Not since World War II have associations – as a collective population of organizations – needed to respond to the ongoing unprecedented attacks of threats and challenges that their members have been facing. The seriousness of these affronts is that they have the capacity not just to undermine their very practice settings (i.e., professions, trades, and personal avocations) in America, but our nation’s very democracy.
Most Americans, including those working in those associations, are likely unaware of the patriotic contributions their organizations made back then. Those efforts helped ensure the United States and its allies prevailed against a number of malevolent actors. While most of those volunteer and staff leaders never expected to be called upon, they rose to the occasion; ultimately demonstrating an inherent role their organizations’ possessed to which even they were unaware. Further, they proved themselves to be more than selfish, self-absorbed special interest groups.
What did they do?
Their efforts, as highlighted below, not only helped develop, shape, and advance their members’ practice settings, they also played a key role in protecting democracy.
The American Medical Association (AMA) directly coordinated and assigned tens of thousands of civilian physicians into the military medical corps; ensuring medical needs on the front lines were balanced against the healthcare demands at home.
The American Psychological Association (APA) worked closely with the military to develop standardized aptitude testing, monitor troop morale, and develop clinical treatment nomenclature and protocols for psychological trauma and combat stress; prompting the development of the Diagnostic and Statistical Measures of Mental Disorders (DSM-1).
The Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) worked with government to ration existing stock and invent a brand-new synthetic rubber…and industry…from scratch.
The American Chemical Society (ACS) mobilized a comprehensive group of chemists, chemical engineers, scholars and subject matter experts to assist the government in developing mass produced penicillin, synthetic fuels, advanced explosives, and more.
The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) coordinated the logistics of raw materials for steel production and other specialized alloys; allowing steel mills to produce sufficient finished material for shipbuilders and munitions plants.
The National Aircraft War Production Council (NAWPC), a trade coalition, facilitated the free exchange of thousands of proprietary engineering blueprints…along with engineering staff; allowing plane production over a five year period to increase from 6,000 (1939) to nearly 100,000 (1944).
On reflection, this was a pivotal opportunity for associations and the association management profession to secure the legitimacy and respect each so dearly desired.
Imagine what this information, if it had been documented for posterity, could have accomplished in helping associations establish and maintain that reputation. It was one of the few times when associations – collectively – proved they existed to advance positive social change on multiple dimensions: for their members, their members’ practice settings, and the larger society.
Research, conducted by the Melos Institute, has corroborated this.
Associations’ Role in Their Members’ Practice Settings…
and in Protecting Democracy
Associations’ founders intentionally established these institutions to operate differently from for-profit and other nonprofit organizations. Recognizing their distinctive purpose, scope, focus, and goals, these visionaries understood that developing their members’ competencies was a necessary step in building a better quality of life not just for their members or their practice settings, but also for everyone in the larger society.
And, by doing so, these efforts contributed to shaping and advancing our democracy.
Unfortunately, no publication has yet been found that collectively and historically chronicles the breadth of contributions that these organizations have made. They remain hidden in associations’ published histories. Thus, the public, and again most of the association management community, remain largely unaware of them.
What’s that got to do with what’s happening today?
Democracy in America is facing
a national emergency of unparalleled proportion.
This time, however, the threats and challenges are not coming from foreign shores or actors.
They are coming from our own federal government.
Key elected and appointed officials are targeting the kind of institutions (e.g., corporations, tech companies, media, banks, universities, law firms, etc.) that are uniquely designed and needed to maintain and advance a functioning democracy.
When the confrontations began, the hope existed that these institutions would rebel against the government’s unrealistic and unconstitutional demands. Instead, far more than expected capitulated…ceding their power and influence in the hopes that doing so would avoid costly litigation and, for some, ensure approval of pending business transactions and/or funding.
As efforts to dismantle and undermine nearly every segment and sector of our society, those affected gave public statements of how such efforts would negatively impact their ability to aptly fulfill their responsibilities to their clients, customers, and more. More importantly, if the efforts were successful, the degree of damage achieved just might be irreparable.
Some associations stepped forward; taking steps to combat efforts directed to undermine their members. But even they were finding that many of the traditional strategies (i.e., lobbying, political action, and litigation) that worked in the past had lost their effectiveness.
Why?
Many of these nationally elected and appointed leaders, who swore to honor the U.S. Constitution, began ignoring or delaying judicial decisions as well as took steps to marginalize others with whom they sought to control.
It soon became clear that this frontal assault was but one egregious part of a multi-part strategy.
It was accompanied by an ongoing and malicious effort to intentionally spread misinformation and disinformation; making it harder and harder to distinguish truth from lies.
Why again is all this a problem for associations?
Associations representing professions, trades, and personal avocations
can only operate effectively in functioning democracies.
It’s important to remember that many associations didn’t even exist until well after World War II. The reason why is that their practice settings had not yet emerged or been recognized. Further, this country has lost a great deal of historical memory as many of the volunteer and staff leaders who did rise to protect democracy are no longer with us to share their accounts…an unfortunate loss for the association management community.
The result has reinforced, at least from the public’s perspective, is that far too many associations, like other institutions that have capitulated, exist for one reason: to further their members’ selfish or special interests. So few, if any, believe that these institutions were intentionally founded to advance positive social change on multiple dimensions.
For the association management professional community, lacking the knowledge of their inherent role has allowed far too many, despite the damage being done to their members’ practice settings, to either only take safe steps or remain on the sidelines…hoping that things will eventually return to normal. This has left those few associations that have stepped forward in a more aggressive way even more vulnerable.
Here’s the problem:
It’s becoming increasingly clear that,
based on the types of threats and challenges,
many of these practice settings will never
return to what was once considered normal…ever.
Instead, when the dust eventually settles,
a renewed effort will be needed
to restore them and our democracy
to become stronger and more resilient.
So, why are these current threats and challenges so dangerous?
Don’t associations operate effectively in any or all types of government governance?
Associations are Agents of Change…
But Only in Functioning Democracies
Findings from research, conducted by the Melos Institute, has proven that for associations to fulfill their primary role – to shape and advance their members’ practice settings – their members must have – at minimum – the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. They must have the freedom to publish evidence-based, accurate, and scientific (if applicable) information and knowledge; regardless of the government’s opinion.
This cannot happen in countries where fascism, authoritarianism, or dictatorships thrive.
For a host of reasons, most members don’t fully recognize the degree to which their associations have the capacity – with their support – to both advance and protect their practice settings. But they can, if their associations are willing, to make the kind of intentional and strategic adjustments that capture their attention, inform their understanding, and inspire their engagement.
Associations would be wise to do this…and soon. They were never designed to remain on the margins when members’ practice settings were under attack.
Associations can and must play a pivotal role
in mobilizing their members once again…
but this time…by calling upon them to serve
as “truth-tellers” for their practice settings
in the communities within which they live, work, and play.
But their success is going to be predicated
on their willingness to recognize and accept
that their associations are more than businesses.
It’s time for volunteer and staff leaders to acknowledge and embrace the reality that these institutions are uniquely designed to generate lasting positive social change on multiple dimensions: for their members, their members’ practice settings, and the larger society. Be clear, this means their strategies must change…be adjusted in unique ways. And, be expanded way beyond the public policy arena.
Interestingly, the Institute’s research revealed that most associations were founded for the very same reason. Hint: it wasn’t to lobby, organize GOTV initiatives, or litigate issues.
Since the first, the American Philosophical Society, was founded by Benjamin Franklin, in 1743, the founders intentionally established them to serve as the architects and arbiters of the bodies of knowledge for their members’ practice settings. Even subsequent founders recognized their success was wholly dependent and contingent on their members willingly contribute their information, knowledge, experiences, expertise, and connections in pursuit of developing the core content for a body of knowledge specific to their field of endeavor.
Most Americans have never been taught this. More importantly, they don’t recognize the critical role
that associations play in shaping and advancing democracy within our complex society. Most just view
them as selfish self-absorbed special interest groups.
But they are so much more than that.
At the same time, most association management professionals have been taught that these institutions are just like businesses. They have no clue about the consequential contributions that their organizations have made – separate from World War II – that have enriched our quality of life. Unfortunately, these accounts remain hidden in their published histories.
How do we know this?
It took a sociological scholar, James R. Hudson, Ph.D., after analyzing over 400 of their published histories, to discover the extraordinary role that associations played in our society…in America. It was his research that led the Institute to ultimately recognize and support the fact that these organizations were substantially different from for-profit and other nonprofit organizations in their purpose, scope, focus, and goals.
Their existence was so unique that he felt they needed
to be isolated and studied as a unique population of organizations;
be categorized and recognized as membership-based organizations (MBOs).
That meant that they needed to be viewed and treated as something other than businesses.
Why?
It was because of what else he discovered
MBOs were wholly dependent on their members
in ways that for-profit and other nonprofit organizations
were not from their customers or clients.
This dependence was pivotal
not just to MBOs’ sustainability,
but also to the very way they needed to operate.
Ultimately, he realized that this “hidden in plain sight” discovery had encouraged everyone involved within MBOs to embrace a series of assumptions that, over time, unintentionally undermined their ability to achieve some existential desired outcomes…one being member engagement.
Members were not just consumers
of their MBOs’ programs, products, and services.
They were active producers (i.e., contributors)
in their development.
Thus, they could not be viewed solely as customers, but instead as citizens of specially-defined communities (i.e., their practice settings). When they joined their MBOs, they became citizens of their specially defined membership communities. But for these communities to prosper, they had to possess a high degree of both social cohesion and social solidarity.
Though most founders were not sociologists, they believed they knew how to achieve that end.
They intentionally established membership to include two distinct elements: 1.) access to rights and privileges, and 2.) expectations to fulfill specific duties and obligations. Both required some degree of engagement. And both provided strategic opportunities for members to develop their inherent potential…helped them find pathways to address their needs and interests as well as advance their goals and aspirations.
Surprisingly, the founders’ assumption was proven right.
The engagement opportunities they created helped members establish the kind of mutual trust needed between and among members for mutual support to follow. This process helped members experience all that comes with being part of a community that shares similar goals, values, and language. Those who built and fostered those highly-engaged specially-defined membership communities were more successful in helping their members achieve their inherent potential and helping their MBOs advance their priorities.
This was especially important when their members’ practice settings were confronted with threats and challenges. The degree of social cohesion and social solidarity made it easier for MBOs to organize and mobilize their members to act accordingly.
Those MBOs, that have viewed and treated their members as customers, have focused far less attention on helping members function as an actual community. It’s especially harder for those MBOs whose members do not physically reside within a geographic boundary…forcing the community to be more portable than normal (i.e., assemble in specific locations for a brief period of time, then disperse).
This reality makes it harder but not impossible for MBOs to organize and mobilize against the threats and challenges their members are facing.
Another obstacle MBOs face is that most do not possess the resources (i.e., staff, money, and time) to launch the kind of public outreach campaign needed to effectively combat the misinformation and disinformation that is being disseminated to the public. No matter how well-intentioned the plan, the dangers they now face cannot be overcome by just those serving in volunteer and staff leadership roles.
If past is indeed prologue, such efforts could succeed if their members were inspired to engage as they did in the past.
Interestingly, the Institute’s research has proven that given sufficient guidance and support, members’ response can generate and/or restore the kind of social cohesion and social solidarity needed within their specially-defined membership communities to ensure their engagement in very consequential and meaningful ways.
The Institute’s research has proven that members do want to engage in their MBOs; particularly in ways that matter most to them. With a few adjustments, MBOs can accommodate this and, in return, benefit from members’ willingness to assume roles (i.e., as truth-tellers) – especially in the communities within which they live, work, and play – that combat the misinformation and disinformation that is undermining and corrupting our civil discourse.
But to do so, MBOs need to be willing to think and act differently.
Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation
through Expanded Member Engagement
While it would be helpful to understand how misinformation and disinformation has become so prevalent and accepted in our society, it’s more important to recognize the growing number of Americans who realize they’ve been intentionally misled. As such, they are searching for someone they can trust to help them distinguish fact from fiction.
As noted earlier, MBOs’ founders intentionally established their organizations to serve as the architects and arbiters of the bodies of knowledge for their members’ practice settings. Those that have maintained this role are perfectly positioned – but only with their members’ support – to respond to this moment…possibly needing only some assistance in organizing and mobilizing their members.
Those who have governed and managed their organizations like businesses have a bit more work to do.
Again, as the Institute’s research has shown, members are willing…just waiting to be inspired. The path
to building a highly-engaged specially-defined membership community is to understand the real reason
members hesitate to engage.
Acknowledging and Accepting the Actual Reason
Members Hesitate to Engage
For far too long MBOs have been encouraged to believe this one long-standing, widely-popular
assumption:
Members fail to engage
because they are “too busy.”
This belief has become so pervasive within association management, that its accuracy has never been challenged…until the Melos Institute became convinced that it just might be the obstacle keeping MBOs from searching for actual solutions. It launched a series of applied research initiatives to find the answer to this question:
Were active members’ lives less busy than inactive members?
What it discovered was that all members defined themselves as being “too busy.” But, during
the analysis, one consistent factor emerged:
The difference between active and inactive members
had little to do with their availability and
more to do with their familiarity
of how to engage in ways that mattered most to them.
Simply put, active members got engaged faster because they had the benefit of getting very specific guidance and support from another member or staff professional. Someone took the time to learn more about their expectations and then made recommendations on how they could engage in ways that would prove to be immediately productive.
In essence, those tenured members and/or staff professionals served as momentary mentors; even going so far as to introduce these newer members to peers who could be of specific support.
This finding suggested that the root cause of engagement
had far less to do with the demands on members’ lifestyles
and far more to do with MBOs’ infrastructure and operations;
primarily, the way in which it
viewed, treated, and communicated with their members.
This led the Institute to realize that most members needed instruction on two things:
- ) what it meant to be a member (i.e., citizen), and
- ) which opportunities that and/or fellow members who could support their immediate needs,
interest, goals, and aspirations.
With this knowledge, the Institute began identifying a range of existing strategies that could be adjusted to provide such guidance and support. They focused their attention in four key functions: membership development, leadership development, lifelong learning, and communications.
It soon became clear that when existing strategies were adjusted to be more member-centric (i.e., provide guidance and support), members’ willingness to engage dramatically increased. The Institute characterized this approach as relation-centered. Once it became clear that making these adjustments produced better outcomes, the Institute took steps to define a series of relation-centered principles and then used them to conceptualize and design an entire relation-centered management model; one uniquely for MBOs.
Among all the findings, the most salient for association management professionals was that MBOs could introduce this concept and integrate it into their existing strategies and functions over time…requiring few additional resources…other than time needed to think and act differently.
What did that look like?
Consider the degree to which your MBO could do what these MBOs – serving as Institute Research Partners – did to capture their members’ awareness, cultivate their understanding, and inspire their engagement.
Thinking and Acting Differently
Dr. Hudson often reminded his graduate students that: “People don’t mind change, they mind being changed.” So, it wasn’t easy for the MBOs’ professional staff, who were serving as the Institute’s Research Partners, to focus on two key assumptions that they had been taught were inviolate.
Some were quite resistant at first, holding fast that nothing new or different could make a difference in getting members to engage differently. But only when those efforts succeeded – proved them wrong – did they finally accept the value of using these new and better ways to interact and connect with their members.
- Think Differently
The Institute first requested they suspend these two assumptions; primarily because they
prompted staff to create strategies that were primarily transaction-based; meaning they
were not only designed for a different setting, but also to achieve very different outcomes.
Suspend Assumption 1:
MBOs are like Businesses
MBOs are so much more than businesses.
Instead, those involved in the research efforts, were asked to believe that MBOs, as noted before, were uniquely designed – with the support of their members – to advance positive and lasting social change on multiple dimensions.
Believing this assumption instead empowered the professional staff to be more creative in building strategies that not only created programs, products, and services but also built-in the kind of guidance and support that inspired their members to engage and leverage their experiences in ways that mattered most to them.
Suspend Assumption 2:
Members are Customers
Members are so much more than customers.
Instead, those involved were asked to believe that members, as noted earlier, were citizens who possessed the very information, knowledge, experiences, expertise, and connections that MBOs needed to advance the bodies of knowledge for their members’ practice settings. Further, that doing so enabled them to produce the very programs,
products, and services their eventually members consumed.
They learned that treating their members as customers prompted them to create strategies that encouraged customer behaviors…most seeking only to make purchases. They also realized that this approach unintentionally limited members from learning what it meant to be a member and how to engage in ways that mattered most to them…or that the engagement also played a key role in supporting their MBOs’ priorities.
Shifting their belief that members are citizens prompted staff professionals to realize that taking a bit of time to learn more about members, where and when it was possible, the more they could assist them in making worthwhile engagement choices. In doing so, the more routinely those members engaged. And, making them realize just how
consequential their jobs were to helping members’ transform their lives for the better.
As these MBOs expanded efforts to integrate relation-centered concepts into existing strategies, they would be asked to suspend additional widely-popular, long-standing assumptions. But as they did and experienced additional successes, their resistance to change dropped precipitously. Most became eager to learn more; often saying,
“Why wasn’t I taught this from the start?
or
“Why did it take me so long to realize this?”
Letting go of long-standing assumptions, especially for tenured staff professionals, is not going to be easy. These two assumptions have served as the foundation for their professional development as association management professionals.
One thing is for sure. MBOs will more certainly not be successful in combatting current threats and challenges if they refuse to suspend – at minimum – these two misleading assumptions. Absent any change, the status quo – particularly when it comes to member engagement – will prevail.
- Act Differently
Habits can be hard to break…but it is possible to do so.
While conducting research, the Institute realized that most volunteer and staff leaders – despite soliciting member input – were consistent in developing strategies with a singular perspective…that of their organizations. These were often driven by their annual goals and/or priorities.
This became apparent during an analysis of hundreds of members’ stories. It led to the realization that MBOs had to not just compile information, but also had to sufficiently assess its meaning and interpret the findings differently.
The first step focused on exploring better ways to assess and interpret information compiled. The second step focused on integrating those findings more creatively and effectively into existing strategies.
First Step:
Expand Assessment and Interpretation by
Integrating Members’ Perspective with MBOs’ Perspective
Most professionals and practitioners operate in organizations where their relationship with their customers or clients is one-dimensional; meaning their efforts are primarily focused on strategies that will convince them to purchase products or engage in services.
As such, they analyze their target audiences looking for commonalities of needs and interests; areas where they can develop their products or services to match those who would be willing to purchase them. They are rarely interested or focus their attention on helping customers or clients advance their goals and aspirations. Finally, with some exception, they don’t need their customers to meet or engage with one another. Their primary interest is generating sales.
MBOs, however, have a very different kind of relationship with their members. It is multi dimensional. MBOs must develop relationships directly with their members. They must, at the same time, help their members develop relationships not just with each other, but more specifically with those members who can be of direct and immediate assistance.
Again, MBOs rarely develop programs, products, and services for their members in isolation. They do so in cooperation with members…who willingly contribute their information and knowledge. Further, MBOs’ ability to advance their priorities is directly correlated to the degree to which they empower their members to do the same. To do so requires them to take steps to cultivate and foster their specially defined membership communities to be highly-engaged and socially-cohesive. This can only be achieved when MBOs recognize their role in helping their members develop relationships with fellow members that are purposeful, meaningful, and transformative.
MBOs have been taught to assess members’ needs and expectations as if they were customers. This approach has limited their ability to develop the kind of programming and strategies that empower members to engage in ways that matter most to them.
The realization of the need to expand this assessment and interpretation came, again, during efforts to assist MBOs’ serving as the Institute’s Research Partners. With the Institute’s guidance, staff professionals were encouraged not just to analyze the information they collected from their perspective, but to also consider the same from their members’
perspective.
By expanding their analysis to include members’ perspective, MBO professionals began to recognize how their efforts – as well-intentioned as they were – too often were unintentionally being misunderstood or misinterpreted by their members. This prompted them, in Step Two, to adjust not only the ways in which they designed their strategies, but
also the language used to announce or promote them to their members.
Second Step:
Integrate Expanded Interpretations More Effectively and Creatively
It’s hard to imagine simple adjustments, to strategies or the language about them, could produce better outcomes. But that’s what the Institute’s Research Partners found to be true. Consider how such changes generated better outcomes in three areas: membership development, lifelong learning opportunities, and general communications.
Membership Development
Several MBOs opted to begin their relation-centered experience by teaching members two things: 1.) what it meant to be a member, and 2.) how to ensure their membership addressed their needs, interests, goals, and aspirations. They did that by adjusting their member orientation/onboarding session to include the critical guidance and support; primarily from tenured members.
Each observed an unexpected enthusiasm not just from new members, but also from their tenured ones. That enthusiasm was, in part, due to members establishing social bonds with fellow members on issues that mattered most to them. Most also reported an increase in participation of new members at future events as well.
Lifelong Learning Opportunities
Recognizing the need for their members to transform their superficial social connections with one another into purposeful and meaningful relationships, one MBO made a few intentional and strategic relation-centered adjustments to various events at a conference. Doing so helped members, in a very subtle way, to more easily find peers who shared their unique needs, interests, goals, and/or aspirations.
The result not only increased traffic at and engagement during those events, but also prompted members to continue those connections long after the conference was over.
General Communications
Several MBOs complained that their members did not read or outright ignored the communications they sent them. They recognized that this had a direct impact on their engagement. None of the staff professionals had any training in linguistics or language associated with community organizing. Most crafted pieces from their MBO’s perspective using traditional transaction-based marketing techniques.
With guidance from the Institute, staff professionals learned how to adjust the language to be more relation-centered. In most every case, members responded more quickly, with greater enthusiasm, and a sincere desire to engage; leaving the professional staff in perpetual shock that such a change could cause such an outcome.
The value of considering relation-centered management is that, as proven above, you can explore its use
without making a major commitment or expense.
Further, you don’t have to proceed on your own.
But, deciding soon is critical…as time, unfortunately, is not on your side.
Today’s Reality: Time’s Running Out
Every day, these unprecedented threats and challenges are causing more and more damage on members’ practice settings…with no certainty of where, when, or how it will all end.
But one thing is for sure:
To ignore the need to change is to have change thrust upon you.
MBOs need to act – collectively – sooner rather than later.
The future of MBOs will be defined by those who are willing to risk making a few simple relation centered adjustments. And, by being willing to think and act differently, prove such changes generate better outcomes. Those that do will find it easier to organize and mobilize their members to combat the threats and challenges that are not just undermining your members’ practice settings, but also our very way and quality of life.
More importantly, those that do will once again prove that MBOs play a critical and consequential role in shaping and advancing American democracy.
Relation-centered management techniques offers a way forward that produced better and more lasting outcomes. It allows MBOs to do so at very low organizational risk with practically no financial burden (i.e., just time).
We welcome your call to explore ways relation-centered management can assist you. Our guidance and support is offered on a complimentary, no-obligation basis.
Before doing so, feel free to download and review these key complimentary pieces…to see for yourself how a few simple adjustments can make a consequential difference.
Using Power and Influence to Achieve Positive Social Change
how membership-based organizations
organize and mobilize their members
to advance their mission and vision
Making the Most of Your Membership
a relation-centered member orientation module
for new and current members
Transformative Impact of Membership
a relation-centered icebreaker
for volunteer leaders
How Adjusting Members’ Learning Opportunities
Generated Greater and More Meaningful Engagement
a successful relation-centered strategy
designed by a staff professional
Contact Information
phone: (505)428-0268
email: info@melosinstitute.org
