The Alphabet Soup of Associations

The writer is a former president.

Let’s take it as given that colleges and universities and their leaders have never needed to form meaningful associations with one another as much as they do today. Fortunately, one might reasonably think, there are many, many purpose-built organizations to help them.

At one point in a presidency, I made a list of the associations my institution belonged to: AACU, ACE, AGB, AASCU, CIC, NAICU, to start. Then, for many, state and regional associations (state independent college organizations, ACM, ACS, GLCA, or perhaps one of the several “five college” groups—Ohio/Massachusetts/Claremont/wherever.) For some, Annapolis or other “special mission” organizations—denominational associations like ACCU, or mission-specific ones like NAC, or WCC, or NAFEO, or Educause, or so on depending on institutional interests. (And if just reading this list you’re getting confused by this jumble of similar acronyms, you’re not alone.)

Then I totaled up back-of-an-envelope costs. Annual dues, naturally. Additional fees for specific initiatives or services: registration, lodging, and travel to conferences and workshops. Time and bandwidth, too—for those conferences and workshops as well as for the requisite service on committees, advisory or governing boards, and other similar “good citizen” responsibilities. And not just for me as president—members of the senior team and faculty leaders are often included in the big nationals as well as having their own field-specific associations. It added up to six-figure dollars and months of payroll time pretty darn quick.

So, sectorwide, a huge amount of time and money is invested in this higher ed–associational complex. Surely with that level of investment in organizations dedicated to connecting us, our institutions are turbocharged by powerful collaborations and our leaders feel broadly supported as members of a potent professional community: We can surely say we are stronger together. Can’t we?

But I rarely hear anyone saying, “Thank heaven for fill-in-the-acronym” (unless situational politeness requires it). We all believe in the theoretical potential of these associations, but most people I talk to believe we have yet to see it realized. I hear questions about ROI. I hear concerns about optics. And I hear impressions of mediocracy rather than of leadership.

Admittedly, today’s associations, just like campuses, are under stress. It’s easy for members to drop expensive memberships when they’ve cut deeply into faculty and staff positions or eliminated travel and professional development from their budgets. Intensifying demands and leaner staffs mean leaders have less bandwidth for association activities: Days away for conferences and hours spent in executive committee meetings are harder to justify. The optics of presidential or provostial gatherings in plush settings grow increasingly tone-deaf: Words like “boondoggle” and “junket” come more than they used to.

So given all this, what could make higher ed associations more effective drivers of institutional innovation and creators of value?

First, there need to be changes to association’s business models. The current model (dependent on memberships, program fees, sponsorships, and grants) results in palpable risk aversion and, frankly, pandering. It’s clear what sponsors hire associations to do—advertise and gain access to the members. It’s clear what foundations hire associations to do—develop programs around ideas or initiatives reflecting the foundation’s values and interests. Is it as clear what members themselves “hire” associations to do? And are dues and fees clearly aligned with whatever that might be? If every association executive and board member took those two questions seriously, it might lead to some interesting realizations and changes in both business and service models.

I’d also love to see the major associations reduce overlap and competition among themselves. What about co-sponsored annual academic summits where institutional leaders can catch up on what all the major associations are doing? I never particularly cared whether I saw my friends or heard about great new opportunities at AACU or ACE or CIC or GLCA or AGB or NAICU. Why not offer multi-association summits, which can scale costs and revenues, offer both shared and combined sessions, and create travel and time efficiencies for participants? Or, rather, why not except the territoriality made necessary by the membership business model?

Or how about holding meetings defined topically, rather than by competing organizational hosts? Imagine a national event on mergers/consolidations under combined auspices. More perspectives, more focus, more expertise, less travel and siloed thinking. To take another example, online course-sharing has implications for curriculum, finances, governance, marketing: Wouldn’t it make sense for NACUBO, AGB, NCAC, and ACAD to jointly create programs to help institutions engage these issues holistically? That is, if the associations could figure out how to adapt their business models to such a thing.

In short, the same principles apply to our associations as to our institutions. They need to reconsider their business models, be open to scaling and interdependence, and strengthen their focus on the actual needs of those they serve—just like their member institutions are learning to do.