Category: innovation

Big Questions for Associations – Part 1

Posted on | by Elizabeth Weaver Engel, CAE | 4 Comments on Big Questions for Associations – Part 1

Back in March, Jeff De Cagna did a breakfast briefing on the future of mobile technologies for associations.  At that time, he raised a series of questions I’ve been pondering since.  I haven’t come up with any answers, so I thought it might be time to take my musings public and hopefully spark a conversation about these issues.

Question 1: How do we connect with stakeholders who have public, digital and highly networked relationships?

This one has been particularly on my mind this summer.  After a LOT of back and forth, NACHRI has finally officially gotten on FB (www.facebook.com/childrenshospitals) and Twitter (www.twitter.com/NACHRI). At the same time, we’re in the midst of launching a white label social network on the Higher Logic platform, which will include their mobile app next spring.  And we have a fairly robust YouTube channel, plus two blogs.  Big changes, and some of my colleagues are more than a little nervous.

The larger social media environment for children’s hospitals is in flux as well.  On the one hand, there are plenty of children’s hospitals with substantial social media presence.  On the other, the actual people who run the children’s hospitals, not so much.  On the third hand (and thanks for letting me borrow one of yours), the current generation of administrators is starting to retire and we’re struggling to connect with the next generation.

Right now, I would say we’re still in the experimental stage with a lot of this.  Although we experimented with Twitter during our spring conference, we didn’t officially start tweeting consistently and with a process until about a month ago.  The FB page didn’t go live until around the same time.  We’re in the pre-deciding what metrics will even be meaningful stage.  Hell, we’re in the pre-deciding which platforms will be meaningful stage.

In the meantime, our next generation of administrators is out there.  We want to reach ever more deeply into our member hospitals, and those staffers are out there too, as are the people we’re trying to affect around policy, both legislators and grass-roots activists.  And in the end, as our tagline Champions for Children’s Health suggests, it is all about the kids.  And they’re DEFINITELY out there.

How do we find them?  Cut through the clutter?  Become the “curators of information” Jeff’s been encouraging associations to be? Provide – and show that we provide – value? How do we broadcast the good our hospitals do while still respecting HIPAA regulations (something with which all health care organizations struggle)?

How is your organization addressing the public, highly networked nature of the relationships with and between your target audiences?

I really don’t know the answers, but I DO know that we’re at least now in the game, and that’s a start.

I’ll be doing a series of posts about this for the next few weeks, so check back and offer your thoughts.

Generations, Leadership and Change

Posted on | by Elizabeth Weaver Engel, CAE | 7 Comments on Generations, Leadership and Change

A number of things, including this post on leadership mindsets by Jamie Notter, have gotten me thinking about the major forces that I think are currently shaping the association community.

“The economy” and “health care reform” both seem like the obvious answers, right?

Particularly given that NACHRI is a health care organization, and we all keep getting those blast emails “from” John Graham urging us to…well, I actually haven’t paid a ton of attention since I already have my mind made up on health care (the only major thing that’s wrong with the bill Obama signed about two weeks ago is that there’s STILL no public option, and since I lack representation in Congress, what I think doesn’t really matter anyway). But (I digress) no, not health care.

And the thing about the economy is that it cycles. What’s going on now is a difference of degree, not of kind.

People who know me might guess that I’d say, “Social media! And it’s going to cure cancer, assure me a lifetime supply of Jimmy Choos, and get us all puppies!” Yeah, not so much – social media provides a new platform (or platforms, if you prefer), but it’s for a very old school activity: communication.

I think the most important force shaping the association community today is generational change.

As described in the Lifecourse work of William Strauss and Neil Howe, generations (like the economy) cycle, but the key difference is that a large majority of associations have never directly experienced significant generational change.

Most associations were built by, are currently staffed at senior levels by, and have memberships largely made up of idealistic “prophet” Baby Boomers. I think that provides the foundation for most associations, and carries with it some very good and very bad things: the level of commitment we require of our volunteers, the fact that we expect members to happily support “common good” programs, the focus on process over outcomes, the emphasis on mission and the willingness to make personal sacrifices in service to that mission, and even the high value placed on gathering face to face.

Gen-X “nomads” are much more pragmatic – we’re not joiners, and we don’t follow movements. Is the membership model dying? I don’t really know, but if it does die, I think it will be Gen-X that kills it – not the economy or social media, both of which are usually held at fault.

Xers lack patience with the hierarchy of belonging and with traditional forms of engagement and volunteering. If the price of admission involves reading hundreds of pages of rote committee reports and spending long hours in meetings that don’t actually accomplish anything, we’ll form our own groups. Remember the Bush 41 recession of the early 90s, when Xers were graduating? No room at the (workforce) inn? Fine – I’ll just go do my own thing (and invent Netscape in the process).

I think this generational shift will require that our membership models become more limited and personalized, our decision-making processes become more nimble, and our model of volunteering become more focused on outcomes and less on process.

Further complicating the picture is the emergence of the Millennials, a “hero” generation, into adulthood. Heroes value community and teamwork, in direct contrast to the independent and cynical nomadic Xers, and they are much more sanguine about institutions and authority than either nomads or prophets. This “hero” generation is our future.

To quote The Hourglass Blog:

“[D]oes leadership mean something different to each generation, and therefore our leadership systems will constantly change as each new generational perspective comes into power?”

I think the answer is “yes” – our leadership models will have to change to mirror generational change. Given the single-generation life-span of many associations, that will, I believe, be wrenching.

How will your organization respond to generational change? How will we, as a community, respond? How is generational change causing you to think differently about volunteerism? Membership? Mission? Leadership? Or are you even thinking differently at all at this point?

More on Social Media as Religion

Posted on | by Elizabeth Weaver Engel, CAE | 3 Comments on More on Social Media as Religion

I’ve been continuing to think about this topic, and I’ve realized there’s at least one more parallel to make:

The converted – aka us (I’m including you because you’re reading this blog) – spend too much time preaching to the choir – aka the people who’ve already drunk the kool-aid – and ignoring the godless heathen infidels – aka the skeptics.

We need to stop turning our backs on skeptics with a dismissive: “Well, they just don’t get it, so to hell with them.”

Do you truly believe that social media is transformative? If it’s really that important, you need to HELP them get it.

Paradox of Choice

Posted on | by Elizabeth Weaver Engel, CAE

I recently had the opportunity to hear Barry Schwartz speak. He’s a professor at Swarthmore who is most well known for his work on the Paradox of Choice.

So what’s the deal with the Paradox of Choice?

In a nutshell, we act as if the following syllogism is true:

More freedom = more well-being
More choice = more freedom
Therefore
More choice = more well-being

In reality, it generally doesn’t work out that way.

So is choice good or bad? It’s good, but it’s not ONLY good.

Too much choice leads to:

  • Paralysis – just can’t decide
  • Bad choices – too many options increases one’s chances of picking the wrong one – people are not good at thinking through all the implications of complicated futures, don’t understand probability, don’t want to lose, and don’t want to spend money
  • Lower satisfaction – even if you choose well, you worry that you didn’t, feel the opportunity costs more acutely, and have escalated expectations (if there are many options, one of them should be PERFECT, rather than just good enough)

The severity of problem depends on whether one approaches choice as a maximizer (you want THE BEST) or a satisficer (you just want something that’s good enough). Satisficers are generally happier. Maximizers generally choose better but feel worse about their choices. And as choices become more portentous, we’re more likely to want to be maximizers, which means we’re less likely to be happy about the outcomes.

So what can we do? What’s the solution?

Schwartz postulates libertarian paternalism. Design a system so that people acting as expected will mostly get what they want but always allow them the ability to opt out. In a world with no limits, people end up disorganized, paralyzed, and unhappy. We need some constraints, but, as he points out, it’s very hard to figure out the right number.

 

Great quote for a rainy Tuesday

Posted on | by Elizabeth Weaver Engel, CAE | 1 Comment on Great quote for a rainy Tuesday

“Don’t let your imagination and enthusiasm be dampened by organizational politics or institutional caution.”

This is from a white paper on guerrilla social media strategy by Colin McKay (shout out to Mads for the link), but I think it’s applicable FAR outside social media strategy. Every organization has institutional resistance to change. EVERY organization. In some places, it’s greater than in others. But every organization has at least one person who fears change. And most have a LOT more than one. If you are the change agent in your organization (and the fact that you’re reading this means there’s a better than average chance you are), don’t let the forces of “we have always done it that way” steal your thunder.

So Fellow Change Agents, how to you keep your spark in the face of “no”?

Visual Thinking

Posted on | by Elizabeth Weaver Engel, CAE

Still pondering the whole idea of visual thinking from Dan Roam’s keynote at the recent Great Ideas Conference.

I am not a visual thinker. There are white boards all over the offices at Beaconfire, and 90% of them have all sorts of diagrams and sketches all over them. Mine falls into the other 10% – largely blank (at least when it’s not pro football season). I’m a “Red Pen” person 100%. Actually, the point of the red pen person is that you can eventually get them up to draw on the white board if you can make them mad enough that you’re oversimplifying the problem. I guess I have an exceptionally long fuse, because I’m never going to get up and take the pen of my own accord. So I may be the elusive “No Pen” person. I’m all about words, baby.

And yet, the concept of visual thinking is really appealing to me.

Roam pointed out that ALL 5 year olds report being able to draw, if you ask them. But at some point, most of us decide that we can’t, and that’s that. No more drawing. Or as he put it, we’re “not taught to make use of our inherent visual sense.”

And I really love the idea of simplicity on the other side of complexity, which is what I think this is fundamentally all about. My spouse, who also foolishly studied philosophy, calls it the “essay paradox.” Most philosophers start out expressing their ideas in essays, generally 100 pages or less. Then a handful get famous and decide they need to write books. BIG IMPORTANT books. The next thing you know, you’re saddled with all 600+ pages of A Theory of Justice when “Justice as Fairness” says pretty much the same thing in WAY fewer words.

As Roam articulates them, the rules of visual thinking are:

  • Whoever best describes the problem is the one most likely to solve it.
  • Whoever draws the best picture gets the funding.
  • The more human the picture, the more human the response.

So how do you do it?

  • Draw a circle & give it a name (Roam says it should generally be “me” because people are usually at the center of their own problems.)
  • Divide problem into 6 slices: who/what, how much, where, when, how, and why
  • Determine which of the 6 are involved

So what about those of us who, left to our own devices, will literally NEVER do this? Are we SOL?

I don’t think so, and here’s why: those questions are the key.

  • Who/what?
  • How much?
  • Where?
  • When?
  • How?
  • Why?

Sure, you *can* answer them with pictures. And if that’s the way you work, go for it. But it seems to me that there’s no reason you can’t answer them with words, if that’s the way your brain works. And (Red Pen Person alert) with words, you can explain the thinking behind your answers. Additionally, Roam identified one potential flaw in answering “why?” with a picture – confusing correlation with causation. It seems to me that if you’re forced to document your reasoning (by using words), you’ll be less likely to fall victim to that confusion.

Or am I completely wrong and doomed to be mired in complexity if I can’t overcome my disinclination to draw stick figures?