Something’s been happening in the world for the past few decades which is only now becoming visible to the average person. Because of technology, especially technology in the form of global communications and computer networks, the term “Power to the People” is becoming a reality.

We know the world has become a smaller, perhaps even a miniscule place. When we speak of globalization, we seem to understand that it means organizations can compete and are forced to compete with competition from all over the world. The concept of globalization tells us that our competitors can come from anywhere. Even if we decide not to go international, they can and will enter your market space. But globalization isn’t the end of the trend; it’s just the launching pad for a new, curious and furiously paced tomorrow.

New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman just published The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the 21st Century. His premise, described in an interview with Amazon editor Tom Nissley is, “[Technology] created a global platform that allowed more people to plug and play, collaborate and compete, share knowledge and share work, than anything we have ever seen in the history of the world. My book traces how that platform evolved and what it means for companies, countries and individuals.”

The key word in his description is the last one, “individuals.” This is what distinguishes what’s happening today from what we’ve come to know as “globalization.” Globalization is typically discussed within the geographical context of large organizations, but the reality is that individuals, regardless of their geographical location and aided by these new technologies, now have the power to accomplish what only huge organizations could do in the past.

How does this trend toward a level playing field intersect with and affect associations? Consider the pressure in every association to accommodate the special interests of member subsets. The urge to specialize is a natural one, and the benefits are obvious. By participating in special interest groups (even if they are informal cliques), associations ensure that finite resources of time and intellect are deployed optimally within an area of interest. The more successful a SIG, the more likely that sooner or later SIG members will ask themselves, “If this SIG is serving our interests better than the larger organization, then why do we need the larger organization?”

This push to SIG independence is exacerbated by the growing awareness that a small passionate group, fueled by a desire to be more responsive to their needs and aided by technology, can outperform the larger association. The growing awareness that the “world is flat” is also an awareness that “small” is as good, if not better, than “large.”

There are numerous examples of this phenomenon, including:

· The National Association of Realtors begot the National Association of Home Builders, which in turn begot the National Apartment Association.

· The National Golf Course Owners (association was once a SIG within the National Golf Foundation).

· The International City Management Association spun off the Public Risk Management Association, which in turn created the Association of Government Risk Pools.

Not all of these were amicable partings. Some were much more like divorces rather than kids growing up and leaving the nest. In those examples where the new assns “play well together” there are two common elements: open lines of communication between the associations and a willingness to work together to achieve common goals.

The American Medical Association now provides a good example of being willing to work with “competing” assns.

The AMA has upwards of 250,000 members and is the largest association of physicians in the US. This wealth of members gives the association great visibility and influence over both media and government agencies. By sheer numbers alone, AMA helps shape the direction of healthcare practices in the US. By example and influence, the association also has an impact on global medical trends.

The AMA has recognized the reality of specialty associations and found a way to allow them a say in AMA direction and still retain their specialty independence. A specialty organization such as American College of Radiology can retain seats in the AMA House of Delegates, allowing ACR both voting power and the opportunity to influence the direction of the AMA. ACR’s formal affiliation with the AMA continues as long as a certain number of ACR members are also members of the AMA.

There’s another aspect to this “world is flat” observation. As the Third World quickly ramps up and becomes the Nouveau World, the level of competition in the association world will quickly come to a boil. If the need for associations is great in North America, then how great will it be in India and China in the coming decades? To what degree will we openly communicate and work toward those common goals? More importantly, what do we have to talk about and what goals do we have in common?

Peter de Jager is a sr. consultant with Plexus Consulting Group specializing in change management. He can be contacted at pdejager@plexusconsulting.com or www.plexusconsulting.com