Blogger Matt Baehr has been posting some interesting comments on Clay Shirky’s book, Here Comes Everybody, particularly on the notion of self-forming groups as threats to associations. B-Mart has chimed in as well. When you read these posts, though, you have to read the comments (I really don’t do that enough!) because there are great insights there as well.
For example, Greg Fine added this comment to Matt’s post:
My question…why shouldn’t some associations go out of business? The National Tie Association just folded. It was time, it wasn’t becuase thier members could self form, it was becuase they were no longer relevant.
What social media is doing, in my very humble opion, is hastening the death of some organizations that need to die.
Of course, "going out of business" is never seen as a good thing. It is a failure, right? I guess, but I’m not sure why. It’s like Jeff’s quote about governing: the purpose of a Board of Directors is not to govern; the purpose is to create value for members. An organization’s purpose is not simply to exist. If it’s not creating value or it’s not relevant, then it should stop. With Web 2.0, the costs of going in and out of business are being reduced dramatically, and that’s a good thing. Maybe more organizations will "die" and go out of business, but in the end it feels like more lifeblood is being pumped into the system.
I don’t know that going out of business is always seen as a bad thing … it depends on your mission. At my last association, we regularly talked about how our real mission was to put ourselves out of business; if every worker always went home safe and healthy every night, there would no longer be a need for our members (who worked in occupational safety and health)–and that would be a good thing. Putting ourselves out of business was an aspiration of ours.
So I guess there’s good versions of no longer relevant and bad versions of no longer relevant …