For most professionals, day-to-day priorities, regardless of their chosen profession, demand their full and complete attention. Few have the luxury of taking time to assess the degree to which their existing strategies are still generating desired results or if they are in serious need of review.
Fewer still take the time to assess the efficacy of the core content (i.e., premises, principles, policies, processes, practices, and procedures) of the body of knowledge related to that chosen field of endeavor.
Fortunately, most professions do benefit from a rare few trailblazers who are driven to do so.
They do so because they recognize that even the most widely-popular practices and strategies are no longer generating desired outcomes. They suspect that they have become outdated and ill-suited…obsolete; primarily because they fall short of expectations. In the hopes of discovering a better way forward, they risk abandoning the status quo to explore alternatives that many would characterize as innovative yet far too experimental for their taste.
How do we know these extraordinary professionals exist?
They share their discoveries and findings at their professional conferences and meetings. Unfortunately, their accounts only reach a limited audience. Sometimes their associations recognize the value of these innovations and establish additional opportunities for wider dissemination. Sometimes for free…sometimes for a fee.
While this may reach other professionals who are members, it’s not clear that it does the same for those who are in the profession but are not members. This wider prospective membership universe can be larger than the membership itself. For those outside the boundaries of that membership, they are on their own when it comes to their professional development.
For most professions, this is not a problem as entry into the practice setting requires they possess some education and/or training in that discipline. Most achieve that by attending accredited academic institutions.
What did they do before colleges and universities offered those degree programs?
They gained the necessary information, knowledge, and expertise
from their associations.
What most Americans don’t realize is that most associations preceded academic learning institutions. Their founders intentionally established these organizations with the specific goal of identifying, defining, developing, shaping, and advancing the core content of bodies of knowledge dedicated to members’ practice settings.
Colleges, universities, and other institutions expressed interest to conduct research and offer degree programs once these practice settings demonstrated their long-term sustainability.
Up until that point, associations operated as the sole architects and arbiters of their members’ fields of endeavor; a responsibility many have seemingly abandoned.
Nonetheless, most associations and advanced learning institutions now work together to explore new information, innovations, and more for nearly every profession in American society.
One, however, is still waiting for that partnership to be established.
Despite their ubiquity in American society, their existence is barely recognized by the public…except when the organizations they serve are characterized by the media as special interest groups…selfishly serving their members.
This isolated practice setting
is the association management profession.
Despite their lengthy existence in our society (American Philosophical Society founded by Benjamin Franklin in 1743), most academicians still don’t recognize their existence as a unique population of organizations. In fact, most continue to categorize them as nonprofit organizations with members. It’s not clear just how much those in the profession realize the consequence that has resulted from not having academic scholars interested in conducting the kind of empirical research that generates revelations and innovations for the practice setting.
It’s been substantive. And, there’s no indication that it will change anytime soon.
This has been and continues to be a problem.
As noted, most professions depend on scholars to discover new information, insights, and innovations for their practice settings. Scholars who have studied how occupations become professions have chronicled the role associations initially play in developing the core content for the body of knowledge; the information is more anecdotally-driven. At some point, academic scholars expand that study to include empirical evidence to support those findings.
They go one step further. Their research helps explain why certain actions generate better outcomes than others. In essence, they introduce a theoretical framework that complements the associations’ organizational framework.
This approach provides more comprehensive insights and understandings not just of what to do but also why one approach generates getter options than other.
That option is still not available to those who accept professional positions within associations.
Thus, since no academic institution currently offers
an accredited degree in association management,
those who opt to work for an association
usually find themselves unprepared
to work effectively in this setting.
That doesn’t mean that they are uneducated.
Even those with an advanced degree in nonprofit management, based on findings from a 2012 study conducted by Shelly Cumbie Alcorn and Mark Alcorn, admitted being unprepared…recognizing but not fully appreciating the full breadth and scope of their responsibilities as association management professionals. Or, felt that they had developed the competencies needed to assist volunteer leaders to govern and manage these distinctive organizations.
Historically, most entrants into the association management profession do so with knowledge and competencies related to other practice settings (i.e., business management, accounting, marketing, communications, etc.). While it’s never been empirically proven, it’s feasible to assume that these individuals bring some degree of unconscious and unintentional bias results from that prior formal training into their work.
Thus, these professionals remain wholly dependent on their professional associations to help them develop those competencies and capacities.
For an emergent profession, this might be expected.
But associations have been in existence in America for over 200 years…and association management has been formally recognized as an occupation since the 1920s! And still, this profession remains largely a mystery…even to association management professionals’ families, neighbors, relatives, and friends.
This suggests that for over 100 years,
the association management profession
has largely been unable to define its true identity.
What it has done instead,
is assume one that
limits its inherent role, power, and influence.
To this day, most volunteer and staff leaders don’t fully understand or recognize why associations exist in America and the pivotal role they play in advancing democracy.
Or that…
The association management profession
is one of the most complex and consequential in America.
Those who serve as CEOs and staff professionals
work with volunteer leaders and their members
to influence everything Americans
see, touch, smell, feel, hear, and taste.
One of the reasons that this unintentional ignorance exists is because the profession itself has never been formally defined.
That’s right…hard to believe but at present…no formal standard widely-accepted definition exists for association management!
So, if those working in this profession
have not yet adequately defined its existence,
it’s no wonder that the public’s perception
is shaped and influenced by whatever the media presents.
But this doesn’t have to be the future fate for this profession.
Consequences of an Inaccurately Defined Profession
What happens then when a profession has overlooked the very foundational step of defining itself?
Those involved have a very difficult time, individually or collectively, identifying the core technologies (i.e., premises, principles, policies, processes, practices, and procedures) needed to be effective. They run the risk of looking elsewhere for anything that appears similar; regardless whether it reflects the purpose, scope, focus, and goals of the organizations they manage.
For decades, association management professionals have struggled to find the best ways to achieve their associations’ goals and priorities. Absent academic support, they have depended on one another…learned successful strategies from one another.
In the 1980s, when all nonprofits were encouraged to operate more effectively, the professional nonprofit staff were “encouraged” (i.e., pressured) to operate more like businesses…focus their attention on effectiveness and efficiency. Be more accountable. Be more attentive to the bottom line.
Many associations were quick to adopt this concept. While at the time, this seemed to be a good idea, few were ever concerned that doing this might have a longer-term negative consequence.
Association management professionals were, in some ways, a step ahead. In 1960, volunteer leaders recognized the need to establish consistent standards of practice. Using the CEOs’ job description as a guiding element, they then searched for management practices that they had used…along with others that seemed responsive to their needs.
The only options available were those that were transaction-based; initially designed for use in for-profit settings. At the time, a transaction-based approach was the only available option. No one questioned their efficacy; especially because when they were employed, they generated results.
Ultimately, that body of knowledge provided the foundation for a certification program for association management professionals; giving them a way to demonstrate their proficiency to their volunteer leaders, other community leaders and professionals, and their professional staff. It has been periodically reviewed, altered, and updated…but has basically reflects the same core content.
What has been the impact?
Now, all these decades later, its influence has become evident in shaping association management professionals’ prevailing attitudes, behaviors, and actions.
Most volunteer and staff leaders believe
their associations should operate as businesses
and their members be viewed and treated as customers.
This mindset has been institutionalized into the association management culture. Many association management professionals support this thinking because it aligns with the way that their volunteer leaders operate in their own practice settings. This alignment has made deliberations and decision-making about their associations’ management practices and long-term sustainability a lot easier.
This practice of adopting widely-popular transaction-based business management processes and practices continues to this day. Few, if any, have expressed concern whether its continued use, without adaptation, have had, be having, and might have an unintentional negative impact.
Any analysis of this kind has been largely avoided.
One of the reasons why is that associations
have never been studied
as a unique population of organizations…
as distinctive social systems.
As a result, those involved in the profession have opted to inadequately define these organizations as businesses; unaware of their pivotal role in democratic societies. Unaware of their inherent purpose, scope, focus, and goals. This has been going on for decades…continues to this day…without a challenge of any kind.
But new insights were discovered in the early 2000s
when James R. Hudson, Ph.D.
embarked on a rather unusual research initiative.
He began studying associations’ emergence, formation, development, and operations. He did so by reading over 400 of their published histories; searching for common patterns and trends. His analysis led to some pretty surprising revelations.
His findings supported his hypothesis that associations were quite different from for-profit and other nonprofit organizations. Further, that those representing professions, trades, and personal avocations should be isolated from other nonprofits, viewed as a unique population of organizations, and categorized as membership-based organizations (MBOs).
His findings also confirmed that MBOs’ founders never intended for their
organizations to operate as businesses or
their members to be viewed and treated as customers.
They established these organizations to advance the competencies and capacities of those in their practice settings. They hoped that doing so would not only improve their practice settings’ reputation in the larger society, but also that they would also be more respected. This intention led him to propose that associations played a much more consequential role in American society…they were so much more than businesses.
He also believed:
MBOs, with their members’ support,
were instrumental in generating positive and lasting social change
for their members, their members’ practice settings, and the larger society.
And, that they were critical
to shaping and advancing democracy in America.
And, that these institutions possessed a very unique characteristic; one not found in any other social system. He proposed that associations and their members were two different entities working symbiotically to achieve mutually agreed upon outcomes. In essence, members could exist and function without the association. But, the association could not exist without the contributions of its members…beyond their financial support.
Working with the Melos Institute, he began reviewing the existing body of knowledge for the association management profession. He quickly discovered that its practices and strategies were wholly business-focused and transaction-based. And, that their continued use was unintentionally transforming the organization to actually operate as businesses and their members to behave as customers.
Most importantly, he realized that the body of knowledge lacked a necessary theoretical framework; leaving association management professionals without an adequate understanding or explanation of why certain approaches were more effective than others.
That meant for decades, association management professionals were using practices and strategies with little appreciation of the consequences that might result…particularly when it came to member engagement.
The Institute chose to explore options outside the existing boundaries of the body of knowledge for association management in the hopes of finding a more viable alternative…and to finally establish a formal definition for some key terms. That exploration, with a host of other interested professionals, led to the conceptualization of a model that embodied every aspect of widely-accepted management processes in which the transaction-based orientation could be replaced with a relation-centered one.
They went one step further and pilot tested several transformed strategies with MBOs in real-time. Every adjusted practice and strategy that was tested generated better and more lasting results.
With great excitement, the Institute began reporting its findings to the association management community.
What reaction do you believe the Institute received when these findings were shared?
While many extended congratulations, most chose to avoid risking making changes of any kind…not matter how simple…even if it might improve member engagement. Most have opted to maintain the status quo. They were unconvinced that their current approach was obsolete or too ill-suited to use in their MBOs.
Risk aversion, of any kind, endangers a profession from the innovations, evolutions, and transformations that it must undergo to remain sustainable. Yet, many in this profession have been eager to pursue and adopt a range of transaction-based business management strategies that have come and gone.
What has been the consequence of not acknowledging the true nature of the profession and the organizations that are dependent on it?
The core content for the body of knowledge for association management
has remained largely the same…for decades.
It should be no surprise then that doing so
has contributed to the profession’s inability
to solve associations’ long-standing challenges…
from member engagement to leadership development
to communications and more.
While the discoveries generated by Dr. Hudson and the Melos Institute have thus far been largely ignored, the times may prove to be a better barometer for change.
Political and Technological Threats
Volunteer and staff leaders are facing two formidable forces; both of which are expected to negatively impact their members’ personal and professional lives.
The federal government, as it is currently constituted, is intent on pressuring every practice setting to adjust their operations in ways that conform to a specific set of desired outcomes. In a very short period of time, most every segment and sector of our society has experienced some degree of disruption.
Their target groups include MBOs.
Volunteer and staff leaders have depended on a host of traditional strategies (i.e., lobbying, political action, and litigation) to resolve disagreements. But, they are finding these initiatives – for a host of reasons – are proving less and less effective as the federal government keeps shifting the goal lines and redefining the rules.
But that’s not the only obstacle facing association management professionals.
The emergence, growth, and expansion of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is not only affecting MBOs’ members, it has institutionalized inaccurate information specific to association management.
At a time when MBOs could recapture their once-abandoned identity as architects and arbiters of their members’ practice settings, this technology may override its ability to do so. Once lost, it will be very hard to restore control.
The long-term impact on the association management profession is yet to be defined. But the fact that AI has compiled information about this practice setting that is ill-suited (i.e., transaction-based) for these organizations is going to be a major problem. It will become the basis from which it will advise association management professionals who lack sufficient insight and experience to differentiate accurate from inaccurate information. Its ability to influence the way in which CEOs and professional staff make decisions will continue to hamper their efforts to competently do their job and serve their members.
What, if anything, can anything be done?
It’s time for the association management profession to decide whether or not it’s willing to build the core content for a body of knowledge that is best-suited to their MBOs’ purpose, scope, focus, and goals. The Institute believes the best way forward is to adjust the existing core content to reflect a relation-centered approach.
Then, working with the Institute, the profession must boldly replace the existing body of knowledge with one that is uniquely-designed for MBOs. The more the literature reflects the advantages of using a relation-centered approach over a transaction-based one, the better the chances that AI will recognize and respond accordingly to queries.
The MBOs representing this profession must also take steps to widen awareness and deepen understanding that continued use of practices and strategies – designed for for-profit organizations – can only generate limited outcomes for their organizations.
They will do little to build, increase, and expand member engagement.
The best way to begin is to create an opportunity where interested association management professionals can engage in a practical and disciplined discussion of how MBOs’ practices and strategies can become less transaction-based and more relation-centered.
Doing so will launch a movement to conceptualizing and adopting a relation-centered management model uniquely designed for 21st century MBOs.
Launching that Conversation
While some of that conceptualization has already begun, so much more is left to do.
Rather than launch this effort in a more traditional setting, it’s time for this discussion to taken place in a neutral one…where traditional barriers (e.g., politics, favoritism, bureaucratic thinking, etc.) have not yet been established. It’s an effort where participation should be open to all who are interested…regardless of tenure and experience.
The only requirement is a willingness and openness to listen and learn as well as contributing opinions and insights.
It’s not certain whether the opportunity to create this management model has passed…or if the window of opportunity has just been made available. One thing is for sure, it will only happen if there’s a willingness to try.
Why bother doing so?
Simply put. It’s important to bother doing this because MBOs exist to play a critical and distinctive role in shaping America. Furthermore, because:
MBOs can only operate effectively
in functioning democracies.
Members must have the freedom to assemble and speak freely. If that is lost, then MBOs truly become obsolete in their unique and extraordinary role as agents of change.
The clock is ticking. Association management professionals may feel that they are already overwhelmed…too busy to consider participating in such an endeavor.
If so, just consider how learning more about the simple adjustments that will ensure your MBO inspires your members to engage and engage more fully. Think about how knowing these practices will save your MBO time and money…and at the same time…help you tap into the rich assets that exist within your membership to leverage your MBO’s full potential.
What might you do with a MBO that possesses extraordinary power and influence?
If ever a time existed for an endeavor to better define association management, it’s now. Wonder what might that look like practically?
Check out our LibraryHub for examples of how traditional strategies have been easily adjusted from transaction-based to relation-centered.
Finally, reach out and let us know of your interest in joining the Institute’s exploratory group – discussions slated to begin in early December.
Let us know if you are interested: info@melosinstitute.org.
For additional information, insights, and tools, visit our website: www.melosinstitute.org.
© copyright 2026, Melos Institute Santa Fe, New Mexico
Patricia A. Hudson, MPsSc is the founder and president of the Melos Institute.
