The Exciting Conclusion and A Request for Input

You only set those expectations after the person has had time to get to know the organization in a non-threatening way — and after you you get to know them.

I agree completely with this – and I would use it as the foundation of doing your questionnaire after someone has been volunteering with your organization long enough for everyone to get to know each other a bit. The length of time is up to you and the other leaders of the organization. Otherwise, it might come across as an interview screening process or an application process – and many volunteers won’t be used to feeling like they are being told they might be rejected for volunteer work if they don’t impress the organization enough through a standard application process.

Rather, I would suggest having some sort of minimum service opportunity that you can give all new volunteers – something that will allow everyone to get to know each other, while simultaneously allowing the volunteer to build enough of a connection and passion for the work. Then, after a specified introductory period, if you will, you can use the questionnaire as a launching pad for possible increases in responsibility for anyone whom you feel might respond positively to it.

Thanks. I am sitting on the questions for now to see how they feel…I asked a few of them verbally to one of the students and it wasn’t uncomfortable at all. In fact, he offered to submit a resume for the position…

I really like your questionnaire and think it is the right way to proceed. I was involved in community service for many years and it was heavy duty. One thing that went wrong at one point was being asked to log our hours and constant emphasis on expanding the organization past its mission statement (thereby losing the service aspect and turning the organization into a corporation that the volunteer board and even the membership were now expected to exist for). Hope that last part makes sense. There was a major tug of war between board members as this went on. I refused to turn in my log of hours. I was putting more hours in than I probably should have but having good results in my sphere. As long as the organization continued to serve the membership (which was the point of the mission statement), it felt right. When things went upside down, the retention rate on the board was terrible.

This to me, epitomizes the church sometimes. The attitude of local leaders is that members are there to serve the church in some cases (lots of cases), and not the other way around.

How can a dedicated groups of leaders/board members ensure they never lose sight of the fact that their members are volunteers, and that the leaders are there to serve the membership? It seems that when organizations get momentum (as in the LDS church) and they see people are buying into their overall way of doing things, it goes upside down as you say.

The ironic thing about your observation, SD, about LDS leadership is that the champion of what you are saying is and has been for a long time . . . .

Boyd K. Packer

As I’ve said in other threads, if he would stop beating the all-things-sex-related dead horse, people could focus on some of his other messages that really are progressive and member-friendly. The idea that the Church exists to help the members, not that the members exist to staff the Church, is one of them.

I heard he said this at a WWW training with the new CHI. But to me, that was one isolated comment in an large see of upside downity….I’m open to more quotes on that front, as it certainly hasn’t trickled down to the local leadership I know.

Our local volunteering organisation puts out proper job descriptions and people can apply for the positions. Expectations are set up front very clearly and there is no guarantee that you will get the position.

In the beginning I found it really odd, but it made a lot of sense on closer inspection. Though I was quite miffed to not get an admin position for a few hours a week in a field where I excel!

SD, it sounds to me like you are doing good things to make the organization run well, and engage others too.

I can see differences between that and church. There are some big complexities with church being an organization not just about doing good things for people, but saving souls and teaching God’s will.

The only reason I brought that up was because one of your earlier posts mentioned that one person saw the expectations and withdrew. Your organization doesn’t see a need to go after that person and help them fit in or find a place, right?

Just a thought that came to me.

How many people have you been able to successfully recruit this way so far? Are you finding the involvement is filling the hole for what you want out of it? Keep us posted on how you are doing with it.

Your organization doesn’t see a need to go after that person and help them fit in or find a place, right?

Just a thought that came to me.

No, we don’t because you are right, we are not teaching God’s will — only providing the service aspect of the LDS experience. However, that aspect of the church (the service component) is very similar to what our organization is doing. But I don’t see how the fact that we don’t feel the need to chase after people is relevant — perhaps because in the church we want people to accept callings so they have some sort of long-term belonging? Not sure what your connection is on that one. perhaps you could clarify that for me.

How many people have you been able to successfully recruit this way so far?

So far, I have interviewed 5 people and only one bolted

The other four all looked challenged and walked away thinking really hard, and then joined forces with great enthusiasm. One woman, after one interview and several phone calls, committed 15 hours per week and accepted three different projects. She is functioning VERY well, and producing results in certain areas that are superior to what I could have done. She also tells me she loves working with me. We are very lucky to have her talent, as she;s a former project manager over very large telecommunications projects.

With the interviewees so far, they are confused at first, almost like they think I am not being clear when I ask them “how much time do you have to give”. As I said, they ask me to share how much I need. And I say I don’t know — the extent of their involvement will depend on how much time they realistically believe they have available. I don’t even give them exact assignments at first — rather, a suite of things from which they can choose that I think fit their skills and passions. This confuses them as well, and they rarely agree to do anything as soon as they see the menu of service opportunities. It takes at least another phone call, maybe two, before they land on what they want to do.

Contrast this to the approach I used before this one. Within two weeks, the person who had selected a project quit — I think it was because he hadn’t, in his mind, committed to a certain amount of hours of service per week.

The other positive thing is that I have had a 100% success rate in getting people to accept “assignments”. When people self-select, and when you align tasks with the time they have available, their personal motivations, and their strengths, the acceptance rate goes up dramatically. I had had no misfires yet using this method. I am waiting for the other shoe to drop as its night and day from what I experienced as an LDS leader.

Are you finding the involvement is filling the hole for what you want out of it? Keep us posted on how you are doing with it.

Totally. I feel no need for church callings at all right now. I even feel no further yearning for leadership opportunities in my work. I have what I want to grow and stretch and serve in this organization. I also feel no need for acceptance or fellowship there at the LDS church now — only to support my family. And if anyone ever comes at me for time and talents to devote to the church, I’m quoting the 10 or 15 hours per week I am putting in with this non-profit organization as making it impossible.

I’m loving it…as Max Dupree said in his book “Leading without power– “non-profits are places of healing”. This is to true — healing from the lack of opportunity in my work, healing from the ostracization I felt at church, healing from the monotony of church service that has eaten a whole in my soul and stunted my personal progression. I think Max’s quote is very true, and wise.

What I really like is that I’m out of the honeymoon period with this organization. I joined it over a year ago and functioned as a committee member for 10 months. During this period, there were some huge effectiveness problems with the leadership that led to the president being forced out of the organization. She was VERY offensive, but it was easy to take because no one was claiming she was divinvely appointed, part of a perfect organization etcetera. My expectations were lower and so her bad leadership (to everyone) and terrible behavior didn’t cause me any significant personal angst like I have experienced in the church either.

Thanks for asking me these questions Heber13!

But there are some different dynamics at church, in my opinion. (certainly not to take away from your efforts in any way, just simply for those who may read this forum and compare your organization to the church see that difference).

I don’t mean to imply that service in the community is a substitute for the salvational aspects of a church experience. But if you think about it, most of the temple recommend interview questions are related to personal righteousness, except for perhaps the “supporting local leaders” question which aims at the service aspect of what we do — and that answer is wide open to interpretation. And that question only matters if a TR is important to you. There is the baptismal covenant to support each other, and I suppose you can do that episodically and still be in compliance.

I do see the service org as a near direct substitute for church leadership/service opportunity though — for some people. And it has distinct advantages.

Would you ever feel you could take these leadership strengths you gain from this service org, and return to church to try to apply them there?

Not in the forseeable future, but perhaps eventually.

Here is something else to go on — getting involved in the community helps you StayLDS because it:

a) provides a break while maintaining the spirituality associated with serving others

b) it shows your family that service is important — which you lose when you simply go less active and don’t replace it with anything in the community.

c) it lessens the angst associated with not feeling accepted at church. I honestly don’t care anymore as I have somewhere else to belong. Therefore, I feel liberated to be myself at church.

d) it removes the church from the sometimes unhealthy position of “center of your world”. When that crumbles, as it has with many people here, it can be devastating. Not so when you find a new place to occupy your attention. God is the center, and this earth provides a number of alternate worlds in which to show your love — church service is only one of them.

By the way, I still go to church regularly and do not criticize the church to my kids. I support their programs, and am there to help them with it when necessary. And I still have a battered testimony….my three or four years on stayLDS has helped me see that I have a personality that is in direct odds with the cultural assumptions of the church. So, this is my own approach to STayLDS, and not something I think is right for everyone.

And I don’t consider it a full-on substitute. I probably wouldn’t even be in the non-profit if I hadn’t had the traumatic church experiences that landed me here at StayLDS. But now that I am ostracized, I have found new places to put my service.