Building a better member
The November/December 2009 issue of Miller-McCune magazine features a great article titled "Building a Better Citizen," which cites a slew of research showing that local governments that actively seek citizen involvement in the democratic process create healthier, happier communities. Essentially, the key to building a better citizen is get the citizen more involved in his or her local community and government.
This really isn't earth shattering, but I see a lot of parallels in this idea to volunteerism and member engagement at associations. The article (which isn't available online, sadly was posted online Nov. 2) highlights Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam's idea of "social capital":
Putnam coined the term "social capital," to describe the intangible, value-laden benefits of a strong network of community relationships. In short, he argued, things like trust and cooperation—the building blocks of democratic governance—are products of positive, sustained social interaction. [...]
Putnam's research revealed that communities where social capital is high are more likely to experience lower school dropout rates, less crime, fewer hospitalizations, and higher rates of economic growth ... .
This fits nicely with findings from Decision to Volunteer and the Economic Impact studies:
- The most common ways an association volunteer first learns of a volunteer opportunity:
- Through a local chapter or section;
- At a meeting, conference, or other event;
- By being asked by another volunteer. (DTV)
- The primary indicator of future attendance at a meeting or event is past attendance. (Econ.)
So, to recap: direct opportunities for involvement → initial involvement → social interaction → continued engagement → high "social capital," → a healthy, happy community (or association).
The most important message from the article, however, is that the onus is on governments to drive involvement. "... Americans seem ready to re-engage, but they also, somewhat paradoxically, expect government to pave the way. [...] In other words, Americans need cajoling."
Same goes for associations. It's your job to get the ball rolling. That first item in the arrow trail above is all on you as an association leader. Fall short, and none of the rest happens, but once members do get involved, they're significantly more likely to continue engaging. That's how you build a better member.
Again, this isn't a new idea, nor is it rocket science, but it's interesting to see the parallels between community/government involvement and association volunteerism and engagement. If you can get your hands on the print edition of Miller-McCune, that article is worth a read.
I have a big idea rolling around in my mind about the best catalyst for member involvement, but I'll save that for another post next week. (You're welcome to share your ideas, though, of course.)
| | Permalink |
Comments
I never have big ideas myself, at least not in the past decade, but a couple comments.
I recall that having a more involved citizenry coupled with immigration-driven xenophobia was one of the major drivers for the creation of a publicly funded education system in America in the late 1800s. A better educated populace can certainly be involved and mentally engaged in at least some basic way, although in a world subject to leisure-oriented distractions and very conducive to free-ridership, we have to have good hooks to encourage involvement as well.
I know little about the numbers behind local government civic engagement, but I bet it's far fewer than the typical number of association members we find involved in some way shape or form in volunteer activities (6%-10% in most surveys). They are probably also shooting for both quantity and quality--just as many of our associations couldn't function well if 30% of our members wanted to be heavily involved, so too should local governments want more dialogue and idea exchange without having to create more formal posts and more venues to help citizens air their opinions & greivances.
Putnam's social capital theories have been very influential among philanthropic nonprofits and I think it's a team effort among all entities--governments, associations, religious entities, charities--to try to engage people to be part of something slightly larger than themselves or their families.
Posted by: Kevin Whorton | October 30, 2009 5:53 AM
Thanks Kevin. I like that you mentioned public education, because there's another parallel there between public education and member engagement: in both cases, their positive effects are common sense but difficult to measure, and thus hard to fund.
With a better education system, we create smarter people. But smarter people don't inherently make a community a better place. It's all the little things that smart people tend to do (get jobs, spend money wisely, etc.) and not do (crime, etc.) that make the community better. Those effects take years to happen and are hard to link directly back to education.
In the same way, engaged members don't inherently make an association better. But the things they tend to do more than mailbox members (renew their memberships, attend meetings, share knowledge, buy additional resources, recruit other members, etc.) positively affect the association. But again, these effects are difficult to link back to money spent on driving engagement, at least directly.
The article indicated that local governments in the examples it cited of successful citizen engagement had taken a leap of faith that was somewhat unusual in government but had proven worthwhile. I think the same might go for getting members engaged. You have to do all you can to bring them into the fold and then hope that the association comes out better for it down the road.
Posted by: Joe Rominiecki | October 30, 2009 9:49 AM