Dan Pallotta, an entrepreneur, author, and human activist, is passionate about the role that nonprofits can, do, and should play in our society. More than a decade ago, he gave a thought-provoking presentation at a 2013 TED Conference about how nonprofits should be given the freedom to pursue bold solutions to address America’s social problems…and be duly compensated for doing so. In 2012 he founded the Charity Defense Council, a nonprofit organization dedicated to “supercharge the social sector” by improving the public’s perception; thus giving it the freedom to change the world.
His ideas about the nonprofit sector were controversial then (and possibly still now). His goal was to generate wider awareness, understanding, and appreciation of the positive social change that these institutions could make if their attention was focused on achieving “audacious results” rather than grappling with funding initiatives to ensure its organizational sustainability.
Though his comments may seem quite dated and not solely focused on associations, his remarks could not be more timely…especially in this moment when the very fabric of American society – every sector and segment within it – is being intentionally undermined by leaders from our own federal government.
At present, no one has any idea of the degree to which this ongoing torrent of federal actions will positively or negatively impact nearly every profession, trade, and personal avocation in our society. What has become clear, however, is that the threats and challenges being imposed on those who practice within them will have long-lasting consequences.
This has prompted many to accept that, when the time comes…and it will,
much of the damage that is being done will not be repairable.
Institutions in every sector and segment of our society
will need to focus their attention on building something better…more resilient.
Who will lead that effort? History has taught us that – when faced with threats and challenges – members naturally turn to their associations.
But based on the gravity of the task, will volunteer and staff leaders be ready?
Will they be equipped to conceptualize, define, and shape the kind of strategies that will guarantee that future for their members?
I suspect many will say:
“Yes, we’ll simply begin by
“thinking outside the box.”
Well, sometime ago, Dan had something to say about that as well.
Years ago, he published a blog cautioning those who depended on this popularly-used effort to recognize the limitations of this widely-popular exercise; especially since it was rarely conducted correctly.
He wasn’t opposed to using it to identify new and better ways to solve difficult problems…just that most didn’t fully understand the process in its entirety. As a result, they rarely were able to achieve the kind of creativity or innovation needed to resolve the matter at hand. He noted that most used it in a way that “….paid lip service to the notion of transformation without really understanding the difference between transformation and change, and often without tolerance for the real thinking that must occur for an idea to be truly outside the existing paradigm.”
He advocated that:
“You cannot possibly think outside the box
unless you understand the nature of the box
that bounds your current thinking.”
Simply put, organizations must constantly adapt to changes in their environment if they are to become sustainable. And, those involved must possess a thorough understanding of their organization; including their true and inherent nature.
For most for-profit and non-profit institutions, this would be a fairly simple endeavor as their organizational frameworks have long been studied and well-defined; particularly by the academic community.
But, the reality to this day, is that little such research has been conducted for associations representing professions, trades, and personal avocations. Scholars have largely chosen to study these institutions largely as influence and/or advocacy groups. Further, they’ve defined their members as individuals who join these organizations to show their support for the mission. For decades, this has been perpetuated as the established norm with scholars getting little pushback from those in the association management community.
And yet, based on research findings generated by the Melos Institute, to understand associations’ true and inherent nature is to recognize just how unique these institutions are from for-profits and other nonprofits. And, to recognize that the only way to successfully and permanently address the threats and challenges that are currently endangering their practice settings is to understand how to effectively leverage the dependent and interdependent relationships that they have with their members.
Associations have yet to fully appreciate the capacity and power that their members possess to support efforts not just within the boundaries of their associations, but also within their practice settings and the local communities within which they live, work, and play. For far too long, associations have overlooked this…depending on three traditional strategies – often which they can control centrally – to achieve desired outcomes: lobbying, political action, and litigation.
Unfortunately, those strategies are no longer proving effective as those imposing the threats and challenges continue to either delay or ignore decisions that do not support their desired outcomes.
Understanding these shifts are essential before any effort can be taken to identify the kind of change process strategies guaranteed to produce the kind of positive and permanent outcomes members’ need for their practice settings to thrive.
These elements alone would be burdensome. Unfortunately, associations face another rarely-discussed element has long existed; making things a bit more complicated.
It is that most individuals
who assume their first positions in associations
do so with no formal training in association management.
That’s because it’s simply not offered by the academic community; the widely-accepted initial source for professional development.
What’s been the implication?
A 2012 study published by Mark and Shelly Alcorn revealed that most CEOs admitted that when they assumed their first position in their associations, they did not fully understand or appreciate its true nature or its inherent role in their members’ practice setting or the kinds of contributions it was designed to make in the larger society. Even those who had achieved a nonprofit management degree admitted the same thing.
Consider the fact that most association management professionals assume their first professional position…often with extensive training in some other domain, but nothing in association management. Thus, they unintentionally bring the bias of that training to their management style. And while many of these professionals have become very competent practitioners, most have done so by learning the needed competencies from their peers…in real time.
Many association management professionals, who are eager to advance their competencies in order to secure greater respect and legitimacy from their volunteer leaders, pursue an advanced business management over a nonprofit or public management degree.
It should be no surprise then that, during the 1980s, when associations were encouraged to become more accountable and transparent, many adopted the only management model available: the traditional transaction-based business management model. And, doing so initially proved effective in achieving a host of desired outcomes. But what most could not have anticipated was that doing so would also unintentionally undermine their ability to conceptualize the kind of audacious transformative changes that Pallotta believed were possible.
More importantly, that it would negatively impact on member engagement.
How do we know this?
Thanks to an unusual research initiative, those at the Melos Institute discovered information that – for the first time – adequately explained their true and inherent nature. In essence, the findings helped “crack the code” about associations representing professions, trades, and personal avocations in America.
You may wonder: How did the Institute achieve these breakthroughs about institutions that have existed in our society since the founding of our Republic? And, in what ways do these revelations help shape 21st century associations?
Let me explain.
MBOs: Distinctive Social Systems That Make Consequential Contributions to Functioning Democracies
Much has been written about various association management functions (membership, governance, management, leadership, education, etc.). When association management professionals were interested in the 1960s to building a body of knowledge to support their associations’ management and governance, as noted earlier, they adopted the only model available: the transaction-based business management model.
It’s not clear why they adopted it so readily…as is.
It could be because even then no one at the time fully understood or appreciated just how much associations differed from businesses. From that point on…to this day, in keeping with that norm, every effort to study these organizations does so using a traditional transaction-based business management mindset.
So for several decades, the use and expansion of strategies – intentionally designed for use in for-profit settings – became the accepted norm in associations. The impact that took place over that time as a result was so subtle that it was barely noticed. Another contributing factor was the intentional temporal nature of leadership within the associations’ volunteer and staff leadership teams.
It’s impossible to know if anyone ever challenged this approach. The absence of any documentation suggests that, if such an effort was made, it was quickly dismissed. Also, to suggest something better might exist would require offering an alternative. Up until now, none existed.
So, those in the association management community convinced themselves that adopting the traditional transaction-based business management model – without challenging its efficacy – was the best and only option.
Why?
Simply put:
“We did the best we could with what we knew.
But more importantly, we didn’t know what we didn’t know.”
It took an outsider to challenge that conclusion.
James R. Hudson, Ph.D., urban sociologist and change process expert, developed a keen interest in these organizations shortly after visiting Old Town Alexandria, Virginia. Having had studied urban development, he had never been to a city where nearly every building boldly proudly broadcast the name of an association on it. He became intrigued…wanting to know why they emerged, how they formed, developed, and operated, as well as the challenges they faced. To do that, he believed the best way to gain those insights was to collect, read, and analyze their published histories…ultimately including 400 in the study.
At first, Dr. Hudson did not anticipate the accounts in the published histories to be so consistent; including the stories told by the founders. And yet, regardless of the era in which these organizations were founded or the practice settings that the founders sought to represent, the patterns and trends that emerged were astonishingly the same; including the sequence by which their programs, products, and services were developed.
More importantly, they also understood that their organizations’ long-term sustainability depended on their members’ willingness to share their information, knowledge, experiences, expertise, and connections not just with their volunteer and staff leaders, but also with fellow members.
Simply put, members were not just afforded rights and privileges with membership but were also expected to fulfill specific duties and obligations.
These findings were revelatory; offering new insights about these organizations that did not exist in the association management literature. They also severely challenged a host of widely-popular assumptions (most of which had been handed down from one generation to another). The first and most substantial finding was that the characteristics of most MBOs representing professions, trades, and personal avocations did not easily fit into the typical three sectors defined by the academic community: for-profit, nonprofit, and government.
The data that emerged, as you can see in the grid below, reveal just how much these institutions differed from the others in their purpose, scope, focus, and goals. So much so, that he believed they should be viewed and treated as a unique population of organizations…ultimately be recognized as membership-based organizations (MBOs).
Further analysis proved that MBOs played a consequential role on multiple dimensions: for their members, their members’ practice settings and the society-at-large.
Thus, efforts to view and/or treat them as for-profit institutions actually undermined their ability to fulfill their inherent role…which was his next critical finding.
Their contributions proved that the founders never intended for their MBOs to serve as organizations selfishly protecting a special interest group. Most were not prompted to establish their association to address legislative or regulatory issues. They were instead driven by the need to formalize – what was at the time – their newly emergent field of endeavor.
They formed them to identify, define, shape, and advance a body of knowledge that would build and strengthen the competencies of those involved in that practice setting. They wanted their organizations to be the architects and arbiters of their practice setting’s body of knowledge. They believed doing so would help secure the respect and legitimacy from others in their field of endeavor as well as from the general public.
But what the founders did not fully appreciate, as Dr. Hudson found, was the unexpected consequence of bringing like-minded individuals together who shared similar goals. The innovations and contributions didn’t just remain in their practice setting. They had a broader impact on improving the quality of life for the larger society. It was then that Hudson recognized the pivotal role that MBOs play in shaping and advancing American democracy…far beyond the public policy arena.
Further, he realized that they could only accomplish these outcomes as long as the nation’s democracy itself was not threatened or challenged…something he never anticipated could happen…until it just did.
Why do MBOs need to pay attention to this – why does it matter?
MBOs cannot operate effectively if the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are undermined. Shockingly, we’ve already witnessed efforts by the federal government to suppress both…with some degree of success as institutions considered bulwarks for democracy have capitulated; seemingly in an effort to ensure their sustainability.
But history has proven that doing so only emboldens the oppressors who have become adamant at redefining and reshaping every segment and sector of our society.
For members in every practice setting, this is a “break glass” moment.
At some point, as they always do when faced with threats and challenges, members turn to their MBOs expecting action.
But, based on Dr. Hudson’s assessment, MBOs that persist in using traditional transaction-based business management strategies – like those listed earlier – to generate desired outcomes will fall short.
Why?
Two reasons:
- The strategies chosen often ask members to engage in limited, often superficial, ways.
- Only a small percentage of the membership possesses the social cohesion and social solidarity needed to generate substantive and lasting change.
This has happened unintentionally. It’s happened because too many people have convinced volunteer and staff leaders that their MBOs should be viewed and treated as businesses and their members as customers. Adopting transaction-based strategies has actually trained and convinced volunteer and staff leaders to think like business people; often making narrow short-term decisions. Further, it has also trained members to behave as customers; unintentionally reinforcing social distance between and among members.
For MBOs to be effective now and going forward,
their volunteer and staff leaders need
to recognize and accept the pivotal role
that their founders initially intended them to play;
including the role they knew their members had to play.
What does that look like? Does that require radical change?
Actually, based on the Institute’s continued research, the opportunity ahead is incredibly exciting.
And, thanks to the research initiated by Dr. Hudson and continued by the Institute, it can be done by merely making a series of adjustments…shifting strategies from being transaction-based to relation-centered.
Impact of Cracking the Code…to Protect American Democracy
The analysis of MBOs’ published histories provided critical insights about their inherent role. Those stories reminded MBOs of their founders’ audacious goal…to identify, define, and shape a body of knowledge to advance their practice settings…something that no other social system in our society ever dared to undertake.
And yet, in an attempt to operate effectively, volunteer and staff leaders have unintentionally drifted somewhat from that initial effort by treating their institutions as businesses and their members as customers. The unexpected result of doing so has also unintentionally undermined members’ desire and willingness to engage.
To date, far too many association management professionals
have not recognized the correlation
between their well-intentioned actions and their members’ behavior.
But further applied research, working with MBOs as Institute Research Partners has proven just how willing and eager members are to engage. A pioneering study analyzed hundreds of members’ stories of how their membership has made a difference in their lives. Those stories were further analyzed against those members who did not engage often (or at all) as well as those members who allowed their membership to lapse. The findings were as revelatory as those from Dr. Hudson’s historical research.
Members’ primary hesitancy to engage was far less about their availability (the popular assumption) and more about their familiarity of how to engage in ways that mattered most to them.
Learning this, the Institute adjusted a number of traditional membership development strategies to be less transaction-focused and more relation-centered. The difference between the two was that the latter focused more attention on providing members with the kind of guidance and support that helped them match their needs, interests, goals, and aspirations to specific programs, products, and services. But more importantly, help them make connections with those members who can be of immediate assistance.
Every relation-centered strategy, tested in cooperation with MBOs, proved more effective than the traditional transaction-based one at capturing “busy” members’ attention and inspiring their engagement. Often, members’ response rates to the adjusted strategies literally shocked staff professionals who were convinced nothing could be done to influence members’ behaviors.
These relation-centered findings are but the beginning of so many others that can be uncovered as additional applied research initiatives are pursued; proving that a body of knowledge can be uniquely designed to support MBOs’ efforts to deliver more purposeful, meaningful, and transformative experiences to their members…while ensuring their long-term sustainability.
In normal times, the Institute would use this digital platform to encourage your MBO to join with us – to “think outside the box” – to explore the dynamics and dimensions of relation-centered management within every MBO function.
But these are not normal times
Instead, we recognize that – in addition to the demands you are facing – it’s more important for your MBO to take steps to inspire and mobilize your members to address the threats and challenges being imposed upon them now.
Thus, we offer two complimentary tools that have proven effective to capture your volunteer leaders’ and members’ attention…and then provide the kind of guidance and support that will inspire their engagement in ways that defy many current assumptions.
The first helps your volunteer leaders and professional staff understand what their MBO has the extraordinary power to achieve…but only with a high degree of member engagement. The second helps new and existing members learn how to engage in mutually beneficial ways.
Because their use has the capacity to restore social cohesion and social solidarity within your MBO’s
specially-defined membership community, the Institute offers guidance and support on how to use these
tools on a complimentary basis.
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
History is often overlooked as a valuable reference. Yet, time and again, it reveals an unexpected hindsight…allowing new information to inspire new thinking. At the Melos Institute, we’ve just begun discovering new and better ways in which you can generate the kind of outcomes on multiple dimensions: for your members, their practice settings, and the larger society.
MBOs play a pivotal role in generating
positive social change and in shaping and advancing democracy.
That makes the association management profession
one of the most complex and consequential in our society.
Whether or not you realized this before, the decisions you make in the days, weeks, months, and years ahead regarding the strategies you use to govern and manage your MBO will have a direct and substantial impact…not just for your members or their practice setting…but for the quality of life for all Americans.
Holding onto long-standing assumptions and traditional norms may generate results, but they will severely limit your MBO’s ability to do the kind of audacious things that Dan Pallotta, along with those of us at the Melos Institute, believe is possible.
If you’ve been searching for better solutions to address your MBO’s challenges, we invite you to explore these two tools.
You’ve got nothing to lose in and everything to gain by doing so.
And, when you use them, you will be empowering your volunteer leaders and members to do what their founders expected: to become steadfast change agents of their own practice settings.
The founders understood that their members were their greatest asset. That hasn’t changed. They have the capacity to engage in ways your MBO cannot. And by doing so, can disseminate accurate information to others; influencing them in audacious ways…beyond your imagination.
Taking steps to retrain your members now is the key to mobilizing more of them to build a better future for themselves, for their practice setting, and the larger society. And, to ensure our country remains a functioning democracy.
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.
