Post Mortem

First off: I am not a quitter.

Second:  it's time to quit. 

No worries -- this is not angsty wrist-slashing I'm contemplating. Instead, it's time to break up with the soup kitchen volunteer work I've done faithfully and joyously each week for the last three years. But how?

Uh... it's not you, it's me? 

It was a great relationship at first. I felt appreciated; I made friends; I came home feeling fulfilled and grateful for all the stuff I usually take for granted, like meals that don't involve toddler-sized vats of peanut butter and mystery-meat soups. 

The 501c3 did so much right that it was easy to forgive its quirks. Like the fact its "leadership team" is all white, despite a diverse volunteer staff and a professed anti-racism agenda. Like the fact that team fired a volunteer who's crime was curmudgeonliness ... without giving the volunteer feedback about his behavior. 

I'm not a quitter. I could have stuck with it. But over the last few months the leadership team has instituted changes to build community that have ended up taking it away. Intimate group reflections have evolved into 30 people in a circle, straining to hear a bible study. Stimulating lunch conversations among 3-4 people have shifted to 30 people eating in a circle the size of  a sumo mat. Now the good talks are gone, and there aren't even large men running into each other wearing skimpy belt-thongs. How disappointing. 

It's time to quit, and that's something I've never been very good at. I want to run my mouth and give feedback, even though the leadership team's made it very clear over the years that they're not interested. What, pray tell, could a once-a-week volunteer know about a 501c3 that full-time staff wouldn't? 

So, consider this wishful thinking #103: I wish nonprofits could see volunteers as a resource for different perspectives in organizational decision-making. And wishful thinking #104: perhaps the occasional exit-interview to figure out why volunteers quit? 

Pointed Questions

I heard this story about giving circles on NPR a few weeks ago and then forgot totally about it. (Insert your own snide comment about public radio here.) 

But the story's worth a listen because it's all about donors who want a way to learn for themselves what an organization is doing well, or the ways its slowly leeching the spirits of everyone around. 

I'm converted after hearing the story. When folks put their donations together in one pot, it's a good incentive for executive directors to take their questions seriously. When giving circles volunteer at nonprofits, they see first-hand whether Little Jimmy really will be able to ride away on a bicycle ... or whether the place's a mess. 

"It's like a zoo in the kitchen. There's people running all over the place," she says. "There's this guy, who was clearly the person running the kitchen, screaming 'Out of the way. Hot plate!' It was just chaotic."

But that raises an interesting question for circle member Patty Wynn.

"Is that the type of organization that we could make better, if we had money to give? Or do you think even if you gave more money to that organization, they would run it in the same way?" she asks.

Malepati responds that one problem she noticed at the feeding program was the lack of interaction between the homeless women and the staff, and among the women themselves. Clients appeared to just come, get mediocre food and leave.

"You can't fix that sort of thing with money, I don't think," she says.

Congrats, Patty Wynn! You asked the gazillion-dollar question! And Malepati -- you nailed it.  

With this kinda help...

With everything going so crappily  for, well, everyone, it's time to give another look to ... volunteers?

Apparently so. The New York Times ran this article recently. Here's a quick summary: with so many upper-management sorts out of work (and out of sorts), why not get them helping out with nonprofits, those organizations sometimes known for their lack of organization. Out-of-work execs get to feel productive, and nonprofits get free management expertise. Everyone wins! What could go wrong? 

Of course, anyone who's ever worked with volunteers is chuckling nervously right now, counting the ways volunteers make their work lives more difficult. My favorite is how there's inevitably that one sketchy guy volunteer -- one who shows too much chest hair, or makes too much eye contact, or won't make your gaze at all. He's probably not a perp like he's typecast on Law and Order, but he's just awkward enough for you not to want him around. At all.

But my main problem is that the New York Times made an ass out of you and me by assuming nonprofit managers want the sort of bona fide expertise the laid off for-profit world can offer. Sure it can be hard to find people who consistently want to spend the night in a homeless shelter with people who are often mentally ill, not to mention stinky. But I'm not convinced it's ever been hard to find for-profit execs excited to yap their pie holes at you about what could be done better. 

Rather, I think we non-profit folks sometimes just don't want to hear. We don't believe for-profit management offers any usable lessons for us. After all, we have heart and aren't evil and OF COURSE Mr. Corporate Sold-His-Soul won't ever understand our idiosyncratic filing system, much less our crappy accounting. We take pride in our lack of professionalism because somehow it shows we're homespun and care about the work more than the job.

Silly NY Times for thinking you could change us. Joke's on you! Right?