In pursuit of influence, there is strength in numbers. Associations , and not-for-profit professional associations are formed to gain support for the particular practices of groups of individuals. Of course, influence peddling is not always quite that blatant, and so altruistic motives (read Goals and Objectives) are carefully espoused such as networking, professional development, service to the public and so on,.
For an association to be truly professional it has been established that several attributes must exist:
It goes without saying that for the organization to be successful there must be a real need for the service and a desire for members to belong. Project management is an ideal candidate.
A small association can be managed entirely by volunteers, but as it grows full-time staff must be found and paid for to handle the professional functions described. An Executive Director , responsible to a Board of Directors is usually hired to head up the staff and who may or may not act as principle spokesperson. There will be a tussle on the one hand by the Board who will want hands-on control of the interesting stuff, and the Executive Director who will want more staff to cope with the increasing work load and for the personal prestige it brings.
The task of the Executive Director is a difficult one, and the American Society of Association Executives reports that internal politics is the greatest source of frustration. Executive Directors are responsible to Boards of elected volunteers, which is like being married to a dozen or so individuals each with their own motives, personal goals and desires. So, the priority concerns of the Executive Director become: How to keep the Board happy; How to keep them out of the day-to-day running of the organization.
Of course there are a number of strategies to meet these challenges, like lots of committees keeping every one busy with the sense of lots of action, but it still needs management style. According to American Society of Association Executives two styles of Executive Directors predominate: Those who operate in the foreground with greater notoriety and responsibility, higher compensation and respect, and with the power to accomplish goals. Then there are those who operate in the background, generally with longer tenure and security, but with less respect and recognition and higher levels of frustration in doing what they believe is best.
But for the power operators, what can be done to establish greater autonomy, to inhibit micro-management meddling? Indeed, what if it were possible to disenfranchise the membership, the Board, the Executive Committee and anyone else in the chain of command? Now, it seems, this is perfectly possible to do achieve with a new organizational approach known as ‘Policy Governance’. Applied with skill and persistence, this concept can be used to sweep away an entire organizational heritage. Its purpose is to insist that the membership and its short-term Board representatives focus on all-new policy strategies, the implementation of which are all sufficiently far into the future that none will see the fruits of their labors. Meantime any strategies that do survive can be readily translated in to operational tactics that serve the Executive Director's short term needs.
Of course, if the association is to survive, it must still be generally responsive to membership needs and managed with integrity, honesty and transparency. If you are contemplating forming an association, or revamping an existing one, entertain this new governance concept with the utmost caution.