One volunteer must inevitably work with another volunteer to achieve a result. And one group of volunteers must inevitably work with another group to achieve a more significant result. The effectiveness of these interactions in getting things done depends a lot on the how the manager of volunteers designs the organisation.

Fundamentally, the type and structure of the organisation will greatly influence the nature of the machine possible and the results available. Today, there is huge interest in unusual types and structures in an effort on the part of managers of volunteers to structure in line with the enthusiasm for volunteering.

Simply, if the volunteers you can attract aren’t interested in high commitment to your cause and organisation, there’s no point in structuring in a way that demands high commitment. You must orient your organisation to your volunteers.

And of course, your CSO must deliver the results and the benefits to your chosen beneficiaries whenever and wherever they need. So, the organisation will be structured towards product delivery and ensuring results.

Social structure

People are social beings. Volunteers need one another for their existence, and, to a greater or lesser degree, they actively seek out contact with others in their volunteering.

It’s common for volunteers to say that one of the big things they get out of volunteering is the social interaction, the camaraderie. Typically, volunteers socialise with other volunteers in and out of the volunteer setting. And managers structure the CSO in a particular way and this structure enables a particular social interaction.

CSOs work because volunteers cooperate with one another. And CSOs work because managers are able, through social interaction, enabled by the firm’s structure, to influence their volunteers towards their point of view. This influencing idea is one of the definitions of management – and specifically of leadership.

So, managers must create the right environment and a major element of that environment is the CSO’s structure. If the structure constrains interaction, the machine will not function optimally, and the manager will not achieve their desired results.

The adjacent figure shows three typical structures of small CSOs. Vol are volunteers, EE are employees and Mgr, the manager. In one case there is more than one manager, and the structures show mixed organisations with volunteers and employees.

Nuclear organisation

The first and most obvious structure is that of the nuclear CSO. Manager and volunteers are co-located. Here the manager will find it relatively simple to make their influence felt. The manager will see each volunteer regularly and hence monitor work and facilitate. Here, calling a meeting is simple and issues can be dealt with immediately. And the proximity of all players enables trust to be built easily between them.

Dispersed organisation

Soon after the manager has formed the nuclear CSO, evolution typically demands recruitment of volunteers physically dispersed from the firm. Sometimes this will be to give the CSO access to new beneficiary groups or sometimes it will be to access other volunteer resource. Having volunteers dispersed is a common solution with volunteers traveling to the headquarters for varying lengths of time, perhaps for meetings and training.

This also describes the CSO that makes use of the services of external others where the work group comprises a mix of volunteers, employees, and even suppliers.

Here the manager must make distinct efforts to exert their influence. Meetings must be set, and electronic means used to enable communications. Trust becomes more dependent on action and timescales will be strained as interaction potentially becomes less frequent.

This is a common structure with CSOs (or third sector firms) offering consulting services to other CSOs. The senior managers are in the regions, and they orchestrate and manage delivery using volunteer consultants in towns and cities, each going into local CSOs according to need.

Following the Covid pandemic, and subsequent return to work, many CSOs found themselves questioning previous rigidity. CSOs that previously insisted that the only way for them was nuclear have acknowledged volunteer and employee wishes for flexibility. Hybrid structures are now often being trialled with volunteers working in the headquarters on some days and at home on others.

Hybrid working is nothing new, but it may become more mainstream in years to come as CSOs realise it can work with significant benefits.

Distributed organisation

Distributed CSOs come about as the nuclear firm finds need to open locations that are geographically separated from the headquarters. Here, typically, a manager of volunteers runs each outpost with another more senior manager coordinating the inter-outpost activities. The more senior manager and the headquarters staff might be volunteers or employees.

Here the central manager must set up communications and inter-outpost interaction to achieve the desired outcomes. It is easy for each outpost to become an isolated nuclear CSO, following its local manager, without harmonisation behind a common strategy.

The distributed organisation is common with youth groups like the Scouts. In Scouts there is a national lead (the most senior manager), who manages regional leads (the next most senior), who manages district leads who in turn manage group leads (in towns). Each manager of volunteers surrounds themselves at their own level with deputies and advisers.

Making stuff happen

All managers in all CSOs must go through a deliberate action to take the tacit or material contract with their beneficiaries for products and services and break it down into what must be done, what must be delivered, by which volunteers, and by when.

Whilst this has application in today’s casual, less committed volunteering, it also applies ad hoc across all volunteering types.