Acronym

This is an interesting question, with different answers, I think. Yes, I believe there is a volunteer problem, but for the most part I don't think it stems from volunteers themselves. There are many people who want to volunteer, however, in their past experience they probably weren't utilized in the manner they wished and thus got discouraged. Or, they felt those managing them were a bit inept.

I have a friend who is a serial volunteer, something going on every night. She has the very best of intentions. Last year she volunteered with a local organization and had to beg for work. Weekly she would ask how she could help, but either she was shuffled to different people or the task she was given to do, in the end, proved to be something the organization never used anyway.

This year, she thought maybe if she were a member of the board of the organization, she could make more of an impact. However, the board meetings are disorganized, nothing gets done, and while her ideas are said to be "great," no one follows up with her or responds to her about getting the ball rolling.

Now, this is just one example, but I know many people, including myself, who have experienced this. It leaves your volunteer frustrated and once their time is up, probably not too interested in coming back.

I wrote an article about this several years ago, and I interviewed Shar McBee, author of To Lead is To Serve: How to Attract Volunteers and Keep Them. The book falls on the inspirational line, but helpful nonetheless. Here is a quote from her: "Our job as the leader is not to get people to do what we want them to do, but to make it possible for people to give as much as their hearts can give."

Part of the challenge is many volunteer leaders do not have the skills they need to be successful. Too many work horses who give 110% (and chase other volunteers away) get promoted to chair and chapter board positions.

Hard working members, who may have no leadership experience professionally, are then expected to excel in the many skill sets demanded and needed from good leaders - with no or little training.

Not really fair to expect them to be good at working with volunteers - or to be strategic either.

The book mentioned above "To Lead is to Serve" has success stories from 75 volunteer leaders, including "Teams that Work" and "How to run a good meeting." Organizations have increased their volunteers as much as 500% and tripled their memberships with this method.

The book is inspiring, (as the comment posted above says) but it is also a "how to" for volunteer leaders. Over 50,000 volunteer leaders use it.
Shar McBee - author

Right after you posted about this, Nick, I came across an interesting article from the Chronicle of Philanthropy: "Are Volunteers Useless?" The article connects to a blog post that argues that many volunteers cost more to manage than they give back to an organization. I found that to be an interesting thought; it seems to me that a lot of the discussion around volunteer management in associations tends to assume that volunteers are a good thing, and that we just need to find the right way to manage them. But is it worth going back a step and wondering whether it's always a good idea to have volunteers to manage? I don't know, but it's an interesting question to me.

I also meant to mention that Cynthia's comment resonated with me, because of an article I worked on for the December issue of Associations Now (coming soon to a mailbox near you!). The article is based on a discussion about board meetings, what works and what doesn't. Several of the participants in the discussion specifically mentioned the fact that their worst volunteers can create busywork or other problems that drive their best volunteers away--because the best volunteers are very results-driven and don't have time for work that doesn't produce positive results.

I wonder if there's a place in volunteer management for "exit interviews" for great volunteers who seem to be removing themselves from active roles? They might be able to point out places where, as Cynthia put it, the workhorses are chasing other volunteers away ...

Lisa - that was great link through and good food for thought ... I can see to a point where Holden is coming from. He makes two points worth mulling over. (1) best effective use occurs when the task is extremely well-defined - very true and it reduces costs and streamlines training. (2) the more systematic about processes allows you to use volunteers more effectively. What we know in the ASAE Study on Decision to Volunteer http://tinyurl.com/4ybrpd is the unique roles of volunteers are in content development and the passion they bring to a "problem" or "challenge". So it's not the volunteers are useless but that our volunteer systems may well be "useless" and need work.

Great post, Nick. An intriguing post and question in the subject to be sure... I wanted to provide my answers to the questions you laid out in the second to last paragraph:

Is the definition of volunteering changing, do we need to adapt our model to the hectic, bottom-line-focused society we live in? - I believe that as organizations that rely so heavily on volunteers that we absolutely need to have an understanding as to the lives of the people we count on. These people, as you mention, are being pulled in 20 different directions, and if we aren't adapting the way we're working with them, we're going to lose them to something else they are doing. The first comment above from Amanda really points to this specifically. The "serial volunteer" that she knows is eventually going to get fed up with the groups in which her volunteer efforts are not gaining ground, and go to greener pastures where the volunteer experience is better. We need to be doing a better job of understanding our volunteers, and adapting our model to meet their needs.

Do we need to just build online communities and never have a conference? I think this question is really determined by your organization's mission, goals, etc. Relying on an online community only if you are an association that needs face time amongst members is probably not going to work. If volunteers in your association can get their work done using virtual methods only, go for it. It's gauging your association and volunteers that answers this question.

I guess those are my thoughts. Sorry for the long response, but this post really got me thinking...

Sometimes, associations create volunteer opportunities, not because they need them, but because they think it is a way to engage supporters.

I've been in volunteer positions that didn't seem necessary. We seemed to be doing staff-level work and even taking direction from staff, whom we thought were very capable.

Regardless how volunteer roles are defined or changed, there should still be clear job descriptions and the volunteer position should have a meaningful, organizational purpose.

I don't think about volunteering very often, it's just something that I do... but I liked Cynthia's point that workhorses can drive the other volunteers away. And even in large organizations I think it's okay to be doing staff functions, providing contingent labor to do things that staff could do (or outsource to vendors) but that keep us engaged, particularly when we as peers can provide the 'high touch' experiences for other members better than the staff or vendors can.

One thing I often wonder about, both when I volunteer and when I work with associations with components (SIGs or geographically defined chapters) is how often they can actually divert or discourage potential volunteers from contributing their efforts to the highest and best use of time & talent.

I am thinking of two associations I have belonged to (one for a long time, one I am about to drop again) that both defer volunteer help at a national level indicating that, in effect, you have to volunteer at the chapter level first to prove yourself. However, both of these association's regional chapters were dysfunctional and political nightmares with badly inbred cultures and one lacks the scope to present opportunities for real accomplishment.

Perhaps both those national associations know themselves well enough to know they don't know how to handle volunteers at a national level, but turfing us to a chapter as THE venue for engagement is a recipe for disaster. If they had the ability to measure their penetration and member satisfaction at a chapter-by-chapter level, I wonder if they fully understand the risk they run, the cost they incur in terms of retention and shrinking their pool of potential volunteers. I know we rarely 'control' our chapters but enabling them seems like a poor alternative strategy.

Kevin, you bring up another point many associations have not adjusted to. In the old days, when you had 30 years in a career, moving up from chair to board, local to state to national may have made more sense.

I wonder how many associations now give "credit" for serving in another association?

I talked to a woman who had done a fabulous job as national president. She had to shift careers and of course, immediately joined the local chapter of her new professional organization.

She loved being in leadership and had a ton of experience with her past group. When she noticed an open committee chair position, she offered to help out - and was immediately batted down. She hadn't belonged long enough plus she was expected to serve on a committee for a few years to learn how to be a leader first.

What a missed opportunity to get some experienced leadership on their team.

For volunteer programs to be successful, a variety of entrance points to activity need to be available. Not every member wants to be Chair of the Board of Directors; some want to write newsletter articles and others want to help with registration at annual meeting.

Opportunities for engagement for all skill levels and time commitments should be developed. Allowing volunteers to create their own volunteer experience is the best way to go.

At American Independent Writers, Board members select the project or committee they are most interested in and that is where their attention is focused. Volunteers are engaged in something of personal interest, and their energy brings bigger returns. For example, our newest board member is interested in marketing our Job Bank (which also needs attention) so that is his assignment.

Identify members' interests and skills and then match these to the appropriate volunteer activity.

I've found that people respond better to personal appeals for help on a particular project. When friends ask friends for help, the response is generally yes. Also, with the neverending demands on time, potential volunteers want to know up front how long of a commitment the project is and what is the end goal. I've also found that minimizing windshield time by using technology helps many people say yes to participating. While I'm definitely an advocate of face-to-face meetings, if a voluntteer can be productive and provide meaningful input without face-to-face contact, I certainly encourage their involvement.

Debra, love the visual "minimizing windshield time" and I do agree with what you're saying. I hear many similar comments and would like to see the actionable elements - could you share some of your ad-hoc positions, technology solutions and messaging? And others share too ... I can share by pointing to ONS's cool website and visual http://www.ons.org/membership/participate/index.shtml.

Great blog post on the subject by Jamie Notter http://tinyurl.com/5mmmy7 ... He's comparing activity that looks a lot like volunteering by for companies. He says "I think associations have great power, but in this case, the corporate world is not reinventing the existing association model. They are doing it differently."