| Plexus Consulting Group | Articles by Plexus Authors | ||
|
Mixed Signals on Globalization |
|||
|
Author
|
|
Editor’s Note: This is the last of a series of articles analyzing the
results of the GWSAE-Plexus Consulting "going global" survey
conducted in the summer of 2000.
Are you confused or uncertain over the instructions your board of directors has given you about globalization? Don’t feel bad. When it comes to globalization, most association executives appear to have a perplexing situation on their hands. Last summer’s GWSAE survey on associations going global showed that more than 50 percent reported globalization as a "top priority," yet the survey also showed that this globalization mandate has produced few new initiatives. Most of the effects of globalization seem to be limited to greater participation of non-Americans in existing programs and services. Association executives also revealed that while their boards recognize the importance of globalization, they do not yet seem ready to invest money in the concept. It would seem that while the interest in globalization has increased among American associations, not much has changed in budgeting patterns since a 1995 ASAE survey showed that most associations devoted less than 10 percent — and the major part of these less than five percent — of their budgets to international activities. This clearly limits the options available to association executives who may see the opportunities presented by the new global economy but are hamstrung by the lack of resources. Why should this be? There appear to be two reasons. Association board members may be doing nothing more than voicing members’ priorities. Association membership polls continue to indicate that members most relate to associations or professional societies at the local level. National operations are perceived to be far away, and international operations are still farther from their primary concerns and interests. The late Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Thomas O’Neill, once noted that "all politics is local." Association executives know that association management tends to be locally driven as well. If association budgeting is tied to members’ interests, as it must be, then it follows that it is difficult to authorize funding for anything that is not locally focused. A second reason may be that boards are simply reflecting the ambiguities of American society. In poll results published this past December, The Wall Street Journal revealed that only 35 percent of Americans believe that international ties and trading opportunities have helped the United States. In this same poll, 24 percent of the respondents indicated they felt international ties and trade have not made much difference to the United States, while 32 percent felt the impact to be negative. In other words, those on the positive side of the equation (35 percent) are almost equally balanced by those on the negative (32 percent). Even adding the neutral votes to the percentage of positive responses leaves only a wobbly 59 percent of Americans either positively inclined or ambivalent about international trade — hardly a ringing endorsement for business or association executives to launch new international ventures. So what are executives to do with the globalization issue when their boards seem to be saying they should push the accelerator and the brakes at the same time? "Best practice" cases from the association community indicate there are three steps that can be taken. First, identify and quantify the potential benefits of globalization for your members — then tell members about them. To gather the information, use U.S. Department of Commerce statistics, information and anecdotes from members’ experiences, and help from sister organizations abroad. Once all this information has been obtained and analyzed, the next challenge is to explain why it is relevant to members at the local level. This is what the late chairman of Sony, Akio Morita, once referred to as "global localization." Second, assign responsibility. Associations that have succeeded in leading members into the global arena have hired a staff expert to "internationalize" products, programs, and services by marketing them abroad and making them more accessible to non-American members. Global participation in the association’s activities creates revenue streams that are hard to ignore, but someone needs to have responsibility to make it happen. Finally, you should begin to develop long-term plans that address how your organization will respond to the practical and strategic questions that are sure to arise as (and when) you become more active in the global arena. These global forces that are changing our world so dramatically are most definitely going to have an impact on your organization. Whether this impact is positive or destructive will depend almost entirely on the level of preparation. |
|
Reprinted by Permission