By Christopher Stevenson
Going all the way back to bible times, there have been watchmen--law enforcement agents charged with keeping the peace and raising the alarm in case of emergency. Similarly, in most industries today, associations and business consultants often serve as watchmen, sounding the claxon when something doesn't pass the smell test. Consider the insightful articles by The Financial Brand, Ron Shevlin, or GonzoBanker within the financial services segment. Each site provides detailed, well-thought-out analysis of challenges facing the industry, and often suggests ways to improve.
There is another group, though, that I call the naysayers whose mission isn't quite so clear. They court controversy by declaring that the fundamentals of credit unions--membership, people helping people, service--are ineffective, or worse, empty dogma. They say they love credit unions, but that the credit union difference is no difference at all, and contend that while credit union staff and directors are singing Kumbaya and giving group-hugs, the industry (they refuse to use the word "movement") is going to hell in a bucket. (At least we're enjoying the ride.)
If their love is true, it has to be the strangest affair in the history of the world. They write blogs posts, host online radio shows, and present at credit union events, describing those passionate about credit unions as "drinking the Kool-Aid" (a distasteful allusion to the mass suicide of the followers of Jim Jones that implies credit union folks blindly follow doctrine) and accuse them of spouting platitudes about the credit union difference and the benefits of being a member.
I take exception with broad-stroke criticism of the movement, especially when there are no suggestions for improvement. In response to a few of those criticisms, here is what I know:
Credit unions are mission driven, and it matters. The naysayers proclaim that the mission doesn't matter. People helping people doesn't do anything to improve market share. I say it's not about trying to overtly communicate the credit union difference to the public; it's about creating buy-in--first with your board and staff, then with the members, and then on to the broader public. I have had the opportunity to work for publicly held companies, small entrepreneurial businesses, non-profits and associations, and one thing held true across the spectrum: the companies with a strong missional focus had more engaged employees than those without a focus. And engaged employees are more productive and vocal about the good their company does. The reason naysayers hear credit union staff speaking about the credit union difference and the importance of membership is not because they are trying to sell it, but because they buy into it themselves. They are engaged.
Membership Matters. Let's start this one with a basic syllogism (with a shoutout to my sophomore logic professor, Dr. Greg Coulter.) All cooperatives have members. Credit unions are non-profit financial cooperatives. Therefore, credit unions have members. Why on Earth would we take the naysayers' recommendation to eliminate the terms "join" and "member" from our credit union vocabulary? Membership is intrinsic to credit unions and their cultures; to pretend otherwise is short-sighted and veils an important differentiator from other financial service providers. Why pretend we are something we are not? Will every member understand what membership means? No, but they still reap the benefits of membership--better rates, lower fees, improved access, and so on--and that garners positive word of mouth.
Credit unions solve problems through analysis, not platitudes. During the seven years I've worked at CUES, I've had the opportunity to meet with credit union executives and board members in their offices and at events, discuss strategic challenges and opportunities CUs face, and explore how mission informs decision making. I can't recall a time executives or board members have approached business challenges with credit union cliches. Instead, I've heard serious discussions about strategy, market conditions, regulatory burdens, and the best ways to manage resources--human and otherwise--to better serve members and improve the bottom line. What I've seen is so different from what I read and hear from the naysayers, it makes me wonder who they're talking to.
Credit unions make a difference. Just look here, here or here. Or you can page through Credit Union Management magazine, CU Times or CU Journal to see the good CUs do. You don't have to look far. A naysayer may declare that these relatively small gestures don't matter much; I suggest they say that to the people the credit unions helped and see what kind of response they get.
Credit unions need watchmen, and there is always room for more. More ideas, better solutions. What we don't need is shallow, ill-conceived criticism. Whining without offering solutions and failing to provide enough breadth of information to help people really understand the issues will not motivate positive change. Instead, it may undercut the movement by hindering the enthusiam of our young leaders--the same leaders who appear to be the target audience of the naysayers. If you love credit unions, don't court controversy; contribute something that is going to move credit unions forward.
Christopher Stevenson is VP/Marketing & Professsional Development at CUES.
