWN solutions. The most recent argument comes from a blog post by Holly Green: best practices are flawed because we are human beings.

Best practices are developed by experts. Why is this a problem? Holly says:

Because experts are human, and as humans we don't believe what we see. Instead, we see what we already believe. We constantly seek to prove what we think is right, and as a result we miss critical data and limit our success by getting locked into ideas and assumptions that may no longer be true.

Best practices will never go away entirely, but we need to wake up to how they are robbing our organizations of the capacity to be successful. Pay attention to where your reliance on experts blocks your system's ability to learn. Be honest with yourself about the cost of choosing the comfortable, less contentious path in your Board conversations (these are association best practices; trust us). Challenge your own expertise, constantly. 

Beyond Relevance Webinar

In September, I wrote a blog post titled "Relevance Is Not Enough." Building off the writing of Jeff De Cagna and Maddie Grant, I made the argument that being relevant to members will not drive growth. It was one of my favorite posts, and it struck a chord with a few people, including Paul Gannon at TMA Resources, because he thought it would be a good topic for a series of webinars, called "Beyond Relevance" and they start this week!

 This Thursday, February 25th, the first of three webcasts will air, at 2pm. You can register here (they are free). All three of these webcasts are going to be open conversations with a small panel of people who have been doing some thinking and writing about what it means to for membership organizations to get beyond merely being relevant to members and stakeholders. I am going to be on all three panels, and Nedra Weinstein of Arden Consulting will be moderating.

On the first I will be joined by Jeff De Cagna from Principled Innovation and Ken Wolff from Achievance. I know Jeff very well, of course, and we've talked about this topic frequently, and I am excited that Ken will be on this panel, because he comes from the large for-profit world, so I think that perspective on this topic will be interesting. 

The next two webinars are scheduled:

March 16th: Me, Mark Drapeau from Microsoft, and Mark Morris from the Brand Consultantcy
March 31st: Me, Maddie Grant from SocialFish, and a player to be named later.

These are FREE one-hour webcasts, so sign up. It should prove to be a very interesting conversation. And I know there will be lots of blogging and tweeting about it, so we've set up the twitter hashtag of #beyondrelevance. Join the conversation!

The Truth About Change

My last two posts about truth have generated some of the best comments this blog has ever seen. I quoted Joe Gerstandt's comment in the second post, and that one generated an equally awesome comment from Lindy Dreyer. Her question was bout leading change when you're in the middle:

You can only create change if you're in the position to do so. Yes, that can come from the middle, but only if you have the relationships and the trust of the people you work with--above and below.... I guess the challenge for folks in that middle position is knowing what you're capable of, choosing your battles, and fighting them valiantly.... When change comes from the middle, and the driver leaves, does the org default back to square one? How do you keep that from happening?

Short answer: you don't. If "you" are still in that organization (and the driver left), then you are probably the one who wants to default back to square one, although I doubt you would frame it that way. Change, for "you," is to valiantly fight to return to the wisdom upon which your organization was based.

 Maybe we need to debunk some myths about "change." I don't think change comes from the top, middle, or bottom. Change simply is. Time advances and the universe flexes and morphs, and your organization is constantly adapting. Frequently it adapts by maintaining consistency or the status quo, but that is still an adaptation. The turbulent universe is exerting force on it, nudging it slightly out of orbit, and it fights to stay in it. Or it attempts to go with the new force and break out of orbit, but it turns out to be a rather massive planet, so moving it out isn't so easy. Moving out of orbit is hard, but change is constant.

Tops, middles, and bottoms are all playing different roles at different times in each of those scenarios (pushing to stay in orbit and pushing to break out). There is not one single path to maintaining a beautiful orbit or moving out of a destructive one. 

But what speaking the truth does for all of us is shine lights on these orbits. We see more clearly what's happening, even if we can't control the change from our one position in the system. My favorite truth quote is from Gloria Steinem: 

The truth shall set you free, but first it will piss you off.

If we all (tops, bottoms, and middles) raised the bar on truth telling, then the orbits we are in--and their beauty and destructiveness--would be much more apparent. Some drivers of change would move on, and some status quo clingers would hold on even tighter. There would be some shake up. Some people would get pissed off. But in the end, I'd bet we would start to see better results, because more of the right people would connect in the same orbits. We'd have better alignment, and that would give us the collective power to move massive planets into and out of orbit more quickly. 

Perhaps I don't have practical advice for that person in the middle who wants to change the system. Maybe it's not your job to change the system. Maybe it's your job to connect the top and bottom together more directly (back to Lindy's point about trust and relationships with workers on both sides). Maybe Joe's advice is practical: step up and speak the truth, because when you do, you'll help everyone get clearer about WHY they are trying to move either into or out of an orbit.

Managing Generations and Conflict in the Workplace

I was in Florida last week testing out a pilot training program on managing generations and conflict in the workplace. It was the first time I really combined these two topics into a training session. It's a lot of material to cover, obviously, and it was a challenge to do it all, even with a four-hour time block to work with. But it's a nice combination. The level of awareness of generational differences has increased over the last few years since I started writing and speaking about the topic. I think people are on to the hype, and they ask better questions about what these differences really mean and how we deal with them in the workplace.

And the conflict piece fits in very well. The core of my conflict resolution training is always about working through the parts in conflict conversations where we get stuck. This means slowing the conversations down and opening them up. This is perfect for generation-based conflict, because they are based in value differences and often very different views of "what is." Until you deal with that piece of it, you often go in circles trying to solve problems that have not been correctly defined or based on shared understanding.

Some insights from the workshop:

• The previous generation designs the jobs, processes, and structures for the current generation. This could be a problem. Generations tend to approach "time" and "place" very differently, so job design (hours, location) I think will be a big issue.
• I continue to get anecdotal evidence that Millennials have somehow "moved on" from diversity issues (even though that seems incomprehensible to me and I'm not sure that will stick). They raise the "it's no big deal" flag, but I know it was a big deal for the previous generations who fought for progress. How's that going to play out?
• The workplace continues to be overwhelmingly made up of Boomers and Xers, but the most popular topic is NOT Boomer-Xer conflict. They both want to focus on the Millennials. Hmmm.

If you think your organization might benefit from this training program, let me know.

Paying the Price for Truth

Last week I suggested that if you want a culture of truth in your organization, perhaps that needs to start at the top. Several of the comments chimed in with a "you're darn right it does." The top controls resources, the top decides strategy, the top sets the example, so they need to step up and lead the culture change. I get that, of course. The top does have an absolutely critical role to play.

But deep down I wanted someone to jump up and say "NO!" Let's face it: I'm a systems guy and a Gen Xer, so ultimately I don't want the top of the hierarchy to actually be in charge. My honorary brother (and Gen Xer) Joe Gerstandt was up to the task with his comment. I will reproduce most of it here rather than summarize it:

I can no longer support the idea that change/progress/solutions (whether it is a culture of truth, an inclusive culture, innovation, social media or anything else) has to start at the top.

That is simply how we let ourselves off the hook. "I am passionate about the truth, but the powers that be just don't get it."

Bullshit.

If we are passionate about truth (or diversity, or innovation, or flexibility or anything) then we will demand it. That may lead to repercussions, but that is part of the equation with passion.

Leaving our relationship with truth and our other aspirations and values in the hands of those at the top of the pyramid has not served us well. At all.

The solution is not new leaders. The solution is us acting in accordance with what we claim to believe.

Selly Alcorn made a similar point: "Change can come to an organization, but only when those who demand the truth are willing to pay for it."

There is a price to pay for truth. At an individual level, this means rocking the boat. This is true in every aspect of your life, by the way. Living a full life requires rocking the boat. That is a choice. You can choose to live less than a full life (most of us do), and you can find a nice tepid harmony with those around you. Don't push people, don't make them uncomfortable, don't show passion or emotion. Just be polite, kind, nice and reveal about 10% of what's real for you. That's normal and, frankly, it's okay. You should have the ability to choose how to live your life.

Paying the price for truth means revealing at least some of that 90% and working through the consequences that will have on the people in your life, and on you for that matter. You will make some people unhappy. You might spark some conflict. You might have to face some inner contradictions. You will violate what people in general may be expecting of you. You will incur judgments from other people. This is the price you pay for living your life fully. All of this is manageable, of course, albeit hard work at times. Only in very rare cases will living your life fully and telling the truth put your life in danger (but that does happen, by the way). 

Paying this price can yield significant returns, however. There is a lot of research out there demonstrating the dangerously low levels of engagement among American workers, and you can track some hard expenses for an organization associated with the reduced efficiency and high turnover that stems from low engagement. A culture of truth can counteract that. In general, people who regularly express their passion are not the disengaged ones. People who know they can speak the truth and push the issues are not the ones calling in sick on Friday. Paying the price for truth is an investment that pays off big time.

So back to the organization: how do we support individuals in our organizations to invest in the truth? Paying the price is ultimately an individual decision. We can't make that decision for them or institute a new policy that demands our employees bring more of themselves to work. I don't want to "let them off the hook," as Joe suggests, by implying that the top of the organization must change their behavior first, but how else can we support them?

I think that is really where my first post came from. Individuals have let themselves off the hook because I am guessing that in most organizations they are afraid. They say they are afraid of the repercussions of telling the truth. They fear they might get fired or in trouble. Fear lives where the truth is not spoken. It flourishes there, in fact. So regardless of whether the top controls resources or drives culture change, I think that if the top of the organization intentionally speaks more truth, it will counteract fear. It may require you to deal with some new things, but the fear of what they might think, what they might do, will be lessened. It removes an impediment to people telling the truth. It's not the only solution, and it's not even the first solution, but it could be a powerful strategic move in your quest to have individuals start investing in more truth. On one hand, you don't want to let them off the hook by implying it must be done at the top first. On the other hand, you can take away one of their biggest excuses if you start at the top.

The rest of us don't have to wait for the top. We have to dig deep and be willing to pay the price for living a fuller, more truthful life. That will show up in our organizations in many different ways. And you lovely people at the top? You have the same charge. Your truth telling will have some different implications, but it's still an investment that will yield returns.

A Culture of Truth Starts at the Top (?)

I clearly have some issues with hierarchy, and since I'm all about systems, I often find myself pointing out ways that people who are NOT in official positions of power can work to make things happen, change things, etc. In general, if someone says X needs to come from the top of the organization, I find myself pushing back, arguing that while the top certainly needs to do something, you (in the middle, at the bottom, wherever) also can be doing something.

But I wonder if that general philosophy does not apply as much to the challenge of building an organization where more truth is spoken. I've written before about the four different areas that need attention when you're building a culture of truth (walk, talk, structure, and culture). I always thought that gave any system lots of opportunities for building a more truth-friendly workplace.

But I think the issue of speaking the truth is much more closely tied to some built in assumptions about hierarchy and power than I had realized. Maybe this is not something that can come from the ground up. Although eventually your organization will need to undergo changes in individual behavior, public statements, specific processes or structures, none of that really gets started unless the core group (usually senior management) actually lives this new culture and models it. Before anything else happens, the people who are in charge need to make a change, and the people who are not in charge need to see that change in action. That is a prerequisite for all the other important work that needs to be done to build a more truth-friendly workplace.

What do you think?

Leading Broken Organizations

Bruce Butterfield has created an interesting dialogue over on the ASAE listserve when he compared the association community to the struggling/dying industry of newspapers. Maddie posted about it, as did Peggy. Glen Tecker did a pushback post, arguing that we shouldn't compare the plights of for-profit companies to associations because they have such different purposes. Quoting Glen, "Their [nonprofits] mission is to serve; not sell."

First, I'll have to write another post on the notion that for profit companies exist solely for profit. That makes no sense to me because for profit companies are made up of human beings who care about things like quality, meaning, careers, solving problems, etc. The notion that they are all profit-searching robots seems off the mark to me. 

But that's another post. In this post I want to re-focus on Bruce's original points. He was arguing that newspapers were faced with a situation where their industry was dying, and they weren't adapting. He suggests the same could be true for associations, and I don't think the tax status of the two groups is particularly relevant here. All organizations run the risk of dying due to adaptation failure, whether they distribute profit to owners or not.

Read Umair Haque's December "builders manifesto" post. It's fairly mind-blowing. He argues that even the word "leadership" is a relic of the past now. And one of his main points hit home regarding this conversation:

Here's the problem in a nutshell. What leaders "lead" are yesterday's organizations. But yesterday's organizations--from carmakers to investment banks, to the healthcare system, to the energy industry, to the Senate itself--are broken. Today's biggest human challenge isn't leading broken organizations slightly better. It's building better organizations in the first place.

Whether or not my organization/industry's mission is to serve or sell, the bigger question is, is it broken? And I don't mean that in the simplistic yes/no good/bad sense. I mean digging into the complexity of your system and coming up with some deep strategic insight about what's happening and how you need to change, and that includes actually being open to the possibility that the change might be radical. And then translating that insight into some experiments that can give some actual texture to this necessary change, and then building a new organization from there.

Governance Month: "I don't want to be the one who screwed things up"

I have heard this phrase a lot in the context of association governance (which is this month's theme on the Acronym blog, by the way). Jeffrey Cufaude mentioned it in a blog comment recently as one reason why association governance tends to be conservative. They don't take big risks, because people on the current Board who would vote to take those risks don't want to be remembered as the ones that made the bad decisions.

Do you live your life that way? I mean, you are your own Board of Directors and you have a lifetime appointment. It will always be YOU that made that decision. Do you not do it because you don't want to be the one who is blamed if it doesn't work out? Are you worried about what people will say about you, or are you worried about the potential consequences of the decision?

Why do we even allow this kind of thinking on association Boards? How could it be possible that the decisions you make during your term are somehow disconnected from all the decisions that came before it and all that come after it? How is it possible that we could argue that a group of 8 to 15 people are somehow able to make decisions that are exclusively theirs to own, as if the staff, the committee members, the customers, the economy, etc. are not part of the equation. 

Here's my lesson for governance month: stop oversimplifying the role of the Board. Stop pretending that the Board is in charge and the "boss" of the corporation. The Board is absolutely the most senior decision making body authorized by the membership (in most cases). Fine. So it holds that role within a governance system, but that role by itself does not define the governance system. The governance system is complex, and involves a lot of players in both making decisions and implementing them. And the heart of this governance decision is not authority or power--it's learning. 

If a Board votes to spend reserves on a venture that doesn't work out, I don't blame the Board members. I blame a system that was not learning from what it was doing fast enough and clear enough to make better decisions. If you start to tangibly identify your governance system and realize who makes what kinds of decisions and how learning gets passed up and down the chain, then you have a shot at transforming your Board conversations and stamp out any "but I might get blamed for this later" thinking. Take that excuse off the table, and you might get some Boards who behave in ways that don't make us roll our eyes when the topic of "governance" comes up