A statewide association was committed to improving nursing home care by empowering nursing home residents. That didn't work. Most residents had physical and/or mental limitations, so the association, instead, empowered family members, and found more opportunities for success.

Meanwhile, other state associations continued trying to empower nursing home residents and kept failing. They insisted on sticking to their initial premise because, "that's how it should be."

A large charity sought to empower Head Start parents by involving them in neighborhood advocacy campaigns. However, all activities were required to take place at the Head Start center while the parents' kids were in class, so no personal meetings or evening meetings could be scheduled with anybody.

Furthermore, no other organizations were allowed to participate. Since successful advocacy efforts are best achieved by broad-based coalitions, the Head Start parents could not recruit potential allies. Their efforts were doomed.

Another not-for-profit organization complained that its running event did not attract enough participants to achieve fund-raising goals. Organizers were told by experts that runners don't run for a cause. In a successful event, they learned, the runners show up for a quality event and the charity leverages their participation to raise money from other audiences.

The race director acknowledged that most runners didn't run for a cause, but felt they should. So the group continued to plan as if they would.

Associations must be able to adapt to circumstances and change their objectives and plans, when necessary. Otherwise, they are very likely to fail.

Joe Rominiecki, on the ASAE blog, issued the commencement address he would like to deliver. It consisted of two words: "Be patient."

He was then politely dumped on by a number of commenters who strongly disagreed with his advice. They felt he was telling people to hold themselves back and not aim for success. Some even cited examples of successful people who were not patient.

Association professionals have been known to greatly overestimate their capabilities and those of their organizations. They are sometimes imbued with a passion for the mission and an expectation that all barriers in their paths will be swiftly obliterated.

They may be lauded for "thinking big," "shooting for the stars," and asserting that "the sky's the limit." They are often cited as doers, as movers and shakers, or as visionaries, and are praised for their aggressiveness and self-confidence.

But frequently, they are merely dreamers. They don't understand that growth usually occurs incrementally. They ignore reality, stubbornly convinced of the potency of their efforts and oblivious to the arrogance of their attitudes.

For every Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Michael Jordan, and Meryl Streep, there are hundreds and thousands of failures we never see or hear about.

An effective leader should be realistic and optimistic - realistic about what is possible and optimistic about the ability to achieve what is possible.

Here are some examples of organizations that were not driven by reality:

- A 400-member, statewide advocacy organization adopted a membership recruitment plan that called for tripling membership within three months. The narrative stated, "there is no reason why we shouldn't have 4,000 members or even 40,000 members..."

- A local special event attracted 400 attendees its first year, 700 the second year, and budgeted 3,000 the third year. It drew 1,200 the third year, a healthy increase but far short of the budget (and it lost money).

- A national charity spent six years building up to $300,000 in revenue and then immediately began planning for a $10 million operation.

Success is not the result of "thinking big" or "thinking small." It's the result of assessing the environment, understanding what can be achieved, and devising a plan to achieve it. Each success can build upon the previous one, but still should take into account potential setbacks and contingencies to counter those setbacks.

Success is rarely achieved instantly. It takes time and patience. That is reality.

In the movie Fail Safe, New York City has just been flattened by a nuclear blast. The character played by Walter Matthau advises the President to dispatch personnel to the devastated city to retrieve important documents and resources from banks, warehouses, and government offices.

His colleagues think he is uncaring and indifferent, but he is actually being practical.

Whether the fortunes of your association rise or fall, you always need to stay focused on the goal, adjust your course when necessary, and not get sidelined by emotion.

When advising members, staff, supervisors, Boards, committees, clients, or anybody else about how to do something, be direct, cut to the chase, and offer concrete steps that will help them to accomplish what they seek to accomplish.

Suggesting they change their attitudes or opinions about how to conduct business is OK (and, often, necessary) as long as it relates to the specific tasks before them.

How to recruit more members. How to increase meeting attendance. How to attract more people to web sites. How to raise more money.

Just tell them how to do what they want to do. If they've been doing it wrong, tell them that. If you don't think they can accomplish what they want to accomplish, tell them that, too. Then lead them to a more suitable alternative.

Be direct, be assertive, be specific, and be practical. Above all, be realistic.

If you want to implement a change in your organization that you think may not be supported by the membership, promote your ideas in an open way - if you insist on offering them at all.

Don't try to sneak something past the membership.

Clearly state what you want to do, tell why you want to do it, and explain how you think the association will benefit. Invite member feedback. Get the most input possible, not the least you think is necessary.

Don't praise the association leaders, the hired consultant, or anybody else who conceived of the change. Don't claim that everybody thinks the change is a great idea. And don't establish comment deadlines that are rigged to stymie member input.

If you are afraid the members won't support what you want, you may not be acting in their best interests. If you really think your change is best for the association, make a convincing case to the membership.

Before proposing any change, contact members, chapters, or other key groups who were not involved in developing the change and ask them what they think of it. Don't bias them for or against the proposal. Just get their opinions.

If the feedback is negative, you have two choices: 1) scrap the changes; or, 2) devise another strategy to persuade members to support the change.

Don't try to trick them into supporting you or letting your proposal slip through. Some members may become angry enough to not renew. Others may retain their memberships, but they won't give you their loyalty - and they won't trust your future actions.

Remember, the association belongs to the members, not to the Board of Directors, Executive Director, or any other individual or group of individuals. Do what the members want, not what you think they should want.

Sue Pelletier pointed to an article that used the recent firing of Massachusetts Hyatt employees as an example of how to damage your brand - or association or product or agency. (Of course, nobody does this intentionally, but you'd think they would know when they're doing that).

When engaging in any type of action, do your best to anticipate the reaction. Then, quickly determine how you'll deal with that reaction if it bounces right back at you.

It would be wise to think twice about what you are doing, though, and not do it if it is likely to spawn a negative reaction.

Here are a few examples of misguided decision-makers who think they are saving money by their actions. They aren't:

1. The Executive Director who, accompanied by another staff person, drives downtown to deliver an important package. The drive takes fifteen minutes, he circles the block while the staff person runs up the elevator to drop off the package, and they spend another fifteen minutes getting back to the office.

Money saved: $12.00 messenger fee.

Money spent: 3/4 hour of the Executive Director and staff person's time (that's a lot more than $12.00).

2. The Education Director who spends an entire day driving across the metropolitan area to drop off materials for educational sessions at three locations.

Money saved: $135.00 in messenger fees.

Money spent: 9 hours of the Education Director's time (that's more than $135.00). Plus, she left her wallet at the last stop, found the door locked when she returned to retrieve it, and had to wait for someone to show up and let her in.

3. The Executive Director who stood over the copier for nearly 3 3/4 hours reproducing four flyers that would be included in a 1,000 piece mailing, then driving them to the mail house where they would be folded, stuffed, and mailed.

Money saved: $200.00 - the difference between copying in the office and copying at FedExKinko's plus the $10.00 charge for delivery to the mail house (cheaper than a messenger).

Money spent: 5 hours of the Executive Director's time (worth more than $210.00), when he could have been doing Executive Director work.

Your time is not free.

Check out The Dilemma of Dissent, by Richard Haass, in this week's Newsweek magazine.

While it may be a "cover my ass, I told you so, it's not my fault so don't blame me" piece by a former Bush administration staffer, it still does a good job describing how staff people deal with dissent in an organization, and adapt - or don't adapt - to being on the losing end of an organizational decision.

It's unfortunate that David Riveness had to liken truth-telling in an association to the opining of medieval jesters.

Diversity of opinion is valuable in the decision-making process (so long as everyone supports the final decision). It just doesn't exist all of the time.

Many people tend to "go along" with executive decisions. Contrarians may be portrayed as divisive (even if they aren't), obstructionist, undermining, or just not team players. They are frequently fearful of losing their jobs or, at least, the ear of the decision-maker(s). So they keep their opinions to themselves.

As a result, valuable perspectives are never considered, and associations may then bumble their way through bad decisions, sour deals, and destructive relationships.

That needs to change. Association CEOs, in particular, need to create a climate that allows for, and even encourages, challenges to established thinking.

Success comes from considering all options and adopting those that are most appropriate. That cant' happen if some options are never heard.

Blue Avocado, an online magazine for community not-for-profits, offers some interesting observations about associations that feel they should be run like businesses.

Here's one point:

"...if the big financial firms had acted like nonprofits, they would not be suffering their woes of today. We in community nonprofits must be sure we don't borrow the destructive and dysfunctional habits of American business along with what is worthwhile."

In the movie "Wall Street," Gordon Gekko proclaimed, "Greed is good." Too many people must have watched that movie.