Achieving a high degree of member engagement, for most associations, has proven to be as elusive as finding the Holy Grail. So much so that many volunteer and staff leaders have convinced themselves that expecting such an outcome has become unrealistic.
Most find themselves accepting the popular notion that the majority of their members choose not to engage because they are, in fact, “too busy.”
Yet, more recent findings, by the Melos Institute, have proven that members are interested and willing to engage. The barrier, interestingly enough, has not been their availability but their familiarity of how to do so in ways that matter most to them.
What has prompted this long-standing misunderstanding?
More importantly, what impact and influence might an association have and/or enjoy if a majority of their members were actively and routinely engaged?
Before revealing how that can happen, let’s begin by reflecting on why member engagement is existential to associations.
Long-recognized Benefits
Engagement provides associations with the opportunity to:
- Reinforce their role as the “representative and voice” of their members’ profession, trade, or personal avocation (i.e., practice setting)…particularly in the public policy arena;
- Serve as the recognized leader in defining, shaping, and advancing the core content, technologies, and standards related to the body of knowledge specific to their members’ practice setting, and;
- Be viewed as the preferred source of accurate and timely information, knowledge, and tools that members need to become and remain competent in their roles.
Relax, I didn’t overlook what, many staff professionals consider the most important benefit:
- Ensure the associations’ long-term sustainability!
If associations provide benefits that impact and support members personally and professionally – including their fields of endeavor – then why has it been so difficult for so long for associations to inspire their engagement?
Lots of reasons have been proffered over the decades. Then, they were reinforced routinely in a multiplicity of surveys and studies.
Until recently, none focused their methodology on listening to members’ stories.
Members’ stories provided the Institute with an insight that finally explained why the existing assumptions – like “members are too busy” – were, for the most part, unfounded. Most members were attracted to their associations because of the wide range of programs, products, and services offered.
Within their accounts, a pattern formed. Their reluctance was prompted by two things:
- Understand or appreciate what it means to be a member (i.e., a citizen with rights and privileges as well as duties and obligations), and;
- Know how to navigate their MBOs to gain access to that which will fulfill their immediate and specific expectations.
Hard to imagine.
Yet, based on the Institute’s various applied research initiatives, most association management professionals are as unaware.
Further analysis of their stories generated another pattern:
- Those who engaged routinely did so because someone (i.e., fellow member or staff professional) serendipitously provided the guidance and support they needed; allowing them to engage in very specific ways as well as meet those members who could be of immediate and direct support to them.
In essence, access to information was the attraction but relationship-building was the key to their ongoing and expanded involvement. The ability for social connections to evolve into meaningful relationships was the driving motivation.
Members’ stories revealed the degree to which they sought acceptance, recognition, and validation from their peers. It was critically important. So much so, that it influenced their decision to engage or not.
And yet, though this phenomenon has existed since the first was established, it has not been something that has been commonly discussed or studied. As a result, very little attention has been given to strategies that improve group dynamics and/or build lasting social cohesion.
For decades, many used the term membership community merely as a descriptor – a concept – to describe the membership. But, few ever went so far as to recognize and proclaim these groups reflected the qualities and characteristics of an actual community; albeit portable and specially defined and definitely not just digital.
This discovery was a major step toward realizing just how inherently different associations were from for-profit and other nonprofit organizations.
The Institute realized that members, in their own way, have, for a very long time, been trying to tell us this.
It prompted the Institute’s applied researchers to ask:
What are the implications if associations are more than just institutions
requiring governance and management?
What does it mean that they also possess
specially-defined membership communities?
In searching for those answers, a host of revelations resulted…beginning with an analysis of their emergence, formation, development, and operations.
Associations as Agents of Positive Social Change
An extraordinary analysis of the published histories of over 400 associations, conducted by James R. Hudson, Ph.D., confirmed that, since their inception in America, these institutions were responsible for making innumerable contributions not just to their members’ practice settings, but also to the larger society.
The most important, however, was defining the eligibility criteria for membership. By doing so, the founders – knowingly or unknowingly – established the boundaries of their practice settings; something that did not previously exist. This created specially-defined (albeit portable) communities within the larger society.
Those within that defined universe who joined became members of their specially-defined membership communities; possessing all the qualities and characteristics of geographically-based communities.
From that research, Dr. Hudson concluded:
Associations,
more specifically those representing professions, trades, and personal avocations,
exist to generate and advance positive social change
for their members, their members’ practice settings, and the larger society.
Unfortunately, many of the contributions associations’ have made for the larger society have become so normalized over time that few know their true origin.
His analysis also revealed:
Associations – individually and collectively –
have played, do play, and are inherently designed to play
an essential role in shaping and advancing functioning democracies.
Their contributions are so consequential that they should be viewed and treated distinctly as membership-based organizations (MBOs).
Not convinced? Consider this:
MBOs, based on their inherent purpose/mission,
influence everything we “see, hear, touch, smell, taste, and feel.”
Dr. Hudson’s unparalleled analysis of those histories also revealed a critical fact about the nature and scope of their contributions to their members, their members’ practice settings, and the larger society:
“No modern democratic society can function
without associations that represent professions, trades, and personal avocations.
Individually and collectively,
they play an unparalleled role in shaping America.”
What exactly do MBOs do that makes them so consequential?
Lifelong Learning: An Underestimated Benefit
MBOS’ founders established these organizations for a very specific reason. No, it wasn’t to establish a robust public policy presence. Remember, most of these organizations were established when their practice settings were barely recognized and too often misunderstood and mistrusted.
What they wanted most was to secure the legitimacy and respect from others in their practice settings as well as from the larger society. They knew the only way to achieve that was to empower members to develop the competencies and capacities necessary to perform effectively in their practice settings.
In essence, their founders created lifelong learning opportunities for their members and others in their members’ practice settings. They did so because nothing else existed…including academic degree programs (which would come much later).
Thus, their efforts included:
- Defining and shaping the boundaries, scope, and focus of their field of endeavor (including terms, effective processes, and acceptable standards), and;
- Confronting threats and challenges that –if unaddressed – would negatively impact their members’ ability to serve and/or support their clients, customers, or patients.
In the early days, when their numbers were small, members found it easy to establish relationships in their specially-defined membership communities with fellow members. Those connections generated a high degree of social cohesion within the membership. As the membership grew and expanded, MBOs found it difficult to maintain the same social solidarity.
Unaware of its importance, most volunteer and staff leaders left the relationship-building responsibility to their members. Over time, along with the notion that MBOs needed to operate as businesses, many members complained of “losing the camaraderie” that existed when they were smaller.
As more and more traditional transaction-based business management strategies were introduced, these distinctive communities were view and treated as target audiences. Members were considered customers. The notion that they were citizens was abandoned.
This pattern of growth, development, transformation, and impact
was found to be consistent in most every published history.
During all this, Dr. Hudson recognized something that the founders didn’t fully appreciate: the role their MBOs were also playing in supporting and sustaining a functioning democracy. His findings were recently (albeit informally) confirmed by Ken Burns, noted historian and documentarian.
During his research about the American Revolution, Burns was struck by just how profound and impactful the founding principle was that the Founding Fathers incorporated into the framework for their new Republic: that everyone possessed “inherent potential.”
They believed that empowering the citizens of this new nation to achieve that end would create “riches of talent for the nation.”
But this additional finding is where MBOs play their consequential role. Burns recognized that:
“…the pursuit of happiness did not mean
the acquisition of things in a marketplace of objects.”
Instead, it was an opportunity to pursue…
“…lifelong learning in a market place of ideas.”
It’s not clear if Benjamin Franklin intentionally designed America’s first MBO – the American Philosophical Society – with that in mind. Yet, every one founded since has followed the same organizational model: representative governance and management…focused primarily on lifelong learning.
MBOs were and are inherently designed to identify, compile, analyze, convert, and disseminate information and knowledge…to their members, to those in their practice settings, and to the larger society. They exist to deliver lifelong learning on a number of dimensions.
Unfortunately, this function has been overshadowed by another that many feel generates more consequential outcomes: public policy.
The reality is that learning opportunities generate permanent change.
Political initiatives, of any kind (i.e., lobbying, political action, litigation),
have proven to only generate temporary change.
Further, in today’s environment, those strategies neither deliver nor guarantee desired outcomes can be achieved…and if achieved, will be respected.
The point is that MBOs’ presence is essential to ensuring a functioning democracy…especially as societies become more sophisticated, complex, interconnected, and interdependent.
MBOs are not just organizations with members.
They are organizations that have an interdependent relationship
with their specially-defined membership communities.
These distinctive communities have members who live and work in very specific geographic communities…and have established trust and legitimacy with those who live and work within them.
Why is that important?
It is because members aren’t just expected to contribute their information, knowledge, experiences, expertise, and connections in their MBOs or practice settings.
They are also expected to do so in every other type of community.
But they won’t unless or until they are asked.
Why is that essential now more than ever?
Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation
When it comes to information, Americans are caught in a bind trying to distinguish that which is real and that which is not. The advent of new technologies coupled with the cooptation and consolidation of media sources has expanded the opportunity for many to flood society with a great deal of misinformation and disinformation.
Gone are the days where agreed-upon facts were used to deliberate issues. Too much time is wasted debating which is more accurate: facts or alternative facts.
It’s no surprise then that many in the larger society become exhausted trying – on their own – to determine which is which. No society can function effectively when facts are in dispute. When misinformation and disinformation is accepted as fact new norms are then introduced into the culture.
Many wonder if, where, and how this can be resolved.
Can a society find its way back from this insanity?
We know that democracies fail when lies become facts…
when facts become debatable…
when alternative facts are considered as valid as previously agreed upon facts.
Many scholars believe it can…but only if the strategy begins at the local level…where meaningful relationships can more easily be built and maintained based on mutual trust and respect. At the core of this social interaction lies the ability to share and exchange accurate and truthful information.
Disseminating accurate and truthful information
is exactly what MBOs were inherently designed to do.
Members have developed a trusted and positive reputation with others in their geographic communities. They live and work in settings that allow them to inform and educate others; especially when misinformation or disinformation about their practice settings is being spread.
Members, if given the opportunity, can play a key role in mitigating the damage that misinformation and disinformation can have on their practice settings. With sufficient guidance and support, members of all MBOs can serve as information monitors and advisors (i.e., truth tellers) within their personal and professional social networks.
And by doing so, they play a key role in ensuring, protecting, and advancing a functional democracy.
No MBO, regardless how well-funded an outreach effort, can compete with the breadth, depth, and efficacy of their members’ reach. Or, have the capacity to have their comments be as well-received by those with whom they interact.
At the moment, unfortunately, MBOs cannot pursue such a strategy until they recognize that their members possess all the qualities and characteristics of a specially-defined membership community.
An endeavor of this kind can only be successful
if MBOs recognize the need to build, foster, and secure
a high degree of social cohesion between and among members.
Fortunately, it can be done without MBOs having to dedicate enormous resources.
And, as the Institute has proven, the more attention that is given to helping members establish meaningful social connections, the faster MBOs will create specially-defined membership communities with a high degree of social cohesion.
How is that possible if member engagement in MBOs is currently such a challenge?
Adjusting Traditional Transaction-based Management Strategies to be More Relation-centered
Relation-centered management (RCM) is a multi-faceted and multi-dimensional process, specifically designed for MBOs, that adjusts existing (and creates new) strategies to give members the guidance and support needed to advance the needs, interests, goals, and aspirations.
Recognizing that information and knowledge form the foundation and framework of any practice setting, it also focuses greater attention on strategies that ensure the accuracy and efficacy of the bodies of knowledge specific to their members’ fields of endeavor.
Let me assure you that it all sounds far more complex than it is.
Surprisingly, its application into MBOs’ operations can be introduced over time; allowing space for volunteer and staff leaders to…
- Replace long-standing assumptions with evidence-based ones.
For example: While members are busy and always have been, proof exists that they are eager to learn how to engage in ways that matter most to them. - Accept the unintentional impact that using traditional transaction-based business management strategies have had on member engagement.
For example: Viewing and treating members as customers has trained them to behave as such. Customers generally wait for the best offer and rarely contribute their information, knowledge, experiences, expertise and connections to advance the company’s goals. But members, as citizens, are expected and inspired to do so. - Recognize that an MBO’s specially-defined membership community as an extraordinary and unparalleled asset. As such, commit to creating strategies that build, foster, and generate a high degree of social cohesion between and among members.
For example: Members possess the “core technology.” Their contributions form the basis for their MBOs’ programs, products, and services. They will always know more about their practice settings than the professional staff (even in cases where members become staff). Their collective depth and breadth of their reach into the practice setting will always surpass that of their MBOs. And, when strategies are well-planned, members also benefit from their willingness to share their information, knowledge, experiences, expertise and connections. - Acknowledge that members are wholly unaware of what it means to be a member; that they are citizens of their MBOs’ specially-defined membership communities not customers of the same.
For example: Citizens are afforded rights and privileges AND are expected to fulfill specific duties and obligations. Members’ reticence to engage is less related to their availability and more about their familiarity of how to do so in ways that matter most to them.
For more details about RCM along with examples of how existing strategies and programs are adjusted to reflect its principles, review the two posts below:
And, review these two tools specifically developed to enlighten volunteer and staff leaders as well as members (others are available on the Institute’s website):
- 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
Pilot testing of these concepts and products, by the Institute, has proven that members’ attitudes, behaviors, and actions do respond quickly; and often in ways that defy expectations. Members who learn how to navigate their MBOs to gain access to what they need, when they need it and in a format that works for them often develop a faster and deeper affinity with them.
Further, their engagement increases and expands in new, routine, and lasting ways…like combatting misinformation and disinformation about their practice settings in their local communities.
Why?
Volunteering in this way is not a sacrifice but a judicious use of their time; one which delivers immediate and direct benefits.
Making a Decision: Increase Engagement or Maintain the Status Quo
History reminds us that once something is lost, it’s very hard to restore.
Those seeking to undermine society’s confidence in members’ practice settings and American democracy are counting on MBOs to remain on the sidelines.
Misinformation and disinformation have already caused great damage not just to your members’ practice settings but also to our democracy. Unfortunately, it’s not a phase that will pass in time. It’s here to stay. Volunteer and staff leaders have the opportunity to play a critical role mitigating further destruction to our civil society.
Based on the Institute’s pilot testing with MBOs, volunteer and staff leaders are often stunned to see their members respond so quickly and enthusiastically to simple relation-centered adjustments.
Dr. Hudson’s ground-breaking and unparalleled research has led us to a better understanding of MBOs and their role in their members’ lives, their members’ practice settings, and the larger society. It has helped us recognize that these organizations, to be effective, need a management model uniquely designed for them.
It’s time to stop hoping that traditional transaction-based management strategies will generate lasting outcomes. They haven’t done so for decades. Further, their use has unintentionally undermined member engagement.
MBOs are faced with a rare opportunity to accept their inherent role…take the lead in advancing positive social change in their members’ lives, their members’ respective practice settings, and the larger society.
In doing so, MBOs have the opportunity
to play a key role in fulfilling a promise
made by our Founding Fathers…
allow everyone to realize their inherent potential
by participating in lifelong learning.
—————————————-
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
