In June this year Dr Neil Churchill, Director for People and Communities at NHS England blogged about the need to invest more in NHS volunteering to reap the benefits for patients, staff and the volunteers.
The Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England periodically fund research and discuss volunteering in the NHS. However, the focus tends to be on directly managed volunteers in a hospital setting, rather than volunteering in a wider health setting, with direct and indirect links to the NHS.
Dr Churchill’s blog and the associated report also adopt this approach. However, one can’t help feeling that something is missing…
The people…over 3 million of them!
So, there are a few hundred thousand volunteers in England who are managed by hospital volunteer managers, but according to the Department of Health’s Strategic Vision for Volunteering, “around 3.4 million people volunteer in health alone”, indicating the vast majority of volunteering within the NHS happens within independent organisations that support the work of the NHS.
For example, local hospital friends groups, who between them have 25,000-35,000 volunteers and 10 times that number of supporters in the community.
So, NHS related research and conversations tend to studiously ignore the bigger picture. Why is this?
Unaware? Is it because the DHSC and NHS England are not aware that the majority of volunteering in health and social care happens within independent organisations that support the work of the NHS?
Too difficult? Is researching the many and diverse ways in which 3.4 million volunteers contribute to the work of the NHS too complex for the researchers, or that they haven’t got access to these volunteering networks?
Too expensive? Would researching this vast field of volunteering cost too much money?
Can’t see the point? Is it that NHS staff feel they have enough volunteers for the roles that can exist within a hospital setting, and that there is no vision or appetite for engaging the wider community?
Is it political (small ‘p’)? Is it because this volunteering is part of the wider community and cannot be controlled with the same rules… and that the research findings are likely to point to a need for a different, more nuanced approach to volunteer engagement, which is not within the skills set of many NHS staff?
Whatever the reason, the research hasn’t been done and steadfastly continues not to be done. This is a travesty, when one considers the first line of the NHS constitution is:“The NHS belongs to the people.”
Any volunteering strategy needs to create a climate where people can help where they can, and it’s the role of NHS organisations to engage the community first, and manage volunteers second.
To date however, none of the published research focuses on the first ‘strategy’ of community engagement. It focuses on the second ‘tactic’ of managing volunteers. Ever since hospitals set up their own volunteering programmes in the mid 1960s, it appears the horse has followed the cart, and keeps following the cart. It’s tactics without strategy, which according to Sun Tzu, is “The noise before defeat“.
So, after the positive public response to the NHS during the Covid-19 pandemic, we have an opportunity to get this right. Someone, somewhere in the NHS needs to get this, and explore how to engage the community first and manage volunteers second.
For example, this could take the form of researching where community engagement works well in particular parts of the NHS. There could be exploration of instances where independent organisations and hospitals work well together, and what makes this work well, like a MoU they have worked on between them.
We just need to see what good looks like and then share this to the people (the managers, the staff, the volunteers, the community groups, the press, the politicians and the wider public). The NHS belongs to all these people …
Every now and then a prominent member of the volunteer management community reminds us of the inappropriate use of the phrase “using volunteers”.
The argument often put forward to avoid this phrase is that this is more than mere semantics, as the language we use around volunteers and volunteering speaks volumes about the way they are viewed, regarded and respected in our organisations.
The evolving VM position of ‘Thou shalt not use the phrase using volunteers’ was reinforced in 2018 by Rob Jackson, who was Third Sector’s ‘Voice of Volunteering’ for nearly 10 years. He cites (sarcastically) a few things that charity leaders can say which create a nightmare for volunteer managers. One of which is that charity leaders who don’t get volunteering will often promote the phrase “using volunteers”.
We are told that any organisation that uses this term means that volunteers aren’t seen as part of the team but a resource to be used and disposed of.
…But people dedicated to a cause use this term without a second thought – Dedicated people who are not overfamiliar with the nuances of volunteer management, who seek to use volunteers to make the world a better place.
Who are these dedicated people using the phrase “using volunteers”?
They are passionate about their cause; they are strategically savvy; they are spinning operational plates in the midst of the ever more VUCA* world; they are tenacious and committed to tacking the challenges they face on their journey. In short, we love these dedicated people, and we need the impact they have in our communities!
These dedicated people use paid staff, use resources, use their own imagination…and use volunteers – anything that can enhance the delivery the service. George Bernard Shaw’s quote sums it up:
“This is the true joy in life, the being used for a purpose recognised by yourself as a mighty one… I want to be thoroughly used up when I die.”
Consider when we volunteer. We are more than happy to be used for a worthwhile cause. We don’t really want the spotlight to be on us. The whole point is to be used for a cause that isn’t about us…
So, what might be the impact if a ‘Thou shalt not use the phrase using volunteers’ is endorsed as a volunteer management commandment and followed religiously by the VM community?
Dedicated people
– Might be made to feel they are ignorant and undermined, and that people do not trust their intent.
– Might be less likely to engage with the volunteer management community.
Volunteer management community
– Might be more cynical whenever they hear a person using the term “using volunteers”, regardless of whether they are trying to make the world a better place.
– Might be less likely to engage with these dedicated people.
We need something better than this…
We need to develop dialogue and engagement – not focusing on the semantics but focusing on the outcomes – the “what we are using volunteers for”(!)
Even raising the issue of the semantics is a trap! It arguably helps no-one and achieves nothing – actually less that nothing – it can be detrimental.
So here is another approach…
Whenever you hear anyone using the term “using volunteers”, verbally or in writing, ignore it. Look like you never even heard it and get engaged in the conversation about what the volunteer are being used for(!). Focus on the better world that dedicated people are trying to create…
What might be the impact of this more accepting approach by the volunteer management community?
Dedicated people
– Might be fully engaged with the volunteer management community to optimise the contribution that volunteers can make to their communities.
Volunteer management community
– Might be perceived as a community that can see the wood for the trees, and an important community to be engaged with.
The following is a review of the (2016) publication, which presents a Volunteer Resources Balanced Scorecard (VRBSc) model, for use in evaluating the impact of an organisation’s volunteering engagement. https://www.energizeinc.com/store/measuring_impact_volunteers
This publication is a useful addition to the debate around establishing sound and user-friendly means of assessing the impact of their volunteer engagement, and makes a helpful attempt at adapting Kaplan and Norton’s balanced Scorecard.
However a couple of points for consideration are:
A. Review of literature
This needs a more comprehensive approach to support a stronger argument.
For example the report (on page 11) states: “We began by doing extensive research to see if there were any measurement tools or approaches already in use that captured the impact of volunteer engagement in a more meaningful way—and found nothing of value.”
This comment is unsupported and also would appear to be inaccurate. As such it undermines the publication’s findings and conclusions.
A more credible review of literature could incorporate a critical evaluation of the following:
1. Hager and Brudney (2004)
Identified five other categories, aside from cost saving, and cited these as:
(i) Adding value to current services.
(ii) Providing services that could not otherwise be provided.
(iii) Increased public support (via community relations and fundraising).
(iv) Detailed attention to the people served by the organisation.
(v) Access to specialised skills by volunteers. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/58191/411125-Balancing-Act.PDF
2. The Volunteering Impact Assessment Toolkit (IVR, 2001 – updated, 2015)
Outlines 5 types of ‘capital’ that volunteering creates
(i) Physical capital: Services/outputs (e.g. no. of hours given, patients supported etc.)
(ii) Human capital: Skills acquired and personal development
(iii) Economic capital: Financial and economic effects of volunteering
(iv) Social capital: The development of a cohesive community, networks and relationships
(v) Cultural capital: A shared sense of cultural identity (including language and heritage) https://www.scribd.com/document/355507899/Sample-from-The-volunteering-Impact-Assessment-Toolkit
In addition, whilst the publication below postdates the development of the VRBSc model, the categories cited for impact measurement provide further evidence of the ongoing search for more sophisticated analysis of the value of volunteering engagement.
3. Volunteering impact measurement (Scottish Volunteer Forum, 2018)
Presents several categories for impact measurement
(i) Securing funding
(ii) Driving performance
(iii) Reporting to funders and stakeholders
(iv) Demonstrating progress against organisational goals
(v) Marketing and promotion
(vi) Volunteer recruitment
(vii) Improving practice
NB This toolkit also references a range of other volunteer impact measurement resources https://www.volunteerscotland.net/media/1396801/so_what.pdf
B. The VRBSc model
The report (on page 11) states: “With input from many of our colleagues who brainstormed commonalities and helped us to synthesize and refine the results, we identified these four perspectives for the VRBSc: • Build Volunteer Capacity • Enhance the Client and Staff Experience • Develop Internal and External Partnerships • Commit to Quality Improvement
There needs to be more evidence of how this input from colleagues was informed by the review of literature, and how this input resulted in the identification of the four themes that make up the VRBSc model.
For example, it appears that there is some synergy between these four categories and those cited in the various models above. However there does need to be a stronger rationale for the deviation from Kaplan and Norton’s original categories (Finance; Customers; Learning & Growth ; and Internal Business Processes).
Attend (2011) utilised categories close to those of the original Balanced Scorecard model to assess the impact of engaging with disabled volunteers, which would suggest that more justification for deviating from this model in a volunteering context is required. http://www.attend.org.uk/node/1118
Concluding comment
Despite the limitations outlined above, this publication and the proposed VRBSc model does has some intuitive value for organisations seeking to develop their thinking around developing a more strategic approach to assessing the impact of their volunteer engagement.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I was interested to read the just released ‘2016 Volunteer Management Progress Report’ on the state of the VM professionals. A few snippets from the report that caught my attention:
“Many volunteer coordinators are seeking an advocate that can help them educate others about their challenges and needs.”
“Some volunteer administrators feel their work is unfairly undervalued and under-resourced when compared to colleagues with similar levels of responsibility, most notably development or fundraising departments.”
“Many volunteer managers feel a lack of clear professional identity or standards. They often are charged with a wide variety of roles, in addition to volunteer management, that stretch them in ways that sometimes feel unreasonable.”
“Although overwhelmed, not all volunteer coordinators are aware of the free and low-cost support resources that already exist for them.”
On the face of it, it seems that VM professionals have found themselves in a bit of a collective pickle.
A few days previously I was reading the CIPD publication – ‘Next Generation HR’, and found myself being drawn into the report’s findings on the ‘Next Generation’ HR leaders – partners and provocateurs, on pages 17-19. This section described the sort of people the researchers found that were currently delivering great human resource management.
So, partly to encourage myself that there may still be hope for VM professionals, I ended up re-structuring the Next Generation findings and presented them in a volunteer management context.
These are presented below in the list of attributes and areas of impact that VM professionals might have in the future. It tends to give a totally different flavour to the VM progress Report, but might stimulate some collective thoughts…
WHAT ARE THE NEXT GENERATION OF VM LEADERS LIKE?
They are in tune…
They have an appreciation of what really makes their organsation tick.
They have the capacity to be insightful.
They are unusually alert to what is going on and whether a response is merited or an opportunity is presenting itself.
They are natural systems thinkers.
They have focus…
They have a strong underlying sense of purpose.
They have a desire to build organisations that will be built to last.
They tend to be patient and build resolve over time and in many and varied ways.
They are less inwardly facing and insular than might be the norm for many.
They have impact…
They have a lightness of touch and humility which helps them to influence assertive senior leaders.
They know how to get a thing done in the organisation, with the particular personalities and interest groups.
They have personal savvy to pick the big issues.
They have great instincts about how and when to pursue a particular agenda and how to build alliances and momentum.
They have integrity and personal depth…
They have connection to some fundamental values such as truth, respect or safety that act as an innate moral compass.
They do not lack the courage of their convictions.
They have a personal presence and natural authority that goes well beyond their ‘official’ role in VM.
They have mastered the art of being themselves, both confident in their abilities and open about their fears.
Overall?
They are professional, transparent, insightful and thought-provoking.
WHAT WILL THE NEXT GENERATION OF VM LEADERS DO?
They will encourage debate…
They will have capacity to offer organisational insight.
They will often explore and stimulate rather than challenge or browbeat (unless this is absolutely necessary).
They will engage in difficult conversations or challenge firmly held views with a real lightness of touch.
They will often take a conversation beyond the achievement of immediate objectives or targets.
They will elevate the debate and look at what really matters,
They will find new and tailored solutions…
They demonstrate an unusual ability to be real provocateurs, encouraging new ways of operating or new areas of strategic focus.
They will focus on what is possible for the organisation.
They will join up the dots in ways that others might not and spot the critical insight in a world of ‘information’.
They will draw on wide experience, networks and an understanding of the macro trends and how they affect the organisation of which they are a part.
They will influence and inspire…
They will often be successful at influencing people who are more senior in the hierarchy.
They will operate with subtlety and sophistication.
They will develop the right to transcend the traditional hierarchical relationship and offer a viewpoint or stimulate and challenge firmly held world views or opinions.
They will ignite the leadership ambition within the organisation even when the going is tough.
They will reconnect leaders to what matters and build resolve through a deep connection to the agenda rather than a short-term provocation or jolt.
They will be able to step into difficult territory without upsetting people.
HOW WILL THE NEXT GENERATION OF VM LEADERS PERCEIVED BY OTHERS?
They will be positioned in the minds of other senior leaders such that they have real share of voice and influence.
They will not be seen as mavericks or marginalised for challenging, or taking an unfashionable point of view.
They will be very much an individual first and a role second in the eyes of many they are influencing.
They will build trust and removes anxieties about hidden agendas or the feeling of being judged.
