Perhaps the Hairy Bikers have got it right with their new “Mum’s Know Best” show:   
 
Over Christmas I was chatting to my own mum about what the RSC could do differently, and ways it could more effectively support its volunteers.  “Mommy’s Boy!” I here you cry.  I’m not denying it, but as the UK’s foremost authority on “managing commitment in the voluntary sector”, there are perhaps worse people I could have asked. According to research in her field, there are six key factors which affect a volunteer’s commitment:

1. Expectations - Interviews and induction courses should explore this commitment and the demands of the volunteer role. Commitment is a two-way process.  Staff should give it to volunteers as well as expect it from them. Volunteers expect to have their emotional needs - in particular, a sense of belonging, self-esteem and being useful - met by their Voluntary work. It is also acceptable to use voluntary work as an aid to career development.

2. Relationships- Everyone in a scheme should be open and honest in their approach, demonstrating loyalty to the organisation’s ethos. Staff should ration their limited time fairly, and should keep their relationships with volunteers personal but also professional. Volunteers are responsible for their own behaviour and their own decisions, and they should be encouraged to work as part of a team. This will enable established volunteers to become positive role models for new volunteers.

3. Role management- Volunteers must be fully involved in all aspects of their work: they need to be given a challenge. But they should also be warned not to get over-involved, and they should allowed to take a break if necessary. Staff should make themselves aware of a volunteer’s motivational needs and attempt to meet them. There should be an established system for deciding when a volunteer’s commitment is unsuitable and what should be done about it. Care over placing the right volunteer in the right role - matching skills with need - will reduce the likelihood of problems developing. However, a volunteer moving on should not always be viewed as a bad thing.

4. Support structures- Organisers should care for volunteers as individuals, offering them one-to-one support in tackling their problems. They should maintain regular contact with the volunteers. Staff should build the self confidence of volunteers, because when they feel good about themselves volunteers will be motivated to do more. Staff should aim to identify potential problems early and work with the volunteers to resolve them. Volunteers should feel valued by the organisation. They should be given regular feedback on their progress and praise for their achievements. A volunteer’s commitment is most likely to be eroded by: deterioration of organisational standards; personal rejection; feelings of inadequacy; bad relations with peers; over-commitment; and personal problems. Effective support and supervision should, however, prevent this erosion of commitment. To meet their various needs, volunteers need both group and one-to-one support and a programme of accessible training

5. Evaluation and monitoring- Staff should continually monitor the commitment of volunteers through continuing training, support and supervision.

6. Volunteer person specification- Volunteers should accept the organisation’s ethos, conform to its regulations and maintain its standards. Volunteers must be able to spare an appropriate amount of time. They should be enthusiastic, willing to do more than just the bare minimum, unselfishly giving of themselves to help others. They should also be reliable, with the persistence to see things through when the going gets tough. Volunteers should be hard-working and good managers of their time, with a range of other interests. They should be intelligent and have a wide range of interpersonal skills, though they do not need to be educated to a high academic level. An ability and willingness to learn and be adaptable is crucial.

So how do the RSC measure up? In one area at least (the Benevolent Fund) it appears pretty well actually.   There’s an application process, an agreement signed by the volunteer, and a structured training, support, supervision and review process in place.

Does the same ring true across the board though? Sadly not:  

From my own personal experience (as committee member on local section, Industry & Technology Forum - North West Trustand younger member network committees, a past chemistry week coordinator, and as an honorary treasurer for several of those groups), the RSC still has a long way to go. I can make my point no clearer than this: Induction? Interview? Training? Supervision? Person spec? Evaluation? One-to-one support?

While the 6 points highlighted above are obviously stretch targets outlining best practice. Even with “limited resources” (I thought I’d save HQ’s limited resources and type it on their behalf),  scoring ‘nil-poi’  for “Expectations”, “Role Management”, “Evaluation and Monitoring” and “Volunteer Person Specification” is pretty poor (even by the UK’s Eurovision track-record).  As for Relationships and Support Structures: I’d encourage you to read the rest of the blog and make your own mind up.

So to my point. There is one in here somewhere. Honest:

How can the RSC get it right in one area (the B.F.) and so wrong everywhere else?

To me at least, it is pretty clear that generally (by which I mean for everything except the Benevolent fund), the RSC as an organisation doesn’t seem to have realised that we are volunteers as well as members.  I appreciate that the RSC is a strange beastie as charities go, and is difficult for us volunteers to get our head rounds how this rather unique combination of charity/professional body/publisher ‘works’.  I would however, have thought that RSC HQ would have got it straight in their own heads by now……

Pays membership, comes to events, benefits from RSC = Member
Gives up own time to help the RSC and/or promote the chemical sciences = Volunteer
Does both = Member-Volunteer

……by way of neurolinguistic-pseudo-scientific-anecdotal-evidence: If you look back at our HQ responses on this Blog. When referring to their volunteer members, RSC staff use Member/colleague etc. the majority of the time.  This may seem trivial, but certainly highlights that the distinction between members, volunteers and member-volunteers isn’t embedded in the staff culture at HQ. This is crystallised most effectively by  Adam (Turner, that is, we’re not schizophrenic) pointing David to a code of conduct for members, when what David was asking for clarification  on the expectations of the RSC’s volunteers.   

As another example I could cite that if you search for “volunteer” on rsc.org, you’d only get hits related to being a volunteer visitor for the Benevolent Fun. Although, as regular users of the site know that’s not necessarily indicative of the information not being on the website.…. Somewhere…… Perhaps.
 
The way I see it, the RSC needs to up its game.  Be that improvements in the way it communicates information and resources which are already available (in the deepest darkest depths of rsc.org), or in providing them in the first place.  “Commitment is a two-way process.  Staff should give it to volunteers as well as expect it from them.”

Without this mutual commitment, and agreement of what each party’s expectations and responsibilities are, everyone is loosing out, Including the RSC.
 
In the absence of such induction and support processes, an organisation with such a “strong reputation” as the RSC, should reflect on what it actually knows about its own volunteers:  As a treasurer for several groups, and a volunteer who works with children, it would seem pertinent for the RSC to be able to answer the following three questions if they were asked about my voluntary work for them:
 
- What relevant training have the RSC provided to enable me to do my roles effectively?
- Have I been CRB Checked?
- Should I have been?
 
So, in closing….
 
Members, volunteers and member-volunteers alike, how can the RSC help you?  How can examples of good practice (like the benevolent fund) be learnt from and rolled out more widely? Where else is it already getting things right?