In Search of Strategy

• Author: Jeffrey L. Brudney,Mark A. Hager
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21123
• Date: 01 March 2015
• Published date: 01 March 2015

235

N M  L, vol. 25, no. 3, Spring 2015 © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/nml.21123

Journal sponsored by the Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University.

Correspondence to: Mark Hager, Arizona State University, School of Community Resources & Development,

411 N. Central Ave., 5th Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85004-0690. E-mail: Mark.Hager@asu.edu.

In Search of Strategy

UNIVERSALISTIC, CONTINGENT, AND CONFIGURATIONAL

ADOPTION OF VOLUNTEER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Mark A. Hager,1 Jeff rey L. Brudney 2

1Arizona State University, 2University of North Carolina at Wilmington

The canon of volunteer administration contends that adoption of specified practices sepa-

rates effective from ineffective programs. Alternatively, structural contingency and strate-

gic human resource management theories suggest that managers make adoption decisions

based on how organizational circumstances dictate the applicability or efficacy of particu-

lar practices. We test propositions that universalistic adoption of “best practices,” contingent

adoption of practices, and configurational adoption of bundles of practices are associated

with program outcomes of recruitment ease, retention of volunteers, and the net benefits

that volunteers bring to organizational operations. With all sets of tests garnering limited

empirical support, we conclude that human resource practice in volunteer administration is

loosely coupled with outcomes, but that some organizations do—and many more should—

manage according to the singular context of their institutional and external environments.

Keywords: volunteer management, strategy, contingency

THE PROFESSIONAL FIELD OF VOLUNTEER ADMINISTRATION advocates a core set of

best practices, such as interviewing volunteers, matching them to assignments, supervising

volunteer activities, and recognizing their contributions to organizations. Repeated across

trainings, fi eld manuals, textbooks, and research, these core practices take on an offi cial (nor-

mative) character, with those entities adopting such practices seen as exemplary in volunteer

management practice (Hager 2013). In contrast, nonprofi ts, public agencies, congregations,

or other volunteer-involving entities that do not adopt these administrative practices are

viewed as defi cient and out of step with normative practice. Suchman (1995) describes how

“sector-wide structuration dynamics generate cultural pressures” (572) that defi ne which

peer organizations are seen as legitimate in their operations. For some organizations, norma-

tive conformity is suffi cient reason to adopt prescribed practices.  ese practices may or not

translate into strategic outcomes.

In broad veins of research in human resource management, adoption of prescribed manage-

ment practices can translate into measurable outcomes in one of three ways. When a canon

of best practices applies uniformly to a field of organizations, those practices are said to

be universalistic. Alternatively, some practices may apply better than others, and strategic

Nonprofi t Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml

236 HAGER, BRUDNEY

organizations may buck normative expectations to adopt only those practices that meet their

needs. When organizations adopt practices according to an organizational characteristic or

condition, those choices are said to be contingent. When organizations adopt a bundle of

management practices common to situational needs and in alignment with broader insti-

tutional operations, those choices are said to be confi gurational (Martín-Alcázar, Romero-

Fernández, and Sánchez-Gardey 2005; MacDuffi e 1995).  e research questions underlying

this article concern (1) whether common volunteer management practices are applicable and

essential to all organizations, and (2) whether nonprofi t organizations are strategic in their

adoption of practices that work best for their organizations.

The Best Practices Assumption

Eff orts to describe, develop, and evaluate practices in volunteer administration have led to

a variety of models that nonetheless converge on common practices. Safrit and Schmiesing

(2012) identify a dozen models dating to 1967 that are strikingly similar in elements cov-

ered: identifi cation of roles, recruitment, selection, placement, orientation, training, super-

vision, recognition, and evaluation. Brudney and Meijs (2012) describe the work of several

scholars who identify seemingly universal practices for volunteer management. Connors

(2012) includes these elements in what he calls the “volunteer management process,” and

describes them collectively as “the fundamental management model” (xxii).

 ese practices are further codifi ed by the fi eld’s observers and advocates. For example, the

Canadian Code for Volunteer Involvement (2012) promulgates organizational standards for

volunteer involvement, including screening, orientation, training, supervision, recognition,

and evaluation. Nonprofi ts in step with these standards are defi ned as up to code, while those

that are not in step fall short of it. In the United Kingdom, accreditation standards certify

organizations as “Investing in Volunteers” (2010) when they adopt prescribed practices.  ese

codifi cations emphasize adoption of practices rather than outcomes derived from the practices.

Chadwick-Coule (2011) identifi es this exaltation of best practices as part of a managerial or

modernist paradigm that employs “key lessons . . . from organizational theory” to “provide

prescriptive instructions for . . . improving performance” (34). She is heavily critical of this par-

adigm because it tends to emphasize practices that may not apply to all, or even many, organi-

zational situations. Nonetheless, evidence of the codifi cation of these management practices,

and the segregation of organizations that do not conform to them, is easy to fi nd. McCurley

and Lynch (2011) note research in the United Kingdom that reports a majority of volunteers

who had not been interviewed before their volunteer assignments.  ey label the fi nding as

“odd” and the best practice of interviewing as “neglected” (102). We ourselves have fallen prey

to this pervasive assumption: we (Hager and Brudney 2008) have professed to be “surprised”

(25) to fi nd that most US nonprofi t organizations have not adopted various best practices to a

large degree, and consequently asserted that nonprofi ts have rudimentary and underdeveloped

volunteer management structures. Kyrwood and Meneghetti (2010), Machin and Paine (2008),

and Bradner (1995) are other examples of the modernist paradigm at work in volunteer resource

management, where one set of relatively uniform practices defi nes exemplary administration.

 e underlying assumption that these widely endorsed best practices are best for and apply

to all nonprofi ts is worthy of exploration.  e conceptual critique of this assumption has

been off ered by several scholars, including Meijs and Ten Hoorn (2008), Rehnborg (2005),