When We Redesign Something, Who Do We Listen To?
As we redesigned ASNT’s annual conference, changes to the awards banquet drew some of the strongest reactions. It was a longstanding tradition, and past leaders worried that moving away from it would diminish the awards and the people receiving them. We took that concern seriously. Recognition matters, and a change in format can send a message even when that is not the intention.
As part of the broader redesign, we wanted to give award recipients more visibility. The banquet audience consisted largely of award recipients and their guests, along with board members, past presidents, and representatives of other societies. Most conference attendees never saw the awards presented.
We made changes gradually, eventually moving recognition into general sessions where attendees could learn about awards they might never have encountered at the banquet. The awards gained visibility, and nominations increased. The objections did not change that goal, but they helped us understand why we needed to change the format over time.
That experience raises a question for any association updating a program, product, service, or part of its structure: When we redesign something, should the loudest voices carry the most weight? The loudest voice deserves to be heard. It is not automatically granted the most weight.
Volunteer leaders often know things staff cannot find in a report. They may understand how a program works in a particular industry or why an earlier attempt to change it failed. They can explain relationships, history, and consequences that attendance or financial data will not show. A former volunteer may have valuable insight into what happened years ago while having less visibility into the challenges the organization faces today. We need to understand both what someone knows and the perspective from which they are speaking.
When someone objects to a change, I want to know why. What do they believe we would lose? What is the downside of trying something new? What is the worst that could happen? Those questions can uncover a risk we need to address. They can also reveal that someone is reacting to a different understanding of the problem. Sometimes a concern fades once we explain the bigger picture. Sometimes it becomes stronger.
I usually start testing an idea with staff by asking, “What if we did it this way?” We talk through whether it would work and what we might be missing before taking it further. Then conversations with volunteers can bring in industry knowledge and perspectives staff may not have. If a strong objection emerges, I talk with more people to get a sense of whether it reflects a concern shared by the broader audience.
Associations have long relied on volunteer leaders and the people willing to serve on committees to help them understand members. That remains valuable, but today we can also see who participates, who stops participating, what people purchase, and what they tell us in surveys. Staff bring what they learn from operating programs every day. Each source tells us something different, and each has limits. A few survey answers should not determine a decision any more than a few forceful opinions should.
There is another group we rarely hear from in these discussions: the customers we do not have yet. They are not serving on our committees or defending a program they have never used. We can learn something about their needs by following what is working elsewhere, paying attention to changes in the market, and asking current customers what they cannot get from us today. We will not have a complete picture, but listening only to people already close to the organization gives us a narrow one.
Before asking whose opinion should prevail, I think we have to ask a more basic question: Is this still serving its intended purpose? Then we can listen for what each person knows about that purpose, what the evidence shows, and whose experience has not yet been represented. The people who speak first or loudest may help us see something important. We should hear them carefully and make sure the decision also accounts for the people who never spoke up.
