This is not an article the Board wants me to write. Because I'm going to talk about how I should have said “No” when asked to serve.
This year, I held two positions on the Board: Marketing and Programming. It seemed a no-brainer to me. I was already doing Marketing and had plans to take it further. Programming? I was passionate about building a calendar that reflected the full breadth of our talent development community.
But these are volunteer roles added on top of work and personal responsibilities, and at the end of the year it became obvious: taking on both roles hadn't doubled my impact. Instead, I had split an already divided focus even thinner.
At the end of the year we ask our Chapter Leaders about lessons learned. For me, it's the reminder that focus matters. When you spread yourself too thin, you don't just do less. You abandon the very innovations that made you say yes in the first place.
I felt the impact of this split focus most acutely in Marketing.
This was the role I knew best. I had a clear vision for 2025: I wanted to stop just telling our members what's on the calendar and start showing the wider L&D community why membership itself matters. Market the value, not just the events.
We communicated our programs effectively. But the campaigns I'd designed to elevate the chapter's reputation never happened. By trying to do everything, I ended up saying an implicit "No" to the very innovation that motivated me to take the role in the first place.
I was more protective of Chapter Programs than I had been of my own time. After analyzing previous years' results, we set a clear direction: programs aligned with a broader spectrum of ATD Talent Development Capabilities, with more in-person connection opportunities. That meant saying "No" to speakers whose proposals didn't fit our vision, even when they were perfectly good topics.
But those "Nos" forced us to innovate. We had speaker interest; we just needed a better format. That's how "Inside the Design" was born. Instead of standard presentations, we challenged speakers to share what went into designing the programs they were now delivering nationally. Our initial “Inside the Design” interview was absolutely fabulous and is a format we’re planning to continue.
That success proved a point: saying "No" adds strength to what you say "Yes" to. Strategic refusal isn't negative—it's structural. It creates the space innovation needs to stand.
So, looking back, which role should I have declined back in January?
I’m still not sure.
Marketing had momentum. I'd done it for a year. I had the plan and the experience. Programming needed immediate reinvention, and I had gravitated toward that urgency.
I can't say if that was the right call. What I do know is this: by taking both, I robbed Marketing of the innovation it deserved. And Programming? I got lucky with what I managed to pull off.
The silver lining is that we’re correcting course. For 2026, we have a dedicated leader focusing solely on Marketing. They will be able to say "Yes" to the initiatives I had to neglect.
And maybe that's the real lesson here. Strategic focus isn't about protecting your time—it's about protecting the integrity of what you're trying to build. Sometimes the most important leadership decision is knowing which "Yes" you need to walk away from.
Sponsors and Partners
