Leading Volunteers?

How would a leader behave differently if all his or her workers were volunteers?

The foundational relationship between organizations and employees is a transaction; that is, employers offer a position in exchange for the performance of tasks that are often identified in two documents: a job description and an annual appraisal form. A job description summarizes the duties and tasks of those who occupy a position. The appraisal form provides information on how a person’s performance will actually be assessed. Enlightened employers provide the appraisal document to workers at the beginning of an evaluation period so the worker knows in advance how to succeed.

Since the relationship starts as a transaction, a leader may think that employees owe the organization (or them) something – “I am providing you pay for the achievement of a job.” On the surface, this assumption is true – employees and employers have a mutual obligation to satisfy the requirements of the work agreement. Nevertheless, leaders need to consider how this stance may diminish a worker's motivation.

In fact, when the leader allows this perspective to dominate the relationship, satisfaction and organizational citizenship can be reduced; if the leader holds an attitude of “you owe me” or “you work for me and therefore you must do what I say and adhere to the standards I establish,” she/he can expected a diminished result. Organizational leaders have a right to expect work, but the operative provisions of “owe” and “must do what I say” conjure up an image of a towering figure demanding compliance and effort; the individual becomes objectified. Does anyone want to be treated like an object?

The research on leadership offers insights and describes two styles (written about in earlier publications), which highlights the impact of an exchange-based relationship. The first is a transactional leadership (TL) style, which is an exchange-based relationship and the starting point of all work – “we pay and you work.” The transactional leader also habitually monitors and corrects workers (preemptively or after mistakes happen)¹ and can be portrayed as a “helicopter leader.” Studies have revealed that the transactional style is effective but not as effective as when it is enhanced with a transformational style (full range leadership).¹

The transformational leader (TFL) views the worker differently, treating each person individually and as an equal colleague. This leader pays attention to the worker’s needs and concerns and stimulates a march forward toward the goals of the business. As a result, this leader draws in followers and inspires them to produce superior outcomes for the business. This leader does not have the attitude that the worker is an object in a transaction, but instead a partner in pursuit of mutual goals.¹ The behavior of the transformational leader (TFL) is markedly different than that of the transactional leader (TL).

The outlook is also different. The TL-style leader views the worker as having a responsibility to the organization. Alternatively, the TFL-style leader brings the relationship to a different plane and treats the worker as a colleague and recognizes the worker’s options to leave the organization; he or she views the worker as a volunteer. 

When working with a group of volunteers, the leader may find it beneficial to follow the advice suggested by Victor Vroom's Expectancy Theory. The model reveals that workers will apply effort to reach a level of performance, provided it leads to attaining a desired outcome. The worker must be confident that he or she will achieve the performance and has the requisite abilities and skills to make it happen. In addition, assurance must exist that by reaching the performance level, the desired outcome will result.¹ Outcomes are often framed in financial goals, job position, satisfaction or other personal goals.

                   

                                                                        (Figure 1)

                             

Another way of looking at this model is that workers will calibrate their effort if it will get them to a performance level that in turn gets them to the desired personal outcome. If a worker or volunteer does not have lofty outcome goals, effort may be reduced and vice versa. For example, a student who desires to learn might put in more effort to reach performance on the basis of the learning that will occur. Alternatively, the student who desires only to pass a class may lower his/her effort level to reach only a performance level that will result in a passing grade. 

A leader can use these concepts to improve motivation. To start, the leader should understand what is important and of concern to the worker. Then the leader can set out to help the worker reach the desired outcomes. The leader must also demonstrate to the worker that if effort is applied, the performance target will be hit. Finally, the leader must build trust that the desired outcome will be attained if the performance objective is reached. However, if there is a break in one of the links (see figure 1) – such as between effort and performance (e.g. skills don’t exist to reach the needed performance) or between performance and outcome (e.g. worker does not believe he or she will get the outcome expected. V stands for valence) – motivation declines.¹

One can also look at this model and understand how a TL-style leader could cause a different result. The transactional leader expects effort based on the transactional arrangement and monitors the worker to make sure it happens. This leader does not focus on helping the worker achieve personal outcomes while simultaneously focusing on the objectives of the business; instead, the focus is strictly on “getting it done based on an expectation” for the betterment of the organization or for selfish objectives. Alternatively, the transformational leader worries about the worker's needs and desires and the business. In doing so, the leader can enhance the outcomes for the worker and directly increase motivation while benefiting the organization.

The transformational leader behaves as though employees are volunteers. Are employees volunteers? Technically, they are not. The basis of the relationship is pay for work. However, skilled employees have a choice where they work. This is another area where the transactional leader is not as effective; if the relationship is based solely on pay for work, then the employee has an incentive to leave when a better deal comes along. On the other hand, if the leader is transformational, there is more than just pay involved; the leader is giving the individual personal attention.

Therefore, the advice is to act as though employees are volunteers and go beyond just a pay relationship. Transformational leader skills can be learned.

Please feel free to make comments.

References

¹  Robbins, S., & Judge, T. (2011). Organizational Behavior (14th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

  

 Figure 1 image take from on 2-24-13: https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRR7MJo-t_f2b6MpiBc4X-mzf1ylUv4eo6xGYCe0dXKZGZ33Ukw