That’s the premise of a new book getting some buzz in the nonprofit community. According to Race for Relevance, “Today’s association is in a race for relevance. The track is fast and associations are at risk of falling seriously behind. Worse yet, some are likely to drop out of contention altogether.”
A bold premise? Yes, but one we’ve supported for some time. About a third of this book’s recommendations are old news, as least as far as how REM manages its clients, and another third is pertinent only to very large associations with equally large boards and staffs. The rest of it offers some interesting data that doubting board members should see and recommendations worth considering—seriously considering right now. That’s why I’m offering this longer-than-usual post, because these are serious issues to consider.
One of the best sections of the books is the collection of the six marketplace realities that did not exist 25 years ago that have irreversibly changed the playing field for membership organizations:
- time (board members and members have too little of it and members who say they don’t have time for an association’s programs are really saying “I’ve got better things to do with my time.”),
- value expectations (members demand more or they won’t renew),
- market structure (more stuff does not necessarily equal more membership value),
- generational differences (for the first time in history there are five living generations in American and four of them are working together in the workplace and exist as association members and volunteers),
- competition (not just for time, but for membership dollars as specialized associations keep springing up), and
- technology (we need more of it and better technology).
So, what to do in the face of these realities? The authors offer these recommendations:
Overhaul the Governance Model
The authors suggest creating a small, competency-based board with no more than five members and recognize that this would be a radical and unwelcome change in many nonprofits. However, they believe too many nonprofits waste too much money on, and time in, meetings where there are too many unqualified, noncontributing, and distracted board members.
Overhaul Committees
The authors suggest we need fewer committees with fewer members following explicit mission statements. Their research suggests that one or two people on most committees do most of the work. That’s an oversimplification among our clients, but is true in some cases. They suggest giving most committee assignments to the paid staff to handle. (If only there was enough money in the budget for that to happen.)
Empower the CEO and Enhance Staff
Instead of expecting part-time volunteers to possess the necessary skill and expertise the nonprofit needs, smart leaders will increasingly look to staff. Well, that’s exactly why many nonprofits are choosing the AMC model—because we offer a ready-made staff of skilled professionals. In this section the authors emphasize the extreme significance of a three-year strategic plan—and we’ve been preaching this at REM for some time.
Rationalize the Member Market
Not all members are worth having. To help determine the members on whom the group should focus, the authors list several questions boards and staff must be able to answer. They include knowing about key industry trends, market segmentation in the industry/profession served, retention rates for each key membership area, and those membership segments that give the association low satisfaction rates in member surveys (and why).
Rationalize Programs, Services and Activities
Following the premise in the previous section, not all association programs are worth creating or maintaining. The authers note the 80/20 rule nonprofit leaders have known about for years: 80% of member value comes from 20% of the benefits offered. In short, stop running programs that few members want or need and focus your precious time and dollars on the programs that matter most. And if some member don’t renew because of these changes, let them go.
Bridge the Technology Gap and Build a Framework for the Future
This is perhaps the best section from my perspective because at REM we believe so strongly in the same ideas presented. And this is not a section touting the importance of social media. The authors say that more and more membership connections will be based on technology, so without a good technology framework, associations will lose their dwindling connections to their members. Associations must know exactly how much of their budget they spend on technology and then seriously consider increasing it—by a lot.
That’s a summary of this intriguing book. If you’d like to include a discussion of its recommendations at a future board meeting, request one using the comment box at the end of this post. If you’d like to read the details, I encourage you to buy a copy. The exact title if Race for Relevance; 5 Radical Changes for Associations, by Harrison Coerver and Mary Byers, CAE.
Use the form below to send me a private comment on this post or to request that this book and be put on a future board meeting agenda.
