Unexpected Current Shortcomings of Using “Outside the Box Thinking” When It Comes to Member Engagement

Hard to imagine the iconic expression – “thinking outside the box” – was prompted by the following challenge:

Connect these “nine dots”…using only four straight lines.

In the late 1970s/early 1980s, many ultimately learned that the only way to solve the puzzle was to think differently; to pursue an unexpected and atypical approach.

Now, to the dismay of many, this “fairly worn-out” and annoying expression has since become an aggravating mantra in group work; much like another: “win-win.”

Why?

For many, it’s become annoying primarily because so few – during the brainstorming process – have been able to achieve that degree of creativity. And most of us have no idea why.

Finally, in 2011, Dan Pallotta, nonprofit entrepreneur/advocate and humanitarian activist at the time, believed he had a plausible explanation why most Americans found it a difficult undertaking.

On his blog:

He begged his readers to stop 
trying to “think outside the box,”  unless they were willing
to “first understand the nature of the box itself.”

His insight revealed a truth far too many of us for far too long had missed.

Most of us, when encouraged to brainstorm in meetings, would immediately begin listing a series of options or solutions without first considering the context within which or the underlying reasons why the problem existed. He reminded his blog readers that…

“Any type of creative thinking can only occur” 
when sufficient information  about the existing issue
has been adequately examined and understood.

For me, Dan’s advice was profound beyond the boundaries of his scope. It, rather unexpectedly, revealed a very good reason why associations – for decades – had been unable to find a lasting solution to a chronic and frustrating problem: member engagement.

Every new strategy was predicated on a series of long-standing assumptions about members (e.g., “too busy,” “apathetic,” “don’t read,” “required value,” etc.).

Every assumption assumed that the member was the problem.

To this day, that belief has never been challenged by those interested in the dynamics and dimensions of the association management community.

It should be no surprise then that, despite the introduction of many well-intentioned attempts, a lasting solution to increasing and expanding member engagement has remained as elusive an outcome as ever!

That is, until we at the Melos Institute elected to take Dan’s advice seriously; meaning we conducted a series of applied research initiatives to understand the “nature of the box itself.”

What we discovered changed everything we were told about associations and their members, including but not limited to the fact that they their existence was unparalleled in the following ways:

Their…

• inherent purpose to transform members’ lives in personal and professional ways;
• distinctive scope in shaping and advancing every segment and sector of our society;
• unheralded focus of generating positive and lasting social change on multiple dimensions, and;
• broader goal in building and sustaining functioning democracies.

This insight couldn’t have come at a more auspicious time in American history.

And while the Institute has been sharing these findings for a while now, it recognizes that one key question remains:

What will it take for associations’ volunteer and staff leaders 
to recognize and accept
the role their founders intended their organizations to play?

What exactly did the Institute find when it explored the “nature of the box itself?”

Read on.

Studying the Nature of the “Association” Box Itself:
Novel Findings

Pallotta’s advice was discovered about the same time that James R. Hudson, Ph.D., scholar and Institute’s co-founder, was finalizing his analysis of the emergence, formation, development, and operations of associations. After reading over 400 of their published histories, he felt the common patterns and trends revealed:

• associations differed significantly from for-profits and other nonprofits in their purpose, scope, focus, and goals;
• their founders established them to serve as architects and arbiters of their members’ practice settings;
• their members played a consequential role in defining, shaping, and advancing those practice settings, and;
• the larger society ultimately benefited from the positive social changes generated by associations’ and their members.

Further, any notion that they were just organizations with members was wholly inaccurate. Members played a much more consequential role than that of customers. Members did far more than simply exist to support their organizations’ sustainability…or even to support its mission. The organization could not exist without members serving as contributors and citizens.

Associations were wholly dependent 
on their members’ willingness to contribute
their information, knowledge, experiences, expertise, and connections.

Dr. Hudson realized that the founders’ very act of defining eligibility requirements prompted the establishment of specially-defined communities that represented unique practice settings (often emergent at the time). They understood that their institutions would be inherently dependent on their members to engage in routine and lasting ways.

Thus, when eligible individuals joined, they automatically became part of their associations’ specially-defined membership communities; differing from the geographic communities within which they lived and worked.

This meant that associations had to be characterized 
as having two dimensions: 
an institution and a specially-defined membership community.

Oddly enough, the analysis of these histories challenged those pesky widely-popular, long-standing assumptions about member engagement. For decades, volunteer and staff leaders were trained that engagement was a c contemporary problem; one prompted by the demands and pace of life that members’ faced. We were told that members of yesteryear were, in fact, more inclined and inspired to engage.

Dr. Hudson proved that was inaccurate.

Published history after published history relayed volunteer leaders’ frustrations in getting members to engage…as far back as the late 1800s and early 1900s. Dr. Hudson had “receipts…the quotes” to prove it.

This finding prompted the Institute to consider another factor; one that never had been actively been considered. Dr. Hudson, along with others at the Institute, turned their attention to the way in which associations governed and managed their organizations…asking the following:

Was it possible that its management strategies were 
unintentionally undermining member engagement?

More specifically, 
was it at all possible that the routine application of 
traditional transaction-based business management strategies 
was more of an obstacle than an advantage?

What might be found if the “nature of the box” 
was examined differently from the norm?

To find answers to these questions and more, the Institute conducted on a series of applied research initiatives over several years. Its findings were revelatory; offering a more accurate understanding and appreciation of how widely-accepted management practices were unintentionally undermining desired and critical outcomes.

Simply put, the efforts helped explain why some members engaged while others did not.

The insights – of the “nature of the association box” – gained helped explain why widely-popular transaction-based business management strategies failed to generate greater or lasting member involvement. This course of study also led us to discover and understand why a few independently-designed strategies – even those introduced decades ago – produced such an enthusiastic response from members.

“Thinking Outside the Nature of the Associations’ Box:”
Two Key Revelations on Member Engagement

As often happens with ground-breaking discoveries, the initial becomes the first of many others. Identifying associations’ as being substantially different from for profit and other nonprofit organizations was just the start. Further examination revealed their existence consisted of a unique organizational structure and an actual (albeit portable) community.

Because of this, Dr. Hudson believed they could no longer be characterized as institutions offering a wide range of programs, products, and services to their members. That notion, thanks to the analysis of their published histories, was replaced with the understanding that their role in a functioning democracy was much broader, more profound, and incredibly consequential.

Associations, since the first was founded,
existed to produce positive and lasting social change on multiple dimensions.

He then concluded that if associations representing professions, trades, and personal avocations (unions excepted) were different, they should be viewed, treated, and studied separately from other nonprofit organizations. Based on their purpose, scope, focus, and goals, these organizations should be studied uniquely and characterized as membership-based organizations (MBOs).

Of all the discoveries of using traditional transaction-based business management strategies, at least two had an immediate and direct impact on building, fostering, and expanding member engagement. They became especially important key because their ongoing use was – as noted earlier – unintentionally undermining members’ ability to engage in ways that mattered most to them…a dynamic that continues to this day.

Viewing/Treating Members as Customers 
Suppressed Member Engagement and 
Weakened Specially-defined Membership Communities

From the start, using proven traditional transaction-based business management strategies appeared to be the responsible and practical thing to do to secure organizational sustainability. While it did improve the MBOs’ organizational efficiency and effectiveness, these actions failed to focus much needed attention on generating the high degree of social cohesion and social solidarity needed between and among members to establish highly-active specially-defined membership communities.

Because these business-related strategies were intentionally designed for use in for-profit settings, the focus was to establish a relationship their customers…but individually. For-profit companies, with some exception, had little need for their customers to develop relationships with one another.

Ultimately, when employed in MBO-related settings, the key message did not change. Members were encouraged to behave as customers; thus, develop a direct relationship with their MBOs. Members had learned, since childhood, what it meant to be a customer…and how to behave as such. 

So, instead of stepping forward to engage in ways that mattered most to them, members waited for prompts and incentives before making a decision to do so.

Over time, this weakened the social cohesion and social solidarity within MBOs’ specially-defined membership communities.

While MBOs’ founders may not have fully understood the social dynamics of their initial actions, they knew from the start that their organizations were wholly dependent on their members to willingly and routinely contribute their information, knowledge, experiences, expertise, and connections. Those contributions were used to build the bodies of knowledge for their practice settings. As such, they designed their meetings and events not just to encourage the sharing of information and knowledge, but also to establish the kind of meaningful relationships that would generate a high degree of mutual trust.

This interdependence suggested a unique symbiotic relationship was endemic to MBOs that was not found in other types of organizations. Thus, member engagement had to be something more for members than simply participating for one’s own gain…or even volunteering to support their MBOs’ priorities.

The Institute believed that, in MBOs, member engagement needed to be viewed and treated as an ongoing developmental experience for members; an opportunity to address their needs and interests as well as advance their goals and aspirations. The only way MBOs could fulfill this was to create a range of learning opportunities (i.e., programs, products, and services) built from members’ contributions…as well as to create strategically-designed opportunities for members to establish meaningful and purposeful relationships with fellow members.

This allowed something unheard of to happen within MBOs. They could be “all things to all members.” When MBOs did not have something their members needed in the way of their programs, products, or services, they could still provide the needed guidance and support by connecting them with fellow members. 

The Institute discovered that securing this kind of specific guidance and/or support from a fellow member or staff professional was the critical variable that separated members who engaged routinely from those who did not. Further analysis revealed that, despite a host of traditional membership strategies, most members didn’t know:

1. 1. what it meant to be a member, and; 

   2. how to navigate their association to maximize their membership.

In fact, most members wanted to engage…but in ways that mattered most to them. The problem was not their availability but their familiarity; something that could easily be addressed with the right guidance and support. 

The Institute wondered what that might look like. 

Then, in working with a few associations serving as research partners, the Institute modified the language and focus in their initially transaction-based membership strategies; adjusting them to be more relation-centered. The response from members – their willingness to engage – was immediate and extraordinary.

The realization that, the degree to which MBOs’ specially-defined membership communities possessed extraordinary power and influence, led the Institute to another working assumption.

Viewing and Treating Associations as Businesses
Undermined and Limited MBOs’ Ability to Fulfill an Inherent Role

For over 50 years, associations have been encouraged to view and treat their organizations as businesses.

This mindset was prompted by the federal government in the 1970s/1980s as an effort to get nonprofit organizations to operate with greater accountability. While it was a well-intentioned and necessary endeavor, no concerns were voiced that doing so might produce a series of unintentional consequences.

But the adoption did have an impact.

Unfortunately, the shift was slow and often imperceptible…until it wasn’t.

Over time, the concepts and language used within MBOs changed dramatically…especially by those in the association management community. Business terms (e.g., ROI, branding, value proposition, etc.) became standard. Popular transaction-based business management strategies were embraced as solutions to achieving economic and institutional sustainability. Programs, products, and services were often evaluated based on bottom line results; often without consideration of other possible or relevant factors.

It’s not surprising then that – after decades of this – volunteer and staff leaders adopted the view that their MBOs were just like businesses. Most didn’t realize or appreciate that doing so unintentionally undermined the reason their organizations were founded. And, as this mindset took hold and engagement became more problematic, many began to question the need for or benefit of having a membership!

The Institute’s research revealed just how determined MBOs’ founders were to create something distinctive…something that would perpetuate positive social change for their members, their members’ practice settings, and the larger society. It’s why they focused their attention on identifying, defining, shaping, and advancing the bodies of knowledge of their members’ practice settings.

Regardless of the era, they understood that accurate information and knowledge gave their MBOs (and their members) enormous power and influence not just i the public policy arena, but also among their fellow citizens as well. Members, in their practice settings, had the ability to disseminate accurate information to those in their geographic communities. Further, members could enlighten their fellow citizens of the implications and consequences of public policy considerations…often inspiring society-wide support or opposition to those pending actions.

Those who chose to view their MBOs like businesses redefined that reality to something that was far more self-limiting than their founders intended. They established these organizations to do something bold – to serve as the architects and arbiters of their members’ practice settings. This could not be accomplished using traditional transaction-based business management principles and practices…no matter how well-defined they were.

Simply put, the production and sale of for-profit companies’ commodities is not the same 
as the generation of positive and lasting social changes by MBOs.

The strategies required by each to achieve desired outcomes differ widely.

Another way to think about this is:

•  Companies can produce their products without the direct involvement from their customers…despite the fact that their sustainability is dependent on their customers purchasing those items.
• MBOs cannot produce their learning opportunities (i.e., programs, products, and services) without the direct involvement from and contributions willingly shared by their members.

This extraordinary relationship that exists between MBOs and their members is unique…and can only exist in a functioning democracy. At the same time, MBOs can only generate positive and lasting social change when they have the full support of and engagement from their members. At present, by continuing to use traditional transaction-based business management strategies, MBOs have hampered themselves from fulfilling their destinies. The only way they can return to that degree of power and influence is to reverse those self-imposed limitations.

Simply put, it is time for volunteer and staff leaders to abandon decades of inaccurate assumptions and parochial thinking. It’s time to recognize MBOs’ unique and profound nature. And, by sharing these insights with their members, inspire and mobilize their engagement to produce outcomes that far exceed existing expectations.

What’s one easy way to begin changing attitudes and behaviors?  Download and review these two modules which have been specifically designed to reveal MBOs’ purpose, scope, focus, and goals to volunteer and staff leaders as well as their members.

• Making the Most of Your Membership
  a relation-centered orientation module for new and current members

• Using Power and Influence to Achieve Positive Social Change
  how membership-based organizations organize and mobilize their members to advance their mission and vision

If all of this has you intrigued, but you remain suspicious that a better way exists, consider a successful relation-centered strategy designed decades ago by an association management professional for his local MBO.

Increasing Member Enthusiasm and Engagement:
A Case Example

At the time, Roger Reinhart was the chief executive officer (CEO) of The Builders’ Association of Metropolitan Tulsa (BAMT). Roger had no training in association management. Like us, he learned the job…on the job. One thing Roger had, though, was a deep respect for his members…and a great intuition. As a local CEO, he had the opportunity to get to know his volunteer leaders fairly well but not every member. Nonetheless, those exchanges helped him understand and appreciate the demands and pressures they faced in their personal and professional lives.

He believed that the only way to get members to engage was to do so in ways that were easy for them. He also knew that, to secure their ongoing engagement, he had to find ways for them to make their involvement a habit. Thus, engagement opportunities had to be easy, fun, and highly relevant for them.

Using that as a guide, he developed the BAMT Membership Tack and Keystone Program. Its purpose was to inspire and assist new members to engage fairly routinely during their first year of membership. He used the terms “tack” and “keystone” because members recognized them as essential elements in the building process. The program was a simple one. To achieve “Tack” status, members only needed to complete three tasks:

1. 1. attend a member orientation;
   2. attend a general membership meeting, and;
   3. contribute the name of a prospective member to a BAMT volunteer leader.

Since the member orientation (which members were attending) preceded a general membership meeting, new members could achieve this first level of recognition by offering the name of an eligible prospective member. Roger was strategic in that he did not want his new members to give that name to him. He intentionally required that they give it to a BAMT volunteer leader.

By doing so, these new members would establish their first formal member-to-member social connection with at least one of BAMT’s volunteer leaders. He also knew that, in doing so, social bonds would form; resulting in these new members feeling more accepted into the organization. At the same time, it would encourage his volunteer leaders to extend their guidance and support to members they had just met.

He launched this engagement initiative at the new member orientation that immediately preceded the general membership dinner meeting.

As expected, most every new member achieved “Tack” status that night.

As a result, each was duly recognized at the dinner meeting as being supporters to BAMT’s priorities.

But the program didn’t end there.

To achieve “Keystone” status, members were encouraged – over the course of one year – to complete five of at least twelve additional engagement opportunities…each of which was intentionally and strategically selected to help members build greater social cohesion and social solidarity with fellow members, with BAMT, and with fellow citizens in their local community.

Some of these actions included:

• give an invocation or benediction at a general membership meeting;
• lead the pledge of allegiance at the start of a meeting;
• be/become a registered voter;
• attend an association education program;
• participate in a new member orientation;
• serve as a committee member or volunteer leader;
• attend a civic organization meeting (i.e., City Council, school board, etc.);
• submit an article about the BAMT to the local, state, or national media;
• engagement of a members’ choosing (with BAMT approval), and;
• more.

Roger had his staff keep track. As soon as each completed at least five of the tasks, he made sure BAMT’s volunteer leaders would recognize these accomplishments at the next membership meeting.

Like most CEOs, Roger was uncertain at first how this might be received.

To his surprise, not only did his new members embrace it, many of his tenured members asked if they could participate as well. Mind you, these were builders…businesspeople…very busy businesspeople!

And yet, when given some very simple guidance, his members willingly assumed these tasks; most finding that by doing so, they benefited directly in some way as well. Participation in this recognition program exceeded Roger’s expectations.

Ultimately, this approach generated other benefits.

It gave Roger and his volunteer leaders the opportunity to interact more routinely with members they didn’t know very well. They got to know more about their backgrounds, achievements, interests, and more. This information was invaluable in ensuring that members understood just how dedicated BAMT was to their success and how determined BAMT was in providing the guidance and support needed to achieve it.

Unfortunately, like most innovations, the fate of this engagement initiative became unclear when Roger left BAMT to become the chief executive officer at the Home Builders Association of Metro Denver. Yet, its ability to inspire new and tenured members cannot be ignored. It just didn’t have sufficient time to be institutionalized as a standard strategy in BAMT’s engagement plan.

That, in no way should diminish its effectiveness. It was then and remains today an incredibly brilliant and subtle way to inspire members to engage.

A sample of BAMT’s pocket/wallet card is available for those interested in replicating this initiative.
Email your request to: info@melosinstitute.org.

Why “Thinking Outside the Box” Matters 
Now More than Ever Before

For decades, volunteer and staff leaders have come to depend on “best practices” when searching for new and better ways to get desired outcomes. That approach might have been sufficient a few years ago. It won’t cut it now.

Why?

Two reasons:

• Because the “best practice” strategies are predicated on these organizations operating as businesses. They do not address the “nature of the box itself”… the root cause(s). As such, they ignore the need to cultivate and shape their specially-defined membership communities. Therefore, there’s no guarantee that the strategy is actually addressing the actual problem.

• They ignore the vast talent pool – the extraordinary power and influence – that exists within the membership. Volunteer and staff leaders too often think that their MBOs’ power and influence is concentrated at the top. They unintentionally have lost sight that while that influence is derived from their membership numbers, it is not absolute. 

No guarantee exists that their lobbying, political action, or litigation will produce positive, permanent, and lasting results. But MBOs are not without a hidden asset: their members. Members have vast social networks; often larger and more consequential than their MBOs’ leadership team. That network- which consists of individuals within their practice settings and without – can be informed and inspired to vote on the members’ behalf.

Social pressure on local, state, and national government officials is far more effective when it comes from the voting citizenry…not just those who represent a considered “special interest.”

Why now?

Members are needed, now more than ever, to address some very serious challenges that did not exist before.

They need to…

• help others in their local social networks learn how to recognize the truths versus the lies being disseminated about their practice settings;
  
• combat other types of misinformation and disinformation that is being disseminated to their family, friends, neighbors, and fellow community members, and;
  
• ensure their MBOs reassert their central role as architects and arbiters of their members’ bodies of knowledge.

By doing so, MBOs play the role their founders intended for them to play in their members’ lives, their members’ practice settings, and in the larger society.

Again, MBOs’ can only do this if American democracy prevails.

MBOs determined to maintain the status quo – to operate as a business – are putting their members, their members’ practice settings, and the fate of the larger society at risk.

MBOs determined to reclaim their inherent role in a functioning democracy – as a force to achieve positive and lasting social change – will play an integral and consequential role in shaping 21^st century America.

They will be able to do this because the “out of the box” strategies they choose will better align with their MBOs’ purpose, scope, focus, and goals. Those that do will find themselves delivering meaningful, purposeful, and transformative experiences to a greater percentage of their members

The tools shared in this post provide a first step toward that end. And, the Melos Institute welcomes those who are interested in learning how they can easily be incorporated into your MBOs’ programming.

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