I believe understanding and measuring member engagement is not a fad; it’s a critical part of every association’s long-term survival and relevance.
When associations measure member engagement, they discover that some portion of the membership (20%? 30%? 50%?) is not engaged at all and the natural tendency is to say “We need to do something to get these members engaged!”
It’s an understandable reaction, but in many cases, it may be a mistake to spend too much time and energy trying to get your disengaged members more engaged. And here’s why: some members won’t engage, but will always renew. Click here to read the rest of the article.
Of course, if you’re already on my announcements list, you would have received notice of this new article right in your email box. Not signed up yet? Click here to sign up.
You bring up a good point about the difference between attitudinal engagement and behavioral engagement. If I don’t attend a meeting or volunteer for a committee, it only means I am not behaviorally engaged. I am engaged attitudinally because I support the good work of the association and am happy to just pay my dues every year.
I think attitudinal engagement is more common among professional societies than trade associations where a company tends to justify expenditures against an ROI, not a feeling. NACUBO seems like an exception. Individuals are more apt to pay dues to feel good about their support of their profession or a cause important to them than companies are.
An association may not need to spend resources trying to move attitudinally engaged members to behaviorally engaged members but that doesn’t mean this group should be ignored. We still need to make sure that they continue to be aware of the reasons why they are members. Putting time and energy into making sure we communicate appropriately to this group will ensure they “just” keep paying those dues every year.
MP, great point. You certainly shouldn’t take the attitudinally engaged for granted.