One of the most interesting things about the globalization trends that are shaping every aspect of our economy, society, and culture is how they defy structure. It’s almost comical to watch how governments are trying to impose taxing and regulatory and censorship authority over e-commerce and the Internet. Like children chasing soap bubbles, what they are chasing is gone as soon as it is grasped.

This elusiveness of globalization is sure to have a revolutionary impact on the government and management structures that have served us relatively well for the past several hundred years. But with communication and commercial exchanges now happening at the speed of light, how can these antiquated concepts of command and control ever hope to keep up?

The technology that has permitted globalization to happen has unleashed human creativity — for all the good and bad that that implies. It is causing the most sophisticated government regulators to pull their hair out, and business and association managers to be frantic in seeking out new governance models and management tools that will help them tame or at least channel these new tidal changes.

Management models do exist of course — some which work better than others — but like most things mechanical, the key to success lays not so much in the machine as in those who are at the controls.

Upon learning that Dwight Eisenhower had won the presidential election, President Harry Truman remarked, "Poor Ike, he will come to The White House and give orders that this or that thing be done — and it just won’t happen!"

As powerful as the presidency is, Truman knew, as every president has, that presidential directives can "die of a thousand cuts" — that foot-dragging by less-than-enthusiastic individuals can just as surely stop something from happening as outright opposition.

But this is routine for association managers. Volunteer leaders cannot be ordered to do something. They and the broader membership’s ability and willingness to cooperate on any association initiative depend on their interest level and availability. To this extent, the success of an association manager is directly tied to his or her ability to motivate and mobilize disparate and quasi-independent interest groups.

Given the kind of management skill set that has evolved in the association community, maybe the country’s leading business schools should be taking leads from association managers as they explore new ways to manage far-flung and fluid organizational structures.

But there is another aspect of global organizational management that is peculiar to all U.S. organizations — government, for-profit, or not-for-profit. In a global organization, the temptation to use raw power and force change is even greater than at the national or local level. Not only does the simplicity of this approach have appeal, but most association managers know their size permits them to get what they want, when they want it. In virtually every professional and industrial sector U.S. associations are far larger and better financed than their overseas counterparts. Why indeed ask when you can tell? Why go abroad when overseas customers, members, or associates can come to you?

When frustrations mount and Europeans, Latin Americans, Asians, or others just don’t seem to be doing what they should, the temptation to play the role of the "ugly American" is great.

It is said the definition of diplomacy is "the art of letting other people get your way." It takes a shrewd manager to pull this off, but successful association managers do it every day! Consensus and motivation building are key aspects of the job. And the vital management qualities needed to build consensus and motivation are good communications and listening skills.

Most association managers will agree that strong-arm tactics and turning a deaf ear to member concerns are ingredients in a recipe for disaster, yet it is curious to see how quickly these lessons are forgotten when the people they are dealing with do not live in this country and may not speak English.

David E. Sanger, an editorial writer for The New York Times addressed this phenomenon in an article, "All Pumped Up and Nowhere to Go" (July 9, 2000). Referring to national governments, he wrote, "to maintain its influence, America must be seen to be sharing power, not hoarding it." This concept of joint decision-making and sharing of power or consensus building is very "association-like."

While most associations feel relatively inexperienced in the global marketplace, they can and should take confidence from the fact that the management skills they have honed and which they employ on a daily basis are ideally suited to the needs of this new global era.

Editor's Note: Working with foresight international, an international market survey and research firm, and plexus consulting group, GWSAE undertook a survey of its members to determine how their associations are responding to the challenges of a global economy. This article will be the first of a series that will be appearing in Executive Update on this topic.