This SmartBrief Insights guest post comes from Peggy Hoffman is president of Mariner Management & Marketing LLC, an association management company.  She twitters at @peggyhoffman and blogs at the Idea Center.

Most likely it’s a B as in bureaucracy not an A as in adhocracy. My association management clients — all state/regional association or chapters — are all somewhere in between the B and the A leaning though clearly to the A when we really look at how the work actually gets done not how the dusty policies dictate.

What does an adhocracy look like? Gone are the standing committees. Project teams and advisory panels replace those. Gone is the annual call for volunteers. Volunteer Town Square (a model ASAE uses) with open volunteer positions throughout the year replace it. Gone are ladders of succession. Project timelines become the term.  Gone is the hand-off from committee to committee to board. Cross-functional task-forces vet the work for approval by the board.

Which is better? Your answer is likely to reflect whether you are an I or a T person as in Individual or Team. Team players thrive in the adhocracy environment where work is handled by groups who are brought together for a specific assignment and disbanded when the job is done. Team members are “selected” not by politics or terms but by the ability to contribute to the project.  Personal preference shouldn’t dictate though since research in volunteerism and in membership engagement suggests that the adhocracy model is one that could turn around our associations on three levels.

First, there is a distinct trend in volunteerism for shorter-time commitments. Corporation for National & Community Service’s Volunteer Growth in America report noted that episodic volunteering (contributing 99 or fewer hours in a year) increased between 1989 and 2005. Further, the proportion of episodic volunteers increased for all adults age 25 and over in the last 15 years. And a 1989 survey showed that 79 percent of non-volunteers said that they would volunteer if given a short-duration task. In 2008, the Decision To Volunteer study reported similar findings for association volunteerism noting the some 59% of association volunteers fall into the ad-hoc category. Among the top reasons for not volunteering was lack of short-term assignments.

An adhocracy provides for short-term commitments and, as important, a wider variety of commitments. Check out what Deirdre Reid’s New Volunteer Manifesto for more proof.

Second, technology and the web put a premium on speed – we need to get to market more quickly to keep our members served and engaged. The key characteristics of an adhocracy – selective decentralization, power-shifts to specialized teams and laser-focus — are those that in turn support this more efficient development and decision-making.

Third, we must engage younger professionals in our associations. We need their talent, their energy and their loyalty. Adhocratic culture has appeal to those younger professionals (and a few baby boomers to boot!).

Fight ‘Em or Join ‘Em

Embracing an adhoc structure for your governance isn’t an overnight decision. But you can stop fighting a change with a gradual approach. In fact for most associations the end point may very well be not a full adhocracy but a bureau-adhocracy (really is there such a word Wikipedia?). Your journey can begin exploring adhocracy (join in the exploration over on Idea Center).

What are some gradual steps? First, think in terms of individuals rather than volunteer program. Build a set of adhoc volunteer opportunities. These are transitory jobs that are generally short-term and minimal commitment. Read more on Associapedia about adhoc positions and for a look at some common ones.  Actively invite members to get involved in those. Make it easy to raise a hand to help on a significant, but smaller job.

Next, begin thinking about a shift in your committee structure. Where would project teams and advisory panels be more effective?

To experiment with governance model, take a look at your chapters and other component groups. If your chapters are like the ones I manage, they tend to operate more in “team” mode than formal boards. Look at experimenting with their governance models.

We could leave well enough alone but are you satisfied with a B?

Related Posts:

• 3 views of volunteering
• Yes, You Can Fire Volunteers
• Succession plans: Two keys in deciding who’s up next
• La Tercera Edad is hardly time to slow down
• Heavy Leadership Reading for a Lighter New Year