The island-within-a-lake model of self-help groups: The paradox of personal fellowship and organizational membership

I have come to the conclusion that one of the reasons why there are so many passive members in these groups is because the group leaders have confused organizational membership with personal fellowship.

Organizational membership means being a full member of an organization, being ready to contribute to that organization, and being trained to become an active participant in its affairs. Personal fellowship, on the other hand, means a feeling of being in the same boat as the other members and sharing the same experiences, and therefore being able to be very good friends with one another.

These two concepts are quite different from each other. Nevertheless, through my fieldwork, I have found that the group leaders do NOT differentiate between them, and this confusion has caused the groups become divided into two sub-groups, with a few isolated leaders and a large number of passive followers.

One of the practical implications of my research is the importance of organizational socialization, which some self-help groups need to promote to overcome their organizational problems.

That concludes my summary. I will now outline the rest of my presentation.

However, it is important to note that the reasons for this apathy have not yet been fully researched. Very few people have asked why so many members are so passive, and why so few members dare to become leaders?

These questions are very important for practice-oriented researchers, who want to support self-help groups.

Next, let me talk about my research samples and my methods.

Let me give you a typical example: I met a mother whose son had a very rare disease. Over a long period of time, this mother made a huge effort to meet other parents of children with the same disease. Finally, she was able to arrange a meeting for these parents in a hotel or somewhere. When the parents came together, they were very excited, and as you can imagine, they talked together non-stop, many of them sharing for the first time the emotions and burden that they had been carrying for years. Of course many tears were shed. After this long and moving exchange of feelings, the mother proposed that they start up a self-help group for parent, but to her surprise, none of the other parents agreed with her idea. They said, "We've met, and we've made great friends. We are very happy with our fellowship, and we will meet again and again. That's enough! Why do we need to start a new organization?" They didn't want to have to go through the process of selecting a president or collecting membership fees. They were completely satisfied with being able to come together again socially from time to time. They felt they did not need to belong to any formal organization.

What this story tells us is that personal fellowship and organizational membership are completely different concepts. The parents were very happy to meet together socially to enjoy personal fellowship, but they were not willing to take on organizational membership.

Another important finding is that on becoming leaders, parents are required to make great changes to their family life. Let me give you another story: a father told me how, once he became a leader, he came under enormous pressure from the other members of his group to put his group's needs ahead of his family's needs. According to this man, some group leaders place a higher priority on their parent group than on their individual families.

This might be an extreme example, however it is highly likely that some group leaders feel they have to sacrifice part of their family life in order to be able to carry out their duties. This can't be easy, because as parents, these people have to take care of very ill children, and at the same time, as leaders, they have a great deal to do for their groups.

What theories can be used to analyze these interesting dilemmas?

As far as functional domains are concerned, all organizations have many different functions. In the case of parent groups, their functions are public education, social action, counseling services, recreational services, and so on. However, what usually happens is that a small number of the groups' leaders work on many of the groups' different functions simultaneously. However, functional domains are not really relevant to this discussion, so we will leave them for now.

As far as hierarchical domains are concerned, almost all organizations have vertical relationships, some more complex than others. Our parent groups have presidents, but because their groups maintain a strong tradition of egalitarianism, their hierarchical domains are relatively simple, and so they are not important to this discussion.

Which leaves us with the third domain type, namely, inclusionary domains. These consist of an organization's core members and its peripheral members, and those members that might fit in between. Most organizations' inclusionary domains can be depicted as a set of concentric circles.

These domains are very interesting and also helpful for describing our parent groups. I believe that an important feature of our parent groups is that the groups consist of a large body of peripheral members, at the center of which is a small group of core leaders, with no-one in between.

Another interesting theory of organizational studies is that there are two sorts of organizational socialization processes: investiture processes and divestiture processes.

Investiture processes refer to processes in which people are readily accepted into a group. In the case of the parent groups, this sort of process occurs when parents join the groups. At that time, the only qualification needed to be part of the group is to have a child with a specific illness. Such parents are welcomed into the group, they are listened to and treated with empathy; they are accepted forthwith as they are.

On the other hand, divestiture processes refer to processes, which require people to change in some way in order to become part of an organization. In the case of the parent groups, this sort of process occurs when members join the leadership of the group. At this time, parents, who are already very busy taking care of ill children, are forced to commit whatever time they can spare in contributing to their group. In many cases, this can have a great impact on their family life.

To sum up, if we compare investiture processes and divestiture processes, we find that investiture processes are easy to accommodate, whereas divestiture processes are difficult to not. I believe that by applying these concepts to our parent groups, we will gain a better understanding of their problems.

This arrow shows that when parents become members of a group, investiture processes take place. The new members are readily accepted, and as a result it is easy for people to join these groups. On the other hand, this arrow shows that when members become leaders, divestiture processes occur, consequently the new leaders are asked to make quite significant changes to themselves and their lifestyles. This is naturally very difficult, and so very few members are prepared to make the sacrifices necessary to become leaders. As a result, there is a huge gap between the groups' leaders and their passive members.

What are the practical implications of this model? In conclusion, I will discuss these next.

As I have already pointed out, investiture socialization processes are used when new members join the group. But these processes are usually very loosely applied. New members are often accepted into the group without knowing anything about it.

The leaders have told me that their group meetings are spent entirely on discussing the children's diseases, their medical care and their family life. Consequently, very little time is available for discussing their groups, and few members know anything at all about their groups' organizational issues.

In other words, it is very important to educate newcomers about the organizations they have just joined. They should be informed about the groups' aims, functions, structures, history and so on, because this may be a very effective way that parent groups will be able to acquire more active followers to fit in between the active leaders and the passive followers.

Lastly, I would like to discuss the limitations of this model.

First, they are groups for parents of children with rare diseases. They are groups that do not hold regular meetings. The diseases involved are so rare that the geographical distance between members is very great. Also, the parents have to take care of ill children, consequently it is very difficult for them to have regular meetings- for example, on a weekly or monthly basis.

Also, for these groups, their most important function is their information-providing service. This means that the groups' members can get the services they need via the telephones or the Internet, without having to be deeply involved in their group.

These factors have inevitably led to an increased number of passive members. This membership apathy is so serious that a solution to the problem is urgently required.

To conclude, I would like to add that my research has been conducted as participatory action research, and I have already given these research results and my suggestions back to the people concerned. I am now waiting to see if any positive changes will occur within the parent groups.

Thank you.