Open vs Closed clubs

I touched on the Open vs. Closed groups topic in "Finding the right members for your IPC,” and I want to expand on my thoughts in this post. In that post, I describe the basic differences between the two modes, and my argument why IPCs should remain closed. This post also supposes that at some time during the life of your IPC, there might be a call to loosen up membership requirements and open it up to the public. Here, I strengthen my argument to the contrary and provide some logic to present members to advocate for an open group.

The truth about open groups

In "Finding the right members for your IPC,” I describe the difference between closed and open groups like this: “Open groups allow anyone to join, and closed groups makes an allowance for an organizer or moderator to ask the potential members questions before allowing them in.” Collecting as many members as possible is alluring for many groups. I admit with my gaming group, at one time there seemed to be a certain cache and clout for sporting large numbers of members. But with big numbers come big headaches; problem members, lurkers, scope creep and bloat.

Problem members

Problem members are the biggest problem that face an open group. This is part of the reason why most groups become closed groups in the first place. In my experience, problem members express themselves in some notable ways: 1) they tend to be awkward socially and express this awkwardness in either aggressive or inappropriate ways, 2) they attempt to force their vision of the group on everyone else, or 3) they’re outwardly antagonistic with club leadership or certain members who did not provoke such treatment. Although you need to treat problem members carefully, you also need to show them the door as quickly as possible. If not, these members will quickly erode your confidence and the you member’s enthusiasm. In future posts, I’ll address how to deal with problem members.

In a closed group, these members are filtered out for the most part. Sure, you’ll get the person who puts up a good front to get in the group, but these people are rare and can be dealt with through the by-laws.

Lurkers

I mentioned lurkers in “Attendance - what should you expect from your IPC members?,” but I’ll expound on this more here. Lurkers are not inherently bad, and in online groups kind of acceptable. Lurkers want information, but they’re not the types to share or participate. As I said in my post, lurkers tend to be takers, but not givers. They do not help the group to grow and evolve, instead they watch, and even then, very occasionally. In an IPC, lurkers are deadwood. If you’ve run an online group, lurkers are the largest sector of membership. In my gaming group, lurkers comprised upward of 60-75% of the membership. For an IPC, this would spell disaster.

Lurkers are still an issue in closed groups, but not the extent of an open group. But they do make more of an impact in a closed group where members are filtered on their willingness to participate in the club’s activities. This where you need to add in by-laws that establish minimum attendance to mitigate members who want to lurk.

Scope Creep

As I mentioned in the problem members section, one of the issues mentioned was forcing an alternate vision of the group on members. This is the extreme version. The other version is a softer, gentler turn when folks come in that aren’t quite sold on the club’s mission, but who aren’t problem members. They want to expand into things not within the club’s scope, but that some club members have an interest in. My gaming group didn’t have an issue with this, but I’ve heard the problem from other club organizers.

For example, there might be a case where some of the Atlantic Philatelist Club members are interested in knitting. They want to schedule events that include that activity because they know some members who share the same interest. Allowing this will cause scope creep, because other members will want to want to add their own outside interests. This has a couple of simple solutions; a gentle but firm No, and offer alternative out-of-club solutions.

Bloat

Membership bloat is related to lurking. Some people walk away from the club without quitting, which causes deadwood. No controls on member intake will allow bloat to happen. Again, this an issue in open groups that cause the group to appear larger and more active than it is. This can be considered deceptive by potential members who are expecting a vibrant club.  This is something that a closed group can remedy from the beginning by careful editing of inactive or non-compliant membership.

Conclusion

While an open club allows the public to come and join, and closed group also helps to assure a level of quality that is usually lacking in an open group. I recommend not falling into the trap of opening your group for anyone to join. You owe it to members to put a check on member quality.