Volunteer or Partner, and What is the Difference?

It always went something like this. When someone showed an interest in volunteering, I would:

Interview the prospective volunteer.
Tell them all about the amazing roles we had available.
Invite them to an open house.
Sign them up for training.
Conduct a post-training interview and discuss placement.
Contact their chosen department and introduce them to their new supervisor and role. (Unless I kept them in the volunteer department-which I highly recommend doing sometimes, because you need great people too).

Along the way, we would discuss rules, regulations, and expectations; not only what we expected of them, but what they could expect of us.

I’d give new volunteers a policies and procedures manual and also a volunteer bill of rights. It covered all bases, didn’t it? But what was the message? “Here’s what we expect from you. And here is what you can expect from us.” While thorough, these two documents subtly read “separation.”

It made me think about all the ways we keep volunteers in a separate (and unequal) box. It also reminds me of a time when a fellow staff member, whose position was on an equal rung of the organizational ladder as me, introduced me to a group of people and said, “I’m so glad she and her people are here to assist me.”

Now, I’m being picky and petty, but that statement smacked of separation and condescension. I probably would have ignored it, but for the prickly feeling under my skin that always flared when volunteering was treated as an “other” or a “nuisance” or “just fluff.” The point is not my fragile little feelings, but the perception that all things related to volunteering are less than, lower than, outside of, and therefore, not equal, which is sadly pervasive in the things we say and present to volunteers.

Why a partnership? Aren’t we supposed to fill jobs?

I’ve heard of some organizations creating a contract with volunteers, but is a contract the right idea? What about an understanding? A covenant? Or a pact? How about a partnership?

If everything boils down to the mission statement, then isn’t everyone who makes the mission succeed working towards the same goal? Currently, we model volunteer engagement partly on how companies hire someone to do a specific job that creates a product or service and offers payment in return. A volunteer fills a slot, (job) such as packing boxes of food (product or service). In return for their good work (payment), we recognize the volunteer.

But the differences in volunteering vs. working render our current engagement models difficult to sustain, mainly because volunteers have shifted their view of formal volunteering; what they want for it and from it. Enter the rise of informal volunteering, which is immediate, more flexible and offers the ability to create a role that fits the volunteer’s skill-set and creativity. Add to this the growing distrust of institutions and how they not only manage time and money, but how they cling to the power they possess.

Volunteers no longer blindly accept our volunteering model. Their “payment” is no longer as simple as feeling good about doing good (They can get that feeling every time they help a neighbor, let someone with only one item cut in line, return a dropped pacifier to a harried parent, or click a “like” in social media). Volunteers don’t see themselves as second citizens, filling the roles their superiors deem necessary. The status quo disheartens them. They view themselves as capable, willing to share skills and enthusiasm, happy to help on their terms and eager to share their good ideas. So, why don’t we embrace this modern volunteer?

Are there deeply embedded considerations in a status quo that have shaped non-profit work over the many years? Are non-profits tightly managed systems that operate more on processes than outcomes? And are these processes clutched so tightly that we suffer from the inability to let in new ideas, new ways of doing things, and new people? What fears can stop us from innovation? Maybe…

pride (Only I can do this well, I know how, have been at it so long, etc.)
change aversion (we’ve done it this way, and it’s worked for the most part. Why go through all that upheaval?)
donor input (what will our donors say or think if we make even subtle changes, we can’t risk upsetting them)
fear of being out-performed (I am de-valued if someone else does the job better than me)
mission possessiveness (Someone else can’t care as much as me. Look at how hard I work, all I’ve accomplished)
overworked condescension (I’m here 50 hours a week, how can someone here 2 hours do anything better?)
fear of replacement or being devalued (if all these outside people come in, eventually they won’t need any of us anymore)
run amok fear (if we just tear everything apart, let all these new people in, everything we’ve accomplished will be for nothing and our organization will descend into chaos)

Volunteers Can and Should Lead

What about the long-standing ideas we can’t trust volunteers to do the job as well as staff, or can’t handle sensitive information, or don’t understand what is at stake? Sure, but every staff member starts at square one. Until they prove themselves, we don’t know if they can do the job, or if we can trust them, or if they understand what’s at stake. The same is true of volunteers. I would never assign a new, untested volunteer to the most sensitive, complex assignment. Throwing new volunteers into a sensitive assignment was not only unfair to the mission; it was unfair to the volunteer.

Nonprofit work is emotionally and mentally taxing, and it’s callous to drop someone new into an emotionally heavy situation. Proper training, diligent observation and monitoring, feedback from supervising staff, as well as a great mentor program, will ensure the new volunteer is ready for complex roles. I remember one volunteer, a gentleman who took over a year before he felt ready to even attempt interacting with patients. But that year paid off. He became a marvelous volunteer. The notion that volunteer managers throw any old body at a role is ridiculous and insulting. We know what is at stake and we vet and mentor volunteers thoroughly and carefully.

Don’t Hide Your Dilligence

We have to be better at making sure everyone in the organization knows our processes in vetting, onboarding and training volunteers. They won’t know unless we show them the lengthy steps and stop-gap measures we have in place. They will have doubts about allowing volunteers to do more unless we assure them we continually monitor volunteers, especially those who work with vulnerable populations. Our professionalism and dedication to quality over quantity and expediency will satisfy their doubts.

During one of my most successful volunteering projects, I quickly realized that I needed to step back and give the volunteers space to make the project succeed. Did I want to be in control? Heck yeah. Did I want all the glory? (Especially when it was a complete success). Did it bother me when the acknowledgements passed me right by and went to those who deserved it? Surprisingly, not really. Watching something thrive because the right people made it happen was much more satisfying than a fleeting praise thrill. Although not the same, I kind of equated it to watching a child succeed. That feeling of pure joy is unmatched.

But why partnership? I’ve referred to and heard others call volunteers all kinds of things. Helpers, advocates, customers, aides, extras, the heart of, add-ons, etc. But none of those terms implies an equal footing. And isn’t it time to acknowledge that someone who gives their time to ensure our organizations succeed is equally valuable, whether paid or unpaid, or are we more invested in processes than results?

People freely lob skepticism at volunteers-criticising them for lacking investment, needing hours for a service project, or simply wanting to get out of the house, but don’t some non-profit employees just need a job or clock out at 4:55 no matter what, or cause havoc in untold ways? (Heck, there were days I didn’t want to be at my job so I didn’t give 100%, so why was that ok?) The point is, can we stop assuming that pay automatically equates to passion and dedication, that pay guarantees there will be no missteps?

Should we move towards creating more partnerships with volunteers? Honestly, I think we have to. We are recruiting, training and attempting to keep volunteers based on a system that worked thirty years ago. One of the most frustrating things in my long career has been onboarding a volunteer who had so much potential, so many skills to offer, only to see them shelved. All that wasted potential just evaporated, along with the many ways our mission might have been better served.

The subtlety of partnerships

So, how do we ease into a partnership? First things first: Let’s stop using old phrases, such as, “help us cure X disease or eradicate homelessness.” Instead, let’s say, “Together, we will combat social isolation.” Or, “Partner with us in our quest to provide food security.”

Should we do a pinky swear? Maybe symbolically? One keyword in defining a partnership is “participation.” Volunteers certainly fit that term. They take part in accomplishing mission goals. But we can make no mistake. Participation no longer means “tell me what to do and I will do that.” Participation encompasses a say in how and what the volunteer will do.

So, as we, leaders of volunteers strive to create more flexibility, more options, more roles that fit a volunteer’s vision of how they will become involved, isn’t that a partnership rather than a top-down relationship? For years, we’ve had to push back against volunteers who want to have a hand in defining their involvement. We had set roles and if a volunteer, no matter how brilliant and creative or how much influence or resources they brought, wanted something other than what we advertised, we rejected them, or worse, cajoled them into shredding papers (Hello, WWII generation).

How do policies and procedures work in a partnership? If we understand volunteers are generally governed by the same rules and regulations, as well as have the same rights as paid staff, then we should embrace that fact. Instead of a separate but mostly equal divide, we can craft policies and procedures from the existing policies staff must abide by. With few exceptions, they will apply to volunteers. We can word them as: No one at Organization X will violate anyone’s right to privacy. No one at Organization X will steal funds from our donations. We all will respect the rights of the people we serve, including the right to religious beliefs and the right to cultural traditions. It’s a simple shift, but it sends an inclusive message.

Are volunteers the fluffy extra?

I recently read an article, comparing volunteers to worker bees: Why Are We Ignoring One-Sixth of the Nonprofit Workforce? (if there are worker bees, that means there’s a queen and we all serve her-sorry but founder’s syndrome aside, I’ll ask again, are we about processes or outcomes?). I think comparing anyone to worker bees is highly insulting. As a volunteer myself, I’m highly insulted. Today’s volunteers do not see themselves as worker bees or fluffy extras. They see themselves as contributing partners, people of value, and worthy of being treated as partners, not cookie cutter “helpers” who serve the perpetuated system.

So, the question then becomes, “how do we present the subtle idea of partnerships to staff and senior management?” Won’t they balk at giving volunteers a perceived elevated status? Possibly. Would this give a few volunteers the wrong idea that they can critique everyone and everything in the organization? Sure, but you know what? In my experience, that occasionally happened anyway. And here’s the thing. Does paying staff magically prevent them from overstepping boundaries? Of course not. I’ve seen finance staff criticize clinical staff and vice versa. Human beings will act like human beings, no matter their title.

Everyone is Subject to Rules and Policies

We explain that everyone, whether paid or a volunteer, can use established channels or procedures to raise concerns or offer suggestions on any matter, regardless of whether it relates to their specific areas of work. Rules and common decency apply to everyone. This reminds me of several volunteers who did such an outstanding job, my organization hired them. These volunteers were already under the same policies and procedures as staff and could transition more easily.

If we think about the rules for staff and the rules for volunteers, they mirror each other. A partnership means rules and policies are for all, including volunteers. A partnership is about leveling the field, being inclusive, not patronizing, not treating volunteers like children or worker bees, not excessively stroking their egos so they don’t quit, but welcoming them as responsible partners. And treating them with the respect that rules and regulations imply. Rules say, “you are one of us and we are holding you to the same high standards we expect of everyone in our organization.” There’s power and pride in expecting excellence. None of us enjoys disciplining or rejecting a volunteer. But if we do not set an excellence standard, why should a volunteer provide excellence?

Partnership Benefits

Let’s look at what we can offer organizations when forging volunteer partnerships.

Successful partnerships rely on the strengths of each partner in order to create something better. Our organization gains the skills, knowledge and expertise a volunteer brings while the volunteer gains experience, a sense of belonging and accomplishment when given the opportunity.
Partnerships accomplish mission goals more quickly. With partnership help, goals, whether lofty and broad, or specific and time sensitive, can be reached more quickly with skilled partners who share the vision. Volunteer impact not only accomplishes goals, it becomes a marketing tool that showcases how our organizations are community-minded, open and inclusive, and care more about mission outcomes than organizational processes.
The community is better served. When community partners are engaged, the community is engaged. Existing in silos is no longer an organizational winning strategy. Communities talk. They know which organizations operate from a “we know best” approach versus those who invest in being a true community partner that respects and encourages direction from the people they serve.
The community becomes more involved. We know volunteers talk. They talk to family, friends, clubs, other organizations, neighbors, associations, acquaintances, church groups, and anyone they encounter. What will they say? When we embrace them as partners versus worker bees, their assessment of their experience will bring in more resources, donations and more volunteers.

Change doesn’t have to be a hammer

Any change needs systems in place to prevent headaches or going off the rails. Encouraging volunteers to be partners means fielding more input from volunteers. I always found a volunteer advisory council was a great way to manage all the innovative ideas and feedback from volunteers. It is a way to channel enthusiasm and suggestions through a filter: the expertise of other, experienced volunteers, understand organizational hierarchy, and can make sound recommendations. If a volunteer has a great idea, the council can recommend a pilot project to test that idea. I have to admit, pilot projects were my happy place. Some didn’t work, but many did. And pilot projects that are temporary, experimental, and quickly discarded if not viable, are much easier to implement and sell to upper management than a permanent project. These successful projects, run by volunteers, were partnerships. My organization did not create the roles or the objectives, both short and long-term. The volunteers created them out of seeing a need, or having experience in creating solutions, or from hearing about another way of accomplishing a goal. The volunteers determined how to run the projects, including measuring success or failure, and the most efficient way of delivering results. That is a partnership. (and the old adage is true: Success can breed more success)

Partnerships do not exclude accountability

But make no mistake. Any volunteer within these partnership projects went through training, completed a background check, and was subject to rules and policies. Having a partnership project did not mean becoming lax, or not paying attention to risk. I’d always laughingly say, “I’m a risk management specialist who dabbles in volunteerism.” Mildly amusing but there’s an important truth here in the message, “if you are one of us, a partner passionate in fulfilling our mission, you will integrate by taking our training, signing our forms, abiding by our rules, just as every one of us must do.”

Formal volunteering (aka volunteering with an organization and abiding by its constraints vs. taking matters into your own hands when becoming involved) is losing its appeal. Please take a moment and read this article; “Volunteering is thriving – Just not where you’ve been looking.” It succinctly explains where volunteering is headed. For years, many experts in the volunteer engagement field have been sounding a warning that volunteer expectations have been shifting, and the older models of volunteering are losing their appeal. We cannot keep doing the same thing over and over and expect the same results.

Do we truly want to see our missions succeed?

We can make changes to better position ourselves to attract good, competent partners, whether individual volunteers or groups or other organizations who believe in our missions and will bring their passion, creativity and innovation. We just have to decide what is more important: Outcomes, goals and mission or systems and status quo.

-Meridian