July 30, 2016

Righting a Wrong

Posted in Best Practice, Managing Volunteers, Organisation responsibilities tagged , , , at 11:51 pm by Sue Hine

Right & WrongOh dear – another volunteer has hit the headlines, for all the wrong reasons and then some.

It’s a breach of confidentiality, perhaps a slip of the tongue or maybe an inadvertent blurt about something that did not seem important at the time.  Nothing malicious it seems, nor at whistle-blowing level.

The matter caused the police to lay a complaint with the organisation, because they have a memorandum of understanding which includes the condition of confidentiality.  The organisation is duly obliged to investigate.  In the end no action is taken because there was insufficient evidence to support the complaint.  However, the volunteer called in a lawyer and incurred significant costs, and now looks for compensation and an apology, even though he may have been a bit obstructive in engaging with the investigation.

When a story like this hits national news then it’s something for volunteers and their organisations to sit up and take notice.

It would be rare for a volunteer-involving organisation to have a contract or code of conduct for volunteers that does not include confidentiality.  But the issues around confidentiality are complex.  At the top end are things like intellectual property and ‘commercial sensitivity’ and personal privacy which might invoke expensive prosecution if a breach occurs.  At the other end of the scale a volunteer might simply make an unthinking comment.

Given the seriousness of privacy when working with vulnerable people or the organisation’s business, how much discussion on confidentiality takes place in a volunteer training session?  What would be considered a breach of confidentiality?  Are there limits of confidentiality when it comes to client/users health and welfare issues? What’s a volunteer to do if they learn of criminal activities?  Here’s the place to introduce discussion on confidentiality and the ethics around confidential issues.  And to make sure everyone is familiar with privacy legislation.  This kind of protection for volunteers and the organisation is just as important as the measures for physical safety.

And after all that do we ever spell out the process for investigating and dealing with an actual or potential breach?  Is there a policy and procedure in place?  And are the possible remedies included?  For example, minor breaches can be dealt with a reminder or a verbal warning, or possibly a flag on your personal file.   Investigation of a serious breach may lead to dismissal.

I am not suggesting we go to the lengths of a volunteer equivalent of employment tribunals and courts.  But we can avoid such drastic measures when we ensure the full implications of confidentiality and consequences of a breach are fully explained and understood.

Prevention is better than cure, right?

February 14, 2016

Getting Engaged

Posted in Best Practice, Leading Volunteers, Managing Volunteers, Organisation responsibilities, Recognition of Volunteering, Relationships, Valuing Volunteers, volunteer experience tagged , , , , at 3:52 am by Sue Hine

all_about_relationshipsI take an inward groan when I hear tell of organisations having trouble recruiting the volunteer numbers they would like.  Over the years of my volunteering experience I have found the trouble is not in the nuts and bolts process of recruitment, it’s more about the lack of engagement with the volunteer.

I reckon most managers of volunteers have got the hang of the basics, like policies and job descriptions and training.  We all know (don’t we?) about targeted recruitment, sending out the best message, through a variety of media, and of course asking current volunteers to spread the word.  But what happens next, when the new willing-hands go up, is the critical point.

I’m talking about ‘getting engaged’.  Not in any romantic sense, you understand, simply establishing a relationship between volunteer and the programme manager, between the volunteer and the organisation and its staff.

Except it seems this is not so simple.  Here’s my list of would-be-volunteer songs that are too often left unsung in accepted practice.

I make a call or email the organisation’s contact person, and I never hear back.

If there is an interview it is all a bit perfunctory, concluding with an urgent tone of ‘when can you start?’

If I ask what sort of work there is on offer, either the tasks turn out to be pretty meaningless or the volunteer role is glossed over as being easy to pick up.  A job description is not always available.

When I take up this rather vague arrangement I discover my work shifts are not always regular and there are frequent short-notice requests for extra assignments.

I can get to know a few of the other volunteers, the one’s I work with, but it’s hard to learn the names of staff, and they seem to belong in a different world.

And I’d really like a bit more of a connection than the irregular group message via social media that offers a collective thanks, or (more-likely) instructions to correct errors some volunteers have made.   I never hear why my volunteer effort is important and what we have achieved for the organisation.

Sadly, this litany of bad news stories is not uncommon: see this satirical video for a reality check.  It leaves a sour taste for would-be volunteers, and a bad press for the organisation.  And it does not do volunteerism any good.

So what do I mean by ‘engaging’ with volunteers?  Clearly there are some straightforward steps to counter the negatives above.  Better still, is the effort put into establishing a relationship with volunteers.

This means an interview with a new volunteer is about a welcome and a two-way discussion to see if the interests of both sides are going to come to mutual satisfaction, to meet in the middle.  And that’s just the beginning.  Yes, police and referee checks might need to be done, but that relationship-building continues with orientation to the organisation, introductions to staff, and to a training programme.

We could say this is the ‘courting’ stage of an engagement.  All the time we are getting to know each other, checking out likes and dislikes, strengths and vulnerabilities.  We are building mutual trust and respect, and when volunteers share their personal circumstances and other commitments we get a steer on how they will fit into the organisation and how to draw on their skills and experience.  When you think of the variety of volunteer backgrounds, and their range of motivations, this relationship-building period becomes even more important.

Of course the engagement is just the beginning.  Any relationship needs regular maintenance, and for volunteers that means enjoying their work and knowing their efforts are appreciated.  Paid staff will welcome volunteers by name when they begin their shifts, and offer a sincere thank you when leaving.  Volunteers are invited to give feedback and to contribute ideas and new initiatives to the organisation.  In turn, volunteers are supported in their work, know the process for resolving disputes, and are kept informed about organisation developments.

None of this stuff is over-the-top difficult to accomplish.  It does imply that a manager of volunteers needs to be a ‘people person’ with well-honed communication skills.  But aren’t these qualities what everyone needs when they are involved in the community and voluntary sector?  And while some organisations have grown to corporate size, and as pressures increase for businesslike operations, engaging volunteers  and maintaining healthy relationships with them will never go away.

March 16, 2015

Playing Safe

Posted in Best Practice, Organisation responsibilities tagged , , , at 2:12 am by Sue Hine

shutterstock_94612312[1]

A bunch of leaflets landed in my letterbox this week.  They were inside an envelope from a UK publisher of academic works who keeps hoping I will purchase another book.  This time the promotion was all about new publications on safety in the workplace.  I groaned.

I am, at best, ambivalent about safety and the regulatory environment that is imposed in workplaces.  I grew up learning the consequences of climbing trees without a safety net, and there was never a playground swing sheathed in protective rubber.  I cycled everywhere on open roads without a care (or a helmet) and later drove a car with a few elements of recklessness.  I learned my risk-taking limits through practical experience and without any disastrous consequences.  So when I find a person in a hi-viz vest is designated sole responsibility to shepherd pedestrians round a bit of roadworks, I confess to being offended by the assumption that I have no common sense, don’t know my road rules and that I will deliberately create mischief for the roading project.

Of course the flip side of this kind of over-protection is the high accident rate in farming and forestry industries, in manufacturing and on our wharves, resulting in serious injury and death.  It seems there is enough management and worker carelessness out there to give cowboys a bad name.

I take a closer look at those leaflets and the blurbs that tell me a little about the content of the books.  There’s a whole library of them, all more or less dealing with safety in the workplace, with titles like The Field Guide to Understanding ‘Human Error’; The Past and Future of Safety Management; and The Human Contribution.  The common point seems to be the ‘human factors’ that contribute to accidents.  Even company bonuses have potential for perverse consequences when attention to major hazard risk is diverted to financial incentives – that’s the book titled Risky Rewards.

There are also a number of titles about ‘resilience engineering’, as in changing human behaviour.  Being resilient is all about shifting safety from being protective to becoming productive, increasing the number of things that people do right instead of engendering risk.  In my earthquake-risk city resilience is not a new concept: we have been urged for some years now to prepare ‘for when the big one comes’.

One book blurb reminds us that even if humans are the major hazard in a safety system, they can also be the heroes, as a documentary on the Christchurch earthquake demonstrated.  Here’s another reason to broaden our thinking beyond the blame and punishment regimes of safety regulations.

The reform of workplace health and safety in New Zealand has caused much concern for the community and voluntary sector, mostly for the extended responsibilities of employers and board members, and increased financial penalties if found at fault.   Yet for most non-profit organisations and NGOs this is also an opportunity to review current obligations and practice, and to start encouraging a culture of ‘looking out for each other’, and speaking out about hazards and safe practice.  That would go a long way to keep us all safe, much better than ‘turning a blind eye’ and thinking ‘that’s not my problem’.

Hang on a minute.  Isn’t this ‘resilience engineering’ just the stuff of developing and managing a volunteer programme?  In the selection and training process there is a constant assessment of individual risk elements, and the degree of risk that might impact on the volunteer roles and tasks to which they are assigned.  We look out for the well-being of volunteers, for job satisfaction and retention as well as their safety.  And volunteers, even if it is not their primary motivation, will find that the pleasure of participation and connectedness will also contribute to their resilience and their safety in the workplace.

The key to excellent health and safety management for volunteers, says a Factsheet on Volunteers, is good planning and good communication.  But before you sit back with a got-it-sorted grin, best to check out how good you really are and whether all bases are covered.

January 18, 2015

Understanding Voluntary Organisations – A Book Review

Posted in Leading Volunteers, Managing Change, Organisation Development, Organisation responsibilities, Politics of volunteering tagged , , , at 3:27 am by Sue Hine

Charles HandyFrom time to time I have wondered about absence of ‘organisation theory’ in training courses for managers of volunteers.  The focus continues to be devoted to the components and processes of a volunteer programme and getting them right.  Yet all the while we live and breathe within a structure that contains and at times constrains the work we do.  The struggles a manager of volunteers can encounter are well-recorded and debated, but rarely set in the context of organisational realities.  It’s as though we should know about organisations by osmosis – after all, we live all our lives in one form of them or other.

So when I discovered recently that Charles Handy had published a book outlining the characteristics of voluntary organisations I pounced on the old and tattered copy found in my public library.  Handy was a go-to management guru of the late 20th century, the person who did for organisations what Myers-Briggs (and others) has done for our understanding of personality types.  Who could resist Handy’s typology of organisations based on the characteristics of ancient Greek gods?  (See Gods of Management, 1978.)

You can find out a bit more about these gods in Understanding Voluntary Organisations.  And so much more about how to make organisations function effectively.  This book is about organisations, not management, on the principle that better understanding will lead to better practice.  As Handy suggests in this advice:

It is as foolish to try to run things without organisational understanding as it would be to go mountain climbing without the proper clothing and equipment.

The first part of the book is devoted to people in organisations.  Handy writes about individual motivation, casting aside conventional theories on volunteering based on needs and focusing on our self-concepts.  He reminds us that people like targets, they like to feel good and that we are all different: truisms that fit well with what we learn very quickly about volunteers.  When it comes to ‘roles’, Handy shows how complex they can be: overlapping, confused, ambiguous, conflicting, and overloaded.  “People in roles talk to other people in roles”, affecting our thinking and behaviour.  When we slot people into role pigeon-holes we can get blinded by our expectations and forget to see the person in the role.  There we have an explanation for the sometimes poor relations between paid staff and volunteers.

The chapter on groups covers standard theory and practice on teams, committees and group process, putting a framework on the do’s and don’ts of group work.  The longest chapter in this section is on power and influence – forbidden topics, according to Handy, “especially in voluntary organisations”.  Handy brings them into the light, both the negative and positive aspects, and calls for a better understanding based around democracy.  There are plenty of cues here to support the practice of managers of volunteers.

Part Two is all about organising the organisation.  Here you can find a chapter on the cultures of the Greek gods, with the proviso that organisations are not culturally pure, just like one’s dominant personality type is infused with others.  Factors of size, work flow, environment and history can influence the cultural style.

The shape of organisation structures is determined according to division of labour, accountability and coherence.  A structure is the skeleton which comes alive with people and groups and tasks “to get the blood running and the nerves and sinews working” – which implies the need to find ways to integrate different parts of the structure, something well-understood by managers of volunteers, even if we do not always know why or how to achieve integration.

Organisation systems are never more at risk of fall-out than when communications are distorted, by either sender or receiver, or a lack of clarity and distance.  (How many volunteer offices are located down the far end of the building, some distance from the executive wing – and what does that communicate?)

The numbers game for accountability is just as fraught, depending on different levels of success and how to measure them.  Handy’s answer is to be very clear about purpose; to be specific about tasks related to that purpose; and to establish a set of measures indicating what will mean success for each task – that’s the role of numbers.  He emphasises the importance of numbers: neglecting this part of the system will distort organisational effort.  There’s a message here for organisations struggling to find ways to measure outcomes and effectiveness.

The final chapter covers organisational change, that drive for growth and development that can also bring dislocation and disruption.  We adopt blinkers to block change; we prefer predictability – and organisations rely on predictability to ensure efficiency – which just inhibits experimentation, innovation and creativity.  Handy sets out the ‘levers of change’ which are the key elements of an organisation he has described previously: task, systems, structures and people.  They are all interconnected, so change in one part will impact on all others (that is basic systems theory).  He does not present a manual for change but does say:

If you want an exciting, developing, changing organisation, look for one where the individuals are themselves encouraged to be exciting, developing and changing.

Leadership, in case you are wondering, permeates all chapters in the book.  It’s there in discussion on groups, on power and influence, on communication, and on organisational change and development.   Handy points out that the word ‘management’ is found only in English, and its use in everyday contexts is not confined to organisations or running a business.  Management theory is based on engineering models, he says, implying that “control of people is similar to the control of things, that people are resources to be counted, deployed and utilised.”  Non-profit organisations are not immune to treating people this way.

Handy urges us to adopt the new metaphors of political theory, in thinking of organisations as societies or communities rather than as machines or warehouses.  Look how we are currently investing more usage and practice on words like ‘networks and alliances’, ‘shared values’, ‘power and influence’ and ‘leadership’.  Is it time to drop the word ‘management’ from our understanding of volunteer programmes and our job title?

Handy offers an explanation of voluntary organisations that tells us why things are as they are: he is not just repeating what we already know.  There are times when lines between formal and informal organisations are blurred.  Perhaps the book sketches the world we inhabit rather too lightly, and its publication date means there is no account of sector developments over the past 25 years.  Yet the key messages resonate still, about people, tasks, structures and systems that make up our organisations.   Understanding Voluntary Organisations is a short and easy read with plenty of examples and box inserts.  Go find a copy if you can – it’s worth a read.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Handy, Charles (1988) Understanding Voluntary Organisations: How to Make Them Function Effectively.  Penguin

November 9, 2014

Happiness At Work

Posted in Best Practice, Leadership, Managing Volunteers, Organisation responsibilities tagged , , , at 2:09 am by Sue Hine

Smile-happiness[1]I’ve never thought too much about job satisfaction in my working life. I’ve taken the rough with the smooth, got on with it, and found small pleasures where I could.  And most of the time the roles I’ve undertaken have offered scope for applying skills and finding creative responses to all the challenges.  I don’t think I would be amongst the 40% of New Zealand’s workforce that are reportedly unhappy in their jobs these days.

But I am not surprised by this figure. The nature of work and employment has been changing for decades.  Full employment went out the window more than 30 years ago and worker rights keep on being eroded.  Technology has changed the level of knowledge and skills required for the greater part of the workforce, and unskilled work gets harder and harder to find.

The bit in the news report that got my attention was this:

[P]art-timers seemed to hold less attachment to their job and were more likely to look for a new role or career in the pursuit of happiness.

For those employing large numbers of part-time staff, it is vital to build a culture of inclusion and make sure employees feel their contribution is valued in order to inspire loyalty and retain good staff.

Of course! Managers of volunteers have known that forever, haven’t we?  Our job is all about ‘part-timers’.  We work hard to ensure volunteers feel their contribution is valued; inclusion is what you do to help people feel they belong to the organisation.  Hence the attention paid to interpersonal communication, and all the newsletters and social media posts aimed at keeping in touch.

Because for a volunteer the counterpoint of being valued and included in an organisation amounts to dissatisfaction and departure – and a risk to the organisation’s reputation in the community.

From where I sit it seems employers of part-time staff could learn a lot from managers of volunteers and their approach to good relations with volunteers. Go ask them: they’ll show you how to enhance part-timer commitment and job satisfaction.

This claim is supported by research that showed paid staff wanted improvements to provision of career development, the work environment (particularly culture and morale), and to their welfare (stress levels, feeling appreciated and engaged).  Such negativity resulted in 32% of the research sample intending to leave their jobs in the next three months.  The most important traits employees wanted in their managers were openness, honesty, and good communication skills.

Of course there are plenty of executive managers who can demonstrate these qualities (see this post). I’ve also commented a few times on employer practice that offers lessons for managers of volunteers (see here, here and here) – and vice versa.

These principles are even more important for organisations involved in the voluntary and community sector. Good people management is not just for staff and volunteer job satisfaction – these skills are also essential for working with service users and in wider community relations.

So while the manager of volunteers makes every effort to develop volunteer inclusiveness and job satisfaction, I hope the organisation’s executive managers are also working to ensure a happiness culture for everyone.

October 19, 2014

Raising the Bar

Posted in Best Practice, Leadership, Management of Volunteers Project, Managing Volunteers, Organisation responsibilities, Professional Development, Recognition of Volunteering, Valuing Volunteers tagged , , , , , at 1:50 am by Sue Hine

raising-the-bar[1]

 

Volunteering New Zealand held a workshop for managers of volunteers in Wellington last week. Raising the Bar was the first of a number to be held around the country, drawing on the Best Practice Guidelines to ask What does Best Practice look like and how do we get there?

My long memory recalls the origins of this workshop, the tiny germs of ideas that got translated over time into a working group, to a VNZ project, to publishing the Guidelines, and now to working on getting them implemented.

Back in 2009 the VNZ Conference theme was Volunteering Unleashed, and there were two streams: Volunteering Tomorrow and Inspiring Leaders – two sides of the same coin you might say.  With presentations like ‘Unmasking the role of volunteer management’ and ‘Awaken the hero leader in you’ there was plenty to inspire and unleash imaginations for future effort.  At the final session I asked “What happens next?” to which there was a smart reply: “What would you like to happen?”

A few weeks later a meeting was convened with a bunch of other people who were asking the same question. The Management of Volunteers Development Group was born, if not right then, but over the next few meetings.  I’ve written about its progress several times:

Getting to Go; Management of Volunteers Project; Creating a Learning Pathway; and The Fruits of Our Labours

Raising the Bar was the theme for VNZ’s conference in 2011, and a principal stream was devoted to ‘Developing the Leaders’.  Sessions covered a range of regular practice for managers of volunteers, and included focus on leadership – because managing volunteers is nothing without leadership.

The present round of workshops on Raising the Bar is another step to encourage managers of volunteers to take on strategic leadership, and to advocate for implementation of the Best Practice Guidelines.  At the same time there is a parallel effort going into nominating champions of managing volunteers, the executives of organisations that demonstrate and promote understanding and recognition of volunteering and its management.  Yes, we need to promote these champions so others may raise their sights, to include the value of volunteers and their managers in their vision.

The workshop this past week raised a real buzz, a community of managers of volunteers sharing concerns and their ideas and information, using the material of the Best Practice Guidelines. There was plenty of diversity in this group, both in size of organisation and in sector interests.  The old hands mixed with the newbies, and there was learning for everyone.

At the end of the day what happens next is up to participants. They’ve got their take-home message and intent for action, but we’ll have to wait to see results.  Strategic leadership for change and development takes skill, courage and determination.  And time.

How high does the bar have to go? We’ll know when we get there, for sure.

October 5, 2014

A Coming of Age?

Posted in Best Practice, Leadership, Leading Volunteers, Managing Change, Managing Volunteers, Organisation responsibilities, Valuing Volunteers tagged , , , , at 9:53 pm by Sue Hine

images[6] (2)I’ve seen a few job vacancies lately, opportunities that make me sit up and take notice. These are senior positions in national organisations, charged with strategic management and development of volunteer programmes.

Words and phrases like ‘leadership’ and ‘integrating volunteer work with service delivery’ and ‘best practice processes and resources to maximise voluntary service’ leap out of the published blurbs. These jobs are close to Executive Team level, offering opportunities to lift the profile of volunteering and its contribution to organisation operations.  Candidates are expected to competent in strategic planning and project implementation, and in leading transformational change.  Being able to undertake surveys and analysis could be useful too.  And of course, being experienced in developing and maintaining good relationships with both internal and external stakeholders is another given.

Yay! Management of volunteers has come of age!  At last, there is recognition for the rightful place of volunteering within organisations.  And yes, the relevance of strategic leadership, as outlined in Volunteering New Zealand’s Competencies for Managers of Volunteers, gets acknowledged.

And then I start looking at the fine print. What are the qualities and qualifications these organisations are expecting in candidates?  “A relevant tertiary qualification” can be anything from community development to health, including human resources and psychology.  Or in research and evaluation.  Or in ‘social services’, or management.  Take your pick.  Your experience is likely to count for more – say a minimum of four years in social service management. The list of desired experience includes leadership and people management.  Desired communication skills extend to coaching, conflict resolution and group facilitation.  While all these skills and experience are relevant and important, any reference to direct experience in managing volunteers is a lesser consideration.

By now you might be able to sense my raised eyebrows.

Yes, I know there are people out there with qualifications and experience that could foot any of these positions.

And yes, management is management, and leadership likewise, regardless of the field.

And yet, a toehold at executive management level is still precarious for volunteering.

Unless the executive team has their own experience of volunteering, unless they understand fully what volunteering is about, the new strategic manager is still in the position of advocating for volunteers, still arguing their cause and how to engage fully with them. That’s a hard road, where expectations and big ideals can get sidelined when the organisations are struggling to meet contract obligations and to secure funding to cover the shortfall.  It is even harder if the appointee is not steeped in volunteering philosophy and practice.

What if the new position is more about taking control and command of volunteering, ‘using’ volunteers as a utilitarian tool in service provision? That’s a risk, specially without direct experience of volunteering.  And volunteering will be the poorer for that.

Because at bottom there are big distinctions between working for pay and working as a volunteer. I need to earn a living, so a paid job is a necessity.  When I volunteer it is by choice, to follow an interest or to support a cause.  There are set hours for paid work; volunteer work can happen at all hours, including weekends.  Volunteers set their own ‘leave’ schedules; paid workers must apply to take time off.  Paid workers fit into designated positions, limited by organisation budgets; volunteers will be assigned to particular roles, but these are limitless.  Numbers of volunteers can outweigh paid staff 5:1 and more.

So there are big challenges for the person taking on an organisation’s strategic development of volunteering. How to meet the challenges is a story for another time.

September 14, 2014

Is it Time to Change the Rules?

Posted in A Bigger Picture, Managing Volunteers, Organisation responsibilities, Politics of volunteering, Recognition of Volunteering tagged , , , at 3:55 am by Sue Hine

volunteers-1[1]

New Zealand’s All Black top-of-the-game rugby coach has earned another headline: Rip up the rulebook and write another! He is complaining about numerous laws of the game and their complexity which gives referees leeway in their interpretation. Spectator fans are infuriated when they see the game and rule infringements treated differently from their own expectations.

Well, I’ve found a rule for volunteering that seems quite out of sync with contemporary practice. Included under a heading Factors which tend to make the involvement of volunteers inappropriate is this item:

Where the work is for the benefit of a profit-making organisation.

OK – it’s not really a rule, merely a recommendation that volunteers in for-profit organisations is not a good look. But what does it imply, and how does it work out in practice?

I guess the ‘rule’ is related to that other no-no: volunteers must not displace paid staff positions. That is, it is assumed volunteering in a for-profit business has to be taking employment from someone else.  Not so, given the unpaid internship opportunities for new graduates in a range of corporate organisations.

Or are we being a bit precious about volunteering, not wanting to be tainted by profit motives? Volunteering belongs to the community, it stands outside the public and private sectors.  Get too cosy with them and Civil Society gets lost – is that what ‘rule-makers’ are thinking?

Let’s do a reality-check with contemporary practices.

Contracts for service provision have encouraged a number of NGOs to become large corporate-like organisations, in which volunteering becomes less central to core business. When budget cuts result in service reduction organisations overlook how volunteer time could be just as valuable and productive as the $$ equivalent.

Sponsorship and partnerships are bringing the commercial world closer to non-profit organisations. Corporate social responsibility has spawned widespread employee volunteering and Not-for-profits welcome their contributions, both practical and professional.   Why should volunteers be excluded from a reciprocal arrangement?

These days many NGOs are setting up fund-raising enterprises as subsidiary businesses. Think op-shops, able to raise significant income through donated goods and volunteer time.  Trade Aid is a NFP, operating as a retailer, importer and wholesaler agency – staffed by volunteers.  Oxfam has generated an income stream from offering consultancy to businesses wanting to move into developing countries.  If there are no barriers for NFPs to run a business which includes a volunteer programme, it does not make sense to frown on volunteer involvement in a for-profit business.

Rest homes and private hospitals have run volunteer programmes for many years, recognising all the different ways voluntary action can support the personal and relationship needs of older people. Yes, the provision of rest homes for the burgeoning aged population is a growth industry, showing significant profits for shareholders.  Volunteers are welcomed in private sector rest homes, in recognition of the ‘added value’ for residents that paid staff do not have the luxury of time to offer.

There is widespread volunteer involvement in the public sector too.   Schools, courts and prisons, conservation services, museums and public hospitals all enjoy significant support from volunteers, sometimes through subsidiary NFP organisations.  Emergency services with large volunteer programmes are operating a public service.  No-one is raising objections here, even though public sector organisations are operating under vastly different conditions from NFPs.

Consider too, those large sporting events, tourist operations and expos run by private event management operators. There’s no question of volunteer involvement in these circumstances – the volunteers become the public face of the event.

It looks like volunteers are engaged in a whole range of organisations across all sectors. Maybe not so much in manufacturing businesses – though Victim Support is on hand as a free service when an industrial accident occurs.  Volunteering is characterised by innovation and flexibility, so anything is possible in the future.  Let’s not short-change the scope and influence of volunteering by holding to a premise which is no longer working.

June 1, 2014

The Measure of Success

Posted in Managers Matter, Organisation responsibilities, Recognition of Volunteering, Valuing Volunteers tagged , , , at 3:44 am by Sue Hine

success-factors[1]In just a couple of weeks it is New Zealand’s turn to hold National Volunteer Week, that opportunity to give some real acknowledgement and appreciation of volunteer work undertaken for organisations and in communities throughout the country.  If you did not know about this event already I am giving you advance notice to get cracking and plan something special for the volunteers in your organisation.

I was reminded recently of the sometime lack of understanding of volunteering and the relevance of holding a National Volunteer Week:

I asked audiences of managers of volunteers how executive leadership at their organizations define success regarding volunteer involvement. And one of the answers really disturbed me: It’s successful if no one complains.

That statement is a huge indictment on executive ignorance of volunteering, not to mention any understanding of the skills and professionalism required to manage volunteers.  I have to wonder if there was a similar lack of interest in the work of paid staff.  I wonder if there is any executive consideration of the relation between the organisation’s structure and function, and outcomes for its users?  I don’t think I would enjoy employment in that organisation, in either paid or voluntary capacity.

So I would like National Volunteer Week to be trumpeting not just volunteer virtues, but also the meaning of volunteering and what organisations need to know about volunteering and its management.  Here are three questions executives in leadership positions could be asking themselves in the lead-up to NVW.

Why does your organisation involve volunteers?

How does volunteering contribute to social well-being in our communities?

What do you need to know about managing volunteers?

I’m not going to answer the questions, because that’s the mission for executive managers.  Think of it as a treasure hunt, with the potential to bring as much value to the organisation as the next funding grant.  Then everyone will be better informed about volunteering, and will be looking to celebrate volunteer achievements.  Then we will know the real success of a volunteer programme.

By coincidence there is another post considering the meaning of success for volunteers and management of volunteers.  There’s plenty of material available to tell us what a successful volunteer programme looks like – don’t let’s accept excuses like ‘no complaints received’.

You see, if it takes a whole village to raise a child, it can take a whole organisation to make the most of volunteer contributions.

May 11, 2014

Playing the Game

Posted in Best Practice, Organisation responsibilities, Professional Development, Valuing Volunteers tagged , , , at 4:01 am by Sue Hine

benji-marshall_2618102b[1]

 

A rugby league star switched to rugby union last year, but has failed to make the grade in this different code.  He has now returned to rugby league.

 

Some commentators reckon he was not given enough game time and opportunities to make his mark in rugby.

As an employee he was entitled to receive adequate training to meet team management’s expectations.  Employers have a duty of care to ensure staff can perform their roles at high levels, whether in the office or on the sports field.  I grabbed at this statement from an employment law specialist in my weekend newspaper.

Because in attending conferences and specialist training programmes I have been surprised at how many managers of volunteers are paying their own way to participate in their own professional development.  Three cheers for their personal commitment to on-going learning, even though they were not supported or encouraged by their employing organisations.  (On the other hand, equal opportunity becomes a mirage if I cannot afford the cost of the conference or training course.)

Surely it is in the employer’s best interests to enable best possible performance from all staff.  Skill maintenance and up-skilling has to be a good investment – for business productivity and for staff retention and job satisfaction.  In the absence of organisation support the high turnover rates for management of volunteer positions is not surprising.  Like that rugby player who is leaving the game, there is disappointment and disillusionment.

When professional development is not offered to managers of volunteers I have to wonder if the volunteer programme is perceived as merely a nice-to-have optional extra for the organisation’s operations; that managing volunteers is a job anyone can do; and one that does not need specialist training.  It means that volunteers are not really appreciated for their contributions, and by extension neither is their manager.

On the other hand, finding a training programme that meets particular or even general needs for managing volunteers can entail a lot of searching.  You have to go looking across local and global interconnections, and do the ‘stumble-upon’.  You have to know where to look, unless you already know about Volunteering New Zealand’s Competencies for Managers of Volunteers, or their on-line training programme.  That’s a good starting point.

There is good value too in connecting with the local Volunteer Centre, usually offering everything from a lunchtime forum to day-long seminars and workshops, extending to opportunities for mentoring.

Yes, say employers, there is a monetary cost to training.  But the relatively small investment in conference fees or a short course can reap significant benefits in management confidence and competence, and in developing effective volunteer programmes.  Don’t let the manager get choked off like the rugby player, before they’ve had a chance to prove themselves.

Next page