Perspectives on AMC transitions: the view from the top.

To provide varied insights on organizational transitions to an association management company, we asked volunteer leaders from various Association Management Bureau clients to share their perspectives and experiences. Each of these organizations came to AMB from a different type of prior management experience. One migrated from a stand-alone, staffed organizational structure, the second split from a large stand-alone association, and the third transitioned from another AMC. Here are their stories:

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Shawn Taylor Zelman: What were the key factors that led to your organization's decision to explore management alternatives?

Cynthia Kessler, past president, American Society of Women Accountants: Our key factor was to move to an environment where our management shared our philosophy and mirrored our objectives. It was not enough to have our staff management talk the talk; they had to walk the walk. What was clear to us is that our former management structure just wasn't working as well as we wanted or needed, in part from an operational perspective, but even more from a vision perspective. To realize our full potential, we needed to find an organization that was better able to align vision with supporting operations.

Diane Pinakiewicz, founding board member and interim executive director, National Patient Safety Foundation: As a relatively young organization (formed in 1996), we were "incubated" and managed by a much larger nonprofit organization that, as we grew, didn't have in place the dedicated staff with the broad skill sets required to drive our mission. Our goal was to find a management solution that was a better and higher-quality fit ... a solution that provides both the agility and strategic resources we require to fulfill our critical mission ... a structure better suited to our stage of evolution and ambitions in the marketplace. Even though we are a multimillion-dollar operation, there was a feeling under our former management structure of being lost in a large and bureaucratic nonprofit environment. As a result, we placed a premium on finding a management company that possessed both the systems and entrepreneurial spirit that, in partnership with our leadership, could propel us to our next stage of growth.

Mary MacRae, past president, National Association of Women Business Owners: The NAWBO leadership had discussed the merits of an AMC solution over the years, but it was a very distinct financial crisis that led to our decision. Our former management and past leadership had made some bold financial and strategic decisions, including counting upon a series of projections that, in hindsight, were unrealistic. We did what most leaders do when faced with this type of challenge. We cut expenses, which included downsizing captive staff and eliminating some services and programs. The need to look at a more economically attractive solution accelerated our search for a management firm.

Zelman: What were the critical elements you were looking for in your search for an association management company?

Pinakiewicz: Without question, we looked for an organization that could provide economic efficiencies, particularly when tackling more straightforward tasks. More than that, however, we were looking for a management company with proven strengths in the areas of resource development and strategic management so that we could more rapidly accelerate the pursuit of our mission.

MacRae: Put simply, we needed association professionals to manage as professionals. We needed to enhance our fundamentals, to draw upon our inherent strengths, and to work with an organization with a history of turnaround management. We had an expressed preference to be in the Washington, D.C., area because of our public policy advocacy focus. We needed an organization with an attitude and philosophy of flexibility ... one that, quite frankly, recognized our financial realities, but shared our vision of the near boundless potential we possess. We required a willingness to accept, and even embrace, the uniqueness of our entrepreneurial culture. Finally, we wanted an organization with strong accreditation credentials, which would underscore their market leadership, integrity, and credibility.

Kessler: We were looking for similar things to what Mary suggested, someone to help us take full advantage of our strengths. For us, geography was not a consideration. We just wanted to find the right philosophical and cultural fit, since we had not gotten it exactly right the first time around, and we could ill-afford the wrong decision.

Zelman: How did your organization's leadership manage any embedded reluctance to change the status quo?

Kessler: Communication, communication, communication. In addition, up-front strategic planning with the executive leadership team of our new management firm was both important and enlightening. Because we are naturally numbers-focused, we wanted to ensure predictability in management costs, [for example,] no surprises in pricing of services. We wanted conservative and realistic budgeting, not "pie in the sky" stuff. Overall, we wanted to work with a team that respected and would involve our leadership, which would fuel an even deeper commitment to the organization.

Pinakiewicz: Perhaps our chief challenge was the leap of faith required to move to a firm without deeply embedded content expertise in the complexities of patient safety. So in doing our due diligence, we needed to be completely satisfied that they "got it," and could come up the content curve rapidly. We required assurance that they would embed within the highest reaches of their staff the content expertise that is so central to the attainment of our mission. We needed to be secure as well that there was sufficient innovative and entrepreneurial thinking dedicated to our ongoing management so that we could move rapidly to take advantage of the enormous opportunities that were stranded in our previous management structure. Due diligence is key. At the conclusion of that due diligence, we had laid the foundation of confidence and trust that is required for a true and mutually productive partnership.

MacRae: For us, the leadership required no persuasion that the status quo required changing ... our financial realities dictated it. We were dealing with members, leaders, and other stakeholders who had not been served as well as they expected, so there was a lot of looking backward even as we worked to move forward. There was a deep recognition by our board that we needed more than just a back-office operation. We needed a strategic partner that brought depth and professionalism. And [that partner] needed to be tough and thick-skinned because of the tension that existed among members and leaders who had experienced diminished service levels. One critical aspect was establishing open and honest communication between the association leadership and management team and keeping leaders and members informed and engaged. This was often as simple and direct as picking up the telephone and responding to issues instead of allowing them to fester. By keeping people engaged and informed, we began the painful process of transforming very bad news to good news and from there into stellar results.

All of our volunteer leaders are women business owners with strong entrepreneurial spirits. As a result, it's not always easy to share decision making. However, because we found an association management company that is as tough and passionate about our mission, as we ourselves are, we have been able to transform a good organization into a truly great one.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Zelman: What were the requirements of organizational leadership during the transition?

Kessler: Ensuring that the leadership presented a unified position to the membership and effectively communicated the real promise and excitement that change can bring.

MacRae: Because many of our leaders had never worked with an AMC, some of them didn't trust the paradigm implicitly. Recognizing this, our management firm worked with us, was patient when required, and was firm even when it would have been much more convenient for them to just say yes. For our part, we had to learn new behaviors, such as development of a different board protocol and exercising restraint against the urge to micromanage. It also put an onus on us to recruit and mentor board leaders who are both quality leaders and strategic change agents. In a very real sense, it helped to crystallize who we are today.

Pinakiewicz: Patience is a key requirement because as much as we want overnight revolution, there are aspects that are more evolution. As a result, managing expectations among the leadership is central, as is the importance of establishing a basis of trust with the new partner. Beyond that, everything else is a function of maintaining your focus on the real priorities for success.

Zelman: From start to finish, how long did the transition to a new association management company take and what were the most enlightening and challenging aspects of the transition?

MacRae: Because I view transitions as periods of change, and our organization is ever changing, transitions are eternal. This said, the physical transition of property and equipment is both straightforward and relatively quick, but the cultural transition is ongoing.

With our management firm, our financial challenges dictated that we pursue a phased transition and ramp-up of services. As our financial conditions rapidly improved, we accelerated our scope of services. The key to success was the fact that our management firm was willing to work with us and invest in us to achieve the kind of financial stability that we required to move the organization forward.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Pinakiewicz: Our decision process was rapid. Literally, less than three months from initial consideration to our effective date with AMB. The board was shocked in a very pleasant way that we were able to get this done so rapidly and without undue angst. Because we have been with our management firm less than one year, we are still in a very real transition period, which, I agree with Mary, will probably continue as long as we are alive.

Kessler: Because we went from a captive staff based in Memphis to an AMC in the Midwest and from there to our present management firm in McLean, Virginia, transitions were not new to us. From my perspective, the physical transition took a matter of weeks, with the intellectual transition taking a full annual cycle. This said, we viewed this not as a painful process, but as one that was both exciting and enlightening. For us, our first two transitions were great learning experiences, so we managed the process much better this time. It worked out great because we made the right choice.

Zelman: What were the steps taken, in concert with the management firm, to preserve the culture of your organization?

Pinakiewicz: The mutual requirement for education, both from our leaders to the AMC and from the AMC to our leaders, is ongoing. Basically, it's a testament to the quality of the partnership if the management firm is willing to remain open to and really, truly embrace the client's evolving needs and culture. In our management firm, whether core or departmental staff, they identify themselves as National Patient Safety Foundation staff when communicating or interacting within an NPSF setting. In this regard, they are completely transparent, and because of that, they more rapidly understand and embrace our unique culture.

Kessler: In our strategic planning done on the front end of our new relationship, we really talked long and hard about our culture and who we wanted to be in the marketplace. Our management firm really helped us in this process, and so we felt from the very beginning that we were on the same page with regard to organizational culture ... and through that process, unified in our mutual pursuit of our association's mission.

MacRae: In the beginning of our relationship with AMB, there was a cultural divide that existed not only among staff and leadership, but also within our leadership itself. A subset of the leadership's interaction with staff was, to be blunt, very, very difficult, and it led to real strains in the opening phases of our relationship. Together with AMB leadership, we addressed these early challenges head-on through open and honest communication. I am so proud of the enormous progress made in embracing a consistently positive culture, one not based upon blame, but based upon a mutual commitment to growth and success. While painful at times, the determination we shared with our management firm for positive change has paid incredible dividends.

Zelman: What were the key steps and factors in establishing a basis of trust and confidence in the new management company?

Kessler: The presentation of a unified board and admitting mistakes when made, whether by the board or the management firm. As much as we all want to be flawless, management is not a perfect science. We also admire our current management firm's vision, along with a leadership that lives and breathes its commitment to women, minorities, and socially progressive causes. Because they have the same core values as we do, trust comes easily.

Pinakiewicz: Because I have, as a founding board member, stepped in and paralleled the transition process as an interim executive director for NPSF, trust came easy because I have been able to work side-by-side with AMB. Frankly, this took a lot of the anxiety away. This said, the NPSF leadership recognized that that partnership can't exist absent a foundation of trust and confidence, so when we checked references during our due diligence process, we spent a lot of time asking questions about our management firm's reputation of honesty and trust. On a going forward basis, it's really a question of viewing and treating one another as partners, ensuring complete transparency, and working in tandem to benefit the core mission of the client. If there is an alignment of philosophies and values, great things are much more likely to follow.

MacRae: Because of the financial challenges we faced, and what we had experienced with our former management structure, it took awhile to be able to trust again. In fact, it was only when our first executive director resigned that we had to reluctantly admit mistakes and, most importantly, that our lack of trust was blocking progress. Together with AMB senior leadership, we confronted the issue of trust head-on, which resulted in significant progress being made in restoring both service levels and programs that had been abandoned during the financial crisis. In addition, our commitment to a relationship based on trust was beginning to fuel a resurgence of financial strength. There is nothing like success to fuel trust and confidence.

Zelman: Overall, has your organization realized the professed benefits of the AMC model, those being economies of scale, staffing depth, and more professional and capable overall management?

Pinakiewicz: So far, so good. Without question, we have gotten exactly what we had hoped to get from this change, and our board is very pleased with our new model. In fact, they are pretty amazed at the transformation.

Kessler: We have realized those benefits and more, but heavens, we don't want to stop here. But it's a great feeling, a great motivator, to both watch and participate in the blossoming of the organization. It's invigorating for everybody to have a vision and see the operationalization of that vision.

MacRae: Yes, most definitely. Granted, it took incremental steps to get there because of our unique challenges, but the progress we have made with the expertise of and commitment from our management firm is almost miraculous. From profound deficit to substantial surplus, from a defensive posture to an offensive one, from the start to the finish of each day, we are getting better every single day. Like the women business owners we represent, we are focused, resilient, and determined.

Zelman: If you were to offer a single piece of advice to other nonprofit leaders who are considering the AMC option, what would that be?

Pinakiewicz: Select a partner you are comfortable with, an organization that has a set of values that are clear and articulated. While competencies are critical, one must go beyond that metric to really assess the management firm's ability and commitment to take you to the next level. Look for quality thinkers who can feed you the ideas and operational skills to really make a difference in the pursuit of your mission.

Kessler: As Diane said, seek an organization that shares your values, philosophy, and culture. You can get everything else right, but if you get that wrong, you have sold your organization short.

MacRae: Be realistic in your expectations of the possible. Communicate constantly and be adaptable. Compromise is sometimes required to balance needs among partners, and make sure you go with a firm that shares your values and can be passionate about your organization and its mission.

Shawn Taylor Zelman is director of strategic communications, Association Management Bureau, an ASAE AMC Charter Accredited company based in McLean, Virginia. E-mail: [e-mail]