In 1983, Independent Sector sponsored “Since the Filer Commission,” a research forum conducted in New York, ten years after the Commission on Private Philanthropy and Public Needs had concluded its two-year study into private philanthropic initiatives. The Filer Commission had published its report, Giving in America: Toward a Stronger Voluntary Sector, in 1975.
Sector leaders (including Kathleen D. McCarthy, Pablo Eisenberg, Russy Sumariwalla, Elizabeth T. Boris, Lester Salamon, Jon Van Til, Landrum R. Bolling, and Tracy D. Connors) were asked their opinions regarding: the accuracy of the original commission’s report: about research that had been expanded or continued since the commission had reported 10 years earlier: identification of new issues, new research, or lingering questions still unanswered; and, where did the sector go from that point.
Connors had published the first Nonprofit Organization Handbook in 1980. The Nonprofit Organization Handbook established for the first time that regardless of the specific public service provided, not-for-profit organizations shared seven areas of management—from fund raising to volunteer administration.
The first and second editions of the Nonprofit Management Handbook compiled the fundamental management information needed by NPO leaders in one volume for the first time.
The NPOH pointed out for the first time that while not-for-profit organizations may differ greatly in the type and variety of the public services they provide—e.g. culture versus social services—nevertheless, they generally share seven important areas of management and operations.
As Connors pointed out in his IS presentation and published perspectives, nonprofit organizations, regardless of the type of public service they provide, shared basic management commonalities, e.g., leadership, management and control; human resources management; revenue and support generation; financial management; public relations, marketing and communication; organizational and corporate principles; and, legal and regulatory impacts. While nonprofits exhibit major differences in terms of their public services, in management areas they share much more than they differ.
What was emerging he termed a “horizontal view” of management and the nonprofit sector based on a concurrence that nonprofits share at least these seven areas of management and that “mastery of at least these areas is critical for the success of both the professional and NPO manager, and the organization which he or she leads.”
The Nonprofit Manager
A new category of management professional had emerged, he pointed out – the “nonprofit manager” – a professional, paid or volunteer, who has mastered the management basics of voluntary action organizations. At long last the nonprofit sector had the ability “to generate a curriculum designed to train the nonprofit executive – undergraduate and graduate … Enabling us to provide specific professional training in NPO management so badly needed by our career managers.”
At long last the nonprofit sector had the ability “to generate a curriculum designed to train the nonprofit executive – undergraduate and graduate … Enabling us to provide specific professional training in NPO management so badly needed by our career managers.”
The early 1980’s introduced the first comprehensive handbooks for charitable-philanthropic organization management, and established the basic horizontal management model which exists to this day around which management education in this field is organized. A new management professional had evolved to lead C-POs regardless of their public service: the nonprofit executive.
The NPO Strategic Mirror is a convenient tool for senior leaders of nonprofit organization to better understand how — or whether — the organization’s strategic planning and deployment are directly linked to outcomes and results that demonstrate improved mission and public purpose accomplishment.
This strategic directions profiling and self-assessment resource is based on the self-renewing management model (Connors, 1997, 2001, 2014), and was most recently used by Norwich University as a tool to review and assess strategic planning by Vermont charitable-philanthopic-nonprofit organizations.
The answers sought on the questionnaire are related to and focused on those management actions, activities, and competencies that senior NPO leaders have identified as contributing to their successes and those of their organizations.
The NPO Strategic Mirror is a strategic directions profiling and self-assessment tool created by Dr. Tracy Connors based on the self-renewing management model (Connors, 1997/2001) and rankings provided by senior NPO practitioners during the Charitable-Philanthropic Organization Self-Renewing Management Model (C-POSRM) Study (Connors, 2014).
About the Strategic Mirror assessment
The actual assessment can be completed in a few minutes by those who are familiar with the organization’s strategic plan and/or related materials. The resulting data can become the focus for analysis, and serve as a form of agenda for any meetings focused on the subject.
The Strategic Mirror assessment and review process helped participating organizations to better understand their organization’s long-range vision, goals and objectives and how these are aligned with the operating environment.
The data collected and developed during the assessments used a combination of both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. It is designed to provide macro level insights into the strategic planning process and documentation, and to do so in the three overarching management domains that represent the organization’ operating environment.
The reviewer – external or internal to the organization – can make a determination about the presence of a management function or action, and the extent to which it seems to be effectively used within the planning process to improve effectiveness or efficiency. The reviewer then assigns their determination to a broad Likkert scale range to generate quantitative data that is then available for other useful purposes, e.g., basic statistical understandings.
The data collected can help provide a broad measure of understanding about the use of these management actions and activities within the organization’s planning processes, how that use compares with other nonprofits, and how the organization’s use of these potential tools within its strategic planning process may change over time.
Need to improve NPO capacities directly linked to improved mission fulfillment
The future of America’s quality of life, in many important ways, depends on the quality and quantity of human services provided by its more than 1 million charitable-philanthropic-nonprofit organizations. America’s C-P NPO’s are under continuing and growing pressure to improve their Effectiveness, Efficiency, Accountability, and Transparency (E/EAT). These pressures and proddings are increasing, a process some have called the “tides of reform.”
C-NPO’s must improve and increase their organizational capacities in ways that are directly linked to outcomes and results that demonstrate improved mission and public purpose accomplishment.
Strategic planning is one of the most critical competencies self-sustaining C-NPO’s attain and practice. However, the results and outcomes achieved as a result of an organization’s strategic planning and deployment will depend on the extent to which the plans reflect and incorporate those management actions, activities, and results that research has identified as among the strongest contributors to organizational performance improvement and mission fulfillment.
Strategic Mirror aligns strategic planning with management actions contributing to performance improvement
“Views from a Strategic Mirror” is a research-based charitable-philanthropic organization self-assessment tool designed to help leaders, managers, and practitioners identify the extent to which strategic planning and related future-focused management processes reflect the incorporation of specific management actions and outcomes that are major contributors to overall organizational performance improvement in the three overarching management domains – Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Transformational Organization.
VSM helps C-NPO leaders conveniently and quickly review and compare their organization’s strategic plan and related documents. The Q&A process provides a convenient reminder of the management actions and/or outcomes that have been strongly correlated to overall organizational performance and success by research and practice. The VSM provides the “mirror” that helps reflect the extent to which the planning process has included and focused on those management/leadership actions and outcomes that are closely associated with organizational performance improvement, and the extent to which the organization has incorporated those contributors to excellence and mission fulfillment into its plans and practices, and used them to define strategic results and outcomes.
Next: Reflections Before the Mirror
Connors, T. D. (2016, October 17). Views from a strategic mirror [A strategic directions profiling and self-assessment tool for charitable-philanthropic-nonprofit organizations created based on the self-renewing management model.]. In NPO crossroads: management domains and outcomes. Retrieved from BelleAire Press, LLC: http://www.npocrossroads.com/management/views-from-a-strategic-mirror/
Many of the words we use everyday have been used for hundreds, even thousands, of years by countless generations of our ancestors, most of whom spoke a language derived and descended from Indo-European – the prototype of the majority of the world’s languages spoken today. Researchers at Reading University concluded that such words as “I”, “we”, “two” and “three” are words that have been used for tens of thousands of years, and are among the most ancient of words now in common use (BBC News, 2009). Researchers determined the more often we use a word, the more slowly it changes over time. Therefore, our most commonly used words tend to be our oldest words. When we use a word with great frequency, it clearly has great value to us and communicates important information.
These findings would certainly apply to the word we use to identify, describe, or distinguish one thing from another. When we designate something in a way that expressively classifies it according to some combination of distinguishing characteristics, we give it a “name.” Since the term “nomen” appears in Indo-European and means “name,” we get a sense for the importance of the word “name,” and the role it plays in our language (Morris, 1981, p. 871). A “name” can be a name, or it might be a designation, denomination, title, appellation, nickname, sobriquet, cognomen, or moniker. What few can bear is the inexpressible, indescribable horror of being “nameless.”
What’s in a name?
When any nonprofit organization is established, its founders give serious attention to its name. Typically, the name provides a great deal of information about its mission and purpose. Nonprofits work hard to earn public recognition and respect for the good works performed by their members, staff, and volunteers – all of which contributes to its name recognition, which in turn is a significant factor in its ability to sustain public support, solicit donations, and attract members and volunteers.
There are times in the lifecycle of a nonprofit organization when its leadership is faced with the need to consider changing its name – the subject of this posting focusing on major change efforts.
Volunteer Jacksonville to HandsOn Jacksonville: a mini-study
Volunteer Jacksonville, Inc., was incorporated as a nonprofit corporation in the state of Florida in 1973 (Corrick, Hannan & Fanning, 1973), and granted exempt status as a 501(c)(3) public charity by the IRS in 1976. The organization’s original mission was that of serving as a clearinghouse for volunteers – a place where individuals could find opportunities through which they could serve their community, and where nonprofit organizations could obtain assistance and retaining volunteers for their programs.
By the 1980s, Volunteer Jacksonville, Inc. had grown into a management resource and support center for nonprofit organizations, as well as fulfilling the responsibilities as a volunteer center. However, what we would now term as “mission creep” led to a flurry of organizational focus, coupled with significant revenue decreases from the organization’s primary funding source. For many years there was a persistent sentiment, eventually substantiated by an externally prepared marketing study, to change the name. By then, “Volunteer Jacksonville” did not accurately describe what the organization provided in the way of public services (Smith, 2006-2010).
In 1998, following extensive planning and development, the organizational model was changed and Volunteer Jacksonville refocused its mission and vision on a single primary customer, “the person whose life is changed because of work that is done–the volunteer” (HandsOn Jacksonville, 2010). Since then, the organization has also made significant changes in its business model, integrating a direct project management model with the ongoing indirect clearinghouse/brokerage model, that enable it to increasingly focus on: the volunteer; preparing volunteer leaders and managers; conducting volunteer projects; and on what it terms “impact imperatives” in such areas as education, economy, environment, and emergency preparedness. Impact imperatives projects have also enabled the organization to help restore schools as centers of the community, alleviate poverty, preserve the environment, and prepare the greater Jacksonville community for potential disasters.
In 2006, in a significant move that symbolized the organization’s refocused and revised vision, Volunteer Jacksonville, Inc. changed its name to HandsOn Jacksonville, Inc. – “to reflect our conviction to change the world by inspiring, equipping and mobilizing the people of our community to take action” (HandsOn Jacksonville, 2008). Explained in the context outlined by Carlson and O’Neal-McElrath (2008), the process followed by the revitalized HandsOn Jacksonville, can be seen as both a structural and an engagement strategy.
The organization clearly re-examined its mission, realigned the organization more in line with the revised and refined mission, then adopted a revised mission, one better suited to the organization’s need to respond to rapidly changing conditions – and opportunities. The change also enabled them to refocus the organization’s culture and to reengage all of their stakeholders in supporting the improve mission, services, and message. Further, the name change provided an opportunity and a catalyst to engage with other nonprofits both local and national to establish supportive, collaborative, and cooperative initiatives improving funding support and organizational effectiveness.
For some nonprofits, including some aspects of the HoJ initiative, the process of changing the name is part of an overall organizational rebranding effort, that can include a new strategy, name, logo, color scheme, and website design (Hrywna, 2009). A brand is not simply the organization’s name or logotype. Rather, the brand represents, collectively, how that organization’s clients, customers, stakeholders, volunteers, staff, and the general public view the organization, i.e., its overall reputation and standing (allaboutbranding.com, 2011).
Durham (2010) applies the term “Brandraising,” as the name for the process of establishing a coherent, cohesive organizational identity, coupled with a comprehensive communications plan and system that supports these goals, thus making it easier to articulate the organization’s mission and purpose effectively and consistently. A nonprofit organization’s strongest asset is its brand, and branding includes all of the processes involved in establishing a clear, consistent message about the organization – the goal being to create such a strong association between the organization’s logotype or name that when the public sees or hears them they will think of the organization’s mission and programs in terms defined by the organization (Nissim, 2004).
The objective when branding products, Strand (2010) says, is to establish an association between the product position and the consumer’s self image. In the case of a nonprofit organization, the difference lies in the fact that the association is developed between the values of that organization and the corresponding values of that organization’s supporters. For example: “We connect and engage people in service that addresses serious social issues… We make people aware of the issues that face our community, equipping them with hope and tools that empower them to create change” (HandsOn Jacksonville, 2009, p. 2)
What’s a name worth?
The nonprofit’s name and brand play an important role in the organization’s ability to generate future revenue and resources. What the organization stands for should be uncompromising and absolutely clear to the public. As reported in the Cone Nonprofit Power Brand 100, the top nonprofit brand in the United States is the YMCA, whose brand is worth $6.393.6 million. Other top nonprofit brands in the United States include: the Salvation Army, United Way of America, American Red Cross, Goodwill Industries International, and Catholic Charities USA (CNBC, 2009).
allaboutbranding.com. (2011). Whether Marketing a Corporate Brand or a Branded Product or Service, Success. Retrieved January 25, 2011, from allaboutbranding.com and DNA Designed Communications Ltd.: http://www.allaboutbranding.com/
BBC News. (2009, February 26). ‘Oldest English words’ identified [Some of the oldest words in the English and other Indo-European languages have been identified, scientists believe.]. In Science & environment. Retrieved April 20, 2011, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7911645.stm
Carlson, M., & O’Neal-McElrath, T. (2008). Winning grants: Step by step. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
CNBC. (2009, June 26). New report values America’s 100 leading nonprofit brands [As the nation copes with the economic crisis, the value of nonprofit brands are revealed for the first time”]. Retrieved January 25, 2011, from Intangible Business Brand Valuation: http://www.intangiblebusiness.us/Brand-Services/Marketing-Services/News/New-Report-Values-Americas-100-Leading-Nonprofit-Brands-~1179.html
Corrick, G. W., Hannan, P. I., & Fanning, D. S. (1973). Articles of incorporation [Volunteer Jacksonville, Inc.].
Durham, S. (2010). Brandraising. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
HandsOn Jacksonville, I. (2008). VIRE Grant Application [Volunteer impact, retention and expansion (VIRA) grant].
HandsOn Jacksonville, I. (Author). (2009). HandsOn Jacksonville 2009 Report to the Community (J. A. M. Smith, Ed.).
HandsOn Network. (2010). Volunteer impact, retention and expansion grants: Grant application (Instructions and guidance). Retrieved from http://www.handsonnetwork.org/files/VIRE_APPLICATION_INSTRUCTIONS.pdf
Morris, W. (1981). The American heritage dictionary of the English language. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Nissim, B. (2004, October 1). Nonprofit branding: Unveiling the essentials. Retrieved January 25, 2011, from GuideStar: http://www2.guidestar.org/rxa/news/articles/2004/nonprofit-branding-unveiling-the-essentials.aspx
Smith, J. A. M. (2006-2010). HandsOn Jacksonville, Strategic Management Plan (Revised). Jacksonville, Florida.
Strand, R. (2010, November 6). Smashable nonprofit brands. In Branding. Retrieved January 25, 2011, from Ezine@articles: http://ezinearticles.com/?Smashable-Nonprofit-Brands&id=5336751
Recent discussions in national media, including the WSJ, have highlighted the undeniable need by our charitable organizations to significantly improve their effectiveness, efficiency, accountability and transparency (E/EAT). Some have framed the national dialogue for improved E/EAT as a choice or trade-off by charities between embracing societal values emphasizing more economical allocation and expenditure of public funds and charitable donations, versus compromising (by reduced or inferior human services delivery) more traditional charitable values (ethos) that place a higher value on public and human services missions. Choosing “more business-like” or “commercialism” over “charity,” is seen as dangerous by some sector leaders, threatening humanistic, traditional charitable core values.
Such polarity framing represents a false dilemma.
First, “business-like” as a metaphor for effectiveness and efficiency is contradicted daily in WSJ headlines. Second, the range of promising new business model options available for nonprofits is steadily growing. In fact, many nonprofits are developing and using new (hybrid) business models, adapted (not adopted) from both for-profit and public enterprises, offering improved E/EAT without abandoning traditional charitable values. Further, such models provide the additional flexibility needed to deal with the complexities of today’s VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous) environments.
Clearly, E/EAT pressures will continue as “society” asserts primacy for the “economy” core value. In any values conflict between society and organizations such as public charities allowed to operate within its physical or economic borders, society will ultimately prevail.
America’s charities can wait to be forced into various modes of compliance based on external pressures, e.g., regulations or stipulations placed on resources; or, opt for self-directed, values-driven, internal compliance, e.g., adapting and using new business models improving E/EAT, while retaining essential organizational ethos. Such models will also reinforce another traditional charitable core value: excellence, sustained superior performance directed at public service mission fulfillment. Nonprofits can resolve potential conflict, fulfill their societal social contracts, and retain their essential ethos, by adapting and using those business models and strategies from all sectors that foster their continuing pursuit of excellence.
National media coverage of new emerging NPO business models leading to excellence represents its own significant contribution to improving charitable E/EAT, and our national quality of life.
Is it ethical can often be determined by asking: when I am vulnerable, can I trust you?
Perspectives on Ethics
Ethics and Social Theory
Hosmer (1995) traces the fundamentals of ethics to a variety of social theories that deal with an individual’s need to feel secure – to be comfortable in approaching interactions with others, particularly dependent interactions, and trust in a favorable outcome. When people trust, they willingly increase their vulnerability to the actions of others whose behavior is beyond their control. When people trust, they consciously regulate their dependence on someone else in various ways depending on the person, the task, and the situation. In other words, when we trust we except our vulnerability and dependence on the actions of others because a greater good is expected to be attained.
The act of trusting includes the expectation that the person organization on whom we are depending will perform an action or provide a service in a way that is beneficial to us and not detrimental. These expectations explain why we forgo or delay taking defensive actions. Hosmer (1995) explains trust based on four moral values, including:
integrity (our assessment of the person organization’s honesty and truthfulness);
competence (the collective evaluation and assessment of interpersonal skills and technical knowledge needed to successfully perform the function we are seeking);
consistency (predictability and good judgment); and,
reliability (their willingness to protect and support our interests, to do so willingly, and to freely share ideas and information).
The process of elaborating upon and acting according to our value structure, i.e., ethics, represents values in practice, as well as the assessment and critique of values. When values, responsibilities, or rights, are in conflict, an ethical dilemma can present itself (Mitzen, 1998).
Ethics is a process that includes analyzing and assessing those components used to define and justify morality in its various forms, e.g., logic, values, beliefs, and principles (Cooper, 2006). Ethics considers the articulated or mandated moral code and examines it to better determine its meaning and purpose. Ethics attempts to explain and assess moral conduct through systematic reflection and reasoning (Cooper, 2006). Descriptive ethics attempts to identify and explain the underlying assumptions and connections to conduct. Normative ethics articulates supportable cases and arguments for particular conduct in a specific situation (Cooper, 2006).
Ethics has two essential orientations: deontological (duty to uphold ethical principles without regard for the consequences of one’s actions); and, teleological (concern for the consequences or outcome of one’s conduct). As Cooper (2006) points out, ethics should involve a more systematic consideration of the values and principles that effect the choices we make, their consistency with our duties, and the incident consequences toward which they lead.
A dilemma (from Greek, ambiguous situation), apparently forces us to choose between two, often contradictory, alternatives. I say “apparently,” since a reasoned, deliberate and orderly assessment of the issue can often produce different alternatives, much better suited for solutions or resolution. As an aside, this form of false or fallacious reasoning – is known as false dilemma (or false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, or black-or-white fallacy).
Meneghetti and Seel (2001) emphasize the importance for NPO executives to be able to deal with real-life ethical dilemmas that are both rich and context and consequence. An ethical dilemma, they explain, typically includes five fundamental characteristics:
• it is hard to name precisely;
• it is embedded within a specific individual or organizational context;
• it may not even be obvious;
• the claims of multiple stakeholders are involved and should be addressed; and,
• that involves a situation where the manager or leader wants or intends to do the right thing, but may not know what the proper course of action may be or how to accomplish it (Meneghetti & Seel, 2001).
The authors outline a four-step ethical decision-making model in which: the primary stakeholders are identified; the problem is addressed from the point of view of each of the identified stakeholders (including the key ethical values being violated); actions determined that should be taken given each stakeholders concerns; and, a decision finalized once the positive and negative consequences of each action are better known. The objective, they explain, is to choose the option that, on balance, minimizes harm, reduces negative consequences, and produces the greatest balance of good in the long term (Meneghetti & Seel, 2001).
In my view, both models could be strengthened by incorporating their relevant steps into a rational model that suggests a more nuanced process. The following model represents an ethical decision-making process incorporating the views of both Cooper and Meneghetti and Seel (2001).
Typically, we can identify three major areas where ethical problems can arise, according to Mitzen (1998), including: business practices; employee relations; and, interactions and relations within the larger community or external operating environment. Ethical behavior toward its own staff and volunteers should be a foundation and a given for any nonprofit organization. This includes meaningful communication, and a supportive environment where even whistle blowing, with its inherent potential for divisiveness and conflict, is seen as an expression of several fundamental core values, e.g., responsibility to the publics being served. Organizational core values should be clearly articulated, and clear policies developed as to how they are operationalized.
Nonprofit organizations should have “organizational ethics mechanisms,” that identify how the organization educates its people regarding ethics related issues and how it integrates ethics into its operations and organizational structure (Mitzen, 1998).
Ethical decision making model
Cooper (2007, p. 31) introduces his readers to a five-step ethical decision-making model, the objective of which is to challenge us to think about what is needed to move from an ethical problem facing us, to a reasoned, orderly, sequential course of assessment and analysis intended to resolve or solve the challenging issue. His model represents a framework through and by which a determination can be reached and a rational, fact-based decision achieved for the most promising course of action. The author correctly points out that no on model can provide the single best possible or “correct” solution. It can however, provide a template through and by which the problem is assessed, evaluated, and converted into an opportunity to creatively designed “the best solutions for a given individual in a specific situation within the uncertainties and time limits of real administrative life” (Cooper, 2007, p. 30).
Rather than accept Cooper’s ethical decision-making model as the definitive illustration for the steps in ethical decision-making process, we should remember there are a wide variety of potential models suggested proposed for decision-making, in general. Depending on the situation, those faced with an ethical issue or dilemma might well consider using Cooper’s model and others as guides that can be adapted to the situation, producing a more specific and situationally focused ethical decision-making model.
As McDermott (2011) points out, there are a number of decision-making models from which to choose. The manager even has to make a decision as to the one best suited for the situation, e.g., rational models, intuitive models, rationalist-iterative models, as well as models that have been suggested in a variety of “steps.” Cooper’s model most closely resembles the six-step, rational decision-making model that includes the following phases: define the situation and the desired outcome; research and identify options; compare and contrast each alternative and its consequences; make a decision or choose an alternative; design and implement an action plan; and evaluate results (McDermott, 2011).
Figure 1 Ethical Decision-making process model
The term “role” has its origins in medieval Latin and the word ro(tu)lus, a roll of parchment, that in turn was derived from earlier Latin rotulus, a small wheel. In the Middle Ages the part or character played by an actor in a dramatic performance was written out on a rolled up parchment or paper. The part soon became associated with the means used to describe and explain what the character did in the performance–a role. Keeping the etymology of the term in mind helps us better understand the meaning and implications of the term as it is used today.
Luthans (1995) explains that a norm – the typically unwritten but generally understood rules of a group, culture, or society for behaviors that are considered not only acceptable, but expected – represents the “oughts” of behavior. Collections of norms represent prescriptions for acceptable behaviors expected by, and sometimes determined by, the group.
A role consists of a defined set and pattern of norms associated with a position (defined or undefined but “understood” by the group), that is filled or acted out by an individual. A role can perhaps best “be defined as a position that has expectations evolving from established norms” (Luthans, 1995, p. 380).
Roles in Management
A role is an organized set of behaviors identified with a position, Mintzberg (1975) explained. He noted that formal authority is the basis for three interpersonal roles, leading to three informational roles. Together, the interpersonal and informational roles provide the tools to play four decisional roles.
Interpersonal relationship roles, include: figurehead role (ceremonial duties); leader role (responsibility for the work of the people in the unit–hiring/firing, motivation, encouragement); and, the liaison role (contacts outside the immediate work unit).
Informational roles, include: monitor and disseminator (collecting/disseminating soft information for his unit/organization); and spokesman (collecting, positioning, and sharing information with outsiders.
Decisional roles include: entrepreneur (identify new ideas and pursuing opportunities that advance the organizational unit’s objectives); disturbance handler (responding to changes and pressures affecting performance of the unit organization); resource allocator (decisions relating to allocations of resources and the empowerment of subordinates decisions and program contributions).
Collectively, Mintzberg (1978) suggests the managerial role represents a gestalt – an integrated whole greater than the sum of its individual parts. The managers performance depends directly on the extent to which he or she understands and effectively response to the demands and dilemmas of the position. Although often tempted by the short-term benefits of “busy work”, managers should resist the pressures of superficiality by giving serious attention to those issues that require it by keeping the broad picture in mind and by using a variety of analytical inputs” (Mintzberg, 1978, p. 60).
The term we use to describe the worth of an object or concept – its monetary status, desirability, usefulness, importance to the possessor, utility, or merit – is “value.” The term can be traced back to its Latin roots of “valere,” to be strong, to be of value. It can even be traced back to the Indo-European language, from which so many of our present day languages originate, where it meant “to be strong,” “to rule,” “force,” or “power” (Morris, 1981, p. 1415).
Values typically refers to those “strong and enduring beliefs that motivate and define behavior. Values inform the choices we make. They are a statement of what is ‘good’ for individuals and for society” (Mitzen, 1998, p. 103). Values define those things we believe in, and what we consider important in our life and work.
Meneghetti and Seel ( 2001) point out, values represent strongly held attitudes and beliefs regarding what is desirable. However, not all values necessarily have an ethical component, e.g., power per se is neither good nor bad. Those values not having broad societal implications and that are typically held private are considered morals. These attitudes and beliefs held by individuals regarding what is worthwhile or good, are derived from and influenced by family, culture, society, and religion. Typically, public values are considered ethical values, more universally accepted beliefs about what is right or wrong.
Values and Roles
Each role “comes equipped” witha set of values attached that reflect guidelines to behaviors expected for those “playing” that part, e.g. leader value of “cheerleader” (motivator).
Discrimination includes treating or considering, or making distinctions regarding a person or some other entity based on the group, class, or category to which that person or entity belongs, rather than on individual merits (USLegal, 2011). Trevino and Nelson (2007) explain that discrimination can occur in cases where considerations other than qualifications affect how an employee or associate is treated. For example, the committee identified a minority member to survey a minority population on an issue that should have had nothing to do with one’s identification with or membership of a group other than that of “employee.”
Discrimination represents an important ethical issue and problem in the workplace due to its corrosive effect on perceptions of fairness. When the workplace is not fair, ultimately our entire legal system promising justice and protection of individual rights is in jeopardy.
Many case studies reviewed by students outline possible cases of de facto discrimination that could rapidly devolve into the condition known as a “hostile work environment.” Further, the conditions as outlined in some case studies, if valid (not simply perceived) could meet the requirements for an official investigation, followed by official action.
Values conflicts and ethical dilemmas
Values conflicts presented as ethical dilemmas will certainly face all of us as managers from time to time, and there may be no completely satisfactory resolution. This eventuality must not be used to rationalize their moral or unethical behavior.
Codes of ethics, although helpful, cannot be depended on to solve all values conflicts. In fact, some may use them to appear to “stay within the law” while actually infringing on truly ethical conduct.
Unethical actions can really be hidden and self enforcement helps insulate the manager and the organization from external scrutiny, or enforcement. Finally, as leaders and managers of our respective organizations, we have a personal and professional interest in being alert to potential ethical dilemmas in situations, and to employ an orderly ethical decision-making process to seek effective resolution.
Morals or morality, originating from the Latin word for “custom,” typically refer to those judgments and characteristics of our actions that can be defined according to our core values as good” or “bad/evil.” Morality is assessed using various standards or precepts of goodness or codes of behavior. Morality represents a set of customs within a society, class, or social group that attempt to regulate relationships and prescribed behaviors that enhance the group’s survival (Morris, 1981, p. 853).
Morality is based on presumption of what is an accepted mode of behavior that is established or provided by an authoritative source, e.g., religion, culture (including that within a group organization), social class, community, or family (Cooper, 2006).
Ethos as Moral Custom
The Greek term for a moral custom was ethos, a meaning which has expanded for hundreds of years to now include a principle of right, correct, or good conduct, including a body of such principles. Ethical came to mean a practice that was conducted within the accepted definitions of right and wrong, and governed the conduct of the group. Ethics represents the general study of morals, including the rules or standards by which the conduct of a group or profession are evaluated and judged (Morris, 1981).
Codes of Conduct
Organizational codes of conduct – ethical standards – can be seen as articulations and declarations of core values and acceptable behavior on the part of the individual or organization that its actions and decisions can, indeed, be trusted. Applied to ethics, Hosmer (1995) suggests that trust is the result of behavior that recognizes and protects the interests of others – the overriding goal being to increase cooperation and achieved benefits within a joint endeavor or exchange.
Trust is a relationship in which some personal or organizational vulnerability is accepted because our analysis suggests a collective, general optimism is justified in a mutually beneficial outcome based on expectations or conditions of moral (socially expected and /or defined as acceptable) behavior.
Codes of ethics and conduct such as those endorsed by APA, represent the standards of practice supported, espoused, and directed by that organization. The codes delineate and outline the collective values of that professional organization, and typically cover a number of ethical areas and considerations. Most codes of ethics and conduct include two major components, including: definitions and explanations for recommended or mandatory professional behavior on the part of those professionals practicing in that field; and, what Kocet (2006) explains is encouragement regarding ethical reflection to help clarify and improve the fundamental ethical beliefs held by that profession.
A hypothetical but realistic scenario facing some NPO leaders and managers today might be assessed using this blended model along the following lines… Awareness of situation…
The human services nonprofit organization for which you serve as the Executive Director, has recently lost the source of revenue on which the organization depended to fund the volunteer resource manager position. Situational description…
In an effort to balance the organization’s budget before reaching a dangerous state of insolvency, the organization’s personnel committee, comprised of three members of the Board of Directors, has met and is prepared to recommend the termination of the paid staff position of volunteer resource manager, in favor of replacing that staff member with a volunteer.
Board of Directors
Their loyalty to the organization and their sense of fiduciary responsibility, represent important core values in play. NPO senior staff
Loyalty to the organization, loyalty to staff, fairness, professionalism, teamwork, integrity, and mutual respect are among the core values initially identified as important to senior staff members. Volunteer resource manager
Security, fairness, loyalty, professionalism, are all expected core value issues with the staff member most directly affected by the committee’s recommendation.
There are other potential stakeholders that could be considered in this explanation, e.g., the organizations volunteer corps, the membership, clients depending on the volunteer services, and the community at large.
The Board of Directors feels a primary responsibility to their fiduciary duties and seeks an outcome of a balanced budget.
The senior organizational staff are quite concerned about the negative ramifications of a pending termination on the organization’s morale and esprit de corps, its operational effectiveness in light of a change in volunteer management from seasoned professional to an individual lacking equivalent training, and the devastating economic consequences to the soon-to-be former volunteer resource management professional. The senior staff would prefer to retain their colleague and to ensure the continuation of the organizations exemplary record in human services delivery through its effectively managed volunteer resource program.
The volunteer resource manager, although not yet aware of the pending recommendation from the committee, can certainly be expected to be devastated by the news. The potential for “political” fallout from the individual should be considered significant. Clearly, their desired outcome would be that the issue never presented itself in the first place, and that they be retained in their present position.
Selected course of action: following a confidential meeting of the senior staff in which the situation was reviewed in great detail in terms of ethical principles, moral rules, and potential ramifications, the senior staff voted to accept a temporary 5% pay cut to ensure the continuation of the volunteer resource manager until additional funding sources could be identified. The group decision unified the staff around a common purpose, reaffirmed important core values for them and for the organization, and upheld the Board of Director’s fiduciary responsibilities, including the continuation of a balanced budget.
Ethical perspective in NPO management literature since 1980
One approach to achieving better understanding of an emerging trend is to do so within what could be seen as an historical perspective or framework. In this case, the baseline for the framework is the publication in 1980 of the first Nonprofit Organization Handbook (Connors, 1980).
The handbook was organized around the premise that regardless of the specific human service provided by a nonprofit organization, all shared seven fundamental areas of management, including: organization and corporate principles; leadership, management and control; sources of revenue; human resource development and management; fiscal management (budgeting, accounting, and record-keeping); and, public relations and communications.
A review of the index for this first edition reveals a single entry under the category “ethics.” The context in which it was used within the book was an observation that “a growing number of nonprofit organizations now employ a professional manager, a full-time paid employees and supervisors and is responsible for the daily routine business of the organization” (Connors, 1980b, p. 2-70). The single reference to ethics and this major handbook appeared when the author noted that the area of managing nonprofit organizations has become a profession itself “with its own high code of ethics and standards” (Connors, 1980b, p. 2-70).
Over the next 21 years five subsequent major handbooks focused on nonprofit organization management were published, the latest in 2001 (Connors, 2001). A review of the index for this volume offers a startling contrast to the first NPO handbook. The subject of ethics appears throughout the book with multiple page coverage focused on ethics in all aspects of managerial behavior and policy, including: behavior; budgeting; compensation practices; fundraising; human resource management; international business; and, numerous mentions of professional codes of conduct. An entire chapter is devoted to “Ethics and Values in the Nonprofit Organization” (Meneghetti & Seel, 2001). Clearly ethics is now understood to be a critical component of NPO management and decision-making.
Ethics and Public Trust
Dr. Joan Pynes contributed a most important chapter to the The Volunteer Management Handbook (Second Edition), entitled, “Professional Ethics for Volunteers” (Pynes, 2011). The author points out that to survive nonprofits must maintain public trust. One important component of that collective trust is based on paid staff and organizational volunteers fulfilling their responsibilities in a lawful, ethical, and competence manner. This objective far exceeds simply complying with formal controls, program reports, and financial audits. Instead, it is vitally important that nonprofits establish an aspirational internal ethical climate.
Pynes (2011) recommends that NPO managers establish a strategic human resource management program that uses defined and formal systems within the organization to ensure the most effective use of staff and volunteer resources to fulfill the organization’s mission. There is no doubt the nonprofit sector currently faces many daunting challenges. Nor is there any doubt that new problems and changes within external and internal environments will constantly present themselves to all of our managers and leaders.
The people on whom our nonprofits depend to fulfill our organizational missions, are highly affected by the cultures we establish within which they must participate and contribute. Clearly articulated values, ethical principles, and codes that explain how our ethics are interpreted and used for action and decision-making, are highly significant –they define our culture and the relationships between those who were members of that culture. When inevitable ethical dilemmas present themselves, the successful NPO executive will know to follow a well-defined ethical decision-making process to find the best possible solution or resolution.
Connors, T. D. (2016, February 17). Perspectives on ethics: When I am vulnerable, can I trust you? [Is it ethical can often be determined by asking: when I am vulnerable, can I trust you?]. Retrieved from NPO Crossroads: http://www.npocrossroads.com/management/perspectives-on-ethics-when-i-am-vulnerable-can-i-trust-you/
Connors, T. D. (1980). The nonprofit organization handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cooper, T. L. (2006). The responsible administrator: An approach to ethics for the administrative role (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass/Wiley.
Hosmer, L. T. (1995, April). Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 379-404. doi:10.5465/AMR.1995.9507312923
Kocet, M. M. (2006, Spring). Ethical challenges in a complex world: Highlights of the 2005 ACA Code of Ethics. Journal of Counseling & Development, 84(2), 228-234.
Luthans, F. (1995). Organizational behavior (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
McDermott, D. (2011). Six step decision making process [Web page]. Retrieved April 16, 2011, from Decision-making-confidence.com: http://www.decision-making-confidence.com/six-step-decision-making-process.html
Meneghetti, M. M., & Seel, K. (2001). Ethics and values in the nonprofit organization. In T. D. Connors (Ed.), The nonprofit handbook: Management (3rd ed.) (pp. 579-609). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Son.
Mintzberg, H. (1975, July). The manager’s job: Folklore and fact. Harvard Business Review, 53(4), 49-61.
Mitzen, P. (1998, Fall). Organizational ethics in a nonprofit agency: Changing practice, enduring values. Generations, 22(3), 102.
Morris, W. (. (1981). The American heritage dictionary of the English language. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton-Mifflin Company.
Special population law & legal definition [Special population is a term that is generally used to refer to a disadvantaged group.]. (2010). Retrieved June 10, 2010, from Special population is a term thatis generally used to refer to a disadvantaged group.: http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/special-population/
Trevino, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2007). Managing business ethics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Son.
Transformational organizations, Effectiveness and Efficiency represent the three overarching management domains of the Self-Renewing Management Model.
Charitable-philanthropic organizations seeking to achieve sustainable mission fulfillment and operations need a structure, culture and internal operating environment with the ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions, to transition to new states – to evolve.
Achieving and sustaining a highly Effective charitable or philanthropic organization, one that is also Efficient in its use of available resources, requires the organization to have the ability to evolve and adapt to ever-changing external environmental conditions, even as it encourages all its members to achieve their full potentials. Change is often disruptive – and can be threatening to those involved. Therefore, the internal environment needed to cope with a constantly changing external environment is one that offers self-fulfillment options and a workplace where it is safe to change (transformational). Self-renewing organizations establish and maintain a transformational organizational environment within and through leadership and human resource development and management (Connors, 1997, 2001). Transformational organizations adapt themselves to changing environmental conditions, constantly transitioning to new states, turning as necessary, in new directions. In short, transformational organizations manage change effectively by reinventing themselves – they stay New.
Profile of a Transformational Organization
A charitable-philanthropic organization that has achieved a transformational internal operating environment, is one in which its senior leaders:
• are focused on improved organizational effectiveness,
• serve as role models for values, initiative, and commitment; and,
• are involved in organizational performance improvement initiatives.
Further, its leaders have put into place systems that foster performance, individual development, and organizational learning, including the identification of stakeholders who serve as a major focus for vision and mission fulfillment.
A transformational organization is one in which education and training are emphasized as a means to improve workforce capabilities and performance, even as the human resource focus supports and encourages staff and volunteers to achieve their full potentials.
Transformational organizations emphasize the importance of staff and volunteers realizing their full potential. They have put into place work and services delivery processes that support client/customer and performance objectives. Organizational and work unit performance is measured and evaluated, to improve efficiency and effectiveness, and as a basis to measure, evaluate and reward staff and volunteers.
Characteristics of a Transformational Organization
Transformational organizations are characterized by the following characteristics as ranked by senior NPO executives during a major research study (Connors, 2013):
• Leadership is focused on improved organizational effectiveness.
• Senior leaders serve as role models for values, initiative, and commitment.
• Senior leaders are involved in organizational performance improvement initiatives.
• Leadership system fosters performance, individual development, and organizational learning.
• Education and training are emphasized to improve workforce capabilities and performance.
• Human resource focus supports and encourages staff and volunteers toward their full potentials.
• Work processes support client/customer and performance objectives.
• Staff and volunteer performance is measured, evaluated, and rewarded.
• Stakeholders are identified and serve as focus for vision and mission fulfillment.
• Organizational and work unit performance is measured and evaluated.
Establishing and Sustaining a Transformative Organization
Philanthropic executives rank Leadership, focused on operationalizing the organization’s core values as effectively as possible, as among the strongest contributors to establishing and sustaining a transformational internal environment.
The Charitable-Philanthropic Organization Self-Renewing Management Model (C-POSRM) Study (Connors,2013) found that three essential elements were needed to achieve a transformational organization, including:
1. Leadership and governance volunteers who use organizational core values as the basis for their decisions which are focused on achieving and sustaining organizational effectiveness and efficiency.
2. Governance leaders establishing and maintaining an ethical internal environment – based on core values – in which all members of the workforce (staff, volunteers, and governance leaders) are meaningfully engaged in helping the organization to fulfill its societal responsibilities.
3. Leadership focused on effective volunteer resource management, including job design linked to strategic planning and mission fulfillment (purpose).
The list below includes the rankings of management actions/activities most contributory to creating and sustaining a transformational internal environment. The list and its rankings was created by the responses of over 350 senior executives of voluntary organizations, and were among the findings of the Charitable-Philanthropic Organization Self-Renewing Management Model (C-POSRM) Study (Connors, 2013). Leadership is the strongest characteristic of philanthropic organizations with what their executives characterize as optimal internal environments.
2. Organizational Core Values
3. Senior Leadership Efficacy
4. Volunteer Resource Management
5. Societal responsibilities
6. Job design, including volunteer positions where applicable
7. Board Development
9. Workforce Engagement
10. Ethics and Ethical Behavior
11. Workforce Climate/Environment
12. Workforce Capability/Capacity/ Development
13. Workforce Focus
14. Member/Constituent Development
15. Committee Development
16. Workforce Recognition/Rewards
17. Risk Management
18. Human Resource Development
19. Human Resource Management
20. Diversity Awareness
Leadership in such organizations is focused on improving organizational effectiveness, and in improving the organization’s overall performance. Further, its senior leaders serve as role models for values, initiative, and commitment. Human resource development is highly valued as a means to improve professional skills, capabilities, and performance, even as it encourages all members of the organization to achieve their full potentials.
In descending, but closely ranked order, respondents strongly valued other management actions and activities, including: volunteer resource management; societal responsibilities; job design; board development and governance; and workforce engagement. Based on rankings of management actions and activities and their value in establishing a transformational internal environment, heavy focus and importance was given to those actions involving and affecting the organization’s workforce, including: engagement and ethical behavior, climate and environment, capability and capacity development, recognition and rewards, diversity awareness, and an overall priority for the workforce and its best interests.
Note: Adapted in part and with permission from:
Connors, T. D. (1997). The self-renewing organization. In T. D. Connors (Ed.), The nonprofit handbook: Management (2nd ed.) (pp. 2-29). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Connors, T. D. (2001). The self-renewing organization. In J. M. Greenfield (Ed.), The nonprofit handbook: Fund raising (3rd ed.) (pp. 1113-1140). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Connors, T. D. (2001). The self-renewing organization. In T. D. Connors (Ed.), The nonprofit handbook: Management (3rd edition) (pp. 3-45). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Connors, T. D. (May 2013). Towards a theory of self-renewed excellence for charitable-philanthropic organizations, Public Service Leadership, Capella University. DAI-A 74/11(E), p. 276. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com//docview/1427359144
Efficient Voluntary Organizations: economical with reduced waste of time, energy, and materials
Overall, Efficient charitable organizations operate economically, with reduced waste of time, energy, and materials (at least in comparison with their competition). Increasingly, they use a variety of tools to improve business processes, including:
• Information and analysis techniques and systems analysis approaches to minimize waste, streamline their operations, and to make economical use of all resources (Connors, 1997, 2001).
• Processes, products, and services reassessment to optimize resource investments (money, time, and personnel) to achieve improved customer service and satisfaction levels.
• Economic performance and resource conservation emphasis by reducing wasted time, energy, and materials.
• Applicable process improvement and management information/data collection and analysis techniques to design and improve its customer/client services and service delivery systems; and,
• Process performance systems maintenance and operation to ensure they are performing according to their design.
Senior executives of charitable organizations understand and highly value the management benefits of using process improvement and management techniques to design and improve customer/client services and service delivery systems. They also value approaches that reduce wasted time, energy, and materials. Finally, C-P/NP executives strongly support and recommend maintaining process monitoring systems to ensure they are performing according to their design and the value of using information and analysis techniques and approaches to reduce waste (Connors, 2013).
Defining Efficient Voluntary Organizations
Charitable executives identified and ranked the following as characteristics they would include in any definition of organizational efficiency, including:
• Uses process improvement and management techniques to design and improve its customer/client services and service delivery systems.
• Emphasizes reducing wasted time, energy and materials.
• Maintains process performance systems to ensure they are performing according to their design.
• Uses information and analysis techniques and approaches to reduce waste.
• Emphasizes economic performance.
Next: Secrets to Achieving Voluntary Organization Efficiency
Connors, T. D. (2015, July 31). Efficient voluntary organizations: Economical with reduced waste of time, energy, and materials. In Efficient voluntary organizations: NPO crossroads. Retrieved from BelleAire Press, LLC: http://www.npocrossroads.com/category/efficiency/efficient-organizations/
Management activities taking place within a typical volunteer resource management program when arranged in the logical sequence derived from the PDCA continuous improvement cycle concept provide program leaders with the ability to establish and sustain a volunteer program that learns from its successes and constantly improves as performance.
The link between our national quality of life and volunteer motivation
All of us want the best quality of life possible for ourselves, our families, and her fellow citizens. A strong case can be made for the vital role our charitable-philanthropic organizations play in determining our nation’s overall quality of life.
Charitable, nonprofit organizations, by definition, exist for a variety of public purposes, the majority of which, in the form of providing a wide variety of human services, make significant contributions to the nation’s overall quality of life.
Just over1,000,000 charitable, philanthropic organizations provide an astonishing number and variety of human services that, collectively, help shape America’s overall quality of life.
Sustaining and enriching the overall quality of life in our communities through improvements in human services is a worthy, broadly supported social and moral goal.
Since the great majority of these hundreds of thousands of charitable organizations depend upon the services of volunteers in order to fulfill their missions and purposes, we can see how important volunteer resource management is when it comes to sustaining or improving our nation’s quality of life. There is a direct link between the overall effectiveness of volunteer resource management by our charitable and philanthropic organizations and our nation’s quality of life.
We tend to refer to the collective group of dedicated, grassroots philanthropists who offer their services of their own free will to charitable-philanthropic organizations as a demographic segment called “volunteers.” In the broadest sense of the word that is true, but only as a construct that has the meaning we give it. These volunteers can be of almost any age, come from any segment of our society, have a wide range of educational backgrounds, have – or not – have a myriad of skills and abilities, and perform a vast range of services for these organizations, whose collective human services comprise so much of what we term quality of life.
Why Volunteers Volunteer…
The term volunteer means “of their own free will.” It typically means without expectation of monetary rewards or remuneration. People serve charitable-philanthropic organizations of their own free will and without expecting compensation for a number of reasons. Depending on the reason an individual decides to volunteer, the most effective motivation or combination of motivations might be quite different. Volunteer opportunities are not always labeled as such. They could be internships, community service positions, or self-learning opportunities. Volunteer resource managers will need to keep these various categories of volunteer in mind as they best determine the most effective combination of motivational strategies to use.
A quick Google search for the term “motivating volunteers,” returned 2,810,000 results in .31 seconds. Clearly, a great deal has been published on this important topic.
When we talk about “volunteer motivation,” we mean those influences that are at work in determining how a person behaves toward our organization. Motivation can be either positive or negative, and, measuring motivation is very difficult. However its strength can be inferred based on how a person’s behavior toward our organization changes or how its intensity varies. People serve philanthropic organizations for many different reasons and in many different ways. No “one size fits all” is certainly true for our charitable organizations, how they are managed, and the reasons why people volunteer for particular organization.
Good, generic advice is at your fingertips…
Our Google search provided some good information on motivating volunteers that we should keep in mind. We should ensure our research begins with articles and information that address the fundamental motivators responsible for why people work for an organization “of their own free will.” To be effective as a volunteer resource manager, you need to have a fundamental understanding that motivation to volunteer is not a quality that you and, but rather a response and behavior that you identify and nurture. Motivations come from within.
The better we understand why people behave as they do, and apply that knowledge to fulfilling our organization’s purpose and mission, is the extent to which our efforts to recruit and retain volunteers will be successful.
For example, some typical recommendations from the “secrets of volunteer motivation” type articles, include:
• providing positive feedback
• rewards and recognition
• providing on-the-job vocational training
• providing perks such as refreshments and comaraderie at your facility when they volunteer
• hiring staff that are trained and committed to volunteers
All of these recommendations are fine…as far as they go.
Using the volunteer resource management model…
The first nonprofit organization handbook was published in 1980. Subsequently, that area of management practice grew rapidly and is now understood to be a separate field of management science. The first volunteer resource management handbook was published in 1996. The most recent was published in 2011 (Connors).
The field of management practice for volunteer resource programs has developed substantially since publication of the first volunteer management handbook. One of the most useful management tools for VMR’s is the representation of a typical volunteer resource management program.
As volunteer resource management science has evolved, we have learned more about the various management actions and activities that are used within a typical program. Further, if we arrange these activities in a logical sequence – from planning through evaluation – we can suggest a program design management model – sequencing the activities to give us more ability to establish and sustain a volunteer program that learns from its successes and constantly improves its performance.
In other words, the model reminds us that a successful volunteer resource management program has important components, many of which do not receive the attention they deserve in terms of their importance to overall program results. Further, the model gives us the ability to look at important program objectives, e.g. motivating volunteers, from a new perspective.
Volunteer Resource Management Model
When we look at the range of volunteer resource program management actions and activities, we can see that they can be aggregated and modeled as a process that includes four basic steps or phases: assessment/analysis; planning; program deployment/implementation; and, results/evaluation. Each of these phases contains opportunities for successful volunteer resource managers to reinforce those reasons the volunteer considered when they were making their decision to affiliate, train, serve, and extend their commitment to your organization. Each organization that uses volunteers is able to deduce because it offers these volunteers enough reasons for them to participate in serve of their own free will. Often, we think we understand what these reasons are. But, do we?
Each volunteer is an individual devoting his or her service and loyalties to a specific organization at a specific time. Therefore, not all typical “best practices” apply to all volunteers, organizations, or situations. Rather than simply adopt such best practices, we must instead thoughtfully adapt them to our programs and our organizations. The volunteer resource management model can serve as an important tool in that process. Using the model, we can focus on what the model suggests to better understand what we should know and/or keep in mind as we adapt well intended best practices to our organization.
Volunteer motivation is both a process and a culture
Volunteer resource managers are always alert to management practices that help them improve their abilities to motivate potential and actual volunteers.
There are opportunities – and pitfalls – to motivate – or de-motivate – volunteers at every stage along the continuum of the volunteer resource management model. Attention should be given to practices and policies that affect volunteer recruitment, performance, and retention throughout the volunteer’s lifecycle.
For example, even before recruiting begins the organization should know exactly what potential future volunteers will do to help the organization fulfill its mission and purpose. That means position descriptions that not only clearly describe the duties, responsibilities, authorities, and obligations of a particular position, but relate the results of that position to the organizations mission and strategic planning.
Once the potential volunteer has been motivated enough to affiliate with the organization, that commitment must be sustained through orientation and whatever training may be required for the incumbent of the volunteer position. These requirements very, of course, depending on the position, its responsibilities, and the nature of the organization or human service being provided. As with a professional staff member, any direct contact with clients receiving a human service must be carefully thought through beforehand, and appropriate orientation, training, and supervision plan policy must be established.
Once the volunteers properly recruited, oriented, trained, and in place assisting the organization as outlined in their position description, motivation then turns to practices that will help sustain their commitments not only to the organization but to excellence in the services they provide on behalf of the organization.
Motivation operates at every stage of the volunteer life cycle
VRM’s need to first understand their organization, its mission and purpose, and the organizational culture that currently exists for its volunteers. Then, using that as a baseline, they should analyze their organization to better understand the various types of volunteer opportunities that exist and what the respective motivations might be for these opportunities.
Volunteer resource program managers should know and/or determine the specific reasons why their organization attracts and retains volunteers – or not. The following discussion is organized around the four stages suggested by the volunteer resource management model. Overall, it underscores the importance of program planning by the volunteer manager, and the careful alignment of the volunteer program with the organization’s overall strategic plan and its deployment.
Phase 1: Assessment/analysis
What combination of management, leadership, and program activities are required for our organization to fulfill its purpose and mission?
What do we have to do in order to be successful?
How do our activities logically aggregate themselves into areas of responsibility, e.g., positions filled by people – paid staff and/or volunteers?
How do these respective positions contribute to our ability to fulfill our mission?
To what extent have we thoughtfully analyzed and articulated these areas of responsibility and activity into position descriptions that explain and outline in detail the nature of these positions, including: duties, responsibilities, authorities, training, evaluation, and risk factors?
In the assessment and analysis phase of volunteer resource planning, we should know with some exactitude what positions:
• are truly required by our organizations if they are to fulfill their purpose and mission;
• will be paid staff; and,
• which will be volunteers without financial remuneration.
• We should also know how long it is been since a “zero-based” assessment was done of the organization’s human resource needs.
Phase 2: Planning
The planning phase includes the creation of position descriptions that insofar as possible fully explain the duties, functions, contributions, and risks that are foreseen for each position.
An assessment of the full range of position descriptions enables the volunteer resource director to better understand what recruiting themes and media will be most successful. Different positions may require specific messages in recruiting communications, and various media mixes, as well.
This personnel analysis can also suggest the management and leadership structure that will need to be in place in order to:
• effectively coordinate staff and volunteer services;
• put into place the policies that will be needed in order to ensure both effective and efficient management of human resources within the organization; and,
• establish policies and processes for evaluation of all programs within the organization an annual basis, including personal evaluations needed for salary adjustments (in the case of paid staff), and/or recognition and awards.
Phase 3: Program deployment and implementation
The program deployment and implementation phase of a volunteer management program includes such important components as: overall program supervision, training, legal and risk management, volunteer-staff relations, communications, volunteer evaluation, and rewards and recognition. Each of these management functions should be individually reviewed and assessed for their potential to deepen bonds between the volunteer and the organization, or to become a de-motivator.
Careful thought should be given to the overall structure of the volunteer resource program. Typically, the more programs and volunteers included within the program, the more structure is required for effective management. In turn, the structure will influence the number and type of staff positions (not necessarily paid staff) that will be required for effective program implementation. Of course, each of these positions will need to be defined as to roles and responsibilities, and identified as to its place within the overall management structure.
The volunteer program handbook should be user-friendly and should contain information about the organization, including its mission, purpose, history and workplace policies and procedures. The volunteer orientation placement phase should ensure that all volunteers have a good working knowledge of this important document.
Phase 4: Results and Evaluation
While personnel evaluations for volunteers typically do not receive the attention and priority they deserve, they are very important to both the volunteer and the organization. The organization needs to have a defined and workable system by and through which it evaluates all of its human resources, including volunteers. This evaluation helps ensure that performance is mission-enhancing, and that it was conducted with the highest standards. Evaluations can help identify areas of improvement by both the organization and the volunteer. Evaluations are also needed to provide a supportable basis for personnel actions ranging from retention to dismissal – and as a basis for awards and recognition.
Barisco, M. (2013, June). [Review of the book the volunteer management handbook: Leadership strategies for success (second edition), by t. d. Connors (ed.)]. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(3), 624-626. doi:10.1177/0899764012457865
Browning, J. W. (2013). Leading at the strategic level. Washington, DC: National Defense University.
Connors, T. D. (1980). The nonprofit organization handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Connors, T. D. (1992, August 1). Avoiding ‘quality shock.’ Nonprofit World, 10(4), 25-29. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.library.capella.edu/pqdweb?did=671169&sid=2&Fmt=3&clientId=62763&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Connors, T. D. (1993). The nonprofit management handbook. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Connors, T. D. (1995). The volunteer management handbook. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471371424.html
Connors, T. D. (1997). The nonprofit handbook: Management (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Connors, T. D. (2001). The nonprofit handbook: Management (3rd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley.
Connors, T. D. (2001). The self-renewing organization. In T. D. Connors (Ed.), The nonprofit handbook: Management (3rd edition) (pp. 3-45). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Connors, T. D. (2010, April). Strategic professional development ahead for volunteer managers. The International Journal of Volunteer Administration, 25(1). Retrieved from http://www.ijova.org/
Connors, T. D. (2015, August 12). Motivating volunteers: What the management model reminds us. In Transformational organizations. Retrieved from BelleAire Press, LLC: http://www.npocrossroads.com/transformational-organization/volunteer-resource-management/motivating-volunteers/
Recent discussions in some national media have highlighted the undeniable need by our charitable organizations to significantly improve their effectiveness, efficiency, accountability and transparency (E/EAT).
Some have framed the national dialogue for improved E/EAT as a choice or trade-off by charities between embracing societal values emphasizing more economical allocation and expenditure of public funds and charitable donations, versus compromising (by reduced or inferior human services delivery) more traditional charitable values (ethos) that place a higher value on public and human services missions. Choosing “more business-like” or “commercialism” over “charity,” is seen as dangerous by some sector leaders, threatening humanistic, traditional charitable core values.
Such polarity framing represents a false dilemma.
First, “business-like” as a metaphor for effectiveness and efficiency is contradicted daily in the headlines of our nation’s press. Second, the range of promising new business model options available for nonprofits is steadily growing. In fact, many nonprofits are developing and using new (hybrid) business models, adapted (not adopted) from both for-profit and public enterprises, offering improved E/EAT without abandoning traditional charitable values. Further, such models provide the additional flexibility needed to deal with the complexities of today’s VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous) environments.
Clearly, E/EAT pressures will continue as “society” asserts primacy for the “economy” core value. In any values conflict between society and organizations such as public charities allowed to operate within its physical or economic borders, society will ultimately prevail.
America’s charities can wait to be forced into various modes of compliance based on external pressures, e.g., regulations or stipulations placed on resources; OR, opt for self-directed, values-driven, internal compliance, e.g., adapting and using new business models improving E/EAT, while retaining essential organizational ethos. Such models will also reinforce another traditional charitable core value: excellence, sustained superior performance directed at public service mission fulfillment. Nonprofits can resolve potential conflict, fulfill their societal social contracts, and retain their essential ethos, by adapting and using those business models and strategies from all sectors that foster their continuing pursuit of excellence.
Media coverage of new emerging NPO business models leading to excellence represents its own significant contribution to improving charitable E/EAT, and our national quality of life.