Is It Advocacy When Promoting a Self-Interest?

Joseph Turner has certainly sparked an important discussion. Joe and I talk on the phone a few times a year and often exchange perspectives here on LinkedIn. One area where we clearly align is the belief that #citymanagers and #countyadministrators need more than what traditional associations have historically provided.

The world has changed significantly since these organizations were founded. The needs of professional managers have evolved—perhaps faster than associations can adapt. When growth in membership becomes the focus rather than direct value to members, it’s fair to question whether these organizations are still serving their original mission.

But the real discussion here isn’t just about changing membership requirements. It’s about choice. Professional managers should be able to pursue the development opportunities that best serve them and their communities, without artificial limitations.

In the City Manager News & Job Board post today, Joe highlighted how he got AAME added to the list of required options for the Odessa City Manager Recruitment. But instead of removing restrictions altogether, this change merely expanded the limit from two organizations to three—without addressing the larger issue of exclusivity. If the goal was truly to advocate for professional managers, the conversation should have been about allowing ALL qualified development options, rather than securing a place for an organization Joe leads. This is a clear conflict of interest. It demonstrates that his advocacy was directed toward securing a role for his organization, rather than expanding opportunities for city and county managers to choose what works best for them. If Joe’s mission is truly about serving professional managers, then let’s have that discussion. I’d welcome an open conversation about what real advocacy should look like.

Think Tanks have emerged as a powerful alternative or complement to ICMA and state associations. Unlike ICMA, AAME, and other professional organizations, Think Tanks provide a confidential, non-competitive space where managers can openly discuss challenges and gain insight without fear of public exposure. Imagine That Performance does not market or publicly share participants’ involvement. No LinkedIn posts. No public acknowledgments. Just real, candid conversations in a safe space designed for those who genuinely want to grow.

This is a critical distinction from traditional associations, which have grown in complexity, making confidential, safe spaces harder to find. Maybe those organizations will adapt, but until then, we will continue filling the void for leaders who value true confidentiality and peer-driven growth.

It’s also important to acknowledge that Think Tanks aren’t for everyone. Some managers may not be comfortable engaging in raw, vulnerable discussions about real-world leadership challenges. That’s okay—it’s simply a matter of alignment.

This should be the principle guiding all professional organizations, including AAME, ICMA, and state associations. A single entity that tries to be everything to everyone inevitably dilutes its value. As membership growth becomes the priority, the mission shifts toward serving a broader audience—including aspiring managers, students, and training programs—rather than focusing solely on the unique and evolving needs of experienced city and county managers.

Who does that growth really serve? Does it enhance the profession, or does it simply expand the organization? Growth might bring more resources, but it can also serve internal ambitions—more departments, more staff, larger budgets. That’s not inherently wrong, but it does change the focus. And based on what I’ve heard consistently in Think Tanks over the past 4.5 years, many managers feel that shift has left them without the spaces they once relied on.

If the purpose of these organizations is to serve professional managers, then the focus should remain on their evolving needs—not just expanding the organization we are serving.