Americans have tired of executives sharing political takes, according to a new survey. But leaders can still make their feelings known.

When should a CEO speak up about social matters?

Less often, according to a new survey co-sponsored by the Stanford Graduate School of Business [PDF]. Forty-five percent of Americans say CEOs shouldn’t “use their position and potential influence to advocate on behalf of social, environmental, or political issues that they care about personally”—a ten-point increase from the previous survey in 2018.

In the report, professor David F. Larcker writes, “The social events that have dominated the headlines over the last several years have only increased the sensitivity of the public toward opinions that might not align with their own. People are clearly wary of executives using their position to advance a message.” 

That’s certainly true for particular issues, according to the survey: A majority of Americans take a “keep your mouth shut” attitude to CEOs talking about religion and politics, and have limited tolerance for chatter about abortion, war, and LGBTQ issues. But that’s not the whole story, and certainly not a mandate for association executives to stay silent on issues that matter to their organizations.

For one thing, Americans are more tolerant of outspoken CEOs when the subject is relevant to their organizations. In the new survey, 76 percent of Americans say CEOs of large companies should “use their position to advocate on behalf of social, environmental, or political issues if those issues directly impact their business or employees,” a four-point increase.

People do vote with their wallets, especially if they have a negative feeling toward the opinion being expressed: The report says, “consumers are considerably more likely to recall withdrawing business from a company than rewarding one for taking an agreeable position.”

There’s little question that, for a variety of reasons, organizations are more hesitant to step into divisive political matters, unless they specifically touch on an advocacy goal. But a different environment doesn’t mean an association should stop living its values, and communicating what those values are.

In an Associations Now Deep Dive in 2024, I explored some of the processes that inform effective statement-making. That involves listening to a variety of voices in your community, not just the loudest ones in the room, consider how a statement might be received by different audiences, and determine what serves the association best.

Sometimes that means speaking out, sometimes not. As ASIS International CEO Peter J. O’Neil, FASAE, CAE, put it, “My experience in the last 30 years has been that it is dangerous for an organization to make a public statement about something that does not directly impact the profession or trade that they serve.”

An Association Insights Center survey conducted in 2023 echoes that point: A strong majority (77 percent) endorse a statement “when there’s a risk to the association or field,” but few (30 percent) support doing so “simply because an associate or leader is passionate about or affected by it.”

An exhausted country is understandably weary of being told about yet another social, environmental, and political challenge. But that needn’t be interpreted as pressure to be silent—just to be more intentional about when and how to break the silence.

The post Is the Age of the Outspoken CEO Over? appeared first on Associations Now.

The Public Affairs Council’s report on government relations at associations found deeper investments, though staffing remains small.

Associations are investing more in government relations work, according to a new survey, but typically doing it with small staffs. 

The 2026 Government Relations Benchmarking Survey for Associations, released in late September by the Public Affairs Council—an association of professionals in advocacy, lobbying, and public relations—is based on a survey of associations conducted in May and June. It’s the first time PAC has done association-specific research.

“The Public Affairs Council has previously conducted benchmarking research on corporate government relations functions, but had not yet gathered this kind of data for associations,” said Anna Platt, PAC’s senior manager, government relations practice. “We saw an opportunity to fill that gap with comparable benchmarking information and create an association-specific resource for our members.”

According to the survey, engagement with the federal government is high, with 96 percent of associations saying they do so. Moreover, that engagement is the result of a deeper investment in advocacy: Three-fourths (76 percent) of respondents said that they have “increased their government relations or public affairs budgets over the past three years.” 

Those findings jibe with ASAE’s 2026 State of Associations report, released in March, which found that associations increased their advocacy/government relations staffing 16.7 percent over the previous year. That report also noted that nearly 40 percent of association leaders said their financial outlook had slightly or significantly worsened due to federal policy shifts. 

The ASAE report notes that many associations have adjusted their advocacy approaches in response: “Associations are adapting their strategies to navigate the current political environment. Respondents report an increase in their federal advocacy efforts, with increased coalition-building and collaborative initiatives to amplify their voices. Associations are also adjusting messaging to align with the priorities of the current administration. As federal engagement becomes more challenging, some groups are shifting their focus to state-level advocacy.”

Despite the more intense focus on government relations, the PAC report suggests that advocacy departments often operate on a shoestring, and aren’t always integrated with associations’ top leadership. The report found that a majority (52 percent) of government-relations teams have four or fewer members, with nearly all (90 percent) using contract lobbyists or consultants. And though most (85 percent) senior advocacy officers report directly to their CEO, only 40 percent said that advocacy and communications functions are “fully or mostly integrated,” Platt said, with another 40 percent saying those functions are “partially integrated.”

 A large majority (85%) said that the senior-most association government relations officers report to their president/CEO. Almost 40% of respondents also reported that their government relations and communications functions are “fully or mostly integrated,” with another 40% reporting the functions are “partially integrated.”  

Platt said PAC intends to continue to monitor government-relations staffing at associations.

“Associations hold a distinct and important place in the public affairs profession, and this research gave us an opportunity to better understand how they navigate government relations,” Platt said. “We are committed to continuing to create research and resources that our members can use and learn from.”

The post Report: Associations Increasing Advocacy Budgets appeared first on Associations Now.

A new survey suggests that boards get clubby and blame-prone without the proper expertise. The staff leader should be prepared to help provide it.

It can sometimes be difficult for boards to arrive at a consensus, but take heart: A majority of board members are sure the dysfunction is somebody else’s fault.

According to PwC’s new 2026 Annual Corporate Directors Survey: Governing What’s Next, a solid majority (55 percent) of directors “think at least one director of the board should be replaced.” Moreover, that group is increasingly sure about what the problem is: Nearly 40 percent of that group say that “insufficient expertise” is the main reason for wanting a replacement, a leap from 21 percent last year.

This might look like evidence of a board getting ahead of its problems, except those board members don’t seem eager to act accordingly. Their succession planning process, according to the survey, prioritizes cultural fit over expertise: Eighty-one percent says “cultural alignment” is very important, while only 27 percent say the same about knowledge of AI or cybersecurity.

This is not a recipe for success, obviously, and it’s further evidence that the stack of strategic issues a board is pressed to think about is only rising higher. AI and cybersecurity alone is giving boards headaches: Seventy-one percent say they need to improve their skill and knowledge around those topics “to provide more effective oversight.”

Every association has to decide for itself how much the staff leader works with the board chair to manage strategy and succession. But the PwC survey makes it clear that the executive can’t be absent from the conversation. Two thirds of the directors say board assessments need improvement, and nearly half (49 percent) describe them as “not sufficiently candid.”

How should a staff executive be involved without unduly interfering? For starters, the PwC report suggests that they do more around the “expertise” piece. “Executives can help directors understand how shifts in strategy, technology, talent, and risk are changing what effective oversight requires,” the report says. Staff leaders should be putting internal and external subject experts in front of the board, with the goal of educating the board about the key issues and helping them identify gaps.

Moreover, executives shouldn’t be shy about saying when they see the board focusing more on its clubbish qualities than the ones that make it truly effective: being informed, being open to reasonable debate, dedicated to a succession process that ensures the association is fit for purpose.

“Executives can surface issues boards may not see firsthand, including gaps in information flow, meeting focus, role clarity, access to leaders, or the quality of board management engagement,” the report says.

This is a tricky balance: Staff is there to execute on the board’s direction-setting, and neither the board nor the staff want to see the other as unduly interfering. But though the relationship is a challenging one, it’s still a relationship. If a CEO wants to ensure that the association thrives, they need to do their part to ensure that the board has the tools and temperament to do the same. Usually with a little more knowledge, and a little less finger-pointing.

The post How CEOs Can Better Support Their Boards appeared first on Associations Now.

It may be the person you see in the mirror—executives often miss the blind spots that let them confuse dominance with collaboration.

“I’m a great collaborator—everybody says so.”

It’s not hard to detect the flaw in a statement like that. A leader who takes pride in commanding the room and guiding an organization’s staff and volunteers can easily convince themselves that everybody’s agreement means they’re skilled at collaborating. It’s a common self-delusion: According to research by leadership experts Ivan Matviak and Heidi K. Gardner, high-level senior leaders tend to underestimate how much they “engage in two key behaviors that are detrimental to collaboration: dominating conversations and micromanaging.”

In their discussion of the phenomenon in an article for Harvard Business Review, Matviak and Gardner explain that leaders who demonstrate those behaviors don’t necessarily mean ill—they got where they are because they’ve proven their expertise and care about quality. But in any environment where collaboration is key—which is to say any association office or volunteer group—that kind of dominance only sows alienation, tension, and people eyeing the exit.

In response, Matviak and Gardner recommend that leaders ask their colleagues to be honest with them, soliciting feedback about how they manage, and when their management style is overly dominant. Just as important, they recommend that leaders be honest with themselves. Too often, he writes, such leaders are quick to rationalize their behavior, “defending their actions with what they know to be their own good intentions.” But it’s better to recognize those flaws, he writes, to keep everybody focused on the organization’s bigger purpose.

There’s a wrinkle in that thinking too, though: High-toned talk about a “bigger purpose” can also be used to excuse divisive behaviors. In a sharp piece in the MIT Sloan Management Review, “Dethroning Loyalty,” leadership experts Ron Carucci and Jim Detert point out that leaders are generally wise enough to know that demanding abject fealty is a dead end, stoking sycophancy and leaving blind spots unaddressed. But a leader can still find ways to, perhaps semi-unconsciously, behave in loyalty-chasing ways—hiring and promoting from a narrow pool of educational and experiential backgrounds, for instance, or rewarding volunteers’ hard work on an initiative that isn’t really serving the mission. 

So talk about “serving the mission” can easily ring hollow. But that doesn’t mean serving the mission is a bad idea. Rather, Carucci and Detert offer a specific idea for how it’s done well and ethically, something they call shared principled commitment. In it, “people are committed to the organization’s mission and will prioritize it when hard choices are necessary, but not without two-way regard for the humans involved.”

The second part is crucial, because while serving a mission demands leadership, it also demands respect from and attention to the needs of all stakeholders. “It’s not enough to say that ‘the mission is bigger than me’ and that ‘your commitment should be to the mission, not me,’” Carucci and Detert write. “You have to show it by routinely illustrating the distinction.” Leadership means dedicating attention an association’s mission; it also means being alert to the circumstances where you confuse it with attention to yourself

The post How to Detect a Selfish Leader appeared first on Associations Now.

MCI Group’s research suggests that new products and events should target the kind of career goals of the target audiences, and the kinds of behaviors they’re most comfortable with

A new research report suggests that associations may be overinvested in generational differences when developing programs and products, at the expense of understanding behaviors that better drive engagement.

Decoding Generational Behaviors, Motivations, and Myths, released last month by MCI Group, questions the traditional system of using age-based personas—gen Z, Millennials, etc.—to define audiences. “The usual metrics no longer tell you who will actually show up,” the report says, “and even successful events and organizations struggle to explain why certain formats work.”

Erin Fuller, FASAE, CAE, global head of association solutions at MCI Group, said the report was inspired by earlier MCI research that pointed to a breakdown in typical understanding about what members and attendees might do. “We have reporting that doesn’t actually tell you who will actually show up, and even when you have a successful event, when you ask why were people engaged here versus there, no one can really explain it,” she said. “We need to shift associations from demographics to behavioral design, because age-based segmentation is no longer enough. We think motivation and context probably matter more than generational labels.”

For instance, the report identifies one group as “rising influencers,” tracking largely but not exclusively to gen Z; those influencers may tend to be more technically savvy, but regardless of their age they’re looking for authenticity and safety as they begin their career paths. “The motivation piece [of product and event design] is more critical because people switch careers all the time, so you can’t assume that someone who’s 42 necessarily has more job or industry experience as someone who’s 29,” Fuller said.

Moreover, tracking of education might focus more on how participants want to receive information rather than where they are in their careers. “Instead of having an ‘early career track’ or ‘senior track’ you might design options for quiet participation where people can observe and reflect, or structured participation like guided small groups, and then opportunities to actively contribute, co-create, present, and mentor.” 

The shift to behavior-focused design is also intended to respond to the fact that more generations are engaged in the work force and working cross-functionally. “In practice, the biggest sources of friction are usually not interpersonal,” the report says. “They come from mismatched expectations around content, technology, visibility, pace and how people prefer to take part.”

“Organisations that treat engagement as a living system, not a sequence of events, will retain loyalty as behaviors and expectations continue to change,” the report advises. To do that, Fuller recommends looking at areas where deep engagement already exists and building on it, rather than standing up yet another brand-new program.

“You need to ask, ‘Does it feel transactional, or does this feel like a genuine investment and development?’” she said. “Associations often will ask, how do we get more mentors? And I think that the better question is, where in our existing systems is mentoring already naturally occurring, and how do we lean in on that?”

The post Report: Design Around Engagement, Not Age appeared first on Associations Now.