Abstract
Introduction
More than a decade ago, Brudney and Meijs (2009) conceptualized volunteering as a natural resource, proposing that volunteering emerges from a “human-made, renewable resource that can be grown and recycled, and whose continuation and volume of flow can be influenced by human beings positively as well as negatively” (p. 564). This metaphor clarifies the growing concern over the sustainability of volunteering for future needs. In recent decades, volunteering has undergone profound changes (Hustinx & Lammertyn, 2003; Thibault, 2020), all pointing to the “scarcity” of this resource. Examples include a decline in volunteering, both in numbers and hours (e.g., Brudney & Gazley, 2006); changes in the nature of and motivations for volunteering (Hustinx & Lammertyn, 2003; Thibault, 2020); increasing competition on the volunteer labor market (Bussell & Forbes, 2002, 2003); and a growing demand for volunteers (e.g., Bussell & Forbes, 2002; Randle et al., 2013). These developments suggest that society is unable to maintain, let alone increase, the level of volunteering. Practitioners echo these concerns, as volunteer-using organizations globally report an increasingly challenging search for volunteers, fueled partly by rising turnover rates (Brudney & Meijs, 2009; Hustinx, 2010; Lockstone-Binney et al., 2022).
The volunteering-as-a-natural-resource concept could nevertheless benefit from further conceptual clarity. The original conceptualization treats volunteering as a monolithic or unitary resource, thus failing to reflect the variety of forms, types, and models of volunteering that have been identified (Ackermann, 2019; Hustinx & Lammertyn, 2003; Hustinx & Meijs, 2011; Macduff et al., 2009; Overgaard, 2019). Moreover, the metaphor ignores the dynamics within and between volunteering. In the original conceptualization, the volunteer resource is relatively static, never changing in form or character. It thus ignores the fact that individuals, who provide the resource, change their volunteering behavior over time and across organizations.
In this conceptual article, we address these limitations by breaking down the volunteering-as-a-natural-resource concept into three volunteer resources—depicted as marine species—and by acknowledging the dynamics among them. We argue that these volunteer resources (a) manifest in particular forms of volunteer service; (b) serve different purposes; (c) are explained by different volunteer antecedents; (d) are harvested in different ways by different stakeholders meeting different conditions; and that they require specific forms of management based on their (e) benefits and challenges, (f) resource level, (g) propagation methods, and (h) sustainability needs. We further discuss the specific management benefits and challenges of each resource and propose that the categories interact and are part of a broader environment, characterized by populations of volunteer resources engaged in complex interactions among themselves and with a broad array of stakeholders (Bussell & Forbes, 2002, 2003). Our proposed research agenda for maintaining a sustainable volunteer workforce echoes the observation of Brudney and Meijs (2009, 2013) that governing the volunteering resource is a shared responsibility.
This article makes three contributions. First, by introducing three distinct types of volunteer resources instead of one, we extend the natural-resource metaphor and address its limitations. We explain how to propagate and harvest different types of resources as actual volunteering and how management differs between the resource categories. This responds to a concern expressed by scholars and practitioners that the current level of volunteering is unsustainable (e.g., Brudney & Gazley, 2006), as well as to the call for proper volunteer management (Macduff et al., 2009). Second, we acknowledge interactions between volunteer resources (Bussell & Forbes, 2002, 2003), recognizing that individuals can provide multiple volunteer resources simultaneously and/or across time or organizations. Third, we apply our conceptualization to discuss managerial consequences for volunteer-using organizations and present avenues for future research.
The remainder of the article is structured as follows. After briefly discussing the volunteering-as-a-natural-resource concept and highlighting its insights and current limitations, we extend the metaphor by conceptualizing three volunteer resources. We then discuss the dynamics between resources and explain two features of a healthy, sustainable volunteer environment. Finally, we bring together the main conclusions, discuss the managerial consequences, and present avenues for future research.
Understanding Volunteering as a Natural Resource
Brudney and Meijs (2009) propose that volunteering emerges from a resource that can be understood as a human-made, renewable/recyclable, common-pool (open access) resource that is susceptible to human intervention. Humans thus influence its continuation, volume, and flow. The pivotal issues of sustainability and risk of depletion raise questions concerning how to manage misuse/overuse, growth, and development. In response to these concerns, the concept of “regenerative” volunteer management has been introduced, shifting the focus from the organization to the community. This form of management also calls for adopting a more sustainable approach that allows the resource to be increased, recycled, and grown. It considers all parties involved with volunteering, as well as current and future resource needs, and calls for a lifelong valuation of volunteering (Brudney & Meijs, 2009). In a follow-up article, Brudney and Meijs (2013) apply the design principles of Ostrom’s (1990) governance of common pools and propose how it can be established and maintained to ensure the preservation and growth of volunteer resources.
This perspective presents an alternative understanding of the growing concern over the sustainability of volunteering, acknowledges that mismanagement of the supply of volunteer resources could pollute the resource base, highlights the need to view volunteering and volunteer management beyond a one-time organizational perspective, and acknowledges the need to develop collective responsibility to sustain and grow the resources.
Despite its important new insights, the conceptualization of volunteering as a natural resource is limited. First, it portrays the volunteer resource as monolithic or static, assuming it always remains the same. This corresponds to a problematic line of reasoning in the volunteer literature, which views volunteering as a single form of activity (Overgaard, 2019), despite the different types, modes, and forms of volunteering highlighted by scholars (e.g., Hustinx, 2010; Hustinx & Lammertyn, 2003; Macduff et al., 2009). Because individuals engage in different acts of volunteering for different reasons and purposes (Clary et al., 1996; Snyder & Omoto, 2009), specific strategies are needed to propagate, harvest (recruit), sustain, and manage each volunteer resource. Second, the conceptualization assumes that the resource remains static in both form and character, largely ignoring the fact that individuals change their volunteer behavior across time and organizations. We therefore examine the dynamic underlying volunteer-resource categories.
Three Volunteer-Resource Categories
Differences in types of volunteering and volunteer behavior are widely acknowledged (Ackermann, 2019; Bussell & Forbes, 2003). For example, Brudney (2005) examines employee, virtual, episodic, cross-national, board-membership, and government volunteering. Macduff and colleagues (2009) differentiate traditional, social-change, serendipitous, and entrepreneurial volunteering. Interestingly, these distinctions are based on differences between roles and programs in which volunteers and volunteering can be observed at the organizational level. We distinguish three underlying volunteer resources, rooted within individuals, that potentially materialize in a diverse set of observable volunteer types, roles, jobs, and programs.
We distinguish three basic categories of volunteer resources (traditional, third party, and spontaneous), each depicted as a marine species (wild salmon, farmed fish, and marine zooplankton). In our metaphor, wild salmon represents the traditional volunteer resource, given its high quality and desirability. Wild salmon contains many important nutrients which, when prepared the right way, produce a lot of energy. Similarly, the traditional resource materializes in reliable, predictable volunteering that can be deployed for many different tasks and organizations for prolonged periods. Like wild salmon, harvesting the traditional resource is costly for organizations. Wild salmon is propagated with little or no human influence, similarly traditional resources are propagated naturally. Unfortunately, human activity has resulted in a decline, shortage, and depletion of wild salmon, which is now considered an endangered species and requires protection. The same can be observed for traditional volunteer resources.
Meanwhile, industrialized fish farming is growing rapidly and enlarging the world’s fish supply. Farmed fish, which are produced industrially, represent the third-party volunteer-resource. Farmed fish is relatively new and less popular due to perceptions of inferior quality. Third-party resources are a recently developed means of creating volunteer energy. Some organizations are wary of it, as they are skeptical of the motivations and quality of volunteers. Interestingly, the costs for propagating and harvesting this resource are limited for volunteer-using organizations, as the third-party organization ensures the right circumstances and is able to “pick the fish out of the tank.” Just as there are various types of farmed fish (e.g., salmon and trout), there are many sub-types of third-party resources (e.g., corporate volunteering and service-learning).
Spontaneous volunteering is represented by marine zooplankton, which constitutes the base of aquatic food chains and is important to the existence of many other marine species. The spontaneous volunteer resource might be of similar importance to the other two volunteer resources. Marine zooplankton is further characterized by sudden peaks and surges, and the population size is constantly in flux. The same applies to spontaneous volunteers. Marine zooplankton can propagate through parthenogenesis (i.e., asexual reproduction). Likewise, spontaneous volunteers emerge “out of nowhere” in response to specific events. Marine zooplankton patches float in the water, drifting with the tides and currents. For volunteer-using organizations, harvesting this resource is relatively passive, as volunteers just show up. Just as there are many types of marine zooplankton, spontaneous resources can manifest in many ways.
Our typology acknowledges that, as the manifestation of an individual’s volunteer energy, volunteering does not stem necessarily from any single resource. Each resource serves a different purpose, emerges from different antecedents, and requires appropriate management based on its inherent benefits and challenges. The characteristic differences between the resources have fundamental implications for how each resource should be managed, harvested, propagated, sustained, or grown. The three resources are described in Table 1.
Description of Three Volunteer Resources (Species) and Their Characteristics.
It is important to note that the three volunteer resources can materialize in comparable, observable forms of volunteering. For example, online/virtual volunteering can manifest from the traditional resource (e.g., online participation in board meetings or long-term online volunteer service), the third-party resource (e.g., virtual interaction between corporate or student volunteers and communities), or the spontaneous resource (e.g., dissemination of emergency information via social media or online platforms). In these examples, the concept of online volunteering relates more to how the volunteer work is performed rather than how the resource manifests in volunteering. The same applies to episodic volunteering, as it can materialize from any of the three resources. The traditional resource could manifest in recurring or habitual episodic volunteering (F. Handy et al., 2006) within the same organization or event; the third-party resource could manifest in National Days of Service (Maas et al., 2021) or one-off corporate volunteering programs; and the spontaneous resource could manifest in genuine episodic volunteering (F. Handy et al., 2006).
Wild Salmon: The Traditional Volunteer Resource That Volunteer-Using Organizations Want in Abundance
The traditional volunteer resource manifests as regular, reliable, long-term volunteering or as habitual (recurring) episodic volunteering (F. Handy et al., 2006) within the same organization or event (online or offline). It is often portrayed in direct contrast to all contemporary, reflexive styles of volunteering (Hustinx & Lammertyn, 2003; Thibault, 2020).
The purpose of the traditional resource is to fulfill a wide range of direct/indirect service roles and functions that support the goals and development of classic nonprofit or public entities. These organizations can serve various purposes and missions, including service delivery, mutual support/benefit, and campaigning/advocacy (C. Handy, 1988) in contexts supported by paid staff or in all-volunteer grassroots groups (Smith, 2000).
The antecedents to traditional resources have received extensive scholarly examination, which points to two models: the dominant status and resource model (Wilson, 2012). The dominant-status model suggests that people with higher socio-economic status are more likely to volunteer (Wilson, 2000). Similarly, the resource model (Wilson & Musick, 1997) claims that volunteering requires substantial human, social, and cultural capital, implying that volunteer behavior changes as people occupy different social and economic positions throughout their lives (Wilson, 2012). Scholars have examined the characteristics or antecedents of individuals who are most likely to volunteer. Although results are mixed and often dependent on context (national and organizational) and method, volunteer behavior appears most likely among women, people 50 years of age or older, those with higher education and/or young children, and greater religious participation, as well as among those retired or working part-time (Bussell & Forbes, 2002; Forbes & Zampelli, 2014).
The traditional volunteer resource is beneficial for economic and service-quality reasons. Prolonged commitment promotes stability and control, while reducing the costs of administration, recruitment, training, and replacement (Jamison, 2003). Such stability enables setting and maintaining quality standards for service delivery (Macduff, 2008). Furthermore, traditional volunteers can receive proper training, work autonomously, and conform to established, predetermined protocols. This ensures the smooth operation of services (Maas et al., 2021; Macduff et al., 2009), as the volunteers are familiar with both the organization and the work. For these reasons, this resource is sought and preferred by many volunteer-using organizations.
Because they are highly sought and valued, the recruitment and retention of traditional volunteers pose major management challenges to volunteer-using organizations. The field is consumed with recruiting and retaining long-term volunteers, as reflected in the literature aimed at explaining and achieving efficacious recruitment and retention (e.g., Locke et al., 2003). The challenges associated with recruiting and retaining traditional volunteers will only increase, given societal developments (Hustinx & Lammertyn, 2003) that are altering volunteering in terms of motivation, style, and length of service (Thibault, 2020). Volunteer-using organizations should therefore identify which of their roles, functions, and tasks require traditional volunteer commitment and which ones could be performed (at least in part) by other types of resources. This could reduce pressure on the traditional resource. Organizations could also create collective recruitment strategies, thus moving from competition to collaboration in recruitment (Randle et al., 2013).
The traditional volunteer resource is harvested through classic volunteer recruitment. An extensive body of literature examines effective volunteer recruitment, a broad range of formal/informal recruitment methods and channels (e.g., Bussell & Forbes, 2003; Wymer & Starnes, 2001), and compelling recruitment messages (e.g., Clary et al., 1996; Snyder & Omoto, 2008). Previous research highlights the importance of informal word-of-mouth recruitment (e.g., Bussell & Forbes, 2003; Wymer & Starnes, 2001), which should address motivations (e.g., Clary et al., 1996; Snyder & Omoto, 2008), benefits (Bennett & Kottasz, 2001), or organizational characteristics (Boezeman & Ellemers, 2008). The traditional resource can also be harvested through a membership-approach resulting in a volunteer workforce consisting of members (Mook et al., 2007), relatives, or friends.
Regarding propagation, the traditional resource is based on learned behavior. For example, individuals are more likely to volunteer if their parents volunteered (Bussell & Forbes, 2002) or if they have volunteered previously (Wicker, 2017). Within membership associations, volunteering is also propagated by creating social obligations among members or their relatives (Hustinx & Meijs, 2011). Finally, individuals are most likely to volunteer because they are asked (Bussell & Forbes, 2002).
Although scholars disagree, the scarcity of the traditional volunteer resource has been endorsed, as it is declining and being replaced by other volunteer resources (Brudney & Gazley, 2006; Chambré, 2020). Traditional resources could be considered an “endangered species”: highly valued (by organizations) but becoming rare. It should therefore be nourished and conserved, with volunteer satisfaction, management, and retention as important elements to keep volunteers volunteering. These elements have received extensive scholarly attention.
Farmed Fish: The Increasingly Popular Volunteer Resource Propagated and Harvested by Third Parties
The third-party volunteer resource is an emergent topic (Haski-Leventhal et al., 2010). In addition to volunteers and volunteer-using organizations, this resource involves a third party (e.g., government entity, educational institution, corporation, intermediary organization). Although these parties propagate and harvest the resource, the actual volunteering is not performed within their organizations. This resource manifests in many kinds of online or offline volunteering, including episodic volunteering during National Days of Service (Maas et al., 2021), habitual episodic volunteering across different organizations or events, corporate volunteering (Rodell & Lynch, 2016), workfare volunteering (De Waele & Hustinx, 2019), service-learning (Haski-Leventhal et al., 2010), voluntourism (Wearing & McGehee, 2013), and family volunteering (Haski-Leventhal et al., 2016). The third-party resource can even manifest as traditional, long-term volunteer commitments (e.g., corporate volunteers as nonprofit board members). Farmed salmon may look at lot like wild salmon, however, it is not the same.
Third-party resources often serve two purposes: that of the entity accessing the resource (the sending organization) and that of the entity in which it is harvested (the receiving organization) (Brudney et al., 2019). For example, National Days of Service are generally intended to create an ethic of volunteering (Compion et al., 2022; Maas et al., 2021), and companies often engage in corporate volunteering to enhance various employee outcomes and corporate reputation (Rodell et al., 2017; Rodell & Lynch, 2016). Service-learning and workfare volunteering have the objective of helping students or unemployed individuals to achieve specific learning goals or skills (De Waele & Hustinx, 2019; Haski-Leventhal et al., 2010). The volunteer tasks serve the day-to-day goals of the receiving-organization.
Common antecedents of this volunteer resource are difficult to identify, as third parties reach highly specific groups, and they could potentially target individuals who lack traditional volunteering antecedents (van Overbeeke et al., 2022). For example, corporate volunteering also attracts individuals who do not volunteer independently (Roza, 2016), and workfare volunteering propagates volunteer energy among people lacking the social, human, or economic capital associated with volunteer behavior (De Waele & Hustinx, 2019). Service-learning, performed by students, encourages young people to volunteer (Haski-Leventhal et al., 2010).
According to Haski-Leventhal and colleagues (2010) the benefits of third-party volunteering center on enhancing volunteerability and recruitablity. Volunteerability increases as the volunteer-resource base is grown by third parties manipulating the willingness to volunteer (Hustinx & Meijs, 2011). This improves the availability of individuals by allowing them to volunteer during working/study hours, and it influences capability by accessing different sets of skills (e.g., as offered by corporate volunteers) (Roza, 2016). Third parties enhance recruitability by increasing accessibility, resources, and networks for volunteer-using organizations. Third parties bear recruitment costs, thereby reducing them for receiving organizations, especially by inducing individuals who are generally less likely to volunteer (van Overbeeke et al., 2022). Moreover, third-party volunteer groups often have their own hierarchy/leadership structures that facilitate communication and supervision during the volunteer service.
Following Brudney and colleagues (2019), the third-party resources entails shared/dual volunteer management between the sending and receiving organization. This is beneficial, as the workload for accessing and managing volunteers is shared. It also poses challenges, however, as the guidance of volunteers is shared as well. This could result in miscommunication and unrealistic expectations between the various parties, making it difficult to balance the benefits for beneficiaries, volunteers, and receiving/sending-organization (Roza, 2016). This echoes Haski-Leventhal and colleagues (2010), who identify challenges relating to levels of commitment (see also De Waele & Hustinx, 2019) and specific restrictions/requests from third parties (see Shachar et al., 2018). Volunteers recruited by third parties could potentially have unrealistic expectations of the volunteer service or lack the desired skills, training, and motivation. Furthermore, many third-party volunteers are unfamiliar with the receiving organization or the volunteer tasks. They therefore require more supervision, must be formally welcomed, and wish to be told what to do (based upon Maas et al., 2021). Sending and receiving organizations should collaborate and coordinate closely to align expectations among all concerned. As noted above, the third parties who harvest this resource can do so in multiple ways. For example, van Overbeeke and colleagues (2022) identify three strategies for attracting individuals with nontraditional volunteering antecedents into third-party volunteering: encouragement, enablement, and enforcement. In enforcement, third parties use mandatory pressure to coerce individuals to volunteer, as when service-learning is a compulsory part of the curriculum (Dienhart et al., 2016) or when nonparticipation in workfare volunteering results in losing welfare benefits (De Waele & Hustinx, 2019). When no mandatory pressure is used, third parties must harvest the resource on a voluntary basis. Examinations of effective recruitment strategies for corporate volunteering (Peterson, 2004) have highlighted the importance of communicating how participation contributes to career development and résumé building, of acknowledging participation in performance evaluations, and of communicating the moral value of volunteering when soliciting participation. To harvest this resource, third parties should set expectations, norms, and standards that compel individuals to conform to group pressure out of a need for approval and acceptance (Hustinx & Meijs, 2011; Rodell & Lynch, 2016) and create a context where people who do not volunteer are criticized by their communities or organizations (Hustinx & Meijs, 2011). In a third-party context, employees or students may feel that non-participation will negatively affect their position.
In many respects, third-party volunteers resemble an “endemic species,” as they appear only in specific contexts. The propagation of this volunteer resource thus resembles artificial production/reproduction, as the volunteer energy is stimulated predominantly by a third party, thereby reducing recruitment costs for receiving organizations. The third parties are nevertheless compensated by fulfilling additional instrumental purposes, which might come at the expense of the receiving organization. To ensure sustainability, third parties must be able to achieve their instrumental goals, which receiving organizations can support by creating suitable volunteer opportunities. For example, when companies use corporate volunteering to increase team cohesion, corporate volunteers should be able to engage in volunteering activities as teams (in contrast to individual volunteer opportunities). Likewise, service-learning aimed at providing students with specific experiences or skills requires opportunities for doing so. Close cooperation between the sending and the receiving organization is therefore crucial. Additional complexities of engaging with third parties could present management challenges to receiving organizations (e.g., Lee, 2010). For example, some initiatives might require considering multiple stakeholders, and employees or students might lack the needed motivation, time, or capital to perform the tasks successfully (e.g., Sundeen et al., 2007).
Marine Zooplankton: The Volunteer Resource That Emerges Spontaneously in Times of Need
The spontaneous volunteer resource (marine zooplankton) emerges in response to need (e.g., natural disasters, humanitarian crises, and one-time events). This resource has recently gained considerable attention in the literature (e.g., Daddoust et al., 2021; Schmidt & Albert, 2022). It often manifests in various forms of disaster or crisis volunteering, event volunteering, activism, or political and social movements. People (individuals or groups) will self-organize if they are made aware of a need (Nissen et al., 2021). The spontaneous resource can also manifest in genuine episodic volunteering (F. Handy et al., 2006) affiliated with and formalized within the context of one-time large-scale events.
Spontaneous resources serve an emergent need identified by volunteers or organizations. Volunteers are willing to “help wherever needed” and “are not concerned about the tasks they are asked to do” (Barraket et al., 2013, p. 32). In general, they contribute time to various activities in relief efforts following a humanitarian crisis (Beyerlein & Sikkink, 2008), natural disaster, or political or social events (e.g., the Black Lives Matter movement in response to the acquittal of Trayvon Martin’s murderer). These spontaneous efforts generate substantial benefit, especially when volunteers are appropriately matched to tasks according to their skills (Wachtendorf & Kendra, 2001). In addition to serving an identified need, comparable with other forms of volunteering, spontaneous volunteering reduces feelings of powerlessness or helpfulness, while promoting a sense of connectedness and an opportunity for self-help or self-healing (Yang, 2021).
Disaster volunteers tend to be younger and less educated than traditional volunteers (Rotolo & Berg, 2010). We argue that the demographic antecedents for this resource are relatively difficult to define and predict. It emerges spontaneously, driven by emotions (Beyerlein & Sikkink, 2008) and in proximity to need (Nissen et al., 2021). This proximity can be based on geography (e.g., the location of the event), prior experience, alignment with certain societal points of view, or affinity with those directly affected (Barraket et al., 2013). Antecedents for spontaneous resources consist of environmental (vs individual) variables, coupled with widespread attention (Harris et al., 2017). Even in countries without much volunteering, the spontaneous resource can appear suddenly (and in abundance) during a crisis. For example, the 1995 earthquake in Kobe is regarded as a hallmark moment for the institution of volunteering in Japan (Avenell, 2012).
Given that the spontaneous resource manifests in a wide range of volunteer contexts, the associated management benefits and challenges are diverse. During crises, spontaneous volunteers are often seen as a liability (Daddoust et al., 2021; Simsa et al., 2019; Whittaker et al., 2015). In other cases, they are indispensable during crisis or large-scale events and capable of creating social or political change. Spontaneous volunteering can be an excellent resource and opportunity to mobilize numerous individuals around time-limited, specific events, while offering substantial flexibility, improvisation, and adaptability. The efforts of spontaneous volunteers are often readily available and without direct costs (Daddoust et al., 2021). The profound benefits of this resource include “outside” expertise, experience, skills, and indigenous knowledge of communities. This enhances innovation, quality, and effectiveness in services (Daddoust et al., 2021). The spontaneous resource is best suited to basic, specific, yet important, time-consuming tasks, and should be assigned to less technical and culturally insensitive tasks (Daddoust et al., 2021; Simsa et al., 2019). The proper realization of the potential and benefits of spontaneous volunteering requires properly addressing the associated challenges.
In confirmation of Harris and colleagues (2017), Daddoust and colleagues (2021) identify challenges and problems related to utilizing spontaneous volunteers, including lack of training; issues of health, safety, and liability; unrealistic expectations; and volunteers appearing without being asked. Furthermore, an oversupply of spontaneous resources can create congestion and hinder formal, professional authorities. For example, after the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, thousands of volunteers stepped up to help. Unfortunately, most lacked training, and their efforts were uncoordinated, leading to piles of unnecessary donations, waste of local storage capacity, and traffic jams. Moreover, as spontaneous volunteers often appear
The spontaneous volunteer resource is harvested passively, as volunteers appear
Spontaneous resources are a relatively common “species,” and the population is not a matter of concern, as they emerge spontaneously. The resource becomes plentiful within the environment when needed, even in the absence of formal recruitment (Fernandez et al., 2006). It can also disappear quickly, as media attention wanes (Florian et al., 2019).
Spontaneous volunteering resembles informal volunteering in that the behavior is intuitive, and not learned (Haidt, 2001). It is more likely to emerge from “nature,” as opposed to “nurture” (the two other resources). It is propagated through parthenogenesis, a natural form of reproduction that requires no support or fertilization, only specific events (e.g., humanitarian or natural crises, or political and social events).
This resource is susceptible to “waste” if large numbers of volunteers offer their time to ill-prepared organizations (Daddoust et al., 2021). For example, although 600,000 people offered their time during the pandemic, only 50,000 actual volunteer tasks emerged (Moritz, 2020). Volunteer organizations are quick to disregard spontaneous resources for reasons of nuisance or liability (Nissen et al., 2021). When volunteers are turned away, the resource is lost. Alternatively, spontaneous volunteers might self-organize in emergent groups (Twigg & Mosel, 2017; Wachtendorf & Kendra, 2001), which are often less efficient due to a lack of coordination (Schmidt & Albert, 2022). To avoid resource waste, organizations could create guidelines for the effective coordination of spontaneous volunteers (Daddoust et al., 2021; Nissen et al., 2021), supported by social media and online platforms, as they can help to locate relevant resources and information (Schmidt & Albert, 2022).
A Dynamic and Complex Volunteer Environment of Interaction, Evolution, and Devolution
Thus far, we have broken down the volunteering-as-a-natural-resource concept into three volunteer resources, each depicted as a marine species. Despite our three-part typology of volunteer resources, research has shown that volunteering behavior can change over time (Bussell & Forbes, 2003) and that one volunteer can support multiple organizations and engage in various volunteer commitments simultaneously (Wilson, 2000). Because they reside in individuals, volunteer resources are not static, but fluid: the various “species” can shape-shift or evolve/devolve.
Building upon the regenerative approach (Brudney & Meijs, 2009, 2013), we advocate developing collective responsibility for sustaining volunteer resources. This requires shifting from a one-time, single organizational perspective on volunteers and volunteer management toward a lifelong, multi-organizational, community perspective on volunteer resources. A community perspective empowers a broad array of stakeholders to renew and reinvigorate the supply of each resource (i.e., by attracting individuals into volunteering, enhancing their contributions across organizations, and keeping them volunteering throughout the life course). Similarly, as noted by Nesbit and colleagues (2018, p. 509), a community’s volunteer-management infrastructure is “the collective capacity of all volunteer-using organizations within a community to recruit and mobilize volunteers effectively.” Acknowledging that the three resources are related and part of a larger system, we merge them with the volunteer-management infrastructure (Nesbit et al., 2018) to form a broader volunteer environment. This can generate insight concerning integrated ways of growing and developing volunteer resources. This perspective enhances understanding of individual volunteer journeys across time and organizations within a dynamic environment.
We describe the dynamic volunteer environment according to two important features. First, as explained previously, all resources within the volunteer environment are related, continuously in flux, and dynamic over time. Second, a healthy, thriving, sustainable volunteer environment needs a diversity of resources and committed stakeholders.
Within the volunteer environment, the three resources interact in various ways. As acknowledged in the literature on the volunteer life cycle (Bussell & Forbes, 2003), individuals change their volunteer contributions throughout their lives, and there are various points at which volunteers enter (and leave) organizations. Unlike natural species, individuals can simultaneously manifest as multiple resources (“species”) for multiple organizations. For example, third-party resources could serve as a way to “test the waters,” providing a pathway for propagating the traditional resource (Haski-Leventhal et al., 2010; Maas et al., 2021; Rodell et al., 2017). The same applies to spontaneous volunteering during crises or large one-off events. Meanwhile, traditional volunteers can offer third-party resources when harvested during National Days of Service or corporate volunteering, as these opportunities allow for additional volunteer contributions (Roza, 2016). Likewise, some corporate volunteers also volunteer in their private lives (Roza, 2016), and those engaged in more traditional forms of volunteering often extend their service as spontaneous volunteers during crises or within large-scale events (e.g., Whittaker et al., 2015). On the other hand, failure to utilize the spontaneous resource or poor management of traditional or third-party resources can decrease future volunteer effort (Nesbit et al., 2018), thereby limiting or depleting supply through interactive dependency. Poor resource management can have long-term consequences, while good management can help volunteers continue their service or ensure that those starting with short-term commitments will extend their service to include more traditional involvement (e.g., Compion et al., 2022; Maas et al., 2021), as often reflected in event-volunteer legacies (e.g., Doherty & Patil, 2019). Volunteer behavior thus changes throughout the life course (see Bussell & Forbes, 2003). The three volunteer resources are therefore not mutually exclusive for individuals and organizations. They can shift, evolve/devolve into, or expand into each other.
Volunteer resources are also dynamic over time. Society is constantly changing, thereby growing/declining and evolving/devolving volunteer resources according to shifting needs and circumstances (e.g., growing third-party volunteer-resources, declining traditional volunteer-resources). The relative size of the three resources over time is unclear. Although studies suggest an increase in specific “sub-species” of third-party volunteers, their importance over time is unknown (De Waele & Hustinx, 2019; Haski-Leventhal et al., 2010; Maas et al., 2021; Roza, 2016). The volunteer environment is a network of related stakeholders collectively co-creating and sustaining the “continuation and volume of flow” of volunteer resources (Brudney & Meijs, 2009, p. 564). The growth/decline of specific resources over time can be influenced by events (e.g., crises) and stakeholder involvement (e.g., third parties or national volunteer bodies), thereby affecting the distribution and abundance of volunteer resources within society. For example, an increase in nonprofit organizations and third-party organizations stimulating third-party volunteering or large-scale events might increase levels of the third-party and spontaneous resources. Although causality is difficult to establish, more demand for a certain resource might generate a comparable increase. For example, we do not know whether the recent increase in short-term, episodic volunteering is driven solely by increasing demand for short-term engagements among volunteers, or whether it rather stems from an increasing supply of short-term volunteer opportunities (Cnaan et al., 2022).
The volunteer environment also requires natural diversity of various interacting resources to ensure stability, health, and sustainability. The third sector and broader society require a diversity of volunteer resources to flourish. They cannot rely on a single resource, as each species serves a different purpose and entail different cost/benefit structures and values. Although some organizations predominantly seek traditional volunteers, others may accept and even welcome other species (Wymer & Starnes, 2001). For example, organizations relying more on short-term support might welcome more third-party volunteering or even spontaneous volunteering. Relying on a single resource jeopardizes the future of volunteering, as this is prone to scarcity and resource depletion.
The growth and development of resources (including new ones) provide more opportunities for volunteer participation. For example, creative and innovative volunteer managers should actively seek new species/sub-species of volunteer resources. New sub-species of third-party volunteers could be created to allow additional space for volunteer involvement, thereby growing the resource.
Discussion
One contribution of this conceptual article is that it extends and deepens the volunteering-as-a-natural-resource metaphor (Brudney & Meijs, 2009, 2013) by identifying three basic volunteer resources: (a) traditional volunteer resources (wild salmon), (b) third-party volunteer resources (farmed fish), and (c) spontaneous volunteer resources (marine zooplankton). We argue that each type (a) manifests in particular forms of volunteer service; (b) serves different purposes; (c) is explained by different volunteer antecedents; (d) is harvested in a different way by different stakeholders meeting different conditions; and requires a specific form of management based on (e) management benefits and challenges, (f) resource levels, (g) propagation, and (h) need for sustainability. The three resources are dynamic and fluid, meaning that they can shape-shift or evolve/devolve into each other over time. In other words, an individual can provide multiple volunteer resources at the same or across time and organizations (see also Bussell & Forbes, 2003). Extending the conceptualization into three basic resources and their associated dynamics helps to overcome the prevailing tendency to view volunteering as a unitary activity stemming from a monolithic resource (Brudney & Meijs, 2009; Overgaard, 2019). The distinction also acknowledges that each resource provides different management benefits and challenges, and differs in how it can be harvested, propagated, and sustained. This opens new opportunities for appropriate volunteer-management policies and research.
Second, we demonstrate that the three volunteer resources interact dynamically with each other and with/within a broader volunteer environment. This environment consists of a broad array of stakeholders and institutional arrangements that influence resource levels. Resource diversity is crucial for supporting volunteering in general. This calls for collective strategies and policies among volunteer-using organizations and other stakeholders that help each resource to prosper and thrive.
We acknowledge that our three volunteer resources might not be exhaustive. For example, our focus on formal volunteering excludes resources that materialize into informal volunteering (see Wang, 2021) and other modes of civic participation. An informal volunteer resource might nevertheless resemble our spontaneous volunteer resource. The differences between the three resources could also be relatively ambiguous, given their manifestation as specific types of volunteering (as with episodic, event-based, and virtual volunteering). Finally, some forms of volunteering might materialize from multiple resources. For example, corporate volunteer responses to crises (Chong, 2009) might materialize from the spontaneous and third-party resources.
By depicting each volunteer resource as a particular marine species, we acknowledge that volunteering does not stem from a unitary or monolithic resource. Instead, it materializes from at least three fundamentally different resources, leading to different volunteer behaviors. The metaphor helps to reveal characteristics that distinguish the resources from each other, thereby informing their management, propagation and harvesting. This is fundamentally different from comparing observable forms of volunteering (see Table 1). The metaphor also enables a more dynamic understanding of volunteering. In an ocean, various marine species coexist, interact, influence other populations, and are influenced by other conditions. This also applies to the three volunteer resources within the broader volunteer environment. Viewing each resource as a different species also opens discussion concerning relationships between specific aspects (e.g., population size, density, growth/decline, fluctuation, and sustainability). We should go beyond monitoring the state of the resource (e.g., numbers/hours) and monitor the reproductive potential of the resources (e.g., by examining how to support the growth of resources and identifying positive and negative influences on resource levels).
Managerial Consequences
Understanding the inherent differences between volunteer resources can inform and help volunteer managers/coordinators and other stakeholders to make appropriate managerial decisions. Acknowledging that the three resources differ in how they can be harvested, propagated, and sustained opens new opportunities for understanding each resource and for developing appropriate volunteer-management policies. Such policies could focus either on managing specific resources within volunteer-using or third-party organizations or on considering overall resource levels in local communities.
Based on our conceptualization of the three resources, we draw attention to three fundamental managerial consequences. One major difference between the resource categories that is relevant to volunteer management is the relationship between volunteers and volunteer-using organizations. The traditional resource resides within individual volunteers who are known to and familiar with the organization. For this resource, the organization’s major management tasks concern the recruitment, training, and retention of traditional resources, with the need for guidance and supervision diminishing over time. The third-party resource manifests in volunteers who require hands-on supervision, guidance, and training, and who prefer not to have much autonomy or responsibility (Maas et al., 2021). In contrast, the spontaneous resource manifests in extremely autonomous volunteers who define their own tasks. For this resource, volunteer managers should seek a balance between coordination and self-organization (Simsa et al., 2019).
Another difference that informs management concerns the relationship between volunteers and volunteer managers/coordinators. The traditional resource is organized by unitary volunteer management (Brudney et al., 2019), while the third-party resource (by definition) is based on dual/shared management between the sending and receiving organizations (Brudney et al., 2019). To ensure that the third-party resource manifests in effective volunteering, managers from the two organizations should negotiate volunteer assignments that create benefits for all parties involved. The spontaneous resource apparently has little to no relationship to any volunteer manager. To facilitate the useful manifestation of this resource, volunteer managers could use various media to steer volunteers into effective actions by endorsing and presenting “good examples” of volunteer service, hoping others will mimic these efforts (Harris et al., 2017).
Another managerial consequence concerns further support for volunteer life cycles. One way would be for volunteer managers to try to extend individual volunteer journeys across organizations over time. For example, for the traditional resource, volunteer managers could focus on motivation and satisfaction to retain volunteers for as long as possible or to increase their commitment within their own organizations, while also helping departing volunteers to enter new volunteer commitments with other organizations. They could also try to encourage traditional volunteers to engage in other types of volunteering. (e.g., to materialize the third-party resource through corporate volunteering or National Days of Service). The third-party and spontaneous resources offer similar opportunities for creating spill-over effects with other resources. For example, enhancing satisfaction for third-party or spontaneous volunteers might propagate other resources. Nonetheless, volunteer managers should be careful to avoid “cannibalism,” in which individuals replace one volunteer resource with another. Instead, they should encourage the coexistence of resources within individuals and support effective combinations across resources and organizations. Specifically for the third-party resource, volunteer managers should aim to keep sending organizations satisfied to ensure their continuation as third parties for the same or other volunteer-using organizations. For the spontaneous resource, volunteer managers could use various media to recognize the efforts of spontaneous volunteers, thus serving as a catalyst for this resource among individuals.
Research Agenda
The volunteer-resource categories open an interesting research agenda along two broader avenues: (a) the specific volunteer resources and (b) the dynamics among and between resources and their environment. Several suggestions for pursuing these avenues are summarized in Table 2.
Properties and Examples of Potential Future Research Questions.
One line of research could address the fundamental differences between the three resources, with greater attention to the consequences of such dissimilarities. For example, knowledge concerning volunteer resources could be enhanced by identifying other important resource characteristics (e.g., motivation and paid-staff volunteer relations). Further research is also needed on the differences between the three resources, including the managerial consequences of the inherent differences for volunteer managers/coordinators. For example, although mounting evidence suggests that different styles of volunteering require different management strategies (e.g., Brudney et al., 2019), few studies have addressed specific aspects of managing each resource. Relevant questions include how different volunteer activities, recruitment messages, recognition, training, and supervision should be developed for the different resources. In addition, given their distinctive sustainability challenges, it is important to know how to sustain or grow each resource. For example, studies could investigate whether a general call for volunteering is needed, or whether each resource requires its own approach. Another set of questions could expand our conceptualization by exploring additional resources or deepen it by identifying sub-species. Another important line of research concerns the effective combination of multiple resources by volunteer-using organizations. Relevant questions include how organizations can (or cannot) effectively combine efforts aimed at the recruitment, mobilization, and management of different resources and how different resources can work together effectively. Relevant questions concern the identification of combinations of resources that could help volunteer-using organizations achieve their missions or ways of determining which resources are required for which tasks, roles, or functions. For example, an organization could postpone particular maintenance work until a National Day of Service or leverage the third-party resource to lessen the demand for/pressure on the traditional resource.
Other lines of research could examine the fluidity of and dynamics between the three resources and the broader volunteer environment. Like marine species living alongside each other in the ocean, volunteer resources exist together in local communities and societies. Thus far, we have articulated two features of the broader volunteer environment: (a) all volunteer resources are related, continuously in flux, and dynamic over time; and (b) a healthy, thriving, sustainable volunteer environment requires resource diversity and a diverse set of stakeholders. This opens interesting paths for safeguarding healthy volunteer-resource levels in the future. For example, given that volunteer resources influence each other, further studies could investigate potential effects, both positive (“spill-overs”) and negative (“cannibalism”). Possible questions include: How does one volunteer resource shape-shift or evolve/devolve into another? Do volunteer resources support, harm, or replace others? How do individuals offer multiple volunteer resources simultaneously and throughout the life course? How can volunteer-involving organizations (or volunteer managers/coordinators) increase volunteer contributions across time, organizations, and resources? This question responds to Brudney and Meijs (2009), who call for examining the lifelong value of a volunteer.
Acknowledging a broader volunteer environment also entails recognizing that volunteer resources are influenced by those who use the resources, as well as by other stakeholders and institutional arrangements (e.g., nonprofit regimes, discourses on the role and values of volunteering, community characteristics, cultural antecedents, and magnitude of social services) (Nesbit et al., 2018). This underscores the need for volunteer research in the long term and at the community level. The volunteer environment (the “ocean” in which all “species” coexist) thus also needs attention from practitioners (e.g., managers). Relevant questions concern how stakeholders and institutional arrangements interact to maximize the current and future value of volunteering; how different stakeholders can support volunteer-resources collaboratively and collectively; and how institutional arrangements can support (or hamper) specific volunteer resources.
By recognizing the existence of a broader volunteer environment, we advocate the addition of a broader dimension to traditional volunteer management: “volunteer-environment management” (VEM). This refers to the collaborative implementation of policies for sustaining and strengthening, or rebuilding a healthy, thriving volunteer environment (see Brudney & Meijs, 2013). Following other scholars, we call for research that goes beyond monitoring volunteer numbers/hours, instead identifying and examining positive/negative indicators and influences within the volunteer environment (see Haski-Leventhal et al., 2018). A collaborative or participative approach to VEM should involve a broad array of stakeholders, recognizing the need for collective support and sustainable development of the volunteer environment. Further research should investigate how to construct a supportive volunteer environment in which diverse groups of stakeholders collaborate and work beyond their own interests.
In conclusion, this article takes up the challenge posed by Brudney and Meijs (2009, 2013) to develop a fundamental reconceptualization of volunteering. By extending the natural-resource metaphor, we can overcome the limitation of treating volunteering as a monolithic or uniform resource, which always remains the same. We have identified at least three distinctive volunteer resources, each with its own characteristics (Table 1). We propose a deeper understanding of the various types of volunteering, based on resource characteristics, thereby explaining how each resource entails its own cost/benefit structure, and can be harvested, propagated, and sustained by addressing specific management benefits and challenges. Our extension of the metaphor reveals the dynamic interactions between the three resources within the broader volunteer environment. Instead of focusing solely on a single volunteer resource, academics and practitioners should focus on creating a healthy, sustainable volunteer environment comprising multiple volunteer resources, stakeholders, and institutional arrangements. Given the value of volunteering, the volunteer environment must ultimately become healthy, resilient, and sustainable, thereby ensuring the vigorous growth of all volunteer resources.
Footnotes
Authors’ Note
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
Funding
ORCID iDs
