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?
 
 

Ouch, that’s a painful oxymoron, I hear you cry! This seems to be the direct in which the RSC is heading – The Free Radical has highlighted some a number of examples of this corporate approach.
 
A prime example is the requirement to conform to “corporate guidelines” when using the RSC logo. Of course, it goes without saying that the logo shouldn’t be modified and respect is due – but being constrained by layers and layers of regulation about colours and distances seems counter-productive. Considering most of the public associate the RSC with the Royal Shakespeare Company, you would have thought the Royal Society of Chemistry would be falling over itself to try and get the brand out there, not isolating it behind layers of guidelines.
 
Perhaps more alarming, we’ve been told that conferences will only be supported if they make a profit or at least breakeven. This came up repeatedly at the GA and the last CBiD meeting. Clearly cost minimisation is important, but as a charity surely we should be considering the benefits and whether the event advances the chemical sciences not profitability?
 
I don’t want to come across as simply being a naysayer. I think the RSC is brilliant – the society does a huge amount of great work at the coalface, through the interest groups, local sections and other member groups. However, as with so many corporations, there are ever increasing layer of bureaucracy and ‘oversight’ – and some of these latter now seem to be little more than glorified rubber-stamping committees. But perhaps this can be saved for another blog post (probably with a title relating to Ivory Towers).
 
Another thing that the RSC now seems to have in common with a lot of corporations is an apparent issue with pension liabilities. I haven’t seen this talked about too much – but a quick look at the P&L in the Trustees Report 2009 shows a recognised expenditure of £10.1 million to cover actuarial losses on the defined benefit pension scheme (compared to £2.9 million spent on membership activities). I’m not saying this is wrong, but just putting it out there as something we perhaps should be discussing.
 
In closing, I’ve signed up as a volunteer to a charity – I give my time freely to help achieve our society’s aims. Bureaucracy, committees and other corporate apparatus are getting in the way of what the society does best – advancing the chemical sciences in the world. We all agree professionalism is important – but we can be professional without being corporate.

Since starting an active Younger Member Network (YMN) in the Liverpool area in 2008, myself and a small group of volunteers have formed a committee and have successfully managed to run a number of events for our younger members, including pub quizzes, a careers event and a ‘fun’ scientific lecture for example. Prior to our existence there was very little going on in the area for YMs and so we hope to continue building on this in the future and are grateful for the support we have already received from the RSC.
 
I am writing this blog entry in the hope of starting a discussion regarding the funding of RSC YMNs in the UK. I think the current system is unfair - a bit of a postcode lottery, so I would like to make a few proposals to start things off and to invite as many readers as possible to comment.
 
YM reps are expected to run several events per year in their local areas aimed at YMs. These are defined as everyone under the age of 35 but anyone is welcome to come along. This is quite a large group of people within a Local Section (LS), approximately 25 % for example. The main problem when it comes to running these events is funding; even the most basic don’t come cheap.
 
So where do we get our funding from? The main source is from a Local Section committee and not directly from RSC HQ. We also ask members to contribute to certain events but this is not possible for everything (who’s going to pay to attend a lecture or careers event?). So all is fine if your Local Section supports YMNs and in some parts of the country this works very well. However, some Local Sections offer less financial support for YMNs and in some sections there is not even a YMN to start with!
 
Local Sections receive £2.50 per member annually, so logic would suggest this is spent equally amongst the different age groups based on percentage of members. In general, this is not the case.
 
There are many reasons for this; high on the list is the perception that YMs are just a bunch of students who want to get drunk (no offence to students, there’s nothing wrong with enjoying a student lifestyle!), when in reality we are a diverse mix of undergrads, postgrads, young academics, industrialists and teachers etc., so we want more than just a bar crawl for our money!
 
What does a typical event cost I hear you say; surely it’s not that much?
Well, having just run a well attended (~80 people) careers event on a shoestring of just under £300, this is what the money was spent on: 1.5 h University lecture theatre hire at reduced rate and a small buffet. So for something like a networking mixer meeting for young professionals, held in a hotel with food and drink, you are looking at spending >£700. So my point is, these events can be expensive and having the extra hurdle of applying for funding from LS committees who have to vote on it doesn’t help. If the event involves alcohol then it is almost certain it will not receive many votes!
 
So what am I trying to achieve by writing this blog?
1)     Raise awareness amongst the YM community about how their events are funded (or not, as the case may be).
2)     To make things equal nationally, I propose that we receive funding directly from RSC HQ based on the number of younger members in our area.
3)     To make the RSC appreciate the cost of running a YMN event and the spare time donated by volunteers to make these possible.
 
Gone are the days when you could run everything in a University department for free!
 
I can understand that the RSC does not want to dish out vast sums of money to just anybody, but I’m sure with the right set-up and a few ground rules and safeguards, those YMNs that are already established and well-run deserve their own source of funding which is awarded in a fairer way.
 
Finally, the RSC should remember that YMs are the Chemists of the future and the future of the society will rely on their continued membership. With many members questioning whether they see a benefit from their membership fee, it’s more important than ever to offer them value for money during their first years with the RSC.

I look forward to hearing from everyone, in particular other YM reps. and their thoughts on this topic!
Claire
more...

Firstly, can I put a general call out to all readers of this blog to submit nominations for the various RSC awards available this year!
 
Secondly, sorry for the awful pun! But this is an issue that was discussed by the younger members forum at the GA, and highlighted by no less than Prof. Charles Stirling, FRSC FRS in a letter published in the December 2010 (once the issue is placed in the archive on the RSC website, I'll link in! It's been replaced by the January issue already!!) issue of RSC News. In both his letter and our meeting we discussed the lack of awards for the voluntary members of the RSC, who put in so much time and effort promoting chemistry in their own unique ways. There are scientific, industrial and educational awards, but where are the awards for the volunteers?
 
Neville Reed answered Prof. Stirling’s letter by stating that the Nyholm Prize and the Inspiration and Industry Award partially cover this area, although perhaps are not properly advertised as doing so. So let’s see exactly how these awards are advertised (bear in mind this category of “Outreach” was only set up as a response to Prof. Stirling)?
 
Nyholm Prize for Education: The Nyholm Prize for Education recognises a major national or international research or innovation contribution to the field of chemical science education.
Inspiration and Industry Award: The Inspiration and Industry Award is recognise the contribution of an individual in industry to the outreach, promotion or teaching of the chemical sciences.
 
So the industry one looks okay but the Nyholm? Certainly it is not been marketed as an outreach award, rather an award for those outstanding chemistry teachers at all levels (which is fine!).
 
So at the GA, we enquired about a new award, specifically to recognise the contributions of young volunteers. I’ve been told we need to get a proposal together for consideration by the MQB and possibly Council, so here it goes:
 
In a similar vein to the young scientific awards, which recognise outstanding contributions by scientists under a certain age from all the disciplines of chemistry, an award should be created to recognise a young person who has made a significant contribution to the promotion of chemistry and/or catered for the developmental needs of the modern professional chemist. Unlike other awards, the recipient should not be making a career out these activities (for example working in education, consulting or careers services etc.) but rather should be developing and initiating new schemes on a voluntary basis. My proposed criteria are:

• Open to everyone, under the age of 35.
• Candidates are permitted to nominate themselves.
• A specific project must be named as the key justification for the award, although other contributions may be mentioned in support of the applicant.
• The impact of the project, rather than how it was funded, is the key criterion. (By this I mean non-RSC projects that promote chemistry/skills development for chemists are eligible)
• The candidate’s critical role in the specific project must have been entirely voluntary in nature.
• A one page supporting statement, addressing the selection criteria.
• Winner to be selected by a panel made up of members of the MQB and the YMF.

 
I’d like to open this to the floor for discussion and refinement. Am I wrong to specify “younger” members? Do we want to identify exceptional projects or exceptional people? Individual prizes or to groups?
 
I’d also like to encourage those younger members out there who know of someone, or are themselves, doing fantastic work for the RSC for both the Nyholm and I&I awards. Since these are the best the RSC can offer at present, we should get our names in the hat! Personally I know of two or three people whom I’ll be nominating!!
 
Please, please, please give me your ideas. I will then take them on up the chain of command and see if we can’t get a new award for the men and womenon the frontlines!

T. F. R.