My thoughts on the Australian National Review of the Definition of Volunteering

The following blog post is taken from a contribution I was asked to make to Volunteering Australia's recent consultation on changing their national definition of volunteering. The original can be found on the Volunteering Australia website.

I'm sharing my contribution to Australia's review following my article for Third Sector online in March 2015 where I called for a similar review here in the UK. I think it's important we re-visit these issues more regularly than we are doing but they cut to the core of what we as a society and sector stand for in volunteering. Because, as the old adage goes, if we don't stand for something we will fall for anything.

>>>>>

I commend Volunteering Australia for holding this consultation on the Australian definition of volunteering. In our ever changing world where nothing stands still for very long, to still be using a definition that is almost 20 years old is quite amazing.

Much has changed in just the last few years and the time is right to take a fresh look at an issue often viewed as obscure, irrelevant to all but the most conceptually minded people and more philosophical than practical. I couldn’t disagree with such views more: there is nothing as practical as a good theory!

In determining a new definition of volunteering I think a fundamental question needs to be asked: What do we want this definition to do for us? What is it’s purpose? Who will benefit from it? OK, that’s three questions but you get my point.

For example, if we want to come up with a standard way of measuring volunteering across multiple organisations then we develop a nice, easy definition that constrains volunteering within measurable bounds. The International Labor Organisation has sought to do this with its’ efforts to standardise the financial measurement of volunteering around the globe.

Unfortunately, in such an approach we reduce volunteering to less than it’s whole. Problems subsequently arise. If we see volunteering in such small terms we miss out on the richness of the larger scope and diversity of voluntary activity.

Much of the debate in the excellent issues paper which accompanies Volunteering Australia’s current consultation focuses on the advantages to the establishment of a new definition. By that I mean that many views are put forward about how bodies such as government, Volunteer Resource Centres, State peak bodies, Volunteer Involving Organisations, Volunteer Managers and others would benefit from a new definition.

Widening the definition of volunteering widens the constituency existing infrastructure bodies can claim, increasing their influence and strengthening their argument for better support.

Widening the definition of volunteering can widen the influence Volunteer Managers have, as noted above, and can position the profession more positively within Australian society.

Do we want the new Australian definition of volunteering to suit the definers (my concept of establishment) or the nation as a whole? The issues paper acknowledges that, “the current definitions does not reflect how significant numbers of Australians give their time, nor is it well aligned to the Australian community’s view of how they ‘volunteer’ ”.

So my question is, should the purpose of new definition be to help Australians see that the way they give time already is in fact volunteering?

I admit I am a fan of this approach. In helping others to see that their time giving is volunteering we raise awareness of the diversity and breadth of volunteering.

If more people see themselves as volunteers more people take an interest in volunteering issues – more people ask their politicians about volunteering, engage in dialogue with others using the v-word and in doing so change our associations with the concept volunteering to fit 21st century society.

The establishment will surely benefit from this although such benefits may take longer to realise as the new definition has to permeate into Australian culture and across society.

So what could such a definition be? I always plumb for the one articulated by the late American volunteerism thinker, writer and leader, Ivan Scheier:

“Volunteering is doing more than you have to, because you want to, in a cause you consider good”.

Ivan’s definition is a masterpiece of brevity, openness and clarity all in one sentence. It does not need a further set of principles to explain (a concept I’ve always found odd, surely a definition should be definitive?) and allows me to define if what I do is volunteering or not. It is not bound by sectoral boundaries. It includes the concept of free will, as the individual defines it. It doesn’t subjugate volunteering as a second class activity after paid work as many others do.

Of course, Ivan’s definition isn’t perfect. No definition will be. But it is elegant in its simplicity.

I commend it to you Australia for your consideration.

To Pay Or Not To Pay? That is the question

We're very pleased to welcome back guest blogger Mel White. Mel wrote a two country perspective on volunteering and welfare to work schemes for us late in 2014 and now brings that same dual nation perspective to the issue of reimbursing volunteer expenses.

>>>>>

A little background – I am originally from the UK having managed a Volunteer Centre service there for 15 years. I immigrated to Australia in April 2013 and within two weeks of arriving found employment within a Volunteer Resource Centre.

I have enjoyed seeing the differences in practice between the two countries but would like to share my thoughts on the practice of paying volunteer expenses.

In the UK payment of volunteer travel expenses to and from a voluntary place of work was viewed as one of the cornerstones of good practice. Certainly within the Volunteer Centre I worked at, out of over 200 volunteering opportunities fewer than ten would not cover this out of pocket expense. When an organisation first submitted their application to receive volunteer referrals from us, and indicated on the application form that they did not pay travel expenses, we would approach them to try and instil the importance of this. If their response was that their budgets did not stretch that far (usually small volunteer led organisations) then we would put them in touch with our funding advisor to look at putting together a funding bid to cover the cost. We would then advise them that whenever they put in future funding bids that they include this cost. If funding was not an option we would look at ways they might assist volunteers with travel e.g. car sharing with other volunteers or a couple of services had a bus to pick up clients to take them to social activities and they also picked up the volunteers. In some cases (particularly two large charities with huge turnovers) we held protracted meetings with senior management to explore their reasons for not paying these expenses, especially as both organisations were fairly inaccessible by public transport. Where all else failed we made all non-paying organisations aware that we would tell prospective volunteers that they would not get their travel expenses reimbursed and that this was practice we didn’t agree with. It was then the volunteer’s personal decision whether to follow that application through.

Given this background imagine my complete surprise to arrive in Australia and find this was not the model here. In fact it is quite the opposite; there is a minority of organisations that do cover volunteers travel expenses to and from their place of work. Thankfully the volunteer project I am managing is one of the few, so day to day my morals and everything I believe in are not compromised.

In my 18 months here I have had the conversation regarding travel expenses with so many professionals and felt I needed to record my thoughts in a blog post.

To me the payment of travel expenses to and from a volunteering role is  fundamental to an inclusive volunteering program. When looking at the diversity of our volunteer base we talk about engaging people from all walks of life and where possible, not holding any bias with regard to age, gender, mental health, physical ability, race, sexual orientation etc.. However my concern is that by not reimbursing the cost of travel to and from a place of voluntary work we are in fact financially discriminating against a huge group of individuals who are on low incomes. Running a car is not without expense and don’t get me started on public transport costs!

For those who are living on state benefits or a pension, the reluctance by many organisations to cover this cost is a huge barrier to them becoming involved. It could quite simply be the choice between food for the week for the family or volunteering and it’s obvious what the majority would choose.

There is also the rurality argument. I hear so much about engaging people from rural communities and country towns. Many argue that small towns have greater community cohesiveness and there are lots of opportunities to volunteer on your own doorstep. But what if people want a different volunteering experience at, for example, a zoo or a large hospital? Those opportunities are not available where they live, but travel outside of their town may be a financial impossibility without a contribution to travel expenses.

There is also the issue of car parking. Some larger organisations like zoos and hospitals or organisations located in busy cities may not have dedicated spaces for volunteer parking and this can be another hefty cost burden to the volunteer.

Introducing the payment of expenses seems to be a terrifying prospect when they have not been paid before. There is the fear that flood gates will open and volunteer projects will not have the disposable income to cover the costs. Yes budgets need to be considered before this is done and it may, for a while, be a long term goal but an important one to work towards.

What many fail to realise is that not all volunteers want to claim travel expenses.

My advice to volunteer involving organisations in the UK used to be to encourage all volunteers to claim their travel expenses. However on the claim form they could choose to donate their expenses back to the organisation if they did not want them. The really clever organisations then gift aided this donation!

By getting all volunteers to submit a claim you can clearly demonstrate the cost of running a volunteer program whether that be to higher management, funders, government or other stakeholders. Within the project I manage here only 30% of volunteers claim their expenses. The important thing is they have the choice and the control. Every quarter, regardless, they all get sent an expenses claim sheet. People’s circumstances change quickly; people become bereaved, they or their partners lose jobs, they have families - there is a myriad of reasons why someone who once did not want to claim expenses may now need to.

One of the answers I get that really grinds my gears when I ask about payment of expenses, is the following; ‘if people are suffering hardship they can ask us and we will make special arrangements to cover their travel expenses.’

Really??? From the point of view of someone who has experienced financial difficulties, my sense of dignity would not have allowed me to make such an approach. I would have quite simply walked away from my voluntary role. Where circumstances have changed e.g. a marriage breakdown, that could be an incredibly personal and emotional situation for someone to discuss. A person’s financial status to my mind is a private matter. We don’t ask volunteers to declare their financial situation on an application form so why should we expect them to then disclose it further down the line?

In the same vein, how many projects make it clear that there will be an out of pocket cost to volunteer with their organisation? Often this is not just travel but volunteers find they have to pay for a police check, buy specific clothing or use their own telephone. Too often this is not made clear from the out set. By covering certain volunteers expenses we as volunteer managers are making a lot of assumptions about all our volunteers and we risk singling out certain volunteers for special treatment which may create team conflict if others find out about it. I know the intention is well meaning but for me personally it is really bad practice.

In the UK, one large organisation we dealt with had a volunteer manager who could not see the inequality of his practice. The opportunity they offered was completely unique but their location was semi-rural and certainly within walking distance of only two small villages. The cost of a bus fare from the nearest town was costly and the organisation was a large tourist attraction. Despite many protracted conversations with this organisation the manager always stated that none of their hundreds of volunteers had ever asked about expenses. Enquiring as to the diversity of their volunteer workforce it seemed a typical volunteer would be white, financially independent, middle aged with their own transport. It was such a shame that effectively volunteering with this organisation did have hidden barriers that no one was prepared to change.

Possibly one of the biggest volunteer projects the UK has ever seen that did not pay expenses was the 2012 London Olympics. It’s fair to say I was disappointed by the whole way volunteering opportunities were managed. Yes, people could volunteer but they had to fund their own transport and accommodation in London for the length of time the Games were on. Maybe not so bad if you lived in the capital. They rolled a program out in the lead up to the Games aimed at disengaged young people who needed literacy and numeracy tuition. The ‘reward’ upon completion of the course was a guaranteed volunteer role at the Games. Thousands and thousands of pounds was thrown into this program and many young people were able to gain a much sought after volunteer role. Was any money set aside to actually assist them in funding the cost of living in London for two weeks not to mention the plane/train/automobile cost to get there? You’ve guessed it – no!

I also took a heartbreaking call from a mature student who had worked so hard to realise her dream of getting valuable experience in stage production. She had put herself through university and had secured a volunteer role to help with set design and production of the opening ceremony at the Games. She was then devastated to discover she had to fully fund her accommodation and transport to take up the coveted place. She quite simply could not afford to. I believe the London 2012 committee missed a real opportunity to lead the way in recognising all volunteers and raising the profile of volunteering by setting a fantastic example of a full cost recovery volunteering program.
The landscape of volunteering is changing and increasingly government programs see the value of voluntary work experience in progressing people towards the (paid) labour market. In Australia a new program ‘Work for the Dole’ is about to roll out. An optional activity people can engage in, is voluntary work. I hope advisors ensure the budgets they have for individuals, go towards their travel expenses to and from their voluntary placement.

Volunteers are not free labour and should never be viewed as such, it costs real money to recruit, train, support and manage them. Full cost recovery is a term bandied about in the UK. Full cost recovery is recovering the total costs of your project or activity, including the relevant proportion of all overhead costs. Understanding the full costs of projects, or services, may not result in full cost recovery every time. However, calculating the full costs enables you to understand the exact level of funding you require. It also provides a clear picture of how a particular project draws on the shared resources of your organisation. When putting together a volunteer program the full costs are rarely fully funded / recovered but to my mind, top of the priority list should be volunteer travel expenses.
I hate using the financial argument to justify the importance of volunteers but I will indulge in this for a moment. If their work was paid for by the hour using whatever salary amount you wish (minimum wage, average wage) it is never ever going to be anywhere near the cost of a bus fare or vehicle mileage.

Most definitions of volunteering state it is a contribution of time and volunteers should not be expected to inadvertently volunteer their own money as well, without choice to do so.
By saying ‘but they are volunteers’ does not justify the argument to not cover their out of pocket expenses. In doing so we run the risk of making voluntary work a pursuit of the financially elite, an activity you can engage in if you can afford it and we restrict ourselves from the wealth of untapped potential and skills and the opportunity to grow our volunteer workforce.

Three ways the Keep Volunteering Voluntary campaign may be doing more harm than good

In my last blog post I wrote about the Keep Volunteering Voluntary campaign (KVV) and the misunderstanding propagated by the UK media that the government's new Help To Work scheme is volunteering.

Let me say it again, Community Work Placements (CWP) under Help to Work ARE NOT VOLUNTEERING. They do not meet the definitions of volunteer (freely entered into being the key issue) and even the government recognises this.

Section 2.14 of the guidance for providers of community work placements states that:

If a claimant is already undertaking voluntary work and you can justifiably advise that the work is beneficial to the claimant by helping them to overcome barriers to employment, you may count that voluntary work towards the full time work placement hours. However, if you do not feel the voluntary work is of appropriate benefit to the claimant, you may require the claimant to do the full-time work in the placement you have sourced for them (but must give the claimant at least 1 weeks notice). Please Note: Where a claimant is already undertaking voluntary work you must also ensure you give the claimant 48 hours notice for any required participation/ attendance.

Section 2.16 states:

Please Note: JCP will refer claimants who have insufficient work history or a lack of motivation; therefore we would expect only a minimal proportion of claimants currently undertaking part-time or voluntary work to be referred to CWP.

In other words, volunteering is not the same as a CWP (if it were, no distinction would be drawn) and if someone is already volunteering it is unlikely they would be required to do a CWP. However, this is up to the discretion of the JCP adviser and that means inconsistent decisions will occur as years of past experience have taught many in the volunteering world.

Also, note that there are no other references to volunteering in the entire guidance document.

Despite this clear distinction - Help To Work and CWPs are NOT VOLUNTEERING - the KVV campaign rolls on, arguing that:

"As charities and voluntary organisations we know the value of volunteering. Volunteering means people independently choosing to give their time freely to help others and make the world a better place. Workfare schemes force unemployed people to carry out unpaid work or face benefit sanctions that can cause hardship and destitution.   We believe in keeping volunteering voluntary and will not participate in government workfare schemes.”

In my view they risk doing much more harm than good to the volunteering cause. Here are my three main concerns.


Number one
By failing to recognise that Help To Work's CWPs are not volunteering the signatories and supporters of KVV are showing their ignorance of and / or confusion about volunteering. The voluntary and community sector sector relies upon volunteers and is the main involver of volunteers so surely they should know better - the KVV statement even claims they do in its opening line!

The potential harm here is that KVV could further confuse others about volunteering and CWPs, with the public an media turning against genuine volunteering and not forced workfare.

A much more sensible approach would be for the KVV campaign to focus on educating the media on the difference between a CWP and a volunteer opportunity so the risk of public opinion being unduly swayed negatively towards volunteering is minimised.


Number two
The campaign is probably having having little influence on government. There are two main reasons for this assumption: first, government know CWPs are not volunteering so they can confidently ignore the campaign; second, as I suggested above, the effort is directed at the wrong people - the media should be the focus.

I also worry how the ignorance about volunteering that is on display from this campaign might harm the credibility of bodies who have signed up when it comes to any future campaigning about volunteering that might be needed. I can hear ministers and officials saying things like, "why should we listen to you on volunteering, you don't even understand what it is yourselves?"

Thank goodness NCVO are not signatories!


Number three
The KVV campaign is perpetuating the media driven myth that CWPs are volunteering and so creating the risk anti-workfare campaigners begging calling for a ban on all unpaid work.

Think that's far fetched? Look at this blog from the USA where someone makes the argument that all volunteering is exploitative and should be banned. How long before similar voices are heard on this side of the pond? We already have the risk of threats to volunteering from the ongoing rumblings about unpaid internships. The risk, however small we may think it is, is real and KVV is adding fuel to the fire.


In conclusion let me say that I think people are genuinely concerned about the blurring lines between volunteering and workfare. They have been for over a decade. There are genuine workfare schemes and issues to complain about and fight for beyond Help To Work and CWPs as KVV make clear on their website. I've fought some of this fights myself and will continue to do so in future.

The profile of the KVV campaign and these issues has grown because of media misreporting of Help To Work and CWPs as volunteering. This coincided with KVV calling for support and so we end up with lots of confusion and misunderstanding about what is and is not volunteering.

I genuinely do not think the people and bodies behind KVV are trying to harm volunteering. I am sure their intentions are good and I hope my views above about the potential damage being done are proven to be wrong.  But until we know that for sure I think the volunteering movement needs to consider the Keep Volunteering Voluntary campaign carefully and cautiously, because if I'm right they could be doing much more harm than good.

See also these related blog posts from me:

Is all work experience equal?
Are we alienating a generation of volunteers?
Is all volunteering voluntary?

Interview with Javed Khan, CEO of Victim Support

Earlier this year Third Sector magazine ran an interview with Javed Khan, Chief Executive of Victim Support.  The article caught my attention as Javed talked about the importance of volunteers to the organisation's work and in particular noted that this was so important to him that he made a point of making his first task every day to be to write to some of Victim Support's volunteers.

Such open and constructive engagement in an organisation's volunteer programme by the CEO is sadly quite rare - at least in terms of it being publically acknowledged - so I arranged to speak to Javed to dig a bit further into his views on volunteering.  In this blog post I want to share the highlights of my conversation with Javed in the hope that those of you reading this might find something of value that you can share with your own CEOs and senior managers so that they become more supportive of your organisation's volunteer engagement work.


In the interview you did for Third Sector you were reported as having underestimated the challenge of managing volunteers. Tell me a bit more about that.

First, having moved from the public sector  into the voluntary sector I was unprepared for the number of volunteers an organisation like Victim Support involves.  We have five times the number of volunteers as paid staff here and that is quite a shift from my experience of the public sector.

The other big change was in the way you work with volunteers to get things done.  In the public sector, working with largely paid staff, you effectively pull a lever and the staff do what is asked of them.  That simply isn't the case for volunteers.  There is much more work to be done to win their hearts and minds so that they are prepared to do what needs doing.  That means getting out there and meeting  the 7,000 volunteers face to face, not simply sitting behind a desk and issuing requests for action.


What are your thoughts about the public sectors' attitude to volunteers, especially in these recession hit times of budget pressures and cuts?

In the current climate there hasn't really been much of a shift in public sector attitudes to volunteering.  I think the only reason that many public sector bodies are showing more interest in volunteering is because they see it as a way to save money.  That mindset may well exist in the voluntary sector but generally speaking the sector is more committed to the ethos and principles of voluntarism so involving volunteers is part of the way organisations do things, not just a way to cut costs.


You said that you make the first email you send each day is to a volunteer.  What do you use that opportunity to say to them?

I make sure they know three things.

First, that they matter.

Second, that I am listening.  Volunteers can have some great insights into the challenges and opportunities we face and I want to hear those ideas not limit input to my top management team.

Third, that I write these emails personally.  I don't get my PA to do it.  As CEO it is important for me to invest my time in engaging with our volunteers.  Having someone else do that on my behalf simply isn't appropriate.

So far I've had a very positive response from volunteers.  We can't do everything they suggest and they appreciate that because they know I am interested, I am listening and, where we can do the things they suggest, we do them.


Volunteering continues to face a bit of an image problem. With your interest in diversity, what do you think could/should be done to help diversify the volunteer base of many organisations?

Volunteering happens everywhere but it varies in type.  Those groups who are often labelled as being under-represented in volunteering are already giving time, just not in ways that the mainstream recognises.  It may also be that those people don't identify what they do as volunteering, perhaps for cultural or religious reasons.

What we need to do is to help people recognise that what they do is volunteering, perhaps through awards schemes that celebrate their contribution.  That would be a great way to thank the volunteers and to raise awareness of the breadth and diversity of volunteering and those who give their time to society.

I also think organisations could partner with others to help raise their profiles in more diverse communities.  That would enable not only great new partnerships between organisations but help to open up access to services and support that may not otherwise be available to some.


Quite often top executives don't think strategically about volunteering in the same way they may do for, say, fundraising.  What are your thoughts about this?

We've done some strategic work on volunteering at Victim Support which has resulted in a four year strategy for volunteering, the first time the organisation has had such a strategy for volunteering.  So, for example, we are looking to diversify the roles volunteers have within the organisation, with volunteers taking on some administrative tasks that might previously have been done by paid staff who are now focusing on other things.  This is partly in response to having more young people showing an interest in volunteering, perhaps as a result of studying for law or criminology, subjects clearly linked to what we do as an organisation.

We've had some push back from paid staff on this, typically suggesting that volunteers are unreliable.  That's a myth.  Some volunteers may be like that but so are some paid staff.  People are no more likely to be unreliable simply because they don't get paid, in fact the opposite may even be true - those working for no money may be more committed and reliable because of their passion for the cause.


What are the top three things you have learnt about the strategic importance of volunteers that you would want to share with other CEOs?

1. Quantify and share the added value of volunteers and not just their financial value to the organisation.
2. The CEO and senior management team do not have a monopoly on good ideas.  Often the simple solutions come from the frontline and that means volunteers as well as paid staff.
3. Values, values, values.  They are what drives this sector and what drives volunteers.  We have to work hard to clarify them, communicate them and align them with the motivations and interests of our supporters.

What advice would you give volunteer managers in volunteer involving organisations?

Well, first of all I have to say that investment in volunteer management is absolutely key.  Volunteer managers are the main face-to-face contact volunteers have with the organisation and so are key in communicating our brand, building commitment and motivating people to continue to support us.

So organisations should be investing in their volunteer management functions.

In terms of what I say to volunteer managers themselves, first of all, volunteer managers need to understand and apply the importance of winning volunteers' hearts and minds.

Next, they need to have huge respect for volunteers.  This means taking the time to speak to and meet with them, invest in their training and working hard to get appropriate systems in place to support them.

Finally, volunteer managers need to work hard to help volunteers enjoy what they do because if they enjoy their volunteering they will want to keep doing it and maybe even do more of it.

Volunteers, stationery supplies and an apology

First of all, the apology.

It has been five weeks since I last posted to this blog.  Whilst I have had my monthly Third Sector blog published during this time and I have written a post for The Cowling Report which will appear on 5th December I haven't gotten round to posting anything new here.

The main reason for this has been a really busy November travelling around the UK training and speaking at conferences.  This busy period has been very welcome given Rob Jackson Consulting Ltd is a new business in a tough economic climate but it has kept me from having time to write anything here.  So my apologies.

What then has prompted me to write something now.  Well, I am currently attending the closing conference of the European Year of Volunteering 2011 in Warsaw, Poland, and in one of the sessions this morning a speaker talked about her organisation using volunteers.  I immediately turned to a colleague and we both grimaced.

Why?

I feel very strongly that we should never talk about using volunteers but involving them.

Yes, volunteers are a resource that contributes to the fulfilment of organisations' missions just like paper clips, photocopiers, staples, staplers.  But volunteers are people, they take an active role in fulfilling our missions.  They are engaged and involved, not used.

In my experience, all talk of using people is in a negative context.

We use paper clips, not people.

Now some of you may be thinking this is mere semantics and that there are bigger issues to be concerned about.  In fact, this is what another colleague said to me this morning.

I think the language we use (!) around volunteers and volunteering speaks volumes about the way they are viewed, regarded and respected in our organisations.

If we talk of using volunteers, putting them on a par with the office photocopier, then we should not be surprised if volunteers are seen as providing a far from meaningful contribution to our work.  If, however, we talk about involving them then there is implied within that a much more constructive, positive and meaningful attitude to the contribution volunteers provide.

So I hope you will join me in challenging anyone who talks of using volunteers and help them to understand why such language is unhelpful.  Please share stories of doing so in the comments below and give others confidence to do so as well.

And of course if you disagree, please leave a comment telling me why.

Are we a cult now?

Organisational values.  Rarely have I come across a topic in my career that has provoked so much scepticism.  From those who are totally anti-corporate values to those who just think its is all hot air and no action, rarely have I come across anyone who thrills to the idea of discussing values, except branding agencies of course!

One manager I had in the past summed it up well when they talked about people having values, not companies.  People, they argued, are all individuals and have differing values.  Companies cannot force their values onto people, so there is always going to be some tension between people living their personal values and abiding by corporate values.  Talk of corporate values is therefore pointless.

On a more positive note, I have seen examples of some organisations taking different approaches.  One charity I know restructured a while ago.  Rather than the traditional approach of deciding which skills and competencies they wanted and redeploying and recruiting staff accordingly, they decided to focus on values.  So the recruitment process was designed from the outset to explore individual employees’ congruence with the charity’s values.  Those with the strongest fit stayed.  Those with the weakest fit were first in line for redundancy.  They firmly believe this has given them a more committed staff base to build on for the future.

Despite these opposing views, one of the nice things about working for yourself is that your corporate values are your personal values.  There should be no clashes between the way the firm goes about its business and the way the owner behaves.  Hopefully!

So, I want to use this latest blog to explain the values of Rob Jackson Consulting Ltd, or as we put it on our website, what we (and therefore I) believe in as to the way we go about our business of engaging and inspiring people to bring about change.

These are the six areas we have focused on:

Honesty

This is a non-negotiable for me.  It is an absolutely fundamental value.  That’s why it is first in the list.

• I will always be honest in my dealing with clients and potential clients. 
• I will not sell you a service if I don’t think you need it. 
• I will not commit to doing a piece of work if I don’t think I can do (either because of availability or fit with my skills). 
• I will be honest and upfront about how I can help and what it will cost you.

I will also be honest in what I say and write about the volunteering movement. 

In my view there aren’t enough people speaking up and speaking out about volunteering issues.  I want to help fill that void with honest views, opinions and advice.  That’s what I hope this blog will increasingly be used for.

This is a critical time for the volunteering movement in the UK and I hope in some small way that I can honestly and helpfully speak and write about the issues we face.

Passion

At Rob Jackson Consulting Ltd we are passionate about the potential of people, about their potential to effect change and make the world a better place.

In fact passion is a word that I keep hearing when people talk about how I go about my work.  And I am happy about that because, for me, being in the volunteering movement isn’t just a job, it is a vocation. 

I am passionate about volunteering, about what I do, about how I do it and about the difference it makes.

I want to bring that passion, that enthusiasm to my work with clients.  I want others to share that passion and enthusiasm.  I want volunteers to feel even more passionate and enthusiastic about their work and the difference it makes.  I want paid staff to feel even more passionate about what they do and the challenges & opportunities they face.

It is this passion about the potential of people that is at the core of our vision to engage and inspire people to bring about change.

Fun

According to one survey I read, the average person spends 99,117hrs at work during their life.  That’s 11 years.  I don’t know about you but I don’t want those 11 years to be devoid of any enjoyment.

That’s why I want Rob Jackson Consulting Ltd to bring a sense of fun to our work.  Yes, what we do is serious and we do it seriously.  But lets also get serious about having fun. 

In early years education children learn through play, through having fun.  Who says this has to stop when you’re a child?  In my experience people learn more if they are having fun learning.  I know I do.

So I want to enjoy my work and have fun doing it.  And I want that to be your experience of working with me too.

Integrity 

There is a great book on leadership called ‘The Leadership Challenge’, by James Kouzes and Barry Posner.  In it they argue that a critical ingredient to effective leadership is integrity – living out your values. 

That’s why I wanted to blog about them here, so I can be open about them and let people judge for themselves if I live them in my work.

Kouzes and Posner sum integrity up in a chapter on leaders modelling the way as DWYSYWD. 

Do What You Say You Will Do. 

That’s my goal – please tell me if I get it right (or wrong!).

Value

In the past I’ve had the pleasure of being involved in shaping the content for conferences.  One of the things that delegates had always fed back about previous events was the price – it was, in their view too, high.  From the view of the organisation I was working with, the price was the minimum they could offer as it allowed them to break even, just.

So we took a different approach.  We increased the price just enough to cover inflationary rises to our costs but refocused the content so that is gave really good value to the delegates.  After the next event we got very few comments about the price, but lots about how valuable the conference had been.

Value refers to the perception of benefits received for what someone must give up, in this case the price.  Where the organisation in question had gone wrong in the past was in focusing solely on the price (keeping it as low as possible without making a loss because they thought this is what got people to book places) rather than on the value of what people were paying for.

That is an important point I am taking into the new business.   I have to charge a fee for what I do.  This is my livelihood now.  This is how I pay my mortgage and feed my kids.  That’s why there is a price for my services.

But if you hire me I hope you don’t feel like you get an service that simply costs money (price).  Instead, I hope you feel like you get a service of real value, a service that is built on many years of experience and that is dedicated to bringing you benefits that will help you achieve your goals.

Effectiveness

Someone wisely said that efficiency is doing this well but effectiveness is doing the right things well. 

There isn’t much to add really, it speaks for itself and that’s how I want to help my clients – focus on doing the right things well.