Balancing community obligations with operational needs in a public org
October 26, 2016 8:38 AM Subscribe
I'm on the board of directors for our local community radio station, sitting on the grievance committee, and trying to help the station move forward from a situation where a problematic volunteer meant well in some ways but was a toxic presence in others, and was ultimately dismissed. Is there any existing work or wisdom on how to balance a community organization's obligation to accommodate community members against its practical limitations in dealing with people with extraordinary needs?
I am not looking for advice on how to manage this specific volunteer, but for context:
The person in question stated good intentions, but also didn't recognize appropriate boundaries, empathize with any point of view critical of their behaviour, and fundamentally couldn't work productively with other volunteers or station staff.
This wasn't a matter of "explain the problem to them and help them improve" -- different kinds of interventions were attempted at several different points. Station staff were explicitly clear that they do not have the capacity to manage this volunteer in an effective way.
The volunteer was dismissed from the station, and brought the dismissal to the board as a grievance.
Having met with all parties and reviewed both the issues and correspondence/communication around these issues at length, the volunteer's pattern of behaviour is one that from my layperson's perspective seems to walk right up to the line of an undiagnosed/unrecognized mental illness -- I've experienced what I'd describe as paranoia, fantabulism, and a total lack of empathy for station staff and other volunteers during and following this grievance process. This also exacerbates my discomfort with figuring out where and to what extent the station's responsibilities lie.
I'm wondering if there's been any writing, or blogging, or collective wisdom on the role of community-facing organizations, and how to balance the need to be operational, often with a small staff, versus the obligation to be as accommodating as possible to all comers.
Again, I am not looking for suggestions on how to manage this specific volunteer, but for advice/guidance that might help shape future policy and decisions involving how we balance organizational practicalities against community-facing ideals.
I am not looking for advice on how to manage this specific volunteer, but for context:
The person in question stated good intentions, but also didn't recognize appropriate boundaries, empathize with any point of view critical of their behaviour, and fundamentally couldn't work productively with other volunteers or station staff.
This wasn't a matter of "explain the problem to them and help them improve" -- different kinds of interventions were attempted at several different points. Station staff were explicitly clear that they do not have the capacity to manage this volunteer in an effective way.
The volunteer was dismissed from the station, and brought the dismissal to the board as a grievance.
Having met with all parties and reviewed both the issues and correspondence/communication around these issues at length, the volunteer's pattern of behaviour is one that from my layperson's perspective seems to walk right up to the line of an undiagnosed/unrecognized mental illness -- I've experienced what I'd describe as paranoia, fantabulism, and a total lack of empathy for station staff and other volunteers during and following this grievance process. This also exacerbates my discomfort with figuring out where and to what extent the station's responsibilities lie.
I'm wondering if there's been any writing, or blogging, or collective wisdom on the role of community-facing organizations, and how to balance the need to be operational, often with a small staff, versus the obligation to be as accommodating as possible to all comers.
Again, I am not looking for suggestions on how to manage this specific volunteer, but for advice/guidance that might help shape future policy and decisions involving how we balance organizational practicalities against community-facing ideals.
This is really common. I manage a non-profit and volunteers are often harder to manage than employees. As my husband , not very politely, points out people who are available during the day sometimes aren't right.
The best way to handle this IMO is to manage volunteers like employees and have very clear expectations and job descriptions. This makes their performance easier to manage and even describe. So its not, "you are difficult" it that "you aren't meeting expectations."
posted by stormygrey at 9:08 AM on October 26, 2016 [11 favorites]
The best way to handle this IMO is to manage volunteers like employees and have very clear expectations and job descriptions. This makes their performance easier to manage and even describe. So its not, "you are difficult" it that "you aren't meeting expectations."
posted by stormygrey at 9:08 AM on October 26, 2016 [11 favorites]
I think a majority of material about inclusiveness and difficult behavior is going to be written about children in public schools. However, looking at policies and diversity statements from public and community colleges might yield up some kind of guidance for situations with adults.
Looking at the issue casually, I like the list of the five geek social fallacies. Number one is "ostracism is evil." I do have that written into my DNA and it was pretty hard to unlearn. Certainly exclusion is painful, and should only be done for cause. But insisting on including everyone, even people who are unpleasant, may be unfair to those who would like a pleasant environment.
On the other hand, this UU church page has some examples of Creative Inclusiveness. (Mostly about kids, but including neurodiversity.) You might be use some of the ideas and imagery from that page in conversation with the board to see if that ideal of utter welcomingness can be achieved in a setting where people are trying to get work done on a deadline. Maybe it is possible. Maybe it isn't. I can understand why some would find it desirable, some of the time.
posted by puddledork at 11:50 AM on October 26, 2016
Looking at the issue casually, I like the list of the five geek social fallacies. Number one is "ostracism is evil." I do have that written into my DNA and it was pretty hard to unlearn. Certainly exclusion is painful, and should only be done for cause. But insisting on including everyone, even people who are unpleasant, may be unfair to those who would like a pleasant environment.
On the other hand, this UU church page has some examples of Creative Inclusiveness. (Mostly about kids, but including neurodiversity.) You might be use some of the ideas and imagery from that page in conversation with the board to see if that ideal of utter welcomingness can be achieved in a setting where people are trying to get work done on a deadline. Maybe it is possible. Maybe it isn't. I can understand why some would find it desirable, some of the time.
posted by puddledork at 11:50 AM on October 26, 2016
This is one of the Hard Things about volunteer organizations, and it's great that you're looking to improve your process & policy going forward.
As Hypatia says, your mission statement may help guide your priorities here, but it sounds like you would benefit from developing a code of conduct (excellent example) and/or volunteer agreement (passable example). This type of document helps establish expectations for new volunteers and gives you and your staff a point of reference for next time.
I'm involved in a few volunteer-run or volunteer-supported organizations, and each one sets their boundaries a little differently. It's also not unusual for a Code of Conduct to be a living document that you change as needed to suit your staff, board, community, and culture.
I'll be interested to see what resources others share!
posted by sibilatorix at 12:02 PM on October 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
As Hypatia says, your mission statement may help guide your priorities here, but it sounds like you would benefit from developing a code of conduct (excellent example) and/or volunteer agreement (passable example). This type of document helps establish expectations for new volunteers and gives you and your staff a point of reference for next time.
I'm involved in a few volunteer-run or volunteer-supported organizations, and each one sets their boundaries a little differently. It's also not unusual for a Code of Conduct to be a living document that you change as needed to suit your staff, board, community, and culture.
I'll be interested to see what resources others share!
posted by sibilatorix at 12:02 PM on October 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'd look at some of the resources listed here, especially under supervision (Volunteer.ca is a good resource on its own.) This Bruce Trail guideline document is interesting.
posted by warriorqueen at 12:12 PM on October 26, 2016
posted by warriorqueen at 12:12 PM on October 26, 2016
I agree with Hypatia. Think about this in terms of the organization's missions. Then, consider the extent to which accommodating one particular volunteer, which presumably fits with part of the organization's mission, does or does not hamper other goals.
posted by Alluring Mouthbreather at 12:32 PM on October 26, 2016
posted by Alluring Mouthbreather at 12:32 PM on October 26, 2016
Ok, now that most of my volunteers are done for the day, some more thoughts.
If your mission is to primarily run a radio station, you can't let volunteers take away from that. We have minimal staff time and it sounds like you do too. That means that each and every volunteer, each and every day must contribute to your mission rather diminish your mission. As an organization that relies on volunteers, sometimes that is hard to articulate. It took me ages to get here, but now I don't take anyone under 18, I don't take clients, and I don't take anyone who can't commit to a certain number of hours a month. Occasionally, I schedule "family volunteer nights" but these nights are really about teaching kids that it is important to volunteer. They get very little done and take my undivided attention for however long there are here.
It might be easier to think: Are we a job training facility? Is our mission to teach life skills? Is our mission to help all community members find a place in our organization? The answer is probably no to all of these questions. If it is yes, you have to decide how much of your mission you can dedicate to those areas and develop staff to address volunteers who , however well intentioned, do more harm than good.
posted by stormygrey at 1:21 PM on October 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
If your mission is to primarily run a radio station, you can't let volunteers take away from that. We have minimal staff time and it sounds like you do too. That means that each and every volunteer, each and every day must contribute to your mission rather diminish your mission. As an organization that relies on volunteers, sometimes that is hard to articulate. It took me ages to get here, but now I don't take anyone under 18, I don't take clients, and I don't take anyone who can't commit to a certain number of hours a month. Occasionally, I schedule "family volunteer nights" but these nights are really about teaching kids that it is important to volunteer. They get very little done and take my undivided attention for however long there are here.
It might be easier to think: Are we a job training facility? Is our mission to teach life skills? Is our mission to help all community members find a place in our organization? The answer is probably no to all of these questions. If it is yes, you have to decide how much of your mission you can dedicate to those areas and develop staff to address volunteers who , however well intentioned, do more harm than good.
posted by stormygrey at 1:21 PM on October 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
Oh yes, I should probably clarify that I'm mostly involved in organizations that have inclusion of both patrons and volunteers as an explicit core component of their mission, which is what makes this so challenging.
If that isn't part of your mission, then you can think of volunteers like a subclass of employees, and let go the ones who aren't contributing to your mission in a positive way.
posted by sibilatorix at 3:20 PM on October 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
If that isn't part of your mission, then you can think of volunteers like a subclass of employees, and let go the ones who aren't contributing to your mission in a positive way.
posted by sibilatorix at 3:20 PM on October 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
What's the explicit purpose of your organization?
Is the point of the radio station to "make radio programming?" Is it to provide opportunities for community members to work in radio? Is it it to provide community members with a radio platform? Are these perhaps more important than being "as accommodating as possible to all comers"? Is being accommodating to all comers a part of your mission statement? If you are meant to provide opportunities for people to produce radio, then a volunteer who makes it impossible for other people to produce radio is in conflict with your mission.
You need to have an explicit statement of precisely what your organization is supposed to do; then your policies are about supporting what you do.
posted by Hypatia at 8:55 AM on October 26, 2016 [8 favorites]