And the sooner the better. There are three things that drive me crazy when they come up in board meetings. Things that I have to stop myself from grabbing the person who suggested it and shaking them vigorously. However, I wanted to post it here to see if anybody has a differing opinion, and why.
First off is the whole silent auction thing. These make me want to scream. Somebody donates something that is worth $100 and it gets auctioned off for $15. Yay, the organization made $15!! Does anyone spot the problem with this plan? Do these ever make sense?
Second, the "let's do a scholarship" phenomenon. Do people ever stop and think about the end users here? If they did, they would probably perceive that, for a strapped student, yes $300 is worth jumping through a hoop or two. However, if you're a student, you also think that there are tons of other people applying for the same $300. Yes, the $300 is nice, but in the mind of an applicant, it's kind of like a slot machine.
The third piece of the trifecta has gotta be mentoring programs. Now, do I think mentoring is awesome? Yes, I do. Do I think organizations should facilitate it? Yes I do. But does that ever happen when someone says "let's do a mentoring program"? I have my doubts. In theory they should work but lots of factors have made them basically unimplementable for these groups.
So I don't claim to be the fount of all wisdom, but in general, I wish these things would go away.
Hi Nick
Hope this post relieved some stress, but you will need additional techniques if you continue to pursue a career in association management or, for that matter, serve on an association board.
A board member at ULI once noted that he felt like he was in a remake of the Bill Murray movie, Ground Hog Day. Staff there had perfected a technique we called "mind vacation," signaling to each other when we saw someone ready to scream.
Another option, recommended by a colleague at the AIA, was to perform an annual staff lobotomy so when a board member proposed doing something that had been standard operating procedure for years or an idea such as those you list, all staff could appear fascinated with the concept, nod, and agree to look into it.
If that's too radical, just respond by saying, "So noted" or "That might be an idea."
Good luck and watch your blood pressure.
Cheers
Ann O.
Thanks, Ann, for your comment. Conversations are what's wanted around here. But you may have misunderstood where I'm coming from--I don't have a stress management problem. Er, actually, I do, but not on these kinds of things. :)
My frustration with these three things is a professional one. I work with 97 organizations, but obviously on a very meta level. They don't pay me, and in fact, my only obligation to them is to be helpful. I get to share my opinions--in a diplomatic way of course--and everyone seems to be happy and appreciative.
But continuing with the thought process... let's postulate that I am an executive director with one board. While I am capable of being a yes-man, is that a "technique" that would garner me success in association management? I'd hope not, because that would probably mean my organization was an underperforming one. Or that my board wouldn't trust me to offer professional advice, which is precisely what they pay me for. I am under the assumption that the E.D., or any staff person with good access to board leaders, has the obligation, precisely as an "association professional" to not just follow the board, but to counsel the board, advise the board. Obviously you do what they want at the end of the day, but I definitely think you should engage them based on past experiences, data, qualitative research and so forth. These are highly intelligent, accomplished people who can use their brains based on different inputs. Why walk on egg shells? In my experience, E.D.s who walk on egg shells around their boards and try to guess what everyone's thinking tend to get fired.
Also, I must ask for clarification on saying "so noted," or "that might be an idea." Firstly, these strike me as unfathomably condescending based on the context I'm assuming. Secondly, are you saying that as association professionals we should make noncommittal statements like these and do what we want afterwards? Politick the board afterwards? Or just implement the bad idea unquestioningly? All of these seem more like problems than solutions, but maybe you meant something else.