What We Learned Scaling Peer Engagement in 2025: Three Tactical Insights

When my co-founders and I launched RallyBoard in early 2025, we brought decades of experience building engagement technology—but virtually no experience running association programs. I had spent nearly a decade as CEO of Mentor Collective working with universities, but the association world operates differently. The member dynamics, volunteer structures, and engagement patterns require distinct approaches.

So we entered 2025 with humility: ready to learn, iterate, and adapt based on what actually worked rather than what we assumed would work.

Twelve months later, our platform has facilitated over 75,000 minutes of peer-to-peer member engagement across associations in education, manufacturing, project management, and academia. We've seen what drives participation, what kills momentum, and what separates thriving cohorts from dormant ones.

Here are three tactical lessons we learned—so you don't have to.

1. Lean Into Existing Member Communities First

The insight: The hardest part of launching any engagement program isn't the technology or the content—it's the initial member activation.

When we started working with associations, we assumed launching brand-new cohorts around emerging topics would generate excitement. Fresh themes! Novel programming! What could go wrong?

Turns out, quite a bit.

Members are inundated with invitations to join new initiatives. Without existing brand recognition or social proof, even well-designed programs struggle to gain traction. Cold outreach to members who've never heard of your cohort program produces modest sign-up rates and even lower participation.

What works better: Activating existing communities that members already identify with.

Instead of starting from scratch, consider:

• Revitalizing dormant shared interest groups with structured meeting formats and automated logistics

• Launching cohorts tied to your annual conference—pre-event networking cohorts that continue post-conference create natural momentum

• Transforming static committees into dynamic peer groups with regular touchpoints between quarterly meetings

• Leveraging certification or credential programs where cohorts become study groups or peer accountability circles

When members already understand the context and see familiar faces, participation rates climb dramatically. You're not asking them to take a leap into the unknown—you're offering infrastructure that makes their existing communities more valuable.

One education association we worked with saw substantially higher initial engagement when they launched cohorts within established learning communities compared to standalone new programs. The difference? Members already trusted the brand and understood the value proposition.

Actionable takeaway: Before launching a net-new engagement program, audit your existing member communities, special interest groups, and program structures. Where could peer-to-peer connection amplify what already exists? Start there.

2. Design for Imperfect Attendance (Because Life Happens)

The insight: Consistent perfect attendance is unrealistic. Design your cohorts to thrive despite inevitable absences.

The challenge is straightforward: If your average attendance hovers around half of your cohort (which is realistic for optional volunteer programs), a 6-person cohort means only 3-4 people show up to any given meeting. That's barely enough for dynamic conversation.

What works better: Larger cohorts that maintain critical mass even when attendance fluctuates.

We now recommend cohorts of 8-15 members for most programs. Yes, that sounds large for "peer groups." But here's what we've observed:

• Attendance rates for optional, unpaid volunteer programs typically range from 30-70%, with most programs hovering around half of enrolled members

• A 12-person cohort with typical attendance yields 6 active participants—enough for robust discussion and multiple perspectives

• Larger cohorts create social proof—when members see others consistently engaged, they're more likely to prioritize attendance themselves

• The exception: Paid programs or high-commitment masterminds can sustain smaller groups (4-8 members) because financial investment drives higher attendance

This doesn't mean every cohort should be massive. Size should match your expected attendance patterns:

• Optional volunteer programs: 8-15 members per cohort

• Paid programs or exclusive leadership cohorts: 6-10 members

• High-stakes mastermind groups: 4-8 members

Actionable takeaway: Stop designing for perfect attendance. Instead, size your cohorts based on realistic participation rates. Calculate backwards: If you want 6-8 people per meeting and expect typical volunteer attendance, form cohorts of 12-16 members.

3. Assign Cohort Chairs Thoughtfully—They're Your Engagement Engine

The insight: Cohort chairs make or break participation. Choose them carefully and support them intentionally.

In our earliest programs, we let cohort chair assignments happen somewhat organically—the first person to volunteer, the most senior member, or whoever seemed willing. Sometimes this worked beautifully. Other times, it struggled.

We learned that cohort chairs are the single most important variable predicting group success. When chairs are engaged, proactive, and committed, their cohorts thrive. When chairs are overwhelmed, disengaged, or unclear on expectations, their cohorts wither—regardless of how motivated other members are.

The pattern is consistent: Cohorts with highly engaged chairs—those who attend every meeting and send pre- or post-meeting communications—see significantly higher attendance and consistent monthly meetings. Cohorts with less engaged chairs often stop meeting within a few months.

What works better: Recruit your most engaged members as chairs and equip them for success.

Here's our recommended approach:

Identify the right chairs:

• Target members who already demonstrate high engagement (conference attendees, committee volunteers, content contributors)

• Look for natural conveners who enjoy facilitating rather than dominating discussions

• Prioritize reliability over seniority—a committed mid-career professional often outperforms a distracted executive

Set clear expectations:

• Clarify the time commitment upfront (typically 2-3 hours per month for meeting prep, facilitation, and follow-up)

• Define success metrics (attendance rates, member feedback, meeting frequency)

• Establish how much autonomy chairs have versus when they should consult staff

Provide lightweight training:

• Offer optional onboarding via a single 60-minute Zoom session covering facilitation basics, technology walk-through, and Q&A

• Share resources: sample agendas, discussion prompts, best practices from successful chairs

• RallyBoard provides templated facilitation guides, but personal connection with staff builds chair confidence

Create ongoing support structures:

• Monthly "chair office hours" where volunteers can troubleshoot challenges together

• Dedicated Slack channel or forum for chair peer support

• Quarterly recognition of high-performing chairs (acknowledgment goes a long way)

Actionable takeaway: Don't treat chair assignments as an afterthought. Invest upfront in recruiting engaged members, setting clear expectations, and providing ongoing support. Your cohort program is only as strong as your weakest chair.

What We're Carrying Into 2026

These three lessons—lean into existing communities, design for imperfect attendance, and support cohort chairs intentionally—will shape how we partner with associations in 2026.

But we're not done learning. In fact, we're just getting started.

As we work with more associations across different sectors, membership sizes, and engagement models, we'll continue testing assumptions, measuring what works, and sharing what we discover.

If you're an association professional navigating similar challenges—or if you've learned lessons that complement or contradict what we've shared—we'd love to hear from you. The best insights emerge from collective experience.