Association Puzzle

James Bond: Strategic Planner Extraordinaire

One of my favorite pop culture characters is James Bond.  Not only have I seen all the movies (even the dreary ones with Timothy Dalton) but I've also read all the books.  Throughout the franchise, James Bond stands out because he is a quick thinker, and he is always adjusting his plan to support a new strategy. 

Our hero, Mr. Bond, always goes into a situation with a plan, but he has no problem making adjustments as the situation changes.  Even though this sometimes requires an excellent bluff, he always finds a way to adapt so he can have a strong position. 

The only film villain that is his equal -- and maybe even his superior -- is Goldfinger, the billionaire archcriminal who loves all things gold.  The great thing about Goldfinger is that when he has a plan, he executes it.  The guy follows through; he doesn't dither back and forth about if he should or shouldn't do something, calling together committee meetings or doing endless focus groups.  He knows what needs to be done and he does it.   

For example, in the film version of "Goldfinger," our villain discovers that Bond is a British secret agent, and thus needs to be eliminated, so he promptly sets up an efficient and effective way to do this.  Goldfinger has Bond strapped to a table while a laser is slowly but surely cutting right up the middle.  It will eventually cut our hero in two as well.  Bond, in a bit of a sweat, asks "Do you expect me to talk?" and Goldfinger replies, "No, Mr. Bond.  I expect you to die."  He then walks away and goes about his business.   

This is where the bluff comes in handy.  Using his quick wit and some disjointed information, Bond causes just enough reasonable doubt in Goldfinger's mind about what he may know about the big plot that Goldfinger keeps him alive.  He realizes he can always kill him later, but he should reserve the resource for the time being.

Here you have a strong example of the difference between strategy and strategic planning.  The plan was to kill Bond, and steps were taken to make that happen.  However, new information suggested that this plan should be delayed.  So, Goldfinger adapted, changing his plan from "kill him now" to "kill him later." 

Everyone needs a plan to implement the strategy, but the plan is the tool to implement the strategy and shouldn't get in the way of adapting to the changing environment.

This is why I firmly believe that strategic planning and strategy are not mutually exclusive, and one is not bad while the other good.  Without one, you can't implement the other.  However, your plan can't be so inflexible that you can't change course as needed. 

Should we have ten pound dusty tomes we call our "long-range five year strategic plan?"  No, we shouldn't, and not just in "today's world" -- we never should have had a tool that gets in our way.  This is the problem of following a management trend or fad v. using your brain, experience, and resources in a focused way.

One management trend that was popular in the 1990s was reading ancient Asian military texts, like "The Art of War," which was widely read in corporations.  That book deals with strategy, but it also outlines how a leader needs a plan.  I sum it up this way:

Don't do anything stupid; place your resources where they will do the most good; always know as much about your environment as possible; learn from your own mistakes; wait for the competition to do something stupid, then take advantage of their mistake to advance your position.

This is how James Bond lived to die another day.  He didn't sit around pondering the death of strategic planning, and discussing whether strategy should take its place.  Instead, he realized the two go hand in hand, and he spent his time accomplishing things. 

Strategic Planning: Is It Dead?

I saw a recent posting on the Association Renewal blog about how the boys over there were upset that the Association Forum of Chicagoland printed a magazine article on strategic planning that didn't share their views on it.  Jeff De Cagna and Jamie Notter, the partners at Association Renewal, believe that strategic planning is dead and associations will die too if they don't change their ways.  Death seems to be a recurring theme at that company, but at least they get people thinking. 

There's lots of discussion out there about strategic planning and its impending death, which has been going on for years both in the for-profit and non-profit worlds.  Although I don't support the "old-fashioned" style of strategic planning, I have never totally written it off.  I have just felt the timelines and expectations in the traditional format adopted from the corporate world were unrealistic.   

I'm here to break the unexciting (and not unexpected) news that strategic planning will never die.  We will always need strategy and we will always need planning.  Much like the famous "you got your chocolate in my peanut butter ads," the two go together to make a better whole.

When you look at traditional strategic planning, the topic of the recent Association Forum magazine article, it may seem boring, old, and out-of-date.  However, I tend to look at traditional strategic planning as the basics. 

You do need a timeline, you do need "buy in" from "invested stakeholders", you need to connect your projects to your budget, and most importantly, assign the tasks to responsible individuals.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with using these building blocks, even in the "traditional" manner. 

Where the discussion has taken several different turns -- and led to the formation of different camps -- is in regard to process, time invested in developing the plan, and most importantly, flexibility.  In the past, too many plans were rigid, set for periods that covered too many years (like the old-fashioned five year plan) and didn't allow for the rapid change we have today.

Now we all know how successful Stalin's "Five Year Plans" were for the old Soviet Union.  We should avoid being identified with failure if we can, so I think we should all agree that five year plans are not the way to go.

Here's my tips for Strategic Planning:

*Don't make writing the plan more time-consuming than the sum total of the work that it is outlining.

*Set reasonable goals based on available resources.  Don't say you are going to double your membership in 18 months when you have only one membership staff person and a budget of $5,000.

*Set short term goals by calendar quarter (or fiscal quarter if this works better for you); set long term goals not exceeding three years.   

*Don't be the prisoner of your plan.  It's YOUR plan; you work it and change it as needed.  Things change constantly, which is why your your plan is on paper and not set in stone.

What's Wrong with Associations?

I moved to the DC area in 1988, and my first association job was at the US Chamber of Commerce.  Since then, my career has been in the association/non-profit area, including my freelance business. 

I've been in association work so long because overall I enjoy it.  Yes, I see the downside and I am fully aware of the problems, but I like the opportunity of working with people to reach their goals, which to me is the most important reason for associations to exist. 

An added benefit is that I have had the privilege of meeting lots of different people, and making some very good and close friends at the different organizations where I worked.  Although when I met them these friends were committed to association work, within the last five years, they all walked away from association management with quite a bit of disgust. 

As I begin 2006, I am still pondering a question that has been on my mind the last few months: why did these friends, who I met through association work, end up hating associations so much?  (Hate is not too strong to describe their feelings.)

These friends have various reasons for leaving association management, but the recurring theme is this: all associations are run the same, and they are run badly.  They make the same mistakes, have the same attitudes and problems, and are modeled too closely to each other.  As one friend put it: no matter what association you go to, it's the same song, just a different verse. 

One of these friends told me that it is their belief that associations as we know them are going to disappear because the industry cannot sustain itself.  If this prediction is correct, it will be bad news for ASAE . . .

My opinion is that the problems in associations today are solvable if someone will just do it. 

There's lots of "big ideas" in the association community lately, but there seems to be a lack of application.  So, today's blog asks a question and is hoping for some feedback:

What do you think is the biggest problem in association management, and how would you fix it?

Best Laid Plans

I volunteer with my homeowners association -- okay, stop laughing -- and I am continually frustrated by the lack of planning that we employ in the management of our community, as it ends up translating into poor service for the residents of my little townhome community. 

As an association professional volunteering at what is legally a non-profit association, I don't understand the big deal about asking for a little forethought each year instead of putting out fire after fire after fire, which then strains our budget to the breaking point, which then leads to inaction because no one wants to spend any money.  This inaction and unwillingness to make decisions leaves residents with no recourse for action, even though they all pay dues each year.  Many times, residents are sent away with a pat on the head and their issue is ignored. 

Am I expecting too much from my neighbors on the all-volunteer Board, all of whom are volunteers like myself?

I say no.  Why?  Because all my neighbors are professionals who employ business techniques every day in their careers to get things done and make decisions.  I see no excuse for the lack of decision making and action, so I'm continually frustrated by the lack of progress.  My favorite example is the lack of progress on removing a tree that fell in September 2003 during Hurricane Isabel.  You read the date right: 2003.  This dead tree, which was pulled up by the roots, has been laying there for one year and 3 months. 

Some may see me as too demanding, but when was the last time you were allowed to let the equivalent of a dead tree lie around your office for over one year?  Yes, there were some extenuating circumstances surrounding this particular tree:  it fell across property lines and it will be expensive to remove.  However, the lack of action on an issue that residents -- our constituents -- have been asking us repeatedly to address is unacceptable in my estimation.

I hold the same opinion when it comes to member service.  Many association professionals mouth the words "we are here to serve our members" but in my experience true service attitudes are hard to find among the overworked, underpaid, underappreciated ranks of association staffers.  (See adjectives for some of the causes.)

There's that old association joke: "if these members would stop bothering me, I could actually get something done."  Unfortunately, this is too often the prevailing attitude, especially among "specialists" hired from outside the association community that don't "get" associations.

Many of us "get back to people" or "look into things," but how often do we end the day feeling we actually gave back to the member when he or she needed it?  What is a member association -- or a homeowners association -- if the people who pay into it for service receive nothing in return?

To put it in economic terms, member service is the return on the investment that members make in the association, which creates the jobs for the staff members.  Quality member service should be the first goal of every association transaction. 

How many members will you return an investment to today?