As we launch into the first of several posts this month on change management, watch this short video and listen for his simple (but incredibly hard -- especially for associations) solution: at any time -- and especially tough economic times -- associations need to simplify and focus.

However, I guarantee you haven’t heard economics explained in these kinds of concepts, even though this hilarious YouTube video is by Yoram Bauman, a self-named “stand-up economist” at the American Economic Association conference in January.

Major kudos to the AEC for having the guts and grace during a dismal financial year to insert its first “humor session” at a conference, which actually garnered it a nice blog post in The New York Times and apparently standing-room-only attendance that day.

For the past 10-15 years the association world was dominated by “dividers”—those who saw more readily the differences between the members of an organization. This tendency, abetted and propelled by the growing ease of sharing information through the Internet, led to an increasing fragmentation of traditional association memberships into special interest groups and even wholly separate spin-off associations of people and organizations who find more in common among themselves than they did with their former place of membership. It is safe to say that we now have more associations in existence than ever before; but this trend was somewhat at the expense of larger, older associations, among which there has been a great deal of hand-wringing and soul-searching.

Now the economic tide has shifted. With the tremendous financial pressures that are being put on everyone, the newer, smaller associations may be having a particularly difficult time of it. Does this represent the coming of a new era for fewer, larger associations? Will associations start to be dominated by “lumpers”—those who see the points in common rather than the differences among groups? These are different questions. I don’t believe the clock will ever be turned back to fewer, larger associations, but I do think we are going to see—and perhaps are seeing now--a lot more intense and perhaps innovative combinations and partnerships among associations—small and large. Am I wrong?

This is my job. I take any number of known points, and I work on finding the unknown...not because I enjoy it, and not because I think about it very critically; but because I have to! And chances are, so do you.

If you are in association management, then triangulation can (or should) be your best friend. It can help you find innovative solutions to problems—even some problems you weren’t aware you had. So let’s take this powerful concept and try to break it down into a process.

Tips to help you find the unknown points:

- Have a system in place that tracks all major good ideas that come from committees—treat them like your reserve accounts, an investment in the future. Formalize this tracking system into your planning in the form of a Queue of ideas that committees/staff review annually. Kill the bad ideas (yes they do exist), don’t let them get in your queue, they will muck it up.

- Prioritize projects/ideas using board outcomes and strategic plans. Some things are more important and relevant than others. The hardest part of implementing a strategic plan is filling the gaps (the things it doesn’t tell you to do). Use your good ideas as glue for the gaps.

- Look for similarities, and don’t be afraid to partner with other committees/associations. Be ready to convince people that a hybrid of their idea with someone else’s idea is really the best way to go.

Real-life example that is (hopefully) working:

Conditions Before Triangulation
- SIMA is developing a Certified Snow Technician program, an idea from the Certification committee...committee is stuck, having a hard time figuring out how and what to deliver as a hands-on test for CST’s

- SIMA Education committee decides it wants to do training for safe operation of equipment

- Numerous SIMA exhibitors have recommended an outdoor demo area during the annual show

After Triangulation
At its next annual show, SIMA will conduct a Demo Day with 10 equipment providers, who will partner with volunteers to deliver a safety and efficiency training curriculum. That curriculum will be used for the basis of the CST program.

Maybe triangulation is the wrong word; maybe E pluribus unum is a better descriptor?

Jamie Notter challenges associations to try for truth.

Bruce Hammond shares his experience on "the other side"--as a volunteer--and the lessons he sees for associations.

Tony Rossell is hosting an interesting discussion on incentives and membership recruitment. Elsewhere, Ellen Behrens at the aLearning blog is also thinking about incentives and how to make them effective.

Ann Oliveri at the Zen of Associations blog has some ideas about how to better engage association employees.

Rebecca Rolfes at the LeaderConnect blog asks whether trade associations can be truly global.

NTEN's blog lists 10 disruptive technologies your organization should be thinking about.

Michele Martin has a helpful post on making social media and learning more accessible to people with disabilities.

Peggy Hoffman shares an interesting picture of how a for-profit company is interacting with and engaging its customer community.

Harvard Business's Conversation Starter blog has a recent post on three ways to make conferences better. It's interesting to see what someone outside the association field sees as radical suggestions to improve conferences and meetings.

Here's an idea you can easily apply in your work: the Signal vs. Noise blog suggests that changing your writing instrument might help you focus on the big picture.

I've been thinking about criticism lately, because I've been seeing organizations wrestle with how to handle it when they're criticized in a public space. Most recently I read with interest a blog post by Mark Athitakis, one of my colleagues on the magazine, about a well-known author's response to a negative review of her most recent book. Let's just say she didn't take the criticism well.

I don't know that I have a Grand Unification Theory of how to handle criticism, but I do think one thing is key: Don't get defensive. As painful as criticism may be, and as wrong-headed as you may feel it is, if you get defensive, it comes across--and it comes across poorly.

Defensiveness also effectively prevents you from gleaning whatever lessons the criticism may offer. Maybe the critic just doesn't understand your association's new service offering--but clearly you should take a look at your communications efforts if the purpose of your new service is unclear. Maybe the critic just wasn't the right person for that format of education--but clearly you should look at ways to make other options or learning formats available.

And in the end, if you find yourself about to fire off a defensive email, blog comment, or Twitter rant, remind yourself that your critic is actually giving you a gift--the gift of time and brainpower. Even if you just don't agree with the criticism, the opportunity to engage with someone who's willing to take the time to share thoughts about your association, event, product, or service is worthwhile.

In this case, I’m talking about ECPAT’s Code of Conduct for the Protection of Children from Sexual Exploitation in Travel and Tourism. This is a concisely written code with six anti-“sexploitation” criteria and more than 1,000 signatories from 30 countries to date.

How many of those 1,000 signatory organizations—ranging from hotel chains to hospitality and travel associations--are U.S.-based? Four.

Why so shockingly low? Lawyers, grimaces Carol. Apparently, although this view “is not generally shared” outside of the States, many lawyers here believe that displaying support for the code would put a company/association at greater risk should a sexually exploited child decide to hire a lawyer and target, not so much the individual committing the heinous crime, but the facility in which it occurred because “it is likely more profitable.”

Fortunately, not everyone in America agrees. The American Society of Travel Agents is to be commended for adding its considerable clout to the effort to stem sex trade of minors, as is longtime hospitality industry leader Marilyn Carlson Nelson, who immediately signed up her powerful Carlson Companies in 2004 despite internal advice to the contrary. Today, she remains an ardent champion for the code and cause.

Carol, too, remains committed, although she now focuses on marketing the code primarily beyond American borders, where interest and support are much higher. In Mexico and Belize, for instance, the code has firm backing from a variety of travel associations, which also help get EPCAT supporters and staff into the door of local hotels. There, Carol finds that facility managers are often eager to sign the code, despite hesitations from corporate headquarters.

To help bolster these potential grassroots supporters, her organization is trying something new: on-the-street surveys asking whether people would prefer to stay in a place supportive of responsible tourism-related policies. Although early yet, to date around 60% of several hundred surveyed in New York City say yes.

But it’s a bit of a shame both that this is the question EPCAT has chosen to ask first, and that its initial query is to the general public. To me, it’s asking the wrong people. I’d rather target travel and hospitality professionals, owners, managers, promoters and maybe even their lawyers with the question, “How would you feel about staying in a place that does not support responsible tourism practices and policies?”

Thanks are due in particular to David Patt, CAE, who co-authored this month's case study and consistently helped to ground the article by providing his perspective on what a real CEO would think and do when faced with similar circumstances. Thanks also to Scott Oser and Oliver Yandle, who provided no-holds-barred commentary.

What do you think of the situation presented in this month's case study (available online here)? Did you agree or disagree with the commentators? If you were suddenly faced with the loss of a significant part of your association's sponsorship revenue, how would you respond?

Proposals for the new worldwide service challenge are due by Oct. 1, 2009. For a list of project criteria and more information, visit www.kiwanis.org/wsp. Kiwanis will announce its final choice in June 2010 during 95th annual convention.

But what about the very best managers…the ones who inspire us to do better than we thought we ever could? You know the ones…the ones we would do our utmost to please, the ones that make coming to work an absolute pleasure--a humanly and professionally rewarding experience. Hopefully all of us have had the experience of working with or for someone like that at least once in our lives.

You can feel it in the atmosphere of the organizations that are run by such people. It is refreshing, energizing and inspiring. Some small organizations of a few employees have this; but so do some large, multinational organizations. What characterizes such places? Here are some thoughts, please feel free to add!

- They are attuned to the markets they serve—in fact they are so attuned they are sometimes seen as trend setters. They are what others want to be.

- The managers of such organizations walk the talk. And what’s more, they somehow attract and create other managers just like themselves. The whole place takes on their personality!

- A person’s word is their bond in such organizations. If you say you are going to do something, everyone knows you will—or die trying.

- They are high energy places that stimulate creative thinking. They are FUN places to work.

Let’s start with definitions (from dictionary.com):

Sale: The exchange of goods or services for an amount of money or its equivalent.

Support: To maintain by supplying with things necessary to existence.

Here are some tips on how to implement supporting your members, exhibitors, sponsors, volunteers, and even your staff:

Ask One Question: How can I (we) support you? It sounds so nice, and it actually means something.

Focus on those you can support, not those you have to sell: Driving revenue is our goal, and I’m not saying that you should turn away money that walks through the door. What I am saying is that you should focus on the core group of people and companies who you can support, and cultivate those relationships to be mutually beneficial, symbiotic ones.

Support = Following Up: Adapt to their modes of communication, but make sure you do follow up with them. A short email or note, a quick phone call, that makes the difference.

Ask Questions: You can’t support if you don’t know anything about them. You can learn all the superficial facts on a website, and plug a few lines into your pitch, but you still don’t know the person, or the company, you only know what they do. Find out what they love, and what they hate, and what they are passionate about. And take good notes.

Meet Them Where They Are: We are all in different places, and you’ll get an instant impression from them, whether they are bored, in a hurry, engaged in your conversation, etc. If they are very detailed, than supporting them means providing many details. If they shoot from the hip, than so do you!

Here are some other examples of Sales vs. Support:

Sales is trying to make someone pay for some kind of ketchup Popsicle with, um, gloves on? Support is finding out what their favorite condiment is, and handing them a cheeseburger slathered in it, with a napkin and a nice little wet nap.

Sales is making loud jokes, talking a lot, and generally acting like you know everything. Support is facilitating, encouraging, and listening.

Sales is a fake personality making a standard pitch. Support is your real self (polished nicely), meeting a specific need for a specific client.

Sales is a method and a tool, and useful in many situations. Support is a paradigm that you use to approach all your interactions with people who support you.

My duties on-site primarily included networking with members. The question, however, is whether member relations is a core association service or if spending an eight-hour workday in the office would have been a better use of my time?

We have a small staff and I wear many hats, including that of member retention, outreach and engagement. Although to some – including a handful of coworkers that spend less time out and about with members – it may seem that member relations is unnecessary fluff.

I mean, stepping back, it is quite easy to see how one full workday spent out of the office during a beautiful, summer day could be confused with playing hooky; however, I believe that showing an interest in our members, attending regional events, networking with key stakeholders and remaining visible is paramount to active, engaged and happy members.

Like marketing, member relations is sometimes the first service to be trimmed from an association’s budget during tough economic times; however, I believe that staying connected to members allows associations like mine to gather and utilize valuable intelligence.

Attending this golf outing allowed me to network with members, informally question them about satisfaction with a variety of Association products/services, demonstrate progress on current initiatives, identify current member challenges and the list goes on.

So, my question to you is this: Do you believe “member relations” is a core association service? What does member relations look like in your association? In what ways does your association leverage member intelligence?

George Siemens at the elearnspace blog links to an article on designing education in the "new economy of attention" that could inform some of the discussions happening in associations about Twittering and texting during conferences. In a related post, he announces a new project on social media trends and their implications for learning that sounds like it could be interesting.

Elizabeth Weaver Engel at the Thanks for Playing blog posted some food for thought on simplicity, inspired by engineering principles.

Deidre Reid at the Reid All About It blog has some in-depth thoughts on authenticity, what it looks like, and what it is.

I love this: The Association Rat blog suggests that everyone develop a "bucket list" of what you want to accomplish during your time in any given job.

Elsewhere, Wes Trochlil talks about some of the ways things we now have in abundance are creating new scarcities.

Jamie Notter tells us that leadership is not comfortable, and why it's important to accept that.

The Digital Now blog wonders about the cost of free lunch.

Some interesting social media case studies: Lee Aase talks about what they're doing at the Mayo Clinic, Mark Buzan describes a nonprofit's successful viral video campaign, and Rohit Bhargava analyzes a recent online scavenger hunt held by Virgin America.

Here’s some of the many great things Jeffrey had to say about where associations are with regard to learning, and where we need to go.

I’ve heard you talk lately about issues related to diversity in association learning events. What should associations be doing to hold themselves accountable for greater diversity and inclusion in their learning programs?

I think you can start with the presenters. I think associations have an obligation to be doing due diligence about what messages they send based on the presenters that they are selecting.

I'm not saying that there should be a particular message, but if we believe and we value inclusiveness and top quality education and a whole host of other things, those then should be lenses by which we filter the choices we're making about our presenters, particularly the people who get the biggest platforms.

It would be rare for an association to bring in a political speaker or a person who has a political take on a topic without having thought about the consequences of only spotlighting one particular viewpoint. They may still choose to do it and say, no, we want this Democrat or this Republican's take on this issue. But they would have done this with deliberation and understand the consequences.

I don't think the same type of considerations are going on on other lenses. What does it mean if our three general session speakers are all 50-year-old white males? I'm not saying that's inherently bad. From my value system it is; from the association's standpoint it may not. But think about what that means in relation to the overall values of the organization.

I know, having been an education director and been around for long enough, how general session speakers are often selected. Who is the biggest name that people will get excited about listening to? And then secondly, when we get down into that plenary level, who will someone sponsor or who can we get for free?

That means our only criteria are those two core values. It's not looking at the broader set of core values. I don't think that's what people who are serious about learning should be doing.

And the consequence is that we continue to elevate the same voices and the same perspectives, and we create an echo chamber that those then become the voices and perspectives that people see because those are the ones that everyone's talking about.

What are some other things that you think associations need to be holding themselves accountable for with regard to learning?

The bulk of [conference] evaluation forms still primarily focus on satisfaction with the session. We're getting better. In my experience, maybe a quarter of those, up to a third, are getting into [questions like] “How relevant will this be for you in your workplace?” “I received ideas that I'm going to be able to use.”

But we're not even, in the basic level, asking questions that measure the effectiveness and the applicability of both the content and the format. We're still [asking] “this speaker was knowledgeable; AV and handouts were good.” I feel like we haven't even made the commitment to the baby step of holding ourselves accountable, let alone having a more sophisticated assessment mechanism to find out what actually was used.

To me that suggests that we're not really serious about ensuring that we're delivering education that is actually used back in the workplace.

What would it look like if we really were serious about that?

I think you’d see that as the finish line. Right now most associations and most directors of education see the finish line as the end of the event or the end of the webinar. I totally get that. But all we've really done is get people trained for the race; the real race is back there in the workplace.

I think there has to be an initial shift of thinking: We [know we] are successful three to six months afterwards, when people can tell us what percentage of the knowledge they used, what has worked for them, and what hasn't.

If you take that as a beginning mindset, you design things very differently from the very beginning. …

Why don't people ask what percentage of the session's content is going to be relevant to you in the work that you do? Why is that so hard to get that put onto an evaluation form? Sometimes we think about it being the meeting planner, focusing on logistics versus the director of education focusing on content. But I think that's too easy to blame the meeting planner.

If we're really serious about learning, why aren't we further along in this arena? That's the same thing I've been saying with diversity. If we were really serious about it, wouldn't things look different?

My bottom-line takeaway from that is we're not serious about learning. We're serious about delivering information, and that's not sustainable 10 to 20 years from now.