Our experience has consistently been that a generic call for volunteers rarely generates a response. The most effective tactic we’ve seen across all clients is a personal request from a board member with a very specific description of the task to be undertaken (i.e. what do you want me to do, how long will it take, when will I be done).

In most cases, the best approach may be incremental – in other words, rather than asking someone to take on a particular role for a year, ask someone to put together a lunchtime workshop for January (or some other specific month). Once they’ve performed the task successfully, they might be more inclined to take on more. Of course the other advantage of this approach is that the association isn’t on the hook with this individual beyond that date and can “test” the applicant before making a longer term commitment.

Interesting conversation going on over at SNAP (Social Networking for Association Professionals) about adhoc volunteering ... Cynthia D'Amour shared three great examples:

Tasketeers are basically on-call chapter volunteers who help out when they can or feel like it - no long term commitment. The Tasketeers list is run on old-fashioned email to ask for help when needed, e.g., 2  people needed for 2 hours to do x.

The Jr. League requires members to complete X hours of "Done in a Day" volunteering. She's active in the Jr. League of Ann Arbor, where this has evolved from signing up at general membership meetings to promoting via e-news to now a combination of e-news, meetings and on-line calendar opportunity postings.

Another Ann Arbor organization is a group of single adults who volunteer together as a way to get to know each other as they make a difference. Many opportunities are just for one night (e.g., help out a local charity event) and are promoted via the website and meetings.

Adhoc volunteering, while seemingly new for us in the association world, has been alive and well in the philanthropic world.

“Fake it till you feel it” and “Realize that anything worth doing is worth doing badly” made it on Gretchen Rubin’s list “10 ways to be Happier” in the October 2008 issue of Real Simple. Gretchen’s list is the outcome of what she calls a systemic study of happiness which included a year of test-driving every principle, tip, theory, and scientific study she could find.

These two triggered action on my part because I felt like they are strategies for creating happier volunteers – and a happier me.

Fake it till you feel it … based on the proven adage that feelings follow actions. I can see that if I take the time to do something nice (think an email heads up on a deadline or friendly call reminder or note of thanks) for a volunteer or member who annoys me, I’m bound to feel good. Enough times I’ll feel good (okay less annoyed!) about the person. I’m adding this to my volunteer training!

Realize that anything worth doing is worth doing badly … prompts you to ask if I’m crazy. Gretchen makes a strong case that challenge, novelty and surprise stimulate the brain and are key elements of happiness. People who do new things – learn a new skill, take on a new job, visit a new place – are happier than those who stick with what they know and can do. I’ll use this in my “benefits of volunteering” message. Plus, I’ll steer less than happy volunteers into new opportunities.

Wondering about the other 8 items? Visit Real Simple’s website next month for a link, pick up a copy of Real Simple at your favorite newsstand or email me.

Go ahead, take 5 and check out Real Simple’s Guide to Happiness or Gretchen’s Happiness Project blog.  Share with a grumpy volunteer or member :)

Starbucks, Apple, and Amazon jointly headlined an article in the Washington Post (Sunday, Sept 14, Business Section) last weekend. There were named SAGA companies. According to James Ledbetter and Jacob Weisberg these are the companies that represent a distinctive and distinctively American contribution to 21st century capitalism. More importantly -- or perhaps more simply -- they are the companies many, many Americans actually care about after the company where they or their families work.

What does this have to do with associations? Well, imagine your association was in the top 4 companies that your profession really cared about.

Think about it. Google’s market is about $158 billion, Starbucks about $12 billion. So being a SAGA association would suggest financial viability.

Think about it. Google has transformed how we approach the internet, Starbucks - coffee, Apple - computing and music, and Amazon - books. So being a SAGA association would mean you would have an appreciable impact on your professional’s daily life.

What do SAGA companies have in common? Well you’ll have to read the article for the full details but two characteristics stand out:

• They are restless innovators.
• They engage consumers on an almost spiritual level.

And this is one of the eye-openers in the article ... they’ve all survived a crisis but even then “they’re still companies we want to read about.”

Great conversation going on over at Acronym on how helpful are member needs assessment surveys. Katie Paffhouse started the conversation posting the question "How do your chapters determine member needs?"  Kristi Donovan made the great observation that surveys are "a snapshot in time - if ASAE asked me right now what I needed, I'd tell them what it was right now, but by the time they were able to analyze the data, I will likely be on to something else."

If not a survey, then how? Unfortunately, I think too many aren't even asking how. Some don't even know who. Think of all the national associations that don't collect even registration or volunteer activity at the local level.

What do you collect? How do you use it?

A group of association executives gathered for our monthly networking luncheon in suburban Maryland to talk about the Decision To Volunteer study by ASAE & The Center (read my earlier post). A small group gathered at an ASAE & The Center Idea Swap yesterday as well. In fact there are lots of groups gathering to scratch their heads over the research. It's so new that few have fully digested and for those (like the 23 sponsoring associations) who have attempted we're not sure really how to use. The reality is that right now its more about the questions. Here are few our group started to explore ... your thoughts??

• If members want more ad hoc positions, how do create those - particularly from what we have now?
• And how do fit them into our overall program when we're focused on long-term volunteer?
• As we draw in more ad hoc volunteers, how do recreate our training and orientation programs that are based on long-term volunteers?
• Are programs that are open to all members (check out Associapedia's entry on volunteer program) a solution? What can we learn from those?
• If the younger gen "gets" volunteering, how can we get them to "get" volunteering for us?
• How can we build a volunteer management system that doesn't suck resources?

PS - the association group ANEX meets monthly - drop me a line for an invite!

Another take on membership picked by ever-observant Kevin Holland -- this one does for magazines what Netflix did for movies. All of which gives us food for thought for associations. Hmmm. More here.

Just had an interesting conversation with the president of one of our management clients who is grappling with the opportunity/threat of independent, self-forming networking groups.

• The opportunity?...providing a benefit to underserved segments of the membership.
• The threat?...degradation of the brand if the resulting experience fails to meet expectations.

Background – This client has a fairly large percentage of its membership which does little more than pay dues – the classic checkbook member who would be gone in a heartbeat if the economy or their business goes a little sideways. Given the current state of the economy this is more than a little concern!

The client’s primary offering, rather extravagant monthly events, are extremely popular and have consistently sold out. Expanding capacity is not a viable option, however, due to limited venue inventory and an equally strong concern that the quality of the product would be diminished if expanded beyond the average 150 attendance.

A variety of resource-light, self-forming networks are one of the solutions being explored to partially address the problem, but, right out of the gate, an overly ambitious and somewhat flaky volunteer went way over the top taking what should have been an informal soiree and trying to turn it into a major event with sponsors, door prizes, etc. requiring far more management oversight to execute than the casual event originally intended without the operational quality conrtol standards which governed the associations regular events. Unlike the "virtual" self-forming group snafu described in Ben Martin's February 2008 post, this well-intentioned effort has potentially both a resource and brand liability for the association.

To address this issue, the president and I agreed the board should (at least initially)

• take a more active part in selecting the volunteers who initiate the networking groups to ensure they’re more likely to stick to the party line and
• develop a set of operating parameters for these events which would somewhat constrain the design to ensure they keep the light, casual structure and flavor desired.

I suspect that in the long run the positive experiences will far outnumber the boo-boo’s, but relinquishing control always generates some butterflies.

Yes, I'm sure one could argue this is completely contrary to the fundamental notion of self-forming groups, however, the association's ability to model and reward "good" behavior may eventually provide the impetus for heretofore dormant or hidden groups to emerge. (What if RIAA had started Napster instead...hmm!)

As Jeff De Cagna suggested in his July 2008 blog, "the co-existence of long-standing institutions and self-organizing groups is not only possible, but essential to the creative vibrancy of society, as well as its proper functioning along other dimensions". So ultimately, the most successful associations will be those which find the balance of control and autonomy needed to nurture and support self-forming groups (virtual or otherwise) while effectively protecting their brand and adequately limiting their legal and financial liability.

Over the past couple of years, we've been working with a number of associations on the issue of how to address the struggles of the current chapter. Much of this research, discussion and testing has led us to a couple of observations:

(1) If a chapter does little more than put on a handful of events each year, do they really need a board of directors, or would a “regional event team” with some limited professional support from HQ be sufficient?

(2) Does having a board of directors translate into a substantive advocacy capacity? Or could an association devise a robust advocacy process to be implemented on the fly where and when needed.

(3) We would respectfully suggest there may be a number of less expensive alternatives that don’t require the establishment of “mini-nationals” which require articles of incorporation, by-laws, insurance, board of directors, etc. Think instead of more ad hoc, resource-light structures which have a tightly-focused scope of operation, a clearly-defined mission and meaningful, time-constrained goals.

For sure, there may be some areas where a full-fledged chapter is justified for legal and financial reasons, but do all need that? We are not saying that what the chapters are attempting is not of potential value. In fact, we believe few, if any, national organizations could survive without a local presence. This presence when delivered through the traditional chapter format however produces results which often do not justify the number of volunteer ( not to mention association staff) calories and resources burned.

As we explore the options, we'll add findings and resources to our brand new Chapter of the Future page. Bookmark this and by all means jump into the dialog!

Interesting post from one of my daily reads: "Is ASAE Dying?" asks Maddie Grant. She challenged us further with this question: "Assuming you think ASAE does have a value for you, what should it do as a leadership model to counteract this?"

What makes this even for interesting is that in today's email I was asked to help ASAE in its project to develop membership materials for each professional interest area by answering the questions:

- What is the most important, relevant benefits of membership for professionals in your section?

- What learning program, publication, resource, networking event would you recommend to your peers in your professional interest group?

I'm not sure which questions are more difficult. I just spent two days with a group of key leaders from the National Golf Course Owners Association and I heard similar questions relating to their chapters.

So we all asking really the same thing: do associations offer a value that cannot be delivered by some other entity? I believe that just as there are many different retailers out there for us to shop, there are many different types of communities for us to join. Associations will continue to have relevance as long as they are offering a unique angle - that could be unique service, a unique service delivery method, a unique gathering of people. ASAE and indeed the chapters I spent time with could all die if they believe they don't have to identify and nurture their unique element or if they attend to their governance and management structures more than to their community.

For all of us, the leadership needs to get innovative and gutsy, and be willing to put themselves in the hands of the community ... let the community be actively involved in creating the organization on a day-to-day basis.