“What prompts some members to engage but not others?”
When you think about it, we rarely think about how the most novel and profound insights and innovations actually emerged.
Typically, they do not happen as the result of a strategic or carefully designed research initiative.
They tend to appear unexpectedly…while studying something entirely different. It may be why such findings are usually discounted by those who would benefit most. That is until a few of them are willing to risk their adoption as a last resort; in the hopes that they will generate better and more lasting outcomes.
It’s only because of those successes that such examples capture others’ attention…and that evidence inspires them to consider adopting these novel concepts as well.
In Part One, two stories were shared; both of which provided an opportunity to gain a better and deeper understanding of members’ experiences in associations. This follow-up post goes further; offering greater detail and context on how associations can increase member engagement by adjusting the way that they communicate with their members. In particular, asking questions that are less transaction-based and more relation-centered (definition follows).
Revelations that Helped Validate a Consequential Profession
Part One also explained how ground-breaking revelations about associations’ distinctive nature, discovered by James R. Hudson, Ph.D., a sociological scholar, came about. They occurred while he was analyzing their emergence, formation, development and operations from accounts shared within over 400 published histories of associations representing professions, trades, and personal avocations (i.e., practice settings).
Of all the findings, some of the most consequential were:
- Associations differed substantially from for-profit and other nonprofit organizations in their purpose, scope, focus, and goals…so much so that they needed to be viewed and treated as a unique population of organizations (i.e., as membership-based organizations/MBOs).
- MBOs were initially established to secure the respect and legitimacy of what was – at the time – an emergent field of endeavor. The founders wanted the organization to spearhead the development of the body of knowledge for their practice setting; believing it to be the first step toward generating the kind of information and knowledge their members’ needed to develop and advance their competencies.
- MBOs – unlike for-profit and other nonprofit organizations – consisted of two unique dimensions:
- a mission-driven organization, and;
- an actual (albeit portable) specially-defined community (i.e., characterized by the members’ vocation/avocation).
Note: Those in this uniquely-defined population not only prompted the organizations’ formation, but also became the basis for their sustainability; thus becoming specially-defined membership communities.
- Many widely-accepted contemporary assumptions about members – especially complaints about their engagement – were similar if not identical to those shared by volunteer and staff leaders from the late 1800s through the 1900s to the present day.
- Another popular assumption – that generalizations could not be established because MBOs developed so differently – was proven inaccurate. His analysis revealed that common patterns and trends – specific to their emergence, formation, development, and operations – could be easily identified at every stage of MBOs’ evolution.
- The body of knowledge established to support the association management profession lacked the theoretical and organizational framework required to provide the guidance and support needed for its professionals to manage and advance their MBOs’ purpose, scope, focus, and goals (Note: Scholars agree that for occupations to become professions, a theoretical and organizational framework must exist).
Learning that these novel findings did not exist in the association management literature, he chronicled them in his 2013 book: Special Interest Society: How Membership-based Organizations Shape America.
These findings prompted the Melos Institute to question the efficacy of a wide range of other assumptions. As often happens with research, one revelation led to another…and another…and then another. Ultimately, it became clear that for MBOs to thrive in the 21st century, volunteer and staff leaders needed not only to accept their distinctiveness, but also to recognize their significance in at least three ways:
- Inherent purpose, scope, focus, and goals.
- Consequential role in shaping and advancing functioning democracies.
- Management strategies uniquely designed to manage an organization and develop a distinctive community.
In essence, thanks to Dr. Hudson’s findings, those at the Melos Institute realized that volunteer and staff leaders first needed management strategies uniquely designed for these organizations. And, they also needed an additional set of specially-designed strategies uniquely designed to develop their specially-defined (albeit portable) membership communities. By incorporating both types of strategies into their operations, they could be assured their MBOs had everything needed to be well-run and, at the same time, ensuring their members were engaging in ways that generated critical relationships as well as a high degree of social cohesion.
The Institute’s further examination of MBOs revealed that most of the traditional strategies they had been using were either transaction-based or sales-oriented; thus doing little to build and foster social cohesion. Most were initially designed for use in for-profit settings to generate income and profit.
The Institute also recognized that these strategies were only adopted because nothing else existed. Unfortunately over time, their use became so widely-accepted that they became the norm; eventually becoming permanently institutionalized within association management’s body of knowledge.
Their continued use influenced volunteer and staff leaders in another way. Since these transaction-based strategies were generating results, many became convinced that MBOs were quite like businesses. Likewise, since members’ primary role was to “purchase” things (e.g., pay dues, register for events, purchase publications, contract for services, etc.), they were quite like customers. Treating MBOs more like businesses gave these organizations a recognizable identity…one that was easy to explain to others (e.g., colleagues, legislators, nonprofit professionals, family, neighbors, members, etc.).
It all made sense…almost. Their continued use, however, did nothing to resolve the more persistent challenges, like member engagement, membership development, leadership development, and so on. This left many to conclude that these issues were simply endemic to MBOs. Few questioned or challenged this. Fewer demonstrated much interest or willingness to test the accuracy of this assumption.
Dr. Hudson’s revelations prompted those at the Institute to realize that while the existing management strategies were well-designed, they lacked the nuances needed to fulfill MBOs’ purpose, scope, focus, and goals. Why? MBOs needed strategies that did more than simply manage their organizations. They also needed strategies that helped build, cultivate, and strengthen their specially-defined membership communities; in particular, help members develop meaningful relationships with those who could be of immediate and direct support to them. The existing strategies – because they were designed for use in for-profit settings – did not provide that support.
This realization once again confirmed Dr. Hudson’s initial findings:
- MBOs were extraordinary institutions intentionally designed to support, shape, and advance functioning democracies;
- Association management profession was one of the most complex and consequential professions in America, and;
- Volunteer and staff leaders needed management strategies uniquely constructed to support an organization and an actual (albeit portable) community.
It also prompted the Institute to ask three daunting questions:
- Do management strategies exist to accommodate MBOs’ unique duality?
- If not, how does one begin conceptualizing them?
- How does this impact and influence the existing body of knowledge?
Efforts to find a prototype or template to use as a guide to address these questions proved unsuccessful. Yet, based on the initial findings, Institute researchers believed it was essential to learn if many of the chronic challenges MBOs had been facing could or could not be resolved. Having no guidelines, they began by doing what seemed most logical…focusing their attention on the members…asking this pivotal research question:
“What prompts some members to engage in their MBOs but not others?”
Ever found yourself trying to navigate a path in the dark?
If so, you’ll appreciate the sheer uncertainty and frustration that those involved in this initiative experienced. Most of the existing research and literature focused on members from the organizations’ perspective (i.e., what members were expected to do to ensure their MBOs’ sustainability) or what MBOs needed to do to build relationships directly with each member.
You may think, so what? What does all this have to do with asking members the right questions?
These discoveries led the Institute to conclude that MBOs had adopted a management paradigm that was not designed to support their purpose, scope, focus, and goals. Thus, its continued use could never resolve any of the chronic challenges listed earlier. One of the reasons was that most every traditional strategy failed to provide ways to build, foster, and maintain a high degree of social cohesion within their specially-defined membership communities.
Thus, any strategy – initially designed for use in a for-profit setting – was limited in what it could accomplish…that is, unless it was adapted accordingly.
Exploring Adapted Strategies with a Relation-centered Approach
With that in mind, the Institute realized that if it wanted to gain insight into what made MBOs function as high-performance organizations, it needed to study them differently (i.e., adopt different research methods…shifting from traditional market research to applied research). Further, any findings and/or concepts established as a result needed to be tested in a real-world setting to validate their efficacy.
The Institute’s first official effort, after Dr. Hudson’s discovery, focused on the previously shared research question. Recognizing the limitations of using traditional business market research techniques, those involved chose, like Karen, to listen to members. They began by compiling a large number of members’ stories…across members’ practice settings, generations, and most importantly, over an extended period of time (i.e., decades). Additionally, they were collected from various sources: their published histories, archived MBO-related files, MBO meetings, online accounts, and more.
As expected, the analysis revealed a range of interesting patterns and trends; ultimately leading to the realization – as noted in Part One – that the problem with member engagement was less influenced by members’ availability and more about their familiarity of how to engage in ways that mattered most to them.
But, the consistent factor in members’ decision to engage was the way in which MBOs (i.e., including volunteer and staff leaders) communicated to them (i.e., provided the kind of support and guidance they needed to make decisions on how best to spend their time and money).
Members’ accounts consistently noted how little they understood or appreciated:
What it meant to be a member.
(i.e., a citizen with access to rights, privileges – expectations to fulfill duties and obligations),
and;
How to navigate the organization to secure what mattered most to them.
(i.e., what they needed, when they needed it, and in a format that worked best for them).
Just as Karen found, the stories the Institute analyzed offered insights that had not been previously reported within most of traditional market research studies. Frankly, based on the way in which members shared this information, it’s doubtful they might ever be identified using the more widely-popular information-gathering techniques.
For Example
Members were less inspired to engage when the communication made them feel like customers (i.e., their MBOs making them feel the purchase or registration was the goal). They were more enthusiastic about engaging when their MBOs took a personal interest in them (i.e., taking time to learn who they were and what was of greatest need or interest to them).
The more MBOs’ communications looked and sounded like that generated by every other type of organization, the less likely they were to notice the pieces and/or inspired to read them.
Since the way in which MBOs communicated (i.e., in digital, print, and personal ways) with their members made such an impact, the Institute set out assess the degree to which adjusting the language used might affect their willingness to engage. Working with several MBOs as research partners, several different communication strategies were identified, including but not limited to: event and/or meeting announcements, member recruitment and renewal literature, and member orientation sessions.
A set of relation-centered principles were established to guide the adjustments made; including the incorporation of relevant and sufficient guidance and support to assist members in their decision-making. Central to the adjustments was making a conscious shift in perspective. Each piece – whether written by volunteer leaders or professional staff – was written from their MBOs’ perspective. The Institute researchers intentionally revised the pieces to reflect the members’ perspective; believing that doing so would reduce the need for members to interpret the intended messages or feel after reading it that they were part of an extraordinary community.
After volunteer and staff leaders’ approved the revisions (i.e., shift in language, words, tone, scope, and focus), the pieces were pilot tested. The results of every test confirmed that the shift from transaction-based to relation-centered prompted greater understanding, appreciation, and interest among members to engage.
What exactly is relation-centered…and how does it differ from transaction-based?
A relation-centered approach seeks to assist members by providing: 1) the guidance and support they need to make engagement opportunities – offered by their MBOs – that will have an immediate and direct impact on their needs, interests, goals, and aspirations, and; 2) opportunities to meet, establish, build, and foster meaningful and purposeful connections with fellow members.
Of all the pieces tested, the one that made the most lasting impact was the member orientation.
Member Orientation
At some point in the last decade or so, the term member orientation was replaced by member onboarding session; most likely because of its use within the for-profit sector. Yet, the content shared and process used to convey the information to members has not changed dramatically in all this time.
This session has waxed and waned in popularity often because of members’ participation. Some have also suggested the same results can be achieved by sending members the information directly. That belief, however, is not quite accurate.
The information is traditionally written from the MBOs’ perspective.
Though this is not widely discussed, its intent is to socialize members (e.g., help them learn their role and responsibilities, the rules, norms, and expectations, key contacts, etc.).
Recognizing this and drawing from members’ stories of what prompted their engagement, the Institute drafted a member orientation that included the following:
- what it meant to be a member from the members’ perspective;
- their role as citizens of their specially-defined membership communities;
- their responsibilities in supporting their practice settings and their MBOs, and;
- ways to craft a customized engagement plan – including making meaningful connections – uniquely designed to support members’ ongoing personal and professional development.
Institute researchers recognized they had drafted something similar decades ago. And, over the past few decades, many MBOs had conducted it with successful results. Using that prototype, the Institute revised it to reflect the new findings and then pilot tested it with a number of additional MBOs.
The results – whether decades ago or more recently – were consistent. Volunteer and staff leaders who assisted in leading these sessions found their members to be much more enthusiastic about engaging – not just as participants but also as volunteers and volunteer leaders.
And, there was an additional benefit.
Helping members learn how to engage not just in their MBOs but also in their specially-defined membership communities created greater enthusiasm within the membership overall. Those who learned how to develop their own engagement plan reached out to help others; thus expanding the knowledge and further cultivating the social cohesion necessary for the organization to thrive.
Here’s where the questions come in.
A key part of designing and testing that module included asking members a different set of questions.
Relation-centered Questions That Inspire and Generate Ongoing Engagement
For decades, volunteer and staff leaders have been trained to ask their members the same questions as a way to encourage various types of engagement.
The more popular include:
- Why did you join?
- How are you hoping to benefit?
- Are there specific programs, products, or services that attracted your attention?
- In what way might you want to contribute your time as a volunteer? As a volunteer leader?
- How would you like to receive communication from us?
What’s the problem with them?
Most assume members understand how to choose just those opportunities that will be of immediate and direct benefit to them…or do so when the need arises. Though they are adults, members’ stories have taught us that most do not fully appreciate what it truly means – as described earlier – to be a member. Additionally, these questions are drafted from the MBOs’ perspective; assuming members – especially new ones – are familiar enough to respond accordingly. Most members find it challenging to answer them…especially if they’ve never a membership experience…never mind a positive one.
These adjusted relation-centered questions sought the same information…and more. The information gained provided an opportunity to make more precise recommendations of specific opportunities that could address members’ desired outcomes. And, because each member possessed different desired outcomes, these questions empowered those involved to personalize and or customize the options that were best suited to that member.
Thus, the questions were divided to provide insight into the member and then the desired outcomes.
Learning about the Member
- Would you tell us a bit about your background? (e.g., education, training, experiences, expertise, etc.)
- What do you feel has been your greatest achievement…thus far? (i.e., reveals their talents/expertise)
Learning of the Members’ Needs, Interests, Goals, and Aspirations
- What might be your current/immediate needs or interests? (i.e., helps narrow initial engagement options)?
- Have you established any specific short- or long-term goals or aspirations? (i.e., helps identify areas for ongoing engagement)
- What kinds of challenges or obstacles are you most concerned about…looking to overcome? (i.e., helps identify possible learning opportunities of greatest interest)
- What information and knowledge about our practice setting is of most interest to you? (i.e., helps identify possible volunteer opportunities)
- What about this practice setting is of greatest interest to you? (i.e., helps identify possible interest in a volunteer leadership role)
- What kinds of demands do you have on your time that might limit your initial participation? (i.e., helps match initial opportunities to their availability)
The Institute found that these questions gave members the freedom to reveal more about themselves. Indeed, the more they shared, the easier it was for volunteer and staff leaders to suggest opportunities that would be responsive to their expectations…including meeting other members that could be of immediate support to them. They soon discovered that the more members found that initial engagement to be worthwhile, the more eager they were to engage in ways that demanded more of their time.
What can be learned from all this?
The Willingness to Change…The Power of Adjustments
MBOs are inherently designed to bring like minds together to share and exchange information. They create opportunities where members not only learn from each other, but are also inspired to collaborate in ways that advance their practice settings.
Thus, the reason engagement is essential is not just to get members to events or to purchase items. It’s to assist them in establishing social connections that matter most to them. When the social connections are appropriately matched, relationships are formed. When relationships develop further, they meaningful and purposeful not just for the members involved, but also to their MBOs. Ultimately, these social interactions are all essential to building and strengthening the degree of social cohesion within the MBOs’ specially-defined membership communities.
Why does that matter?
A high degree of social cohesion is critical to any successful mobilization effort. When members are asked to take action to address threats or challenges to their practice settings, they’re not just doing it for themselves and their MBOs. They recognize they’re doing it for fellow members with whom they share meaningful relationships.
In the days, weeks, and months ahead, you may find your MBO facing unexpected and unrealistic threats and challenges…if you haven’t already.
What kind of social solidarity do your members have between and among each other…with your MBO?
The greater the social cohesion and solidarity, the more you can be assured that your members will assume whatever existing or new roles that you need them to play.
MBOs are uniquely positioned to advance positive social change on a number of dimensions not just as institutions (i.e., lobbying, political action, or litigation), but by mobilizing their members; particularly when they become emissaries sharing accurate information about their practice settings within their own social networks and communities. Their success is contingent on the degree to which members truly feel they are part of their specially-defined membership communities.
Few other organizations have this capacity or capability to promote and protect nearly every practice setting in our society. MBOs can. But they can only do this in functioning democracies.
They can only do this if those responsible for their governance and management are willing to adopt the kinds of relation-centered strategies that have been specifically-designed for them.
What’s the alternative? Absent such changes – especially in communication – engagement will continue to remain a challenge.
You may not have the time to visit with members as Karen did
to assess how your members are interpreting your communications.
You may not have the time to revise your member orientation
to ensure your members know how to make the most of their membership.
The good news is that you don’t have to!
It’s already done and tested….
and available for your immediate review on our website…
Making the Most of Your Membership
a relation-centered orientation module for new and current members
compliments of the Melos Institute.
(https://bit.ly/MemOrient)
We’re also available – no obligation – to answer any questions you may have about how you can adapt this prototype to support your MBO’s needs.
For those interested in testing this module, be prepared for the enthusiasm that will result. And, be ready to recognize that in doing this, you are empowering your members to develop their inherent potential.
That’s what makes association management one of the most complex and consequential professions in America.
So, ready to take a look at how this relation-centered orientation module can inform, instruct, and inspire your members not just to engage, but also to engage more fully?
#MemberEngagement #Associations #AssociationManagement
*Details of the seven functions can be found in The Member Engagement Paradox:
Overcoming Seven Obstacles to Build and Maintain Thriving Membership Communities.
