Accountability: Maintaining a Reputation of Integrity with Paid and Volunteer Employees
Nonprofit accountability
remains more complicated than in the for-profit sector due to the complexity of
relationships that exist when a portion of the workforce is made up of
volunteers. Accountability has its roots in the demonstrable integrity of the
organization. According to Douglas, et
al, (2004), one of the main ways to ensure the reputation of the company
remains one of integrity is to ensure there are not only clear policies but
also a “culture of expectations” that volunteer and paid staff members must
follow consistently—including a process for the identification and
rectification of suspected violations (p. 1752). The methods for ensuring a
sound culture of expectations include recruiting and screening volunteers,
training and evaluation systems that are comparable to the paid employees, and
clear lines of hierarchy with processes for conflict management. When these
issues are addressed by a volunteer manager whose role is defined and respected
by the other members of the leadership team, nonprofit organizations (NPOs) build
a reputation of integrity rooted in transparency and consistency.
Recruiting
Word of mouth is an
important tool in the nonprofit sector for recruiting volunteers, staff, and
professionals as well as feeding the trust relationship between the organization
and the community. Too often, nonprofit organizations focus on recruitment
efforts for professional and paid staff while accepting whatever volunteers
present themselves for service. Volunteers are defined as individuals motivated
to donate their time and efforts to a nonprofit organization, bringing with
them a vast array of knowledge and experience above what the organization can
afford (Pynes, 2013, p. 382). Word of
mouth can be augmented by social media postings by staff, leadership, and volunteers
who have had direct experiences with the organization. Whether through
Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, or Instagram, whenever the name of the NPO shows up
on the internet, the potential to recruit new volunteers exists in full. In
this way, creating a social media component to the strategic plan that
addresses branding, audience, and a frequency for posting can aid in getting
the word out about the organization in the right places such that the right
people are exposed to the message. For example, providing a post to the company
Facebook page regarding a reflection on a past event, an upcoming event, or a
upcoming need that can be shared by affiliated and interested people boosts the
signal and reaches more readers than those specifically linked to the NPO’s
Facebook.
Screening
If recruiting is the
first part, the second part is vetting volunteers. In order to ensure
volunteers are assigned to appropriate tasks, they must be screened not only
for ability but also for accountability. Screening processes provide information
that will maximize the use of volunteers in the organization. Screening
processes must be defined in enough detail to obtain the information necessary
from the candidates for service in the shortest amount of time; time is a
valuable resource, and not many nonprofits have time to spare. Volunteers may
be assigned to tasks based on availability, frequency, and existing skillsets.
However, not all volunteers are a good fit for the organizations. In order to maintain a reputation of
integrity in the community, turning away volunteers must be done with tact and
respect. Kosarin (2015) suggests a courageous approach to turning away
candidates by addressing the situation immediately and face-to-face when
possible, keeping the conversation respectful and general, and speaking from
the volunteer’s point of view with compassion (p. 2). Selecting and matching
volunteers to appropriate tasks sets up an atmosphere of respect and promotes
positive relationships not only with the volunteers themselves but also with
the paid employees.
Training
The volunteer staff who
serve the NPOs are the “golden goose” of the sector: the volunteers work for
the organization without expectation of monetary compensation allowing the
resources to be utilized in other areas (Tenbensel, et al, 2014, p. 927). After
going through the vetting process to ensure the volunteer candidates are
well-suited for the work of the NPO, they must not only be matched to roles
that suit their strengths but also be given the training necessary to
successfully perform the duties assigned to them. Training programs will range
from orientation to a one-time role to extensive training for long-term roles.
Training for volunteers may be built on a hierarchy such that there is a clear
progression through the pyramid of volunteer activities from the most basic
tasks designed for one-time work-shifts to habitual scheduled shifts involving
more difficult or time-consuming tasks. Over time, there will be an overlap
between the roles of the paid employees and those of the long-term employees,
and providing training comparable to the paid employees will soften the
relationships between the two levels of staff.
Evaluation
Evaluating the
volunteers aids in maintaining and improving their performance, but too many
organizations keep this process applicable to the paid staff alone. Moxham
(2010) suggests management link the measurement categories to the desired
improvements: measure those items most important to the mission of the
organization or most in need of global improvement throughout the organization
(p. 350). Performance management must be clearly defined just as all other
processes. The employees and volunteers should be informed of the parameters
for measuring performance and the criteria for success. Making the process
transparent and open will set up the staff to deliver the expected results and
keep outcomes predictable, which is particularly important when an outcome is
not favorable, such as the restriction of volunteer roles/duties or dismissal
from duty.
Managing, not Coordinating
One of the most commonly
overlooked yet elegantly simple manners of setting clear expectations is to
answer two basic questions form the point of view of the volunteer: to whom am
I accountable and for what? (Tenbensel, 2014, p. 931). Managing volunteers has
commonly been done through the use of a volunteer coordinator. Nesbit and Rimes
(2016) point out the effect of improperly managing volunteers. Too often, an
organization places a manager with the primary responsibility of managing paid
staff indirectly responsible for volunteer coordination and performance (p.
166). Improperly coordinating the management of volunteers in relation to paid
employees can lead to substantial stress, burnout, and ultimately, employee
turnover (Nesbit and Rimes, 2016, p. 166). This also creates a more pronounced
hierarchy between the paid staff and the volunteer staff that, without proper
management, has shown disillusionment and frustration—and ultimately distrust
in the leaders of the organization. Proper management of the volunteer staff
through the use of an actual volunteer manager, as opposed to the popular
volunteer coordinator (Nesbit and Rimes, 2016, p. 167). When these individuals
are a natural part of the management team, the hierarchy between the volunteers
and paid staff diminishes and allows for better teamwork.
Conflict Management and Disciplinary Action
Another point of
interest in the dynamic between paid staff and volunteer staff is the method of
response by the leaders when conflicts arise. Providing guidance through a
clearly defined process to arrive at a resolution during conflict, whether
between volunteers and staff or volunteers and other volunteers, is a
responsibility of the volunteer manager and may require teamwork between the
volunteer manager and the manager of the paid employee. Managing conflict in
this way is an integral part of capacity building, “the art of strengthening an
organization’s ability to accomplish its mission,” because properly managed
conflict builds and maintains trust among all levels of staff (Gallicano, 2013,
p. 384). Trust is the response to
perceived integrity, and integrity comes from transparency and consistency. As
stated above, presenting consistency in policy and process, particularly when
there is a potentially negative situation to be addressed, builds integrity and
maintains accountability. The conflict resolution process must be an
overarching one, one that is applicable to all staff whether paid or volunteer,
and one that is common knowledge. Gallicano (2013) points out how pivotal
volunteer relationships are to their collaborative commitment to a movement or
cause (p. 370). Without an overarching policy, the assumed bias will lie with
the paid employee. Further, just as in any mediation scenario, credibility
comes not from a “neutral, disinterested mediator,” but from the perception
that the mediator has a “special knowledge and insight into the situation” AND
is committed to finding a “mutually satisfying solution” for the good of the
organization (Gallicano, 2013, p. 371). Keeping expectations and outcomes
predictable keeps staff and volunteers more engaged in the process, and presenting
an unbiased but dedicated front in the face of conflict helps all involved to
be more likely to come to an issue resolution based on consensus.
Conclusion
Long-term performance of
an NPO is based on their ability to “link and maximize social values as defined
in their mission” (Costa, Rasmus, and Andreaus, 2011, p.470). NPOs are an
increasingly important part of the global society, and as such, there is an
increased demand for transparency and accountability. The systems for
maintaining accountability are directly influenced by the organizational
reputation and their ability to manage not only their paid staff as seen in the
for-profit sector, but also to manage the tapestry of volunteers who rally to
their causes. Hiring, evaluating, and managing the volunteer staff in parallel
ways to the paid staff creates an atmosphere in which there are clear
expectations as well as a clear process for resolution when expectations are
not being met with one overall result: nonprofit corporate accountability.
Accountability is the key to building and maintaining trust with the community
and target groups the NPOs strive to serve.
References
Douglas, P. et al. (2004). Task force 6: Code of
conduct for staff and leadership. Journal
of the
American College of Cardiology. 44(8): 1750-1753.
Costa. E., Rasmus, T., and Andreaus, M. (2011).
Accountability as a managerial tool in nonprofit
organizations: Evidence
from Italian CSVs. International Journal
of Voluntary & Nonprofit Organizations. 22: 470-493.
Gallicano, T.D. (2013). Internal conflict
management and decision making: A qualitative study
of a multitiered
grassroots advocacy organization. Journal
of Public Relations Research. 25: 368-388.
Kosarin, E. (2015). Be tactful yet effective when turning away
volunteers. Nonprofit Business
Advisor. 311:1-3.
Moxham, C. (2010). Help or hindrance? Examining
the role of performance measurement in UK
nonprofit organizations.
Public Performance & Management
Review. 33(3): 342-354.
Nesbit, R. and Rimes, H. (2015). Inadvertent
volunteer managers: Exploring perceptions of
volunteers managers’ and
volunteers’ roles in the public workplace. Review
of Public
Personnel and Administration. 36(2): 164-187.
Pynes, J.E. (2013). Human Resources Management
for public and nonprofit organizations: A
strategic approach. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Tenbensel, T. et al. (2014). How not to kill the
golden goose: Reconceptualizing accountability
environments of
third-sector organizations. Public
Management Review. 16(7): 925-944.
