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.

___________________________________________________________________________

* VUCA – Volatile Unpredictable Complex Ambiguous

A fascinating interview with Colin Rochester in Third Sector on-line today…

He argues that the professionalisation of the sector has taken a toll on its core values.

It concludes with this quote:

“The big national charities are a lost cause, but they never really were part of the sector. What is interesting is what’s happening at local level, where there is pressure for small organisations to conform. There are plenty of organisations that are on the cusp of change and are not a lost cause.

“They are being groomed to become providers of services, but they’re not getting the work. Many will be faced with the fact that the rewards of the path they’re taking will not fall into their lap, that they will be unable to compete. They will have a rude awakening, but to the extent that they have roots in voluntary action they will survive.

“When I go and talk to people in small voluntary organisations, I sense a lot of their distinctive characteristics are still there and could blossom again – but then I’m probably an incurable romantic.”

This is worrying stuff – “lost cause”, “grooming”, and “rude awakenings” and other scary thoughts… Many things to ponder here for the big national charities, and those local charities that are being groomed for a future of impoverished values…

However, on a more cheery note…

From a quick glance at the NCVO Almanac data for 2013, we can conclude that only c26,000 of the 162,000 charities in the UK employ paid staff.

Therefore at least 84% of charities are volunteer-led and run. The Almanac also cites 580,000 trustees, which (evenly distributed) suggests there are 487,200 leaders of volunteer-led and run charities in the UK.

Is strikes me that these half a million talented, committed and passionate people will act to protect the independence of the ‘voluntary sector’, and champion ‘values-led’ voluntary action for many years to come…

Roy Lilley (via his nhsManmagers.net circular), has suggested (nay demanded), that the whole hospital Board of Colchester should be sacked “The whole lot, lock-stock and barrel, shown the door.”

He supports his stance with the following paragraph:
“Whatever their excuse, no matter how grovelling their apology, however cunning their justification, no matter how reasonable their reasoning, no matter how defiant their defence, no matter how spirited their resistance, their promises, their hand wringing. However limpet-like they cling on to their jobs, salaries, pensions and careers. We do not want you in the NHS.”

I noticed my mind was reeling from what was an unexpected onslaught at that point in my day, and took a moment’s reflection. I was aware of a few concepts floating around my head. For example:
– The commitment and dedication of members of this Board to the good of their community over the years.
– How systems, together with attitudes to the pressures of work and associated tensions can have the affect of creating a toxic culture, and how these can go un-noticed in the business of everything.
But most importantly, I was aware that axing the Board with no investigation, no right of representation and no appeal, would have an inevitable impact on both the organisation’s culture and that of the wider NHS.

After a brief respite, my eyes found themselves being drawn back to the text, where they read the following direct message to named individuals:

“Dr Gordon Coutts, Sue Barnett, Mike Baker, Katy French, Sean MacDonnell, Sarah Shirtcliff, Sally Irvine, Helen Parr, John Ashworth, Jude Chin, Tom Fleetwood, Christine Temple, Peter Wilson… the Board… ask yourself this; if M&S had poisoned customers with their food, Virgin killed passengers with their trains or planes, Ford had sold cars with brakes they knew didn’t stop the car… what would you expect the Board to do?”

“You may have been unlucky, you may have been caught out, let down, lied to… we don’t care. You are tainted and totemic of the bullying culture the NHS has to leave behind. You are emblematic of casual leadership, the complacency, the smugness, the self-satisfied, arrogant management that thinks it will be OK to apologise, ‘learn the lessons’ and move on. No. You have dealt a fatal blow to the credibility of the NHS. You have presided over cheating, lying, forgery and goodness knows what else. However well intended; this is on your watch. Just go.

In your hospital, on your watch a bullying culture has led to questions that ordinary people are asking, to which the only answer is, we don’t know how it happened but we will find out and be assured; we will never let any of these people near a hospital Board again.

Do the decent thing, resign, quit; go now.”

Another brief pause and a reflection of how I felt after reading this…
Honestly?…I felt more than a tad bullied. Bullied by being forced to reach the conclusions that each of the named individuals are to blame and the recommendation for the Board to jump or be pushed, without an investigation or reliable findings to help me get there. I had to acknowledge that I also felt somewhere between irritated and angry, that a widely circulated blog post might unduly influence a critical situation, where the responses and decisions made will impact on the culture and mission of the NHS.

The recommendation to either jump or be pushed, based on no investigation, no right of representation and no appeal, breaches the principles of natural justice and is more than likely to perpetuate a bullying culture. A fascinating and yet worrying irony.

In his honourable endeavour to protect the community, Roy Lilley’s approach may well unwittingly damage the community. His approach essentially moves him from the role of ‘rescuer’ to the role of the ‘persecutor’ (see the Drama Triangle Stephen Karpman).

So what is the potential impact of ‘jump or be pushed’?
– Less opportunity for insightful learning
– Valuable tacit knowledge leaves the organisation
– A climate that encourages mass Board resignation/sackings whenever an NHS Trust has a crisis, regardless of the extent Board members are linked to, or have a remit for, the issues that may have led to said crisis
– Quality people less willing to offer their time, talents and professional reputation to serve on NHS Boards.

So on reflection, I would wish the Board and the key decision-makers around this situation all the best in staying focused on creating a better future for the NHS, and resisting the easy paths that will inevitably compound “the bullying culture (that) the NHS has to leave behind”.
There’s a time for an unyielding determination of both professional and lay communities to roll up their sleeves to help the NHS move closer to its calling, and one can’t help feeling that time is upon us where these communities need to commit together to celebrate the principles heralded in the NHS constitution:

“The NHS belongs to the people.
It is there to improve our health and wellbeing, supporting us to keep mentally and physically well, to get better when we are ill and, when we cannot fully recover, to stay as well as we can to the end of our lives. It works at the limits of science – bringing the highest levels of human knowledge and skill to save lives and improve health.
It touches our lives at times of basic human need, when care and compassion are what matter most.”

A report coordiated by ACEVO has been profiled this week, advising on good practice for realising the potential of governance.

Third sector on-line promoted this with the headline: “Charities should introduce formal appraisal procedures for trustees, Acevo report urges”.

However, this headine is more that a tad misleading, as the report does not urge charities to use formal appraisal procedures for Trustees.

Conversely the report makes is quite clear that Board Appraisal should be undertaken in a way that aligns with the culture and resources of an individual charity.

Two forms of Trustee appraisal are put forward:

1. Individual trustee appraisals. These range from formal reviews informed by written self-assessment, or less formal procedures involving scheduled conversations. These are frequently led by the chair.

2. Whole-board appraisals. This option was considered by many respondents to be a less stressful prospect for trustees. A whole-board appraisal would often be facilitated by an independent external source such as a consultant. Alternatively, two organisations might consider a board-to-board, peer-led approach, in which two boards mutually review and appraise each other’s governance standards.

Whichever methodology is used, the report highlights that the effectiveness of board appraisals depends greatly on organisational culture and behaviour – an organisational culture that encourages trustees to take accountability seriously, and reflect on their responsibilities and performance on an ongoing basis.

However, for the smaller more informal charities (84% of charities are purely volunteer led and run – with no paid staff), the whole-board appraisal could be argued as a more appropriate way forward.