Whose Experience Becomes the Association’s Position?

When an association says “our members believe,” I want to know how it arrived at that statement.

Perhaps the board debated an issue carefully. Perhaps a committee gathered evidence over several months. Perhaps the phrase reflects the views of the members who were easiest to reach. Those are different foundations for a public position, and leaders should know which one they are standing on.

I care about advocacy because associations can bring professional knowledge and community experience into decisions that affect people's lives. That responsibility asks us to be careful with the authority we claim.

Start with the people who will live with the result

Imagine a hypothetical association considering a position on an education requirement. A member in a large organization may have funding, coverage, and easy access to training. A member working alone in a rural community may face travel, lost income, and limited coverage. The same proposal can affect them differently.

The association needs to understand those differences before deciding what it supports. A convenient listening process can produce a convincing account of only part of the membership.

I would begin with the practical consequences. Who benefits? Who carries new costs? Whose services or access might change? Which people have knowledge the association has not yet heard?

Include relevant community perspectives where the issue extends beyond members. An association's professional interest may overlap with the public interest in some respects and create tension in others. Naming that tension helps leaders make a more responsible case.

A handful of conversations can reveal an important concern. They cannot establish how common that concern is. Be honest about the method, the people reached, and the questions still unanswered.

Use a person's experience with their permission

A member's account can help others understand what a policy question means in daily life. That account still belongs to the member.

Before using it in testimony, a briefing, or a campaign, agree on the wording, identifying details, audience, and intended use. Give the person an opportunity to review it. A willingness to speak privately with association staff should never be treated as permission to publish their circumstances.

Preserve complexity. A person may support the purpose of a proposal and have serious concerns about its implementation. Removing those concerns can make the association's message smoother while making it less accurate.

Older research on congressional communication offers a useful, limited finding. In a survey conducted in 2010 and reported in 2011, congressional staff rated personalized constituent communication and visits as more influential than identical form messages for an undecided lawmaker. These were staff perceptions, not measured changes in votes. The study is also specific to Congress at that time. It supports taking the substance of people's experiences seriously without promising a particular result.

Know who can authorize the position

Listening and authorization are related responsibilities. A committee can gather valuable evidence while still lacking authority to commit the association. A board can have authority to decide while needing better information.

Before taking a position, confirm the process in your association's actual policies and delegations. Who can approve it? What requires a board decision? Who can respond if the proposal changes? What happens if time is short?

Record significant disagreement accurately. An association can reach a legitimate decision without unanimity. It should communicate the decision and its basis without claiming a consensus it did not achieve.

For example, a public statement might explain that the board approved a position after member consultation and name the implementation concerns the association will continue to address. Whether that wording fits depends on what actually happened. Accuracy is more valuable than a stronger-sounding claim of universal support.

Be clear about what a coalition can promise

Working with other organizations adds another layer of representation. Your association may support the coalition's main objective while having different priorities about details.

Research on networks has examined how governance arrangements, trust, shared goals, and coordination affect collective work. A widely used conceptual paper proposes that different arrangements suit different conditions. It does not establish a single recipe for a successful advocacy coalition.

My practical recommendation is to agree on the decisions the coalition can make and the commitments each organization can authorize. Confirm who may use a partner's name, who approves changes to public language, and how a member can raise a concern without being treated as an obstacle.

Also account for the work. Drafting, coordination, meeting preparation, and follow-up require time. If a smaller partner provides essential community knowledge while a better-resourced organization controls the message, ask whether the terms are fair. Shared purpose deserves a fair working arrangement.

A short note before the public statement

Before the association speaks, I would prepare a one-page note for the people authorizing the position. Include:

• The decision sought: the specific change or outcome the association supports.
• The basis: relevant evidence, member and community input, and meaningful limitations in what is known.
• The consequences: likely benefits, burdens, disagreements, and implementation concerns.
• The authority and follow-up: who approved the position, who may revise it, and how the association will report back.

The note makes the reasoning available to the people whose name the association will use.

Afterward, tell members what happened, including what remains unresolved. A meeting with a policymaker is an activity. A decision, a new commitment, or a clearer understanding of the next barrier is a different kind of result. Reporting those distinctions gives members a more honest account of the association's work and a better opportunity to shape what comes next.

References

1. Congressional Management Foundation. (2011). Communicating with Congress: Perceptions of Citizen Advocacy on Capitol Hill. Based on a 2010 survey of congressional staff. Read the source.
2. Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229-252. Read the source.

Training and reading background

• Shuman, A. (2026, September 8). Advocacy That Delivers: Building VMA Influence Through Relationships [Training slides]. American Veterinary Medical Association; VMAE INSPIRE!