“Formal instruments often miss capturing key opinions and perspectives that can undermine
[an association’s] efforts. Listening [to members] allows for the discovery of information
that’s important to know but is seldom shared with staff.”
Karen Conlon, MCAM CEO
Ever wonder if the information you’re collecting from – or even the questions you’re asking – your members accurately reflects their collective needs, interests, goals, and aspirations…and isn’t just confirming your association’s current assumptions about them?
You’d be wise to do so.
Why?
Because, as Karen, prompted by her suspicions, discovered that members might not always forthcoming…but, as she learned, it wasn’t intentional.
And because, if ever there was a time when knowing what your members truly need and expect…and in turn, getting them to take consequential action on their association’s behalf – locally and otherwise – to protect their practice setting…it’s now.
While everyone recognizes that members, collectively, have the capacity to generate change in their chosen fields of endeavor, most agree that getting the majority of them inspired to do so has been problematic. This challenge has generated a series of assumptions to explain why.
BUT, what if those assumptions were never entirely correct…ok, diplomacy aside…were just wrong?
What would it mean if an unprecedented research endeavor,
conducted by the Melos Institute,
led to a more accurate understanding
of why some members engage while others do not?
What if it proved that member engagement has, for decades,
had largely been mischaracterized and misunderstood?
Members’ engagement, for decades, has been viewed as an existential function within associations…critical to generating the financial resources necessary to ensure organizational sustainability. While members’ involvement does contribute to this, the Institute’s research findings have revealed that it’s not the primary reason why members need to engage…at least not according to the founders of these organizations.
Member Engagement: Ultimate Purpose
The Institute’s research findings, from a study that will be described shortly, proved that associations were founded to assist their members’ professions, trades, and personal avocations in advancing positive social change; primarily as information and knowledge conduits. The founders established them to:
- Define, shape, and advance the body of knowledge of their members’ practice settings;
- Empower their members to develop their competencies and capacities; and
- Secure the respect and legitimacy of members’ practice settings from others within it and in larger society.
They intentionally created these organizations to provide opportunities where members could continually advance their individual and collective needs, interests, goals, and aspirations.
From the start, associations were never meant to operate like businesses…creating commodities to generate profit. Instead, they were designed to operate as conduits for change (i.e., change agents).
Thus, members were expected to:
- Engage in roles uniquely designed to generate mutually beneficial outcomes;
- Share and exchange information with fellow members; and
- Convey accurate information to external audiences.
In essence, members were expected not only develop relationships with their organizations but also actively develop meaningful and purposeful relationships with relevant members.
To accomplish this, the Institute found that volunteer and staff leaders’ management strategies required actions supporting two distinct dimensions:
- Organizational governance and management
- Community organizing and development
This revelation made it clear evident that associations – because they differed substantially from for-profit and other nonprofit organizations in their purpose, scope, focus, and goals – needed to be viewed and treated separately…and be distinctly defined as membership-based organizations (MBOs).
Driven by this newly discovered dichotomy, the Institute began questioning the efficacy of the management strategies that MBOs have been using for decades. Why? Because most, if not all, were iterations of those designed for use by for profit organizations.
Realizing now that MBOs possessed actual (albeit portable) specially-defined membership communities, questions arose about the degree to which widely-popular transaction-based business management strategies positively or negatively influenced desired outcomes on issues like membership development, member engagement, volunteer leadership development, and more?
Like Karen, the Institute was determined to assess the degree to which current assumptions about these chronic challenges were accurate.
Member engagement, because of its impact and consequence, was the first to be studied.
Examining Member Engagement Differently
The Institute began searching for answers to this research question:
What prompts some members to engage but not others?
Two of the widely-popular reasons (i.e., assumptions) given have been that members are too busy (to engage or read communications) or don’t find value in their membership.
That led the Institute to ask:
Were these assumptions suggesting that active members were not busy?
Or, that MBOs’ membership offerings were not relevant to a large percentage of their members?
Knowing how dedicated most MBOs are about serving their members, the Institute believed both to be implausible.
That said, what other reasons might better explain members’ decision to engage?
Fortuitously, two unexpected discoveries helped define the way forward.
First Unexpected Discovery: An Historical Revelation
Interested in learning more about MBOs’ emergence, formation, development, and operations, James R. Hudson, Ph.D., Institute co-founder and sociological scholar, analyzed the published histories of over 400 MBOs; many with founding dates of over 25, 50, 75, and even 100 years ago.
This review revealed an expected concern: volunteer leaders’ deep frustration in getting more members to engage as participants, volunteers, and volunteer leaders.
Finding
Shockingly, the reasons the histories gave why members failed to engage were identical to those shared above.
This discovery prompted the Institute to launch a more in-depth applied research initiative searching for the kinds of strategies that would inform and inspire more members to engage more fully (Hint: it’s the way MBOs communicate with their members…more on this later).
It was during this research initiative that the Institute learned about Karen’s experience with her members
Second Unexpected Discovery: A CEO’s Revelation
Karen’s concern about the preciseness of her market research findings, as previously noted, prompted her to conduct a statewide “listening tour.” While unsure what to expect…she hoped to hear they felt well-served. Either way, she was determined to listen rather than talk.
While she did get positive feedback, something unexpected also happened.
Having her suspicions confirmed, Karen realized her MBO needed to expand its outreach efforts; including focusing greater attention on how her association communications were crafted.
Both initiatives, in their own ways, challenged the efficacy of the existing widely-popular assumptions…leading back to the Institute’s initial research question: What prompts some members to engage but not others?
Discovering More Accurate Assumptions
Rather than focusing on members who did not engage, the Institute opted instead to study those who did. By doing so, it hoped it might find common patterns and trends…of elements affecting members across decades and generations. In doing so, possibly reveal the actual underlying obstacle.
To do this, those involved collected and reviewed hundreds of active members’ stories…accounts – in their own words – offering explanations of what prompted them to engage…and then engage more fully.
Findings
Unexpectedly, even active members experienced hesitancy to engage…but not because of their availability (i.e., too busy) but because of their familiarity (i.e., awareness) of what it meant to be a member and how to engage in ways that mattered most to them. Their initial decision to engage was prompted by someone (i.e., member, volunteer leader, staff professional) – often unexpectedly – who took an interest in them and provided critical guidance and support. Sometimes, even assisting them every step of the way.
Members often did not distinguish their MBOs’ communications from other profession-related marketing and promotional materials; as they all looked and sounded quite similar. Frequently, because the language was written from the organizations’ perspective, members expressed frustration in having to interpret how the information directly impacted and affected them.
Realizing that MBOs’ primary means of interacting with their members is through their communications, the Institute then chose to explore the impact of language* on member engagement.
Could transaction-based marketing language be adjusted
to capture members’ attention and cultivate their appreciation to engage?
What would that type of communication look like…be called?
And where should MBOs employ this language to inspire member engagement?
Last but not least,
Why will generating a higher-degree of member engagement
in the days, weeks, months ahead
be more important now than in decades past?
Answers to these questions and more will be revealed in September’s posting:
To Generate Greater Engagement…What Questions Should You Be Asking Your Members? Part Two
*Details of those findings with actual case examples can be found in: The Member Engagement Paradox:
Overcoming 7 Obstacles to Build and Maintain Thriving Membership Communities
Patricia A. Hudson, MPsSc is the founder and president of the Melos Institute.
