Mobile Edition
Print
Get the Mag
Weekly UpdatesHOW DO YOU VIEW YOUR COMPONENTS? WHAT type of relationship do your policies and plans create? Are your components children to be told what to do, teens who constantly challenge and roll their eyes, or are they colleagues and partners working side-by-side with you to achieve your association's mission?
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
If your answer is anything but partner, it may be time to redefine your relationship and allow your components to reach their potential with you on their team. Like any life change, shifting from parents to partners can be frustrating, puzzling, and exciting all at once.
The Medical Group Management Association, Englewood, Colorado, has experienced these changes first-hand. Adrienne A. Bien, CAE, vice president of the learning and networking center at MGMA, recently discussed the association's strategy for re-examining its relationship with its components with Cynthia D'Amour, president, People Power Unlimited, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Her insights might be helpful to you in evaluating your association's relationship with its components.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Reviewing the history
Cynthia D'Amour: How many components does the Medical Group Management Association have? And how are they set up?
Adrienne A. Bien, CAE: MGMA has 50 state affiliates, many dating back to the 1950s and all operating autonomously with their own governance, bylaws, and treasuries. MGMA affiliates cover the whole spectrum, with memberships ranging from 40 to 800. And their activities are just as varied as their membership sizes, and include sponsoring educational programs, publishing newsletters, hosting Web sites, and conducting industry-benchmarking surveys at the state level. Some also lobby at the state level and collaborate with state medical societies, government agencies, and health plans to make significant changes to the delivery of health care. Approximately 40 affiliates have paid staff working at least part-time.
D'Amour: What prompted MGMA to re-examine its relationship with its components?
Bien: Across the years, working with such diverse groups has proven problematic for MGMA. In 2002, national board members' concerns that state leaders were dissatisfied and saw no value in affiliation with MGMA came to a head. On the other side were board members who wondered why MGMA invested resources in the states and asked, "What is MGMA getting in return?" In 2003, the board asked the national staff to create mutually beneficial and mutually satisfactory relationships with all 50 state affiliates in the next three to five years. I was assigned to lead this effort.
D'Amour: How has the relationship evolved?
Bien: In the 1980s, MGMA's national-state relationship was marked by distrust--the states suspected that the national organization wanted to take them over. In the early 1990s, MGMA national decided to initiate a program to offer association management services (database support, newsletter publication, and so forth) to the states as a way to build rapport and trust. However, MGMA did not conduct any market research to determine what services the states wanted or needed because, of course, the mother house knew what was best.
Like the parent of any teenager quickly learns, MGMA could do no right. Nothing was ever done soon enough, good enough, or cheap enough. And after a taste of support, the states wanted a more in-depth level of service, which was difficult to achieve long-distance and with the available resources.
D'Amour: How did MGMA address the issues?
Bien: MGMA made the decision in the late 1990s to phase out the direct association management support program and encourage the state officers to hire local assistance. We decided to focus on providing global services such as creating a liability insurance group-purchasing program.
Pulling back from association management services improved the relationship but created an at-arm's-length dynamic. This distancing meant that MGMA and the states were following separate paths, making any joint efforts harder to leverage. As a result, there was low awareness among state leaders as to what MGMA does and little connection with MGMA headquarters staff.
D'Amour: As a component relations professional, what did you think of all of this?
Bien: I have observed the maturation of the state affiliates in the past 20 years. The state affiliates of today are not the organizations of the 1980s; yet MGMA related to them as if they were. The caliber of state programs and publications has risen impressively, and some state conferences are drawing more than 500 attendees.
I observed my colleagues here in Colorado who lead state associations in other industries, and they have large staffs and even their own buildings. I saw no reason why our state affiliates could not reach this level as well. I wanted MGMA to be the partner that helps them reach that tipping point sooner rather than later--with our help and not despite us.
D'Amour: Were there economic implications as well?
Bien: Although I have worked with state leaders for two decades and want to see them succeed, there was also a business reason behind redefining the relationship--the states compete with MGMA for dues and education dollars. As budgets tighten, members must make decisions to spend their money where it brings them the most value. Many state educational programs rival ours for quality, and they have the added benefits of local networking and cheaper registration fees. State registration fees are a third of national's fees if not less. The same is true of state dues.
However, I didn't want to hold back state development out of fear that affiliates may be a threat to us. Instead, I wanted MGMA to be their partner as they move to the next stage. By clearly defining state-national roles, we complement each other instead of competing against each other. This way we both use our resources wisely and better serve our members.
In addition, when we work together, we are in a better position to address competition from for-profit educational companies, which are coming in at the state level and positioning themselves as competition to both the state associations as well as MGMA. By combining forces and working collaboratively, we present a united front and maintain our turf. MGMA can't match the lower fees these for-profits charge, but the state organizations can.
Researching for success
D'Amour: I'm sure many associations can relate to your reasons for reexamining your relationship with your components. What was the next step?
Bien: Before crafting what a new relationship might look like, we undertook an extensive research effort. I wanted to understand who the state affiliates are today, what they want, and what they see as their envisioned future. I also wanted to understand how other associations relate to their state components. During my research, I discovered two insights that I believe apply to all associations with components:
Autonomy works. Because we do not mandate what services affiliates can provide, each state has been able to focus on the key services their members want--not what we decide they should offer. Our decision to encourage our affiliates to hire paid staff also aided their success. This was validated by research conducted by Peggy H. Hoffman, president, Mariner Management and Marketing, LLC, Laurel, Maryland, which shows the key determinants of strong components are committed leadership, engaged members, paid staff (at least part-time), and a focus on two to three services. (See "Bright Lights, Vibrant Components" in the February 2004 issue of ASSOCIATION MANAGEMENT.)
Values should be expressed. By conducting focus groups, we initiated what I call the what-if dialogue. What would be missing for national if there were no state affiliates? What would the states miss if there were no relationship with national? During this dialogue, we learned that as a national organization, we value our state affiliates as a source of future leaders, as well as of grassroots advocacy support, expanded visibility for the national brand, sales to non-national members, and input from the grassroots level about emerging trends in the industry.
On the other hand, we learned that our state affiliates value the national organization as a source of leadership training, national leadership opportunities, opportunities for networking with leaders from other states, increased visibility and credibility, education and legislative resources, and expertise and advice on association management.
Identifying the values statements for affiliation between the national organization and the state components was an important first step in building a true partnership.
Identifying trends
D'Amour: You mentioned a desire to understand how other associations related to their components. How did you get that?
Bien: To get an association industry perspective, I conducted interviews with the paid staff of other associations' state components. Across industries, here is what state components want and expect from the national association:
* administrative efficiencies without the loss of autonomy (e.g., group purchasing programs for insurance coverage);
* access to expertise--templates, advice, idea sharing from other states;
* leadership training and educational support; and
* acknowledgment for what the state contributes.
Most important, components want headquarters to solicit meaningful input from them. This cannot be lip service. Components want headquarters to truly listen to what they say. Repeatedly I heard from staff, "National only calls when they want something." I was as guilty of this as anyone else.
D'Amour: What other interesting discoveries did you make?
FEED