(Note: this is an expanded version of the April 28, 2026 LinkedIn post)
I recently read a very thoughtful article reflecting CEOs’ perspectives in PwC’s latest Global CEO Survey…particularly the impact of geopolitical issues on their companies’ future revenue.
Less than one-third of these business executives were optimistic; expecting a positive outcome in the coming year. About the same percentage were seeking solutions to chronic problems; actively testing new and more innovative ideas to replace strategies that had lost their effectiveness. The report suggested the need for CEOs to seriously assess the degree to which those on their key leadership teams were serious about seeking innovative solutions.
Then, as expected, the article’s author suggested that associations could provide opportunities for these individuals to engage in lively, productive, and deliberative discussions not just for their companies, but also for their practice settings. The belief was that associations could temporarily divert attention from other priorities (i.e., advocacy) and “meet this moment” by assisting members and others within their practice settings to conceptualize, design, and test the kind of innovations that would ensure their practice settings’ long-term sustainability.
It was a valid insight and suggestion.
For centuries, associations have had a history of stepping forward when their members’ practice settings have faced unwanted or unwarranted threats and challenges. It’s one of the primary reasons why the founders established their organizations. We know this because enough examples have been found in the published histories of over 400 associations; based on research conducted by the Melos Institute.
So, we expect that today’s volunteer and staff leaders will respond in similar fashion; forming task forces, conducting studies, scheduling meetings, highlighting findings in reports, documenting best practices, seeking to mobilize their members’ engagement, and more.
But, this time, will it be enough to meet THIS extraordinary moment in American history?
We, at the Institute, believe not…that something more is needed.
Why?
Efforts to undermine, dismantle, redefine, and/or reshape how most every practice setting functions
and operates have been underway by the federal government since early 2025. These threats and
challenges serve as a reminder of just how vulnerable – or as has been popularly characterized “broken”-
these professions, trades, and personal avocations have been. It’s hard to identify any practice setting
that has eluded this attention.
Simply put, so many professions, trades, and personal avocations that most Americans have agreed are in dire need of reform are now facing calamities beyond their imagination. Any thought of simply repairing what was is no longer an option.
Something better – designed for a 21st century functioning democracy – must replace what was.
This requires something new to be conceptualized.
Despite the chaos and damage that has occurred (and may yet occur), every practice setting in America
could be on the verge of a renaissance – a rebirth. For this to occur – for those willing to shape a new way
forward rather than returning to what was the status quo – associations must have the capacity to
mobilize the vast creativity and expertise that exists within their membership.
What must be done for this to happen?
Associations’ Reassert Their Inherent Role as Architects and Arbiters
of Their Members’ Bodies of Knowledge
Admittedly, some associations have dedicated significant time and attention to more than the public policy issues affecting their members’ practice settings. Many have taken their role as architects and arbiters of their members’ bodies of knowledge quite seriously; working with their members to continually review, define, shape, and advance their members’ respective bodies of knowledge.
They’ve demonstrated the capacity to assist their members in identifying and conceptualizing short- and long-term positive and lasting social changes and innovations…continually proving their efficacy to encourage more widespread adoption by their members and others in their practice settings.
In doing so, they ensure their members’ chosen fields of endeavor will sustain the recognition and
respect that prompted their founders to establish these organizations.
They understood that the only way this could be achieved was to focus first on developing and
advancing a practice-specific body of knowledge. Then, to encourage and sometimes require those
involved in that practice setting to develop the competencies and capacities related to it.
And, to understand that member engagement is not just the degree to which members participate or
volunteer. It is the key strategy to members’ developmental journey and experience…supporting them
to address their needs and interests as well as advance their goals and aspirations.
That means that associations are more focused on human development than product development;
empowerment more than profit. This realization, based on the Institute’s research, explains why
associations that represent professions, trades, and personal avocations are substantially different from
for-profit and other nonprofit organizations.
It’s why, we at the Institute, believe that they should be categorized and characterized as a unique
population of organizations…and be recognized as membership-based organizations (MBOs).
Unfortunately, too many associations – for some very credible reasons – have diverted from this path; operating more like businesses and less like the change agents that they are. They have done so by dedicating their time to creating business plans that serve target audiences (including those ineligible to join), developing product lines, creating marketing and branding strategies, crafting value propositions, establishing for-profit entities, and more as a means of generating profit.
You may ask me…
What are you talking about?
This is what associations should be doing!
Based on the current association management body of knowledge, you would be right.
But, based on a comprehensive analysis of MBOs’ emergence, formation, development, and ongoing
operations, transaction-based management strategies – designed intentionally for use in for-profit
settings – has unfortunately and unintentionally been undermining their ability to achieve their desired
outcomes. Ultimately, the way many are operating today is in stark contrast to what their founders
intentions and expectations were when these institutions were established.
MBOs’ founders intentionally designed their MBOs to operate differently
from their specific practice setting…whether it was in a for-profit or nonprofit setting.
The founders did this because they recognized the need for their MBOs to continually evolve to be responsive to new ideas, technologies, and practices. And, to ensure that newer entrants into their practice settings had the opportunity not just to advance their competencies, but also to contribute to its ever-changing body of knowledge. In essence, they intentionally designed them to be different from all other organizations in their purpose, scope, focus, and goals.
Agree or not – like it or not,
the founders wanted their MBOs
to exist to advance positive and lasting social change
on individual, collective, and societal levels.
Based on years of applied research, the Melos Institute has proven that the management model
currently being used by MBOs – the one initially designed for use in for-profit settings – is ill-equipped to
support their goals and priorities. Simply put, traditional transaction-based business management
concepts and strategies are not designed to address MBOs’ distinctive structural framework.
This suggests that the body of knowledge for association management,
much like the body of knowledge for every other practice setting,
is sorely in need of reform…like now!
The stark reality is that if the association management community delays doing so, MBOs representing all other practice settings will be unprepared to assist their members in conceptualizing their practice settings for the 21st century and beyond.
Why?
Because, thus far, MBOs been unable to resolve a host of their own long-standing organizational challenges; more specifically key issues including but not limited to: member engagement, volunteer leadership and board development, governance and management, communications, and more. As a result, most associations have deprived themselves of tapping into the greatest asset that they have – their members; more specifically the information, knowledge, experiences, expertise and connections that they could be willingly be contributing.
The hard truth is that no degree of effort in using traditional transaction-based business management
concepts and strategies will ever permanently resolve these chronic issues. We know this because, for
decades, every well-intentioned or widely-promising strategy has failed.
We now know, thanks to the Institute’s research, that their inability to do so is because MBOs were
never structurally designed to operate as businesses…and their members were never intended to be
viewed as customers…despite the fact that the way these organizations operate and those they serve
look eerily similar to other office-based businesses.
Until MBOs recognize the need to adjust the current body of knowledge for association management,
it’s not clear that these institutions will be prepared to or be capable of “meeting this moment.”
What must be done?
Once we, at the Institute, realized this, we searched in vain for an alternative. Unsuccessful in doing so, we realized a new and more novel model had to be conceptualized. And, it had to be uniquely designed to support MBOs’ unique purpose, scope, focus, and goals. For years, we dedicated our applied research endeavors to doing just this on our own as well as in collaboration with others from the association management community.
That research led us to recognize how a set of long-standing assumptions had become barriers rather than platforms for the emergence of new information and more effective strategies. And finally, having, James R. Hudson, Ph.D., a sociological scholar and change process specialist, take a fresh look at these institutions, we gained a profound insight of MBOs’ inherent role not just in their members’ practice settings, but also in functioning democracies.
A few of those key insights included:
MBOs can only operate effectively in functioning democracies
where the right to free speech and the right to assemble exist.
Members are not customers but are
citizens of specially-defined membership communities.
Members possess more information, knowledge, experiences, expertise,
and connections than their MBOs ever will.
Members are eager engage when they understand
how to do so in ways that matter most to them.
Members produce what they consume.
MBOs are wholly dependent on their members’ willingness to contribute
in ways that provide guidance and support to their fellow members and their MBOs.
MBOs’ empower their members and advance their members’ practice settings
by focusing attention on identifying, defining, analyzing, shaping, and disseminating
relevant aspects of their bodies of knowledge.
How do these insights impact the body of knowledge for association management?
A Management Model Uniquely Designed for MBOs
For decades, the belief has been that members join MBOs to support of their goals and priorities. And that membership eligibility provided a way to: 1) maintain professional integrity, and 2) generate income.
That’s not exactly what their founders intended.
As noted before, they viewed their MBOs as settings where members could acquire the competencies and capacities needed to demonstrate the value of their practice settings to others. They viewed membership as a way to distinguish serious professionals and practitioners from the charlatans, frauds, and interlopers who undermined their ability to gain the respect and legitimacy of their practice setting from others.
The founders wanted these organizations to be vehicles for members to develop the knowledge and
expertise needed to be effective in their practice settings.
But, something unusual and unexpected happened when the founders established these organizations.
What Dr. Hudson recognized, that possibly the founders in their individual MBOs did not, was that by
establishing eligibility requirements, they created specially-defined communities (not just special interest
groups). MBOs initially viewed these communities as their member universes.
Once defined, these communities had the capability of existing outside their MBOs’ boundaries.
To move forward, MBOs had to establish a unique symbiotic relationship
with these specially-defined communities.
This dynamic prompted MBOs to operate differently from for-profit and other nonprofits. Further, it
became clear that these institutions possessed two key interdependent components: an organizational
entity and, by virtue of their recruitment efforts, a specially-defined membership community. Some
MBOs learned this the hard way; especially when their lack of responsiveness to their members resulted
in significant declines in membership. Members learned early on that they could easily opt out of one
MBO and, if need be, establish a new one that was willing to address their needs, interests, goals, and
aspirations.
No other organization, of any type, is structured to operate in this way.
MBOs find themselves needing to navigate their members own unique culture and norms (as defined by
their practice settings) from their own. Absent this, far too many eligible members can – and many still do – operate, develop, and thrive separately from their MBOs…thinking they are doing just fine.
But we now know that members could achieve so much more if they engaged continuously and routinely with their MBOs. And, that MBOs could achieve so much more if they tapped into that vast resource that their members possess.
To support this mutually-beneficial relationship, a management model is needed that integrates
community development strategies into organizational management strategies.
How does this affect the current body of knowledge for association management?
Many strategies, routinely used by MBOs, need to be adjusted…replacing transaction-based focus with
one that is relation-centered.
This statement is often prompts this question:
“What the heck is relation-centered…never heard of it!”
Oddly enough, during the Institute’s extensive applied research efforts, a number of relation-centered
strategies (i.e., strategies) — most of which had proven to be widely effective – were discovered. When
asked, most admitted doing so based on common sense and intuition. They had not specific term to
characterize it.
The Institute created the term relation-centered as way to distinguish this unique management
approach from that which was transaction-based.
Simply put, relation-centered is a management approach –
uniquely designed for MBOs –
to assist members in navigating their organizations
to address their needs and interests as well as advance their goals and priorities.
The Institute’s research has proven that even its initial as well as continued use has a positive and lasting impact on increasing and expanding member engagement. It does so because it has an empowerment component. It is also specially designed to ensure that every member’s engagement is mutually beneficial to both the member and their MBO.
Ultimately, its use helps members recognize that their engagement is a wise investment; one that can routinely be customized to support personal and professional changes in their own lives.
Relation-centered management is
uniquely designed for MBOs.
Its strategies are intentionally designed to facilitate meaningful, purposeful, and transformative experiences between and among members as well as achieve specific organizational priorities. Absent its use, MBOs that have depended on traditional transaction-based business management strategies have inadvertently and unintentionally trained their members to behave as customers. Most customers don’t expect to engage in any meaningful or purposeful way with the companies that produce the goods they buy.
It’s time for association management professionals to accept that continued use of the for-profit
transaction-based business management model not only is undermining, but will also continue to
discourage (albeit unintentionally) a large number of their members from engaging.
The Institute has also proven that these traditional business management strategies do little to build
social cohesion and social solidarity between and among members…or commitment and loyalty to their
MBOs. These are essential elements to ensure MBOs’ long-term sustainability.
How and why does this matter?
What does this all have to do with MBOs meeting THIS moment?
Meeting the Moment
As noted at the start, for possibly the first time in American history, a host of unprecedented threats and challenges are intentionally being imposed by the federal government on nearly every – if not every – practice setting. For some, the damage may be permanent. For others, the impact has been severe but not catastrophic.
Either way, what once existed must be reviewed, re-conceptualized, redesigned, and rebuilt. That’s what MBOs are inherently designed to do…but can only do so in functioning democracies. And, they can only do this if they are operating at peak performance. If not, other institutions will either step in or be asked to assume this role.
How can volunteer and staff leaders meet THIS moment – be the invaluable vehicle helping their members discover the pathway forward – be the place where the innovations needed to ensure their practice settings long-term sustainability are conceptualized?
They must be willing to suspend many widely-popular assumptions
as well as be open to examining
the dynamics and dimensions
of a relation-centered management model.
The Melos Institute, starting in July 2026, is sponsoring an initiative to do just that.
For the past decade, thanks to several applied research efforts, the Institute has crafted just such a
relation-centered management model; one that is uniquely designed for MBOs…one that integrates
relation-centered community development practices with their organizational development
counterparts.
A draft prototype is ready to be examined, analyzed, shaped, and deliberated.
Imagine what could be accomplished – what innovations could be collectively achieved not just for association management, but also for their members’ practice settings – if just aspects of this model were even pilot tested and possibly adopted. Imagine how MBOs could not only better combat the current threats and challenges, but also conceptualize a 21st century future for their members’ practice settings if more members engaged fully…and routinely.
MBO CEOs that do this will gain a new identity, a more revered status, and a deeper respect from their members, their members’ respective practice settings, and the larger society that the association management community has long sought.
If ever there was a time for MBOs to assume the lead role as the architects, arbiters, and innovators of
their members’ practice settings…it’s now. The only way they can do this and be successful is by
replacing transaction-based strategies with those which are more relation-centered.
It’s the only way they will be able to mobilize the rich talent pools that exist within their specially
defined membership communities.
Waiting for the “dust to settle” is not an option. It will be too late.
If you’re interested in exploring more about relation-centered management and its model…ensuring any
commitment you might make will fit your demanding schedule…we’re interested in talking with you.
Contact us at: info@melosinstitute.org.
For more information about relation-centered management, click on the Relation-centered Management graphic on our home page.
For reprint permission contact: info@melosinstitute.org.
Patricia A. Hudson, MPsSc is the founder and president of the Melos Institute.
© Copyright 2026, Melos Institute ♦ Santa Fe, NM
