“Volunteer” should describe how someone is compensated, not how seriously the commitment is taken

Some years ago, I was elected Director of a soccer program. For me, it was something of a dream opportunity. It brought together my love of sport, especially soccer, with my love of leadership, building teams and, perhaps most importantly, getting things done.

One of my first priorities was to strengthen the board around me. I knew that if I was going to lead the program effectively, I could not become the person who handled every day-to-day issue. One obvious time and energy drain was dealing with parents’ questions and concerns. So when one of the board members stepped forward to become our Parent Liaison, it seemed like the perfect solution.

Except it wasn’t.

Within a few weeks, parents were contacting me again. It quickly became clear that the person who had volunteered for the role was neither particularly committed to it nor especially well equipped to handle it.

That created a leadership dilemma familiar to anyone who has worked in a volunteer organization. They were giving their time for free. How hard should I push?

We had a conversation and, rather than simply concluding that they were not a good volunteer, we realized that they were simply in the wrong role. We moved them into responsibility for the equipment. And they did an excellent job.

That experience taught me something important. The problem had not just been the individual. The problem was the way we had filled the position. We had effectively said, “We need someone to do this,” and someone had put their hand up.

So we started again. We properly defined the Parent Liaison role. We wrote a job description. We explained what the position required and what success looked like. We offered the opportunity to the existing board, but nobody felt they were particularly well suited to it. So we widened the search to parents throughout the program.

Three people applied, and we interviewed all three. And then we appointed the person we believed was best equipped to do the job. So we did exactly what we would have done if we were running a business. And that became one of my most important lessons about leading volunteer and nonprofit organizations.

They still have to be run like businesses.

That does not mean treating volunteers like employees. People are giving their time. They have jobs, families, and other commitments. Circumstances change, and leaders need to recognize that. But appreciation and accountability are not opposites. Being grateful for somebody’s contribution does not mean that responsibilities become optional.

Volunteers should describe how someone is compensated, not how seriously the commitment is taken.

The mission may be different. The compensation may be different. But the leadership disciplines are not. Organizations still need clear roles, clear expectations, the right people in the right seats, communication, standards, accountability, and follow-through. And there is another side to this. If someone accepts a role and then repeatedly fails to deliver, somebody else usually picks up the work. And almost inevitably, it is the most dependable people who do so.

That is how strong volunteers become overloaded, frustrated, and eventually burned out. Poor accountability does not protect volunteers. It often punishes the best ones. Good leadership, therefore, starts before the accountability conversation. Have we clearly explained the role? Have we defined what success looks like? Does the person understand the commitment? Are they actually suited to the position? And have they consciously agreed to take responsibility for it?

Sometimes the answer will also be that somebody is simply in the wrong role. That is not necessarily a failure.

The volunteer in my story struggled as a Parent Liaison, but succeeded with equipment. The leadership responsibility was not simply to hold them accountable. It was to help put them somewhere they could succeed. That lesson extends well beyond sports associations. It applies to nonprofit boards, community organizations, committees and businesses.

Titles alone do not create ownership. Putting your hand up does not create capability. Good intentions do not replace execution. If an organization matters enough for people to volunteer their time to it, it matters enough to be run properly.

So perhaps the questions leaders should ask are these: Are we filling roles because somebody volunteered, or because they are the right person? Have we clearly defined what people are committing to? And when someone struggles, are we looking only at the person, or also at the role, the expectations, and the way we selected them?

Volunteer organizations do not need lower standards – They need clearer expectations.

Volunteers should describe how someone is compensated, not how seriously the commitment is taken.

 

Photo generated by Chat GPT