“It’s Too Staff Intensive”: Really?
I'm in a lot of professional networking groups. We talk about different programs that organizations can offer their members, how new offerings could work, and we try to figure out why some organizations don't give the members what they want even after repeated requests.
There’s always someone who points out that the program (whichever one we happen to be discussing) is “too staff intensive” – that’s why we don’t do it. This is an example of how humans like to make everything harder than it needs to be or find obstacles instead of pathways. If you're like me you look for the possible. You don't say we can't; you say how can we? It may not turn out exactly as you imagine but you can find a way to deliver services or experiences if you seek options. But in my opinion, you don’t say “it’s too staff intensive” so we won’t try. As a former association staff person, I’ve heard this line before and sadly I’ve even said it.
But I now think that this is wrong thinking. If we don’t have the staff to do the programs that the members are requesting (within reason of course) then maybe we need to re-examine our staffing priorities.
When it comes to providing services that the members are interested in that are actually part of the mission, like mentoring programs, I will say you're darn right it’s staff intensive. It should be staff intensive because anything that we do should be done well. This requires a dedicated staff person for certain programs that bring value even if they are not bringing in revenue. Value is not about the money; value is about relevance and how it relates to mission fulfillment.
A great example of a “staff intensive” program that doesn’t generate revenue is any chapter relations program out there. While delivering intangible value, chapter programs do not generate revenue outside dues that may be paid for the chapter membership. In a chapter program, you are probably sending money to the chapters -- not receiving it. Yet, for these programs to be successful, you need “staff intensity” to deliver the needed services.
We are not here to sell meeting registrations and books even though sometimes these are important parts of our non-dues revenue stream. What’s interesting about selling meeting registrations or books is that you rarely hear people say these are too staff intensive. No one questions these services despite how much time and energy staff spends on these pursuits.
I can make the argument that an annual conference is incredibly staff intensive and doesn't yield the return on investment of all the time and effort put into it. But in our profession, we don't make that argument because bringing our members together is an important part of mission fulfillment. And because it is attached to a lot of dollars coming in people seem to think it's a good use of time. Most of the time associations make money on their conferences but I doubt they net enough profit to really cover all the time and energy a conference needs to be any type of successful.
Associations are not just about making money; people join associations for connection and knowledge and for personal professional development. People do not join associations to spend money; if they wanted to join something so they could spend money they could just go to Costco.
Being responsive to member requests, needs, and wants is an important part of why associations exist.
With that in mind, the next time you are tempted to say that a program or service is “too staff intensive,” I encourage you to think about how you can make things happen rather than blocking the suggestion. Of course, not all suggestions are good ones, but providing services that members request that are related to the mission is why we are here.
“Too staff intensive” is not a reason to ignore offering a program of value. Anything we do in associations is staff intensive; it’s why association professionals have jobs.