I came across a post today stating that employees will be more effective if managers are respecters of time – they ensure employees make time for rest, recovery and have fun in their day.

I couldn’t help thinking that focusing on ‘rest and recovery’ might encourage managers to treat the symptoms rather than the cause…?
Putting fun in your day sounds much more in the zone though.

In a CIPD Podcast on Talent Management (2007), Adrian Moorhouse, former Olympic swimming champion and now Managing Director of lane 4 comments on the work/life balance, and suggests we focus on making work feel like part of life(!):

“Matching the motivations, dreams and goals of an individual with the motivations, dreams and goals of an organisation – when you get those closely aligned then, I think, you’ve got a very motivated group of people because it’s not work, it’s life.”
http://www.cipd.co.uk/podcasts/_articles/article4.htm?view=transcript

If the whole of work is therefore also life, then the work/life balance for someone who works 40 hours a week is:
40/168 to 168, which equates to approx 1:4 (four times more life than work)

If work is not life and someone works 40 hours a week, then work/life balance is:
40:128, equating to approx 1:3 (three times more life than work).

So someone who can treat work as life, has approx 133% more life than someone who doesn’t, and throughout a 45 year career this equates to 15 years of extra life!!!

OK – So maths can’t really be applied in this context, but it’s an interesting thought… 😉

There’s always a bit of a kerfuffle when the question ‘should volunteers replace paid staff’ is considered.

An interesting perspective that helps to get ‘outside’ of the issue arrived in my inbox this morning:

“The issue is about an internal question, and it’s an internal question for unionised organisations. And what happens when we cant afford to deliver services with paid staff…. they shut…. then what happens…. someone else opens up another service that is more economic…Dementia Friends is probably a great example of that…”

 ”So for me this “replacement” issue is so focusing on the wrong question…. It’s such a question of “who” when we need to focus on the what, when, where, and  how… on earth….do we sustain things at a point of challenging finances…one could probably change how to if….”

So, this perspective advocates focusing first on what we need to do, and when, where and how we can deliver this. The ‘who delivers it’ question would then have more clarity and be supported by a coherent rationale.

This perspective suggests that the Volunteering England and TUC Charter for Strengthening Relations Between paid Staff and Volunteers has things the wrong way around, with the cart leading the horse. The third principle of this  charter states:

“The involvement of volunteers should complement and supplement the work of paid staff, and should not be used to displace paid staff or undercut their pay and conditions of service.”

The perspective would arguably re-write this principle as:

“The extent of involving volunteers and paid staff in delivering a service will be considered, once a service model has been established. The respective roles of volunteers and paid staff will be monitored to ensure the service maintains its relevance and impact, and these roles will be developed accordingly”.

One thing that strikes me in all of this is the ‘volunteers or paid staff’ situation is far from clear cut, and we would be well advised in the current climate to maintain a perspective that enables us to recognise that a load of trees, do in fact make up a wood.

…Sometimes just letting volunteers know you have noticed is enough.

I was a shop and transport manager for a local hospice (why I say ‘local’ I don’t know – they’re all local!).

We had this chap who’d been volunteering for yonks – let’s call him Bob…
Bob knew loads about furniture, and was my ‘go to’ man when I needed to price up something the guys brought in from a house collection that looked like it was worth more than the usual ‘£10 for a chest of draws’ price (I should mention that I was a furniture pricing novice and easy bewildered when the van offloaded its booty – or rather donations generously supplied by our caring community).

In came an Ercol dresser, and I said to Bob:
“That looks nice Bob – how much should we put on that”
“Forty quid” says Bob. “Ok” says I, and the price tag was appropriately placed.

The next day was my day off. I duly spent my time reading back copies of Third Sector, and researching the history of volunteering…(OK, maybe I just took it easy).

The day after, I noticed that the Ercol dresser had sold and said to one of the volunteers.
“Huzzah – the Ercol dresser sold! Forty quid in the takings!” or something of that nature. The volunteer replied: “Yes, Bob bought that – he only had to pay 28 quid as he had the volunteer 20% discount.”

“Well bugger me!”  ”Well, goodness gracious me!” thinks I…

So in mentioning this episode to our Head of HR (who was also an interior designer and knew a thing of two about the price of furniture), he implemented the first stage of the volunteer disciplinary procedure, which was to write to Bob, and ask him to a meeting to discuss the situation – just a chat so we could get the context around what happened.

Never saw Bob again.

One thing this anecdote highlights is that if there is the mere whiff that the volunteer disciplinary procedure is being enacted, the volunteering relationship is often such that the situation resolves itself.

All that happened in this instance is that the following message went to the volunteer “We noticed, and we don’t necessarily approve.” Quite often this is all you need to do.

Reid Hoffman, who founded LinkedIn in 2003, writes with Ben Casnocha and Chris Yeh about how employers have sought to adapt from offering a period when they were able to offer long-term job security to the current ‘information age’ of rapid and unpredictable change, where people ‘pass through’ their organisations. http://bit.ly/11VQQIR

Employers used to offer steady, predictable career paths and in return benefit from commitment and loyalty and the authors argue that they have not responded very well to the demands for adaptability and entrepreneurship in our employment practices.

What has this got to do with managing volunteers? Something along the lines of organisations who are seeking to attract the new generation of volunteers – those that don’t want to sign up for every Wednesday afternoon for the next 30 years…

It didn’t used to be like this – in the good old days it used to be more traditional – more manageable –more predictable.

Using the author’s arguments in a volunteering context could read as follows:

So if lifetime volunteering ‘contracts’ are a thing of the past, what’s the way forward? How can you work towards volunteers’ commitment and entrepreneurship, retention and agility?

In essence, by reapplying the principle of reciprocity and making it overt and a conscious part of the volunteering relationship. Recognise that volunteers are likely to move on at some stage but look for mutual investment and benefits.

Volunteers and their organisations should agree to make each other more valuable, help each other flourish.

There are three ways of doing this.

Firstly, offer volunteers a ‘tour of duty’, i.e. a fixed-term renewable placement for a period of time in which it is clear what the organisation and the employee will gain.

Secondly, support and even encourage your volunteers to develop their professional networks outside the organisation, which will benefit them, on the understanding that they will leverage those relationships for the benefit of the organisation while they are there.

Thirdly, develop a network of volunteer alumni that fosters lifelong affiliation to the organisation. Don’t fear the fact that people will one day move on; make use of it. Be honest about it. Stay in touch when they do leave. Incorporate them into your network of advocates, potential collaborators and even future recruits.