Volunteer and Paid Staff Relationships Implications for Social Work Practice

Abstract

In this article, we examine theoretical perspectives and studies on volunteer and paid staff relationships to determine what administrators in social work can glean from theory and research. We also draw from the conceptual literature in the area of volunteerism, as well as our experience with one nationally mandated program that utilizes 90% volunteers and 10% paid employees. Implications for social work administration include recognizing the culture of one's program or organization and the norms associated with volunteerism, as well as understanding the nature of psychological contracting for both paid employees and volunteers. Guidelines for assessing volunteer/paid staff culture are provided.

Full text

Volunteer and Paid Staff Relationships:
Implications for Social Work Administration
F. Ellen Netting, PhD
H. Wayne Nelson, Jr., PhD
Kevin Borders, PhD
Ruth Huber, PhD
SUMMARY. In this article, we examine theoretical perspectives and
studies on volunteer and paid staff relationships to determine what
administrators in social work can glean from theory and research. We also
draw from the conceptual literature in the area of volunteerism, as well as
our experience with one nationally mandated program that utilizes 90%
volunteers and 10% paid employees. Implications for social work adminis-
tration include recognizing the culture of one’s program or organization and
the norms associated with volunteerism, as well as understanding the na-
ture of psychological contracting for both paid employees and volun-
teers. Guidelines for assessing volunteer/paid staff culture are provided.
[Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery
Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com>
Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc.
All rights reserved.]
F. Ellen Netting is Professor, Virginia Commonwealth University, School of Social
Work. H. Wayne Nelson, Jr. is Assistant Professor, Towson University, Department of
Health Science. Kevin Borders is Instructor, and Ruth Huber is Professor, Kent School
of Social Work, University of Louisville.
[Haworth co-indexing entry note]: “Volunteer and Paid Staff Relationships: Implications for Social
Work Administration.” Netting, F. Ellen et al. Co-published simultaneously in Administration in Social
Work (The Haworth Social Work Practice Press, an imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc.) Vol. 28, No. 3/4,
2004, pp. 69-89; and: Organizational and Structural Dilemmas in Nonprofit Human Service Organizations
(ed: Hillel Schmid) The Haworth Social Work Practice Press, an imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc.,
2004, pp. 69-89. Single or multiple copies of this article are available for a fee from The Haworth Docu-
ment Delivery Service [1-800-HAWORTH, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (EST). E-mail address: docdelivery@
haworthpress.com].
http://www.haworthpress.com/web/ASW
2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1300/J147v28n03_04 69

KEYWORDS. Volunteerism, human resources, roles, personnel man-
agement, paraprofessionals
Volunteer management trainers tell us that one of the most frequent re-
quests they receive is to assist organizations and groups in dealing with volun-
teer and paid staff relationships. This is not surprising, given the numbers of
health and human service organizations that use volunteers and given the mul-
tiplicity of roles they perform.
Popular media carry reports about how voluntary organizations here and
abroad are having to consider how to deliver services more flexibly, with im-
plications for the mix of volunteers and paid staff (Bowgett & Salvage, 2001;
George, 1997; Rickford, 1994). For example, organizations such as Traveler’s
Aid (McComb, 1995) and the American Red Cross (HLC.internet, 1996) are
focusing on better communication links between paid staff and volunteers.
Common Cause suspended its magazine, closed its offices in several smaller
states, and anticipated that volunteers would take the place of paid staff (Victor,
1997). Studies on the American Cancer Society revealed “a delicate balance . . .
between volunteers and paid staff members” (Wandersman & Alderman, 1993,
p. 67).
An ongoing theme in the volunteerism literature is that paid staff often re-
sist the introduction of volunteers (Brudney, 1990). McCurley and Lynch
(1996) suggested that such resistance may be particularly threatening when
older volunteers with experience and credentials bring their expertise to an or-
ganization and assume similar roles as paid staff. “Conventional wisdom has
held that volunteer programs spare agency budgets and raise the level of ser-
vices that organizations are able to provide, but jeopardize paid positions and
relationships with staff” (Brudney & Gazley, 2002, p. 525-526). However,
Brudney and Gazley went on to demonstrate that conventional wisdom is not
always supported in empirical studies. Thus, paid staff and volunteer relation-
ships, like most relationships, are likely to be more complex than one might
assume at first glance.
To address this complexity, we begin with a brief historical background.
Next we provide a theoretical framework followed by earlier studies on volun-
teer and paid staff relationships to determine what administrators in social
work can glean from previous research. We also draw from the conceptual lit-
erature in the area of volunteerism, as well as our experience with one nation-
ally mandated program that utilizes 90% volunteers and 10% paid employees.
Our intent is to draw implications for today’s social work administration,
within the context of a rich history of volunteerism.
70 ORGANIZATIONAL AND STRUCTURAL DILEMMAS

HISTORICAL CONTEXT
In the U.S., the profession of social work emerged as a volunteer activity in
both Charity Organization Societies and social settlements, with volunteers
performing both direct and macro practice roles. As social work professionalized,
theuseofvolunteersindirectpracticeroles“wassharplycurtailed...Conse
-
quently, between the 1920s and 1960s, professional social workers became the
primary providers of services” (Perlmutter & Cnaan, 1993, p. 78). Volunteers cer-
tainly continued as members of boards of directors and federated funding agen-
cies, but when they participated in direct service provision they were more likely
to be involved in non-professional activities such as facilitating self help groups
(Perlmutter & Cnaan, 1993).
As the social work profession matured, particularly during the 1960s and
1970s, social work professionals hung onto their newly acquired status. Vol-
unteers redirected their efforts and although they were used, a number of
forces worked to alter their previous roles. Proponents of the women’s
movement argued that women were exploited as volunteers, and that these
traditional roles should be replaced with paid positions. Additionally, the
Civil Rights Movement opened new roles for persons of color to participate
in social movements, advocacy efforts, and social change (Ellis & Noyes,
1990; Perlmutter & Cnaan, 1993).
In the 1980s, Hauser and Schwartz (1980) wrote about ways to counteract
resistance to the use of volunteers by paid staff. They contended that if work-
ers understood “the differences between professional and volunteer roles, the
nature of a volunteer development system, the self-actualization aspect of volun-
teering, the volunteer as mediator and advocate, and the growing value of profes-
sional-volunteer relationships” (p. 595) that their resistance could be overcome.
Seeing resistance as rooted in historical misunderstandings associated with the
value-laden Lady Bountiful tradition and professional territoriality, Hauser and
Schwartz sought to confront the “the covert and overt, conscious and uncon-
scious resistance of professional paid staff” to the use of volunteers. They
cited a 1972 study on the differential use of volunteers in public welfare that
indicated that paid staff were more receptive to volunteers if they had been
volunteers themselves (Stewart, Pollance, & Blenkner, 1972, as cited in Hauser &
Schwartz, 1980). The problems associated with professional resistance were
elucidated as Hauser and Schwartz revealed the lack of preparation that pro-
fessionals had for (a) working with volunteers, (b) the concerns of the National
Information Center on Volunteerism about the persistent problem of paid staff
and agency non-support of volunteers, and (c) the National Organization of
Women’s 1974 resolution to discourage women from volunteering.
Netting et al. 71

Concern over resistance was particularly relevant during the 1970s and 80s
(Strickler, 1987) when there were attempts by political leaders to use volun-
teers to replace striking workers (Ellis & Noyes, 1990). “Today the practice of
substituting volunteers for paid employees has been outlawed for the most part
in both private practice and public law” (Brudney & Gazley, 2002, p. 528).
During the 1990s there arose a renewed interest in using volunteers in human
service arenas, particularly in light of inadequate fiscal resources. Perlmutter
and Cnaan (1993) viewed this trend with “an underlying and critically important
assumption...thatvolunteerscannot replace professionals” (p. 80). They sur-
veyed 470 volunteers from 105 human service organizations and found that
volunteers were involved in a broad array of roles. Their findings revealed a
hierarchy of roles: “direct practice only; direct practice coupled with adminis-
trative support; direct practice and administrative support combined with ad-
vocacy; and, finally, the inclusion of all four roles” (p. 89). This hierarchy was
associated with the educational levels of volunteers and with volunteers who
participated in more than one human service organization. The hierarchy was
also associated with methods of recruiting, orienting, and retaining volunteers.
As the decade progressed, the push to use volunteers culminated in the
“1997 first-ever Presidents’ Summit for America’s Future, a historic meeting
that brought unprecedented attention to volunteerism in service to the nation’s
young people” (Brudney, 1999, p. 385). Brudney reflects on his attendance at
this event, revealing his disappointment in “the lack of attention to, or even in-
terest in, the lifeblood of much of the sector: volunteer management” (p. 391).
Brudney reminded us that the enthusiasm and motivation associated with vol-
unteering must be joined with solid implementation skills in how to translate
that energy into the day-to-day operation of volunteer programs. This transla-
tion requires the commitment of paid staff to oversee and support volunteers in
their efforts.
Today “volunteering has never been more critical” (Govekar & Govekar,
2002). The Independent Survey on Giving and Volunteering (2001) indicated
that 44% of adults volunteer (89.9 million Americans) at an annual estimated
value of $239 billion. The rich and growing literature on volunteers crosses
disciplinary boundaries. There are complex and diverse models pertaining to
why volunteers do what they do (Govekar & Govekar, 2002; Smith, 1994).
We point the reader to these sources as excellent overviews of volunteer labor
and behavior. However, we shall focus specifically on a theoretical framework
followed by those studies that compare volunteers and paid staff or attempt to
examine volunteer/paid staff relationships.
72 ORGANIZATIONAL AND STRUCTURAL DILEMMAS

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Relationships between volunteers and paid staff can be viewed as a highly
interpretive venture in that the intent is to understand how dynamics, interac-
tions, motivations, and attitudes come together within some type of setting.
According to Burrell and Morgan (1979), interpretivists see the world as a re-
sult of human consciousness. Reality, then, is a “network of assumptions and
intersubjectively shared meanings that are always in flux due to the shaping of
multiple individual perspectives.” (Netting & O’Connor, 2003, p. 187). Therefore,
an interpretive view of volunteerism recognizes the complexity and changing
nature of relationships.
Theories that are based on interpretive assumptions are often referred to in
both the studies and conceptual literature on volunteers and paid staff. These
theoretical perspectives tend to be of two types, those focused on understand-
ing psychological perceptions of volunteer roles and those concerned with or-
ganizational behavior. Both are critically important because they assist in
understanding how individuals perceive their volunteer and paid roles, as well
as how these sets of perceptions fit within the organizational context.
Theories focused on understanding human behavior address the psycholog-
ical dimensions of volunteerism, including why people engage in the process
of volunteering and how this engagement impacts others. Status characteris-
tics theory, for example, suggests that paid employees inevitably enjoy greater
prestige in mixed volunteer/paid staff organizations (Karr, 2000), with paid
staff tending to identify and treat volunteers as pseudo-employees (Ashcraft &
Kodrowicz, 2002). Status characteristics theory is built on the concept of sta-
tus, which comes from those characteristics that people bring to their work and
other situations and that impact how they engage with others (Berger &
Zelditch, 1993). Status characteristics can include ascribed statuses such as
race, gender, and age, but they can also include achieved statuses such as be-
ing designated as a volunteer or as a paid staff member. Once named “volun-
teer” or “staff” member, these statuses or categorizations take on meanings
that lead to new identities (Rosenblum & Travis, 2000).
Recognizing the importance of how persons perceive their volunteer status,
Farmer and Fedor (1999) focused on the psychological contract which is “an
individual’s beliefs regarding the terms and conditions of a reciprocal ex-
change agreement between that person and another party” (Rousseau, 1989, as
cited in Farmer & Fedor, 1999, p. 350). A psychological contract is one that
exists in a person’s perception, it is a series of beliefs and assumptions that are
held about the relationship. “Individuals hold beliefs about what they are
obliged to provide, what the other party is obliged to provide, and how well the
other party fulfills its obligation” (Farmer & Fedor, 1999, p. 350). Given the
Netting et al. 73

perceptual nature of psychological contracting, contracts may vary greatly
along a defined, economic set of agreements to heavily value-laden and emo-
tional concerns of an interpersonal nature. Since contracts are developed be-
tween the individual and the work setting, they are somewhat individualistic.
They are also based on trust which means that perceptions about what consti-
tutes a violation will differ depending on the interpretation of the contractee.
The concept of psychological contracting is relevant to status characteristics
theory in that it focuses on how individuals interpret the meaning of their vol-
unteer (or paid) roles. Workers in organizations use status characteristics in as-
sessing their work and the work of others, in shaping their interactions, and in
determining psychologically what the interactions mean.
As important as it is to understand the psychological and status dimensions
of volunteerism, this understanding is incomplete without placing these dy-
namics within context. Within the interpretive paradigm (Burrell & Morgan,
1979) is organizational culture theory. References to organizational culture
are so integrated into the empirical and conceptual literature on volunteers and
paid staff that it is almost taken for granted because organizational culture the-
ory provides a contextual understanding of the multiple settings in which vol-
unteers and paid staff interact.
Schein (1992) defines organizational culture as “a pattern of shared basic
assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adapta-
tion and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered
valid and therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct ways to per-
ceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems” (p. 12). Schein’s definition
holds clues to the interface between organizational culture and status charac-
teristics theory. For example, if differences between the status of volunteers
and paid staff are accentuated, then the setting within which they relate will
maintain clear distinctions. Perceptions of those distinctions will become part
of the underlying assumptions of the culture. If paid staff see volunteers as dif-
ficult to manage, as drains on their time, and as having less status than they,
then those cultural assumptions may become so ingrained that they become
subconscious. Volunteers who enter such a culture will pick up on those as-
sumptions, from the behaviors of staff and other volunteers as well as cues
from other cultural artifacts. Paid staff may not even recognize that they are
projecting those assumptions through their behaviors.
Organizational culture theory offers the potential for understanding the set-
tings in which volunteers engage with paid staff. In settings that began as vol-
unteer-run operations, the concept of volunteerism may be deeply ingrained in
the cultural roots. Conversely, in highly professionalized settings in which
volunteers were recruited after programs were up and running, norms sur-
rounding the use of volunteers may be palpably different. It is our contention
74 ORGANIZATIONAL AND STRUCTURAL DILEMMAS

that organizational culture theory, combined with concepts such as psycholog-
ical contracting and status characteristics, hold potential for administrators
who want to understand the complexity of how volunteers fit within the con-
text of their organizations. In the sections that follow, the importance of inter-
pretive theoretical assumptions will be evident as researchers examine various
aspects of volunteer and paid staff relationships.
STUDIES OF VOLUNTEERS AND PAID STAFF
Studies of volunteers and paid staff can be generally categorized as follows:
(a) attempts to examine differences and similarities in job attitudes and moti-
vation between employees and volunteers; (b) studies focusing on participa-
tion and withdrawal of volunteers; and (c) the optimal mix of volunteers and
paid staff. As we briefly examine each of these, we caution the reader to recog-
nize that there is inevitable overlap among these three areas. They are not mu-
tually exclusive.
Job Attitudes and Motivation
In the late 1970s and early 1980s a number of writers examined job atti-
tudes and motivations of paid staff and volunteers. Gidron (1983) revealed the
importance of recognizing that employees and volunteers are committed in
different ways to an organization, given the free will nature of volunteerism.
He went on to point out that volunteers were essentially assuming roles that
were indistinguishable from those performed by paid staff (Gidron, 1987).
Moore and Anderson (1985) decried the lack of research on volunteer motiva-
tion, and studied the need satisfaction for Canadian health service volunteer
workers compared to paid employees in the same settings. Using Maslow’s hi-
erarchy, volunteers appeared to have more higher order needs met in the per-
formance of their roles than did their paid counterparts.
Pearce (1983) examined how volunteers and paid workers in similar set-
tings varied in terms of motivation and job attitudes. She commented that “un-
fortunately, there is very little organizational behavior research on volunteers
or on the comparison of volunteers and employees” (p. 647). She paired orga-
nizations staffed predominately by volunteers and those staffed by paid em-
ployees: two newspaper operations, two poverty relief agencies, two family
planning clinics, and two city fire departments. She found that volunteers were
“more likely to report that they work for the rewards of social interaction and
service to others, that their work is more praiseworthy, and that they are more
satisfied and less likely to leave their organizations” (p. 650). Pearce (1993)
Netting et al. 75

continued her work on differences between volunteers and paid employees
into the 1990s, examining differences in organizational citizenship between
contract workers and employees. Over the last decade we have learned more
about volunteer motivations (see for example, Clary, Snyder, & Stukas, 1996).
Liao-Troth (2001) extended the research on paid employees and volun-
teers. He wondered if Pearce’s research could be interpreted differently in that
the differences were not necessarily between volunteers and paid employees,
but among the organizational cultures of the workgroups studied. Surveying
paid and volunteer workers in similar roles within one hospital setting, he built
on Pearce’s work as well as the work being done on psychological contracting.
He conducted his study in one setting, unlike Pearce’s work, surveying 108
employees and volunteers doing similar job tasks in a medical center. Al-
though the findings of his work do not negate Pearce’s earlier work, Liao-
Troth found that volunteers and paid staff performing similar work roles in the
same setting have similar job attitudes about psychological contracting, affec-
tive commitment, and organizational justice. He also acknowledged that a
medical setting is more formalized than many other settings in which volun-
teers are used. Thus, highly trained volunteers may be treated almost like em-
ployees.
Participation and Withdrawal
Differentiating what is known about paid from unpaid work environments,
Galindo and Guzley (2001) tested the Volunteer Satisfaction Index (VSI), de-
signed to measure job satisfaction among volunteers. Testing the index with
327 volunteers, factor analyses revealed four dimensions of volunteer job sat-
isfaction: organizational support, participation efficacy, empowerment, and
group integration. Further analysis indicated that participation efficacy and
group integration were significantly correlated with volunteer satisfaction and
the intent to remain on the job.
Van Dyne and Ang (1998) studied workers in Singapore, finding that full-time
employees differed from contingent workers. Employees were more likely to en-
gage in organizational citizenship actions, had more psychological contract ex-
pectations, and were more affectively committed to their roles than contingent
workers. Laczo and Hanisch (1999, as cited in Liao-Troth, 2001) found that paid
workers and volunteers doing similar tasks in a museum setting varied. Paid em-
ployees were more likely to engage in job withdrawal, whereas volunteers were
more likely to participate in organizational citizenship behaviors. This is intu-
itively logical since volunteers perform their duties by choice and the very nature
of what they do is a citizenship (without compensation) behavior.
76 ORGANIZATIONAL AND STRUCTURAL DILEMMAS

Hopkins (2002) defined the concept of organizational citizenship behavior
as “‘extra-role activities’ that are not formally required by the job, such as as-
sisting supervisors and coworkers with their duties, working extra hours when
needed, and making innovative suggestions to improve quality” (p. 2). Hopkins
randomly surveyed 120 child and family service employees, finding that more
citizenship behaviors were positively related to organizational support, oppor-
tunities for development, quality performance on the job, and professional
education. Although she did not look at paid staff as well as volunteer organiza-
tional citizenship behaviors, she raised an important point–that employees
engaged in roles that went beyond their official job requirements and expect-
ations. This raises questions about what assumptions employees bring to their
positions in terms of psychological contracting.
Originally conceived as a tool for considering how employees or paid
workers view relationships with their work environment, Farmer and Fedor
(1999) used psychological contracting to examine volunteer behavior. They
contended that work on psychological contracting is cross-cultural, given a
number of studies conducted in numerous countries. Volunteer relationships
with nonprofit agencies are reflected in “(1) (sic) expectations that volunteers
hold, (2) the nature of the contract, and (3) how violations are perceived and
responded to” (p. 353). They proceeded to develop a table of contract differ-
ences between employees and volunteers based on three categories: “those
that are structured or role-related in nature; those that concern worker atti-
tudes, values, and motivations; and those involving differences in prevalent
human resource management practices” (p. 353). What becomes evident is
that employment and volunteer contracts are vastly different because expect-
ations and beliefs are different. Farmer and Fedor conducted their study in
a national, nonprofit health advocacy organization. They conducted semi-
structured interviews with executive committee volunteers in diverse geo-
graphical areas, then surveyed 451 volunteers. Findings indicated that volun-
teers tie participation to their views of how well the nonprofit organization
meets its obligations. But findings also highlighted the vast differences in psy-
chological contracts in volunteers versus other types of workers. “Because
volunteers’ reasons for affiliation with the voluntary organization are primar-
ily symbolic, not material, the ‘coin’ in which they see themselves ‘paid’ is
also symbolic” (Farmer & Fedor, 1999, p. 362).
Nelson, Netting, Borders, and Huber (2002) examined reasons why volun-
teers terminated (withdrew) from the Long Term Care Ombudsman Program
in one state. A telephone survey of 147 former Oregon volunteer ombudsmen
was conducted, using four current volunteer interviewers. Four open ended
questions were asked concerning factors that were most discouraging, most
meaningful, influenced one’s leaving, and that might have encouraged one to
Netting et al. 77

stay. Findings revealed that quality of supervisory support was a concern to
these former volunteers. Perceived deficits in this area were revealed when
former volunteers were asked about the most discouraging aspects of the job,
and program factors concerning supervisory support accounted for 22% of the
responses. Dissatisfaction with supervision was also evident. When asked rea-
sons for leaving the program, responses suggested discontent with supervision
as cementing volunteers’ decisions to discontinue their volunteer services.
Desire for better staff support leads the list of factors that would have encour-
aged continued service.
Keith and Schafer (2002) surveyed 778 volunteers and examined 694 appli-
cations volunteers filled out prior to becoming ombudsmen. They were inter-
ested in comparing the difficulties the volunteers anticipated experiencing
before service with the actual experiences ombudsmen had after serving. They
found that “applicants substantially underestimated the amount and type of
difficulties they would experience” (Keith & Schaffer, 2002, p. 421). The
most pronounced differences between anticipated experiences and actual
events were related to time constraints, difficulties from working with ill and
frail elders, and the lack of perception of job difficulties. Time requirements
are an important reason why volunteers resign (Caro & Bass, 1995, as cited in
Keith & Schafer,2002). Keith and Schafer (2002) noted that these other issues
are critical ones to be addressed in volunteer training. These findings (Keith &
Schaffer, 2002; Nelson et al., 2002) reflected a nationwide concern about in-
adequate supervisory assistance in Long Term Care Ombudsman Programs
(Harris-Wehling, Feasley, & Estes, 1995; Nelson, 2002).
A mailed survey of factors affecting volunteer long-term care ombuds-
men’s organizational commitment and burnout in one state was conducted
with 255 volunteers. Results revealed that non-contest roles were more psy-
chologically satisfying than those in which conflict was a given. The authors
stressed that role ambiguity (job confusion) can be reduced by sufficient train-
ing and supervisory support (Nelson, Pratt, Carpenter, & Walter, 1995). This
study underscored the importance of the psychological contract, particularly
in light of Farmer and Fedor’s (1999) findings about volunteer participation as
symbolic.
Optimal Mix of Volunteers and Paid Staff
Numbers of volunteer long term care ombudsmen increased from 3,306 in
1982 (American Association of Retired Persons [AARP], 1994) to over
13,000 in 1999 (MacInnes & Hedt, 1999). This growth is somewhat mislead-
ing because it derives more from the number of states using volunteers, which
grew from 29 to 38 between 1984 and 1987 (Schiman & Lordeman, 1989),
78 ORGANIZATIONAL AND STRUCTURAL DILEMMAS

than from growth in the ratio of volunteers to the number of nursing home resi-
dents serviced. Ombudsmen fill an important service gap by stretching out-
reach efforts that would otherwise depend on a tiny number of paid staff: 1 for
every 2,698 nursing home beds (Harris-Wehling et al., 1995).
Concerned about a dearth of literature on ombudsman staff mix and poten-
tial conflicts between paid staff and volunteers, Huber, Netting, and Paton
(1993) collected and analyzed secondary, aggregated data from multiple
sources with the goal of providing an overall, national picture of the relationship
between the ombudsman program’s 8,665 volunteers and known variables of
complaint handling in long term care facilities. Recognizing tremendous diffi-
culties in locating accurate data, they concluded that programs with more volun-
teers tended to identify and investigate more complaints, but actual complaint
resolution appeared to be more likely when the responsibility rested with paid
staff.
Following the initiation of a new national database not in existence at the
time of the 1993 study, Netting, Huber, Borders, Kautz, and Nelson (2000) ac-
cessed data previously collected by six states to focus on the use of volunteers
and paid staff complaint investigations. These data revealed differences in the
types of complaints received, the sources of complaints, and the percentage of
complex (difficult) complaints investigated by volunteers and paid staff. These
differences were viewed as resulting in a natural triaging that occurred among
volunteers and paid staff, so that complaints viewed as difficult to verify and re-
solve were automatically given to paid staff. Having a national database now
provides an opportunity to explore more fully the roles of both volunteers and
paid staff and to gain a clearer picture of what is happening in the ombudsman
program.
Duncombe and Brudney (1995) designed their study to locate the ideal mix
of volunteer and paid staff firefighters so that cost could be optimized. The
methodology that emerged from their study allowed them to determine the
least cost of staff and volunteer mix. Even though their guidelines are applied
to fire protection, they contended that the results of their analysis would be in-
structive to public administrators in other service domains.
More recently, Brudney and Gazley (2002) provided a glimpse into the
conventional wisdom about volunteer programs saving money and providing
more services, but also threatening paid staff positions. Their focus was on the
impact of volunteers based in the US Small Business Administration’s (SBA)
volunteer program, Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE). They fo-
cused on three commonly held assumptions about volunteerism: cost savings,
service expansion, and negative impact on paid staff. This latter area relates
directly to the subject of this paper. Brudney and Gazley (2002) unpacked the
underlying assumption about negative impact on paid staff into two major
Netting et al. 79

concerns: that employees resist the introduction of volunteers and that volun-
teers will replace paid employees. Brudney and Gazley (2002) used both qual-
itative and quantitative methods to focus on SCORE from 1954-1995. They
found no evidence that management staff viewed SCORE volunteers in a neg-
ative or resistive manner. However, managers often had difficulty accommo-
dating their own workloads when they had a large influx of volunteers. “In
sum, this analysis suggests that SCORE volunteers were readily accepted into
the SBA. SBA officials supported the SCORE volunteers and lobbied consis-
tently for expanded funding for he program” (p. 532). If problems did occur in
the SCORE program, they were related to issues of volunteer management
when implementation indicated that best practices were not being used.
Studies of paid staff and volunteers across the world and in arenas beyond
human services are appearing in the literature. For example, Thorley (2000)
examines the competing roles of volunteers and professionals in the breast-
feeding field, whereas Seippel (2002) focuses on the roles of volunteers and
professionals in Norwegian Sport Organizations. These studies reveal differ-
ences across types of organizations, reinforcing the importance of determining
volunteer paid staff mix and of recognizing the fit of this mix within the con-
text of organizational culture.
IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL WORK ADMINISTRATION
Training in how to handle volunteer and paid staff relationships continues
to be a frequent request made to volunteer management experts. Administra-
tors, managers, and agency staff are obviously making these requests, leaving
little doubt that these relationships require time and attention in any organiza-
tion in which there is a mix of employees and volunteers. Yet, relationship
building and dealing with complex human relationships is a theme in any hu-
man service context, regardless of whether the participants are paid or are do-
nating their skills and talents. Perhaps many of the difficulties and perceived re-
lationships between volunteer and paid staff exist when one fails to recognize
that, like staff, volunteers are not “free” and the organizational culture does not
fully appreciate the nature of volunteerism.
In terms of job attitudes and motivation, the research is somewhat mixed.
Whereas Pearce (1983, 1993) found differences in volunteer and paid staff
motivations and job attitudes, she did not look at volunteers and employees
co-existing in the same organizations. Therefore, Liao-Troth (2001) deter-
mined that it could be possible that these differences were as much a function
of differences in organizational culture, as of differences between volunteers
and paid staff. Organizations run predominately by paid staff and those that
80 ORGANIZATIONAL AND STRUCTURAL DILEMMAS

are volunteer-run would reflect different sets of assumptions. These assump-
tions could then be reflected in the minds of employees and volunteers as well.
Thus, Liao-Troth examined one setting (a hospital) in which volunteers and
employees looked much more similar, and in which the volunteer program
was very formalized.
In studies examining participation, withdrawal, and even termination, addi-
tional insights are revealed. A theme that emerges is that of psychological
connectedness. Concepts such as organizational citizenship and psychological
contracting are introduced in which the interpretive nature of work (whether
volunteer or paid) becomes important to one’s understanding. In a museum
setting, volunteers were more likely to participate in citizenship behaviors,
whereas employees tended to withdraw. Farmer and Fedor (1999) talked about
the differences in volunteers’ assumptions and beliefs than in what employees
assumed and believed about their organizations. The symbolic nature of con-
tracting became evident in their research. Studies about long-term care om-
budsmen who terminate services (Nelson et al., 2002) and about role ambiguity
(Nelson et al., 1995) appear to reinforce the importance of psychological con-
tracting. Hopkins’ work (2002), although focused solely on employees and
organizational citizenship, complicates the mix in that the employees she sur-
veyed were actually performing activities that went beyond paid expectations.
In studies that sought to identify the optimal mix of volunteers and paid staff,
differences were seen in the roles performed by volunteers, particularly when
performing tasks that generated a great deal of conflict (Netting et al., 2000).
Yet the reasons these volunteers often terminate related not to resistance of their
being there, as much as to their feeling the need for more staff support. Rather
than encountering resistance, they may feel neglected. Brudney and Gazley
(2002) found no evidence that management staff viewed SCORE volunteers in
a negative, resistive manner. It is important to note that the volunteers and paid
staff in both the ombudsman and SCORE programs were part of national man-
dates in which the use of volunteers has been an acceptable part of the program
culture from the beginning.
In light of paid staff and volunteer relationships, the literature revealed a
predisposition to assume that conflict will occur and that paid staff will be re-
sistant. Empirical evidence, however, does not fully support this assumption.
Yet the empirical evidence has occurred in settings having cultures more con-
ducive to receiving and accepting volunteer roles–the ombudsman program,
SCORE, and hospitals. Whereas the ombudsman program and SCORE are
governmentally mandated public volunteer programs, hospitals have been no-
toriously formal in their volunteer programs. Volunteers in hospitals are often
treated so similarly to employees that they almost perform as paid staff, thus
differences in their expectations might not be apparent. For example, in a sun-
Netting et al. 81

belt city where older persons volunteered in hospital settings, a volunteer
dared not miss a day of “work” given that a long waiting list of potential vol-
unteers awaited the invitation to participate, bumping current volunteers out of
the limited number of slots available.
So what do these studies, combined with the conceptual literature on
volunteerism, tell us? The literature over time has emphasized the importance
of managing volunteers. There are historical pieces in the social work litera-
ture that provide excellent commentary on volunteer management (see for ex-
ample Haeuser & Schwartz, 1980) as well as contemporary articles (see for
example Marx, 1999). Marx (1999) provided a very helpful listing of what ad-
ministrators can do to recruit and supervise volunteers, so we will not repeat
these here. There are also helpful tips about volunteering on various websites
such as the ENERGIZE, Independent Sector (2001), or the Points of Light
Foundation, as well as practical books on volunteer management (see for ex-
ample Connors, 2001; McCurley & Lynch, 1998; Macduff, 1996; Scheirer,
1993) and journals designed for practitioners such as The Journal of Volunteer
Administration. An excellent resource is the 161-page-long 2002 Volunteer
Management Bibliography developed by Steve McCurley, offered free of
charge and available on the ENERGIZE website (www.energizeinc.com/art/
biblio.html).
If one theme permeates the volunteerism literature, it is that volunteers re-
quire the commitments of time and resources if administrators want to have
quality programs. This is not a new theme in that is has been the mantra of al-
most any writer, trainer, or researcher in the field. What appears to be some-
what new is the importance of understanding the concept of psychological
contracting and its relationship to organizational culture. Embedding the value
of volunteerism and receptivity toward volunteers may be part of what admin-
istrators can do to promote and enhance volunteer and paid staff relationships.
Yet administrators cannot control the varied assumptions and beliefs that vol-
unteers bring to the psychological contract. These are very individualistic per-
ceptions and must be respected as such.
An organizational culture predisposed to using volunteers is very different
than one in which the incorporation of volunteers is an “add-on” to an already
busy schedule. An organizational culture that treats volunteers like paid em-
ployees (hospitals, for example) may find that volunteers act very similarly to
employees. Therefore, it is critically important for managers and administra-
tors to recognize the norms associated with volunteerism within their settings.
A mainstay of the applied literature on volunteer management is the peren-
nial concern about “volunteer staff relations” (Sloan, 1985, p. 94). Suspicious,
uncertain, and often outright false perceptions between paid and nonpaid work-
82 ORGANIZATIONAL AND STRUCTURAL DILEMMAS

ers in the same organization, even, and perhaps, especially when they perform
similar tasks, spark a great deal of harmful organizational conflict (Sloan, 1985).
Some of this results from status differences between paid and nonpaid staff.
Time worn assumptions about poor staff volunteer relationship norms have
several explanations. From a staff perspective, these could be: (1) staff don’t
see how volunteers meet organizational needs, (2) staff don’t see how volun-
teers help to sustain the organizational vision, (3) staff see volunteers as taking
more time and trouble than they are worth, (4) staff see volunteers as generally
less proficient, (5) staff may believe that volunteers are not well grounded in
factual information, (6) paid staff are more valuable because they are getting
paid for their work, (7) volunteers need to be spoon-fed, and (8) staff who may
be threatened by volunteers. In this latter case, if nonpaid paraprofessionals
can succeed in doing work that is similar to what paid staff do, then the profes-
sional’s role is seen as being devalued in an economic sense, thus robbing it of
its social currency (prestige), and perhaps even de-legitimizing it (Scheier,
1993). More specifically, Scheier asks how one can expect paid staff to be
completely secure in managing or working with volunteers because, in doing
so, one is asking them to forego the two major ways in which one oversees em-
ployees: pay and control.
Sloan (1985) argues that the tensions that arise from these perceived threats
are sustained and enlarged by certain myths that volunteer and professional
staff hold about one another. Just as staff have perceptions about volunteers,
volunteers may have perceptions about staff. For example in some organiza-
tional cultures: (1) volunteers may believe that staff work for pay but volun-
teers work out of the goodness of their hearts; (2) volunteers may believe that
staff don’t really know what it’s like in the real world, and volunteers do; and
(3) staff will attempt to control activities whenever they can. Sloan (1985)
concludes that these myths perpetuate inter-role conflict and lead some volun-
teer coordinators to look the other way when training and discipline are re-
quired.
Scheier (1993) argues that the antidote to these mutual volunteer/staff mis-
conceptions, whether mythical or not, is to develop policies that promote the
volunteers’ support of the professional role, not diminish the role by having
volunteers do exactly the same thing. Managers are advised to take time to ex-
plain the important contributions that volunteers can make in their programs
and organizations. More recently Scheier (1999) explored the possibility of
exterminating staff-volunteer conflict by developing autonomous volunteer
roles devoid of paid staff or closely allied professional counterparts.
Our experience in working with volunteer ombudsman programs indicates
that the roles played by volunteers must be carefully defined. Since this is an
Netting et al. 83

advocacy type program, volunteers have to be carefully screened because
some volunteers will want to be friendly visitors in long term care facilities
rather than advocates who have to feel comfortable with conflict. Volunteers
do not come to their roles because they want to do paperwork, yet paid staff are
responsible for reporting to higher authorities. Frustrations over volunteers
who do not complete their paperwork on time or who do not appreciate the im-
portance of reporting is a frequent source of staff complaints. On the other
hand, volunteers feel frustrated by staff who impose structure on their activi-
ties. Role conflict is supported in the literature and in our experience as a prob-
lem between paid staff and volunteers. This is not a new concept but it appears
to be a persistent one. Role clarity and conflict tie in with how the congruence of
organizational culture and psychological expectations mesh within the setting.
When a survey of volunteers who had terminated with a state ombudsman
program was conducted, we found that program factors that were most fre-
quently cited as problematic were conflict with central office staff and lack of
support (Nelson, Netting, Borders, & Huber, 2002). Yet in a highly structured,
federally-mandated program, it seems obvious that volunteers can not create
their own visions or deviate from regulations. It is this highly prescribed set-
ting that may be the greatest source of volunteer and paid staff conflict since it
is up to central office staff to oversee the program protocols and procedures.
Anecdotally, we have observed that state ombudsmen typically feel that vol-
unteers are a double-edged sword. They are the program’s greatest asset, but
also their greatest liability. They increase routine review, complaint volume,
and the ability to reach out to more older residents in long term care facilities.
Yet, they are hard to manage in a highly complex, narrowly prescribed, re-
source strapped, legally bound position.
Perhaps it is this paradox, this double-edged sword, that attributes to the
tensions inherent in paid staff and volunteer interactions. We have seen denial
of this paradox in situations in which the management of volunteers has been
added on to the job descriptions of social workers in various agencies. The as-
sumption in this situation is that there is not that much to managing volunteers.
In actuality, depending on the culture of the agency and the ways in which vol-
unteers and staff perceive one another, the social worker inherits a complex set
of interactions. Even in settings in which the culture supports volunteerism,
relationships can be tense if roles are not clarified.
Therefore, based on the literature and our experience, we propose a series of
questions to guide an administrator or manager in assessing the organization’s
or program’s paid staff/volunteer roles and relationships. This organizational
assessment focuses on the concepts identified by writers in the field and pushes
beyond the assumptions of conventional wisdom.
84 ORGANIZATIONAL AND STRUCTURAL DILEMMAS

1. How did this organization/program begin? Were volunteers a part of
its beginnings either in conjunction with paid staff or prior to the hir-
ing of paid staff? Or were volunteers added later?
2. What are the historical roles of, and assumptions about, volunteers and
paid staff in this organization’s/program’s culture? How have these
roles and assumptions changed/diversified over time?
3. What are the current organizational/programmatic cultural assumptions
and expectations about volunteers and paid staff roles and relation-
ships?
4. Is volunteer recruitment congruent with organizational assumptions
about the roles and relationships of paid staff and volunteers? For what
roles are volunteers recruited?
5. Do paid staff and volunteers interact within this organization? Are
there highly differentiated roles or is there a great deal of role overlap?
Are volunteers used for tasks that staff can not do (i.e., serving on the
board, legislative advocacy)?
6. Is the management of volunteers as formalized as the management of
staff (job descriptions, roles defined, training provided, etc.)? Do
managers of volunteers and managers of staff coordinate their efforts?
7. How do conflict and resistance between paid staff and volunteers play
out in this organization? What is the source of any conflict and how is
it addressed?
8. How does the organization assess the assumptions and beliefs (psycho-
logical contracting) that both volunteers and staff bring to their positions?
How is this knowledge used in making sure that volunteers are sup-
ported?
9. What citizenship behaviors are performed by volunteers and staff?
Are these behaviors evident in the actions of both volunteers and staff?
10. Do volunteers have the staff support and oversight that they need to do
their jobs?
11. How is an optimal volunteer/paid staff mix determined for this organi-
zation? Does the current mix work well or is change needed?
12. How are volunteers and paid staff included in evaluating the quality of
programs and services provided by this organization?
Not only may these questions be useful in assessing one’s volunteer program,
but they are questions for future research. Of particular importance to under-
standing relationships among paid staff and volunteers is recognizing the differ-
entiation of their status characteristics, the psychological contracts that both
bring to their roles, and the organizational culture in the setting under investiga-
tion. We contend that it is important to understand both the psychological and
sociological dimensions of any setting in which paid staff and volunteers en-
gage in order to effectively intervene.
Netting et al. 85

CONCLUSION
Resistance of staff to volunteers is not a foregone conclusion. Studies indi-
cate that in some organizations this resistance is not part of the organizational
culture. It appears that level of resistance will vary, depending on cultural
norms. Regardless, there is definitely an interest in understanding volunteer
and paid staff relationships. Although this interest may be triggered by conflict
and resistance, it is also about clarification, best practices, and quality volun-
teer management. If one point is repeatedly emphasized, it is that volunteers
are not free–there is an investment to be made when one incorporates volun-
teers into an organization’s culture.
Focusing on organizational or programmatic culture can provide insight
into volunteer and paid staff relationships. Cultures will differ, as will
psychological contracts (the assumptions and beliefs) that both employees
and volunteers bring to their positions. Carefully assessing organizational/
programmatic culture is a first step. Equally important is recognizing that psy-
chological contracting is very individualistic and requires attention to detail.
Not only are volunteers not free, but it is the talented volunteer manager/ad-
ministrator who will recognize the diversity among psychological contracts
and will listen for underlying assumptions and beliefs that define both volun-
teer and employee expectations.
REFERENCES
American Association for Retired Persons (AARP)/Legal Council for the Elderly.
(1994). Survey of state ombudsman programs. Washington, DC: Author.
Ashcraft, K. L., & Kedrowics, A. (2002). Self-direction or social support? Nonprofit
empowerment and the tacit employment contract of organizational communication
studies (Abstract). Communication Monographs,69(1), 88-110.
Berger, J., & Zelditch, M. (1993). Theoretical research programs: Study in the growth
of theory. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bowgett, K., & Salvage, J. (2001). Should we be recruiting volunteers to work in hos-
pitals (pro and con viewpoints). Nursing Times,97(7), 25.
Brudney, J. L. (1990). Fostering volunteer programs in the public sector. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brudney, J. L. (1999). The perils of practice: Reaching the summit. Nonprofit Manage-
ment and Leadership,9(4), 385-398.
Brudney, J. L., & Gazley, B. (2002). Testing the conventional wisdom regarding vol-
unteer programs: A longitudinal analysis of the service corps of retired executives
and the U.S. Small business administration. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quar-
terly,31(4), 525-548.
86 ORGANIZATIONAL AND STRUCTURAL DILEMMAS

Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analy-
sis. London: Heinemann.
Clary, E.G., Synder, M., & Stukas, A. A. (1996). Volunteers’ motivations: Findings
from a national survey. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,25(4), 485-505.
Connors, T. D. (Ed.). (2001). The volunteer management handbook. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
HLC.internet. (1996, March 28). HLC announces American Red Cross worldwide
Internet/Intranet network. Retrieved December 14, 2002, from http://wint.decsy.ru
/alphaservers/digital/v0000355.htm.
Duncombe, W. D., & Brudney, J. L. (1995). The optimal mix of volunteer and paid
staff in local governments: An application to municipal fire departments. Public Fi-
nance Quarterly,23(3), 356-385.
Ellis, S. J., & Noyes, K. H. (1990). By the people: A history of Americans as volunteers.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Farmer, S. M., & Fecor, D. B. (1999). Volunteer participation and withdrawal: A psy-
chological contract perspective on the role of expectations and organizational sup-
port. Nonprofit Management and Leadership,9, 349-367.
Galindo, K. R., & Guzley, R.M. (2001). The volunteer satisfaction index: Construct
definition, measurement, development, and validation. Journal of Social Service
Research,28(1), 45-68.
George, M. (1997). Precarious pounds: For cash-hungry voluntary organisations fund-
ing cuts can seem like the final straw. Community Care,1160, p. 28.
Gidron, B. (1987). Integration of volunteer workers into formal human service agen-
cies: An organizational theory perspective. The Journal of Applied Social Sciences,
2(2), 191-205.
Gidron, B. (1983). Sources of job satisfaction among service volunteers. Journal of
Voluntary Action Research,12(1), 21-33.
Govekar, P. L., & Govekar, M. A. (2002). Using economic theory and research to
better understand volunteer behavior. Nonprofit Management and Leadership,
13(1), 33-45.
Haeuser, A. A., & Schwartz, F. S. (1980). Developing social work skills for work with
volunteers. Social Casework: The Journal of Contemporary Social Work, 595-600.
Harris-Wehling, J., Feasley, J. C., & Estes, C. L. (1995). Real people, real problems:
An evaluation of the long term care ombudsman programs of the Older Americans
Act. Washington, DC: Division of Health Care Services, Institute of Medicine.
Hopkins, K. M. (2002). Organizational citizenship in social service agencies. Adminis-
tration in Social Work,26(2), 1-15.
Huber, R., Netting, F. E., & Paton, R. N. (1993). In search of the impact of staff mix on
long-term care ombudsman programs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
22(1), 69-91.
Independent Sector. (2001). Giving and volunteering in the United States 200. Retrieved
December 5, 2002, from http://www.independentsector.org/programs/research/
gv01main.html
Independent Sector Nonprofit Information Center. (2002). Ten tips for wise volunteer-
ing. Washington, D.C.: Online. Available: http://www.independentsector.org.
Netting et al. 87

Karr, L. B. (2000). Status and the volunteer: Employment standing as a status charac-
teristic in organized associations (Abstract). Southern Sociological Society. Avail-
able: http://newfirstsearch.ocle.org. Retrieved 12/12/02.
Keith, P. M., & Schafer, R. B. (2002). Expected and actual difficulties of volunteer res-
ident advocates in an ombudsman program. The Journal of Applied Gerontology,
21(4), 421-436.
Liao-Troth, M. A. (2001). Attitude differences between paid workers and volunteers.
Nonprofit Management and Leadership,11(4), 423-442.
MacInnes, G., & Hedt, A. H. (1999). Volunteers in the long term care ombudsman pro-
gram: Training, certification and liability coverage. Washington DC: National
long Term Care Ombudsman Resource Center.
Macduff, N. (1996). Volunteer recruiting and retention: A marketing approach,2nd
edition. MBA Publishing.
Marx, J. D. (1999). Motivational characteristics associated with health and human
service volunteers. Administration in Social Work,23(1), 51-66.
McComb, M. (1995). Becoming a travelers aid volunteer: Communication in social-
ization and training (Special Issue on Ethnography). Communication Studies,
46(3-4), 297-317.
McCurley, S., & Lynch, R. (1996). Volunteer management. Downers Grove, IL: Heri-
tage Art.
McCurley, S., & Lynch, R. (1998). Essential volunteer management. London, UK: Di-
rectory of Social Change.
Moore, L. F., & Anderson, J. C. (1985). Need satisfaction of paid and volunteer work-
ers in health service occupations. In L. F. Moore (ed.), Motivating Volunteers (pp.
187-199). Vancouver B.C.: B.C. Ministry of Human Resources.
Nelson, H. W. (2002). Ombudsman training and certification: Toward a standard of
best practice. Paper commissioned by the National Association of State Long Term
Care Ombudsmen for the retreat: The Long Term Care Ombudsman Program: Re-
thinking and Retooling for the Future. (January 31-February 2, 2002). Supported by
a grant from the Helen Bader Foundation. Peachtree City, GA.
Nelson, H. W., Netting, F. E., Borders, K., & Huber, R. (2002). Reasons for terminat-
ing service with the long term care ombudsman program: Implications for volunteer
retention. Unpublished paper presented at the Association for Research on Non-
profit Organizations and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA), Montreal, Canada.
Nelson, H. W., Pratt, C.C., Carpenter, C.C., & Walter, K. L. (1995). Factors affecting
volunteer long-term care ombudsman organizational commitment and burnout.
Nonprofit and Volunteer Sector Quarterly,24(3), 213-233.
Netting, F. E., Huber, R., Borders, K., Kautz, J. R., & Nelson, H. W. (2000). Volunteer
and paid staff investigating complaints in six states: A natural triaging. Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,29(3), 419-438.
Netting, F. E., & O’Connor, M. K. (2003). Organization practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Pearce, J. L. (1983). Job attitude and motivation differences between volunteers and
employees from comparable organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology,68,
646-652.
Pearce, J. L. (1993). Volunteers: The organizational behavior of unpaid workers. New
York: Routledge.
88 ORGANIZATIONAL AND STRUCTURAL DILEMMAS

Perlmutter, F. D., & Cnaan, R. A. (1993). Challenging human service organizations to
redefine volunteer roles. Administration in Social Work,17(4), 77-95.
Rickford, F. (May 11, 1994). Volunteers for social change. The Guardian,2, 15(1).
Rosenblum, K. F., & Travis, T. M. C. (2000). The meaning of difference. 2nd ed.
Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Em-
ployee Responsibilities and Rights Journal,2(2), 121-139.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Scheirer, I. H. (1993). Building staff/volunteer relationships. Available: http//www.
energize.com. Retrieved 12/12/02.
Scheirer, I.H. (1999). Introductory notes on staff/volunteer relations. In Section XIV,
The New Volunteerism Project, The Archival Collection of Ivan Henry Scheier.
Available: http//academic.regis.edu/volunteer/Ivan/sect14.htm#Building. Retrieved
12/12/02.
Schiman, C., & Lordeman, A. (1989). A study of the use of volunteers by long term care
ombudsman programs: The effectiveness of recruitment, supervision, and reten-
tion. Washington, DC: National Center for Long Term Care Ombudsman Re-
sources: Administration on Aging, Cooperative agreement no 90-AT0401.
Seippel, O. (2002). Volunteers and professionals in Norwegian sport organizations.
Voluntas,13(3), 253-270.
Sloan, H. (1985). Managing a volunteer program for maximum effectiveness. In C.
Ewig, & J. Griggs (Eds.). Public Concerns Community Initiatives: The Successful
Management of Nursing Home Consumer Information Programs. (pp. 79-97). New
York: United Hospital Fund of New York.
Smith, D. H. (1994). Determinants of voluntary association participation and volun-
teering: A literature review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,23(3),
243-263.
Strickler, G. (1987). The social work profession’s attitude towards volunteerism. The
Journal of Volunteer Administration,5(4), 24-32.
Thorley, V. (2000). Complementary and competing roles of volunteers and profession-
als in the breastfeeding field. International Journal of Self Help and Self Care,1(2),
171-180.
Victor, K. (March 1, 1997). Lost cause? (Common cause). National Journal,29(9),
410(4).
Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (1998). Organizational citizenship behavior of contingent
workers in Singapore. Academy of Management Journal,41, 692-703.
Wandersman, A., & Alderman, J. (1993). Incentives, costs, and barriers for volunteers:
A staff perspective on volunteers in one state. Review of Public Personnel Adminis-
tration,13(1), 67-77.
Netting et al. 89