How about a complaints democracy for volunteer organizations?

I am involved in various ways with a few different organizations that are staffed almost exclusively by volunteers.  Most of these volunteers also have day jobs and family responsibilities.  They have taken on the extra, unpaid work because they are passionate about the organization's mission or mandate and because it has an impact on their professional or personal lives.

Not everyone is suited to chair a committee or mobilize a team.  As with paid work, some people are the organizers, some are the planners and others show up to collect the tickets, serve the food or knock on the doors.  Some people don't have the time or inclination to volunteer and that's fine as well.  It's all optional.

Common across all volunteer organizations, are the complainers, questioners and advice-givers.  These are the people who didn't like the hot dogs at the charity BBQ, ask why you send out weekly emails on Thursdays instead of Fridays and helpfully suggest that you use an inordinate amount of your budget to "go green".

Some of these people have voices that are so loud and mannerisms that are so intimidating that even if they're the only person in a group of 20 who holds a particular opinion, no one challenges them.

When you pay an individual or a corporation for a service and that service is not delivered according to your standards, feel free to complain to anyone who will listen and to escalate your complaint until you receive a satisfactory resolution.   When dealing with volunteers, however, I'd like to see people adopt a more democratic process where the squeaky wheel finds no purchase and good enough is actually considered good enough.

The next time you want to offer a suggestion about how a volunteer can "do things better", ask these questions:

Is the volunteer doing something illegal, unethical or otherwise jeopardizing the reputation of the organization? - If the answer is yes, then this is a legitimate complaint that needs to be dealt with at a high level.  If the answer is no, ponder the following questions:

Is my suggestion actually feasible and can it realistically be executed using the current resources and within the existing time frame and regulatory constraints of the organization?  If not, shelf it or suggest a brainstorming session where people can share out-of-the-box ideas for future consideration.

Will my suggestion benefit other members of the organization or am I just airing my personal grievances? Before lodging a complaint, chat with others to see if it's a common problem. If it is, the association will probably appreciate the feedback.  If it's more personal in nature, let it go.  It's not useful.

Is my suggestion an easy fix or am I just adding to the workload of a volunteer who is already stretched too thin?  Most volunteers are open to questions and even complaints but few appreciate suggestions that pile even more work onto their plates.

Am I willing to participate in the solution or do I simply want to complain and let others do the heavy lifting? If you feel really strongly that something needs to be changed, offer to do some of the legwork to make it happen.  It will go a long way.

What do you think?  Should people be allowed to complain about anything they want?  Am I being too harsh? Are there any other questions complainers should ask themselves?

Occupy Can Learn from the Volunteers Who Cleaned Up Their Mess

Photo: BlogTO

I have the same reservations with organized protest movements that I have with organized religion.  While each has a noble agenda and many good people trying to do good things, they are too often plagued by hypocrisy and infiltrated by rogues who do more harm than good..  When I say this to followers, their response is that this shouldn't be a deterrent to joining.  So what if some Christian leaders have complete disregard for the teachings of Jesus?  So what if the supposedly anti-capitalist Occupy protesters are drinking Starbucks and wearing Timberlands?  "You have to take the good with the bad," they claim. "If we only support movements comprising honest, decent people with integrity, nothing will ever get done."

I suppose there is some validity in that. The civil rights movement and the Arab Spring probably included some of those annoying professional protesters who were just there for the action and didn't help to advance the agendas but the movements as a whole still had tremendous impact and affected real change.  But, even when I strongly believe in a cause, I just don't feel comfortable standing side-by-side with people who I know are not really committed and what's more, are actually making life worse for those they claim to support.  Instead of spending my Saturday hanging out in a soggy downtown park, I'd rather be at home teaching my kids the values of equality.  It seems like it has more of an impact to impart these lessons to a generation of future leaders.  Maybe the 1 % never heard that from their parents and that's how they ended up destroying the pensions of millions of people while they laughed all the way to the bank.

While I agreed in principle with many of the Occupy movement's positions, I had to do my own exhaustive research to find out what they were and felt it did a poor job of articulating them or rallying support, especially here in Toronto.  It also irritated me that some of them seemed to be operating on the principle that anyone who didn't join them was automatically against them. This is not the case.  In fact, most people I spoke to were sympathetic to their cause or at least understood the basis of it.  But for many reasons, none of which they should be forced to justify, they didn't go downtown and participate.

Rather than shaming the denizens of Bay Street who were safely ensconced a few blocks west, the Occupy Toronto movement took over St. James park and mostly annoyed citizens who live and work near the area, playing bongos at all hours of the night and day and making it hard, if not impossible for nearby families to enjoy the park.  As the protesters seemed to have a lot of free time, many Torontonians wondered if their free time wouldn't have been better spent volunteering in a soup kitchen or helping the homeless.  When they were finally evicted after 40 days, they left worn tents, clothing, books, signs and bikes mired in 9,000 square metres of mud.  What was once a park was now a quagmire.  The city pegged the cost to clean up and re-sod the park and fix the gazebo at $150,000.  To offset the cost to taxpayers (most of whom are among the 99 % the protesters were supposedly helping), the mayor asked for donations of time and cash to help.

Enter Canadian landscape professionals.  In response to the mayor's request, an army of volunteer landscapers converged upon the park to ensure that local families will have grass to enjoy in the spring.  Led by Kyle Tobin, founder at LawnSavers Plant Health Care Inc. they acted quickly to harvest 10,000 rolls of sod, truck it to the park on 12 flatbed trucks and work with volunteers to lay 250 cubic yards of soil as a foundation for the sod.  Tobin donated the sod (about $30,000 worth), EarthCo donated $10,000 worth of soil and 200 volunteers donated their time to lay it properly.

So hundreds of Occupy protesters messed up the park in the name of equality and hundreds of volunteers fixed it in the name of just doing what needed to be done.  I'm not suggesting that the protesters intended to destroy the grass but it is the natural consequence of camping out anywhere 24-7 and one of the reasons I would not feel comfortable participating in such a thing.  The clean-up volunteers, many of whom probably don't live in the surrounding neighbourhood, were motivated by nothing other than the desire to see more green space and for families to have a park to go to when the snow disappears. And you can bet that the vast majority of the volunteers, if not all, are members of the 99 %, not the 1 %.  The semantics are not important to them. They saw a need and they responded without rhetoric, grandstanding or fanfare.  The Occupy protesters could learn a thing or two about actually helping people from them.

Is it Possible to Give Without Judgement?

There was a beautiful news story recently about an anonymous donor who went to several K-Mart stores in the U.S. and quietly paid off the layaway accounts of families with young children.  For those of you too young to remember, layaway plans allow customers to choose something they want, have it put aside, and pay for it in weekly installments until it's paid in full. Although they're available year-round, they're most popular at Christmas with parents who want to ensure they can give their kids the toys they ask for, without needing to save up and shop at the last minute.  I recall my parents using layaway plans when I was a kid and I think I even used one to buy a bicycle when I was a teenager.  However, I hadn't heard the term for a while and had just assumed they no longer existed till I read this story.

I enjoyed this story for many reasons.  I loved that the donor found a simple way to have a direct, positive, impact on the lives of the families she helped.  I appreciated that she did it anonymously, without any need for public glory.  I loved the descriptions of the beneficiaries, one of whom (a man with three small children in tow) burst into tears when told his account was paid off.

The story moved me so much that I took to the comments board of The Toronto Star to share my thoughts.  While most comments were positive, I was surprised to find that some posters had reacted negatively to the story.  A few accused K-Mart of staging a "PR stunt" while others expressed sadness and even rage that families who are in financial trouble would spend money they don't have on junk they don't need.  Some felt that the dollar amount attached to the layaway accounts was much more than they would spend on their own kids.  And then there was a general railing against the hyper-consumerism of the modern Christmas season.   As someone who has spent two decades in PR, I am fairly confident that, while K-Mart may have shared the news to boost its profile, it's unlikely they fabricated the whole story out of the ether.  I can also say that in all my years working at and running PR agencies, I have never staged a "PR stunt", but that's another story.

That aside, the other negative sentiments got me wondering if it is possible to give to others without considering why they are in their current predicament and what role, if any, they played in it. I can say with all honesty that this is something I have struggled with for years.  I try to be philanthropic in whatever way I can, but, despite my best efforts to be non-judgemental, I tend to draw a line between people who are responsible for their own issues and people who had the problems thrust upon them.  This translates into heartfelt compassion for victims of a tsunami and indifference for able-bodied, able-minded people on social assistance.  I'm not particularly proud of this, I'm just being honest. Through extended family, I know someone who benefits from one of the many toy drives that take place in the city each Christmas.  Having been a recipient for many years, she now expects her annual delivery of toys for her children and therefore, makes no plans to improve her situation. Friends who have volunteered to deliver toys for needy families, have also told me that they were shocked and hurt by the lack of gratitude and the sense of entitlement they encountered at some of the homes they visited. It begs the question, when we give, is any kind of recognition  required?  A "thank you" is nice but is it mandatory?  And should we feel ripped off if we don't get it?

Getting back to the K-Mart article, I think we can all agree that children are not responsible for the financial situation of their parents, and shouldn't be punished for it.  The way I see it, more-affluent parents have the luxury of keeping Christmas presents to a minimum because it's only one of many gifts they will give their kids throughout the year.  Their children will have swimming lessons and ballet and summer camps, not to mention, parents who have the time and resources to encourage them with their homework and their goals.  Thanks to the work of donors like the woman in the story, many underprivileged kids can wake up to presents under the tree on Christmas Day, even if the rest of the year  is bleak.  So, I for one, applaud this anonymous donor and everyone like her who is able to "give without judgement".

Etiquette tips for volunteers and those who manage them

I managed to live out fifteen years of my adult life without volunteering. It's not that I never did anything for free.  I frequently drove family members to the airport, brought side dishes to Thanksgiving and helped friends move (albeit begrudgingly).  But, due to work and later, child-rearing pressures (or so I told myself), I did not commit to any kind of formal volunteering and I liked it that way.

Three years ago, it suddenly dawned on me that I had been missing something.  I signed up for my first official volunteer role, and have been making up for lost time ever since.  I can't pinpoint the reason for my change of heart but I can admit that it wasn't pure altruism.  A need to network for business due to a global recession, my kids starting school and my 40th birthday combined to create the right time and the right environment for volunteering.

Since then I've sat on the board of a professional organization, helped to run a major school fundraising event and offered my PR skills to charitable groups.  I've realized that, while most people who volunteer do so willingly, others are dragged or tricked into it with assurances that they will "only have to spend a few hours".  There is a subtle etiquette required for the process to run smoothly and to ensure that people return to help again.  Here are my tips for keeping the process civil.

Tips for Volunteers

Do it willingly - Although it's hard to say "no" sometimes, there's really no point in agreeing to volunteer for something if you will regret it.  Before you commit, make sure that you have the time to follow through and be clear about the tasks you are taking on. It's better to be honest now than to be resentful later.


Honour your commitment -A volunteer role is not a suggestion.  It's a commitment that you have agreed to honour.  While genuine emergencies might force you to bail on your promise, it's not acceptable to flake out of volunteer work just because you got busy in other parts of your life.  People are counting on you and dropping out causes a lot of extra work for organizers and other volunteers.

Take it seriously - You're not getting paid but that doesn't mean it's not important - to you, to the organization and to the people who benefit from your efforts.  While you will not (and should not) be held accountable for the success of the whole venture, you should give it your best and do everything you can to make a first-class contribution.  Show up on time, meet deadlines and be prepared to report on your progress at status meetings.

Remember why you're there - We all expect to be thanked for our efforts.  But when you volunteer, it should be because you believe in the cause and want to make a difference.  In many cases, the people who are supervising you are volunteers themselves and don't have time to constantly check in on you and show their gratitude.

Be a friend - For many people, volunteering is a way to meet new people and to become part of a community.  Although it's tempting to chat and gossip with the people you already know at meetings or events, make an effort to reach out to new volunteers and introduce them to others. If they feel welcome, they'll come back.

Tips for Volunteer Managers

Be professional - Have proper role descriptions, including expected time commitment for each volunteer role you have available.  The more clarity volunteers have at the beginning, the better the experience for everyone.  Make sure all volunteers understand the expectations and deadlines involved in their project, give them the tools they need for success and keep them up to date on any changes in the plan.

Listen - When volunteers are up-front about what they can and cannot do, listen to them.  Don't agree with them in the hopes that they will change their mind.  If a volunteer comes up with a great idea, don't automatically assign it to them to execute.  That just makes people reluctant to ever suggest ideas. And if past, current, or potential volunteers say "no" to a request for help, don't pester them. They'll be more likely to come back when they have more time if the relationship is pleasant.

Say thank you - If coordinating volunteers is part of your paid job, it's your role to acknowledge and thank volunteers personally and publicly.  On the other hand, if you are also a volunteer in the project, remember to say "thank you" whenever possible and listen to concerns, but you shouldn't be judged if you're not "grateful enough".


Play to their strengths - Everyone has different skills and the project will be more successful if volunteers aren't forced into roles outside of their comfort zones.  Some people are born salespersons and others are great at organizing lists.  One might relish the idea of serving as the official spokesperson while another breaks into a sweat at the thought of public speaking.  Let them do what they're good at and they'll shine.

Learn how to chair a meeting - Grievances abound in volunteer work and status meetings can quickly turn into a bitch-fest if you don't stay focused.  Give everyone a set amount of floor time to share updates and table concerns and then move on to the next person.  Schedule off-line discussions to deal with major issues.

Captive at the Cash Register

"Would you like to donate a dollar to our Love of Giving fund?" On a recent shopping expedition, I was asked this question (or some variation thereof) at four stores in succession and I thought it warranted a blog post on the etiquette of asking for money.

We've all been there. You've schlepped around a busy store, found what you wanted, hauled your purchases to the checkout line, finally made it to the front, and, just when you're about to pay, the cashier asks if you would like to donate a dollar (or amount of your choice) to either their own proprietary charity or another more established one with which they have struck up a partnership. Successfully put on the spot, you have the following options:

1. Say yes willingly and genuinely feel good about it

2. Say yes begrudgingly because you will feel like a schmuck if you don't

3. Say no, feel like above-noted schmuck and avoid judgy stares of fellow store patrons

4. Say no and launch into a rant about how you're sick of "everyone asking for money all the time"

5. Ask for more information which will satisfy your own curiosity or requirements for charitable donations but also result in putting the cashier on the spot and annoying people in the line behind you who just want to pay and get out of the store

You can probably tell by the tone of my multiple choice list that I'm not a huge fan of the "captive at the cash register
request for money" approach to philanthropy and it seems to
me that it's strategically flawed anyway - who wants to be asked
for additional funds at the exact same place where they see the
effect that the HST has on their wallet?

Let me make it clear that I don't blame the store employees in any way. I know they are doing their job and I'm sure they have been directed to ask for donations from every shopper, regardless of how busy they are, how grumpy the person is or how many others are standing in line. It also feel seems that they're not furnished with the information they need to answer questions from would-be donors. When I encountered a request for donations at four stores in succession one day a couple of weeks ago, I decided to ask some questions of clarification before making a decision. I won't name the stores but lets say that they include a national drug store chain with lots of shoppers, a department store with a storied Canadian history, a toy store with a penchant for mis-spelling its name and a provincial chain store with somewhat of a stranglehold on liquor sales. At each store, I asked the cashiers two questions - does the company match the consumer donations and does the company use consumer donations to get a tax write-off?

Only one employee was able to confirm that the company matched the donations but since it's effectively a crown corporation I wonder if they aren't matching the donation with my money anyway. The other three cashiers offered only sighs or blank stares or suggested I call head office. No one was able to answer the tax write-off question but one of the employees said, and I quote, "I don't know but if it's true, I'm going to start my own charity so I can get a write-off". Just the kind of person you want on your frontline. I should add that in all four stores, the livid stares of shoppers standing behind me in line were boring into the back of my skull with a burning intensity as I held up the process with my questions.

Proponents of the cash register donation say that consumers like it because it's fast, simple and they have some "power" over where their dollar is going. Besides, if you're not interested, you simply have to say "no" and you won't be asked again. I have found this to be true. But an unofficial survey of my friends, family members and neighbours revealed that, for the most part, people are experiencing charitable fatigue and find this approach tantamount to harassment.

What do you think? Is the cash register donation request harmless, crafty, strategic, annoying? I'd love to hear from anyone who works in the charitable sector.

Publicity in Exchange for Donations - The Etiquette of Charitable Giving

As the holidays approach, we Canadians will be confronted with many opportunities to give - that is after all what the season is all about - despite its more prevalent consumer aspect already taking shape in Christmas displays at a mall near you. Perhaps we will show some kindness to a homeless person who we're usually to busy to see. Maybe we'll drop off some gifts at a toy drive or volunteer at a food bank. Or, if we have the means, we might make a $10,000 donation to a local radio station's fundraising marathon.

It could be said that charity - of the financial or symbolic kind - is the embodiment of etiquette - a sensitive awareness of the feelings of others. In fact, it's difficult to find fault with the actual giving of oneself, whether that takes the form of a cheque or a gift of time. And yet, the whole notion of philanthropy is fraught with etiquette landmines. Once someone has donated to your cause, how long do you wait before asking again? Is it appropriate to ask colleagues to buy raffle tickets or chocolate bars to help raise money for their kids school, ballet group or hockey team? Do people have the right to demand things like building naming rights in exchange for gifts of money?

Of all the questions surrounding charity etiquette and ethics, I find this last one the most troubling. My personal belief is that all charity should be anonymous and while I won't go so far as to say that charity with publicity is no longer charity, I do wonder about the motivation behind it. I believe this is also a tenet of some of the world's religions, although many people who participate actively in these organizations don't seem to subscribe to it.

I'm not suggesting that philanthropy has to go undercover and consist of shadowy figures passing envelopes in dark alleys. I'm just saying that, it seems more in line with the spirit of giving if there is no expectation that anyone, short of the benefactor, will ever find out that you have given a donation, or the specific details of said donation. I still occasionally hear about anonymous benefactors making large bequests but the notion seems to have fallen away from our culture. Here in Toronto, if I walk on University Avenue from Queen to Bloor, I see many buildings - mostly hospitals and cultural institutions - emblazoned with the names of the donors who financed their construction. I suppose if a hospital needs a new cancer wing, then a gift with naming rights attached is better than no gift at all. And while I'm quite positive that the people whose names are on these buildings feel passionately about the cause and had the best of intentions, something seems off about the lengths they went to in ensuring that everyone in town would know what they did.

Many unsung heroes engage in simple acts of charity every day - showing compassion to a stranger, giving an employee time off with pay if they're going through a hard time, loaning money to a friend with no strings attached. No news release will be issued to celebrate these acts but, in terms of what makes us a civilized society, they are no less important than large cheques presented at gala affairs amid much fanfare and publicity.

Clearly, I have a strong opinion on this topic but I'd love to hear your thoughts, especially if you disagree.