"Megarexia Can Be Lethal"

Megarexia "a mental condition in which one perceives one's body as too thin, and desires it to be ever larger," is the opposite of anorexia. Recent statistics indicate that six percent of men who engage in body- building programs suffer from this. Megarexics often feel humiliated, are defensive about their body image, uncomfortable with talk about body building, and socially ill at ease. Individuals diagnosed as megarexics are "chronically preoccupied with the concept of increasing their body mass. When they look in the mirror, they see themselves as too small and too weak."

A review of the thousands of voluntary organizations with which our company has interacted over the last 17 years leads us to believe that megarexia is a sleeper condition that may soon approach epidemic proportions within the association community. Associations that don't think they are large enough often present the same symptoms as individual megarexics do: discomfort with their size and strength leading them to believe that bigger is better. With size of membership and budget growth rated as two of the defining success factors in current association lingo, and often the linkage to executive bonuses, megarexia in associations seems to be validated.

How often do we read of a successful executive who proudly proclaims that when she was executive director her association grew from a 13 person staff and a $2.3 million budget to a 31 member staff with a $5.8 million budget-or better yet, the association that grew from that 13 person staff to a staff of 78. That news wins awards and renewed executive contracts. Most of us applaud and congratulate our colleagues, doing so with perhaps a wisp of envy. Are the resulting member benefits five percent better? Thirty percent better? Seventy-five percent better? If yes, for whom? If not, why not?

There is little available data to support or refute any presumed positive outcomes of growth other than an increase in girth. At best there is hearsay and spin. We know very little about what may be the true benefit for each individual member or each new or expanded membership cohort from any growth spurt. Attempts to define the true cost of these efforts judged against how else such fiscal, human and technological resources might have been employed, proved elusive.

Although the ubiquitous "value proposition" is now visible in some way in almost all membership communications (at least until a new hot term can be Googled) there is no clear evidence of any serious discussion in the association community about how big an association should be in order for that association to be a tangible asset for each member.

As we have seen in the corporate world, most dramatically in the Enron, Tyco, and WorldCom scenarios, big isn't always better. Each of those companies was a serial acquirer, had an insatiable appetite for rapid growth, developed a diffused focus, and subsequently suffered very public management failures. With no attention to creditworthiness or consumers, the lifespans of these companies were short and their history anything but commendable.

Corporate growth is fueled by the desire to keep stock prices soaring. McKinsey and Company recently reported that "during the past 40 years, almost all of North America's largest and most successful companies have consistently underperformed the S&P 500. Although they seem to be ideally positioned to create new value for their shareholders, many eventually find that sheer size can be an impediment. Yet senior executives at such companies seem reluctant to abandon unrealistic growth programs intended to increase share prices. ... These executives would do better to recognize the limitations of size."

Is it possible that associations have taken a clue from the netherworld of corporate America and not from those companies that have successfully grown their product line as their main attraction, rather than their size?

As Malcolm Gladwell instructed us,the history of human development suggests that the human brain is able to deal effectively with about 150 people. It is the average size of a manageable village or any other community.

The agricultural Hutterites, in both Europe and North America, estab- lished a strict policy "that every time a colony approaches 150, they split in two and start a new colony." They discovered that when the group gets much bigger, people within the group start forming sub-groups. There are strong indications that "anyone in a group activity banking on the epi- demic spread of big ideal needs to be particularly cognizant of the perils of bigness."

It is puzzling that in good times and bad, when there is a generalized belief that we can be richer and stronger if we are bigger, very few organizations stop long enough to have serious discussions around the efficacy of growth before plunging into it. That vital "what if" scenario is too seldom played out, so that arguments for and against are not appropriately considered. The two biggest questions- "why do we really want to do this?" and "are there any alternatives?"-are seldom raised. That membership revenue line proves an irresistible temptation. When the perceived public policy power of larger numbers is added, organizations are out of the gate and charging to the finish line.

Here's an uncomfortable fact: When growth focuses on recruiting new member categories representative of widely divergent public policy perspectives, it is often the prelude to stasis. Reaching consensus around a critical piece of pending legislation at the state house becomes nearly impossible. Now that the organization represents everyone from producers of raw materials, manufacturers and distributors to retailers, vendors of machinery, packagers and even consumers, it offers another reminder that what's good for the proverbial goose can be anathema for the long-suffering gander. So the association tries to fix the situation that they created in the first place. Special interest groups (SIGs) are established, sowing the seeds of the next problem, generally around one of the big three "who's on first" irritants: public policy positions, governance control, and money.

Initially, SIGs are expected to support all organization positions, but consensus becomes more and more difficult. When agreement is finally reached on a new policy direction after it has been laboriously negotiated with groups championing differing agendas, the outcome inevitably reflects the lowest acceptable common denominator (i.e., a decision that no member segment can be against). In effect, hot issues that can make a real difference to one segment but might harm another cannot become association policy. Over time, no member segment is optimally served. After participating in too many such compromising discussions, the stronger SIGs, some of which may now have graduated to section status, start dreaming of going it alone. They may threaten to leave if they are not allowed to voice an independent opinion or oppose the party line.

To keep that revolutionary SIG in the fold, the situation is often finessed in a way that enables the SIG to testify on a position if the overall organization does not already have a position on the topic.

Clumsy at best, confusing to legislators and regulators at worst, it provides the easiest out for government officials who really didn't want to touch the issue in the first place. They can now shelve it with a sigh of relief. After all, just what does that association want us to do?

If a discontented membership sector chooses to leave, it is less likely that it will seek to affiliate with an existing organization and more likely that it will start its own. A new association is born, perhaps to struggle, perhaps to remain small and happy for a while, perhaps to eventually merge with a related association or, of course, grow new arms and legs.

Seldom is the divorce without rancor. For the prescient parent, action starts before the symptoms present themselves. Enough obstacles are developed to make leaving the association inconceivable, or enough incentives are provided to make independence impractical. The lifecycle of SIGs coming in, then going out, then coming in again, is continued.

The group that swallows its disenfranchisement gamely and decides to stay put in the mega-organization will in time become the congenital griper, complaining not only about public policy positions but also about those two other big issue areas for subgroups: control and money. Too little staff support, inadequate budgets. and underrepresentation in governance also fuel their displeasure.

Associations seeking growth tend to convince themselves that they have saturated the available horizontal market and look to vertical expansion into new segments of their industry or profession. David Aaker reminds us that "There is an inherent contradiction in the very concept because brand equity is built in large part on image and perceived worth, and a vertical move can easily distort those qualities."

It is virtually impossible to be true to mission and serve a conglomerate membership that does not share the same DNA unless that organization is self-confident enough to provide only those services that would benefit all members. The history of the American Medical Association is instructive. Once the only extant major medical association, reportedly representing about 99 percent of all doctors, they now have somewhere around 35 percent of that universe while specialist medical societies are, with some exceptions, booming, with a few claiming as many as 90 percent of eligible practitioners as members.

Many assert that AMA missed an opportunity to remain the mega-society that they might have become had they been able to hold on to all the specialties. Others contend that they wisely spared themselves extra years of pain and suffering by accepting that they could not productively compete with the specialty societies in some areas, and focused instead on what they were best positioned to do, while establishing détente with the renegade offspring.

By concentrating on doctors, no matter where they practice and what their specialty, the AMA is today a recognized advocate for such hot topics as medical liability reform and Medicare physician reimbursement issues; they are educators on practice management; they publish a respected journal; and they provide insurance services; and this is just part of their portfolio. AMA does not attempt to compete with the specialist societies in the continuing education arena or where they are less suited to the task. They have instead established themselves as a significant voice for physicians in proscribed areas.

Is there one true path? Is it never OK to want to grow? Is growth inherently evil? Absolutely not. Here are some positives examples of defensible - indeed, laudable - growth.

When organizations have virtually the same mission-when they share overlapping constituencies most likely to be in sync with each other over organizational priorities and have been competing with each other for years-growth by consolidation should be considered and aggressively pursued. It is the fastest, most cost-effective way to dramatically increase the roster with one bold action while staying true to purpose. A proper merger should result in appreciable cost savings for overhead, a lean structure and governance model, expansion of programs and services, a greater presence where it matters, a culture that is respectful of the past but not bound by it, and, above all, the determination to commit to a clear mission which will drive all activities and the ability to serve a larger number of members at a lower dues rate per member than the combined dues rates of the predecessor organizations.

The bad news is that merging is a grossly underutilized shortcut to growth. It is infrequently considered and when considered too quickly discarded as a possibility. When mergers fail, the reasons generally defy logic and reflect human behavior at its worst. Although the reasons publicly given might explain that no greater benefit for their members could be identified, the real reasons are usually quite different-and occasionally unimaginable.

Two people on the leadership ladder of one organization believe they might never make it to the top volunteer position in the merged one; or there is no assurance that the beloved executive director of one of the associations will be chosen for the chief staff executive of the new entity; or the proposed new logo looks more like the logo of one of the merger partners than the other. It is also worth remembering that the members seldom if ever rise up and demand that a merger initiative be aborted. Almost always it is the leadership or staff that maneuver merger talks into dissolution. It should be an embarrassment for the association community that so few mergers are undertaken and so few successfully completed.

Aggressive membership campaigns are also inherently positive, important, and defensible undertakings when less than 80 percent of the known universe of potential core members are now on the rolls. Reaching such a target would enable the organization to be a powerful brand recognized in its field for providing exceptional programs, services, and benefits for a specific membership cohort.

As we live longer and many of us expect to work longer, there will be growth potential from an underappreciated source. Knowing how to accommodate four generations by moving past their differences and taking full advantage of their talents and their membership dues may mitigate the push for unsustainable and unsuitable growth. Using all the human capital we already have or can readily capture by what we offer and how we offer it is a dynamic growth strategy that works without diluting purpose.

The antidote to megarexia is certainly not anorexia. This is not a call to stop all growth. But if money is the driver and it requires a Nobel Laureate in literature to write the justification for the addition of a new member cohort, it is wiser to find that money elsewhere and avoid the extensive costs of wooing and serving out-of-sync constituencies. Instead, consider revisiting those long-term evergreen economies that should be part of any good manager's toolbox:

1. Establish systems for regular evaluation of ongoing programs against predetermined, defensible criteria to enable you to gracefully retire those programs and services that, although founded by an "untouchable," have been obsolete for the last 10 years.
2. Change the culture of entitlement that allows imperial presidents to bring to their tour of duty a raft of new and costly programs that inevitably end up as part of the workload not only during the current administration but often for several following administrations. This is a bad practice and can be stopped. It only takes one willing president, when made aware of the consequences, to end it. For those projects that linger past their natural life expectancy, have the courage to recommend euthanasia.
3. Encourage innovation and risk tolerance so creative initiatives are welcome, but cover your bet by putting benchmarks and timelines for achieving success on all such new ventures, enabling the association to take a short loss if a project proves untenable-and to do so with no regrets.
4. Introduce and stick to zero-based budgeting and programming to help stop automatic carryovers.
5. And, heaven help us, raise the dues! If that can't be defended, do a better job at being able to-or at telling your story.

If leadership is too timid or too uncomfortable about taking on these or other sound approaches to reaching fiscal goals and proving value, the association will continue to seek growth as the economic panacea for the future.

In Small Giants, Bo Burlingham tried to find unifying characteristics of small companies that enjoyed big results. He found within corporate America, just as the author of this paper found within the association community, insufficient research on this subject. What he could identify were several overarching qualities in successful small companies. They employed unique metrics, resisted accepting the traditional success yardsticks as gospel, maintained close relationships with customers, provided a great workplace, operated within flexible structure and governance models, exported their passion for what the company does, and exemplified self-confidence.

It is reassuring to know that there are associations and institutions that also have purposefully determined to avoid any growth strategy that may dilute focus and deflect attention from core constituents and mission. Two of those are identified below. Surely there are others as well, but they are harder to find and celebrate than the ones that most often make the pages of our professional publications.

Kenneth A. Doyle, CAE, executive vice president of the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (SIGMA), says that SIGMA has deliberatively chosen to stay small and focused. There is an unofficial cap of 300 corporate members. They even limit to two the types of companies that can be associate members-fuel suppliers and financial services providers-and offer these two sectors nothing more than what they really want: access to the other members. For their core members, SIGMA provides exactly what they want, too: legislative/regulatory accomplishment and good supplier relations. SIGMA delivers for both marketers and suppliers and leaves policy decisions to the core membership.

Although virtually unheard of in other associations, SIGMA actually turns down prospective members who come knocking at their door if there is doubt that SIGMA will serve that applicant well enough to validate the cost of membership. Doyle has been known to advise such an applicant that "I don't think you will get enough out of this membership to make it worthwhile for you, so I don't want to take your money." If the applicant insists on joining, that application is accepted if all other criteria are met.

Within a short time, such a member usually opts out. SIGMA's formal membership recruitment efforts produce just enough new members to replace the ones lost each year. It was determined that the time, energy, and resources usually allocated to growing an organization could best be employed to service their core members. This is a prime example of organizational self-control.

As another example, Kathleen M. Bell, CAE, senior director of transition services for SmithBucklin Corporation, says that The International Forum, for which she serves as executive director, has determined that it wants to avoid unchecked growth as well. The forum is a 35-year-old organization of independent, high-performing life-insurance-based financial service professionals and is dedicated to gaining a market advantage for its members. To become a member requires a bold, innovative approach to sales, demonstrated by an annual gross income benchmark (currently at half a million dollars) which regularly escalates. The forum is currently serving 331 members out of a universe estimated conservatively to contain as many as 1,500. Last year, the organization's board set policy to limit membership to 400.

Because all of the organization's activities are geared to a major annual meeting that focuses members on listening, learning, and sharing new ideas with each other, the forum's purpose demands the intimacy that a small association can provide. Ongoing increases in the annual qualification requirements serve to maintain their smaller membership. They seek to avoid their tipping point with ease.

Vendors give excellent support to the organization in exchange for the privilege of appearing at this annual event to showcase their wares. Their participation in the educational sessions is limited, a critical tool in the forum's efforts to protect the intellectual property that is shared among members. For the same reason, nothing presented at the meeting is published beyond the membership afterward.

The organization defines itself in terms of the strength and worth of the content it provides. Members readily agree that the ability to participate in the annual meeting gives them at least a six-month advantage over their competitors, and that advantage is zealously guarded. Although there is another, larger organization to which the members of the forum might belong (and many do), their loyalty to the smaller organization is testimony to the value it offers. Other indicators of organizational success include expanded program initiatives and financial stability.

Associations should be pumping iron-building muscle by innovating in areas they never imagined, overcoming fears and false boundaries- but always with awareness of the reality that the larger the size of the organization, the more difficult it becomes to avoid layers of bureaucracy and creeping inefficiencies. It is a challenge for overweight association to be swift, flexible, and nimble - the qualities that continue to augur well for the future.

Despite emerging arguments against it, the trend toward growth through expanding the number of constituencies to be served seems to be strengthening. If it continues at the current pace, it will probably leave the association world, much like the corporate world, law firms, medical practices and similar entities, with the big, mega-conglomerates, and the niche market boutiques. The small- to mid-sized associations, long the bulwark of the nonprofit community, may find it difficult to stay alive, leaving a huge vacuum for the people they serve and the publics served by their members.

Identifying, growing, and focusing on core constituents and collaborating with other organizations on areas of common interest will help mitigate indefensible growth. The 21st century organization requires fewer but much more talented professionals and committed volunteers who together can provide an exceptional return on the investment of their prime customers.

That continues to be the best, most consistently reliable recruitment and retention tool. When megarexia is the driver, the association is doomed to a lifetime of frustration by trying to please all masters. Where growth is by deliberate design, the well-run association will have much to celebrate, and its members will be magnificently served.

Originally appeared in the Fall 2007 issue of the Journal of Association Leadership printed by ASAE & The Center for Association Leadership (www.asaecenter.org)

Printer Friendly Version

Dadie Perlov, CAE