Article Executive Leadership 4 min read
Leadership and the Future of Volunteering
The old structure of volunteer management is broken. Strong leadership is required to fix it.
Heads up: this content is over 5 years old, so some information may be out of date.
Volunteers are the lifeblood of your organization. They sit on your board, lead your committees, and develop the ideas that drive an associationâs work. Why, then, are people so eager to avoid it?
ASAEâs 2008 publication The Decision to Volunteer reported that while association volunteers generally feel positive about their volunteer experience, a large chunk of members want nothing to do with it: 27.9 percent say they are âvery unlikelyâ to volunteer for their association in the next 12 months, and few (13.9 percent) say they are âvery likelyâ to recommend volunteering to a friend or colleague.
It is a matter of finding the right volunteers, with the right skills, for the right job, at the right time.
Theories abound for the reasons behind this: burnout, busy personal lives, time commitment, simple lack of awareness of what volunteering involves. A new white paper on the subject sheds some new light on the subject, adds a handful of thoughtful case studies, and offers a sensible framework for a less dysfunctional volunteer structure. But the change wonât happen in a vacuum. Indeed, a common but unspoken theme in the paper is that a strong leader stepped in to make sure old volunteer methods got tossed.
Smarter, Faster Volunteering
The paper, titled âThe Mission Driven Volunteer (opens in a new tab),â [PDF] was cowritten by Peggy Hoffman, CAE, and Elizabeth Weaver Engel, CAE, and it opens with a fairly dire portrait of the current state of association volunteering. The rusty â72 Dodge Dart that is the current volunteer modelâlow enthusiasm, low attendance, low accomplishmentâis fueled largely by a failure to respond to generational differences, along with an overly restrictive structure. As Boomers slowly edge toward retirement, theyâre being replaced by Gen Xers who are impatient with all your rules, man, and Millennials who expect to do meaningful work quickly.
âWhile younger, upcoming generations are  willing and enthusiastic volunteers,â Hoffman and Engel write, âthey seek different  kinds of volunteer experiences that their predecessors, ones  that are less about structure, position, and prestige, and are focused instead on independence, meaning, impact, and âgetting it done,â none of which are easily accommodated by the traditional committee model.â
Three Fixes
The authors spotlight three organizations that successfully retooled their volunteer structures to more closely resemble adhocraciesâtask forces that assemble to address particular problems or innovative idea proposals. At the Maryland Association of CPAs (MACPA), town hall meetings serve as ideation sessions and low-commitment opportunities increased. The National Fluid Power Association (NFPA) created more opportunities for volunteers to engage and cleared away that brush that kept people at different volunteer levels from communicating. And the Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) keeps only two standing committees; everything else is done by committees that form around a relevant issue and then disband.
âIt is a matter of finding the right volunteers, with the right skills, for the right job, at the right time,â Hoffman and Engel write. Simple sentiment. But itâll require a lot of work to make that happen.
The Leaderâs Role in Volunteering Innovation
One irony of adhocracies is that they donât truly self-organize; somebody has to create the environment that allows an adhocracy to thrive. One thread that runs through each of the associations the white paper discusses is that decision makers played an important role in this regard. MACPAâs CEO, Tom Hood, wrote the report-outs from those town-hall meetings himself. ONS âpushesâ its members to volunteer with an aggressive information campaign, after which participants are encouraged to âpullâ together self-organizing groups. And NFPAâs new volunteer model was designed by its CEO, Eric Lanke, who explained his thinking in a follow-up blog post (opens in a new tab) to the white paper. âI really rebelled against the traditional chart with committees reporting up to the Board like employees reporting up to their boss,â he writes. âThat seemed too âcommand and controlâ to me, and, importantly, inaccurate when it came to describing how my association functioned and how I wanted it to continue functioning.â
Which is to say that Lanke needed to take charge in order to avoid a command-and-control structure. Thatâs something to keep in mind before tearing up your volunteering playbook: Even if its replacement is more centerless and less heirarchical, somebody will still need to be in charge.
How have you made your volunteer structures more flexible, and what hands-on role did you play in making it happen? Share your experience in the comments.
(iStockphoto/Thinkstock)
Comments
Comments are for ASAE members. Learn more about comments on this site.
Log in to your member account or join ASAE!