Satisfy Staff First

The Job Factor Process ©

From the book
Building Staff/Volunteer Relations
Chapter 3, pp 27-35
by Ivan Scheier

The approach here, by contrast, asks certain questions which suggest that staff are not the primary reason for the difficulty. Planners/implementers of volunteer programs are very likely to be implicated, for lack of adopting appropriate strategies. Our candidate for appropriate strategy begins with this question:|
How can we expect staff to carve out meaningful roles for volunteers when staff doesn't even adequately understand their own role?

Yes, most employees have a formal job description. But often what a person actively does is far from identical to the job description as written. At the specific, concrete level, what one does daily is more or other than what may have been articulated at the beginning. Not incidentally, the same is true for volunteer job descriptions. They're neat, comforting to our sense of orderliness, and often substantially mythical in detailed practice.

Once we've absorbed the need to go beyond job descriptions to actual descriptions of the job, we're ready to face a seeming paradox: you can't develop clear and meaning for volunteer jobs without first analyzing in detail what staff are doing and how they feel about it. Similarly, to involve members more meaningfully you must first scrutinize very carefully what elected officers or other group leaders are doing.

So, the first step in developing teamwork between volunteers and employees (or officers) is a process which helps staff clarify fuzzy function areas.

The clarifying process must also be comfortable, and that brings up our second main point:
Volunteers must be seen by staff as strengthening their capability and control rather than stretching it thinner.

Volunteers should enhance staff competency rather than challenge it.

As for control, asking staff to work comfortably with volunteers is asking them to forego the two main mechanisms by which we exercise adequate control over employees:

-We pay them (and can stop doing so).
-We order them (and can continue to do so).

A third control-threatener is overstretched time. Staff, club leaders, chairpersons and other gatekeepers are typically overworked and under- helped; that's usually why we propose involving volunteers in the first place. We then proceed (often) to lecture staff on how much additional time and effort they should invest in supervising/supporting volunteers. To this approach, I once heard a staff person react thusly: "Hey, I've already got a caseload of 70 clients. And now you seem to be asking me to add a caseload of 25 volunteers. Are you out of your mind?" (Frank Miller, you will recall, felt much the same way.)

I sympathize. We need a delegation process which puts staff in the driver's seat insofar as possible and, indeed, can be seen by them as enhancing their control of events and challenges. This is not accomplished by coming in, kicking the desk, and saying to staff. "Wow, I've got this great volunteer; wouldn't you like to meet her?" or "How about my getting you a volunteer tutor or two?"

It is not even accomplished by asking staff to submit volunteer job descriptions. As I said, many staff need a better, more specific understanding of their own jobs before they can intelligently decide how volunteers can best help them. So, we err in telling staff to look at volunteers when they should be looking first at themselves.

Helping Staff Look At Their Own Work First
We need to give staff a specific, practical process for looking at themselves. The process proposed here is called "Job Factoring." It is in a direct line of descent from a method called "Need Overlap Analysis in Helping" (NOAH) first developed about twenty-five years ago and widely applied in field practice since then. The Job Factor is an advanced version of this approach, sometimes called NOAH-111. Here are some general guidelines for facilitating the Job Factoring process:

1. Clearly explain step-by-step procedures, with examples (as described in the next section).
2. Explanations can be on an individual or group basis, but each staff/gatekeeper does her/his work as an individual.
3. Give people plenty of time to complete the process, at least overnight and preferably a few days over which they can come back to it periodically, and enlarge or modify their Job Factor.
4. Assure staff that supervisors will not be looking over their shoulder. Sharing of their Job Factor, in whole or in part, is on an entirely voluntary basis.
5. In some situations, you might also want to note that completion of the process does not commit a person to accepting volunteer or other help with their job. Indeed, Job Factors are great aids to insight about one's work, even if they don't lead to suggestions on how volunteers might help.

Here is the step-by-step process. person to:

Step 1: Make an ACTIVITY LIST (to be called the "A List"):

"Think of your last few days (or week) at work and list, fairly specifically, all the things you did work-wise during that time."

Note that it's usually difficult to remember all one's tasks and activities at one time. Some people like to be sure of a complete list by keeping a log of their activities for a few days. A complete Activity List might well contain 30 or 40 distinct activities, possibly even more.
Figures 1, 2 and 3 on the following pages are examples of this.

Step 2: Now mark your Activity List as follows:
'X' marked after an activity means that you believe you would be more effective and satisfied as a worker if you could get someone else to take this off your hands. (These are called "spinoff" or "up-for- grabs" tasks.)

"T" marked by an activity means you'd be more effective and satisfied if you could team it, do it with someone else. Clearly, that's not the same as a spinoff. You do want to continue doing the task and keep a hand in policy concerning it, you just want some company with it, a partner or teammate.

A (circle) around a task means you feel this is a "keeper," pretty much the core or center of what you do, an "essential." You definitely want to keep doing this by yourself You might easily have four or five keepers.

"?" None of the above. Put a question mark (?) by these activities. It's okay to give yourself more time to decide on some things.

Step 3: Now, in another, second column, make your DREAMLIST (the "D List").
These are things you would love to do or see happen for the benefit of the organization and the people it serves. However, these things are not being done now, either because you (or others) don't have the time, don't have the resources, or have neither time nor resources. Take your time pondering this list, too, and try to come up with two to five "good dreams."

Step 4: Now prepare a QUESTLIST (or any name that suits you better).
This "Q List" describes fairly specific things you'd like to learn more about, and/or areas in which you'd like to learn and grow.

Step 5: Finally, set up a fourth column with the heading PLEASANT SURPRISES (the "P.S. Column").
Leave this column blank for now but (we hope) not forever. All this column indicates is that you are flexible enough to make room for involving unanticipated time and talent which might be offered you or the organization, provided it shows prospects of benefit to all concerned.

Throughout, keep reminding people to be as specific and concrete as possible in all their listings. Figures 1, 2, and 3 on the following pages are adapted examples of real-life Job Factors.

From the Job Factor to Volunteer Job's
The Job Factor process facilitates precise delegation from staff to volunteers in a way which gives staff genuine ownership of the volunteer program. Here's what we have to work from:

- Overall patterns in the job factor.
- The Activity List ("A List") with unmarked items, spinoffs/up-for-grabs items (X's), T's for teaming with another, and circled items essential to the job.
- The Dream List ("D List")
- The Quest List ("Q List")
- Pleasant Surprises ("P.S. List")

Figure 1. Sample Job Factor for a Coordinator of Volunteers
(If we don't delegate, who will)

Figure 2. Sample Job Factor for a President of an All-Volunteer Educational Group*
*Adapted, in some respects. Thus, original is much longer with 31 items on the 'A' List.

Figure 3. Sample Job Factor for a Probation Officer

Overall Pattern
Willingness and ability to delegate to volunteers tend to increase when the Job Factors include a healthy number of spinoffs, teams, dreams, and quests because these define the work which is potentially delegatable to volunteers. It is also important that relatively few of the spinoffs, teams, dreams and quests are excluded out of hand by an "authority check," e.g., violate union contract; are illegal for volunteers to do; are against organizational policy or encountering strong staff feelings that this job should be paid for. It is also good if a reasonable proportion of remaining possibilities go beyond routine tasks, to more meaningful, challenging work-- which usually means there are Quests and Dreams along with the often drudge spinoffs.

Potential for delegation to volunteers is weaker if the above conditions are not met. Thus, some staff seem uneasy about "admitting" that they have any spinoffs, apparently for fear it will show they aren't really needed. Watch for very short D and Q lists; the staff/gatekeeper who is afraid to dream and/or unwilling to concede that s/he has anything to team. Watch, too, for staff who are seriously put off by the openness of the concept of the Pleasant Surprise column. My strong hunch is that volunteers first of all tend to be more for those willing to concede they need help (O listings). After that, volunteers are more for dreamers, questers, the flexible and creative among staff/gatekeepers.

In any case, use the overall Job Factor pattern in the above ways to identify an individual staff person's receptivity to volunteer help. If that receptivity seems low, remember s/he may still be a fine staff person in other respects, then go to more receptive staff first in advocating and placing volunteers. (See earlier discussion in Chapter 2.)

The Activity List
Spinoffs (X's) aren't always or necessarily drudge items, especially in the perception of some volunteers. But if spinoffs are all staff seems willing to offer volunteers--no teams, dreams, or other meaningful responsibilities--we may have a problem here. Either the program is new and needs to learn to trust volunteers more (give it some time to do that) and/or the staff person suffers from stale stereotypes as to what volunteers are capable of doing.

T's offer great potential for encouraging staff to move on to "higher" things in delegation to volunteers. In the first place, staff can still keep their hand in on a team task; they don't have to let go and "give it up" entirely. At the same time, team tasks often represent somewhat more responsible volunteer work than spinoffs do.

When you see circled, essential items, STAY AWAY! For now at least. I shudder to think how much resistance to volunteer programs is due to going for staff s Job Factor jugular first; that is, their keepers. AR too typically, this is done without specifically consulting staff or even giving them an opportunity to realize that this is the core of what they do. At any one point in a program there will usually be plenty of other things volunteers can do, many of them quite meaningful.

Later, after trust builds, you might begin gently to suggest that some keepers could be at least partly "upgraded" to teams or even spinoffs. Thus, "interview volunteers," a keeper for the coordinator in Figure 1, could evolve to a point where a volunteer first "job shadows" the coordinator in such interviews, then teams on a few more, and perhaps later does take a few of them by her/himself (spinoff).

Look for question-marked items, such as meeting visiting dignitaries" in Figure 2. Lack of any X, T or circle markings might simply mean the staff person is undecided on this and/or needs more information. Don't press. In fact, be very clear that it's okay to have activity listings " question-marked" for a time. On the other hand, after a while it might gently be suggested that subdividing such items could clarify their status.

Thus, in Figure 1, "plan next orientation for volunteers" could break out into sub-tasks such as:
- Review feedback from last year's volunteer orientation
- Set agenda
- Select and invite trainers
- Search out appropriate films and other training aids

This kind of breakout might more easily suggest delegation possibilities.

The Dream List

The demonstration here is that volunteers can help us do things we desperately want to do, but never could accomplish without their help. That's a powerful motivator for many frustrated staff. Unfrustrating their pursuit of dreams is a great way to prevent staff burnout. And over and over again, volunteers have demonstrated they can help make dreams come true for an organization. Indeed, this was the historical role of volunteers: putting flesh on dreams that never would have happened otherwise; creating and justifying new services and facilities before society was prepared to pay for them.

But don't let volunteers take dreams away from staff. That's as bad as encroaching on staff "keepers." Generally, make the advancement of dreams a team enterprise between staff and volunteers. Or enable staff to have more time to achieve their dreams because of volunteers helping them with their activity list (spinoffs and teams).

The Quest List
As indicated earlier, the kind of staff/gatekeeper who can't think of anything much s/he needs to learn is probably not a good bet to delegate much meaningful work to volunteers. Where you do find at least a few "yearn-to-learns," there is a tremendous opportunity to puncture restrictive staff stereotypes on the level of work volunteers can handle.

In one program where a pattern in staff quests suggested the need for a workshop on creative problem-solving, the coordinator brought in a professional trainer to do the workshop--as a volunteer. That fact was not lost on staff.

Pleasant Surprises
This blank column is to remind us that we can make meaningful volunteer job placements not only by " selling" staff-designed work to volunteers (the usual way), but also in the other direction: by marketing volunteer talents to staff. For example, suppose a person who likes to play piano and is good at it, walks in to a nursing home. The creative coordinator might respond by launching a music hour weekly. Some situations may require more stretching. An optometrist offered his services to a Juvenile Probation Department. Well, Juvenile Probation Departments aren't supposed to be in the eye-testing business. But this one had a creative judge who built a program around this person's offering. Result: about half the kids coming through the court proved to have significant visual problems which had slipped through more superficial school screening. All this, of course, had profound significance for alternative understanding of why some of these kids had trouble reading and with school generally.

To prime the pump for pleasant surprises, present staff with a composite list of "glad gifts" offered by volunteers or potential volunteers. These are fairly specific things the volunteers like to do and can do pretty well. Ten volunteers might have 250 to 300 of these glad gifts, in a wondrous range and variety. Only a truly stunted imagination could fail to be tempted by this great richness of offering and staff might begin to fill the pleasant surprise column with the seeds of productive programs. (There's more on glad gifts in the next chapter.)

Processing for Matches
Organizations differ; no two sets of conditions are the same. Use your own best judgment on how to move toward matches between staff needs and volunteer offerings. These are just a few suggestions.

Caution staff/gatekeepers against over-expectation. If 15 to 20% of their work assistance needs (X + T + D + Q) can be helped by volunteer offerings, that's great (and is, in fact, a rough average based on field usage of this process). But too often, staff go in one fell swoop from expecting nothing of volunteers to expecting everything. So please be sure gatekeepers don't anticipate instant, comprehensive satisfaction.

A former colleague says she sometimes feels staff thinks she has a huge freezer well stocked with a wide selection of quick-frozen volunteers. She can instantly retrieve precisely the right size and shape volunteers, put them in her people-sized microwave for a minute and presto! ...Tain't so.

The raw staff request list of spinoffs, teams, dreams, and quests can easily reach 25 or more for a sin e gatekeeper, and hundreds when combined over even a relatively small staff. This is so even when staff clearly understand that their work assistance needs are to be shared only voluntarily at their own discretion.

Especially in agency settings, the following criteria should usually be applied to narrow down the raw list of staff/gatekeeper work assistance needs. As indicated previously, the criteria for elimination are:

The Authority Check
-it violates union contract for volunteers to perform this task;
-it's against organizational policies;
-legally, this responsibility must remain with a paid employee, including paid employees with specific credentials and/ or training; and
-for some reason, staff feel strongly that people should be paid to do this (and maybe some volunteers feel the same way).

After applying these criteria, you may find that the total work assistance request list has been cut by 20 to 50%. Keep trying to change the situation if you think a task is something volunteers ought to be able to do. Pending such change, however, work within the framework as you find it. There will still almost always be lots of meaningful things volunteers might do among many remaining spinoffs, teams, dreams and quests.

The Consensus Check
Spinoffs, Teams, Quests and Dreams with which staff tend to agree they need help are most likely to engender an overall agency atmosphere of support for volunteer involvement. Nevertheless, don't completely ignore the Dream, Quest, Team or Spinoff only one person has. The lonely dream is sometimes the most creative one. So arrange to bring it up again next year, perhaps.

The Consumer Check
if at all possible, have a committee of consumers/clients/patients review the winnowed-down staff work assistance needs list with two issues in mind: "is this really a priority of ours?" and "even if it's a priority, would we rather try to do it ourselves?" Thus, for the staff dream of a good video on neighborhood problems, consumers might suggest as higher priority a good video on things neighbors are doing to attack those problems--and they might want to film it themselves!

The still substantial staff need list remaining (X + T + D + Q) can be matched with volunteer offerings in a number of ways. But first we have to do everything possible to be sure we have a good grip on all that volunteers are willing to offer and, equally important, that they are not willing to offer. The recommended method for doing this is to generate a "Window of work" with each volunteer or potential volunteer. We'll describe this in the next chapter. Essentially this is the fullest possible listing of the person's "glad gifts" (to be described), quests (the same as in the staff Job Factor) and no- no's/aversions/ taboos.