For membership organisations, the 12-month cycle has been a familiar tool, but it’s not the only one. The real opportunity lies in designing systems that match the permanence of the relationships we hope to create, i.e., systems where continuity is the norm, and opting out is the exception.

The danger of all the “how-to” noise is that it subtly shifts the power dynamic. Instead of being a tool that serves us, AI starts to feel like a system we have to keep up with and we end up chasing features, integrations, and workflows that may have nothing to do with the problems we’re actually trying to solve. 

The turbulent twenties continue unabated. In today’s constantly shifting environment, the pressure on associations to innovate is relentless. From launching new digital platforms and AI tools to reinventing events and services, the expectation is clear: evolve or risk becoming irrelevant. Boards and executives alike are told that transformation is synonymous with progress, and that those who fail to “disrupt” will be left behind.

Yet amidst this drive for progress, a crucial truth is being overlooked: constant innovation is increasingly at odds with the fundamental role of associations to serve their members well.

Associations pride themselves on being member-led and democratic and "transparency" is an omnipresent watchword; but over time, transparency has come to mean something closer to exposure, i.e., the belief that nothing should be withheld. But this simply isn’t true. Confidentiality is not the opposite of transparency. It is the necessary condition for effective governance.

The membership sector must be honest with itself. Governance is not glamorous, and it rarely produces applause. It demands time, learning, and the occasional uncomfortable mirror. Yet it is one of the most powerful determinants of whether an association truly fulfils its mission or slowly erodes under the weight of good intentions unsupported by good systems.