Ethics
Integrity - The Guidepost to Volunteer Relationships
"There is an essential integrity in a relationship with a volunteer that I find worth examining."
Sarah Elliston proceeds to analyze the fundamental differences between relationships with employees and relationships with volunteers:
"As I examine integrity as this simplicity and deliberation in buildings and people, I recognize that some of my relationships haven't matched the characteristics. The ones where I have felt the most integrity is with volunteers. But with some employers and colleagues, I have been met with distrust and fear when I have been honest and acted from my value system. Why? I believe the major reason for the difference is the assumptions we make with volunteers and those we make with paid staff."
The Wall between Faith-Based and Secular Volunteerism: Is it Time to Chip Away at the Barrier?
The wall between church and state in the United States often extends to a wall of separation, ignorance or avoidance between secular and faith-based volunteering. In this deeply personal article for e-Volunteerism, author Karen Kogler encourages the dismantling of that wall. She describes the world of faith-based volunteerism, and gives practical help to secular volunteer managers on how to build partnerships with faith-based organizations. She notes the challenges in pursing this goal, and describes the benefits to both sides in working together. Writes Kogler, “As I see it, both the faith-based and secular worlds of volunteerism would benefit from the demolition of the wall that often separates us.”
Family Feud: Relatives, Co-Workers and Friends as Volunteers
We often think of well-functioning volunteer programs as happy little families, systems in which people get along so well that they resemble the idyllic picture of family relationships portrayed in U.S. television shows from the 1950s. And while this is often true, occasionally we run into situations where the family more resembles the Ozzy Osbournes.
The notion of families volunteering together is one that has a lot of intrinsic appeal and a lot of value. In this Points of View, however, we look at things from a slightly different perspective: the potential conflicts that arise when individuals with close outside relationships – spouses, siblings, relatives, close friends, co-workers, fellow church members – are volunteering “inside” the same organization but those “outside” relationships, either positive or negative, begin to affect volunteering behavior.
We examine what happens when volunteer programs actually involve those with family-like relationships in volunteering together, analyze what is likely to happen in these scenarios (and why), and offer some tips for what to do if you encounter problems or to prevent them in the first place.
Don't Tell: Confidentiality and the Volunteer Situation
The Samaritans are a UK-based charity that provides confidential emotional support to those who are depressed or suicidal. Volunteers provide this service through 24-hour crisis-lines and e-mail response centers. One of the keystones of The Samaritans philosophy is that their service is absolutely confidential. Their belief is that clients will be more likely to seek Samaritan services and freely express their state of mind if they feel that their conversation is protected from disclosure. In October 2003, a volunteer for the UK branch of The Samaritans, encountered a difficulty in keeping to this promise of confidentiality.
One of his callers confessed to a murder of a young girl.
He reported this to police, who then, with the cooperation of The Samaritans, tapped further conversations between the volunteer and his caller and eventually arrested James Ford for the murder of Amanda Champion.
The Samaritans then terminated the volunteer, citing his breach of the Samaritan confidentiality policy.
As you might expect, when this became public knowledge it ignited a bit of a debate in the UK over whether asking volunteers to remain silent about such matters is a good idea. After all, allowing confessed murderers to run around free doesn’t seem like the best service to the public.
While this is clearly a worst-case scenario, this situation prompted us to make a few comments about client confidentiality, volunteers, organizational responsibility, and the implications of the debate.
Ethics and the Hydra
Most of us have seen board members separate their collective, decision-making role on the board from their individual, working role in other volunteer capacities. And we know that board members who fail to make or remember the distinction can be very problematic. The level of potential ethical dilemmas can escalate greatly in organizations where board members play many related external roles as well.
Volunteers with some self-interest can be very valuable to an organization. If the success of the organization is important to your hopes and/or your business, you may be passionate about the mission and willing to work hard as a volunteer. Unfortunately, such multi-faceted volunteers can also be a Hydra – a many-headed monster – if not guided by ethics. People of personal integrity are needed who are willing to abide by organizational values as well.
This article explores the concepts and issues of ethics and conflict of interest as they affect volunteer service on a nonprofit board of directors.
Is All Volunteering Created Equal?
|
Excerpt from "Steve Says…" The strangeness began about 20 minutes into the meeting when a number of the assembled academics launched an all-out orchestrated attack on the survey [entitled “A Measure of Commitment – Volunteering for Serious Social Problems.”], contending that it was wrong to single out any type of volunteering as being of more importance than any other. The parent, for example, who volunteered to coach his own child at Little League was building just as much “social capital” as the person who volunteered to feed the homeless. To conduct a survey of just those volunteers who worked with the very needy and to publicize their work would result in denigrating the contribution made by all other volunteers who also, in their own way, enriched society. It might, for example, imply that what they did wasn’t “serious.” All volunteering is thus equally “worthy.” I’ve pondered this over the years and about the only thing I can say is that it strikes me as an argument that accomplishes the difficult feat of being perfectly logical while remaining totally irrational. So, some propositions to ponder – or to disagree with: |
Excerpt from "Susan Says..." It sounds totally reasonable to want to direct volunteering effort at “serious social problems” (which I refer to wryly as “SSPs”). But who decides what those SSPs are? You may think it’s a case of “I can’t define it, but when I see it I know what it is,” but I wonder. My concerns fall into two categories: |