Hot
Topic Archive
February
2004
Do
we need a new title for volunteering???
by
Andy Fryar
Over
the past few months I've heard an increasing number
of people comment that it was time we started to think
about using an alternate title to that of 'volunteer'.
The
most often cited reason for this appears to be the
belief that the 'V' word no longer has the same relevance
or meaning that it once did within mainstream society.
Proponents of this theory suggest that if we are to
recruit and attract new (and perhaps younger) people
to volunteering, then maybe the current terminology
needs to make way for something new.
Whenever
this idea is mentioned, it tends to set off a number
of polarised thoughts in my mind.
Allow
me to share a few of them with you.
Firstly,
let me state unequivocally that I do support the idea
of re-labelling specific volunteer positions. For
far too long, we have been caught up in automatically
adding the title 'volunteer' as either a prefix or
suffix to every volunteer position ever created! I've
even heard of unpaid volunteer support workers referred
to as 'volunteer volunteer coordinators'!
For instance, why give the person who assists with
your administration and clerical duties a job title
such as 'clerical volunteer' , 'office volunteer'
, 'volunteer office worker' or 'volunteer administration
assistant' ? Why
not simply call them the 'office manager', 'administrator'
or 'clerical assistant'?
Surely
the more important part of any title is what a person
actually does and not what their rate of pay is -
after all, we don't use titles like 'paid CEO', 'employed
gardener' or 'salaried bus driver' for staff who are
on the payroll!
Other
possible benefits of this approach include:
- Potential volunteers finding job titles challenging
and fresh (and therefore being more likely to
want to be involved)
- Breaking down the 'them and us' barriers that
sometimes arise between paid and unpaid staff
- The enhancement of greater team development opportunities
While
the benefits of an approach of this kind are many,
let me at this point also acknowledge that they can
easily lead to issues of demarcation if not implemented
with care and consultation.
So
what about the term 'volunteer' in the broader context?
-
Is it 'out of date'?
- Does the volunteer 'brand' no longer have relevance
to a new generation?
- Do people conjure up images only of grey haired
old ladies when they hear the name 'volunteer' mentioned?
- Is this terminology really the 'root of all evil'
in relation to the apparent lack of available new
volunteers in the marketplace?
- Should we find a term that is newer and more relevant?
For
me, the answer is a resounding 'NO'.
Here
are just a couple of thoughts about why I don't believe
that the term is out of date and some reasons I do
not think we need to replace it for a younger and
more up-to-date version.
One
third of Australians over the age of 15 already volunteer
on a regular basis and the percentages are similar
in many other countries in this region. While many
of these volunteer duties already have titles that
do not include the word 'volunteer' (eg coach, fire
fighter, lifeguard or Board member), these same people
were clearly able to identify their activities as
being voluntary, when questioned by Australian Bureau
of Statistics (ABS) staff in 2000.
Further,
we do not live in a vacuum, and it would be naive
to think that the two thirds of the population who
do not volunteer, have not gained at least some level
of understanding about the variety of volunteer roles
that exist, from the one third who do volunteer. If
one in three of us volunteer, then there are also
certainly many role models around to demonstrate the
changing face of volunteering.
Most
volunteers are proud of the title they wear and the
work that they do. Volunteering is based on reciprocity
- meaning that while volunteers want to give of themselves,
they also need something in return.
The
ABS figures reflect this beautifully.
When
asked the question of why they currently volunteered,
the number one reason that the respondents stated
was 'to help others / community' closely followed
by 'personal satisfaction'. This accurately reflects
the notion of reciprocity (ie. a 'giving' reason
was # 1, a 'getting' reason # 2) and indicates
that people are proud of the work they do in an unpaid
/ volunteer capacity.
Let's
face it, the 50,000 unpaid staff at the Sydney Olympics
did not march through the streets to fanfare from
the adoring public because they had participated in
the Games as a 'greeter' or 'bus driver'. While these
descriptive titles were important at the time the
Olympics were being staged, the many thousands of
helpers from Sydney 2000 later marched and accepted
our accolades, with the collective pride of being
recognised as a 'volunteer'.
We
have a strong 'volunteer' culture in our region to
build on. With national bodies in our region already
having names like;
- Volunteering Australia
- Volunteering New Zealand and
- National Volunteer & Philanthropy Centre' (Singapore)
and with state / provincial bodies boasting titles
such as;
- Volunteering SA
- Volunteering NSW and
- Volunteering Auckland,
we have resisted the temptation of following some
of our North American cousins in adopting more non-descriptive
titles while at the same time cementing the title
'volunteer' well into our vocabulary.
The
logistics of beginning to use a different phrase (s)
is mind blowing. If some are already suggesting that
'volunteer' is not understood (after how long?) then
what chance do we have to put in an alternative that
will be universally branded, marketed and understood
by all members of our society? How would we even begin
to agree on one (or maybe more) alternate titles?
So
what's the solution?
I
believe that the solution lies in working hard to
re-brand the 'product' we already have and utilising
more exciting and dynamic volunteer job titles at
a local level will certainly assist in this regard.
Let
me examine an analogy from Coca~Cola.
To
reach new audiences, the Coca-Cola company has started
to offer a new and exciting range of flavours to attract
a new audience. First there was 'diet coke' then came
'diet coke with lemon', 'vanilla coke' and then most
recently we have had the introduction of 'cherry coke'.
Note
two things - firstly, new flavours (or ways of doing
things) have the potential to attract a new and different
audience. Secondly, the new flavours have never lost
the Coke tag. Not only do new buyers experience something
new ~ they also have the Coke experience!
Maybe
that's what we need to offer our volunteers - something
new, but something still carefully branded as being
a volunteer experience.
Now
it's your turn.
-
Do you agree / disagree with my sentiments?
- Do you think that the term 'volunteer' has past
its use by date?
- Do you believe we need to work hard to preserve
the term 'volunteer'?
- What other thoughts do you have to add to this debate?
Let's
hear what you think.
Respond
to this month's Hot Topic
(Be
sure to add your name, title and organisation to your
message)
Read
other people's responses
PRINTABLE
VERSION
The
contents of this Hot Topic are copyright © 2003
- 04 OzVPM.
You may reproduce this Hot Topic in part or in full
on the condition that the author, source and website
address (www.ozvpm.com)
are quoted. OzVPM copyright
policy
Visit
this month’s ‘Hot
Topic’ on the Energize web site.
|
