October 2: Retention Issues

I've been meaning to think about retention issues for a while now: after being stubbornly silent on the issue a few weeks ago, it was suggested that I'd write up a book chapter in a few days. I knew that wouldn't happen - there's a whirlwind of things going on - but I also knew I wanted to return to the subject at some point.

The issue of members joining and then dropping out of a group seems almost universal. However, it's difficult to gauge from the membership of an organization what their dropout rate actually is. If the equation goes members = people joining - people leaving, we typically only see the 'members' side of that equation. I think of the particularly successful SSMU services. One example is MSERT, that's entirely volunteer run (from when I checked over the summer). But I don't know whether their numbers are due to successful retention or a continued influx of new members.

Something taken for granted in these conversations is that low retention indicates larger problems. The assumption might be true, but I think it's misleading, because there are factors out of our control that really determine retention rates, and some fields are going to be plagued by dropout by virtue of their mission. Everyone that goes into MSERT has an idea of what they're signing up for. MSERT has already done the work of determining a gap in student support, and deciding what actions are needed to fill that gap. New members don't need to face existential questions of why MSERT exists. All they need to do is what they've signed up for: pretend to be paramedics. The same goes for Midnight Kitchen, and the Flat. Meanwhile, a group that has changing strategies to address an issue requires a higher level of intellectual investment. It's difficult to pitch the group to a newcomer, or to give a newcomer a specific idea of what membership entails. If my case-study group wanted to increase retention, it should probably focus on one front-facing task and drop its other responsibilities. But that would come at a high cost. The most likely cause of bleeding members is that the work a group does is arduous and emotionally draining. That being said, I think some strategizing can decrease dropout..

If I was a consultant - not that I should be - I would give the following tips:

1. Have a barrier to admission, while not limiting the number of members for no reason. I like the idea of a probationary period, although it needs monitoring. I think the Daily's contribution points are a success I've seen, and the UGE and CTF are partial successes.
2. Make membership fun. Consciously try to foster friendships between members. The Daily encourages prospective members to come during the most enjoyable periods - editing the editorial as a group, or going through our weekly review of the last week's articles.
3. Don't complain. An instinct when we're afraid of losing new people is to try make these people feel indispensable. I imagine this comes from a fear that new members won't feel invited or important. But, however disappointingly, a group should also be on performance-mode in the presence of someone new. That means no complaining about how the group might collapse, there's no money, there are interpersonal issues, etc.
4. Leave existential questions to a select few. I like to go back to the roots with QM - how can we best represent queer interests? How do we shape the identity of QM? What is its identity, and in what direction is it moving? But these questions, which hint at existential uncertainty, can create a bad impression for folks just wanting to volunteer with other gay people.
5. Leave structure and tradition making to a select few. It's exciting for founders to create structures and traditions. But new members typically want to add personal touches onto an already solid base. It's best for a small number of people to make these decisions - how do we run our meetings? what platform do we share documents on? how frequently do we meet? before recruitment.
6. Decide what expectations you have for new members. Again, people like to avoid having to think about their role and their impact as they learn the ropes of a group.
7. Be honest about expectations and tasks. This might seem to contradict the don't complain point, but having a slightly contrived optimism about the group and being clear about expectations aren't mutually exclusive. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to join a group and realize that the work is not for them, but if it's happening a lot, this might indicate a difficulty for the group to articulate what membership entails.
8. At first, leave the most tedious tasks to seasoned members. It can be tempting to foist off communications, finance, or meeting planning onto a new person, but the maintenance part of an organization should be done by someone who cares about the org first. This is both because tedious tasks will cause people to leave before they get sucked in to caring, and also because you don't want to be screwed if they do leave.
9. This is more of a personal preference, but I like to drip-feed new members. Limiting newcomers to a small percentage of members protects against a general atmosphere of confusion or sudden shift in organization identity.

At the end of the day, some work is arduous, and groups should grapple with the kind of questions that are off-putting to newcomers. The trick is learning when and how to delegate this underbelly of organizing.