The problem with volunteers is that they don’t get paid. No,
don’t laugh. I’m quite serious.
First let me explain that I have a long history with
volunteers. I volunteer and have done so often. I have been in charge of
volunteers. My mother was also a great volunteer and when she worked at a
paying job for a non-profit, she had authority over the volunteers.
Additionally, she had this habit of telling me all of her problems and
frustrations. (Mothers, please don’t do this to your children!) So, all in all,
I think I can say I’ve been there and done that.
Do you remember those studies done on the subject of
leadership? There were a bunch of them with different groups and different
ages. They all followed the same pattern. The researchers took all of the “leaders”
from several groups or gangs and put them together. Then, they took the
followers and put them together. At first, the leaders fought with each other
and the followers twiddled their thumbs but eventually they settled down. With
each of these groups, what happened is that some became leaders and others
became followers. The end result was pretty much the same stratification as
before. Then, they took all of these new leaders and put them together and all
of the followers and put them in their own group. The same thing happened all
over again. No matter how often they shuffled the groups, they ended up with
about the same percentage of leaders in each group.
Have you listened to or watched pledge drives on public
radio or TV? If so, I suspect you’ve heard that only about 10% of
listeners/viewers donate. The stations give all sorts of recognition and gifts
to people who donate and yet, the percentage of donors remains about the same.
If you’ve volunteered much in any sort of organizations, you
will have observed that the same few people do almost all of the work. This is
always the way it is. Genealogy isn’t different in this regard. Groups give all
sorts of recognition and rewards and these are important but they don’t seem to
increase the number of volunteers. What will? Maybe nothing. Maybe this is just
the natural order of things.
There are volunteers who don’t get paid, there are
professionals who do get paid, and there are executive volunteers who don’t get
paid but have authority (power) over other volunteers. These are the definitions
I’m going to use. They are not necessarily the best definitions, just the ones
I will use. Getting paid means a person has value. The person may believe s/he
deserves more pay, has greater value, but still every pay day there is evidence
that this person’s labor is valued. Volunteers don’t get paid. They need a
whole lot of ego satisfaction to make up for this, to prove they are valuable
to the organization. It is nearly impossible to provide volunteers with proof
of their value. No matter what is given to them, it is not constant or
consistent the way employment is. Further, the professionals might feel they
are superior to the volunteers. Their paid status is proof of this. They may be
ever so nice to the volunteers but their condescension will come through. Executive
volunteers are often elected which gives them higher status and feeds their
egos. Being appointed to a position may expand egos even more.
So, the ordinary “grunt” becomes a lesser being. People who
feel relegated to second class status are not very committed to the
organization and do not feel inclined to work hard for it. The only possible
solution would be to find a way for all members to feel of equal value. I’m not
sure how to do this or even if it can be done. It requires a mental shift and
it requires this of everyone.
We have to stop thinking of people as superior or inferior. The
roles we play may be but the people aren’t. Society isn’t going to help with
this. In an odd way, genealogy might. Doing one’s own research is a great
leveler. Of course, some know more about how to do this than others but the
newcomers can see that, given time and experience, they can be just as good as
the old timers. What if the ones who know “abc” were all put to work teaching
the newbies? The ones who know “def” could be teaching the abc’ers. The “ghi”
folks can teach the def’ers. The teachers would all get their egos massaged by
being “experts”. The newer members would learn a lot and graduate to teaching
themselves. Maybe we don’t always need outside “experts” to teach us. Maybe we can do
it ourselves and in the process, bond more tightly with each other.
This would reinforce the superior/inferior status somewhat
but would also clearly point out how one could progress up the status ladder.
It would be important to present the teaching as an opportunity and as something
the person had earned by doing such wonderful genealogical research. Offer
assistance to the shy ones but make sure everybody is involved. Getting every
member involved is the first step.
Next, we would have to find the members’ talents and skills
and pleasures and get them on the “right” committees to help with things that they
can do and will enjoy doing and will feel a sense of accomplishment doing. Now,
we’ve got them as volunteers.
The next part is very easy and very hard. Love them. I’m not
saying, “Be nice to them.” I’m not saying give them this or that. I’m saying love
them, appreciate them, respect them, admire them, and do all of this from our
very core. Love is the best possible paycheck. People who feel loved and wanted
and needed will work hard to remain members of the group.
