Community and the Limits of Volunteerism

[Procyon]

I know by the title, this may raise some hackles. Please forgive but there is a point…eventually. I will attempt to make these as brief as possible. So please ask for clarification if I missed something or something seems unclear.  However, this first of a 5 part document is to address the many concerns from some and provide context for those who are new to volunteering for community organizations.

 

Volunteerism is a messy, inaccurate, and chaotic way to do things.  Prone to people making mistakes or exercising bad judgement.  At the same time, there is at least some real requirements to take responsible action to make sure no one is financially, mentally or physically injured by the actions of individuals acting on behalf of the group.  Lastly, if you have too many requirements or expectations that makes “helping out” feel like a job, people won't see it as fun and won't do it.  Eventually, you end up with Leaders looking for minions. 

But we still want a Furry community.  Sounds great, lets do some things! Lets get together and figure out some things to do together that would be too expensive or require more than just my close freinds!

With all that said, I'm going to start with some basic assumptions that most everyone can agree:

Anyone can help out

Everyone should be able to offer input

Someone should be “responsible”

No one is perfect, especially oneself (humility).

Everyone can learn, some faster than others.

Everyone will have their own way of doing things.

Your way will be the opposite of someone else's way.

See assumption one.

 

Organically, a set of agreed ideas already ran into conflict.  Guess what?  To work in groups is to incur conflict.   Basic fact, let us get that known now.

Does this mean any group, even furs, will always have some “drama”?

YES.

The issue is to make sure everyone is trying to work to a common goal with a minimum of drama and still use the basic assumptions list above.  Some effort should be made to make things easy to join, which seem core to getting people together and doing stuff and still feeling validated.  

Now we come to my main point:

 

There is no perfect Volunteer.

 

Because we all all individuals, we all have our own way of doing things, furry more so than some.

But we all should be allowed to help out.

We all must maintain some responsibilities.

I suggest we take a hard look at a volunteer.  I suggest we not see them for their specific ideas, as we will argue what is best, but instead as a collection of 4 dynamics that make them a volunteer.  These 4 dynamics limit or suggest what things they would be “best at” work style wise regardless of what they personally believe.

I'm doing this so we can get away from the idea what it means to “be furry”, as we WILL have different ideas on that.  Instead, lets figure out how we can see each others strengths/weakness and still harness those so one can help out.  Allowing one to fully participate if they want and still be responsible about it.

I'm going to describe the with a Jungian archetype theory. A “good” volunteer is judged on their balance of these 4 dynamics rather than strength in just one.   This is because the 4 dynamics actually counter each other, yet all seem 4 are required to make sure the basic assumptions can be meet.

Jungian theory suggest there is a Positive and Negative shadow to all archetypes. 

A Positive Shadow is “too much” of a good thing, especially where balanced is concerned. 

A Negative shadow is not enough of attribute for what is really required to get done.

The dynamics are:

Drive

Collaboration

Competence

Diplomacy

Each one of these will get their own post so we can discuss each.  I'm going to roll these out over days so we can discuss each in turn.

I have no specific book or authority to point for this theory as it is an amalgam of 2 other theories tempered by working volunteer organizations for 2 decades.

Feel free to argue, that is point.

[Zepaw]

Everything you've written makes complete sense thus far. I'm quite interested to hear more when you/we dig in to the dynamics you highlight.

 

I like the point there is no perfect volunteer. We should not strive for perfection. Even what perfection would mean can't be pinned down. There is a large benefit having a group built on varied abilities and outlooks. I know from working with Drake we have wildly different styles yet neither is more valid than the other. Either of us would be able to contribute in a given situation but each has an area where they are best suited. Yet each has areas where improvement can be made. Identifying those areas and always moving in the direction of betterment where possible is a worthy focus.

[Mouring]

Reader’s digest version:

People are imperfect, events are imperfect, but the fact remains is the goal of an event is to provide as much enjoyment as reasonably possible. In order for this to happen people need to be willing to “collaborate” in a “diplomatic” way while offering up skills they are “competent” in (or at least willing to strive to be so), and the “drive” to step out from your own world to do this.

I suspect the multi-part post will cover this, but I think the major thing missing from the overview is the volunteer’s mindset. The above can all be for not if the mindset is wrong or distorted. Things may still work and progress, but it will cause tension and issues down the road.

I’ll offer up my mindset, and I suspect others have their own version of this:

I’ve never walked into any community work ever expecting to get anything substantial in value back from the effort I put into it. I invest time, energy, and love based on how I’m received, and how well I work with the group. I gain excitement and energy when things go right and the crusty nasty details are kept far away from those wanting to enjoy the event in ignorant bliss. And if I can work my way out of any position of power I’m even more happy.

The mindset is actually a super-set or a “digest” version of what I’m sure Procyon will discuss later. But to break mine down in the above categories:

– “diplomatic/collaboration” via “based on how I’m received, and how well I work with the group” as there are some groups I would love to volunteer for, but there are too great of issues making collaboration or diplomatic relationships too hard for me to be effective.

– “Drive” via the goal of “keeping crusty nasty details away from those who don’t care” and “work my way out of power.” Goals in your mindset are important as they show you if you are doing well or if you need to step back and let others do it. Note these are different from the goals say a ConChair may gives you. These goals are designed to know when you’ve reached the limit of what you can do for that set of tasks.

– “competency” isn’t really covered. However, I don’t view it as a “I know how X works,” but the ability to ensure any failures while working on X don’t snowball to the point of risking a complete failure. This isn’t “hiding failures,” but learning and adjusting to improve yourself and improve what you are working on.

I may have more for each category but for an overview… I think I’ve spoken enough. =)

[Cybergarou]

Having decided to make a clean break from the MNFurs organization (not the community as some people have assumed), I have adopted a policy of not using the forums in any way. I’m suspending that policy briefly for the purposes of adding to this discussion. As someone who is no longer willing to volunteer for this organization, I should have some additional insight or viewpoints for this discussion. Because illustrations are so much better than high-level concepts, expect some examples to go along with what I say when it’s appropriate. I am also going to bring into the discussion something that I’m betting Procyon won’t be covering, what happens when the limits of volunteerism have been exceeded. (And by that, I mean what happens when somebody ceases to be a volunteer.) I’m going to wait until Procyon posts his last section, just in case he does cover it.

I’m going to make a point that is really tangential to this discussion, but has been mentioned here and elsewhere so I feel it is an important point to make. MNFurs is an organization. It is also A community. It is not THE community. When I first announced that I quit, one of the comments I received was along the lines of, “If avoiding local fandom is what you think is best, more power to you.” This is entirely not true though. I still am in contact with local furs and have interaction with them when I am able. Furthermore, I am working on some things that will provide more opportunities for the local community, and since it’s a subset of the local community the MNFurs community will benefit as well.

I suspect the multi-part post will cover this, but I think the major thing missing from the overview is the volunteer’s mindset. The above can all be for not if the mindset is wrong or distorted. Things may still work and progress, but it will cause tension and issues down the road.

Each volunteer will have a different mindset. One person’s idea of volunteering is doing grunt work. Another person needs to be seen putting events together. Somebody else wants an event, but doesn’t care to be the center of attention in terms of getting that event going. There’s really no such thing as a wrong or distorted mindset if somebody is applying it to themselves. It is entirely acceptable for somebody to decided to run an event solely because they want the attention of running the event or because they want to get volunteers hours for a voting membership. Those kinds of people can still run a successful event. When one volunteer decides to apply their viewpoint of what a volunteer is to another volunteer’s efforts though, that’s when you run into drama. You should not judge what kind of a volunteer someone is, based on what you think a volunteer should be. You judge them on what they are able to do when they volunteer.

Here’s my illustration section for today, and sorry for picking at all the things you wrote Mouring. You just happened to bring them to the front of my mind today.

“keeping crusty nasty details away from those who don’t care” and “work my way out of power.”

I find these two statements contradictory. The first one has been a longstanding policy in the group for the 4 years I have been around. I’ve come to the opinion that it works against the second and I’ll describe a couple events in general to illustrate this.

Event 1 – We had a successful Halloween event. The next year it became apparent that we weren’t doing it again, and a group of people said they would do it if we weren’t. The end result wasn’t that group of people running an event that another group of people weren’t going to run, the result was one community member making sure that group didn’t run that event. He had reasons for that action, stemming from the fact that we don’t share all the crusty nasty details that would have shown them why they couldn’t just run an event just like that, but at the same time we failed to put another group into power for an event.

Event 2 – We had a successful parade unit. Later in the year somebody else wanted to put together a parade unit, and they carbon-copied the information I had made available. There was a lot I never said about putting the parade unit together, and it was apparent to me that they weren’t considering several safety issues. I queried them about some of the safety issues I saw, and the response didn’t appear satisfactory. The result was nobody wanted to participate in the other parade. Like event 1, I had reasons to ensure the event didn’t happen as described, but I also didn’t step forward to help this other person become capable of running the event.

I said Mouring’s two statements are contradictory, and this is true. If you focus too much on one, you will fail at the other. A balance needs to occur between the two goals. The longstanding issue is that as a group we have focused too much on keeping the crusty details away (I like typing that phrase for some reason) and we haven’t allowed other people a reasonable opportunity to step into power. In order to find a more beneficial balance, you would have to figure out what level of crusty details would allow some to make sound judgements for taking power of an event.

[Snap E. Tiger]

I read every word above and find the majority of it to be drivel.

The only thing that stood out to me were dynamics listed:

Drive

Collaboration

Competence

Diplomacy

Hypocrisy and clouded personal experience have no place in something considered to be a pleasant experience for the good of the group.  Get a group of passionate people together and there will always be a clash of procedure and implementation.  Its just the way it is.  There are adults that cope and collaborate and there are others who should probably stay home.

Furry Migration Staff (Volunteers) & MNFurs Board Member.

Posts on the MNFurs forums are of my own opinion and do not reflect that of MNFurs or chartered events unless otherwise stated.

http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Snap_E._Tiger

[Mouring]

Cybergarou said:

Here’s my illustration section for today, and sorry for picking at all the things you wrote Mouring. You just happened to bring them to the front of my mind today.

“keeping crusty nasty details away from those who don’t care” and “work my way out of power.”

I find these two statements contradictory. The first one has been a longstanding policy in the group for the 4 years I have been around. I’ve come to the opinion that it works against the second and I’ll describe a couple events in general to illustrate this.

[..]

I said Mouring’s two statements are contradictory, and this is true. If you focus too much on one, you will fail at the other. A balance needs to occur between the two goals. The longstanding issue is that as a group we have focused too much on keeping the crusty details away (I like typing that phrase for some reason) and we haven’t allowed other people a reasonable opportunity to step into power. In order to find a more beneficial balance, you would have to figure out what level of crusty details would allow some to make sound judgements for taking power of an event.

Neither of your examples describe what I’m talking about. The “keeping crusty nasty details away from those who don’t care” means just that… If you want to go to a bowling event, picnic, convention, etc and just enjoy yourself then there isn’t a reason I should beat you over the head with hotel contracts, consuite setup, wrangling artist for artist alley, registration details, finding fursuiters for a photoshoot, etc. You should be allowed to be blissfully unaware of the machinery needed to make an event work. Your examples involve people wanting to know the how the machinery works. So they aren’t just causal event goers, but event staff and managers.

As for the two conflicting with each other, they don’t. They go hand in hand. My job (in IT as it is in the community) is to give those wanting/needing the tools to succeed those tools. I don’t want to be in their way. I don’t want to stick my nose in. If the communication works right then there is little need for me to do so, and anyone coming in after me has a greater chance of success at whatever position that may be. If I don’t.. if I hide the tools, demand to be involved in every aspect, overrule decisions, etc. When I leave things will not be in a good position which isn’t fair to the community.

BTW, If you still feel they are contradictory then that is fine. I don’t see them as conflicting.

[Cybergarou]

Neither of your examples describe what I'm talking about. The “keeping crusty nasty details away from those who don't care” means just that… If you want to go to a bowling event, picnic, convention, etc and just enjoy yourself then there isn't a reason I should beat you over the head with hotel contracts, consuite setup, wrangling artist for artist alley, registration details, finding fursuiters for a photoshoot, etc. You should be allowed to be blissfully unaware of the machinery needed to make an event work. Your examples involve people wanting to know the how the machinery works. So they aren't just causal event goers, but event staff and managers.

I am not nitpicking what you said, but rather using it as a jumping off point to highlight an issue. We are talking about volunteers here and not casual event attendees. The point I was making, is that for the entire time I was with the group, all of those crusty nasty details were hidden from essentially everyone. A select group of people would hear them at the time, but after the event they are gone. The two events I mentioned were cases where the event runner did not make the crusty nasty details available anywhere and so nobody ever had the chance to decide that they care. The decision was made for them that they don't care.

The event runner usually isn't the best person to decide what is important. Certainly I'm not saying all those details need to be broadcasted to everybody, but it sure would be nice if they were accessible somewhere.

[Procyon]

I would thank both Mouring and Cybergarou bring up very good points that exhibit why I like this approach.

Mouring identifies the WHY we volunteer. 

This is very important to in motivation and long range goals for an individual.    However, I'm focusing on the GROUP dynamic and is outlining HOW people interact.   When we get to the dynamics of collaboration and drive, we will touch on these issues. 

I put now that volunteers will always put forth their time and effort for a multitude of reasons.  And one set of reasons will always be “opposite” of someone else's.  Although the reasons can affect how they interact with people, ultimately I find it does not PREVENT them from volunteering.

Cyber presents issues of format of assessment and execution: the issues of WHAT . May it be WHAT event we can do, or WHAT and individual can accomplish.

Again, these are very important.  The specifics of which will be covered in competence and diplomacy.  This also runs into challenges.   

Focus too much on competence, you MUST go to a person and say “you not good enough, you can not help” which seems counter to a core principle of being able to volunteer. OR…

Focus too much on diplomacy, and you either promote complete inaction OR isolate into a neutral position and refuse to administer any control because of afraid of offending someone's motivations (depending on other dynamics it is reacting to).

 

These are not to say these observations are invalid.   What I'm suggesting and outlining is a theory that avoid the WHY and WHAT.  Instead, focus on HOW people interact.  We can limit issues of incompatibilities of peoples interests, goals or abilities and focus on the real goal of volunteerism:

HOW can a person help?

It also will establish the following axioms, with limits due to inherent tensions:

1: There is no “perfect” volunteer, it is impossible to be good at everything.

2:  People will always have a wide range of abilities and motivation, but they still need a way to allow anyone to volunteer.

3: A “good” volunteer in one situation can be a “bad” volunteer in another.  This is not a result of the person (motivations and abilities) but more an issue of the group interactions involved.

4: A person who is a Volunteer assumes a group.  Both individual dynamics and group dynamics must be weighed in each situation, with a bias towards the group due to sheer number of other individuals involved.

I state these now, but it is likely you will not see them in full interplay until the 4 Dynamics are listed out. 

[Procyon]

DRIVE:

As Snapcat suggested, anything about volunteers really boils done to drive.  

Is someone willing to do something?

There is a very real Truth here.   If no one wants to do something, for issues of motivation, frustration, fatigue from time availability….It does not get done.

 

Most simply, Drive is the desire to get something done, to do something, to make things happen.  It is the raw energy to press forward, ignore challenge and adversity. To brave the unknown and press limits of what is deemed possible.

Again, issues of “good” and “bad” do not apply here.    We are looking at the raw dynamic and HOW it moves people.

Before we get there and shadow interactions, I need to add one more understanding to the all 4 dynamics.   The interaction matrix. 

Each Dynamic relates to another dynamic in a specific way.  Although there is a general pattern applied to each dynamic,  there is also a tendency to yield a set of closely related set of results based on which specific interactions. 

The matrix interactions can be described as:

Synergy: related dynamic where two seem to feed and work off of each other

Challenge: the dynamic where most conflict are likely to occur.  But unlike counter,  can yield greatest results.

Counter: This dynamic is used to temper and limit Dynamic in question.  It works best as a limiter to prevent a positive shadow.  Can be seen as “opposite”, but better to see at as a “balancer”.

 

Now we will apply them to Drive:

 

Drive has a synergy with Competence.  When both of these are present and high in an indavidual, they tend to feed of each other.

 

Drive has a Challenge with Collaboration.  What we want for ourselves: our vision, our likes, our goals; Which will invariably run against someone else.  But there is a way to balance this.  If we work diligently in a balanced system, we commonly can find our drives and others can match and we are able to work together.  Eventually in a healthy system, reenforcing each other when things are PERSONALLY tough to still reach a common goal.

 

Drive is counter to Diplomacy.   Sometimes we need stop ourselves to avoid steeping on toes. Take things a little slower to explain things to others. Be patient as they learn.  Occasionally even be discreet when our internal knee jerk response is to embarrass incompetence; which will likely just result in losing, not salvaging, a volunteer.

 

Now we add on the layer of Shadows:

 

A positive shadow is a person so driving they ignore others.  Other peoples desires, others inputs, others personal efforts are all ignore to accomplish Their goal.   Yes, they are going to get it done, but it is there way of the highway.  With many business, organizations and even conventions, it is assembled commonly by positive shadow drive people.  However, eventually this comes to be a challenge as they then have a tough time stepping back, teaching others, or letting go in a way that does not hurt the larger group because they allowed their personality and drive to overshadow the functionality of working with others.

On the reverse side, the Negative shadow could be seen as worse.  Not wanting to do anything.   In many ways, a negative shadow person is very hard to use as a volunteer.  The trick is finding their drive.  I've discovered that everyone in furry is furry for some reason.   Find it, build a system that uses it (collaboration) but could tolerate failure and convince them and others that they can do it.    Worse comes worse, a small piece of the whole fails.  But a chance was giving.  Negative shadow can also occur with collaboration in the form of quitting.  The person may still want to do their thing, but it exist only on their terms.   I place this as a negative shadow because, in our base assumptions, HOW assumes a group.    A person who insist doing it their way is not interested in working with a group. They are perform their action, not for the good of a group (that becomes a rationalization) but for their own likes /dislikes, which includes not working with others.    A truly driven person takes adversity, no matter what source, and works with it, even when they hate it, if it accomplishes a higher goal.

As it involves the interaction matrix, we see how all of these start to come together.

 

A highly driving person will feed of of their own competence.  Sadly, their own competence could cause them to shadow if they get to far ahead and are willing to leave to many others behind OR see the world from just their “perfect” perspective and only see flaws in other systems.

 

A highly driving person is going to run “smack” into issues of collaboration.    If they balance it right, it will be a highly functional system that will inspire others.  However, it is also they system that shadows can cause the most problems.  Either by leaving everyone else behind and causing a problem of “king without peasants” or frustration causing them to give up.

 

Diplomacy is the tempering hammer to Drive.  It will blunt it at times.  But if used judiciously and with great skill, drive WITH diplomacy inspires trust and belief.  These are essential in any group dynamic to get things done with a minimum of drama.

 

Okay, a good deal of ground covered.  Have at it forum:

[Cybergarou]

This will only be a useful discussion if it is grounded in reality. Otherwise you will be talking about an ideal state that is unattainable. So let's go through your axioms.

1: There is no “perfect” volunteer, it is impossible to be good at everything.

True

2:  People will always have a wide range of abilities and motivation, but they still need a way to allow anyone to volunteer.

Partially true. All organizations engage in volunteer filtering, using both implicit and explicit controls. MNFurs is no exception. Implicit controls would include the expecatation that the volunteer somehow is interested in furry AND that they are going to step forward to volunteer in the first place. An explicit control includes the board's power to remove anyone from a volunteer position, a power that has been used. So anyone is potentially able to volunteer, but people already involved in the organization are going to naturally limit who actually can volunteer.

3: A “good” volunteer in one situation can be a “bad” volunteer in another.  This is not a result of the person (motivations and abilities) but more an issue of the group interactions involved.

True

4: A person who is a Volunteer assumes a group.  Both individual dynamics and group dynamics must be weighed in each situation, with a bias towards the group due to sheer number of other individuals involved.

False, and circular reasoning since you are trying to show how we can be a group of volunteers. MNFurs has always been operated through individual efforts; individuals come up with events, individuals are in charge of events, and individuals are responsible for events. What decision making process we have had has always been compartmentalized into groups of “capable” people. This methodology continues to this day.

I have to illustrate that claim, and it's not hard to do. MNFurs is split into essentially 4 layers.

• The top layer is the board. They operate in secrecy and the only reason I know anything about what they do is through personal communication with board members. They didn't get there against their wills, so they are technically volunteers, though they had to go through a more rigorous form of filtering.
• The next layer is the long-term volunteers. Community group members and people who take action on behalf of MNFurs between events. This group is open, but you have to make an effort to be involved. There is some information available on what they do, but largely their efforts are unknown outside of event communications.
• The layer after that is the event volunteers. These people show up at events and help out where ever they can, providing largely grunt work or specialized needs. There is no organization of these people between events.
• Everybody else. This includes both the people who are really active in the organization and attend virtually every event, providing feedback the whole time, and the occasional attendees who normally don't communicate with the rest of the group or only get involved at certain times of the year.

In order for MNFurs to be considered an operational group in its entirety, there has to be free flow of information between these 4 different layers. A dialog is best, but at the very least there needs to be a monolog. Otherwise, there is no group as you are assuming.

(That, or I completely failed to understand what you were trying to say there.)

There isn't much I can say specifically regarding what you said about drive, because your discussion depends on knowledge of the remaining three parts. You really need to show the whole thing at once if we are to participate. I can make an observation based on what you have shown though. I get the impression that you are describing internal characteristics of a volunteer, with the notion that these characteristics drive the group dynamics. However, these characteristics merely influence how a person responds to external forcing. And each different type of forcing is going to have its own matrix of how these characteristics lead to certain responses.

You have mentioned only one kind of external forcing, when two volunteers meet in collaborative effort. However, there are many other ways a volunteer can undergo forcing. One specific example. Even the most driven volunteer who is willing to keep working despite the fact that they don't like exactly how things are being done may decide that they are finished when presented with something they object to morally. Someone who isn't so driven may ignore the thing they object to as something not worth bothering themselves with.

[Legonnare]

This in my opinion is the better of the 4 parts to go with because it's the most visible of the other forms.

Drive is in the forefront of why someone is a volunteer. With no drive, there is no action. But as stated above, too much drive, too much speed and you will end up crashing and burning. I have first hand experience relating to this and it's NOT pretty, NOT helpful, and above all, an orphan. I'll use a quote from John F Kennedy from the Bay of Pigs invasion during the cold war:

“There's an old saying that victory has 100 fathers and defeat is an orphan.” [1961 J. F. Kennedy News Conference 21 Apr. in Public Papers of Presidents of U.S. (1962) 312]

In nature, there are polar opposites. Hot to cold, left to right, clouds to sun. I see the opposite of drive is what I call “tempering”. Just like when crafting a sword, tempering is a vital process that adds strength in flexibility to a volunteer group. By tempering drive with other elements you can achieve great things!

When you have too much drive without enough tempering, what you are left with is a rigid, but brittle form. It may not break on the first couple blows, but a few more may be all it needs to break apart completely. This may be done though many different means in the volunteer world. Not giving someone enough training, not LETTING someone get enough training to assist you, lack of communication, and lack of diplomacy can be attributed to too much drive. What I have seen happen in these cases is a lack of people to volunteer, or people don't return to volunteer the next year due to the feeling of not having an impact, of not getting the help they need, of not having fun. Eventually you are left with a very broken form.  A broken form won't be helpful to anyone. It requires more energy, time and attention to reform the sword to the way it was so it may go on to do mighty deeds.

However, just like in nature, too much of the opposite can ring true too. Too much tempering, and the sword will not hold an edge. What you are left with is a very pretty looking paperweight. It can become a sword again, but not until more energy is spend on reforming and rebuilding the sword, or worst yet toss it away and start from scratch. In volunteering this may be looked at as having too much oversight on the volunteer. Having their hand held throughout the entire process can stunt their drive to such a level they would not return as a volunteer, or may make them think they don't want to waist their time when they could be doing other things with their free time.

With the right mixture of tempering and drive, you end up with amazing results! Synergy is a term that comes to mind and has been mentioned before. By adding two things together, you get results greater than the sum of individuals. An example would be one of our bi-annual picnics. You get a group of people together to pull off a wonderful day under the sun.  It takes 2 planners to run an event of that size. One might have the drive, the other the temper to make sure the drive doesn't turn into a crash and burn.

So, there you have it. Two very extreme sides of drive as I see it. Too much and you crash and burn, too little and you wouldn't be bothered. Does that mean volunteerism is doomed to fail? No! As long as the group can find that nice balance of drive with tempering, great deeds can be done. The tempering can come in many forms, including but not limited to those listed above.

I hate to go on much further, but I wanted to add a section dealing with why I personally like to volunteer.

I don't volunteer for the fame, the fortune or the glory. If I wanted those, I wouldn't care about the people around me. Honestly, not my style. I prefer to look around me, see what is going on, see how I can improve something next time, add to it, maybe subtract from it. The only way I will see what worked and what didn't is by working as a volunteer. By getting a first hand account, by being the grunt, by becoming more than the grunt, and listening to those around me. Only then can I get a feel for what is going on, where I can apply my strengths, work on my weaknesses and do my best to make sure everyone has a good time in the process. Praise and criticism plays a very important part and are examples of tempers that can hone an edge to do great deeds, but I feel I have rambled on enough.

Stärke und Demut - Neart agus baint leis - Styrke og ydmykhet

[grumble]

I volunteer at every convention I go to. I don’t see limits in what volunteers can do, I only see limits in the number of volunteers.

As a side note the head of the ATF is a volunteer. ;P

[Yarrick]

This post has sparked some debate, and it’s clear not everyone sees the same value in volunteering nor the same approach to it.  Which is perfectly understandable.  There are many different styles of time and resource management out there, which I’m seeing brought up here.

Maybe the better question to ask is why do you volunteer? Not what specifically “volunteering” is since its obvious that changes depending on the direction of the wind.

Why do you dedicate your time to a non-profit organization with no compensation for your time other then maybe a pat on the back from your peers for doing a good job?

Myself:  The answer is a little complex.  But it starts out waay back when I first found out about Furry and the greater community.  For anyone who knew me when I started with the group I was a mess.  Shy, introverted, very few friends.  I sat in the car for 30 mins before I braved going inside to meet people I had only talked to online.  That day changed my life.  I have made many very close friends over the past ten years, all thanks to the Furry Community.  Volunteering gives me a chance to give something back, and the knowledge I am helping change someone’s life or at the very least brighten their day in the big picture of everything this group has become really makes me proud.

So I’ll admit it.  Some of it is Pride, but its the honorable sort of pride that you get when you feel you are giving something back.  I’ve got to watch this group evolve from a dozen crowding into a tiny Chineese restaurant to a group that puts on regular events pulling 75-125 people and is working towards a convention.  I’m honored to be a part of making that happen.

-- MNFurs Photography Head--

Want a Photographer at an event? Want to help out with Photography at an event? PM me!

[Cybergarou]

Perhaps the best question to ask right now is, what is the purpose of this discussion? Looking back I see that it’s not clear what the purpose of this thread is and I feel like there are two or three different conversations going at once.

It seems that this is a provoked thread, that it is in response to something. If that’s true, that should be presented so we have a goal to aim for. Otherwise we are going to keep tugging this discussion back and forth as we try to turn it into what we think it is.

A lot of people want to explain why they are volunteering. This is easy to do because everyone who volunteers has a story to explain why they do it. I don’t feel that is a particularly useful discussion because it only looks to the past and doesn’t impact future events. People always have their own reasons for volunteering and they rarely are due to reading about why somebody else volunteers. The value people get from volunteering is usually personal and thus the reasons are also personal.

I myself have seen issues with MNFurs volunteering that I would like to see addressed. And hence why I keep mentioning specific events that highlight the failures resulting from current attitudes. Most of the issues I have seen are due to people expressing some kind of judgement. Another reason I think the why of volunteering isn’t useful, because that promotes judgmental attitudes. There are several reasons I don’t volunteer anymore, and judgement is one of them. As long as I was sticking to what people thought I was suitable working on, things were ok. The second I touched a topic that somebody else thought I wasn’t qualified to be involved in (or was somebody else’s pet project), I became the recipient of some very callous behavior. A person can only take that so much.

So Procyon, what is the purpose of this discussion? Should issues be discussed elsewhere?

[Procyon]

You are correct Cyber, there are 2 conversations.

I’m also very sorry for delay in these post.  What should be the “quite season” has become anything but as aggressive staff and payroll control means I’m running 40 (and exactly 40) very hard hours.  Add to this many social and prior MNFur and FurryMigration.  I put the upcoming Convention separate, not because I see it different from MNfurs, but it has required time aside from here that is less in the public purview.  And even then, in the interest of disclosure which I know is a demand of Cyber’s, it would be unwise and impolitic to parties involved to discuss things not set yet.  Feel free to ask Kellic if people wish to help with this operation as, the less I do elsewhere, the more I can maintain focus here.  

[Author]

Posts