Who’s responsible for strategy development? Is it the Board, the CEO, or the Receptionist?
The best strategy in the world isn’t a good strategy unless it can be communicated and executed. Although the CEO is responsible for leading the strategy development process, and the Board has ultimate fiduciary responsibility for determining strategic direction, an organization is missing an opportunity if it doesn’t engage the entire staff in the development of strategy.
Engaging the receptionist in the process is laying the seeds for strategic communication and strategy execution. But, this involvement does so much more by:
Expanding the diversity of input and providing valuable insight. As the gatekeeper to our organizations, the “moments of truth” the receptionist encounters are invaluable;
Contributing to our responsibility as leaders to develop our staff and building the strategic capacity of our organizations. In today’s competitive environment, the organizations where strategic thinking permeates the culture will always have the competitive edge over those organizations that aren’t strategic thinking entities.
Creating ownership in the strategy and realizing that buy-in will pay off leaps and bounds in strategy execution and in continual strategy improvement.
Communicating in a very visible way that we value the input of everyone on our team, including the team member that should be on the top of the organizational chart.
The bigger takeaway here is that when developing strategies, whether they are organizational strategies, issues management strategies or problem-solving strategies, significant strategic thought must be given to who we should have “on the bus” and at what stop they board.
Who do you engage in strategy development and what criteria do you use for selecting the strategy development team?
About the Author
Robert Nelson, a Certified Association Executive (CAE), brings over a quarter-century of successful executive leadership experience, working with Boards and high-powered CEOs in a not-for-profit setting. He is the founder of Nelson Strategic Consulting and brings hands-on experience guiding and facilitating the design of strategy development processes and think tanks. His focus on organizational strategies and strategic solutions to complex organizational and global grand challenges for national as well as international organizations.
Contact Robert through his website, or learn more about Nelson Strategic Consulting at www.nscstrategies.com.
This week’s blog post on speaker coaching is re-posted with permission from Aaron D. Wolowiec, founder and president of Event Garde, a professional development consulting firm based in Grand Rapids, Mich. Website: www.eventgarde.com.
When’s the last time your organization’s education committee was asked to identify the three to five greatest challenges currently inhibiting its industry speakers from reaching their fullest potential during the annual conference? I recently did this for a client and following were the responses that bubbled to the surface:
Attendee engagement within presentations is often minimal or formulaic.
Facilitators have difficulty reeling in discussion in the allotted time to cover all topics planned within their presentation outlines.
PowerPoint slides are overwhelmed by too much content.
Presentations often hit on the “This is what we do at…” but do not identify how the idea may be adapted within other contexts.
Do these sound familiar? What would comprise your organization’s “watch list”? Based upon these areas of focus, we then developed a one-page resource and shared it with all selected speakers, requesting they use this document in designing their conference presentation experiences. Specifically, we:
Provided 20 different brain-centric attendee engagement strategies ranging from “Write learning objectives into participant materials” to “Schedule post-session touch points.”
Encourage speakers to limit their content and slide decks, plan appropriately for practice and feedback time, park unrelated topics and leave time at the end of their sessions for questions, feedback, and evaluations.
Assembled 10 slide tips intended to help speakers overcome death by PowerPoint. Key insights ranged from “Limit bullet points and text” to “Use video or audio.”
Asked speakers to share with attendees not only their experiences but also how their ideas might be adapted to other organizations with differing resources.
But this is just the first step.
Next year we intend to offer a training webinar (or a series of shorter training webinars) that helps illuminate these and other strategies and provide individualized coaching that allows for more robust reflection, planning, practice, and feedback.
Additional ideas for investing in conference speakers might include one or more of the following:
Personal feedback from professional development/learning staff sitting in on conference presentations.
Key insights from an outside consultant conducting an education audit during the conference.
Aggregate feedback from attendee evaluations focused more on learning outcomes than on attendee reactions.
Self-evaluations conducted by speakers and peer-reviewed by staff/volunteers.
An online community devoted to questions, answers and other resources intended to support speaker development.
Growth in the delivery of conference presentations is an iterative process. Mastery does not occur overnight. Rather, repeat industry speakers should be provided ongoing learning guidance, opportunities to practice new knowledge and skills, meaningful feedback from seasoned colleagues and staff and job aids that enhance retention and transfer.
What strategies have you found most successful in mentoring your industry speakers in the design and delivery of top-rated conference sessions?
This week’s blog post on association marketing is re-posted with permission from Aaron D. Wolowiec, founder and president of Event Garde, a professional development consulting firm based in Grand Rapids, Mich. Website: www.eventgarde.com.
In a traditional call for presentations, a general invitation is released to an organization’s key constituents to submit topic ideas for a program. This call provides detailed instructions for submission of papers for assessment and selection by a review committee. Ultimately, constituent submissions are returned to the committee for review, scoring, and selection.
In a content curation process, a committee comprised of a cross-section of the organization’s key constituents first identifies the topics of greatest interest or concern to the industry. In some instances, this committee may rely on a content outline such as the one created for the Certified Association Executive (CAE) exam.
If no outline is available, the committee will consider current trends, future trends (five to 10 years or more into the future) and other hot topics likely keeping the industry up at night. Once content is reviewed, ranked and confirmed, the result is a makeshift content outline the committee can use to disseminate speaker asks.
Ultimately, staff inherent speakers from one of these two methods. Via the call for presentations approach, speakers self-represent their content expertise and speaking prowess and are selected accordingly. Via the content curation approach, speaker asks may be more deliberate (e.g., based on credentials or demonstrated know-how); however, they are limited by the committee’s network.
Regardless of the method used, there really is no guarantee speakers will be successful. Your candidate may be an experienced and skilled face-to-face presenter, a 30-year industry veteran and a world-renowned practitioner, but still may not be ready to present utilizing a digital platform.
Before selecting a speaker for your next digital presentation, consider that individual’s digital presentation experience. Additionally, request evaluation data. Where possible, it’s best if the speaker has previously presented (successfully) using the same digital platform you intend to use. Remember, not all digital platforms are created equal.
And regardless of experience, speakers should be open to furthering their presentation skills. Following are 11 challenges and possible solutions you may use when coaching speakers in delivering quality digital presentations. Of course, practice is still the best strategy for mentoring speakers who have no previous digital presentation experience.
Challenge: Attendees seem disconnected from the speaker/learning experience. Solution: Utilize a webcam to deliver the presentation; care should be taken to look directly into the camera throughout the program.
Challenge: With no facial expressions/body language to draw from, the speaker is uncertain attendees are “getting” the content. Solution: Consider pausing the presentation periodically to ask an assessment question via the digital platform’s poll function.
Challenge: When joining remotely, participants are constantly distracted by email and other visual cues. Solution: Set ground rules for participants early in the program and ask attendees to follow along in a pre-printed participant guide where they can complete assignments and take notes.
Challenge: Reflection activities cause a lot of dead space/air time during the program. Solution: Convert the reflection activity into a pre- or post-program assignment.
Challenge: Practice activities facilitated during face-to-face programs don’t seem to translate into a digital environment. Solution: Encourage multiple registrants from the same office or gather attendees at centralized locations to participate in the program together; arm them with a supplies list, directions and plenty of activity time.
Challenge: Four or more hours of content may be required to teach a particular skill. Solution: Segment and sequence content into smaller modules. No more than 60 minutes is suggested, though even shorter is preferred.
Challenge: Learners want to share their experiences, but this is difficult to facilitate when all of the lines are muted for optimal sound quality. Solution: Allow attendees to demonstrate their interest in speaking and then open up only their phone lines. Alternatively, gather attendee stories in advance of the program and have the moderator read them aloud.
Challenge: Participants are easily bored by digital presentations. Solution: Incorporate different instructional strategies into the program beyond lecture (e.g., video, poll, chat).
Challenge: The chat function is difficult to moderate so it often goes unused/is turned off. Solution: Participants crave interaction with their peers. They also learn a lot from these conversations. Utilize a separate chat moderator who can prompt discussion with attendees, respond to questions and pose trending questions to the speaker.
Challenge: The digital platform makes it difficult for the speaker to provide personalized attendee feedback. Solution: Allow participants the opportunity within 30 days to follow-up with the speaker directly (e.g., ask a question, gain clarification).
Challenge: It’s challenging to ensure retention and job transfer post-program. Solution: Encourage action planning to focus learner ideas and next steps; create a job aid to guide future performance; or schedule post-session touch points (e.g., 30, 60 and 90 days).
Think about the old 80/20 rule – you get 80% of your results from 20% of your effort. As an association with limited resources, you can’t be all things to all people. So it makes sense to be strategic about where you’re investing your time, energy, and resources when working on growing membership.
If you survey your members and conduct ongoing research, you should be able to segment them by their perceived value of your organization, and then by how much they are investing on an annual basis. You’ll want to group them by:
Members who have low perceived value of their membership, but are making large investments in your organization.
This can be the attrition danger zone, and there are countless reasons why these members don’t value what you are offering. Unless you want to risk losing them, you’ll need to figure out where your organization is falling short and take action quickly.
Members who have high perceived value and are making large investments.
Look at your membership survey responses to identify the benefits that are most used by this group and determine if there are any shortcomings or areas of improvement that could enhance the benefits that matter most to them. The name of the game is keeping this group engaged. Making small changes and additions – and then communicating the improvements you’ve made – can go a long way to keeping these members engaged.
Members who have high perceived value, but are making small investments.
The key for this group is to identify value-ads that could generate additional revenue streams. These kinds of members have staying power, but you’ll want to be careful not to neglect them. As you have the resources available, adding and bundling products that appeal to lower-level members can help you retain, and even upgrade these members.
Members who have low perceived value, and are making small investments.
If this is a small group in comparison to your overall membership, you can focus on these members last. They may fall off eventually, but if that happens, you stand to lose a lot less from this group than you do from your higher income generators. If this category comprises a large portion of your membership, this could signal a big problem in your membership strategies.
If you’ve come to the conclusion that certain members just aren’t a match, that’s not necessarily a negative thing. It’s better to focus on keeping and attracting the right kind of members than to stretch your resources too thin in an effort to cater to everyone.
Now that you’ve classified your members into these groups, it’s time to dive a little deeper into figuring out what makes them tick and identifying the kinds of members that will help you build your organization.
Stay tuned for our next post on creating member profiles to determine your “perfect” members.
For associations, continuing education has become increasingly important as a membership benefit. In a recent study from Pew Research Center, 73% of respondents identified themselves as lifelong learners.
That means that there’s a huge and growing opportunity for your association to engage with both members and non-members.
Most people are constantly looking to learn, but with the plethora of learning opportunities that exist out there, how do they choose what training they’ll undertake? Earning continuing education units (CEUs) is a big incentive. Tracking CEUs for your members is an important function of your association – and has come to be an expected benefit for members. (123Signup Association Management Software makes tracking CEUs a piece of cake).
If your membership growth is stunted and you’re having difficulty retaining the members you already have, revamping your continuing education programs and offering more courses that count for CEUs can do wonders to revitalize your organization.
Evaluating your existing programs and determining what needs to be changed, and what additional courses would add value for your members, requires research and thought. The best place to start is by asking your existing members what they think about your existing courses, where they feel they need to up-skill, and what knowledge and capabilities they feel they need to do their jobs better.
If you’re not already, you should be surveying every participant in every one of your courses. Start by looking back on the responses you’ve received regarding these courses in recent years.
You should also have a record of people who have attended any of your training programs in the past. Since they’ve already shown interest in continuing to learn, surveying just that segment of your membership is a great place to start.
Once you’ve gained some insights on what your members are looking for, you might even host a small focus group to brainstorm on potential future training topics and structures.
The next step? Create an action plan on how you will bring your ideas to fruition, and the people and resources that will be required.
Before you begin to redesign your governance system, invest adequate time in analyzing your current system. After all, this is what Einstein would do!
Einstein has been quoted as having said “if I had an hour to solve a problem and my life depended on the solution, I would spend the first 55 minutes determining the proper question to ask, for once I know the proper question, I could solve the problem in less than five minutes. In other words, he would spend significant time figuring out what the problem is.
If your current governance system isn’t performing up to par, it’s important to understand why not. Depending on what the “real” problems are, the solutions may lie in making actual structural changes (reformulating the committee structure or size of board, for example) or they may lie in changing the practices the board engages in (agenda design or meeting design, for example). Investing the time to adequately define and redefine the problem will:
Ensure that you are addressing the root (right) problems;
Generate information specific to the issue(s) at hand that will be useful in solving the problem(s) and developing a sound governance system; and,
Lead to group consensus on what the problem actually is, which is vital to the creation and execution of sound solutions.
Although a problem might be complex, the processes used to solve a problem are not complex. The first step is properly defining the problem and this begins with challenging assumptions and breaking the problem down to ensure you are focused on the root problem.
ROOT PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
Determining the root cause(s) of an underperforming or ill performing governance system is one of the first steps in governance system redesign. Often what is first identified is a symptom of the problem, not the root cause. As such, it is important to challenge one’s assumptions and not get “locked” into the first “problem” that is identified.
When analyzing a governance system, two methodologies are useful: Ishikawa Diagram and Toyoda’s 5 Whys.
Ishikawa Diagram
An Ishikawa Diagram takes a systems approach to problem identification. The diagram is used to identify all possible root cause categories, under which actual root causes are listed. This approach forces one to consider all of the different parts of the governance system as one analyzes the problem.
An Ishikawa Diagram looks like a fish skeleton, with the initial problem being the head and possible root cause categories represented by the rib bones, under which root causes are listed. The illustration below uses lack an underperforming board as the initial problem, and then identifies six possible root cause categories, which become the rib bones of the diagram. Actual potential root causes are then listed along each rib bone. A more comprehensive list of root categories for governance system analysis is provided further below.
Five Step Process
Insert the initial problem statement in the problem statement box.
Brainstorm possible root cause categories.
Brainstorm potential root causes in each category
Analyze the potential root causes to clarify / define the real problem(s).
Develop consensus around the root problem(s)
GOVERNANCE SYSTEM ROOT CAUSE CATEGORIES
As mentioned above, the Ishikawa process starts with brainstorming all of the potential root cause categories. These are comprised of all of the parts of the “system.” Following is a list of root cause categories for governance issues. All or some of these may apply to your organization. You can use this list as a starting place to identify additional root cause categories that are applicable in your situation as you build out your Ishikawa Diagram.
Board Meeting Design
Nominating Process
Committee Structure
Board Size / Structure
Board Culture
Board Development
Board Leadership Development
Governance Polices
Governance Practices
Board CEO Relationship
Staff Support
Toyoda’s 5 Whys
Toyoda’s 5 Whys is a very simple method to identify root causes. It can be used alone or in conjunction with the fishbone technique illustrated above. When a problem arises, ask why and for each response to the question ask why again until the why question has been asked at least five times.
Applying the 5 whys methodology to our problem of having a board that is a non-strategic thinking entity, the questions might look like this:
Q: Why doesn’t the Board think Strategically?
A: Because the are always digging into short-term tactics
Q: Why are they always discussing short-term tactics?
A: Because these issues are perceived to be important by the Board
Q: Why are these issues important to the Board?
A: Because they believe it is the role and responsibility of the Board to discuss and act on these issues
Q: Why does the Board believe this is their role and responsibility?
A: Because they don’t know another way
Q: Why doesn’t the Board know another way?
A: Because we don’t have a governance / Board development program
Using this example, we see the real problem is not that the Board isn’t thinking strategically, it is that we don’t have a formalized training / development program for our Board members. Of course, each group (or reader) will answer these questions differently; the point is to engage in the process to dig deeper into the actual root problem.
WHY AN INVESTMENT IN PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION MATTERS
Spending time to make sure that you have defined the problem(s) correctly is imperative to governance system redesign. On a very basic level, it ensures that you are focusing on the right problem and creates a high level of probability that the right solution(s) will be developed. Further, working on the problem identification process with a Governance Task Force builds consensus around the actual (root) problem(s). Finally, engaging in robust problem identification reveals information and knowledge that will inform the development of solutions and governance redesign.
Of course, it is also critical that you and your board have a thorough understanding of what good governance looks like as well as the appropriate roles and responsibilities of a high performing board. Likewise, it is helpful to create a vision of what a high performing board would look like for your organization so you can redesign toward that vision.
About the Author
Robert Nelson, a Certified Association Executive (CAE), brings over a quarter-century of successful executive leadership experience, working with Boards and high-powered CEOs in a not-for-profit setting. He is the founder of Nelson Strategic Consulting and brings hands-on experience guiding and facilitating the design of strategy development processes and think tanks. His focus on organizational strategies and strategic solutions to complex organizational and global grand challenges for national as well as international organizations.
Contact Robert through his website, or learn more about Nelson Strategic Consulting at www.nscstrategies.com.
In today’s fast-paced world, does your board still take the time to dialogue? Yes, we engage in discussions and deliberate issues, but we rarely slow down and actual dialogue. Engaging in dialogue at board meetings can add value to an organization through the creation of new ideas, the formation of shared meaning, and the free flow of diverse perspective. Also, a practice of dialogue can contribute to strengthening trust and relationships between board members.
Dialogue is the free flow of meaning between members of a board. The goal isn’t to sell a point, idea or position; instead, it is to explore with honest curiosity and understand the meaning of what people are saying. It is exploring ideas with no endpoint in mind other than to understand. Dialogue concerns itself with truly understanding, in a non-judgmental way, what is being said. It doesn’t concern itself with what is right or wrong, or truth. In fact, it recognizes that what is said is not the whole truth, but simply part of a larger truth.
William Isaacs (1993) defines dialogue, “…as a sustained, collective inquiry, into the processes, assumptions, and certainties that compose everyday experience. Yet the experience is of a special kind–the experience of the meaning embodied in a community of people.” Dialogue is a divergent conversation where the participants suspend judgment, listen rather than react, and identify assumptions upon which they reflect for the purpose of gaining an understanding of the meaning of what is being said.
Dialogue is iterative in the sense that when something is spoken it is listened to and built on by someone else. Unlike a discussion, dialogue doesn’t seek to break down and examine the parts of what is communicated but rather seeks to understand and build upon what has been said. As those dialoguing seek to digest what others are saying and the meaning behind it and contribute to the dialogue, new thoughts and ideas surface. Shared meaning is developed as the dialogue freely floats among board members; it is a collaborative conversation where all involved come to understand the assumptions of others and recognize their own assumptions.
If your board members aren’t accustomed to engaging in dialogue, as described above, it is important that you clearly signal the beginning and end of a dialogue session. It is also imperative that the following fundamentals are reviewed with the board members at the beginning of the dialogue session.
SIX FUNDAMENTALS OF DIALOGUE:
Intentionality / conscious effort: In today’s society, we rarely dialogue; as such, it is not a natural behavior for most. As a result, it is important to frame a dialogue session, so as to ask participants to consciously engage in dialogue, with the understanding and agreement that the goal is to explore an issue without making any decisions. Dialoguing is a win-win situation where the participants are not playing against each other, but with each other.
Sensitivity: Dialogue requires sensitivity on the part of the participants. They need to be sensitive to the process, to the way they respond and to the way others respond. It is important to recognize that one’s opinions and own assumptions can sometimes block the needed sensitivity. However, simply recognizing this possibility often enables the required sensitivity.
Curiosity: A bona fide curious state of mind is required. Participants must internalize the curiosity and come to believe that their curiosity is driving them to explore ideas and seek an understanding of the meaning of what others contribute to the conversation.
Listening: Listening without prejudice may be the most critical fundamental of all. It is imperative that participants listen to what is being said and reflect on it while trying to gain an understanding of the meaning behind what has been said. It is a matter of listening and reflecting as opposed to simply reacting. Listening, of course, won’t prevent misperceptions. In fact, it is ok if one misperceives the intent of another participant, as this allows for new meaning to being created in common on the spot. This, in part, is the flow of meaning that occurs in dialogue.
Judgment Suspension: We have a tendency to judge what is said, based on our underlying assumptions or opinions. The objective is to recognize and acknowledge the judgments and then let the judgments go without acting on them. It isn’t about suppressing the judgments; it is about acknowledging that they exist and moving on in a non-judgmental manner. It is important to acknowledge and suspend one’s own judgments as well as the judgments of others.
Commitment to not Defend: Dialogue is successful when no participants attempt to defend their point of view. It is important that people enter into dialogue with an open mind, recognizing that no point of view is right or wrong, including their own. It is important to internalize the fact that all viewpoints are part of a larger truth. As such, participants must understand that no attempt should be made to have their viewpoints prevail and be willing to let go of their ideas in search of a greater truth. In short, a dialogue is not a win-lose situation and there is no need to influence each other.
If you are interested in inserting dialogue into your next board meeting, there are two ways that you could approach it. Both require that you inform your board that you are going to engage in dialogue for a period of time and that the purpose is to dialogue, not deliberate or decide. Both options require a review of the fundamentals.
First, prior to the meeting you could identify a “big” strategic issue that confronts your organization. In this scenario, the objective would be to simply explore the issue. The advantage to this approach is that no decisions regarding the issue would be taken at the meeting. If interested in this approach, you might want to read about and engage in the generative mode of governance.
A second approach would be to identify an item on the agenda that requires action at the meeting. When taking this approach, you would engage in dialogue around the options that are being presented at the meeting. Of course, it is important that you clearly delineate between the dialogue period and the subsequent deliberation period.
As a result of the dialogue void that exists in the lives of most, your board members may be uncomfortable when they first engage in the practice of dialogue. However, this will dissipate over time. When introducing the concept, you may find it helpful to discuss how dialogue can raise your governance performance to the next level.
Keep in mind that what is important is to engage in relaxed dialogue with a curiosity to understand the meaning of what is said and the assumptions that are behind the meaning. Doing so and seeing things as clearly as possible without judgment will produce shared meaning, create new ideas, and strengthen board relationships, as a result of understanding and accepting the assumptions of others as part of a larger truth.
About the Author
Robert Nelson, a Certified Association Executive (CAE), brings over a quarter-century of successful executive leadership experience, working with Boards and high-powered CEOs in a not-for-profit setting. He is the founder of Nelson Strategic Consulting and brings hands-on experience guiding and facilitating the design of strategy development processes and think tanks. His focus on organizational strategies and strategic solutions to complex organizational and global grand challenges for national as well as international organizations.
Contact Robert through his website, or learn more about Nelson Strategic Consulting at www.nscstrategies.com.
As a society, we are so accustomed to being asked to find the right answer that we often don’t look beyond that answer. This can problematic when we develop an association strategy. In fact, it can be problematic anytime we are trying to solve a problem.
When developing strategy, it is imperative to think strategically. And, a key component of strategic thinking is creative thinking. Creative thinking is also vital when solving problems outside of the strategy development realm.
Creative thinking demands that we come up with a variety of solutions. Maybe our first “right” answer is the best solution, but maybe the best right answer is the second, fourth or tenth right answer. The point is, we won’t know if our first “right” answer is the best until we have developed other solutions to compare and contrast it to.
The first step to identifying the best right answer is asking the right question. That starts with by charging your team with finding the right solutions or answers, not the right solution or answer. It also requires that your team challenges or ignores its assumptions. How you word the question can make a difference as well.
If we ask an employee or group of people to solve a problem, they will typically rely on their assumptions and come up with the solution. They will find a sense of satisfaction when they first encounter the solution and be happy to demonstrate that they have the solution. What they often don’t do is continue to search for other answers. As a facilitator, leader or manager it is your job to encourage them to develop multiple answers or solutions.
THE RIGHT ANSWER
In Roger von Oech’s book “A whack on the Side of the Head, ” he has some excellent examples that demonstrate the importance of not stopping with the right answer and the importance of asking the right question. But first, I need you to select the shape below that is different from all of the others.
If you picked B, great job, you are right. B is the only shape that is made from all straight lines. Of course, if you picked C, you are right as well, as it is the only shape that is asymmetrical. But, then, A is also a right choice as it is the only shape with no points. As you give it more thought, you see that D is also the right answer; it is the only shape that has both straight curved lines.
The point is, often there are many right answers. However, the right answer in not always the best answer.
THE RIGHT QUESTION
Von Oech goes on to tell the story about a plague striking a village many centuries ago. Those stricken with the plague almost immediately fell into a death like coma. Most died within a day, although a few miraculously survived. One problem the village faced was that in the 1700s medical technology wasn’t very advanced and it was extremely difficult to tell the dead from those still alive.
The village was horrified one day when they discovered that someone was accidentally buried alive. So a group of villagers got together and solved the problem by agreeing to put a little food and water in each casket along with an air tube going to the surface. It was an expensive solution, but they knew it could save lives. A second group also got together and developed a cheaper solution; they would affix a knife blade to the inside top of each coffin that would pierce the heart of the victim as the coffin was closed, thereby assuring that no one would be buried alive.
The solutions were different because each group used a different question to find the solution. The first group asked, “what if we bury someone alive” and the second group asked, “how can we make sure everyone we bury is dead”?
FORGET ASSUMPTIONS
When confronted with a problem that is similar to a previous problem we have dealt with, it is human nature to assume that the solutions and results will be similar. However, when developing strategy and solving problems it is important to either forget or challenge assumptions. The fatal nature of not challenging assumptions is illustrated in the story of Croeus, the last ruler of the great Lydian Empire.
As Croeus contemplated attacking the Persians in 546 BC, he turned to two oracles for advice. They both answered that if he attacked the Persians, a great empire would be lost. This made him feel secure and gave him the confidence to move forward; so he formed an alliance and attacked the Persians. In the end, Croeus was defeated and true to the oracles statement, a great empire was lost. Croeus’ fatal assumption was two fold: he relied on the first right answer, which was the one he assumed he would find, and he assumed since he had went into battle before and won that he would get a similar result this time.
GOOD STRATEGY / EFFECTIVE PROBLEM SOLVING
Good strategy and effective problem-solving demand that we ask the right questions, challenge our assumptions and develop a number of right solutions before moving forward with the best solution. The next time you ask a group or an employee to solve a problem, ask them to identify solutions not a singular solution. Then make sure you and they are challenging the assumption upon which the answer rests. Of course, before you even ask them to solve the problem, it is imperative that you’ve identified the right problem and ask the right question; after all a great strategy for the wrong problem is no strategy at all.
Stakeholder audits are a critical component of an ongoing strategy development process. Your organization can profit from stakeholder audits in other ways as well. Stakeholder audits are an imperative component of an issues management program, they are part and parcel of good governance, and they are key to collaboration.
Stakeholder analysis should be undertaken as part of your environmental scanning activity. In addition, such analysis can play an important role in strategy execution, as you seek to align stakeholders with your strategy. Although you may take a “stakeholder management” approach when conducting environmental scanning, a different mindset is suggested for strategy execution. When possible, in strategy execution, the goal is to take a collaborative approach with stakeholders. Ultimately, a mutually defined, reciprocal relationship should be sought.
Stakeholder Identification
The first step is to identify your stakeholders. For purposes of a stakeholder audit, stakeholders are defined as anyone or any organization that could be affected or that could influence your organization or its outcomes. Take an expansive or divergent approach when identifying stakeholders. Early in the process, it is important to identify all of your stakeholders. It is often helpful to take a systems approach.
Stakeholder Analysis
Once you have identified all of your stakeholders, it is time to conduct an analysis of the stakeholders. Make a determination to use either (or both) qualitative or quantitative analyses. Likewise, you will want to engage in both primary research and secondary research. The types of stakeholders and your current relationships with them, along with your ultimate research goal, will dictate the research methodology you employ. The objectives of the research are to: gain an understanding of their influence, determine their needs, determine their concerns and issues, assess their level of commitment or resistance, and understand their perceptions of your organization.
When evaluating the influence of stakeholders, take into consideration their constituencies, credibility and capacity. You will also want to consider whom they are connected to.
A complete analysis also takes an inward view. You will want to give consideration to what you want from each stakeholder. Finally, you will want to make a determination of the importance each stakeholder represents to your organization.
Stakeholder Prioritization
Relative importance and influence are two key elements generally considered when engaging in stakeholder prioritization. The following matrix can be used to map stakeholders and determine their priority level.
Protect: This quadrant contains stakeholders that are considered to be very important to your organization, but they do not have a lot of influence. As such, it will be important to pay particular attention to the group to make sure that their interests are protected and considered as strategy is developed. In fact, you may want to make sure they are well represented at any strategy development think tank.
Good Relations: You will want to make sure that you develop a close and constructive working relationship with this group. If engaged properly, these stakeholders can have a significant multiplier effect on your strategy execution and programs. They are considered to be high priority stakeholders.
Monitor: These stakeholders wield significant influence, but they are not very important to the organization. As such, they can be a source of risk to the organization. In the strategy development process, it is important that you recognize the potential risk and consider risk scenarios.
Low Priority: These stakeholders are of relatively low importance to the organization and do not carry much influence.
The priority level classification of each stakeholder is taken into consideration as strategy is developed. Priority levels are also fed into an issues management program.
In summary, the primary goal is to take a collaborative approach with stakeholders, especially those in the “protect” and “good relations” categories. This demands a mindset wherein you consider the stakeholders as sources of opportunity and competitive advantage. On the other hand, some stakeholders, such as those in the “monitor” category, could present risks and, therefore, require a stakeholder management approach to ensure that you mitigate the potential negative impact.
In today’s rapidly changing environment, it is important that you engage in a comprehensive stakeholder audit every 12 to 18 months. Most importantly, it is critical that you begin with an all-inclusive list of stakeholders; taking a systems approach to stakeholder identification can help ensure you are considering all potential stakeholders.
How do you engage stakeholders in the strategy development process?
How confident are you in your organization’s membership pricing strategy? Are you doing everything you can to generate the most revenue while satisfying existing members and drawing new ones in?
Promoting the right membership packages and add-ons to the right people at the right price is fundamental to both member acquisition and member retention. Once you’ve taken the time to understand the needs of your members, you can develop more flexible pricing strategies to generate reliable revenue streams.
It’s important to consider your overall business objectives before setting prices and packaging benefits. Is your goal to capture more market share? Are you looking to expand into new markets? Do you want to encourage your lower-level members to upgrade?
Review and Revise your Membership Structure
Every association is different, and there is no concrete formula for effective membership structures. The key is to cater to the kinds of members you want to appeal to.
First, you’ll want to compare your organizational assessment with the member profiles you’ve developed. Analyze each member profile, and make a note of where your organization is falling short of delivering value. Then, you should think of ways that you can enhance your current offerings or introduce new benefits to fulfill more of your members’ needs. This is particularly important for members who make a large membership investment but have a low perceived value of their membership.
Look at which products and benefits could be bundled together to match the needs of each group, and then see if you can put a value on the total package. You may just need to tweak your current membership levels, but if you find that your current membership options don’t align with your key targets, overhauling your membership structure might be your best option.
It’s not realistic to make your membership packages meet every last need of your target audiences. Even within your segmented groups, interests and needs will still vary. Try to balance price and perceived value, and leave room for purchasing add-ons separately to account for these variances.
Ideas for Developing Your Pricing Strategy
Many associations use a cost-plus pricing model, a simple method in which a markup percentage is added to operational costs to make a profit. This is by far the easiest price structure to calculate, however, it is often not in an association’s best interest. Many associations purposely try to keep their costs low for members, but this thinking has its downsides. For example, in cases of unforeseeable economic downturns, it can cause members to drop off when times get tough.
Value-based pricing has emerged as a much more effective way to set membership prices. It enables an association to set prices based on the value it is offering members, instead of the actual cost.
“Because members and prospects vary in their price sensitivity and preferences, you should consider a variety of pricing strategies to enhance your marketing efforts and sell memberships and products.” (Jacobs, 2014) Here are just a couple ideas to consider …
1. Price for value. Don’t undervalue what you are offering, particularly if it’s a need-to-have product, your competitors can’t match it, or there is prestige associated with being a member. This rule is especially important when determining the price differences between your membership levels.
2. Increase dues by a small percentage each year rather than making infrequent large increases. Many members already expect incremental increases, and they are much easier to swallow than large increases that come as a surprise.
3. Offer VIP options. Add an additional layer to your pricing, and additional revenue, by allowing members of any status to register for events or programs under a VIP category. Added benefits for VIPs might include reserved seating, invitations to cocktail receptions, or special gifts.
4. Build perceived value. You can do this by offering add-ons without charging more. Examples might include free professional advice or free publications for certain types of members. With this strategy, you’ll need to price your other programs, products, and services so that they cover the cost of the “free” offering.
5. Offer monthly memberships and billing. Many associations are already starting to offer monthly installment options on annual memberships. Why not consider taking that one step further and offering a monthly membership option? This strategy could help you attract some of your on-the-fence prospects and eventually sign them as long-term members. To them, it’s a low-risk way to try out the benefits of membership.
6. Create urgency. Think early-bird special. This strategy works well for events and other programs. Combine limited quantities with special pricing that expires at some point to encourage your members to register quickly.
7. Attract with high-value, low-cost products. For example, you may offer a large discount on the price of your annual conference to draw members in, and then subsidize the cost of the event by charging for related events and activities on an al a carte basis.
8. Offer discounts for group members with high participation. If you don’t already have a group membership option for corporate and other industry organizations, now is the time to think about putting one in place. You could offer these members generous discounts for enrolling a certain percentage of their employees.
We use cookies to enhance your user experience. By continuing to use the site, you're giving us your consent to set cookies.AcceptRead More
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
