The Six Types of Volunteers
Every nonprofit knows the routine: the overflowing sign-up sheet in September thins to a few loyal names by spring. Recruiting volunteers is hard, and keeping them is harder. The usual response is to polish the pitch, the one pitch that is meant to appeal to everyone. A new study by Nakamura and colleagues (PDF) suggests that this may be the mistake. Organizations, the researchers argue, tend to treat volunteers as if they were all moved by the same things.
To find out what actually motivates them, the team surveyed 1,251 volunteers across Canada and asked why they give their time. The list of possible reasons was long and included helping others, acting on personal values, learning, building skills, deepening friendships, and getting ahead at work. But the researchers did not tally these motives one at a time, as earlier studies have tended to do. They asked instead how the motives clustered inside each person, and they factored in demographics and personality traits as well.
Six types emerged.
1) “Career Builders” were especially interested in gaining useful experience and improving their employment prospects.
2) “Pragmatic Contributors” appeared to approach volunteering in a more practical way, without strongly endorsing every possible motivation.
3) “Value-Driven Helpers” were primarily moved by their convictions and a desire to help others.
4) “Growth-Oriented Helpers” were drawn to opportunities for learning and personal development.
5) “Highly Motivated All-Rounders” reported strong motivation across many areas at once.
6) “Mystery Volunteers,” scored relatively low on all of the motivations included in the survey. This doesn’t necessarily mean they lacked motivation. Their reasons may simply fall outside the standard categories researchers commonly use.
The findings suggest there really is no single "typical volunteer". Two people can take the same shift at the same food bank for entirely different reasons. One is there for a cause she has believed in for years. The other is there to meet people, or to find some confidence, or to collect the experience that might eventually get him hired.
The practical implication is that the pitch should vary with the audience. A message about community impact may land with the Value-Driven Helper, while someone else might be won over by the promise of training, mentorship, or a new skill. Organizations might also widen the range of roles they offer and, a radical thought, ask newcomers what they hope to give and what they hope to get.
The authors are careful not to overreach. The profiles need to be tested in further research, and they should not harden into labels. Nor does the study show that tailored recruitment will keep people around longer. Still, it offers a useful way of seeing the problem. Volunteers arrive carrying different mixtures of values, needs, and ambitions, and an organization that understands the mixture may be better able to build something worth staying for.
