Managing volunteers is not like herding cats (despite what some managers will tell you)!

(This image: Source unknown)

I never cease to be amazed at the number of leaders, officers and social programme managers who will not use volunteers.  They insist that it is all too hard and it can’t possible work in their situation. 

Actually, nothing could be further from the truth.  In an NGO, there are very few situations (if any) that the contribution of volunteers will not enhance. 

But they do require managing in a different way to employees.  The usual assumptions about employment dynamics do not apply – and I think this is the real reason why some managers don’t want to take on volunteers.  It’s not about the situation; it’s about their willingness to change their management style. 

What are some of the differences and similarities between managing employees and volunteers? 

Managing Employees	Managing Volunteers
The relationship is defined by a financial arrangement	The relationship is defined by “soft” issues such as passion for the cause, loyalty to the leader, or desire to build experience and skills
Employees tends to be more stable and have lower turnover	Volunteers tends to be less stable and higher turnover
Most employees are full-time	Most volunteers are part-time
The manager’s ultimate leverage against poor performance is dismissal leading to financial loss	Dismissal does not lead to financial loss, but will result in other losses
Long term employees are in danger of becoming ”ho-hum” about the work	Enthusiastic volunteers tend to inject a degree of passion and idealism into the workplace
Recruitment and retention is perceived to be easier because of the open employment market dynamics	Recruitment and retention is perceived to be more difficult because both the dynamics of the volunteer market and capacity of the applicants are somewhat hidden and poorly understood
Some employees do not need to be “sold” on the mission to function well and stay in the organisation	Volunteers need to be “sold’ on the mission to function well and to stay in the organisation
Employees’ motivation is strengthened by recognition and being entrusted with challenging tasks	Volunteers’ motivation is strengthened by recognition and being entrusted with challenging tasks
Some employees bring specialist skills, perspectives and experience to the work	Some volunteers bring specialist skills, perspectives and experience to the work
Employees have statutory rights under labour laws	Volunteers have some legal rights in most jurisdictions, but they also have the moral right to be treated with equity and fairness
Employees have the legal right to protection under equal opportunity and health and safety standards	Volunteers have the legal right to protection under equal opportunity and health and safety standards
Employees need a viable, fair and accessible grievance process	Volunteers need a viable, fair and accessible grievance process
It is generally perceived that there needs to be a smaller investment of the manager’s time and resources in reward and motivation activities	It is generally perceived that there needs to be a greater  investment of the manager’s time and resources in reward and motivation activities

What’s in it for me? 

Given all these differences (and not so many similarities), why should a leader employ volunteers?  Here are just some of the reasons why I love having volunteers in my team: 

ü  Volunteers bring a degree and passion and enthusiasm for the mission that we “full-timers” can sometimes lose,

ü  Volunteers bring fresh ideas, newness and are ready to question inefficiencies,

ü  Volunteers tend to be outside the office politics dynamic,

ü  Leaders and other team members are given the privilege of helping volunteers in their skills, career and personal development,

ü  Volunteers value-add capacity and competence to the team as a whole,

ü  Volunteers can provide a pool in which to fish for employees.

(This image from: FreeDigitalPhotos.net)

Are you convinced about using volunteers yet?  I hope so.  In my next post, I will share how easy it is to recruit, select, induct and manage volunteers, and I will provide some sample tools that you can adapt for your local setting. 

No more dragon-ladies - Please!

Have you ever wondered what makes the office dragon-lady the way she is?  Did you ever stop to consider why some people are lovely to know socially, but are workplace tyrants when they’re in charge of a team? 

It could have something to do with their limited repertoire of behaviours in the face of frustration.  

Leaders’ behaviour has a much greater impact on the members of a team than any other single person on the team.  Every behaviour the leader gets even slightly wrong is magnified in its impact on the team.  Yet we have the responsibility of keeping everything and everyone on track.  If things are not moving quickly enough, or members of the team are not cooperating, it is so easy to become either too aggressive or too passive, either of which could threaten the cohesion of the team. 

What is the answer to this dilemma? 

The leader has to recognise that he/she is responsible for his/her own behaviour and thoughts.  Most teams will forgive a rare expression on frustration but, beyond this, the leader must be in control of him/herself all the time.

The dragon-lady and workplace tyrant have yet to learn this lesson.  They have not learned to express their opinion, get what they want and move the team forward without resorting to abusive techniques. 

In a frustrating situation there are essentially three behaviour styles that a leader can adopt; passive, aggressive or assertive. 

The Aggressive Leader

The aggressive leader is the one that gets her way without respecting the opinions and feelings of her team members. She may indulge in some extreme behaviour such as shouting, screaming or table banging.  She will generally display non-verbals that are closed, contemptuous and hard.  She is the kind of person that a team member is not likely to approach for advice or guidance.  The key characteristic of her relationship with her team members is fear.

This leadership style does not provide an environment for open communication, creating the probability of vital information not being transferred, de-motivation of team members and strained workplace relationships, all of which results in lower productivity and “soldiering”^.

The Submissive Leader

The submissive leader is the one that gives way to the opinions and feeling of her team members and has little regard for her own.  She avoids conflict and so she often has to resort to manipulative ways to get the job done.  It is not uncommon for her to get caught up in playing favourites and using back door methods to progress the work of the team.  Her workplace is often characterised by bitchiness and back stabbing.  She provides no emotional safety for the team members.  She is usually seen as a “peace at any price” kind of boss, and the domineering members of the team tend to step into the power vacuum and take over. 

The Assertive Leader

The assertive leader is able to issue instructions and directions while at the same time respecting the feelings and the opinions of her team members. 

Fundamental to her belief system is the premise that everyone deserves to be treated with courtesy and respect, and she uses the basic tools of politeness and patience combined with good listening skills and creative problem solving.  She is willing to compromise on some less important things so that she can “win” the important issues. 

She finds that, as she treats her subordinates with respect, they tend to give cooperation in return.  Though her methods might be slower (in that she takes time to win trust and confidence), in the long term her team is more effective and efficient. 

What kind of leader would your team members say you are?  

(Photos courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net)

Six Leadership Tips from Jim Collins

This post by August Turak is so practical and useful, I just had to re-post it as is.

Great advice on time management, staying focused, hiring and firing - the distillation of many years of practical, front-line leadership experience.

Judge for yourself!

If you want a job well done, don't do it yourself!

When delegating doesn’t work

For some people delegation is so unnatural and counter-intuitive that they really can’t get past the old mothers’ wisdom that “if you want a job done well you should do it yourself”.  And then when they try to delegate and it fails it only serves to reinforce their belief that they were right all along. 

But delegation fails, not because it is inherently inferior, but because of how it has been carried out.  Delegation fails when . . .

1.    Responsibility is delegated without  authority

One of the most frustrating and disempowering experiences your team members can have is to be given a task but not the authority to carry it out. 

I recently heard of a manager that was appointed to “clean-up” a certain organisation that had become inefficient and ineffective.  It was experiencing poor team morale, sales were down, productivity was low, and staff turnover and absenteeism were through the roof. 

But, the new manager was given no authority to performance-manage any of the staff.  She was not allowed to intervene in the production side of the business, she was not given up-to-date business information, and she was not allowed to hire and fire.  In fact the only thing she could do was drive the marketing and sales campaigns.  In a nutshell, she was not given the authority she needed to do the job! 

Although she made impressive gains in the one area she had control over, marketing and sales, it was only a few months before she left the job in frustration. (And I just heard she is thinking of setting up her own rival company!  Wouldn’t you feel annoyed with yourself if you were the leader who had let that talent slip through your fingers?)

Whatever the job, large or small, it is important that the delegate is given all the authority she needs for doing the job.

2.    The leader doesn’t understand the capacity of the team member

Understanding the capacity of the person to do the task you are giving them is an important skill for a leader. 

The strengths and inclinations of your team member should be a guide to what you can delegate, how close you should monitor, and the quality of work you can expect. 

There is a balance to delegating tasks and responsibilities that are beyond the team member’s experience. 

On one hand, it’s good to occasionally delegate so that the experience is going to be a growth and development opportunity for your team member.  You have to understand that you won’t get perfection this time round, but you are building for the future. 

On the other hand, don’t give him a task that is so far away from his skills, gifts and preferences that he will be entirely out of his depth.  He will flounder and feel that he is inadequate and incapable.  It will be a blow to his confidence, and may prevent his future growth.

3.    The job was not properly communicated

We all come to each interaction with a set of pre-conditioned expectations, and if your’s are different to your team member’s the scene is set for a delegation failure. 

This is particularly true of (but not limited to) those who work in a cross-cultural environment. 

Recently, I asked a member of my team to provide an account name and number on a document.  When the document arrived on my desk it had the account name and number but no other information. 

I had assumed that it was implicit that all the other information would also be provided and that I was giving instruction on this limited aspect of the form (Western perspective).  My team member had acted on the implication that I wanted only what I had specifically asked for (Eastern perspective). 

Of course, this misunderstanding was minor and easily rectified, but for a major task or role fixing the problem is not always so easy. 

These kinds of errors are common and I have often heard managers blame the delegate without properly analysing what went wrong.  The way I try to minimise miscommunication errors is three-fold. 

a. Start with verbal explanation of the task / role, 

b. Follow-up with something in writing, which could be some dot-points on a scrap of paper or informal meeting notes, through to formal meeting minutes or a position description (depending on what is being communicated), 

c. During the life of the task / role, make sure that you check-in with the delegate frequently, especially in the early stages.

4.    The leader interferes in the delegated task

There is nothing more tempting than the urge to take over a task that we can see is being done slowly, poorly or ineffectively. 

But this is an absolute killer to the trust and loyalty of the team member who is doing the job.  And the chances are that she will not remain silent about this this kind of interference.  She may or may not talk to you about your interference, but you can be certain that she will tell the rest of the team.  It is a sure way of building resentment and distrust in your whole team. 

Resist the temptation to take over.  Offer help, offer guidance, provide feedback, but only when the situation is really, really, really desperate should you take over. 

5.    The leader “sets it and forgets it”

A hundred years ago (give or take), I trained for management for the hospitality industry.  In one particular practicum I was assigned to a hotel as a “night controller”.  The incumbent of this now out-dated position worked through the night to carry out manually the accounting tasks now carried out in seconds by the computer behind the reception desk.  When you checked out, for example, did it ever occur to you that someone had been awake all night making sure that your bill, along with those of the 500 other guests, was up-to-date?

What a complex and time-consuming task this was (albeit simple in concept).  Billing information had to be gathered from every phone record, bar, restaurant, kitchen, service and housekeeping department.  It had to be made sense of, and charged to the right customer, all before the first of them began to check out at 7.00am or earlier. 

Now, in this complex and highly time-critical environment, this rookie trainee was blessed with a “set it and forget it” manager.  Her mantra was “I already told you how to do that!”

Consequently, until I got up to speed, there were a lot of customers that didn’t get charged all they should have, and possibly one or two that were overcharged. 

Further, because she was also a real dragon lady, I was reluctant to ask her if I was in doubt about anything.  The financial cost to the company could have been considerable, and the cost in morale (therefore staff turnover and absenteeism) could have been very high.  But my manager had no regard for these things. She was more concerned about the personal inconvenience to herself. 

Except in the most ideal of circumstances, the “set it and forget it” approach never works!

6.    The leader delegates then passes the blame when things go wrong

Napoleon is attributed with the words, “There are no bad soldiers; only bad officers’, a statement that has influenced my leadership for many years. 

A leader who delegates well will monitor with the right level of involvement so that things are less likely to go wrong.  He will make sure that the team member has all the information, authority, materials and tools he needs to do the job. 

When things go wrong he will absorb the criticism levelled from outside of the team, while appropriately and discretely apportioning it inside the team.  There is nothing more embarrassing that hearing a manager saying “It wasn’t my fault, it was XXX (name of a team member)”. 

When a manager says this to me, I know that he is really admitting that he failed to both properly manage his team member, and to take responsibility for his poor management.” 

If I was making a list of “Things that will engender distrust and disloyalty in the team as well as break down relationships with peer-level managers”, this would be near the top. 

Finally, a reminder . . .

In a previous post Why Tasks Don’t Stay Delegated I have presented a simple tool to help delegation decisions.   Take a look – you might find it helpful. 

The uncool training method that works 100% of the time (well almost)

During the Second World War, the Brits sent all their eligible men overseas to the front and the women (who were mostly home-based at that time) had to fill their positions in the workplaces of Britain.  How did the nation train an unskilled and un-workready workforce and get them up-to-speed in a very short time?

Their psychologists and trainers developed a simple and highly-focused, but now largely forgotten, training technique, that works almost every time.  With it they transformed a nation of stay-at-home mums and teenage girls into a highly effective workforce that ran the nation while their men were away.

This is it . . .

Step 1:
The trainer carries out the task slowly without comment or explanation with the trainee watching.

Step 2:
The trainer carries out the task again stopping and explaining each element in the process.

Step 3:
The trainee carries out the task as the trainer guides and explains how to do each element.

Step 4:
The trainee carries out the task, and explains to the trainer what she/he is doing step by step.  The trainer offers correction and encouragement through the process.

Step 5:
The trainee carries out the task without comment or guidance, and the trainer gives feedback at the end.

How simple is that?  It really works and can be adapted to all kinds of activities.  I have used it to train  all kinds of things from evangelism to writing funding submissions.  (Those of you who have been trained by me are probably thinking “Oh, so that’s what he was up to!”)

Of course, this is a very uncool way of training people, which is probably why it has fallen into dis-use.  But, the principles can be adapted and made more relevant to postmodern trainees.

As with everything, there are some limitations to this method of training.  Here are the most significant of them:

1. The trainer has to have a very conscious (rather than sub-conscious) knowledge of the task so that she can break it down into its component parts. This requires some preparation. 
2. It is assumed that the trainee has the capacity to learn the task and carry it out, so selection of the right people is important. 
3. It can be made to work with the training of any task, but it works best with tasks that are hands-on, less complex, do not call for judgement, and have a degree of repetition.  
4. From the trainee’s point of view, it can feel a little patronising, though this can be overcome by taking  personable approach.  

On the plus side, it means that you do not need to be a highly qualified or skilled trainer to use this method, just knowledge of what you’re training, and a little bit of patience.

Further, the method lends itself well to repeating phases until the trainee gains enough confidence and competence.  I often find myself repeating Steps 3 and 4 a few times when training some tasks, especially those that require building up a degree of self-confidence such as evangelism or preparing a sermon.  There are some things that most people are instinctively nervous about, so re-working some of the steps with them will help them overcome their reticence.

As a leader, one of your core activities is delivering training, so perhaps this little method can become part of your training techniques repertoire.

Time Management is Easy

Like a lot of things in management and leadership, there are people who seem to have a vested interest in making time management complicated.  I know of colleagues who have spent between US$1,000 and US$2,000 on time management courses and systems that have been so complex that they were not able to sustain them for more than a few months. 

Keep it simple!

The first principle of time management is keeping it simple!  And the second principle is making it fit your own ways of working, your own personality. 

There are only five things you need for a good time management system.

1. An action list (to-do list)
2.  A diary
3.  Less than half-an-hour per working day
4.  An understanding of the difference between important and urgent
5. A little bit of stickability

 This is what you do

Develop a list of tasks and, during the course of each day, mark off tasks as they get done, and add new tasks as they come up.  Once a day spend twenty to thirty minutes sorting out the priorities for the next 24 hour period. 

In the diary, you put all the appointments, fixed points and unchangeable deadlines.  Update it as new events come up.  And oh; you must remember to look at it every day! 

That’s it.  That is all that is required for good time management. 

Put your personal stamp on your time management

Now, from these basic elements you can personalise it and make it increasingly sophisticated – or not.

For example you might want to consider . . .

• Do I have my action list and/or diary on-line, on-screen or on paper?
• Do I prioritise tasks under titles like today, tomorrow, this week, this month, etc., or do I simply number them 1 to (say) 43?
• Do I tick (P) or cross out my completed tasks?
• Do I colour code the tasks by importance and urgency?
• Do I re-arrange the order each day according the order in which I plan to do the tasks?
•  How much time should I factor in for interruptions and other unexpected events?
• If I have multiple copies of my diary and/or action list how do I ensure up-to-date syncing?
• What fun elements and emotional rewards am I going to introduce, such as giving myself a smiley, a tick (P), or even a coffee break or snack when I complete a task?

Working out the answers to these questions that best suit you will mean that you are more likely to consistently stick with your time management system in the long term. 

 

Importance and urgency 

Urgent tasks are those that scream at us from the page, “Do this task now!”, and “The deadline is fast approaching!”  Often they are tasks that will have real or imagined consequences if they are late.  But, they are not always the most important. 

Important tasks are those that are aligned to your strategic goals, the direction of where you want to go, the tasks that will make a difference to your ministry, that will change lives.  They are the high priority tasks.  Nevertheless, these tasks often remain quiet and unobtrusive.   

So putting the rubbish out, cleaning the car and filing the papers on your desk may all be urgent, but preparing a strategic plan, leading an evangelism team and organising a social outreach are tasks that are important. 

One of the keys to successful leadership is making time for the important, and not allowing them to be squeezed out by the urgent.

 Stickability

If you adopt a method of time management because it is “good for you” or “the correct thing”, but is not really you, you’re likely not to stick at it.  

The more your system of time management reflects you and your preferences the more you are likely to have success in the longer term.  Give yourself the biggest advantage you can. 

I recognise that, for many, the very idea of life being organised and structured seems unnatural and awkward.  But the effort of getting past this is more than worth it.  I know many people who have pushed through their own internal resistance and adopted simple time management techniques as a way of life.   Without exception, they have experienced good results within weeks and have gone on to enjoy a much higher level of effectiveness in their ministry.

 

Still not convinced?  Let me finish with an observation that you won't often hear from a senior officer.  

If you’ve done any ministry training you’ve had it drummed into you that the worst possible time to prepare your Sunday morning sermon is on Saturday, right?  However, I know officers who have liberated themselves from this “should” and regularly produce their very best work under the pressure of knowing they are going to be in front of a congregation within 24 hours!  This is what works best for them.  On the other hand, I personally start to feel uncomfortable if it’s not done by Wednesday.  All of which goes to underscore the point . . . .

A successful time management system is one that bends to your preferences.

What really motivates people?

“De-motivated” is not the opposite to “motivated”

Psychologist Frederick Herzberg’s 1968 article, "One More Time, How Do You Motivate Employees?" still holds records amongst the most reprinted and most requested management articles of all time. 

But why? 

In essence, because Herzberg was the first researcher to cut through all the mumbo-jumbo about motivation and present something that had real science behind it.   

Herzberg and his team interviewed large numbers of accountants and engineers in the highly industrialised area around the City of Pittsburgh.  His findings were surprising. 

He concluded that the things that motivate and the things that de-motivate are not related to one another.

He described the de-motivators, or “hygiene factors” as he called them, as those things that do not give positive satisfaction, but will lead to dissatisfaction if they are absent. They’re not part of the actual work, but the things that surround it, such as: 

• Fair and reasonable organisational policies, 
• Good leadership and management,
• Reasonable pay and a fair pay structure.  

The motivators are those things that actual increase satisfaction and motivate us to work harder and smarter.  The most important of these are: 

• Challenging work,
• Recognition,
• Responsibility,
• Matching the right person to the right job. 

(Herzberg's point is well illustrated in this little video that was my “Link of the Week” a few weeks back.)

In the local corps setting the implications of this may surprise you (then again, perhaps not if you think about it for a moment).

Hygiene Factors

We don’t have to worry about the fact that as an NGO we pay less than the commercial world.  Paying a reasonable salary under a fair structure is essential, but once this is achieved if we think that by offering more money we will increase motivation we would be wrong.  

(By the way, under this model the fair and reasonable salary structure for volunteers is zero.  Volunteers are not in it for the money, and many would be affronted if they thought that we thought that money would made a difference to their commitment and service!)

However, we do have to make sure that our Army and our local corps provides a framework of fair and reasonable policies (such things as Orders and Regulations, Official Minutes, and local practices).  And, in a people-based, frontline-oriented organisation such as The Salvation Army, if we think that some of these policies are unfair or unreasonable it is our duty to advocate for change.

But the area we have most influence over is our own management/leadership style.  Fairness and reasonableness have to be hallmarks of everything we do as a leader; otherwise it will lead to dissatisfaction amongst the members of our team. 

(If you’re not convinced about this, spend a few minutes thinking back to a leader or boss under whom you were dissatisfied or de-motivated.  Did he/she manage you with fairness and reasonableness?  Probably not!)

Motivators

On the other hand (and this is the really exciting part), Herzberg has given us a simple plan to motivate our team. Once we have put them in the right job, we go to the next step by giving them responsibility, challenge and recognition. 

Essentially, people respond positively to being given more responsibility, and being given greater challenges.  (I know this is counter-intuitive for many leaders, so see “Why tasks don’t stay delegated” to learn how to effectively give people more responsibility and challenges in a way that works.)

And recognition for their work; a note of thanks, a gift, a certificate, a public recognition ceremony or even a simple “thank you” goes a long way to increasing motivation.