Leading in a storm

How are the leaders of associations, non-profit organisations and other, similar institutions doing these days? Last weekend I was reading this book called “Managing the non-profit organisation”, composed of articles by management guru Peter Drucker. In chapter two he argues that “leadership is a foul-weather job: the most important task of an organisation’s leader is to anticipate crisis. Maybe not to avert it, but to anticipate it (…) One has to make the organisation capable of anticipating the storm, weathering it, and in fact, being ahead of it. That is called innovation, constant renewal. You cannot prevent a major catastrophe, but you can build an organisation that is battle-ready, that has high morale, and also has been through a crisis, knows how to behave, trusts itself, and where people trust one another.”

Indeed, it may be easy to lead a successful organisation: when everything is going fine, the results are good and the stakeholders are happy, a leader looks good. But did she do good? Did she use her time to get ready for the difficulties that lie ahead? Did she build a team with loyal, hard-working people who trust and support each other? Did she push the team even when things were going well? A bit of hardship goes a long way to building a strong team. Did she claim the spotlight and harvest all the compliments, or did she step back gracefully and acknowledge the contributions of her team? In his book “Good to Great”, Jim Collins explains that “level 5 Leadership” means that leaders should be humble, yet driven to do what’s best for the company. When facing problems they should look in the mirror (their own fault?), when facing success they should look out of the window (to the people who made it happen).

Building an organisation that is battle-ready also means attracting the right people and holding on to them, inspiring them and enabling them to do what’s best for your organisation, not just because you say so but because they are intimately convinced that this is what they are supposed to do. Jim Collins says: “If I were running a company today, I would have one priority above all others: to acquire as many of the best people as I could (…) The single biggest constraint on the success of my organization is the ability to get and to hang on to enough of the right people”.

Not every leader is comfortable surrounding himself with strong people. “Of course people are ambitious”, says Peter Drucker, “but you run far less risk of having able people around who want to push you out than you risk by being served by mediocrity”.

So here you go, a few pearls of wisdom from some of the world’s great thinkers on management and leadership. Soon I’ll be off to the annual conference of ICCA, the International Congress and Convention Association, who do an excellent job in tracking the developments in international associations and non-profit organisations. They regularly publish fresh research about this market sector, and one of the conclusions that keeps popping up is that these associations have – on average – weathered the crisis much better than their corporate counterparts. A lot of association leaders seem to be getting it right, and that’s a reassuring thought!

Jurriaen Sleijster
Executive Vice President

Living on a Pizza

In 2005, Thomas Friedman wrote a book entitled “The World is Flat”. It has been updated and revised a few times, but the general message is still the same: globalization means that barriers are falling, everyone gets connected, and all competitors have equal opportunity.

The flat world was also the theme of a session I recently chaired at a meetings industry conference. We chose this topic as a framework to explore how the worlds of professional congress organizers on the one hand, and convention centers on the other hand, have been influenced by this globalization.

What did we learn? The PCO argued that the flat world increased competition and a push for commoditization of services, and that innovation is becoming the primary driver for growth. The convention center manager reasoned that a flat world created new destinations, and thus new competitors, and that the new business model for developing these centers was based on public/private partnerships rather than “public management” only.

Yes, I agree that better connectivity has opened a whole world of information to those who look for it. But what are the clients looking for? We work in a service industry and as has been shown many times, services are very hard to standardize and compare. We may be living on a flat world, but that doesn’t mean that everything you can see all the way to the horizon is the same everywhere. Procurement has made its entrance and manages to analyze and compare what’s comparable, but some parts of the total service experience remain beyond its reach.

My world is a pizza. It’s flat, yes, but also a rich world full of wonderful different tasty little things: mushrooms here, tomato sauce there, cheese, peppers and pepperonis and we even do anchovies for those who want it. Procurement can identify if the quality of my mushrooms meets the standards and if my tomato sauce is the cheapest in its range, and the internet may make my pizza comparable to a lot of other pizzas out there, but in the end my client comes and has dinner with me to enjoy a whole experience, including service & smile. There’s something about my promise (my brand?) that makes them trust me and wanting to try me out. Yes, they will compare and measure, but in the end there’s always a little leap of faith. Even in a flat world you can still differentiate yourself with “intangibles”, with experiences, service, and a personal touch.

I’m all in favor of increased information, more measuring and stronger standards. But I will continue to find ways to set myself apart, to stand out, to be different. When you eat my pizza, you’re in for an experience.