Invitation Only – Then Why Join?
Associations like to say if you join you will be part of a larger community. You will have options for participation and connection. It's a great way to get involved and contribute to your profession. As someone who has been a member of several associations throughout my career, I have found it incredibly frustrating when I hear people say that is a “clique” that runs everything. But we create this attitude by asking the same people over and over again to participate rather than offering opportunities to a broader group. We perpetuate this attitude by using a process that only allows certain people to participate.
And I’m not talking about Board members or other elected or appointed leaders. These positions are public and those serving in them are selected in a process that is at least communicated even if it is closed.
I am always taken aback and frustrated when I hear that an association I belong to has groups doing work that I've never heard about – and only learn what’s going on through happenstance. I hear of advisory groups or committees that are formed yet never made public. When I ask how people got on these committees or advisory groups, I find out it's invitation only. When you dig deeper you see that it is usually the same people being invited over and over again.
Nothing against these people who really get to participate in the life of the association; who wouldn’t want to have that option? But I think what it ends up doing is creating an echo chamber and creating a negative attitude among the broader membership. I have to wonder what is the point of joining if you don't get to really participate in an association. There seems to be a shadow membership that gets lots of opportunities. But what about the rest of the membership?
What is so top secret about these activities that the organization can't announce them to the general membership -- even if they're not open for people to apply? Would it really violate some policy if you just let people know what you're doing? I find this outdated approach especially detrimental in an era with multiple options for membership. If you create a clique or insider atmosphere members will pick up on it and do the bare minimum, or even worse, take their time and money elsewhere.
Should people be recognized for their contributions by asking them to join special activities? Yes of course they should. But do we really need to have these secret meetings of hidden groups? Is it a good idea to keep creating these barriers to participation?
As we continue forward into this rapidly changing century, which is increasingly full of dissension, do we really need to plant the seeds of “us v. them” in our own associations? We talk a good game about transparency yet seem to think it’s okay not to practice it. There’s really no good reason to join if only a favored few get to participate in the REAL life of the association.
Membership cannot include a favored few with special access. Society isn’t fond of the economic “1%” class -- associations shouldn’t create their own version of it.
