Time for another one of my top five postings from the Always Done It That Way book. This one is number three on the list, and it is about avoiding that sticky discussion of who actually is “in charge.”

Avoiding Clarity About Who Is in Charge

We sometimes hear leaders in associations from both the staff side and the volunteer side debating the pros and cons of being “member driven” versus “staff driven.” We have yet to hear a compelling argument that rules definitively in favor of one over the other. It seems to vary by context, with the bottom line containing an unsurprising mix of responsibilities for driving divided between staff and members.

The debate over staff versus member driven, however, is really just a reframing of the more basic question: who is in charge? And while we agree that there is no singular or simple answer to that question at the macro level (the macro answer is “it depends”), this should not provide association leaders with an excuse for avoiding this question within their own, specific, micro-level situations.

To be successful, association leaders must clarify and pinpoint a specific answer to that question within their own context, and that is not just at the Board meetings, where the staff versus member paradigm would expect the topic to come up. Confusion about who is in charge appears elsewhere in the association’s business as well:

Staff
Association leaders often espouse “flat” organizations, valuing input from everyone, even suggesting “consensus” decision making. At the same time, however, they structure their organizations hierarchically, where reporting relationships define authority in a clear and vertical fashion. You must confront this contradiction so staff will understand when they have input and when they do not. There is room for broad input, but do not hide the fact that a very few actually have the decision making power on major questions. You need not concentrate all control in the hands of the managers, but be truthful and clear about areas where control is not shared, and everyone will work more effectively.

Related Organizations
When associations create related organizations (often driven by benefits of a different tax status), they too often create independent Boards and structures of organizations that they intend to be literally “subsidiaries” of the association. It is easy to focus on the purpose of the new organization, its mission, and empowering the new Board that is set up to lead effectively, and in doing so avoid the “who’s in charge” question entirely. The two Boards then operate for years, even decades, without confronting huge contradictions in expectations and purpose. Each Board feels it is in charge, yet it never confronts the issue head on.

It takes courage to confront these “who is in charge” conversations, but remember: while the conversations may be difficult, they won’t kill you, and the longer you put off having them, the more difficult they will be.