From ivo.org (since closed)
By Helen Timbrell on 11 Oct 2016 19:29
They’re all people, right? Is the management of volunteers the same as the management of staff and why does it even matter?
If, like me, you’ve worked in volunteer management and leadership for a long time you will no doubt have come across colleagues who are of the view that organisations should manage staff and volunteers in the same way, because “they’re all people, right?”. I strongly disagree with that. Really strongly. I mean, obviously they ARE people, but I think the way we manage staff and volunteers needs to be different. And now I’ve been lucky enough to be involved in some research that confirms that is the case.
At the National Trust we’ve been working with researchers from De Montfort University, Anne-marie Greene and Jenna Ward, to explore the extent to which the management of volunteers is similar or different to the management of paid staff.
My favourite sentence from the research report is this one: “We can, with confidence, argue that in practice, the management of volunteers within the National Trust is significantly different to the management of paid staff”. Cue my smug face.
But why does this matter? If I knew that anyway, what’s the value of research to prove it? Surely I didn’t just support a research project to prove myself right? Well, no. For me the real value of the research has been in identifying where and how it’s different, prompting us to think hard about whether we are providing enough of the right type of support and training for the people we ask to manage volunteers.
The research (which was based on interviews, observations and diaries of activities at two of our properties) identified five key areas of difference described as:
- Performance Management
- Communication
- Task Differentiation
- Trust and Fear v Autonomy and Creativity
- Emotional Labour
Information on all five is available in the full report – you can get a copy here: http://www.dmu.ac.uk/nationaltrustproject but three key things really resonated for me:
Misplaced protection of volunteers
Often staff spoke of not sharing all the information about developments at the property or in the Trust because they didn’t want to bore and/or burden the volunteers. Similarly often they didn’t ask them to get involved in the jobs they really needed a hand with because they thought the volunteers wouldn’t like those jobs. In contrast volunteers often talked about the frustration of being kept in the dark and/or of being able to see what needed to be done but not being able to get involved. The evidence, and my experience, suggests we are less likely to make these well-intentioned but ultimately unhelpful assumptions about paid staff: we are less hesitant in our communications and braver in our asks, perhaps because we feel we have a “right” to do so?
The need for real dialogue
This links to the need for regular, open dialogue between staff and volunteers. Even where communication was happening it was often one way, with much less space to hear from volunteers or have a genuine dialogue. One of the factors in this was the sheer size of the volunteer teams our managers are working with: they spoke of a sense of an impossible task when faced with hundreds of volunteers, which feels very different from working with much smaller staff teams. Perhaps another factor was assumptions about the quality of the dialogue they would be able to have with a volunteer: self-limiting thoughts about how much value a volunteer might really be able to add.
Working in the “unregulated emotional landscape”
Perhaps the most powerful findings were in relation to the way in which managing volunteers is a much more emotional experience than the management of paid staff. Without the presence of a contract (and associated norms of deference, compliance and control/authority) the behaviour of volunteers was often less constrained, with more regular, open and strong expressions of feelings. Often gloriously positive, but sometimes negative, “outbursts” arose as volunteers felt free to not think about biting their tongue or toeing the line. These strong expressions of feelings coupled with the size of the volunteer team sometimes created incredibly emotionally charged working environments for volunteer managers, most of whom are managing volunteers as part of a much wider set of responsibilities.
All of this has made me think hard about how well we support and train our volunteer managers: are we focusing on the right things? Are we honest enough about what’s involved? In the sector we run training on how to recruit and select volunteers, how to develop new forms of volunteering, how to attract a more diverse audience but do we really do enough to equip volunteer managers to operate confidently, in true partnership with volunteers, in the much more emotional landscape?
How much of our specific volunteer management training focuses on participatory ways of working, partnership and resilience? How to deal with difficult situations not from a process perspective but as a human being, standing in front of another human being who is shouting at you in a room full of forty others? Do we support our volunteer managers to think about how they use their body language, their tone of voice, their eye contact to respond in these situations? Do we ensure the managers of our volunteer managers understand the demands they are under and in turn provide effective support? In the National Trust right now I think the answer is no: we do a lot of great things to support our volunteer managers but there is clearly so much more we can do. And we need to lead that as a volunteering team, because they might be people, but it’s not the same.
Comments
Fascinating article – thanks for posting Helen.
NB I couldn’t access the link though – it went to an ‘outlook web app page’, and I’ve clearly forgotten my login…ho hum…
The section on emotional landscape reminded me of a quote from Adrian Moorhouse, (former Olympic swimming champion and now Managing Director of lane 4).
“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.” [www.cipd.co.uk/hr-resources/podcasts/04-talent-management.aspx]
This quote tends to suggest that the goal of managing people is to ignite their passion, which will increase the likelihood that an ‘unregulated emotional landscape’ will be more evident with paid staff.
I get the sense that we need to manage paid staff as if they were volunteers – encouraging them to give freely of their talent, their time, their intellect and creativity, and their commitment and loyalty….
NB this is also arguably more about leadership than management.
Hi Steve – drop me an email and I’ll send you the report if you still can’t access online because the points you make are exactly what the researchers talk about. They talk about how, if well managed, that landscape (which is absolutely a product of the passion of the volunteers) can be a huge asset but to get to that place needs committed and skilled leadership and management. Would be really interested in your further thoughts once you’ve read the whole thing.
Thanks Helen – I’ve got the report now. I’ll find a cave somewhere to ponder etc. I’m sure I’ll be in touch.
Hi Helen
I’ve emerged from my cave after reading through the report and cross-referencing with some other relevant papers and would offer a few reflections, which I hope are helpful.
- Review of literature
The key point of the review of literature was to highlight the “imposition of conventional management techniques on the volunteer context”. The source cited was a bit dated (Justin Davis Smith, 1996), and there may have been value in incorporating some more recent research around the management of volunteers. For example Hill and Stevens (2011) also reviewed volunteer management in the National Trust and produced a model ranging from ‘Volunteer Led’ programmes to ‘Volunteer Involving’ programmes. This model appears to lend itself as a handy framework to present the specific context for this more recent piece of work (especially as it was with the same organisation).
Also, Boll et al (2012) present a useful model for different ways of managing volunteers, which can be tailored to specific organisational context. The key variables they work with are:
A) Whether volunteers also use the service provided by the organisation
B) Whether decisions are made by management, or jointly
C) Whether the focus is to create a change in society or within the local community.
Interestingly, this research asks the question “Is working with volunteers really that different from working with people in general”. They answer with an emphatic “Yes!”
Fascinatingly though, another conclusion made is that it’s important to treat staff like volunteers, stating “there are examples of volunteers enjoying a special status in the organisation, while other rules apply to paid staff. Differential treatment does not create the breeding ground for constructive collaboration.”
There is more evidence here that great ‘paid staff’ management has much in common with great volunteer management, and that organisations with insightful people management practices may well be managing their paid staff as if they were volunteers, rather than relying on the employment contract (with, as you say, “the associated norms of deference, compliance and control/authority”) as the basis for the employment relationship.
- The leadership theme
Each of these papers highlight that leadership of volunteers is a key issue, and that people who manage volunteers need to be able to lead. Key themes are:
– Volunteers need to find and live the ‘meaning’ within their roles
– Volunteering tends to happen within an emotive landscape
– People who manage volunteers need to inspire volunteers
These themes appear to put those managing volunteers ‘on the ground’ in the spotlight.
These individuals need to have and communicate a passion for the cause. They need to be able to articulate the vision for the future for any changes that will inevitably arise that will affect the volunteering programme.
One of the key lessons coming out of these papers is that whoever manages volunteers on the coal-face has a pivotal role (whether they themselves are paid or a volunteer).
They need a passion for the cause and leadership skills, which sends a key message to the HRM function to make sure we recruit for passion first and management ability (which can be taught) second.
So if all people who manage volunteers in the world have a complementary blend of a passion for the cause, leadership skills and management competence, then it appears we might have cracked it!
However, this is where the research appears to be a bit thin. Boll et al have a stab at leadership in their model, which is helpful to start the discussion. Ockenden & Hutin (2008) review leadership within small volunteer-led groups, but don’t really define the concept of leadership, or utilise leadership models to interpret the findings, which give the impression of being more descriptive than analytical.
Greater insight is given with Wilks (2015) in her paper ‘A new model of volunteer leadership’. This article considers the leadership of volunteers using a local music festival as a case study, particularly highlighting servant leadership and transformational leadership styles within this context. The traits of the heroic leader and the entrepreneurial leader, as well as the transactional leadership style and the ‘creativity broker’ are utilised, along with four clusters of leadership characteristics: inspiring, sharing, caring and delivering. Wilks then matches the findings against the various leadership theories and develops a new volunteer leadership model, termed ‘layered leadership’.
NB I need to give this article more of a ponder, as it’s definitely heading the exploration in the right direction. However, I think we need to establish what leadership styles and attributes work in a managed volunteering context. For example, when to direct volunteers, when to coach and support, when to participate with volunteers and when to fully delegate. Alternatively, what might be the value of ‘charismatic leadership’, ‘authentic leadership’ or ‘servant leadership’ in all the different volunteering contexts that exist…
Apologies, but a few further reflections on this helpful research article…
It appears the research has highlighted a theme of (some) volunteers seeking more involvement and responsibility – wanting to be able to influence change, and being frustrated when their voice/influence is limited, which can create an ‘emotional landscape’.
So, working on the assumption that the two sites represented in the research are essentially ‘Volunteer Involving’ in their nature, it appears there needs to be a strategy for moving broadly from a ‘Volunteer Involving’ to a ‘Volunteer Supported’ climate. NB The description for these terms (according to Hill and Stevens bit.ly/1VZBoFI) are:
Volunteer Involving:
“Volunteers involved in operational and service delivery tasks. Little or no volunteer involvement in management or strategic decision-making around volunteer management”
Volunteer Supported:
“Volunteers are involved in day-to-day volunteer management but strategic decisions and overall responsibilities lie with paid staff.”
NB It could be argued that some volunteers would like to have more influence, and I think the ‘Hill and Stevens’ model could be developed to include a ‘Volunteer Influencing’ climate, where volunteers have authority to participate in the development of strategy.
The suggestions below are presented to help progress along this journey towards increasing the influence volunteers have on the volunteering programme. NB These are framed around Boll et al’s model of volunteer management (bit.ly/2eYept7)
Planning/organising
– Create volunteering roles where volunteers lead on projects, or be involved in steering groups to support the implementation of changes, or supporting/buddying new volunteers etc.
Recruiting volunteers (getting the ‘promise’ right)
– Develop ways of clarifying the expectations and remit of the volunteering roles to prospective volunteers (including the extent of authority/responsibility/accountability these roles provide).
Retaining volunteers (delivering on the ‘promise’)
– Support volunteers who lead on projects and develop other volunteers into these ‘leading’ roles.
Leadership
– Volunteer managers to have a vision for the volunteering programme and with the ability to adapt their leadership style to different situations. (e.g. when to direct volunteers, when to coach volunteers , when to participate with volunteers, and when to delegate to volunteers)
(NB see Blanchard’s situational leadership model: bit.ly/2fei45A)
The need to manage an emotional landscape is a really useful research finding, and the following section presents a few thoughts on what a volunteer manager would need in their toolkit to be equipped for this task.
(NB these suggestions are based on Ulrich’s model of strategic HRM bit.ly/2fdWbTY)
Development needs for those who manage volunteers
- Strategic Partner
– Need to be aware of the aspirations of the wider organisation for their volunteering programme.
– Need to be aware of the aspirations of current volunteers, and their motivation for volunteering.
– NB Need effective communication processes with ‘head office’ to keep abreast of change-related issues. - Change Agent
– Need the ability to advocate for, and gain support from volunteers for changes that impact on their volunteering programme - Volunteer Champion
– Need to develop ability to support volunteers as they come across challenges/difficulties - Administrative Expert
– Need to develop systems that make it easy to keep a track of volunteers’ evolving aspirations
One reflection from this review is that people who manage volunteers need a whole set of attributes in their locker, and that the ability to manage (or more aptly, navigate) the emotional landscape depends on some strategic savvy, to support the nurturing of ‘day to day’ relationships with volunteers…
Also, it would appear the wider organisation has a significant contribution to make to help create a positive volunteering climate.
Hi Steve
Well, first of all, thank you for such a detailed response to our research report!
I agree, broadly, with most of what you highlight (both in this post and the one before). I think the various models of volunteer engagement/ involvement are particularly interesting ways of engaging with both the research and the issues in practice.
Your focus appears to be on the leadership styles/ approaches adopted by volunteer managers and whilst I think this is certainly worthy of further consideration, we are perhaps not quite at that stage with the research project. In addition, our research design and agenda has been strategically disciplined so that we do not look to HR practices in order to inform our thinking on volunteer management. Instead, we wanted to approach the ‘art’ of volunteer management with fresh eyes to see it for what it is rather than attempting to evaluate it from the perspective of HR ‘wisdom’ or having our judgements informed by underlying managerialist assumptions (e.g. that management can be taught/ situational leadership is possible). Having said that, I can certainly see some potentially lucrative overlaps with some of the models you suggest.
We know that managing volunteers is incredibly complex work, but moreover, it is important for us to acknowledge the emotional complexity. Volunteering and managing volunteers are practices imbued with difficult and challenging emotions and not enough is being done to address or even acknowledge this. This is not to say that volunteers should ‘behave better’ or that vol managers are inadequate in shaping/ controlling the behaviour of their volunteers but instead to explore the notion that the emotional landscape/ arena (Fineman, 2008) that is shared by vols and their managers is one defined by a different set of display and feeling rules to the emotional landscapes/ arenas present in conventional employment relationships. So before, we start to seek out ‘the best’ way to lead, manage or strategically employ vols, service promises, behaviour and values we have to begin to understand what it is like to work on the ‘coal-face’ and what effective volunteer management looks and feels like day-to-day, from the perspective of both the vols and their managers.
Interesting discussions … keep them coming!
Jenna
Hi Jenna
Thanks for the response and the context re research aspirations. I’m sure the more ‘inductive’ approach you are adopting will bring some valuable insight into this area.
I must admit though to being a little thrown by the conclusion that managing volunteers is different to managing paid staff, which tends to suggest a more ‘deductive’ approach to research.
Also, thanks for signposting Fineman’s work on the emotional landscape. I haven’t come across this field and it’s got plenty to offer. I was interested to see that much of the research was based on the workplace with paid staff – for example in hospital wards, prisons, crisis centres, job centres, sports/recreational centres etc. These sorts of settings therefore require the management of paid staff beyond, as your research states: “conventional management theory and practice (where) emotions have been pushed beyond the boundaries of organisations as marginal, disruptive and inefficient”.
The assertion here is that the (paid) workplace can be an emotional landscape, and an observation would be that this is likely to be more prevalent in the voluntary sector. As mentioned in your research “within volunteer driven organisations a lot of emotions are actually key to understanding effective management”. The issue here is that the National Trust is arguably an emotional landscape for paid staff as well as volunteers.
Referring to Fineman again, I was intrigued by the statement in his book ‘The Emotional Organization: Passions and Power’ about ‘engagement’, which appears to be a key thread within your research. Fineman highlights there “is a growing body of evidence (that) far from raising employee happiness, this research reveals increasing levels of cynicism and resistance.” The argument is that employers only seek to engage their staff to control them in achieving their own objectives. So, it appears that engagement initiatives need employees to feel that that their employer also has their best interests at heart. So to achieve true engagement and avoid cynicism, the key enabling element is ‘trust’ (another central theme of your research).
Therefore I’ve had a go at bringing these concepts together using a 2×2 grid (which appears to be a standard way to present management theory/concepts!)
- High engagement and High Trust = High Performance Workplace
- High engagement and Low Trust = Cynical Workplace
- Low engagement and High Trust = Transactional workplace
- Low engagement and Low Trust = Toxic Workplace
Cross-referencing this to your research findings, and the aspirations for volunteers to have more influence and voice, it appears to highlight once again that a ‘middle’ level needs to be included in Hill and Stevens model – a ‘Volunteer Influencing’ level. That is, volunteers need to have the opportunity to genuinely shape the future of an organisation.
…and for traditionally ‘Volunteer-Involving’ and ‘Volunteer Supported’ organisations that presents a significant challenge. These organisations need to take a risk here. They need to allow volunteers to influence thinking and practice and fundamentally change who/what the organisation is. These organisations need to embrace the sense of journey, with its unpredictable outcomes, and where change and evolution are in fact the status quo.
I do find it encouraging/exciting/challenging that volunteer management research highlights that volunteering affects the DNA of an organisation. Volunteering can never be seen as an add-on. Organisations invite volunteers into their world at their peril! They will challenge the way the organisation lives, breathes and has its being!
So, moving forwards, a selection of research questions come to mind…
1. How is the emotional landscape navigated for paid staff within the National Trust?
2. How can the central theme of trust be nurtured for both paid staff and volunteers?
3. What specific ‘volunteer influencing‘ initiatives help to develop trust between volunteers and the organisation?