The Membership Project - Comments

Good Point

IdleHearts — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:57:32 -0500

Good Point

membership

Matthew Horne — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:06:12 -0400

What a fascinating article

Your last point on commodification of membership offers is a bit depressing

Are we in danger of following not leading public attitudes? Surely fostering a sense of commitment and responsibility to others and the collective endeavour is what membership organisations are for?

And is there room for optimism - there is surely a lot of loyalty still left (once people start volunteering don't they stick? bank accounts? jobs? brands?) - or am I naive

Human Energy

Tessy Britton — Tue, 06 May 2008 07:49:11 -0400

Your points about creating projects to 'bestow' on others are very important. I couldn't agree with you more on that. A great many RSA projects are research based and these often inform the projects. Where I think your open/closed argument is most valid is regarding Fellows who are 'social innovators' by profession, and to some degree they are looking for something fairly substantial through Fellowship, including possible financial support. This could be via a third party. It seems that this is possibly the area where the Fellow/Non Fellow, open/closed question becomes the most complicated?

Although the Third Sector is growing, I think that the RSA needs to be a bit cautious about opening the online platform widely at these early stages. If they are valuing all the Fellow's capacities, which I believe they are, they need to ensure that Fellows are invited to participate in a safe space. At a Regional Dinner a couple of weeks ago I met a new Fellow aged 75. He is an eco activist and farmer whose experience and determination are making him an effective social force. He was going to get his assistant to talk him through how to use the Network's site.

I liked how Daniel Taylor described change: "Change happens because of how we invest our human energy, and it always has since we came down from the trees. Everyone's got a margin of discretionary energy - ten percent, twenty percent - that isn't used up making their way in the world. That's the energy that's available for social change."

In my view the RSA needs to inspire and guide those Fellows who want to participate with their 10-20%, but don't know how, as much as it needs to support those Fellows who are leading figures in social innovation.

Doesn't this lead back to Laura's point about volunteering time - in the RSA's case giving that time to developing RSA projects, and/or giving time to co-creating social projects 'out there'?

re: common space

David Wilcox — Tue, 06 May 2008 05:01:50 -0400

Tessy - thanks. You are getting to the heart of the matter, as I see it. What are the terms of engagement that RSA/Fellows will offer to non-Fellows when they develop civic innovation projects outside the confines of the RSA. Projects must all reach that external stage if they are for social, not just RSA benefit, and are inclusive/engaging not just "done to people".

I agree of course that RSA staff and Fellows may want to develop ideas, and recruit others to an extent in private in the early stages ... though with the caveat that:

not invent here is the biggest stumbling block to subsequent engagement
it is easy to be presumptuous of people's needs if the beneficiaries (i.e. non-RSA people in this case) are not involved early in project design

Supposing a project idea has been developed within RSA to the point that Fellows wish to engage others. What's the proposition? What skills, resources, support will be available from Fellows and staff that are not available elsewhere? And what are the conditions?

I agree people may wish to join RSA if they see it as a vibrant and supportive place ... but should it be a condition of project support? I think that would be very divisive. It is marketing and recruitment, not civic innovation, and I think people would sniff that very quickly.

What's needed, in my view, is some serious "paper prototyping" of project processes, followed by real testing. I argued unsuccessfully for that within RSA, but didn't get anywhere ... which was one reason for leaving! I just couldn't see how RSA Networks would actually work in practice.

Behind all this are, I believe, profound issues of what's the best way to undertake social innovation. After working in community engagement, civic partnerships, social media etc as a consultant for many years I've come to the view that open, collaborative processes are best. I don't think you can trust well-resourced, well-meaning groups of people (aided by consultants) to avoid being presumptous about what "they" need, and then ending up doing things to them, for them, rather than with them.

I know this absolutely is not what RSA staff and Fellows have in mind. But unless the issues are worked through, as well as talked about, it is an easy position to slip into. The first issue for any power holder to address, I think, is "who is this for - and how much involvement will we offer". By definition civic innovation is for people mainly outside RSA, and those wider interests should play a big part in project design and development. If that principle is agreed, then it is important to design back from the external terms of engagement, not just forward from institutional interest.

Thanks again Tessy for promoting this discussion in the open. Although we are discussing RSA as an example - because it is in the lead - the issues apply to any organisation aiming to do good stuff with new stuff.

That's really interesting.

Megan Griffith — Tue, 06 May 2008 04:49:41 -0400

That's really interesting. In the research phase we'd like to find out what membership means to organisations (as well as individuals) and it would be interesting to see how much the attitude you described is expressed.

Common Space

Tessy Britton — Sun, 04 May 2008 15:34:11 -0400

I know that the issue of open and closed access has been one of your major concerns David, and it is a very important issue indeed. I don't feel that I have a determined view of this at this stage, but I most often find myself favouring closed at the current time, purely on the basis that the online platforms are still so new to us all and the transparency is still uncomfortable for many people.

It is also likely that there is a tension within the RSA between benefiting from Fellow's intellectual resources to give real traction to very serious projects.... and ensuring that projects are informed by all the expert help possible both in and out of the Fellowship.

I wonder ultimately it doesn't concern different stages in a project's development and perhaps in that regard your suggestion of more help setting up alternative tools, but linked, is very relevant. The pattern is often to consult within the Fellowship initially and then extend this out using Fellow's external networks as things develop. This seems extremely sensible. Thus new people are drawn into the RSA through their interest in its activity.

What I have questioned on this issue is why someone who was involved in a project working with other RSA Fellows, benefiting from the value of that support resource wouldn't want to become a Fellow if invited/nominated? If part of the benefit of membership includes creating value within the networks this is ultimately going to be very difficult to do outside of that personal commitment?

The Fellows also have to be aware that financial accountability effects these types of decisions. The balance will always be that the subscriptions of the inactive majority will be used to support the active minority and if this increasingly includes non-Fellows this becomes uncomfortable, if not impossible.

Perhaps it is simple a need to create common space for early discussions?

re: even more fuzzy

David Wilcox — Sun, 04 May 2008 13:16:11 -0400

Tessy - I agree that the RSA Networks vision is really interesting: being a member (Fellow) who gets internal benefits, and who also volunteers to work outside the organisation for wider social benefit. The challenge for RSA Networks - as I see it - is how to provide an infrastructure that supports internal benefits, and also the external work. The problem is that a lot of the off the shelf/traditional systems for support focus on the internal benefits - including web systems within a login. It means that they can only support the Fellow/volunteers ... not those they are working with.

If you shift the focus, and ask what support would be necessary for successful projects where those involved are a mix of Fellows and others in the wider community, it become more tricky on the communications front. The options seem to me:

Only support Fellows - but end up with two classes of people on projects: supported Fellows and those unsupported (by RSA)
Open the RSA support systems to those involved in projects who are not Fellows - but risk other Fellows complaining about "dilution" of Fellowship, and increasing demands for system features
Create a support system specifically for RSA Networks projects - but then find difficulties in linkage to other Fellowship-support systems
Help Fellows to create their own communications and other tools necessary for projects

These complications are boundary issues: as soon as someone is a member, others are not members. I'm not involve in RSA Networks these days, but as I understand it they are going for 1 plus maybe some 2. I think that for projects to work well it may be necessary to add sopme 4.

Even more fuzzy

Tessy Britton — Sun, 04 May 2008 09:53:35 -0400

I wonder if the RSA's vision doesn't make things even more complicated. In one respect I am sure they are happy to remain as subscription/member organisation for some, while for others they are encouraging volunteering in RSA projects.... but more vitally they are also encouraging and supporting members to volunteer outside of the organisation - in society more widely.

In this way isn't the RSA embedding itself more effectively within society, rather than standing on its edge? Held together by the network of Fellows....

When people ask me what the £130 is for I usually say 'to support the future'.

For nearly all the more charitable or interest based organisations membership as a rule includes generosity, in whatever form: support, money, time, effort, loyalty.

Thanks Laura for such an interesting discussion post!

Members and Volunteers

Aleavy — Fri, 02 May 2008 15:38:23 -0400

It's interesting, I think some groups might prefer membership as it connotes support and ownership by those so labeled. Member supported radio, etc.

But in a way it also suggests a strange possesion of that person by the organization. These are OUR members. That exclusivity seems to be more focused on who we can capture and mange. It's a strange dynamic. To what extent is our work about supporting people, citizens trying to create impact in areas of great need and how much is our need (rightfully or otherwise) to be able to capture, count and mobilize them to support OUR work.

Social networking and disabled people

Julie Howell — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:28:42 -0400

Hello again,

Just wanted to add that I chaired a panel debate at a conference last Friday that was hosted by the disability technology charity AbilityNet http://www.abilitynet.org.uk

The subject was disabled people's access to and participation in social networking. Many social networks and social utilities are not very accessible to disabled people and as a result many of those who could benefit most are left out in the cold.

I'm also chair of a BSI technical committee that's about to produce a new British Standard for web accessibility. Given the times in which we live, access to social networking must be an essential theme within this (though we've yet to decide on the content of the standard at time of writing). Do keep an eye on those developements as whatever RSA decides to do, access for disabled people should be considered a crucial element.

Best,

Julie Howell

Director of Accessibility, Fortune Cookie

www.juliehowell.co.uk

Thanks Michael for your

Tessy Britton — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 05:52:54 -0400

Thanks Michael for your response - big fan of your model.

Customer and members

David Wilcox — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:54:19 -0400

This is interesting stuff, and we need a framework for thinking about the nature of different relationships. Fascinating cross-overs. Some brands command strong affinity - e.g. Apple "customers" feel more like a club and community. Some organisations just treat members as consumer/subscribers.

I'm particularly interested in what attitude organisations have in making their "offer". Is it marketing or engagement?

Hi Sophia - I found this

Tessy Britton — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:58:15 -0400

Hi Sophia - I found this post very inspiring.

What used to happen of course is that the 'strategy' was invisible and we would just marvel at the results. I like very much the openness of this process at the RSA and I think it is an important aspect of its long term success. By understanding the ideas behind the actions it helps all the Fellows develop a more constructive perspective on time scales and developments.

I wish I had read this before writing elsewhere that I don't like the boat turning metaphor ..... but in my view the RSA is currently more like a rather exciting swirling animation of human thought, enthusiasm and goodwill!

Thanks David for your

Tessy Britton — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:41:31 -0400

Thanks David for your interesting comment. I am curious about the difference between members and customers and this definition seems important. Customers seem to people that buy your product or service and largely don't need to be connected to one another. Members seem to be people to 'join' something for a 'mutual relationship' as you describe, with both the organisation and the other members. The difference is community I think?

There are a number of businesses which attempt or have already tried to create online communities with customers, forums etc. When the motivation for creating these communities is to sell more to the existing customers then I think this can diminish some of the genuine membership communities... Or not? What do you think?

When people refer to the 'membership offering' it seems once again that the judgement is one sided i.e. what can the organisation do for me.... rather than what we can do together?

Connection Culture

Michael Lee Stallard — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:33:48 -0400

Tessy,

An e-book I wrote entitled "The Connection Culture: A New Source of Competitive Advantage" was recently published by changethis.com. My Google Alerts picked up your blog post because you used the term "Connection Culture."

In the speaking, writing and training my colleagues and I do with organizations, we specifically outline the responsibilities of both members and leaders. As you say in your post, responsibilities go both ways. Provided that members have received the benefits of membership (including the Vision, Value and Voice elements in a Connection Culture), they have the responsibility to give their best efforts to execute the decisions made by the individuals who have been given decision-making authority. We also tell leaders that they need to be careful about going against the consensus view because the consensus is usually right. That's not always the case, however. Leaders should be held accountable for the decisions they've made so that if in their judgement the right decision differs from the consensus view, they need to make that decision and "Committed Members" have the responsibility to execute it to the best of their ability. When Don Regan ran Merrill Lynch in the late 70s, Regan made the decision to launch the Cash Management Account (CMA) even thought the vast majority at Merrill was against it. The CMA turned out to be a major innovation in financial services and a huge success for Merrill Lynch and its clients. The consensus is not infallible. It was a consensus that executed Socrates and elected Hitler. It's wise for all of us to keep these examples in mind.

A Connection Culture provides the best political, economic and social system to make and execute decisions. For more about the Connection Culture, you can download my free e-book at this link: changethis.com/44.06.ConnectionCulture

All the best,

Michael Lee Stallard

President

E Pluribus Partners

Greenwich, Connecticut