BRAC and Associations: A New Decision Model

I usually write about risk and social media for this blog, but I decided to take an excursion into association management. Risk is a factor in this discussion – since without change associations survival may be questionable. But I’m making the assumption that the boards and staff of associations know they need to evolve and adapt or will cease to exist. So I’m offering a different – perhaps dramatic – approach to addressing change.

Periodically, bloggers such as David Gammel and his â€œSacred Zombie Cows†write about the need for associations to let go of programs, services and projects that have outlived their usefulness and purpose. The issue seems to revolve around the fact that many of these programs and services have strong advocates willing to fight to the death to keep the activity going, while others exist only due to inertia. Meanwhile, the association’s board and/or staff identify new needs and develop new programs without ending existing programs; so the organization’s scarce resources get stretched even further.

I was reminded of this issue while facilitating a session on presentation skills. A participant asked for guidance when speaking to a potentially hostile group. Another person mentioned she was facing a similar situation. In both cases, the staff person had to deliver a message from the board that some members have trouble accepting. In both cases, members were being asked to let go of the way they were used to doing things.

I suggested using the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process for associations to end ineffective programs and activities. BRAC was adopted by the United States Department of Defense (DOD) and Congress to reduce the number and costs of military bases and support locations. It was evident that the members of Congress had too much at risk to approve closing facilities in their state. BRAC consists of an independent commission appointed by the President and approved by the Senate [history here]. The Department of Defense submits its base closure and realignment recommendations to the commission. The commission sends its report to the president who can either accept it or send it back for additional consideration. After the President sends it to Congress they have 45 days via joint resolution to approve or reject the report. Once accepted, the Department of Defense has to implement the recommendations.

So here is my idea – associations should use a modified BRAC process. The association appoints an independent commission to evaluate its various programs, services and events and to recommend actions. For this to work, the commission has to be truly independent (no board members, employees or organizational icons). The board would have to accept or reject the entire report while the staff will implement the recommendations.

The independent commission provides cover to the board and senior management (“the commission did it†) while offering solutions truly in the best interest of the association. Ideally popular but ineffective legacy programs will end while enabling new ideas to surface.

So what do you think? Can we make this model work for associations? Will any associations have the courage to try it? Is there a better way to help organizations to make the tough decisions? I look forward to your comments.

Related Posts

• Are We Risk Averse or Risk Ignorant?
• IMPORTANT: what’s in store for associationTECH now Posterous is going to die?
• Why Komen Was Destined to Clash with Social Media
• The PRSA responds!
• The International Bar Association Publishes First Global Study of the Impact of Social Media on the Legal Profession