More is less? The volunteer stewardship framework and models

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21358
• Author: Philine S. M. Overbeeke,Jeffrey L. Brudney,Lucas C. P. M. Meijs
• Date: 01 September 2019
• Published date: 01 September 2019

RESEARCH ARTICLE

More is less? The volunteer stewardship framework

and models

†

Jeffrey L. Brudney

1

| Lucas C. P. M. Meijs

2

| Philine S. M. van Overbeeke

2

1

University of North Carolina Wilmington,

Wilmington, North Carolina

2

Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus

University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Correspondence

Philine van Overbeeke, Rotterdam School of

Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam,

Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, Mandeville Building,

T11-52, 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Email: vanoverbeeke@rsm.nl

Scholars have devoted substantial attention to developing

conditional models of volunteer administration and man-

agement, but no consensus surrounds the criteria underly-

ing the different models or the rationale. The literature

reveals a welter of possibilities but no clear choice. This

study conceives the primary managerial challenges as

securing access to and guiding volunteer energy into pro-

ductive volunteering, and the volunteer administrator as

the central actor in this process. Based on how volunteers

are accessed and guided in their roles, we develop the

Volunteer Stewardship Framework, which distinguishes

volunteer administration according to two key dimen-

sions: organizational access to volunteer energy (private

resource vs. common pool) and guidance of volunteers

(unitary vs. shared). Results of a survey of volunteer

administration practitioners in the Netherlands show that

respondents working under the four models emanating

from the Framework recognize different elements of vol-

unteer administration as “Very Important.”

KEYWORDS

corporate volunteering, volunteers, volunteer center,

volunteer management, third-party model

1|INTRODUCTION

The study of the management of volunteer programs dates to the late 1960s and early 1970s and was

popularized in the 1990s (Brudney, Lee, Afif, Ockenden, & Sillah, 2016)—and in some ways it

remains grounded in that era. In a comprehensive review of the literature on volunteer coordination,

†

The authors dedicate this article to the memory of our friend, teacher, and mentor, Susan J. Ellis. May Susan's memory be for

a blessing.

Received: 9 May 2018 Revised: 12 February 2019 Accepted: 27 February 2019

DOI: 10.1002/nml.21358

Nonprofit Management and Leadership. 2019;30:69–87. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/nml © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 69

Studer and von Schnurbein (2013) find that contemporary treatments of volunteer administration and

management still tend to adopt a Human Resource Management (HRM) approach pioneered during

that era. Likewise, Safrit and Schmiesing (2012) review nine models of volunteer administration and

find they are similar in integrating principal elements of HRM, including those identified by Studer

and von Schnurbein (2013) related to planning, recruitment, performance assurance, retention, and

separation (Walk, Zhang, & Littlepage, in press). The dominance of the HRM approach is disconcert-

ing, given “that the transfer of HRM practices and theory onto the volunteer coordination situation is

only half of the picture”(Studer & von Schnurbein, 2013, p. 423). Other scholars have recognized

the need noted by Seel and Rehnborg (2016, pp. 4–6) to shift models of volunteer management from

hierarchy to engagement.

In this article we present a more expansive and, we think, up-to-date view of the volunteer man-

agement task in a new Volunteer Stewardship Framework. We use the term “stewardship”to recog-

nize the need to move from an instrumental volunteer management HRM approach to an emphasis

on volunteer engagement. The Framework joins two crucial dimensions, access to volunteer energy

and guidance of volunteers, meant to capture the diversity and complexity of the situations in which

volunteer managers work. We propose that the four models of volunteer management emanating

from the Framework call for different practices on the part of these officials; we test this proposition

empirically based on a sample of 362 practitioners involved in volunteer administration in the Nether-

lands. The findings demonstrate that the volunteer management practices that this group regards as

“Very Important”vary in comprehensible ways based on our Framework formulation, and provide

evidence that “best practices”in volunteer administration extend beyond HRM.

2|BACKGROUND

The literature offers a substantial number of volunteer management models (Hager & Brudney,

2015). Because comprehensive reviews of the models are available (Brudney & Meijs, 2014; Safrit &

Schmiesing, 2012), we do not replicate them here. Brudney and Meijs (2014) show that the models

can be categorized into two groups: a traditional or general model adapted from the paid workplace,

and a much larger family of contingency or conditional models intended for particular situations or

circumstances confronting volunteer administrators.

Despite persistence of the traditional model, scholarship has moved toward endorsement of con-

tingency approaches. Paull (2002) writes, “a‘one size fits all’approach is inappropriate for volunteer

management ... ‘it really does depend on the type of organization’” (p. 25). Meijs and Ten Hoorn

(2008, p. 29) concur, “There is simply no best way of organizing volunteers, neither in volunteer run

organizations, in government organizations, in nonprofit organizations with mostly paid staff, nor in

businesses. Volunteering, volunteers and the way they are organized and managed differs from con-

text to context.”Rochester (1999) concludes, “One size does not fit all.”Brudney and Sink (2017)

show that the traditional workplace model can (should) be adapted according to organizational cir-

cumstances, such as size, client groups served, demographics of volunteers, and so on, and agree that

“Volunteer management: It all depends.”

Notwithstanding the potential utility that might be afforded by having numerous conditional

models for volunteer management each predicated on a particular situation, the number of models

from which to choose can prove more intimidating than enlightening. Moreover, the different models

tend to be grounded on ephemeral and changing conditions and circumstances of the host organiza-

tion and/or its volunteer program. These conditions/circumstances can prove difficult to detect,

let alone measure, including volunteer motivations, duration of volunteer service, organizational

70 BRUDNEY ET AL.