Put a bunch of managers of volunteers together, ask them to nominate the most important principle in leading volunteers, and 80% will tell you it’s Communication.

Of course!  Except Communication is a really big carpet-bag word, stuffed full of a range of meanings and processes and practice – and technologies.  It’s time we unpacked the implications of the word and understand how it is best used in the context of a volunteer programme.

Communication is about Exchange of Information   Yes, the sending and receiving of accurate information is all-important to help volunteers into the organisation and for on-going retention.  Ensuring information about volunteers and the volunteer programme is spread to other staff and senior managers is also important.  And – being timely in responding to queries and messages: there’s nothing worse than sitting around waiting to hear back from someone, even if it is simply an acknowledgement your message has been received.

Because Communication is also about Relationships   It’s about creating personal connections, getting to know people and their circumstances.  It’s about getting alongside paid staff, creating goodwill, and their understanding and appreciation of volunteer work.  And you don’t get good relationships going without being a Listener.  You have to be really genuine in meeting and greeting and appreciating volunteers – they will see through formulaic responses very smartly.

Communication is about inter-connectedness   Communication is the way to create links with communities, to network with other managers of volunteers, and to open up intra-organisation channels.  Beware the pitfalls of ‘talking past each other’ whether in cross-cultural communication or in everyday exchanges.  It’s the intimacy of interpersonal interaction that counts towards real connections.

Communication is a leadership dynamic   A leader’s support, encouragement, enthusiasm and inspiration do not happen in isolation – by definition there is always a following team.  So a leader is tuned to know which buttons to press and when and what words to use, and how to draw in the reluctant player, or to spur the confidence of the shy and retiring volunteer, or to find new ways to develop volunteer talents.  A good communicator will also demonstrate the value of a volunteer programme to the organisation.

You cannot not communicate    There’s a truism for you!  The experts can demonstrate how just 10% of a message is conveyed in words.  The rest is non-verbal, the body language, the tone of voice, the facial expression.  So even a tight-lipped poker-face is sending a message, whether they mean to or not.

Hang on a minute – a heck of a lot of our communication these days is not face-to-face.  You’ve got everything from formal letters, newsletters and written planning and policy papers, to email and social media, to websites and webinars.  So the written word is still a primary tool for communicating ideas and information.

Being a communicator and minding our language comes with the territory of managing volunteers. I reckon we could teach foolish MPs a thing or two.

There is absolutely no doubt the people who have participated in Student Army projects deserve recognition and a thanksgiving for the work they have been doing in quake-ravaged Christchurch.  From all accounts the concert was a great success.

The website includes clear information on whys and wherefores, including a FAQ section which defines volunteering as performing a service freely and for no charge.

Here’s the rub.  There may be no fees for volunteering, though there is always an opportunity cost for the donation of time.  The pay-back for that time can be offered in a huge number of ways, from a regular smile and ‘thank you’ to formal functions and speechifying, not to mention a lot of feel-good factors and personal gains.  But to offer a tangible (and highly desirable) carrot suggests the volunteering response is not given altogether freely.  What to do when the offer is not fulfilled?  Just let it go and mumble-mumble about free-loaders, or do the public name-and-shame?  To be fair, the 600 unfulfilled pledges represent only 7.5% of the 8000 people who created 50,000 hours of volunteer service.  And if they are outed, will public humiliation put them off volunteering for ever?  Will that matter?   Is going public with non-volunteering so different from the bad-mouthing that a poorly- managed volunteer programme can attract?

Alternatively, will volunteers elsewhere now expect enticing carrots when they offer their time, something a bit beyond the annual Christmas party?

Let me add these questions to voluntary sector conditions I have been noting in my posts in recent months:

• A Register for violations of Volunteer Rights is suggested for Australia.  (Leading to a Union of Volunteers, as one comment has suggested?)
• A major event is politicised to create a legacy for volunteering, to the point where £5million Lottery Funds are allocated “to be spent on Olympic inspired volunteering schemes”.
• New ways to fund and provide social services (Social Bonds, Social Finance) are being discussed, without consideration of volunteer input.
• Lack of understanding and appreciation of volunteers and the potential of volunteering are highlighted in recent academic research.
• The focus on measuring social service impact and outcomes is not doing any favours for volunteering, specially where the quality of relationships makes the critical difference to outcomes for individuals.
• The rise of Obligatory Volunteering is also evident, including internships, compulsory community service and conditional welfare entitlements.  Which is where the Christchurch Concert pledge fits in:  ‘free will’ is not so free after all.
• Corporate responsibility and ‘workplace volunteering’ can sometimes be more self-serving than real social responsibility.
• In addition we should take into account trends in volunteer preferences, like micro-volunteering, time-limited and task-focused assignments, and time-banking.

There we have a heap of shifts in practice to impact on the ethos of volunteering, and many of them influenced by Government directives.   Government is even supporting a new approach to community development with funding and advice.  It is disappointing to see how the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector is ignoring the long history and proud achievements of ‘community-led development’ that happens without any form of government intervention.

So it seems the ethos of volunteering has enlarged its sphere to include more formalised, more structured practice, and a variety of practice modes.  Volunteering is certainly less central to service delivery for many NGOs than the volunteering I grew up with, decades ago.  That’s OK – nothing is forever, and I’m getting used to living with constant change, in organisations and in volunteering.

But, and it’s a big but: formalised volunteering programmes, complete with policies and professional management of volunteers, are pretty small bikkies in NFP statistics.  Ninety per cent of volunteer organisations in New Zealand do not employ paid staff.  Think about it: that’s close to 90,000 organisations that do their own thing, working in their communities for the common good, and doing good, pitching in where needs must, scratching for funds, and keeping  their services going anyway.

So the ethos of volunteering, performing a service freely and for no charge, has not gone away.  It has just got a bit larger.  Denouncing volunteers who do not fulfil commitments is not yet within the boundaries of regular practice, not yet in the spirit of volunteering, even though volunteers are free to tarnish an organisation’s reputation if they don’t get the experience they expect.

As any yachtie knows, a shift in the wind means you have to trim the sails, and adjust the course to make the most of the wind-power.  That’s the excitement of sailing, being at the mercy of wind and ocean currents, and mastering your way around these forces.  Volunteering can shift with the wind too, yet will keep enough of its core to maintain a true course.

So the tales of volunteers being under-valued and unappreciated, and treated badly, continue to mount up.  And now Australian volunteers are invited to register violations of their rights or inappropriate treatment.

Two problems here.  One, I don’t know of any cast iron document on volunteer rights relating to ‘inappropriate treatment’.  Which means, secondly, there is not much legal protection for volunteers (in New Zealand) beyond privacy and health and safety regulations and the non-discrimination provisions of the Human Rights Act.  ‘Volunteer rights’ are more in the realm of ethical and best practice procedures.

There are various Codes of Practice for managing volunteers.  There are various Rights and Responsibilities documents outlining reciprocal obligations for volunteers and organisations.  There is, if you did not know already, a Code of Ethics for managers of volunteers.  In 2001 (remember that year?) a “Universal Declaration on the Profession of Leading and Managing Volunteers”   was developed by an international working group, including New Zealand representation.   These hallmarks of a profession are clearly not sufficiently embedded to address the wrongs experienced by volunteers.

The regulatory environment in most jurisdictions will include volunteers within health and safety, privacy and human rights.  Volunteers are excluded from employment law of course, though there is a grey area when we start talking about being ‘a good employer’ (see this post).

So from a volunteer’s perspective there is not much comeback if they get bullied, or mucked around, or ignored – all that personal insult stuff that is so hard to argue.  There is no formal means of redress, unless the organisation’s HR policies and their ‘good employer’ commitment includes volunteers in their complaints and disciplinary procedures, and in annual review processes which offer a two-way consideration of both the volunteer programme and volunteer contributions.  To go further into ‘workplace protection’ would jeopardise the meaning and status of volunteering.

In 2009 serious breaches of trust between volunteers and the organisations they volunteered for led to Volunteering England’s Volunteer Rights Inquiry.  The outcome called on organisations to sign up to the 3R Promise, promoting and protecting and taking responsibility for volunteer experience and raising standards of management of volunteers, and reconciliation when things go wrong. Volunteering New Zealand’s Best Practice Guidelines for Volunteer-Involving Organisations is another model, outlining opportunities for organisation development and change to develop and maintain a programme that offers volunteers the best possible experience.

But the fundamentals of that best experience is based on good communication, effective working  relationships, high standards of training and induction, ongoing support, demonstrative appreciation and being valued for contributing to the organisation’s mission and to the community.  (Have I missed anything here?)  These are matters of professional standards and ethics and values.  They are ‘people-centred’, involving relationships of mutual respect and trust.

Volunteers can tell us what they want, what they think is their best experience in all sorts of ways.  See what I wrote a few months ago.   Or consider this account from another writer.

If we listened to ‘what volunteers want’ we would not have to set up complaint registers or to promise commitments, or guidelines for organisations.  If we listened to volunteers we would not be pushed to concern for protecting their rights.  We might even become the profession we ought to be.

And – we’ll get more pictures of happy and satisfied volunteers.

     Volunteers in action, London Olympics; RWC 2011 in New Zealand

No – this is not the last will and testament of volunteering, nor an obituary of the dynamic and thriving social activities in our communities.  But I do have something to say about the expectations of long-term outcomes for volunteering at major events.

This week there are media reports from the UK headlining Legacy of London 2012 volunteers is ‘fizzling out’, and declaring there is “no clear plan for capitalising on the contribution Games Makers can make to other volunteering initiatives”.

Like the Rugby World Cup in New Zealand in 2011, the London Games engaged volunteers (70,000 of them) who made a huge contribution to the success of the Games.   There are lessons here for all of us, about event management – especially the volunteer programme, about long-term volunteer outcomes – especially around volunteer engagement and retention, and about ‘the legacy’.

Talk of the London Legacy began early, some five years before the Games began.  There were promises declared, including the intention to “inspire a generation of young people to take part in local volunteering, cultural and physical activity”.   The knowledge, skills and experience of managers of volunteers did not rate a mention.  Defining a legacy was, I suppose, a way to justify the huge expenditure on hosting the Olympics, and to indicate there would be some return on the investment.

There have been reams of commentary, before and since the Games.  One volunteer sector writer notes the shortcomings in the planning and management of the volunteer programme, and prefers to describe what was learned from the Games rather than extolling the Legacy.   Another identifies the hurdles for sustaining a legacy on the volunteer front, namely ignoring basic principles of volunteer recruitment and retention.

Like the London Games, oversight of the Rugby World Cup in New Zealand was also a government responsibility, though much of the leg-work was done by the NZRU and Sport NZ.  Leaders in the community sector were disappointed they were not consulted or directly involved in the planning for the volunteer programme.  But it turned out well-planned and well-managed, and a huge success for the tournament, for the visitors and rugby supporters, and for the volunteers.

And, we’ve got the evidence, because research on the event was commissioned right at the start to monitor volunteer experiences.  Six months after the event the survey indicates there may be positive impacts on future volunteering, though less impact on sports participation. There have also been positive outcomes for youth, and potential social benefits as volunteers keep in touch with friends they have made.  A further follow-up report is due in the near future.

In the UK results of a recent survey are less promising.  Only 2 per cent of adults have started volunteering since the Olympic Games; 70 per cent do not want to start, or do more volunteering.

Legacy?  What Legacy?  We are not talking about something that is gifted in a will, nor about a ‘baton’ being handed on to others even though there is no doubt volunteers will carry good memories of their experience for a long time.

 “To be involved and a part of the ABs Victory Parade the day after the final – the public accolade the volunteers received was overwhelming!!  A magical, historical day I will never forget!!!”

“My participation as a volunteer in the RCW is the best contribution to my family, community, and New Zealand as a whole.”

The Victory Parade is an emotional triumph for Volunteers

But is a major national event really an occasion to showcase volunteering and attract new recruits?  Surely it was more about New Zealand winning that Cup!

I have been on the sharp end of event management a few times.  I know about chaos and stress and long hours, and about the glow of success.  More important is what I have learned about the support, enthusiasm and dedication shown by volunteers in their commitment to the project.  They’ll go for it, 100%, and they will revel in the occasion and appreciate the ‘after-match’ party.  Most will agree to be kept on the database for another time but will drift away if there is no ongoing communication and contact.  Very few will come forward to ask about other volunteer opportunities.

This is not an issue of retention.  We do not hold these events as a recruitment drive for long-term engagement.  That’s unrealistic when current trends are showing short-term task-focussed assignments are preferred.  After all the hype and excitement of a major national or local event the options for ordinary volunteering will seem somewhat pedestrian.  I would sooner we acknowledged there are sprinters and there are marathon runners; there are horses for different courses, and (dragging out that old cliché again) one size does not fit all volunteers.

Volunteers I know do not think of their achievements at events or in their work for community-based services in terms of legacies.  I do not regard my volunteering experience as a bequest from my parents’ example.  It is simply something I choose because I belong in a community.  That is the real nature of volunteering.

There’s my question for the week, something to puzzle over after reading the headline Some community social services could be funded privately in future, under a new agreement with the Government.   This is the first public statement on Social Bonds from a New Zealand government minister.

‘Social Bonds’ is a process of advancing funds to NGOs by philanthropist groups (‘private providers’) for the term of an outcomes-based contract, and then reimbursed by Government when the NGO delivers on pre-determined targets.  This funding arrangement has been researched and discussed within government in New Zealand since 2009.   Earlier this year a roadshow promotion from Treasury and Ministry of Health travelled the country to inform community organisations, and to start public discussion.

Those of us who do the media watching, monitor trends, and understand the politics of the day will not be overly surprised.  In the UK Social Bonds have been transforming the community and volunteer landscape since Big Society became the favoured social policy of the Coalition Government.  An Australian report indicates ongoing discussion and debate on details of a Social Bond programme.  Maybe we should heed a Canadian view that says “Social Impact Bonds are a new way to privatise public services.”

On the face of it, the intention of a Social Bond arrangement makes a lot of sense – as any venture capitalist would want from investing in a new enterprise.  You put in the money, and you expect to see some real returns on investment, like a reduction in the rate of teen-age pregnancy, fewer smokers, or a drop in criminal re-offending figures.   Social Bonds also link favourably with current developments in New Zealand for user-friendly contracts between government and NGOs, including multi-agency contracting and simple format financial reporting.  Social Bonds sit well with the results-based programme set by Better Public Services – though this ambitious agenda needs to involve all parts of the community and voluntary sector, from the beginning.

Nothing is yet certain, except for evidence of government intentions for change.  In my reactionary moments I see a pincer movement to corral organisations into a private sector model of service delivery, to get the job done in the shortest time at the lowest cost.  There are risks of reduced public accountability.  Worse is how the ethos of a welfare safety net is further eroded, because investor profits will take precedence.  At the work-face performance-based contracting could mean a selective practice devoted to the most ‘deserving’ clients who will boost the return on investment.

Nowhere in the discussion so far has there been a mention of volunteers – neither their existing contributions to NGOs, nor their future potential.  Non-Government Organisations are those which contract with government. To be drawn closer to web and snares of government is to revert to the decades-old acronym of QANGO – a quasi-autonomous non-government organisation, the ‘almost, but not quite’ independent body, a phrase that will fool nobody.

Not-for-profit organisations (NFPs) can be thankful they are outside this net.  Yet they too will be drawn into this new environment, if only in their efforts to secure a share of the charity dollar.  Will philanthropists consider NFP applications favourably alongside a guaranteed return for investing with NGOs?  And, if the ROI from government contracts is lower than finance market rates doesn’t that reduce the size of the over-all funding pool?

What will become of volunteering when government-sponsored community services become the norm?

Well, here’s your example.  There is one institution, developed and run by volunteers for many years.  Since it gained a government contract a few years back there has been a huge growth in paid staff, and volunteers have been side-lined, reduced to wondering what their role is, and whether they are needed any more.  They do not feature on the organisation chart; they are bit-part players, not really essential to the way the organisation is playing out its mission and vision.

If I was writing a fictional scenario for the future I would be describing the growth in NGOs marketing and fundraising departments.  The organisation-wide volunteer programme will be down-graded in favour of ‘greater efficiency’ from paid staff.  Volunteer activities will be confined to promotional and fundraising events.  No need now for managers of volunteers, because HR and FR people know how and can do.

But if I was looking for inspiration I would go straight to Inspiring Communities, where community-led change is still the mantra to follow, where they know about ‘learning by doing’, about community development thinking and action.  Or I would read again the stories from NZ Social Entrepreneur Fellowship.

Volunteering shall not die, because it is in our nature to collaborate and to care about our families, neighbours, and communities.  We just need to our voice to be heard, and heeded.

For too long I have been listening to these words, how “they” just do not understand volunteering and management of volunteers.  Now I am sitting up to ask the question “What do we mean by getting volunteering – what do we want ‘them’ to get?”

And I’m running into trouble when I go looking for answers.

I could recite the litany of volunteer motivations; describe the history of community organisations and their rise to national and corporate status.  I could tell the stories of volunteers, and there are millions to document ‘making the difference’ for individuals and communities.  I’m not so keen on citing the record of hours worked and assumed $$ contributions, because that information does not seem to wash further than input/output statistics in the annual accounts – volunteers are just another resource to draw on.  And anyway, we have gone down all these roads, many times.

What is it, what is the real deal that would get staff and organisation executives and government departments and corporate bosses to open their eyes to a real Ah-Ha moment about volunteering?

For starters it would help if “they”

Have had personal experience of volunteering and an understanding of the relevance of community in the wider fields of political and social action.

Work in an organisation structure and culture where volunteers are physically located in staff work-spaces, and which integrates the volunteer programme in service delivery plans and processes.

Employee volunteering is another option to open eyes to the richness and diversity of community organisations, and to their needs.

Yet these experiences do not seem to work for everyone in all places.  The stories keep recurring about a lack of support for volunteers and their managers, and about organisations not taking volunteering seriously.  It’s a low cost investment, nice to have, but not something to be worried about nor included when it comes to planning and strategic development.

Of course what the bosses and bureaucrats should be doing is paying attention to Volunteering New Zealand’s Best Practice Guidelines for Volunteer-Involving Organisations. 

It is encouraging to note increasing awareness and activism among managers of volunteers and associated groups.  We are talking up impact and outcome measurement of volunteer services, advocating for volunteering within our organisations.  But following this path is simply trying to prove the worth of volunteering on “their” terms, a linear logic that can be described with numbers on paper.

If only “they” could look the other way to see the true value of volunteering.  Here is what I would want “them” to see:

Volunteers complement the organisation’s delivery of services.

Volunteers add value to services, providing extras that are never going to be funded, and which enhance the holistic experience of users/clients.

Volunteers are ambassadors for the organisation.  With a good experience volunteers can be the best marketing agent ever.  If that experience is not so good they will do the worst possible damage to your reputation in the community, making it difficult to recruit new volunteers, and putting significant limitations on the success of fundraising projects.

Community organisations are said to be driven by values.  No matter the mission you will find words like respect, dignity, communication, family-whanau/people-centred, community inclusiveness featuring on the masthead.   Values represent beliefs and attitudes we hold dear, and we know them by the way they are exhibited in behaviour.  Regardless of the reasons why people volunteer their behaviour generally reflects the ideals of the organisation.

So when we try to measure volunteering according to business plans and key performance indicators and impact measurement we get stuck on things like courtesy and goodwill, like relationships and understanding, like social connections and community development and individual and collective strengths.  Volunteering is about people, by people and for people.

The value of volunteering is not less than the organisation’s ability to reach targets and to show a return on investment.  Volunteering is a different sort of value.  So, for “them” to ‘get volunteering’ requires understanding a different culture.

The beauty of understanding and accepting cultural difference is the new relationship that forms, based on each others’ strengths and a willingness to learn how to work together.  That’s when I shall know “they” really get volunteering.

The survey covers both NGO and not-for-profit (NFP) organisations, all fields of social service provision, and both large national organisations and small community groups with no paid staff and no external funding.  The promise of confidentiality and privacy allowed a freedom to respond to questions in an open and direct way.  The results will not be surprising to those of us engaged in the community and voluntary sector, but the tenor and directness of the quoted statements leave us in no doubt of a depth of disappointment and frustration behind the words.  For example (p 57):

NGOs play a unique and crucial role in New Zealand.  Their contribution to political decision-making in NZ is currently undervalued and under-utilised.  They are under-resourced and therefore undermined. (Emphasis added)

Small wonder these words deserved underscoring.

The report deserves to be read in full, to get the picture of how we have come to this pretty pass, and to note the references to earlier studies raising questions and alarm bells.

Those with long memories will recall the shifts we had to make in New Zealand from the early 1980s.  Let me remind you:

A simple ‘begging letter’ to a philanthropic or trust fund changed to formal application requirements and for reports on spending and demonstrable benefits or gains.  Organisations were forced to hire people to spend their days making funding applications, thus increasing overhead costs. And philanthropic funders got into cahoots to determine which social issue of the moment deserved the most attention.

Contracts for health and social services devolved from government responsibility might have brought funding security, but the new environment came with fish-hooks like health and safety regulations; like additional responsibilities and accountability for volunteer governance, not to mention compliance costs.  What was previously a mission-based civil society endeavour changed to dancing to the tune of government direction.

Consultation quickly became a dirty word as proposals were presented with invitation to comment, only to find policy directions had already been decided.  Very little notice was taken of community responses no matter the expressed outrage.  Neither were organisations given time or resources to present community views to government.

These are the bones now cemented into the community and voluntary sector.  Fundraising has become a professional occupation, accompanied by the marketing experts so that organisations compete for the charity dollar and corporate sponsorship.  Contracts with government are confidential and a gagging clause ensures docile compliance.  These days it seems a consultation document is issued one week and turned into a political or regulatory edict just a few weeks later.

The government’s ‘relationship’ with the community and voluntary sector bound in the Kia Tutahi document counts for nothing against the control imposed by the contracting environment.  Adding to this disregard of communities the Charities Commission is disestablished, its responsibilities now determined and regulated by a government department.  The rules change and over a thousand organisations lose their charitable status and their ability to raise funds via the carrot of tax rebates.  Advocacy is out, so longstanding organisations like Greenpeace and National Council of Women (NCW) are no longer deemed charities.  In ‘the good old days’ NCW was a political force to be reckoned with, up there with Federated Farmers and the Federation of Labour.

Here is the sound of the silence of democratic dissent.

And this reality happens, the report’s findings say, regardless of which political party heads the government.  It’s an undemocratic reality when all the power is in the hands of government, when the voice of the sector is not valued, nor respected.

A few people will recognise a parallel universe in the way organisations can undervalue the work of managers of volunteers, and under-appreciate volunteer contributions to oiling social wheels and to maintaining community wellbeing in many different spheres.   I could suggest this is a function of a trickle-down pecking order.  I would sooner we took a stand to exercise our democratic voice, for volunteers and for the organisations that serve our communities.

There was plenty of encouragement to do just this at the recent Australasian Retreat for Advanced Management of Volunteers.  Focus Up! was a key message.  Recognise our roles as Leaders, Educators, Movers and Shakers and do something!  Even if it means getting out of comfort zones, causing a stir, sticking heads over parapets.  We owe it to volunteers and to our communities.

There’s a global push these days to find answers to these questions, putting pressure on NGOs and NFPs to lift their game.  Do not mistake me, I am all for demonstrating impact and effective social change, but why do I feel like a captured mouse being teased by the cat?  Or like the caged big cats being whipped along by the circus ringmaster?

When you de-code the signals you can see how philanthropic donors and funder contracts are controlling and directing the community and voluntary sector environment.  There’s a sinking lid on what we are allowed to do in the name of ‘charity’, as well as reduced funding.  It’s like there is a takeover in progress, and we are letting it happen, being sucked into the ways and means of the public and private sectors.  Corporate sponsorship and partnerships with business are attractive to get leverage and influence for social change, but how long before we are dancing to the whims of the corporation’s board?  To the tune of the latest marketing programme?  Or to the political good idea that gets turned into a statutory regulation?

The language of inputs / outputs / outcomes, of efficiency and effectiveness has been around in business for decades, and community and voluntary organisations have made efforts to record their work along these measures.  But nothing is clear-cut, and I have yet to see a proven methodology for measuring outcomes and impact that works for the NFP sector.

Years ago I had to persuade a new manager who had come from a canning factory that disabled people were not cans of peas; they did not roll off an assembly line in neatly packaged ways; and really, there were multi-multiple factors to take into account in service planning and delivery, and in what could be counted as measures of ‘success’.

It’s still much the same these days.  Consider Buddy or Befriending programmes for example – they are out there in organisations for the elderly, in mental health programmes, in services for disabled people, for de facto grand-parenting and parent support groups, and for disaffected youth.  Think about the multiple stakeholders who could be involved in these services: funders and donors; the provider organisation; families; volunteers, and hello! the manager of volunteers who is responsible for making the programme work and best possible experience for the volunteer and for service users.

The impact of services like these goes in several directions.  Families and individuals get support / advice / information to keep on keeping on and to take new leaps into the future.  The organisation takes another step in fulfilling its mission, and maybe reporting to funders and donors on real achievements.  Volunteers gain in their personal sense of well-being, and in health benefits.  There are spin-off benefits for other health and welfare organisations, and for government services.  Managers of volunteers can glow with pride when they see what a great team of volunteers they are leading and what they have achieved.  The spread of impact goes way beyond performance indicators and a one-eyed review of measuring what the organisation does, even if we are not talking it up, or making formal assessment of achievements.  That is Civil Society for you, a large amorphous collective that keeps on keeping our communities and societies keeping on.

We should not need to be reminded about the role and function of Civil Society.  We should not need to recall there is a much larger view of the world than profit and loss accounts, of measuring outcomes and impact and social change.  Civil Society is the third leg of the stool that vies for social harmony at local, national and global levels.  As a significant part of Civil Society our community and voluntary sectors offer a countervailing force against the might and main of government and big business.  Do not let us lose traction by succumbing to hard-nosed political dogma, nor in being seduced by the attractions of social enterprise or the lure of venture capital and other funding arrangements.

But do – please – let us work together to find ways to report on achievement, successes, volunteer stories, and what really works to create change.  We – the community and voluntary sector, and the managers of volunteers – need to state our case, and to stake a claim in the politics of impact measurement.

No, this post is not a lecture on Road Safety, nor is it about peripheral vision.  I want to talk about how a manager of volunteers needs two lines of sight.

Because it’s all very well to design and develop and run a programme for volunteers in an organisation, and to take to heart the mission of ensuring the best experience for the volunteers – but if you have not looked the other way to see how the volunteer programme integrates with other organisation functions and policies then both volunteers and the organisation can end up being short-changed.

Over the years I’ve listened to the sorrowful song-book presented by managers of volunteers.   Here’s a small sample:

• Volunteers are regarded as second-rate workers
• Managers of volunteers don’t rate it as ‘managers’, nor as ‘professionals’
• They are lowly-paid and inadequately resourced
• No support for professional development
• Lip-service recognition of the volunteer programme, and volunteer achievements
• ‘They’ just don’t get volunteering

It does not have to be like that!  And it isn’t of course, as the champions and leaders of our profession can demonstrate.  There are also Chief Executives who know and understand volunteering and its importance to the organisation, ensuring volunteers get a fair go and respect for their work.

So what can you be doing to get away from the moan-and-groan stuff?

Simple answer: you get strategic.

Help!  I don’t know how.

Yes you do! You have thought through what was needed for the programme, developed policies and processes, set everything in place for the recruitment and training of volunteers, and how volunteering would work in the organisation.  You connected with your communities, and with the local network of managers of volunteers.  Now you can do it all again, in the other direction, developing the connections and the strategies that will show senior management how to embrace volunteering and your management and leadership within the organisational fold.

Where do I start?

Hang on a minute.  Before you get to action you have to do the planning.  And before the planning, you need to figure what it is you are trying to do.  You want the organisation to get volunteering, and the importance of good management and leadership of volunteers, right?  What do you mean by “get volunteering”?  What is it that people need to know about volunteering?  What do you want to tell them and what is the best way to do it?

Now you can start thinking about your strategic plan – the key areas to work on, and the goals you have identified.  You will be taking into account what is working and what doesn’t and what is missing.  For instance, does volunteering get more than a mention in the organisation’s strategic plan and its business plan?  How would you write up volunteering in these plans?

There is more: being strategic includes identifying potential allies, formulating the key points you want to communicate, and considering the channels open to you.  You might, in the first instance, start reporting on volunteers and their activities, telling their stories and successes – and circulating the report to key players in the organisation, and especially the chief executive.  Be bold, and go further by offering to meet and discuss the report.  Even suggest what more could be achieved by volunteers.

Is this enough to go on with, to give you a kick-start?

If you want more info and other perspectives, go see how volunteer programmes can get Messed Up and what to do about it; or the observations of a group UK Managers of Volunteers.  For details on how-to-plan, and what should be included, see this chapter of the Community Resource Kit or get the basics from Sport NZ.

One of the slogans I hear frequently is “managers of volunteers are advocates for volunteers in the organisation”, though I hear little about results of advocacy.  The plaint of getting volunteering gets much more air time.  Quite honestly this is the biggest foot-fault of our profession: wishing others would see our point of view is wishful thinking and accomplishes nothing.  It is time to change our ways, to work on making looking-both-ways a key dynamic in the life of a manager of volunteers.

In the on-line course Essentials of Volunteer Management participants are asked to comment on the advantages and disadvantages of using social media for recruitment.  Mostly the responses are “we don’t”, and reservations are sometimes based on unfamiliarity with the facilities social media can offer.

Yes, as Susan J Ellis points out, social media is not always the ideal medium for recruitment messages: there are other fundamentals to take into account.  And as we all know, it is word-of-mouth that proves the most effective tool for engaging new volunteers.  Yet I am impressed with the promotional information and volunteer opportunities put up on Facebook by Volunteer Centres.  In their role as brokers between organisations and prospective volunteers they are offering new opportunities for both parties.  Mostly the messages are short and snappy and accompanied by a photograph, plus clear contact details.

Why should NGOs and not-for-profit organisations be bothering with social media?  If you have a well-produced and inter-active web-site and regular e-newsletters what more do you need?

Well – social media is just the best communication tool for reaching the widest possible audience and for dispersing information and promoting organisational interests.  Just think how popular crowd-sourcing and on-line fundraising has become.  Notice how often a message or a video-clip can ‘go viral’ and become part of popular culture.

After all, says a UK fan, social media is designed to be fun, straightforward and easy to use, and with millions of potential supporters accessible online it’s too good an opportunity to miss.

Quite – especially when I want to keep in touch with Gen Y friends and find they are never checking their email inbox.

Of course, for all my enthusiasm there are still disadvantages to consider when thinking about using social media.

Here’s the advice from a for-profit business perspective * :

• It takes time: it’s a constant investment
• Target which channel you want to use, likely to be used by your consumers
• What are your objectives?  To gain sales; build profile; communicate with members only?
• You need to have something interesting to say: be instructive, informative, controversial or humorous – otherwise your efforts will be simply social media white noise
• Is social media relevant to your target market?  Test and measure its value to your business

For NGOs and Non-Profit organisations the best resource is the information offered by Jayne Cravens .  Her advice and commentary, plus extra links, cover most of the points made above.  There are risks to manage: you need a written policy on staff and volunteer online engagement as representatives of the organisation.  It takes time to get results; you have to really get engaged with online supporters.  Ultimately, Jayne says, online social networks are an important part of a mission-based organisation’s box of outreach tools.

And outreach, in my book, is all that marketing and promotion we need to do in this day and age.  You might think it ironic that I am not a Tweeter, and a minimal contributor to Facebook – but I do know a good thing for community organisations when I see it.  And I do like to push out boats on this blog.

………….

*        Drawn from an article in Dominion Post, Februay 25, 2013