Difficult conversations are part of leading volunteers. Expectations go unmet, relationships get strained and behaviour needs addressing. That won't change.
When the same kinds of conflict keep appearing, though, the conversation itself is rarely the thing to fix. Each one gets handled as a people issue. The volunteer manager has the conversation and the situation settles. Three months later a different volunteer and a different staff member are having the same argument.
I ask a different question: why does the organisation keep arriving here? The first place I look is expectations.
Conflict starts earlier than it looks
Most organisations treat volunteer conflict as something that begins when an issue occurs. The conditions for it are usually set much earlier.
A volunteer struggles to meet a commitment nobody explained during recruitment. A staff member gets frustrated when a volunteer crosses a boundary the volunteer didn't know existed. A volunteer challenges a decision because they believed they had more autonomy than the organisation intended. Two people escalate a disagreement because each has a different picture of what the role requires.
By the time it reaches the volunteer manager, the immediate issue is easy to see. The original gap in expectations isn't. When those gaps exist, people fill them. They rarely fill them the same way.
Where expectations get set
A role description is a starting point. It sets out responsibilities, availability, commitment, skills and requirements. A document sitting in a folder doesn't create shared understanding.
The question isn't whether you've documented the expectation. It's whether the people involved could reasonably understand what was expected of them.
That understanding gets built at four points.
Recruitment
The way a role is advertised sets the first expectation. If you need weekday mornings or the same shift every week, say so in the ad. People need enough information to decide whether the role fits their life before they apply.
Information sessions and group interviews help here, especially when an experienced volunteer explains what a missed shift means for the team. Applicants hear that differently from a volunteer than from a staff member.
Onboarding and training
This is where the practical detail lands. How do volunteers start and finish a shift? What needs reporting? Who do they contact when something goes wrong, and what can they decide on their own before they escalate?
These details seem small. Together they make up the day-to-day reality of the role. They give volunteers a reference point when a situation isn't straightforward.
Policies
Codes of conduct, health and safety requirements, volunteer policies and dispute processes set the standard. A code of conduct might say volunteers don't share personal views with clients on religion or lifestyle. The volunteer still needs to know what that looks like when a client asks them directly. Training and supervision turn the standard into something people can work with.
Everyday communication
Expectations drift. A process changes and the volunteer guide doesn't. A new team leader explains the role differently from the last one. What people heard at induction stops matching what happens on shift.
Read recurring conflict as information
If the same conflict keeps happening, treating each occurrence as an isolated people issue means paying for the same problem again and again. You pay in staff time, in volunteers who leave and in complaints that reach people well above the program. Look for the pattern instead.
- Are volunteers unclear about the same boundary?
- Are staff frustrated by the same behaviour?
- Is the same expectation being explained over and over?
- Are managers stepping in to resolve issues that should have been clear earlier?
- Are people joining roles that don't match what they expected?
Each of these points to how the volunteer program is designed. The individuals involved are just where it surfaces.
For leaders, that shifts the question from "How do we manage this person?" to "What does this pattern tell us about the way we operate?" The second question has an answer you can invest in. It also applies to any volunteer risk that keeps returning to your register .
The repeated conversation is the clue
Volunteer managers and coordinators sit closest to these patterns. They know which conversations keep coming back, which boundaries need constant clarifying and which expectations staff assume are obvious that volunteers keep missing.
That knowledge is organisational data. Often it lives in one person's head and leaders only hear about it when something escalates.
When the same explanation keeps being needed, something upstream is out of step. The information might be reaching people at the wrong point. The role might need clarifying. Different people might be giving different messages. The process might have changed while the supporting information stayed the same. Or the expectation itself might need rethinking.
Clarity, not zero conflict
No volunteer program will be free of disagreement. People see things differently, situations change and mistakes happen. Some difficult conversations will always be necessary.
The aim is enough clarity that people understand what they've agreed to, what they can expect from each other and what to do when something goes wrong. The conversations that still need to happen then start from shared ground.
Next time the same conflict lands on someone's desk, trace it back through the role, recruitment, onboarding, policies and supervision. Then ask one question.
Where could we have made this expectation clearer?
4 Comments