1. Voluntary Associations in Theoretical Context

Organization theorists and researchers have largely ignored voluntary associations. The extensive review of the organizational research literature by Tolbert and Hall (2010) continues in its 10^th edition to virtually ignore about 50 million associations in the world, as estimated by Smith (2014b) from many empirical studies. In addition, handbooks and encyclopedias on nonprofit organization theory and research have only devoted a tiny amount of their space to nonprofit associations (Anheier 2005; Anheier, Toepler, and List 2010; Burlingame 2004; Powell and Steinberg 2006). Although some general theory about associations exists (Knoke 1990; Smith 2000; Smith 2016b, 2016d), a review of the research literature on membership associations (Tschirhart 2006) concluded that association research remains a largely unintegrated set of findings needing a more comprehensive theory.

Therefore, in this section, we discuss some economic theories of non-profit organizations (see, for example, Hansmann 1987) to determine whether the propositions and empirical findings of these theories can be useful in analyses of non-profit associations. In particular, we investigate how theories about the objectives, formation, and prevalence of voluntary associations fit the broader economic theories of non-profit organizations.

2. The Life Cycles of All-Volunteer Associations

The topic of this sub-section is dealt with at length in Handbook Chapter 37. In summary here we may say that there has been only a modest amount of research on this subject and few attempts to develop related theories.

3. Internal Structures and Processes in All-Volunteer Associations

In his book Grassroots Associations, Smith (2000; see also Smith 2004, 2010a, 2010b, 2015a) constructed the first comprehensive general theory of associations, with a central focus on Grassroots Associations (GAs). Smith’s theory is the first to fill the large theory gap identified by Knoke (1986:2) in his review of research and theory on associations: “Put bluntly, association research remains a largely unintegrated set of disparate findings, in dire need of a compelling theory to force greater coherence upon the enterprise.” Tschirhart (2006:536) has erroneously stated that, “such earlier assessments still hold today.” Her review of research on associations was not comprehnsive in its coverage and depth of understanding of the solid theoretical progress made in the past few decades.

Smith’s (2000) theory of Grassroots Associations (GAs) covers several major areas of structure and process presented here as selected propositions from each chapter of Part II. Smith derived the theory inductively by reading about 2,000 published books and articles and citing 948. He also drew on 60 years of participant observation experience in a wide variety of GAs in his life.

(a) Founder choices

Table 3.1(Smith 2000:89) indicates that GAs (and hence all-volunteer associations in general) tend to have the following characteristics:

• located in the Voluntary Nonprofit Sector (VNPS),

• mostly focus on member benefits in their goals,

• have an informal group style of operation and structure,

• are high in operational autonomy relative to external organizations,

• are moderate in their local territorial scope of activity and membership base (supra-local associations would have correspondingly different and larger territorial scope),

• have diffuse goals,

• have conventional (not unconventional, deviant) goals,

• use conventional means to achieve them, and

• have some socio-demographic membership criteria (requirements for entry).

2. Ideology and incentives:

Table 4.1 (Smith 2000:105) indicates that GAs (and hence all-volunteer associations in general) tend to have the following characteristics:

• moderate conventional ideology (while DVAs tend to have strong ideologies),

• strong sociability incentives for members,

• similarly strong purposive incentives (satisfactions from pursing valued goals),

• similarly strong service incentives (satisfactions from helping others),

• moderate informational incentives (learning new information),

• moderate developmental incentives (personal growth),

• sometimes strong other incentives for members, but

• usually weak utilitarian (economic) incentives and

• weak other work organization incentives.

(c) Structure

Table 5.1 (Smith 2000:124) indicates that GAs (and hence all-volunteer associations in general) tend to have the following characteristics:

• a small locality base/territory (or a larger one, in Supra-Local All-Volunteer Associations),

• substantial autonomy in their structure,

• operate mainly with volunteer work/labor (no paid employees),

• have mainly informal tax exemptions (not registered with the national Internal Revenue Service in the USA, for example),

• are only informally organized (not incorporated with the government as legal persons),

• practice significant internal democracy (members elect top leaders),

• have mainly member-benefit goals (rather than goals to benefit non-members and/or the general public),

• are more likely to be polymorphic (branches of some larger association),

• have substantial socio-demographic homogeneity of members, and

• have few economic resources of money or personnel.

4. Processes and operations

Table 6.1 (Smith 2000:147) indicates that GAs (and hence all-volunteer associations in general) tend to have the following characteristics:

• evening and weekend timing of meetings, events, and other activities;

• intermittent activities (not continuous activities, such as daily activity from 9AM to 5PM Monday through Friday in the USA);

• low professionalism of both leaders and members;

• low [usually no] external funding from major gifts/donors, grants, or contracts;

• broad, intermittent political activity, if any [unless they have explicit political goals];

• low external power in their communities;

• only low to moderate prestige locally as groups/organizations;

• more likely to be fundamentally deviant or to have deviant leaders/members temporarily;

• distinctive group action norms;

• do mainly informal (personal) recruitment;

• do informal socialization of new members (not formal training);

• members leave mainly by voluntary termination (not ejected or fired/sacked by the group);

• do low or moderate horizontal collaboration with external groups/organizations, if any;

• younger age as groups (low in longevity or life span of group).

4. Leadership and group environment

Table 7.1 (Smith 2000:165) indicates that GAs (and hence all-volunteer associations in general) tend to have the following characteristics:

• require leadership as essential to their existence, even if collective/egalitarian leadership,

• elect their top leaders (rather than appointing them, except for lower level leaders like committee chairs and committee members),

• volunteer (not paid) leaders,

• leaders who practice low professionalism (enjoying their leisure, rather than making a job of it),

• higher status males as leaders in all-male or mixed gender groups,

• leaders who emphasize consideration (personal relationships and kindness),

• leaders who do not supervise their followers or sub-leaders closely (instrumental accomplishments are usually secondary to positive and close interpersonal relationships),

• do only loose and vague priority setting for the group,

• acquire funds and new members in a routine manner (rather than pursue these strategically),

• obtain leaders only from among existing members (not selected from outside the group),

• low levels of selectivity for leaders (few requirements, beyond willingness to serve and significant time spent in the group,

• more leader quality problems (because of low leader selectivity), and

• few [or no] relations with the government at any territorial level, especially for local (vs. supra-local) associations.

4. Life cycle changes

The Conclusion of Chapter 8 (Smith 2000:192-193) indicates that, as GAs (and hence all-volunteer associations in general) get older and pass through their life cycle, they tend to have the following characteristics:

• increase in size and complexity, but

• still often resist increasing complexity (see Handbook Chapter 40),

• a greater number and proportion of leaders,

• acquire paid staff with age (may become paid-staff associations),

• acquire greater assets and income/revenue,

• achieve greater good will and public recognition,

• more collaboration and have more other relationships with other groups/organizations,

• more external fund-raising (seek large donations/gifts, grants, and contracts from external persons and organizations),

• more likely to change their group goals (goal succession),

• more likely to displace their original goals in favor of sheer group maintenance/ survival/ growth (goal displacement), and

• more likely to survive (be active) at any subsequent time as they continue to live.

4. Impact and effectiveness

Table 9.1 ((Smith 2000:212) indicates that GAs (and hence all-volunteer associations in general) tend to have the following characteristics:

• to provide their members with a high level of felt social support,

• provide members with high levels of felt information gained,

• provide members with high levels of felt socio-political activation,

• provide only moderate external political influence (if any),

• provide members with more economically valuable contacts (social capital),

• provide members with greater happiness/satisfaction,

• provide members with better health, and

• support the economic system of their society.

Smith has also written several other articles that analyze empirical data, or theorize based on literature reviews, the aspects/factors for GAs (and hence All-Volunteer Associations in general) that promote greater impact and effectiveness (Smith 1985, 1986, 1990, 1997a, 1997b, 1999a, 1999b, 2015a; Smith, with Eng and Albertson 2015; Smith and Shen 1996; Smith and Smith 1979a, 1979b, 1979c).