Hello Chapter Leaders,
To view the Executive Summary click here.
I am pleased to let you know that we have finished drafting the proposal to the NSA Board to be presented at the NSA Board Meeting on February 11th in Nashville, TN. As you can see from the 24-page document, this has been no small feat – especially over the many holidays. Monica Wofford and the Chapter Summit Taskforce has spent hours distilling the input you have provided on the discussion forum, teleconferences, Convention Chapter Leadership Session and the results from the Chapter Summit to create the attached document.
I know many of you have been anxious to see what has been proposed. The attached proposal has ten recommendations that came from the floor of the Summit and one that comes from me, as the Chair of the Chapter Summit Taskforce. The one you don’t know about is a statement of strategic intent to collaboratively shift the “chapter model” from a decentralized model into a “franchise model”. It occurred to us that most of the recommendations fall more into a franchise model of operations rather than decentralized. Keep in mind, this would be an evolution, and the tactics need to be fleshed out. But from a strategic point of view, it appears as if the chapter/national relationship has some synergies that can be leveraged in a “franchise” business model where the chapters remain independent, but receive branding, marketing, training and assistance support from NSA.
But, we might be wrong (gulp!) about that and want to hear you ideas about any and/or all of these recommendations (please read them all, and not just react to this message) by posting your comments on www.nsachapterspeak.wordpress.com or by contacting Heilee O’Quinn at heilee@nsaspeaker.org or 480.968.2552.
Your insights and feedback are greatly appreciated and we thank you for taking the time and energy to participate in these discussions now and into the future.
Warm Regards,
Kristin Arnold, CSP
NSA President Elect Chair,
Chapter Summit Taskforce
Filed under: Uncategorized
I love the franchise model because it will truly decrease many of the issues the chapters have had, over and over again. I also like the Chapter Advisory Council and hope the CLC will morph into this to draw on their experience. I would like to be a part of that conversation.
Most importantly…glad to see the standardized bylaws in the mix.
Overall, the proposal is clear and thorough. Nice job. I have been asked by the International Coach Federation to provide a similar process for their chapters. Someone should publish an article for ASAE.
From the comments people have been writing, it might be better to offer a Delicatessen than a Franchise model. I truly believe that if National offers the suggested services, many chapters will use them and still find a way to be unique and independent. There are new chapters forming as we speak and other chapters struggling to thrive that could use the help and direction.
I am sorry to hear that members think NSA is trying to take over and micromanage when it’s more about reaching out and strengthening the chapters. The conversation feels like the health reform bill. We should get clear on the intention.
I like Marcia’s reframing of the proposed “franchise model” to a “delicatessen model,” implying much more choice than dictation of how things could be done locally but still providing some boundaries as to what choices aren’t available in this particular “deli”!
On Behalf of Jim Morrison:
I think maybe we should consider having the chat focus on the summary. We still have major problems with the whole concept being brought forth in that the whole approach. There is still the concept that the chapters exist to make the mother ship successful and frankly that was never the philosophy of NSA. We are very concerned about franchise concepts as I have experience in this and the store owner has no say in what goes on. We will not function that way.
Posting comments on websites will not get this resolved. Just like at the summit the minority opinions on these issues were ignored for the most part and there were winners and losers. I feel like the Republican in Congress.
I have talked to several prominent NSA members who do not agree with this whole approach and I can guarantee rather than unite NSA this process is dividing NSA and the result will be large chapters and no national members if it keeps going this way.
On Behalf of Jim Morrison:
We are currently reviewing the document and we will have several comments. But I just want to say in general I appreciate the previous comments and support some of them. I have talked to many new and many “seasoned” members who all feel this entire initiative is dividing NSA. The National is falling into the same mode as many National Service Organizations like Rotary and Optimist by thinking the chapters and members exist to support the National and this was never nor should it be the way we try “make the pie bigger” Just the tone of most of these recommendations shows the attitude with the “Chapters will, must, nonnegotiable,,” etc., etc etc. We are told who can be members, who can be listed on web sites etc and many of these people are valuable chapter members who have dropped NSA for several reasons
The philosophy on meetings for example does nothing to help the struggling speaker who is trying to get into the business and can hardly afford to make a chapter meeting but we should reschedule our meetings to not conflict with National meetings which frankly most speakers cannot continue to afford if they are getting little ROI. There is a better feeling at the chapter level meetings because of the continued and frequent networking at no where near the cost. Same with dues. In this economy there seems to be little logic in raising dues when we are seeing our members not renew at the national level because of cost? Where is the logic?
Those items that are “opt in” or “may” be used are fine but to force a chapter to lose it’s identity and become the “cookie cutter” chapter of the future will not add members. Chapters become like companies that take on the personality of their members and then do what is takes to serve those members. Forcing a “one size fits all” will not work.
If the philosophy continues as is, the result could likely be a small National and a large group of chapters operating independently to make their members successful in the way that works for them.
I urge National to revisit this whole approach and look at this from “what can we do to provide services that chapters want” instead of “here are the things you will do”
We will have many more comments on the specific details soon.
I would like to commend everyone taking positions on the various issues being addressed, particularly those brave and passionate enough to disagree publicly. In my view, the whole Chapter of the Future process had a rough (i.e., “non-negotiable”) and confusing (i.e., what was the real problem we were solving?) start; smoothed out somewhat at the Chapter Summit (an event that was well run but by design too brief to coalesce the information under review); and now appears to be rushed and dismissive of dissent. I would encourage a collective “deep breath” and recommend that the Board step back from the brink before acting on these recommendations and reconsider the problem this was intended to solve and if that problem is worth the kind of fractures that have become so evident in the thoughtful replies seen on this blog and elsewhere.
While I am concerned about the real meaning of the “franchise model,” I have less passion about some of the content being considered (i.e., dues are high but I feel the value is there; the name of ProTrack is less important than the fact that these programs continue in a quality way and foster Affiliates to progress, thus “growing the pie”; and I realize logos can get out of hand but is this really that important?). Moreover, I think the process is even more concerning at this point. I’m quite sure the staff and volunteer committee members have spent countless hours and suffered enormous consternation at times in the past few months. Simply preparing for our representatives’ trip to the Chapter Summit took a significant toll here in Virginia. Nevertheless, this investment of time, intellectual capital and momentum should not dictate that the result is a foregone conclusion. The Board might, in fact, consider this enormous effort to be a form of “sunk cost” and not feel compelled to adopt anything that does not help solve the original (and still un-quantified) “problem” that originated this process as reflected in the objective statement in the recent executive summary. I hope the Board has a shared understanding of what that was and will revisit it carefully at this important juncture.
My concern about the process was driven home by the dismissive nature of the “potential downsides” of the Proposal Summary, given in that recent document. In my view, the paternalistic statement condemns those resisting change as barriers to doing what’s good for them. It reads: “There will be the typical initial reaction to change over areas in which change is required in order to continue making progress.” To trivialize the dissenters even more, we are told that this (apparently immature) “reaction will either weed out those unwilling to change or provide motivation for those who simply must struggle through the change to see the benefit” (that we are not smart enough to see for ourselves, I gather). Finally, the loss of these “slower” members appears to be a small price to pay: “We may lose a small percentage of members when acting on issues such as the Speaker Development Program and Membership Dues.”
I hope there is more respect for the valid voices of dissent on the Board.
Tom Davidson, President
NSA Virginia
Tom,
You are a wise man. Your words are clearly out of reason, not anger. I agree that the intent should be revisited and agreed on first, and any actions that do not align to this intent should be re-examined.
It is so difficult to judge the meaning of the emotions expressed by blog, and the interchanges feel more reactive than cooperative (trying to work out what is next in this process). I agree that the process should be slowed down.
Not only should the intent be re-clarified, but the reasoning that started this process in the first place need to be shared and understood. We need to be carrying the same flag or there will never be collective support for the process and decisions.
Regarding not allowing chapters to hold events within 3 days of national events: Our Chapter (NSA-CF) already holds NO July meeting in deference to the national convention. My concern is more for the limitation around the workshops. I believe those who want to attend those events will, no matter whether a chapter event is near it or not. If you prohibit chapters from holding their own events, rather than encouraging chapter members to attend a national meeting, it feels like a “punishment” for those who cannot or do not wish to do so. Also, it could severely impact chapters who conduct Academy programs after their regular chapter meetings, by causing these sessions to be disrupted/limited/reduced if planned at meetings which would now be prohibited. Our chapter has a very successful Academy model that not only serves as a “fundraiser” but as a marketing funnel for new members. If we had to reduce the number of Academy sessions based on these limitations, it could impact our membership, value and bottom line.